Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4A— Thursday, March 8, 2018
Emma Chang
Joel Danilewitz
Samantha Goldstein
Elena Hubbell
Emily Huhman
Tara Jayaram
Jeremy Kaplan
Sarah Khan
Lucas Maiman
Magdalena Mihaylova
Ellery Rosenzweig
Jason Rowland
Anu Roy-Chaudhury
Alex Satola
Ali Safawi
Ashley Zhang
Progressivism and pacing
The complicity of silence
L
ast week, the California
Democrats
convened
in Sacramento to draft
and vote on their statewide party
platform in advance of the 2018
midterm elections. They adopted
a platform not too different from
the one Sen. Bernie Sanders,
I-Vt., ran on in 2016 — access to
universal health care as a human
right, a $15 minimum wage,
corporate regulation and paid
family leave. Other planks in the
28-page manifesto, however, were
much less familiar. Sizing up this
document in the context of where
Democrats are winning right now
underlines the single greatest
obstacle for progressive politics in
the U.S. today — pacing.
According to the document,
California Democrats will support
“abolishing the Electoral College
and (replacing it) with a national
popular vote.” They will also seek
full public funding of campaigns
in local, state and federal elections
to oppose the “culture of cronyism
and corruption” as well as the
immediate repeal of the post-9/11
legislation, Authorization for the
Use of Military Force. Finally,
they advocate for publicly-owned
affordable housing projects and the
creation of publicly-owned, “non-
competitive” Internet providers.
As a progressive, my initial
reaction is that whoever wrote this
platform should be thrown a parade.
Finally, a bold and articulate vision
that is not only morally right, but one
on which progressive candidates
can win. In 2016, Democrats
sold Hillary Rodham Clinton as
President Barack Obama’s follow-
up act, a continuation of everything
that was going right in our country.
This new progressive vision came in
the rare absence of a predominant
negative motivation, “Don’t vote
for the clown who grabs women by
the crotch.” Finally, some positive
motivation to go to the polls. Voting
for instead of voting against.
Several hours later, as I was
scrolling through Twitter, the
political talking heads were fixated
on one thing: Texas turning blue.
This included Democratic Rep.
Beto O’Rourke’s momentum in his
challenge for Ted Cruz’s Senate
seat, demographic shifts in Texas
and how Clinton lost the state by a
smaller margin than any Democrat
since 1996. Could this Republican
Party stronghold finally be in play
this year? This kind of speculation
has been everywhere for the past
two years, as Democrats make
gains in unlikely places — Alabama,
Georgia
and
even
Oklahoma.
Surely, running as a Democrat in
California is wildly different from
running as a Democrat anywhere in
the South. Sen. Doug Jones, D-Ala.,
cannot win with the progressivism
of Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif. So,
what do these divergent positions
mean for the Party, if and when
it wins congressional majorities?
What does it mean for the selection
of a presidential candidate in two
years’ time?
Two kinds of Democrats are
starting to emerge, both drawing
from Sanders’ rhetoric and style,
but wildly different in terms of
pacing. On the one hand, there
are the motivated progressives, in
places like California, Oregon, New
Jersey and Massachusetts. They’re
ready to staple this platform to
their foreheads and move full-
steam ahead. On the other, there
are
popular
progressives,
in
places that are not quite ready
for everything in the 28 pages of
the California platform but who
will be ready to take steps in that
direction. These were Sanders
voters in Michigan, Wisconsin and
Ohio — the people who can be sold
on single-payer health care and
legalized marijuana, but need a
little time.
Reactionary instincts to too
much change in too little time
are real. It is not a coincidence
that
a
presidential
campaign
based on making America great
again came on the heels of our
first Black president and eight
years that saw the legalization
of
gay
marriage,
mainstream
portrayals of transgender people
and a spotlight on safe spaces
on college campuses. For a lot of
people, it was overwhelming and
the world motivated progressives
are pushing for threatens to have
the exact same effect. Agree with
it as you like, but no one can deny
the contents of that document
represents substantial change to
how we think about rights, the
differences between public or
private, and how elections work in
this country.
So, if you were the grand
marshal of American progressives,
what would you do? Lean into
this 28-page left-wing dream
of a mission statement and risk
alienating potential voters in
states showing signs of progress?
Or pump the brakes and wait
for the popular progressives to
catch up, despite the fact this is
somewhat
counterintuitive
to
what you stand for?
Fundamentally, 2018 is an
exciting year to be a progressive.
The platform is exciting and has so
much potential. What was once a
subset of the Democratic Party
is now its vanguard, pushing left
and angling for congressional
majorities. At the same time,
liberal candidates seem poised to
win in places they haven’t won in
half a century.
For now, I see no problem with
offering this document to the 468
congressional candidates who will
have D’s next to their names this
fall as a sort of buffet. Pick and
choose. Find the pace that is right
for your state or your district. But
set a tone. Make change at the local
level that starts the wave, slow and
steady. Because very soon, we’re
going to see a major presidential
nominee with this platform stapled
to his or her forehead, ready to
spread it to all 50 states. And if
these two brands of progressivism
are too far out of step, that could
spell trouble.
BRETT GRAHAM | COLUMN
STEVE SMITH | OP-ED
I
n
today’s
world,
we’ve
arrived at a place where
our opinions and values are
interpreted through the lens of
“right versus left” or “liberal
versus conservative.” We allow
these lenses to force us to pick
a side, and in picking a side we
forget that dialogue occurs so
we can grow, exchange ideas and
possibly contribute to society’s
advancement.
Before becoming a graduate
student at the University of
Michigan, I directed a successful
state representative (Republican)
campaign in Northern Michigan.
I’ve voted for Democrats (including
for President Barack Obama twice
and Hillary Clinton). I’m all about
pro-choice, fixing health care and
infrastructure, supporting unions,
equal
rights/pay
and
moving
society forward. I’m also a veteran
who spent almost eight years on
active duty, who had to carry a
gun on occasion and respected the
privilege of carrying that power by
my side.
Now that I’ve said all that,
I need to say this: Your silence
on gun control or your support
of the current administration’s
performance
is
a
form
of
complicity. It’s not a right versus
left issue. The controversy in our
country surrounding guns is on
each of us. It’s not about being pro-
Second Amendment. It’s about us
moving toward a better society
and taking care of those we care
about. By that nature, if we make
a choice not to participate in this
discussion, not to play an active
role in bettering our society, then
we are the complicit in lives that
are lost. Our silence is complicity.
In the military, across the five
armed service branches, over the
last 10 years, there’s been a huge
emphasis on preventing sexual
assault. It’s a good focus with a solid
message. The military is working
to change its culture. In doing so,
one of the messages that exists is
if you see something and you don’t
say something, you’re a part of the
guilty party. You could even be
charged by the Uniformed Code
of Military Justice. If you could’ve
prevented a sexual assault and you
didn’t, then you were a part of what
went wrong. I am saying here if we
don’t do what we can to change our
culture in America, then we’re a
part of what’s wrong. In the same
way, if you vote for someone who
refuses to lift a finger to change
the gun culture of America, then
there is blood on their hands, and
by the very nature of your silence
or support, your compliance and
refusal to act, there is blood on
yours too.
We’ve come to a place in
America
where
we
need
to
examine our conscience and our
priorities. Can you imagine having
a child and sending them to school,
and then one day hearing the
place they went to learn and grow
was shot up? Can you imagine the
dread? The helplessness? The fear?
I cannot. We need to examine our
priorities — the right to bear arms
had some great thought behind
it when it was originally created,
but let’s take a minute to think
about what that means today. If
you’re an avid supporter of this
‘right,’ you might believe it exists
so you can protect yourself from
the ‘government.’ I have to ask, do
you have any idea how we wage
wars today? Through drones and
computer technology. In addition,
let’s take a look at a few historical
examples of social change over the
last 100 years: the Civil Rights era
in America; South Africa, Nelson
Mandela and the end of Apartheid;
and India’s Independence and
Mahatma Gandhi. Guns did not
accomplish any of these.
I agree with the idea of
creating more funding for mental
health support. I also despise
the arguments that “criminals
will get guns regardless.” Just
because someone will find their
way around certain roadblocks
doesn’t mean society stops trying
to advance as a whole. It doesn’t
mean we stop trying to improve
lives. Do we stop trying to cure
cancer because people will die
in the meantime? Do we stop
wearing seatbelts because people
will get into car accidents? Do we
stop fighting racism and classism
because it’s institutionalized? Do
we stop trying to save the planet
because we’re killing it? As Dr.
Martin Luther King Jr. once said,
“We will never be satisfied.”
According
to
the
Oxford
dictionary, the word “civilize”
means, “to bring (a place or people)
to a stage of social, cultural and
moral
development
considered
to be more advanced.” We are
supposed to be a ‘civilized’ society
— which means we are supposed
to be advanced. Advancing, by the
very nature of the word, means to
never actually stop. You don’t stop
advancing, you don’t stop growing.
If you do, you perish. Whether as
a person or a society, that’s why
social progressivism has worked.
People and societies, by their very
nature, must advance to survive.
We
have
to
change
our
thinking and the laws in this
country in regard to guns so we as
a society can provide a better life
for those we care about. We need to
understand that to reload a weapon
250 years ago could have taken
more than 90 seconds after a single
shot, whereas today it’s different.
We need to civilize. And do you
know why? Because the right to
shoot 45 rounds per minute does
not negate the right for a beautiful
little person to go to school without
fear. Because our children, our
sisters and brothers, our cousins,
our friends and our families are
counting on us to get this right.
We’ve stopped listening to each
other in the name of our ideological
stances, but not all issues have
be right versus left. Survival and
advancement shouldn’t be right
versus left. If there’s elected
leadership that refuses to take
action to make our country a
better, safer place, then it is our
responsibility to lead that change.
We have to work to create a more
perfect union. That work never
stops, and it doesn’t start with
arming teachers, putting veterans
at every school or surrounding
schools with police officers. None
of that forces us to take a look
at ourselves. Guns are playing a
role in the deaths of our children
at schools. Read that again. The
definition of insanity is doing
the same thing over and over
again and expecting a different
result. Our silence is perpetuating
our insanity; our complicity is
allowing our insanity to wreak
havoc on our country. How long
will we remain complicit?
Steve Smith is a Rackham
graduate student in Sports
Management.
A
s of late, few topics have
stirred more controversy
and ignited more debate
here at the University of Michigan
than free speech. However, the
real fight has only begun, as figures
like Richard Spencer expose an
increasingly dangerous shift in
American
opinion
regarding
hate speech. While calls to deny
Spencer’s request to speak at
the University aim to prevent
the elevation of his vile white
supremacist ideology, they also
represent a far larger threat to the
First Amendment.
The
First
Amendment,
though often touted in defense
of personal opinion and creative
expression, was not written with
the comfort of individuals, or even
the majority of individuals, in
mind. On the contrary, it protects
even reprehensible and unpopular
opinions,
precisely
because
the authors of the Constitution
understood the protection of all
speech as contingent to the survival
of free society.
Therefore, while suppressing
Spencer
may
be
the
more
palatable option for the University
community today, it would create
a slippery slope enabling the
government to later strangle other
ideas and beliefs.
To
anyone
claiming
the
government could indeed aptly
define and exclude “hate” while
still protecting “valid” forms of
expression, consider that the most
prominent
white
supremacist
groups in America currently muster
a combined membership of slightly
under 15,000, most definitely
representing an unpopular set of
beliefs in a country of over 320
million citizens. Comparably, in
1950, only about 50,000 Americans
were registered members of the
Communist Party. Considering the
context of the Cold War at the time,
communism in 1950 possessed
similar minority standing and
attracted similar antipathy as white
supremacist ideology does today in
America (notwithstanding implicit
endorsement by the president, but
that’s a matter for another Op-Ed).
Then, as is the case today,
Americans were faced with the
option
of
marginalizing
and
stymieing the minority ideology,
with the unpopularity and rarity
of communist faith providing
the motive and the means to
do
so.
The
unchecked
and
destructive violation of privacy
rights and ideological freedom
that followed clearly illustrates
the consequences of labeling
unpopular, even harmful, beliefs
as unworthy of protection.
Opponents of Spencer’s right
to speak at the University may,
however, single out the University
as entirely different from other
public domains, emphasizing that
the University must serve the
needs of its students first. These
“needs” would assumedly preclude
the
presence
of
emotionally
burdensome hate speech and the
onus of additional security costs
that
accompany
controversial
speakers like Spencer.
While
not
inherently
unfounded,
as
limitations
on
certain forms of speech do exist
when other rights are harmed,
these “needs” do not serve a higher
public interest than the protection
of speech.
In addition to having absolutely
no constitutional basis, protection
from the content of speech alone
reflects a disturbing trend in
public
opinion.
Past
decades
saw progressive Americans rally
against censorship by university
administrations, in the hope that
students would enjoy the diversity
of thought conducive to a liberal
education. Among other factors,
the
increasing
dominance
of
intellectual spheres by identity
politics has created a college
student body that is now overly
sensitive to differing viewpoints.
This might help explain the
shocking two-fifths of Americans
who believe the government should
take action to prevent hate speech.
Not only does this statistic
reflect a distorted conception
of the First Amendment, but it
reveals a misguided approach to
addressing hate.
While the First Amendment
protects
hate
speech,
it
simultaneously
equips
society
with the ability to address and
defeat these flawed ideologies
by providing an open forum for
rational argument. The only way
Spencer’s views can possibly be
dismantled is if those equipped to
defeat him are open for debate, not
closed off to it.
Other calls for censorship
center
on
the
potential
for
Spencer’s speech to inspire future
violence and discrimination, but
fail to address the distinction
between speech that directly and
immediately incites illegal activity,
which is already prohibited, and
simply hateful rhetoric, which
enjoys the protection from liability
that includes all other forms of
legal speech.
Morever, the onus of additional
security costs for any speech by
Spencer, though potentially hefty,
still fails to present a compelling
argument for limiting his rights.
As a public university, the
University
of
Michigan
does
not only have a paternalistic
obligation to its students, but also
an obligation to assist in protecting
vested public interests, including
free speech. Security costs can be
mitigated in a variety of ways, and
the University has been well within
its right as it has pursued such
restraints on Spencer as selection
of date and location for his speech.
Protecting civil liberties does
not always come cheap.
It is easy to defend speech
when it is normal, popular or
uplifting, but society is tested when
the speech in question is despised,
offensive or even hateful. Spencer’s
request to speak at this University
is a test of our will to maintain the
sanctity of free speech enshrined in
the Constitution. Calls for Spencer
to be denied, however well-
intentioned, fail to realize that the
First Amendment’s contribution
to democracy lies in its universal
application. Let Spencer speak.
Let Spencer speak
ETHAN KESSLER | OP-ED
Ethan Kessler is an LSA sophmore.
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
JOE IOVINO | CONTACT AT JIOVINO@UMICH.EDU.
Brett Graham can be reached at
btgraham@umich.edu.