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