W 

e 
all 
know 
that 
feeling. You decide 
you have some extra 
time on your hands and you 
immediately 
reach 
for 
your 
phone. And though you originally 
intended to only watch the 
highlights of yesterday’s football 
game, 45 minutes later you end up 
in the “weird” parts of YouTube, 
taking in videos you never meant 
to watch. For many, this might 
mean something along the lines 
of “Dave Rubin Calmly Destroys 
a Crazed Hyper-Victim,” a video 
that has racked up more than 10 
million views on YouTube. For 
some reason it seems more and 
more difficult to find an inner 
satisfaction from watching such 
content.
This particular phenomenon of 
sorts has led to an unmistakable 
rise in conservatism on YouTube. 
Led by polemicists, comedians 
and thinkers such as Ben Shapiro, 
Steven Crowder and Michael 
J. Knowles, this conservative 
wave has surprisingly stained 
the backend of YouTube red. 
Channels such as PragerU (1.8 
million YouTube subscribers), 
Steven Crowder (over 3 million 
subscribers) and The Daily Wire 
(over 1 million subscribers) serve 
as a testament to this growth. 
That’s not to mention individual 
videos such as “Ben Shapiro 
DESTROYS 
Transgenderism 
and Pro-Abortion Arguments” 
and 
“FEMINIST 
& 
SJW 
OWNED COMPILATION 2017 
#2 (Destroyed Edition)” raking 
up 3.9 million and 4.4 million 
views respectively. And these 
channels are growing too. Stats 
show Steven Crowder’s channel 
has increased its monthly views 
from 2.2 million in January 2016 
to over 40 million today. 
We’re seeing this increasingly 
conservative 
wave 
in 
the 
millennial population, of which, 
according to a study by the Case 
Foundation, more than 50 percent 
of millenial constituents identify 
as conservative, compared with 
43 percent identifying as liberal, 
a marked difference from years 
past. Could it be that YouTube 
accounts for some of this trend? 

First of all, much of the appeal 
of conservatism on YouTube 
stems from the picture that most 
conservatives paint of the left. 
The left is always portrayed as 
intolerant and fragile (i.e., calling 
them snowflakes). We see that all 
the time with videos focusing on 
so-called social justice warriors 
who appear entitled and act 
increasingly on emotion rather 
than a logical basis. There are 
obviously very intelligent people 

on the left, but by focusing on 
these 
extremes, 
conservative 
thinkers are capable of easily 
exploiting gaps in logic and 
advancing their viewpoint.
Possibly more effective is the 
portrayal of conservative ideology 
as a university-styled collection 
of courses. This is seen with the 
popularity of Prager University 
and 
its 
five-minute-long 
educational videos. The website 
literally portrays the “university” 
as a way “to get smarter”, 
boasting over 1.7 million views. 
Regardless, its tidbits have 
become hugely popular and 
have been quietly influencing 
people with easily digestible 
facts. Takes against feminism 
and the gender wage gap, and 
for gun rights and school choice 
are largely prevalent among 
its collection and have been 
very successful in attracting 
attention 
and 
viewership. 
These 
conservatives 
are 
generally smart people. Heck, 
Shapiro is a University of 
California, Los Angeles and 
Harvard Law School graduate. 
Dinesh D’Souza is a Dartmouth 
University alum. To all these 
people wondering why a lot 

of these conservatives’ bases 
are increasingly uneducated, 
it’s because of the credibility 
these conservatives draw to 
their names. It’s very easy for 
someone to say, “Hey, well I 
don’t know. But that guy went 
to Harvard Law so he must be 
right.” The irony of this lies 
in the fact that most of these 
right-wing 
thinkers 
actually 
advocate against this line of 
thought. They constantly push 
for individuality in thinking; 
Shapiro 
has 
repeatedly 
denounced the argument that 
a call for one’s credibility 
or 
experience 
automatically 
justifies one’s thinking as fact. 
But nevertheless, much of the 
populace still seemingly falls 
for this trap.
That’s not to mention that 
most of these speakers are 
also just simply great debaters. 
They know when and where 
to call out logical fallacies and 
moments of ad hominem, and 
are capable of staying true 
to one single premise. When 
people like these go up against 
everyday students, it’s very 
easy for them to seem like 
they have the more intelligent 
and rational way of thought. 
And perhaps it is simply this 
approach — of presenting such 
views through debate — that 
makes it easier to bring people 
over to their side. Rather 
than just lecture on ideology 
and why it is good policy, 
showing through debate that 
it is seemingly better than the 
other perspective is perhaps 
more potent as a persuasive 
technique.
 If those on the left want to 
turn around YouTube’s red 
wave, the only way would be 
to showcase why their ideas 
are superior. People like Cenk 
Uygur and The Young Turks 
have 
started 
this 
counter-
movement. It just hasn’t grown 
to the level of influence that the 
right has seemingly developed.

A

ny mention of universal social 
programs inevitably devolves 
into 
discussion 
of 
their 
exorbitant cost and the undesirability 
of making programs available to 
people who don’t need them. 
In 2015, former State Secretary 
Hillary 
Clinton 
somewhat 
notoriously said, “Now, I’m a 
little different from those who 
say free college for everybody. 
I am not in favor of making 
college free for Donald Trump’s 
kids.” This phrasing has become 
the central argument against 
universal programs by liberals: 
Why would the left want to 
extend taxpayer funded college, 
health care, family leave or 
debt relief to “Donald Trump’s 
kids”—that is, the wealthy?
Many articles and columns 
on the topic seem to miss 
the 
overall 
point 
behind 
universal programs, choosing 
to evaluate them on purely 
economic grounds. Overall, a 
means tested debt-free college 
program like Clinton suggested 
would be more cost effective, 
and wouldn’t waste resources 
on people who are generally 
capable of shouldering their 
burdens alone. The reason left 
wing politicians advocate big 
programs, though, is because 
they’re simple to understand 
and usually quite popular.
Take 
Obamacare, 
for 
example. 
After 
its 
passage, 
most 
people 
will 
still 
get 
health insurance through their 
employers, but not everyone 
— thus, you can buy your own 
plan from the private market 
on a public exchange. There’s 
an individual mandate, so you’ll 
pay an extra tax come April if 
you fail to sign up for coverage. 
Not everyone can afford these 
new plans, though, even with 
the price reducing measures, 
so you can request subsidies 
through a separate process. 
Additionally, if you’re under 
26, you can use your parents’ 
insurance — as long as they have 
a plan that qualifies under the 
new standard, though.
Contrast this with Medicare 

for 
All 
system. 
 
Everyone 
knows what Medicare is — 
health insurance — and most 
people who use it are satisfied. 
Maybe this is bad for public 
discourse: Bulky means-tested 
bills like Obamacare are either 
incomprehensible or can be 
ripped 
apart, 
despite 
their 
potential advantages. Maybe we 
lose something important when 
a large portion of Americans 
choose not to spend their free 
time poring over the latest news 
from Capitol Hill, but that’s the 
reality we’re faced with.

Furthermore, the fundamental 
desire 
behind 
Obamacare 
and Medicare for All are the 
same: 
People 
want 
health 
care, and they want it to be 
affordable. When columnists 
and 
commentators 
lament 
the ignorance of the public 
(or Millennials, or liberals, 
or 
conservatives) 
they’re 
pretending people actually care 
about the individual facets of 
a bill rather than its overall 
effect. Where’s the utility in 
reminding people that some 
specific manifestation of their 
demand is impractical?
Maybe it’s useful as a way to 
combat the surface-level appeal 
of big, expensive policies — 
people support Medicare for 
All, but telling them it could 
cost upwards of $30 trillion for 
America in federal spending, 
might dampen that enthusiasm. 
Matt Bruenig or other Medicare-
for-All proponents will dispute 
the idea that such an expensive 
program 
isn’t 
as 
expensive 
as the status quo; around and 
around it goes. For most people, 
though, this sort of thing isn’t 
useful. Economic models and 

“viability” 
estimates 
(i.e., 
the likelihood of legislation 
passing) are only useful as ways 
to validate preexisting political 
inclinations.
Obviously, most people would 
tell you that they form their 
beliefs only after researching 
in great detail — some of them 
might actually do the research, 
combing through newspapers 
and academic journals for the 
best possible options. Be that 
as it may, these people are rare 
— and despite their efforts, 
they’re likely to find their 
preexisting ideology the most 
factually 
viable. 
Politicians 
— especially those on the left 
— use big policies to overcome 
this. Untangling support for 
the moral argument “everyone 
deserves health care” using 
economics is a lot more difficult 
than building that belief in the 
first place.
Given this, I find it mystifying 
when national columnists use 
their platform to argue against 
the little details of policy, 
like David Leonhardt’s recent 
argument 
against 
universal 
student debt forgiveness. Yes, 
upper 
middle-class 
students 
have a lot of debt (and don’t 
really need help paying it off). 
The reason debt forgiveness is 
popular, though, was never its 
economic efficiency.
It’s easy to say people should 
just pay more attention to the 
news, instead of responding to 
easily digestible policy slogans 
(“Medicare for All,” “universally 
free college,” “cancel student 
debt”) but admonishing the 
public is worse than useless — 
it actively makes people dislike 
you. Anyone with a platform 
who’s inclined to argue against 
broad, undiscerning programs 
should focus on why people 
want them in the first place, 
instead of the minutiae of 
individual proposals.

Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4A — Monday, December 3, 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

ADITHYA SANJAY | COLUMN

YouTube and millenial conservatism

The appeal of universal programs

HANK MINOR | COLUMN

Adithya Sanjay can be reached at 

asanjay@umich.edu

Hank Minor can be reached at 

hminor@umich.edu.

Climate change, like many 
other 
policy 
points, 
has 
unnecessarily become a partisan 
issue. The national assessment 
was released just one month after 
a report requested by the United 
Nations, both of which explain 
how a likely temperature rise of 
1.5 degrees Celsius in the next 20 
years will result in severe damage 
to coastal livelihoods, industries 
and ecosystems. Global warming, 
an issue that concerns more than 
one political party and more than 
one country, poses a vital question: 
How do we protect scientific data 
from political influence?
The 
National 
Climate 
Assessment 
fulfills 
a 
1990 
congressional 
mandate 
that 
promoted research toward our 
understanding 
and 
inevitable 
response 
to 
climate 
change. 
The assessment warns that as 
a country, we’ll need to either 
mitigate or adapt to environmental 
changes, as rising temperatures 
will impede economic growth 
and extensively harm American 
infrastructure, agriculture and 
energy production.
Money seemingly goes where 
policy tells it to, and policy does 
what the administration says. 
Trump reportedly does not call 
himself a believer of climate 
change, 
which, 
politically 
speaking, means it deserves no 
place in his national budget. If 
money isn’t going toward cleaning 
up the environment, then it goes 
other places, like the $210 million 
already spent sending troops to 
the U.S.-Mexico border. According 
to the U.N., if the same emphasis 
were placed on efforts toward 
reducing 
carbon 
emissions, 
further warming in the next few 
decades would likely be less than 
0.5 degrees Celsius. Trump’s lack 
of policy implementation does not 
interfere with individual actions 
recommended by the U.S. and 
U.N. reports.
As long as climate change is a 
partisan issue, the future of our 
planet will remain in the hands 
of whoever is elected president. 
Yet, our climate belongs to each 
of us individually and does not 
discriminate 
on 
partisanship. 

The New York Times reports the 
most recent election obstructs 
efforts toward carbon taxes and 
national budget proposals, but 
recognizes the divisive nature of 
climate partisanship is faltering. 
In southern Florida, where rising 
sea levels are causing considerable 

damage, a Republican lost his seat 
to a Democrat for not going far 
enough on environmental issues. 
Both 
policy-based 
and 
individual actions are necessary 
to mitigate the disastrous effects 
of climate change. Just as we 
should take steps to promote 
sustainability and environmental 
health in our everyday lives, we 
should also advocate for policy 
measures and representatives that 
prioritize comprehensive climate 
policy 
grounded 
in 
science, 
evidence and facts. 
It is clear the effects of 
climate change are here. While 
hurricanes and forest fires are 
natural phenomena, Camp Fire 
and Hurricanes Maria, Michael 
and Florence were so destructive 
because of climate change. The 
ways in which climate change 
and sustainably-oriented climate 
policy have been co-opted by 
partisan groups minimizes the 
gravity of the crisis we face. 
Climate change should not be a 
partisan issue; its effects surely 
won’t be. At the end of the day, 
worsening 
natural 
disasters 
will uproot, displace, and harm 
Republicans and Democrats alike.
In the face of ignorance and 
apathy from the Oval Office and 
other offices, we must continue to 
act. There are plenty of individual 
ways 
to 
make 
a 
difference: 
take 
advantage 
of 
public 

transportation, 
eat 
less 
meat 
compose, and of course reduce, 
reuse, recycle. Identify those 
politicians who deny climate 
change, reject science-based fact 
and sell out to corporate interest 
groups. Hold accountable all those 
who continue to mortgage the 
future of our planet and our health 
in favor of quarterly reports and 
bottom lines. In name and action, 
be an environmentalist! It is in 
your best interest and in the best 
interest of those you love.
It is easy to listen to today’s 
environmental 
discourse 
and 
become 
disheartened 
and 
discouraged; there is still so much 
to be done. Climate change will 
affect all of us — it is time we start 
acting like it.
Being an environmentalist can 
no longer be a choice. If we want to 
ensure a safe future everyone must 
fully embrace what it means to be 
an environmentalist and realize 
that identity through our actions. 
We’re a nascent population that is 
going to have to deal with the real-
world consequences of climate 
change, so be cognizant when 
making real world decisions. 
But this isn’t just about recycling 
boxes. Soon, we’ll all earn salaries 
as we go out into the workforce 
and we’ll be faced with many 
important decisions like what 
car to buy, where to work and 
what companies to invest in. The 
point is, the choices you make are 
important, and should be made 
with environmental protection in 
mind.
Climate change is a monumental 
challenge, it may not seem like 
one individual can create change, 
but if every individual promoted 
environmentalist ideals in their 
actions, we would soon see a ripple 
effect of change. Your contribution 
isn’t futile; coupled with thousands, 
even millions of other individuals, 
your everyday contributions will 
make a difference. Despite an 
administration that readily rejects 
climate change and obstructs 
climate policy, it is our duty, as 
environmentalists, and it all starts 
with your decisions. So what will 
you do tomorrow?

FROM THE DAILY

What will you do?

C

limate change will have incredibly damaging effects if we don’t 
take action against it, and soon. A new federal report released last 
week contradicts President Donald Trump’s rhetoric on climate 
change and emphasizes the economic downfalls it will cause our country 
in the near future. A focus on Trump’s denial, while important, ultimately 
distracts from the urgency of the issue, irresponsibly turning an effort to 
highlight the truth into political ammunition that fuels partisanship.

The choices you 
make should 
be made with 
environmental 
protection in 
mind

Where’s the utility 
in reminding people 
that their demand is 
impractical?

Conservative 
thinkers exploit gaps 
in logic and advance 
their viepoint

CONTRIBUTE TO THE CONVERSATION

Readers are encouraged to submit letters to the editor and 
op-eds. Letters should be fewer than 300 words while op-eds 
should be 550 to 850 words. Send the writer’s full name and 
University affiliation to tothedaily@michigandaily.com.

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.

