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.

