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?