D
uring my senior year
of
high
school,
I
went on an overnight
Catholic
retreat.
The organizers of
the retreat reached
out to the attendees’
friends and families
to
collect
letters
about all sorts of
things:
what
we
meant to them, what
their faith meant to
them or even just
offering
general
advice as we prepared
to leave for college.
Watching
the
response around the country
and on campus to President
Trump’s divisive policies and
rhetoric, a line from one of these
letters stuck out in my mind:
“People often claim that hate
is the opposite of love (I think
they bought into that hate/love
T-shirt or something). That’s
not really true. The opposite of
love is not hate, but rather fear,
and from this fear, all negative
and painful emotions flow.”
From
the
data
alone,
Trump’s
signature
policies
thus far — the former travel
ban
and
the
border
wall
—
seem
indefensible.
The
administration defended the
travel ban as being necessary
for national security, but none
of the 9/11 conspirators came
from any of the seven countries
targeted by the travel ban.
Furthermore, since 9/11, there
have been 10 deadly terrorist
attacks on American soil — but
none of the terrorists came
from any of the seven countries
affected by the ban.
Yet when the media reported
stories of individuals seemingly
deserving of exceptions to
the travel ban barred from
entering the United States
— long-time U.S. residents,
individuals who risked their
lives to help the U.S. military,
college students and babies
traveling to the United States
for life-saving surgery — many
still supported the policy by
arguing that it was necessary
to protect Americans from
potential terrorists.
Facts and data may not
be
capable
of
explaining
this reaction, but fear can.
In Europe, massive flows of
refugees — as many as 10,000
per day and an estimated
1 million total in 2015 —
poured over the weak, under-
resourced southern borders
of
already
financially
and
politically strained countries
like
Greece.
This
caused
massive social and political
shocks and damaged Europe’s
tourism industry. Some of the
refugees perpetrated deadly
terrorist attacks.
However,
there
are
obvious differences between
the realities of the refugee
situations in the European
Union
and
United
States,
the starkest of which is the
geographic distance between
Greece and Syria,
and
the
United
States
and
Syria.
Given
that
many
refugees
fled
extremely desperate
circumstances
with a few precious
belongings, it makes
sense that refugees
weren’t arriving on
American shores in
the same numbers
they
were
on
Greece’s shores.
Many
migrants
travel
through Turkey and cross the
Aegean Sea to get to Greece
— a water crossing that is
only about four miles at its
narrowest point. Despite this
relative proximity, more than
3,000
refugees
have
died
attempting to reach European
shores as of September 2016.
Under similar conditions, the
nearly
6,000-mile
journey
from Syria to New York seems
almost
impossible
under
similar conditions.
In
stark
contrast,
the
United States admits a small
number of refugees who pass
the strictest vetting processes
required of any immigrant
group, and as far as all
available data is concerned,
are actually less likely to
commit acts of deadly terror
than Americans born in the
United States. A whopping 84
percent of jihadist terrorist
were born in the United States.
(Note: These numbers don’t
include other major sources
of domestic terrorism like
right-wing terrorist groups,
including white supremacists
and
neo-Nazi
terrorist
groups, and left-wing terrorist
groups.)
None of this is to suggest that
terrorism is not a real or credible
threat — it is. But there is little
reason to believe that this travel
ban would save American lives.
Additionally, in many respects,
U.S. post-9/11 counterterrorism
efforts have been successful.
Further improvements should
focus on strengthening the
intelligence gathering efforts
that have proven crucial to the
fight against terrorism thus far.
But fear doesn’t engender
evidence-based
decisions.
Fear promotes a try-anything-
and-everything
approach.
Fear
prompts
ordinarily
rational people to project their
concerns and anxieties on
undeserving targets.
In this case, those targets are
refugees. In other cases, those
targets are Black and Hispanic
men blamed for small upticks in
violent crime rates, women and
immigrants blamed for taking
jobs that would ordinarily go
to white American males.
Violent crime and economic
stagnation
are
legitimate
fears. The United States needs
solutions
to
the
problems
of
gun
violence,
widening
income inequality and illegal
immigration. But projecting
these anxieties onto others
and letting that animosity
shape policy will not result
in solutions to the very real
challenges we face. In practice,
letting fear — not evidence
— drive policy may actually
worsen our problems or create
new ones. Even to those who
accept harming members of a
marginalized group as a cost
of assuaging their fears should
not accept outcomes that make
the whole country worse off.
In 1947, the then-called U.S.
Department of War released
an anti-Nazi propaganda video
titled “Don’t Be a Sucker.” The
central character of the video
was named Mike, an American
everyday man who seemed to
have everything going for him:
He was young, healthy and
owned a prosperous factory
where free men and women
from all over the world worked
to produce products used all
over the world.
“Mike’s
got
something,
all right,” the narrator told
viewers. “He’s got America.
But there are guys who stay
up nights, figuring out how to
take that away from him.”
Who wanted to take America
from poor Mike?
The
video
cuts
to
an
angry white man addressing
a
crowded
park,
shouting,
“We’ll never be able to call
this country our own until it’s
a country without … Negros,
without
alien
foreigners,
without
Catholics,
without
freemasons.”
By attempting to protect our
country and ourselves from
outsiders, we risk strangling
the things that make America
truly great. We prevent others
from bringing their new ideas,
work ethic and diverse ways of
looking at the world and the
problems it faces— all essential
ingredients to the innovation
and enterprise that made our
country the leader that it is.
Helping to preserve that
beautiful version of America
requires more than simply
opposing
Trump
and
his
policies. If we really want to
keep America great, we need
to
continuously
challenge
our own beliefs and address
our own fears and their many
manifestations. If we don’t,
we leave ourselves vulnerable
to those who want to use
them against us in support of
policies that will make us —
and our country — worse off in
the long run.
O
ver the past 20 years
or so, it seemed like a
new world order was
emerging. Globalization took hold
and we caught a glimpse of nation-
states disappearing and cultures
intermingling.
We
seemingly
saw
ideological
conflicts
fade away and an increase
of communications and free
commerce. But was this nothing
more than a tantalizing glimpse
of what the world could be?
Now, more than ever, we are
seeing a return to the strong
nation-state and to nationalist
ambitions.
Politicians
who
advocate standing up for their
country and making it “great
again” have grown in power and
influence, and not just in the
United States.
According to President Trump,
in order to make America great
again, we must make national
security a top priority. So what is
national security? Traditionally,
national
security
is
centered
around the idea of protecting the
institutions of the nation-state. In
the recent years of globalization,
however, traditional security has
been challenged by advocates
who believe that security should
be focused on the needs of the
individual. National security is no
longer limited to the protection of
the nation itself, but now extends
its concern to notions that are
more intimate — the protection
of
human
rights.
This
new
extensive definition of national
security that includes issues of
human concern shifts attention
away from the traditional state-
centered notions of security,
characterized by state borders,
to an approach centered around
the people within.
As we return to the age of
nationalist ambitions, we also
return to the notions of traditional
security. Yet the biggest security
threat to face the nation, and the
world, is not one that can be looked
at in terms of traditional security.
That threat is climate change and
the depletion of vital resources.
According to Michael T. Klare,
author of “The Race For What’s
Left,” the world is facing an
“unprecedented crisis of resource
depletion.”
Currently,
all
of
Earth’s accessible areas are being
exploited, demanding a search for
new, and often environmentally
dangerous, methods to extract
resources. In a nationalistic world
order, this could be extremely
dangerous.
As
non-renewable
resources are used up, those who
advocate for traditional security
would
seek
unconventional
methods such as the use of extra
heavy oil, transforming coal to
liquids or extracting gas from
shale
formations,
known
as
hydrofracking — processes that
would lead to great environmental
risks and human suffering.
Furthermore,
because
traditional security is focused on
the state rather than the individual,
it can be assumed that the
centralized government has sole
decision-making power, with no
international regulation by which
to abide. This is dangerous. Since
resource scarcity and human-
induced climate change are global
problems, they should be handled
at an inter-governmental level,
with notions of human security at
the forefront.
While the United States might
benefit economically in the short
term by pursuing unconventional
methods, as a citizen of the world,
it is incumbent upon the United
States to rise to the challenge to
discover alternatives that limit
the adverse impact of its policies
on the world community at large.
If every nation followed this
approach, it would be possible to
replenish scarce resources while
limiting human-induced climate
change. With respect to resource
depletion, nations should not rush
to extract the remaining vital
resources, but rather engage in a
race to adopt new materials and
methods that would free the world
from its dependence on finite vital
resource supplies.
As students at the University
of Michigan, it is critical that
we embrace ideas that provide
security for all
— whether that
is investing in clean renewable
energy, advocating for universal
health care or fighting for equal
access to quality education.
After all, we are all just citizens
of planet Earth.
Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4A — Monday, February 20, 2017
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
Megan Burns
Samantha Goldstein
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
A global threat in an Old World order
CAROLYN AYAUB | OP-ED
Don’t let fear drive policy
VICTORIA NOBLE | COLUMN
Victoria Noble can be reached at
vjnoble@umich.edu.
Carolyn Ayaub is an Editorial Board
member.
VICTORIA
NOBLE
T
here is nothing better
than hearing your close
friend share an intense,
silly or emotional story from
their
day-to-day
life.
You
giggle over the details of how
they slipped down the stairs in
front of a cute boy, you cringe
when they had a panic attack
on their way to their first exam
and you feel heartbroken when
they found out their grandma
was sick. Through the give
and take, you are invited to
share their experiences. This
is a way we catch up and learn
from the people in our lives.
Stories create a snapshot of
their
individual
experience
and we are granted full access
to their unique perspective.
I
have
recently
become
fascinated with stories from
complete
strangers.
One
platform
that
showcases
storytellers is The Moth. They
have live shows, competitions,
Radio Hours and a podcast
online. The Moth airs and
presents true stories told by
real people from all over the
world. I most likely will never
meet these people, or even
see a picture of them, but will
know something intimate that
they decided to share with the
world. I began listening to The
Moth on long drives and found
the stories so captivating that
sometimes I would have to pull
over to finish them.
Last week, I was finally
able to attend a live event, a
StorySLAM, here in Ann Arbor.
StorySLAMs
are
themed,
open-mic competitions where
those who want to share a
story put their name in a hat
and 10 are chosen to present
for five minutes. Assigned
audience members judge each
storyteller’s piece individually.
Their rating of each story is
charted throughout the show and
the winner of the SLAM moves
on to the GrandSLAM, a larger
scale competition show where the
StorySLAM winners compete.
The Ann Arbor Distilling
Company was jam packed. I
walked into a room full of lively
individuals, who filled all the
seats, leaving standing room
only. While I was anxiously
waiting in line for the bathroom
and trying not to miss the first
story, I met a woman who drove
with a group of friends all the
way from Cleveland to join in on
this special experience. I was
amazed and humbled by The
Moth listeners’ commitment
to traveling near and far to
support the live storytellers.
The theme of the night was
“bouncing back.” The stories
ranged
from
experiences
of bad breakups, childhood
bullies,
moving
out
of
hometowns and other general
moments of life’s confusion.
The atmosphere of the crowd
changed
with
each
story,
from smiles and laughter to
silence and sympathy. The
community of listeners was
fully engaged in each story,
following the lead of each
storyteller on their narrative
journey.
As I listened, I realized
that I could relate many of my
own experiences to those that
were being presented at the
mic. I could not help but start
thinking of an outline for my
own story that would fit this
particular theme. Any one of
us could find something in
our lives to share under this
general theme. I was reminded
that everyone is a member of
the shared human experience.
We live in a world with many
categories and binaries that
seek to divide us, but often we
are more similar than we are
willing to admit.
The
Moth’s
platform
highlights these similarities
through
real
stories
that
connect us all. I truly believe
if we take the time to listen
to strangers’ stories we could
learn from people who have
vast differences from us. Even
if our version of “bouncing
back” is different than someone
else’s, together we can work
to understand complex issues
from all perspectives.
If you want to join in on
this human experience come
to the next StorySLAM at Ann
Arbor Distilling Company on
Feb. 21 at 6:30 p.m. Have a
time conflict? You can always
listen to stories online through
TheMoth.org or through your
local radio station.
The power of storytelling
ELLERY ROSENZWEIG | OP-ED
Ellery Rosenzweig is an LSA
sophomore.
SUBMIT TO SURVIVORS SPEAK
The Michigan Daily’s Opinion section is seeking additions to Survivors
Speak, a series of first-person accounts of campus sexual assault
and its corresponding personal, academic and legal implications.
Submissions will be due by March 10 at 11:59PM.
Visit http://bit.ly/2kIeoMq for more information.
Since resource
scarcity and
human-induced
climate change are
global problems,
they should be
handled at an inter-
governmental level.
— Debbie Dingell (D-Dearborn) at the climate rally in Ann Arbor
on Saturday Feb. 18.
“
NOTABLE QUOTABLE
We now have a director of the EPA
that says that global warming isn’t
real. His entire career has been
dedicated to undermining the
agency he was appointed to lead and
opposing the laws he was asked to
enforce. It’s scary... ”