J
oe Manchin is to progressives
what Mitch McConnell was
to liberals. Or is he? Over the
past few months, Sen. Joe Manchin,
D-W.Va., has been in the crosshairs
of many progressives and liberals for
his staunchly moderate viewpoints.
Manchin opposes a $15 minimum
wage, removing the filibuster and other
progressive policies like Medicare for All.
He also responded to calls to “defund the
police” last summer by tactfully tweeting
“Defund, my butt.”
Clearly, Manchin has not made many
friends among Gen-Z or older progressive
Democrats who strongly support the
aforementioned policies. This leaves
many of us to wonder why we need him
in the Democratic Party and what role he
serves. West Virginia, Manchin’s home
state, is one of the most conservative in
the country, with President Joe Biden
losing the state by almost 40% in the
2020 presidential election.
Manchin was uniquely able to get
elected due to his deep ties to the state
and his portrayal as a blue-dog Democrat,
which means he is socially conservative
but progressive on issues of labor and
some governmental regulation. That is
why West Virginians support Manchin
who also supported Obamacare despite
traditional
conservatives
strongly
opposing that policy. All of this is to say
that Manchin is the best Democrats
could hope for out of a ruby red state like
West Virginia.
With the Senate in a virtual 50-50
deadlock, every vote can make or break
legislation and Manchin often finds
himself on the fence of Democratic
legislation. Some call Manchin the most
important politician in Washington at the
moment — the Democratic party must
adhere to his will. If progressives had their
way, Manchin would not be a senator; but
it is important to consider the alternative.
Considering how conservative West
Virginia is, it is already a miracle that
Democrats got someone from their
party elected. If the more progressive
wing of the Democratic Party continues
to villainize Manchin, his reelection
chances could be in danger. While at
face value, some progressives don’t like
that he is so powerful and want him
removed from the Senate, we rarely look
at the opposite viewpoint. If Manchin’s
seat were filled with a Republican, the
Republican Party would control the
Senate, as they have since 2014.
In an era of immense voter
suppression and attempted GOP reversal
of the presidential election, every blue
vote is essential. It is imperative that
Democrats maintain control of the
Senate, yet every day that progressives
vilify Manchin in the media is a day
closer to McConnell and the GOP
flipping another seat to the Republican
Party. Democrats need to do everything
they can to keep the seats they have and
potentially pick up more in 2022. Tearing
ourselves down from the inside out does
not help the cause.
This column is in no way a ringing
endorsement of Manchin’s policies. I
disagree with him in most of his centrist
and conservative policies. Still, Manchin
and I agree on one broad theme:
advancing the Democratic party instead
of the GOP. Without Manchin’s vote,
the $1.9 trillion stimulus deal would not
have passed the Senate. If Manchin’s
seat were occupied by a Republican,
Democrats would have to make immense
compromises, potentially accepting a
plan one-third the size of Biden’s. Instead,
Biden was able to make good on his first
campaign promise of sending direct help
to individuals who need it the most.
The state of American politics and the
structure of the Senate makes it difficult
to even get a Democratic majority, much
less one with a large enough margin for
progressives to have any power. Manchin
helps us achieve liberal policies and block
conservative initiatives, even if it comes
at the price of more progressive policies.
It is imperative that we do not let the
perfect become the enemy of the good.
It is easy to point to and scapegoat
Manchin as the reason Democrats
cannot legislate with the stroke of a pen,
but that takes away from some of the
systemic problems within the Democratic
Party and how certain Democrats
have prioritized the wrong objectives
throughout the years. In 2020, Democrats
were outpaced in their ground campaign
efforts leading to numerous inroads from
Republicans, which represented a large
failure from the Democratic National
Convention. If Democrats focused on
reforming these problems instead of
directing their attention toward Manchin,
they could have a five-seat majority in the
Senate and Manchin would simply be a
blip on all of our radars.
Progressive attacks on Manchin are
not only misplaced, but detrimental to
the future success of the Democratic
Party in the Senate. In a state that is right
leaning, having a Democratic ally is a
huge advantage and should be celebrated
as a success rather than a failure.
I
t
has
been
well-established
that the Biden administration’s
foreign policy has not changed
much from its predecessor’s. In fact,
I have written about this continuity
before; however, even in that article,
I acknowledged one major change
between the Trump administration’s
and Biden administration’s foreign
policy — the alleged end of United
States support for the Saudi Arabian
war against the Houthi rebels in
Yemen. Doing so would unequivocally
be a step in the right direction. Since
the war began in 2014, it has caused
over a million people to be displaced,
widespread cholera outbreak, massive
medicine shortages and a nation-wide
famine. All of this has led the United
Nations
International
Children’s
Emergency Fund to deem the situation
in Yemen the worst humanitarian
crisis in the world.
Along with supposedly ending
U.S. support for the war in Yemen,
the Biden administration ostensibly
made another big step toward ending
the U.S.’s long-time policy of turning
a blind eye to Saudi Arabia’s human
rights abuses. A few weeks ago, Avril
Haines, director of national intelligence,
released a report stating that Saudi
Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman
ordered the 2018 murder of Washington
Post columnist Jamal Khashoggi, a
prominent critic of the Saudi monarchy.
These moves are consistent with
President Joe Biden’s 2019 declaration
that Saudi Arabia is a “pariah state” that
is “murdering innocent people and (has)
to be held accountable” and are a natural
step for an administration that claims to
center human rights in its foreign policy.
You
might
have
noticed
by
now that, in describing the Biden
administration’s stated shift in policy
toward Saudi Arabia, I have used a
number of qualifiers such as “allegedly,”
“supposedly” and “ostensibly.” This is
because the Biden administration is not
actually serious about changing U.S.
policy toward Saudi Arabia and has no
intention of making anything beyond
cosmetic changes.
On ending the war in Yemen,
Biden’s lack of commitment is evident
in the words he chose to use in his
speech announcing this supposed
move. He stated that, “We are ending
all American support for offensive
operations in the war in Yemen,
including relevant arms sales” and that,
“we’re going to continue to support
and help Saudi Arabia defend its
sovereignty and its territorial integrity
and its people.”
It’s already obvious that the Biden
administration has no intention of
ending support for the war in Yemen.
What defines an “offensive operation”?
Who gets to designate an operation as
“offensive”? The Saudi Crown Prince,
Mohammed bin Salman, has indicated
in speeches that he views Iran as the
aggressor in Yemen, so by that standard,
any number of actions in Yemen can be
seen as defensive. Furthermore, what
does “help(ing) Saudi Arabia defend its
sovereignty” mean?
Again, if you accept the Saudi
government’s view that the war in
Yemen is about stopping Iranian
aggression,
many
of
the
Saudi
government’s abuses can be attributed
to attempts to defend Saudi Arabia’s
sovereignty. An administration that
was truly serious about ending support
for Saudi Arabia’s invasion of Yemen
would have been far more direct in
describing how it plans to end support
for this invasion and would have
qualified this shift far less than Biden
did. Biden did not because he has no
intention of ending support for the
invasion.
This lack of actual commitment
is even clearer when it comes to
holding Saudi Arabia accountable
for murdering Jamal Khashoggi
so that, as Biden put it, “Jamal’s
death will not be in vain.” Here,
the Biden administration makes it
clear that it does not intend to even
give Mohammed bin Salman a slap
on the wrist for the brutal murder
of a dissident journalist, fearing
damage
to
American
relations
with Saudi Arabia. In particular,
Biden administration officials cite
“cooperation on counterterrorism
and confronting Iran.” This is,
simply, a joke. Saudi Arabia has, as
part of the war in Yemen no less,
allied itself with large terrorist
organizations such as al-Qaeda —
groups that the U.S. has committed
itself to eradicate.
Even putting all of this aside
and assuming that the only reason
Biden wants to maintain good
relations with Saudi Arabia is for
access to its oil, it is not a good
reason to continue to aid and abet
Saudi Arabia’s abuses. Saudi Arabia
currently supplies only 6% of the
U.S.’s petroleum imports and 7%
of its crude oil imports. Even with
the assumption that every other
Persian Gulf country would stop
supplying oil to the U.S. in solidarity
with Saudi Arabia — something
that should not be assumed given
recent tensions between Saudi
Arabia and Qatar — the conflict
would only cost the U.S. 7% of its
crude oil imports.
For comparison, during the 1973
Organization of the Petroleum
Exporting Countries oil embargo,
OPEC countries imported nearly
48% of oil imported to the U.S.
While losing 7% of our crude oil
imports — roughly 2% of our total
oil consumption — would have
some level of impact, it is not a
reason to continue supporting a
regime that murders journalists,
especially when our government
and
government-funded
media
condemn
other
countries
for
doing the same. Nor do I see it as a
reason to continue support for the
immiseration of Yemen.
If the Biden administration
wants to show that it actually
cares about Saudi Arabia’s crimes,
it needs to genuinely end support
for the war in Yemen, not just
“offensive operations.” It also
needs to punish those at the
highest levels of its government
for murdering journalists. Only
then should talk of “recalibrating”
a relationship with Saudi Arabia
be taken seriously.
T
he
Beatles
fantasized
about “Lucy in the Sky with
Diamonds,” Eminem rapped
about
mushrooms,
A$AP
Rocky
celebrated “L$D.” In an interview with
Rolling Stone, Harry Styles credits
magic mushrooms for his creativity
in producing his chart-topping album
Fine Line.
Psychedelics play a role in music
and pop culture, but they are also
increasingly relevant in scientific
and psychiatric research. Psilocybin,
commonly
known
as
magic
mushrooms, has recently made national
news because of its possible benefits in
treatment for certain mental illnesses.
In November, Oregon legalized
psilocybin, the first ruling anywhere
across the globe to declare plans for
regulating the drug’s therapeutic use.
Ann Arbor has decriminalized magic
mushrooms and other psychedelic
plants, along with other cities such as
Denver, Colo.; Oakland, Calif. and Santa
Cruz, Calif.
This past January, the Advanced
Integrative
Medical
Science
Institute
addressed
the
federal
Drug Enforcement Administration
requesting that psilocybin be allowed
in the therapeutic treatment of
“terminally ill cancer patients suffering
from anxiety and/or depression.” The
DEA responded, denying therapeutic
use due to the current Controlled
Substances
Act
regulations.
On
Monday, March 8, Dr. Sunil Aggarwal
of AIMS filed a petition for review with
the United States Ninth Circuit Court
of Appeals for medical treatment of
cancer patients with mental health
concerns.
These updates may initially seem
shocking,
as
psilocybin
is
still
technically a prohibited Schedule 1
Drug, which is categorized along with
marijuana as having “no currently
accepted medical use.” The U.S. Food
and Drug Administration, however,
recognizes
Compass
Pathways’
research on psilocybin in that it shows
potential for substantially improving
patient outcomes with certain cases
of depression.
Psilocybin is currently undergoing
Phase 2 and 3 clinical trials for
treatment-resistant depression, and
it has been studied as a possible
treatment
for
specific
terminal
illness-related
depression
and
anxiety, as well as substance abuse
disorders. In addition, John Hopkins
School of Medicine’s research found
that psilocybin had a significant effect
on depression and anxiety symptoms
after five weeks and persisting after
six months.
With
the
administration
of psilocybin, one study noted
significant reductions in smoking
rates,
while
a
proof-of-concept
study reported increases in sobriety
rates for individuals with alcohol
dependence. Psilocybin has also
been studied in relation to obsessive-
compulsive disorder, and ongoing
clinical trials are studying the use of
the drug in treating post-traumatic
stress disorder, cocaine and opioid
use
disorders,
anorexia
nervosa
and depression in patients with
Alzheimer’s disease.
Why
should
we
research
psychedelics in treating psychiatric
disorders instead of further studying
antidepressants and other medications
that are already commonly prescribed?
Many individuals are more interested
in psilocybin because the current
medications on the market have not
worked well for them. Others like
the idea of psilocybin because the
treatment has quick and long-lasting
effects and lacks various negative side
effects such as weight changes and
decreased sex drive that may come with
antidepressants.
How
do
psychedelics
act
as
therapeutic agents from a biological
standpoint? Its neurophysiology comes
down to changes in metabolism and
blood flow in the brain. Such changes
activate regions of the brain that do not
usually interact with one another. As a
result, there is less activity in structures
called the default mode network,
which is thought to contribute to the
therapeutic effects that psychedelics
can have in treating mental illness.
You may wonder why psilocybin is
classified as a high-risk, Schedule 1 drug
if it supposedly can treat psychiatric
disorders. The stigma surrounding
psilocybin and other psychedelics
largely exists due to President Nixon’s
War on Drugs. During the 1950s,
however, psychedelics were found to
have positive effects and usage spread
to mental health professionals clinically
and in research. Nixon’s signing of
the Controlled Substances Act in
1970 criminalized psychedelics and
terminated any research in the works
on the matter.
If psychedelics such as psilocybin
are approved to treat psychiatric
conditions, they will be highly regulated
by psychiatrists. These drugs would
not be readily available for just anyone
to try. However, it is important to note
that psilocybin has been used in some
indigenous cultures for millennia and
still is used for such practices in some
areas of the United States today.
What about the horror stories of
bad trips? The concept of “set and
setting” refers to the combination of
an individual’s environment during a
psychedelic session and their mindset
beforehand. The psychiatrists who
would be providing the psychedelic-
assisted therapy would be expected
to evaluate and facilitate a safe set
and setting to optimize their patients’
experiences.
Yes, there are risks associated
with the usage of psilocybin, as
there are with any drug. According
to Neurotherapeutics, a scientific
journal, the main risk of psilocybin
and psychedelics is potential anxiety
and confusion, as these sentiments
could lead to harmful choices when
unsupervised. Additionally, individuals
who have current psychosis, are
at risk for psychotic disorders or
are predisposed to cardiovascular
problems are excluded from psilocybin
studies due to the increased chance of a
negative reaction.
I am not, by any means, encouraging
individuals with mental health concerns
to experiment with psychedelics on
their own. But drugs such as psilocybin
seem to have a lot of potential for
assisting certain individuals with their
mental health troubles. Rick Doblin,
the founder and executive director of
the Multidisciplinary Association for
Psychedelic Studies, explains that his
organization’s long-term goal is “mass
mental health.”
Doblin has a point. If society wishes
to achieve “mass mental health,” we
must approach treatment for mental
illnesses from all angles. There is no
“one box fits all” in medicine; every
patient is going to require a slightly
different treatment plan, as we all have
our personal preferences and individual
differences in drug responses.
So sure, pop culture’s obsession
with psychedelics may not be solely
rooted in medicinal purposes. There
may be a lot of promise in psychedelic-
assisted therapy, though. And maybe,
one day, there will be orange pill jars
lining the shelves at CVS Pharmacy
that read “psilocybin” in printed
lettering.
10 — Wednesday, March 24, 2021
Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
MARINA WAGNER | COLUMNIST
SAM WOITESHEK
| COLUMNMIST
BRANDON COWIT | COLUMNIST
Brandon Cowit can be reached at
cowitb@umich.edu.
Sam Woiteshek can be reached at
swoitesh@umich.edu.
Marina Wagner can be reached at
mwagnerr@umich.edu.
T
hroughout this past year,
we’ve all made our fair share
of sacrifices. For most of us,
it’s been the beginnings and ends of
varying chapters in our lives. For others,
reality has been brutal, whether because
of social isolation, unemployment, or,
in extreme cases, sickness or death.
Whatever the cost may be, there’s no
doubt we’ve paid a high price.
This is why, when I turned on
the television on Sunday night, I was
surprised to find the Grammy Awards
being broadcasted. ‘What the heck,’ I
thought, ‘aren’t there more important
things going on right now?’ I did some
research.
Sure enough, the Golden Globes took
place two weeks prior to music’s biggest
night and the Academy Awards are
slated to happen in late April. Seriously?
Read the room, Hollywood. I mean
really — none of this is that important.
Does anyone really care what Netflix
movie wins “Best Picture”? If Taylor
Swift’s folklore wins album of the year?
Other than the die-hards out there, I
think not.
The numbers speak for themselves.
Only 6.9 million people watched the
Globes, a 64% decrease from last
year. The Emmys garnered a mere 6.1
million, an 11% decrease from 2019. The
Grammys received 8.8 million viewers, a
53% decline from last year.
I understand that some people find
these award shows grounding during a
pandemic. Despite the abnormality in
format, there is normality in practice.
Yet, the challenge of doing these
ceremonies on Zoom is ten times more
monumental. When “Judas and the
Black Messiah’s” Daniel Kaluuya went
to accept his award for Best Supporting
Actor, he was muted. “Ted Lasso’s”
Jason Sudeikis thought “Zoom casual”
was appropriate attire for the event. I
understand these awards shows can
be a rare glimpse into celebrities’ lives,
but at a certain point, it feels like the
motivation is foolish. Perhaps I dare say
… forced? Where’s the peace in that?
Alas, the ego-fueled industry that
is entertainment will say all the right
things but, when push comes to shove,
they won’t give up their recognition. It’s
a shame, really, for those who believed
these luminaries could lead by example.
They can’t even stay away from each
other when they’re supposed to!
Last spring, all we heard from our
beloved entertainers was to mask up,
social distance and wash our hands. Our
revered Tom Hanks was the first one to
contract the virus! Then summer came,
movie and TV show productions began
upholding public health guidelines and
somehow these imperative messages
got lost in translation. It rings hollow,
a double-standard symbolized by gold
trophies.
I admit: Netflix and music eased
quarantine life for me, as I’m sure it did
for many of you, too. We tweeted about
the absurdity of Carol Baskin and the
relentlessness of Michael Jordan, while
The Weeknd gave us an outstanding
collection of songs to replay. This
moment in pop culture undoubtedly
warrants some type of reflection. But if
we really wanted to reward Hollywood
for their efforts, we would just make
these celebrations bigger and better in
2022. Heck, make it 24-hour coverage
for all I care.
Then again, we don’t immerse
ourselves in entertainment to critique
it, we do so to be — oddly enough
— entertained; award shows don’t
heighten our experience. In this current
pandemic world we live in, award shows
lessen it, potentially along with the
respect we have for the integrity of the
industry. Right now, our focus should
be on pushing vaccines out to as many
people as possible.
The award for “most crucial” goes to ...
Design by Man Lam Cheng
Read more at
MichiganDaily.com
MADELYN VERVAECKE
| CARTOONIST CAN BE REACHED AT MIVERVAE@UMICH.EDU.
A future where your prescription reads “magic mushrooms”
Biden is not serious about Saudi Arabia
SHUBHUM GIROTI | COLUMNIST
Shubhum Giroti can be reached at
sgiroti@umich.edu.
Joe Manchin’s value for Democrats
Read more at
MichiganDaily.com