Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4A — Monday, November 11, 2019
Alanna Berger
Zack Blumberg
Emily Considine
Emma Chang
Joel Danilewitz
Emily Huhman
Krystal Hur
Ethan Kessler
Magdalena Mihaylova
Mary Rolfes
Michael Russo
Timothy Spurlin
Miles Stephenson
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
KATIE OPPENHEIM AND VICTORIA HOCH | OP-ED
U-M hospitals are great. So why is parking such a pain?
NOAH HARRISON | COLUMN
VALENTINA HOUSE | OP-ED
Democrats cannot abandon the truth
The difference between education and indoctrination
A
t
the
second
Democratic
debate,
when pressed to defend
the cost of Medicare for All,
liberal Sens. Bernie Sanders,
I-Vt., and Elizabeth Warren,
D-Mass.,
accused
their
more moderate opponents of
repeating “Republican talking
points.”
The
regrettable
phrase resurfaced at the latest
Democratic debate, when Sen.
Amy
Klobuchar,
D-Minn.,
criticized Warren for dodging
questions about the cost of her
proposed programs.
The cost of Warren and
Sanders’s extensive proposed
reforms warrant scrutiny, but
their casual dismissal of fiscal
realities is far more disturbing.
The exact fiscal impacts of
Medicare for All would depend
on the plan’s finer details, but
any single-payer system would
boost government expenditures
by trillions, and a few neutral
analyses
predict
total
costs
would increase. These are facts,
not “Republican talking points,”
and
Warren
and
Sanders’s
refusal to be transparent about
the costs of their proposed
programs is troubling.
If the progressive candidates
continue to use the phrase
“Republican
talking
points”
to rebuff criticism, then the
phrase could become equivalent
to President Donald Trump’s
mantra of “fake news.” Trump’s
refusal to accept facts and his
brazen denial of inconvenient
truths is why nearly two-thirds
of Americans believe he is
dishonest.
Trump’s
untruthfulness
is
not a strength, and it is certainly
not a quality Democrats should
try to emulate. If Democrats are
to prevail in 2020, the nominee
must be perceived as honest,
well-tempered and likable. These
are all traits the public believes
Trump lacks, and Trump’s poor
character evaluation is a major
reason for his dismal approval
ratings
among
independents,
who are the key demographic
for 2020. Trump won the group
in 2016, but their dim views of
Trump’s character and their
high disapproval of his job
performance is advantageous
for the Democratic nominee in
2020.
However,
this
advantage
assumes that the Democratic
nominee
is
viewed
more
favorably. Trump’s character
ratings were about as low in
2016 as they are now, but former
Secretary
of
State
Hillary
Clinton was also perceived as
untrustworthy and unlikable,
enabling Trump to overcome
his low favorability ratings.
To avoid a repeat in 2020, the
Democratic nominee must build
a reputation of trustworthiness
and authenticity, and it is fair
to question whether Sanders
and Warren are capable of
this task. Aside from their
“Republican
talking
points”
line, both candidates have come
under scrutiny for dishonesty
and evasiveness. Sanders has
been frequently corrected for
repeatedly
overstating
U.S.
health care costs relative to
other developed countries, and
his
campaign’s
evasiveness
following
his
recent
heart
attack drew scrutiny.
Warren, for her part, has
insisted she has substantial
Native
American
ancestry
throughout her professional
career, but a DNA test last
year proved otherwise, forcing
Warren to apologize to Native
American groups and eliciting
mockery from Trump. Warren
also created controversy after
claiming she was forced out of a
teaching job for being pregnant,
which seemed to contradict
previous statements and board
records.
Sanders
and
Warren’s
untruthfulness reflects a larger
trend on the progressive left in
the Trump era. Rep. Alexandria
Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., a leader
of the progressive movement,
has
frequently
disregarded
the facts during her advocacy
for progressive reforms. In
December 2018, Ocasio-Cortez
grossly mischaracterized the
nature of Department of Defense
accounting
errors,
claiming
that
the
funds
supposedly
unaccounted for could have
funded 66 percent of single-
payer health care. The claim
was rated “Four Pinocchios”
by the Washington Post’s fact-
checker, but when pressed on
the claim in an interview with
Anderson
Cooper,
Ocasio-
Cortez
defended
herself,
saying that “there’s a lot of
people more concerned about
being precisely, factually and
semantically
correct
than
about being morally right.”
Ocasio-Cortez’s defense was
troubling — being morally and
factually right are not mutually
exclusive.
Furthermore,
her
defense essentially excuses lies
told for some greater purpose,
which
sounds
suspiciously
similar to the logic used by some
Republicans to defend Trump’s
lies.
Of course, this problem is
not exclusive to the progressive
wing of the Democratic Party.
Joe Biden has come under fire
for grossly exaggerating and
even fabricating stories on the
campaign trail. After factoring
in Biden, all three Democratic
frontrunners have spotty recent
records when it comes to the
truth.
This
trend
is
alarming,
since the Democrats’ greatest
advantage against Trump is
the president’s poor character.
Trump has told a staggering
13,400 lies in less than three
years, accounting for 76 percent
of his total public statements,
according to PolitiFact. The
facts are on the Democrats’
side – it is unnecessary and
irresponsible to distort the
truth.
If
the
Democratic
nominee
cannot
earn
a
perceived “character edge” over
Trump, the president could very
well ride the strong economy
and his incumbency edge to
re-election. Now is not the time
for Democrats to abandon the
truth.
Noah Harrison can be reached at
noahharr@umich.edu.
A
re we being educated
or indoctrinated in the
classroom?
Education
stems from a fact-based and open-
minded presentation of history and
ideas. Indoctrination is an opinion-
based presentation of those ideas.
The average college student
today will tell you that President
Donald
Trump
has
created
deep divisions along party lines.
However, studies show that the
U.S. became increasingly more
polarized during Barack Obama’s
administration. I often wonder
if this development is the effect
of a one-sided education system
that borders on indoctrination.
Students and especially professors
at a majority of colleges share more
liberal ideologies than conservative
ones. As a result, those who
don’t share in these beliefs seem
extremely different from them, and
as a nation, we feel more polarized.
As
Americans,
our
two-party
system has forced us to view the
opposite party as the enemy. We
stop listening to each other when
we hear we’re from different sides
of the political spectrum. In reality,
though, we are much more similar
than we are different. We all want
everyone to have human rights,
our kids to be safe in schools, legal
immigrants to come to our country
and to not die from a planet on fire.
Conservatives and liberals differ in
their strategies for attaining these
goals, but they ultimately want the
same things.
It’s no secret that liberal ideas
are threaded into our everyday lives
— CNN, MSNBC, ABC, NBC, CBS,
NYT, WAPO, public school teachers
and most of Hollywood lean left.
Most people also believe their
social media leans left. Consistently,
only one side’s strategy is given the
spotlight. Is the only way to achieve
the America we all want through
Democratic candidates and their
legislation? Are conservative points
of view even necessary anymore?
Conservative speakers face extreme
public outcry on campuses if they
try to share their views. If liberals
have all the answers, is there really
any need for debate? Any political
theory course will teach you debate
is vital to discovering the truth.
Philosophers like John Stuart Mill
encourage us to challenge our
beliefs constantly with opposing
arguments in order to refine our
beliefs and ensure they ring valid
and true. Some may think the
only value in debate is to “convert”
conservatives rather than learn
anything from them. Today, we
discuss our views only with those
who reinforce them. Rallies and
strikes have taken the place of
discussion and compromise.
In college — precisely where we
should experience interchange of
thoughts and ideas free of bias —
professors shouldn’t also lean to
one side. However, they often reveal
their left-leaning biases throughout
their courses. My political science
professors will primarily begin
their courses by saying they won’t
try and convince us of their political
views. In practice, the effort often
falls short. It’s not uncommon, for
example, that professors will banter
back and forth with students about
how much our president sucks in a
“come on, we all think this, right?”
kind of way. I’ve had professors
assign me satire readings poking
fun at the Republican party and its
old, white, bigoted male members.
These viewpoints are valid, and I’m
not saying I didn’t gain insight from
them. However, once in a while, it
would be nice to see the other side
represented. I’ve also been taught
there’s been more U.S. homicides
in the past few years than ever
before. If you look at any given
chart online, however, it’ll actually
show homicide rates have declined
since their 1980 peak. I don’t think
professors have any malicious
intent to make conservative views
obsolete. In fact, they may not even
be aware that the way they teach
their content leaves little room for
debate. They probably think that
everyone shares the same liberal
ideology and therefore, there’s no
need to acknowledge the other
side. Conservatives may speak up
against liberal claims, but they’re
put in a position where they feel like
outcasts in the room.
The Washington Post has a
slogan that reads “Democracy
Dies in Darkness.” Freedom of
speech and press are crucial
aspects of our democracy. From
these rights, we gain a wealth of
knowledge.
Historically,
slaves
were not permitted to learn to read
as a tactic to reduce their power and
potential. Their suppressors feared
that any gained knowledge or skills
would incite them to rebel. Political
party affiliation aside, it should
be in everyone’s best interest to
protect our freedom of expression
to preserve our democracy and
strengthen our knowledge. This
entails everyone having a voice, not
just the majority.
The
problem
with
the
manifestation of similar beliefs
and like-minded groups is that any
opinion, even slightly contrary,
seems extreme. Author George
Orwell warned us all of the dangers
of groupthink, and one of his
warning signs is that any unpopular
opinion will stand out like a sore
thumb. Some may already feel like
this in class, but there’s still hope. As
it is now, when a conservative voice
speaks up, about 10 other liberal
students will raise their hands in
defense. The enthusiasm is there,
but let’s make sure to address —
rather than attack — the claims that
are being made.
I’ll argue liberals have shifted
more left on the political spectrum
due to constant reinforcement.
As liberal opinions become more
circulated, those widely spread
views produce the baseline for
comparison. As a result, views that
were once considered extreme
now
seem
more
moderate.
It’s become more popular, for
example, for students to be in
favor of socialism, open borders
and sweeping gun legislation.
In contrast, conservative views
seem more extreme because they
are shared less frequently in the
classroom. The perspective that
illegal immigration is a crime or
that background checks are more
effective than gun bans might seem
controversial now just because
they stand out starkly against
popular
notions.
Unpopular
beliefs can be true, though, and
with greater interaction, they can
be realized. For instance, most
liberals reference other countries
with tighter gun laws as evidence
that gun laws work. New Zealand
is the exception, then, because
in March of 2019, they had two
consecutive mass shootings in
which 51 people died.
Valentina House is a sophomore
studying Political Science and
Communications and can be reached
at valhouse@umich.edu.
T
he hospitals at Michigan
Medicine are the best in
the state and among the
best in the entire nation. So why is
it so hard to park here?
The story of Michigan Medicine
over the past two decades is a
story
of
continual
expansion:
more hospitals, clinics, academic
buildings, patients and employees.
It’s painfully obvious that if
you spend hundreds of millions of
dollars to add buildings and people
to an already crowded medical
complex, you need to put some
thought — and resources — into
more parking, more shuttle buses
and other transportation options.
Unfortunately, the University
administration does not have a
firm understanding of the obvious.
The result is considerable pain
for patients seeking care and for
workers whose jobs are to provide
that care.
By pain, we mean patients who
must arrive at their appointments
an hour or more ahead of time,
adding another toll to what may
be an already stressful experience
associated
with
health
care
appointments.
By pain, we mean nurses
leaving their homes at 5 a.m.
to arrive for a 12-hour shift
beginning at 7 a.m. Since a U-M
“Blue” employee parking pass
— which costs more than $700
a year — is nothing more than a
license to hunt for a parking space,
many nurses, house officers and
other employees arrive by 6 a.m.
to snag a spot and catch a nap in
their cars until their shifts start.
Resident doctors and dentists,
meanwhile,
often
visit
the
hospital and one or more clinic
sites during a typical workday.
When parking is a nightmare,
that means precious minutes —
or hours — are wasted driving
around looking for a space instead
of seeing patients. Is that any way
to run a hospital?
To be clear, as elected leaders
of unions representing nurses,
resident doctors and dentists at
Michigan Medicine, we’re glad to
see our hospitals and clinics grow
and expand. Our members are
deeply committed to providing
quality health care, and it’s great
to see the University offering
more services in more places to
more people.
A new, 264-bed, state-of-the-
art hospital tower sounds terrific.
The building, however, won’t take
care of people by itself. To remain
a great hospital, U-M needs great
doctors,
nurses,
technicians
and support staff. But you can’t
attract top people with miserable
working conditions.
Can a nurse who has to nap
in their car before starting work
really deliver top quality care?
Can hospital staff do their best
when a 12-hour shift stretches
to 16 hours or more because of a
two- or three-hour commute in
each direction?
There are currently nearly
29,000
Michigan
Medicine
employees,
but
only
10,000
parking spaces on the medical
campus.
Those
spaces
serve
patients, visitors and employees.
The new hospital tower will add
about 1,600 new employees, along
with more patients. So, when
University officials brag about
adding 1,000 new parking spaces
next year, the math just doesn’t
add up.
The problem isn’t just that we
don’t have enough spaces. It’s
that University administrators
— who have privileged “Gold”
passes allowing them to park
steps away from their offices
— seem to have no idea what’s
needed to meet the needs of a
facility that operates 24 hours a
day, 365 days a year.
Not
everyone
can
park
next to the hospital or clinic
where they work. But shouldn’t
administrators of a university
with an $11.9 billion endowment
be able to keep remote parking
lots well-maintained and well-lit
for the safety of employees who
work shifts around the clock?
Of course they should — but
they don’t. They also have failed
to provide enough shuttle buses
to get workers to and from remote
lots in a reasonable time frame.
Thankfully,
there’s
progress
on that front: After months of
employee complaints, Michigan
Medicine has announced that
more shuttle buses will be coming
online, for exclusive use by health
service employees.
It’s not as though we didn’t see
these problems coming. Parking
has been a terrible problem at
U-M hospitals for decades. We
knew it would get worse when
administrators first announced
a plan last March to convert
an onsite employee lot to more
convenient parking for patients
(which patients need and deserve).
Our unions immediately asked
to negotiate about how this plan
would be implemented, as part of
our responsibility to bargain over
working conditions. University
administrators said no. We asked
for information about parking
pass utilization for all employees
and executives. Again, University
administrators said no.
No wonder the frustration
boiled over in October, with
hospital
workers
chanting
and carrying signs outside the
groundbreaking
for
the
new
hospital tower. We’re sorry if we
intruded on a celebration for major
donors and blue-chip guests, but
we’ve got a job to do: taking care
of patients. To do it properly, we
need safe, accessible parking so
we can get to work on time.
This issue isn’t going away —
and we’ll keep making noise until
the University gets it right.
Katie Oppenheim, RN, is chair
of the UM Professional Nurses
Council and Victoria Hoch, MD,
is president-elect of the House
Officers Association and a resident
physician in Emergency Medicine.
They can be reached at
katie.oppenheim@minurses.org
or rtarter@med.umich.edu.
LENA SISKIND | CONTACT CARTOONIST AT LENASISK@UMICH.EDU
Read more at MichiganDaily.com
If Democrats are
to prevail in 2020,
the nominee must
be perceived as
honest