7-Opinion
Opinion
Wednesday, February 3, 2021 — 11
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
What’s happened since the Soleimani assassination?
Where will it end?
Go big or go home
JULIAN BARNARD | COLUMNIST
B
eing
a
politician
is
a
dangerous job. Just this
month we have seen the
United States Capitol invaded by
extremists,
some
even
spotted
carrying zip ties, presumably with
the intent to kidnap members of
our government. Some members of
Congress are taking their safety into
their own hands.
For instance, U.S. Rep. Peter
Meijer, R-Mich., has recently been
looking to purchase body armor.
He made this decision out of fear
for personal safety after he voted to
impeach former President Donald
Trump. There are legitimate threats
to the personal safety of members of
Congress, and while enhanced U.S.
Capitol Police presence around all
members is absolutely necessary, we
as a country need to decide if that is
enough.
Security is like swiss cheese: you
want to stack as many slices on top
of each other as possible to cover the
holes and mitigate risk. In light of the
present danger, should members of
Congress keep guns in their homes?
Yes, and here is why.
If I wrote this article before Jan.
6, or five years from now, I would
rightfully be called paranoid for
making such a sweeping and extreme
recommendation, but the dangerous
moment we are living in merits an
appropriate response. Guns are one
of the most viscerally divisive issues
on the modern American political
landscape, so this piece deserves a
short primer before we go any further.
I myself am not a gun fanatic — I don’t
own a gun, I have never shot a gun and
I do not fantasize about overthrowing
a tyrannical government with a
gun. This piece does not reflect
any views on background checks,
mandatory waiting periods, red flag
laws, restrictions on magazine size
or restrictions on the types of guns a
person should be allowed to have.
All I am trying to say is that if I
had the opportunity, I would suggest
that my congresswoman consider
purchasing a gun for her home — not
for the House floor or to carry on her
hip at all times, but for those instances
where a bodyguard may be too far
away to prevent a tragedy.
A gun should by no means be the
first line of defense, but should instead
fill in the gaps left by a professional
protective detail. Only the Speaker
of the House, the House and Senate
majority and minority leaders and the
House and Senate whips have full-
time, designated security details. That
is only nine of 535 voting members
of Congress who have personal
protection 24 hours a day.
Many reading this, across the
political spectrum, would agree this
amount of protection is insufficient
at this moment in history. Personal
protective details have proven to be
able to mitigate some risk. Take the
attack on the Congressional baseball
game in 2017, for instance. Though
several congresspeople — including
House Whip Steve Scalise, R-La. —
were grievously injured, it would
have been much worse had Scalise’s
protective detail not been there, a
privilege that was only afforded to
him because he holds a leadership
position in Congress.
Imagine you are a member
of Congress. Imagine you have
received death threats, have had
people come to your home, had your
place of work invaded and had your
family jeopardized. Imagine that
the people employed to secure your
place of work, for whatever reason,
have not been able to do their jobs
to a satisfactory standard. Imagine
— even if you are one of the lucky
members who has 24-hour security
— that you hear someone break into
your home while you sleep. This is
an uncommon, though very feared,
scenario for most Americans, but
is absolutely within the realm of
possibility for our members of
Congress in 2021. In the event of this
nightmare, I want my Representative
— and future Secretary of the Interior
— Deb Haaland, D-N.M., to have the
means to defend herself.
We
should
understand
the
counterargument to my line of
thinking: Guns, statistically, don’t
make people safer. There is a higher
likelihood of the gun owner or their
family injuring themselves than
stopping an attacker. For every one
fatal use of a gun in self-defense, there
are two fatal gun accidents.
However, considering the credible
threats against the lives and safety
of our representatives, the calculus
of safety looks much different for
politicians than it does for the
average American. If a member of
Congress does want to utilize a gun
for self-defense, the government
should provide gun safety training
for the member so that they can most
effectively keep themselves safe.
Normally, progressives, like me,
don’t find ourselves agreeing with
Reps. Lauren Boebert, R-Colo.,
Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga. or
Madison Cawthorn, R-N.C. Gun
rights for members of Congress have
recently been a Republican talking
point, with Boebert petitioning to
bring her Glock onto the floor of the
House. But let’s think about it — even
though Republicans are the most
ardent gun supporters today, who
would benefit from having a gun in
their home the most? Democrats such
as Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez,
D-N.Y., Ilhan Omar, D-Minn. and
others are the recipients of the most
ire from the mob who stormed the
Capitol earlier this month, but are not
provided with a 24/7 security detail.
We should of course draw a line at
what is a reasonable bearing of arms.
It is not reasonable for members of
Congress to bring their firearms onto
the floor of the House and Senate,
considering the significant security
measures that have been undertaken
since the Jan. 6 riot. A gun can be a
helpful tool, but it should be carried
judiciously.
One politician who could be
more amenable to a gun-oriented
protection plan is Sen. Bernie
Sanders, I-Vt. Sanders has a record
of much more moderate gun policies
than one would expect from the
well-established progressive. Some
of his most notable dissents from the
Democratic Party include his 1993
vote against a bill that mandated
background checks for gun sales.
In more recent years, Sanders has
altered some of his positions on
guns, but his dissents still serve as a
demonstration that moderate views
about gun control still have a place in
the landscape of liberal thought.
In conversations about gun control,
many people — both those in favor of
gun control like myself, and those
against it — can lose sight of what
a gun is. A gun is neither a symbol
of American hubris and disrespect
for life nor a permanent protector of
liberty and the American way. A gun
is a tool used to accomplish a goal, like
a jackhammer.
Usually, a gun isn’t the best tool
to keep a home safe and will more
likely hurt someone in an accident
than stop a legitimate intruder — at
least that’s the case for the average
homeowner. Members of Congress
are in a different situation altogether.
They are under imminent threat from
domestic terrorism, so guns pass
back over the line from dangerous
ornament to helpful tool. This is
an atypical policy response from a
progressive, but it could absolutely
prevent another tragedy in a chaotic
epoch.
Bernie, get your gun: A conversation about
firearms in a perilous era
Julian Barnard can be reached at
jcbarn@umich.edu.
BRANDON COWIT | COLUMNIST
SAM WOITESHEK | COLUMNIST
Sam Woiteshek can be reached at
swoitesh@umich.edu.
W
henever I sat down for
my fifth-hour AP United
States Government and
Politics class in high school, I would
brace myself. Here we go, I thought.
Every day I reminded myself never
to crack the eggshells I walked on or
to care too much about the arbitrary
arguments of my classmates. It’s just a
high school class, I remembered, and
you’re here for the grade.
I recall one class where we had a
“free day” to debate any subject of our
choosing. Naturally, as most dramatic
teenagers do, we selected the topic
of abortion. Instead of partaking in
the riveting dissension, I elected to
illustrate the map of students in the
order of those that talked.
“Thank god I don’t have to do
this,” I whispered to my table mate.
As I predicted, the civility of the
discourse lasted all of three minutes.
Leaving class that day, I didn’t
think much about the dispute. I had
merely gone through the motions for
five months and had one hour left
before school ended. I tended to avoid
engaging in political issues for fear of
being ridiculed, arrogant or both. Yet
I wanted to speak up, to participate
when the moment was right. Now, a
year later, I realize that such a time
rarely comes when it’s convenient.
Creating these opportunities for
ourselves to speak up is crucially
important as they allow us to voice
our opinions on our current state of
democracy. Perhaps many of us have
never been afforded this chance or,
in a more complex sense, are unsure
of how to do so. Starting an honest
conversation is like Goldilocks: It’s
either too blunt or too subtle, but
never just right.
Eventually,
the
perpetual
passiveness builds up. We release
it in small bursts with social media
posts and retweets, but that usually
ends up creating more division than
solidarity. So we push it back down,
because nobody really cares anyway,
right? We save our frustrations for a
bigger fight, a more impactful event
— such as attacking the U.S. Capitol.
I’ll spare you the details as I’m
sure you’ve already watched, listened
and read about it. It’s appalling and
disgusting no matter the political
party — or at least it should be. If
we thought we had hit rock bottom
before, then now we’re approaching
some anarchist dystopia that will
permanently rupture the well-being
of our country.
Yet, my dad called me into his
room and we watched a stunned
Wolf Blitzer attempt to analyze the
situation, I wasn’t in total shock. I
was more or less unfazed, as if this
was just another level of insanity
we’ve reached.
Perhaps
this
may
seem
cruel or flippant, but it’s hardly
refutable. Yes, we could be better
as a country, but right now we
aren’t. Granted, I never thought it
would come to what it has. This
happened on our watch, and we’re
left to deal with the consequences.
It may not be about white privilege
or how horribly some Republicans
behave. It’s about large-scale
political repression and how to
reach its solution. Our feelings
of anguish have overstayed their
welcome.
In these times, I think of the
character of the U.S. and how, after
unspeakable tragedies like 9/11,
the nation bonded and turned its
newfound unity into resilience. Such
a healing transformation seems like a
pipe dream at the moment.
I also reflect on my U.S.
government class, where a debate
that appeared meaningless in the
big picture actually served as a
microcosm for our national and
political polarization. I remember
looking at the diagram of dialogue
I had scribbled, a zigged-zagged
representation of dished out one-
liners and utter chaos.
Read more at
MichiganDaily.com
ALEX NOBEL | COLUMNIST
L
ast Wednesday at noon,
Joe Biden and Kamala
Harris were sworn in as
the 46th president and the 49th vice
president, respectively, sparking
hope for millions of Americans
who voted for them. However,
they are faced with no easy task.
The new administration inherits a
deeply divided country with one of
its worst economies since the Great
Depression, on top of a pandemic that
has taken the lives of over 400,000
individuals and a climate crisis already
wreaking havoc across the country.
The Biden-Harris administration has
been given a historic opportunity to
take advantage of their Democratic
trifecta and use it to address the
country’s biggest problems with
large, sweeping solutions. Biden
and Democrats must go bold with
climate change policies or risk
recreating
the
conditions
that
allowed for former President Donald
Trump to rise to power.
The last time the Democrats
controlled the Senate, House of
Representatives and the White
House was under former President
Barack Obama’s first two years
in office from 2009 to 2011. Even
though Obama was left with a
deeply struggling economy from
the 2007-2008 financial crisis,
his actions as president laid the
groundwork for Trump to gain
popularity, specifically in the Rust
Belt and to eventually win the 2016
election. Trump was able to win
roughly 8.4 million voters that voted
for Obama in 2012, resulting in more
than 200 counties being flipped.
This begs the question of why
this happened. Is it because Obama
shied away from the big ideas he
ran on while campaigning? Was
it a reflection of the overconfident
campaign that former Democratic
nominee Hillary Clinton ran? Were
the economic hardships caused
by the disastrous trade deals in
the Midwest too much for the
Democrats to overcome?
Placing the blame on one single
factor is naive and will only start
needless debate. However, moving
on without retrospection will
only lead to repeated mistakes.
Lessons need to be learned from
the last Democratic presidential
administration so that another
demagogue is not able to make
it back to 1600 Pennsylvania
Avenue.
In addition to reversing Trump’s
executive orders and trying to
make inroads while attempting to
get the COVID-19 pandemic under
control, Biden has already signed
30 executive orders in total, with
two focusing on climate or the
environment.
The first of these reentered the
United States into the Paris climate
agreement, a long-time promise
from Biden but a very basic step
after Trump withdrew the country
in 2017. The other executive order
canceled
construction
of
the
Keystone XL pipeline, which would
have run from Canada down to
Texas, marking a huge victory for
the thousands of Indigenous and
environmental activists who fought
the pipeline every step of the way.
That same order directed federal
agencies to review and reverse
more than 100 regulations that the
Trump administration rolled back
over four years. Yes, these are good
and necessary first steps, but there
is still a long way to go to lessen the
effects of climate change and the
first 100 days of Biden’s presidency
will tell us a lot about how big and
bold he is willing to go.
Rejoining the Paris Agreement
and
overturning
Trump’s
deregulations only brings the country
back to where it was just four years
prior. Biden must enact new policies
to bring us into the future and make
up for lost time under Trump.
Biden has announced that he
plans to roll out more of his climate
and environmental goals in the
coming weeks. As of this week, he
planned on signing a plethora of
executive orders on Jan. 27. These
included a “series of regulatory
actions to combat climate change
domestically and elevates climate
change as a national security
priority,” suggesting that — so far —
climate change seems to be near the
top of the current administration’s
priorities.
On his campaign website, he
goes more in-depth about his
goals. Biden’s major goal is for
the U.S. to have 100% renewable,
clean energy by 2050. The steps
he lays out to get there include
investing in infrastructure to
make it resilient to the effects of
climate change, rallying foreign
allies to commit to and follow
through with climate goals and
the
“largest-ever”
investment
into clean energy research and
development. On top of that, Biden
has continuously emphasized that
his administration will listen to
“the science.”
Biden has a real chance to make
sweeping and bold policy decisions
that
will
drastically
improve
millions of lives and give Americans
and people around the world a
fighting chance against climate
change. But will he do it?
For Biden to become a successful
president,
he
must
eliminate
the conditions that facilitated
the rise of Trump. This means
substantially bettering the living
conditions of everyday people and,
in the process, creating a safer
and healthier environment for
everyone. The era of small ideas
must come to an end — back to
normal is not an option.
Alex Nobel can be reached at
anobel@umich.edu.
B
efore a global pandemic,
racial justice protests and a
presidential election, 2020
already had a chaotic start with
the United States’ assassination of
Iranian General Qassem Soleimani,
commander of Iran’s Quds Force,
on Jan. 3. The assassination spiked
already high tensions between the
U.S. and Iran to levels not seen for
decades, causing many internet users
to assume the imminent beginning of
World War III.
Obviously, this did not happen.
Iran’s only retaliation for the killing
was to launch missiles at two American
military bases in Iraq, which caused no
casualties and seemed almost designed
not to do so. After that, tensions largely
declined, with no further military
action by either side, not even on the
anniversary last week, when some
form
of
acknowledgement
was
expected by many national security
experts.
However, it would be a mistake to
claim that this quiet means that the
two countries are at peace. In fact,
in light of the COVID-19 pandemic,
the ongoing U.S. sanctions campaign
against Iran became all the more
cruel and unbefitting of a nation that
claims to fight for human rights. We
would do well to end it.
First, a little background on the
American sanctions program on Iran:
While the U.S. has leveled sanctions
against Iran nearly consistently since
the beginning of the hostage crisis
in 1979, the most directly relevant
sanctions to the ones we apply today
were initially passed as part of the
Comprehensive
Iran
Sanctions,
Accountability, and Divestment Act
of 2010.
These sanctions banned the import
and export of Iranian goods that were
more valuable than $100 to the U.S.,
with the exception of some food and
medicine items. These sanctions were
passed in order to discourage the
development of Iran’s nuclear program,
and were heavily relaxed by the 2015
Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action,
which stipulated that these sanctions
would be relaxed unless Iran restarted
its nuclear program. Repealing these
sanctions had a massive positive effect
on Iran’s economy and quality of life,
with its GDP expanding 13.4% in 2016
and its Human Development Index
increasing by 0.01, one of the largest
upward movements that year.
However, with the U.S. exit from
the JCPOA in 2018, the sanctions that
the deal relaxed have been put back
into place. Predictably, in the same
metrics that proved the increase in
Iran’s quality of life after the sanctions
were relaxed, Iran began to decline,
with GDP decreases of over 6% in both
2018 and 2019 and its HDI decreasing
by 0.002 in both years, one of the worst
for any country in that time.
And now, with the COVID-19
pandemic, the weight of the sanctions
has been felt even more heavily in Iran.
From the beginning, the government’s
efforts at economic stimulus were
hampered by the fact that they could
no longer export oil, denying them
half of their previous revenues.
Compounding that, a 2019 Human
Rights Watch report stated that
American sanctions have denied Iran
access to medical supplies, something
that became an exponentially greater
issue in a pandemic.
Finally, Iran was forced to reopen
in May, which was earlier than was
medically advisable, because its
economy had been so weakened by
sanctions that it could not remain
locked down. It is not a great leap of
logic to suggest that these sanctions
and their effects are at least a
contributing factor to Iran having
one of the highest per capita COVID-
19 death rates in the world. In light
of this, as well as allegations that
re-imposing the sanctions in the first
place violated the JCPOA, the United
Nations Security Council voted in a
13-2 vote to proclaim that the U.S. had
no right to impose the sanctions.
All of this, however, leaves many
defenders of the sanctions undeterred.
Former U.S. Secretary of State
Mike Pompeo defends keeping the
sanctions, stating how, “We have done
remarkable work to deny the regime
the resources they need to continue
to carry out their terror campaign.”
A Wall Street Journal editorial from
March states that there is no reason
to end the sanctions because, “The
regime is responsible for the people’s
suffering.”
However,
neither
of
these
arguments actually hold up to
greater
scrutiny.
The
Iranian
backed paramilitaries of Hezbollah
and the al Houthis both remained
active in 2020 despite the sanctions,
not that blocking either one was ever
a great reason to starve a country
of medical supplies and crash its
economy. Additionally, while no one
can say that the Iranian government
handled the pandemic well, it is
ridiculous to suggest that removing
their biggest sources of revenue and
obstructing their access to basic
medical equipment had nothing to
do with their failure.
Design by Melissa Lee
Brandon Cowit can be reached at
cowitb@umich.edu.
Read more at
MichiganDaily.com