Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4A — Wednesday, January 30, 2019

Emma Chang
Joel Danilewitz

Samantha Goldstein

Elena Hubbell
Emily Huhman
Tara Jayaram

Jeremy Kaplan

Sarah Khan

Lucas Maiman

Magdalena Mihaylova

Ellery Rosenzweig

Jason Rowland

Anu Roy-Chaudhury

Alex Satola
Ali Safawi

 Ashley Zhang
Sam Weinberger

FINNTAN STORER

Managing Editor

Stanford Lipsey Student Publications Building

420 Maynard St. 

Ann Arbor, MI 48109

 tothedaily@michigandaily.com

Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan since 1890.

MAYA GOLDMAN

Editor in Chief
MAGDALENA MIHAYLOVA 

AND JOEL DANILEWITZ

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

Though his death was a 

shocking signal to stalwarts 
of the free press, it brought 
to 
light 
the 
impact 
that 

Khashoggi’s trenchant work 
had — both in the U.S. and the 
Middle East.

In 
the 
United 
States, 

the press persists under the 
cumbersome 
weight 
of 
a 

president 
who 
continually 

impugns 
the 
legitimacy 
of 

news and media outlets by 
portraying 
journalism 
as 

an anathema to the nation. 
Despite 
President 
Donald 

Trump’s 
repeated 
attempts 

to undermine the press, we 
have 
seen 
groundbreaking 

reporting across the country. 
From the New York Times’ 
investigative work on Trump’s 
suspicious tax schemes to the 
Miami 
Herald’s 
three-part 

series on how Labor Secretary 
Alexander 
Acosta 
helped 

multimillionaire 
Jeffrey 

Epstein get away with years 
of sex abuse and trafficking, 
journalists 
continue 
to 

diligently pursue the truth 
under 
a 
politically 
terse 

atmosphere.

And here, at the University 

of Michigan, the reporting 
of 
our 
fellow 
classmates 

reinforced how crucial the 
press is on our own campus. 
An article alleging 40 years of 
sexual misconduct by a faculty 
member in the School of Music, 
Theatre & Dance ultimately 
led to the professor’s leave, 
with The Daily’s own Sammy 

Sussman receiving praise from 
the Detroit Free Press for his 
tenacious 
work. 
While 
we 

begin to make our way through 
2019 and uncover new stories, 
we look to these writers with 
admiration and recognize the 
unyielding power of our press.

As students learning how 

to 
understand 
the 
world 

around us, our press continues 
to be a source of guidance. 
No other institution can act 

as a pillar of our democracy 
while 
still 
critiquing 
the 

inevitable 
failings 
of 
our 

government. President John 
F. Kennedy once recognized 
this duality. After receiving 
criticism from the press on his 
Bay of Pigs invasion, he said, 
“Even though we never like 
it, and even though we wish 
they didn’t write it, and even 
though we disapprove, there 

isn’t any doubt that we could 
not do the job at all in a free 
society without a very, very 
active press.” 

It is with this sentiment 

that we encourage students 
to continue supporting the 
tireless work of our writers, 
both 
at 
The 
Daily 
and 

beyond. We must demand the 
most 
from 
our 
university, 

recognizing when they uphold 
their promises as well as when 
they renege on such pledges. 
This can only be done with a 
robust press, one that is daring 
in its coverage and unafraid 
of delving into every corner 
of every establishment thats 
purported goal is to serve.

Today, on Jan. 30, we’re 

publishing 
this 
editorial 

alongside 
other 
student 

journalists across the country 
to 
commemorate 
Student 

Press Freedom Day. We want 
to reinforce to our readership 
— those on this campus and 
beyond — that we will continue 
to be steadfast in our quest for 
the truth. We want to empower 
every voice seeking a platform 
on this campus. And, most 
of all, we want to implore 
everyone 
to 
be 
incisive, 

critical, and always demand 
veracity from both our press 
and our institutions.

AARON BAKER | COLUMN

The wall and unpopular populism

A

s if a wealthy scion 
and reality TV show 
star leading a white-

collar populist movement wasn’t 
ironic enough. President Donald 
Trump fits every definition of a 
populist, yet he is thoroughly and 
fundamentally unpopular. The 
government shutdown debacle 
over the wall is a perfect example. 
The fact that Trump’s populism is 
so unpopular should be a source of 
relief, but could also be something 
to worry about.

Many political scientists define 

populism as a political strategy, 
applicable on the left or right, 
that claims to represent the “pure 
people” against a class of enemies. 
On the right, these enemies are 
usually minorities and, on the left, 
these enemies are typically the 
wealthy. The leaders of populist 
movements claim to represent 
the direct interests of the people. 
Historian Federico Finchelstein 
argues that modern populism is a 
historical product of World War 
II-era fascism. 

He 
writes 
that 
modern 

populism grew out of fascism after 
fascism was defeated ideologically 
and 
militarily 
by 
liberal 

democracies 
and 
communism 

during World War II.

Federico writes the main 

differences 
between 
modern 

populism and fascism are that 
modern populism has shed the 
violence 
and 
authoritarianism 

of fascism. Most populist leaders 
after World War II, he writes, sell 
themselves as wholly democratic, 
often framing the problem they 
want to solve as anti-democratic. 
Trump, for example, talked about 
the “swamp” or establishment 
politicians as being corrupt or 
“crooked,” 
implying 
he 
was 

somehow the democratic solution 
to the crooked elites whereas 
World 
War 
II 
era 
fascists, 

like Mussolini or Hitler, were 
authoritarian dictators. The other 
main difference is that central 
to fascism is violence and the 
elimination of its enemies. Hitler 
terminated racial enemies and 
Mussolini 
terminated 
political 

enemies. Populists are rarely as 
violent.

The 
connection 
between 

fascism and populism is important. 
Populism is so similar to fascism 
that the wall separating the two 
could 
collapse 
under 
enough 

pressure. As Sheri Berman, a 
professor of political science at 
Barnard College, suggested a large 
enough crisis could lead a society 
dealing with populist politics (like 
ours) into one plagued by legitimate 
fascist political movements. This is 
important to remember in a world 
where populism is rising and 
Donald Trump is our president.

Populism of all sorts tends 

to be bad. Populism is usually 
unpredictable, 
irrational 
and 

anti-empirical. It is often driven 
by emotions and resentment for a 
particular group of people, and it 
conflates the interests of the people 
with those of the populist leader. 
Trump’s populism is concerning 
for these reasons, but also because 
it is so unpopular.

Jennifer 
Rubin 
of 
the 

Washington 
Post 
wrote 
an 

informative 
piece 
about 
the 

unpopularity of Trump’s central 
political objectives. Sixty-eight 
percent of Americans don’t support 
a trade war with China. Nearly 60 
percent of Americans don’t support 
building 
a 
wall. 
Seventy-one 

percent of Americans don’t believe 
undocumented immigrants are 
more likely to commit crimes, 
and 59 percent of Americans 
don’t agree that undocumented 
immigrants are taking jobs from 
native-born 
Americans. 
These 

issues — economic protectionism 
and nativist nationalism — are 
central to Trump’s populist vision.

Trump’s 
unpopularity 
is 

glaringly evident in the recent 
debacle over the funding of his 
“artistic” wall on the Mexican 
border. Forty-eight percent of 
Americans blame Trump for 
the longest shutdown ever. The 
fact that most Americans blame 
Trump for the shutdown indicates 
that his overall populist vision is 
unpopular. The wall is as strong 
of a symbol as any of Trump’s 

nativist, “spurious” nationalism, 
to quote the late Sen. John 
McCain. Populists, to use the 
German sociologist Max Weber’s 
terminology, need to routinize 
their authority. Trump came to 
office riding an oppositional wave. 
He defeated former Secretary of 
State Hillary Clinton, a moderate, 
establishment 
Democrat, 
and 

much of the establishment of 
the Republican Party — the self-
identified “Never Trumpers.” His 
election was an act of cultural 
and political rebellion against 
the commonly accepted arbiters 
of normalcy in the media and 
politics. But you can’t lead a 
country solely with the rebellious 
ethos Trump ran on. Rebellions 
and revolutions of all types, to 
be successful, usually need to 
stabilize into a new status quo and 
sense of normalcy. But Trump’s 
presidency has been everything 
but stable, despite his claim that 
he is a “stable genius.” 

Trump’s 
administration 

has seen an unprecedented rate 
of senior aide turnover and a 
shockingly frequent change of 
senior cabinet members. He has 
left hundreds of key positions 
in government agencies empty. 
He has picked up the habit of not 
reading his intelligence briefings 
and continues to flippantly tweet 
about serious political matters. 
On policy issues, he is continuing 
a trade war with China and 
pursuing an immigration policy 
and a Middle East foreign policy 
that are widely seen as unwise. 
In essence, to govern effectively, 
Trump needs to become less of 
a populist. He needs to be more 
stable and poised. He needs to be 
more rational and empirical. He 
needs to stop acting like a child. 
But after two years in office, 
Trump shows few signs he will 
mature in his role as president.

Aaron Baker can be reached at 

aaronbak@umich.edu.

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 open Editorial Board meets 
Wednesdays 7:00-8:30 PM at our 

newsroom at 420 Maynard St. All are 
welcome to come discuss national, state 

and campus affairs.

FROM THE DAILY

#StudentPressFreedomDay

I

n 2018, the international community, the United States 
and our own university witnessed just what kind of 
impact journalists can make. The tragic killing of Jamal 

Khashoggi, a Saudi Arabian Washington Post columnist who 
galvanized both domestic and global readership to encourage 
change in his home country, sent a chilling reminder about 
the precarious nature of being a journalist today.

I

, like many others, believe 
an argument with parents 
to be like a war: It requires 

careful 
preparation 
and 
a 

readiness to risk everything for a 
passionate (and often misguided) 
cause. You have to load up your 
arsenal with arguments that 
dance on being plain spiteful, yet 
are somewhat reasonable enough 
that your parents at least humor 
your futile attempt to win. When 
the fight’s over, you tend to the 
wounds inflicted on your angsty 
emotions and decide whether 
you should keep fighting or admit 
defeat. In other words, fighting 
with parents is essentially a 
mini 
Revolutionary 
War, 
in 

which you are the 13 Colonies 
and your parents are Great 
Britain — except in this version, 
Great Britain wins, and the 
Colonies learn that life, liberty 
and the pursuit of happiness are 
a privilege, not a right, young 
woman!

But with immigrant parents, 

there’s an even bigger disparity 
between the child and parent’s 
ability to win. There’s often 
a disconnect between parent 
and child because the child’s 
primary language is most likely 
English, 
while 
the 
parent’s 

primary language is not. Thus, 
there becomes a situation where 
parent and child can either argue 
with each other in different 
languages, or one person bends 
and argues in a language they’re 
not 100 percent comfortable 
using.

I am this person when I argue 

with my parents. While my 
Korean isn’t bad — in fact, I would 
say that it’s pretty good — I’m 
much more comfortable speaking 
English. 
However, 
arguing 

with my parents in English just 
wouldn’t make sense. I don’t 
speak with my parents in English 

ever, and I understand there’s 

no point in stating a well thought 
out argument if my parents can’t 
completely understand what I’m 
saying. So, when I argue with my 
parents, I feel like I’ve brought 
a mediocre sword to a machine 
gun fight. I know that even if I 
was the creator of the Korean 
language, I would still lose, as 

my parents have the power and 
whatever they say, goes. Still, 
there have been times where I’ve 
privately thought to myself that 
if I had argued with my parents 
in English, I at least could have 
won.

This isn’t an issue I take 

seriously, since most of my 
arguments with my parents stem 
from first-world problems. Do 
I really feel unjustly wronged 
because I couldn’t argue with my 
parents to my fullest capabilities 
about why they should’ve let 
me go to Lollapalooza with my 
friends? No. I also don’t feel as 
though not speaking in English 
has any true impact in the way 
that I communicate with my 
parents. Maybe I can’t quite 
explain to my parents why I need 
to see Drake in person singing 
about how he “used to bus it to 
the dance,” but when I have real, 
serious topics I want to discuss 
with my parents, language-based 
communication issues have never 
hindered our conversations. 

In addition, while there’s a 

language disconnect that exists 
between my parents and me, 
there’s also one that undeniably 
exists 
between 
monolingual 

parents 
and 
children. 
This 

is due to the myriad of slang 
terms, expressions and lines 
of reasoning children use that 
their parents don’t understand. 
Thus, the children have to alter 
their everyday language when 
arguing 
with 
their 
parents 

because otherwise, their parents 
won’t understand what they’re 
saying. While this isn’t true for 
everyone, a vast majority of us 
use language in our everyday 
lives that is completely alien to 
our parents. These differences 
are of course not as stark as 
those that exist between two 
completely different languages, 
but they’re impossible to ignore. 
Even if I did speak English with 
my parents, I certainly wouldn’t 
speak with them the same way 
I do with my friends, not just 
because of the different power 
dynamic between us, but because 
of the generational gap. They 
wouldn’t know half of the terms 
I use with my friends.

It’s strange to think young 

people seem to speak almost a 
different language than their 
parents — it’s a type of code-
switching that comes so naturally 
we don’t even think about it, and 
what implications it has. Are 
we at a disadvantage when we 
speak with our parents? If we 
were able to use the language 
we use when we speak with 
our friends, without fear of our 
parents not understanding us or 
not taking us as seriously, would 
we be able to communicate 
better with them? Our parents 
are not our friends in the same 
way that our actual friends are, 
since there’s always going to be 
an ultimately insurmountable 
(at least, to most of us) instinct to 
view them as authority figures. 
This leads me to believe that 
most of our communication 
issues with our parents stem 
from an uneven power dynamic 
and a generational gap marked 
by different beliefs, rather than 
language differences.

So, while I’m not sure how 

this code switching negatively 
or positively affects the way 
we converse normally with our 
parents, it’s probably for the 
best that we don’t fight with our 
parents the same way we fight 
with our friends and that there 
exists a language disconnect that 
forces children to take on a more 
formal tone. If we spoke to our 
parents the same way that people 
speak to each other in Twitter 
smackdowns, I imagine that our 
relationships with our parents 
would all suffer dramatically 
and more than one kind of 
smackdown would ensue.

Does this language disconnect 

go away as we all get older 
and all get lumped into the 
same, 
slangless, 
nondescript 

category of “old people” by the 
hip, younger generations? Is it 
possible to win in an argument 
against your parents at this 
point? I’m not sure, but I suppose 
I’ll find out in the future.

Watch your language

KRYSTAL HUR | COLUMN

We want to 

empower every 
voice seeking a 
platform on this 

campus

Read more at MichiganDaily.com

Krystal Hur can be reached at 

kyrshur@umich.edu.

Magdalena Mihaylova and Joel 

Danilewitz are the 2019 Editorial 

Page Editors and can be reached at 

tothedaily@michigandaily.com.

