D

emocracies 
need 

protections for political 
minorities; 
without 

them, 
society 

descends 
into 

mob 
rule. 
These 

protections 
are 

often 
formalized 

(e.g., the filibuster), 
but 
they’re 
also 

informally 
written 

into our legislatures’ 
codes 
of 
conduct. 

Compromise 
is 
essential 
to 

any 
functioning 

democracy. But with Trump, 
it’s a little bit different (just like 
everything with him is). 

The 
fundamental 
problem 

with negotiating with Trump is 
that he’s coming from such an 
extreme position that tactics to 
move him more to the center just 
leave you with a normal hardline 
position, rather than a moderate 
one. Consider Trump’s travel 
ban. Its initial implementation 
was an unmitigated disaster. 
Families were stranded in limbo 
at airports. Iraqi interpreters 
who risked their lives for a 
country they’d never been to were 
rejected at our border. There 
were no exemptions for travelers 
with green cards, which stranded 
international 
students 
from 

universities across the country. 
The order’s instructions to allow 
for expedited entry to Christians 
revealed its plainly Islamophobic 
nature. The ban was ultimately 
frozen by a federal court.

The newest iteration of Trump’s 

ban removed Iraqis from teh ban, 
gave a 10-day warning before 
its implementation, allowed for 
green-card holders to enter the 
country and got rid of the religious 
exemptions.

In 
behavioral 
economics, 

there’s a concept called price 
anchoring, wherein your initial 
valuation of something acts as 
a reference point for all future 
valuations. For instance, if the 
first time you see a piece of 
jewelry and it costs $100, then 
you buy it a week later for $50, it’ll 
seem like a massive saving, even if 
the piece is typically only valued 
at $50.

The Trump administration’s 

new travel ban gets rid of the 
most egregious elements of the 

previous 
iteration, 

which, to the average 
observer, may make 
it seem much more 
reasonable. 
Never 

mind the fact that the 
executive 
order 
still 

prevents 
citizens 
of 

six 
Muslim-majority 

countries from entering 
the United States or 
Rudy Giuliani’s account 

of the first Muslim ban’s 

formulation: “(Trump) called me 
up, he said, ‘Put a commission 
together, show me the right way 
to do it legally.’ ” In comparison, 
this order may seem much more 
reasonable than the previous one, 
which may limit public outrage. 
We can’t evaluate Trump in 
comparison to his hardline agenda 
but rather have to understand his 
policies as atomized units.

This lens is also useful to look 

at Trump’s comments about 
the mainstream media. Take 
the average citizen who doesn’t 
trust Trump or the media very 
much. When Trump claims that 
they’re full of lies, someone may 
think that is taking it too far 
and instead opt to take a middle 
position where some of what 
the media says is a lie, or, since 
the media can never capture the 
full truth, everything they say is 
a half-truth. Most journalistic 
outfits have a well-documented 
slight 
bend 
toward 
the 

Democratic Party, but criticizing 
their integrity is taking things 
too far. While being moderate 
and 
judicious 
is 
frequently 

valorized, taking the middle-
ground on the media’s honesty 
or Trump’s discriminatory travel 
ban is a dangerous game to play 
because the fundamental ideas 
themselves are so wrong.

Trump is also willing to 

leverage 
the 
extremeness 
of 

his policy stances to implement 
policies outside of the traditional 
Republican toolbox. A useful 
historical analog for this is Nixon’s 
détente policy with China. It took 
an avowed anti-Communist to 
open the door to negotiations with 

Communist China. If someone 
with weaker bona fides had gone, 
they may have been accused of 
being a communist sympathizer 
rather than a brilliant tactician.

Trump’s 
reputation 
as 
a 

successful 
businessman 
could 

make him the only person who 
can directly put pressure on 
companies to keep their jobs 
in the United States. If Obama 
had done the same, he may have 
been accused of interfering with 
the free market. The exact same 
thing is beginning to happen with 
Trump’s immigration policies. 
When he talks about creating 
comprehensive 
immigration 

reform, people normally against 
it will likely fall in line behind 
it, because Trump has been so 
anti-immigrant in the past. In 
other words, it takes someone 
who has spent almost two years 
denigrating Mexican immigrants 
to fix our failing immigration 
system. This last example is 
likely also driven by the previously 
discussed phenomenon of price-
anchoring. If Trump does enact 
immigration reform, it’ll be in the 
context of his wall and hardline 
approach to immigrants, so any 
policy he proposes will seem 
comparatively less noxious.

Maybe this all seems like a 

stretch since so much of the 
White House seems to be driven 
by sheer incompetence (see: 
Kellyanne Conway’s claims that 
Obama could spy on Trump using 
his microwave), but I don’t think 
that’s a helpful frame. Ascribing 
actions to idiocy means that they 
can’t be countered. This strategy 
of negotiating from extremes is a 
proven one and has benefited far-
right parties in Europe. Poland’s 
Law and Justice party was able 
to further universal health care 
using these tactics and shored 
up their electoral weaknesses, 
winning the largest electoral 
victory in Poland’s democratic 
history. As citizens, we have to 
resist the temptation for false 
equanimity, lest we let the far-
right continue to control the 
United States.

W

ithin the fortified 
liberal bastion that 
is Ann Arbor, there 

exists an environment 
uniquely 
designed 
for 

the progressive students 
who populate campus. 
Here, the most liberal of 
beliefs can be resounded 
within Ann Arbor’s echo 
chamber that makes this 
town in the midwestern 
United 
States 
sound 

more like a socialist 
paradise in Scandinavia. 

The 
University 
of 

Michigan’s 
liberal 

student body is readily 
known worldwide to the point 
that our left-leaning bias is 
often capitalized on by the 
conservative media and punditry 
as a ridiculous example of a 
public university run amok, 
both stifling freedom of speech 
and coddling its weak students.

Yet a large majority of students 

here feel pride in these common 
progressive 
values, 
and 
as 

President Mark Schlissel said 
following the electoral victory of 
Donald Trump, “Ninety percent of 
you rejected the kind of hate and 
the fractiousness and the longing 
for some sort of idealized version 
of a nonexistent yesterday.”

And 
those 
results 
of 
the 

2016 election served to further 
entrench 
and 
solidify 
such 

progressive beliefs. The liberal 
values discovered, discussed and 
debated among students within 
the lecture halls, study lounges 
and dormitories of the University 
became essential to promote now 
more than ever.

As someone who considers 

himself a member of this educated 
and informed liberal class of 
University students, I, like many 
others, value and attempt to 
promote progressive beliefs that 
are essential to move U.S. society 
towards becoming more inclusive, 
equal and advantageous.

Yet within this demographic 

of openly progressive students 
there exists a large majority of 
financially 
well-off, 
primarily 

white students who live within a 
reality in which economic, racial 
and social strife are never truly 
experienced. There exists a large 
segment of smug liberals who 
bathe in their proclaimed self-
righteousness, dedicating the bare 
minimum of activism toward the 
political values they will so readily 

scream about through Twitter on 
a brand-new iPhone 7.

The University ranks last in 

economic mobility 
and 
diversity 

among 
public 

universities, 
touting a median 
family income of 
$154,000 
(almost 

$100,000 
more 

than the national 
median) 
and 
an 

ethnic makeup that 
is 
predominantly 

white. 
Surrounded 
by 

students of similar 

socioeconomic backgrounds, this 
white wealthy liberal culture often 
feels free to dominate the political 
environment of the University.

Many students rail against 

Betsy DeVos and her policies 
advocating for school choice, yet 
hail from expensive private or 
well-funded public schools. Many 
students so easily paint Americans 
who support the president’s travel 
ban as racist and xenophobic, but 
do not come even remotely close 
to providing actual donations to 
those refugees in need. And how 
casually many students can throw 
around terms such as inner-city, 
discrimination and Islamophobia 
without realizing the true harsh 
reality of life on the receiving end 
of those terms.

This current reality in which 

well-educated, financially sound, 
predominantly 
white 
liberal 

students 
so 
enthusiastically 

hijack the political discussion 
concerning 
race, 
economics, 

foreign policy and social issues 
is just another example of the 
privilege bestowed and granted 
upon them for the simple reason 
that they were born to a certain 
family at the right time. 

And I know all of this for I am 

a part of this pathetic subgroup 
of 
pseudo-intellectuals 
who 

scream about raising taxes and 
the minimum wage, yet are 
completely financially dependent 
on their parents. I am part of 
these modern-day patriots who 
heroically 
defend 
progressive 

ideals during work hours — yet 
go home to our comfortable 
lives 
in 
paid-off 
apartments, 

with 
Moleskine 
notebooks, 

personalized Apple electronics, $5 
lattes and Ralph Lauren sneakers.

Buffered by our socioeconomic 

statuses, we are nearly unaffected 

by the real ramifications of 
poverty, racism and our great fear 
of the Trump administration. We 
dive back into the numerous left-
leaning newspapers, podcasts and 
books that have a profound effect of 
flattering our intelligence and lead 
us to believe that we’re actually 
doing something to help. We 
bounce the same outrage off one 
another, amplifying our unaffected 
white voices to an authoritative 
tone that we should fix this, then 
proceed to simply go on with our 
comfortable lives, drinking at the 
bar, seeing a band and smiling ever 
so smugly that knowing we’re on 
the right side of history.

Guilty 
of 
our 
abstract 

indifference 
to 
the 
reality 

playing out in front of us, we 
must recognize our lack of self-
awareness, realizing that there is a 
serious necessity for some greater 
form of participation. Benefiting 
from comfortable family and 
socioeconomic positions, it is not 
nearly enough to complain and 
inform ourselves over the issues 
we so emotionally care about. The 
smug level of liberalism we share 
needs to be infused with actual 
activism and empathy.

“Tweets 
are 
not 
The 

Resistance.” Millions across this 
country are motivated now more 
than ever to uphold the values 
we so readily strap ourselves to. 
Join several activist sites such 
as ResistanceRecess.com, which 
lists congressional town halls to 
hold your congressional leaders 
accountable, 
or 
Flippable.org, 

which informs subscribers of 
essential down-ballot races that 
have the possibility of changing 
parties. There are also multiple 
political organization on campus 
such as Progressives University 
of Michigan or the University’s 
chapter of College Democrats, 
who often host events and are 
simple to join.

These smug emotions that 

are common with white wealthy 
liberals need to be shed. There 
is no way to build a resistance or 
a future country for that matter 
around an expensive education 
and a subscription to The New 
York Times.

Actions speak louder than 

words, even the multisyllabic 
ones we use to describe the fly-
over states.

Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4A — Monday, March 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

Sarah Khan
Max Lubell

Alexis Megdanoff
Madeline Nowicki
Anna Polumbo-Levy 

Jason Rowland

Ali Safawi

Kevin Sweitzer

Rebecca Tarnopol

Stephanie Trierweiler

EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS

We smug liberals

MICHAEL MORDARSKI | COLUMN

Treating Trump critically

Roland Davidson can be reached at 

mhenryda@umich.edu.

Michael Mordarski can be reached 

at mmordars@umich.edu.

MICHAEL 

MORDARSKI

“N

one of us were 
prepared for this.” 
These are the words 

I spoke while on the phone with 
a reporter from the Wall Street 
Journal after the surprise victory of 
our now-president. As the founder 
of a new student organization 
that directly works with and 
advocates for refugees — Michigan 
Refugee Assistance Program — I 
knew my organization and the 
students involved were going to 
be devastated because refugee 
resettlement would soon cease. I 
thought about the refugees who 
went to school here; my family 
in the Middle East; what would 
become of my student organization, 
which was only a couple months 
old; and the minority students on 
campus who now had vindication 
that, no, they were not wanted in 
this country.

Two weeks later, I sat again 

at 
an 
award 
ceremony 
and 

listened to University of Michigan 
administrators 
talk 
about 
the 

University. They commended our 
campus for being one that upholds 
values of inclusivity and tolerance, 
and stated that, for many, the 
University is a refuge, and they would 
fight to keep it that way. That is when 
I knew how critical this Central 
Student Government election was.

I knew we needed individuals 

who not only stated that they could 
make change on campus, but also 
have the track record to prove it. 
I knew we needed individuals to 
who took seriously the position 
they found themselves in and used 
it for the betterment of all students 
on campus. And last, I knew that 
we needed individuals who have 
established themselves time and 
time again as student leaders. That 
is why I am voting for Anushka 
Sarkar and Nadine Jawad, and the 
rest of the eMerge party, who are 
by far the best choice in this year’s 
CSG elections.

Anushka, a woman I admire 

for her tenacity and gracefulness 
while simultaneously being one of 
the most professional individuals 
I know, is able to tackle problems 
with a comprehensive framework 
and eye for detail. Nadine, one 
of the most involved students on 
campus, embodies the meaning of 

ally and advocate as she continually 
uses her positions on campus to 
work to lift up others. They are the 
only individuals qualified for CSG 
president and vice president — I 
know this because I have seen what 
they are capable of accomplishing. 
Furthermore, as a student who has 
seen the tangible impacts of CSG 
and its initiatives, I do not believe 
it is a logical choice to demarcate 
two of the most powerful positions 
on campus to those who have no 
experience to handle the difficult 
problems that Anushka and Nadine 
have already handled.

Six months ago, I founded 

MRAP and began to build it 
from the ground up. During the 
beginning stages of this process, 
I knew I needed experience from 
someone who had started their own 
non-governmental 
organization 

and immediately turned to Nadine 
for help and guidance. With 
amazing organizational ability and 
an individual who takes initiative 
when she sees gaps, Nadine, even 
as co-founder of her own NGO, 
Books for a Benefit, took the time 
to help build the infrastructure of 
my organization. As the current 
senior policy adviser for CSG, she 
has worked to address problems 
such as affordable housing in Ann 
Arbor while also attempting to 
use her platform to increase the 
voices of marginalized students 
on campus. The Michigan Daily 
rightly recognized her as a Student 
of the Year for her ceaseless 
advocacy, and rightly so — always 
ready to spend the little time she 
has helping others, Nadine’s love 
for service and constant activism 
is emblematic of what a CSG vice 
president should be. 

When it comes to experience, 

not only has Anushka scratched 
the surface of complex problems 
faced by students at the University 
— she has actually addressed them 
copiously. As the previous chief 
programming officer for CSG, 
she was faced with two recurring 
problems at the University: lack 
of counselors at Counseling and 
Psycological Services and lack of 
retention in student organizations. 
Anushka 
immediately 
took 

initiative and created innovative 
solutions 
to 
these 
concerns. 

Knowing the critical importance 
of having mental health resources 
in a timely fashion, Anushka 
succeeded 
in 
increasing 
the 

number of counselors at CAPS for 
every student on campus and has 
continued to work on this issue 
with unprecedented haste, as she 
understands the magnitude of this 
issue. She also created Wolverine 
Consulting Group to combat issues 
of member retention in student 
organizations. 
Her 
consulting 

group has been integral in assisting 
my new student organization, 
as well as so many others, in 
improving them and ensuring their 
sustainability for years to come. 

Anushka and Nadine do not 

need endorsements of any kind — 
their work on campus speaks for 
itself. They are busy working with 
and for students, as they always 
have been for their past three years 
on campus and will continue to 
serve the student body ceaselessly 
if they are elected as our new CSG 
president and vice president.

And while some may say they 

can get the job done, Anushka 
and Nadine already have, and 
their work started long before 
any of them set their sights on 
a CSG ticket. They are the only 
candidates with the experience, 
knowledge and tenacity to take 
on two incredibly important 
roles that will shape the future 
trajectory of our University — 
two roles we cannot risk giving 
to individuals inexperienced 
and unprepared.

A vote for Anushka, Nadine and 

the rest of the eMerge party is a 
vote not only for candidates with 
capability, a vote for candidates 
with the evidence to back up their 
claims or a vote for candidates that 
truly understand what it takes to 
address complex problems because 
they have previously done so — 
it is a vote for a better future, a 
better University, a university that 
we love and for which we should 
only entrust to the best. The best 
for this election is none other 
than Anushka Sarkar and Nadine 
Jawad, two individuals I am proud 
to stand with and honored to vote 
for in this upcoming election.

Why I am voting for eMerge

NICOLE KHAMIS | OP-ED

Nicole Khamis is an LSA senior. 

ROLAND DAVIDSON | COLUMN

ROLAND

DAVIDSON

JOE IOVINO | CONTACT JOE AT JIOVINO@UMICH.EDU

