R

ecently, with the marked 
radicalization 
of 
U.S. 
politics, 
the 
discussion 
of socialism has resurfaced as an 
actual governmental solution for the 
problems facing the United States. In 
fact, just the other day, I was walking 
across the Diag at the University of 
Michigan and a large banner read that 
“capitalism has failed” and “socialism 
has the answer.” Initially, I had just 
scoffed at it, thinking of it as just 
another one of those socialist “seize 
the means of production” memes. But 
when I looked into it, I realized this 
was an actual problem.
According 
to 
a 
Harvard 
Institute of Politics poll in 
spring 2016, 33 percent of the 
18 to 29-year-old respondents 
supported 
socialism 
and 
a 
startling 
51-percent 
majority 
did not support capitalism. The 
Chicago Tribune cited a study in 
which 44 percent of the young 
respondents would prefer living 
in a socialist country. Obviously, 
there was something that was 
changing the political dynamics 
of the millennial generation, so 
I set out to look at some of the 
major points made by those in 
support of socialism and dissect 
why some of my peers had begun 
to lean so far left.
Desire for economic equality 
was the most frequently cited 
reason for support. As stated by 
Anthony Giddens in The Class 
Structures 
of 
the 
Advanced 
Studies, socialist societies cause 
the “disappearance of classes.” 
Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., used 
this argument frequently in his 
attacks on the top 1 percent. But 
I question, is income inequality 
really that big of an issue?
When 
an 
economy 
is 
restructured such that it is 
socialist — as defined by Merriam 
Webster dictionary — “a system 
or condition of society in which 
the means of production are 
owned and controlled by the 
state.” (It’s worth noting that 
there are many other definitions 
out there, yet this seems to be the 
most widely accepted). As such, 
there is no freedom of choice 
in your labor. It is by default 
owed to the state. Because of 
this, there is no free market in 
which supply is meeting demand. 
Rather, people don’t have many 
options in purchasing a good 
and are forced to pay others for 
work they may — and perhaps 
even society as a whole — find 
unnecessary. 
In 
this 
sense, 
socialism actually suppresses an 
individual’s freedom to choose 
how they want to live.
For example, consider I have 

a lemonade stand in the Upper 
Peninsula. When it gets cold 
outside, I will not get very many 
customers. Because of this, I will 
be forced to close my shop and 
find another endeavor that will 
cater to the market so I can make 
money. I make a choice to provide 
for the whims of society for my 
own survival. If I go against 
the market, there is decreased 
demand for my product and I 
will not earn as much. However, 
in a socialist economy, the 
government owns the means 
of production for my lemonade 
shop. The government defines 
what the market needs, and as 
such, defines when and which 
type of lemonade an individual 
can consume.
By doing this, the government 
forces a redistribution of wealth 
in the population — something 
that has gained a lot of support 
recently. But this is largely 
immoral, and here’s why. Using 
the same metaphor, imagine 
I have invented a new type of 
lemonade that not only tastes 
great but is also very healthy. 
Suddenly, as a result of my hard 
work, there is a lot of demand 
for my product and I become 
part of the 1 percent. Then, the 
government comes by and says I 
shouldn’t be allowed to be making 
that much money because there 
are people who are making much 
less than I am. As a result, they 
redistribute my added wealth to 
the poor, deciding for me how 
much money I need.
The money that I got from 
selling the lemonade, however, 
is money I earned. Blatantly 
taking it from me on the pretense 
of equity is theft. Now, I’m not 
saying there shouldn’t be taxes. 
There are things — public goods 
— that the government provides 
and for which it should charge 
me, such as the military, police, 
etc. But I don’t, in any way, owe 
my money to those under the 
poverty line. I did not steal from 
them to get rich — I made the 
money entirely on my own.
Perhaps a more dangerous side 
effect of this idea of equity in 
wealth is a lack of competition. 
If I knew I, as a lemonade maker, 
would make the same amount 
of money no matter what I did, 
would I have decided to innovate 
and create that better tasting, 
healthy 
lemonade? 
Probably 
not. I would have done the 
bare minimum, as there was no 
incentive for me to do any better. 
I would get paid the same. This 
is perhaps the greatest aspect 
of capitalism. A free market 

means that there will always 
be competition, and therefore 
innovation. 
Without 
a 
free 
market, Jeff Bezos would not 
have had the incentive to create 
Amazon. Nor would Larry Page 
and Sergey Brin have created 
Google.
Obviously, the example of 
the lemonade stand was an 
oversimplification 
of 
a 
very 
complex 
economy. 
However, 
the basic principles that drive 
its existence in a capitalist 
and socialist society still hold 
true. There’s a reason why 
the standard of living in the 
United 
States 
has 
increased 
so dramatically over the last 
few decades. There’s a reason 
why the Heritage Foundation 
reports that “62 percent of 
‘poor’ households own a car,” 
with 
“poor” 
operationalized 
as “anyone with ‘cash income’ 
less than the official poverty 
threshold.” There’s a reason why 
the United States leads the rest 
of the world in scientific and 
technological innovation.
So, to answer my previous 
question, 
no. 
I 
don’t 
think 
income inequality is something 
we need to be very concerned 
about. A study by the Brookings 
Institution said of Americans who 
have at least finished high school, 
got a full-time job and waited 
until age 21 to get married and 
have children, only 2 percent are 
in poverty and nearly 75 percent 
are in the middle class. Just those 
three things. As long as every 
individual has equal opportunity 
in being able to do those things, 
the resulting inequality is of 
little matter. All people should 
feel capable of being able to 
move between classes if they 
work toward it. In this sense, 
inequality is actually a positive 
force, creating competition and 
thereby 
providing 
incentives 
for individuals to work toward 
benefiting human society. The 
market 
will 
simply 
reward 
individuals 
based 
on 
their 
contributions to it.
This is not to say that we have 
reached that point yet. There 
are obviously many flaws in the 
United States that prevent equal 
access to some basic institutions. 
To solve these issues, there are 
two approaches: one that uses 
the government more and one 
that doesn’t. Both are very valid 
approaches, about which debate 
is warranted.

Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4 — Tuesday, October 23, 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

ERIN WHITE | COLUMN

Put the act in activism
W

hen social media rose 
in popularity in the 
early 2000s, it was 
difficult to imagine it would have 
the influence in our lives that it 
currently does. The connectivity, 
creation of personal platforms and 
ability of the everyday person to 
share information and ideas almost 
instantaneously has created a new 
level of public discourse that is 
historically unimaginable. With a 
simple Wi-Fi connection, anyone 
is able to publicly present their 
opinions, call for change or engage 
with national leaders and public 
figures. And with this new power 
of the people, it would be difficult 
to deny the effect of social media 
campaigns in our current social and 
political climate, especially those 
with such widespread support for 
#NeverAgain and #MeToo. These 
movements have led to pervasive 
demonstrations across the country, 
especially among young people. 
Incited and motivated by students 
following the Parkland shooting 
on Feb. 14, #NeverAgain led to 
national 
protests 
in 
American 
schools on March 14. #MeToo has 
been exposing stories of sexual 
harassment and assault primarily 
on social media since actress Alyssa 
Milano’s use of the hashtag in fall 
2017. This brought it to the forefront 
of American social movements, 
despite its 2006 creation by activist 
Tarana Burke. Social media has 
the power to both create and 
revive topics of social and political 
importance.

The hashtag itself has become a 
popular symbol of support, standing 
before some of the most pressing 
issues of our time. By searching 
through hashtags, social media users 
are able to see a full thread of people 
discussing what they are interested 
in. They are able to join in by posting 
opinions or stories, sharing those of 
others or engaging in conversation 
with those who both agree and 
dissent. There is a connectivity never 
before available that spreads the 
ideas of our nation across state lines 
almost immediately.
And with the most recent 
political trouble of Justice Brett 
Kavanaugh’s 
Supreme 
Court 
confirmation, social media again has 
been an important way for citizens 
to debate, present opinions, or clarify 
details and facts. These movements 
are guided even further into the 
limelight through the support of 
celebrities and users with large 
followings, as evident from the 
plethora of celebrity commentary 
regarding Kavanaugh. Entertainers 
Ellen DeGeneres, Chelsea Handler, 
Ava DuVernay, Amy Schumer and 
countless others have posted their 
support for Christine Blasey Ford 
and America’s women following 
this appointment, but one strong 
emphasis has been made among 
many 
of 
these 
statements 
of 
sympathy and the need for action: 
Vote.
While 
social 
media 
is 
undoubtedly 
a 
great 
platform 
to spread information and gain 
support for political and social 

issues, this does not directly equate 
to consistent action. Retweeting 
an infographic or powerfully-
written thread on Twitter can 
make someone feel as if they are 
engaged in our nation’s politics, but 
in reality, social media is frequently 
used as a passive form of activism. 
Despite social media’s usefulness 
in movements, this activism — 
referred to as slacktivism — can 
oftentimes end with a simple 
share. Agreeing with something 
and posting a brief opinion about 
it does not always materialize into 
something actionable. Social media 
users, especially those who were 
raised in the age of social media and 
are accustomed to being bombarded 
with 
a 
constant 
stream 
of 
information, can treat movements 
like trends. While everyone else 
is posting about a topic, they feel 
as though they should too. Social 
media encompasses vast amounts 
of social pressure, and many users 
follow these trends to keep in tune 
with the landscape of their favorite 
social networking sites. It’s the 
basis of their newsfeed for the 
week surrounding the event, but 
when the timeline starts returning 
to its original mix of news and 
personal updates, so does their 
real-life concern about the issue. 
Slacktivism.

Socialism is not the answer

ADITHYA SANJAY | COLUMN

Erin White can be reached at 

ekwhite@umich.edu

Adithya Sanjay can be reached at 

asanjay@umich.edu.

MARGOT LIBERTINI | COLUMN

Can Dems ever beat the system?
W

ith the 2018 midterm 
elections fewer than 
three 
weeks 
away, 
experts find the Democrats have a 
higher chance of winning back the 
House of Representatives than the 
Senate. Senate and House candidates 
are running in the same country 
with the same problems and political 
climate — why is there a six in seven 
chance Democrats can win back 
the House but only two in nine for 
the Senate? One reason is that there 
aren’t nearly as many Republican 
Senate seats up for election as there 
are Democratic seats. This certainly 
accounts for some of the disparity in 
chances, but there is also a much more 
fundamental component working 
against the Democrats — one that 
should be even more of an impetus 
for soul-searching than the 2016 
election. The Senate systematically 
favors the voices of Americans in 
less-populated states over those in 
densely-populated urban centers.
This is because of the Great 
Compromise. If you cannot seem to 
recall the details of that agreement 
from AP U.S. History, I’ll give a 
quick overview: In drafting the 
Constitution, delegates from different 
states had varied ideas about how 
best to form the most “perfect union.” 
A large controversy — one that nearly 
prevented the Constitution from ever 
being ratified — was deciding whether 
to choose the New Jersey Plan or 
the Virginia plan. The New Jersey 
Plan proposed that each state would 
be granted equal representation 
in the federal legislative body, 
despite differences in population. 
The 
Virginia 
Plan 
proposed 
that representation be based on 
population, so more populated states 
would be given more votes than less 
populated ones. Rather than choose 
one plan, the framers decided to have 
a bicameral legislature — one house 
(House of Representatives) would be 
given representation proportional to 
population and the other (the Senate) 
would have two representatives from 

each state, regardless of population 
size.
But the two legislative bodies 
aren’t necessarily equal in power or 
purview — for example, the Senate 
has the power to ratify treaties and 
confirm presidential appointees. So, 
the house with equal representation 
amongst states is more powerful 
than the one that would favor 
more populated states. This sounds 
fair, but if we focus on the voices 
of individuals rather than states, 
the house that disproportionately 
represents individuals from less 
populated states holds much more 
power than that which represents 
individual 
voices 
more 
evenly. 
The population distribution of the 
country has drastically changed 
since the 18th century — only one in 
five Americans lives in a rural area 
today. This has huge implications for 
the representativeness of the Senate. 
States containing only 17 percent 
of the U.S. population could have a 
majority in the Senate on their own. 
In a modern context, the Senate 
was responsible for confirming 
the most recent Supreme Court 
nominee, Justice Brett Kavanaugh. 
The majority that confirmed him, 51 
senators, represented only 44 percent 
of the United States population.
Because the Senate is such a 
powerful political institution and it is 
constructed in a manner that favors 
the population within less populated 
states, it is imperative that both major 
parties have a strong presence in 
these states. Democrats tend to excel 
in more urban, densely-populated 
areas though, while Republicans are 
favored in rural areas, and this divide 
is only becoming more salient. Many 
experts theorize that this divide 
is born out of the contemporary 
“culture wars” — an ongoing battle 
between 
“traditional” 
American 
values and the multiculturalism and 
progressivism of the left. I am not 
equipped with the research to affirm 
or disavow that idea. It certainly holds 
some amount of explanatory power, 

though a single story rarely provides 
a holistic picture. And as hard as 
red-state Democrats have tried to 
stay away from centering culturally-
relevant 
issues, 
they 
inevitably 
arise and find their way into the 
conversation.
For 
example, 
Sen. 
Heidi 
Heitkamp, D-North Dakota, is 
fighting an uphill battle in her 
re-election campaign, and her 
support of Brett Kavanaugh proved 
to be harmful to her poll numbers. 
There is a strong chance she would 
have lost enthusiasm among her 
base had she voted the other way, 
though. This instance feels like a 
microcosm of Democrats’ larger 
identity crisis: Their base is simply 
too densely packed to win in our 
system, but straying from the base’s 
priorities might cause that base 
to become disillusioned with the 
party and the democratic process in 
general. 
Thus, the Democrats are in a 
bind, and they will be until they 
find a message powerful enough 
to break through the urban-rural 
divide. 
The 
electoral 
system 
is replete with un-democratic 
institutions like the Senate, the 
electoral college, gerrymandering 
and systemic voter suppression. 
The latter two have made their way 
into the mainstream Democratic 
fight, (and they’re on the ballot in 
the form of Proposal 2 and 3 for 
Michigan voters this November! 
Remember to vote, because we can 
work toward change in our system!) 
but the electoral college tends to 
be viewed in a similar vein as the 
Senate: It is an institution so deeply 
ingrained into our system that any 
attempt at changing it feels like a 
futile battle. As long as that is the 
attitude, Democrats must focus on 
overcoming the divide if they have 
any hope of gaining federal power.

Margot Libertini can be reached at 

mlibertini@umich.edu.

DANA PIERANGELI | COLUMN

The issue that was #NeverAgain talked about
R

emember back in February 
when we had the school 
shooting in Parkland and 
we started having protests because 
people were mad that, you know, kids 
were dying? Yeah, remember that? 
Do you also remember how nothing 
actually changed? Well, now is the 
time to fix that. 
With midterm elections just 
around the corner, it’s time to recall 
these issues that seem to fade into 
the background a month after they 
happen and actually do something 
about it. The first question is: What do 
we do?
We know why some form of 
gun control is necessary. Kids are 
dying from a lack of regulation on 
dangerous weapons. I’m not going 
to waste too much time trying to 
convince anyone who doesn’t think 
the Second Amendment is outdated, 
seeing as it was written over 200 years 
ago when guns shot one bullet at a 
time, and that laws can and should be 
changed because that’s just common 
sense. Considering things like slavery 
were legal and women and African-
Americans didn’t have the right to vote 
in the original Constitution, I’m sure 
we can all agree that some change 
truly is good.
There are plenty of ways to 
deal with the current issue of gun 
control. One common idea is stricter 
background checks. According to 
The Trace, current background 
checks are riddled with loopholes 
and typically take only minutes, 
and just 2 percent end in rejection. 
With the NRA controlling gun sales 
with little effective government 
regulation, guns can easily fall into 
dangerous hands. According to CNN, 
universal background checks have 
been associated with a 39-percent 
reduction in death, and federal laws 
expanding background checks have 
been predicted to reduce the death 

rate by 57 percent. Implementing 
these changes would take very little 
away from gun enthusiasts and would 
simply make the process safer.
Also on the table are mandatory 
trainings, practice times, waiting 
periods and first and second-level 
licensing, making acquiring a gun 
similar to a driver’s license. This, paired 
with making assault weapons and 
bump stocks, which are attachments 
that allow semi-automatic weapons to 
act as fully automatic weapons, illegal 
gives us much more comprehensive 
gun laws that could lead to fewer 
incidents such as Parkland.
Now that the midterm elections 
are upon us, these ideas finally have a 
chance to see the light of day, or should 
I say, the eyes of Congress. This is our 
first chance since Parkland to really 
voice our opinions on this crisis in a 
direct, consequential way. Many of us 
participated in marches and protests 
in the wake of the Parkland shooting, 
calling for these changes, among 
others, which is fantastic. Protesting 
is a great way to generate support for 
an issue. But no matter how many 
protests you go to, if you don’t actually 
vote for the change you’re marching 
for, no change will come.
In the coming weeks, look for 
candidates that support stricter gun 
control laws. In the race for Senate, 
Sen. Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich., 
supports 
banning 
high-capacity 
magazines with more than 10 bullets, 
and prohibiting foreign and U.N. aid 
that restricts U.S. gun ownership. She 
opposes allowing firearms in checked 
baggage on Amtrak trains, prohibiting 
lawsuits against gun manufacturers, 
banning 
lawsuits 
against 
gun 
manufacturers for gun violence and 
decreasing gun waiting period from 
three days to one.
Likewise, Green Party candidate 
Marcia Squier supports graduated 
licensing, training for guns and 

universal background checks. In 
contrast, 
Republican 
candidate 
John James considers the Second 
Amendment the be-all and end-all of 
gun control.
For governor, Democrat Gretchen 
Whitmer 
supports 
strengthening 
gun laws by adding safety locks 
and background checks. However, 
Republican Bill Schuette is endorsed 
by the NRA for his unwavering 
support of the Second Amendment.
The University of Michigan 
is doing its part to protect those 
involved in the shootings and in 
the protests against gun violence. 
In February, the University issued 
a statement saying that they would 
honor students’ rights to free 
speech if disciplinary actions were 
taken against them during protests 
against the Parkland shootings. The 
University is now awarding the 2018 
Wallenberg Medal to the B.R.A.V.E. 
(Bold Resistance Against Violence 
Everywhere) Youth Leaders of the 
Faith Community of Saint Sabina 
and March For Our Lives from 
Parkland, Fla., on Nov. 14 at 7:30 
p.m. in the Rackham Auditorium. 
Representatives from both groups 
will be present to receive this award. 
Now it’s the students’ turn.
The support rallied in the 
wake of the Parkland shooting by 
students and universities alike was 
inspiring. Millions of kids and adults 
banded together to make positive 
change. But within three months, 
the demonstrations faded into the 
shadows. We cannot let this movement 
die out. Now is the time to act. Vote 
responsibly and knowledgeably. Vote 
for people who will protect your rights 
and your schools. Now is your chance 
to enact change.

Dana Pierangeli can be reached at 

dmpier@umich.edu.

Read more at MichiganDaily.com

