N
ow that the midterm
elections are over with
and Democrats won the
popular vote in the House by the
largest margins since Watergate,
it is safe to turn our attention to
2020, albeit a bit early. Despite
some rumblings from Ohio Gov.
John
Kasich,
the
Republican
presidential nominee for president
will most likely be Donald Trump.
On the left, though, a competitive
race seems to be shaping up,
giving Democratic voters as many
choices as required to choose their
ideal 2020 candidate.
Of
course,
there
will
be
some in the media who push a
Democrats-in-disarray story both
because it is easy and because it
conforms to a long-held narrative
about the Democratic Party’s
inability to truly be inclusive of
fiscal conservatives and social
progressives at the same time.
There will undoubtedly be think-
pieces analyzing party infighting
about whether to move toward
the middle or the left. While we
should absolutely have serious
policy debates on questions such
as the merits of Medicare for
all versus public option health
insurance, the Democratic Party
has always been a big tent party
filled with voters from left of
center to the far left. And that’s
okay. It simply means we have
more voices and perspectives
contributing to the effort to solve
our country’s problems and help
as many Americans as we can.
In 2020, we unquestionably
need a nominee who aligns with
the party’s values as we define
them in the coming months, but
they should also have the ability
to unite the country through
inspiration and a vision of hope.
While fear is a very powerful
motivational
tool—especially
in politics as evidenced most
recently
by
Trump’s
2016
presidential campaign— hope and
change the old adages of President
Barack Obama, are exactly what
so many Americans are deeply
craving for our country.
While
there
haven’t
been
any major announcements of
presidential bids quite yet, there
is ongoing list of people dipping
their toes in the water, gathering
advisers and pollsters to make
their decision and shying away
from the question on Sunday
shows. These candidates cover
the
entire
spectrum
of
the
Democratic
Party,
including
former Massachusetts Gov. Deval
Patrick, former Vice President
Joe Biden, former Virginia Gov.
Terry McAuliffe, and Sens. Cory
Booker,
Kirsten
Gillibrand,
Kamala Harris and Elizabeth
Warren. All of these potential
candidates
have
their
own
strengths and weaknesses, and
it would be futile to guess which
ones will appeal most to voters in
2020.
A few names missing from
the list are Sen. Bernie Sanders,
former New York City mayor
Michael
Bloomberg,
former
Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz
and venture capitalist Tom Steyer,
who have all expressed interest
in running but do not actually
have any stake to the Democratic
Party.
It is important that the party
does not over-adjust itself in an
effort to learn something from
the 2016 election; it would be
unwise to choose a candidate
whose
identity
and
policies
capitulate in an attempt to appeal
to Trump voters. Though it was
heartbreaking to witness Andrew
Gillum of Florida, Stacey Abrams
of Georgia, and Beto O’Rourke
of Texas lose their exciting
campaigns, it is important to
remember those exciting and
progressive
candidates
came
closer to winning their elections
than any of the previous bland,
moderate
candidates
had
in
recent history. If then-Georgia
State Secretary Georgia Brian
Kemp
hadn’t
disenfranchised
tends of thousands of Black
and Democratic voters, Stacey
Abrams would be the governor-
elect of Georgia right now. The
lesson from these races is not that
we should run more moderate
candidates, it is that we need
to do a whole lot of work to end
the effects of gerrymandering,
voter
suppression
and
disenfranchisement.
And
we
must remember this for 2020.
Only a candidate who instills
a sense of hopefulness about
this country’s ability to fulfill
its founding promise will excite
enough voters, enough Americans,
to triumph over division and fear
to win the presidency. This sense
of hopefulness will come from
the alignment of the candidates’
personal stories and their visions
of the future. Their policies
will need to be big and bold,
their rhetoric skills genuine and
uplifting.
We
should
refrain
from
declaring
that
we
cannot
nominate another Black man or
woman, or white man for that
matter, just because of history. If
Beto O’Rourke, a conventionally
attractive, white, straight man,
is able to connect to voters and
deliver a message of hope better
than any other candidate, then he
should be the nominee. However,
we should also consider how
being a conventionally attractive,
white, straight man allows him
to connect to voters more easily
than someone who is not those
things. Take Kamala Harris, for
example, who is a Black woman.
Because we have seen people
similar to O’Rourke as president
in the past, it is much easier to
imagine him as president. And
because we have never seen a
Black female president, it is much
harder to imagine how she will
lead and govern, and people tend
to turn away from that which
they cannot imagine generally
out
of
misguided
fear
and
uncertainty. Sometimes, though,
leaning into that is exactly what
leads to the very best results;
perhaps having a literally brand-
new type of leader is exactly
what this country so desperately
needs. As a party, it is important
that the Democratic nominee for
president in 2020 — or at least, the
ticket — is representative of the
party’s own demographics.
There
is
no
one
magical
candidate that can appeal to
every single American and solve
every single issue. But there is a
candidate in the sea of hopefuls
who will inspire us to be active in
the democratic process, who will
try to unite rather than divide
us, who will remind of us all of
the greatness of this American
experiment.
And
she
should
absolutely be the Democratic
nominee for president of the
United States in 2020.
Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4A — Thursday, December 6, 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
The ideal 2020 candidate
MARISA WRIGHT | COLUMN
Marisa Wright can be reached at
marisadw@umich.edu.
Historically,
both
sides
of the aisle use this time to
push last minute legislation
in favor of their own party’s
agenda before the change
in power halts their efforts.
However,
the
Republican
response
to
the
election
of Democrats to all three
Michigan statewide offices
this year is unprecedented
and ultimately subversive of
the will of Michigan voters.
Democratic state candidates
were elected to the positions
of
governor,
attorney
general
and
secretary
of
state for the first time in
almost 20 years. Yet both
legislative chambers remain
Republican, in part due to
partisan
gerrymandering.
Michigan state Republicans
have failed to gain a majority
of votes in either legislative
house
despite
gaining
a
majority of seats in both, now
using their power obtained
through gerrymandering to
pass last minute legislation
in
direct
opposition
to
statewide
results.
They’re
not just pushing an agenda;
they’re proposing legislation
that
directly
undermines
Michigan voters and actively
works
against
democratic
norms.
So
far,
Michigan
state
Republicans have proposed
delaying
a
raise
in
the
minimum wage that would
reach $12 by 2022. Instead,
they
have
pushed
this
increase to only take full
effect by 2030. In addition,
they also pushed to decrease
paid sick leave from accruing
at a rate of one hour every
30 hours worked to one hour
for every 40 hours worked.
Essentially, paid sick leave
would then be cut from 72
hours per year to 36 hours per
year for the average worker.
Both of these elements of
the
minimum
wage
bill
undoubtedly hurt working-
class citizens of Michigan,
but even worse is how they
directly invalidate the voice
of Michigan voters.
The
minimum
wage
initiative
had
enough
signatures
to
appear
on
the
ballot
in
November,
but was removed when the
state
legislature
adopted
the proposal in September.
Hence,
the
Republican
legislature
adopted
the
bill with the sole purpose
of
changing
it
after
the
elections, defying the will
of a citizen-led effort at One
Fair Wage that had garnered
the
support
from
voters
across the state. The original
proposal’s
minimum
wage
increase
would
have
had
important effects, especially
in areas like Wayne County
where 60,000 work in jobs
with a median hourly wage of
fewer than $10 per hour. In
essence, the GOP capitalized
on
the
opportunity
to
thwart
incoming
officials
and, in doing so, prevented
a
grassroots
initiative
that could have positively
impacted
thousands.
If
anything,
this
shows
how
entrenched
power
hungriness
is
in
politics,
and the GOP’s overt favoring
of its position in politics,
rather than the wishes of its
constituents.
A
third
Republican
proposal would limit the
secretary of state’s power
in
campaign
finance
oversight
while
another
would guarantee that the
legislature — still controlled
by the GOP — would have
the right to intervene in
any legal battles involving
state laws that the attorney
general
doesn’t
comment
on
or
defend.
Michigan
voters elected their attorney
general
and
secretary
of
state, yet the Republican
legislature
is
trying
to
negate their elections. These
proposals are gross abuses
of power; the Republican
legislature is manipulating
the democratic process to
fit its agenda, an unabashed
affront to its voters. Petty
partisan
politics
have
once again impeded good
governance and effectively
disenfranchised
Michigan
voters.
These
proposals
aren’t
just
abstract
procedural
changes; they will have a
real impact on students and
the University of Michigan
community.
Raising
the
minimum wage can increase
living standards as living
costs rise. Paid sick leave
ensures employees can stay
home
when
they’re
sick,
allowing themselves to get
better while not posing any
risks to their colleagues.
We that worry under this
change, more workers will
have to choose between their
health and their paycheck
solely
because
a
scorned
and unpopular party chose
to override the will of the
voters.
When
State
House
and
Senate Republicans exploit
their
constitutionally
delegated powers for their
own political goals, they defy
the
democratic
standards
to
which
we
hold
our
governmental processes. A
smooth transition of power is
something the U.S. typically
prides
itself
on,
but
the
blatant power grab of the
GOP is an outward disregard
of such precedents.
A
couple of weeks ago,
a friend told me to
apply for an internship
at
Palantir,
a
company
that specializes in big data
analytics. I scrolled through
the job’s description, wrote a
quick cover letter and left my
application untouched for a
couple of weeks.
At the very same time, the Los
Angeles police were stopping
people
in
low-income
areas
without any clear reason. Manuel
Rios, a 22-year-old who lives in
the city’s gang populated area
was stopped dozens of times
ever since a police officer took a
photograph of him after being
seen with a gang member. Rios
was never part of a gang, but
when the police officer took
his photograph, he was told,
“Welcome to the gang database!”
That “gang database” was created
by Palantir in collaboration with
the
L.A.
police,
automating
the targeting of supposed gang
members. Once a person’s profile
enters that database, it gets stuck
there forever, and it gives police
officers an additional reason
to constantly invade a person’s
privacy. For Rios, who has spent
most of his life doing his best to
stay away from gang activity, it
only draws him closer to it.
This is one example of the many
collaborations of which Palantir
is part: from working with J.P.
Morgan to spy on its employees
to having one of its employees
work with Cambridge Analytica
to use Facebook’s users’ personal
data. As J.P. Morgan’s former
chief information officer, Guy
Chiarello put it, Palantir turns
“data landfills into gold mines.”
The kind of “data landfills”
he is talking about allow the
company to build both police and
immigration departments models
that match citizens with labels
such as “Colleague of,” “Lives
with,” “Owner of,” and “Lover
of.”
Palantir’s blog posts talk about
its belief in regulations that
govern data privacy, and about
its Privacy and Civil Liberties
Team. Their actions, though,
tell a different story. Only later
did I find out that in a company
managing hundreds of projects
and thousands of employees, this
particular team consisted of only
10 people. I deleted my internship
application.
There is a lot of talk nowadays
about algorithmic bias — which
makes a lot of people think
there is something wrong with
the
algorithms
themselves.
In Palantir’s case, though, it’s
not the algorithms that have a
problem, but the data that the
company uses and the way it
uses the information. But can we
restrict the manner in which a
company chooses to use its data?
Hannah Fry, a mathematician
who recently wrote a book
on how algorithms affect our
society, has been advocating
for
creating
a
regulatory
government body to check the
type of data and algorithms
that companies are deploying.
At this moment, any company
is allowed to use any data,
in any manner it wants. It’s
the equivalent of having any
company put any substance in
a bottle and sell it under any
label. The same way the FDA
protects both the intellectual
property of companies, while
also ensuring the benefits of
a product outweigh its harms.
Is there a way to do this with
algorithms? Probably. But as
long as Silicon Valley is on
track to be the top corporate
lobbying spender, companies
will
likely
continue
doing
whatever they want with our
data.
People are increasingly not
willing to share their data
with companies. Governments
are casting a suspicious eye
toward companies collecting
data from their customers.
Right now, we live in a time
when companies like Palantir
are generating a lot of profit by
leveraging data that users and
governments
unknowingly
give up on. But what will
happen five, 10 years from
now? What will happen when
all citizens will understand
that their right to privacy is
intertwined with the data
they share? What will happen
when more governments will
decide to protect their citizens
instead of their tech world
benefactors? Will companies
like Palantir even be feasible?
It was only after a lawsuit
that the Los Angeles Police
Department
released
documents about Palantir’s
surveillance algorithm they
were using. The result? It
unveiled the fact that the
algorithm
propagates
the
disproportionately
high
number of arrests of Black
Angelinos and other minority
groups. Palantir understood
the data that it was using
to develop this algorithm.
It would had been able to
predict
this
risk.
But
it
didn’t. Until the government
starts taking action in setting
restrictions on the data these
companies use, it is our
responsibility to understand
the risks of misusing data.
It is our responsibility to
continue questioning these
companies (maybe even filing
a
lawsuit
against
them),
and to consider the ethical
questions when applying to
internships.
ANAMARIA CUZA | COLUMN
When companies abuse our data
Anamaria Cuza can be reached at
anacuza@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.
FROM THE DAILY
Michigan Republicans’ disdain for democracy
F
ollowing the Nov-6 midterm elections, legislative
bodies across the country are in a lame-duck
session: the three-month period after many
incumbents are voted out of office, but before the newly
elected officials assume their positions next year.
This shows how
entrenched power
hungriness is in
politics
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.
Once a person’s
profile enters
that database, it
gets stuck there
forever