5
OPINION
Thursday, August 1, 2019
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com OPINION
ZACK BLUMBERG | COLUMN
F
or the past several years,
European political cover-
age has focused almost sole-
ly on the rise of the far right — and
not without reason. Far-right par-
ties have gained voters in “progres-
sive” countries like Germany and
France, and have even managed to
win outright majorities in Poland
and Hungary. However, while the
far-right may be grabbing all the
headlines, another movement is
beginning to make its presence felt
in European politics: green parties.
Long thought of as the quirky
little brother of the European
left, green parties across Europe
have recently emerged as legiti-
mate electoral powers capable of
winning seats in Parliaments and
impacting mainstream political
discourse. Green parties through-
out Europe have crafted a wholly
progressive identity which sets
them apart from traditional center-
left parties, focusing not only on
environmental protection (as the
name would suggest), but also on
fighting economic inequality and
promoting multiculturalism. In an
era where political leanings cor-
relate heavily with age and educa-
tion level, the Greens seem to be
the leftist party of the future, with
ideologies that are highly attractive
to young and well-educated voters.
Compared to established par-
ties, European green parties are a
relatively new phenomenon. The
German Green Party, probably
the biggest and most influential in
Europe, wasn’t founded until 1980,
while Germany’s premier center-
left party, the SPD, was founded
in 1875. Similarly, the French,
Austrian and Dutch Green Parties
weren’t established until 1984, 1986
and 1989, respectively. During their
early years, green parties across the
continent found little success, and
were often barely able to win seats
in their respective nations’ parlia-
ments. The German Greens con-
sistently won only about 6 percent
of the vote during the two decades
after their founding, and their
most notable contribution was
controversy, which they provided
when their members chose to wear
sweaters and other business-casual
attire into the Bundestag (German
government building) instead of
suits.
Throughout the 1990s and
2000s, European Green Parties
remained largely irrelevant. In
many cases they were their nation’s
third-most influential leftist party,
behind both traditional moderate
leftist parties and free-market cen-
trist parties, who were often key
for forming left-wing coalitions.
Though they would occasionally
serve in these governing coalitions,
they were never major players, and
their views were often outside the
mainstream left.
However, the 2019 European
Parliamentary Elections were a
watershed moment for the Greens.
After winning 48 seats in the 2009
elections and 50 in the 2014 elec-
tions, the Green Coalition won 74
seats in the 2019 elections, placing
them fourth overall (and ahead of
the highly-touted far-right coali-
tion). Crucially, Greens did well in
several major countries: they came
second in Germany, and third in
France and the UK. This showing
seems to have boosted the domes-
tic fortunes of green parties across
the continent: The Greens are
now polling as the second-most
popular party in Germany, and are
gaining popularity in France and
Austria as well.
Looking at the foundations
of the Green Party movement,
it’s actually not surprising that
the Greens are on the rise across
Europe, as the party has success-
fully corned two demographic
groups: young voters and highly-
educated voters. The Green’s
flagship issue is climate change,
due to citizens across the conti-
nent becoming more and more
concerned about the threat it
poses. A Pew Survey from 2017
found that 64 percent of Europe-
ans believed climate change was
a major threat to their respective
counties. Unsurprisingly, the age
demographic
most
concerned
with climate change was young
people, something which trans-
lates to support for green parties;
in the 2017 German Elections,
Green Party voters had the lowest
average age.
Additionally, another Pew sur-
vey found that, while young Euro-
pean voters are just as likely as the
general populace to be leftist, they
are less supportive of traditional
moderate leftist parties, leaving an
opening on which the Green Party
can capitalize. As climate change
becomes an even more important
issue going forward, the Greens’
progressive stance will likely pay
dividends, allowing parties across
Europe to capture a greater and
greater share of young and envi-
ronmentally conscious voters.
In addition to protecting the
environment, green parties also
promote diversity and multicultur-
alism, which helps them appeal to
more educated European voters.
Surveyed citizens of nearly every
European country say their nation
has become more diverse in the
past 20 years, making diversity a
political issue. While there is no
overwhelming consensus on the
merits of diversity, the young and
well-educated strongly favor it and
believe it is a positive development.
By focusing on climate change
and
diversity,
green
parties
throughout Europe have set them-
selves up to be the leftist parties
of the future. While green parties
support the standard economi-
cally progressive ideas that all left-
ist parties support, their specific
focus on issues beyond that has
allowed them to win new voters
who felt unimpressed with center-
left establishment parties. Though
left-wing views have historically
been associated with lower-class
urban workers (many of whom
were part of labor unions, hence
the birth of “labor” parties), this
connection weakened over time as
demographics shifted. As working-
class union members were primar-
ily interested in leftist economic
policies, which ensured they would
be protected from corporate over-
lords, labor parties are lead to focus
primarily on fighting economic
inequality. However, times have
changed, and the Greens’ environ-
mentally and socially conscious
brand of progressivism is well-
suited for contemporary Europe,
where left-wing voters are increas-
ingly more likely to be young,
well-educated and urban. Though
it won’t happen instantly, and it
may take years, if not decades, the
Greens’ vision for contemporary
leftism will allow green parties
across the continent win over new
voters and grow into major politi-
cal forces.
The European left’s future looks green
Zack Blumberg can be reached at
zblumber@umich.edu.
O
n July 25, the United States
Attorney General announced
that the federal government
would once again practice capital
punishment in relation to five death-
row inmates convicted of murder,
torture and rape of children and the
elderly. The executions, scheduled for
December and January, are the first to
be carried out by the federal govern-
ment since 2003.
There is no doubt that the crimes
committed by these individuals are
objectively heinous, and deserve to
be punished to the fullest extent of
the law. But that leads to the ques-
tion: Should the system allow for such
an extreme and brutal sentence? To
some, the answer is a clear “yes.” After
all, why should we go easy on perpe-
trators who so viciously hurt the most
innocent groups among us? It seems
like a logical conclusion: a literal “taste
of their own medicine” form of justice.
However, I would argue that capital
punishment is not true justice and is
not just morally wrong, but is uncon-
stitutional.
First, let’s examine what hints the
Constitution might offer. The Eighth
Amendment in the U.S. Constitution
states that “Excessive bail shall not be
required, nor excessive fines imposed,
nor cruel and unusual punishments
inflicted.” This ultimately begs the
question: What is more cruel and
unusual than state-sponsored kill-
ings? When I hear the phrase “cruel
and unusual,” images of 18th cen-
tury France and the guillotine bubble
into my mind, where citizens were
beheaded in the thousands in a period
that came to be known as La Terreur
(scarily enough, the guillotine was not
outlawed in France until 1981 when
the country abolished the use of capi-
tal punishment).
The vagueness of the clause in the
Bill of Rights was written that way
on purpose — “cruel and unusual” is
inherently subjective, and is meant
to adapt to society’s progression. It is
the same reason the wording states
limits on “excessive bail” as opposed
to a specific dollar amount: The fram-
ers understood that inflation changes
over time and that it should be at the
discretion of the system to determine
what constitutes excessive at the time
of sentencing. Whether or not one feels
capital punishment is “unususal,” it
ought to fall under the “cruel” category,
as executions have been proven to be
excruciatingly painful, and often go
botched. Many legal scholars disagree
that it violates the Eighth Amend-
ment, and both state and federal courts
have had differing decisions regarding
appeals. I am by no means a constitu-
tional expert, and thus am willing to
concede that this argument may lean
on a simple side.
But beyond how one interprets
the constitution, capital punishment
is, in my opinion, ethically and mor-
ally wrong. The decision to sentence
someone to death is an independent
one; regardless of what crimes they
committed. At the end of the day,
no matter how evil the felon or how
depraved their acts, no punishment
can bring back the deceased or undo
the wrongdoings. At the end of the
day, we are choosing to kill them from
our own hate, not from any notion of
justice; it becomes an exercise of our
own cruelty.
Let’s consider the argument that it is
fair simply by way of it being reserved
for only those who commit the most
extreme atrocities, and therefore is
neither cruel nor unusual. This phi-
losophy makes us no better than the
guilty parties. I empathize with vic-
tims, and understand why some feel it
is fair by way of “eye for an eye.” Yet, we
established our criminal justice system
with ideals based in fairness and jus-
tice — the very reason that Lady Jus-
tice is blind and holds a sword in one
hand and a scale in the other. Despite
the countless shortfalls of the system to
operate how it is meant to, that does not
mean we shouldn’t strive for more. We
need to rise above, not sink to a lower
level.
It is also worth mentioning the
statistics and data that point to capi-
tal punishment being unnecessary.
A recent study in Louisiana showed
that the state spends an extra $15 mil-
lion more per year than it would in a
system with life without parole as the
maximum sentence. In Tennessee,
one report found that capital pun-
ishment trials cost 50 percent more
than life-sentencing trials. If you are
unconvinced that the death penalty is
morally wrong, then statistics such as
these ought to show what a massive
burden it is on our criminal justice
system. Most states’ criminal justice
systems are severely underfunded;
imagine the benefits of directing
these funds elsewhere. Additionally,
previous biases within the criminal
justice system that disproportionately
target minorities is an important con-
cern to raise. According to an article
from NPR, 41.7 percent of death row
inmates are Black, despite Black peo-
ple making up 13.1 percent of the total
U.S. population in 2014.
We should kill capital punishment
TIMOTHY SPURLIN | OP-ED
Timothy Spurlin can be reached at
timrspur@umich.edu.
Green parties
across Europe have
recently emerged
as legitimate
electoral powers
Read more at michigandaily.com