Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4 — Friday, April 12, 2019
Zack Blumberg
Emma Chang
Joel Danilewitz
Emily Huhman
Tara Jayaram
Jeremy Kaplan
Magdalena Mihaylova
Ellery Rosenzweig
Jason Rowland
Anu Roy-Chaudhury
Alex Satola
Timothy Spurlin
Nicholas Tomaino
Erin White
Ashley Zhang
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
A
couple
months
ago,
I had to review a
concert taking place in
Kerrytown that would force
me to go through the heart of
Ann Arbor. It started at 7 p.m.,
which, being in winter, seemed
like the dead of night. Not
finding anyone to accompany
me and knowing all too well
the dangers of walking alone
at night, I Ubered there and
back — about a $20 excursion.
But I didn’t even think twice
about it. My safety came first,
and I had been warned too
many times about what could
happen so I didn’t risk it.
Instances
like
this
happen all the time. Whether
it’s splurging on an Uber,
taking an extra 15 minutes
to establish a plan for going
out,
double
checking
for
pepper spray before a day in
town — these types of time-
consuming
and
expensive
situations are things girls
deal with every day. Being a
girl is taxing. Everything we
have to think about before
going out, all the preparation
we do, all the extra time and
money we have to spend to
keep ourselves safe — it’s
taxing emotionally and to our
bank accounts.
There
are
the
typical
economic
systems
of
oppression
that
women
face, such as the the Glass
Ceiling, which is the barrier
preventing
women
from
rising up in the industry and
the economy. This leads to
women making 80.7 cents to
the male dollar (which is only
the average wage — women of
color often make much less)
and a substantial wage gap.
There’s also the Pink Tax, the
fact that female consumers
pay more just simply for being
women. It’s been proven that
women
are
charged
more
for products and services
like dry cleaning, personal
care products and vehicle
maintenance. Tampons and
pads are charged sales tax
because they are considered
“luxury
items.”
In
these
occasions, women are paying
more than men 42 percent of
the time, and about $1,351 per
year in extra costs. But the
economy isn’t even close to
the only issue for women.
Women are forced to be
constantly vigilant about our
safety. Even if nothing has ever
happened to us personally, we
know from stories and others’
experiences why we need to
be cautious. I have a friend
who went to an all-girls high
school, and at her graduation,
the school gave every single
student pink pepper spray as a
parting gift. This reflects the
reality of a college campus —
or anywhere, for that matter
— that girls need a way to
defend themselves, and that
they feel unsafe.
Before
going
out,
I’m
always making plans with
friends
to
solidify
who
I’m going with and who
I’m staying with, who I’m
walking home with. We try
to go in groups, hopefully
with at least a couple guys
we trust, but even then, we
never fail to bring pepper
spray. If anyone decides to
drink, she has to watch as
it’s being poured and handed
to her. Frat parties can be
more terrifying than fun as
we try to walk the tightrope
of hanging out with friends
and worrying about potential
threats to our safety.
Even for just a 10-minute
walk home at night, I have to
be prepared. Walking from
Central Campus back to my
dorm isn’t worth Ubering,
but it’s still nerve-wracking.
My mom once chastised me
for having pepper spray in
my backpack, because that’s
not easily accessible enough.
And she’s right. If something
happened, I wouldn’t have
time to rummage through
whichever pocket it’s in and
pull it out fast enough to
defend myself. Now I keep
it in my coat pocket with my
hand wrapped around it.
These
cautionary
steps
that women take every day
don’t even cross most guys’
minds.
In
an
experiment
performed
by
social
researcher Jackson Katz, he
asked men and women what
they do on a daily basis to
protect
themselves
from
sexual assault. The men’s
response: “Nothing. I don’t
think about it.” Women, on
the other hand, listed more
than 30 precautions they
take to avoid assault and keep
themselves safe.
Staying safe on campus
is something that is stressed
from the very first college
visit. We’re told about the
Safe
Rides,
“blue
light”
emergency telephones and
the Division of Public Safety
and Security. The University
of Michigan does what it can
to keep its students safe. But
it can only do so much. There
is still so much left up to girls
to do to keep ourselves safe.
And
you
know
what?
We really shouldn’t have to
worry about this. We should
be able to walk home from a
concert without pepper spray
in our hand. We should be
able to go out without fear
of being raped. We should be
able to live our lives freely
without constant vigilance.
But
because
society
has
deemed these goals not at the
top of its priority list, we do
not have the luxury of putting
our guard down. Until we
fix the inherent flaws in our
economic and social systems,
I will always Uber at night
and carry pepper spray.
ZACK BLUMBERG | COLUMN
Europe’s far-right movements come on strong, but what next?
I
n
the
2015
Polish
parliamentary
election,
the far-right Law and
Justice
Party,
or
PiS, won with an
outright
majority
(meaning they did
not need to form a
coalition to govern),
something that had
not been done in
Poland
since
the
fall of communism
in
1989.
While
other
European
far-right
parties
aren’t doing nearly as well,
they are still garnering both
votes and attention; Marine
Le Pen of the National Rally
finished second in France’s
presidential election in 2017,
the Alternative for Germany,
or the AfD, holds 13 percent
of the seats in the German
Bundestag and the League,
another far-right party, is part
of Italy’s governing coalition.
Unfortunately, it’s undeniable
that this extremist movement
is doing well. However, the
rapid rise of this movement
raises
a
critical
question:
Are
European
far-right
parties sustainable and, if so,
how? While the resurgence
of
right-wing
extremist
ideology in Europe is highly
disconcerting, it is unlikely
that
fear-mongering
and
xenophobia are issues that
stable, successful parties can
be built upon in the long-
term.
To begin, however, it is
important
to
acknowledge
the
flip
side
of
political
sustainability: building up a
far-right populist party is,
comparatively,
quite
easy.
European
far-right
parties
focus, first and foremost, on
xenophobia and immigration.
Compared to the platforms
of more traditional parties,
which
are
usually
more
complex and nuanced, being
anti-immigration is simple,
easy to explain and taps
into anger and fear. This
helps
recruit
people
who
feel
disenfranchised
and
creates a strong voter base.
Additionally,
by
virtue
of
being extreme and providing
shock value, far-right parties
receive
news
coverage
disproportionately. The AfD,
a party that was created in
2013,
exemplifies
both
of
these phenomena. In 2017,
only
four
years
after
its
founding, the party claimed
13 percent of the seats in the
Bundestag, placing it third.
Additionally, in the lead up
to the election, it
was by far the most
discussed
party
on Twitter. While
the
AfD
is
only
one
example,
it
shows how rapidly
far-right
parties
can grow, as well
as how effectively
they can dominate
political discourse
in the short-term.
However, in the longer
term, many of the tactics
utilized by far-right parties
are
simply
unsustainable
and do not lend themselves
to
stability,
success
or
effective governance. First,
being xenophobic and anti-
immigrant relies primarily on
a large influx of immigrants.
Since peaking in 2016, the
number
of
immigrants
coming to Europe has been
declining — less than half as
many immigrants arrived in
2018 as in 2016. This could
decimate the platforms of
many of these parties, leaving
them with little to campaign
on as people become less
worried about immigration.
Additionally,
while
railing
against
immigrants
is
an
effective
way
to
garner
support for the party, it does
not translate smoothly into
effective governance. When
in power, a party is expected
to work to accomplish things.
As the Law and Justice Party
has
discovered,
far-right
tactics are highly effective
for gaining power, but are
less impactful when making
policy. Being in power, PiS
is
under
the
microscope,
and things like corruption
scandals have lowered the
party’s
approval
ratings.
Additionally, as immigration
rates have fallen, people have
become less worried about
the issue, and subsequently
less
enamored
with
the
party’s xenophobic message.
Realizing this, the PiS has
shifted, choosing to target
LGBTQ people instead. This
shift in approach underscores
the shaky political ground
European
far-right
parties
stand on, especially when
thrust into the limelight.
Additionally,
the
bold
claims far-right parties tend
to make can clash with legal
and bureaucratic boundaries,
forcing parties to walk back
on
these
positions.
Near
the time of the Brexit vote
in
the
United
Kingdom,
withdrawing
from
the
European
Union
became
a trendy talking point for
many populist right parties.
Across the continent, parties
came
up
with
their
own
portmanteaus to promote the
idea of leaving — a Nexit in
the Netherlands or a Swexit
in Sweden. However, as Brexit
has devolved into a political
and bureaucratic nightmare,
bold far-right parties have
been forced to acknowledge
how disastrous the process
of leaving would be. Even
Steve Bannon, an American
far-right nationalist who has
worked with European far-
right parties, admitted these
parties needed to shift toward
reforming the EU from the
inside. These legal clashes
can serve to undermine the
bombastic
promises
that
drive
far-right
parties
in
the first place and sink their
reputation.
While
all
these
factors
point
toward
the
unsustainability
of
the
European
far-right
movement, its collapse is far
from a foregone conclusion.
In countries like Poland, the
lack of a strong or competent
opposition party can allow
the PiS to govern relatively
unchallenged,
even
if
the
party
itself
becomes
less
popular.
Additionally,
and
most
worryingly,
if
far-
right
parties
are
able
to
overcome
bureaucratic
barriers, they can work to
undermine the systems that
are
designed
to
contain
them, as PiS has somewhat
successfully
attempted
to
do by undermining Poland’s
court system.
While
Europe’s
most
recent
far-right
movement
has grown rapidly, that’s to
be expected, thanks to the
nature of the movement’s
parties. The real test for
these parties, however, is how
they fare going forward as
political and social climates
change. Future success is far
from certain, and there are
many factors that threaten
their ability to succeed in the
future.
O
n May 17, 2017, Robert
Mueller
became
a
bloodhound.
Deputy
Attorney
General
Rod
Rosenstein
authorized
a federal investigation into
the
Russian
government’s
interference
in
the
2016
presidential election, and, in
particular,
the
treasonous
possibility
of
coordination
between
President
Donald
Trump’s
campaign
and
Moscow. Mueller, a former
director of the FBI, was tapped
by Rosenstein to serve as the
investigation’s special counsel.
It was also around this time
that I bought a T-shirt. Riffing
off
the
Milwaukee-based
Miller
Brewing
Company’s
logo and tagline, the shirt was
cleverly imprinted with the
phrase “It’s Mueller Time.”
The shirt didn’t fit as well as
I had hoped — you get what
you pay for, I guess — but that
wasn’t really the point. Who
cares if it sits in a cardboard
box in a dusty basement for
20 years? I’d still be able to
give my kids a souvenir from
the time a detested president
was found guilty of treason,
impeached,
removed
from
office and maybe even jailed.
It’d be a piece of history.
I realize now I was counting
my
chickens
before
they
hatched, and maybe even being
a bad American. Like many
other Democrats, I had hoped
(and expected) the Mueller
investigation would end with
a resounding condemnation
of Trump. Next would be the
vindicating CNN coverage of
the Senate’s first conviction
of
a
U.S.
president
on
impeachment charges, and — if
we were really lucky — a Mike
Pence no-pardon miracle, all
culminating with the image
of our disgraced buffoon-in-
chief in an orange jumpsuit in
Alcatraz on the cover of Time
magazine. As sweet as that
would have been, it doesn’t
look like it’s going to happen.
What’s more, I was wrong to
want it in the first place. Even
if I, like many Americans, had
suspicions of Trump-Moscow
collusion, how could a good
American want it to be true?
If Mueller’s report were to
confirm these suspicions, of
course, that’d be one thing —
but to have actively rooted for
our president to be revealed a
traitor?
On
March
22,
2019
—
nearly two years after the
investigation began — Mueller’s
office submitted its findings
to Attorney General William
Barr. Two days later, Barr
penned a four-page summary
of Mueller’s findings in a letter
addressed to Congress. Per
Barr’s
summary,
Mueller’s
team did uncover evidence
of Russian interference in
the election, but the special
counsel reportedly found no
coordination
between
the
Trump campaign and Moscow
during the 2016 election race.
If Barr’s summary is a faithful
representation
of
Mueller’s
findings, then I — and many
Americans — owe our president
an apology for our premature
mischaracterizations. It must
be
acknowledged,
however,
that
Mueller’s
full
report
is nearly 400 pages; Barr’s
submission to Congress was
only four pages long. What’s
more, on April 3, The New
York Times reported members
of Mueller’s team believe Barr
“failed to adequately portray
the findings of their inquiry,”
and that the findings “were
more troubling for President
Trump
than
Mr.
Barr
indicated.”
To be fair to Barr, it is unclear
what that really means. I doubt
Barr grossly misrepresented
the Mueller report, but given
the investigators’ commentary,
it shouldn’t be controversial to
question whether Barr’s letter
accounted for the full scope
and nuance of Mueller’s team’s
findings. It is responsible and
fitting that, on April 9, Barr
reiterated he would provide
a redacted version of the
Mueller report to Congress by
mid-April at the latest. While
a censored copy of the Mueller
report is better than a four-
page sketch, Congress — which
has the power to impeach and
convict a president — ought
to have access to the unedited
original. Even Rudy Giuliani,
Trump’s personal lawyer and
vehement critic of the Mueller
investigation, has called for
full disclosure of the report to
Congress.
Demanding that Congress
see the unredacted version
of the Mueller report isn’t
just about being a resentful
Democrat. Republicans and
Trump
supporters
should
be overwhelmingly in favor
of this, too. They’ve been
saying all along that the left’s
accusations of collusion and
obstruction
of
justice
by
the president are hogwash.
And perhaps they’re right.
Regardless,
if
they
truly
believe this, then the prospect
of releasing an unredacted
report to Congress ought to be
seen as a golden opportunity
to clear Trump’s name — and
a satisfying chance to clamp
the two-year-long Democratic
screeching.
Only
then,
for
better
or worse, can we put this
argument to rest and find other
things to fight about. Until at
least next week, however, we
can’t responsibly say whether
or not it’s still Mueller time.
Is it still Mueller time?
Zack Blumberg can be reached at
zblumber@umich.edu.
DANA PIERANGELI | COLUMN
Dana Pierangeli can be reached at
dmpier@umich.edu.
It’s taxing to be a girl
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.
Max Steinbaum can be reached at
maxst@umich.edu.
We should be able
to live our lives
freely without
constant vigilance
ZACK
BLUMBERG
MAX STEINBAUM | COLUMN
Demanding that
Congress see the
unredacted version
of the Mueller report
isn’t just about being
a resentful Democrat
SUBMIT TO SURVIVORS SPEAK
The Opinion section has created a space in The Michigan
Daily for first-person accounts of sexual assault and
its corresponding personal, academic and legal
implications. Submission information can be found at
https://tinyurl.com/survivorsspeak2019.