I
t’s no secret that our
current political climate
is becoming exceedingly
polarized.
Not
only
are
Democrats shifting left and
Republicans
shifting
right,
but liberals and conservatives
alike are witnessing a “rising
tide
of
mutual
antipathy.”
While both of these trends
are undoubtedly contributing
factors to the hostility of
today’s
political
climate,
it is really the latter that
prevents us from escaping this
seemingly endless stagnation.
Political discourse should
ultimately be about discussing
different points of view with
the intention of walking away
with a more nuanced or perhaps
entirely new perspective. But
nowadays, politics has become
an almost taboo topic, and
discourse has been reduced to
a series of echo chambers and
unproductive arguments.
With such divisive issues
dominating
today’s
current
events, it’s easy to fall victim
to this trap. We all enjoy
hearing our opinions validated
by those who agree with us and
antagonizing those who don’t,
but it’s time we start thinking
about what our actions and
words actually accomplish.
For example, within the
past month, my Facebook feed
has been riddled with text
posts from friends all offering
their two cents on Justice Brett
Kavanaugh’s confirmation. My
immediate reaction when I see
these posts is almost always to
cringe. While there is nothing
inherently wrong with wanting
to share an opinion with a
wide audience, these strongly
worded social media posts are
simply unproductive — they
garner support from those who
already side with the point and
reinforce the negative opinions
of those on the opposite side
of the aisle. Unfortunately,
this
type
of
discourse
is
all too common, and these
so-called “slacktivists” who
use social media as a platform
to express their viewpoints
have a misguided perception
that they are making some
semblance of an impact in the
world when in reality all they
are doing is feeding an already
raging fire.
In civil discourse, rhetoric
is almost as important as the
content
of
the
arguments
themselves. As a liberal, it
is hard to watch people with
whom I agree preach their
opinions
to
conservatives
with such aggressive tactics.
Regardless of whether their
points are valid, when liberals
make personal accusations of
racism or sexism or attempt
to nullify their opponent’s
credibility
by
imposing
politically-charged identities
like “straight white male,” the
actual argument, regardless of
its merits, almost surely goes
disregarded.
This type of discourse is
hard to avoid. It’s satisfying to
outsmart or embarrass others,
especially when we live in a
political climate that fosters
hostility
toward
the
other
side. But when we discuss
important
and
contentious
issues like illegal immigration
or
Kavanaugh’s
nomination
with the primary intention
of frustrating our opponents,
when
we
treat
political
discourse like a tactical game
rather than a constructive
discussion, we do so at the
expense
of
the
important
issues that deserve healthy
examination and debate.
During
the
2016
presidential
race,
then-
candidate
Hillary
Clinton
made headlines for publicly
referring to half of then-
candidate
Donald
Trump’s
supporters
as
a
“basket
of
deplorables.”
Many
viewed this statement as a
political gift to Trump, as
the news in the following
days and, to some degree,
for the remainder of the
campaign,
was
dominated
by
that
singular
sound
bite.
Meanwhile,
Clinton’s
actual
campaign
policies
and initiatives took a back
seat, and her chances of
earning any uncertain Trump
supporters’ votes dwindled to
practically zero.
Though the political impact
of Clinton’s blunder was far
greater than anything most
of us could ever individually
cause, our collective hostility
toward our political opponents
is
equally
as
dangerous.
Clinton made an error in her
campaign
that
the
greater
liberal community seems to
make on a daily basis. She
extrapolated her perceptions
of a group of people based
on their political leanings or
beliefs.
Today, the term “Trump
supporter”
is
practically
taboo among liberals. Like
Clinton, many of us, even if
only
subconsciously,
make
immediate assumptions about
this community. But more than
60 million Americans voted
for President Trump in 2016,
and if the left really wants
to change that number, they
might want to stop equating
these 60 million politically
active Americans with the
morally depraved.
We tend to forget the
uncontrollable
factors
in
our
lives
that
inf luence
our political leanings. I am
a
female
Asian-American
who grew up in northern
New Jersey only 45 minutes
outside of New York City.
I
am
also
a
registered
Democrat who would call
herself a relatively educated
voter. That being said, I have
no idea how I would vote
had I been born a white male
in rural America. Factors
like our gender, education,
race and place of residence
are
not
only
powerful
inf luences, but they are also
largely beyond our control
and often taken for granted.
The American experience is
amazingly diverse, and we
should keep this in mind
when we engage in political
discourse.
It
is
incredibly
easy
to
disregard
our
political
opponents as evil or innately
wrong, because discrediting
those with whom we disagree
is the easiest way to validate
our own opinions. But if
we are truly interested in
making a political impact and
interested in educating and
changing those minds which
are open to change, then we
must engage in a political
discourse that fosters that
mentality.
Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4A — Wednesday, October 31, 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
When you can’t do everything
I
grew
up
with
full
confidence
that
I
am
capable
of
achieving
anything I put my
mind to. I have my
parents to thank for
that mindset. As a
little girl, when I came
stumbling out of my
bedroom in my footie
pajamas
and
curly
bedhead,
whining,
“I can’t sleep,” my
dad would invariably
answer, “Whether you
think you can or you
can’t, you’re right.” (A Henry
Ford quote, by the way.)
In high school, this mindset
drove my scheduling. If I’m
capable
of
anything
I
put
my mind to, why not take
notoriously
difficult
courses
like accelerated chemistry and
Advanced Placement calculus?
Never mind whether or not I had
any interest in those subjects. I
didn’t pretend for a minute that
I thought I would actually enjoy
either of those courses. I just
wanted to challenge myself as
much as possible.
I’m
not
here
to
brag
about my high school course
load. I would suspect that
almost every student at the
University of Michigan has had
a similar experience, whether
it was in high school or in a
different setting. We attend
this university because we’re
motivated students who are
willing to put in the hours to
get things done. I don’t regret
taking
challenging
courses
in high school. It’s because of
them that I learned to work
hard, even when it’s not fun.
However, I wish I had been told
from a younger age that, though
I can do anything I put my mind
to, I can’t do everything I put
my mind to.
Upon
arriving
at
the
University, I learned the world
is full of problems and classes
that are even more challenging
than AP calculus. Additionally,
I learned that I’m just not as
smart as I thought I was. This
discovery
many
of
the
University
students
I
know
had
—
to
push
myself even harder
and learn what I’m
truly
capable
of.
Of course, I didn’t
have a doubt that
I was capable of
everything I put my
mind to.
I’m
not
alone
in
this
instinctive,
almost
overwhelming desire to push
myself too hard. As the Harvard
Business Review explains, we
tend to overwork ourselves due
to a variety of “inner drivers,”
such as, “ambition, machismo,
greed, anxiety, guilt, enjoyment,
pride, the pull of short-term
rewards, a desire to prove we’re
important, or an overdeveloped
sense of duty.” Additionally,
work (including school work)
is often less stressful than our
home lives. Oftentimes, we feel
lost and out of control in our
social lives, and working hard
in school is a chance to prove
ourselves.
Of
course,
it
doesn’t
always work like that. Spoiler
alert: Every single day at this
university, it becomes clearer
and clearer that I am not, in
fact, capable of everything I put
my mind to.
It’s not that my parents were
lying to me when they told me
I can do anything. It’s just that
I interpreted that “anything”
to mean everything. I’m sure
that if I focused on just school,
or just one job, or just one
organization, I could be great at
any of them. But, we live in an
academic culture that glorifies
busy schedules and long hours.
We live in an academic culture
that glorifies doing everything.
When you try to be good at
everything, you won’t be good
at anything.
I’ve
experienced
this
firsthand, and it’s backed by
research. The Wall Street
Journal explains that only
1 to 3 percent of people can
sleep five or six hours a night
without it affecting their work
performance. Additionally, of
every 100 people who believe
that
they’re
part
of
this
group, only five actually are.
The average college student
gets less than seven hours of
sleep, so if a student is getting
a below average amount of
sleep, it’s highly likely it is
affecting
their
academic
performance.
Additionally, high levels of
stress can ultimately lead to
anxiety, which can drastically
decrease a student’s academic
performance.
According
to
Time magazine, “In spring 2017,
nearly 40% of college students
said they had felt so depressed
in the prior year that it was
difficult for them to function,
and 61% of students said they
had ‘felt overwhelming anxiety’
in the same time period.”
As students at the University
of Michigan, we really are
capable of achieving anything
we put our minds to. But, when
we try to turn that “anything”
into
an
“everything,”
eventually it will turn into
nothing.
American political discourse needs to change
Liberalism is dead, long live liberalism
HANK MINOR | COLUMN
W
hen the Democrats
yielded the House to a
resurgent Republican
party in 2010, the prevailing
mood among Democratic party
members was still one of placid,
optimistic curiosity: “How will
Obama and the Senate continue
steering the ship of state?” Since
then, their fall from power
has only accelerated, and the
GOP delivered a coup de grâce
to
the
movement
President
Obama started in 2008 with the
confirmation of Justice Brett
Kavanaugh. For the past two
years, Democrats have managed
a nearly powerless organization
— what happens next week, then,
if they win back the House?
It
seems
unfortunately
possible
that
#resisting
will dominate their agenda,
preventing
the
construction
of a vision of consensus for
2020. The Democratic House
could spend two years trying
to
incapacitate
President
Trump’s agenda with hearings,
investigations,
spending
cuts
and general obstructionism, or
it could methodically lay out
an alternative for their future
candidates — I don’t think they
have the bandwidth for both.
Fortuitously,
Trump’s
election
has
prevented
any
revival of the awful phrase
“America
is
already
great.”
Democratic candidates in 2020
will have to present a case —
new or not — that the right-wing
project is inferior to their own.
It’s easy to be the perpetual
rebel, never forced to take power
even when it’s handed to you —
so easy that savvy politicians
might opt to avoid doing so
altogether.
Dragging
Trump
officials
through
essentially
trivial
House
investigations,
motions for impeachment and
byzantine
procedural
rebuke
isn’t pointless, but it leaves
open the possibility that the
prosecution of grievances from
2016 will overwhelm any attempt
at progress.
The constant drama of the
past two years has prevented
the country from — as many
voters in both parties hoped
— “just ignoring politics.” The
failing New York Times and once
nearly-defunct Washington Post
have drastically expanded their
readership. TV news has slowed
its march toward obscurity,
and it seems that social media
companies are constantly trying
to capture a piece of the political
news market. The electorate has,
happily or not, resigned itself to
a 24-hour circus. Now people
are watching, and the left should
feel compelled to say something
interesting.
It’s
possible
relevant
politicians will recognize the
utility of having half a branch
of government as a weapon
and will use it in a way that
supplements the larger project
of taking back the hundreds of
seats they’ve lost. This would
be a strategy borrowed from the
GOP. The nonsense controversy
of Benghazi wasted millions of
dollars and countless hours of
time — and it helped make Hillary
Clinton the second-least-popular
candidate for president ever.
The scorched-earth war against
Obamacare was a failure on the
surface — Obamacare still exists,
sort of — but it appeared to make
Clinton wary of championing
any specific planned legislation.
She relegated policy detail to her
website and focused on broadly
popular
generalities
in
her
speeches.
The advantage this type
of strategy has brought to the
GOP, though, is only maintained
through sheer force of will.
Without
voter
suppression
efforts,
gerrymandering,
the
inherent advantage of equal
representation for states and
a
fundraising
advantage,
they’d already be losing most
elections. The left will have
to
pair
ruthlessness
(which
they clumsily debuted at the
Kavanaugh hearings) with a
genuine
message
—
nobody
wants a second chance to vote
for Clinton. Victories in 2018 and
2020 will rely on the willingness
of left politicians, like Obama in
2008, to say something voters
actually want to hear.
The
concerted
effort
to
increase
turnout
this
cycle
is a good sign. It seems the
Democratic party organization
might be fully committed to
inspiring
non-voters
rather
than converting voters whose
connection to reality has been
obliterated by Fox News. The
question is finally, “Why aren’t
people who like us voting for
us?” instead of, “Why are people
who hate us voting for someone
else?”
It’s likely that less than a
week from now, Democrats
will regain legislative power,
and the power of subpoenas
and public hearings for the
first
time
in
four
years.
They’ve pursued a watered-
down version of the Tea Party
strategy following Clinton’s
loss in 2016: obstruct what
you
can,
and
fearmonger
about what you can’t. Taking
back the House will compel
them
to
pursue
different
goals (building a platform
for their 2020 races, offering
alternative
legislation),
and
will be the first time since
2010 that they’ve been asked
to present a unique vision for
the country. They might offer
people a second chance at
Hillary Clinton — moderation,
neoliberalism
and
social
progressivism — or they might
offer something else: policies
that directly counter Trump’s
language of “making America
great again.”
Amanda Zhang can be reached at
amanzhan@umich.edu
Hank Minor can be reached at
hminor@umich.edu.
It’s easy to be the
perpetual rebel,
never forced to
take power even
when it’s handed
to you
AMANDA ZHANG | COLUMN
HANNAH
HARSHE
Hannah Harshe can be reached at
hharshe@umich.edu.
JOIN OUR EDITORIAL BOARD
Our Editorial Board meets Mondays and Wednesdays 7:15-8:45 PM at
our newsroom at 420 Maynard Street. All are welcome to come discuss
national, state and campus affairs.
— President Trump in an Axios interview when asked about
circumventing the 150 year old 14th Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution through the use of an executive order
“
NOTABLE QUOTABLE
It was always told to me that you
needed a constitutional amendment.
Guess what? You don’t.
”
It becomes clearer
and clearer that I
am not capable of
everything I put
my mind to