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

