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.