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.