T

he 
United 
States’ 

political system was 
founded on the cultural 

myth that anyone with the 
skills and ability can rise to lead 
their community — almost half 
of the elected representatives 
to the first U.S. Congress, 
though, 
served 
alongside 

a blood relative. Since the 
U.S. became an independent 
republic in 1789, almost 400 
parent-child pairs and more 
than 190 pairs of siblings have 
served in Congress. Overall, 
more than 700 families have 
had two or more members 
elected to Congress.

Public office in America 

seems to work like any other 
family career — it’s inherited 
and 
taught 
to 
the 
next 

generation, passed down like a 
trade. If families in the Midwest 
teach farming and families in 
the Great Lakes region teach 
fishing 
and 
forestry, 
then 

families in Washington, D.C. 
and various state capitols teach 
governance, politics and how 
to hold power. 

Part of this comes from 

the way our selection process 
works — name recognition is 
highly desirable in American 
election 
campaigns. 
Voters 

are often more comfortable 
with 
what 
and 
whom 

they know. This has been 
particularly true in the past 
century. George W. Bush’s 
father was president and his 
great-grandfather was a U.S. 
senator. Both Vice President 
Al Gore and his father were 
senators from Tennessee.

This 
obsessive 
preference 

for whom we recognize exists 
outside of the executive realm, 
too. 
Last 
year, 
Sen. 
Frank 

Murkowski, R-Alaska, gave up 
his seat to become governor. 
He 
carefully 
considered 
24 

Alaskan officials as potential 
replacements and then appointed 
his daughter, Lisa Murkowski.

Rep. 
Charles 
Gonzalez, 

D-Texas, now occupies the seat 
once held by his father. So do 

Reps. Jim Duncan and Harold 
Ford from Tennessee. The 
father of Rep. Nancy Pelosi, 
D-Calif. — the minority leader 
in the House of Representative 
— was a congressman, as well 
as the fathers of current Sens. 
Jon Kyl, Chris Dodd and Bob 
Bennett. It’s tempting to see 
dynastic politics as something 
that died out a while ago — 
maybe in the 1950s, maybe 
earlier — but it appears to be as 
strong as it has ever been.

This tendency was visible 

again 
in 
the 
Democratic 

response to President Donald 
Trump’s State of the Union 
Address — they picked Rep. Joe 
Kennedy III, D-Mass., member 
of the Kennedy dynasty, to 
deliver the speech. Personally, 
I found parts of the speech 
patronizing, 
his 
delivery 

unimpressive and its message 
to be overall quite tepid.

I’ve found it frustrating, 

then, to see news outlets 
marveling 
over 
this 
fresh, 

eloquent, obscure Democrat. 
He’s a Kennedy! What about 
that is groundbreaking? What 
about an heir to America’s most 
famous political family speaks 
to the millions of disadvantaged 
and marginalized Americans 
who make up the core of the 
Democratic party?

This isn’t to say that elites 

and 
insiders 
are 
somehow 

less capable, or should be 
disqualified — look at Franklin 
Roosevelt — but it’s a trend we 
have to be wary of in an era 
where American politics is 
decidedly 
anti-establishment 

and 
anti-elite. 
The 
classic 

model of political legacy and 
personal political brands — in 
my estimation — will become 
a 
liability. 
Regular 
people 

aren’t impressed or reassured 
by famous names; they feel 
alienated by them.

We’re 
familiar 
with 
the 

legacy system of election here 
in Ann Arbor, even — Rep. 
Debbie Dingell, D-Mich., is 
part of a family that’s held 
Michigan’s 12th District since 
1933. To be clear, I think she’s 
entirely capable and represents 
the interests of this district 
well, but her holding office is 
still a striking demonstration 
of how political brands work to 
maintain themselves.

Maybe 
we’re 
always 

going 
to 
be 
susceptible 

to 
political 
brands: 
The 

reliable neoliberalism of the 
Clintons and Obamas; the old 
money progressivism of the 
Kennedys; 
the 
(supposedly) 

charming simplicity of the 
Bush family. In a time when 
the Internet has made media 
even more democratized and 
wide-reaching than it was in 
the TV and radio era, though, 
we might want to shift in a 
different direction.

There 
are 
thousands 
of 

people who — like Barack 
Obama, 
originally 
— 
do 

great 
work 
on 
the 
local 

scale and who are entirely 
capable 
of 
representing 

their communities. The old 
institutions and business of 
Washington, D.C. will survive 
whomever actually holds the 
offices (we’re seeing this with 
Trump), so perhaps it’s time we 
reconsider the idea of effective 
dynasty in American politics. 
Washington doesn’t actually 
need the political class to 
perform its ideal function — 
representing American voters.

Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4A — Monday, February 5, 2018

DAYTON HARE

Managing Editor

420 Maynard St. 

Ann Arbor, MI 48109

 tothedaily@michigandaily.com

Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan since 1890.

ALEXA ST. JOHN

Editor in Chief
 ANU ROY-CHAUDHURY AND 

ASHLEY ZHANG
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

Samantha Goldstein

Emily Huhman
Jeremy Kaplan

Sarah Khan

 
 
 
 

Lucas Maiman
Jason Rowland

Anu Roy-Chaudhury

Ali Safawi

 
 
 
 

 
 
 

 
 
 

Kevin Sweitzer
Tara Jayaram
 Ashley Zhang

Ellery Rosenzweig

Elena Hubbell

T

he 
Central 
Student 

Government 
recently 

published 
a 
“Campus 

Affordability 
Guide,” 
a 
now-

deleted document that consists 
of advice and resources to help 
students more effectively control 
their spending during their time 
in Ann Arbor. The guide was 
quickly met with criticism by some 
students who felt both the material 
and CSG as a whole were out of 
touch with students’ needs and 
reality, especially students from 
low-income backgrounds.

While I disagree with some of 

the arguments made by critics of 
this guide, they were certainly right 
about one thing: CSG is comprised 
of a relatively demographically-
privileged population. According 
to a survey completed by CSG last 
year, their membership is nearly 70 
percent white, 58 percent male and 
37.2 percent come from households 
making $250,000 or more per year.

When 
these 
figures 
are 

compared with the University of 
Michigan’s overall demographics, 
though, a different picture is 
painted. The University’s student 
body 
is 
56.2 
percent 
white, 

students come from a median 
household income of $154,000 and 
the student body is 51.8 percent 
male. So yes, while CSG may, 
in fact, be comprised of a more 
socioeconomically-privileged 
group, the University as a whole 
does not differ greatly.

In consideration of whether 

this Campus Affordability Guide 
is condescending and out of 
touch with low-income students, 
or whether it was produced to 
apply to the greatest number 
of students, we arrive at the 
broader, underlying question. 
CSG is a democratically-elected 
institution meant to reflect the 
demographics and needs of the 
student body. The question — a 
question that applies to really 

any governing body — is how 
should CSG be directing their 
power in order to best represent 
their constituents. Should CSG 
focus on the issues and concerns 
that affect the majority of those 
they were elected to represent, 
or 
should 
they 
focus 
on 

supporting the communities on 
campus that may benefit from 
resources the most?

The answer to this depends on 

one’s view of government and what 
its role should be in our school 
and society as a whole. In my 
opinion, a democratically-elected 
body should exist in order to help 
manage and support the entire 
community. In our situation, the 
community we are talking about is 
the student body of the University. 
In the case of this Campus 
Affordability Guide, CSG decided 
to tackle a problem within our 
campus community that affects, 
what I would assume to be, the 
majority of students. Even if you 
come from a household of means, 
Ann Arbor is still an expensive 
town, and I do not believe many 
students come to school with a 
blank check (even if it may seem 
like that to some).

Reading through the guide, it 

seems that the majority of topics 
seem to be relatable to most 
students. These topics include 
which neighborhoods are more 
expensive than others, how to 
shop and cook more efficiently and 
various ways to reuse or borrow 
resources instead of frequently 
buying new products.

Then, there are the parts of 

the guide deemed to be offensive, 
such as the notion that students 
could save money by doing their 
own laundry rather than using 
a paid laundry service. Another 
recommendation that received 
negative feedback was regarding 
certain recipes to make meals 
in bulk, some of which included 

more high-end ingredients such as 
quinoa and feta cheese. 

I understand how one could 

feel offended or disenfranchised 
when they are told budgeting 
means to do your own laundry 
instead of hiring a service, 
especially 
to 
an 
individual 

working multiple jobs just to 
keep the heat on. With that said, 
this guide, and CSG’s initiatives 
as a whole, are meant for all 
students, including those with 
financial means. And the reality 
is that many students, myself 
included, could certainly benefit 
from much of the advice offered 
in the guide.

I am not suggesting that any 

group on this campus does not 
deserve to have equal resources 
allocated to them, or that they 
should not have their voices heard. 
Rather, I am stating the opposite 
— that even those that come from 
privileged backgrounds deserve the 
school’s resources and to have their 
voices heard as well. In a similar 
note to my last column, there is a 
balance between the two extremes 
of supporting communities on our 
campus that may need more help 
than others, and supporting the 
groups that comprise the majority 
of our campus.

Perhaps this is a balance the 

University and CSG have not 
yet found. At the end of the day, 
CSG is a student organization, 
consisting of individuals with 
limited experience, who are 
learning every day how to better 
do their job. But their intentions 
are clear; they are working to 
make our campus community a 
safer and better place, and I urge 
them to continue with their goal 
of supporting the entire student 
body.

In defense of the ‘Campus Affordability Guide’

MATTHEW FRIEND | COLUMN

I 
 

am 
disgusted 
by 
the 

ways that students at the 
University of Michigan 

distort the concept of a rivalry.

On Saturday, ESPN released 

an investigative report claiming 
the pattern of “widespread 
denial, inaction and information 
suppression” of sexual assault 
allegations at Michigan State 
University extends far beyond 
the disturbing Larry Nassar 
case. The report suggests that 
MSU 
football 
coach 
Mark 

Dantonio and MSU basketball 
coach 
Tom 
Izzo 
may 
be 

complicit in this pattern. Upon 
hearing this, I was horrified 
and heartbroken — if we’ve 
learned anything in the past few 
months, it’s that sexual assault 
is more deeply embedded in our 
culture than we ever could’ve 
imagined. Every time another 
story is uncovered, I become 
absolutely nauseated.

I could not believe my 

eyes 
when 
the 
University 

meme pages, with thousands 
of 
followers 
used 
this 

opportunity to post about 
how pumped they were that, if 
Dantonio and Izzo were fired, 
the University would have a 
bigger chance of beating MSU 
in the upcoming seasons. This 
is a common narrative among 
students as well: “Ha, did you 
hear about MSU? Sucks to be 
a Sparty!”

I hate the Spartans as much 

as anybody. I was raised on 
Michigan football; every fiber 
in my being was taught that 
MSU is annoying, despicable 
and inferior to the University 

in every way. When we lost to 
them in football this year, I 
stormed home from the stadium 
in silence, tears in my eyes, my 
poor roommate afraid to say 
anything to me. When I arrived 
back home, I slammed the door 
to my room and got straight into 
bed without changing out of my 
rain-soaked clothes or taking 
the block ‘M’ sticker off of my 
face. I couldn’t fall asleep all 
night as Dantonio’s face danced 
through my mind, a sinister 
grin on his face, taunting me. If 
anyone understands the weight 
of rivalry, it’s me.

But 
sexual 
assault 
has 

nothing 
to 
do 
with 
this 

rivalry. Sexual assault is an 
entirely 
different 
playing 

field. Sexual assault is a 
wicked force that has, for 
innumerable time, permeated 
every aspect of our culture. 
It is a longstanding part of 
our entertainment industry 
and our political institutions. 
It makes sense for us to be 
disgusted, but probably not 
surprised, that it also plays a 
prominent role in sports.

We should not be using the 

implication of MSU’s athletic 
departments 
in 
sexual-

misconduct suits as another 
opportunity to laugh and taunt 
them with the “little brother” 
cheer. We should support the 
victims, hope that there are 
no other scandals to uncover 
and look into our own athletic 
departments to ensure we’re 
not guilty of the same crimes.

Larry Nassar is a horrible 

human being, and he also 

happens to be one of the 
first 
major 
sexual 
assault 

perpetrators 
within 
college 

sports who is facing serious 
penalties. But I am not going 
to pretend for a minute that 
MSU is the only college in the 
United States that has a pattern 
of “widespread denial, inaction 
and information suppression” 
of sexual assault allegations. 
To anyone who says there is no 
way anything like this would 
happen at our University: Take 
a good hard look at yourself 
and tell me what leads you to 
believe this. Just because we 
like to call ourselves the “best 
university in the world,” are 
we somehow exempt from a 
disease that has infected all of 
Hollywood and Washington, 
D.C.? Sexual assault is a serious 
problem that relies on denial. 
Let’s not be quick to label it as 
MSU’s problem.

I am typically not one to 

say that a rivalry has gone too 
far — I speak of my hatred of 
MSU throughout all of football 
and basketball season with no 
shame or hesitation. But when 
the rivalry extends beyond 
sports and begins to border on 
hoping that the other school 
is guilty of sexual assault, I 
draw the line. If we’re rooting 
to find out that Izzo is guilty 
of inaction regarding sexual 
assault allegations just so he will 
be fired and we will beat them in 
basketball, then that’s it. I’m out 
of this rivalry. I’m done.

Larry Nassar, little brother?

HANNAH HARSHE | COLUMN

Democratic Dynasty

HANK MINOR | COLUMN

Hank Minor can be reached at 

hminor@umich.edu.

NIA LEE | CONTACT AT LEENIA@UMICH.EDU

Matthew Friend can be reached at 

mjfri@umich.edu.

Hannah Harshe can be reached at 

hharshe@umich.edu.

CONTRIBUTE TO THE CONVERSATION

Readers are encouraged to submit letters to the editor and op-eds. 
Letters should be fewer than 300 words while op-eds should be 550 
to 850 words. Send the writer’s full name and University affiliation to 

tothedaily@michigandaily.com.

He’s a Kennedy! 
What about that is 
groundbreaking?

