T
his fall, Michigan voters
will have a say on three
crucial ballot initiatives
that could change the state’s
political landscape in a drastic way.
Proposal 1 would change term limit
requirements for state legislators
and establish financial disclosure
requirements. Proposal 2 would
greatly expand voting rights and
work to safeguard democracy.
And the highly contested Proposal
3 would enshrine reproductive
freedom in the state constitution.
All
three
proposals
would
undoubtedly be progressive wins,
and I encourage everyone to vote
for these common-sense measures.
When it comes to getting
political goals accomplished, ballot
initiatives often reign supreme,
especially for progressive issues.
What else could have prevented
the deep red Kansas legislature
from
passing
restrictions
on
reproductive
freedom?
How
else would states like Nebraska,
South Dakota and Arkansas have
achieved minimum wage hikes
that put the federal minimum
wage to shame? Progressive ballot
initiatives, in states ranging from
deep blue to deep red, often have
astounding
levels
of
success,
producing laws that otherwise
would not have had a chance
of passing through traditional
legislation.
Ballot initiatives are an effective
tool for progressives to pass
popular legislation, and Michigan’s
three proposals this year exemplify
why that’s the case. Though both
parties use ballot initiatives to pass
policies they support, they have
been disproportionately successful
for progressives.
One of the main reasons that
ballot initiatives are such a positive
is that they are simply the most
representative and equitable way
for making new policy into law. It
is well known that Congress and
state legislatures often act way
outside of public opinion, especially
on key issues for progressives.
Wide majorities of voters support
the progressive stance on issues
including reproductive freedom,
marijuana
legalization,
voting
rights and much more. Yet if you
analyze the support for these
measures in legislative bodies, and
compare them to the constituents
they represent, they are way out of
sync. Ballot initiatives rectify this
issue.
Initiatives are also equitable in
that they work around egregious
gerrymandering,
which
itself
greatly distorts the line between
public opinion and the public’s
representatives. Take Wisconsin,
a
purple
state.
Republicans,
through
relentless
partisan
gerrymandering, have managed
to find themselves on the verge
of
a
legislative
supermajority
despite this fact. The fact that a
battleground state, which voted
for Biden in the last election, could
have a veto-proof Republican
majority in its state legislature
is an affront to democracy and
an insult to voters. Once again,
ballot initiatives would bypass this
fact, as the partisan advantages
of gerrymandering disappear in
state-wide elections, such as the
election for governor.
It is true that we live in a
representative democracy, one in
which politicians must go against
their constituents’ wishes for the
interests of the country at times.
Take, for example, Republican
members
of
Congress
who
rebuffed calls from their deep red
constituents to object to electors in
the 2020 election. The problem, of
course, is that our democracy is not
actually all that representative. The
country is dominated by minority
rule through the filibuster, run
by a dysfunctional Congress that
has long had an approval rating so
abysmal it’s almost hard to fathom
and allows the aforementioned
gerrymandering to define our
electoral process. Ballot initiatives
are the easiest way for voters to
express their legislative priorities
and see them enacted into law.
Ballot initiatives are also good in
that they inspire nuanced thought
over specific issues and provide
an avenue for voters to reject the
party line on issues they disagree
with without having to vote for
the opposing party and take down
their party as a whole. Ballot
initiatives, though often supported
by one party more than the other,
are not run on a party-affiliated
line. By taking away the cue of (D)
or (R), voters are left to actually dig
deeper into the proposal and see
what it’s about.
They empower voters to be
“mavericks” of sorts. A voter
in Arkansas who supports a
living wage and the legalization
of marijuana but is otherwise
conservative does not have to
sacrifice one set of beliefs for
the other. The more proposals
put to the combined 50 states
there are, the more nuanced and
representative
policymaking
becomes.
Though ballot initiatives can be
an inspiring relief from traditional
aspects of governance, the specific
requirements varying by state
can result in varying levels of that
relief. When it comes to getting
initiatives on the ballot and passed,
some states are more restrictive
than others. The main difference
is between states with direct
and indirect initiatives. In direct
initiative states, proposals that
qualify go directly to the ballot. In
indirect initiative states, however,
varying
levels
of
action
are
required by the state legislature to
allow them on the ballot, providing
opportunities to thwart the will
of the people. Some states can
outright deny the measure, and
others require additional signature
requirements
after
legislative
consideration.
In
24
states,
voters are left entirely out of the
process, with no mechanism for
citizen-initiated ballot measures.
Michigan is a direct initiative
state, paving a pathway for voters
dissatisfied with the legislature to
get policy passed, obstructionists
in Lansing be damned.
Opinion
Wednesday, November 9, 2022 — 9
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
H
istory is arbitrary. Or
so it seems to be in
today’s world, where the
narrative is spun by the victors and
we corral history into neat little
periods and eras. But beginnings
and endings are all a construct,
defined by the human desire to
close one chapter before opening
another. So, now we deal with the
consequences of historical periods
being defined by hegemonic rule.
Take “postcolonial” for example:
“post” implies that colonization in
its entirety, including its aftermath,
is well and over with, but really,
it just depends on who you ask.
Political, economic, cultural and
social remains of imperialism and
colonial rule exist in each nation
touched by colonialism, yet the
rather inadequate name of the era
suggests otherwise.
These characterizations are just
one of the ways that history itself is
frequently altered or obscured to
fit a narrative, and although many
nations are guilty of this revision,
the most relevant one to me is the
one I live in: the United States. The
tale of American exceptionalism
is not a new one; from economic
prosperity
to
human
rights
advocacy, the United States never
fails to boast of its domestic and
international endeavors, but these
examples are largely based on
hypocrisy and myth.
While
the
United
States
condemns
colonization
and
references its own past as a
British colony, it remains one of
the most expansionist nations in
modern history, swiftly moving
from 13 colonies to 50 states and
16 territories in its short history,
displacing thousands of Indigenous
tribes and creating bloodshed
in the expansionist movement’s
wake. While preaching human
rights in its international policy, the
United States refuses to sign most
human rights treaties, has openly
backed
dictators
throughout
history and is not a party to the
International Criminal Court. In
fact, the U.S. does not recognize
the jurisdiction of the ICC and
will use military force to liberate
any American citizens tried by the
court. In spite of all this, a survey
by Pew Research finds that 52%
of Americans believe that the U.S.
is “one of the greatest countries in
the world, along with some others,”
and 23% believe that the U.S.
“stands above all other countries in
the world.”
So how are these myths kept
alive?
American
education
is
somehow both the perpetuation
of mythological ideals and the
beginnings of revolution. This is
only possible in a country as large
as the United States, and one
where each state, each district, has
jurisdiction over its curriculum and
teaching methods. I sat down with
LSA senior Thea Bilich, an Ann
Arbor native, and LSA sophomore
You Na Lee, who was born in Korea
but began her American education
in eighth grade in a conservative
suburb in Illinois. Both took U.S.
history in middle and high school.
Bilich reports that, while her
school took a formulaic, uniform
approach to history that rushed
teachers through sensitive topics
and focused on dates and people,
“(her) school took a more delicate
approach than perhaps others did.
… Eighth grade focused largely on
the colonization of this land and
slavery whereas 11th grade focused
more on civil rights movements.
However, both were discussed
largely in the past tense … because
people think kids shouldn’t have
to know about the reality of
Thanksgiving or how racism and
white supremacy still functions in
today’s society.”
When
asked
about
her
experience
with
U.S.
history
education, Lee said, “We briefly
discussed Native Americans but
that history was nearly entirely
glossed over and racism and white
supremacy were never even a topic.
We were more focused on the
development of America and what
each president did to advance the
U.S. during their time in office.”
Lee recounts a particular memory
in 11th grade, when she had moved
to a slightly more liberal suburb in
Illinois. She stated that, “we were
learning about Pearl Harbor and
World War II and the teacher was
definitely trying to educate about
both sides of the war, but to wrap
up the section we read an article
about how the atomic bomb wasn’t
as harmful as it was expected to be
and even justified the placement of
the bomb. This was clearly meant
to tip the scales in favor of the U.S.
and paint America in a good light.”
When I later asked each student
whether they thought conservative
and liberal states teach American
history differently, both responded
with a conclusive yes. Bilich recalls
a discussion in her Museum
Studies course at the University of
Michigan where she first realized
how differently history is taught
across the country, stating that
“teachers are given leeway on how
to teach each required topic, but
maybe you shouldn’t be having
children act as Native Americans
or slaves and slaveholders in
school plays. There’s a general
insensitivity surrounding these
topics just to get students moving.”
Many education systems across
the country have an unfortunate
tendency to require students to —
without context — reenact some
of history’s greatest atrocities for
only marginally more immersive
education.
Lee
compares
her
two
experiences in the suburbs: “My
white-dominated,
Christian
private
school…
teachers
had
a lot more freedom on what to
teach because it was a really small
private school so the material
we’re learning depends entirely
on the teacher, and when history
teachers are teaching they should
try to remain neutral but they
were extremely biased. And once
I moved to a more liberal public
school near Chicago, the teaching
became more about dates and
memorizing.”
The
dismissive
and,
quite
frankly,
incorrect
version
of
American history Lee was taught
displays the immense power of
teachers and individual schools
to entirely alter the American
narrative. The erasure of America’s
dark history breeds misplaced
trust
and
patriotism
while
robbing students of the chance to
right prior wrongs. While Bilich
recounts
a
more
transparent
version of American history in her
liberal schooling, she still points to
several gaps in her education that
were only filled in college.
REVA LALWANI
Opinion Columnist
Michigan illustrates how ballot
measures can be a key tool for progress
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.
PAIGE HODDER
Editor in Chief
JULIAN BARNARD AND
SHUBHUM GIROTI
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
Ammar Ahmad
Julian Barnard
Brandon Cowit
Jess D’Agostino
Ben Davis
Shubhum Giroti
Devon Hesano
Sophia Lehrbaum
Olivia Mouradian
Siddharth Parmar
Rushabh Shah
Nikhil Sharma
Lindsey Spencer
Evan Stern
Anna Trupiano
Jack Tumpowsky
Alex Yee
Quin Zapoli
VANESSA KIEFER
AND KATE WEILAND
Managing Editors
I
t seems that every election
season, we hear more and
more from politicians and
pundits about how important it
is for campaigns to talk about
“kitchen table issues.” A political
shorthand for the things average
people care about day to day,
the term “kitchen table issues”
typically refers to economic issues
like jobs, taxes and, right now,
inflation.
Every year, millions of college
students reconvene with their
families
at
the
Thanksgiving
table to talk and argue about
turkey, football and, yes, politics.
In the name of familial harmony,
controversial
political
issues
are generally not a good topic
for Thanksgiving dinner. Or so
they say. But climate change is
different: there’s a way to explain
to even the most conservative
relatives that addressing this issue
will make their lives better, not
in 50 years, but now. The climate
conversation in America today
exists in a kind of limbo; multiple
polls show between 65% and
70% of Americans are concerned
about climate change, yet fewer
than 50% think it will affect them
personally.
In other words, for many
Americans, climate change is
something that happens to other
people, in other places, sometimes
now, maybe more in the future.
Contrast this sentiment with the
quintessential kitchen table issues,
such as gas prices, which you see
on big signs every day and in your
bank statement every month, and
you start to see the problem.
The reason kitchen table issues
hold so much weight in political
circles, especially around election
season, is that they have dramatic
impacts on people’s decisions at the
ballot box. Additionally, the reason
these conversations happen at the
kitchen table is because people
see the impacts and importance
of them on a daily basis, unlike
climate change for many.
Consistently, the issue that
Americans care most about is the
economy (climate change doesn’t
even crack the top 10), and you
can pretty much track presidential
approval ratings with gas prices
for the last 50 years.
But that can change, quickly.
In July of this year, the Supreme
Court overturned 50 years of
federally
protected
abortion
access, and abortion suddenly
became a kitchen-table issue.
When Americans were asked about
the most important issues facing
the nation, abortion access ranked
fourth, behind only inflation, the
economy and the government, and
ahead of immigration, racism and
unity.
So
why
hasn’t
climate
change had its “kitchen table
breakthrough?”
You could point to the millions
of dollars spent by the oil industry
trying to discredit climate science
(and
scientists),
the
decades
of
American
presidents
and
politicians who refused to even
acknowledge the issue or the
fact that many people are more
worried about feeding their kids
tomorrow than feeding the world
in 50 years. And you’d be right.
But none of us are going to solve
these issues at the dinner table this
Thanksgiving. What we can do is
find a new way to talk about climate
change, one that centers how the
problems and solutions impact all
of us and our day-to-day lives. And
the best way I’ve found to do that
is by talking about economics. Not
abstract economics, not things like
a commercial buildings energy
efficient investment tax credit
bill, a provision of the Inflation
Reduction
Act,
but
tangible,
kitchen-table economics.
Climate activists for years have
warned that unless we act now,
we face global catastrophe in 30
years. These tactics aren’t wrong
in principle — climate change is
terrifying, and we should all be
deeply concerned for the fate of
our planet and each other — but
this approach alone has clearly
fallen short.
What if the reason we’ve failed
to motivate the average American
is because we’re missing half the
argument? Our brains aren’t built
to contemplate, internalize and act
on existential threats to human
civilization.
Proselytizers and evangelicals
have understood this for centuries.
Sure, you can always motivate a
small section of the population by
preaching damnation and hellfire.
But your narrative becomes far
more
powerful
when
people
believe they can be saved, when
you talk about a Promised Land.
We need to show people
that climate change isn’t just
something to be afraid of. It’s
also an opportunity. Who doesn’t
want a brand-new set of free (or
deeply discounted) electric home
appliances?
The federal government is
offering discounts ranging from
30% to 100% (based on area and
household income) for electric
stoves, water and space heaters,
clothes
dryers,
insulation/
ventilation, breaker boxes and
electrical wiring. The average
American household stands to save
$1,800 a year by upgrading. Who
wouldn’t want a 30% discount on
a home solar energy system that
could keep the lights on in a storm
and slash (or potentially eliminate)
their electric bill?
After Hurricane Ian, a small
Florida
community
grabbed
headlines as the some of the only
people in the area with power
following the storm, due largely
to their investment in solar energy
and community storage.
If these home incentives aren’t
enough, what about $7,500 off a
new F-150 that can tow over 9,000
pounds, power your house for a
week and goes zero to 60 faster
than a Camaro (oh, and takes gas
prices off the kitchen table for
good)?
And, for your uncle who
complains every year about how
“we used to build things here:”
Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act,
along with being the single largest
climate intervention in history,
also stands to create more than a
million domestic manufacturing
and assembly jobs by 2030,
building all those things we talked
about above and more. Those are
good union jobs, the kind that
offer a middle-class life for people
without college degrees — the kind
of jobs that have mostly vanished
in the U.S. since the 1980s — the
kind
that
conservatives
love
to promote. In this moment,
especially if you have relatives
worried about gas prices, inflation
or finding a good job, it may also
be helpful to talk about what they
stand to gain from progressive
climate policies.
You might even have a great
Thanksgiving dinner.
Op-Ed: Talk to your family about
climate change this holiday season
MICHAEL REDMOND
Opinion Contributor
DEVAN HESANO
Opinion Columnist
History is written by the victors
Sara Fang/Opinion Cartoonist
Read more at MichiganDaily.com
Read more at MichiganDaily.com