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