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