Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4A — Monday, February 3, 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
SAM BURNSTEIN | OP-ED
W
hen I attended
the
Democratic
presidential
primary debate in Detroit in
July 2019, I listened to Tom
Perez, chair of the Democratic
National Committee, deliver
a rousing pre-show speech
in
which
he
praised
the
historically diverse field of
candidates. But on Jan. 14,
2020 — less than six months
after the Detroit debate —
an all-white lineup of six
candidates took the stage for
the final time before the Iowa
caucuses.
The exit of Sen. Kamala
Harris,
D-Calif.,
from
the
race nearly two months ago
was the straw that broke the
donkey’s back in disrupting the
Democratic Party’s “rainbow
coalition.” According to senior
staffer Kelly Mehlenbacher’s
resignation letter, the Harris
campaign was marred with
issues
of
poor
leadership
and a crumbling strategy for
victory. Her fate, however, was
ultimately decided by her poor
performance in Iowa, a state
whose population is less than
one percent of the U.S. total
and 90 percent white.
Billionaire
and
former
Mayor of New York City Mike
Bloomberg, on the other hand,
has bought his spot on the
debate stage and scammed
his way to fourth place in the
polls, despite joining the race
just a little over two months
ago. His strategy to win the
nomination is unprecedented
in modern primary politics.
His campaign intends to skip
the
first
four
nominating
contests, held in Iowa, New
Hampshire, Nevada and South
Carolina, and instead focus
on making a splash on Super
Tuesday, when 14 states hold
their elections. The only way
such a strategy could work is
with astronomical spending on
ads, and Bloomberg is going all
in with more than $200 million
spent to date.
Members of the Democratic
party must ask why a female
senator of color was forced
to
prematurely
terminate
her campaign, while a white,
male billionaire was able to
buy his way into the race. Sen.
Cory Booker, D-N.J., another
candidate of color who recently
suspended
his
campaign,
said it best: “There’s more
billionaires in the 2020 race
than there are Black people.”
Harris’s
exit
makes
a
compelling case for primary
election reform. The Iowa
caucuses
are
the
single
most important event in the
primary
elections,
hence
why campaigns spend tens of
millions of dollars in the state
to build a strong ground game
and flood the air waves with
TV ads. Iowa is so important,
in fact, that all but two winners
of every Iowa caucus since 1976
have gone on to win the party’s
nomination.
The circumstances of the
2020
election
have
many
pundits
asking
why
Iowa
is first. Low and behold,
there is no real reason the
small, Midwestern state is
first, and in fact, the order
of
states
in
the
primary
calendar is arbitrary and left
up to the states themselves.
Analysis site FiveThirtyEight
constructed
a
reordered
Democratic primary calendar
that
emphasizes
diversity
and
representativeness,
and it places Illinois first.
If
Democrats
are
serious
about not only creating, but
maintaining, a more diverse
field throughout their primary
elections, then the order of
states must be changed.
On
the
top
of
nearly
every Democrat’s mind in
the
upcoming
elections
is
defeating President Trump,
hence
“electability”
has
been a topic of fierce debate.
But without a fair primary
calendar
that
reflects
the
diversity of the Democratic
party,
we
risk
alienating
millions of Americans.
Sam Burnstein is a sophomore
in the College of Literature, Science
& the Arts and can be reached at
samburn@umich.edu.
JESS D’AGOSTINO | COLUMN
The rise of the Gucci belt
I
n the wake of the University
of Michigan’s first Winter
term sorority recruitment, a
picture has surfaced with a line of
underclassmen girls all wearing
Canada Goose jackets. Memes
aside, this picture reflects a much
bigger story that has affected
college campuses around the
country. Encountering groups of
couture-wearing college students
is becoming more and more
common. Why is it that over the
past few years millennials and
Gen Zers have witnessed the
rise of the Gucci belt? What does
it mean that the haute couture
clothing brands once sought after
by working professionals are now
commonplace for college students?
I find it’s difficult to discuss
this topic without making some
concessions: I’m a proud owner
of a Gucci belt. I will also concede
that I do, in fact, feel as if I’m slowly
inching closer to hell with each
buckle around my waist. There’s
nothing
wrong
with
owning
couture, unnecessary things. It’s
OK to want them, to purchase
them and to wear them. It’s the
resulting attitude and increased
self-worth that is not.
I look at myself in the mirror
that hangs on the back of my dorm
room door before leaving for class
every day. Often, it’s hard to look
beyond the clothes I’m wearing and
focus on me. Do I look happy? Do I
look comfortable? I have pushed
questions like these to the side in
pursuit of a societal inclination to
feel self-assured through what I’m
wearing. What I want to explore is
“why?”
With
social
media
at
our
fingertips, younger generations are
left to strive for an Instagram-able
life. We crave an aesthetic that will
bring us likes and attention. This
aesthetic is comprised of expensive,
brand-name clothing, artificially
tanned skin and airbrushed makeup.
The rise of microcelebrities makes
these lavish lifestyles much more
attainable than the past celebrity
culture of movie stars in Tinseltown.
On a daily basis, social media users
interact with content posted directly
by Kylie Jenner and James Charles.
We model their behavior, whether
we are fans of them or not. It’s
human nature to subliminally desire
acceptance from our peers and our
idols.
When
a
celebrity
posts
pictures with designer brands
on every inch of their body, we
applaud before checking our debit
accounts wondering how much
deeper we can go before PNC
Bank comes to hunt us down. On
the flip side, when Selena Gomez
flaunts her DIY tie-dye shirt, the
world simultaneously gasps. It’s
as if celebrities are not allowed
to be real people, and if they try
to be, we deem them “down to
earth” or “relatable.” The problem
lies here: Why are fashion choices
such a grand statement in the first
place? Why do we continue to
grow more fixated on the money
you spend instead of the money
you save, sustain or donate?
Business Insider’s Jessica Tyler
analyzed Gucci’s recent surge in
success, noting that in the first
half of 2018, nearly 55 percent
of Gucci sales were made to
consumers under 35 years old.
Do we even like the Gucci logo?
Do we like what it stands for? Do
we like what it suggests about us
or our wallets? Do we like that
it reflects our ability to keep up
with the chaotic culture we live,
tweet and breathe in?
Maybe it’s time to ignore
the noise and genuinely wear
what makes you feel good about
yourself.
I’m
not
suggesting
we all dive headfirst into the
#makeinstagramcasualagain
movement, though I do think
there is a lot to say about it.
I am all for keeping up with
trends, whether it be fashion
or otherwise. It is curious,
however, to analyze why Gucci,
in particular, has skyrocketed
in the past few years. Recently,
fashion has seen a resurgence
in ’90s style. Gucci certainly has
noticed this and capitalized on it,
even headlining their campaign
with the modern Mick Jagger,
Harry Styles. When Gucci was
originally founded in 1921, it
was meant to appeal to the
upper-class for horseback riding.
Since its equestrian beginnings,
Gucci became largely popular
with
glamorous
people
like
Jackie Kennedy, and now is
transitioning to appeal to the
modern
millennial
audience.
This means a heavy emphasis
on
pops
of
color,
patterns
and the signature looped “G”
symbol. This all ties into the
societal pressure to establish an
Instagram aesthetic: Gucci has
simply paid attention, done their
homework and become the brand
to beat.
In writing this I’m walking
a fine line between sounding
like a hypocrite or a snob, but I
don’t think there needs to be a
Gucci-burning
ceremony
just
yet. Instead, ensure that you’re
wearing something because you
want to and not because you feel
you need to. Life is more than
posts
on
Instagram,
despite
how hard it is to remove the lens
of filters, friend requests and
followers that fill our eyes even
when our phones are out of sight.
I love my Gucci belt, among other
superfluous, unnecessary things.
I acknowledge my ownership of
these items, but it does not come
close to comprising who I am. I
am extremely grateful that I have
access to couture products, but
I’m unapologetically much more
than the brands I choose to wear.
I find that on a college campus
as eclectic and elite as U-M,
balance has to be a priority to
avoid falling into a pit of needing
to fit in. At the end of the day, we
don’t need Gucci to be a member
of Lil Pump’s “Gucci Gang,” nor
do we need a (Canada) Goose
to be part of the flock. We’re
here and whatever clothing or
accessories we choose to display
do not have to be in accordance
with the latest celebrity trend,
though it’s certainly OK if they
are.
Jess D’Agostino can be reached at
jessdag@umich.edu.
February 17, 2020
T
he government doesn’t
work
anymore.
Politicians
of
all
stripes decry the fact
that no one wants to
get
anything
done.
Representatives
and
senators
don’t
compromise
because
they have no incentive
to do so. This was not
always the case.
Prior
to
2011,
there was something
known as legislative
earmarks.
These
were extra provisions
politicians attached to bills that
directed the spending of federal
dollars to their state and/or
district. The reason for these
provisions was that they served
as a way to whip votes for a
certain legislative vehicle/text
— some representative would get
some funding for their district
and would then vote in favor of
the bill. In 2011 the Republicans
— who had just won the U.S.
House of Representatives — and
then-Speaker
John
Boehner
decided to get rid of earmarks.
The practice was and is seen as
inviting corruption and enabling
the special interest takeover
of
Congress,
among
other
complaints. What has happened
since Boehner abolished the
process
demonstrates
that
government with earmarks is
far preferable to government
without.
Gridlock has been a problem in
Congress since 2011 in a way that
it wasn’t before. This is because
there are two main ways to get a
vote from a congressperson — a
carrot and a stick. The earmark
was the most common carrot. It
was a way to get congresspeople
to vote “yes” by giving them
a reason to cooperate even if
they and their district might be
opposed. The other way to get
votes is with sanction or threat of
sanction — the stick. The problem
with banning earmarks is that
the most effective carrot was
taken away, and thus, the stick
became the primary method of
persuasion. The problem with
this is that a stick is a pretty poor
way to uphold cooperation in any
arena, and the political one is no
exception.
Take government
funding
bills
and
other
kinds
of
appropriation bills as
examples. Everyone
wants
their
voice
heard and is willing
to say no to the bill.
Legislative
riders
(extra
provisions
attached to a bill
with little to do with
the
original
bill)
solved this problem
— people were far less likely
to say no if their vote got them
something for their district. Even
if their district might disagree
for ideological reasons, coming
home with federal dollars might
make a disagreeable vote a little
bit more acceptable.
Once legislative earmarks were
banned, however, the incentive
to
cooperate
disappeared
to
an extent: If you’re not getting
something
you
want,
why
compromise
with
anyone?
Earmarks, or riders directing
the spending of federal dollars,
solved this prisoner’s dilemma —
they made cooperation attractive
because people got something
tangible
for
cooperating
— whether it be money for
infrastructure,
agriculture
or
another need in their district.
Earmarks,
however,
were
not perfect. There were some
problems with the system that
were slowly but surely addressed.
For example, prior to 2007,
members did not need to publicly
disclose their requests. This was
reversed by the Democrats upon
taking the House in 2006. The
reason for the reversal was that
the old way could lead to illegal
activities, such as bribery — and
it did in the cases of former Rep.
Randy
“Duke”
Cunningham,
R-Calif., and Jack Abramoff.
The two served time in prison,
and rather than do further work
on fixing the earmark process,
Congressional
Republicans
abolished the practice in 2011.
That has led to a decade
of gridlock. When President
Donald
Trump
suggested
the House consider bringing
them back, reactions were
mixed. Certain Republicans
and
conservative
groups
were opposed to the idea,
citing complaints about crony
capitalism. However, others
were open to the idea as a way
to get the government working
again. The chair of the Senate
Appropriations
Committee,
Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala.,
has come out in support of
a kind of earmarks along
with ranking member Sen.
Patrick Leahy, D-Vt. Though
Democratic views were also
mixed, they tended to support
the reestablishment of the
process. It did not happen at
the start of the 116th Congress,
but the interest was clearly
there from senior officials
like
House
Appropriations
Chair Nita Lowey, D-N.Y., for
bringing them back at some
point in the future.
Politics is a process and
it takes time. However, the
removal
of
appropriations
broke the process in a way that
has not been done before and
consequently
grounded
the
wheels of government to a halt.
Getting those wheels turning
again
will
take
bipartisan
agreement because there are not
enough votes on either side to
abolish the legislative filibuster.
Earmarking is the best way
to cultivate that agreement.
Democrats (and Republicans)
should lose no time in bringing
back the practice.
ANIK JOSHI | COLUMN
How to make government work again
Anik Joshi can be reached at
anikj@umich.edu.
CASEY RHEAULT | CONTACT CARTOONIST AT CRHEAULT@UMICH.EDU
ANIK
JOSHI
The
circumstances of
the 2020 election
have many
pundits asking
why Iowa is first.
It’s time to ignore
the noise and
genuinely wear
what makes you
feel good about
yourself.
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 whitest state shouldn’t go first in the primaries
Gridlock has
been a problem
in Congress since
2011 in a way that
it wasn’t before.