Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4 — Tuesday, March 12, 2019

Emma Chang

Joel Danilewitz

Samantha Goldstein

Emily Huhman
Tara Jayaram

Jeremy Kaplan
Elias Khoury

Magdalena Mihaylova

Ellery Rosenzweig

Jason Rowland

Anu Roy-Chaudhury

Alex Satola

 Ashley Zhang

Erin White

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

T

he 
division 
of 
the 

Democratic 
Party 

is 
inevitable 
given 

the 
rhetoric 
Democratic 

colleagues use when they 
exchange words with each 
other. Whether it be House 
Speaker Nancy Pelosi and 
U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein 
arguing U.S. Rep. Alexandria 
Ocasio-Cortez’s Green New 
Deal 
as 
insignificant 
or 

the disorganization behind 
what substantive health care 
reform looks like, there seems 
to be a lack of consensus on 
issues of great importance to 
the country.

The new progressive wing 

of the Democratic Party that 
has foisted individuals such 
as Ocasio-Cortez into the 
forefront of national politics 
is 
actually 
hurting 
the 

Democratic Party more than 
it is helping it. While I would 
personally like to see basic 
legislation on climate change 
passed in response to our 
decaying planet, is the fact 
that there is any opposition 
at all within the party reason 
enough to stop fighting for 
the cause? Democrats face 
somewhat of an impossible 
dilemma: act in self-interest 
to keep personal popularity 
within the media and pursue 
policy that fragments the 
party, or act only in the 
interest of unifying the party 
under one ideology.

Today, it is clear that the 

more popular choice is the 
former. Nothing is sexy about 
following the rules. People 
want to see a trailblazer 
come in with new ideas that 
make change seem palpable. 
However, in 2019, this might 
come at too great a cost. 
In the wake of the Trump 
presidency, the Republican 
Party appears clearly split 
between 
nationalistic 

and 
institutional 
wings. 

With 
the 
2020 
election 

approaching, Democrats can 
take advantage of this split in 
places like Michigan to win 
the White House.

Let’s explore how party 

fragmentation has manifested 
within 
matters 
of 
policy 

by looking at how climate 
change has been dealt with. 
While most Democrats are in 
favor of passing legislation to 
combat climate change, the 
Senate 
Democratic 
caucus 

is still not on board with 
the Green New Deal due to 
its progressive nature. The 
result is inconsistent policy 
within the party. In the 
house, Pelosi has proposed 
creating a Select Committee 
on 
the 
Climate 
Crisis. 

However, 
the 
committee 

won’t have the ability to send 
legislation to the House for 
a vote, not create it or even 
subpoena for hearings. While 
U.S. Rep. Kathy Castor, D-Fl. 
and chair of the committee, 
has promised the committee 

recognizes the “urgency to 
reduce 
carbon 
pollution,” 

several members, including 
Castor herself, have accepted 
altogether 
hundreds 
of 

thousands 
of 
dollars 
in 

campaign 
donations 
from 

fossil fuel companies. This 
select committee was created 
in 
“spirit” 
of 
the 
Green 

New Deal, but its lack of 
substantive power delineates 
from this purpose. This is 
further seen as U.S. Rep. 
Frank 
Pallone, 
D-NJ 
and 

chair of the House Committee 
on Energy and Commerce, has 

stated that policies narrowly 
tailored to immediate action 
are required, contrary to the 
broad-stroked 10-year policy 
plans of the Green New Deal. 
The list of contradictions 
goes on. While Pallone will 
take one direction within his 
committee, 
Ocasio-Cortez 

will take another as she 
serves on the subcommittee 
on the Environment within 
the Committee of Oversight 
and Reform. The inconsistent 
policy 
stance 
is 
bound 

to 
create 
contradicting 

policies, or no substantive 
policies that address the 
issue at all. Progressives 
must 
ask 
themselves, 
if 

the general theme of their 
preferred 
policies 
are 

embedded within the party, 
is it worth it to constantly be 
spearheading a more specific 
version 
of 
their 
plan? 

Inconsistent 
policies 
are 

evidence of fraction within 
the party that will leave it 
vulnerable to struggling in 
elections in the future.

Modern day factionalism 

apparent 
in 
these 
issues 

is no longer conducive to 
the civic politic. Moreover, 
it is counterproductive to 
what the framers of the 
Constitution 
intended. 

In “Federalist 10,” James 
Madison wrote about the 
later coined theory of the 
“tyranny of the majority” 
— an idea that warned that 
one faction would dominate 
the 
political 
process 
by 

overpowering 
all 
other 

minority factions. Today, I 
would argue that we must 
worry about the “tyranny 
of the obstinate” — a notion 
that I ascribe to immutable 
political players who are 
able 
to 
manipulate 
and 

halt the entire democratic 
process. The best example 

of 
this 
tyranny 
coming 

into play comes from Ralph 
Nader’s spoiler effect in the 
2000 election. Yes, I know 
Nader isn’t even a Democrat. 
However, 
when 
it 
came 

down to it, who do you think 
would better represent the 
Green Party’s interests? I 
see Al Gore in his blazer 
and button-up on a different 
ad for some climate change 
documentary 
every 
other 

day. The answer is glaring.

In the era of the 24-hour 

news cycle, the progressive 
faction has been able to 
pursue 
the 
opportunities 

that the media has presented 
to 
make 
viewers 
more 

extreme. The current process 
of 
the 
progressive 
wing 

however is obstinate because 
its interest is not centered 
around 
compromise. 
It 

has used a “my way or the 
highway” approach that is 
made possible by the extreme 
nature 
of 
media. 
It 
has 

become easy to rile people up 
about an issue. This division 
of 
the 
Democratic 
Party 

may just cost it the election 
in 2020. I know it is naive 
to say that every political 
faction should just work into 
the existing coalition of the 
two-party system cemented 
into 
American 
politics, 

but in 2019, the stakes are 
simply higher. My view is 
that 
progressives 
should 

compromise now, so that 
key aspects of their desired 
change can happen later.

Our pluralist government 

is designed so that this can 
happen. Research has shown 
that 
among 
individuals 

who voted for Obama in 
2012 as well as a third-
party 
candidate 
in 
2016, 

Democratic 
identification 

has decreased by 35 percent. 
The effects of a splitting 
Democratic 
Party 
could 

very 
well 
influence 
the 

Republican Party’s success. 
Think about it this way — 
as the party swings further 
to the left, the policies that 
progressives are proposing 
will eventually make it to the 
forefront.

While 
I 
myself 
have 

views that are in line with 
the progressive faction of 
the party, I believe that 
since 
Trump-era 
policies 

are so far removed from any 
liberal resolve, factions from 
the Democratic Party must 
unite to secure a victory for 
the preservation of any sort 
of liberal agenda. Though 
the direness of the issues 
progressives 
have 
taken 

on 
continues 
to 
persist, 

the 
alternative 
is 
simply 

too grave to imagine. The 
only thing left to do is 
compromise.

ANIK JOSHI | COLUMN

Israel, the NRA and the danger of partisanship

R

ight 
now, 
many 

Republicans reflexively 
oppose any Democratic 

proposal 
or 
idea 
and 
the 

inverse is true as well. This is 
because of something called 
“negative 
partisanship.” 

Politico 
Magazine 
defines 

this as when “the parties 
hang 
together 
mainly 
out 

of sheer hatred of the other 
team, rather than a shared 
sense of purpose.” Through 
this lens, a lot of things make 
more sense; I’d like to use it to 
look at an example of negative 
partisanship 
through 
the 

National Rifle Association and 
how a similar phenomenon is 
possible with Israel.

Today, 
the 
NRA 
is 

overwhelmingly 
associated 

with 
the 
Republican 

Party. Whether it be with 
immigration, 
President 

Donald Trump or many other 
issues, the NRA is more tied 
to the right than ever. In 
fact, the current president of 
the NRA is a former Reagan 
administration official who 
ran for Senate as a Republican 
in 1994. Moreover, most of 
the money the NRA spends 
is on Republicans and most 
of the candidates it endorses 
are Republicans.

In 
fact, 
in 
2016, 
the 

NRA spent 99 percent of its 
campaign contributions on 
Republicans. The strong ties 
to the right have seemingly 
paid off — it has a direct line 
to the president it helped put 
in office. However, it is worth 
noting that this has come at a 
substantial cost.

In 1992 — just 26 years 

ago — Democrats got 37 
percent of NRA funds. The 
NRA used to also endorse 
(and fund) a lot more liberal 
Democrats. 
Once 
upon 
a 

time, 
Michigan’s 
foremost 

leading light of liberalism, 
John Dingell, regularly got 
an A+ rating from the NRA. 
Today, 
the 
best-known 

progressives abhor the NRA 
and presidential candidates 
who used to be cozy with it 
have all but declared war on 
it. Former President Barack 

Obama was no dear friend 
of the NRA, but he was 
certainly not as much of an 
enemy as today’s Democratic 
presidential candidates are.

Similarly, 
today 
more 

than ever before, support of 
Israel has become a partisan 
issue. Traditionally, Israel 
enjoyed strong cross-party, 
cross-ideology support — but 
that has started to change. 
Per the Pew Research Center, 
“79% 
of 
Republicans 
say 

they sympathize more with 
Israel than the Palestinians, 
compared with just 27% of 
Democrats.” Further in the 
poll it says that “(n)early three 
times as many Republicans 
(52%) as Democrats (18%) 
have favorable impressions 
of Israel’s leader (Benjamin 
Netanyahu).”

This divide is bigger than 

it has been in years and part 
of the reason might stem from 
the strong embrace of Trump 
by Prime Minister Benjamin 
Netanyahu. 
Netanyahu 

has welcomed Trump in a 
public way, going so far as to 
include Trump on billboards 
in his re-election campaign, 
and Trump has more than 
returned the embrace — one 
demonstration of this was 
moving the U.S. embassy 
to Jerusalem. Before this, 
Netanyahu 
had 
worked 

to 
strengthen 
his 
ties 

to 
conservatives. 
At 
the 

invitation 
of 
then 
House 

Speaker 
John 
Boehner, 

he spoke against the Iran 
nuclear deal to a joint session 
of 
Congress. 
Netanyahu 

also appointed Ron Dermer, 
a 
former 
assistant 
to 

Republican 
pollster 
Frank 

Luntz, as his ambassador to 
the United States.

Doing all of this has 

massively strengthened ties 
with the right — but this 
lunch wasn’t free. This is 
similar to the NRA because 
in both cases, the group 
chose to move right and when 
the NRA did so, it had a cost. 
It no longer had Democratic 
supporters in the halls of 
Congress and, consequently, 

their favored policy positions 
no longer had Democratic 
votes. As of now, the NRA and 
the Democrats may as well be 
the Hatfields and McCoys.

More of this has to do 

with negative partisanship 
more 
than 
anything 

else — the NRA became 
Republicans, 
Democrats 

don’t like Republicans, ipso 
facto Democrats don’t like 
the 
NRA. 
If 
Netanyahu 

continues 
his 
personal 

rightward drift, there is no 
reason that this could not 
happen for Israel as well. 
Already, record numbers of 
liberals sympathize with the 
Palestinians over Israel and I 
believe that the more support 
for Netanyahu is viewed as a 
proxy for support for Trump, 
the less support for both 
Netanyahu and Israel there 
will be.

The NRA’s actions over the 

past 30 years are a good guide 
of how to make half the country 
reflexively disagree with you 
because of association with 
other principles over which 
there is disagreement. If the 
NRA stayed about guns and 
never fought the culture war, 
they would still enjoy the 
broad support they once did. 
However, they made a choice 
to embrace the right. Similarly, 
Netanyahu going out of his 
way to embrace Trump (and 
arguably 
equate 
support 

for Trump with support for 
Israel) will lead to Israel’s 
favorability 
falling 
further 

on the left thanks to negative 
partisanship.

This 
happening 
would 

be a tragedy. We depend on 
the Israelis and they depend 
on us — they have been an 
important 
ally 
and 
friend 

since 
their 
founding, 
and 

they will hopefully remain 
one in the future. However, 
this is not possible if Israel 
becomes associated with the 
right instead of with American 
national interests.

Anik Joshi can be reached at anikj@

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.

ADITHYA SANJAY | COLUMN
Are brick-and-mortar stores really just a thing of the past?
T

he year 2018 was arguably 
one of the strongest 
for e-commerce, with 

“sales 
in 
the 
first 

quarter (soaring) 16.4 
percent from a year 
ago to a new record 
of $123.7 billion,” as 
reported by the United 
States 
Department 

of Commerce. While 
some of the more 
“online-averse” retail 
stores such as gas and 
car dealerships seem 
protected from this 
digital threat, the rest seem to be 
in full combat with e-commerce. 
And evidently, they’re losing. The 
threat of imminent bankruptcy 
facing stores such as Sears and 
JCPenney are perhaps telling of a 
new era in American commerce. 
With 
an 
impending 
store 

bankruptcy doomsday expected 
by most all of Wall Street, we 
must wonder whether brick-and-
mortar retail has truly reached 
its end.

The truth is quite a conflicting 

one. While traditionally brick-
and-mortar 
retail 
companies 

have begun to set aside more 
investments for their online stores, 
the exact opposite is happening 
among the e-commerce giants. 
Amazon’s decision to invest in 
Whole Foods was especially 
indicative of this. Even against the 
growth of online grocery in big-
name brands such as Kroger and 
Walmart, Amazon seems bent 
on the future prospects of estate-
based grocery, poising itself to 
open its own grocery stores (aside 
from its ownership of Whole 
Foods) around the U.S. It doesn’t 
end there. The e-commerce giant 

has plans to expand its retail 

bookstore, as well as its new 
4-Star Store.

And they might be onto 

something. Seemingly countering 
the trend toward e-commerce, 
it turns out that brick-and-
mortar still make up 90 percent 
of all retail sales. In fact, in 2017, 
America’s more successful retail 
brands reported a net increase 

of 4,000 new store openings. 
Nevertheless, Statista reports 
that there was a net decrease 

of 400 department 
stores during that 
same year.

These 

contradictory trends 
are indicative of some 
underlying truths. It 
seems fairly evident 
that traditional retail 
is 
fairly 
outdated. 

Iconic brands that 
have 
relied 
on 
a 

conservative strategy 

were attacked head-on by the 
e-commerce upstarts and have 
lost too much blood in the ensuing 
onslaught. At the same time, other 
more adaptive retail giants have 
recognized this change in trends 
and have slowly transformed 
the industry to a point where 
technology meets the personal 
touch of a salesperson.

Part of this is due to the 

fact that some retail sectors are 
simply refusing to be taken over 
by e-commerce. As previously 
mentioned, commodities such 
as gas and groceries have fought 
back fairly strongly, as customers 
have reiterated the need for 
person-to-person 
interaction 

with such items. Rather, the 
strongest players in the market 
have shown the ability to adapt 
to these changes by providing 
strong, 
interactive 
online 

platforms that offer a level of 
physical and digital connectivity 
that was otherwise absent from 
the industry a decade ago.

And this might just be the 

golden approach to this problem. 
The reinforcement of the personal 
customer experience is the key 
to winning the retail game. As 
we see continued strides in the 
technology 
behind 
artificial 

intelligence, it becomes more and 
more important to value “soft 
skills” over more technical skills. 
While some stores will still try 
to fully depend on e-commerce, 
we are seeing that in many cases, 
people still enjoy the social 
experience of going out to the 

mall and other physical stores. 
What’s perhaps more interesting 
is the fact that 70 percent of 
shoppers want malls to combine 
the shopping experience with 
entertainment activities. Malls 
are 
actively 
transforming 
to 

emphasize community gathering 
places, event spaces and galleries 
over the traditional department 
stores and food courts.

That said, what about more 

traditional retail stores such 
as Walmart and Target? These 
“hypermarkets” 
have 
little 

semblance 
to 
scaled 
malls, 

making it difficult to create “social 
gathering” places. That’s not to 
say that these stores don’t have a 
future, however. Walmart CEO 
Doug McMillon notes that the key 
to making chore-like activities like 
grocery shopping more attractive 
lies in integration of artificial 
intelligence 
with 
stores 
and 

e-commerce to most efficiently 
elevate 
customer 
experiences. 

Systems likes in-store pickup offer 
cheaper and, in some cases, more 
accessible options for purchasing 
items, and the experience stands 
to be strengthened by upcoming 
technologies 
such 
as 
smart 

shopping carts and in-store drone 
assistance.

Also somewhat interesting 

is the idea of the cashless 
store, pioneered by Amazon, 
that allows for customers to 
buy products online at a brick-
and-mortar shop. While this 
idea has faced some resistance 
by lawmakers, it’s indicative 
of the future trends that are 
overtaking retail.

Ultimately, in this case, we 

must not fall into the trap of 
believing the brick and mortar 
naysayers. We are on the brink 
of a major transformation in the 
retail scene that will inevitably 
change the face of the consumer 
shopping experience. So buckle 
up and get ready — physical 
retail is here to stay.

Adithya Sanjay can be reached at 

asanjay@umich.edu.

Ambika Sinha can be reached at 

ambikavs@umich.edu.

People want to see 
a trailblazer come 
in with new ideas 
that make change 

seem palpable

The Democrat’s dilemma

AMBIKA SINHA | COLUMN

ADITHYA
SANJAY

