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.

