T

here’s 
something 

cathartic about parody, 
especially 
when 
it’s 

directed toward the politically 
powerful. Donald Trump is 
somewhat unique in this respect 
— not just with regard to Alec 
Baldwin’s famous appearances 
as him on SNL, but in the way 
many Americans have started 
to talk about him in day-to-day 
life. Other politicians have, of 
course, been the target of parody 
(Sarah Palin and Barack Obama), 
but none have garnered such 
sustained and intense ridicule.

This habitual mockery — the 

use of Drumpf, for example 
— is becoming something of a 
legitimate problem. When we 
engage with the reality of a 
Trump presidency through these 
layers of humor and, for lack of a 
better word, zingers, we blind 
ourselves to the real climate 
of our political environment. 
Americans who prefer a stable 
head of state would be well-
served to be more cautious in the 
way they talk about Trump.

Mitt Romney won the 2012 

Republican primary when I 
was in eighth grade, much to 
my 
disappointment. 
Looking 

back on Romney’s stunningly 
awful general election campaign 
(remember the 47 percent line?) 
and right-wing media reactions 
to 
this 
controversy 
at 
the 

time, though, I can’t help but 
see parallels to the way we’re 
engaging with Trump in 2016.

There was a sense that Obama 

was bound to lose, almost 
regardless of who won the 
Republican primary. Sure, some 
had their favorites, but it was in 
large part a partisan struggle, 
and the Democrats were stuck 
with Barack (Hussein!) Obama 
as their candidate. How could a 
Kenyan socialist compete with 
the all-American capitalist? This 
parody version of Obama, built 

by factions on the right, became 
the way Republican opposition 
and 
the 
Romney 
campaign 

engaged with their opponent.

This 
sort 
of 
behavior 

is 
where 
the 
anti-Trump 

faction in American politics 
has 
miscalculated. 
Building 

a caricature of Trump and 
engaging with it, instead of 
the actual man, might have 
some psychological benefit in 
enabling Trump’s opponents to 
cope with his often-frightening 
behavior. 
The 
downside, 

though, is that it skews the 
national 
perception 
of 
his 

actual character. No matter 
how 
wild 
or 
authoritarian 

his actions become, it fits 
within the construction. It’ll 
be Trump, acting the way we 
assumed he’d act.

Though they could not be more 

different on a personal level, 
Obama was treated much the 
same way in the run-up to 2012. 
Right-wing media spent at least a 
day lambasting him for the way he 
ate a hamburger and for the color 
of his suit. Glenn Beck treated us 
to daily doses of madness with his 
chalkboard. A Romney victory 
appeared inevitable.

And then he lost 332 to 206.
There are a lot of wonderfully 

sadistic clips of the meltdown 
that night — Karl Rove ordering 
Megyn Kelly to “check (the 
numbers) again” is a particular 
highlight — but now I can’t help 
but see them as eerily prophetic of 
the left’s own future come 2020, 
if it’s not careful. There is an 
immense risk of overconfidence 
that could enable even a serial 
incompetent like Donald Trump 
to secure two terms.

The shock over Romney’s loss 

came largely from a Republican 
overindulgence 
in 
self-

congratulation. The Tea Party 
had gained a number of House 
seats in prior elections, the 

Democrats had been rendered 
ineffective in the House and 
Senate, and I guess it was easy to 
feel that the presidency would be 
next to fall.

When we constantly refer 

to Trump and his supporters 
through a layer of parody — 
“Trumpkins,” “Drumpf,” “Little 
Donnie” — we lose the ability to 
properly evaluate the threat he 
actually poses (or doesn’t pose). 
Furthermore, the left, unlike the 
Tea Party in 2012, isn’t even in 
power. The delusion that could 
rise — that I think is rising — 
from treating Trump like a joke 
will be even greater.

To be fair, Donald Trump has 

a much lower approval rating 
now than Obama did during 
November of his first year or 
even before the 2012 election. 
Legitimate scandal — about 
Russia and Robert Mueller’s 
investigation — might make some 
impact, but probably not as much 
as one might hope considering 
the significance of the events. 
Our national reaction to scandal 
has been numbed, particularly 
with regard to Trump. I can’t 
help but think that his perpetual 
parody is feeding into this by 
making him more of a character 
than a political figure.

Three years from now — given 

nearly a thousand more days of 
incoherent tweets, controversy 
and routine scandal — the left 
might find itself having neglected 
to run a proper campaign, with 
improperly calibrated opposition 
tactics. It’s going up against the 
fool Donald Drumpf, after all. 
It seems eminently possible, 
though, that come November 
2020 one will hear a bewildered 
Democratic 
Party 
echoing 

Republican sentiment in 2012: 
“But we hated him so much.”

Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4A — Monday, November 6, 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.

EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS

On “Donnie”

HANK MINOR | COLUMN

Carolyn Ayaub
Megan Burns

Samantha Goldstein

Caitlin Heenan
Jeremy Kaplan

Sarah Khan

Anurima Kumar

Max Lubell

Lucas Maiman

Alexis Megdanoff
Madeline Nowicki
Anna Polumbo-Levy 

Jason Rowland

Anu Roy-Chaudhury

Ali Safawi

Sarah Salman
Kevin Sweitzer

Rebecca Tarnopol

Stephanie Trierweiler

Ashley Zhang

Hank Minor can be reached at 

hminor@umich.edu.

LUKE 

JACOBS

S

tudent A: “You’re applying 
too? I love their campus 
over in Seattle, but I’m 

pretty sure my grade-
point average doesn’t 
fit their cutoffs.”

Student B: “Apply 

anyway, man! They 
have a great four-year 
program. My GPA isn’t 
too high, but the rep. 
seemed interested in 
my leadership roles 
and I’m pretty sure 
I aced the written 
statement.”

Student A: “I guess ... but I just 

don’t have the connections some 
of my friends had. I’ll just stick 
with a few safety mid-tiers and 
test my luck there.”

This conversation, you may 

have thought, was between a 
couple of high school kids applying 
to the University of Washington 
… or was it two University of 
Michigan juniors stressing over 
their 
recruiting 
prospects? 
I 

wouldn’t blame you for thinking 
high school — the on-campus 
recruitment scene mirrors the 
college application process in 
strangely familiar ways. This 
similarity reveals a surprising 
amount about the system most of 
us currently find ourselves in — it 
pigeonholes us into a select few 
careers, creates undue stress and 
promotes an overly linear way of 
thinking about success.

This 
recruitment 
process 

has been reduced to a science, 
a formula used by the best 
companies in every industry to 
recruit wide-eyed talent from 
the best schools in the nation. 
The formula works so well 
because it thrives on the linear-
minded path to achievement 
that is instilled into us in high 
school and college. It is a system 
of hoop-jumping — a static set of 
stages necessary to pass in order 
to gain access to another clearly 
defined role: your future job.

Let’s imagine you are a 

junior 
embarking 
on 
your 

search to find a high-status, 
well-paying internship for the 
upcoming summer. You begin by 
checking out that big consulting 
company’s info session after 
class and see a lot of your friends 
there. You begin asking each 
other questions: Who’s gotten in 
here before? Do they even take 
LSA kids? The recruiter departs 
with a motivating message about 
how her company is molding 

top students like you into the 
21st-century, globally minded 
visionaries who will soon change 

the world.

You think back to 

the same motivating 
words your college 
counselor used to stir 
your passion to apply 
to 
the 
University. 

You quickly run to 
the résumé drop the 
next week, spending 
hours scrapping old 
copies and passing 
suggestions 
with 

friends and family. Next come 
the coffee chats, the interviews 
and, if you play your cards right, 
the final offer.

At first glance, it may seem easier 

for us that this process mirrors 
that of college applications, but it 
only further pushes a mindset that 
success can be achieved through 
a linear process. This works up 
until the point we find ourselves 
in the real world, where there’s 
no syllabus, no clear promotional 
paths at work and little support 
structure to lean on outside friends 
and family. Recruiters are aware 
of this, and they exploit the last 
opportunity in a young person’s 
life to hoop-jump as a way to 
influence them to work jobs that 
may not have necessarily appealed 
to them without the high status 
they entail.

Hidden 
behind 
the 
status 

curtain of many of the jobs 
University students apply to is the 
rough reality of 60- to 80-hour 
work weeks, monotonous tasks 
and a stressful work environment. 
This isn’t limited to business: Big 
law, medicine and engineering jobs 
seem to attract a disproportionate 
share of students compared to 
the vast numbers of other career 
options out there. There is nothing 
inherently wrong with these jobs, 
and it’s hard to fault people for 
seeking their benefits. However, 
it’s unfortunate that the tracked 
processes we’ve gone through do 
little to encourage us to discover 
our own interests.

William Deresiewicz, a former 

professor at Yale University, 
wrote a scathing critique of his 
students who ditched their real 
interests for the hoop-jumping 
of careerism. Asked about the 
recruiting process in an Atlantic 
interview, he noted: “(Students) 
haven’t turned to themselves 
to ask why they’re doing it. It’s 
almost like a cruel experiment 

with 
animals 
that 
we’re 

performing — every time the red 
light goes on, you have to push the 
bar. Of course they’re stressed.” 
His analogy works well. We’ve 
been 
accustomed 
to 
neatly 

passing the steps presented to us 
as young adults — get As in high 
school, lead some clubs, ace the 
SAT — that we forget we’re doing 
the same steps in college, even 
without our parents’ influence. 
The only difference is the end 
goal of getting an offer from a 
well-known company.

The stress of recruiting is 

palpable at the University. A 
2014 health and wellness report 
by the University revealed that 
26 percent of students faced 
“traumatic or very difficult to 
handle stress stemming from 
career related issues in the last 
12 months.” Some of this stress 
can certainly be attributed to 
the narrow set of hard-to-enter 
careers to which students are 
pushed to apply. The situation is 
like the “cocktail party” test: We 
want strangers to light up when 
we announce we’re attending 
an elite school or job, since 
many adults, especially parents, 
associate these achievements as 
the only hallmark of success.

While many aren’t doing this 

consciously, 
there 
is 
comfort 

in 
impressing 
others 
through 

associating with a big name rather 
than our specific experiences 
and goals. The name is instant 
credentialing; it allows us to take 
mental shortcuts and judge others. 
I believe a key aspect of mental 
health is separating ourselves 
from this thought process. Since 
everyone is unique, we should avoid 
the crowd mentality of what defines 
success for a student graduating 
from a high-caliber university.

Separating from this mentality 

will continue to be difficult if 
college remains a system that 
largely encourages linear-minded 
paths 
of 
achievement. 
Many 

students will stay attracted to 
the recruitment process for good 
reason and should embrace it if 
they feel it best suits their life goals 
and interests. If, however, you are 
skeptical about the “tracked” career 
paths, listen to your gut and shrug 
off any judgments others make 
about you. Life just may reward you 
handsomely for your bold embrace 
of its nonlinear reality.

LUKE JACOBS | COLUMN

Hoop jumping

Ward 2: Jared Hoffert

For the race in Ward 2, the 

Editorial Board supports Jared 
Hoffert for City Council over 
the incumbent Jane Lumm. 
While 
Lumm’s 
campaign 

platform is very focused on 
maintaining the status quo, 
Hoffert’s campaign offers the 
prospect of positive change. 
Specifically, 
Lumm 
seems 

focused 
on 
maintaining 

existing infrastructure, while 
Hoffert offers to implement new 
policies, including increasing 
mass 
transit. 
As 
students, 

we are very much concerned 
with 
affordable 
housing. 

While neither candidate has 
a detailed affordable housing 
policy, Hoffert is much more 
flexible on this topic, which he 
addressed in an interview with 
The Daily.

Most importantly, Lumm’s 

platform supports increased 
police presence in Ann Arbor. 
Given the controversial arrest 
of an Ann Arbor teen in 
September and the policing of 
Black and Latino fraternities 
on Oct. 7, the Editorial Board is 
concerned with and troubled 
by this platform. Additionally, 
a larger police force does not 
seem necessary given Ann 
Arbor’s relatively low crime 
rates, 
with 
violent 
crime 

only affecting 1.81 per 1,000 
residents. Lumm also voted 
against making Ann Arbor a 
sanctuary city, which makes the 
Editorial Board apprehensive 
about her inclusivity of all 
people in Ann Arbor.

We believe Jared Hoffert 

is the best choice for Ward 
2. In addition, we urge both 
candidates to include more 
detailed policy platforms on 
their websites.
Ward 4: Jack Eaton

For Ward 4, we support the 

incumbent Jack Eaton, largely 
due to his views on affordable 
housing. 
Eaton 
recognizes 

the 
issues 
surrounding 

affordable housing in the Ann 
Arbor area and realizes the 
role of gentrification in the 
problem. In contrast, Diane 

Giannola seems to distinguish 
between affordable housing 
and affordability in housing. 
Her housing policy centers on 
ensuring individuals can afford 
homes within their financial 
needs, choosing not to address 
the needs for subsidized housing 
and low-income housing. Eaton 
acknowledges 
the 
problem 

and proposes not based in 
the market. However, Eaton 
ought to take more action to 
directly engage with the issue of 
affordable housing and act upon 
the courage of his convictions 
with substantive policy.

Additionally, 
Eaton 

encourages 
student 

involvement and acknowledges 
the significance of students 
participating 
in 
civic 
life, 

while Giannola does the very 
opposite. In a prior interview 
with 
The 
Daily, 
Giannola 

states she views students as 
transient to Ann Arbor and 
believes local issues do not 
concern 
them 
whatsoever. 

In 
fact, 
students 
in 
Ann 

Arbor are a key component 
to the city’s economy and are 
directly affected by the issue 
of affordable housing.

Due to his receptivity to 

student voice and insight in 
instituting more affordable 
housing in Ann Arbor, we 
support Jack Eaton.
Ward 5: Chip Smith

For Ward 5, the Editorial 

Board 
endorses 
Chip 

Smith, who is running for 
his second term on Ann 
Arbor City Council against 
newcomer Ali Ramlawi. Due 
to his incumbency, Smith 
has greater insight into Ann 
Arbor’s 
position 
and 
the 

feasibility of potential actions. 
He utilizes his knowledge and 
experience to concretely cite 
figures and outline plans on 
his campaign website.

Smith’s 
stances 
on 

affordable housing are more 
comprehensive, 
proactive 

and complete than those of 
Ramlawi. Smith cites exact 
numbers — 3,137 units of 
“workforce housing” by the 

year 2025. While Ramlawi 
acknowledges that a housing 
crisis in Ann Arbor is causing 
a lack of affordability and low 
diversity, he offers no clear 
solution or plan of action to 
counter the crisis.

Smith 
also 
has 
a 
more 

comprehensive 
stance 
on 

sustainability in Ann Arbor. 
He references several ongoing 
projects such as his Climate 
Action Plan — already in effect 
in Ann Arbor — that aims 
to 
reduce 
greenhouse 
gas 

emissions 25 percent by 2025. 
Ramlawi, who by no means 
seems against environmental 
progress, simply outlines the 
issues that Ann Arbor is facing 
without providing truly concrete 
solutions or ideal projects.

Finally, Ramlawi’s operation 

of a local business presents a 
possible conflict of interest if he 
were elected a member of City 
Council. Ramlawi’s Ann Arbor 
restaurant, Jerusalem Garden, 
was one of the plaintiffs in the 
2009 lawsuit against the city 
over plans to sell the Library 
Lot to developers. The City 
Council recently voted in favor 
of selling the lot to Chicago 
developer Core Spaces.

The incumbent advantage 

certainly gives Smith a leg up 
over Ramwali in this election, 
and 
we 
think 
his 
clearer 

vision would allow more to be 
accomplished under his tenure.

City Council policies have 

an immense effect on students 
at colleges in Ann Arbor. We 
implore students to go out and 
vote on Nov. 7. At the same 
time, we’re disappointed by 
the lack of acknowledgment 
candidates give to students. 
Despite the huge presence 
college students have in Ann 
Arbor, very few candidates 
gave weight to student voices 
in their campaigns. We ask 
that City Council candidates 
listen to Ann Arbor students 
and reflect their voices in 
each 
candidate’s 
respective 

platforms, as their actions are 
imperative to all members of 
the Ann Arbor community.

FROM THE DAILY

Vote for City Council

O

n Nov. 7, Ann Arbor will be electing five City Council members, 
one from each of the five wards. This year, three of the seats — in 
Wards 2, 4 and 5 — are contested. The councilors elected this year 

will serve three-year terms, as the first phase of a new policy that extends 
City Council terms from two to four years. This extended duration in office 
makes it more important than ever for voters to make informed voting 
decisions. Local government affects not only permanent residents of Ann 
Arbor, but also University of Michigan students who spend the majority of 
their year in the city. The Michigan Daily’s Editorial Board endorses the 
following candidates and calls on students to cast a vote in these elections. 

— Tweet from #MarchforTruth organizer Holly O’Reilly 

(@AynRandPaulRyan).
“

NOTABLE QUOTABLE

27 dead, 24 injured in a town 
with a population of 683. 4% of 
Sutherland Springs’ population 
was just wiped out by a gunman.

”

Luke Jacobs can be reached at 

lejacobs@umich.edu.

