O
n Sept. 14, incumbent
Andrew
Cuomo
defeated
progressive
challenger and Emmy award-
winning actress Cynthia Nixon
in the New York gubernatorial
Democratic primary election,
garnering nearly two-thirds
of the total vote. This was by
no means a shocking result.
The RealClearPolitics polling
average projected Cuomo to
win by 38.5 percent — his
actual margin of victory was
about 31.2 percent. Despite
Nixon technically exceeding
expectations, a Cuomo victory
unfortunately
seemed
from
the outset like a foregone
conclusion.
Nixon’s loss was portrayed
as
a
huge
blow
to
the
progressive movement in the
mainstream
media
—
and
they’re not entirely wrong.
Of course, she ran to win and
that did not happen. However,
to assert her candidacy was
totally in vain because of this
reality is to fail to understand
the extent of her impact and
political footprint.
The same night of Nixon’s
election loss, six progressive
candidates were able to topple
Independent
Democratic
Conference incumbents in New
York state Senate primaries.
These
corporatist,
out-of-
touch, so-called “Democrats”
were given a wake-up call
and a taste of where the base
is at these days. They are
tired of Republican-lite. The
progressives
won
because
people want real, substantive,
positive change.
They also won because of
Nixon. Though she was not able
to secure victory in her race,
she served as the flagbearer
for progressivism in New York
this primary season. In doing
so, she was able to change the
state’s political landscape. Her
influence is largely to thank for
these state Senate victories.
Nixon, giving a celebrity
platform to this policy set,
helped to double voter turnout.
It also served as the extra push
needed to carry down-ballot
progressives to victory. Also,
in what became dubbed the
“Cynthia Effect,” she was able
to persuade Cuomo to adopt
elements of her platform that
he previously opposed.
Seeing the immense energy
Nixon was raising among base
members, Cuomo saw no choice
but to try to steal her cadence
in order to maintain stamina.
For example, despite standing
firmly against it during his
entire political career, Cuomo
came out in favor of legalizing
marijuana this election cycle
— a position held not just by
Nixon but also by about two-
thirds of all Americans.
Criminal
justice
reform
was one of the focus points
of
Nixon’s
campaign.
Her
platform included ending cash
bail, solitary confinement and
the prosecution of children
as adults. In response, Cuomo
announced a plan of his own
to restore voting rights to
parolees.
Though
Cuomo
doesn’t
go nearly as far as she does,
Nixon’s bold policy proposals
did,
in
fact,
pull
Cuomo
leftward. By being principled
and steadfast, Nixon forced
Cuomo to meet her in the
middle. Keep doing this and
what is now referred to as “the
insurgency” will become the
new mainstream.
We
saw
similar
thing
instances
occur
with
Abdul
El-Sayed’s
Michigan
gubernatorial
campaign.
Though he was unable to clinch
the Democratic nomination,
his candidacy still had an effect
insofar as moving the party
leftward. In response to the
energy stirred up by El-Sayed’s
campaign, Gretchen Whitmer,
the establishment candidate
and eventual nominee, chose
solid
progressive
Garlin
Gilchrist II as her running
mate. Let us not mince words:
Had El-Sayed not run, this pick
would not have happened.
El-Sayed was also extremely
popular with young people. His
campaign had a huge presence
on college campuses throughout
the
state.
He
successfully
mobilized the next generation of
voters and was able to introduce
a traditionally apathetic age
group into the political process.
There are countless other
examples of “failed” progressive
campaigns
that
nonetheless
had a positive impact on the
race as a whole. There are also
now
countless
examples
of
progressive wins — New York
House
candidate
Alexandria
Ocasio-Cortez, Michigan House
candidate Rashida Tlaib and
Flordia gubernatorial candidate
Andrew
Gillum
are
just
a
handful that come to mind.
These wins should not come as
a surprise.
Simply
put,
progressive
ideas are popular. For example,
70
percent
of
Americans
support Medicare for all and
66 percent support raising the
minimum wage to $10.10 per
hour. This is populism in the
truest sense of the word.
Losing is never easy, but
progressives need to come to
grips with the fact that they are
not the establishment. Though
they
have
made
fantastic
strides over the past few years,
this is still a movement in
the building phase. Failures
and obstacles are inevitable,
but any progressive run for
office, regardless of electoral
success, is an act of moving
the Democratic Party in the
right direction — away from
corporatism
and
toward
fulfilling the will of the masses.
The point in all of this is to
say to progressives that, if you
are considering running for
office, do it. While electoral
success is clearly the intended
goal, do not let the thought of
losing discourage you. To run,
regardless
of
the
outcome,
is
to
do
the
movement,
and
more
importantly
the
country, an immense service.
to do the movement, and more
importantly the country, an
immense service.
Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4 — Thursday, September 20, 2018
Emma Chang
Ben Charlson
Joel Danilewitz
Samantha Goldstein
Emily Huhman
Tara Jayaram
Jeremy Kaplan
Lucas Maiman
Magdalena Mihaylova
Ellery Rosenzweig
Jason Rowland
Anu Roy-Chaudhury
Alex Satola
Ali Safawi
Ashley Zhang
Sam Weinberger
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
HANNAH HARSHE | COLUMN
The case for vegan pumpkin spice
I
always
try
to
write
my
column
with
the
utmost
composure
and
professionalism,
but
today
I
just
can’t
do
that.
It’s
late
September,
we’re
approaching
week four of college
football season, the
trees are bound to
start shedding their
leaves any moment
now.
If
you
can’t
guess it already, I
want a pumpkin spice
latte! What’s the point of fall if
you can’t have a PSL?
To summarize the above
rant: Starbucks, bring vegan
pumpkin spice lattes to the
United
States.
Please.
I’m
begging you.
For those of you who choose
to spend your time focusing on
more substantive global issues,
I’ll give you the rundown.
In early 2003, a small team
gathered
in
the
Starbucks
“Liquid Lab” sampling forkfuls
of pumpkin pie and sips of
espresso. In that fateful room,
the Pumpkin Spice Latte was
born, the drink that has come
to embody crisp leaves, cozy
sweaters and all things fall.
Part of the perfection of
this recipe, however, was the
pumpkin spice sauce. Most
Starbucks flavored lattes, such
as vanilla lattes and caramel
macchiatos, involve a syrup.
These syrups are completely
dairy-free, so most drinks at
Starbucks can easily be made
vegan by swapping out the
dairy milk for almond milk,
soy milk or coconut milk.
Even their mochas and hot
chocolates can be made vegan
using this method! This has
made
Starbucks
a
popular
destination for vegans and
dairy intolerant customers for
a long time.
However,
the
pumpkin
spice latte uses a sauce instead
of a syrup, which supposedly
makes
it
heavier,
like
a
mouthful of pumpkin pie. This
sauce
contains
condensed
skim
milk,
meaning
even if a dairy-free
customer asks for
a
pumpkin
spice
latte with soy milk
instead
of
dairy
milk,
the
drink
will still contain
dairy in the sauce.
Essentially,
it’s
impossible
for
a
customer to order a dairy-free
version of this drink.
In 2003, when the drink
debuted, the dairy ingredient
may not have posed a problem.
However, in the past 15 years,
our
culture
has
changed
drastically. The overall dairy
alternatives
market
was
estimated at about $7.4 billion
in 2016 and is projected to
extend to about $14.4 billion
by
2022,
increasing
at
a
compound annual growth rate
of 11.7 percent. In addition,
sales of total conventional
fluid milk products decreased
6.2 percent from 2016 to 2017,
and estimated sales of total
organic fluid milk products
decreased 5.6 percent from
a year earlier. Basically, the
market is begging for milk
alternatives.
To understand just how
milk-averse our culture is
becoming, look at the non-
dairy
ice
cream
industry.
When I stopped consuming
dairy in 2015, I was hard-
pressed to find ice cream to
eat. I could find dairy-free
sorbet
pretty
easily,
and
certain health brands carried
dairy-free
products
that
were called “ice cream” but
tasted certainly didn’t like
it. That was about it. Today,
I’m amazed by how large
the market has grown. I can
walk into Meijer and find
almost every ice cream brand
in the store has at least a few
flavors that don’t contain
dairy.
Likewise,
most
ice
cream parlors in downtown
Ann Arbor and even in the
small towns I’ve visited carry
some non-dairy options. Most
importantly, it tastes like
ice cream. My friends who
still consume dairy (though
they are becoming rarer and
rarer) admit they can’t taste
the difference between dairy
ice cream and non-dairy ice
cream.
In 2013, someone started a
petition called “Please Make
The Pumpkin Spice Latte
Vegan.” This petition, which
is now closed, has 11,631
supporters. Five years ago,
before the vegan craze hit
our culture, there was a clear
demand for vegan pumpkin
spice lattes.
Progress is being made,
let’s
be
clear.
This
year
Starbucks announced vegan
pumpkin spice lattes would be
made available across several
European countries. This is
great news, but I have two
major problems with it. The
first problem is I don’t live in
Europe. The second problem
is North America is projected
has the fastest growing non-
dairy market. Why is Europe
the go-to location to launch
vegan pumpkin spice lattes?
This
fall,
I
have
two
wishes. The first is for the
University of Michigan to
beat Ohio State University,
and the second is to enjoy a
Pumpkin Spice Latte. One of
these goals should be easily
attainable if the right people
decide they want to make it
happen. To the team at the
Starbucks Liquid Lab: Are
you listening?
Not all is lost
The Accountable Capitalism Act could go further
ERIK NESLER | COLUMN
A
little over a month ago,
Sen. Elizabeth Warren,
D-Mass.,
introduced
the Accountable Capitalism Act
to Congress. The introduction
of the bill made tidal waves in
the media after she described
its purpose in an eye-opening
Op-Ed published by the Wall
Street Journal.
Warren used the Op-Ed to
write about the stark wealth
inequality
throughout
the
United
States.
She
claims
(rightly so) the private sector has
directly caused and perpetuated
this inequality by always acting
to maximize shareholder returns
— an idea made famous by
conservative economist Milton
Friedman in the 1970s.
This idea that companies
exist
solely
to
maximize
shareholder returns has had
drastic effects on the broader
economy. Warren includes in
her piece that between 2007 and
2016, U.S. corporations dedicated
93 percent of their earnings
to shareholders. This transfer
of wealth further exacerbates
economic inequity when you
consider that the wealthiest 10
percent of U.S. households own
the vast majority (84 percent) of
American-held shares.
In addition, Warren writes
real wages have not realized
relative increases since this
ideology took hold in the late
20th century. Companies have
chosen to dedicate less and
less of their earnings to their
employees through pay raises —
instead choosing to distribute
wealth to shareholders in the
form of dividends and share buy-
backs.
Warren, fed up with this
unjust state of affairs, devised
a solution. Corporations with
more than $1 billion in annual
revenue would be required to
get a federal corporate charter
in addition to having a corporate
charter in the state where the
entity is incorporated. The new
charter would require directors
to consider the interests of all
major corporate stakeholders
when making major strategic
decisions. Directors would be
allowed to choose alternatives
(without fear of litigation) that
can potentially destroy value
— like choosing to allocate
earnings
toward
expanding
employee benefits or toward
some philanthropic venture.
She also wants employees
to elect at least 40 percent of
a company’s directors. This
would certainly give employees,
a stakeholder group that have
been historically marginalized
and forgotten, a stronger voice
in the decision-making process
companies must go through.
Warren’s
proposed
alterations to the way companies
conduct
themselves
would
make them more similar to B
Corporations. B Corporations
are for-profit companies that
are “legally required to consider
the impact of their decisions
on their workers, customers,
suppliers,
community,
and
the environment.” Businesses
can act with itheir conscience
without fear of repercussions
from their shareholders.
One of the most famous B
Corporations is Warby Parker,
the eyeglass-maker that donates
a pair of glasses to those in
need
with
every
purchase
and maintains carbon-neutral
production
and
distribution
activities.
Warby
Parker’s
co-founder Neil Blumenthal told
James Surowiecki of The New
Yorker, “We wanted to build
a business that could make
profits. But we also wanted to
build a business that did good
in
the
world.”
Blumenthal
continued, “Your ability to have
an impact on a large scale is just
greater in the for-profit world,
and that’s chiefly because of the
capital and the talent available
to you.”
Considering Warby Parker’s
immense success in the past
couple of years, it’s clear that
businesses can pursue profit
while
positively
impacting
society. As Blumenthal put it,
the private sector (as opposed
to the public sector) has the
capacity and potential to be a
force for good in our economy.
As I read through Warren’s
Op-Ed and learned more about
B
Corporations,
I
couldn’t
help but think of “A World of
Three Zeros” by Muhammad
Yunus — a book that I read this
summer. Yunus, like Warren, is
concerned with the increasing
wealth
concentration.
He
writes on its risk to society as a
whole: “(wealth concentration)
threatens
human
progress,
social cohesion, human rights,
and democracy.” As the wealth
gap
grows,
dissatisfaction
among
society
inevitably
deepens.
Yunus agrees with Warren
that capitalism — specifically
the idea that companies must
maximize shareholder value —
has led to the wealth disparity
experienced
throughout
the
world. He devises a different
solution, however.
Yunus
proposes
entrepreneurs
create
social
businesses
—
non-dividend
companies
dedicated
to
solving human problems. His
book
discusses
the
various
businesses he’s started that
provide goods or services which
benefit those most in need.
He writes extensively about
Grameen Bank, the bank he
founded to provide micro loans
(loans usually less than $100)
to impoverished villagers in
Bangladesh.
Social
businesses
are
unique because directors can
operate and make strategic
decisions without the burden
of being required to maximize
shareholder wealth. Investors
who
provide
capital
to
entrepreneurs starting these
businesses are able to get back
their initial investments (with a
given rate of return accounting
for the time value of money),
but nothing more. Any profits
generated by the business are
kept within the firm — either
given to employees or used to
expand the firm’s reach.
Yunus’
social
business
concept may seem farfetched
and
radical
now,
but
the
idea could (and should) be
commonplace in the future. The
private sector should be able
to produce handsome profits
without making the rich richer.
While Warren’s Accountable
Capitalism Act is a step in the
right direction, I believe the
private
sector
should
take
more drastic action (ideally on
their own) toward remedying
the devastating wealth gap in
today’s society.
Elias Khoury can be reached at
ekhoury@umich.edu.
Erik Nesler can be reached at
egnesler@umich.edu.
EMILY CONSIDINE | CONTACT EMILY AT EMCONSID@UMICH.EDU
It’s clear that
businesses can
pursue profit
while positively
impacting society
ELIAS KHOURY | COLUMN
The progressives
won because
people want
real, substantive,
positive change
HANNAH
HARSHE
Hannah Harshe can be reached at
hharshe@umich.edu.