I
n just under two months,
former
Vice
President
Joe Biden will assume
the Oval Office after defeating
incumbent President Donald
Trump during the election
in November. President-elect
Biden and Vice President-elect
Kamala Harris will seek to
quickly make changes from
the executive branch that will
alter the nature of American
leadership at home and abroad
and create significant daylight
between their policies and
those put forth by Trump since
January 2017.
One topic that has once
again
risen
to
prominence
over the last few weeks has
been the U.S.’s confrontational
relationship with Iran. Amid
uncertainty
and
concern
regarding the future Biden
administration’s
next
steps
in
managing
the
conflict,
there have been indications of
potential last-minute actions
by the Trump administration
that could impact the path
forward for the president-elect.
Reports have indicated that
Trump consulted his military
advisers about the possibility
of attacking Iran’s nuclear
processing facilities. This was
in the wake of findings by the
International Atomic Energy
Agency that Iran had been
enriching uranium on a much
greater scale and to a greater
degree of purity than was
allowed for in the 2015 Iran
Nuclear Deal.
Former
President
Barack
Obama and his administration
considered the deal, also known
as the Joint Comprehensive
Plan of Action, to be one of
his
greatest
foreign
policy
achievements. Of course, that
was
under
the
assumption
that the terms of the deal —
which included the lifting of
all U.S. sanctions against Iran
in exchange for a temporary
halt to its work on nuclear
weapon development — were
strong enough to bring Tehran
closer to moderation and better
relations with the West.
As it turned out, and as
critics of the JCPOA had known
for years, the so-called “deal”
was incredibly flawed and one-
sided, and the assumptions
by Obama and his advisers
that led to its creation were
fundamentally shaky, to say
the least. The evidence found
by the IAEA at Natanz proves
once again that Iran has never
had true desires to moderate
and
curb
its
aggressive
uranium enrichment activities.
Considering
Iran’s
malign
influence
throughout
the
region
and
the
threat
it
represents to America and its
allies, too much is at stake for
the U.S. to simply sit back and
hope that the terms of the
JCPOA are honored, or that any
true Iranian moderation would
occur.
To make matters worse, the
lifting of Western sanctions
on Iran freed up billions of
dollars that would not be used
for
domestic
improvements,
but rather would be funneled
into Tehran’s network of proxy
forces that are sowing terror
and destabilization all over the
region. Trump made the wise
choice to abandon the deal
in May of 2018. While Biden
criticized the decision and
warned that “talk of a ‘better
deal’ (was) an illusion,” it can
only be said with certainty that
the old deal wasn’t cutting it
for the U.S. and its allies.
While it would absolutely
be unwise to risk a potential
full-on armed conflict with
Iran, the concern from Trump
and his administration that
the
president-elect
would
repeat critical U.S. missteps
in the Middle East is certainly
justified.
Biden
has
often
defended
Obama’s
foreign
policy record, including the
Iran Deal and has stated
his desires to reenter the
agreement.
He
has
also
criticized Trump’s policies,
which
have
not
had
any
tangible downsides — such as
moving the U.S. embassy in
Israel to Jerusalem — though
he wisely indicated he would
not reverse the move. Biden
himself was a signatory to
the 1995 Jerusalem Embassy
Act that required the U.S.
move its embassy from Tel
Aviv to Jerusalem. In the last
four years, the U.S. saw its
regional allies strengthened,
reconciled
and
cooperating
with one another in Israel
and Gulf states such as the
United Arab Emirates and
Bahrain. At the same time, its
regional adversaries like ISIS
incurred losses in their quests
for domination. To halt this
course of progress would be
very unfortunate.
In what was essentially a
victory speech on the Friday
after
election
night,
Biden
called for national unity and an
end to hyperpartisanship. He
also added that “the purpose
of our politics … (is) to solve
problems.” One way that the
president-elect can stay true
to his word is by simply not
reversing policies or changing
an effective strategy because
it was implemented by the
previous
administration.
Trump reversed course on
much
of
the
Obama-era
foreign policy after significant
evidence of its failure to bring
positive
developments
and
advance American interests; to
have abandoned policies purely
out of political spite would
have been a shame.
At the end of his term, it
can certainly be said that for
all his flaws in rhetoric and
other areas of policy, Trump
has largely been spot-on when
it comes to the Middle East. If
Biden truly wants to govern
as “an American president”
and bring an end to the rank
partisanship that has grown
within U.S. politics, he should
chart a path forward that is
based on an earnest look at
the last few administrations’
successes and failures, not on
the approval of his former boss.
7 — Wednesday, December 9, 2020
Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
The United States and polarization
LYDIA STORELLA | COLUMN
What if Al Gore had won?
ALEX NOBEL | COLUMN
On Iran and the Mideast, Biden should
follow in Trump’s footsteps
A
s millions of Americans
try and grapple with the
fact that President Donald
Trump will be a one-term president,
it is important to note that this is not
America’s first “disputed” election.
In the 2000 presidential election,
Democratic nominee former Vice
President Al Gore and Republican
nominee former Texas Gov. George
W. Bush went head to head in one
of the closest and most contested
elections in recent American history.
That election was much closer than
the 2020 election and came down
to 537 votes in Florida, where Bush’s
younger brother, Jeb Bush, happened
to be the governor. Due to the
small margin, there was no winner
declared on election night, and the
country was forced to wait 36 days for
the recount to be conducted.
The
election
was
eventually
decided by the Supreme Court, which
declared by an initial 7-2 ruling and
then a 5-4 decision that the recount
was unjust; in practice making
George W. Bush the nation’s next
commander in chief. But somewhere
in an alternate universe, the recount
was justified and Al Gore became the
43rd President of the United States.
What effect would Gore — a man
who centered his campaign around
environmental protection — have had
on the planet as president?
To begin to answer this question,
Bush’s environmental record must be
put under a microscope. During his
campaign, Bush promised to regulate
carbon emissions from coal power
plants, but like many of his campaign
promises, he did not follow through
with it. Just a few days into his first
term, his administration announced
that the United States would not enact
the Kyoto Protocol. Signed two years
earlier in 1998, the Kyoto Protocol
was an international treaty, similar to
the Paris Climate Agreement, which
aimed to encourage countries to cut
down on greenhouse gas emissions.
Under Bush, the U.S. ultimately did
not join the treaty.
A spokesman for the Sierra Club,
Josh Dorner, explained the legacy of
the Bush administration, saying, “The
Bush administration has introduced
this pervasive rot into the federal
government which has undermined
the rule of law, undermined science,
undermined basic competence and
rendered
government
agencies
unable to do their most basic function
even if they wanted to.” If that sounds
familiar it’s because it is.
Perhaps the most damaging
environmental
consequence
of
the Bush administration was its
attack on science. Similar to the
current administration, it ran a
disinformation
campaign
and
silenced scientists who spoke
out about climate change. In
2004, James Hansen, a NASA
scientist,
publicly
accused
the
Bush
administration
of
censoring information about the
rate the planet was warming.
Following the accusation, the
White House continued to ignore
science and tried to go around
the
Environmental
Protection
Agency to get a regulation on car
emissions overturned by doctoring
a scientific study. It also began
to
deregulate
many
existing
environmental protections and put
an emphasis on dismantling the
Endangered Species Act — which
included special protections for
many animals, including polar
bears.
So what would a President Gore
have done differently? For starters,
Gore would have joined the Kyoto
Protocol, as he explained when he
said Bush needed to “listen to those
among his advisers who know that
we need to have binding reductions
in CO2.” While this would not solve
everything, it was the absolute bare
minimum. Additionally, Gore would
not have rolled back environmental
regulations in the same haphazard
way
as
Bush
did.
Gore
put
environmental conservation front
and center during his campaign and
would have increased protections
for water, air and wildlife. Gore
even went so far as to say that
environmental protection should
become “the central organizing
principle
for
civilization.”
His
attention toward the environment led
almost every major environmentalist
group to throw their support behind
him. The Sierra Club, the U.S.’s most
prominent
environmental
group,
endorsed Gore, citing his record
of improving air health standards,
reducing car emissions, conserving
America’s landscapes and decreasing
the amount of time it took to clean up
Superfund waste sites.
Following
his
defeat,
Gore
focused on something bigger than
himself. Since 2000, Gore made it
his goal to increase awareness about
climate change and do everything
he can to remedy it. He has given
thousands of presentations around
the world about the dangers of
inaction. In 2006, Gore released a
documentary about climate change
titled “An Inconvenient Truth,”
which led to him later receiving
a Nobel Peace Prize. That same
year Gore started an organization
called
Climate
Reality,
which
aimed to pressure politicians to
support policies that protect the
environment.
While a Gore administration
would not have solved even close
to every climate or environmental
related issue, it would certainly
have been a big improvement over
the administration we got. A major
difference is that climate change
would not have been as bipartisan
as it is now. If Gore had acted
on climate early, it would have
focused the debate on how best to
solve climate change, not whether
or not it exists. This would have
allowed politicians to actually act
in a timely manner and face climate
change head-on and protecting our
environment. A Gore presidency
would have had a tremendous
butterfly effect on the state of our
present-day nation and would have
drastically changed the situation
we are in.
Alex Nobel can be reached at
anobel@umich.edu.
MADELYN VERVAECKE | CONTACT CARTOONIST AT MIVERVAE@UMICH.EDU
NOAH ENTE | COLUMN
Noah Ente can be reached at
noahente@umich.edu.
Design courtesy of Erin Shi
I
am worried about the state of
our country. Cases of COVID-
19 continue to rise daily. Our
president and much of the Republican
Party continue their baseless claims
of voter fraud. These are major issues,
but the United States is also in trouble
if it is unable to solve the problem of
partisanship.
In the last 40 years, Americans
have
become
more
politically
polarized. Along with polarization
is the rise of negative partisanship,
the growing importance of negative
emotions towards the other party in
politics. Parties are increasingly held
together by their hatred of the other
party.
Both parties are guilty of this:
in 2019, 55% of Republicans called
Democrats “immoral” while 75%
of Democrats called Republicans
“closed-minded.” Each of these
percentages have increased since
2016. The messaging of the election
shows negative partisanship as well.
The “Settle for Biden” movement
demonstrates how many on the
left put aside reservations about
President-elect Joe Biden to vote
President Donald Trump out of
office. While there was no formal
equivalent on the right, many people
who disliked Trump voted for him,
often citing the Democrats as their
reason for doing so.
This rhetoric about the other party
is dangerous for our country. If the
two major political parties view each
other with suspicion and hostility, it is
impossible to have a dialogue about
real issues that the United States face
and for members of our government,
especially elected officials, to find
policy solutions to those problems.
Both the left and the right contribute
to negative partisanship by acting
in ways that lead each side to be
dismissive of the other. Each side
wants to be respected and have their
views heard; negative partisanship
prevents this from happening.
The left often resorts to calling
Trump and his supporters racist,
xenophobic, and uneducated to argue
their side. This name-calling does
nothing but serve to cause further
separation
between
Democrats
and
Republicans.
Why
would
conservatives have any reason to
listen to what Democrats have to say
after understanding how Democrats
view them? People don’t like to
be called bad names, and “racist,”
“xenophobic” and “uneducated” are
all clearly negative.
The left’s tendency to call Trump
supporters “uneducated” is one of
the most concerning ways that it
refers to Republicans. Liberals tend
to dismiss those without a college
degree solely because they do not
have that degree. This is a brand
of liberal elitism that often goes
unnoticed because American social
circles tend to contain people with
similar education levels to our own.
But Democrats need to understand
they are not better than Republicans
when they have a college degree. Only
about 35% of Americans have a four-
year degree. Democrats will not win
voters by being patronizing; using
talking points such as suggesting
that most academics are Democrats,
the most uneducated states vote red
and saying that Republicans vote for
policies that harm them does not do
anything but make Republicans more
suspicious of Democrats.
On the other hand, the right
engages in actions that make the
left distrustful and angry towards
Republicans. When Senate Majority
Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky.,
nominated Justice Amy Coney
Barrett to the Supreme Court,
Democrats angrily pointed out the
hypocrisy of the nomination when
McConnell refused to allow a vote
on Judge Merrick Garland in 2016.
Republican citizens rejoiced while
Democrats
anguished.
Senate
Republicans went back against what
they said in 2016 about Garland and
the Supreme Court to support the
nomination.
This type of behavior from the
left and the right is not mutually
exclusive. They feed into each other
and allow each side to become more
angry, leading to deeper divisions
between each side. The elitism of
the left breeds anger from the right
that leads to blatant hypocrisy. As
long as each side sees the other as
the enemy, we will be unable to have
a meaningful dialogue about our
country. The COVID-19 pandemic
has shown how these divisions
prevent us from not just disagreeing
on legislation, such as a second
stimulus package during a financial
crisis, but having different opinions
on facts themselves.
The polarization of our country
creates anger and prevents our
government from being able to
work together to solve problems all
Americans face. We must work to get
over our biases against the other side
and realize we are all Americans, and
while we have dramatically different
opinions about policy, we share
values of democracy, life and liberty.
Whenever we catch ourselves
making
generalizations
about
any group of people, we need to
hold ourselves accountable and
remember
that
these
thoughts
stereotype groups of people and only
cause further division between us.
This is important to practice with
marginalized communities, and it
is important to practice with people
with differing political views than
our own.
All Americans must work to
overcome our preconceived notions
about those we disagree with in
order to prevent polarization from
overtaking the country. If we follow
the path we are on, the trends of
disagreement over legislation as well
as rights will continue and lead to a
divided country whose government
cannot work for the people and
whose people are unable to see what
unites us.
Lydia Storella can be reached at
storella@umich.edu.