L

ast week in Helsinki 
with the whole world 
watching, 
President 
Donald Trump enthusias-
tically renounced any last 
semblance 
of 
presidential 
demeanor 
he 
possessed, 
yielding to one of America’s 
greatest foes with seeming 
indifference. Beside adver-
sarial strongman and Rus-
sian 
President 
Vladimir 
Putin, Trump issued a stun-
ning rebuke of all 17 U.S. 
intelligence agencies and an 
emphatic denial of Putin’s 
chicanery 
in 
the 
same 
breath, an act appropriately 
chastised as the most embar-
rassing presidential perfor-
mance in recent memory 
(even after his post-summit 
statement 
that 
supposed-
ly “clarifies things pretty 
good”).
In absolving himself of the 
president’s paternal obliga-
tion to stand firmly against 
national 
enemies, 
Trump 
went one step too far, even 
in a presidency where mis-
rule is the norm. It is not 
just that Russia’s interests 
often run afoul of our own – 
its regime routinely violates 
the human rights of journal-
ists and other political dissi-
dents, is engaged in a lengthy 
and brutal proxy war with 
the United States, illegally 
annexed sovereign Ukrai-
nian territory in an affront 
to post-Cold War rules and 
order, and more than any-
thing maliciously interfered 
in the most sacred of Ameri-
can political institutions.
Other than the obvious con-
clusion that Putin returned 
from Helsinki emboldened 
to embark on his next sinis-
ter pursuit, the Trump-Putin 
summit made clear there are 
only three possible explana-
tions for the chief executive’s 
stunt.
First, Trump is irretriev-
ably ignorant of the intrica-
cies of foreign affairs and is 
equally impervious to the 
attempts of those around 
him to roll back his per-
sonalist approach to world 
leaders. Second, Trump has 
been 
personally 
compro-
mised by Putin (surely a long 
shot, between the honest 
authoritarian and the sexu-
ally wholesome frequenter 
of Russia), and will not hesi-
tate to protect himself at the 
expense of the United States. 
Third, Trump is even more 
selfish and psychologically 
fragile than previously imag-
ined, and desires more than 

anything to indulge his ego 
in his 2016 presidential elec-
tion victory – even if feeding 
the narrative that his Her-
culean feat was unassisted 
comes at the cost of elevating 
a dictator’s word above that of 
U.S. intelligence officials. Or 
some combination of them.
Accepting any of the expla-
nations for Trump’s behavior 
only demands the belief that 
Trump’s 
well-documented 
narcissism is so overcoming as 
to blind him to the best inter-
ests of the country he governs 
– not a stretch by most stan-
dards. For a figure as poorly 
versed in public service and 
foreign policy as Trump, the 
shameful display in Helsinki 
may alternately be explained 
by the president’s inadequa-
cy with regard to executive 
statesmanship as much as it is 
by his lack of commitment to 
the public.
Regardless of the expla-
nation, Trump’s uniquely 
deleterious statements made 
unequivocally obvious his 
woeful inability to perform 
the basic duties of a world 
leader. Therefore, Congress 
should 
objectively 
have 
no qualms in considering 
impeachment; a sparingly 
used tool that, according 
to constitutional architect 
George Mason, was afforded 
to Congress as a “mode of 
displacing an unfit magis-
trate.” America’s ability to 
remove an unfaithful and/
or severely incapable execu-
tive in the direst of circum-
stances remains, however, 
intertwined with the politics 
of the lawmakers to which it 
is entrusted.
It is unsurprising, then, 
that even after the summit 
fiasco, the Republican-dom-
inated House and Senate 
have so far distanced them-
selves from anything close 
to calls for Trump’s removal. 
This congressional inaction 
is what one would expect, 
of course, in a country fur-
ther removed from apoliti-
cal unity than ever, perhaps. 
For Trump’s hegemonic base, 
unwavering in its loyalty to 
figure above ideology or even 
state, 
Trump’s 
blundering 
betrayal is nothing more than 
the next hill on which to die 
in the culture wars, and any 
serious critics in Washington 
will be met with fire and fury 
accordingly. 

4

Thursday, August 2nd, 2018
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
OPINION

420 Maynard St. 
Ann Arbor, MI 48109
 tothedaily@michigandaily.com

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

T

his is part one in a two-
part series on an experi-
ence abroad in Chile.
Living in Chile this past 
month has served as a remind-
er of the significance of my 
social identity as a U.S. citizen 
and a woman, the implications 
of which can be something I 
tend to take for granted.
Before attending the Uni-
versity of Michigan, I lived in 
Peru for a year, and my experi-
ences there left me with mixed 
emotions towards this part 
of my identity. At times, I was 
grateful for being born in the 
U.S. and all the advantages the 
“lottery of birth” had bestowed 
upon me. At other times, I 
wished I was not at all associat-
ed with the U.S. because of the 
negative reactions I would get 
from people when they realized 
my citizenship. Peru was a long 
time ago and I never really real-
ized how important my identity 
as a U.S. citizen was in shaping 
my experience abroad until I 
returned to South America once 
again for a three-month intern-
ship in Chile.
My Spanish was much bet-
ter this time around when I 
arrived in Chile than it was 
when I first arrived in Peru, so 
I blended in better and was able 
to even pass as Chilean at times. 
Now, when I see other tourists 
or people passing through who 
speak in poor Spanish with 

heavy American accents, I find 
myself making assumptions 
about them as well. I have been 
there and I understand the dif-
ficulty of trying to survive in a 
foreign country with a different 
language and culture, but I also 
understand why I stood out as 
a foreigner so much during my 
first few months in Peru. I am 
still the same girl from Min-
nesota, but I also feel like the 
language and culture of South 
America are becoming greater 
parts of my identity as well—so 
much so that it is hard for me 
to identify with travelers from 
North America who I happen 
to meet in passing. This new 
realization is exciting for me 
as I can honestly say that I am 
fully assimilated here in South 
America and that I even feel at 
home.
One big difference between 
my time in Peru and my time 
in Chile is that here in Chile I 
am not reminded constantly 
of my identity as a woman as 
I was in Peru, due to a variety 
of different reasons. In Peru, 
I was always cautioned about 
leaving the house alone and was 
often harassed on the streets, 
at university and, at times, at 
home because I was a woman. 
One of the cultural norms in 
Peru is that women, especially 
younger women, do not leave 
the house except to go to school 
or if they are accompanied by a 

male. This norm is not without 
grounds as gender violence 
towards women is a huge 
issue in Peru, as in many parts 
of South America, and most 
parents see preventing their 
daughters from leaving the 
house as a way to protect them. 
Women are also expected to 
contribute more in terms of 
chores. They cook, clean, wash 
the laundry and often take 
care of their younger siblings. 
However, teen boys spend their 
time out with friends and are 
hardly ever required to help 
with housework, and they are 
expected to act macho or “like a 
man.” Boys in their early teen-
age years have more freedom 
than some women have in their 
entire lifetime. I was very for-
tunate to have incredible host 
moms in all my host families 
who made it possible for me 
to have more freedom during 
my time in Peru by advocating 
for me at my university and at 
home, an advantage that many 
fellow female exchange stu-
dents and Peruvian friends did 
not have. As someone who grew 
up in an environment in which 
I always felt I was treated as 
equal to men, living in a place 
in which your sex very much 
defines you was an unpleasant 
shock that left me angry and 
even scared at times.

ETHAN KESSLER | COLUMN

 EMMA CHANG
Editorial Page Editor
EMMA RICHTER
Managing Editor

Emma Chang
Joel Danilewitz
Samantha Goldstein
Elena Hubbell
Emily Huhman
Tara Jayaram

Jeremy Kaplan
Sarah Khan
Magdalena Mihaylova
Ellery Rosenzweig
Jason Rowland

Anu Roy-Chaudhury
Alex Satola
Ali Safawi
 Ashley Zhang
Sam Weinberger

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.

ASIF BECHER
Editor in Chief

EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS

KATHRYN TESKE| WOLVERINES ABROAD

To travel means to never stop learning

Kathryn Teske can be reached at 

katmate@umich.edu.

Defaulting on leadership

Continue reading on page 5.

