Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4 — Tuesday, November 12, 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

ALICE LIN | COLUMN

Less suppression, more representation

MAX STEINBAUM | COLUMN

Jefferson, Hamilton and Hong Kong

A

revolutionary tide began
to wash over France in
1789. Across the Atlantic,
the American public —
fresh off its own war
of independence that
had ended only six
years prior — watched
the early stages of the
revolution unfold with
a sense of republican
solidarity. In 1793, the
revolutionary French
government executed
King Louis XVI and
prepared
for
war
with Great Britain. The nascent
American republic faced its most
pressing foreign policy question
yet: Should the United States,
ideologically sympathetic to the
revolutionaries,
champion
the
French war effort? Or, should the
U.S. pursue the more strategic
policy of military neutrality?
The conflict pitted two of the
era’s political giants, Secretary
of
State
Thomas
Jefferson
and Secretary of the Treasury
Alexander Hamilton, in a bid
for the support of President
George Washington. Jefferson,
a
Democratic-Republican
and staunch supporter of the
revolutionaries,
argued
the
United States’ republican ideals
necessitated support of France.
Hamilton, a Federalist, promoted
non-intervention,
casting
the
revolution as anarchic chaos
and emphasizing the value of
America’s commercial ties to
Britain. Washington eventually
sided with his fellow Federalist,
and in April 1793 issued a
Proclamation of Neutrality. Even
if most Americans supported
France’s
efforts
against
monarchical Britain, the United
States would not commit troops to
its cause.
The struggle between Jefferson
and Hamilton was as philosophical
as it was political. Hamilton, a
supreme pragmatist, felt that
1793 America was too susceptible
to mob rule to participate in a
European war. More importantly,
he recognized that a policy
of intervention on behalf of
democratic
movements,
even
if noble, could force the United
States into perpetual war around
the globe. Jefferson, informed
by a sense of Enlightenment

idealism, believed America had
an existential duty to promote the
spread of democracy around the
world.
Policymakers
and
the
public
have grappled over
whether idealism or
pragmatic realpolitik
ought
to
inform
American
foreign
policy
since
our
nation’s
founding.
226 years later, the
debate has witnessed
a flare-up over the
United States’ posture towards
the ongoing Hong Kong protests.
As the streets of Hong Kong flood
with pro-democracy protesters
angered by Beijing’s crackdown
on the city’s autonomy, the
question of to what degree the U.S.
should support Hongkongers pits
idealism against pragmatism.
As believers in democracy and
free speech — and viewing the
United States as a defender of
these rights — some Hong Kong
protesters have publicly waved
the Stars and Stripes and sung
the Star Spangled Banner. Others
have even “chanted pleas for the
U.S. to ‘liberate’ Hong Kong” from
Chinese oppression, according to
a BBC report. It’s clear that these
Hongkongers look in part to the
United States as a champion of their
aims and want to inspire feelings
of
camaraderie
in
American
audiences over our shared ideals.
The Hongkongers’ pleas have
not fallen on deaf ears. American
lawmakers of all stripes have
voiced their support for Hong
Kong’s autonomy, viewing the
protection of its democratic society
a responsibility of the free West. In
September, Sen. Mitch McConnell,
R-Ky., warned Beijing that violent
suppression of Hong Kong’s rights
would be unacceptable, stating that
it would require “America, which is
known internationally for standing
up for human rights … to take
more forceful action.” Former Vice
President Joe Biden also defined
America’s responsibilities to Hong
Kong in idealistic terms, saying last
June that “all of us must stand in
support of democratic principles
and freedom.”
The White House, however,
has
taken
a
contradictory
stance towards the democratic

movement.
While
President
Donald
Trump
expressed
goodwill
towards
the
Hong
Kong protesters and condemned
China’s crackdown in an address
to the U.N. in September, he also
“promised Chinese president Xi
Jinping that the U.S. would remain
quiet” on the Hong Kong turmoil
during summer trade talks.
Clearly,
Trump’s
rhetorical
support of the protests has
been
tempered
by
practical
considerations of how his words
will impact trade with Beijing.
Even if America’s sympathies lie
with the Hong Kong protesters,
idealist
policy
could
prove
destructive to trade arrangements.
Trump’s lukewarm approach,
rooted
in
realpolitik,
has
evidently not been championed by
Congress. On Oct. 15, the House
of Representatives unanimously
passed the Hong Kong Human
Rights and Democracy Act, a
measure reaffirming American
commitment
to
the
region’s
integrity. A similar version of the
bill exists in the Senate, and is
sponsored by both Democrats and
Republicans.
That the bill has enjoyed such
an
outpouring
of
bipartisan
support in our hopelessly polarized
times speaks volumes as to its
significance:
It
represents
a
situation in which America will
either rise to its democratic ideals,
or will shy away from them out of
political expediency.
It boils down to a simple
question: Is America to stand
up to China and make good on
its dedication to freedom? As
Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fl., echoed
in August, “We have to decide:
Do we want to be a defender of
democracy?”
Jefferson — and really anyone
who values America’s role as a
moral lighthouse — would respond
to Rubio with a resounding yes.
There are few situations in our
world today that so obviously
present the chance to stand for
democracy against authoritarian
encroachment.
Come what may of our challenge
to Beijing. Across the Pacific,
American flags are waving. If we
ignore them, what do we stand for?

Max Steinbaum can be reached at

maxst@umich.edu.

I

n North Carolina, a state
court ruled a previously
drawn
district
map
unconstitutional on the basis
that the constructed lines were
blatantly partisan. This is just
one example of the ongoing
gerrymandering problem that has
invaded our electoral system and
unfairly displaced voter choices
for the sake of party power.
Gerrymandering
entails
redrawing congressional district
lines to sway elections in favor of
certain parties, which suppresses
voters’ voices. Voters of one party
become a majority in some districts,
ultimately handing that party a
guaranteed vote. The outcome of
more and more districts engaged
in gerrymandering becomes all
but predetermined, undermining
the democratic process. The North
Carolina court’s latest ruling is not
only a win for voters, but also can set
a precedent for strictly regulating
the future of gerrymandering to
ensure a fairer democratic process.
Our electoral system does not need
any further interference. With
Russian meddling in our 2016
presidential election still fresh in our
minds, we should strive to preserve
the integrity of our democracy and
work harder to value the voices of
the people.
When the U.S. Supreme Court
stated it would not take action
on state gerrymandering cases
this summer, it felt like a win for
Republicans. With a conservative
judicial majority sitting on the Court
and gerrymandering historically
giving Republicans an advantage,
it seemed like Republicans would
get away with rigging election
outcomes. This meant several of
the heavily manipulated states
would stay weighted unfairly to
Republicans and would be subject
to extreme gerrymandering prior to
key elections.
At this point, it feels like
politicians will do anything to hold
on to their seats of power, going
so far as to disregard the purpose
of the government we have

established. America prides itself
so much on being a democracy, yet
we seem to be falling far from it as
the next election looms. If a certain
outcome is already secured, the
votes of some become meaningless,
so why bother holding elections?
Manipulating which districts votes
are counted for is undemocratic
and clearly violates “one person,
one vote” — if you can’t win fairly,
then you clearly don’t deserve the
seat.
However, there may still be
some hope for our broken system,
as Democrats have found a way
to
challenge
gerrymandering:
appealing to state courts. North
Carolina
ordered
the
district
map to be redrawn for the 2020
election after the state court’s
judgment, which is a win for
Democrats and voters alike. Since
the Supreme Court delegated
states the authority to decide on
their own gerrymandering cases,
approaching it at the state level

could potentially benefit those who
live in states subject to extreme
gerrymandering. Districts with
absurdly-drawn maps could be
reversed if state courts rule them
invalid. Voters would then have
their votes counted meaningfully
and
their
interests
fairly
represented. If anything, it loosens
the Republican grip on election
outcomes and restores some honor
to our democracy.
At
the
same
time,
it
is
also
important
to
remember
Republicans are not the only
ones guilty of gerrymandering.

Maryland
is
an
example
of
Democrats’
own
attempts
at
gerrymandering, where they tried
to take back a seat that had turned
Republican by redrawing the
district to include more Democratic
voters in the district. Even in the
North Carolina case, is hard to
completely believe Democrats had
no partisan motivations. It happens
that voters’ rights and interests
are also upheld when challenging
Republican-drawn district maps.
With
the
upcoming
2020
elections, there is a lot riding on
which party will control the House
of Representatives, given that the
presidential election is occurring
at the same time. On one hand, if
other district maps are challenged
in state courts, questioning their
legitimacy could give candidates
running a fair chance at previously
uncontestable seats. Furthermore,
voters would have a chance to
have their voices accounted for
properly.
While the Supreme Court is
reluctant to set standards for
gerrymandering
because
the
question of what a “fair” district
looks like is a subjective one,
there still needs to be a way to
fairly determine congressional
districts. District lines should
be separated from party lines;
some states employ nonpartisan
commissions to help draw their
districts. Since there is no way to
ensure anyone who is politically
affiliated will produce a fair map,
these committees employ a mix
of partisan commissioners to
keep each other in check. While
there is a National Democratic
Redistricting Committee, there
should be an independent version
to help states draw and maintain
fair district lines. To keep our
electoral process from corruption
and preserve its integrity, we
need to work harder to make sure
that our elections can uphold the
values of our democracy.

Alice Lin can be reached at

alicelin@umich.edu.

FROM THE DAILY

Katie Hill and scandal in the social media age
I

n the last week of October, Democratic Rep. Katie Hill of
California’s 25th District gave a farewell speech as she resigned
following allegations that she had a sexual relationship with a
member of her congressional staff. Hill was elected nearly a year ago
and was seen as a rising star in the Democratic party. Though Hill
resigned after the House Ethics Committee announced an inquiry into
the allegations, she maintains her innocence while acknowledging a
relationship with a member of her campaign team. Relations between
candidates and campaign team members are not covered by House rules.

Despite
her
denial
of
sexual
relations
with
a
congressional staff member,
Hill chose to resign because
of the inappropriate nature
of
her
relationship
with
her
campaign
staffer.
However, her private life was
sensationalized by right-wing
media stemming from her
estranged husband’s release
of her nude photos with a
campaign staffer. Hill and
her husband, Kenny Heslep,
are
currently
in
divorce
proceedings.
This
use
of
revenge porn, or the public
release of private sexual media
without the consent of those
they depict, is a shameful
tactic of abuse. It is this
abuse – not the affair alone –
that led to the outpouring of
misogynistic rhetoric against
Hill and her female staffer.
The double standard that Hill
was subjected to throughout
the ordeal is a demonstration
of the hardships that women
have to endure when they
obtain positions of power.
Hill’s
resignation
is
a
resulted
from
her
acknowledgment of what she
views as an inappropriate
relationship with a campaign
staffer. While her decision to
engage in such a relationship
may have been misguided,
the actions of her estranged
husband
deserve
more
scrutiny. Not only is revenge
porn illegal in many states,
including
California,
it
is
also a clear violation of Hill’s
privacy and dignity. Heslep’s
actions are far more shameful
than Hill’s and are far more
deserving of criticism and
legal reprimand. Yet, when
the photographs were first
released, right-wing websites
such as RedState spread the
images in an attempt to smear
Hill’s reputation. The abusive
nature of these actions cannot
be overstated. Hill’s estranged
husband violated her as an

individual in an attempt to
blackmail her. Far-right media
outlets then pounced upon
this violation, publicizing her
intimate moments as a means
of invalidating her and her
position of power.
Hill’s circumstances bring
to light the significant media
presence of new generations of
politicians that will be elected.
Because these new politicians
are growing up with modern
technology, social media begs
the question if we will become
desensitized
to
intimate
content
being
released.
Given
that
the
internet
personalizes politicians, and

how social media platforms
such as Twitter are one way
for people to connect with
and
understand
leaders,
our
puritanical
standards
for politicians may need to
change. We must also question
our cultural standards, and
possibly lower our high social
standards
of
politicians,
as more and more elected
officials
will
most
likely
have
promiscuous
content
somewhere online. It also
needs to be further discussed
how
we
hold
officials
accountable. Where do we
draw the line between being
silly and innapropriate on the
internet? There needs to be
recognition that the internet
has a strong influence on
politicians’ images, and could
easily cause trouble for them
in the future.

It is also integral to note
that women, people of color
and LGBTQ+ people will face
the brunt of this transition.
Minority groups are often
smeared
when
it
comes
politics and face significantly
more criticism online. We
have seen instances of past
videos and photos reemerge
with elected officials, such
as the leaked video of Rep.
Alexandria
Ocasio-Cortez,
D-N.Y., dancing in college
while wearing conservative
clothing,
for
which
her
clothing was criticized for
being “too nice for a girl
who
struggles.”
Former
president Barack Obama was
criticized for a tan suit he
wore, due to claims of the
“lack of seriousness” and that
it was an inappropriate and
disrespectful
appearance.
Many media platforms have
noted
that
Hill
identifies
as bisexual, and how that
specific part of her identity
contributes to the controversy.
There were several ethical
issues with regards to Hill’s
intimate relationships during
her time as a representative, as
power dynamics of intra-office
relations should be carefully
monitored. It should be known
that regardless of technology or
social media, there is a degree
of professionalism that needs
to be endorsed. However, the
manner in which her mentally-
abusive husband and right-
wing media worked in concert
to ruin her reputation is clearly
an act of premeditated abuse.
These actions mimic what has
been seen before with current
and former politicians, which
reminds the public to be aware
of
young
people
entering
office and the lasting digital
footprints they leave. With
this in mind, it demands us to
think about what our internet
history says about our elected
officials and in forming our
digital standards.

The internet has
a strong influence
on politicians’
images

If you can’t win
fairly, then you
clearly don’t
deserve the seat.

MAX
STEINBAUM

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/survivespeak.

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.