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.