I

t has been posited that were
it not for the Democratic
National
Committee’s

tactics and deep-rooted support
for
Hillary
Clinton,
Bernie

Sanders would have been the
blue candidate and would have
been victorious over President-
elect Donald Trump. Though
he, like Trump, would have been
a viable “change candidate” in
his party and shared similarly
nationalistic views, it can be
shown that a Sanders presidential
campaign would have failed to
gain the necessary support to
defeat Trump. Sanders ultimately
would have faltered, because
of the both characteristics that
distinguished him from Clinton
and their shared similarities.

Sanders was unlike Clinton

in
terms
of
his
pervasive

economic view. Sanders is a
Democratic socialist and would
have been far too liberal to win a
national election. He believes in
universal healthcare, free public
college tuition and a massive
redistribution of wealth. Aside
from
college-educated
voters

— whose votes didn’t swing the
election in Clinton’s favor — my
sense from the election results is
that a sizable number of voters,
independent of party, rejected a
Democratic socialist paradigm
for the country.

While
many
millennials

supported Sanders, it must be
known that their turnout is
historically low. As National
Public Radio wrote about the
2012
election,
“millennials

continue to have the lowest
voter turnout of any age group.
Only about 46 percent voted in
the last presidential election;
compared to 72 percent of the
Silent Generation, who habitually
punch above their weight.” Thus,
despite their support, there was
no guarantee that they would
have made it to the polls.

Moreover, voters in the primary

elections are far more radical
than those in the general election.
Thus, there is no guarantee that
Sanders’s radical platform would
have been compatible with the
electorate in the bigger picture.
Since the primary vote would
be
unreliable
in
calculating

Sanders’s chances of winning
the general election, we must
turn to polls as the last resource.
However, it must be known that
polling can be a flawed tool — as
evidenced by this election. While
the Gravis Marketing poll shows
that Sanders would have won
56 percent of the vote against
Trump, it cannot be taken as
truth. The so-called “shy Trump”
voter effect might still manifest
itself in this poll, thus proving

it to be inaccurate. While a “shy
Bernie” effect might be in play,
it would prove to be in far fewer
numbers because of Trump’s even
more radical and taboo nature.

Sanders was similar to Clinton

in that he would have been the
Democratic
Party’s
candidate

— a fact that would similarly
work to his demise. Though an
Independent candidate himself,
he would have relied on the DNC
for support during a presidential
campaign
and
would
have

advanced a Democratic platform
and narrative. Comparisons show
that Clinton and Sanders shared
more views regarding policy than
Trump, but Sanders was even
more liberal than Clinton. Since
the country elected Trump, it
follows then that Sanders’s leftist
views would not have made him
more competitive than Clinton.

An
electoral
victory
for

Sanders might have required
victories
in
Pennsylvania,

Michigan, Florida and Wisconsin,
which Clinton was unable to
achieve. As the Cook report
revealed, Clinton would have
prevailed in the Electoral College
vote had she won 109,000 more
votes in Michigan, Wisconsin
and Pennsylvania, and therefore
she would have been elected
president.
More
importantly,

if she’d swung Florida and
Michigan by about 128,000 votes,
Clinton might have emerged
victorious save for a relatively
small number of ballots. Out of a
pool of 128 million votes, 128,000
is one-tenth of one percent — a
rounding error.

It is a tremendous leap to

suggest that this slim margin
would
have
been
further

narrowed if Sanders had run. As
evidenced by a chart provided
by Mother Jones, Sanders is
the most “liberal” candidate to
ever run for the office. Much
like Clinton, he too would have
failed to get the demographics of
moderate Republicans or women.

Additionally,
Sanders

might
have
made
similar

miscalculations regarding the
morals of Trump supporters
and Trump’s appeal outside
metropolitan areas, as Clinton
did. In essence, his comments
that Trump and some of his
supporters
are
misogynistic,

racist, etc. would not have fared
well. In an interview with The
Washington Post, Kathy Cramer
examined the mindset of many
Wisconsinites.
She
stated,

“people felt that they weren’t
getting respect. They would say:
The real kicker is that people
in the city don’t understand
us.
They
don’t
understand

what rural life is like, what’s
important to us and what
challenges that we’re facing.
They think we’re a bunch of
redneck racists.”

While Trump and Sanders

ran similar campaigns in Rust
Belt states, it can be speculated
that this rural demographic
would not have liked being
labeled as racists by Sanders.
This is ultimately echoed in his
tweets stating, “I do not believe
that most of the people who
are thinking about voting for
Mr. Trump are racist or sexist
… But some are.” While this
fundamentally
comments
on

a minority of people, it is still
a generalization nonetheless.
After all, Clinton’s comment
that “you could put half of
Trump’s supporters into what
I call the basket of deplorables”
did not fare particularly well
for her.

It also may be speculated that

Sanders’s religion could have
proved to be a liability in the
general election. Sandy Maisel,
a professor at Colby College who
tracks the status of Jews in the
United States, has stated that
“in some ways, it’s a non-story.”
According to the Pew Research
Center, studies show that 8 in 10
people say their votes wouldn’t
be affected upon finding out a
candidate is Jewish. However,
while Sanders identifies as a
secular
Jew
without
strong

organizational ties, this year
saw a particularly heightened
political
climate
marked
by

ethnocentrism.
As
mentioned

above, Trump, along with a
great deal of his support base,
was
labeled
as
xenophobic,

racist and anti-Semitic, among
other things. Instances of these
biases manifested themselves on
numerous occasions at rallies. For
example, at an Oct. 29 campaign
event in Phoenix, a Trump
supporter
was
condemned

after
chanting
“Jew-S-A!”

Similarly, according to recent
FBI numbers, more than 57
percent of the 1,140 documented
anti-religious hate crimes in
2014 were spurred on by anti-
Semitism. Though some might
state that anti-Jewish bias is
not a value the majority of the
electorate holds, it might also
be said that it would have been
brought to life because of some of
Trump’s supporters.

Thus,
while
it
is
merely

speculative,
evidence
seems

to suggest that Bernie Sanders
would not have beaten Donald
Trump had he been on the
Democratic ticket this November.
In short, while the electorate
was
looking
for
change,

Bernie’s
platform
would

have
been
too
liberal.
In

contemporary terms, Sanders
would have felt the “burn” if he
had run against Trump.

T

here’s
often
a
sense

among educated, liberal
elites that there just aren’t

enough of us. If only everyone went
to college, then we could really get
at solving the world’s
problems.
If
only

those
people
read

“The New Jim Crow,”
then
they
would

understand
racial

segregation and be
on our side. This elite
mindset imagines a
world where societal
dysfunctions
like

bigotry and apathy
can be cured by some
good books and four years of
instruction.

This is true to a certain extent.

Many studies have found that
going to college diminishes racial
prejudice. While no one thinks
that college is a cure-all, popular
imagination
contends
that

education and a populace having
more knowledge get everyone on
the same page.

Think about something as

“mundane” as people’s attitudes
toward global warming. Belief
in
global
warming
should

theoretically
be
universally

improved
upon
by
a
good

science education. The typical
understanding of that dynamic is
that global warming is happening
and those who don’t believe in it
just don’t know enough (or are
corporate shills). Unfortunately,
this isn’t the case.

In a recent study, Yale professor

Dan Kahan recorded respondents’
political beliefs, measured their
“science intelligence” (a metric
recording
of
their
scientific

knowledge
and
quantitative

reasoning abilities) and whether or
not they believed that “there is solid
evidence of recent global warming
due mostly to human activity such
as burning fossil fuels.” He found
that the more political knowledge
someone had, the more likely they

were to align with the party line
regarding global warming. That
is, conservatives with a strong
understanding of science are more
likely to believe global warming

isn’t happening, while
scientifically
literate

liberals believe global
warming
at
much

higher
rates
than

their
less-educated

counterparts.

Almost a year ago, I

wrote about a similar
phenomenon
that

caused
partisans
to

seek out information
that confirmed their

existing opinions. But this goes
beyond that. People with strong
identities
will
actively
reject

information that doesn’t confirm
their biases. Additionally, people
with strong partisan identities form
partisan opinions more quickly
and more often when presented
with
unfamiliar
scientific

information. For instance, giving a
set of Republicans and Democrats
with little agricultural knowledge
facts about the health risks of
genetically modified organisms
and telling them that Democrats
are more likely to believe that
GMOs are harmful will cause both
groups to join the party line.

This is particularly troubling

given the increasingly polarized
state of American politics. A lot has
been made of Americans living in
a “post-fact” reality where facts no
longer carry persuasive currency.
This can be true, but it seems as
though even having those facts
doesn’t bring our society closer
together. While Kahan’s study
focused on climate change, we
can expect this dynamic exist
in all sorts of domains. Welfare
reform, social justice and news
coverage are all subject to this bias.
Suddenly, it seems as though more
education and more facts won’t
help bridge the gaps in our society.

But there is hope. In another

study, Kahan found that people
with high levels of intellectual
curiosity are willing to buck
their
party’s
consensus
and

accept science’s consensus. So,
it is possible to fix this rampant
bias toward contorting facts; our
society needs to reinvigorate a
desire to learn and a belief that
learning starts, not stops, at the
classroom’s door. We can look
within our community for ways to
do this. The University of Michigan
wants to inspire leadership, but
there needs to be more. Teaching
students to be lifelong learners
is imperative. I think there are a
lot of ways to inspire this sort of
intellectual curiosity.

As a University, we can move

away from tests and research
papers as the primary ways of
measuring a student’s mastery. I
appreciate that with large weeder
courses like Econ 101, there are few
opportunities to assess students’
understanding outside tests, but
there are many seminar-style
courses where the final project
could draw directly from other
disciplines. Shakespeare classes
could combine literary analysis
with interviews with scholars;
math courses could challenge
students to find ways to take the
techniques they’ve learned in
class and apply them in their own
lives. Let students do independent
projects to round out courses
rather than following a narrow set
of guidelines.

This paradigmatic change is a

large undertaking, but the rewards
are well worth it. Universities have
an obligation to our civic society
and creating students whose love
of learning continues long after
graduation only serves to better
the lives of everyone around them.
Let’s try to be a model for the rest
of society by being the learners and
the best.

Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4 — Friday, January 6, 2017

More unity, less division

IBRAHIM IJAZ | COLUMN

I

n Mark Zuckerberg’s annual
“year in review” video, one
quote stood out to me: “Even

when we seemed at our most
divided, we were still connected.”
There’s a dynamic presented
here between connectivity and
divisiveness.
As
our
society

is
quickly
adopting
ultra-

connectivity, are we losing our
ability to be unified? As we continue
down this path of increasing
technological proximity, we have
a responsibility to work toward
more unity. The advent of the new
year is a lot like going to the barber
for a long overdue haircut. We
need to reflect on what made 2016
a year of widespread disunity in
order to get a fresh 2017 cut.

Perhaps
our
issues
with

unity lie in our obsession with
labels. Last month, Tomi Lahren
embodied my issues with labeling
during an interview with Trevor
Noah. Noah asked Lahren if she
was a conservative, to which she
responded: “I do … I mean I’m a
millennial so I really don’t like
labels.” The sheer irony involved
in Lahren dropping one label for
another aside, the picking of one’s
own labels hints at a greater issue:
group attribution. For example,
I’m a Muslim, but that doesn’t
mean that all of my opinions are
the opinions of Islam or that my
actions represent the whole faith.
While I would like to think my
actions reflect Islam, they don’t.
They simply reflect the perception
I have of Islam.

However, the very nature of

labels convinces us that the label
holder is a representative, an
ambassador of sorts. Why does
this matter? Critiques lodged at
groups, whether racial, religious
or political, often stem from the
actions of a few of the group’s
members. As recent graduate
Areeba Jibril was quoted in a flyer

for the University of Michigan’s
Diversity, Equity & Inclusion
program, “Diversity is speaking for
myself without being seen as the
spokesperson for all individuals
who share my identities.”

It’s
not
that
labels
aren’t

necessary in society. In many
cases, they benefit individuals,
especially those who are a part
of
marginalized
groups,
like

with increased efforts to admit
non-white students into higher
education programs. But most of
the time, labeling’s negative side
effects, like group attribution
and blame redirection, are just
plainly counterproductive. Take
ISIS as a prime example. Instead
of focusing on the political roots
of the terrorist group or on the
poverty many of its supporters
face in Iraq and Syria, many falsely
believe the group represents Islam.
Even by continuing to be labeled as
the “Islamic State,” their status as
representatives of the religion is
further validated.

The same goes for the debate

about calling radical extremism
Islamic extremism. As President
Barack Obama said, “We must
never accept the premise that
they put forward because it is a
lie. Nor should we grant these
terrorists the religious legitimacy
that they seek.” As a result, we
have not yet learned about their
origins in a way that will affect
future foreign policy. Labeling, in
a sense, is a cop out. It allows us
to say, “Well, they’re a part of that
group, and that group has some
intrinsic problems which we can’t
do anything about.”

We saw this right after the 2016

election as well. Many supporters
of Hillary Clinton described the
entire red portion of the electoral
map as racist, sexist or bigoted.
Labeling all Donald Trump voters
as illogical and narrow-minded
does nothing but ignore the
real issues at hand. A common
sentiment
among
those
who

voted for the president-elect was
a feeling of exclusion from the
political climate for the eight years
since President Obama took office.
The problems they see with the
United States, like job-access and
untrustworthiness of government,
should concern all Americans, but
when Democrats stop listening
before Republicans open their
mouths, then the country stands
to suffer.

When
we
label,
we’re

automatically categorizing based on
these surface level characteristics.
But when we dig deeper, we see
that people share a lot of the same
fundamental morals, goals and
struggles. If we stay on this path
of letting labels be the end of the
conversation, then we won’t be able
to solve our problems. Labeling is
counterproductive, keeping the two
sides of the aisle far from each other
and strengthening the disunified
forces at large.

Martin Luther King Jr. dreamed

of a nation devoid of this disuniting
labeling, where we are judged by
the content of our character rather
than the color of our skin. And we,
as a society, need to unify now more
than ever. A recent Washington
Post article explains this Congress
is more polarized than it has been
in over 100 years. When we’re
polarized, we find fewer reasons
to listen to each other and fail to
progress as a result.

So as we walk in with our messy

haircuts to the barber shop this
new year, let’s consider our options.
We can vaguely hope for a good
outcome and squirm in our chair
as the barber botches the hairdo,
or we can confidently set limits and
guidelines for our hairstylist and
leave looking fresh for 2017. Let’s
come together in 2017 and limit
our divisive labeling while opening
our ears to further discourse and
conversation.

REBECCA LERNER

Managing Editor

420 Maynard St.

Ann Arbor, MI 48109

tothedaily@michigandaily.com

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

EMMA KINERY

Editor in Chief

ANNA POLUMBO-LEVY

and REBECCA TARNOPOL

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
Caitlin Heenan
Jeremy Kaplan

Max Lubell

Alexis Megdanoff

Madeline Nowicki
Anna Polumbo-Levy

Jason Rowland

Ali Safawi

Kevin Sweitzer

Rebecca Tarnopol

Ashley Tjhung

Stephanie Trierweiler

EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS

Ibrahim Ijaz can be reached at

iijaz@umich.edu.

Learning between the lines

ROLAND DAVIDSON | COLUMN

ROLAND

DAVIDSON

Bernie would have also felt the burn

NICHOLAS TOMAINO | COLUMN

Nicholas Tomaino can be reached at

ntomaino@umich.edu.

MICHELLE SHENG | CONTACT CARTOONIST AT SHENGMI@UMICH.EDU

Roland Davidson can be reached at

mhenryda@umich.edu.

NICHOLAS TOMAINO

IBRAHIM IJAZ

CONTRIBUTE TO THE CONVERSATION

Readers are encouraged to submit letters to the editor and op-eds.
Letters should be fewer than 300 words while op-eds should be 550
to 850 words. Send the writer’s full name and University affiliation to

tothedaily@michigandaily.com.