Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4A — Monday, January 27, 2020

Alanna Berger
Zack Blumberg
Brittany Bowman
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

OWEN STECCO | COLUMN

A lack of visibility perpetuated by the debates

I

n a crowded field of 
Democratic hopefuls, it’s 
easy for the candidates 
to get lost and go unnoticed 
by voters, so we turn to the 
debates. Each of the debates 
has brought up hot-topic issues 
such as healthcare, foreign 
policy and electability, but has 
left LGBTQ+ issues largely 
untouched. The absence of 
questions 
and 
substantive 
policy stances leaves LGBTQ+ 
voters underrepresented and 
often unacknowledged by a 
party they widely support. 
With 
seven 
Democratic 
debates 
under 
our 
belts, 
only one featured a question 
pertaining to LGBTQ+ issues. 
The question posed during the 
December debate pertained to 
the disproportionate killings 
of 
transgender 
people 
of 
color. The progressives, Sen. 
Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., 
and Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., 
were given the opportunity 
to respond before the topic 
shifted 
to 
Afghanistan. 
I 
applaud the question, but the 
lack of attention regarding the 
health and safety of LGBTQ+ 
Americans 
across 
seven 
debates highlights a bigger 
issue in the Democratic Party. 
The 
Democratic 
Party 
has long benefited from its 
diverse coalition, especially 
in the most recent elections 
with 
voter 
support 
from 
people of color and LGBTQ+ 
individuals. NBC’s 2018 exit 
polling showed that 82 percent 
of LGBTQ+ individuals voted 
Democrat, 
second 
only 
to 
Black voters with 90 percent 
support. So why do the debates 
lack questions regarding the 
marginalized 
communities 
that propel them into office? 
Put simply, the Democrats are 
targeting and attempting to 
appeal to independents, and in 
the process taking advantage 
of the communities they rely 
on. This sense of reliability 
and comfort with LGBTQ+-
identifying 
individuals 
has manifested in the lack 
of attention shown on the 
national stage. 
LGBTQ+ voters have not 
been prioritized, let alone 
recognized, by candidates in 
past election cycles. But with 
burgeoning 
visibility 
and 

representation in office, it’s 
past due for acknowledgement. 
Though there was a rare 
forum dedicated to LGBTQ+ 
issues back in September, it 
gathered less than 60,000 
views on YouTube as it lacked 
the national attention and 
recognition the debates hold. 
The forum does not compare 
to the 18 million and 15 
million viewers, respectively, 
that tuned into the first round 
of record-breaking debates. 
In addition, the town hall 
format of the forum did not 
provide candidates any time 
to actually debate the plans 
and policies they preached. 
The policies and stances that 
candidates hold on LGBTQ+ 
issues 
deserve 
national 
attention, 
not 
just 
niche 
forums. 

Most Americans do not 
know the policy issues that 
impact LGBTQ+ individuals, 
because it does not affect 
them directly. While this is 
somewhat 
understandable, 
the 
debates 
serve 
as 
a 
platform for voters to learn 
about different policy points 
and where they stand on these 
issues. Furthermore, Public 
Religion Research Institute 
(PRRI) found that 80 percent 
of 
Americans 
wrongfully 
believe that there are federal 
employment protections in 
place for LGBTQ+ individuals. 
This lack of understanding 
stems 
from 
the 
relative 
invisibility that the LGBTQ+ 
community endures in the 
media, government and often 
our day-to-day lives. 
While the general LGBTQ+ 
population 
is 
relatively 
small, the issues that plague 
the 
community 
were 
not 
solved with the legalization 
of 
same-sex 
marriage 
in 

2015. In fact, the issues of 
healthcare, 
homelessness 
and 
equal 
treatment 
in 
the 
workplace 
affect 
the 
LGBTQ+ community greater 
than the general population. 
Currently, nearly one-third 
of the transgender population 
lives in poverty, 52 percent of 
LGBTQ+ individuals live in 
a state without employment 
protections and 40 percent of 
homeless youth are LGBTQ+-
identifying. The Democratic 
nominee will be tasked with 
representing 
the 
LGBTQ+ 
individuals 
that 
make 
up 
their electorate. 
Despite 
the 
challenges 
facing 
visibility 
and 
the 

general 
conversation 

about LGBTQ+ issues, it is 
important to highlight that 
many of the candidates have 
included 
LGBTQ+ 
people 
in some broader responses 
throughout 
the 
debates. 
In the most recent debate, 
Warren closed by highlighting 
what the candidates did not 
have the chance to discuss, 
which included the issues 
plaguing 
the 
transgender 
community. Candidates, like 
Warren, should be prompted 
to discuss these policy issues 
in 
a 
structured 
setting, 
rather than in buried plans 
on websites and via name-
dropping during responses. 
The 
perpetual 
lack 
of 
visibility 
and 
protection 
for us LGBTQ+ individuals 
expresses 
to 
voters 
that 
our priorities are not being 
championed 
by 
the 
party 
we largely rely on. In an 
election that is crucial for the 
trajectory of LGBTQ+ rights 
in the face of Preident Donald 
Trump’s 
administration’s 
anti-LGBTQ + agenda, the 
Democratic 
Party 
must 
introduce 
LGBTQ+ 
policy 
issues to the debate stage 
and shine a light on one 
of its most reliable voting 
groups. 
This 
need 
for 
debate 
and 
conversation 
applies to all marginalized 
communities that feel largely 
underrepresented by a party 
that claims to champion the 
inclusion of all.

Owen Stecco can be reached at 

ostecco@umich.edu.

Though 
the 
situation 
seems to have died down, 
there is still uncertainty over 
the future of the conflict. 
Many worry the situation in 
Iran will become America’s 
next Iraq or Afghanistan, 
an asymmetric war with no 
clear end in sight. As students 
mostly born between 1998 and 
2001, our country has been at 
war for longer than we can 
remember. The only legacy we 
know has been a foreign policy 
of escalating violence in the 
Middle East, a policy we as 
The Michigan Daily Editorial 
Board do not feel represents 
our generation’s values.
President Donald Trump’s 
administration 
has 
been 
unclear 
as 
to 
why 
the 
assassination occurred. The 
Department 
of 
Defense’s 
justification 
has 
been 
ambiguous, convoluted and 
contradictory. 
Initially, 
sources from the Pentagon to 
the White House said the U.S. 
targeted Soleimani because 
he was planning an imminent 
attack on U.S. embassies in 
the Middle East. Later, Trump 
declared it was retribution for 
the killing of a U.S. contractor 
in an Iraqi airbase and the 
protest at the U.S. embassy 
in 
Baghdad. 
Conflicting 
accounts 
raise 
questions 
of how these decisions are 
being made. The lack of clear 
reasoning behind the strikes 
calls 
into 
question 
their 
necessity and the legitimacy 
of 
an 
administration 
that 
is 
not 
transparent 
in 
its 
decision-making process.
Foreign policy decisions are 
supposed to be tightly vetted 
and 
challenged 
through 
research 
and 
deliberation. 
Staffers will usually present 
the president with a number 
of options to respond with. 
In this case, Trump chose the 
most extreme. This change 
in precedent is due to the 
startling lack of experience 
in the executive branch. A 
majority 
of 
Trump’s 
war 
cabinet has been in office 
for less than a year, and 88 
positions in the executive 
branch, such as Secretary of 
the Navy, remained unfilled. 
The 
lack 
of 
transparency 
on this issue is worrying, 
especially to our generation, 
because we feel that those in 
charge are out of touch with 
what we want.
The 
morning 
after 
the 
attacks, people flooded social 

media platforms like Twitter, 
Facebook and Instagram with 
memes and jokes about the 
night’s events. Nervous that 
this was one of the most severe 
escalations of violence in our 
conscious lives, young people 
initially 
panicked 
about 
everything from an attack on 
American soil to being drafted 
in a potential World War III, 
with tweets circulating like @
jadenonfirree’s viral “When 
you realize #WWIII is the 
first meme of 2020 and it might 
be the last.” These jokes died 
down over the next couple of 
days as Iran, understanding 
that a war with the U.S. is not 
in its best interests, stepped 
back from the conflict.

Nevertheless, 
our 
generation’s confusion at the 
prospect of war with Iran 
reveals that we are unaware 
of the actual impact that 
a war would have on U.S. 
citizens. 
Discussions 
and 
demonstrations 
on 
campus 
against 
these 
extended 
military conflicts coupled with 
relatively little change over the 
past couple years justifies our 
concern that these situations 
could 
reasonably 
escalate 
into a larger war. Moreover, 
the Trump administration’s 
erratic approach toward Iran 
— they called off an airstrike 
in the eleventh hour last year 
— makes it harder for both 
countries to broker a peace 
deal and for our allies to count 
on our commitment to them.
Given 
that 
most 
young 
Americans 
are 
physically 
removed from the scene of the 
conflict in the Middle East, 
our nervous jokes and memes 
reflect a detachment from the 
consequences of a war with 
Iran. We could at least take 
comfort in knowing that most 
of us would not be directly 
affected by such a conflict. 
However, this scare was much 
more extreme for Iranians. 
They would almost surely bear 
the brunt of any prolonged 

conflict, just as Iraq has for 
theirs. An estimated 200,000 
Iraqi civilians have died since 
the start of the Iraq War, 
and a war with Iran would 
likely also yield a great many 
casualties. 
In 
comparison, 
only 4,419 American soldiers 
and 13 Department of Defense 
civilians were killed in the 
Iraq 
War, 
revealing 
the 
disproportionate 
effects 
American 
interventionism 
has 
on 
foreign 
nations. 
While young people in the 
U.S. responded to the events 
through memes, the effects 
were much more concrete for 
Iranians, who had to confront 
the terrifying proposition of 
their country being bombed 
and attacked. It is important 
for Americans to keep things 
in perspective, and understand 
that 
the 
people 
with 
the 
most to lose in a war are not 
our compatriots, but rather 
Iranians who did not ask to be 
put in this situation. 
While the conflict with Iran 
ultimately did not escalate 
after Soleimani’s killing, it is 
undeniable that it could have 
worsened 
drastically. 
The 
strike was ordered by a rogue 
administration acting without 
the knowledge or consent of 
the legislative branch, a move 
that undermines the principles 
at the core of the U.S.’s political 
system. 
As 
Americans, 
students and supporters of 
our democracy, we demand 
more 
transparency 
from 
our executive branch. Our 
government 
is 
elected 
to 
serve the people and should 
act rationally with the aim of 
keeping us out of unpopular, 
dangerous military situations. 
Additionally, 
being 
largely 
removed 
from 
the 
direct 
conflict, 
University 
of 
Michigan 
students 
must 
work to contextualize their 
response to the threat of 
war and have more empathy 
for those who would have 
been most gravely affected 
by this conflict. Lastly, if we 
want change in our foreign 
policy, we must take action to 
enact it. We urge students to 
strive for increased political 
engagement, 
especially 
in 
light of the upcoming 2020 
elections. Oppose unnecessary 
military action against Iran, 
call for transparency from 
the 
executive 
branch 
and 
encourage awareness on U.S. 
military actions in the Middle 
East.

RYAN BEGININ | COLUMN

Music and maturing

W

hat do we do to pass 
time while studying 
alone? The answer 
is almost always music. Music 
is more accessible and portable 
now than ever before, a fact 
made clear by the widespread 
use of headphones and speakers 
in restaurants. I can’t help but 
notice others walking around 
flaunting their AirPods or other 
earpieces. We have access to 
free music platforms through 
apps such as Spotify, Apple 
Music or Google Play Music. 
We have millions of choices 
of what we listen to regarding 
musicians, genre or playlists. 
The artists we listen to have 
a huge impact on our fashion, 
slang and decisions.
As a teen immersed in pop 
culture, I can admit that I 
am 
heavily 
influenced 
by 
the artists I follow daily. Not 
long ago you could find me 
spending hundreds on GOLF le 
FLEUR* by Tyler, the Creator. 
I tune in to this artist’s music 
so frequently, it’s hard not to 
support him and try to replicate 
his style. Yet, he didn’t solely 
influence my fashion sense. I 
discovered over time that Tyler 
is the reason I’m not settling 
for anything less than what I 
deserve concerning my future. 
He preaches individuality and 
loving what you do regardless 
of what others think. Even if 
I’m interested in things others 
deem “lame,” I still do it with 
pride because I find comfort in 
it, such as writing as a form of 
therapy.

Tyler’s line in the track 
“FIND YOUR WINGS”, one of 
his most concise yet melodic 
songs, “Supposed to fly and 
take control cause you’re the 
pilot / You can’t swim, you’re 
gonna drown, the sharks are 
comin’” helped make me realize 
that I shouldn’t put myself in 
a place I don’t belong. This is 
especially relevant to my social 
life and academics, as I choose 
friends 
wisely 
and 
haven’t 
rushed myself in choosing a 
major. Since I discovered Tyler 
in high school, I promised to 
be who I really am, even if it 
strays from the status quo. For 
example, I don’t act “cool” to fit 
in – contradicting my former 
self. Instead, I found a group 
that makes me feel at home 
and comfortable with being my 
eccentric self. Tyler preaches 
this through not only his music, 
but his lifestyle. His art had an 
impact on my life greater than 
just material goods. This is not 
the case for all people impacted 
by artists, however.
Specific 
types 
of 
music, 
mainly due to the lyrics, can 
expose impressionable youth to 
toxic cultures. Lyrics like those 
of rap artists XXXTENTACION 
or 
recently 
deceased 
Juice 
WRLD can popularize the 
abuse of drugs and alcohol. 
These artists can have an 
influence on listeners’ lives to 
the same, or greater, degree as 
parents. Song lyrics can lead 
an 
impressionable 
audience 
to believe it’s “cool” to live 
the way the artists live. Youth 

are still developing and still 
capable of being manipulated 
and molded into what they say 
“inspires” them.
It’s no surprise to hear lyrics 
containing drug references in 
the rap scene. For example, 
artists Juice WRLD and Lil 
Peep 
regularly 
reference 
drugs like Xanax, Percocet 
and marijuana. As consumers 
listen and become obsessed 
with these lyrics, they are 
more likely to experiment with 
drugs. Rap music is not only 
rising in popularity, but it is 
also extremely prevalent in 
teen culture. This means drug 
culture is also present and 
popular among the youth. The 
last thing we need is the youth 
asking themselves “If I want to 
be cool, then I have to smoke 
weed and drink liquor, right?” 
As rap continues to grow 
and the newest hits promote 
toxicity like substance abuse, 
teens will face the decision to 
succumb or abstain.
Nowadays, the influence of 
musicians such as X and Juice 
WRLD play a pivotal role in 
shaping the moral character of 
the youth, whether it is through 
the power of lyrics or the 
overall message encapsulated 
in their art. Each has their 
own culture. Today’s teens and 
future generations, therefore, 
need to find respectable role 
models who can help them 
become who they’d like to be.

Ryan Beginin can be reached at 

rbeginin@umich.edu.

FROM THE DAILY

Iran conflict reveals underlying foreign 
policy frustrations

Y

ears-long tensions between the United States and Iran peaked three 

weeks ago when the U.S. assassinated the leader of Iran’s military, Major 

General Qassem Soleimani, in the wake of increased conflicts, including 

violent protests outside the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad. The Iranian general’s death 

disturbed the Middle Eastern and Western world as allies scrambled to prepare for 

a likely counterattack. Iran responded four days later, sending a barrage of missiles 

at two U.S. military bases. The attack was rather minor as there were no deaths 

— though some soldiers were injured. The next day, Iran’s military — allegedly 

mistakenly — shot down a Ukrainian airliner, killing all 176 people on board.

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.

LGBTQ+ voters 
have not been 
prioritized, let 
alone recognized.

JOIN EDITBOARD

Interested in sharing your opinion on current events and 
University affairs? Come to our Editorial Board meetings from 
7:15 p.m. to 8:45 p.m. each Monday and Wednesday in the 
newsroom (420 Maynard St.).

It is important 
for Americans 
to keep things in 
perspective.

