Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4 — Friday, January 10, 2020
Alanna Berger
Brittany Bowman
Zack Blumberg
Emily Considine
Cheryn Hong
Krystal Hur
Ethan Kessler
Mary Rolfes
Michael Russo
Timothy Spurlin
Miles Stephenson
Joel Weiner
Erin White
Lola Yang
ERIN WHITE
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.
ELIZABETH LAWRENCE
Editor in Chief
EMILY CONSIDINE AND
MILES STEPHENSON
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
BENNETT NEUHOFF | OP-ED
Hegemon in decline
I
n 1991, the United States
enjoyed a global influence
so vast it was unrivaled
in human history. The Roman,
Ottoman and Mongol empires
would have marveled at the
breadth of America’s political
and
economic
leadership
across the world. After the
fall of the Soviet Union and
Saddam Hussein in the First
Gulf War, the U.S. established
itself
as
the
uncontested
superpower in the post-Cold
War era.
America’s decline: The 21st
century has seen a descent
of U.S. influence across the
globe. The U.S, which once
created integral international
institutions, such as the U.N.
and IMF, reverts to isolated
nationalism and the once-
trusted
American
military
is forever associated with
wars and cultural ineptitude.
America’s
geopolitical
and
economic decline is coming
at a time when its leadership
is needed most. Autocracy
is replacing democracy in
countries like Turkey and
Venezuela, but the people
of these countries can no
longer look to the U.S. as the
moral
defender
of
liberty
it historically claims to be.
In October 2019, the Trump
Administration bent to the
will of the Turkish autocrat
Recep Tayyip Erdogan by
withdrawing
strategically
vital
troops
and
gaining
nothing
in
return.
Has
the
U.S.’s
power
declined
so far that it caters to the
convenience
of
Turkey’s
president for life?
China’s
rise:
China’s
economic boom has placed
U.S. economic leverage — a
favorite American diplomatic
tool — in jeopardy as well. As
China takes the lead on many
major
economic
projects,
countries become less reliant
on the American economy
for support and aid. The Belt
and Road Initiative (BRI) has
been dubbed a 21st century
Marshall Plan after exuberant
Chinese investment has gone
into countries from South
Asia to Western Europe to
North
Africa.
Additionally,
the creation of the Asian
Infrastructure
Investment
Bank (AIIB) showed China’s
disregard for U.S. power as the
Chinese brushed off American
dissent while gaining support
from the U.S.’s Western allies.
Despite U.S. efforts to prevent
countries from joining the
new international institution,
there are 74 member countries
and 26 prospective members.
The BRI and the AIIB reveal
that
China
wants
their
geopolitical clout to match
their GDP, both of which will
pass those of the U.S. if the
status quo continues.
Rise
of
revisionists:
America’s
decline
from
hegemony
has
been
met
with a rise of revisionism.
Xi Jingping, Vladimir Putin
and Ali Khamenei consider
their
respective
countries
hamstrung
by
the
U.S.-
created international system.
Thus, China, Russia and Iran
have lashed out against the
current system with the goal
of replacing it with a less
democratic world order. Each
of these countries have pushed
back against the international
order
without
being
held
accountable: Iran has bombed
Saudi Aramco, Russia has
invaded the sovereign nation
of Ukraine and China has
committed atrocious human
rights
violations
against
Uyghur Muslims. In 1991, it
would have been inconceivable
for the U.S. to watch these
hostilities from the sidelines,
but American power has been
whittled down to a point
where it can be disregarded
by revisionists.
What
can
be
done?
Globalization has fostered the
sentiment that discrepancies
in
cultures
and
countries
lead to the illumination of
staunch divides in values and
beliefs. Of course, this is true,
and the U.S. benefits from
these differences more than
any country in the world. A
plethora of immigrants, belief
systems and ideologies laid
the foundation our democracy
is built upon. However, the
U.S. must realize that many
of the moral values America
stands
for
are
objective.
Liberty,
prosperity
and
human rights are undeniably
important
ingredients
to
human flourishing that should
be defended and advanced by
the U.S. The dangers of moral
relativism can be seen across
the
globe
today.
Uyghur
Muslims, Syrian Kurds and
Yemeni children are largely
ignored by the world order
and
abused
by
immoral
powers. If it is inevitable
that the U.S. economy is to
be surpassed and the military
not as powerful, so be it.
But America’s response to a
multipolar world should be a
retrenchment in our values,
not an abandonment. The
U.S. government can reverse
its decline of influence by
supporting the marginalized
and giving them an ally in
the
international
order.
Diplomatic feats such as the
Marshall Plan and the First
Gulf War were accomplished
through advocacy and defense
of objective values, as well as
a sense of moral obligation,
not
selfish
ambition.
The
world needs an America that
is willing to speak for the
voiceless, feed the starving
and stand for the oppressed.
Without it, the world order
could further descend down
the path of chaos and violence
that revisionist powers have
already begun.
Bennett Neuhoff is a junior in the
Ford School of Public Policy. He can
be reached at bennettn@umich.edu.
SHAD JEFFREY II | COLUMN
Iran and the legacy of Donald Trump
I
n the wake of Qasem
Soleimani’s
death
and
the responding remarks
made
by
Iranian
officials,
many Americans are scared for
what’s coming next. Articles
are speculating on the looming
threat of “World War III,” and
social media is being flooded
with content about selective
service and the mobilization of
the American war machine.
This may be the realization
of the risk involved in electing
President Donald Trump to
office. The nightmare of the
brash businessman recklessly
waging war and the interests
of the American people against
a foreign power has come to
fruition. Seemingly, launching
America into yet another war
in the Middle East will become
Trump’s legacy as his term
comes to a close.
This stands to be contested,
as it is difficult to hypothesize
about events we aren’t certain
will occur at all. The question
remains: Will going to war
in Iran help or hurt Trump’s
chance of being reelected?
Immediately, I want to think
it will hurt Trump’s chances.
Provoking a foreign power
in a region that many within
the United States believe we
shouldn’t be intervening in at
all won’t translate to more votes
at the polling stations. Starting
a war has to be Trump’s last
straw, right?
It is not that simple to say,
as
supporters
of
Trump’s
regime nearly seem to be
blindly loyal to his actions. The
effect entering into war with
Iran would have on Trump’s
presidency is so contingent
on how events unfold that it’s
difficult to speculate on what
will happen. After all, there is
no certainty to the events or
duration of this hypothetical
war. If war is avoided, is that
a testament to Trump’s White
House? If war is successful
and short-lived, then is that a
testament to the strength of
the Commander in Chief?
Per an article published
by
the
New
York
Times
discussing the exchange of
threats
between
the
U.S.
and Iran, it is possible that
Trump may have taken action
against the Iranian General
in order to distract from the
impeachment
proceedings
occurring stateside. Congress
returned from a long holiday
break with the conversation
diverted toward the new and
seemingly
more
important
issue of military action. It
seems Trump’s involvement
in Iran has been a successful
ploy to get Congress and the
media off of his back about
impeachment.
In fact, Trump repeatedly
accused
former
President
Barack Obama of doing exactly
this in 2011. In an article
for CNN, Andrew Kacynski
states, “In media appearances
prior to the 2012 election,
Trump repeatedly predicted
that Obama would start a
war with Iran in order to
win
re-election.”
Kacynski
explains that the drone strike
on Soleimani is a way of
waging war with Iran, and
that in doing so, Trump can
distract the American public
from other issues surrounding
his administration as we get
settled into election season.
Given this, it would seem
that Trump saw the logic
behind
the
motivation
he
suspected from former Obama.
With Trump’s administration
being at risk of losing office, it
would seem that starting a war
with Iran could potentially
bolster nationalism and a sense
of strength in the executive
branch, as well as distract from
the impeachment proceedings
facing Trump.
It’s
difficult
to
believe
starting a war would increase
the popularity of a president
who
is
already
widely
contested. While it may be
Trump’s
intention
to
levy
support
through
war,
it’s
not certain it will play out
according to plan. However,
Trump
remains
untested
during war time (a quality
that I prefer the president to
keep throughout their term),
and thus the world may meet
General Trump for the first
time: results TBD.
Ultimately,
Trump’s
escalation
of
the
tension
between Iran and the U.S. will
hurt him during the election
cycle because his actions are
so unwarranted. Trump isn’t
going to bolster a high approval
rating for waging war with Iran
because the action against Iran
comes as such a shock to both
Congress and the American
people, and it isn’t in response
to a clear, defined event or
issue. Whether this conflict
progresses
into
full-blown
war or not, Trump’s outward
actions of hostility and the
provoking of a foreign power
may not translate into the votes
he wants come November.
Shad Jeffrey II can be reached at
shadj@umich.edu.
JENNY GURUNG | COLUMN
The best and worst of the decade for women
T
oward
the
end
of
the year, I got many
notifications
for
opinion
pieces
reviewing
the best movies, books and
pop
culture
moments
of
the
decade.
Something
I
haven’t read enough about is
the little progress made in
narrowing the gender gap in
the past decade. Don’t get me
wrong, the gender equality
movement has made many
great improvements, but that
progress has stagnated and
leveled off in many aspects.
With
the
2020
election
drawing
closer,
attention
should be drawn to the issues
of sexual violence and the
gender wage gap to prompt
dialogues with policymakers
and voters.
The
2010s
saw
many
milestones for women. In the
past
year
Greta
Thunberg
spoke about climate change,
Simone Biles set gymnastics
world records and scientist
Katie
Bouman
captured
the
first-ever
image
of
a
black hole. This decade also
saw the evolution of mass
communication
and
social
media platforms like Twitter,
which has arguably become
one of the most informative
platforms
today.
This
has
helped social movements not
only
gain
momentum,
but
also
reshape
the
dialogue
surrounding issues such as
sexual
and
gender-based
violence.
The
#MeToo
movement
that gained traction a few
years ago brought awareness
to the issue of workplace
harassment,
especially
among
congressional
aides
and women in Hollywood,
prompting
a
legislative
response
by
Congress.
These responses include the
Congressional Accountability
Act of 1995 Reform Act and
the
BE
HEARD
Act
that
strengthened protections for
victims and held perpetrators
liable.
In
an
open
letter
to
presidential candidates, debate
moderators and the media,
#MeToo
demanded
“real
solutions” from presidential
candidates
during
the
November 2019 Democratic
debate, especially since there
have been “zero questions about
sexual harassment policy out
of over 4,000 debate questions
in two decades.” #MeTooVoter
was introduced as a way for
voters to show support for an
agenda that centered around
accountability
policies
and
reforms. Voters and supporters
tweeted about the debate’s all-
female moderator panel. The
message invited policymakers
to work together with debate
moderators
and
media
organizations to address the
systemic issues that prevent
sexual violence accountability
from
institutions
and
communities.
Social
movements
have
reshaped the dialogue around
issues such as sexual violence,
but they fail to bring into
attention that this past decade
has seen slow improvement
in
the
gender
wage
gap.
According to the Institute for
Women’s
Policy
Research,
from 2008 to 2017 “the weekly
gender wage gap narrowed by
just 2.0 percentage points.”
The gender wage gap has
persisted
due
to
factors
like
gender
discrimination,
workplace
harassment
and
work
experience.
This
is
clear in sports, where only 40
percent of women’s college
teams and about three percent
of men’s college teams are
coached by women, and higher
administrative
leadership
roles are male-dominated.
However,
the
current
gender wage gap is narrower
among
young
adults
than
among workers overall. In
fact, countries like Britain
have
recently
pledged
to
increase
female
leadership
in
their
largest
publicly-
traded
companies
to
30
percent.
Despite
a
steady
narrowing
of
the
gender
gap and the empowerment
of young women, there has
been too little action taken by
policymakers to address this
problem in the past decade.
Women’s issues need to be
brought to the attention of
policymakers by young voters,
especially as our generation
joins the workforce.
To address gender equality
in the coming decade, UN
Women
has
mobilized
governments and communities
to commit to its Generation
Equality campaign. Generation
Equality
aims
to
achieve
equality for every person — not
just women — through small
actions that have big impacts.
It invites people to read and
learn more about different
issues with monthly action
packs,
weekly
newsletters,
infographics,
slogans,
GIFs
and various toolkits on social
media platforms like Twitter
and Instagram.
Using
movements
and
campaigns like #MeTooVoter
and
#GenerationEquality,
we can invite policymakers
to have discussions about
the gender wage gap, sexual
violence and the lack of female
leadership. Communities of
young voters can utilize social
media, the most powerful
tool in our toolkits, to learn,
inform and spread awareness
to start the conversation.
Jenny Gurung can be reached at
jennygrg@umich.edu.
Starting a war has
to be Trump’s last
straw, right?
MADELYN VERVAECKE | CARTOONIST CAN BE REACHED AT MIVERVAE@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.
The 21st century
has seen a descent
of U.S. influence
across the globe.
The 2010s saw
many milestones
for women.