Green by Washington University Political Review

WUPR Washington University Political Review

GREEN

35.2 SEPTEMBER 2021 WUPR.ORG

Table of Contents 6

Green Dismantling the Green Machine Robert Burch

When Chobani Advertised Your Climate Responsibility Jason Liu

2022 Redistricting Overview Rishi Samarth

Why are Some Americans Still Not Vaccinated? Tyler Quigley

Supreme Court Taking Another Look at Abortion Justin Rockaway

Why Democrats Must Act on Infrastructure Josh DeLuca

Green Power Competition Will Pease

Headline Induced Eco-Anxiety Marley Wiemers

Theme Art Daniel Moroze

Theme Art Ethan Loderstedt

The E-Waste Pandemic Avery McCammon

Voted Blue or Red? How About... Green? Andrew Leung

The Paradoxical Nature of Masks Marlee Fradkin

Theme Art Shonali Palacios

Green-Washing Colonialism Arte Romero y Carver

The Green Party's Struggle in a Two-Party System Jaden Lanza

Theme Art Eric Kim

Politics Through Green-Colored Glasses Julian McCall

The Lingering Stain of Toxic Fashion Lea Despotis

Theme Art AJ Schwartz

National Actors Turned Politicians: Common or Anomalies? Lydia Sidrys

International Qatar: More Involved Than You Think Jordan Simmons A Green China Emerges? Collin McGovern

Editors' Note Executive Directors Alaina Baumohl Claudia Bermudez Editors-in-Chief Jaden Lanza Megan Orlanski Design Director Catherine Ju Design Leads Haejin An Lea Despotis Eric Kim Leslie Liu Shonali Palacios Jinny Park Staff Editors Sophie Conroy Christian Monzòn Oliver Rosand Jack Waterhouse Features Editors Nick Massenburg Julian McCall Treasurer Malar Muthukumar Web Editors Adler Bowman Rachel McCarthy Evan Trabitz Social Media Editor Harry Campbell Podcast Editors Alaina Baumohl Leah Witheiler

Front Cover Benjamin Eskenazi Theme Spread Leslie Liu Back Cover Alex Battin

Dear Reader, As we publish this issue, we are taking in the last few days of green foliage on campus and around St. Louis as nature slowly makes way for fall. Each day, the sun sets a little earlier and the air gets cooler as summer prepares to meet us again next year. Yet, as the articles contained here illustrate, ‘green’ persists and permeates in many facets of global current events, even as the seasons change. From green-washing to green energy to green bills, green has long been associated with life and vitality, but also with greed and materialism. It is this very contradiction that this issue hopes to address, as we continue to reckon with the ramifications of both climate change and the demands of economic systems. Take for example, the most recognized green stone, the emerald, as a symbolic token of life produced by nature and also as a manifestation of the exploitation of natural resources for extraction. This issue speaks to the challenges and triumphs that a ‘green’ way of thinking can bring. In terms of challenges, Avery McCammon discusses the E-Waste Epidemic as she argues that this form of waste is often overlooked in discussions on pollution and evaluates methods to reduce our production of electronic waste. Arte Romero y Carver discusses the vested interests that shape climate policy in her article, “Green-Washing Colonialism,” where she argues that these policies enact colonial violence to this day. Thinking about national politics, Andrew Leung discusses the fate of the Green Party if the United States made use of a multi-party electoral system instead of the long-standing bipartisan system in his article, “Voted Blue or Red? How About…Green?” On the national front, Lydia Sidrys discusses the phenomenon of celebrities-turned-politicians in her article, “Actors Turned Politicians: Common or Anomalies?” In his article on the recent Supreme Court ruling on abortion, Justin Rockaway analyzes the reasoning behind it and the history of abortion rulings in the United States. Internationally, Collin McGovern discusses China’s recent investments in renewable energy and what it means for the country’s position in combating climate change in his article, “An Environmentalist China Emerges?” On the note of a nation’s future, Jordan Simmons writes on the crucial role of Qatari diplomacy in mediating geopolitical conflicts in the Middle East both in the present and in the coming years. We hope these articles encourage you to employ a ‘green’ frame of mind as our writers and artists showcase the diverse ways in which we can view the world through a ‘green’ lens. We’re eager to see what new directions this year takes us in! As Ever, Megan Orlanski and Jaden Lanza Editors-in-Chief

Dismantling the Green Machine Robert Burch

n 2010, the Supreme Court issued its infamous Citizens United ruling, a decision that essentially gave corporations the right to make unlimited political expenditures for causes benefiting their interests. The ruling threatened to usher in an era of minimal transparency and skyrocketing political spending by shady Political Action Committees (PACs). It exacerbated the long existing influence big money had over government and politics. By allowing corporations, special interests, and wealthy donors to skirt individual donation limits and pump millions into elections through unrestricted “Super PACs,” Citizens United opened the door for new levels of corruption in politics. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, outside political spending not linked directly to a campaign or candidate ballooned from $500 million to over $2 billion in the decade following Citizens United. And those in our government responded to that increased spending. Take, for example, Senator Mitch McConnell, who has received over $2 million from the insurance industry over the past decade while consistently using his position as Senate Majority and Minority Leader to sabotage attempts at expanding healthcare. Or look at Senator Joe Manchin, who has taken almost $200,000 this year from oil and gas lobbies and has since made headlines for blocking his fellow Democrats’ climate provisions in various legislation. For a more expansive view, look at how congressional Republicans, who have consistently stood against common sense gun control, take all but a few of the spots on the list for the top 20 gun lobby donation recipients for both the Senate and the House every year this decade. These examples of the increasing trend of favorable treatment for big donors (made easier by Citizens United) are found on all levels of government. Although this may paint a dreary (yet not unfamiliar) picture of a government beholden to special interests and lobbyists, a new trend in campaign finance that’s now gaining traction offers some level of hope:

WU Political Review

small donors.

his campaign.

Nearly 20 years ago, Howard Dean went from the barely known former Vermont Governor to the leading candidate in the 2004 Democratic presidential primary and record holder for the most quarterly money raised by a Democratic campaign ($14.8 million). Instead of only closeddoor fundraising and selling his soul to wealthy donors, Dean chose to look at the potential of internet fundraising from small donors. This gamble paid off, and small donors with an $80 average donation size catapulted him to the front of the race and rewarded him with tens of millions of dollars throughout the campaign. On the flip side, many of the other campaigns in the 2004 cycle chose to forgo internet small donor fundraising. Instead, they followed more traditional tactics of in-person large donor fundraisers with single contributions that could max out donation limits, exhausting the potential for future engagement. Dean’s new and unconventional tactic allowed him to engage more people with his campaign, connecting him with new, excited supporters who felt more valued by the campaign while helping him outraise his opponents. While a couple political gaffes ended Dean’s campaign, his strategy lived on in another underdog candidate’s 2008 campaign: Barack Obama.

Obama’s success with small donors changed the way political fundraising was approached. The next candidates to utilize the growing small donor power came in the 2016 primaries. One was Donald Trump, who amassed 64% of his campaign’s funds from small donors under $200 and the other was Bernie Sanders who consistently bragged of his $27 average donation size, his 2.5 million individual donors, and his whopping 77% of donations received by small donors. The small, yet powerful, political force expanded into the 2018 midterms, with over one hundred federal candidates utilizing the strategy. A notable example is Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, whose army of small donors catapulted her from bartender to the House of Representatives with the largest portion of campaign funds coming from small donors (62% according to the Center for Responsive Politics). She then built on her success with small donors in the 2020 campaign, collecting 79% of her $20.6 million in campaign funds from small donors according to the Center for Responsive Politics. The power of small donors even reshaped the messaging around campaign finance in the 2020 Democratic primary, with a multitude of candidates boasting their small average contribution sizes and showing off their small donor percentages to attract support. The democratic party even allowed candidates to qualify for debates if they had enough small donors.

While Howard Dean started the small donor trend, Obama perfected it. Once a little-known Illinois senator, Obama’s message of hope resonated with millions of voters, and his campaign’s utilization of the internet allowed him to capitalize off that. Propelled by small donors, almost 30% of whom contributed less than $200 (the cutoff to be considered a “small” donor according to the Campaign Finance Institute), Obama quickly shot to the front of the 2008 primary election. And after his win in 2008, he repeated his small donor success in the 2012 election, only this time, according to the CFI, small donations amounted to half of the money raised by

It is worth noting that the small donor trend has been most popular among Democratic candidates, largely because of their early adoption of online donor service ActBlue. ActBlue is a technology nonprofit that has so far, according to its website, helped raise over $9 billion for Democratic and progressive campaigns since 2004 by allowing people (especially small donors) to easily contribute online. However, small donors are not only confined to the Democrats. Republican campaigns have started

to adopt this strategy as well, boosted by their implementation of WinRed in response to ActBlue in 2019. Besides Donald Trump, notable examples of Republican success with small donors include Rep. Duncan Hunter (67% of his campaign’s $1.6 million from small donors according to the Center for Responsive Politics), Rep. Jim Jordan (66% of his $18.3 million from small donors), and Rep. Matt Gaetz (65% of his $5.9 million small contributions). Even if the trend is more commonly used among Democrats and tends to yield higher small donor percentages for them (maybe because of their head start with ActBlue), the small donor phenomenon is clearly replicable and successful on all sides of the aisle. Regardless of level of success, small donors are more than just a trendy new way for candidates to flex their fundraising skills and raise millions. They also represent a real chance to combat the rapid encroachment of corrupt corporate interests into politics and government. While the number of political contributions from Super PACs has greatly increased over the years since Citizens United, contributions from individual small donors have begun cutting into the portion of election funding coming from corporations and interest groups, therefore decreasing the influence these special interests can have over our elections and public officials. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, compared to 2016, small donor contributions accounted for almost 10% more of total campaign finances in 2020, while PAC and Super PAC portions counted for 5-6% less than they did in 2016. This shift has emboldened many candidates to take a stand against the corrupting influence of big donors and shady dark money. When money from organizations that don’t represent the best interests of most voters is no longer as important of a source of funds for candidates, those outside interests can’t use their financial support to dictate a politician’s agenda as effectively. Getting more support from small donations can

The small donor movement represents a rare power shift in campaign finance towards the people. Constituents, corporations, and candidates alike should pay attention. make politicians more accountable to their constituents instead of lobbyists. Thanks to the increasing viability of small campaign donors, it has become relatively common for campaigns to swear off donations from corporate PACs and closed-door meetings with large contributors. For example, 52 members of Congress (including members from both sides of the aisle) in 2018 had rejected donations coming from corporate PACs. In 2020, all 24 of the Democratic primary candidates for president at some point swore off corporate PAC money, and many of them even refused Super PAC and large donor help, according to Vox. With the rising success of small donor fundraising, money not accepted from PACs can be made up by donations from large groups of people who are more representative of these candidates’ constituents. The small donor movement and the coinciding “no PAC pledges” by candidates allow everyday people to take back political power long held by special interests. This change to campaign finance can serve to make campaigns more financially reliant on the people they represent as opposed to large donors and lobbyists. Politics is often about money, so when the money comes from small donors and everyday voters, it's in the candidates’ best interest to listen more to those voters instead of voting

against their interests in support of other organizations that offer financial support. The increased emphasis on small donors doesn’t just benefit the everyday people who get to take back political influence from special interests. It also benefits the candidates. Whereas wealthy donors and PAC money can often reach the legal contribution limit in one donation, small donations do not. This allows the campaigns to continue to solicit donations from the voter, keeping them in contact with supporters, keeping the supporter engaged with the campaign, and giving the potential for multiple consistent donations throughout the course of the campaign. And even if candidates still miss out on money from some corporate contributions and wealthy donors due to their no PAC pledge, refusing corporate PAC money also serves to prove to voters that the candidates’ interests are aligned with their citizens and not the highest bidder. Reliance on excited and engaged groups of small donors was virtually unheard of in elections even 20 years ago. It was only in 2004 that the rise of the internet coincided with Howard Dean’s unconventional campaign strategy to make what is now standard in politics a possibility. Since then, droves of small donors have been increasingly standing up to the powers that once kept politics removed from the people. This unexpected reform to campaign finance has in a matter of years rewritten centuries of political practice, and there’s no reason to believe small donor armies are slowing down any time soon. The small donor movement represents a rare power shift in campaign finance towards the people. Constituents, corporations, and candidates alike should pay attention to that. It’s not every day you get to witness normal people take down a nationwide political machine. Robert Burch ‘25 studies in the College of Arts & Sciences. He can be reached at burch.r@wustl.edu.

Green

When Chobani Advertised Your Climate Responsibility Jason Liu Artwork by Mei Liu

n March 1st, 2021, Chobani released a 30 second animated TV spot as part of a broader advertising campaign to signal their diversification from their signature Greek yogurt to other foods and beverages such as oat milk, coffee, probiotic drinks, etc. Rather than choosing to extol the quality or the environmental friendliness of these products, the company instead chose to present a world where those products, and you, belong. The ad is titled “Dear Alice”, and the narration is framed as a letter from a mother passing ownership of her farm to her daughter. A day in their life on the farm is shown as the mother reminds her daughter that “a business is only as good as the people who make it up”. However, the farm depicted is far less of an industrial farm that supplies a business like Chobani and more a life of self-sufficient subsistence farming.

After all, in the same breath, the mother says that the farm will “feed you forever”. Either that, or the subtext is that the advertisement commentary on our world, telling the viewer, that if you care for it (by buying Chobani products ostensibly), it will bring you the life you desire. Is this overanalyzing? Yes. Is it also important to consider how a corporation might conceptualize its target audience to guide its specific marketing choices? Also yes. Every aspect of this advertisement appears chosen to appeal to a Millennial and Gen Z audience. The world is dotted with wind turbines on balloons and solar panels on barn house rooftops. There’s no highway in sight, as automobile transportation has been eliminated in favor of exhaustless flying vehicles. Even the distant city bends to nature by design, eschewing rectangular

angles for curved surfaces and steel and glass for vertically integrated greenery. This is a solarpunk future where humanity has found a way to coexist and literally support nature, a utopia that is intentionally appealing to a set of young viewers more climate-conscious than ever before. This world also appeals aesthetically to the target consumer, and not by just looking very green. The vibrant colors, focus on nature, and soft character designs invoke nostalgia for Ghibli movies of the 1990s (think Spirited Away) that millennials and Gen Z would have seen as children. That isn’t merely a vague impression; long-time Ghibli composer Joe Hisaishi composed the music for this advertising campaign. The animation studio for this advertisement, The Line, knew what they were doing. But perhaps what is most important is not

the world, but the family itself. The narration may be about Alice and her mother, but the advertisement shows a whole multi-generational, multiracial family bonding together over Chobani-branded food. Not only is this advertisement promising a world where climate change is “solved”, but also one where racial inequality, bigotry, and generational conflict have disappeared as well. This family’s dinner, and this hopeful world, brought to you by Chobani.

preservation. If we just get wheels off the grass and stop pumping smoke into the sky, things will be solved. That’s just not reality. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) Fifth Assessment Report back in 2014, if all emissions had stopped then, average global temperatures would have still risen by around 0.6 °C before beginning to fall. Our future climate is simply not the binary choice this advertisement portrays it as.

The message that eating some Greek yogurt will bring about utopia is inherently ludicrous, but there are people who will unironically say this. The push for personal environmental responsibility by managing one’s “carbon footprint”, recycling your waste, and of course, consuming environmentally-friendly foods, has always been a deft means of ignoring the far more impactful environmental damage corporations cause that no individual consumer can undo. Nonetheless, consumerism in the name of environmental consciousness is simultaneously profit for a firm like Chobani. Alice’s farm thus paradoxically both represents the “ideal” individual consumer and the business standing in for Chobani, avoiding acknowledging a separate corporate responsibility.

Finally, the advertisement’s “care for future generations” moral falls on jaded ears, tired of hearing such posturing only for older generations to not take action. It’s unfortunate to note that by making Alice and her immediate family people of color to reinforce this video’s inclusive vision, it ignores the fact that the burden of responsibility

for today’s climate crisis falls on predominantly white industrialists, far removed from us by time or relation. This is not a critique of Chobani as an actual company, and especially not the creatives who made this advertisement. However, it will never cease to be fascinating how, as corporate marketers seek to co-opt the younger generation’s desire to protect their future, they seem to misunderstand their perspective entirely. Jason Liu ‘23 studies in the Olin Business School. He can be reached at jliu1@wustl.edu.

The advertisement also assumes that technological advancement is reconcilable, if not necessary, for environmental

This is a solarpunk future where humanity has found a way to coexist and literally support nature, a utopia that is intentionally appealing to a set of young viewers more climate-conscious than ever before.

Green Power Competition Will Pease

n his inauguration speech, Joe Biden claimed that “We’re in competition with China and other countries to win the 21st century. We’re at a great inflection point in history.” This rhetoric of global competition has reemerged in recent years as the United States and other great powers — principally China and Russia — have moved away from the post-Cold War era of convergence and back toward balancing international power. However, many object to the need to compete with other nations when a crisis that threatens the stability of the entire world has already begun. Climate change is an existential threat to all nations that demands international collaboration to solve. While coordination between great powers regarding climate change is underway and will likely continue, the effects of climate change will need to get much worse before powerful nations set aside their differences and seek to only cooperate without competition. Great power competition over the future of green energy is set to become a focal point of geopolitics as the balance of world power enters a state of flux and more and more nations seek to transition to renewable energy. Climate change and the return of great power competition have disproven the optimistic postCold War notion that mankind had moved past its long history of international conflict and zerosum games. Francis Fukuyama’s popular 1992 essay-turned-book “The End of History?” posited that with capitalism defeating communism in the 20th century our world would become one where liberal democracies would dominate the international arena and the ideological conflict that defined human history up until that point would be effectively over. Yet this so called “Washington Consensus” has been challenged by two illiberal and undemocratic great powers that have risen to prominence in the 21st century: Russia and China. But what went further than Fukuyama’s thesis was the idea of convergence: that the world’s major nations would trend toward cooperation rather than competition within a rules based international order. This seemed plausible in the 1990s when American hegemony reigned supreme and no nation had the means to challenge the liberal international order, but China’s rapid rise and Russia’s

WU Political Review

Great power competition over the future of green energy is set to become a focal point of geopolitics as the balance of world power enters a state of flux and more and more nations seek to transition to renewable energy. revisionist turn in the 2010s have brought greatpower competition back to the forefront of international affairs. At the same time, climate change threatens to destabilize, or even upend, the international order as a whole. As the international system returns to a semi-anarchic state after a brief period at the end of history, great powers will compete over the resources that give states power and sustain human life. One of the most important of those is energy. The simultaneous global dilemmas of power struggle and climate change are intrinsically linked as energy is a core force that shapes international politics. From the United States’ strategic alliance with states in the Persian Gulf to Russia’s natural gas exports to the European Union, large reserves of energy resources afford countries privilege and leverage they would not otherwise have. Yet with only about half a century of oil and natural gas left in the world’s proven reserves at current rates of consumption, many nations have already begun transitioning away from fossil fuels and toward renewable energy. While coal could likely still sustain human energy consumption for over a hundred years, the extreme amount of carbon that coal production emits has already made it the primary target of the global environmentalist movement. Furthermore, for many countries it is already

becoming more cost efficient to produce a form of renewable energy than to extract energy from coal. Large investments — both domestic and foreign — in renewable energy are likely to be the way that developing nations increase their productive capacity within the bounds of a world reeling from climate change. The Chinese Communist Party recently announced that it will halt its investment in foreign coal plants (though it did not address ending its own economy’s reliance on coal power). This announcement comes as China undertakes its Belt and Road Initiative of global infrastructure building in Africa, Eurasia, and South America. Through the Belt and Road Initiative China hopes to increase its economic leverage with nations around the globe and has already supplanted the United States as the leading trade partner for most of the world. It is extremely likely that China will seek to continue its energy geopolitics through hydro, solar, and wind sources as technological advancement improves the efficiency of sustainable energy production. Green energy is set to become a central focus of great power geopolitics in the 21st century. It is undeniably in the interest of powerful nations to lead the world’s struggle against global warming. The changing climate will cause population migrations, resource wars, and territorial conflict in the coming decades. As U.S. Secretary of State Anthony Blinken stated at the United Nations Security Council on September 23, 2021, “Look at almost every place you see threats to international peace and security today, and you’ll see that climate change is making things less peaceful, less secure, and rendering our response even more challenging.” The destabilizing thrust of climate change is certainly not in the interest of countries seeking to maintain regional and international hegemony. Furthermore, renewable energy being the fastest growing energy sector in the world has already made it a target of investment for many nations, especially those seeking international influence. There is arguably no healthier way for great powers to compete than by trying to outperform each other globally in making renewable energy cheap and efficient. This is a rare area of great-power competition where the competition

is widely non-zero-sum. While it would be preferable for great powers to cooperate on solving climate change rather than addressing it by following their own political and economic interests, nations seeking to strengthen their role on the world stage will increasingly look to how they can command influence by investing in the world’s transition to green power, which can still move the world in a positive direction. Even in areas where cooperation will not occur, the world can still benefited attention being devoted to expanding the productive capacity of green energy. The world’s major powers have already begun advancing policies to increase their control over the future of the world’s renewable energy supply. At the recent 76th session of the United Nations General Assembly, Joe Biden pledged to double U.S. funding for poor nations to transition to clean energy sources, though this increased funding will still be far less than what the European Union has committed to. The United States has recently made significant investments in solar and wind energy and pressure is building from the Democratic Party to end reliance on fossil fuels. At the same time, the U.S. Senate passed a bill explicitly written to increase

As the international system returns to a semi-anarchic state after a brief period at the end of history, great powers will compete over the resources that give states power and sustain human life. One of the most important of those is energy.

There is arguably no healthier way for great powers to compete than by trying to outperform each other globally in making renewable energy cheap and efficient. This is one of the few areas of great-power competition where the competition is widely non-zero-sum. American technology's competitiveness with China. The House of Representatives has opted to write their own versions of a competition bill, with many demanding a focus on renewable energy. Members of the House Science Committee see scientific problem solving, particularly on the issue of climate change, as a more constructive alternative to competition for competition’s sake. While China’s economy is still centered around coal, it has been focused on increasing its renewable energy capacity year after year. China is the world leader in renewable energy advancement, responsible for nearly 50% of investment in green energy sources. With Xi Jinping’s recent announcement regarding foreign coal financing it is only a matter of time before exporting this green technology becomes a core focus of the Belt and Road Initiative. Russia is also expected to make moves to diversify its economy in the coming decades as the petrostate’s feeble economy limits its global ambitions. However, Russian natural gas exports are an important source of leverage in its foreign relations with the European Union and former Eastern bloc. The finite nature of fossil fuels raises questions about what comes next for countries whose foreign policy ambitions are extended by hydrocarbon exports. Whether or

not Russia has the means to be a world leader in renewable energy is uncertain, but Putin has never been one to let an opportunity to compete with the West go to waste. The return of great power competition to the forefront of international affairs is an unfortunate development for those hoping for a comprehensive and cooperative global response to the threat of climate change. However, competition over investments in wind, solar, and hydro energy production are certain to increase in coming decades and will mitigate the externalities caused by human energy demand. The volatility of nuclear power makes it unlikely to be seen as a wise export by great power nations, but technological advancement (specifically regarding the ever-elusive promise of nuclear fusion) could further change the state of energy geopolitics. The United States, European Union, China, and Russia will all seek to deepen their investment in green energy technology in order to expand their influence and protect themselves from the destabilizing effects of climate change. Great power competition complicates but does not entirely negate the prospect of climate change being moderated in the 21st century. Will Pease ‘23 studies in the College of Arts & Sciences. He can be reached at wpease@wustl.edu.

Green

Headline Induced Eco-Anxiety Marley Wiemers

e’ve spent years upon years being drowned in and overwhelmed by stories about climate change and it’s catastrophic impacts on our beloved world. Especially as of late, it seems as though every article in every newspaper details the increasingly cataclysmic events that climate change is causing around us: the hottest years on record, melting glaciers, rising sea levels that threaten coastal regions, and so on. We’re being told that the world will reach the point of no recovery within the next decade and that, horrifyingly, this is our own fault. When we’re constantly reading these claims, it’s incredibly easy to fall victim to their defeatism, and to begin to believe that we have no hope for the future. According to the American Psychological Association, this sense of defeatist hopelessness is otherwise known as “eco-anxiety,” which can be further defined as the “chronic fear of environmental doom” that develops within people as their awareness of climate change causes their mental health to suffer. The conversation about climate change is, of course, an incredibly important one to have, and the state of the Earth is a topic on which we should all strive to be well informed. But when these conversations are governed by increasingly inescapable and bleak headlines that work to sensationalize imminent disaster and to place the entirety of the blame for such chaos on the common person, it becomes clear that the conversation is being handled in an entirely incorrect way. There’s an incredible amount of information in the world that details the importance of watching your individual ecological impact by taking public transportation instead of driving, by cutting meat out of your diet, and by taking shorter showers. This information continues to place the blame for the environment on the common person and thus shifts the blame away from the larger corporations that are perhaps

WU Political Review

We’re being told that the world will reach the point of no recovery within the next decade and that, horrifyingly, this is our own fault. most responsible. When we take these actions and still feel as though we aren’t seeing any positive change in the world, only a continuation of the negative, we can feel overwhelmed and as though our actions don’t matter. This individual-focused approach may even be causing people to turn a blind and apathetic eye to climate change as a whole as they try to avoid the discomfort of learning about it. A study completed at the University of East Anglia by Saffron O’Neill and Sophie NicholsonCole works to examine the fact that these headlines can often petrify individuals into apathy regarding the environment. The study states that “...using fearful representations of climate change may be counterproductive,” as, although negative headlines tend to attract substantial attention, the subsequent fear and eco-anxiety that they generate is generally an “...ineffective tool for motivating genuine personal engagement.” The fact that these fear-mongering titles have little success in producing genuine engagement with the problem at hand could be due to the fact that, according to psychology professor Susan M. Koger, “When we’re scared, we can freeze… We use various kinds of defense mechanisms to distract, to deflect, to numb out.” Thus, stoking fears can often lead to people shutting down and turning more to inaction and apathy than to a passionate desire to help the climate crisis through meaningful engagement.

With this in mind, it seems clear that negative headlines, although they may seem to be an effective tool for garnering attention towards climate change, must be used with extreme caution. If they are used too frequently, they have a higher risk of causing desensitization towards the environment as opposed to inciting productive action. Thus, newspapers and media outlets need to stop presenting these quick narratives of disaster and horrifying statistics that detail the end of the world as we know it. In addition, the media must stop placing blame for this chaos on the individual and look at the responsible corporations instead. To fight against this eco-anxiety turned apathy, we need to stay vigilant when it comes to the information that we are reading. We must be aware of the reality of climate change, but make sure that we also take time to step back from the horror storms of environmental destruction and remind ourselves that there are steps that are being taken to fight it and that there are things that we ourselves can do to fight climate change (although the fate of the world doesn’t rest on our shoulders as is often portrayed). This is, of course, difficult, as it requires changing our mindset and digging for information that isn’t as readily presented. But as long as fear-mongering headlines and misplaced blame exist, taking personal steps will be an efficient way to combat eco-anxiety and subsequent apathy, to ensure that we don’t petrify ourselves into inaction, and to ensure that we can continue to work together to have conversations about and fight against climate change. Marley Wiemers ‘25 studies in the College of Arts & Sciences. She can be reached at m.l.wiemers@ wustl.edu.

Artwork by Daniel Moroze

Green

Artwork by Ethan Loderstedt

WU Political Review

The E-Waste Epidemic Avery McCammon

t’s official: the iPhone 13 is coming out on September 24th. While you might not be able to notice the slight camera upgrade, or the additional stainless-steel bands around the edges of the handset, or that the phone is a few millimeters smaller than the last update, there’s a part of you that still wants it. Rationally, you know that spending over $1,000 on a new phone is not the best investment, but something about being able to tell your friends that you have the “Sierra Blue iPhone 13 Pro Max” excites you. This desire to always have the newest, fastest, shiniest, most expensive tech item on the market — whether it be a computer, watch, or phone — has become ingrained in each of us. The consumerist tech culture we have created though, not only hurts our wallets, but also the environment. Once you’ve picked up your new tech you’re probably too enthralled in exploring its new capabilities to think twice about where your old phone is going to end up once you discard it. These forgotten electronics are classified as “e-waste” and include items like televisions, computers, cell phones, printers, and scanners. In 2019, the EPA estimated that U.S. consumers discarded 6.92 million tons of e-waste — and this number only continues to increase. Even more shocking is that only 12.5% of e-waste is currently recycled, while the rest ends up in landfills. These statistics should startle you, not only because we are adding more trash to our landscape, but also because e-waste is considered a hazardous material. Every electronic device is a unique concoction of toxic chemicals including arsenic, barium, beryllium, brominated flame retardants, mercury, lead… the list goes

In 2019, the EPA estimated that U.S. consumers discarded 6.92 million tons of e-waste — and this number only continues to increase.

This desire to always have the newest, fastest, shiniest, most expensive tech item on the market — whether it be a computer, watch, or phone — has become ingrained in each of us. on and on. As I’m sure you can assume, none of these chemicals magically disappear when you throw away your old phone. Now you might be saying to yourself, “well, I donate my old tech devices and they get recycled so I’m not part of the problem” and, unfortunately, that’s where you would be wrong. Most companies and organizations that advertise that they recycle e-waste, actually don’t. Instead, they export the old devices — often to countries in Eastern Asia — to be picked apart so the valuable metals within can be extracted. The people — predominantly women and children — who work at these “recycling plants” smelt and desolder the devices to extract the copper, gold, and other precious metals. Without the proper protection gear these individuals are at risk for burns, cancers, brain swelling, muscle weakness, heart damage, and skin conditions. Additionally, the particulates that are released from the burning of the e-waste contaminate the air and can also result in the toxins from the devices leaching into the groundwater.

contaminated air and water to one area. But, don’t worry; there are still ways we can properly dispose of e-waste and thus avoid human rights violations, prevent further environmental degradation, and save ourselves from drowning under piles of computers and phones. First, be thoughtful. Though it might be tempting, don’t just get a new tech device because it will make your life a bit easier or because your best friend is getting it. Only upgrade if your old device is no longer functioning, and even your smartest comp-sci friend can’t help you out. Second, make sure you know where your e-waste is going. The company to whom you give your device should be R2 or e-Steward certified — these certifications designate responsible, environmentally friendly e-waste recyclers. And third, spread the word about the e-waste crisis. Despite the fact that e-waste is an ever-growing problem that almost everyone is contributing to, it is not widely discussed, which desperately needs to change. So now it’s time for you to decide. In a few days, when the new iPhone 13 Pro Max is released, what will you prioritize — the environment and human rights or a material good? Avery McCammon ‘24 studies in the College of Arts & Sciences. She can be reached at a.h.mccammon@ wustl.edu.

One study conducted on a “recycling plant” in Guiyu, China, revealed staggeringly high levels of toxic heavy metals and organic contaminants in samples of dust, soil, surface water, and ground water around the plant. This environmental degradation not only affects the people working at the plant and living in Guiyu, but also the surrounding regions, as it is impossible to contain

Green

Voted Blue or Red? How About…Green? Andrew Leung Artwork by Benjamin Eskenazi

rowsing the New York Times, I came across an interesting interactive article titled "If America Had Six Political Parties, Which One Would You Belong To?" The article asked 20 questions on a variety of political issues and matched the reader with one of six hypothetical parties. The parties ranged from a reform-seeking Progressive Party and center-left-establishment New Liberal Party, to the populist Patriot Party. The idea of moving beyond the current twoparty system is not new, though for most of contemporary American history, almost every nationally elected official has been either a Democrat or Republican. Currently, only two senators and two House representatives identify as independents, and third parties like the Libertarian and Green Parties have no representation in Congress. Even with several elections where an independent or third-party candidate made significant headway, there hasn't been a breakthrough overcoming the stable two-party firewall. Reasons may include better funding, name recognition, or perhaps a general lack of motivation to see drastic changes in our government. While the two-party system has worked to provide a legitimate government, several underlying issues cannot be denied. The increasing gridlock on Capitol Hill and greater polarization of both politicians and voter bases can be attributed to a seemingly binary choice: blue or red. Proponents of a multi-party system argue that a lot of gridlock and political turmoil could be resolved if

THE INCREA SING GRIDLOCK ON CA PITOL HILL AND GREATER POLA RIZATION OF BOTH POLITICIANS AND VOTER BA SES CAN BE AT TRIBUTED TO THE SEEMINGLY BINA RY CHOICE: BLUE OR RED.

more parties were in contention. One argument contends that multi-party systems decrease gridlock through greater use of coalition governments to pass legislation. The tendency towards the two-party system for a majority of American government can also be explained by the way in which representatives are elected to office. For federal elections in the United States, the standard election procedure uses the first-past-the-post method (FPTP), where one candidate who receives the most votes in a particular constituency is elected. So, if four candidates ran in a Senator race, and the results were split 40/30/20/10, the candidate with 40% of the vote would win. In elections, most of these contests will come down to the two strongest candidates, and these two candidates are almost always a Democrat and a Republican. Even if the Green Party, for example, had candidates that were consistently 3rd and pulled in 20% of the vote, they wouldn't gain a single seat. This favoring of two parties is the basis of Duverger's Law developed by French sociologist Maurice Duverger. Most countries with a single ballot majority rule system have two dominant political parties. There are exceptions; for example, Canada uses a similar voting system as its southern neighbor, yet still has the presence of multiple significant political parties. While the moderate Liberal and Conservative Parties control the most seats, the progressive New Democratic Party and regional Bloc Quebecois hold significant power in the formation of a majority government.

Another popular system named proportional representation can favor the multi-party system. In proportional representation, instead of voting for a specific candidate, voters will choose a party on the ballot, and seats will be awarded in proportion to percentage of voters each party received. For instance, if Missouri were electing 10 House members in a midterm election, and the vote was split 40% Republican, 30% Democrat, 20% Libertarian, and 10% Green, Missouri would send 4 Republicans, 3 Democrats, 2 Libertarians, and 1 Green to Congress. This method of electing members involves a multi-member constituency, as it is no longer a winner-takes-all contest and the constituency is now the State of Missouri instead of single congressional districts. There are advantages and disadvantages to the proportional representation system. For example, gerrymandering would be greatly reduced in proportional representation, but it also weakens the relationship between elected officials and their constituents.

critics may argue over Yang's bucket-list style approach to politics, it sometimes takes unorthodox ideas that seem ridiculous at the time to start a chain of events. Only five years ago, a relatively young French minister named Emmanuel Macron formed his own political party, sweeping the legislative election and became President of France.

62% OF A MERICANS WOULD LIKE TO SEE A MAJOR THIRD PA RTY IN THE MIX .

Andrew Leung ‘22 studies in the College of Arts & Sciences. He can be reached at andrew.leung@wustl. edu.

Aside from completely overhauling the American electoral voting system (which would open an entirely different discussion on the Electoral College), the success of a third party or more in today's political atmosphere is highly unpredictable. History suggests a third party will not grow beyond a handful of representatives. Political science would also point towards a persistent two-party system due to the way representatives are elected. Current data from surveys, however, may suggest a breakthrough for a potential third party rise, as a Gallup poll found that 62% of Americans would like to see a major third party in the mix. News of former presidential candidate Andrew Yang planning to launch a new party next month could test the narrative that Americans are tired of the constant gridlock and polarizing negativity surrounding politics. While

IN PROPORTIONA L REPRESENTATION, INSTEA D OF VOTING FOR A SPECIFIC CANDIDATE, VOTERS WILL CHOOSE A PA RTY ON THE BA LLOT, AND SEATS WILL BE AWA RDED IN PROPORTION TO THE PERCENTAGE OF VOTERS EACH PA RTY RECEIVED.

The Paradoxical Nature of Masks Marlee Fradkin Artwork by Shonali Palacios, Design Lead

h yes, 2020. Easily the most convoluted year many of us have ever lived. Fairly, one might assume that finding more complications within this time period would be next to impossible. After this cursed year, though, I’ve come to learn that there’s an endless supply of complexities in life; there truly is no hurdle too large for us to stumble over. As such, I am here to be on-brand with the last 18 months and present you with yet another obstacle: the frustrating paradox of face masks.

Undoubtedly, masks are beneficial in hurrying us towards the end of the COVID-19 pandemic. The liberal within me has studied up on the perks.

Results proved that wearing a surgical mask significantly reduced the total amount of respiratory droplets and aerosols emitted by each person. Simply speaking, face coverings aid us in limiting the spread of a virus. by two full percentage points.

Health Affairs recently published a study documenting the COVID-19 growth rate before and after mask mandates were established in 15 states and the District of Columbia. The findings proved that masks significantly contributed to a drop-off in the daily growth rate of COVID-19. This decline in case numbers became more evident as time went on. Five days after the mandate was instated, the growth rate of daily cases slowed by an average of 0.9 percentage points throughout all states. Three weeks into the mandate, the growth rate slowed

Data analysis has shown that medical waste will inevitably reverse the world’s drive to reduce plastic pollution. 18

WU Political Review

Another source of evidence comes from a laboratory study of respiratory droplets at the University of California, San Francisco. The goal of the study was to test the efficacy of different masks in blocking the droplets. One experiment, which used high speed video analysis, found that droplets ranging from 20-500 micrometers were created when speaking plainly. Essentially all of the droplets were blocked when one’s mouth was covered by a damp washcloth. Simply speaking, face coverings aid us in limiting the spread of a virus. I’m unquestionably loyal to the science behind masks. I’ve even come to enjoy the small victories that emerge from their presence, such as hiding my acne or matching them to a killer outfit. Yet, when I see a mask on the ground, my left-leaning environmentalist identity vanishes. The notion of picking up something that has held a place on someone else’s face, collecting

their germs for countless hours, makes me rather squeamish. This view of mine seems to be shared by numerous other people across the globe. According to National Geographic, the COVID-19 pandemic has created mass amounts of medical waste. It is estimated that around 65 million gloves and 129 billion face masks are used a month. One study reports that 3.4 billion face shields or masks are thrown out every day. The pandemic has also seen an immense increase in disposable packaging. People have bought much more takeout food and, in conjunction with that, bans on single-use plastics have been suspended due to fears that reusables would continue the spread of COVID-19. While disposable due to their limited life-span, this personal protective equipment (PPE) does not truly disappear at the end of each work day. Data analysis has shown that medical waste will inevitably reverse the world’s drive to reduce plastic pollution; the amount of plastic waste accumulating in the oceans is forecast to triple in the next 20 years. This will only be exacerbated by the PPE of the pandemic. We are already

These days, aiding those around you is not limited to just wearing your mask — it is equally imperative to reduce the burden of plastic for our environment.

beginning to see some of the effects: single-use plastics (such as masks, gloves, bottles of sanitizers, etc) have been added into the terrestrial environment and are washing up on coastlines. This leads me to the nature of the paradox. Masks are clearly helpful in containing the spread of COVID-19, which keeps people healthy and saves lives. That said, masks are assuredly harmful to the environment. The adverse effects they cause will inevitably assist in bringing destruction in the long term. Just one example of that is the incorrect disposal of untreated PPE materials in landfills. This can lead to contamination of drinking, surface and ground waters in the event that landfills are not properly constructed.

It’s the ultimate contradiction. How can one choose between devastation now or devastation later? In a limited fashion, there are ways to curb the amount of medical waste we produce while still utilizing masks. When possible, choose to purchase and wear reusable cloth masks. If you’re really crafty, you can even take scraps of fabric to piece together a face covering on your own. Understanding that it is sometimes impossible to avoid the usage of the reusable face mask, though, remember to put them in the proper trash receptacle upon final use.

plenty of opportunities for us to support both our communities and one another. These days, aiding those around you is not limited to just wearing your mask — it is equally imperative to reduce the burden of plastic on our environment. Be smart, wear your mask, and embrace the paradox. Only through acceptance of this contradiction will we be able to make true, lasting change in our society. Marlee Fradkin ‘24 studies in the College of Arts & Sciences. She can be reached at marleefradkin@ wustl.edu.

The COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated many societal issues over the last year and a half. With that, though, it has provided

Green

Artwork by Shonali Palacios, Design Lead

20 WU Political Review

Green-Washing Colonialism Arte Romero y Carver

oe Biden’s website defines him as a “climate change pioneer.” I assume the staff who wrote that copy meant it in the sense that he is pioneering new ways of combating climate change, rather than the more literal translation that he is bravely leading us into new frontiers of environmental crisis. It is 2020, and the latest DNC Conference is virtual. New Mexico Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham gives her speech in front of a greenscreened solar field. While wearing a pin adorned with the Zia symbol, a sacred design illegally stolen from the Zuni Tribe, Governor Grisham tells us that under Mr. Biden the United States will “once again lead” on the issue of climate change. Since at least the 1990s, the U.S. has always led globally in per capita CO2 emissions, regardless of its president. It is September 15, 2021, and Mr. Biden, now President, travels to Colorado to give a speech. He stands in front of a real solar field, or at least he has access to better green screen technology. His country has been experiencing a predicted wave of catastrophe. “Communities that nearly one in three Americans call home have been struck by weather disasters in just the past few months: Hurricanes in the Gulf Coast are up ... wildfires threatening throughout the West.” He punctuates his grief with a price tag. “In addition to the lost lives, lives shattered, extreme weather cost America, last year, $99 billion.” It is 1781, and the 'American' colonists have essentially won their independence from Europe. Soon a ragtag gang of colonies will began calling themselves a nation. A mythos of liberty, freedom and exceptionalism is being built,

A mythos of liberty, freedom and exceptionalism is being built, alongside the embryo of an empire.

Joe Biden has failed to comment on the pipeline. Maybe we shouldn't expect him to. alongside the embryo of an empire. The newly named Americans, like their British mentors, seek power through expansion. They will set the process of colonization loose until it reaches the continent’s opposite shore. That expansion will only be possible because of two concurrent and currently ongoing genocides: The removal and culling of the continent’s indigenous peoples, and the trafficking and exploitation of enslaved African peoples. As Americans leak out of the East Coast, they find valuable natural resources. Their primary value system is capitalism, which judges the success of a society or individual by their generation of wealth. It turns out that the extraction and depletion of natural resources is a very effective way to generate new wealth. Eventually, that logic is applied to the oil and coal deposits found underneath stolen land. While producing new wealth for a small group of people, (what capitalists refer to as success) that extraction, depletion, and associated burning of fossil fuels begins to change Earth’s atmosphere to the point that it may eventually not support humans, a category that includes Americans.

most impacted by the climate and economic crises” — quite the click. She does not specify which communities are most “impacted.” Those communities are the same two populations I mentioned earlier as targeted by genocide. The costs of extraction, which include increases in cancer, stillbirths, and earthquakes, are aimed at Black and brown neighborhoods. Also notably, Parkash’s request does not mention fossil fuels emissions, the primary cause of the climate crisis. A recent version of the infrastructure bill, released by the house, does not include any tax on carbon emissions. On the Senate side, most of the emissions reduction language will be written by Senator Manchin (D-WV), a man who appears to seek the slow death of all his constituents. In her speech, Governor Grisham mentioned the “clean energy revolution our young people are crying out for.” In Louisiana, I imagine that people of all ages cried out when hurricane Ida landed. Last year, Texans must have cried out when their grid system collapsed. In the path of the Line 3 pipeline, when members of the Hubbard County Sheriff’s Department employed pain compliance tactics, I assume protesters cried out. Joe Biden has not commented on the pipeline. Maybe we shouldn’t expect him to. We are crying out to the leader of a settler state, characterized by its exploitation of both land and people. We are crying out to a “pioneer.” Arte Romero y Carver ‘25 studies in the Beyond Boundaries Program as a student in the College of Arts & Sciences. She can be reached at a.romeroy-

Now it is September 24, 2021, and we are all waiting for the United States Congress, the legislative authority established by those early settler colonialists, to potentially pass what is being referred to as the infrastructure bill. More specifically, we wait to see if these new spending laws will mitigate our current era of mass death. In a mass email sent out on August 16, 2021, Varshini Parkash, co-founder of the Sunrise Movement, asks the NGO’s supporters to “Click here to demand that your representatives fight for an infrastructure bill that meets the scale of the climate crisis, creates millions of good, union jobs, and directs money to communities

carver@wustl.edu.

Green

The Green Party’s Struggle in a Two-Party System Jaden Lanza, Editor-in-Chief

majority of Americans believe a strong third party in the United States is needed. Almost two-thirds of Americans say the federal government isn’t doing enough to combat climate change. And yet, the premier political party who advocates for the boldest proposals on addressing environmental concerns, the Green Party, wasn't able to scrape half of a percent of the popular vote in the 2020 presidential election. The disappointing results for the Green Party wasn’t from lack of trying. In 2016, Green Party nominee Jill Stein received barely over 1% of all voters, far short of the 5% goal that would secure the party public financing. In a country with widespread consensus that more must be done to combat climate change, why is the Green Party not more popular? Why do they consistently get less votes than the Libertarian Party, whose solution to every issue is almost exclusively deregulation? In the U.S., elections take place in a plurality voting system, meaning whichever candidate gets the most votes will win. For this reason and various others, the political system has devolved into two main parties possessing the majority of power. Although there is occasional upheaval, the Democratic and Republican parties have dominated American elections for over a century. While the Green Party platform is ambitious and urgently germane to the crises facing the country today, the third-party approach appears poorly suited to the structure of the US political system. At least, if their only goal is to win elected office. Given how limited third parties are in the twoparty system, how else can those who desire major change pursue their objectives? In modern politics, the prestige of the two major parties combined with record levels of polarization make it nearly impossible for a third party to replace either the Democrats or Republicans. So, that leaves two options: A) change one of the

22 WU Political Review

Very rarely do Democratic supporters and sympathizers reflect on the responsibility of the Democratic Party itself for its failure to win over third-party voters. parties from the inside and compel it adopt your views, or B) organize a third party that puts pressure on the larger parties. There are a few recent examples of option A that had varying success. Bernie Sanders’ as well as other democratic socialist politicians have arguably put pressure on the Democratic Party to adopt more left-leaning views. Likewise, the Tea Party movement on the right had a significant effect on the Republican Party. While it’s a worthwhile effort, there are real disadvantages to this strategy — fighting a party establishment on their home turf might not provide a fair playing field. Alternatively, the Green Party exemplifies option B. Running on strong left-wing policies, the Green Party could pose a threat to the more moderate Democratic Party. If Green Party politicians could gain popularity and mount a serious challenge to Democrats, then that might pressure leadership to adopt greater concessions in order to win over Green voters. Unfortunately, voters have not been keen on challenging either major party in the last several election cycles. Due to fears of helping Donald Trump’s re-election, the media and intellectual class repeatedly stressed the “dangers” of running third parties, which somehow automatically

helps the cause of the greater evil. Very rarely do Democratic supporters and sympathizers reflect on the responsibility of the Democratic Party itself for its failure to win over third-party voters. Frequent vitriol is leveled at Ralph Nader and Jill Stein, Green Party candidates in 2000 and 2016 respectively, for their ostensible culpability in Al Gore and Hillary Clinton’s defeats. But what they’re accused of is the crime of merely daring to challenge the two-party system — to participate in the democratic process outside the grip of powerful political machines. The reason to vote Green is not to get their candidate elected president, which will not realistically happen anytime soon. The goal is to effectuate option B. Challenging power from the outside, a smaller movement like the Greens Party might be able to exercise sufficient influence over the Democratic Party to force larger policy changes. This can’t be done unless the Green Party is a genuine threat to the Democrats’ political fortunes. That endeavor necessarily involves risk, and it must sometimes involve actually costing Democrats elections. Without risk, the threat has no teeth. Within the current culture and voting system, third parties can’t survive. The Green Party will be forgotten unless the public and media finally begin to take them (and all third parties) seriously. As a matter of ethics and strategy, perhaps voters should consider rebuking the major two parties. Strategically, there are good reasons for those who opposed Trump’s presidency to vote for Biden, sure. But how much longer can we afford lesser evilism in a world falling apart with increasing rapidity? Jaden Lanza ‘23 studies in the College of Arts Sciences. He can be reached at jadenlanza@wustl. edu.

Artwork by Eric Kim, Design Lead

Green

P Politics Through Green-Colored Glasses

olitics through green-colored glasses grants political legitimacy based upon leaders’ ability to ensure social balance and human security within the ecological limits of Earth. Transitioning from our carbon civilization to one harmonious with our planet is the challenge of the 21st century, a challenge that must be met with a political-economic system capable of solving it.

Julian McCall, Features Editor "Google Earth" (artwork) by Merry May Ma, Staff Artist

Revolutionizing our global political structure is necessary to avoid climate failure. Tethering political legitimacy to economic growth and protecting the interests of the economic elite disincentivizes pursuing radical change at precisely the moment we must take grand — and expensive — action to prevent the worst effects of climate change and adapt to the ones we’re

experiencing now. Our current political economy isn’t structured to promote such aggressive climate action. Therefore, we must adopt alternative systems that do allow for the green transition. Currently, our political structures are premised on the idea that the individual pursuit of wealth is the best thing for society. Considering the world in which capitalism developed — where 81% of the global population were impoverished in 1800 — this perspective can be understood. Putting food on the table and a roof overhead was the primary challenge. However, today we have largely solved this problem. Though billions continue to struggle for these human necessities, this is due to our inequitable distribution of resources rather than an inability to provide food and housing for all. Now, our challenge is to sustainably live within the limits of Earth. We cannot find adequate solutions within a system that holds perpetual economic growth — a myth of a bygone era and irreconcilable with ecological stability — as a foundational belief. Every political system has trade-offs. While capitalism has helped humankind live in better material conditions today than at any point in the past, this is not a neutral position. For example, we accept a certain degree of homelessness, unemployment, and underemployment. Our cheap consumer goods support a global system of worker exploitation, and in exchange for economic growth, we allow a handful of individuals to have more wealth than 4.6 billion people. Our planet is the biggest casualty — as the absurd amount of biodiversity loss over the past two centuries, the dirty air we breathe and water we drink,

Revolutionizing our global political structure is necessary to avoid climate failure.

We forfeited the right to a gradual transition with our decades of climate inaction. Yet, that’s exactly what our political leaders are attempting to enact now. and the plastic swimming in the ocean attest to. Doughnut economics offers an opportunity to stake political legitimacy outside growth. Developed by economist Kate Raworth, this model develops a baseline amount of human prosperity — such as adequate basic survival needs and social equity — with a ceiling of environmental impacts. Within this system, leaders would be judged by their ability to balance these two interests — to stay inside the doughnut. We must transition. There’s simply no other option. Already, we are experiencing the first glimpses of what a rapidly warming world entails. If the climate crises occurring in developing countries, such as the famine in Madagascar or the rising sea levels threatening island states like Micronesia, aren’t enough to motivate aggressive action, then this past summer of flooded German towns and burnt resort towns in Utah should illustrate the future of our world. The warmer we make Earth, the more severe the ramifications. We forfeited the right to a gradual transition with our decades of climate inaction. Yet, that’s exactly what our political leaders are attempting to enact now. With current international pledge targets, we’ll likely reach nearly 2.5 °C above pre-industrial levels by the end of the century. Our current system encourages each country to develop its own goals, but this must be a worldwide green transition. We must reduce emissions and help people

everywhere prepare for the rising sea levels, droughts, floods, crop failures, and other challenges of a warming climate. This must be global, especially considering that areas least responsible for climate change, such as East Africa and island nations like Micronesia, are already struggling with the effects of climate change. Industrialized countries that burned their way to wealth are responsible for helping the world's vulnerable adapt. Climate change is a fundamentally different challenge than any we’ve faced before. We have limited ability to project what climate conditions will look like in 2050, and even less ability to comprehend the severity of our situation. Our language reflects this. For example, we still say, “Summer 2021 was the hottest in U.S. history,” rather than “Summer 2021 was the hottest in U.S. history, but will likely be one of the cooler ones of the century.” “We cannot solve problems with the same thinking we used when we created them.” - Albert Einstein Einstein’s statement is a solemn reminder of the revolutionary change in thinking we must embrace to survive and thrive in the warmer world our carbon civilization is creating. We must actively pursue this change — passively assuming everything will be okay without action is a grave risk to us and unforgivable for our descendants. Julian McCall ‘23 studies in the College of Arts & Sciences. He can be reached at j.c.mccall@wustl.edu.

The Lingering Stain of Toxic Fashion Lea Despotis Artwork by Lea Despotis, Design Lead

massing over 15 million followers on Instagram and ranking thirteenth on the list of highest traffic sites, Pretty Little Thing (PTL) flaunts the trendiest fashion finds with breathlessly low price tags. For some, it’s a glistening goldmine — a swift and additive click away from gratifying our fetish for abundant, cheap, and to-the-minute looks. But each clothing piece carries a more costly price tag buried in fine print: “WARNING: Some products…may contain chemicals that are known to the State of California to cause cancer and birth defects or other reproductive harm.” Forced into complying with a 30-year-old California law named the Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, PLT coughed up their ugly little secret: toxic chemicals coat their garments, with carcinogens, hormone disruptors, and agents linked to birth defects. Yet the disclaimer is merely courtesy of the legal system’s fight for transparency rather than a call to action. Undeterred, PLT continues to churn out millions of toxin-laden garments in a race to fill the shelves. And they are just one of a host of other fashion giants cashing in on dubious quality goods. Like PLT, the Chinese mammoth SHEIN discloses a warning tag, launching 500 new designs daily to its 7 million monthly users. The result? Fast fashion on steroids — often riddled with compromising ambitions. Over the last two decades, the fashion industry felt a seismic shift, driving brick-and-mortar stores like Forever 21 to bankruptcy and rendering token favorites obsolete. Zara’s novel dictum of spending no more than 15 days from the design table to the racks has been replicated at record speed, with online vendors such as SHEIN, Fashion Nova, ASOS, and Missguided trailblazing the retail trade. Feeding off the rich pool of TikTokers, Instagram models, YouTubers, and celebrities, media platforms fuel a breeding ground for gross excess. With people consuming 400% more clothing

26 WU Political Review

than 20 years ago and disposing of them prematurely, the new paradigm of buying cheaply and wearing seldom leads to unscrutinized corporate practices. Placing people as mannequins for their wares, the broadening apparel market is blinded to the peril of its produce, with a few bad apples in the mix.

mask dangerous compounds lurking in the finishing process. Perhaps the most troubling additive that prevents stains and wrinkles graces us with a fresh clothing aroma is formaldehyde, a chemical banned in Europe but pervasive in the U.S. that is flagged as cancer-causing, according to the National Cancer Institute.

A 2011 Greenpeace study from accredited labs worldwide was among the first to implicate retailers for racking up high levels of toxicity from hazardous chemicals in 63% of the items tested. Even high-tiered brands sport low-level ethics. Articles from Zara, Gap, Calvin Klein, Victoria’s Secret, and other respectable labels contained traces of toxic phthalates, cancer-causing amines in AZO dyes, and nonylphenol ethoxylates (NPEs) associated with reproductive harm and endocrine disruption.

In a mere 26 seconds, 60% of chemicals touching the skin seep into our bloodstream — a natural process called dermal absorption. As the skin works to shed impurities, synthetic materials suffocate the dermis, accelerating the absorption of a cocktail of toxins. A study published in the Environmental Health Insights journal suggests a link in dermal chemical exposure on clothing to sweeping health complications, including cancer, neurotoxicity, and liver, kidney, and lung disorders.

The buzzwords we expect from our fabrics — wrinkle-free, stain-proof, water-resistant — often

Once bleached, dyed, washed, and printed, an estimated 8,000 different chemicals are wrung into the lines of fabric. Even laundering fails to

purge the gnarly culprits, as scientists caution that severe health maladies like endocrine disruptions develop from toxic accumulation over time. Widely-used carcinogens perfluorochemicals (PFCs) and flame retardants accrue in the bloodstream and manage to insidiously flow into our closets. It seems that today’s hottest styles and colors forecast tomorrow’s problems. To spark a clean revolution, Greenpeace spearheaded a Detox campaign and prodded major retailers to commit to a “zero discharge of all hazardous chemicals” benchmark by 2020. H&M, Zara, Nike, C&A, Benetton, Marks & Spencer, and others have sought to make amends, pioneering the way for brands to adopt more ethical forms of chemical management. Yet moderate success prompted a pause in the Detox campaign as of 2019 — even though half of the 250 largest global brands lack a Restricted Substance List to monitor chemical usage and only about a fourth have voiced a commitment toward ridding harmful toxins out of their supply chain, according to the 2019 The Fashion Transparency Index. The $3 tops and $10 maxi dresses flooding today’s hyper-saturated market forebode an even heftier chemical footprint. With neither public disclosure of sourcing policies nor documented use of chemicals, the latest players in the ultrafast fashion game leave us in the dark about the most vital step toward progress: transparency. Despite the airbrushed façade of its flashy webpage, SHEIN is veiled in complete mystery, without a phone number, email, press contact, or even the founder’s name accessible online. Regrettably, one can hardly expect chemical disclosure anytime soon. As global consumption reaches 62 million tons of apparel yearly and is expected to rise to 102 million tons by 2030, it’s not a stretch to say that fast fashion can deploy weapons of mass destruction if left to its own devices. From the top down, the intricate web of the international fashion supply chain paints a murky picture, mired in cryptic practices with untraceable roots. Loose restrictions, cheap labor, and tax breaks in developing countries incentivize overseas manufacturing with minimal supervision under the auspices of big-name brands. Boxes are landing on our doorstep faster than ever, yet no one seems to demand a toxicology report. Such a notion is a radical suggestion since those at the top fail to provide ample consumer protections.

While the pharmaceutical and food trades entrust the USDA and FDA as unifying regulators, the outdated but recently amended Toxic Substance Control Act of 1976 lacks federal enforcement. Responsibility often falls to the states, yielding inconsistencies and varying standards. To put it in perspective, the European Union bans 33 chemicals in clothing manufacturing, yet the U.S. federal government formally restricts only two: lead and phthalates in children’s items (although states like California follow a stricter threshold). From the assembly line to the runaways, toxins disperse much like fashion trends themselves — without our awareness or control. From the environmental scourge to the devastating human toll of questionable labor practices, fast fashion tarnishes all in its grip. Although it may take years to unravel the consequences of

our insatiable consumption, it is time to cleanse the spokes of a broken system before falling victim to clothing catastrophes. As two hundred corporations across multiple industries have pledged for “Net-zero" emissions by 2040, it is well overdue for apparel manufacturers to likewise forge that environmental commitment and also press for the elimination of chemicals that poison our wardrobes. Private sector accountability motivated by governmental oversight and reformed policies would open endless possibilities to better safeguard the workers, the corporations, and the consumer. As good stewards of our bodies and the planet, our purchasing power speaks volumes. Go green this season — it’s a good color on you! Lea Despotis ’24 studies in the College of Arts & Sciences. She can be reached at d.lea@wustl.edu.

Green

Artwork by AJ Schwartz

28 WU Political Review

Actors Turned Politicians: Common or Anomalies? Lydia Sidrys Artwork by Leslie Liu, Design Lead

rom Donald Trump to Kanye West, it seems like many celebrities are choosing to step into the political arena these days. While the recent trend of many celebrities and television stars entering politics may seem new and even slightly disconcerting, it is more common than one would expect. In American and global history, celebrities taking on leadership positions in government has not been a radical idea, nor even one that is particularly unusual. Celebrities, due to the nature of their position, have always had influence in politics. Celebrities naturally have a platform of followers and people who support them, and by having a following of this nature, celebrities are in a way leaders of their own constituencies. It’s easy then, to extend that support to politics. Andrew Jackson originally became famous as a general in the army and being relatively famous gave Jackson an advantage in the election, propelling him to political success. So, the idea of a celebrity becoming a politician or even president isn’t necessarily new, but it does seem that there are many more recent examples of this phenomenon Particularly in the United States, there seem to be countless examples of celebrities seeking public office. One of the most obvious is Ronald Reagan, who was a Hollywood movie actor and union leader before becoming the governor of California from 1967-1975, and president from 1981-1989. Reagan, however, did not make the jump straight from being an actor to being president, but rather took a few positions between, including serving as president of the Screen Actors Guild and governor of California. This political experience likely provided Reagan with practical skills for being able to govern. Donald Trump is perhaps the first individual one thinks of when they think of a celebrity turned politician. Prior to becoming president, Trump was the co-producer and host of the reality TV shows The Apprentice and The Celebrity

Apprentice. While he had not held political office prior to the presidency, Trump had been loosely involved in politics for many years. He’s published many political advertisements dating back to 1987 and launched his first presidential campaign in 2000. Trump also criticized former President Barack Obama while he was in office and even discussed running against him. However, Trump didn’t run for office until 2016, and after his subsequent victory served as President of the United States from 2017-2021. What is significant about Trump’s ascendancy to the presidency in terms of his celebrity status is that he did not hold political office prior to 2016, unlike Reagan, who had practical experience in the political world prior to being elected. This raises the question of what the standard for celebrities turned politicians is in terms of qualifications. The concept of celebrities becoming politicians is not solely an American one. Volodymyr Zelensky was a comedian and actor, performing the role president on a TV show, prior to being elected president of Ukraine. Zelensky’s political party even has the same name as the television show in which he starred. In this case, Zelensky used his celebrity status to his advantage in his campaign and ascent to power. Rather than being seen as a weakness or distraction from the campaign, Zelensky used his presence on screen to his advantage. Celebrities becoming politicians has also been a common phenomenon in the Philippines, where the government is littered with celebrities and public personalities.

While it is not uncommon for celebrities to enter the world of politics, why would they choose to do so? Obviously, the answer to this question varies person by person, and there are a variety of reasons an individual could be tempted by the political spotlight. Since celebrities already have a following of people, it could be easier for them to succeed at politics because they already know how to speak to crowds, have strong name recognition, and are typically charismatic. Because the path to the presidency could be easier for celebrities due to these reasons, there could be more of a temptation for these individuals to enter politics Celebrities are masterful at using the media to their advantage, and the media is more likely to follow a celebrity running for office than a non-celebrity, which is another advantage they have over non-celebrities. Ego could also play a role in this decision as well, as a common trope of celebrities is that they are egotistical, believing they can run for high public office even without adequate experience. With celebrity politicians being as common as they are, we must answer the question of who we want in our government. Do we want a charismatic, media-savvy celebrity, or would we rather have an experienced politician and policymaker? Lydia Sidrys ‘24 studies in the College of Arts & Sciences. She/They can be reached at lydiasidrys@ wustl.edu.

National

2022

Redistricting Overview Rishi Samarth, Staff Writer Graphics by Rishi Samarth

very ten years after the Decennial Census, congressional districts must be redrawn nationwide to account for population losses and gains across different parts of the country. As expected, states like Texas and Florida are growing in population, and have gained two and one congressional districts respectively, while states along the Rust Belt like Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and New York have each lost a congressional district due to their stagnating populations. The drawing of congressional districts in each state varies due to state laws, but most states have their elected legislatures and their governors draw new congressional maps. However, congressional maps can be drawn in a way that favors one political party. This process is called partisan gerrymandering, and it is currently legal barring any future federal legislation addressing the matter. Partisan gerrymandering is done by both political parties, but is more often undertaken by Republicans. Therefore in 2018, the national tipping point to win the House of Representatives was D+4, meaning that Democrats needed to win the popular vote by four points to have a majority in the House. Republican gerrymandering during the 2010 Census prevented Democrats from winning the House in 2012. Project

REDMAP was a project of the Republican State Legislature Committee in the 2010 election cycle to win over as many governorships and state legislatures as possible to draw very favorable maps for Republicans for the 2010 Redistricting Cycle. In a wave election, Republicans won state trifectas in most competitive states, drawing very favorable maps for the GOP. In 2012, as Obama won Michigan by nine points, he only won over five out of 14 congressional

districts. This gerrymander was done by packing all of the Democratic leaning voters in the Detroit area into four congressional districts, which Obama won by large margins. Another Democratic pack district was drawn in the tri-cities region, grabbing all the Democratic voters in Flint, Saginaw, and Bay City. Working class Democratic voters in rural areas were diluted with conservative Republican voters, allowing Romney to win nine congressional districts.

Vote Share in Michigan Congressional Districs in 2012 Presidential Election

Romney 50-80% Obama 50-60% Obama 60-70% Obama 80-90%

2012-2022 Tennessee Congressional Districts 7 safe Republican seats 2 safe Democratic seats

Potential 20222032 Tennessee Congressional Districts 8 safe Republican seats 1 safe Democratic seat These maps are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

In this upcoming redistricting cycle, Republicans have many opportunities to gerrymander out Democrats, but are not being as ruthless as they have been in the past. In Tennessee, Republicans can easily draw out Representative Jim Cooper by partitioning Democratic-voting Davidson County between multiple congressional districts, creating an 8R-1D map. Similarly in Georgia, a state Biden won, Republicans can combine the Democratic parts of swing districts GA-6 and GA-7 in the Atlanta suburbs to create one safe Democratic district and one safe Republican district, locking in a 9R-5D map for a decade. Biden got 53% of the vote in GA-6 and 51% of the vote in GA-7, but the Republican state legislature can draw a new congressional configuration that Biden won with 60% of the vote, and another republican seat that Trump got 60% of the vote in. This technique of making swing districts safe for one party is called “shoring up” and is very important for the redistricting calculus, as it prevents more seats from being lost during wave years. Shoring up incumbents is something Texas Republicans especially need to do. The Austin metropolitan area is currently split between seven congressional districts, and three of those Republican representatives,

Chip Roy, Michael McCaul, and John Carter, represent left-trending suburban seats that Trump only won by single digits. Texas Republicans will be forced to draw a safe Democratic seat in Austin to prevent surrounding congressional districts from being won by Democrats in a future wave. However, due to Republican gains in the Rio Grande Valley, Republicans can also draw a 70% Latino Republican seat in the Rio Grande Valley, converted the current Democratic leaning TX-34 to a likely Republican seat. In addition, they can add an exurban Dallas seat due to census growth, locking in a 25R-13D map from the current 23R-13D map. On the other hand, Democrats are starting to gerrymander their own states, keeping potential losses in redistricting lower than previously thought. In New York, new Governor Kathy Hochul and a supermajority Democratic legislature are planning to override the state’s bipartisan redistricting commission, potentially locking in a brutal 23D-3R map from the current 19D-8R map, potentially drawing out five Republican members of Congress. In Illinois, Democrats plan to draw a 14D-3R gerrymander from the current 13D-5R map. In New Mexico and Maryland, Democrats can draw out the lone Republicans in their delegations, Yvette Herrell and Andy

Harris, respectively. Similarly, Democratic governors in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania can veto any unfair maps drawn by the Republican legislature, preventing a repeat of what happened in 2010. In some states, Republicans appear to not be as strict with gerrymandering. In Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, and Missouri, Republicans can easily draw out Democratic representatives Frank Mvran, Sharice Davids, John Yarmuth, and Emmanuel Cleaver, but seemingly aren't. Republican incumbents in nearby districts do not want to risk taking in more liberal voters into their districts in fear of losing a primary due to these new voters. Congressional redistricting is an inherently partisan process that will determine the possibilities of control for the House of Representatives for the next decade. Rishi Samarth ‘23 studies in the College of Arts & Sciences. He can be reached at rishi.samarth@wustl. edu.

Why are Some Americans Still Not Vaccinated? Tyler Quigley Artwork by Jinny Park, Design Lead

iven that as of September 16th, 2021, 64.1% of Americans have received at least one dose of the COVID-19 vaccine and 54.7% are fully vaccinated, many people, including myself, are pondering one specific question: why is that number not higher? There are some obvious answers to that question that make the number of unvaccinated Americans appear more tolerable; for instance, a majority of the 48 million children under the age of 12 are still unvaccinated, as the vaccine was ineligible for those in that age group up until about a month ago. For other groups, the answer is not as clear nor as simple as to why they are unvaccinated. This article will attempt to pinpoint some of the major reasons why certain Americans are still unvaccinated and what can be done to try and remedy this issue. A common description given to people who are unvaccinated is that they are all unintelligent, uneducated simpletons who don’t understand why they need to get the vaccine. This grossly oversimplifies the issue, as it ignores two important concepts: first, that not all unvaccinated Americans are choosing to be unvaccinated and, second, that not all unvaccinated Americans who are choosing to be unvaccinated are doing it for completely illogical reasons. Analyzing these two concepts are important in order to understand the full picture as to why over one-third of Americans have not received the vaccine yet and further analysis can shed more light on how to fix this disparity. The first camp of people, those who are not choosing to be unvaccinated, can be defined as individuals who are physically unable to get the vaccine. Those who are “physically unable” usually fall into two camps: those who cannot reach a vaccine site to get the shot or those who, if given the shot, will have an adverse reaction to the vaccine itself. According to a July 2021 survey conducted by the Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI), out of Americans who are unvaccinated,

32 WU Political Review

11% stated that a critical reason for their unvaccinated status was their inability to find the time to get the vaccine and possibly deal with the side effects, while 10% stated that a critical reason was because of a pre-existing health condition. In both of these cases, blaming these individuals for not getting the vaccine would be the equivalent of blaming an individual for being allergic to something; it is out of their control to get the vaccine, as doing so would clearly make their lives more difficult. Unlike the first camp of people (those who were unvaccinated due to physical factors), people in the second camp do have the physical ability to acquire the vaccine and do not have a health condition that would make the vaccine dangerous to take. Instead, this camp contains Americans who, for a variety of ideological reasons and beliefs, have decided that the vaccine is dangerous for them to receive. For instance, take the views expressed by white evangelicals in a New York Times article written in April of 2020 where one woman wrote, “she did not need the vaccine because God designed the body to heal itself, if given the right nutrients,” and that “It would be God’s will if I am here or if I am not here.” Along with religious reasons, distrust in American

institutions has contributed to the number of unvaccinated Americans, as seen in a 2020 study conducted by the RAND corporation, where it showed that trust in the CDC dropped nearly 10% between May and October of 2020. For a third and final reason, some Americans just have a general distrust of vaccines, as a YouGov study conducted in May of 2021 found that 49% of those who are unwilling to get the vaccine believe that there is definitive proof that vaccines cause autism, something that has been vehemently disputed by dozens of reports. Given all of these reasons, as well as dozens of others, what can be done to remedy this problem of unvaccinated Americans? While each example has its own specific solutions, the most widespread and general solution to this problem is to reestablish the trust between the U.S. government and these groups. By building trust, providing resources, and fostering meaningful conversations with those who are physically unable or ideologically unwilling to receive the vaccine, we can, slowly but surely, solve the issue of American vaccination. Tyler Quigley ‘24 studies in the College of Arts & Sciences. He can be reached at q.tyler@wustl.edu.

Supreme Court Taking Another Look at Abortion Justin Rockaway

he recent signing of TX SB8, or the “Texas Heartbeat Act,” has garnered national media attention after the split-decision denial of the Supreme Court to grant an injunction that would block the enforcement of the controversial abortion bill. In essence, the act grants private citizens the right to file civil lawsuits against those “aiding or abetting” in providing an abortion with detectable fetal heartbeats under most circumstances. It also seeks to award a minimum of $10,000 in statutory damages as well as covering legal and court fees for those filing suit. Many see this as a roundabout way of ensuring the state can deny its enforcement of the law, which is often cited as a violation of the precedents set in the landmark case Roe v. Wade (1973) and Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992) decisions, which protect the constitutional right to privacy regarding abortion and the “undue burden” test. Shortly after bill’s passage, a class-action complaint was filed under the name Whole Woman’s Health v. Jackson, with Jackson and the several other defendants being members of Texas district courts and official boards of health. The complaint made its way to the Supreme Court, where a 5-4 majority of Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Coney Barrett decided against the plaintiffs, allowing the law to go into effect. This was not a surprising decision, as the current composition of the Court includes six justices who were nominated by Republican presidents, with the traditionally liberal Justices

This split now requires two traditionally conservative justices, rather than just Roberts, to switch their vote.

[The Texas Act] grants private citizens the right to file civil lawsuits against those "aiding or abetting" in providing an abortion. Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan being in the minority. The death of popular liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who had spearheaded several landmark civil rights decisions in her nearly 30 years on the Court, opened the door for then-President Trump to establish a conservative “supermajority” of six justices, including the often swing-voting Chief Justice Roberts. This split now requires two traditionally conservative justices, rather than just Roberts, to switch their vote in order for the liberal bloc to gain a majority. While this majority has, understandably, raised concern among many pro-choice groups who fear the potential of a repeal of the Roe v. Wade decision, the Court itself made it clear that the refusal to stop the Texas judiciary from hearing these civil suits was not a matter of constitutionality or legality. Instead, it is a more complex matter of litigation and enforcement stemming from the wording of the Act itself, which ensures that the Texas government is in no way directly capable of enforcing it. Since there had been no civil suits filed in the name of SB8 as of the filing of the complaint, the district judge and the rest of the defendants could successfully deny themselves as “enforcers” of the law, the constitutionality of which was not legally determinable at that point. Chief Justice Roberts, in his opinion released on the Court’s decision, makes clear that the Court can enjoin (or prohibit from enforcing the Act): “individuals tasked with enforcing laws, not the laws themselves”. The

Texas legislature drafted the law in such a way that there was no possibility of a preemptive injunction, and the Court would have to wait until an instance of its enforcement was available to be legally challenged. The only citizens who can file a civil suit under SB8 are: “Any person, other than an officer or employee of a state or local government entity in this state”. While many defenders of Roe v. Wade would have preferred the definitive support of the Supreme Court against the new Texas legislation, Chief Justice Roberts’ opinion ensures that the decision is in no way speaking to the constitutionality of the law, or the Court’s support thereof. The use of Texas’ private citizenry to enforce an otherwise highly controversial law is a relatively unprecedented occurrence and could be seen more in the future by state lawmaking bodies that wish to enact questionable laws free from judicial infringement. While the use of non-government enforcers is a short-term solution and in no way escapes the eventual question of constitutionality, it demonstrates the ability of smaller lawmaking bodies to (temporarily) circumvent federal supremacy. A Mississippi case from last year, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, also includes the question of a state law that places restriction on abortion availability. The Mississippian “Gestational Age Act," the law in question, was permanently prevented from enforcement by both district and appellate courts. This is a clearer matter of precedent, as the state government is directly responsible for enforcing the law and thus cannot protect itself from injunction or restraint at the federal level like the law in Texas. Justin Rockaway ‘25 studies in the College of Arts & Sciences. He can be reached at j.rockaway@wustl. edu.

National

Why Democrats Must Act on Infrastructure Josh DeLuca

n the never-ending chess match that is our current political environment, political actors have two modes: the pursuit of power and the exercise of power. While being in power is the ultimate goal, in many senses the pursuit of power is significantly easier. For those with political clout, expectations are high, and voters count on them to deliver tangible results; tolerance for excuses is understandably low. Right now, the Democratic Party finds itself in this desired, but demanding position of governing. Having delivered Democrats the White House and control of both chambers of Congress, voters rightly expect results. To be fair, Democrats already have one concrete victory in their column: passage of the American Rescue Plan, President Biden’s COVID-19 stimulus package. Though the importance of the stimulus should not be downplayed, holding it up as the sole legislative accomplishment of Democratic control and the Biden presidency will hardly suffice. Voters expect more. Democrats know this. President Biden knows this. Thus, for more than six months, congressional Democrats and Biden have expended a lot of time, energy, and political capital in trying to pass an infrastructure package. In theory, this should not be a huge lift: Not only do Democrats control both chambers of Congress, but many Republicans have indicated in the past that they support infrastructure spending. However, passing major congressional legislation is never this simple. Indeed, Democrats face two major challenges moving forward. The first challenge that Democrats must

Democrats cannot afford this. President Biden cannot afford this. 34 WU Political Review

While they’re all nominally members of the same party, getting these divergent politicians to agree on a unified piece of legislation is far from an easy task. navigate is the tenuous nature of their legislative majorities. In the House, while Democrats hold the majority, Speaker Pelosi can only afford to lose seven members in any potential party-line vote. In the Senate, the situation is even tighter. Because the chamber is split evenly between Democrats and Republicans, all 50 Senate Democrats must vote in favor of a bill in order for it to advance along party lines, with Vice President Harris breaking the tie. These narrow margins are exacerbated by the fact that the Democratic caucuses are far from monolithic groups. Indeed, Democrats in Congress range from self-proclaimed democratic socialists to a conservative senator from ruby-red West Virginia, a state that voted overwhelmingly for Donald Trump. While they’re all nominally members of the same party, getting these divergent politicians to agree on a unified piece of legislation is far from an easy task. You may be thinking, "but you said that Republicans also supported infrastructure. Can’t they pass a bipartisan bill?" Herein lies the second huge obstacle Democrats face: Democrats and Republicans define infrastructure differently. Republicans support infrastructure in the way it has traditionally been defined: building and fixing roads, bridges, airports, and other physical improvements. Democrats, too, support this “hard” infrastructure, but have also adopted a more expansive definition. Democrats’ “soft”

infrastructure would include a wide expansion of the social safety net to fund measures like universal pre-K, paid family leave, and expanded child tax credit. Needless to say, Republicans are not on board with these social programs. Given these complicated dynamics, Democratic leaders in Congress have proceeded on a “twotrack” path, seeking both a bipartisan “hard” infrastructure bill and a Democrats-only soft infrastructure bill. After months of negotiations, in August, the Senate passed a $1 trillion “hard” infrastructure bill in a bipartisan fashion with a remarkable 19 Republicans joining all 50 Democrats. In the weeks since, Democrats have been working to come to an agreement amongst themselves on the size and contents of their “soft” infrastructure bill. Here is where Democrats find themselves engaged in a high-stakes game of chicken. Conservative Democratic senators, whose votes are necessary for passage, have complained that the proposed $3.5 trillion in soft infrastructure spending is too steep of a price tag. Citing concerns over inflation and the national debt, they believe Congress should try to minimize expenditures, likely fearing political blowback from fiscally conservative constituents. Meanwhile, progressive Democrats in the House, who have championed many of the social programs included in the “soft” bill, feel that $3.5 trillion is already a compromise. Thus, they have maintained that they won’t vote for the “hard” infrastructure bill unless their “soft” bill passes the Senate. In support of these progressive members, Pelosi will not bring the “hard” bill up for a vote until the “soft” bill passes the Senate. So, where does this leave us? Well, if both sides of the Democratic Party—conservative senators and progressive House members—stick to their guns, both the “hard” and “soft” infrastructure bills could go up in flames. If Democrats cannot

unite and come to an agreement, infrastructure will not pass and a major portion of the Biden agenda will go unfulfilled. Not only would the American people be deprived of these bills’ substantive benefits, but it would be an embarrassing referendum on Democrats’ ability to govern. Democrats cannot afford this. President Biden cannot afford this. Undoubtedly, in the weeks to come, key Congressional Democrats will continue posturing on cable television and in the Op-Ed pages. However, at the end of the day, coming up empty is not a politically viable option. Democrats should be reminded of the fate suffered by their Republican colleagues in 2017. After years of campaigning to repeal and replace Obamacare, Republicans finally had their chance. With Donald Trump in the White House and control of both chambers of Congress, the Republicans were poised to make change. And yet despite unified control of government and years of campaigning, party infighting caused their repeal and replace efforts to fail. After that embarrassment, Republicans lost face with voters. If Democrats’ infrastructure efforts suffer a similar fate, Democrats' credibility on the campaign trail would take a serious hit. When you’re in power, voters expect results. Not only must Democrats pass this legislation, but they must do so quickly. Democratic Senator Joe Manchin recently said that there wasn’t an “urgency” to pass the infrastructure bills. With all due respect to Senator Manchin, he is incorrect. While Democrats control Congress today, they will not indefinitely. In fact, if history tells

However, at the end of the day, coming up empty is not a politically viable option.

Democrats have spent too much precious time and political capital only to fall short. us anything, it is highly likely that Democrats will lose at least their majority in the House, if not the Senate as well, in the 2022 midterm elections. Indeed, since 1934, the party that controlled the White House has lost House seats in all but three midterm elections. This is a lesson that President Biden knows well. After two years of unified Democratic control at the beginning of the Obama Administration, Obama lost the Democratic House majority in 2010, and never regained it for the remainder of his six years in office. If Democrats want to make their mark and deliver President Biden a signature legislative achievement, now is the time. Yes, there are significant differences in opinion between various members of the Democratic caucus. However, if some House or Senate Democrats think that the political costs of passing this legislation are too great, the costs of coming up empty are even greater. Democrats have spent too much precious time and political capital only to fall short. For the good of the Democratic Party, President Biden, and the American people, Democrats on Capitol Hill must unite to exercise their power, demonstrate their ability to govern, and pass the infrastructure bills. Democrats must get it done. President Biden must get it done. Josh DeLuca ‘23 studies in the College of Arts & Sciences. He can be reached at joshdeluca@wustl. edu.

National

Qatar: More Involved Than You Think Jordan Simmons

ugust 16, 2021. Hamid Karzai International Airport in Kabul, Afghanistan. Masses of people flood the airport’s only runway and Western officials scramble to get more planes to the airport of the fallen capital. In total, about 116,700 will end up being evacuated from Kabul; 58,000 of them will either stop in Doha, Qatar, on the way to another destination or be temporarily housed in the city. As the Western powers continue to thank Qatar for its vital role in the Afghanistan evacuation, the question arises: Why? Qatar is a country even smaller than Connecticut, albeit an extremely wealthy one. However, this country, which is rarely discussed when talking about Middle Eastern power dynamics, is seen as an essential partner to some of the world’s and region’s most powerful militaries. As the Taliban surrounded and retook Kabul, the United States, Japan, Germany, Italy, and other Western or Western-allied powers quietly relocated their Kabul-based embassies to Doha. There is much more to the situation than appears at first glance. Qatar is the site where rounds of U.S.-Taliban negotiations and other backdoor dealings took place throughout the duration of the U.S.’s stint in Afghanistan. This actually resulted in the signing of the Doha Accords, the quickly forgotten peace agreement signed between the U.S. and the Taliban in 2020. The country even facilitated many peace talks between the now failed U.S.-backed government of Afghanistan and the Taliban. Qatar’s capacity to function as the West’s needed connection to the Taliban is the result of years of carefully crafted diplomatic moves. It by no means is the only situation in which Qatar acts as an intermediary between two opposing powers, one usually being a Western-designated terrorist group. The country has time and time again acted as a mediator; Qatar has brokered ceasefires between Israel and Hamas, and has

36 WU Political Review

But why go to these lengths and spend this much money on diplomacy? In short, Qatar wants strategic autonomy from its historical patron, Saudi Arabia. additionally facilitated peace talks in Lebanon, Sudan, and Yemen. They have paid ransoms for Westerners kidnapped by terrorist groups in Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan, and have even arranged prisoner swaps between the West and Jabhat Al-Nursa, a pro-Assad, extremist group operating in Syria. Suffice to say, Qatar gets to call in many favors with Western-designated terrorist groups, working as a go-between for the warring groups and the West. Just how extensive is Qatar’s list of contacts? Quite extensive. It is alleged that the country has ties to the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, Hamas, the Taliban, Al-Qaeda, Jabhat Al-Nursa, and Somalia’s Al-Shabaab, and these are just the well-known and active groups. The country is able to curry favor with these groups by financing them, sending them weapons, and providing asylum to their leaders-in-exile. Under sporadic bouts of international pressure, Qatar has scaled back its open support for these groups and become a bit less forthcoming in its harboring of wanted figures. Of course, Qatar isn’t the only country in the region to have contacts with different extremist groups. Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Syria, Iran, and Bahrain all do the same. However, the country has done so with minimal blowback from the U.S.

In its war on terror, why wouldn’t the world’s dominant military power exert its massive amounts of pressure on the country? In short, Qatar is also an indispensable U.S. ally in its counter-terrorism efforts. It houses the U.S.’s Al-Udeid Air Base, the superpower’s largest base in the Middle-East, which provides shelter for 11,000 U.S. troops in a region where they aren’t generally welcome. For reference, the country that houses the next largest force of Americans in the region is Bahrain, with 2,000 troops, followed by Saudi Arabia with 300. Al-Udeid Air Base has been critical for the U.S. war capacity in the region, functioning as the regional headquarters of the U.S. Air Force Central Command, Combined Air and Space Operations Center (which oversees U.S. air power in 21 countries), and the 379th Air Expeditionary Wing. The base is also used for the assistance of US missions in the region, such as the rapid evacuation of civilians and military personnel from Afghanistan and as a launch point for bombing campaigns against Syria, ISIS, and the Taliban. In fact, Qatar has spent $1 billion on the construction and renovation of the base. Beyond housing U.S. troops, the country is even home to one of the few Turkish military bases in the region. It also houses the only official Israeli diplomatic presence in the Gulf and is home to the International Renewable Energy Agency, an agency used to track Iranian progress on its nuclear ambitions. But why go to these lengths and spend this much money on diplomacy? The answer is that Qatar wants strategic autonomy from its historical patron, Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia, like Qatar, has massive amounts of oil wealth and spends the third most in the world on its military, behind only China and the U.S. Following a 1992 border clash with the Saudis and a subsequent proxy war with them in Yemen in 1994, Qatar’s Sheikh decided to strengthen relations with Iran, against the wishes of the Saudis. Today, Qatar has good ties with Iran, the U.S., various terrorist groups in

the region, and has recently deepened bilateral relations with Turkey, as the country seeks to expand its influence in the region. This has been done much to the annoyance of the Saudis. In fact, the Yemeni Civil War was not the only war to see the two countries engage in proxy warfare. Throughout the Arab Spring, Qatar assisted many rebel and extremist groups that rose up against their country’s monarchy. Saudi Arabia, being a monarchy fearful of civilian revolt naturally backed the existing government structure, in direct opposition to Qatar. Qatar’s insubordination and continued support for rebel groups led to the now-failed 2017 GCC blockade. For almost four years, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, and Egypt waged a diplomatic, trade, and travel blockade on Qatar, closing both their borders and their airspace to it. Their official justification of the blockade, to stop Qatari support to extremist groups, was fictitious, as the Saudis and United Arab Emirates have connections to those same extremist groups.

The fact that the U.S. repeatedly tried to mediate the situation and eventually brokered their normalization deal, instead of backing the Saudi coalition is telling. the other Gulf countries. Earlier this year, the blockade was officially lifted with the country having fulfilled none of the 13 demands by the other Gulf nations. The fact that the U.S. repeatedly tried to mediate the situation and eventually brokered their normalization deal, instead of backing the Saudi coalition, is telling. The 4-year blockade seems to have little effect on Qatar.

The coalition’s demands were numerous, including: the closing of the influential Al Jazeera news station (a highly influential news organization, that has gained notoriety throughout the world which sometimes criticizes other Arab governments), downgrading diplomatic ties with Iran, closing a Turkish military base in country, and ending "interference" in other countries' internal affairs. We can see that this blockade was only meant to reign in Qatari foreign policy.

This conflict has shown the strategic autonomy Qatar has pursued so heavily coming to fruition. There is now little chance that they will change course in their diplomatic dealings. They are likely to continue pursuing this policy, which will lead them to continue to cultivate ties with Iran, Turkey, the U.S., and other terrorist groups. They will also continue to act as an intermediary between West and regional extremist groups. It is unlikely they will stop arming resistance and other extremist groups in the near future.

However, Qatar has weathered the storm thanks to its vast sovereign wealth fund (built off liquid natural gas revenue) and the ties it has cultivated with other powers. In light of the blockade, Iran and Erdogan’s Turkey, both regional rivals of Saudi Arabia, stepped in to tie Qatar’s economy closer to theirs through the form of generous financial assistance. Qatar performed joint military drills with the Iranian military and permitted Turkey to station troops in its country to spite

It is possible that the Qatari government will be blamed for the actions of the groups it supports. Qatar does not want the same international outrage and sanctions that Pakistan has had placed on it, as they would greatly damage its international reputation, both as a mediator and an ally of the West. The risk Qatar runs with their “iceberg strategy” is that the country could unintentionally find itself involved with other conflicts its patron groups are engaged in. Safely

playing ball on the side of conflicting powers only works while both sides have a vested interest in having your country on their side. If the larger powers are not constantly reminded why they need you, one will abandon you, leaving you to be swallowed up into the orbit of the other. I do not foresee this being an issue for Qatar, but as the U.S. shifts its long-term priorities to Asia, it might become more comfortable with the idea of further scrutinizing Qatar’s close ties to these Western-designated terrorist groups. Recently however, the U.S. has tended to shift resources in the Middle East towards countering Iranian influence, through Gulf Unity, while shifting resources away from its goal of combating terrorism. This is a large reason for why the country’s diplomats tried as hard as they did to put an end to the Saudi-led Gulf Blockade. Qatar has the green light to pursue its own policy and will continue being a quiet linchpin in the converging, and often clashing interests in the region. Qatar might even end up playing a mediating role between Saudi Arabia and Iran in their quiet cold war. Despite its tiny size, its massive wealth and careful use of diplomacy has let it punch far above its weight class and to guarantee its security. In an area rife with proxy conflicts, secret alliances, and backdoor deals, Qatar is arguably in the best position it can be. Jordan Simmons ‘24 studies in the College of Arts & Sciences. He can be reached at j.b.simmons@wustl. edu.

International

A Green China Emerges? Collin McGovern Artwork by Mingyi Suo

ecent international policy has witnessed the world’s major players toiling to implement renewable energy designed to safeguard against the environmental disasters that accompany rising temperatures. As democracies struggle to implement long-lasting reforms, the ever-authoritative CCP has seemingly thundered China towards climate oblivion, erecting scores of ozone-hungry factories across the mainland and in megacities. Beijing’s economic ambitions stretch far beyond its borders: Through the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), China has funneled billions of dollars into economic projects in developing countries throughout Asia and beyond. Although the traditional narrative characterizes China as a crude economic colossus hell-bent on growth over environmental security, recent movements suggest that Chinese policy may be evolving in a more sustainable direction. The BRI remains China’s capstone international program; by combining economic investment with foreign policy, Xi Jinping (China’s reigning general secretary) deftly fosters regional diplomacy and reaps the financial benefits of investing in rapidly developing markets. Internationalists ardently condemn the lack of environmental consciousness in BRI’s rapid investments, complaining that, by encouraging countries to embrace non-renewable energy sources like coal, China is gravely exacerbating climate change. An inspection of global energy investments by the Global Coal Finance Tracker (GCFT) reveals an evolving narrative, however. According to the GCFT, China accounts for merely 13% of financial investments in operational and under-development coal projects. Not only is China a small player in the contemporary coal-financing arena (Japan is close behind in several metrics), but extensively developed plans for new installations have been scrapped completely in favor of sustainable facilities. Recent transactions show that hydropower is overtaking coal and fossil fuels as Beijing’s preferred energy investment. Research by the Boston University’s Global Development

38 WU Political Review

Policy Center shows that hydropower accounted for nearly 70% of China’s green energy investments abroad during the 2015-2019 period. In fact, shares of sustainable energy sources (wind, solar, and hydropower) in Chinese investments nearly rivaled non-renewable resources like coal, gas, and oil. However, utilization of these energy sources is not decreasing; power output using non-renewable resources remains at a comparable level to a decade ago, and China’s deadline for going carbon-neutral in 2060 is looser than nations of comparable economic might. As China pivots towards sustainable foreign investments, its domestic policy reveals a style of forceful environmentalism. Air pollution haunts many of China’s megacities, a lingering malignancy of the mainland’s rapid economic growth during the late 20th and early 21st centuries. Domestic efforts to control smog have centered on a change in heating tactics, such as transitioning from coal to processed gas and administrative architecture designed to keep a closer eye on regions of high economic activity. Another consequence of China’s titanic productivity is copious amounts of trash, both industrial and personal. As elective waste-sorting efforts crumbled, Shanghai’s local government instituted mandatory waste-sorting policies in an effort to control street pollution and improve air quality. State coercion remains a staple of China’s domestic efforts to curb climate change and future-proof the economy. While free-market nations struggle to balance corporate interests with green politics, China can enforce environmental regulations on a massive scale.

crackdown on American-listed Chinese technology firms reveals. China isn’t just imposing restrictions on industry; government buildings and projects are increasingly being outfitted with solar panels and sustainable technology. In fact, efforts to implement photovoltaic science on a national scale have resulted in China becoming the world’s largest market for solar energy, in the process driving prices for solar panels down due to increased production throughout the mainland. This is a boon for many developing countries funded by the BRI, who often can’t afford to implement solar energy on a meaningful scale. While China’s green streak continues to mature into concrete policy, the question of motivation remains at the forefront of international observers. It’s more realistic to label Beijing’s environmentalist efforts an act of national security rather than a noble attempt at contributing to international problem-solving. Global warming threatens several of China’s national interests. Changing climates threaten to sow instability in investment-rich Africa and South America. Sea levels could disrupt the construction of China’s naval armada in the South China Sea. Inoperable harbors could disrupt global trade routes necessary to capitalize on the mainland’s production potential, and so on. For now, a green China remains an imposing economic adversary for many Western countries, but a less menacing agent to environmental welfare on the global stage. Collin McGovern ’24 studies in the College of Arts & Sciences. He can be reached at c.mcgovern@wustl. edu.

Beijing is no stranger to intervening when markets disobey its commandments, as the CCP’s

Social distancing doesn't mean we're not ad connected. WUPR invites you to write or illustrate in our next issue. To get involved visit wupr.org/contribute