Smart Ass Spring 2021

w The Smart Ass Volume XXII, Issue 2

Demonstrators carry signs in Lowell, Mass., during a vigil held Wednesday for the victims of the shooting spree in Atlanta.

PHOTO COURTESY OF ERIN CLARK | GETTY IMAGES

1

2

The Staff Cal Berkeley Democrats Board Elizabeth Grubb Sophie Morris Davina Srioudom Jenny Lee Siffat Kohli Meher Mann

President Finance Director Political Director Outreach Director Operations Director Editor-in-Chief

Sasha Hassan Ryan Liu Angelina Espinoza Elizabeth Bennett Hannah Chrostowski Mikayla Hubbard Riya Kamboj Aryan Deorah Caitlin Cotter Grace Rapaski Hannah Barahona Jackson Smith Raisah Khan Timothy Etter

Head of Design Assistant Editor Editor Editor Editor Editor Editor Staff Writer Staff Writer Staff Writer Staff Writer Staff Writer Staff Writer Staff Writer

If you are interested in contributing to The Smart Ass, email smartass@caldems.com The Smart Ass is sponsored by the Associated Students of the University of California. The opinions expressed herein belong to the writers themselves and are not necessarily the views of the editors, the ASUC, the University of California, or the Cal Berkeley Democrats.

COVER PHOTO BY HULL CIITY

3

Table of Contents 5

Editor’s Letter

6

A Call for Cross-Cultural Solidarity

10

Joe Biden, the next Greta Thunburg?

13

My Dear Democratic Diary

15

Republican House Freshman Tharjorie Maylor Shmeene Joins House Committees After Marjorie Taylor Greene’s Expulsion

17

A New Democratic Campaign Strategy: an End, not a Means

22

Georgia on Our Minds: Democrats’ Promising Future in the Deep South

24

Democratic Party Unity Under Biden: A Foolish Pursuit or a Reasonable Goal?

27

Positioning Biden’s America in a Post-Trump World

31

The Descent into Darkness Never Stopped

34

Positioning Biden’s America in a Post-Trump World

37

A Different 2016

40

DC and Me

4

Editor’s Letter

After last November’s presidential victory, people understandably breathed a sigh of relief.

Some felt that they could happily turn off the news and unplug from politics, no longer feeling responsible for keeping up with the latest Republican scandal or criticizing blatant political corruption on Twitter. Now, Biden’s America would herald in a new era of progress, and we could all move on with our lives. Unsurprisingly, that’s just not true.

Being truly progressive will always be an aspirational project that we have to constantly work towards. Progressive views can’t be static or unyielding to change—they have to perennially evolve in order to reflect society’s most urgent needs. Progress is not a given and it’s not linear. The passage of time does not equate to the betterment of our society, just like the removal of an ignorant and despotic president does not immediately solve our problems.

As students, we are in a unique position to mobilize our youthful idealism and spur progress.

We’re frequently told by older adults that our liberal convictions won’t last once we enter the “real world,” but that’s exactly what qualifies us to be at the forefront of progressive movements. We are equipped with relentless purpose and optimism, what some may consider a naive refusal to accept the status quo, and a bold willingness to take risks. We don’t need a dose of moral realism, we need a reminder of the power of student movements. Students at UC Berkeley don’t need to look further than the anti-apartheid movement which began on our campus in 1984 and resulted in the UC Regents divesting $3.1 billion from South Africa, the largest university divestment in the country.

Still, as UC Berkeley students, we can’t take our simple attendance at a university with a storied legacy of student activism to mean we are absolved of constantly reevaluating our prejudices and our long-held beliefs. Being a student in a politically charged environment like today’s requires us to remain open to changing our mind when presented with new information, to critically question the institutions that we benefit from, and to actively engage in grassroots politics that strengthens the communities we live in. National politics can be distracting and entertaining, but let’s not forget that student movements have been the most successful when they localized national issues. Antiwar protests were most effective not when students marched against U.S. involvement in Vietnam, but when they boycotted their campus ROTC chapters. Anti-apartheid campaigns were most effective not when students marched against the U.S. government’s support of racist policies in South Africa, but when they demanded their universities divest. Students have had success within the Black Lives Matter movement when they addressed incidents of police brutality and racism on their own campuses; for example, in 2015, protesters at the University of Missouri and Claremont McKenna College forced their president and dean, respectively, to resign over their mishandling of racist incidents.

Throughout this semester’s edition of The Smart Ass, you will find an array of perspectives on our new era of politics and perhaps an issue or two that you can localize on campus. There are those who remain skeptical about the future, and others who believe we can allow ourselves to be cautiously optimistic. Regardless of which camp you find yourself in, we can all agree that now is not the time for political apathy, and it is certainly not the time to become ambivalent towards progress.

This is my last semester as Editor of The Smart Ass and I would like to thank every staff member that has contributed to my wonderful experience at the helm of this magazine. While I feel bittersweet to be handing it off to the next year of writers, editors, and designers, I have full confidence that The Smart Ass will continue pushing the needle of progress at UC Berkeley.

Onwards and upwards,

Meher Mann

5

A Call for Cross-Cultural Solidarity

By Meher Mann Editor-in-Chief PHOTO COURTESY OF STRF

6

The surge in anti-Asian violence seen over the last year is a terrifying, but unsurprising development in what has been a long and untold history of Asian Americans. While Donald Trump’s inflammatory rhetoric during the pandemic certainly stoked the flames of racism, there is a far deeper and more structural pattern of racism that has inflicted Asian American communities since as early as the 19th century. Crucial to this history is the often strained dynamic between Asian and Black communities in the United States, one that has been repeatedly exploited in order to perpetuate a racist status quo that ultimately only benefits white Americans.

Anti-Asian racism in the United States can be traced back to nearly 150 years ago when Chinese immigrants first began moving to California during the Gold Rush. Chinese immigrants accepted half the pay given to White workers and did backbreaking and historically unrecognized work building the Transcontinental Railroad.

They were politically and economically disenfranchised through a series of Californian laws that prevented them from owning land, forced them to

“The model minority myth perpetuates the idea that there is a “good minority” and a “bad minority”; the “good minority” just so happens to align with standards of whiteness far more than the latter group.”

pay a “Foreign Miners Tax,” and barred Chinese American citizens from voting. Irish immigrants, feeling threatened and undercut by Asians who were willing to work for low wages, launched xenophobic attacks and labeled them a “yellow peril,” insinuating that Asians were unclean and carried exotic diseases. This sort of rhetoric spurred the passage of the Chinese Exclusion Act in 1882 and the Immigration Act of 1924—both of which directly targeted Asian immigration. It most resolutely culminated in the signing of Executive Order 9066 in 1942, which mandated the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II. During and after World War II, many Asian Amer-

7

icans grew concerned about growing racial animosity and began to assimilate to white standards in order to blend in. They developed a reputation for being reticent and hard working, which has resulted in the creation of certain “positive” stereotypes, which only serve to turn minority communities against each other. One such example is the model minority myth, which goes a little like this: despite racial prejudices, Asian Americans have maintained their two-parent family structures, placed enormous emphasis on hard work and education, and achieved great success in STEM fields and academia. If they can do it, why can’t the rest of the minorities?

For one, this myth is incredibly incorrect. By painting millions of Asian Americans with the broad brush of universal success, we ignore members of Southeast Asian American, Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islander communities who have not experienced the sort of socioeconomic success as East and South Asians. While Asian Americans are the wealthiest minority group in the United States, they also have the widest income gap of any racial group. This stereotype disregards the role that selective recruitment of highly educated East and South Asian immigrants plays in shaping the model minority narrative. And, it ignores the reality that Asian Americans were given few options other than to assimilate to white adjacency in hopes of securing a safe and stable life in the United States. Asian Americans are not a monolithic group, and it is dangerous to treat them as one. Regardless of the relative harmfulness of a stereotype, all stereotypes ultimately lend themselves to the “othering” of certain communities.

As Professor Catherine Choy from the UC Berkeley Ethnic Studies department puts it, “They are stereotypes of Asian Americans as either subhuman or superhuman, but never quite human, and certainly not American.”

At the root of such arguments is the idea that if the Asian minority could excel in the U.S., then there was no reason that other minorities, and particularly Black people, couldn’t excel too. This is a flawed comparison that seeks to generalize two completely different American experiences. We cannot falsely conflate anti-Asian racism with anti-Black racism; the discrimination faced

by Asians in the United States is different than the systematic dehumanization that Black people

Mattie Scott (center, left to right), founder and Executive Director of Healing 4 Our Families & Our Nation and Nancy Tung, public safety advocate, hold each other as they rally with demonstrators rallying in front of the Hall of Justice as they demand justice for Vicha Ratanapakdee on March 22 in San Francisco.

PHOTO COURTESY OF LEA SUZUKI | GETTY IMAGES

endured during slavery and continue to endure today. The model minority myth perpetuates the idea that there is a “good minority” and a “bad minority”; the “good minority” just so happens to align with standards of whiteness far more than the latter group. It was never meant to uplift Asian Americans, but rather, delegitimize the struggles of African Americans.

An interplay of white supremacy and capitalism lies at the root of many of these tensions between Asian and Black communities. This ideology is predicated on a racial hierarchy, in which one group must always be at the top, and another always at the bottom. In line with Western and Eurocentric standards, being white guarantees you the ability to sit atop America’s ruling class, while having darker skin often relegates you to the bottom of the hierarchy.

In this Black-white paradigm, Asian Americans have had to assimilate somewhere in between, buying into notions of racial hierarchies and white supremacy, and ultimately, internalizing racism

against their own communities. What this constructed hierarchy leaves out, however, is that no one except those at the very top win. Despite the relative success of many Asian Americans in the United States, they remain “forever foreigners’’ in the eyes of many. White people will prop up Asian Americans through the model minority myth only as long as it perpetuates the white supremacist hierarchy that keeps them in the ruling class. But, as soon as Asians are perceived as a threat—during economic recessions in the 19th century, during World War II, or now, during the pandemic—they are accused of harboring exotic diseases and become targets of racial violence.

Studies indicate that Black Americans feel a sense of economic competitions with new immigrant communities, many of whom first look for employment in economically disadvantaged areas. As a result of the aforementioned racial hierarchies, immigrants encounter a system that reserves the most coveted opportunities and resources for white Americans, culminating in zero-sum think-

8

ing for everyone else. This sense of economic competition among Black Americans often leads to anti-immigrant sentiment and racism.

We can observe similar patterns throughout history. Irish union workers in the late 19th century were pitted against Asian workers by their employers and politicians, who were concerned about the two groups joining forces in solidarity and presenting a more legitimate challenge to their status quo. When the United States ended the quota-based system of immigration in 1965, there was an influx of hyper-selected, highly educated and skilled Korean immigrants into the country. Upon arrival, they were unable to replicate their former socioeconomic statuses due to a number of racial barriers and discrimination. Left with few choices, many of them opened small businesses—which was often only feasible in economically disadvantaged and predominantly Black neighborhoods. During a time when it was nearly impossible for Black people to receive financing and loans for their own businesses, this understandably exacerbated bitterness between the two groups. Of course, the root cause of these tensions was not that Korean people were taking away financing from Black people—there was more than enough capital to go around. These problems stemmed from the racism that was embedded in our financial institutions, explicitly meant to prevent the upward mobility of those Black Americans.

Similarly, many communities suffering during the pandemic today have been manipulated into scapegoating Asian American communities by people such as Donald Trump, who has referred to Covid-19 as the “China virus” and the “KungFlu.” Instead of directing blame towards the government’s lack of preparedness, moral ineptitude, and inability to assist Americans who are struggling during the pandemic, our leaders would rather fall back on racial tropes.

As news and social media have circulated videos and stories about recent anti-Asian violence, much coverage has been given to the few attacks perpetrated by Black people, and the historic tensions between Asian and Black communities. It is more important now than ever to keep in mind that these tensions are the result of political, cultural, and economic structures entrenched in white supremacy, which seek to divide and conquer. This

surge in anti-Asian sentiment is not new. If anything, the unfamiliarity many have with the matter underscores how the model minority myth has kept this racist reality out of the public consciousness for so long. So, when we search for a quick answer that will explain why this violence is happening—the same way America quickly blamed Asians for the pandemic—many people’s first instinct will be to scapegoat Black people, or claim that these attacks weren’t racially motivated.

In light of last summer’s Black Lives Matter movement, there has been increased awareness

“What this constructed hierarchy leaves out, however, is that no one except those at the very top win.”

9

surrounding issues of racial violence, and I have been heartened to see displays of mutual support across Black and Asian communities. We must continue in the same vein of solidarity as we look for solutions to these extraordinarily nuanced issues. One such issue is safety: certain segments of the Asian community have called for increased police presence as a relatively straightforward solution to the violence they are facing, while Black activists have understandably disagreed.

The answers to our problems today do not have to draw upon existing structures that have been historically divisive and violent. Instead of adopting the same ineffective measures that we have for decades, we should look towards new grassroots systems that will alleviate inequality, open up economic opportunities and resources in an equitable way to historically disadvantaged racial groups, and continue to foster interracial relationships and solidarity movements. This pandemic, as cruel and unkind as it has been, has given us an opportunity to examine America’s history of systemic racism and injustice that has largely gone ignored. America’s future then, will hinge on how our communities—and all Americans—chose to close the fissures created by systems that have adversely affected us all.

Biden has already rejoined the Paris Climate Agreement, as well as ended the authorization for the Keystone XL Pipeline which had severe environmental consequences.

PHOTO COURTESY OF EVAN VUCCI | THE WASHINGTON POST

Joe Biden, the next Greta Thunburg?

Maybe not, but there is definitely potential.

By Caitlin Cotter Staff Writer Joe Biden is not - and has never been - a political figure known for his commitment to fighting climate change. Between seeking approval from both a more progressive, demanding generation and more moderate Democrats reliant on fossil fuels, he was forced into an unfortunate position that would influence his campaigning for the 2020

presidential election. His claims surrounding environmental policy were either considered not substantial enough to enforce climate regulations and promote a sustainable future, or too extreme for the moderate wing of the party. However, since the election, Biden has made promising steps towards a greener future, naming climate change as one of his main priorities. Even so, the amount of change that Biden will make as the current president is dependent on following through with said

10

campaign promises, as well as the intensity of his environmental policy and financial investment in climate relief. Biden must come down strong on energy regulation, fossil fuel reduction, and environmental justice in order to overturn the negative effects of the Trump era and create a greener future for the country.

Biden’s actual history with environmental affairs paints a different picture than the climate conscious candidate Biden portrayed himself to be during the 2020 election debates. In these de-

“Given this context, it is a fair assumption that his approach over the next four years could include the implementation of carbon emission reduction, but not the negation of the role of fossil fuels in the US—despite the desperate need for it.” bates, he referenced past actions with a 1986 climate change bill and the Paris Climate Agreement from the Obama administration. Even with these claims, it was questionable as to how involved Biden actually was with the implementation of events such as the Paris Agreement. Furthermore, he has historically been fairly moderate in his stance on climate issues. In 2014, Biden aided a financial package to Ukraine that ended up enabling their fossil fuel production rather than reducing their carbon emissions. These sorts of policies could indicate a middle-ground stance surrounding future environmental policy, especially as Biden strives to appease the fracking industry and has yet to call for its ban. Given this context, it is a fair assumption that his approach over the next four years could include the implementation of carbon emission reduction, but not the negation of the role of fossil fuels in the US— despite the desperate need for it.

Even so, this more moderate background will hopefully be a stark contrast to Biden’s future climate ambitions. His current plans include in-

vestment in clear energy, emissions reduction and regulation, and environmental justice, and he has come into the Oval Office seemingly prepared to combat one of the most pressing issues of our generation. He has already rejoined the Paris Climate Agreement, as well as ended the authorization for the Keystone XL Pipeline which had severe environmental consequences. Other progress includes the creation of the Civilian Climate Corps which provides job training for environmentally focused careers, a move applauded by climate groups.

Furthermore, he is formulating an administration that seems to have positive environmental implications. Biden’s more progressive choices for his cabinet in the environmental sector include Deb Haaland, the first Native American to serve in a cabinet position, who supports the Green New Deal among other anti-fossil fuel actions. He has also enlisted other climate-conscious officials in his administration such as John Kerry, who retains an effective environmental history and has ties to events like the Kigali Amendment, and Gina McCarthy, the previous EPA director who is supported by progressive groups such as the Sunrise Movement. Despite climate change leaders’ and activists’ initial skepticism surrounding Biden’s willingness to take tangible environmental action, his behavior so far has sent the message that Biden and his administration do consider climate change to be a major priority and they are prepared to create policy and push for investment that reflects its importance.

Given the urgency of the climate crisis, however, Biden needs to come down even stronger than he has thus far in the implementation of environmental policy and infrastructure investment. He can do this by focusing on emissions reduction and regulation, investing money into climate infrastructure, or even coming out to fully support the Green New Deal. Research has shown that revamping the electricity grid and investing in renewable energy, like solar pumps and electric vehicles will aid in Biden’s promise of net-zero emissions by 2050—which is feasible only if he is ambitious enough in his federal policy and state engagement, with short and long term emission reduction standards. He can also increase the standard for clean energy so there is less pollution in power plants and transportation. A tangible next step could be fully adopting the climate focused

11

The Green New Deal is a climate focused framework advocated for by popular progressives like Bernie Sanders and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. INDEPENDENT framework provided by the Green New Deal and idential plans in order to appease all Americans advocated for by popular progressives like Bernie during a polarized election, he can now take these Sanders and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. The steps without fear that his moderate supporters will jump ship. Adopting the Green New Deal could be crucial for the impact of his campaign “Even if Biden was previouspromises because it provides a legitimate envily hesitant to incorporate the ronmental framework and fully acknowledges the risks associated with climate change. It will also term “Green New Deal” into give Biden continued progressive support as he navigates the challenges of the negative environhis campaign promises and mental legacy left behind by the Trump adminispresidential plans in order to tration and an extremely split Congress limiting his executive authority. appease all Americans during a All things considered, this is only a fraction of polarized election, he can now what priorities Biden should consider when making the effort to pass climate change focused legistake these steps without fear lation and relief packages. There are so many more issues centered around climate change relief and that his moderate supporters how it affects different communities. Biden will make the most of his presidency if he pursues a will jump ship.” general baseline of improving pollution standards, investing in clean energy and a reduced emission Green New Deal includes the aforementioned economy, and focusing on environmental justice components, as well as incorporates other parts of for groups that are disproportionately affected by Biden’s stated plans of environmental justice and climate change. There is no time to waste. The the creation of green jobs. Even if Biden was pre- actions Biden takes now drastically change the fuviously hesitant to incorporate the term “Green ture of our world.

New Deal” into his campaign promises and pres-

12

SATIRE

My Dear Democratic Diary

By Hannah Barahona Staff Writer

Dear Diary,

As I lay here in my LuluLemon tracksuit, pondering today’s activities, I truly wonder how my bestie got through eight years of all this humbug. This FBI agent in my laptop is always monitoring me, so I’m using this vintage Lisa Frank notebook that Donald left behind. I am pretty sure it was his daily briefing notebook because the only things written on here were: (1) Yell you’re fired once a month, (2) Hair appointment, and (3) How to win an election. I wish you could see his search history! Now that’s a national security problem--who gave him access to the internet.

Biden drops his pen. As he turns his head up he sees wads of gum under his desk in the Oval office.

Ew! I just touched gum! Really Donald?! On the bottom of JFK’s desk...how can I get this man to stay away from national monuments. Can we also talk about Teddy’s mullet?! A riot was happening at the capitol, but Ted Cruz’s hair stylist chose violence with that mullet.

Anyways, I don’t understand why so many people are saying I am doing a bad job, I literally binged watched all of “West Wing” last night. I honestly don’t know how that man managed to be president, ha, couldn’t be me...oh wait.

Trump left me a letter as you know, diary. Verbatim, the letter said, “Boo, Poo-Poo face. P.S. I left some food on the counter for Mitch. He takes one vitamin a day and he likes belly rubs.” Well, at least we know that Mitch is in the worst shape that I am.

Anyway...Kamala is so annoying! She’s always quoting her favorite debate moments. There are only so many times that I can take “Mr. Vice President, I’m speaking--I’m speaking.” Kamala we are in a McDonald’s drive-thru! Jeez, I’d rather have Maya Rudolph as VP. Don’t get me started on “We did it Joe.” At this point, I simply don’t want to do it anymore. And her exercising at the Capitol steps…what a complete show off!

OMG, Justin Trudeau is texting me (what a dreamboat), let me text him back:

Sounds cool bro, brb, u kool wit new prez?

Ugh, Kamala texted me, apparently I have to do this other president thing. This president thing is hard, thanks Obama.

Love, JoJo (aka this is Joe Biden)

13

SATIRE

Dear Diary,

OMG! I found this Lisa Frank notebook in the bathroom, and this is some juicy stuff! Anyways, Joe really thinks he is slick with this diary, next time don’t write while on the toilet. Now, let me tell you the real tea about being VP, I am a #Girlboss, and I am killing it! Forreal, tell my assistant Trevor:

Kamala yells out the bathroom door for Trevor. “TREVOR! Am I a girl boss?” Trevor tiredly responds, “Yes, Madam Vice President Harris.”

He loves me--it may be because I hold the fate of his entire college career in my hands, but deep inside, you know he loves me. I am being told right now that apparently, Nancy Pelosi is cyberbullying Donald Trump through her….old MySpace profile? Jeez, Donnie, you really shouldn’t mess with Twitter trolls and 13 year old Tik Tokers, they will RUIN you. Speaking of Justin Trudeau, he is really angry that Jon Ossoff is taking his shine.. Are you serious? Looking at my agenda here, I am needed at the press room to give my opinion concerning the Senate debate on sanctions against the rioters caused by the former president. Oh, and apparently Marjorie Taylor Greene is requesting that we give tinfoil hats to those vaccinated and begin to name infants born after the founding fathers. I really don’t know, but I smell a crazy cat lady.

This whole place is a mess to be honest. When I walked into my Vice-Presidential office, it was just a creepy white room with padding and a USB charger port. I don’t know what kinda freaky stuff Mike Pence was doing in here, but the biggest travesty was that the charger wire was for an Android! And people think I’m bad. Well, with being America’s new fun aunt and all, I am always super duper busy!

Peace out, Kamala “The Bomb” Harris (P.S. GOP Senators, please don’t read into this nickname.)

14

SATIRE

Republican House Freshman Tharjorie Maylor Shmeene Joins House Committees After Marjorie Taylor Greene’s Expulsion

By Timothy Etter Staff Writer Marjorie Taylor Greene, an incendiary freshman member of the GOP caucus in the House of Representatives, was recently stripped of her committee assignments due to her extremist views and endorsement of conspiracy theories. In totally unrelated news, a freshman member of the GOP caucus named Tharjorie Maylor Shmeene has just joined these committees in the ensuing power vacuum.

In a recent press conference, Shmeene, sporting cartoonishly large glasses, an equally large, plastic looking nose, and a suspiciously thick mustache, was asked about her new committee assignments.

“I am eager to begin work in these committees and serve the people of Georgi- I mean, Blorgia!” said Shmeene, trying to push the glasses up her fiendishly large nose but missing and poking herself in the eye, as her glasses did not have lenses.

“Representative Greene, who is really cool and attractive, by the way, may have done some things wrong in her past, but let us put that behind us and focus on the real issues facing Americans, like taxes, the ballooning national deficit, and the fact that Biden and Trump swapped faces and Trump is actually the president and Biden is actually in prison. These are all important issues to me, and any coverage that distracts from how Trump will

be officially inaugurated in his new suit of flesh, complete with the physical characteristics of the former 46th president, is coverage that is separate from the most important interests of the American people.”

After a reporter brought up the claims from House Democrats who were skeptical that Shmeene was a real House freshman and instead a fake identity designed by Greene to evade the committee bans, Shmeene was taken aback. “This is a classic move by the left to paint the GOP as a dishonest party, and it is clearly not working. At least we are honest about being shitty, unlike the Demon Rats in Congress! There’s a long line of offenses they have committed, and they’re accusing me of impersonating someone else? That’s just outlandish! Sure, I may conveniently have to leave the room right before Representative Greene enters, just like Bruce Wayne mysteriously disappears whenever Batman shows up...wait, that’s the opposite of the point I want to make. Hmmm....”

Eventually, reporters finally got a chance to talk to Representative Greene after Shmeene left the room. When asked to comment on Democratic claims that Shmeene was not a real House freshman, Greene replied “You just asked me that- S***!

Nevermind.” At press time, Shmeene was promoted to ranking member of both her committees, and the Greene controversy was never spoken of again.

15

PHOTO COURTESY OF SOPA | ALAMY

16

A New Democ Campaign Stra an End, not a M PHOTO COURTESY OF EPA | INDEPENDENT

cratic ategy: Means

By Elizabeth Grubb Staff Writer & Cal Dems President I find myself more and more frustrated with the fact that campaigns are treated as a stepping stone to reform, rather than a mechanism of reform. The typical logic I hear from Democratic campaigns is: “We need to elect a Democrat then we push for reforms (that are long overdue).” Why not campaign in a way that actually produces material changes, regardless of the success of a candidate? Especially because the success of a candidate almost feels null at this point with the amount of partisan gridlock and Democratic moderate-pleasing tendencies.

Amidst the 2020 election cycle, I found myself searching for a topic for an independent research project. I was curious as to how we could increase low-income voter turnout—was there a technique that we hadn’t thought of yet? The answer was yes, but it wasn’t what I expected—I’ll get to that later. Academic and public policy research has produced many solutions to increasing low-income turnout.

These are virtually all structural solutions: move election day to the weekend, paid time off for voting, online voting, an election holiday, better civic education, among others. Undeniably, structural change is needed, however, the problem lies in the path to structural change. It is assumed that first you must campaign well, win the election, and then bring forth every single one of your campaign promises. Do this and society flourishes, right? Wrong. Politicians, once elected, rarely deliver on their campaign promises whether it is because of our political climate or other reasons. And so begins a

18

cycle of pouring our efforts into a campaign for its eventual promises and being let down.

A prime example of this is President Biden. Progressive Democrats were constantly reprimanded for criticizing Biden’s campaign before he was elected. Well, Biden’s first hundred days have raced past us and he has delivered on very few of his first 100 day promises, let alone his overarching campaign promises. Halfway through his first 100 days, PBS found that Biden had only delivered on 19 of his 61 promises. Of course, partisan gridlock is partly to blame. However, progress on some of the campaign promises most important to progressives—immigration and racial equity—have been painfully dismal. So now that we worked hard to elect President Biden, will we ever see these promises materialize?

Democrats -- why not enact desired reforms as you campaign?

Why wait till our candidate is in office when we know they are often unable to deliver campaign promises? Why not revolutionize the way we campaign? If we are to actualize the liberal ideals we tout, we as Democrats must adopt a bottom-up approach and reimagine campaigns as a tool for reform.

The Two Campaign Strategies There are two main campaign strategies: the persuasion approach and the base mobilization approach. The persuasion approach is an older strategy maintaining that 80% of campaign resources should be dedicated to appealing to the moderate voter and 20% of the campaign’s resources should be given to reliable partisans and demographics. On the other hand, the base mobilization approach,

which is gaining popularity, essentially funnels 100% of its resources on mobilizing its base and not persuading moderate and undecided voters.

This approach aims to excite voters by engaging with community members and participating in large voter registration initiatives, like that of Stacey Abrams in Georgia. Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders are relevant examples of candidates with a base mobilization approach.

Following Democratic victories in the 2020 election, pundits and politicians alike have squabbled over what strategy contributed to the success of Biden and the Democratic Party as a whole. Many moderate Democrats believe Biden was the ideal candidate to win over moderates and even pragmatic Republicans, unknowingly drawing upon the persuasion approach. Meanwhile, progressive Democrats contended that a base mobilization approach was the key to ousting Trump, frequently citing the stunning victory in Georgia.

While the 2020 Presidential Election was most likely a success due to both types of campaign strategies, I observe several issues with the persuasion approach. The persuasion campaign is rooted in political science’s conception of the median voter. Political scientists conceptualize political views on a singular left-right spectrum. They posit that most voters are located near the middle of the political spectrum and therefore, a candidate, regardless of party, should position themselves near the center of the spectrum to appease these moderates and, as a result, attract the largest amount of votes. This strategy is presupposed on the belief that voters will make the rational choice and vote for the candidate that best represents their views on the left-right spectrum. By aiming for the middle, a campaign should be able to gain more votes than if they position themselves near either pole. In actuality, this is not the case.

First, the idea of the rational voter is flawed—humans are not purely rational actors AND the rationality of a particular choice is subjective. Second, there are multiple dimensions to voter preference and each dimension can be valued differently.

This makes the left-right spectrum far too simple to capture voter’s sentiments collectively. Fourth, we are living in a highly polarized society, whereby individual voters are gravitating towards opposite poles and yet many campaigns aim for the political center making the central claim of this

strategy moot. Lastly, the median voter theorem prioritizes certain voters over others; low-income and BIPOC voters are generally excluded from this method because campaigns spend the majority of their resources persuading moderate and independent voters. Consequently, there are very few resources left to register voters and reach out to low-income and BIPOC voters.

I believe we need to ditch the persuasion approach for base mobilization, but it needs to go beyond that. We need to pressure campaigns to enact the changes they promise along the way: voter registration, appealing to low-income and BIPOC individuals, paying staff livable wages, and practicing diversity in hiring. In an age of ineffective government, the campaign is our greatest tool for effecting change. Campaigns should be more than a means to an end. Campaigns should be an end in themselves (and if they win, even better).

My Research Through my research project, I settled on examining the relationship between the effect of a candidate running on progressive economic policies and low-income voter turnout. My hope was to discover a link between the two, which would spell out the need for campaigns to champion issues important to low-income communities. In short, I selected campaigns with progressive economic policies that had opponents with opposing views, isolating the independent variable. In order to measure the effect of the independent variable, I collected voter turnout data from the same states for several years to establish a normal rate of turnout and I combed through exit polls to establish any changes in the composition of the electorate by income groups.

After collecting this data, I found that every single one of my selected campaigns saw an increase in voter turnout compared to the average-- in some cases the increase was quite substantial. Research indicates that higher turnout is indicative of a greater low-income turnout.

One striking race that I examined was Andy Beshear’s gubernatorial race in Kentucky. He was running against Governor Matt Bevin who had cut public school funding and reduced teachers’ pensions, while Beshear ran on protecting healthcare and public education funding. His campaign was helped by the Poor People’s Campaign, who em-

19

THIS IS A DEPICTION OF HOW THE MEDIAN VOTER THEORY AND HOW THE PERSUASION APPROACH TARGETS VOTERS | ELIZABETH GRUBB

THIS IS A MORE ACCURATE DEPICTION OF THE AMERICAN ELECTORATE WITH EVER-INCREASING PARTISAN POLARIZATION | ELIZABETH GRUBB

THE PERSUASION APPROACH ALSO FAILS TO ALLOCATE RESOURCES TO MOBILIZING LOW-PROPENSITY VOTERS OR UNREGISTERED INDIVIDUALS | ELIZABETH GRUBB

20

ployed a method of “fusion politics,” which entails interacting with voters and talking about how policies impact them directly. The Poor People’s Campaign brought together a large coalition that canvassed tirelessly, registering voters and talking about pressing issues. In the end, Beshear unseated the incumbent and voter turnout increased by 46% compared to the prior gubernatorial race indicating that more low-income voters participated in that election.

I believe that these findings are indicative that a bottom-up approach to reform is possible. Campaigning on issues important to low-income voters is just one way that the campaign can act as a reformatory mechanism; I hope this serves as a model for the many ways campaigns can challenge the status quo.

A New Campaign Strategy for Democrats This new approach would have a couple important implications. First, I believe that this new approach would spell out more victories for Democrats, even in areas we typically consider red and unflippable (i.e. Georgia prior to 2020). In fact the Poor People’s Campaign reports that if low-income Americans participated in elections at the same rate of their wealthier counterparts, poor voters would match or exceed the margins of the 2016 Presidential race in 15 states, including Texas, Florida, and Mississippi. Moreover, the book Who Votes Now finds that nonvoters tend to be politically left-leaning. So, in terms of electoral math, a base mobilization campaign with an ap-

peal to low-income voters spells out an innovative and successful strategy for Democrats.

Secondly, and most importantly, this approach would make low-income individuals a constituency that politicians on both sides will finally have to answer to. Conversely, if politicians are finally delivering on promises to low-income voters, these voters will benefit from better policies and have all the more reason to vote in the next election. This positive feedback loop would essentially enfranchise low-income voters. I think this approach is a winning one, and my research supports this. But if it is not a winning strategy, at least some progress is made in exciting an electorate and registering new voters.

If Democrats want economic justice, campaigns should prioritize low-income voters and not just their wealthiest donors. If Democrats want to encourage young people to participate in politics, campaigns should start paying their interns-- a measly stipend, or nothing at all, does not cut it. If Democrats are pushing for a $15 minimum wage, campaigns should start paying their staff an actually livable wage. If Democrats desire racial and gender equity, campaigns should start by diversifying who they hire and who leads a campaign. Campaigns can and should be an end in themselves. So, let’s wield campaigns as a powerful tool for radically challenging the status quo.

It is time to stop waiting for campaign promises to materialize; it is time for campaigns to take actionable steps to those goals.

Stacey Abrams speaks at event in Atlanta on June 6, 2019. PHOTO COURTESY OF DUSTIN CHAMBERS | GETTY IMAGES

Georgia on our Minds: Democrats’ Promising Future in the Deep South

By Jackson Smith Staff Writer Leading up to the 2020 election, Georgia was, for all intents and purposes, an afterthought on the national stage. While there were murmurs of Georgia emerging as a tossup state, most attention was focused on historically coveted swing states like Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania. For many voters, it was simply a given that Georgia would remain deep red across the board. After all,

the last time Georgia went blue in a presidential election was 1992, and the last time a Democratic senator was elected by popular vote was in 2000.

Come the election, the country watched in awe as Georgia Democrats staged a stunning upset, voting in Joe Biden as president and unseating both incumbent Republican senators. This sweeping victory in the heart of the Deep South has shaken confidence in the strength of the Republican grip not just over Georgia, but the entire region itself.

Biden’s electoral victory and the election of Ra-

22

phael Warnock and Jon Ossoff to the Senate stunned Americans of all political backgrounds.

Democratic voters in solidly blue states were perhaps the most shocked, as they associated Georgia as part of the Republican political monolith that constituted much of the Southern United States.

But was this victory really so surprising?

An incredible amount of painstaking work lay behind the ascendance of the Democratic Party to power in Georgia. Former 2018 Democratic gubernatorial candidate, Stacey Abrams, leveraged her organizations Fair Fight and The New Georgia Project to register hundreds of thousands of eligible voters in the state, targeting demographics most likely to be susceptible to disenfranchise-

“Growing up in the deepest blue area of one of the deepest blue states, my image of the Deep South was that of regressive, conservative politics mired by discrimination and racism.” ment. In parsing the data of new eligible voters, the party’s path to victory becomes ever clearer.

Between the 2018 midterm elections and September 2020, approximately 800,000 new voters were registered in the state of Georgia, with 49% of these new registrations coming from people of color and 45% coming from residents under 30 years of age. With both demographics voting disproportionately heavily for Democratic candidates, the work of Ms. Abrams’s organizations significantly bolstered Georgia’s Democratic electorate ahead of the 2020 presidential election.

Moreover, Georgia’s shifting demographics suggested an eventual Democratic presidential victory to be inevitable, not a surprise upset. Atlanta, long a Democratic stronghold and a major cultural and economic center of the Southern United States, saw its population increase by a staggering 18.7% between 2010 and 2019, with similar growth seen in its surrounding suburban counties.

This influx of new residents has also shifted the demographics of the state’s electorate. Between 2000 and 2019, the percentage of Black, Hispanic, and Asian Georgians that made up the total eligible electorate increased, whereas the percentage of white Georgians decreased. Among new voters registered in this time period, Black voters also made up the overwhelming plurality at 48%, with white voters coming in a distant second at 26%.

In watching the outcomes of the 2020 election in Georgia, I couldn’t help but let them strike a personal chord. Although born and raised in the Bay Area, I also come from a lineage of deep Southern roots spanning generations. The most progressive member of my family was not among those that hailed from the liberal Mecca of California, but was rather my late grandmother from Gulfport, Mississippi. Admittedly, while I had deep admiration for her tolerant views, I also couldn’t help but perceive her as an exception.

The Georgia election popped my political bubble.

Growing up in the deepest blue area of one of the deepest blue states, my image of the Deep South was that of regressive, conservative politics mired by discrimination and racism; Southerners like my grandmother, I thought, were few and far between. But after witnessing the successful effort to flip Georgia, I realized that those sharing her similar views were likely much more numerous than I thought. Are these states truly red states, or could the same be accomplished as in Georgia?

Outside of Georgia, the Democratic Party did not seize the same victories it had hoped for, but data indicates a growing opportunity to expand their base and power. Although the 2020 South Carolina Senate Race ended in defeat by incumbent Senator Lindsey Graham over Democratic nominee Jaime Harrison, it still ranked as the second most expensive Senate race of all time—indicating an extremely competitive race in what previously would have counted as a safe Republican seat. In three Southern states—Louisiana, Kentucky, and North Carolina, registered Democratic voters are in fact a plurality.

With a razor-thin margin in both the House and Senate, Democrats must act now & shift attention toward the South. Neglecting such an opportune political region may just spell out their defeat come 2022.

23

Democratic Party Unity Under Biden: A Foolish Pursuit or a Reasonable Goal?

By Grace Rapaski Staff Writer In June 2020 it was confirmed that Joe Biden would be the Democratic party’s presidential nominee—just seconds later came an unrelenting storm of critique. It was Millennial and Gen Z Democrats, disheartened by Biden’s victory in the primaries over more left-leaning candidates like Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren, who drove this backlash.

When Joe Biden was declared victorious in the Democratic primaries, young leftists were still mending their wounds from nearly four years of Donald Trump and the tumultuous political climate he helped incite. What we craved was sweeping change, a dismantling of our inherently corrupt systems, a recrafting of the American status quo. What we were given was a moderate Democratic candidate running a campaign representing a lot of smaller steps; steps that do not compliment our ambitious visions. To many progressives like myself, it felt like a bit of a tease. To most of the Democratic establishment, it felt very tactical.

Now 2021 is in full swing and Joe Biden and Kamala Harris are the sitting President and Vice President of the nation. Although young liberals are overjoyed to see Trump out of the White House, there still exists a common feeling of concern that the Biden/Harris agenda will not attack issues of climate change, systemic racism, healthcare disparities, and economic injustice with the degree of revisionist energy progressives seek.

Over the past decade, there has been much speculation that far leftists will breach from the Democratic party and form their own affiliation. It is this younger wing of the democratic party who

are the voices so disillusioned with establishment politics. We see establishment politics and the hegemonic systems nurturing it as entities reinforcing the power of privileged, white men, large corporate businesses, and a neoliberalist philosophy.

We see the political establishment and our own party easily monopolized by big money and thus representative of the desires of a select few. We, on the other hand, are a generation for the people, for the underdog, for the common folk and are cognizant that the contemporary establishment is

“What we craved was sweeping change, a dismantling of our inherently corrupt systems, a recrafting of the American status quo. What we were given was a moderate Democratic candidate running a campaign representing a lot of smaller steps; steps that do not

compliment our ambitious visions.” not designed to cater to this demographic. To be clear, “we” are not just a bubble of zealous, opinionated Berkeley students; 42% of Gen Zers who identify as liberal are registered as independent voters, reflecting their less favorable approval ratings of Biden, congressional Democrats, and the binary party system. These 42% are significantly more open to substantial societal transformation compared to their older, moderate-leaning counterparts.

Joe Biden and Kamala Harris, familiar establish-

24

ment faces for decades, have had countless opportunities to confront pivotal issues and procure their reputations. One of Biden’s most contentious decisions was his vote in favor of the 1994 Crime Bill which undeniably exacerbated the issue of mass incarceration and disproportionately harmed black and brown americans. Kamala Harris, a once self-proclaiming “progressive prosecutor’’ has a history of being tough on crime, boasting of prosecuting parents for truancy. Harris, a disputed character among liberals, received much criticism while serving as San Francisco District Attorney and California Attorney General for often seeking to further her own reputation at the expense of marginalized groups. In tracing their political careers, it can be objectively stated that both Joe Biden and Kamala Harris have continuously proven unwilling to embrace too “radical” an agenda in fear of threatening our political, economic, and legal institutions.

Knowing the overall stance of the Biden/Harris administration, it would surely take a number of tangible steps for them to potentially win over the younger generation of progressives. The most pressing matters on the minds of leftists today are enstating a universal healthcare system, abolishing ICE, dismantling the carceral state, relieving student-debt, and working towards a Green New Deal. Joe Biden, advertising a slogan of “Build Back Better, Unite for a Better America,’’ certainly has some more moderate plans to address these issues but also seems willing to meet the progressive wing of his party somewhere in the middle. His first day on the job, Biden rejoined

icans a $1,400 stimulus check, a $300 per week unemployment insurance supplement, an expansion of the child tax credit, and increased funding for vaccine distribution. His administration as well as Congressional Democrats are currently fighting for a $15 minimum wage and an extension of Obama’s Affordable Care Act that will give Americans a public insurance option. Biden vows to prioritize the climate crusade, a critical issue for progressives, at the top of his list of plans. Although no Bernie Sanders, Biden has been surprisingly ambitious given his reputation. But is all of this enough to satisfy us?

As a young, ardent leftist I have recently felt more hopeful for what is to come seeing as Biden has a much more progressive agenda than I expected.

Although I do not foresee systematic overhauls in the Biden era or think it is rational to have that expectation from him (remember, we settled for Biden), I see him picking up the pieces from a volatile presidency and working closely with more left-leaning politicians. I talked to some fellow young progressives (from UC Berkeley and other campuses) in attempts to understand if there is a scenario where Joe Biden can deliver to them or if they think party unity is a lost cause.

Jessica Blelloch is a native San Franciscan and outspoken environmentalist here at UC Berkeley. She currently works for the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition which is one of the largest bicycle advocacy groups in the county, aiming to promote environmental and social justice in the city streets. Jessica, a steadfast optimist, recognizes the stark division along party lines but holds a glimmer of hope for party unity: “Throughout Biden’s candidacy I witnessed countless peers state they wouldn’t “One of Biden’s most contentious decisions was his vote in favor of the even vote if Bernie wasn’t nominated citing the fact that Biden was much too moderate. I per1994 Crime Bill which undeniably ex- sonally find this ridiculous. Although I love Beracerbated the issue of mass incarcer- nie’s policies, he simply would not have won and ation and disproportionately harmed those refusing to vote for Biden would be stuck with Trump for another 4 years. Now that Biden black and brown Americans.” has been elected, I believe there have been much greater shows of unity in the Democratic Party. the Paris Climate Accord, signed an executive or- This may be due in part to the pandemic, but I der to include undocmunted immigrants into the believe Biden has made a great effort in his first 2021 census, reaffirmed DACA, and requested month in office to implement policies to please an extension of the freeze on student-loan pay- his far-left constituents.” ments. Recently, Biden’s $1.9 trillion covid relief In line with this optimism, I also received an upbill passed through congress, guaranteeing Amer- beat take from Jessica regarding Biden’s climate

25

plans: “When I read about the executive orders President Joe Biden signed in his first hours in office, I could have cried with joy. Not only did Biden re-enter the Paris climate accords, he revoked the permit for the Keystone XL pipeline, reversed rollbacks on vehicle emission standards, and instated a temporary moratorium on drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. With so much of Biden’s environmental goals being coupled with a push for job growth in the renewable energy sector, I truly believe that his measures for environmental change will go down in history with bipartisan support.”

Although Biden has not endorsed policy objectives like the Green New Deal, he is surely taking strides to appease his progressive wing. However, for the loud and angry progressive branch, he has his work cut out for him.

Another devout leftist I chatted with was William Taylor, a senior at USC pursuing a global health degree and a future career in international diplomacy. William has some burning takes on Joe Biden, our contemporary two-party system, and critical policy reformation: “In order for Biden to demonstrate his recognition of progressive values there are three/four things he needs to do ASAP. Cancel student debt, raise the minimum wage/$2000 stimulus, stop the current immigration practices, and end the current military complex (i.e. stop all wars.) Each is extremely easy in my eyes. The stimulus money needs to be given out. Failure to do so will lose us the upcoming primaries and elections in the future. Minimum wage and student debt continue to harm low income neighborhoods and minorities. The minimum wage should be higher due to the strength of the US dollar. The final issue is immigration policies. Biden has implemented new detention facilities that are basically a cage with a bow on top. It is completely unethical and continues to be an error in human rights.”

In regards to the call for party unity, William is a skeptic at best: “The current administration will soon lose favor with young ‘democrats’ (which are actually progressives) by trying to appease moderates. The two party system does not work, so I expect an offshoot to become available sooner rather than later. To me there are already three parties, the true left (being progressives and socialists), the moderates (the current democratic

and republican elites), and the right (right-wing extremists focused on nationalism and conservatism).”

Kaleo Mark is a ringing voice for radical change studying political science at UC Berkeley. While Kaleo hopes Biden will deliver progressive policy goals during his term like the Green New Deal and Medicare for All, he is not holding his breath: “While we continue to try and push the Biden administration further to the left, progressives should be organizing grassroots efforts with groups like the Justice Democrats and the Sun-

“ Although no Bernie Sanders, Biden has been surprisingly ambitious given his reputation. But is all of this enough to satisfy us?” rise Movement to get ready for the 2022 midterm elections and even preparing who we want to run as our candidate in the 2024 democratic primary election.”

Grassroots organizations, esteemed for prioritizing sweeping societal reparations and denying corporate money, are making their way onto the front lines of liberal politics. If all of these interest groups and organizations were to unify, we might be looking at a legitimate third political party.

As we can see, even among college-age leftists exist diverse sentiments concerning party unity and what it entails. In light of these discourses, only time will tell if Biden will manage to garner substantial support from his young, visionary left wing or only further our parties’ divide. Biden, to some extent, may stretch his hand to progressives but who can say if the left will ever reach back in compromise. Biden has certainly begun his four years with eager energy and high aspirations; if his hope is for greater party unity he must not slow down. Now is the time for Biden to explore what is outside of his comfort zone. It is going to be a long and tough ride and he is just getting started.

Keep looking left, Joe.

26

Biden and Merkel share a warm handshake in 2013, but mending trans-Atlantic relations will take more than pleasantries. PHOTO COURTESY OF MAURIZIO GAMBARINI | PICTURE ALLIANCE

Positioning Biden’s America in a Post-Trump World

By Elizabeth Bennett Editor Many global figures around the world cheered and breathed a sigh of relief when President Joe Biden emerged victorious from the U.S. Presidential Election. However, this relief was only momentarily sweet, as leaders continue to weather the pandemic, the rise of authoritarianism, and the effects of climate change. The United States long acted as an international leader, but today we see a failure to lead the war against the pandemic, an authoritarian despot inspiring an insurrection that threatens the very institutions of our country, and a refusal to assist communities

hurt by climate change. President Biden is fraught with the difficult task of connecting the desires of a torn country to the needs of the international community. Only time will tell whether he is up to the challenge.

The Trump administration’s foreign policy was framed by the “America First” mindset that Trump promoted during his candidacy. While this has been detrimental in a myriad of ways, the positive outcomes must be noted. For all Trump’s tiresome tirades about China, he recognized and stressed the importance of viewing China’s progress as a threat to U.S. national security, economic strength, and our stature as a global powerhouse. Moreover, Trump progressed in stabilizing

27

relations with Israel, the United Arab Emirates, and Bahrain. However, Foreign Policy reports that these diplomatic arrangements were continuing the work from the Obama administration. Conversely, Trump ignored imminent problem areas, even in the cases of China and the Middle East.

One of his greatest mistakes was withdrawing from the World Health Organization (WHO) and the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC), due to frustration at the supposed hypocrisy of both institutions. Trump’s followers cheered for denouncing institutions that weren’t following the U.S. wants, but critics claim that these withdrawals significantly undermined U.S. legitimacy on the global stage. Contradicting the administration’s agenda, the withdrawals from WHO and UNHRC gave China more influence in both institutions and the United Nations as a whole.

With national security being such an important element to the Trump administration, they greatly exacerbated several national security issues that President Biden cannot take lightly in the coming years. Trump abandoned several treaties with Iran, Russia, and China, all related to nuclear weapons. A prized achievement of the Obama administration, the Iran nuclear deal hindered Iran’s ability to create a nuclear weapon and mobilize Iran’s allies. However, after Trump left this agreement, Iran revived a nuclear weapon program that Foreign Policy analysts say has inched closer and closer to creating a nuclear weapon. On the other hand, Trump deserted Cold War arms treaties with Russia and China. With another arms control treaty expiring this past February, diplomats and international affairs officials are worried about the possibility of beginning a potentially deadly arms race.

Trump’s legacy in foreign affairs de-legitimized the United States as a global leader. He mocked people from different countries, minimized the gravity of important treaties and institutions, and blatantly disrespected the protocols and establishment of diplomacy. In order for the United States to restore respect and integrity in foreign affairs, President Biden has his work cut out for him. It will involve a concerted focus and prioritizing relationship building.

Biden retains an impressive and respected record of involvement in foreign affairs and conflict

resolution. Serving as a senator from 1972 until becoming Vice President under Barack Obama, Biden has been exposed and involved in some of the greatest international conflicts of our time: South African apartheid, the Iraq War, and the Cold War arms control in Russia. Leading to his appointment to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in the early 2000s, Biden involved himself in the Balkans ethnic conflicts and fight for Bosnian independence in the 1990s; his con-

“President Biden is fraught with the difficult task of connecting the desires of a torn country to the needs of the international community.” tribution to Bosnian independence is significant, as Biden spoke out in support of Bosnians in their campaign for independence and against the Serbian violence towards Bosnian Muslims. Further, his voice carried lots of weight in talks about divestment from apartheid; Biden led the successful opposition in the Senate to the Reagan administration’s support of corporate investment into the South African government, supposedly aimed to positively influence the oppressed Blacks under apartheid but definitively doing the opposite.

Although he is aware of the precariousness of international conflict and understands to what lengths the US will go to solve ensuing conflict, Biden’s legacy in foreign affairs is not spotless.

Even though he later denounced the Iraq invasion, Biden supported the military invasion of Iraq during Senate discussions under President George Bush. Given that reverberations from the Iraq war can still be felt today across the Middle East, Biden’s involvement in the decision to go to war should not be overlooked.

All in all, Biden’s foreign affairs record is mostly

28

ideologically consistent, except in regard to Iraq.

Biden is a well-versed politician, so he knows what must be said to win elections and favor amongst American citizens. Above all else, Biden espouses his commitment to democratic values and American interests—but these disparate desires sometimes don’t align.

A recent development in Saudi Arabia demonstrates the taught relationship between American values and interests. In 2018, a Washington Post columnist and Saudi dissident named Jamal Khashoggi was violently murdered by a kill team

“Trump’s legacy in foreign affairs de-legitimized the United States as a global leader.” that was closely linked to the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia. At the time, President Trump refused to acknowledge that the murder likely involved the Crown Prince. According to the New York Times, at a Democratic presidential debate in 2019, Biden used strong language denouncing Trump’s non-action and said that he would punish the Saudi government if made president. Biden, in his first speech to the State Department, reasserts his claim that the crown prince must be brought to justice if confirmed guilty. Yet, even after a report came out about his role in the murder, Biden did not punish the crown prince whatsoever, profoundly disappointing Democratic leaders. This inaction is likely due to fear of rupturing relations with Saudi Arabia, one of the United States’ most loyal allies in the Middle East. Additionally, Biden is hesitant to drive the Saudis into China’s grasp, because China has shown interest in Middle East influence investing in their infrastructure; offending the Saudis would force them to turn away from Western aid to China. Thus, even though seeking justice in Saudi Arabia Even though seeking justice in Saudi Arabia aligns with U.S. democratic values, Biden is skeptical to bring his hand down; retaining global influence and close allyship with Saudi Arabia are both indisputable U.S. interests,

mostly in an effort to keep power in the Middle East away from China.

Another ongoing issue for the Biden administration is the struggle for democracy in Myanmar.

This country has had a turbulent political environment over the last few years, due to the genocide of Rohingya Muslims, presence of a feeble military democracy, and most recently, a military coup and detainment of Aung San Suu Kyi, who remains beloved in Myanmar, despite her complicity in the genocide of the Rohingya Muslims.

Domestic tensions have reached levels not seen since the Rohingya genocide and refugee crisis, leaving citizens to protest the return to military rule. President Biden quickly placed sanctions on Myanmar, preventing $1 billion in U.S. aid from being dispersed. This shows Biden’s commitment to the U.S. values of justice and religious tolerance that must be upheld in foreign engagements— hopefully setting a precedent for their foreign policy. Likely, the Biden administration will face four years of difficulty in Myanmar, as they strive towards a democratic government not reliant on the military junta.

The aforementioned problem areas are hotbeds for conflict escalation that require attending to, but mending relationships with allies needs to be at the forefront of Biden’s foreign affairs agenda. If reconnecting with allies is a priority, Biden needs to start with the European Union. Angela Merkel’s tolerance of President Trump was admirable, but as the Chancellor of the European powerhouse, she must be able to trust that the leader of the U.S. will not undermine the prized relationship between the EU and U.S.. European ambassadors in Washington state that Trump has obliterated trust and shared values, and even denounced European integration and transatlantic cooperation as a whole. Since the Cold War, the relationship between the EU and U.S. has been characterized by unwavering trust, honesty, and cooperation to achieve the goals of both entities.

Now, that relationship is broken and could lead to greater threat from Russia. With Trump gone, the EU could finally breathe again; Biden bears the burden of recreating a constructive relationship built on stability and morality.

Notably, there is a lingering question in the international community: does the U.S. have the legitimacy to take up the mantle of global leadership

29

going forward? Within the past century, the U.S. has led the globe in foreign relations, sitting at every table where decisions are being made. However, in the past four years, the nation has ruined its reputation for democracratic rule and morality.

This came to a head when Trump refused to admit that Biden won in a fair election, not beginning the transfer of power until months later. The world was a spectator to this outrage, and won’t simply forget the likeness of authoritarian rule. Regaining legitimacy and trust will take time, especially among the once tight knit allies of the European Union. The U.S. is far more unpredictable than it was 100 years ago, with its own citizens arguing over universal healthcare and even the existence of climate change. If the U.S. cannot sort out its own problems, why should it resume its post as international diplomat?

ernment sprung into action at the first sight of COVID-19 and mobilized government agencies to promote mask wearing and social distancing right from the start, which the U.S. failed to take seriously. Moreover, legitimacy has not only been lost in the U.S. government, but in its people as well. The partisanship of citizens is visible to other nations, as Americans are not able to agree on the simplest issues. The Capitol raid of January 6th demonstrated that democracy no longer has a strong grasp in the U.S., because anarchy and authoritarian undertones reigned that day. Therefore, the international community justifiably hesitates to trust the U.S. as a global powerhouse, but what Biden does in the upcoming years could drastically change this.

The laundry list of items Biden must attend to is anything but short. Even so, the focus on foreign affairs must be prioritized among healthcare, housing, and climate change, which top his agenda. Biden does have hefty goals of reinventing American foreign policy to return respectability to the U.S. Department of State, particularly by eliminating travel bans from Muslim-majority countries, ending family separation at the U.S.-Mexico border, and forwarding international climate change goals--already reentering the Paris Climate Agreement. Seeing his expansive foreign affairs goals for the next four years, it is clear that Biden is eager to reframe America’s image. On issues of foreign policy, the relationship between progressive and conservative desires is less contentious than domestic issues; the decision between what is just, what is easy, and what is helpful—and to whom—always plagues foreign affairs with moral questions. However, with the “America First” philosophy prevailing in previous years, we may see more polarized views on U.S. action on the global front.

Even with the controversies he faces, President Biden and his administration are equipped to handle international conflicts far better than his predecessor. The Biden administration appointed diverse voices within the foreign affairs sector, When mentioning U.S. legitimacy, one cannot ig- aiming to bring many perspectives to the table. In nore the response to COVID-19. Countries like less than 3 months, Biden’s moves signify a readNew Zealand and Singapore have all but eradicat- iness for what is coming. U.S. citizens, fatigued ed the virus and are returning to normality. Yes, from the former president’s unpredictability, can New Zealand is an island with only a fraction of find cautious optimism with the Biden administhe population of the United States, but their gov- tration.

“Even though seeking justice in Saudi Arabia aligns with U.S. democratic values, Biden is skeptical to bring his hand down; retaining global influence and close allyship with Saudi Arabia are both indisputable U.S. interests, mostly in an effort to keep power in the Middle East away from China.”

30

PHOTO COURTESY OF CHIP SOMODEVILLA | GETTY IMAGES

The Descent into Darkness Never Stopped

By Ryan Liu Assistant Editor

ty Leader Mitch McConnell told reporters that he believed the former President was “practically and morally responsible” for the January 6th insurrecJust minutes after voting to acquit Donald Trump tion. On first look, this seems par for the course in his second impeachment trial, Senate Minori- for the level of Republican hypocrisy that McConnell has masterfully utilized in his long career

31

atop Capitol Hill, but it’s important to note that this is not his finest job of threading a needle. Indeed, over the last few months he has repeatedly failed to do so, and his supervillain invincibility is faltering.

Mitch McConnell and his Republican Party are lost and leaderless.

The Democratic Party has long prided itself on it’s “big-tent” status: despite their different views, there’s room for both West Virginia Senator Joe Manchin and New York Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez under the nominal banner. Yet this ideological battle has caused deep-rooted internal schisms before. Who could forget the marathon 2020 Democratic primary, marked by fierce conflict between the party’s two chief factions?

In contrast, the Republicans have gotten off fairly easily in the past. So-called moderates like Susan Collins draw liberal ire for too often siding with her Republican colleagues, yet Senator Collins easily won reelection in 2020 on a bipartisan basis. Whereas Democratic factions coexist through a tenuously brokered peace, Republicans—the birthers, the evangelicals, the suburbanites, the monied business interests—all mesh together seamlessly.

Much of the explanation has been the simple matter of branding. The Republican message has been one of enduring opposition: the Democrats are what you dislike. The Republicans stand with you against the Democrats. Go Team Red. And indeed, this was an incredibly successful strategy.

This unifying message won Republicans control of the House in 2010 and the Senate in 2014, and catapulted them into a rare trifecta two years later in 2016.

But that was the overarching flaw of the Republican agenda. When your entire message is one of opposition, how do you handle being in control?

Two largely ineffectual years later and they lost the House, another two and they lost the Senate and the Presidency as well.

With the cyclical nature of politics, institutional figures like McConnell seem eager to return to the Obama years: obstruction, defiance, and fierce opposition. But much has changed since 2008.

For one, the most recent Republican to hold the presidency does not consider himself an ally of McConnell. Donald Trump has excoriated Republican figures like McConnell and House Republi-

can Chair Liz Cheney for insufficient loyalty, and has threatened to start his own Patriot Party. One survey showed that 70% of Republicans would consider joining him.

This is Mitch McConnell’s personal nightmare.

Some pundits have stressed that this is largely a move by Trump to exert pressure on the Republi-

“The recalcitrant ignoramus atop the party had been deposed.

The Trump era was finally over, and now the Republican Party could move on.” can leadership, and while that’s likely true, it ignores the fact that Donald Trump continuing to hold such significant sway with the Republican Party is still incredibly dangerous.

In the immediate aftermath of the election last November, in the weeks and months where many Democrats could be found raucously celebrating on the streets or online, Republican officials were attempting to maintain a balanced tone. Outwardly, they projected disappointment or anger, with some going so far as to propagate the dangerous lie that the election had been stolen from Trump.

Inwardly, however, most Republicans were very likely quite pleased: they had wrestled back control of the party. Granted, they would have to contend with a Democratic President for the next four years, but the recalcitrant ignoramus atop the party had been deposed. The Trump era was finally over, and now the Republican Party could move on.

This was demonstrated in full force in the wake of the insurrection on January 6th. Hours later, a shaken Lindsey Graham rose to repudiate their claims, and insist that Biden was the lawfully

32

elected President. Yet in passing, he let his feelings on other parties involved slip.

“Trump and I, we’ve had a hell of a journey,” Graham admitted, harkening back to their history as rivals in the 2016 primary, and Graham’s initial obstinate refusal to back the demagogue before eventually becoming a boisterous ally. “I hate it to end this way.”

End. Graham was tacitly acknowledging what

“Why would Trump need to start a new Party that bowed completely to his will when the Republican Party had already fulfilled that purpose for four straight years?”

many of his colleagues were hoping for: that this would be the finale, the unceremonious denouement, to a tumultuous set of years not just to the country, but to Trump’s version of the Republican Party. Under Donald Trump’s leadership, the Republican Party metastasized upon the foundations of bigotry and incompetence laid out by past administrations. Graham, and others, hoped that there might arise a new leader, who could successfully steer the ship towards their preferred styles of governance.

A doomed exercise. Trump might not be in the news as often anymore, owing primarily to his suspension from most social media platforms, but his pervasive influence has not disappeared since leaving 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

Look at the figures that Trump has exalted. New faces like Lauren Boebert or old favorites like Matt Gaetz and Jim Jordan share this in common: all of them understand who their current boss is, and it’s the same as the old one. And who could forget Marjorie Taylor Greene, who has attracted national controversy for her unrepentant flirtation with conspiracy and devotion to all things Trumpism.

It is no coincidence that Greene, like a certain ris-

ing star across the political aisle, has adopted an initialized moniker of MTG. She is a fittingly bizarro counterpart to New York’s AOC: hailed as a radical, adored by her certain factions on the internet, and undeniably the future of her party.

At his first nationally televised speech following Biden’s inauguration, Trump denounced rumors that he was interested in forming a Patriot’s Party as fake news. He claimed that such an idea was inherently foolish, as splitting votes would ensure the victory of the Democrats. What he neglected to mention is that such a split was not only unwise, it was altogether unnecessary. Why would Trump need to start a new Party that bowed completely to his will when the Republican Party had already fulfilled that purpose for four straight years?

It’s for this reason that the discourse surrounding a potential Republican schism is absurd. On what grounds would the party split? Their caucus solely consists of Trump’s pious adherents and disgruntled acquiescers. They are united in all but the tone they use to fawn over their great leader. Mitch McConnell made some performative attempt at breaking with Trump, yet when pushed he admitted that he would support him if he once again became the Republican nominee in 2024.

2024. 2024? Why are we even treating this like it’s a question? Why are there articles from pundits seriously bloviating over whether Josh Hawley or Nikki Haley or, god forbid, Ron DeSantis have a shred of a chance in 2024? The writing’s on the wall. Unless he’s interred, imprisoned, or inexplicably uninterested, Donald Trump is the 2024 nominee.

I know that those are not fun words to read. But they are necessary to write. Democrats have found themselves caught up in the lie Republicans have told themselves. The reality is that there is no forthcoming fracture, that there is no miraculous savior who will reinstate moderate conservatism.

What you see is what you get, despite how tempting it might be to pretend not to see anything.

In May of 2016, when Trump secured electoral checkmate and essentially became the Republican nominee, the New York Times editorial board declared that “It’s Trump’s Party Now.” Despite all that’s happened in the last five years, that statement is still just as accurate in its pure simplicity.

It’s Trump’s Party Now.

33

U.S. Senator Kamala Harris speaking with supporters at the annual West Des Moines Democratic Party Summer picnic at Legion Park in West Des Moines, Iowa. PHOTO COURTESY OF GAGE SKIDMORE

New Vice President, New Criminalization Precedent

By Raisah Khan Staff Writer The Biden-Harris Administration has been dubbed one of the most, if not the most, progressive governments that this country has ever seen. Particularly, with the first woman of color to hold the office of Vice President, constituents are wondering what specific policies will be passed to assist communities of color. However, with Vice President Harris’s “tough on crime” history as a politician, her current term begs the question: how will criminal justice reform manifest in a post-Trump America, and will it sufficiently address the pitfalls in our system that we have wit-

nessed in the last half-century?

Mass incarceration in the United States has been fuelled by the racially charged rhetorics of various politicians. By playing into the stereotype of people of color being inherently more dangerous, presidents such as Richard Nixon passed policies containing coded language to incarcerate these communities. Nixon himself spearheaded the “War on Drugs,” a crusade against primarily black and brown communities for the consumption of drugs, such as marijuana and crack. The disparities between crack arrests in impoverished communities versus the blind eye turned towards its counterpart drug, cocaine, in white, affluent areas, is the primary example of discrimination

34

from the “War on Drugs.”

While there was a subsequent increase in prison population sizes under President Ronald Reagan’s term, this behavior was not limited to the Republican party. Biden himself assisted President Bill Clinton in passing the 1994 crime bill, an initiative that was intended to compete with the Republican party’s mission of cracking down on crime. Biden has since tried to justify his part in authoring the bill, but the reality is that this policy

“The first step is to unlearn the rhetoric that has plagued the past few decades, recognizing that many of these people who commit crime lack ill intent and are merely victims of a broken system. Ideally, the root cause of crime should be addressed through the investment into poverty, education, and counseling services.” played a substantial role in mass incarceration in the 1990s. Prior to this, Biden was firmly in support of various “tough on crime” acts that would increase imprisonment for drug use and heighten racial disparities in sentencing for drug-related crimes. The phrase “law and order” was and still is continually used to incarcerate people of color in this country, shifting the narrative to create an “us vs. them” mindset.

With Joe Biden’s direct role in amplifying the era of mass incarceration, constituents have turned to Kamala Harris in hopes of a different result. However, her history in this field is not entirely promising. Looking back to her roots in local communities in the Bay Area, her truancy policies stand out as exceptionally harsh towards unserved individuals. Harris implemented a measure that would arrest parents for their children having a certain number of unexcused absences.

This ended up cycling more people of color into the system, which further exacerbated the cycle of

poverty instead of addressing the root cause of the issue. As a prosecutor, district attorney, and state attorney general, she has defended the necessity for law enforcement despite many Californian’s concerns on issues such as police brutality and mass incarceration. In response to constituents, she did advocate for prison diversion programs and racial bias training within the police force.

She stated that the intention behind the truancy campaign was to redirect parents to support and resources, but those effects were not often seen.

She especially shifted the narrative after she announced her ticket for office, labeling herself as a progressive prosecutor.

During the 2020 election season, her platform definitely shifted further left, with large promises of reform. Her campaign was met with skepticism, but Kamala supporters argue that she has shown more of a push for criminal justice reform during her tenure in the Senate. Many people defend her by saying that her “law and order” phase was merely playing along party lines to eventually run for higher office. Harris has also been held under a magnifying glass as a woman of color, as US politics has historically been dominated by primarily white males. Progressive individuals in the United States, however, have been privy to dishing out criticism regardless of which party a candidate is in, and they have labeled Kamala as “Cop-mala”, indicative of her being a sellout to her original heritage.

Despite both sides of the argument, the largest red flag in Harris’s records is the sheer number of contradictions within it. Her training programs to reduce racial bias through police training were countered with a refusal to look into officer shootings. She defended the death penalty in the California Supreme Court, but she refused to administer the death penalty in certain cases.

She started the “Back on Track” initiative to get drug offenders jobs and worked against California’s “three strikes’’ law, but she did not work as attorney general to actively reduce prison populations. Additionally, she sometimes pushed to keep people in prisons even after they were shown to be innocent.

When looking out for comprehensive criminal justice reform under this new administration at the local, state, and federal levels, we should look at a few key contentious issues that dispro-

35

portionately affect people of color. The first step is to unlearn the rhetoric that has plagued the past few decades, recognizing that many of these people who commit crime lack ill intent and are merely victims of a broken system. Ideally, the root cause of crime should be addressed through the investment into poverty, education, and counseling services. Furthermore, the overflowing prison population in the United States must be reduced in whatever way possible, especially in light of the increased health risk during the COVID-19 pandemic. State governments should align with the values of criminal justice reform undertaken in these next four years so that this issue can be addressed at the state level. For example, states can follow the actions of certain counties, such as Los Angeles County and Santa Clara County, across the country to remove or reduce the cash bail system in its entirety. Other considerations that have been endorsed by major civil rights organizations include the legalization of marijuana, the abolishment of the death penalty, and ceasing the use of solitary confinement.

As of February 2021, the Biden Administration has already ended private prison contracts.

Although this is a huge step forward in mitigating the detrimental effects of the Prison Industrial Complex, states still have full agency to utilize private prison contracts, which is where the majority come from. We can only hope that states recognize the legitimacy of this action and follow suit. Furthermore, Biden has created a hefty promise of reducing prison populations by more than 50%. This would include a $20 billion grant program for states to undertake the initiative, including addressing the underlying causes of crime through various policy measures such as public education investment.

As with any new administration, we should continue to proceed with caution, but we should also remain cognizant of progress where it is made. It is important to strengthen the democratic party; while constituents should stay critical of whatever governance is held in this country, we should recognize the benefits of having this party in power, especially over the alternative.

Protest against mass incarceration and policy brutality from 2013. PHOTO COURTESY OF ELIZABETH BROSSA

36

Both the US and Austria had intense 2016 presidential elections. The two 2016 Austrian presidential candidates, top-row left-to-right, are Alexander Van der Bellen and Norbert Hofer and the two 2016 US presidential candidates, bottom-row left-to-right, are Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump PHOTO COURTESY OF SURYA PUNJABI

A Different 2016

By Aryan Deorah Staff Writer

battling a far right-wing candidate who demonizes immigrants, has authoritarian tendencies, and doesn’t show much care for democratic norms.

The year is 2016, and a left-wing candidate is The election is occurring in a modern western

37

democracy that has become increasingly fraught and polarized and has had past flirtations with right-wing extremists. Institutions, parties, and families are divided over the main candidates and many look to election day with a mixture of hope and fear for their future. You may think you know this story all too well as the painful memories of the democratic horror show that was the 2016 US Presidential Election flood in. But in this case, the story takes a turn and has a very different ending.

Similar to the US, Austria was at a political and societal crossroad in 2016. Increasing unemployment and economic stagnation plagued the Austrian economy and had major political ramifications.

General dissatisfaction with the political system led to a weakening of the center left (SPO) and center right (OVP) parties as well as a flight of people away from the political center. This became apparent in the first round of the 2016 Austrian Presidential Election, when outsiders Alexander Van der Bellen, a left-wing Green Party candidate, and Norbert Hofer, a right-wing Freedom Party (FPO) candidate, were the two most popular candidates and advanced to the second round. OVP conservative politicians were stuck between a rock and a hard place: they had to choose between endorsing Hofer, an immigrant-hating wannabe authoritarian with conservative values, or Van der Bellen, an ideological rival as left as they come that happened to be committed to democracy like most Austrian politicians.

The Austrian OVP was placed in a very similar position to the Republican Party in 2016. By this point in the US presidential election, mainstream Republicans had already made their choice; though many despised Trump and what he stood for, they decided to endorse him anyways for their own political and ideological gains. However, many Austrian conservatives chose differently than their American counterparts. As a former chairman of the OVP famously stated,“we don’t want congratulations from Le Pen, Jobbik, Wilders and the AfD [and other extremists] after our presidential elections.” This brave choice by Austrian conservatives who resisted the temptation to ideologically collude and instead chose their country over their ideology allowed for Van der Bellen to narrowly win and maintain Austria’s status as one of the premier democracies in the world.

The case study of Austria’s 2016 election is far

from the only example of an established democracy working to keep out authoritarianism. The Great Depression, the destruction wrought by World War I, and growing populism made 1930s Europe particularly susceptible to authoritarian takeovers. However, several European nations, through their political parties, managed to sustain their democracy. Belgium’s democracy constitutes

“OVP conservative politicians were stuck between a rock and a hard place: they had to choose between endorsing Hofer, an immigrant-hating wannabe authoritarian with conservative values, or Van der Bellen, an ideological rival as left as they come that happened to be committed to democracy like most Austrian politicians.”

one such example: when Belgium’s right-wing Catholic Party was faced with the challenge of addressing a growing fascist movement within their ranks, they decided to expel members with radical beliefs and publicly oppose the fascist movement. Comparably, when a similar fascist movement took hold in Finland around the same time, Finland’s center right parties allied themselves with their rivals on the left to prevent the fascists from winning major elections. These examples demonstrate that political parties have both immense powers and responsibilities to maintain their country’s democracies through gatekeeping.

When political parties take an active role in rooting out and publicly opposing extremism within their ranks, they are incredibly effective at protecting their respective democracies from threats, even during dire times.

Given the historical context of political gatekeeping in established democracies, it’s worth begging

38

the question, why did the Republicans (and America as a whole) have a moral and political failing in 2016 and what can we learn from it? I am certain many of you breathed a sigh of relief as Trump stepped out of the White House for the last time a few months ago, but the underlying causes that led to his rise are still there, and if we as a nation don’t address them and learn from our history, we are doomed to repeat our past mistakes. Amer-

“American democracy survived Donald Trump, his undemocratic tendencies, and his attempt to steal a legitimate election, but we can’t guarantee it will survive the next authoritarian that comes around.” ican democracy survived Donald Trump, his undemocratic tendencies, and his attempt to steal a legitimate election, but we can’t guarantee it will survive the next authoritarian that comes around.

One explanation for why the Republicans failed while other conservative parties didn’t is the American electoral system. The first-past-thepost system of voting in the US, where whoever has the most votes in a given constituency wins, lends itself to a two-party system. These two parties have to cover the vast range of political ideologies in America. For example, Republicans can vary from fascists to centrists, while Democrats can vary from centrists to communists. Donald Trump was chosen by the radical wing of the Republican party, so moderates in the same party felt compelled to support him, whereas in the case of Austria, the authoritarian candidate was part of a far-right party, so moderates in a center-right party did not feel as compelled by their party to support him. For this along with various other reasons, many are calling for an overhaul of our elections system to encourage a multiparty system to take hold, better allowing our political system to deal with extremist views.

Another reason why Republicans failed to check Donald Trump is growing ideological polariza-

tion, both in policy and rhetoric. America’s political parties are moving further and further away from the center, making it challenging for even moderate members of each party to reach across the aisle. In the last 30 years, all metrics of political polarization have skyrocketed, and attempts to engage in bipartisanship are met with harsh rebuke from each party’s base. When Al Gore conceded to Bush in 2000 and Bush gave his acceptance speech, he requested to be introduced by a Democrat to show his intention to unite the country. Congressional Republican leader Tom DeLay stated in response, “We don’t work with Democrats. There’ll be none of that uniter-divider stuff.” When members of each party view each other with contempt and disgust, and believe the other party is trying to destroy the country, they are more willing to do whatever it takes to win.

This includes endorsing Donald Trump, because Republicans believed that supporting a wannabe authoritarian was better than the alternative of endorsing ideological rival Hillary Clinton. Even if they wanted to endorse Hillary Clinton, many Republicans stayed silent out of fear of retribution from their own party. Though Austria had dealt with considerable polarization, they were not nearly as polarized as America, and it was still fathomable to support an ideological rival without being ostracized from your own party. If we are to address the causes of Trump’s rise, we must address the growing polarization in America and work to bridge partisan divides.

America’s two-party system and recent political hyper-polarization both help explain why America, not Austria, had a moral failing in 2016.

However, at the end of the day, Republicans made a fundamental choice that the OVP didn’t: They chose to put party and ideology over country, and in doing so jeopardized American democracy like never before. They supported Donald Trump despite knowing that he was a bigoted, fear-mongering, inexperienced, and incompetent leader.

We the Democratic Party and we the American people must continue wholeheartedly rebuke the Republicans who enabled Donald Trump like we did in the 2020 elections and send a message to all who wish to undermine American democracy that we won’t let it happen again: not today, not tomorrow, not ever.

39

DC and Me

By Aryan Deorah Staff Writer January 6th, 2021, a day that will live forever in infamy. It started like any other: I woke up around noon, did my morning routine, ate breakfast, and texted my two best friends to see if they could hang out. Over the whole winter break, we spent our days playing ping pong, enjoying our video games, and watching movies together in my basement. I felt the cold winter air as I opened the basement door for them to come inside, and we immediately started rallying on the ping pong table. 20 minutes later, one of my friends checked their phone, paused, and shouted, “Where’s the remote?” I figured something was wrong, so I immediately turned on the news. We spent the next few hours watching in horror as we saw images of white supremacists sieging our Capitol.

The fact that this was happening just an hour away made it hurt even more. I have spent my whole life in proximity to DC and have seen its beautiful lights and skyline hundreds of times. I have toured the Capitol and walked its halls. Just two weeks before insurrection, my parents took me to visit the Christmas lights on the Capitol lawn. As I stood in the same place that domestic terrorists would soon siege, I pointed right at the glorious rotunda, and declared that one day, regardless of where life would take me, I would come back to DC and fulfill my dreams of working in the Capitol as a congressman. Though I never lived in the city, something about it always made me feel at home. When I was there, I was part of something bigger than myself; I was part of the incredible history and symbolism that the district stood for.

Though I kept this in mind, my friends and I carried on with our days as usual as the footage continued to play in the background. Our generation has been desensitized to chaos and violence: we

were born in a country reeling from 9/11, grew up as the global economy collapsed, and graduated from high school virtually due to global pandemic. We started to get hungry and chose a restaurant; the only thing we were waiting on was permission from my parents. I would never forget my mother’s response after asking them if we could go, “What the hell are you thinking Aryan?

It isn’t safe for people like us.” Those last three words “people like us” echo in my mind. They had a clear meaning: my friends and I were brown Indian-Americans and we were in danger. There had already been reports of vandalism and broken glass in nearby majority-minority neighborhoods and as I would later find out, disturbing videos circulated on social media of white supremacists stating that they were coming for brown and black people in the area. Within a few minutes my friend’s parents called them, forbidding them from leaving my house with eerily similar warnings.

As we were shut in for the night, I began to think about the cruel irony of how this happened in DC, a city whose whole layout symbolically represents the core values of America. As you drive from Virginia into the city, you catch a glimpse of the Kennedy Center gleaming over the Potomac, a testament to America’s incredible visual and performing arts talent. Once you reach the National Mall, you find yourself standing under the towering Washington Monument, a symbol of American might. Facing North, you see the White House, the residence of the leader of the free world. Facing West, you notice the Lincoln and World World Two Memorials, standing as reminders of the struggles our nation has overcome. Finally, as you face East, the US Capitol appears far off in the distance, the seat of American democracy. Within 20 minutes, you can walk from where nine justices struck down racial segregation, to where MLK delivered his “I Have a Dream” speech, to where the first Black man

40

was inaugurated as president. Strolling towards tion, with over 90% of the population voting for the Capitol, dozens of Smithsonian museums (my Democrats, it has become an ideological battlefavorite part of DC) line the street on either side. ground in an increasingly hyperpolarized nation.

Back when I was young and my family didn’t have Massive conflicts on issues from racial justice to much, these centers of wisdom and learning that “stop the steal rallies” have led to unwanted chaare open for all inspired my curiosity about the os in the city and hate groups, such as the Proud world around me and developed my interests in Boys, engaging in violence against the city and its history and science. To residents. me, through its monDespite all this, DC uments and resourcresidents are resiles, DC symbolizes the ient and hardworkideals of American ing. They continue greatness and opporto organize for racial tunity. justice, making huge As wonderful as DC’s contributions to the monuments and muBLM movement and seums are, that isn’t empowering Black the full story. Many people to positions of DC residents, particpower, including their ularly its children and current mayor. They young people, strugencourage and vote for gle: according to the progressive thought local organization DC on issues from gay Action for Children, marriage to a livable over a quarter of DC minimum wage. They children live in poverkeep the gears of the ty, and its educational federal government metrics - reading and running by working math scores as well as hard in many bureaurates of graduating on cratic and government time - lag considerably contracting jobs. They The author, Aryan Deorah, sitting in front of behind the rest of the the Capitol Building two years prior to the fight back and protect country. DC has stood against those who Capitol Siege. PHOTO COURTESY OF SURYA PUNJAB for less than admirable seek to harm our deprinciples, as much of mocracy and clean up the city was built by after their messes. enslaved people and it served as a major hub for DC institutions and newspapers are the first to the slave trade prior to the Civil War. It was stuck hold our shared public officials accountable. This hard by the war on drugs in the 80s and 90s, and is the DC I love: the one whose residents never once earned the title “murder capital of Ameri- sleep when it comes to making change, the one ca.” Many of its residents still deal with intense whose historic sites symbolize the values our naeconomic and racial inequality, high crime rates, tion strives for, and the one whose opportunities and considerable police violence, as demonstrated shine bright for all, including years ago for a small throughout last summer’s George Floyd protests. immigrant child with limitless curiosity and big Though the district is the center of national pol- dreams. Make sure that next time you see a juicy itics, it is often ignored when it comes to critical headline about something going on in the nation’s issues of political representation and taxation and capital, spare a thought for what the city means to is at the mercy of the federal government for many America and to the millions of people that considof its programs and services. Despite DC having a er the DC metropolitan ar considerably ideologically homogeneous popula-

41

““Nations reel and stagger on their way; they make hideous mistakes; they commit frightful wrongs; they do great and beautiful things.

And shall we not best guide humanity by telling the truth about all this, so far as the truth is ascertainable?”

– W.E.B. DuBois