Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4A — Wednesday, October 9, 2019

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.

T

he United States often
likes to tout the checks
and
balances
in
its
governmental system, which exist
for the purpose of constraining
the power of various groups and
individuals. Even under President
Donald Trump, the checks and
balances
system
has
proved
somewhat successful: Many of
Trump’s most outrageous ideas
have been stymied or watered down,
preventing
social
and
political
catastrophes.
However, there is a fundamental
problem with the idea of checks and
balances: It only functionally exists
on a domestic level. With regard to
foreign affairs, the president has
almost unilateral power to act as he
chooses. Unsurprisingly, Trump’s
foreign policy has deviated from
norms in dangerous ways as a
result. Trump’s legitimization of
autocratic governments, inability
to respect multilateral diplomacy
and American allies, and bizarre
indecisiveness in the Middle East
has left America weaker abroad.
It has also enabled human rights
abuses and tarnished America’s
reputation as a strategic partner.
To begin, the most glaringly
problematic aspect of Trump’s
foreign policy is his eagerness to
bond
with
autocratic
regimes,
legitimizing and empowering their
oppressive policies. Since taking
office,
Trump
has
abandoned
the American policy of publicly
condemning international human
rights violations, instead choosing
to praise autocratic leaders. This is
most noticeable through Trump’s
ties with Kim Jong-un of North
Korea and Mohammed bin Salman
of
Saudi
Arabia,
two
leaders
with whom he has cultivated
relationships. Trump has met with
Kim three times, beginning with
the 2018 summit in Singapore.
Since then, Trump has talked about
receiving a “beautiful” letter from
Kim and earlier this year visited the
North Korean border, making him
the first sitting American leader to
ever cross over. In his negotiations
with Kim, Trump has focused
almost
exclusively
on
creating
personal connections for the end
goal of nuclear disarmament, a
dangerous maneuver. Through this
approach, Trump is legitimizing

Kim’s
leadership
style
and
normalizing North Korea’s heinous
human rights abuses, which he has
continually failed to call out, instead
treating them as collateral in the
disarmament negotiations.
Trump’s
relationship
with
Mohammed
bin
Salman,
the
Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia, has
been quite similar. As with Kim,
Trump has been more than willing
to overlook Salman’s grotesque
violations of human rights for
personal benefit. For Trump, the
value of Saudi Arabia’s friendship is
largely financial. In 2017, the Saudi
government signed a deal with the
Trump administration to purchase
$8 billion in arms. Even when
confronted with the problematic
nature of his relationship with
Salman – via both a legislative bill
blocking the most recent Saudi arms
deal and a CIA report confirming
Salman’s role in the death of
journalist
Jamal
Khashoggi
–
Trump has remained unmoved. He
vetoed the bill and ignored the CIA
report. Through his friendship with
Salman, Trump is not only implicitly
supporting the oppression of Saudi
people in Saudi Arabia, but also
actively contributing to the ongoing
war and humanitarian crisis in
Yemen. Just like with North Korea,
Trump’s fixation on personal gain
in Saudi Arabia has legitimized their
abhorrent human rights violations
and undemocratic practices and lent
credence to leaders whom the United
States should not be supporting.
In addition to bonding with
autocratic dictators, Trump has also
chosen to forsake many of America’s
longstanding allies, shunning them
in favor of right-wing populist
leaders. Since World War II, the one
constant in America’s oft-changing
foreign policy has been support
for NATO. However, Trump has
attacked this relationship, criticizing
many NATO members (particularly
Germany) over their low levels of
military spending.
While
disparaging
America’s
traditional
allies,
Trump
has
simultaneously
built
personal
relationships with many right-
wing strongmen with whom he
sees himself as aligned. During his
term, Trump has spoken about his
“great relationship” with Philippines
President
Rodrigo
Duterte,

ignoring Duterte’s inhumane and
problematic drug policies, which
include
carrying
out
violent,
extrajudicial attacks on drug users.
Similarly, Trump has developed an
overwhelmingly positive rapport
with
Brazilian
President
Jair
Bolsonaro,
despite
Bolsonaro’s
unwillingness to protect native
Amazonians, or the rainforest itself.
While these are just two examples,
the list goes on: Trump has worked
to build positive relationships with
many other populist right-wing
leaders, such as Viktor Orban of
Hungary.
Lastly, Trump’s incoherent and
indecisive politics in the Middle
East have emboldened opposition
forces and contributed to increased
violence in the region. One of
Trump’s first priorities as president
was to remove the United States
from the Iran Nuclear Deal, which
he called “one of the worst and
most one-sided transactions the
United States has ever entered into.”
However, his strategy since then has
been completely incomprehensible;
he took a hardline stance and
placed
crippling
sanctions
on
Iran, then appeared completely
unwilling to respond once the
Iranian government lashed out
against these sanctions. This flip-
flopping has emboldened Iran and
lead to increasingly forceful attacks
and risks inciting a larger conflict
between the two nations.
However,
Trump’s
approach
toward
negotiating
with
the
Taliban in Afghanistan has perhaps
been even more disastrous than
his negotiations with Iran. Most
notably, Trump impulsively ordered
the removal of all troops from
Afghanistan immediately at the end
of 2018, a catastrophic idea which
was vehemently opposed by former
defense secretary Jim Mattis. Since
then, Trump has been continually
negotiating with the Taliban over
the removal of U.S. troops and
was unmoved by critics who said
negotiating with the Taliban would
empower the group and legitimize
their violence as a form of opposition
against the Afghan government.

Trump’s assault on America’s geopolitical reputation

BRITTANY BOWMAN | COLUMN

Why report?

ZACK BLUMBERG | COLUMN

Zack Blumberg can be reached at

zblumber@umich.edu.

FROM THE DAILY

Rethink privatizing mental health services
I

n an unprecedented move on Sept. 30, Michigan Gov. Gretchen
Whitmer vetoed line items in a budget of nearly $1 billion of state
spending, including a provision to increase the privatization of
mental health services. This provision is an effort to cut costs that
involve pilot projects that combine Medicaid-managed care plans for
physical health with the Medicaid-managed mental health system,
which is regulated by 10 regional pseudo-public health plans.

As
Whitmer
and
the
legislature
reevaluate
the
budget and reallocate funds for
state spending, there is much
to consider about health care
expenditures and what we as a
society prioritize in terms of who
should and who should not have
access to care.
In broad terms, privatization
in health care is the involvement
of a third-party sectors other
than
the
government
in
providing and regulating health-
related services. What started
off as a mechanism to provide
comprehensive health services
to the public that the government
cannot keep up with has slowly
emerged as profitable, with private
health care companies setting
unrealistic costs that patients are
forced to pay for coverage. The
funding of mental health care is
a multi-layered dilemma. Along
with potentially propagating a
dangerous stigma surrounding
this class of illnesses, sometimes
this discussion can take away
from the patients receiving true,
effective treatment.
The implications of privatizing
mental health care are endless.
First,
mental
health
is
an
umbrella
term
encompassing
a host of illnesses, including
suicidal
ideation,
substance
abuse, depression, anxiety and
bipolar disorder, among many
others. Roughly 4.5 percent of
adults in Michigan suffer from a
serious mental illness. Of these
individuals, almost half of them
receive appropriate treatment for
their respective conditions, with
the other half battling cultural
barriers and stigma. Privatizing
mental health care will only
exacerbate these barriers, as it
limits access to those who can
afford the potential premiums.

The lack of access for underserved
populations can result in the
mentally ill being untreated or even
ending up in the prison system.
This result can further perpetuate
the stigma that the health care
system strives to alleviate: that
those who are suffering from
mental illness have no hope, are
undeserving of our attention and
are inextricably linked with crime
and incarceration. Public mental
health facilities increase access
and awareness.

The
current
public-driven
health care system acts as a safety
net system, particularly for low-
income individuals, and operates
with the incentive to offer as
many services as needed. The
Republicans’ proposed provision
in the 2020 state budget bill
pushes the Michigan health care
system toward becoming more
privatized, which has immediate
consequences. First, there will be
an initial 9-percent funding cut
toward client-based needs. This
would put more than 300,000
Michigan residents who depend
on
the
current
health
care
system at risk of losing many of
the services they receive. These
potential negative effects all stem
from the fact that privatized
health care services, while they
may still offer relatively high

amounts of services for patients,
will largely shape their services
and infrastructure in a way that
maximizes the amount of money
being produced. This creates an
incentive for them to cut back
on services and raise their costs,
which will only target low-income
and rural families who already
struggle under the current system.
A
popular
argument
for
privatizing the Michigan health
care
system
suggests
that
integrating mental and physical
health services (as was proposed
under the budget bill) is more
efficient because it would better
address overall patient health and
could provide administrative cost
savings. While it may produce
administrative
cost
savings,
those savings would be at a
huge loss. Privatized Medicaid-
managed
care
plans
aren’t
typically
structured
with
a
focus on mental health services
and could cut corners to save
costs, which appears realistic
considering it is profit-driven.
Furthermore, integrating the two
health services could potentially
decrease
necessary
funding
toward the mental health branch,
which already is in desperate
need of cash under the current
state system. There have also
been studies on the success of
privatized health care systems,
and the evidence largely does
not support it. Marcia Angell, a
contributing writer to the U.S.
National Library of Medicine,
stated that for-profit care is almost
always more expensive and offers
subpar treatment compared to
public service. In a state lacking
a comprehensive mental health
system, the opportunity to rework
a budget to allocate monetary
resources is more crucial now
than ever before.

The funding of
mental health
care is a multi-
layered dilemma.

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

EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS

I

n light of the recent chaos of
our political scene, movements
bringing awareness to sexual
assault
survivors
have
gained
more traction now than ever. The
hashtag #MeToo was first coined
in 2006 by grassroots activist
Tarana Burke and truly paved
its way into mainstream media
two years ago. The movement
urges women to write #MeToo to
show the magnitude and impact
of sexual assault. Alyssa Milano,
an American activist and actress,
tweeted, “If you’ve been sexually
harassed or assaulted write ‘me too’
as a reply to this tweet” on October
15, 2017. A year later, a study by the
Pew Research Center found that
#MeToo was used over 19 million
times on Twitter, and there were
more posts around news events.
The hashtag has undoubtedly
enabled many women and sexual
assault survivors to speak up and
stand in solidarity with others, but
it has also unveiled many other
systemic problems that desperately
needed to be addressed.
Three years ago, Americans
listened to our current president on
tape say, “when you’re a star, they
let you do it. You can do anything.”
Two years ago, the #MeToo
movement was kicked off after
sexual assault allegations were
brought against Harvey Weinstein.
Just one year ago, we watched
Brett Kavanaugh, another man
accused of sexual assault, get
confirmed as a Supreme Court
justice. Now, more than ever,
Americans want change.
Over the past few years, many
powerful men have had sexual
assault
allegations
brought
against them. News like this
makes the headlines for a little
while, but is soon superseded by
something larger, allowing people
like Kavanaugh to slip our minds
momentarily. But people haven’t
forgotten entirely, and events like
the election of President Donald
Trump, the #MeToo movement
and the Kavanaugh hearings have
helped lead a fundamental shift
in how men in power, even in the
government, are viewed by the
American people. A study done by

research firm PerryUndem shows
that 49 percent of the people
polled agree with the statement,
“One reason Justice Kavanaugh
was confirmed is because white
men want to hold onto their power
in the government.” Over the past
few years, there has been fresh
chatter about the balance of power
in society, and partners at the firm
believe people may be taking these
thoughts to the ballot boxes.
In another Undem poll, half
of the voters thought about the
implications
of
men
having
more power than women in
government after the Kavanaugh
hearings. When Dr. Christine
Blasey Ford stood in front of an
audience composed of mostly
men and testified, her words and
trauma were not enough to stop a
man from being admitted to the
country’s highest court of law. A
feeling of overwhelming dread
and helplessness was cemented
into the minds of many Americans
that day. It was clear that men held
more positions of power, and that
those men did not value justice
for victims of sexual assault or
harassment.
Ford
coming
forward
to
reveal her trauma should have
immediately changed the course
of action taken by government
officials.
Imagine
the
sheer
number of women who do not
have the resources, time or
support to ever come forward
with
information
on
their
assaulter. The survivors who do
come forward can never truly
be vindicated. Yet, people still
have the nerve and ignorance to
ask why survivors do not want
their names revealed and why
they “wait so long.” Credibility is
questioned, attempted political
scams are assumed. Women and
survivors are never just believed.
Granted, everyone should be
legally afforded the right to be
assumed innocent until proven
guilty, but we must do this by
pressing for justice. Survivors
deserve better. Women deserve
better. Anyone who is sexually
assaulted deserves better, and
they deserve to live without

having to watch their assaulter sit
in a position of power over other
women.
Everything
starts
with
reporting.
According
to
the
University of Michigan’s Office
for Institutional Equity, after
#MeToo went viral in the fall of
2016, reports of sexual assault
and sexual harassment increased
by
62
percent
on
campus.
However, of the 152 reports
that fell under the policy, only 20
investigations were conducted and
only 10 completed. In the end, only
three cases found students to be in
violation of the University’s policy
regarding sexual and gender-
based misconduct. This reminds
us that change must be made at
institutional levels and begins
individually. To get anything into
a legal review system, it must
be reported first. The increased
reporting of sexual assault or
harassment
is
not
inherently
reflective of anyone’s improved
confidence in the legal system –
rather it reflects the confidence in
the conviction that they will at least
be heard.
We must respect anyone who
speaks up about sexual assaults.
Creating
a
more
inclusive
environment
for
supporting
survivors
is
imperative
for
destroying
the
contempt
and
uncertainty that inevitably arrive
when someone comes forward
with their story. Per the National
Sexual
Violence
Research
Center, sexual assault or rape is
the most underreported crime
in the country. Without formal
complaints or reports to the police
or authoritative figures, sexual
assault perpetrators cannot be
reviewed, much less brought to
justice. College campuses must
make it easier to report, bring
and prove statements of sexual
assault. Protecting survivors from
the rigors of proving these claims
and enabling trained professionals
to understand the traumas of
these individuals is essential for
the breakdown of institutionally-
protected perpetrators.

Brittany Bowman can be reached at

babowm@umich.edu.

MADISON COPLEY | CONTACT CARTOONIST AT MICOPLEY@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.

Read more at MichiganDaily.com