J
ames Madison wrote in
the
Federalist
Papers,
“Pure
democracies
have ever been spectacles of
turbulence and contention; have
ever been found incompatible
with personal security, or the
rights of property; and have, in
general, been as short in their
lives as they have been violent in
their deaths.” He and the other
Founding
Fathers
extensively
studied historical governments,
specifically of ancient Rome and
Greece. They learned from these
case studies to not only distrust
concentration of power at the top,
but to fear common people acting
unwittingly against the public
good in fits of passion or short-
sightedness. This is an important
lesson
that
was
relevant
in
their time, but remains equally
applicable today.
This past week in a class
of mine, my professor used
California’s Proposition 13 from
1978 as an example to illustrate
the importance of good fiscal
policy. This proposition passed
with 65 percent of the popular
vote and dramatically reshaped
tax policy in California. The
intended purposes were to ease
the tax burden in California and
to protect homeownership in the
state. The legislation reduced
property taxes to levels from 1975-
1976, capped the amount they
could increase from year-to-year
and established a requirement
for a two-thirds majority vote in
Congress to increase taxes.
In this lecture, we learned that
the proposition immediately cut
$6 billion from local government
revenue and gave taxpayers 57
percent tax relief. Unfortunately,
school and highway spending
is tied to the usually stable
property tax revenue source,
and soon California’s class sizes
skyrocketed,
while
highway
spending plummeted. In order
to correct this hasty policy,
California increased sales and
income taxes so much that it is
now the most heavily taxed state
in the country, but the issue of
property taxes remains the same.
What we can see from this one
example is that the hasty and ill-
informed actions of the majority
of
Californians
destabilized
and mutated the state’s revenue
sources, gutted local governments,
put more control in the hands of
the state over locals and required
a patchwork solution to the
problem they caused, all without
accomplishing their original goal
of lowering taxes in the long run.
This is obviously just one
example, but speaks to the fears
of the Founding Fathers. The
U.S. Constitution is a complex
document that sought to balance
power
between
every
party
involved. This includes but is not
limited to conflicts between the
executive, legislative and judicial
branches; the state and federal
governments; and government
and the people.
Alexander
Hamilton
once
said “The body of people…do not
possess the discernment and
stability necessary for systematic
government. To deny that they are
frequently led into the grossest
errors by misinformation and
passion, would be a flattery
which their own good sense must
despise.” What I believe he is
saying here is that the citizenry
of this country is smart enough
to know that we are not smart
enough to govern. His concern
was certainly well-placed, but
today many pick and choose when
to apply it. Many so passionately
espoused
this
concern
of
inexperience
when
President
Donald Trump announced his
candidacy for presidency, yet these
past midterm elections incited
many different emotions. This past
year has seen a dramatic increase
in the popularity of citizen-drawn
districts in states, with some states
passing legislation or approving
propositions to establish these
citizen-commissions,
taking
away
the
power
of
elected
representatives to draw districts
in favor of normal citizens.
This
Jekyll
and
Hyde
personality of America regarding
who should be trusted with power
is something to be monitored and
concerned about. What is scariest
about this is that people do not
even recognize inconsistencies
in their own logic. They act with
short-term
interest
in
mind,
clouded by their passions, at the
cost of long-term goals. This
past election, most of the failed
measures would have increased
taxes, far higher than the usual 50
percent rate over the last 15 years.
I am not arguing that Trump
is
unqualified,
that
citizen
commissions are necessarily bad
and certainly not that higher taxes
are a good thing. What I do believe
is that the common people will,
when they are allowed, mortgage
the future in favor of short-term
interests. This debate over instant
versus delayed gratification has
been studied psychologically since
Walter Mischel’s marshmallow
test, in which kids were given the
option between one marshmallow
now or two later.
I
t’s the worst when it’s
our friends. Because we
couldn’t possibly have seen
it coming, otherwise he
wouldn’t be a friend.
But then he tells us that
the #MeToo movement
is a witch hunt. He tells
us that women have too
much power. He tells us
that he lives in fear.
So to those boys who
think they have the right
to tell us that they live in
fear of being accused and
having their lives ruined,
you are wrong. You don’t even
know what fear is.
Do you know why you’re
afraid? Because this is the first
time anyone has told you your
actions are wrong. You have just
seen all these mighty men, many
of whom you probably looked up
to, fall to their knees. And you
recognize some of your behaviors
in those men, behaviors that have
never been fully recognized as
harmful, at least not by men, and
by extension, general society.
And instead of thinking, “I never
realized this before, but maybe
my actions are harmful. I should
change that,” you wonder, “Am
I next?” And then you lash out.
You bury these insecurities and
blame it on the system, relying
on a society that has put you on a
pedestal since the beginning of
time to back you up. You do not
feel fear, you feel guilt. You just
don’t realize it.
So to dissuade this buried
guilt, you change the topic. “It’s
just an issue of ‘innocent until
proven guilty’ and cold hard
evidence, gender has nothing
to do with it!” You think that by
framing this argument in terms
of the justice system you can get
away with saying sexist things
because they don’t sound sexist.
You cover up your sexism with
claims of justice — justice for the
man wrongfully accused, but not
for the women who have been
silenced. You give yourself the
privilege of taking gender out of
the equation, a privilege that only
you are granted. But sexism is a
constant companion of rape cases.
You cannot separate the two, and
trying to ignore this inherent
truth is, in itself, sexist.
When that doesn’t work, you
play the victim card, though you
lack the deck from which it came.
You cry that men are the real
victims; that their lives can be
ruined by these women; that any
man can be wrongfully accused;
that
the
#MeToo
movement
is a witch hunt. You equate a
stained reputation, one that often
doesn’t even get them barred
from a job (take the
Supreme Court for
example), to lives
being ruined. You
think some of the
sensational
media
stories applies to
every man who has
been accused in this
#MeToo era being
crucified and sent
to rot in jail. And
you
conveniently
forget how much sexual assault
ruins the woman’s life. Not only
is she assaulted, but when she
has the courage to come forward,
she is tormented, ridiculed and
threatened. By people like you.
You are so self-important that you,
for some reason, think that women
will drag themselves down just to
take you with them. Ask yourself
why someone would do that. And
don’t tell us that it’s because there
are bad people in the world. We
already know that. They walk
behind us at night, they come up to
us in clubs, they sit at our breakfast
tables. We look them in the eyes
every day.
What you could do instead is
understand that you will never
understand.
You
will
never
understand what it is like to be a
woman and to constantly live in
fear. You were not taught to fear
from the moment you were old
enough to walk. You will never
understand the courage it takes
to stand up for yourself when
you have been hurt, even when
everyone around you is telling you
to stop and calling you a liar. But
that’s OK. We don’t expect you to
understand. We just expect you to
support those who do. You have
seen this massive shift in a society
that has previously protected
you from consequences, and that
change, like any other, is scary.
We are, as a country, in a period
of growth and change. And that
change comes with doubt. But
there are other ways to handle this
change. Instead of telling us they
live in fear, some boys tell us that
now are more careful about what
they do. They tell us they try to lend
their support to women and put
them in the spotlight where they
can finally be heard. But others
equate this sudden realization that
their actions have consequences
to living in fear, which is outright
disrespectful. You cannot equate
your fear of being accused to the
fear of being raped. Because at
the end of the day, you can change
your actions to be less harmful and
less likely to draw retribution. We
cannot change our gender.
I live in fear of walking at
night. I walked home from a club
meeting that got out across town
at 12:30 a.m., and I was terrified.
I saw a group of men outside a
store and I immediately crossed
the street, my heart pounding,
my palms sweating. My parents
found out, and both of them
yelled at me. And you told me
that I can prevent walking home
alone. Like it’s my fault and my
job to change my behaviors. We
must assume the worst could
happen and fix ourselves, rather
than the problem itself. You tell
us we must assume the worst,
but also criticize me for doing the
same in a trial setting. You tell us
to assume the worst of women,
but give men the benefit of the
doubt.
I live in fear of being alone
with a boy. Even boys that I am
friends with. Because I was
taught that I could not trust
any boys with myself. And you
tried to invalidate my fear by
telling me that you, too, live in
fear of being alone with a girl,
because she could accuse you of
rape when you’ve done nothing
wrong. Like that’s just as bad and
just as common as being raped.
I live in fear, and I have never
been harmed. I don’t even know
what it’s like to actually go
through this. But I have heard
enough stories; I have talked to
enough friends; I have been told
enough times that I know the
fear.
I live in fear that I will write
this article again. I’ve written
it before. My fingers are tired
of typing. My head is tired of
pounding. My heart is tired of
aching. I am tired of living in
fear.
You live in fear? You don’t
even know what fear is.
Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4 — Tuesday, December 4, 2018
Emma Chang
Ben Charlson
Joel Danilewitz
Michael Russo
Dana Pierangeli
Tara Jayaram
Jeremy Kaplan
Magdalena Mihaylova
Ellery Rosenzweig
Jason Rowland
Anu Roy-Chaudhury
Alex Satola
Ali Safawi
Ashley Zhang
Reid Diamond
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
DAVID HAYSE | COLUMN
Passion and misinformation
To the boys who tell us they live in fear
DANA PIERANGELI | COLUMN
David Hayse can be reached at
dhayse@umich.edu.
Dana Pierangeli can be reached at
dmpier@umich.edu.
T
he
Ohio
House
of
Representatives recently
passed
a
piece
of
legislation about abortion that has
been dubbed a “heartbeat bill” by
a whopping 60 votes for and 35
votes against. The bill would ban
abortions after a fetal heartbeat
can be detected with absolutely
no exceptions. To describe this
bill as “hardline” would be to
woefully understate things.
Abortions needed due to rape
and incest would not be allowed
outside of this time frame. Does
that seem right to you? While
a fetal human heart may start
beating as soon as four weeks,
it usually cannot be detected
by existing medical technology
before
six
weeks.
Assuming
national trends more or less apply
to Ohio, this would effectively
criminalize 65.4 percent of all
abortions.
If passed by the Ohio Senate,
the bill would also shift the legal
status of fetuses from “unborn
human” to a person with full
legal protections under Ohio law.
In other words, the contents of a
pregnant woman’s reproductive
system would be deemed a life
equal to yours or mine. The
ramifications of such a change are
nothing short of depraved.
This provision means that
women who seek out and receive
successful abortions after the
allowed period would be subject
to first-degree murder charges.
Really. I’m not making this
up. What makes this provision
especially sinister is that Ohio is
a state in which the barbaric and
unconstitutional death penalty is
still legal. In practice, a woman
who receives an abortion at six
weeks because she’s carrying her
rapist’s child could be subject to
murder under state law.
And while crazy laws with no
chance of passing get proposed in
state legislatures all the time, this
“heartbeat bill” certainly does not
fall into this category. For starters,
the Ohio Senate — where the bill
is now headed — is completely
dominated
by
anti-abortion
Republicans. Furthermore, Ohio
governor-elect
Mike
DeWine,
one of President Donald Trump’s
lackeys, has promised to sign the
bill should it be brought to his
desk. It is far more likely than not
that this bill becomes law.
As for abortion providers,
doctors
that
administer
an
abortion
post-fetal
heartbeat
would be guilty of a fifth-
degree felony, punishable by
up to a year in prison and a
$2,500 fine. There have been
some questions surrounding the
constitutionality of this bill. Does
it conflict with Roe v. Wade’s
set legal precedent? Answers
may vary, but make no mistake:
The Republican majority in the
Supreme Court will not strike
down or oppose this bill should it
become codified law.
Those pushing for this bill
to pass call themselves “pro-
lifers.” This is wrongheaded. If
they were really pro-life, they
would be pooling their time and
resources into striking down the
death penalty not just in Ohio,
but on the federal level. How can
you be “pro-life” and pro-death
penalty?
Those who subscribe to this
twisted way of thinking may
claim that they are opposed to the
taking of innocent life and that
certain criminals do not deserve
to live. This may seem reasonable
on its surface, but, upon further
investigation,
this
argument
proves to be a fallacious one.
For starters, studies reviewing
exonerations and post-mortem
pardons have found that at least 4
percent of death row inmates are
innocent.
So long as our justice system
is operated by fallible people,
error in convictions will exist.
Should we do what we can to
reduce judicial error? Of course.
However, as long as our system
of law and order is imperfect,
drastic
and
irreversible,
capital punishment is simply
unjustifiable.
The
second
part
of
the
aforementioned
argument
is
based on an incorrect premise.
Life
is
a
constitutionally
enshrined right, not a privilege.
Therefore, one does not have
to “deserve” life, as it is an
inalienable right. To ignore this
is to rip out the foundation of our
entire code of laws. This would be
unwise at best, and wretched and
rogue at worst.
Self-avowed
Republican
“pro-life” advocates also tend to
support endless war which, of
course, leads to the brutalization
and destruction of the lives of
so many. They also fall in line
with a party that has waged a
seemingly never-ending crusade
against
America’s
already
embarrassingly bounded social
safety net. In other words, they
may want you to be born, but
are not too concerned with what
happens afterwards.
It is precisely this that so
limits the appeal of the “pro-
life” movement. While half of
Americans identify with the “pro-
life” stance in regards to abortion,
so many of them simply cannot
sign on to what this movement
has become. The wildly hardline
approach to the issue exhibited
by this “heartbeat bill” is not
only alienating, it’s evil. The
frothing-at-the-mouth bloodlust
for women who get abortions,
as exhibited in this piece of
legislation, is even causing people
who find abortion to be largely
immoral to see the “pro-life”
movement as adversaries.
Pro-choice
advocates
often
label those on the other side of
the issue as anti-women. While
this is certainly not the case for
all, it is not wholly unjustified
either. This bill proves that.
The sweeping language of the
bill makes it unclear whether
or not women who miscarry
would be legally allowed to get
surgical procedures to prevent
infections and other potential
complications.
The fact of the matter is that
the movement is not “pro-life,”
it’s just anti-abortion. I feel
comfortable calling myself pro-
life, because I am consistent.
45,000
Americans
die
every
year for lack of ability to afford
healthcare — I’m against that.
Our country, shamefully, has
been at war for 225 years out of its
242-year existence — I’m against
that.
What I am trying to say is that
the pro-life worldview should be
just that: a worldview. “Pro-life”
should be a praise only afforded
to those who exhibit that stance
across the board. Being pro-life,
truly pro-life, is the only way
forward for a nation that aspires
to justice and morality.
Not pro-life, just anti-abortion
ELIAS KHOURY | COLUMN
Elias Khoury can be reached at
ekhoury@umich.edu.
EMILY WOLFE | CONTACT EMILY AT ELWOLFE@UMICH.EDU
Read more at MichiganDaily.com
DANA
PIERANGELI
You don’t even
know what fear
is.