H
eadlining The New York
Times,
the
morning
of Nov. 9, 2016 read
the unpredicted results of the
presidential
election:
“Donald
Trump
Is
Elected
President
in
Stunning
Repudiation
of the Establishment.” For many
U.S. citizens and pollsters, these
results were shocking. How could
someone who defied political
correctness, who used abrasive
language and who seemed so far
away from a presidential standard
be elected? Though this may
seem like a liberal take on the
results (and admittedly it might
be), the results were nonetheless
shocking to both Republicans
and Democrats alike. The core
question that scholars and citizens
are asking is, “what happened?”
What did Trump possess that was
so sorely overlooked in the polls?
Following the campaign of
the
presidential
contenders
throughout the year, the vast
difference between Clinton and
Trump
was
evident.
Clinton,
a longtime politician with an
impressive
resume,
was
by
standards
significantly
more
qualified than her opponent. Yet
her streak of political experiences
was tainted by scandals. In this
light, too many Americans saw her
as a “standard politician” made
and corrupted by the system.
She
represented
the
political
institutions that many American
citizens
mistrusted.
Trump
offered a far different product to
voters.
Trump tapped into a market
demand that Clinton did not.
Trump
essentially
became
a
salesman for change. He began
establishing this market power
early on in the primaries, defying
the
system,
making
it
clear
that he would dismantle the
establishment
in
Washington.
While
D.C.
politicians
were
consumed with their own circle
of elitists, they forgot to look
outside the bubble and see that
the face of rural America had
changed. Donald Trump’s secret
was that he was an outsider. His
monopoly of power that no one
could compete with was his claim
to oppose the elitists and to stand
beside the “working class” citizen.
A politician who saw political
correctness as a sham was in
demand for many Americans.
Trump took advantage of this
wide-open
market,
knowing
that he could make statements
that were clearly sexist, racist
and harsh and still be seen as
honest. In economic terms, he
was “raising the price” for voters,
without losing the quantity of
voters he needed to secure the
election. I recall all too familiar
rhetoric from Trump voters: “Sure
he is sexist and racist,” they say,
“but at least he will get things
done.” In other words, they mean,
yes, the price to vote for him is
high, but I still want a politician
unafraid to defy the system. No
other candidate could compete
with this selling point, least of all
Hillary Clinton.
— Lena Drevescan be reached
at ldreves@umich.edu.
5
OPINION
Thursday, July 20, 2017
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
A hindsight look at the election
federal expropriation. As a means
of compromise, they decided on
two things: the federal government
had almost total legal authority
over the army and militia and the
federal
government
should
not
have any authority at all to disarm
the citizenry. After realizing this, I
understood that the debate and gun
ownership was rooted in U.S. DNA.
I understand that this debate has
shifted greatly, where most view
that government isn’t coming for
one’s guns, people are interested in
stronger background checks, and
more is in common between the
two sides than we like to realize.
Nevertheless, as much as I can
quote statistics about gun deaths
in America, and the gun rights
advocates can quote gun safety
statistics, it becomes an argument
of fact. In the past year as a student
and neuroscience researcher, I have
realized statistics can be skewed
to whichever opinion you feel. It’s
a form of strong confirmation bias
where one seeks out information
only to support their opinion. But as
much as I can write and speak about
the truths I find evident through
research, often it isn’t the statistics
that will convince either side of the
argument. We are human beings who
frequently determine our opinions
not by what we read but by what we
experience. This is the fundamental
issue in most of our debates today:
we surround ourselves with people
and ideas of our own. This extreme
amount of confirmation bias removes
us from the experience of someone
drastically different than ourselves,
so when we approach an issue such
as gun law, we retreat to our corners
and tell each other, “Well if you just
look at the statistics, you’d realize
your idiocy.” But it’s deeper than
that. It’s experience.
I grew up in a unique situation,
where in northern Minnesota, I was
both living in a city and surrounded
by a strong hunting and gun rights
culture. In my self-analysis, I have
realized that the experiences for those
in cities versus rural America are
different. In cities, guns are often the
weapon of choice for most homicides
and crimes. They are considered vices
of the country and are often put into a
bad light. In rural America, a typical
fall weekend is going out with one’s
father or mother to the shooting range
or the hunting cabin. In my experience,
I have never fired a gun, but I grew up
with many people who were both in
a city environment and often went to
the firing range or went hunting. They
went to gun safety classes, were gifted a
gun for Christmas, and had guns sitting
around the house. Though I don’t plan
on going to a gun range anytime soon,
I do think that it shows a completely
different
emotional
and
cultural
difference that most neglect to realize.
It isn’t a legal debate; it’s a personal
debate.
As stated before, gun control
debates are more or less the
equivalent to an “American element”
on our metaphorical periodic table.
It’s a debate rooted in our DNA.
Nevertheless,
I
am
frustrated
that many don’t realize that gun
support isn’t a matter of stupidity
or idiocy, but rather an inability to
become fascinated with the thought
processes of others. These debates
and questions can be painful, even
insulting, yet often the intentions
are not out of spite or malice. We can
agree to disagree, but we shouldn’t
forget that almost all debates are
not black and white. It’s a spectrum.
Become fascinated with difference
of opinion.
— David Kamper can be
reached at dgkamper@umich.edu.
DAVID
KAMPER
Analyzing the gun debate
O
n the morning of June 14,
2017, a few Republican
lawmakers were at Eugene
Simpson
Stadium
Park
in
Alexandria,
Va. when shots
ran out. It was
the last practice
before the congressional baseball
game, which occurred every year to
raise money for charity since 1909.
When a loud gunshot went off, the
men and women hit the ground,
crouched in the dugout, behind
fences and in the long outfield
grass. Steve Scalise, the House of
Representatives
Majority
Whip
from Louisiana, stood at second
base. He had nowhere to hide. He
looked to the dugout before being
struck in the left hip and collapsed
to the ground. After struggling to
army crawl to safety, he made it to
center field, lying in the grass until
the shooting stopped. Though police
killed the shooter, the bullet broke
Mr. Scalise’s bones, caused major
internal bleeding and tore his organs.
I read how the shooter had
multiple rounds of ammunition, a
semi-automatic weapon and mental
health issues. I thought, “How did this
man get ahold of a weapon with such
firepower? How many more shootings
like this before we have to have stricter
gun control?”
After this atrocity, many saw it as
another example of a terrible shooting
in our recent history. People wanted
change with our nation’s approach to
guns. My initial conclusion, as it has
always been, was to have much more
stringent gun control laws. I soon read
that same day that many, especially
Republicans, were calling for more
guns to prevent instances like these.
After hearing this, I had to take a
second thought. We had read or seen
exactly the same event, with exactly
the same outcome, and we came to
exactly the opposite conclusion. To
most, I think that this would have been
disheartening and another reason for
gun control advocates to blow off gun
rights supporters, calling them crazy
and disillusioned. However, I became
extremely fascinated and interested in
the gun control debate, not to become
angrily aggressive towards gun rights
supporters, but because I quickly
realized that even with the same event,
two very different conclusions can be
reached. This is a debate that is much
more complicated than both sides tend
to let on.
I am writing this not to voice
support for the gun control lobby,
but as a reflective piece. Rather than
engaging in partisanship, I became
greatly inquisitive about the logic of
your average gun rights supporter
(not just the NRA). To improve my
understanding, I decided to turn to
the Second Amendment. Now, I have
read court opinions from Supreme
Court cases addressing the Second
Amendment (District of Columbia
v. Heller and McDonald v. City of
Chicago), but I wanted to keep an open
mind. There I read:
“A well-regulated Militia, being
necessary to the security of a free State,
the right of the people to keep and bear
Arms, shall not be infringed.”
Simply considering the wording of
the Second Amendment, I was stopped
within the first four words: a well-
regulated Militia. In my instinctual
emotions of gun rights, I would have
said that the debate should be over
right there. Regulation is extremely
necessary for guns, and since militias
are mostly an entity of the past, it
doesn’t make much sense for people
to still own guns. Nevertheless,
maintaining
strong
introspection
was and is currently my goal. My gut
reaction was in my interpretation
of regulation. I hear the word, and I
conclude naturally a need for an assault
weapons ban among other measures,
but for many, this “regulation” means
better background checks, but more
guns on more people. I quickly realized
that is an error in communication for
both sides of the debate.
Secondly, I arrived at the word
“necessary.” This is where I believe
the heart of the debate rests. What is
necessary today? To understand this,
I thought that I should learn more of
the history of gun rights in America. In
the founding generation, many found
that governments were oppressive to
its people. To respond to unexpected
attacks, governments would depend on
a militia of ordinary civilians, supplying
his or her own weapons. After the
Revolutionary War, the Constitutional
Convention realized militia forces
could not be relied on for national
defense; therefore, the government
should have the authority to regulate
its militias. This became a classic Anti-
Federalist versus Federalist debate,
establishing the root of the modern
debate today.
This was one of many firsts
where there was a massive shift in
power from the states to the federal
government. Anti-Federalists said
that this removal of defense would
all but diminish any effort against
LENA
DREVES
Read more of this column at
MichiganDaily.com