A
s a buzz of tweets about
Texas Rep. Beto O’Rourke’s
possible 2020 election run
have
surfaced
in
the past few days, a
particular meeting
has resurfaced in
the minds of many
progressives.
In
2017, O’Rourke met
with the American
Israel Public Affairs
Committee,
a
prominent
pro-
Israel
political
action
committee,
and affirmed his support for Israel
in a tweet expressing that he
learned “how the United States
can
continue
to
support
our
important ally in the region.” As
many progressives identify as pro-
Palestine, O’Rourke’s status as their
hero is being questioned. Why are
we just now learning or re-learning
about this seemingly important
policy stance after his Senate race
has ended?
It’s because Democrats don’t love
to talk about foreign policy. Despite
its importance to American voters,
it has never been a rallying cry for
the Democrats. Instead of drawing
attention to the civil war in Yemen
or political instability in South and
Central America, Democrats have
been talking a lot about who might
run in 2020: O’Rourke, Minnesota
Sen. Amy Klobuchar, Vermont Sen.
Bernie Sanders, California Sen.
Kamala Harris and the list goes
on. The election is still about two
years off, but potential candidates
are already speaking explicitly
about their prospects. This buzz is
indicative of our current political
state, in which sensationalism akin
to Hollywood gossip and iconic
personalities
often
overshadow
policy concerns.
That is not to say 2020 isn’t
important — curtailing Donald
Trump’s
presidency
should
definitely be a prominent
Democratic aim. As we
inevitably
focus
our
attention on 2020, I hope
Democrats will hone in on
foreign policy and national
security as a key part of
their campaign effort.
The Democratic Party
has long been ambivalent on
foreign policy, which makes
it a very difficult issue to
unite our base around.
Issues such as the U.S. alliance with
Israel and Saudi Arabia, the war
in Iraq and intervention in war-
torn Syria have left Democratic
politicians on opposing sides.
There is not quite a salient divide,
as Democrats don’t emphasize
these subjects enough to stir up
huge controversy within the party.
While Democrats love to focus
on health care and economic
justice,
national
security
concerns consistently rank among
Americans’ top three concerns.
The way we choose to engage in
Yemen and Syria will have a large
impact on our national security
for years to come. Thus, Trump’s
reckless engagement in these
areas should be a major focal point
for Democrats, but we instead
continue to allow Republicans to
attack us on the grounds of being
weak and dovish.
More important than the smart
political
strategy
that
strong
Democratic foreign policy could
be, these issues are of great moral
consequence. The Yemeni Civil
War is the largest humanitarian
crisis of our time, and the country
is quickly headed toward famine.
Meanwhile, the U.S. continues
to manufacture and ship arms
to Saudi Arabia to keep bombing
innocent Yemeni civilians. As long
as Democrats claim to be on the
side of social justice, they must
hold our leaders accountable for
the blood on their hands.
Thankfully,
a
new
class
of Democrats like New York
incoming Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-
Cortez and Minnesota incoming
Rep. Ilhan Omar are starting to
look abroad in their fight for justice
and call attention to the plight to
which we are contributing. Ben
Rhodes, deputy national security
adviser
to
President
Barack
Obama, has also taken on the
project of encouraging Democrats
to talk about national security by
creating the National Security
Action, an organization dedicated
to “shining a light on” the Trump
administration’s
dangerous
foreign policy and constructing a
Democratic vision.
While Trump continues to
praise
Saudi
Arabia
Crown
Prince Mohammed Bin-Salman,
Russian
President
Vladimir
Putin
and
other
murderous
despots, the Democrats have a
prime opportunity to call out
Republicans for their complicity in
both financing murder of foreign
civilians and creating a more
dangerous world for Americans.
Though the issues feel more
abstract when they’re far from
American shores, it only takes a
smart communications team to
connect the dots and transform
this into a key messaging tactic.
Americans should feel secure
in their decision to vote for
Democrats, knowing they are the
best party to serve their interests
domestically and abroad.
I
t seems like every six months
there is a new holiday that
spends an entire day absolutely
obliterating social media feeds. Last
week, #GivingTuesday took its
turn in this newly created digital
spotlight, prompting me to wonder
where #GivingTuesday came from
and what #GivingTuesday can tell
us about the current state of charity
work.
#GivingTuesday’s rise has been
nothing short of meteoric. In 2012,
just after being founded by the
United Nations Foundation and
92nd Street Y, #GivingTuesday was
able to raise an “inspiring” $10.1
million. This past week, only six
years later, #GivingTuesday raised
a whopping $380 million. In 2012,
Mashable was “thrilled” about the
“new annual celebration” that “is
less about buying gifts and more
about giving back,” referring to
the mass consumerism and abject
purchasing that occurs every Black
Friday and Cyber Monday.
But how did #GivingTuesday
become
such
a
phenomenon?
And why does it seem to exist
almost solely on social media?
The
answer
is
actually
quite
simple;
from
#GivingTuesday’s
inception, “the movement” was
able to score partnerships with a
litany of powerful technology and
social media companies. Its official
sponsors include the likes of Skype,
Cisco, Microsoft, Sony, Mashable,
Facebook, The Bill and Melinda
Gates Foundation and Google Plus.
#GivingTuesday’s
digital
strategy can be seen in every
part of the movement. In fact, on
#GivingTuesday’s official website
says “#GivingTuesday harnesses
the potential of social media.” One
also doesn’t really have to look past
the name, which officially has a
hashtag in it (cringe), to see that
#GivingTuesday was tailor-made
for social media.
On the surface, #GivingTuesday
seems like it is not much more than
a shining example of the more noble
potentials of social media. While
the positive material outcomes of
#GivingTuesday are undeniable,
it’s important that we don’t allow
corporate-created social projects to
exist solely in their desired state of
unbounded positivity.
I can’t help but feel a cold draft
rush into the room when I think
about
the
advanced
publicity
chess
move
that
sponsoring
#GivingTuesday is for a company
like Facebook. It is no secret that
Facebook has been under massive
amounts of public scrutiny ever
since the 2016 election. Of course
every corporation is invested in
maintaining its public image, but it’s
important to understand that image
is far more important for social
media companies than almost any
other type of company.
Facebook
does
not
actually
sell people a product, nor do they
actually provide anything that
cannot easily be replicated; someone
halfway through a computer science
degree could recreate Facebook from
scratch. The entire value of Facebook
comes solely from the fact that other
people use Facebook. Essentially,
anyone can create a Facebook 2.0,
but it’s nearly impossible to convince
billions of people to sign on. It’s this
dynamic that puts Facebook at a
very uncomfortable crossroad.
I wonder how many board
meetings Facebook has had on this
exact topic: If people say they hate
Facebook so much, why do they
keep using it? Or rather, why don’t
they stop using Facebook? There are
tons of interesting potential answers
to this question, but, for Facebook,
#GivingTuesday is a solution. By
supporting #GivingTuesday and
making Facebook a fundraising
friendly website (started in 2017)
in general, people start to view
Facebook with a sense of idealism
and as a place where organizing and
sharing thoughts to help those in
need is easy and abundant.
In short, Facebook’s shift toward
philanthropy seems to fit a timeline
in which Facebook wants people to
think of Facebook less as a place filled
with fake news and conservative
radicalization and more as a place
that helps facilitate the homeless to
get their next meal. It may be unfair
to cast Facebook’s philanthropy
efforts
as
being
completely
disingenuous, but it is also unfair
to ignore #GivingTuesday as a
publicity stunt for Facebook and
tech companies alike.
The broader idea of creating
a charitable movement around
social media also reads as deeply
troubling and reflective of the hyper-
individualized times in which we
live. The best and most ethical ways
of giving back have been debated
by
philosophers
and
religious
communities for thousands of years,
but most people agree charitable
acts should center on those in need,
not those who are giving.
The central tenet of social
media is for people to express their
individuality: to share with the
world what you are doing, to tell
everyone what you are thinking
about, to have everyone see you in all
your beauty. If we agree the highest
forms of charity revolve around
unrewarded self-sacrifice, doesn’t a
platform designed for self-praising
seem like a really weird place “to
do” charity?
After
perusing
the
#GivingTuesday
website
for
a while, I started to wonder
if
#GivingTuesday
saw
a
way for people to give back
by
non-monetary
means.
#GivingTuesday
does
recommend and provides truly
useful tools for finding local
charities at which volunteer. But
#GivingTuesday also suggests
people post a “#UNselfie” in
which they take a selfie of them
doing charitable work and attach
#GivingTuesday and #UNselfie
to their social media post.
At
every
turn
it
appears
#GivingTuesday is a charitable
movement
that
is
sustained
by a matrix of self-interest.
From a rough and zoomed-out
perspective, it seems that our
critical response to the consumer
capitalism that occurs on Black
Friday and Cyber Monday is
to participate in a corporately-
sustained social media campaign
that allows us to tell our friends
how much money we gave to
charity. My point is not that
contributing to #GivingTuesday
is
necessarily
unethical,
but
rather that #GivingTuesday is
the perfect yet slightly terrifying
symbol of altruism in postmodern
times.
Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4 — Friday, December 7, 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
How #GivingTuesday became the selfie of altruism
REED ROSENBACHER | COLUMN
Reed Rosenbacher can be reached
at rrosenb@umich.edu.
W
e live in a country so
polarized that it’s hard
to imagine having a
civil conversation with someone
who voted differently than you did.
This is a problem.
Polarization, to put it simply,
characterizes the trend in American
politics in which Republicans and
Democrats agree on less and less.
A polarized political body is one
that can’t compromise. Polarization
is
deeply
concerning
for
any
democracy. Polarization stymies
policy from being legislated and
thus can undermine democracy
to the point of decay. The Weimar
Republic, Germany’s experiment
with
democracy
before
Adolf
Hitler, was undermined deeply by
polarization caused by political
factions that couldn’t compromise.
Leading up to Hitler’s appointment
as chancellor, the polarization had
gotten so bad that the Reichstag, the
German legislature, was unable to
pass legislation. Thus, the German
president relied on unilateral action
through executive decrees, akin
to our executive orders, which
helped pave the way for Hitler’s
abuses of executive power and the
rise of the Third Reich. We should
all be concerned by the damage
polarization is doing to the efficacy
and health of our democratic system.
There are whole classes and
entire books on the source of political
polarization in America. Some say
it’s the changing demographics and
the approach to a majority-minority
nation, which I reject as essentialist
thinking that demonstrates racism.
There’s nothing inherent about
having a smaller white majority that
means our politics will be polarized.
Others say it’s social media and the
news cycle, which might be true
— but it’s not like we can get rid of
social media or the 24/7 news cycle.
Regardless of the sources of the
polarization, I can think there’s one
pretty straightforward way we can
alleviate polarization.
To
lessen
polarization,
we
should lessen political hobbyism.
Political hobbyism is defined by
political scientist Eitan Hersch as
“a degraded form of politics that
caters to the voyeurism of news
junkies and the short attention span
of slacktivists.” Political hobbyism is
the politics born of a 24/7 news cycle,
with social media and the internet
cluttering your home screen with
notifications.
Political
hobbyists
have a relationship with politics akin
to sports fan with sports. Like avid
sports fans, political hobbyists have
an insatiable interest in politics and
a strong emotional investment in
politics. But this interest in politics
only serves to provide immediate
emotional gratification — either
boiling outrage or fervent support —
while killing an intent to act in any
meaningful way. A political hobbyist
will know all about what’s going on,
tweet voraciously about politics,
then call it a night.
Political hobbyism creates an
outrage culture that fuels the
atmosphere of polarization. When
politics is a sports-like hobby, people
lose sight of the purpose of being
politically aware in the first place.
Knowledge of politics should be to
serve political action. If an issue is
really important to you, then you
should use the knowledge you have
about it to take action in whatever
way you can. In a democracy, political
actions should be ultimately geared
toward effecting change, of which
changing minds and mobilizing
people
is
often
instrumental.
This
could
be
done
through
voting, volunteering for political
organizations, engaging in dialogues
as rationally and respectfully as
possible, fundraising, etc. Anything
that does not serve, even indirectly,
the advancement of issues you care
about through legislation or the
enactment of policies is not legitimate
political action in my opinion.
I witnessed a good example of
non-hobbyist political action at a
teach-in on immigration under the
Trump administration. An organizer
spoke about protesting a speech by
an anti-immigration spokesperson
held by the University’s chapter of
College Republicans. The intent was
to change the minds of the people in
the audience, not to simply express
outrage and deem the speaker and
audience members terrible people.
The protestors planned to wield
signs with facts and images of asylum
seekers to refute the speaker’s anti-
immigrant arguments.
It’s
not
that
you
shouldn’t
use heated language or speak
passionately, even angrily, or that you
shouldn’t tweet about politics. But
you should draw a line where you
think you could no longer convince
a person to agree with you. Getting
mad at someone for thinking
something you find offensive is
understandable. But if you get
apoplectic, the conversation has been
supplanted by a shouting match, and
that person will never agree with
you. Nothing is stopping the spread
of ideological polarization when
people don’t care about achieving
compromise through dialogues and
rational exchanges. Remembering
that compromise is an indispensable
modality of democracy could check
ideologues and the theatrics of
political hobbyists that further
polarizes our politics.
German philosopher Friedrich
Nietzsche thought history needed
to be used only to help the living
act in the present. A student who
studied history excessively would
have no will to take action, because
they would spend all of their time
and energy reconstructing and
studying the past. The proper
use of history is to inspire novel
pursuits in the present and future.
Political hobbyists, which all of
us are to some degree, should
consider
adopting
this
advice
to their relationship to politics.
Interest in politics should primarily
be about readying yourself to act in
accordance with your beliefs and
interests, of which changing minds
is often paramount to achieve in
our democratic system. Growth is a
facet of all human experience. Were
you the same person, with the same
views, three years ago? I definitely
wasn’t. Keep this in mind when
talking to people who disagree with
you. Just because they don’t agree
with you now doesn’t mean they
won’t ever change their mind. If we
reframe how we think about politics
to be rooted in taking action, we can
take an important step to alleviating
the polarization that is tearing our
country apart.
AARON BAKER | COLUMN
Want less polarization? Look for a new hobby
Aaron Baker can be reached at
aaronbak@umich.edu.
Looking abroad for 2020
MARGOT LIBERTINI | COLUMN
Margot Libertini can be reached at
mliberti@umich.edu.
C
ongress has finally taken
some action on climate
change, and the solution is
exactly what we’ve been hoping for.
On Nov. 28, three Republicans
and three Democrats introduced
the Energy Innovation and Carbon
Dividend Act of 2018 in the House
of Representatives. This bill, viewed
as a free market solution to climate
change, is revenue neutral, adds 2.1
million jobs to the U.S. economy and
gives American taxpayers hundreds of
dollars each month. Oh yeah, it’ll also
cut United States carbon emissions by
40 percent in 12 years, which is on par
with what the International Panel on
Climate Change recommends to keep
global warming limited to 1.5 degrees
Celsius.
Sounds a little too good to be true,
right? Here’s how it works:
Carbon Fee
The policy puts a fee on fuels like
coal, oil and gas at the source. As soon
as the fuel is drawn, a $15 per ton fee
will be added to the price. With each
year, the fee will grow by $10 to create
a progressive policy. Because the
price of carbon would increase due
to the fee, energy prices for coal, oil
and gas would increase as well. This
would act as a market-equalizer by
incorporating the environmental cost
of these fuels. As the price of carbon
fuels increases relative to the price of
renewable energy, renewable energy
will become a more economical
option for households. As a result,
the demand for renewable energy
will increase and companies will be
incentivized to invest in renewable
technologies that are not subject to
the tax.
Carbon Dividend
It’s important that it’s a carbon fee,
not a tax. All of the money collected
from the fee will be given back to the
American people at the end of each
month — not diverted to any other
programs. Because each American
gets the same amount of money,
this policy will actually offer some
benefits to the middle and lower
classes. It’s estimated 53 percent
of households will receive more
dividend money than they spend on
energy costs at the end of the month.
Program costs will also be taken
out of the funds collected by the fee.
The dividend would be given to the
people as a general transfer of funds,
meaning Americans would be able to
spend their money as they see fit.
Border Carbon Adjustment
To protect U.S. manufacturers
and jobs, imported goods will also
be subject to the carbon fee. As
a result, manufacturers will be
disincentivized to move overseas to
avoid the fee. American goods that are
exported will receive a refund for the
carbon fee under this policy.
Regulatory Adjustment
The policy prevents redundant
carbon regulations as long as the
targets are being met. Regulations on
auto mileage and other pollutants will
not be affected.
This policy is the best way for
the United States to amp up its fight
against climate change. But first,
it needs to get passed in Congress.
That might sound like a pretty big
order, especially with our current
government, but there are ways that
you (yes, you!) can have a real impact
on the political conversation about
climate change.
The most important thing you
can possibly do is call or write your
representative and tell them you
support this bill. Though it might
seem like representatives don’t care
what you think, they definitely do.
Your vote decides whether they
have a job in two years, and they are
responsible for representing your
interests on the national stage. Hold
them to that.
There
are
also
several
environmental groups that focus
on climate activism. I’m a part
of the University of Michigan’s
chapter of Citizen’s Climate Lobby,
an international organization that
focuses on speaking to representatives
to advocate for the bipartisan passage
of the Energy Innovation and
Carbon Dividend Act. Through
this organization, I’ve had the
opportunity to go to Washington,
D.C., and speak with Michigan
senators and House representatives.
There are also groups like Climate
Blue, Students for Clean Energy and
the Climate Action Movement at the
University that advocate for campus
sustainability.
Our climate can’t wait for us
to make slow change. The IPCC
Report and the recent U.S. Climate
Report say we don’t have that much
time left if we want to stay below
1.5 degrees Celsius of warming. We
need to see widespread community
action to drive policy if we are
going to protect our future and our
children’s future. The best way to
do that right now is to get Congress
to pass the Energy Innovation and
Carbon Dividend Act. We’ve been
taking baby steps to combat climate
change. It’s high time for us to start
sprinting.
The next step in fighting climate change
HALLIE FOX | OP-ED
Hallie Fox is an LSA sophomore.
MARGOT
LIBERTINI