100%

Scanned image of the page. Keyboard directions: use + to zoom in, - to zoom out, arrow keys to pan inside the viewer.

Page Options

Download this Issue

Share

Something wrong?

Something wrong with this page? Report problem.

Rights / Permissions

This collection, digitized in collaboration with the Michigan Daily and the Board for Student Publications, contains materials that are protected by copyright law. Access to these materials is provided for non-profit educational and research purposes. If you use an item from this collection, it is your responsibility to consider the work's copyright status and obtain any required permission.

September 25, 2019 - Image 4

Resource type:
Text
Publication:
The Michigan Daily

Disclaimer: Computer generated plain text may have errors. Read more about this.

Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4A — Wednesday, September 25, 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

ALICE LIN | COLUMN

A new perspective on back to school shopping
W

hat starts out as
a
typical
back-to-
school ad becomes
increasingly more and more
disturbing as students in the
background
of
each
scene
begin running away from some
ominous threat. Each child who
makes an appearance holds
some sort of mundane object —
a skateboard, colored pencils,
socks — that is then utilized in a
manner of self-defense.
The dark shadow creeping on
the heels of these kids is also one
that is making its way across the
country — polarizing politicians
and constituents alike. This
public service announcement
recently published by the Sandy
Hook Promise, a nonprofit aimed
at
preventing
gun
violence,
prompts us to remember that we
cannot neglect the issue of gun
violence. The video conveys that
shootings have become almost
commonplace, to the extent
where we should be aware
and afraid they could happen
anytime and anywhere. Though
this may seem extreme, we have
to accustom ourselves to the
idea that it can become a reality
for all of us. The message here is
also a necessary call to action,
because there really is no valid
excuse as to why there has been
no progress made on containing
this threat. If we really want to
see change occur, it is an effort
that needs to be made on every
level — from local to federal —
and so far, we are failing to do
so.
Gun violence has become an
issue that is only growing more
prominent,
especially
with
the two attacks that happened
within 24 hours of each other in
August. Yet, the United States
government has failed to make
progress toward alleviating the
problem, which is completely
unacceptable. So far, one of the
few politicians who has been
vocal and transparent in their

intentions to handle the issue
is presidential candidate Beto
O’Rourke. At the last Democratic
debate, he shared his plans to
take away AR-15s and AK-47s,
which drew controversy. His
plan has been seen as extreme,
since he outright stated his
intentions to limit the Second
Amendment. At the same time,
members of his own party
are concerned that his words
will hinder the progress of
the gun control bill that has
been proposed by Democrats.
Congress has yet to pass the bill
for background checks, which
is currently still waiting on
Senate Majority Leader Mitch
McConnell for action. So far,
there have been no Republican
supporters of the bill, because
they refuse to take action until
they are sure President Donald
Trump will support it.
This is not how Congress
should work. The Republican
excuse is just a cop out: If they
actually cared about taking
action,
Trump’s
potential
response would not matter.
Background checks are far less
“extreme” in the sense that
they do not completely prevent
people from exercising their
right to bear arms. Even if
Trump threatens to veto the
bill, Congress can always vote to
override it — it is just a matter of
whether or not they really care
enough about it. At this point,
gun
violence
has
extended
beyond the debate of exercising
rights and become an issue of
public health. Considering it
has crossed into the domain of
public health and safety, there
is even less reason to not take
action. The government has
police powers — the ability to act
in the interest of preserving the
health and safety of the people —
and it should exercise them.
Being a politician is not about
achieving what is easy, it is about
achieving the greater good for

your constituents — and the
constituents want gun control.
In a recently conducted Marist
poll, 55 percent of adults
agreed gun control was more
important than their Second
Amendment rights. Politicians
are blatantly ignoring what
the people actually want, but
at what cost? Is campaign
funding and support from the
NRA really worth endangering
the lives of so many Americans?
When did politics become
about staying in power for the
sake of a career rather than
helping the people?
At the same time, Democrats
should stand up and take a
stronger stance. This is not an
issue that can be compromised
on. I know bipartisanship is
necessary to get things done,
but talks between the two
parties
will
only
continue
to go in circles. If a bill on
background checks — which
is already such a simple form
of gun regulation — cannot
even get passed, what hope
do we really have of achieving
anything? If the government is
at an impasse on the issue and
there is no federal progress,
then we need to seek out change
through another method. Why
give all of these politicians
the privilege to affect change
when they have done nothing
with their power to help others?
With 23 Republican Senate
seats up for reelection in 2020,
we can now be vocal in effecting
change. If politicians seem like
they are losing sight of what
is important, we can easily
remind them of what matters.
The statistics show that a large
percentage of us care strongly
about regulation, we just need
to make our voices heard. There
is a saying that all politics is
local. It all starts with us voters.

Alice Lin can be reached at

alicelin@umich.edu

Trump’s trade war against China: the right thing to do

EVAN STERN | COLUMN

CHERYN HONG | COLUMN

All political opinions deserve a voice
A

s
a
first-generation
immigrant,
my
family was never my
source of political
information. When
my
parents
were
finally allowed to
vote,
they
simply
taught
me
one
thing: Always vote
Democratic. I never
questioned
their
advice, as I believe
most teenagers do
when
they
start
learning
about
politics.
I
blindly
followed
my
parents’ beliefs up until high
school. I lived in one of the
wealthiest cities in Michigan
and attended a prestigious
private
institution.
My
environment
drastically
changed, and I was surrounded
by people from contrasting
socioeconomic
backgrounds,
and — most strikingly —
conservative political stances.
At
first
glance,
people
may assume I struggled in
a community of peers who
come
from
conservative
backgrounds and perspectives
strikingly
different
from
mine.
However,
to
my
surprise, I strongly gravitated
towards people who thought
differently than me. While
I didn’t seek out people on
the right side of the political
spectrum, the students I got
along with and enjoyed the
company of happened to have
views that strongly opposed
my own.
My first two weeks as a
freshman at the University
have been an overflow of
information,
from
figuring
out where to find lecture
halls to how one can “Stay
in the Blue.” But perhaps the
biggest change I’ve noticed
from my high school is how
the University of Michigan
community is fairly liberal,
based on my experience of
hallway talk and classroom
discourse.
In my first-year seminar, the
Anthropology of Resentment,
my professor assigned a New
York Times column for us
to observe how colleges are
being criticized for being too
liberal. Author Molly Worthen
questioned how and if colleges

are truly intellectually diverse.
She refered to conservative
watchdog groups who warned
students of socialist
professors
and
their
prohibition
of
conservative
expression.
While
these
were
hyperbolic
claims,
she strove to seek the
source of the claims.
Worthen
proceeded to study
whether professors
successfully
create intellectually diverse
communities. My assignment
led me to propose my own
questions: Is the University
creating an open environment
for
not
only
conservative
views, but for all beliefs of
the incoming freshmen and
the entire student body? This
poses another question: How
does the University condemn
hate and encourage an open
space for all opinions at the
same time?

Having been surrounded
by peers with beliefs that
contradict my own throughout
my
secondary
educational
experience, I understand the
value of being challenged,
whether the topic is politics
or any other issue. By the time
of my high school graduation,
I realized my closest friends
came from the opposite side
of the political spectrum.
My personal growth in high
school was thanks in part to
my peers. However, while
I got the most out of my
high
school
experience,
I
understand that a high school
community can be much more
welcoming
than
a
larger
university. I wonder if certain
conservative
students
who
have different views from the
majority liberal community

feel at risk for being rejected
or alienated.
While
it
is
refreshing
and comforting to know
that there are many people
who share my beliefs, it is
disheartening to know the
atmosphere could also be
hindering
other
students
from speaking up. With the
current
political
climate,
it is more important than
ever
for
individuals
to
understand
perspectives
other than their own. Like
other students, I came to the
University to be challenged.
If we continue to create an
atmosphere that reflects the
same perspective and ideals,
there
is
no
opportunity
for
personal
growth.
A
homogenous mindset stunts
progression, and it would be
a shame to waste a campus
that is composed of minds
that think differently and has
students who are passionate
about what they stand for.
Even though I am an
advocate for open spaces and
allowing people to converse
freely, it is imperative to
note the need to prevent hate
speech on campus. With the
2020 presidential election
coming up, it is easy for
students to allow the tension,
both inside and outside of
political parties, to dissolve
respect
and
courtesy
for
one another. Students have
a key responsibility to know
the
difference
between
an intellectual debate and
unnecessary
conflict.
The
complexity of creating an
open community shouldn’t
deter us from attempting
to balance an intellectually
diverse conversation without
malicious input.
Rarely in our educational
careers are we given a space
where we can openly discuss
contradicting
opinions
in
a
respectful
manner,
especially given the political
climate. That said, I think
everyone at the University
should strive toward creating
an
environment
where
all opinions are welcome,
especially the students.

Cheryn Hong can be reached at

cherynh@umich.edu.

A

fter
tweeting
“...
trade wars are good,
and
easy
to
win”
about a year and a half ago
in reference to our nation’s
growing
trade
tensions
with China at that point,
President
Donald
Trump
was right about one thing.
This trade war is clearly not
as easy to “win” as he first
claimed in March 2018, but,
it is without a doubt the right
course of action to take for all
Americans.
While
Trump’s
actions,
which
include
imposing
tariffs on billions of dollars
worth of goods manufactured
in China, may appear to many
as provocative and dangerous,
they
are
actually
greatly
warranted, as is evident from
the bipartisan support his
measures have received. For
decades, China has engaged
in significantly unfair trade
practices against the United
States, with our government
doing little about it.
As
the
current
administration has correctly
stated, China, the world’s
largest
exporter,
has
routinely
been
found
to
illegally and aggressively sell
its products, manipulate its
currency and steal America’s
intellectual property, which
are all part of a calculated
effort to unethically elevate
its economy above that of
the U.S. As a result, everyday
Americans playing by the
rules have found themselves
confined
and
limited
by
China’s
previously-
unchallenged actions.
In a 2018 White House fact sheet,
it was reported that China has
endangered millions of American
jobs
through
a
number
of unfair tactics, including
forced technology transfer,
“outright cyber theft” and
the imposition of tariffs on
American
goods
that,
on
average, are triple (although
sometimes 10 times greater)
what the United States has
imposed on Chinese goods.
Furthermore, China has been
found to regularly promote
the dumping of its goods,
conditions of over-capacity
and the usage of industrial

subsidies
that
“make
it
impossible for many United
States firms to compete on a
level playing field,” according
to the fact sheet. Moreover,
China accounts for 87 percent
of
the
counterfeit
goods
that are confiscated upon
reaching our borders. Finally,
a number of plans the nation
has developed — including the
Made in China 2025 initiative
— pose a direct economic
threat to our nation and other
law-abiding countries.
Consider, as is detailed
in a recent CNBC article,
ordinary
citizens
trying

to make a living as China
moves to exploit them. With
several different companies
mentioned,
it
becomes
strikingly clear that, despite
the harm stemming from
tariffs, Trump is answering
a long call from many to
attempt to put China in
its place. “(I)t’s not a free
market,”
Neil
Muyskens,
CEO
of
the
suffering
Unicomp company, a small
business that manufactures
keyboards in Kentucky, said,
“We are at a significant cost
disadvantage
and
always
have been.”
Many in this nation who
are
concerned
about
the
impact of this trade war
point
to
the
decline
of
the stock market and the
hardships felt by American
consumers and businesses as
evidence that our president
is
inadvertently
harming
this nation and throwing
the
worldwide
economic
landscape off balance. But
while there are risks and

rewards with any decision,
the
truth
is
confronting
Beijing benefits the United
States.
Already, since the White
House first began tackling
China’s
unfair
trade
advantage,
we
have
seen
progress. While the road to a
deal has been bumpy at times,
with work still necessary,
Trump
and
Chinese
President Xi Jinping have
held negotiations in order to
arrive at a solution that both
sides can agree to. Most of
all, by taking a stand against
Beijing’s harmful practices,
China is less likely to engage
in these types of aggressive
habits in the future as long
as we keep applying this
level of pressure on their
government.
Undoubtedly, Trump has
encountered
roadblocks.
It is clear that such a great
economic power like China,
especially
considering
its behavior in the past,
presents a unique challenge
for the president and the
U.S. And while many have
been pessimistic about these
efforts,
our
government
doesn’t
have
much
of
an
alternative
choice.
Ultimately,
the
United
States can either continue
to persevere as one of the
world’s leading powers and
triumph over these unethical
conditions, or we can blink
and allow China to further
wreak havoc on our economy.
As one considers the state
of the current situation, it is
fully clear that we have no
choice but to continue this
lengthy confrontation and
eventually earn the respect
we deserve from, not only
China, but also from all other
nations that trade unfairly
with the United States. In the
end, we will thank President
Trump for ending years of
direct, blatant assault on
our economy and elevating
the needs of hard-working
Americans above all else.

Evan Stern can be reached at

erstern@umich.edu.

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.

Confronting
Beijing
benefits the
United States

JOIN EDITBOARD

Join The Michigan Daily! Come to
Editboard meetings Monday and
Wednesday from 7:15 to 8:45 at the
Newsroom, 420 Maynard St. Engage in
discourse about important issues and
become a journalist!

CHERYN
HONG

A homogenous
mindset stunts
progression

Back to Top

© 2024 Regents of the University of Michigan