Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4— Friday, September 20, 2019
Zack Blumberg
Emily Considine
Emma Chang
Joel Danilewitz
Emily Huhman
Krystal Hur
Ethan Kessler
Magdalena Mihaylova
Max Mittleman
Timothy Spurlin
Miles Stephenson
Finn Storer
Nicholas Tomaino
Joel Weiner
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
KIANNA MARQUEZ | COLUMN
Our mentality toward saving the environment
A
s an engineer studying
at
the
University
of
Michigan, I am relishing
the opportunity to occasionally
take classes that don’t require
me to solve an equation or
perform
a
calculation
with
only one correct answer. In my
English class this semester,
we are discussing what it’s
like to write during a time of
extinction, a topic that has been
generally analyzed with many
indefinite answers. In an article
we read about the numerous
current perils of climate change,
journalist David Wallace-Wells
juxtaposes his grim, pessimistic
attitude with the optimistic
attitude
of
“the
scientists”
he refers to. In doing so, he
prompted the entire class to
discuss whether or not it’s more
reasonable to think about our
climate
strife
optimistically,
like “the scientists” do, or
realistically, like he does. Just as
the nature of the climate debate
plays out, I have come to realize
there is no definite answer
for how we should be feeling
toward our impending doom.
I
don’t
necessarily
see
the
reason
for
projecting
optimism toward our climate
change
issue
because
of
the
euphemistic
nature
that optimism is generally
presented in. In sugar coating
the facts of extreme weather
events with evasive rhetoric,
our leaders are doing the
ultimate
disservice
to
the
scientific truth behind the
natural
disasters
occurring
more and more frequently.
In naively believing we can
reverse climate change, we
are not accurately conveying
the gravity of the situation
for others to understand that
it’s going to require more than
just desire.
A
common
theme
was
brought
up
in
our
class
discussion
regarding
the
motivation that people have
behind the phrase “think of
the children.” The danger
of
using
this
phrase
to
justify why we should act to
preserve our society for the
future is the assumption that
there will even be a future
for our children to live in.
We are also assuming this
future will exist where we
will have, unknowingly and
distressingly, handed over the
responsibility of the world
to the next generation. In
the same way, we are merely
assuming that a sustainable
future
will
exist
without
showing
any
drive,
other
than sheer desire, to actually
make it happen. Approaching
the climate issue with an
overarching sense of optimism
simply projects false realities
that are most likely not as
attainable as they are painted
out to be.
While it may seem that,
because
I
am
opposing
optimistic approaches, I would
be
completely
supportive
of
realistic
approaches,
I
have
to
acknowledge
that
realism
comes
with
its
own danger regarding the
climate issue as well. The
single
danger
that
comes
with
being
realistic
about
the fate of our environment
is the emotional instability
and
overwhelming
anguish
we will have to face. We will
have to accept the hard truth
that our planet is probably
doomed at this point and that
an overwhelming amount of
deaths are inevitable despite
what we do from now on. As
Wallace-Wells highlights, “No
plausible program of emissions
reductions alone can prevent
climate disaster.” With that
being
said,
approaching
the climate issue with an
overbearing sense of realism
may simply be too much for us
to endure.
At the end of the day, I think
“the scientists” that Wallace-
Wells
refers
to
represent
people of various professions
who adopt an urgent attitude
rather than an optimistic one.
These types of people trust
that good change can happen
because we, as humans, are
capable of – or are going to
make ourselves capable of –
figuring out a way to get us out
of our own mess. As should be
for all of us, they understand
that the alternative, which
is
ultimately
suffering
extinction
as
a
result
of
making
our
planet
uninhabitable – is “simply
unimaginable.” They know
that we must all act together
with urgency, because there
is no choice but to devote
ourselves to improving.
If the situation is as severe
as it is, why aren’t we all
making this the top priority
in our lives? Why is it not a
“have to” and is instead more
of a “probably should?” As a
young person in our society
who still has the opportunity
to choose the avenue which
I will pursue, I worry that
continuing to try to work
for an improved, sustainable
future will not be worth it.
In her poem about the end of
the world, Joy Harjo refers
to the kitchen table as the
center of life and suggests
that the world will end with
everyone around the table
– when it will be too late. I
fret about if the work that
I have been preparing to do
my whole life will not matter
anymore. I am unsettled by
the day when, after all I try
to do to save our world, it will
not have mattered, because
what mattered was that all of
us tried.
Going forward, I ask you to
adopt a sense of urgency like
“the scientists” have toward
our looming climate issue. We
need to understand that we are
the only ones who can reverse
this in our favor, and we
should be urging each other
to work towards making our
“impossible” goals possible.
The careers and the lives that
we are all going to have will
either help us get through the
pain or help us end the root
of that pain. As difficult as it
may be, I urge you to reflect
on what you’re doing to make
this world a better place in a
way that solves the problem
rather than runs from it.
Kianna Marquez can be reached
at kmarquez@umich.edu.
T
he
notion
of
“electability”
has
played a prominent role
in the Democratic primaries.
Voters overwhelmingly view
former
Vice
President
Joe
Biden as the most electable,
and
Biden’s
campaign
has
overtly sought to position him
as having the best chance of
defeating
President
Donald
Trump. Supporters of Sen.
Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., and Sen.
Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass.,
along with many commentators
in
liberal
media
circles,
have pushed back on Biden’s
perceived electability, arguing
that bold new ideas are needed
to energize the Democratic
base.
Still
others
have
argued that “electability” is a
meaningless notion since no
candidates have an identifiably
better shot of beating Trump.
While the latter camp is
correct in claiming it is too
soon
to
make
meaningful
predictions about the eventual
winner of the general election,
careful analysis of political
trends
can
yield
relevant
assessments of electability. The
evidence suggests that Biden
does indeed enjoy an advantage
in
electability,
particularly
compared
to
Sanders
and
Warren.
However,
this
advantage is not necessarily for
the reasons many assume.
Biden’s
electability
stems
from his ability to appeal to
a broad coalition including
independents and voters who
flipped from Barack Obama
to Trump in 2016. In the
aftermath of the 2016 election,
political
analysts
poured
over exit polling data and
found a primary culprit for
Hillary Clinton’s defeat: white,
working-class
voters
who
flipped from Barack Obama
to Trump. These voters are
disaffected by globalization and
mistrustful of the government.
They are seeking a candidate
who appeals to their concerns.
In the months following the
2016 election, many political
pundits assumed that winning
back these voters was key to
retaking the White House. Now,
however, the social rhetoric
implies the Democratic party
should
prioritize
mobilizing
the base and turning out high
numbers of reliably Democratic
voters,
particularly
young
voters and African Americans.
Both of these objectives are
important, but Clinton’s defeat
was far more complex than
a failure to appeal to these
demographics.
Young
voter
turnout was actually higher
in 2016 than in 2012, and
Clinton did not significantly
underperform
with
young
voters relative to Obama in
2012, meaning young voter
turnout
cannot
adequately
explain Trump’s surge in 2016.
Sanders and Warren are the
clear favorites among young
primary voters, but I believe
there is little evidence that
nominating a liberal firebrand
would
boost
young
voter
turnout enough to significantly
affect
the
election.
Young
voter turnout has fluctuated
somewhat
throughout
the
years but has always lagged far
behind older voters, even in the
years
Democrats
nominated
very liberal candidates like
George McGovern or Michael
Dukakis. This suggests that
merely
nominating
a
more
liberal candidate is not enough
to solve young voters’ low
turnout as Sanders and Warren
have implied.
African American turnout,
on the other hand, fell sharply.
While this could be partly due
to Obama’s absence from the
ballot, Democrats clearly need
to do a better job of appealing to
African Americans. Some have
argued that Biden would fail to
do so, given his gaffe-tendency
and
controversial
legislative
track
record,
but
polling
consistently shows Biden as
the top choice among African
American primary voters. If
Biden cannot turn out African
Americans
in
the
general
election, there’s little reason
to think his primary opponents
could do better, given that
Biden is the demographic’s
most-favored candidate.
Of course, young voters and
African Americans are not the
only members of the Democratic
coalition.
Currently,
Biden
is the second-most favorably
viewed candidate among all
Democrats, behind Warren. If
turning out the base is indeed
key to beating Trump in 2020,
it is difficult to see how Biden
is in a worse position than his
more progressive colleagues.
Where Biden does have a
clear edge is in appealing to
the moderate swing voters.
Trump won independent voters
in 2016, but they have soured
on his presidency and oppose
his re-election bid by a sizable
margin. These independents do
not want to vote for Trump, but
far-left policies do not appeal to
them, and the proof is in the poll
numbers. A majority of voters
say they would not vote for a
socialist, which is especially
troubling for Sanders, who
openly describes himself as
a “democratic socialist.” Any
far-left nominee would have to
pivot back toward the center
to avoid having the “socialist”
label stick, and this could
be a tall task for many of the
candidates who have endorsed
unpopular policies such as
decriminalizing unauthorized
border crossing and single-
payer health care. Biden is
one of the few Democratic
candidates to oppose these
policies, which positions him
better among moderate swing
voters compared to his more
liberal primary opponents.
While voters are skeptical of
far-left policy positions, they
routinely express support for a
“generic Democrat,” and Biden,
as the mainstream former
vice-president for a popular
former president, is arguably
the most generic Democrat
among the top-tier candidates.
This helps explain why Biden
currently leads Trump by as
many as 15 points in head-to-
head polling, a significantly
larger lead than those of any of
the other candidates. This lead
is far from a guarantee that
Biden can beat Trump, but it’s
an optimal position to start in
and indicative of Biden’s broad
appeal to voters.
Electability may seem like
a trivial matter in a primary
that
has
featured
complex
policy debates on health care,
immigration
and
foreign
policy, but polls routinely show
Democratic voters believe the
ability to beat Trump is the
most important quality in a
candidate. Biden’s electability
may not be the most inspiring
reason to support his candidacy,
but it is nonetheless a powerful
motivator
for
Democratic
voters, and they deserve an
honest assessment of it.
Moreover,
the
current
conversation
on
electability
demonstrates
Democrats
have not learned from 2016.
Trump is unpopular, but the
eventual nominee cannot rely
solely on his unpopularity to
win. Rather, the Democratic
nominee must be able to build
a broad coalition that holds
together the entire base and
reaches out to moderate swing
voters. Biden offers the best
chance of doing this, and his
perceived electability is no
myth.
Rethinking “electability”
NOAH HARRISON | COLUMN
Noah Harrison can be reached at
noahharr@umich.edu.
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.
CHLOE PLESCHER | COLUMN
The hidden, online world of pro-anorexia
A
s body positivity has grown
in popularity on social
media,
eating
disorders
such as binge eating, anorexia
nervosa
and
bulimia
nervosa
have become more understood by
American society. Social media
accounts and movements, like I
Weigh, have protested the diet
culture impeding Americans by
criticizing society for pushing diet
pills and fads. Instead, people are
encouraged to value themselves
beyond their bodies. However, while
body positivity is clearly beneficial,
an opposite movement still slithers
through social media. Pro-anorexia,
or pro-ana for short, is the online
promotion of weight-loss eating
disorders, mainly anorexia and
bulimia.
Pro-ana developed with the
internet,
beginning
its
online
presence
in
the
1990s
and
continuing today through online
forums, blogs and popular social
media. However, each pro-ana
medium is different in its approach.
The most extreme are those who
believe in Ana (anorexia) as a
goddess they must worship and
follow. There are commandments,
prayers and creeds dangerously
dictating how people must live
to become a true anorexic. The
second level are those in forums
or social media accounts who
believe anorexia is good, but not in
a religious sense. For example, they
do not worship anorexia or bulimia
as a goddess, but they still believe in
the disease as a lifestyle. Rules and
tips regarding food and exercise
are still shared to encourage
themselves and others. Ana buddies
are formed to motivate others
through their fasting, purging
and
exercising.
When
rules
are broken, pro-ana users abuse
each other to trigger them into
not eating. This level bleeds into
the final one: those who have an
eating disorder but do not see it as a
blessing. Yet, they still take to social
media to post “thinspirational”
photos and quotes, using the
websites as self-motivation to
continue their harmful behaviors
while simultaneously encouraging
others to recover.
While the harm these websites
cause is obvious, pro-ana is an
addictive
distraction.
Pro-ana
sites and blogs are a playground to
capture vulnerable people and keep
them in their eating disorders. The
websites serve to justify dangerous,
disordered behaviors and breaks
the temptation to recover. Yet, pro-
ana is readily accessible. Finding
pro-ana is as simple as a Google
search, where photos of emaciated
women pop up with accompanying
quotes. Rhymes such as “skip
dinner, wake up thinner” and
“hungry to bed, hungry to rise
makes a girl a smaller size” are
there for anyone – including
children – to see and become
influenced. Furthermore, the top
result after searching pro-ana is
a link to the hashtag on Twitter,
followed by pro-ana websites. With
a simple scroll, adults and children
can find accounts posting goal
weights, body photos, new diets
and tracked calories. Pro-ana is a
treacherous world easily preying
on the vulnerable.
Anorexia is the mental illness
with the highest mortality rate,
with 20 percent of the deaths being
from suicide, but pro-ana still
deserves to be taken as seriously
as suicide. Consider the case of
Michelle Carter, who was rightfully
sentenced to 15 months in prison
for encouraging her boyfriend to
commit suicide. Pro-ana does the
same but on a wider level, yet only
Pinterest and Tumblr have banned
the content. Even a Google search
of pro-ana does not prompt links
to the National Eating Disorders
Association hotline, as it does when
someone
Googles
“prosuicide.”
Obviously, pro-ana is more sneaky
and subtle in its suicidal ideations,
as websites and accounts continue
to fly under the radar. However,
action must still be taken to make
pro-ana harder to find, and search
engines providing resources is an
easy way to further prevention.
Eating disorders are painful
and hazardous illnesses, and it is
time search engine enterprises
and social media companies
treat it seriously. By allowing the
promotion of anorexia and other
eating
disorders,
companies
become
partially
responsible
for
the
development
and
continuance of such disorders.
There is no value in allowing
such easy access to pro-ana
content. Especially since pro-
ana views eating disorders as
lifestyle choices and not diseases,
the risks of eating disorders are
overlooked. Pro-ana validates
and worships unhealthy, skeletal
bodies, and it pushes people to
slowly kill themselves through
starving,
purging,
abusing
laxatives and over exercising.
Social media companies like
Instagram and Twitter can join
other companies in removing
pro-ana
content.
Instagram
has already made strides by
banning 17 pro-ana hashtags
in 2012, marking them against
their terms of service, though
this actually made the problem
worse by encouraging alternative
hashtags – so Instagram can do
more. There are still more than
250 hashtag variations open.
With technological advancement,
Instagram can afford a team
to find the current hashtags
and block them. Of course, new
variations will form and users will
continuously find ways to share
content – drug addicts always find
a dealer. But banning hashtags
does make pro-ana harder to
find, especially for newer viewers
and children. Additionally, the
recommendation algorithms can
be reformed to screen hashtags
before promoting them in a
feed. Banning pro-ana content
is time-consuming work, but it is
necessary to help prevention of
eating disorders and suicide.
Chloe Plescher can be reached at
chloebp@umich.edu.
Read more at MichiganDaily.com