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.

