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