H
earing the news of the
shooting at the Tree of Life
synagogue in Pittsburgh, I
was numb. Another shooting at a place
that is supposed to be safe and sacred.
It was horrifically disgusting and
incredibly sad, but it didn’t feel very
different from the other shootings
at schools, churches, bars and movie
theaters. I must be desensitized to
mass shootings, but am I supposed to
feel different because it happened to
my people?
On social media, my friends were
all changing their profile pictures
and posting articles and statuses
about their thoughts, experiences
and feelings about the shooting. It
wasn’t just my fellow Jewish friends
— allies were posting in solidarity. In
class, students and professors were
discussing the event and making it
clear to students that if they needed
extensions or a space to talk, they
were available. There were vigils
on campus and people gathered to
mourn.
It was quite beautiful to see
everyone come together. People
were actively making space for those
mourning to heal in all the ways they
needed. But I did not entirely feel like
I was mourning or needed to find
support within my community. I
didn’t want to talk about the shooting
at all and I was uncomfortable with
the amount of coverage it was getting
compared to past shootings and
recent discrimination toward other
marginalized groups that have been
happening in our country.
After I reflected on the news, I
called my sister to hear how she was
feeling. She reacted similarly to me
about the devastating event. We
reflected on the fact that it could have
happened in our temple, to our family
and community members and if we
were closer to the massacre would be
reacting differently. However, by the
end of the phone call, we were back
to discussing our normal dilemmas of
stress and work.
In my day-to-day life, I don’t
experience anti-Semitism. I don’t look
stereotypically Jewish. I currently
don’t wear a Jewish star or a kippah.
Visibly, I can hide my Jewish identity
until you hear my very Jewish-
German last name. I grew up in West
Bloomfield, which has a dense Jewish
community. Most of my out-of-school
activities were Jewish-affiliated, from
my reform temple’s youth group to
volunteering with fellow Jews in
Detroit. Being Jewish was always
celebrated, and I felt a large amount of
comfort and joy in my Jewish identity.
At the beginning of my college
career, I stopped feeling this pride
in my Jewish identity. I felt a need
to explore outside of my community
by joining groups and organizations
where being Jewish wasn’t the only
identity that brought us together. I
decided to stop wearing my Jewish
star necklace or opal hamsa so it
wasn’t obvious where I came from. I
wanted to be able to socialize, learn
and grow with people who were
different from me.
As I’m approaching the end of
my college career, I’m fairly happy
with all of my gained experiences,
relationships and places I found with
people who had shared interests and
identities other than being Jewish.
But I definitely think this need to
leave or hide my Jewish identity was
a form of internalized anti-Semitism.
This term refers to the unconscious
beliefs and behaviors passed down
by family members and results from
historical trauma and present-day
oppression. Now, looking back and
reflecting on my previous mindset,
I find it extremely upsetting that I
thought that being Jewish would
impact or limit my ability to connect
and learn with new people. But I still
feel this need to gloss over my Jewish
identity in progressive or social
justice circles and thus adding to my
uncomfortableness with the current
anti-Semitic events.
My experience as a Jewish person
has been comfortable and privileged.
With my light European skin, I can
be like any other privileged white
person. Though not all Jews are white,
American Jews who were Eastern
European immigrants with light skin
were only considered white when
they assimilated into the mainstream
American culture after World War
II.
Changing
their
appearance,
becoming more secular, speaking
English instead of Yiddish and
educating their children in American
schools allowed them to gain a better
lifestyle. But consequently, they lost
parts of their heritage and practice.
Also, Jews are often seen as a model
minority for being a marginalized
group that is particularly successful
in America but still very marginalized
throughout the world. I often
consider whether our model minority
status allows recent events like the
Pittsburgh shooting or the professor’s
rejection of letters of recommendation
to become an even more important
issue in the news even though
there have been many other acts of
discrimination or greater shootings
for other marginalized communities.
I find myself comparing the
experience of my marginalized Jewish
community to other marginalized
communities.
I
sometimes
find
myself thinking that American Jews
don’t experience as much oppression
because we may have more privilege
than other marginalized groups in
America. But after revisiting a piece
that I have read in so many courses
in Audre Lorde’s “There Is No
Hierarchy of Oppressions,” I realized
that making this claim takes away
from the fact that the experience of
anti-Semitism for Jews in America
is valid. Comparing oppressions only
makes it harder for people to come
together and support one another to
fight injustice.
During recent news of more anti-
Semitic acts happening in our country,
like the graffiti in a New York City
synagogue, I’ve been feeling nervous
to publish this piece knowing that my
people have been experiencing more
stress, anxiety and fear than usual.
But one of the core values of Judaism
is to question things and have honest
debates. And when we silence voices,
especially Jewish voices, we don’t
leave room for conversation and
dialogue that help us gain a better
understanding of our experience as
Jewish people. I’m only one Jew with
one story, and I hope by sharing my
experience others can reflect on their
own.
T
he 2018 midterm elections
have concluded, and while
the outcomes of several
close races have yet to be officially
determined, the broader results are
clear. Democrats have retaken the
House, while Republicans built on
their previously-narrow majority in
the Senate. As the results came in, both
sides publicly claimed victory, with
President Donald Trump calling the
night a “tremendous success” while
Democratic leaders celebrated taking
control of the House. Political analysts
will
comb
thoroughly
through
Tuesday’s results in the coming weeks,
but here are some early takeaways.
This was a Democratic wave, but
not a nationwide wave.
Democrats had not won the
House in a decade, and not once since
the maps were redrawn in 2010, so
regaining a majority in the lower
chamber represents a significant
accomplishment.
Due
partly
to
gerrymandering, Democrats have
faced an uphill battle to retake the
House in recent cycles — in 2012, the
GOP maintained a 33-seat majority
despite losing the House popular vote
nationwide.
Nonetheless,
Democratic
challengers
unseated
dozens
of
longtime
GOP
representatives,
including many in right-leaning but
anti-Trump districts that Clinton won
in 2016. Pundits devoted considerable
attention over the past two years to
the stunning gains by Democrats
in various special elections relative
to their performance in 2016, and
these gains were replicated in the
actual midterms. U.S. Rep. Karen
Handel, R-Ga., known for defeating
Jon Ossoff in a high-profile 2017
special election, lost her seat to a new
Democratic challenger. The flipping of
the House confirms that signs of voter
dissatisfaction, including Trump’s
low approval ratings and Democratic
success in special elections, were
indicative of broader Democratic
momentum.
Still, the cycle wasn’t all good
for Democrats. The average House
district swung ten points in favor
of Democrats, which is slightly
smaller than the 2006 Democratic
wave and only half the size of the
2010 Republican wave, enabling
Republicans to retain a sizable number
of House seats deemed toss-ups prior
to the election. Furthermore, on the
Senate side, Democrats lost ground,
surrendering seats in Indiana, North
Dakota and Missouri, and whiffing
on chances to pick up seats in Texas
and Tennessee. The sole Democratic
pick-up of the night came in Nevada,
but Arizona went blue yesterday
with Kyrsten Sinema declared the
winner. The race in Florida has yet
to be called and will determine the
extent of the GOP’s gains. Democrats
needed a truly massive wave to flip
the Senate, and while it isn’t surprising
that such a wave failed to materialize,
it is nonetheless discouraging that the
GOP was able to extend their majority.
While Trump is unpopular overall,
he remains very popular with his
base and enjoys net-positive approval
ratings in most red-leaning states.
Flipping the House proves this was a
wave year for Democrats, but as the
Senate results show, that blue wave did
not hit everywhere.
Democrats are facing extreme
institutional challenges.
It is no secret that Democrats face
institutional obstacles in their quest
to regain power. Tuesday’s results
underscore this reality. Democrats
were facing an extremely tough Senate
map in which they were defending 24
seats, many in red and purple states
won by Trump in 2016. Furthermore,
only nine Republican seats were up
for election, limiting opportunities
for pick-ups. Even in a good year for
Democrats, GOP gains were probable.
Looking
forward,
these
institutional challenges are not going
away. The GOP’s strong performance
casts doubt on whether Democrats
have a realistic shot of retaking the
Senate in 2020, another year with
limited opportunities for pick-ups.
In the long term, Democrats are at a
disadvantage in the Senate. It’s simple
math: Every state is represented
equally in the Senate and there are
more red states than blue states. The
Democratic majority in the Senate
from 2006 to 2014 was enabled by
Democrats’ ability to win seats in red
states. That didn’t happen this year but
will need to happen in the future if the
Democrats are to retake the Senate.
Democrats’
institutional
disadvantages aren’t limited to the
Senate. At the presidential level,
Democrats have won the popular vote
in six of the past seven presidential
elections, but have only actually won
four of those elections. Furthermore,
the
GOP
dominates
the
state
legislatures, leading to advantages
during redistricting season.
Trump and the GOP are losing
the middle.
Democrats despise Trump while
Republicans have coalesced around
him. More significantly, independents
are beginning to abandon him. A
largely overlooked aspect of the 2016
presidential election is that Trump
beat Clinton among independents
46 percent to 42 percent. Since then,
independents have turned on Trump,
with polls finding Trump’s approval
ratings among independents to be
as low as 31 percent. Exit poll data
from Tuesday shows independents
supported
Democratic
House
candidates by a margin of 14 points
— an exact reversal of the margin
independents supported Republicans
in the 2014 midterms.
Trump has two years to regain
favor with independents, and he will
need to if he wants any legitimate shot
at re-election.
Demographic change is not
saving the Democratic Party... yet.
Democrats hope that shifting
demographics, namely a growing
share of the electorate that is
Hispanic
and
African-American,
will allow the party to win races in
traditionally conservative states like
Georgia, Texas and Arizona. After
Trump won these states by relatively
modest margins, many expected
Democrats to flip them in 2018.
Though the margins were once again
historically close, Democrats lost the
Texas Senate race and appear likely
to lose the currently uncalled Georgia
gubernatorial race.
Alarmingly,
in
some
states,
Republicans
performed
relatively
well
among
certain
minority
demographics.
In
Florida,
the
Democratic candidates for Senate and
governor won the Hispanic vote by
just a 10-percent margin compared
to the 28-percent margin Clinton
enjoyed in 2016.
These results show that Democrats
are further away from winning these
states than many hoped. While
many red states are becoming more
competitive due to demographic
change, Democrats appear to still
be several cycles away from actually
winning statewide races in Georgia,
Texas and elsewhere, suggesting
that Democrats’ best strategy for
2020 is rebuilding the “blue wall”
that Trump shattered in 2016, rather
than relying on demographic change
to win these emerging battlegrounds
in the South.
Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4 — Tuesday, November 12, 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
One American Jewish experience
An uneven wave
NOAH HARRISON | COLUMN
Ellery Rosenzweig can be reached at
erosenz@umich.edu.
Noah Harrison can be reached at
noahharr@umich.edu.
A
nd here we are. All of
the
excitement
going
into the 2018 midterm
elections reached its climax last
Tuesday, with the 49-percent
voter participation rate the highest
in 50 years contributing to what
was nationally touted as the first
major referendum on the 2016
election
of
President
Donald
Trump. I was proud of the wide
effort to get people out to vote at
the University of Michigan, which
I saw personally, having to wait in
line over half an hour at Pierpont
Commons before I could finally
receive a ballot.
But
was
this
“historic”
election really as upending as
people claimed it would be? Did
the Democrats really surf an
overpowering blue wave and take
over Capitol Hill by storm? Or did
the Republicans pull off Trump’s
prophesized “RED WAVE!”? The
media really seems to agree with
the former, with CNN’s Heather
Cox Richardson claiming that “a
blue wave happened Tuesday, and it
was a big one.” Real Clear Politics’s
Sean Trende said of the midterms
that “overall, Republicans had a
tough night.”
Honestly, I didn’t see it. Of
course, the Democrats took back
the House, with an expected gain
of 35 seats, thereby finally ending
eight years of Republican control.
But when you compare it to the
Republican gains of 2014, when
they won “nearly every contested
Senate race” as well as in 2010,
when they flipped over 60 House
seats and six Senate seats, the
result on Tuesday seemed to be
more representative of Smurf tears
battering a red wall than of a blue
surge flooding Washington, D.C.
Obviously,
the
Democrats
were hindered by Republican
gerrymandering,
which
suppressed some of the potential
gains. To illustrate, in 2014, the
Republicans won 52 percent of
the popular vote and claimed 57
percent of House seats, while this
year, the Democrats are expected
to win about 52 percent of House
seats despite also winning 51.4
percent of the popular vote. Also,
the Democrats were favored to
win the House. There was nothing
unpredictable about that. What
was, however, were the shocking
gains by the Republicans in the
Senate. In past “wave” elections of
1994, 2010 and 2014, the GOP did not
lose any of their incumbent Senate
seats. Neither did the Democrats
in 2006 or 2008. The fact that
the Republicans were capable of
padding their Senate majority is
indicative of a general political
culture that has not fully rejected
Donald Trump and his Republican
Party. Worth mentioning, though,
is that all competitive incumbent
seats that the Democrats lost (save
for North Dakota) this election
were under Republican control in
2006 and 2008.
Again, I don’t want to take
anything away from the Democrats.
They ran some very tight races and
upended Republican candidates in
areas that have been traditionally
red. Case in point was the defeat
of incumbent U.S. Rep. Barbara
Comstock, R-Va., by Democratic
challenger Jennifer Wexton in
Virginia’s 10th district, a district
that hasn’t gone blue since 1980.
Not only that, but they were able
to make substantial gains in
suburban districts, some of which
voted — albeit quite surprisingly
— overwhelmingly Democratic.
But, now, as we look toward 2020,
the Democrats desperately need to
change their strategy if they want
to beat Trump.
The midterm elections were
fueled by a few major trends that
will have a direct effect on the
makeup of Congress for the next
two years. Most notably was the
so-called
“Kavanaugh
effect.”
Those who expressed opposition
towards Brett Kavanaugh and
were in competitive races were
ousted from office. For example,
Sen. Heidi Heitkamp, D-N.D., Sen.
Joe Donnelly, D-Ind., and Sen. Bill
Nelson, D-Fla., were replaced by
Republican candidates in red states,
although Bill Nelson is heading
for a recount. Perhaps most telling
was the re-election of Sen. Joe
Manchin, D-W.V., who voted in
favor of Kavanaugh. Considering
that West Virginia went to Trump
in 2016 by more than 40 points, this
is particularly impressive.
This was one contributing factor
that showed a real trend toward
the political success of moderate
Democrats on Tuesday. These
center-leaning candidates flipped
the majority of the 28 competitive
House races that the party needed
to win in order to secure a majority.
Progressive
candidates,
while
enjoying
perhaps
“upset-level”
success in the primaries, only won
in the districts that were already
leaning quite a ways to the left.
For example, Alexandria Ocasio-
Cortez, a self-described Democratic
Socialist, won in New York’s 14th
district, which hadn’t gone red
since 1993, by over 60 points.
Progressive
candidate
Andrew
Gillum, however, ended up losing
in the statewide Florida election to
Republican Ron DeSantis, though
the race is currently headed to a
state-mandated recount.
On
the
other
hand,
the
Republicans
experienced
an
opposite effect. In the primaries,
many of Trump’s critics led
unsuccessful campaigns, leading
to an incoming Republican caucus
that is more aligned with Trump
and his policies than ever before.
In the Republican primaries, in
most races, the candidates with
Trump’s endorsement ended up
victorious. This was especially
the case in Kansas as Kris Kobach
beat incumbent Gov. Jeff Colyer,
a candidate who was originally
favored to retain his seat. Though
Kobach was not successful in the
general election, others such as
Mike Braun and Ron DeSantis
have emerged victorious after
aligning
themselves
with
the
president. Though there weren’t
many moderates who survived the
primary elections in competitive
areas, the few cases, such as that
of incumbent U.S. Rep. Carlos
Curbelo in Florida’s 26th district,
ended up on the wrong end of
the ballots in the aftermath of
Tuesday’s elections.
Trump
undeniably
had
a
major effect on the results in his
own party, winning Senate or
gubernatorial races in six out of
the eight states he campaigned
in during the week leading up to
the elections. If anything, Trump
seems to be looking forward to
a split Congress with potential
Speaker Nancy Pelosi presiding
over the newly Democratic House.
With the Democrats preparing
for “an onslaught of hearings,
subpoenas and investigations into
nearly every corner of the Trump
administration,” Trump himself
seems quite unfazed, claiming
“he could have ended (the Mueller
investigations) anytime he wanted”
at Wednesday’s post-election press
conference. Unless the Democratic
Party pursues unifying initiatives,
it is very likely that continuous
investigation
and
probes
(not
to
mention,
resultant
media
attention) will energize Trump’s
base
and
maybe
even
bring
more independents over to the
Republican side. One could look to
history for an example, such as the
disappointing Republican midterm
election results in 1998 when said
party was placing then-President
Bill Clinton under continuous
threat of impeachment.
As of now, I think Trump has
managed to put himself in the
driver’s seat. He has positioned
himself well with a Senate most
likely to stay within Republican
hands through 2024 and a House
that intends to play party politics.
And until the Democrats look
towards
bipartisanship
and
capitalize
on
their
suburban
moderate gains, I think Donald
Trump might have actually been
the real winner of the 2018 midterm
elections.
ADITHYA SANJAY | COLUMN
Did Donald Trump just win the midterms?
Adithya Sanjay can be reached at
asanjay@umich.edu.
JILLIAN LI | CONTACT JILLIAN AT LIJILLI@UMICH.EDU