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.

