T
he events of Jan. 6,
2021,
have
been
a
topic
of
Republican
revisionist
history,
willing
ignorance
and
delusional
falsehoods for over a year now.
Leaders of the Republican
Party have gone from blaming
former
President
Donald
Trump at least in part for the
insurrection, to absolving him
of all responsibility. Those who
were once labeled domestic
terrorists
are
now
being
labeled
political
prisoners,
with Trump and his fiercest
allies now floating pardons for
the insurrectionists, claiming
that they would mend alleged
atrocities being committed by
federal prosecutors.
Republican
members
of
Congress
all
are
but
guaranteed
to
dodge
any
question regarding the day,
and
conveniently
somehow
never seem to have heard
about the barrage of asinine
comments from their fellow
colleagues. Yet, through all of
this, Republicans continue to
claim they aren’t saying what
they are, and don’t believe
what they do.
In the span of a little under
a week, this attitude finally
changed with the leader of
the Republican Party and the
party’s
official
committee
both finally admitting what
political
observers
have
long noted. The Republican
Party at large believes that
the
insurrection
was
just
and normal, a mere moment
of
political
protest
and
discussion, and Donald Trump
wanted former Vice President
Mike Pence to single-handedly
overturn the election.
The
first
of
the
two
admissions of guilt came from
Trump himself when he went
the furthest he ever has in
his criticism of Mike Pence,
this
time
outright
saying
that Pence alone could have
overturned the will of over 80
million voters. Though Trump
has long critiqued Pence for
his failure to reject electoral
votes from battleground states
— something he had no right
to do — he has tried to phrase
his critiques in such a way that
he simply is asking for more
time to consider supposed
irregularities. Trump likewise
posits that state legislatures
merely ought to have had
more time to debate newly
found evidence of fraud, that
of which did not exist.
The statement was riddled
with
his
usual
gripes,
claiming fraud and “many
other
irregularities”
and
slamming Susan Collins as a
“wacky” RINO (Republican in
name only). He also claimed
that pending legislation, that
would make it clear the vice
president has no power to
change the outcome, would
take the power away from
the vice president, something
that is not accurate. Ignoring
the immense hypocrisy of this
position – how would he feel
about Vice President Harris
overturning election results
and giving Biden a second
term? This statement betrays
the deep-rooted contempt that
the former president and his
backers have for democracy
and the peaceful transfer of
power.
This was so abhorrent that
even Pence directly called him
out, disputing his claim and
outright
saying
“President
Trump is wrong.”
Even putting aside the fact
that Trump is painfully wrong
in regards to a vice president’s
capacity,
the
idea
of
a
president endeavoring to so
blatantly, tactlessly and short-
sightedly disrupt the will of a
majority of American voters is
eye-opening, even for a man
with a record like Trump’s.
Not
to
be
outdone,
Republican
officials
also
made waves at the Republican
National Committee’s winter
summit in Salt Lake City,
Utah. A censure resolution, led
in part by RNC Chairwoman
Ronna McDaniel, sought to
condemn Representatives Liz
Cheney, R-Wyo. and Adam
Kinzinger,
R-Ill.
for
their
roles on the House Select
Committee on the January 6
Attack.
Republicans have long tried
to dismiss the committee,
claiming it is a partisan,
Pelosi-led sham meant solely
to hurt Donald Trump and
his accomplices. That is a
false claim, as the committee
features the aforementioned
two House Republicans, with
Cheney as a co-chair of the
committee.
Additionally,
House Republicans shot down
an attempt to have an evenly
partisan
split
investigation
into the events of Jan. 6, one
in which Republicans would
have had subpoena power
of their own, negotiated by
a Republican representative
that House Minority Leader
Kevin McCarthy himself had
assigned to the negotiations.
The resolution said that the
RNC
should
“immediately
cease any and all support” of
the two Republicans, that the
pair “support Democrat efforts
to destroy President Trump”
and have engaged in acts “not
befitting” Republican members
of Congress. While all parts
of the statement are insane in
their own right, one sentence
stands out in particular: “They
chose to join Nancy Pelosi in
a Democrat-led persecution
of
ordinary
citizens
who
engaged in legitimate political
discourse.”
The
statement,
which McDaniel later tried
to backtrack, was a stunning
admission.
It shows that prominent
Republicans believe that an
insurrection meant to thwart
the
democratic
process,
which led to the deaths of at
least seven people, injured
hundreds, defaced the capitol
building and forced the vice
president
and
others
into
hiding,
was
nothing
more
than ordinary citizens taking
part
in
everyday
political
discussion.
The
claim,
however egregious it is, is
less surprising in itself than
the fact that the official party
committee
was
willing
to
admit such a disgusting belief.
The GOP has now tied
themselves to this malicious
lie; the lie that the most
severe attack on the United
States
Capitol
since
1814
was just citizens using their
voice. A voice, according to
them,
that
Kinzinger
and
Cheney are now maliciously
silencing. According to the
GOP, the fault lies with these
two honest representatives,
not the insurrectionists or
those who necessitated their
intervention.
That Trump and the RNC are
now willing to be so forthright
about their despicable actions
and beliefs is a sign that things
are getting worse, not better.
Though they have both felt
these ways for a while — with
their continuous push for less
protections for voters and
more discretion for states to
determine
gerrymandered
congressional maps — the fact
that they now feel comfortable
outright
claiming
these
authoritarian ideas outright
is just another dangerous step
towards the dismantling of
our fragile democracy. The
midterm elections are now less
than eight months away, and
Republicans have been told
by their leaders that political
violence is no big deal, that
election
losses,
no
matter
how legitimate, are not to be
accepted and that violence
is acceptable in an attempt
to overturn an election. It is
yet another ominous sign of
what’s to come, and a potential
pretext for something worse
to
happen
the
next
time
Republicans lose an important
election.
W
e’ve all experienced
it. A shoulder brush
that
knocks
you
painfully to the side; a body
in your way, oblivious to the
path you were trying to walk;
a sidestep, right where your
foot was supposed to go next.
Space that was yours, invaded.
Invaded is a harsh word to
use, but it is a harsh action to
experience as well. Society
tells women that they must be
small in every way. Verbally,
in how they speak and voice
opinions. Socially, in how they
act and present themselves.
And physically, in how much
space they are allowed to take
up. We are told to be so small,
it’s like we aren’t even here,
like no one can even see us.
But I see you. I see you,
girl
on
the
M-Bus,
with
her legs turned toward the
wall, leaning away from the
stranger taking up his space
and then some. Your seat is a
foot and a half wide, and you
shouldn’t have to share it. I
see you, girl at the recreation
center, waiting by the door in
your leggings because another
boy took the machine you’ve
been waiting on for the past
20 minutes. The leggings are
cute, and it was your turn.
I see you, girl in class, with
your bag on the floor and your
hands in your lap because the
boy next to you has claimed
half the table. I see you, girl
who makes space for someone
disregarding yours. I see you,
girl feeling invisible.
The invasion of space, both
physically and socially, is so
common that we have words
for it. “Manspreading” and
“mansplaining”
are
newly
coined terms to describe men
over-stepping both physically
and
in
conversation.
With
both terms, they are holding
more space for themselves
than they should. The problem
is, the bigger someone makes
themselves, the smaller the
people
around
them
are
forced to be. In “Shrinking
Women,” Lily Myers says that
“she wanes while (he) waxes,”
and that women have been
“taught
accommodation,”
a
scene displayed with crossed
arms and legs, folding in to
be less. Women spend more
time watching for others in
their path while walking than
men do, and stay within their
bounds of the sidewalk more
as well. It is clear that this
problem persists in life all
around, but what is to be done
about it?
This
societal
issue
is
hard to correct because it is
subconsciously
ingrained.
One cannot fix the behavior
before they are aware of
the
behavior,
and
thus
unintentional
behavior
will require an intentional
correction.
Personal
space,
as is denoted in the name, is
individual to each person,
making it subjective and often
subconscious. It is natural and
acceptable to have different
levels of comfort regarding
personal
space.
However,
we need to prioritize spatial
awareness. We must make
a conscious effort to notice
and respect the space of those
around
us.
This
includes
monitoring our own behavior,
as well as that of others.
Dr. Joanne Motiño Bailey,
lecturer in the Women and
Gender Studies Department
at the University of Michigan,
and
Dr.
Lisa
Kane
Low,
professor within the School
of Nursing at the University,
present
seven
feminist
strategies
in
“Gynecologic
Health Care” that have been
researched and found to enact
the type of difficult social
change that this situation calls
for. One of these strategies is
to analyze one’s own role or
relationship to the issue. This
can be done by anyone, of any
gender, to support women. Ask
yourself, what connection do
you have to the issue, and how
do you act because of that?
Men may take up more space
than warranted in this context
compared to women, perhaps
unintentionally.
To implement this feminist
strategy as a man, one might
recognize his role in this
issue, and then consciously
decide to make space for
others. For a woman, applying
this strategy could be to
recognize her position in this
dynamic, and then to speak up
about it. It is also important to
advocate for others who may
have a harder time asking for
space. Speaking out does not
need to be confrontational or
unkind, and demanding space
is not rude. Addressing the
issue comes before resolving
it. With intention and respect
for all in mind, we can create
an environment that is more
comfortable
for
everyone
around.
To the women reading this,
my message to you is that it
is okay to take up space. You
don’t have to be short or thin
or tiny. Be strong, be capable.
You don’t have to move; you
are entitled to that bus seat
just like any other student.
You don’t have to yield; you
were walking there first. You
don’t have to shrink; that’s
your personal space. You don’t
have to make yourself smaller
because others want you to be.
It’s okay to take up space.
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
Opinion
14 — Wednesday, February 16, 2022
It’s okay to take up space
AMY EDMUNDS
Opinion Columnist
DEVON HESANO
Opinion Columnist
Trump and the RNC say the quiet parts out loud
Design by Maddy Leja, Opinion Cartoonist
The North Campus dinner experience
J
ustice
Stephen
Breyer’s
recent decision to retire was
one of the few expected
political developments in an era
of tremendous uncertainty. After
a long career of compromise
that earned him the respect of
both parties, Breyer’s retirement
presents President Biden with a
chance to re-center his struggling
administration and make a lasting
impact on the political climate of the
nation.
Judging by the strife that has
accompanied
recent
nominees,
Biden must approach his choice
of a replacement with extreme
caution. He must be careful to
make a reasonable decision that
doesn’t lead his presidency further
astray. In order to accomplish this,
Biden should look to nominate a
nontraditional candidate who can
voice a wider set of opinions than
current justices: a centrist’s opinion.
During the 2020 Democratic
primaries,
Biden
promised
to
nominate a Black woman to the
Supreme Court, a promise that
revived his stagnant campaign.
While his choice for the high court
will be a history-making pick
because of their demographic,
if Biden is truly committed to
diversifying the bench, he should
also look for diversity elsewhere.
The court is currently woefully
homogeneous, with almost all of
the justices coming from urban
backgrounds, and all justices, beside
Justice Amy Coney Barrett, having
attended Harvard or Yale. While it’s
important to have highly qualified
individuals on the bench, it’s also
paramount to have voices that
represent the breadth of American
experiences.
Though
the
multitude
of
traditional achievements amongst
recent justices is evident, the
similarity of their backgrounds
is clear in both the cases they
add to the court’s docket, which
overwhelmingly
originate
from
urban areas, and the rulings they
ultimately make. In order to widen
the breadth of experience in the
highest court in the land and push
back against the status quo, Biden
should stray from convention and
look for a judge from a nontraditional
background.
In addition to selecting a nominee
who represents a broader set of
Americans, it’s important that
Biden chooses a judge that mirrors
the ideologically centrist views of
the average citizen. While Biden
himself is a moderate, his governing
style over the first year of his
administration has reflected the
influence of left-wing activists in his
party, whom Biden often struggles
to push back against.
With only three left leaning
justices on the bench, the country
needs another justice capable of
compromising with the more right
leaning wing of the court, in the
mold of Justice Elena Kagan or
Justice Breyer himself. If, however,
Biden selects an activist Judge in
the vein of Justice Sonya Sotomayor,
who often goes out of her way to
comment on national politics, he
risks sabotaging any chance of
compromise and ceding the court’s
rulings to its right wing.
Justice Breyer made his mark on
the court as a moderate always open
to working with anyone on rulings.
Of the three current left leaning
justices, he has cast the lowest
percentage of votes aligning with
the left wing of his party, deviating
on issues he believed would stoke
ideological divides. In particular,
he voted against the law to uphold
the full Medicaid expansion, in
the process negotiating with Chief
Justice John Roberts to maintain
the individual mandate, a ruling
that
ultimately
kept
millions
of
citizens
with
pre-existing
conditions covered by the law. He
also sided with conservative justices
on issues of religious freedom,
allowing the public display of
the Ten Commandments in two
distinct cases in an effort to avoid
“religiously
based
divisiveness.”
More recently, he has publicly
opposed court-packing and has even
gone so far as to pen multiple books
defending the Supreme Court as a
neutral institution.
His willingness to compromise
lent credence to the rulings that
he ultimately decided to take
strong stands on, allowing him to
be the voice of reason in decisions
protecting the right to abortion
and to respectfully dissent to the
expansion of the death penalty.
Finding a new justice who follows
this style is critical to maintaining
a sense of balance on a court where
the right wing outnumbers the left
two to one.
Ultimately,
Biden’s
nominee
for the Supreme Court will have
profound implications on the law
for decades to come, as well as
immediate impacts on national
unity. In a time when Americans face
economic threats from the tailwinds
of COVID-19 and international
threats from China and Russia, the
country certainly does not need
the outer partisan battling that has
accompanied recent nominations.
By choosing a judge with a
background that matches a broader
set of American experiences, Biden
has a rare opportunity to hit the
reset button and finally deliver the
unity he promised. Let’s hope he
makes the right decision.
President Biden, it’s time for a diverse and
centrist judiciary
NIKHIL SHARMA
Opinion Columnist