100%

Scanned image of the page. Keyboard directions: use + to zoom in, - to zoom out, arrow keys to pan inside the viewer.

Page Options

Download this Issue

Share

Something wrong?

Something wrong with this page? Report problem.

Rights / Permissions

This collection, digitized in collaboration with the Michigan Daily and the Board for Student Publications, contains materials that are protected by copyright law. Access to these materials is provided for non-profit educational and research purposes. If you use an item from this collection, it is your responsibility to consider the work's copyright status and obtain any required permission.

September 27, 2018 - Image 4

Resource type:
Text
Publication:
The Michigan Daily

Disclaimer: Computer generated plain text may have errors. Read more about this.

W

ith
the
midterms
coming
up,
Republicans
have
an important question to ask
themselves:
Am
I
ok
with
President
Donald
Trump
becoming
the
next
Ronald
Reagan? Reagan reshaped the
Republican
Party’s
policies,
strategies
and
style
for
generations to come. Trump is on
course to do the same. This should
be a scary thought for everyone,
especially Republicans.
Trump enjoys a 93 percent
approval rating among voters who
identify as strongly Republican.
Yet many of Trump’s strongest
critics in the Republican Party
have left office, including 40
Republicans in Congress. The
Republican
primaries
have
been a success for Trump,
with 35 of the 37 Republicans
Trump endorsed victorious in
their respective elections. The
Republican National Committee
is run by a former Trump
campaign chief and has been
shaped in Trump’s image. Once
the source of ideas and policy
initiatives, the RNC, in pure
Trump style, now has a website
called LyinComey.com, which
has the sole purpose to attack
James Comey, former director
of the FBI. Polls of Republicans
show Trump is changing minds
in the party base. Once settled
issues in the court of Republican
opinion, tariffs and Vladimir
Putin’s role in the world are now
becoming increasingly positively
acceptedby
Republicans.
The
hope that Trump would be shaped
more by the establishment of the
party than vice-versa is dead.
You might be thinking Trump
should be considered a conservative
president because he’s passed some
conservative policies. But he’s too
inconsistent. He passes tax cuts
while embarking on a quixotic
protectionist
mission
against
China.
He
increases
military
spending while undermining the
alliance system that has been the
hallmark of U.S. security policy
since the end of World War II.
He supports Israel, but also anti-
Semites.
Trump is inconsistent because
he doesn’t have any normative or
moral compass. His only guidance
seems to come from considerations
of power. The organizing principle
of his trade policy is that we win
and our trade partners lose. He has
no problem attacking the media,
institutions, individuals or even his
own cabinet members if he thinks
it makes him look good. For Trump,
major decisions are a calculation of
power rather than principle. He’s a

drunk man’s Niccolò Machiavelli.
Trump’s
singular
obsession
with power is what makes him
fundamentally different than past
modern conservatives. Trump’s
view of American exceptionalism is
devoid of values.
Reagan’s brand of conservatism
saw America as a beacon for
freedom on the global stage and
a city on a hill for anyone who
sought freedom and opportunity.
Domestically, the party under
Reagan promoted smaller, more
efficient government and a free
market, which included free trade,
as to avoid hindering individual
ambition and innovation. But I’m
not arguing the Republican Party
or its values were perfect before
Trump.
There’s a reason Republicans
have long struggled to capture
minority votes. Illiberal populism
that deals in racism, sexism and
homophobia has existed on the

right to different degrees since
the Civil Rights Act. But the
Republican Party has had some
grand moments. I can name a few:
taking a decisive stance against the
Soviet Union, granting amnesty
to
3
million
undocumented
immigrants, rigorously upholding
a liberal international order which
promotes
human
rights
and
freedom and promoting free trade
around the world.
Even if you strongly oppose
these traditionally conservative
values, it’s still beneficial for
everyone that the Republican Party
has values to which it can be held
accountable. It’s important for
political parties to run on values
or ideas with policies that are as
consistent as possible. When they
don’t, elections tend to descend
from a clash of ideas to a clash of
tribal and cultural loyalties. Such
a clash of tribal loyalties will only
make our polarized political system
more fragmented.
Today, the Republican Party is
being reshaped. It’s being reshaped
to care only that America is strong
and that its enemies—which are
an ever-growing list of countries,
institutions
and
people—are
weak. It’s a party that terrorizes

migrant children by placing them
in detention centers and tries to
deport even those who have known
no home but America. It’s a party
that is cutting the number of legal
immigrants because it believes
people from certain backgrounds
have less to contribute. It’s a party
that doesn’t believe in free trade.
And who cares if dictatorships
and illiberal regimes spread across
the world? They want strong
friends, not morally upstanding
ones. To Trump’s Republican
Party,
defending
American
exceptionalism means upholding
sovereignty, borders and brute
strength rather than upholding
freedom, global prosperity and
human
rights.
Trump’s
view
of America is unexceptional. It
mirrors the way strongmen around
the world view their countries.
The midterms are a referendum
on Trump’s politics. A defeat of
Trump’s candidates could awaken
the establishment and the base
of the party. Republicans should
thus vote Democratic or not vote
at all. The fact is that Trump’s
politics are not a stable foundation
to base the future of the party.
Millennials will outnumber baby
boomers by 2019, and Trump and
his policies are very unpopular
among millennials. Trump relies
on nativist sentiment that speaks
to a white-majority nation. Before
2050, white Americans will not
be a majority. Even now, despite
Trump’s attack on immigrants
and
our
immigration
system,
most Americans see immigration
positively. Former State Secretary
Hillary Clinton won the popular
vote by 3 million while being a very
unpopular candidate during the
2016 election. What happens when
the Democrats find a charismatic
candidate again?
Many
Republicans
likely
support Trump and his views
because they think he’s better than
any Democrat would be. But such
dialectical thinking has limits.
What does Trump have to do for
that not to be true? Start a trade
war that will cost consumers and
could actually ruin Christmas?
He’s already done that. If you’re
a Republican reading this, the
next time people are outraged at
Trump, please think about what
our president has actually done.
Ask yourself, “Would I be okay
with Obama or Bush doing this?”
Only then can the Republican Party
reshape itself again, taking the best
of its previous foundations and
better adapting to the 21st century.

Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4A — Thursday, September 27, 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

ELLERY ROSENZWEIG | COLUMN

Hey, I’m a fat person
S

ifting through the sales rack, I
could hear her laughing closely
behind me as she organized
the clothing on hangers. When I asked
for a dressing room, she looked at the
yellow jumpsuit in my hand and gave
me an awkward smile. Staring at myself
in the mirror, I pulled the jumpsuit up
my legs and over my butt, noticing a
small hole. The jumpsuit was cute but
a little too tight, so I decided to return
it to the front counter. As I waited for
my friends to finish changing, I spent
some time looking at the jewelry. There,
I overheard the saleswoman ask her
manager, “What am I supposed to do
with this big hole?” She looked at me and
laughed again. I quickly looked down
at the earrings, trying my best to ignore
her. My friends finished paying and we
continued shopping down State Street.
Later that day, laying on my bed,
staring at the ceiling, I could not stop
thinking about the interaction with
this saleswoman. She made me feel
like there was something wrong with
me and brought back thoughts of
insecurity I had been fighting for so
long. I was angry she had the power
to make me feel bad. But then it came
to me: She’s just afraid. She is scared of
being fat. It made me feel bad for her.
As someone who identifies as being
a fat, curvy, tall person, I have been
fighting my internalized fatphobia for
as long as I can remember. I spent so
much time trying to be smaller because
believed if I was smaller, I would be
happy and love myself. But the truth
is no diet, workout plan or change in
weight has ever made me happier than
when I stopped fighting and started
accepting myself. My mindset did not
change all at once, but over time I have
had a fundamental shift in the way
I see my body and the other bodies
around me.
Last year, my roommate showed me
a YouTube channel called StyleLikeU

in which a mother and daughter
interviewed different models, artists and
activists about their styles and accepting
their bodies while they stripped down
to their underwear. After watching so
many of these videos, I was in awe of
how vulnerable the participants were
about sharing their stories and bodies.
I started searching for more videos of
activists like StyleLikeU hosts Iskra
Lawrence and Barbie Ferreira and
followed their Instagram accounts.
They led me to a greater community
of body-positive activists who were
using media platforms to combat diet
culture and fatphobia by uplifting each
other with bodies that challenge the
mainstream ideals of beauty.
With this whole new ideology
in mind and the support of an online
community, I began talking to my
friends who look and feel the way I
do about our experiences with our
bodies, beauty and shopping. We
share websites to buy clothes like
Fashion Nova Curve and ASOS. We
also support each other on difficult
days when we still struggle to accept
ourselves. Since the day with the
saleswoman, my friends have been
there reminding me why I am beautiful
exactly the way I am. But even with all
of this amazing support, I still live in a
world where people are afraid of those
who radically love themselves without
trying to change their bodies. I still have
to deal with doctors, family members
and strangers who think they know
more about my body than I do and are
worried about my health in relation to
my weight.
Last week, in my Bodies Studies
psychology seminar, I shared the body-
positive community on Instagram with
my class, hoping to help more people
find supportive accounts to follow like
one of my favorites, @bodyposipanda.
However, a classmate interrupted me
saying she thinks posts from activists

like Tess Holliday are problematic
because they perpetuate obesity and
she is worried about their health. It was
exactly what I had been preparing to
respond to, but I found myself at a loss
for words. I couldn’t stand up for myself
and advocate for my identity because I
felt targeted. But my badass graduate
student instructor saved the day and
shared some findings from an article
she read mentioning one’s weight is
not the only indicator of health, and we
cannot make these assumptions about
people’s bodies. I was lucky to have
her support when I couldn’t fight for
myself.
Now that there have been
more plus size and curve models in
mainstream campaigns for beauty
and clothing lines, it may look like our
society is comfortable with bigger-
bodied people; however, there is still
a lot of progress to be made with
representation. For example, the
Netflix show “Insatiable” had a fat
character, played by an actress in a fat
suit, who lost weight by having her
mouth wired shut, thus perpetuating
fatphobia. We need to see fat people
doing more than just dealing with
the fact that they are fat. We need to
see fat people living their lives and
having complex storylines. Also, there
is a movement in the body-positive
community for more representation of
fat men because most of the activists
and accounts are run by women.
This has been the hardest column
for me to write because bringing any
attention to my body has always been
negative. But I know by writing this, I
am helping myself own my fat, curvy
identity and creating a space for others
to think and unpack the false narratives
they have learned about fat people.

Republican strategy come November

Deborah Ramirez spoke out
earlier this week with the help
of a civil rights lawyer regarding
her experience of sexual assault
by Kavanaugh while they were
classmates
at
Yale
University.
On Tuesday, a third woman who
attended
high
school
nearby
Kavanaugh, accused the nominee of
sexual misconduct during a string of
high school parties.
The course of action before
the Senate should have been
clear: investigate these allegations
seriously and thoroughly before
elevating Kavanaugh for a lifetime
appointment to the nation’s highest
court. Yet Republicans in the majority
have sought to disregard or discredit
the seriousness of the matter. In
response to hearing rumors of the
second set of allegations, The New
Yorker reported Senate Republicans
chose to accelerate the confirmation
process rather than slow down and
allow Ramirez to tell her story. The
Senate Judiciary Committee even
chose to schedule Kavanaugh’s
nomination for Friday, thereby
assuming the testimony from Blasy-
Ford the day before will have no
effect on continuing the nomination
process.
As college students, we are
appalled. Senate Republicans, don’t
tell the Ramirezs and Kavanaughs
that walk among us today that
there is a statute of limitations on
one’s moral character. Yet, Senate
Republicans have chosen in their
actions to broadcast to the world
— and us — allegations of sexual
misconduct from a man’s past
should have no serious bearing on
his elevation to the nation’s highest

court. What does that say to the high
school students and college freshmen
across the country? The rhetoric,
from President Donald Trump in
particular, exudes a rationale and
sense of exception for both a young
Kavanaugh and Supreme Court
nominee Kavanaugh. But how can
we disregard the actions of one from
the other?
The
allegations
against
Kavanaugh bring into question the
standards surrounding the morality
and character we hold our officials
to. Yet, it is no longer acceptable
to only hold those in positions of
power accountable. The consistent
argument from Trump, Kavanaugh
and
other
Republican
officials
hinging on the time lag between
the public accusations and when
the events actually occurred brings
into question how we hold those our
age, those around us, accountable for
their actions.
On
a
campus
confronting
the same issues of sexual assault,
survivor care and dangerous party
culture, we need to hold our peers
to a standard of character. The dorm
party that becomes uncomfortable
and crosses a line, someone taking
advantage of another student at
that Welcome Week house party
and the inappropriate advances
happening next you at a bar – these
instances, not all that different from
the experiences the three women
underwent, happen all too often
on our campus. Yes, a conversation
and active change regarding how
we evaluate the character of the
men and women we put in office
is vital. But, if the Kavanaugh
accusations highlight anything, it is

that there is no expiration date for
the repercussions of our past actions.
There should be no acceptance,
regardless of age, position or
situation when it comes to sexual
assault.
Almost 30 years ago we had
an opportunity to set a precedent
for how we treat survivors. It was
hailed as a watershed moment,
but we ended up going backward.
Democratic senators treated Anita
Hill, Justice Clarence Thomas’s
sexual assault accuser, with outright
disdain and disrespect. The hearings
and investigations into Kavanaugh’s
conduct are an opportunity to set a
new precedent of respect, to bring
justice to the victims and to do
right by Hill and all those neglected
in the past. If Senate Republicans
choose to continue the course of
plowing ahead with Kavanaugh’s
nomination, it becomes imperative
we exercise our right to hold officials
accountable and go out and vote. If
you would want the alleged sexual
assaulter sitting next to you properly
investigated, make sure nominees to
the highest court in the nation are
too.

Aaron Baker can be reached at

aaronbak@umich.edu.

Do you love to debate today’s

important issues? Do you want your

voice heard? We hold twice-weekly

Editorial Board meetings at our

newsroom at 420 Maynard St. in Ann

Arbor, where we discuss local, state

and national issues relevant to campus.

We meet Mondays and Wednesdays

from 7:15 p.m. to 8:45 p.m.

Learn more about how to join

Editboard here.

FROM THE DAILY

Our eyes are on the Senate

T

his week, two new sexual assault allegations against Supreme Court
nominee Brett Kavanaugh surfaced. As of Wednesday, three women
have come forward with allegations against the potential candidate
for one of the most important seats in our government. Last week, Christine
Blasey Ford, a professor at Palo Alto University, went public with a disturbing
incident that occurred while her and Kavanaugh were at a high school party.

AARON BAKER | COLUMN

Ellery Rosenzweig can be reached at

erosenz@umich.edu.

T

hough it’s been more than
20 years since marijuana
legalization
became
popular in the ballots, the Green
Wolverine
Science
Symposium
marks the first student-organized
cannabis science conference in
University of Michigan history.
Among the seemingly endless
opinions regarding approval and
legalization of cannabis, there
remains truth in scientific research,
and this event intends to highlight
the
latest,
groundbreaking
advancements from some of the
country’s leading cannabis experts.
It will diplomatically challenge
the student body’s knowledge of a
stigmatized topic, and it will do so
without telling us how to think.
The symposium was planned
in anticipation of the vote on
the
Marijuana
Legalization
Initiative in Michigan’s Nov.
6
election.
The
proposal
would allow adults 21 years
old and older to possess and
use cannabis under state law.
Legalization of both medical
and recreational marijuana has
been eagerly rising as many
states have already passed some
form of legislation in support of
the plant. It’s time for Michigan
folks to decide if cannabis
will be legal for recreational
use in the mitten, and student
organization Green Wolverine,
the symposium’s host, wants to
educate the Ann Arbor masses.

With the core purpose of
informing students and rebuking
prevalent
misconceptions,
the event is not meant to sway
minds one way or another.
Green Wolverine Founder Adam
Rosenberg, a Business senior,
says the symposium was put
together solely to objectively
educate
and
help
facilitate
informed decisions.
“We are not saying that
people
should
or
shouldn’t
use
cannabis,”
Rosenberg
explained. “We are going to
present the information as it
exists in current science and
allow people to come to their
own decisions based on that.”
Green
Wolverine,
a
Ross
School
of
Business
club,
focuses on the educational and
networking opportunities within
the
legal,
multibillion-dollar
cannabusiness industry. Though
laws surrounding the industry
are currently ambiguous, legal
businesses are rapidly populating
the cannabis market. Rosenberg
recognized
marijuana
as
a
business prospect is plagued by
stigmatization, resulting in its
exclusion from a standard business
education. Rosenberg spotted the
opportunity his sophomore year
at the Ross School of Business and
started Green Wolverine to take
advantage of the industry’s rapid
growth. The club does not take a
political stance and, according to

its mission, directs attention only
to business opportunities that are
entirely legal.
Now, we know there have been
grand displays of student activism
in the past: In March 1970, a four-
day environmental teach-in at
the University raised awareness
and harnessed the passion that
resulted in the first Earth Day just
one month later. In 1965, University
of California, Berkeley students
organized the largest Vietnam
teach-in, publicizing the truth
about the war and making it easier
for students to learn what’s going
on in the world around them. I
recognize demonstrations about
war are distinguishable from those
about drugs — however, similar
to these teach-ins, the Green
Wolverine Science Symposium is
anything but a protest, making it a
unique demonstration. Rosenberg
agreed.
“This
is
not
a
political
statement, this isn’t trying to
change anyone’s opinion,” he said
regarding the symposium. Like
its activism ancestors in their
respective fields, the symposium
is the first of its kind in the realm
of cannabis.

JULIA MONTAG | COLUMN

A fresh approach to student activism

Read more at MichiganDaily.com

Julia Montag can be reached at

jtmon@umich.edu.

Trump is
inconsistent
because he doesn’t
have any moral
compass

Back to Top

© 2024 Regents of the University of Michigan