E

vent
horizon
(noun):

the point in space where
gravity is so great, not

even light can escape. Meaningful
differences
still
exist
beyond

the event horizon, but due to a
massive gravitational pull, an
outside observer can’t
differentiate
between

any
objects
after

that point.

I recently watched

a rough cut of a
documentary
about

Michigan
football

that contains a scene
of a group of students
protesting
Trump’s

election. They hold
signs declaring Trump
a racist. A man approaches them
and asks them to name Trump’s
sins. The first sin that comes out
of a protester’s mouth is Trump’s
utterance of “bad hombres.”
The protesters go on to point
out Trump’s derisive comments
about Mexicans, and the man
retorts that Trump doesn’t want
to ban Mexicans, but wants to
crackdown on “illegals.”

This scene demonstrates that

Trump has reached his own
event horizon. He has become
such a toxic figure that liberals
don’t differentiate between his
“less terrible” offenses and his
egregious
ones.
Additionally,

liberals have come to associate
his
singularly
destructive

personality so closely with his
policies that those policies are
no longer given due, critical
examination. I don’t mean this as
a criticism of these protesters, in
particular; if someone put me on
the spot, I would also likely have
trouble coming up with specific
examples of Trump’s racism.
Rather, I blame liberal discourse,
which has ineffectively separated
the bad and the ugly.

Consider The New York Times’

collection
of
insults
Trump

has hurled on Twitter since he
announced his presidential bid.
Its
presentation
is
brutalist,

and displays columns of insults
with no aesthetic goal other
than to inspire shock and awe.
The
complete
collection
is

77 pages printed out. There’s
certainly value in having such
a resource, and I don’t want

to argue that we shouldn’t pay
attention to Trump’s Twitter
account. His online presence has
allowed him to circumvent the
press and agenda-set without
traditional journalistic scrutiny.
We can’t understand Trump’s

character or goals as
a politician without
understanding
his

Twitter.

But the list elides

his greater offenses.
His imitation of a
disabled
New
York

Times reporter, his
assertion that John
McCain isn’t a war
hero because he was
captured, his brags

about grabbing girls by the pussy
and his lie that Arabs celebrated
the destruction of the World Trade
Center — these are indefensible.
His claim that Judge Gonzalo
Curiel couldn’t fairly adjudicate
a case against Trump due to
Curiel’s Mexican heritage drew
condemnation across the political
spectrum. Republican Speaker of
the House Paul Ryan went as far
as to say, “Claiming a person can’t
do their job because of their race is
sort of like the textbook definition
of a racist comment.”

By allowing statements like

these to lose saliency, liberal
discourse has enabled people
to
forget
Trump’s
highlight

reel. Liberals have to hold these
egregious statements close to
our minds and be ready to deploy
them when someone asks what
makes Trump a racist. While
liberals like myself may find
statements he’s made about “bad
hombres” offensive, I don’t think
they compare to his comments on
Judge Curiel. As demonstrated
in the scene above, Trump’s
supporters can easily interpret
his
comments
about
“bad

hombres” as referring specifically
to undocumented immigrants. It’s
not that drawing attention to his
“lesser offenses” isn’t important;
we need to catalogue every
instance of Trump’s hate. But by
focusing on his unequivocally vile
ones, we can begin to shift our
citizenry’s understanding of him.
As I’ve written in the past, I don’t
think most Trump supporters
are white supremacists. Rather,

they are complicit in advancing
racism. If liberals had done a
better job of keeping Trump’s
clear-cut hatred at the forefront
of our national dialogue, maybe
the election would have turned
out differently.

Because so much of his

rhetoric goes beyond the pale,
people have also lost the ability
to critically analyze his policy
proposals. Ask yourself: Why
is his plan to build a wall so
much more unpalatable than
other hardline approaches to
immigration?
It’s
expensive,

but so is hiring thousands more
border
patrol
officers.
And

perhaps the wall would reify
American prejudice and damage
Mexican-American relations. But
beyond those two arguments, I
can’t think of many more issues
with the wall.

Public knowledge of critiques

of his policies is similarly one-
dimensional. For instance, in a
speech castigating Trump, Mitt
Romney suggested that his trade
policies would start a trade war
with China, and quickly moved on
to another criticism. It’s not enough
to just say Trump will instigate a
trade war with China. What will
this trade war look like? What
effects will it have on American
consumers and manufacturers?
What about our foreign relations?
This lack of public understanding
is obviously coupled with the fact
that
candidates’
personalities,

rather than substantial policy
discussion, drove this past election.
But going forward, liberals need to
do our homework on why Trump’s
policies will be so disastrous.

One
oft-repeated
prognosis

of the election has been that the
media took Trump literally but
not seriously, while his supporters
took him seriously but not literally.
Now that he’s president-elect, we
have to take him both seriously
and literally. By writing about his
policies with proper rigor and not
permitting his most despicable
moments to be forgotten, resistance
against Trump can broaden our
country’s understanding of both
his ineptitude and toxicity.

Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4A — Monday, December 5, 2016

P

in drop silence.

I cradled myself as I

watched CNN Political

Commentator Van Jones ask
America: “How will we explain
this to our children?”

In the cold of this November

night, the only warmth I felt was
from the tears rolling down my
face. I thought, how did we get
here? I closed my eyes and took
in the stillness of that moment.

Pin drop silence.
That was my answer.
My parents immigrated to this

country from Pakistan in the late
’80s, hoping to start a family with
a bright future. They embraced
my
brown
skin
with
love,

looked into my dark eyes with
hope, smiling into the nursery
filled with children of all colors
knowing that we would grow up
to have the same opportunities.

I thought about my childhood.

I am American. Born and raised.
I played tag on our playgrounds,
bench-warmed on our sports
teams and looked around the
classroom and thought, these are
my friends.

But I was conditioned from a

young age to conform.

“You’re a terrorist.”
“You can’t do that, you’re a

girl.”

“Go back to your country.”
I always brushed off little

comments like that. Growing up,
I was never at a loss for words.
I smiled and laughed, although

each slur silently hit at the core of
my identity, slowly dismantling
my self-esteem, instilling fear
into every fiber of my being.

My mind would run a million

miles, but my mouth would stay
shut. I thought, there is no point
in sharing my opinion because
no one will listen and no one will
change their mind. Why should
I fight back when everyone will
look down on me?

This is my America, too,

but I never felt welcomed in
it. I convinced myself that if I
never stated my discomfort, it
wouldn’t be real. In my naive
desire to fit in, I would spend
years holding my tongue.

If I were a parent today, I

would not be able to look into
my child’s eyes the same way my
parents did with hope. Instead,
I would apologize. Apologize
for bringing them into a nation
where they will meet hatred
for their identity. Apologize
for passing on the feeling of
isolation.
Apologize
for
my

years of silence that put them in
this position.

To the people who once

pointed their fingers at me for
being different: I want to point
back at you and say the state of
our nation is your fault. I woke
up disillusioned in President-
elect Donald Trump’s America
because of you. You, parading
around with your misogyny,
racism and xenophobia like a
badge of honor. This is your
fault.

But I can’t point at you.
It’s me too. I have always had

a voice and I made the conscious
decision to remain silent. I
cannot resent you because it’s
my fault you don’t understand.
I never gave you the chance to
understand how it feels to be
a person of color in America.
I never explained the subtle
discrimination I face that makes
my skin itch. I never told you
what you said to me was wrong.
How could you know?

I grew up with you, I went to

school with you and I brushed
off your comments, thinking
you still saw me as an equal.
But you support someone who
wants to ban me. I have spent
my whole life staying silent out
of fear of becoming an outsider,
but this election has shown that
I have been one all along.

I have spent years being

silent, but I will be silent no
more.

I will be loud for Latinos,

Muslims, Black people, disabled
people, war veterans and others
he demonized and attacked.

They want us to stay silent,

but this is no time to concede.
This election shows that the
fight is far from over. Our
nation needs us more than ever.
We must stand up. We must
persevere. We must speak out.

ROLAND

DAVIDSON

LAURA SCHINAGLE

Managing Editor

420 Maynard St.

Ann Arbor, MI 48109

tothedaily@michigandaily.com

Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan since 1890.

SHOHAM GEVA

Editor in Chief

CLAIRE BRYAN

and REGAN DETWILER

Editorial Page Editors

Unsigned editorials reflect the official position of the Daily’s Editorial Board.

All other signed articles and illustrations represent solely the views of their authors.

Carolyn Ayaub
Claire Bryan

Regan Detwiler
Brett Graham
Caitlin Heenan
Jeremy Kaplan

Ben Keller
Minsoo Kim

Madeline Nowicki
Anna Polumbo-Levy

Jason Rowland

Ali Safawi

Kevin Sweitzer

Rebecca Tarnopol

Ashley Tjhung

Stephanie Trierweiler

EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS

The case against an election recount

ROLAND DAVIDSON | COLUMN

T

he
Green
Party

presidential
candidate

Jill Stein filed for a

recount in Pennsylvania, a state
Hillary Clinton lost — which
helped pave the way for Donald
Trump’s election win.
Imagine going back in
time two months and
telling yourself that
sentence was true. I
can’t fathom how that
conversation
would

go, but today that is
our reality. Auditing
the
vote
translates

into voter suppression
policies and rhetoric,
and
searching
for

flaws in the electoral system does
not have tangible benefits that
outweigh this. However, because
Stein called for the recount
without
Clinton’s
consent,

Clinton should play a role in
the recount.

Stein also recently filed for a

recount in Michigan. The national
call for it came after cybersecurity
threats
were
identified
by

groups of computer scientists,
including the director of the
University of Michigan Center for
Computer Security and Society,
J. Alex Halderman. According
to Halderman, a state voting
infrastructure hack is a possibility,
primarily
in
Pennsylvania,

Wisconsin and Michigan. A hack
in Michigan is feasible, though
the risk seems to be lower due
to the use of paper ballots. The
probability of the cybersecurity
threat is amplified by the Russian
hacks of John Podesta and the
Democratic National Committee
this year, which identified a clear
intent by a foreign actor to interfere
with the election.

A recount would display any

violation of the electoral process,
but it will also cause voter
suppression.
The
Democratic

Party spent almost the entire
length of the Clinton campaign
defending the voting system. That
defense was critical to stopping
voter suppression, which is of
increasing concern.

This year was the first general

election after a 2013 ruling that
softened protections under the
Voting Rights Act, resulting in
14 states imposing new voting
restrictions. That denies the
right to vote to thousands of
Americans, usually low-income
and non-white individuals, from
the electoral process. There is no
rebutting that voter suppression
impacts
minority
voters,
as

courts, numerous studies and
Republican
politicians
have

admitted
to
the
effects
of

restrictions. Now, after months
of defending the security of the

voting system, Clinton is calling it
into question. That poses a large
problem.

For conservative politicians,

voting
security
does
not

mean protection from cyber

attacks.
Rather,

it
translates
into

voter
suppression

through
strict

voting ID laws, felon
disenfranchisement,
mail-in
ballot

restrictions
and

early
voting

cutbacks.
The

Democratic
Party

needs to be working
to stop suppression,

and calling the integrity of the
voting system into question
does not do that. The best
evidence for the jump between
representing a vulnerable voting
system and voter suppression
comes
from
President-elect

Trump himself. In response to
the call for a recount, Trump
falsely claimed he would have
won the popular vote if it was
not for millions of illegal votes.
The potential threat of illegal
votes is a primary driver of voter
suppression policies.

The risk of voter suppression

is large enough to outweigh the
benefits of calling for a recount.
Even Halderman admits that
the probability of a hack is quite
low. That low probability is
outweighed by the high chances
of voter suppression. I could
be swayed to think otherwise
if I heard a more compelling
justification for a recount. A
Michigan recount will not win
Clinton the vote, but this doesn’t
seem to be the main goal of most
recount
proponents.
Rather,

the main benefit to citizens of
Michigan seems to be only for
those who want to verify that
there was not a hack. “Just
trying to be sure” is not a valid
enough benefit to risk justifying
voter suppression in tons of
states. Democrats should be
building public confidence in
elections by pushing for policies
that protect voter rights, not by
pushing for an audit.

The best case for a recount

I have seen comes from a
Vox editorial that argues the
reverse of my argument, that
normalizing
recounts
would

increase public confidence in
elections. The piece argues that
if recounts always happened
then it “won’t give credence to
conspiracy theorists, and it will
bolster rather than undermine
public confidence.” That said,
think of all the damage that
normalized recounts could do.

Take,
for
example,
the

governor’s race in North Carolina,
which still has not been officially
called.
Democratic
nominee

Attorney General Roy Cooper
has unofficially received 9,700
more ballots than incumbent
Republican Gov. Pat McCrory.
McCrory has refused to concede
the election in an attempt to
hold onto his governor seat.
Furthermore, McCrory called for
a recount in several counties with
no evidence of foul play. McCrory
has brought the efficacy of North
Carolina’s election into play, and
there will be negative impacts.

The North Carolina recount is

clearly a last-ditch attempt to hold
onto power by a politician who is
basing his strategy in allegations.
However, breaking down the
public confidence of the North
Carolina election is going to have
a negative consequence: voter
suppression. One justification for
the North Carolina recount has
come after widespread claims
of voter fraud from McCrory’s
campaign. There is no evidence
for this accusation, but it manifests
itself in voter suppression policy.
The incumbent’s campaign is
using voter fraud as a basis for
a lawsuit to not count same-day
registration ballots in the election.


North Carolina displays what

happens when claims for recounts
go haywire. Politicians refusing
to
concede
elections,
false

evidence of voter fraud and voter
suppression come as the result
of dismantling public confidence
in the electoral process. Now
imagine if recounts were a norm
and happened all the time. The
chances
that
these
recounts

would resemble North Carolina’s
would increase exponentially.

However, I will not condemn

Clinton for participating in the
recount. Stein calling for the
audit meant that a recount was
going to happen with or without
Clinton, making any risk of
dismantling public confidence in
the electoral process inevitable.
Therefore, Clinton is not directly
at fault for any voter suppression
that the recount creates. It is also
difficult to blame a politician
who simply wishes to ensure an
inescapable recount was going
to occur properly. While Clinton
may not be directly to blame, this
problem highlights a necessity
for policy that fights back against
voter suppression. The United
States needs public confidence
in elections, and the best way to
accomplish this is by increasing
the
protections
originally

granted by the Voting Rights Act.

Max Lubell can be reached at

mlubell@umich.edu.

MAX

LUBELL

MAX LUBELL | COLUMN

EMILY WOLFE | CONTACT EMILY AT ELWOLFE@UMICH.EDU

Roland Davidson can be reached at

mhenryda@umich.edu.

Demario Longmire, Toni Wang,

Sabrina Bilimoria, Alyssa Brandon,

Christian Paneda, Ashley Tjhung are

Michigan in Color Editors. Michigan

in Color is a section of The Michigan

Daily by and for people of color.

The price of silence

Trump’s event horizon

NARMEEN
REHMAN

APPLY TO WRITE FOR OPINION TODAY

Do you find yourself constantly theorizing about why events in the news happen the
way they do? Itching to share your opinion and engage in conversations about these

current events? The Daily’s Opinion Section is just for you! Apply online at

https://www.michigandaily.com/section/editorials/michigan-dailys-opinion-section-

hiring-winter-2017.

MICHIGAN IN COLOR