The Currency

The Currency Fall 2020, Issue I

Masthead Editors in Chief Will Flamm ’21 Christopher Lin ’21 Managing Editor Ho Jin Jang ’21 Economics Editor Evrim Almaz ’21 Politics Editor Tyler McLemore ’22 Finance/Business Editor Charlie Dillon ’21 Features Editor Brooke Edwards ’22 Copy Editors Nathan Lang ’22 Ruari Putnam ’21

2 | The Currency

Contents 4-5 6

Remembering the Late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg Stock Market Recovery: Are We in a Bubble?

7

A Closer Look at Trump’s Relationship with the Military in Wake of Cindy McCain’s Endorsement of Joe Biden

8

The Case for Donald Trump

9

Looking Back at the Trump Administration

10-11

Has He Fulfilled His 20 6 Campaign Promises?

Gold:

Expensive During Crises

12-13

Why Have Some Countries Succeeded in Minimizing the Damages of Covid-19 While Others Have Failed?

14-15

Vote-By-Mail:

16-17

Trump’s Rhetoric and Attempts to Delegitimize Election Results

The Uncertain COVID-19 Stimulus Package Pt. 2:

Striking the Perfect Balance

18-19

Kyle Rittenhouse:

18-19

The Flaws of a Two-Party System in the 2020 Election

Terrorist or Hero?

Fall 2020 | 3

Remembering the Late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Simmie Knox

Tiffany Xiao ’23 On September 18, 2020, America lost one of its greatest feminist icons, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, due to complications from her battle with metastatic pancreatic cancer. Born Joan Ruth Bader in Brooklyn, New York on March 15, 1933, Ginsburg came from a Jewish working-class family and was influenced by her mother, Celia Bader, to value education from an early age. Unfortunately, during Ruth’s time in high school, Celia was diagnosed with cancer and ended up passing away the day before Ruth’s high school graduation.

Four years later in 1954, Ginsburg was graduating first in her class at Cornell University.

Following a year of break due to the birth of her first daughter and the drafting of her husband to the military, she enrolled in Harvard Law School, one of only eight other females in her 500 person class. Despite facing large amounts of discrimination and the diagnosis of her husband’s rare cancer during her time studying

4 | The Currency

law, Ginsburg excelled at Harvard, simultaneously balancing her husband’s schoolwork with her own and caring for her 3-year-old daughter while also becoming the first female to work on the Harvard Law Review. This was only the beginning of the monumental impact she would make as a powerful woman.

Luckily, her husband made a strong recovery from his illness, and upon graduating magna cum laude from Harvard, found a job in New York. Together they traveled to the city, where Ginsburg transferred to Columbia Law School and graduated first in her class in 1959. Shen then took up multiple teaching positions: the first at Rutgers University in 1963 and then at Columbia, where she became the first female professor to earn tenure.

During the 1970s, Ginsburg became the director of the Women’s Rights Project of the American Civil Liberties Union, where she argued six landmark cases to the Supreme Court

regarding gender equality, winning five. Although she was small and frail, standing only fivefoot-one, Ginsburg quickly proved to the world that she was a force to be reckoned with — and a large one at that. After becoming a judge in the US Court of Appeals in 1980, she was nominated to the Supreme Court by Bill Clinton in 1993 to replace Former Justice Byron White. She was confirmed 96-3 in the Senate and became the second woman to sit on the nation’s highest court. She was soft-spoken but fierce, using her wits and persistence to make her voice heard within an all-male court from 2006 to 2009. For 27 years, she campaigned tirelessly as a critical liberal figure for the topics she was passionate about: gender equality, worker’s rights, and the separation of church and state. Her dedication showed; Ginsburg never missed an oral argument, even while undergoing chemotherapy or grieving the loss of her late husband.

Yet, as the nation grieves Ginsburg’s death, the world of politics faces a huge dilemma: how and when to replace the late Justice. With a quickly approaching election that some believe is the most critical of this century, this issue poses a specifically large threat to this year’s voting scene and has stirred massive controversy throughout the country. President Trump now has the chance to fill a third seat in the Court during his term in office, but will he succeed?

How will this impact voting polls?

This scenario bears a striking resemblance to a scene in 2016 when the former President Barack Obama nominated Judge Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court but was refused by the Republican Party because the nomination

took place during an election year. They believed that the people should have a voice in deciding their next Supreme Court Justice while also fearing it would sway voters in the upcoming election. Now, in 2020, it looks as though President Trump is trying to appoint another conservative female judge, Amy Coney Barrett, and the Republican Party is void of any complaints. In fact, they are desperately pushing for her approval. So, what does her appointment mean? Six of nine seats in the court election will be held by conservative judges. Major rulings, the most pressing of which is Roe v. Wade, are in question. Voting for the 2020 election may experience a huge swing of change. Still, in wake of Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s confirmation to the Supreme Court, the entire nation, regardless of political views, should take a moment to celebrate RBG’s incredible legacy.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg stands as a cultural phenomenon, with the awe and support of children and adults alike, some of whom even wear clothing or get tattoos inspired by her. She’s been honored with several awards, most notable of which include being featured in Forbes Magazine’s 100 Most Powerful Women from 2004-2011, National Women’s Hall of Fame, and most recently presented with this year’s National Constitution Center’s Liberty Medal to commemorate her lifetime’s work towards achieving liberty and justice. She did all this while surviving colon cancer, early pancreatic cancer, tumors in her lungs, heart procedures, and the fracturing of three rib bones making her not only a hero and icon, but also a warrior, and will be remembered as such. May she Rest in Power.

“Her goal — to persuade the Supreme Court that the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection applied not only to racial discrimination but to sex discrimination as well — was a daunting one.”

- New York Times Fall 2020 | 5

Stock Market Recovery: Are We in a Bubble?

Wesley Boatwright ’22 On February 19th, the Dow Jones Industrial Index stood tall at 29,348. 33 days later, on March 23rd, it had fallen over 10,000 points to its lowest point in over three years. But, instead of like 2008, the market fully recovered in under six months. How did the Dow rise from 18,592 in late March all the way to 29,000 points in September? The tech giants put the market on their back and carried them out of a 10,000 point hole.

In fairness to the rest of the market, the tech industry was not the only sector that recovered.

Massive stimulus spending involving trillions of dollars injected into the economy helped buoy companies. Additionally, because companies fired workers, they managed to keep operating costs low. The economy began to open again, and companies managed to mostly recover. At the start of a new economic cycle, most of the market is not in a bubble. However, the part of the market that has exploded since the start of COVID-19 is sporting bubble-like valuations.

The tech sector is expensive, crowded, and concentrated in a few names whose peak profits are vulnerable to a weaker dollar, higher taxes, and more rigorous regulation.

The top five technology stocks - Microsoft, Apple, Amazon, Alphabet, and Facebook - make up nearly a quarter of the S&P 500. The last time technology made up such a large part of the S&P 500 was July of 2000. The dot com bubble burst soon after. In August 2020, Apple managed to reach a 2 trillion dollar market cap.

Amazon is trading at 120 times earnings. Worth a combined market cap of over 7.5 trillion, these companies contradict the conventional wisdom of how stocks work.

It was not higher productivity or some great new product that led to the recent rise

6 | The Currency

of tech. Due to general uncertainty regarding COVID-19 and the 2020 U.S. presidential election, investors have retreated to the perceived safety of large tech stocks. Although that stance was correct for the past 11 years, investors are underestimating the current risks to the sector, with the tech-heavy Nasdaq Composite Index now trading at 37 times price/forward earnings, an all-time high. Critically, extreme valuations are concentrated in a handful of companies that may not enjoy such favorable economic conditions forever. The tech sector’s profits are vulnerable to a myriad of factors.

Throughout the last century, the dollar has weakened the year before and the year after a presidential election. This will hurt tech companies like Apple that rely on cheap labor to build their products overseas. With higher costs, the profits of said companies will decrease and begin failing to justify sky-high valuations. If candidate Joe Biden were to become president in 2020, there might be a raise in the effectively minimal tax rates enjoyed by the tech giants, cutting into profit margins. Companies like Amazon pay zero in income tax under the current tax laws, which has drawn the ire of the public and politicians alike. This could change in the near future, further hurting the profits of the tech sector. Under this possible new administration, the tech industry could come under scrutiny for antitrust laws and be subjected to more regulation. The confluence of these factors suggests the sustained massive growth of technology may slow down soon. Low interest rates can justify sky-high multiples, but they don’t manufacture cash flows and profits. The market must recognize the possibility of an unsustainable bubble in the technology sector.

A Closer Look at Trump’s Relationship with the Military in Wake of Cindy McCain’s Endorsement of Joe Biden Michael DiCostanzo ’23 On September 22nd, Cindy McCain, the wife of the late Senator John McCain, a Vietnam War veteran and the 2008 Republican presidential nominee, endorsed Joe Biden for President of the United States. Given Donald Trump’s turbulent history with McCain, this is no surprise. Unfortunately for Trump, this endorsement only weakens his already rocky relationship with the military, which has been building throughout his first term.

In 2015, when prospective candidates were battling over the Republican Party’s nomination for the 2016 presidential election, Trump criticized McCain’s reputation as a war hero. “He’s a war hero because he was captured, I like people who weren’t captured,” stated Trump. When Trump issued this statement, many believed he would not be a serious contender for the nomination. However, to the nation’s shock, Trump’s comments only seemed to increase his popularity.

Trump’s rocky relationship with military members did not stop with McCain. Th oughout his fi st term, multiple allegations of blatant disrespect for military offi als have been brought against Trump. Bob Woodward’s 2020 book Rage contains numerous accusations of Trump’s military-affiliated conduct. In the text, Woodward accused Trump of referring to his generals as “a bunch of p*ssies”. Furthermore, The Atlantic

recently accused Trump of referring to Americans who died in war as “losers” and “suckers”.

Trump’s comments about the military have resurfaced headlines following these recent accusations. Trump has taken to Twitter to claim that he never made any disparaging comments towards the military, and how he never called the late John McCain a “loser”. However, Jennifer Griffin an anchor at Fox News, affirmed claims that Trump did not believe it was worth his time to visit a cemetery where many dead veterans were laid to rest and thought that lowering the American flag on the White House to honor John McCain was unnecessary. Trump reportedly called for this anchor to be fi ed from her position following these tweets, calling the accusations nothing but yet another “hoax” perpetrated by Democrats to smear his image. Fox News has not responded to his demand, but the network’s coverage has generally been in defense of him, in stark contrast to Griffin’s claims.

The Republican Party depends on votes from military members to ensure their election. Donald Trump, however, ostracized a great deal of the base, and the McCain family’s endorsement of Joe Biden exemplifies a growing shift of military families supporting alternative candidates to Trump. As support of the President’s campaign is failing, his treatment of military personnel only solidifies his low chances at re-election.

Fall 2020 | 7

The Case for Donald Trump Clarence Liu ’22

Donald Trump. The sitting president of the United States, oft- idiculed and discredited by Choate students, the media, and more. He has undoubtedly made many questionable decisions during his presidency, whether it be failing to solidly condemn white supremacists or mishandling the coronavirus pandemic (though in my humble opinion, Democrats would have had a much worse response). However, I am here to tell you that his accomplishments outweigh these mistakes and that this is the man we should vote for on November 3rd.

First, let us establish that actions speak louder than words. Trump is defin tely a very vocal person, and exceedingly active on platforms such as Twitter to the point of frequently making controversial statements.

Th s brashness has led to Trump’s overwhelmingly negative portrayal in the mainstream American media, where one can hardly fi d a single piece of support for the president. But contrary to his representation in the media, Trump’s actions in offic show him to be a capable president who has mostly sustained a strong economy for all, made dramatic contributions to the healthcare industry, and taken a variety of actions that have improved the lives of many Americans.

One of Donald Trump’s main selling points is the economy’s outstanding performance under his presidency, at least before COVID-19 hit. For one, Trump signed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act in 2017, which, in short, simplifi d the tax filing process and reduced income taxes as a whole. The president has also pursued deregulation in the energy sector by easing regulations on pipelines and opening up new areas for energy exploration, resulting in America becoming once again a net energy exporter. Furthermore, Trump streamlined fi ancial regulation from the 2008 recession. These are just some of Trump’s policies that resulted in 3% economic growth from 2017 to 2018. Median incomes have dramatically increased and we had a staggeringly low unemployment rate of 3.5%, both of which have benefited workers of all races and ethnicities. Of course, these trends all changed after the pandemic hit. However, the economy looks set to return. That is, as long as Trump remains president and does not shut down the economy again like Joe Biden is in favor of doing.

8 | The Currency

Trump has also made valuable contributions to the healthcare industry. For example, in July 2020, Trump signed four executive orders that would signifi antly lower the price of insulin and epinephrine for low-income Americans. These orders would allow the importation of drugs from foreign countries where identical drugs cost less, prohibit “secret deals” between drug companies and pharmacies that increase prices, and ensure that the United States pays the lowest prices available for drugs. In 2018, Trump secured $6 billion in new funding to fi ht the opioid epidemic and implemented a plan that would cut opioid prescriptions by one-third. Finally, Trump has attempted to make the healthcare system more transparent by ending surprise medical billing and holding hospitals accountable for their billing practices and lawsuits against patients. These are just some of the numerous actions that Trump has taken to improve healthcare for Americans.

There are also countless additional achievements of President Trump that go uncovered by the mainstream media. A high profile example is his brokering of a historic peace deal between Israel, Bahrain, and the United Arab Emirates, who all agreed to a full diplomatic relationship. Trump also signed into law the First Step Act, which attempts to reduce the likelihood of a prisoner re-entering prison after release, as well as other prison reforms such as incarcerating prisoners nearer to their families and enabling home confi ement for low-risk prisoners. Furthermore, Trump signed the bipartisan Great American Outdoors Act, which allocated $900 million per year to the Land and Water Conservation Fund and provided an additional $9.5 billion to better maintain national parks. Along with these aforementioned achievements, there remain so many other actions by Trump that greatly benefit American society that the media does not cover.

Overall, given his creation of an outstanding economy, his much-needed healthcare reforms, and his other benefic al actions, Trump is at the very least a strong competitor to Joe Biden, if not a superior candidate. Still, I urge you to take a look at articles highlighting the case for Biden in order to fully decide who your candidate will be. All in all, Trump is by no means the perfect candidate, but there remains a very strong case for Donald Trump.

Looking Back at the Trump Administration: Has He Fulfilled His 2016 Campaign Promises?

Lauren Hsu ’24 “I’m going to be working for you. I’m not going to have time to go play golf,” said Donald Trump in August of 2016. Th s promise is among the hundreds that President Trump made during his 2016 presidential campaign. Four years later, in the midst of another presidential election, let us take a look back at a number of Trump’s other campaign promises.

“We will build a great wall along the Southern border. And Mexico will pay for the wall. 100%.” Although there has been some progress in the construction of the wall, Mexico has not paid for it. In his 2016 campaign, Trump promised that 1,000 miles of concrete wall would be built where there were previously no natural barriers in place. As of August 2016, 30 miles of new construction has been added and funding is in place for another 157 miles of the wall.

In addition, at least 245 miles of the border were demolished and replaced by stronger barriers. Whether or not these walls have been effective in securing the US-Mexico border is a question up for debate.

“We’re going to defeat ISIS and radical Islamic terrorists.” In March of 2019, the Islamic State lost its fi al territory, while the U.S led a successful raid later in the year that resulted in the death of ISIS leader Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi. However, these losses do not necessarily mean defeat; officials in the U.S believe that there may still be 15,00020,000 armed active ISIS members around the world.

“We will provide massive tax relief for the middle class.” Trump pledged to lower the tax rate for individuals in the highest income bracket from 39% to 33%. He also promised that middle-income families would receive large tax cuts and that he would lower the corporate tax rate from 35% to 15%. The 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act lowered the individual tax rate for high-income earners to 37% and decreased the corporate tax rate to 21%. Individuals and families in the middle-income bracket saw their tax rate drop 4 percentage points, the largest out of all the income brackets.

“One thing we have to do is repeal and replace the disaster known as Obamacare.” So far, Trump has failed to repeal Obamacare, but he is continuing to urge the

Supreme Court to strike it down. However, Trump has been able to make signifi ant changes to Obamacare, eliminating the individual mandate, which penalized those who did not buy health insurance, and slashing the program’s advertising budget. President Trump expanded the short term skinny plans, which leave people unprotected when their health is in jeopardy, and stopped paying subsidies to insurance companies. Lastly, states have been allowed to add a school or work requirement in order to qualify for healthcare. Th s means that benefic aries of Medicaid will have to prove that they have a job or attend school in order to qualify for healthcare.

“Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figu e out what the hell is going on.” As President, Trump partially fulfilled this promise. Under the current ban, Presidential Proclamation 9645, restrictions are placed on travelers from six predominately Muslim countries: Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen.

Other campaign promises include withdrawing from the Paris Agreement, which the president did in 2017, and appointing a conservative Supreme Court Justice, which he has done three times. Trump also promised to deport all illegal immigrants, which he has not done, and prosecute Hillary Clinton, which he abandoned long ago.

Presidents are more than how many campaign promises they fulfill. Nevertheless, looking at what these promises seek to accomplish, we can see why it was broken, and in turn, learn something about the person who holds our highest offi . In total, Trump made over 280 promises during his 2016 campaign. He’s kept about a quarter of them, compromised on a fi h, and broken roughly half. Others are stalled. To put these numbers in perspective, President Trump’s predecessor, President Obama, made over 500 promises as a candidate. Obama kept about half of those promises, compromised on over 25% of them, and broke 23% of them. Trump once claimed, “Unlike so many who came before me, I keep my promises.” Well, we now know the answer to that.

Fall 2020 | 9

Gold:

Expensive During Crises Brian Harder ’23 In search of security, investors have bought so much gold that exchange-traded funds, or ETFs, of this precious metal hold 80% as much gold as Fort Knox. This has created a rapid increase in its price - just over $2000 an ounce in August 2020 compared to around $1600 before lockdowns began in March. For investors who own gold, these past months have been lucrative, but deciding if and when to sell is their new dilemma.

Gold is widely regarded as a safe investment during volatile markets that occur during crises, such as the pandemic. According to Ruth Crowell, “Gold is something we can all recognize and get our heads around, and that’s not always the case with financial investments.” Investing in what one understands can help decrease risk, which is one reason people buy gold when stocks are widely fluctuating. Also, there is a large supply of the metal itself, meaning the investment is well-backed if someone purchases the metal itself or a fund that tracks the price of gold. Given these incentives, many people turn to gold as an investment during crises, and this causes the price to rise. Lower inflation, which is common during recessions, also correlates to higher gold prices. Another reason gold has been popular during COVID-19 and other catastrophes are that it balances return rate with safety. Dilemmas and recessions create upheaval in stocks, making them a riskier investment; therefore, options like savings accounts, bonds, and CD’s would become more logical. However, interest rates often fall in a recession, which means these investments will not significantly grow one’s money. In fact, some government bonds are yielding negative returns right now.

10 | The Currency

Gold, on the other hand, can generate higher returns while still keeping one’s risk levels low.

9/11 was a disaster that sent shock waves throughout the United States. Fear of the event and what could potentially happen in the future permeated society; these concerns also drove people to safer investments to protect their money. In the days after 9/11, gold prices rose 33% as many individuals turned to its increased reliability versus stocks. Similarly, COVID-19 has given investors an incentive to turn to less risky options; given the unpredictable nature of the virus, especially at its onset, the stock market became extremely volatile. Thus, gold became popular once again; its price has risen 30% from the start of the pandemic to July, as it is currently at around $1900. Rupert Neate of The Guardian is even calling this surge in gold prices the “2020 gold rush.” Interest rates have plummeted to almost and below zero, and the virus is far from contained, which maintains feelings of uncertainty. However, given the relatively swift economic recovery of the United States, it is uncertain whether gold will keep its high prices.

Since gold prices have been breaking records during these past months, selling seems logical. The timing is the challenge, and multiple factors influence this decision. First, as the stock market becomes less volatile, gold prices will start to fall since investors will feel less uncertainty regarding securities. Once stocks start producing higher returns again, people will not want to forgo these opportunities. Also, if interest rates rise after the pandemic, gold could become less attractive since other safe investments would have more competitive returns. Lastly,

the U.S. dollar has been somewhat shaky during COVID, especially with the past stimulus package, but it has been more volatile recently. Since the greenback, or U.S. dollar, and gold have an inverse relationship, gold prices could fall if the dollar does manage to regain its growth.

Once a successful vaccine for COVID-19 is created and distributed, a renewed interest in stocks will likely ensue. In essence, the resolution of the pandemic will cause gold prices to fall. The end of a crisis solidifies the economy and stock market’s revivals, removing the need for the safety that gold provides. For example, gold prices rose during the 2008 financial crisis but fell afterward. However, a second wave of COVID-19 is certainly possible, which could drive gold prices even higher. Another challenge with timing is the production of a vaccine. Once a successful cure is produced and distributed, the end of COVID-19 will

have begun and gold prices will likely start to fall. Nonetheless, there is uncertainty with vaccines themselves as they may require years to confirm their efficacy and safety. Soon before enough of the world’s population has been immunized, selling gold might be the right move.

As during past pandemoniums, COVID-19 has created spikes in the price of gold as investors become more risk-averse. This precious metal is tangible and has a steady supply, making it secure. Given that gold prices rose above $2000 in July, this extreme bull market has created a lucrative opportunity to sell. However, the future of the pandemic is uncertain, especially regarding a vaccine, and analysts at Bank of America Merrill Lynch predict that the price could reach $3,000 an ounce by early 2022. Many financial professionals agree that gold has room to grow, so perhaps the best decision for investors is simply to wait and see.

Lombardi Letter

Fall 2020 | 11

Why Have Some Countries Succeeded in Minimizing the Damages of Covid-19 While Others Have Failed?

Harry Margolis ’22 COVID-19 has upended daily life, subsequently highlighting the issues within each nation’s capacity to contain the health and financial costs of the pandemic to its citizenry. The pandemic has presented a great test to national leaders, challenging their levels of resilience, decisiveness, and moral integrity. This piece examines the strategies that countries have implemented to mitigate the effects of the outbreak.

However, before examining the actions of these leaders, it is imperative to consider the features of their respective countries before the virus broke out. This includes the set of major pre-existing national characteristics confronting each government, namely the strength of economies, the nature of the governmental system, the role of the media, and to what extent these factors have affected each nations’ decision-making.

The financial health and strength of a nation’s economy is a key determinant of how well a country can battle a pandemic. As the crisis has shown, vast amounts of money are needed to support unemployed citizens and small businesses who are unable to function as a result of the lockdowns. The large economies of the U.S. and China have the budgetary resources to make these expenditures. Additionally, a feature of these successful economies is a modern healthcare system that can absorb the surge in patients requiring medical help. In contrast, poorer countries have limited financial means to help their populations

12 | The Currency

and a healthcare system that is initially overburdened and suffering from inadequate investment.

Countries such as the United States, China, South Korea, and New Zealand have the advantage of controlling currencies that are well regarded in financial markets. Having such a currency allows a country to “print money,” increasing federal spending in times of crisis. It is estimated that in response to the pandemic and economic crisis, policymakers in the U.S. have approved over 6 trillion dollars of fiscal support. By comparison, there are large countries in the EU like France, Germany, and Spain which cannot act independently as they are all linked to the Euro. They must reach a form of consensus on how much additional debt can be incurred as none of them control their currencies. Thankfully, the EU nations unified during this pandemic with the understanding that the crisis required them to suspend normal budgetary guidelines. Smaller countries may control their currencies, but the financial markets take a negative view of excessive money printing, which damages a nation’s credit ratings.

During a crisis requiring fast action, a country’s system of governance makes a significant difference. Autocracies like China made effective decisions through tough measures that were necessary for the well-being of their country. In a matter of days, the Chinese government shut down entire provinces to control the virus. There was

no national debate, no discussion in the media; China’s leaders simply acted. The United States, in comparison, employs a democratic system that is slower. There are opinions expressed not only from the two branches of the federal government but also from the state governments. In the U.S., the states have reserved powers where the authority can issue state-wide mandates. New York State under Governor Cuomo showed exceptional success in the early months of the crisis when it acted quickly to impose restrictions on New Yorkers. Currently, New York has to deal with the flow of citizens from many southern states where the restrictions are more lenient. This is a weakness of the U.S. federal system in dealing with the COVID-19 pandemic. Another example is Spain, which has a democratic system like the U.S. that designates reserved powers to its districts. Each region has acted with varying levels of restrictions, leading to an inability to control the virus in comparison to that of a centralized government.

A further advantage of an autocracy like China is its ability to control the national media. Chinese citizens receive a uniform message that supports the government’s policies. The fi st amendment promoting free speech in the United States makes the media another challenge during the pandemic. In times of crisis, the multifaceted environment of media outlets can be a deterrent to the action needed to combat a fast-moving virus. In the U.S. and other Western democracies, the independent media sends out confli ting views. Uncontrolled social media, operating 24/7, only worsens the problem, leaving citizens confused about what is the proper course of action. In the U.S., citizens should be hearing science-based information from credible spokespeople like Dr. Fauci, the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Too often, citizens receive their information in a repetitive cycle with outlets like Fox News spewing distorted, false information as part of anti-science claims, wild allegations and hoaxes, and false conspiracies.

At the end of the day, leadership is the most important variable in determining success during a pandemic. Effective leaders can overcome the

obstacles of a weak economy, a fragmented political system, or a set of opposing news outlets.

Countries such as China and South Korea had quick and effective leadership which allowed them to shut down geographic areas where COVID-19 outbreaks were out of control. These nations had a clear plan, message, and measures to support its people. The result was a quick victory over the virus with relatively few fatalities. Those economies have since re-opened and are either close to or back to pre-pandemic levels of activity. In the US and Brazil, by comparison, despite great economic resources and infrastructures, there has been failure caused by incompetent leadership. Donald Trump and the President of Brazil, Jair Bolsanoaro, have denied the virus’s widespread impact and refused to follow the recommended measures of scientists.

Since the reserved powers of the states have exacerbated the problem of containing COVID-19, effective national leadership from the beginning could have established a clear initial plan. The United States has an excellent healthcare system, a strong economy, and a political system that has weathered past crises. However, the strengths of the American government mean nothing alongside the poor leadership of President Trump, whose refusal to implement strict measures have doomed the United States to its present situation. For example, although the United States accounts for 5% of the world’s population, it has 20% of global COVID-19 deaths. Despite these alarming figures, President Trump continues to hold large rallies, where attendees do not wear masks despite public health guidance. Perhaps if President Trump had put the health of the nation before his political agenda, 200,000 Americans would still be alive.

The factors that have determined a country’s success or failure in mitigating the outbreak range from economic affairs, the state of the nation's healthcare system, the types of governance arrangements, and the role of the media. While a country may have pre-existing advantages or disadvantages in these areas, the only assurance of a nation’s success in managing the pandemic lies in the hands of its leadership.

Fall 2020 | 13

George Frey / Getty Images

Vote-by-Mail:

Trump’s Rhetoric and Attempts to Delegitimize Election Results Catherin Cronin ’23 “As far as the ballots are concerned it’s a disaster… this is going to be fraud like you’ve never seen… this is not going to end well,” claimed President Trump during the first presidential debate on September 29, 2020. Although his claims are unsubstantiated, Trump continues to push the public to believe that mail-in ballots, specifically “unsolicited ballots”, are open to fraud and foreign manipulation. With COVID-19 impacting the lives of countless citizens, the numbers of Americans voting by mail is set to reach historic levels. While experts deny the prevalence of fraud in mail-in voting, Trump insists

14 | The Currency

that it is a serious issue that could lead to an unfair election. The president’s statements have little validity and are inciting fear in voters who may be unlikely to turn out to vote as a result.

Voting by mail has become a necessity because of the current circumstances. In fact, compared to 25% of voters in 2016, up to 70% of voters plan to vote by mail this election. Almost all states have made considerable accommodations for absentee ballots, including nine states sending out a ballot to all voters, an increase from four states in 2016. Many states are offering a mail-in ballot option and others are

making COVID-19 an excuse to request an absentee ballot. Many politicians, namely Trump, believe this opens up the election to fraud.

While mail-in voting does increase fraud rates, the chances remain so small that it is statistically irrelevant. Over the past 20 years, more than 250 million ballots have been cast by mail, yet there have only been 143 convicted cases of voter fraud; voter fraud chances are an infinitesimal 0.00006%. The bottom line is that mail-in voting is a process that has been used for decades without problems, and so the notion that this process suddenly became fraudulent is irrational.

Although the president has voted by mail, he has become tremendously concerned with the fairness of the process. Trump has clarified that he only discredits mail-in ballots sent to all voters; however, the argument that there’s a higher risk of fraud if ballots are sent out without request is not statistically proven. Each mail-in ballot requires a signature that is matched with one on file (i.e. voting registration, license, etc.) to confirm that the person voting is the person the ballot was sent to. The possibility of someone voting twice is also slim: election offices have electronic and physical poll books that keep track of those who have voted and so voting twice is extremely difficult. If a person is worried about their vote being counted, they can track their ballot online, and in those states without an online service, voters can call an election official to confirm the status of their ballot. If a voter is unsure that their ballot was processed, they can request a provisional ballot which will be discarded post-election if their mail-in ballot was counted. Despite all of this, Trump still claims mail-in ballots are fraudulent. President Trump has a history of claiming voting fraud, including during the 2016 election when he claimed millions of people voted illegally despite no evidence. Many are worried, based on past and current statements, that Trump will call the election results rigged unless he wins the electoral college and popular vote.

Trump also claimed foreign intervention could cause mail-in ballot fraud. In June 2020, Trump tweeted, “MILLIONS OF MAIL-IN

BALLOTS WILL BE PRINTED BY FOREIGN COUNTRIES, [sic] AND OTHERS. IT WILL BE THE SCANDAL OF OUR TIMES!” In contrast, FBI Director Christopher Wray said that the decentralized nature of U.S. elections makes foreign intervention in mail-in voting near impossible.

Each county has a different ballot form and envelope, each made with specific materials that can be uniquely recognized by processing machines.

If foreign intervention were to occur, it would most likely be through social media and false information, not in the printing of fake ballots.

Another concern of President Trump regarding voter fraud is the possibility that voters may cast their votes after Election Day. Trump has claimed that prepaid postage doesn’t get postmarked, or dated, so it would be impossible to tell if the ballot was processed on Election Day. However, Wayne Thorley, an election official in Nevada, says that prepaid postage does get postmarked. In most instances, the only time a ballot cast after Election Day would be counted is if it arrived within three days after the election and had an illegible postmarked date, a very small category of votes.

Trump is right that voting by mail is not perfect, but it is far from fraudulent. The main issue with voting this year is that it will take a long time to process the historic number of mail-in ballots. Another issue is that around one percent of all mail-in ballots end up getting rejected for either arriving late, missing signatures, or other human errors.

The biggest issue with Trump’s rhetoric regarding mail-in voting is that he is inciting fear in his supporters and delegitimizing the institutions of free and fair American elections. In a poll done in mid-July, 78 percent of Trump supporters thought that absentee ballots were vulnerable to fraud while only 28 percent of Biden supporters believed the like. Many Republicans are trying to backtrack on Trump’s words to allow more of their supporters to confidently vote by mail.

With the election fast approaching, people must be educated on all available ways to vote so that they can exercise their sacred democratic duty.

Fall 2020 | 15

The Uncertain COVID-19 Stimulus Package Pt. 2: Striking the Perfect Balance Ava Maha ’23 Historically, stimulus packages have been used to revive a floundering economy in times of crisis such as the Great Depression, the Great Recession of 2008, and now, the COVID-19 Recession. Given the severity of COVID-19’s detrimental impact on the US economy, there is widespread bipartisan support for a second COVID-19 stimulus package. However, creating a balanced approach that avoids doing more harm than good remains a difficult task. There is a limit to how much money the United States government can spend until stimulus funds are rendered useless. The goal of a stimulus package is to spur economic growth, help unemployed individuals, and support struggling businesses while simultaneously avoiding the negative impacts on our economy caused by inflation and a decreased incentive to work. To determine the best approach for a second stimulus package, we must reflect on the first package to see what was effective and what was not.

The quantitative data point to the first stimulus package being moderately successful. Although the US GDP Q2 2020 dropped dramatically by 32.9% from the year prior, the stimulus

16 | The Currency

plan arguably drove the Q3 rebound. The 14.7% unemployment rate in April 2020 decreased and stabilized to 7.9% in September 2020. Despite the GDP and unemployment rate sitting at suboptimal levels, the stimulus package has prevented the possibility of a more severe recession or even a depression. From a macroeconomic perspective, the first stimulus package was relatively effective at reinvigorating the economy and alleviating unemployment.

It appears that issuing unemployment checks to lower-income individuals and families with less than $500 in their bank account was most effective at stimulating economic activity. Relatively speaking, this population needed the money the most and were more likely to spend it in the fi st two weeks of receiving the check. Alternatively, people who had $3,000 or more in their bank account were more likely to sit on their check and save it for a rainy day, defeating the purpose of quickly infusing money back into the economy. Targeting resources to lower-income people is benefic al because individuals receive the cash they need, which they circulate through the economy, thus creating a large fiscal multiplier.

Many employers have had difficulties filling lower-paying positions because some people make as much or more money from the increased unemployment insurance payments than they would from going back to work. Essentially, some workers are better off reducing their risk of contracting COVID-19 by staying at home and collecting their check. This disincentivizes people from returning to work, which increases unemployment rates and overall economic dysfunction. Talk among Republicans about a “back-to-work” bonus has been ongoing, but no definitive legislation has been passed for this issue.

Small businesses are financially fragile and have been battered when it comes to COVID-19.

In the early months of the pandemic, over 100,000 small businesses permanently closed.

These small businesses do not have the capital reserves of larger enterprises and are at higher risks of failure, which is harmful to unemployment and the economy. Many small businesses were unhappy with the first COVID-19 stimulus package, believing it favored assistance for larger businesses and created “delayed and unevenly distributed” funding. The stimulus did not reach the expectations of what many small businesses needed to survive.

Inflation can be a powerful but dangerous tool for measuring the need for economic stimulus. Professor DeLong, an economics teacher at the University of California, Berkeley, stated, “There are no signs of significant inflation yet...

We should do more, and keep doing more until inflation measures tell us that we have done enough and that demand is slopping over into higher inflation rather than higher unemployment.” However, inflation is a lagging indicator, with some economists believing it is too early to tell the effects of the stimulus package, indicating it is better to be safe than sorry and avoid possible inflation that can further decay our economy.

Still, others are skeptical that enough money has been invested into COVID-19 relief efforts.

There is currently little alignment between Democrats, Republicans, and The White House

regarding the details of a second stimulus package, with the Democrats generally favoring a larger stimulus than the Republicans. President Trump has been very inconsistent thus far regarding his stance on a second stimulus package, initially introducing a $1.6 trillion then a $1.8 trillion package. These proposals received opposition from the Democrats, including Speaker of the US House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi who called the plan “insufficient.” President Trump then tweeted that he would wait until after the election to negotiate a plan. This announcement, unsurprisingly, caused the Dow Jones industrial average to decrease 376 points and the Nasdaq to drop 1.6%. President Trump then changed his mind again and suggested that he could support a stimulus package more extensive than the Democrat’s proposed $2.2 trillion amount during a radio interview. However, his new announcement for a larger stimulus package is incongruent with what the Republicans as a whole want, as many GOP senators are “concern[ed] over the growing federal debt.”

The confusing and inconsistent announcements from the White House leave many Americans feeling lost and concerned. Despite the Q3 rebound, the expiration of the first stimulus check is settling in. To maintain the economic recovery, some form of a stimulus plan needs to be established. Learning from and expanding on the first package’s better aspects, including targeting lower-income brackets, while modifying elements to account for small businesses and job incentivization, is vital. Regarding the package’s size, Democrats, Republicans, and the President must find a middle ground between spending an adequate amount of money to replenish the economy and limiting funds to prevent future inflation and disincentivizing return to work. I am no economist; however, I do know that a reasonable bipartisan balance needs to be established, and it needs to happen quickly. The longer the people in power wait to pass a package to safeguard our economy, the longer the American people wait in uncertainty and financial hardship.

Fall 2020| 17

Kyle Rittenhouse:

Nam Y. Huh / AP

Terrorist or Hero?

Michael Korvyakov ’22 It was around 10 p.m. in Kenosha, Wisconsin; protesters and rioters marched the streets, demanding racial justice and police reform in light of a new police shooting. Suddenly, there are multiple gunshots heard, and we see a man running from a scene, saying, “I just shot someone.” A person is lying a few meters away with an apparent gunshot wound to the head. Later, we see the alleged shooter running down a road with a group of people chasing him. He trips and lands on the ground as people swarm him, trying to disarm him. In the background, someone yells, “get [him].” We hear about four more gunshots. A man lies motionless on the ground while another has a bullet in his arm. The alleged shooter gets up and continues down the street, walking past a set of moving police vehicles, before the video cuts out. That alleged shooter was 17-year-old Kyle Rittenhouse.

To understand this situation, it is important to start from the beginning. This all began with the shooting of Jacob Blake. Police in Kenosha, Wisconsin, shot Blake in the back seven times.

Blake was walking away from cops and getting in his SUV (against the requests of the police officers). He was taken to a hospital and survived. Shortly after, unrest broke out in the streets of Kenosha, Wisconsin, protesting this act of seemingly unjustified police brutality, in some instances turning violent. In response to this violence, a group of armed men took to the streets of Kenosha to “protect these businesses.”

Among these men was Kyle Rittenhouse, a teenager from Antioch, Illinois.

In interviews recorded by conservative-leaning news organizations such as BlazeTV, Kyle

18 | The Currency

Rittenhouse describes the nature of his presence at the protests. In his words, he says he was there to “protect businesses and help the people.” The business Rittenhouse was referring to was an auto shop located at the center of the protests.

He is also seen holding a medical kit and mentions that he is an EMT, even leaving one of the interviews when he sees a wounded man.

Following the engagement against the BLM supporters, Kyle Rittenhouse was charged with fi st-degree intentional homicide, fi st-degree reckless homicide, reckless endangerment in the fi st degree, attempted fi st-degree intentional homicide, and possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18. Although open-carry of an AR-15 is not illegal for people above the age of 18 in Wisconsin, Rittenhouse will likely be convicted because his age forbids him from carrying that weapon outside of a hunting or a shooting range.

Th s gun charge will likely be an easy conviction, but the homicide charges are more disputable. In the fi st video, we see Rittenhouse being pursued by a man, approximately four blocks away from the gas station that he was initially protecting. Objects are being thrown at him during the chase. The full picture of this story is unclear, but assuming that the chase was unprovoked, we should be able to agree that he has the right to shoot if his life was in danger. For a conviction to happen on these charges, the prosecution would have to prove that he had the right to self-defense and had the right to shoot. After he took the shot, he stayed at the scene and picked up his phone to make and allegedly made a call stating, “I just shot someone.” Finally, we only see him leave the scene when he begins to be chased by a group of people.

For the second and third shootings, there is a better idea of what transpired, as there is a video of the events leading up to it. Rittenhouse is being chased down the street by a group of people when he trips and falls to the fl or. We hear a gunshot, but it does not come from Kyle’s gun. We later learn that the initial gunshot was by a man with a pistol, who approached Rittenhouse while he was on the ground. The man with the pistol was shot in the arm and survived. The other death on that night was a man who ran up to Rittenhouse with a skateboard, presumably attempting to hit him with it.

Out of all three instances, this is the most clear-cut self-defense case. Rittenhouse was on the ground, attacked by a man with a skateboard. He had reason to believe his life was at risk and made a shot to get away. After the incident, Kyle Rittenhouse got back to his home state of Illinois and turned himself into the Antioch police department.

Of course, all of these murder charges assume that he had the intention of murder when he committed them. Th s accusation goes against what we saw of him before the violence transpired: he was willingly medically assisting the protesters.

Although not in the right, he is a far cry from the murderous white supremacist many on the left have attempted to paint him as. Joe Biden released an ad accusing Donald Trump of supporting white supremacy and included a video of Kyle Rittenhouse among his examples. On the other hand, he is also not the hero that many on the right are making of him: there have been millions of dollars raised for funding of his legal team and praise of him from multiple mainstream conservative commentators. Without more witness accounts or surveillance footage, we may never know exactly what went down that night. But one this is for certain: this court case will be one for the books.

Fall 2020| 19

The ideas and viewpoints expressed by the author are entirely his own.

-Editors

The Flaws of a TwoParty System in the 2020 Election Lex Njomin ’22 If the founders of America could see what our politics have devolved into, they would be rolling in their graves. Many obstacles have plagued American politics throughout its existence. However, one problem sticks out in particular to me: the two-party system. I think my concerns are worded best by the second American president, John Adams. “There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other.

This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution.” Quite ironic how things have turned out.

Why do I, like John Adams, hate the two-party system so much? Easy — it encourages meaningless and territorial politics. I see three main flaws with the current dynamics of our political system, especially as we approach the 2020 election. First, the two-party system destroys the middle ground, which is what America desperately needs right now. Second, factional behavior encourages each side to put monetary partisan gain before the well-being of the country. Third, the system does not propor-

20 | The Currency

tionally represent political views, which results in fewer opinions being heard. While the system is imperfect in many ways, I believe these three problems are the most pressing problems of our current two-party political landscape.

To begin, I believe that our two-party system encourages extreme and territorial politics.

A quick look at the modern political landscape is sufficient to support this belief. Such behavior is observed within Congress, where we rarely see Representatives or Senators break from party lines. Worse yet, we continue to see increasing polarization and a lack of cooperation between parties. As a result of increased Congressional factionalism, the political middle ground is eroding faster than at any time in modern political history. This tribal behavior is not limited to legislators, and these divisions in Congress are representative of the widening partisan chasm in the lives of all Americans. Political parties now play a large role in determining where someone will live, who they will marry, and where they will send their kids to school.

This increasing extremism can be observed in trends in support for presidential candidates.

To no surprise, in 2017, conservatives overwhelmingly supported the president, standing at 87% approval, and have continued to do so with shocking stability in 2020, staying steady at 86% approval. There is a visible herd mentality in modern politics across both parties.

People have stopped recognizing where to draw the line and started justifying their support of their party’s actions even if they are not morally right. This issue is not mutually exclusive, and we have seen lots of recent extremism exacerbate existing social divides. As John Adams so acutely recognized, one of democracy’s greatest pitfalls is to allow each party to arrange “under its leader” and butt opposing heads to no avail, which is the precise situation the country finds itself during the 2020 election.

This increasing polarization and extremism caused by the two-party system lead to the disregard of the public interest in favor of party politics. I believe that when two great parties rise to political power and maintain their influence, they start acting in self-interest rather than for the national good. At the point when both parties are essentially guaranteed half the votes every election, they simply do not need to try to innovate new or groundbreaking policies. This is due to the cycle of political socialization. When each party has staked out their constituents in a cut and dried manner, the political views of the people will also follow suit. For example, if you grew up in a conservative household, read conservative news, and went to a conservative school, you are most likely conservative. Political socialization carries generationally and encourages a political climate where politicians only need to keep promising the same things they promised in the past while only working for self-gain. The situation I have just described is the precise crossroads America has arrived at. Reaching this intersection between self-interest and national good has created an effect dubbed “pendulum motion”. Pendulum motion describes the reversals of laws and proposals during each succeeding presidency that switches political parties. With increasing frequency, presidents have struck down potentially benefic al laws they feel do not serve them or their party. They then introduce new proposals and acts that only proceed to be overturned in the future.

As a result of not needing to innovate policy and fi ht for a larger chunk of the vote, we see politicians open themselves up to interest groups.

More and more legislators have come to exploit their positions for personal benefits, such as taking in support in the form of campaign donations from said groups and lobbyists. Interest groups have a big stake in politics and can single-handedly prevent legislation from being passed by getting the right people in offic or running anti-campaign efforts against the opposition. A quick trip to the Federal Election Commission’s website and searching up the contributor name “NRA” or “National Rifle Association” easily puts the scope of

Fall 2020 | 21

donations in perspective. Under just the “NRA VICTORY FUND” domain, the association has spent over 7.26 million USD in counter-advertising against Joe Biden under independent expenditures from August 2020 to October 2020. 7.26 million USD is greater than what the majority of American counties each raised for the Biden campaign since 2019. American society has reached unprecedented levels of polarization in recent years. Th s polarization does not do anything for the public and only helps politicians stay in power.

We see the absurdity of the situation, the unfairness, and disdain for actual policymaking but sit idly by. No matter who you are, it is easy to see that the two-party system has made politicians selfish.

I have one last gripe about the bipartisan system. In our current system, there simply is no proportional representation. In a country of over 300 million people, I can guarantee that most citizens’ political views will not fit nicely under just two parties. As a matter of fact, two-thirds of Americans believed that neither party accurately represented the American people in 2017.

Obviously, the “third” American political parties are often taken as jokes, failing year after year to secure a significant number of legislative seats.

This lack of support for third parties is because people tend to choose the more “popular” parties rather than take a risk and cast a vote for the underdogs. However, it does not have to be like that. Introducing a third party will not immedi-

22 | The Currency

ately fix the representation issue, but adding a few more parties would. The simple solution of getting people to vote for different parties would essentially mend all the flaws I have laid out so far. First, more parties are equivalent to more representation. The more opinions in Congress, the more opinions are heard when drafting laws.

More opinions equal fairer representation of society. Second, introducing more parties that people will actually vote for because they accurately represent individuals will take votes away from the big parties. When neither of the main parties can easily secure a huge majority, they will be forced to start innovating new legislation.

Essentially, introducing competition will stimulate political growth and development, which is precisely what the current bipartisan system is lacking. Lastly, increasing the number of political parties would reduce overall extremism. There could be designated parties for more moderate or extreme politicians and citizens. A system like this would not force people to support one party that only slightly represents their views. In fact, it might even force politicians to work together, possibly through a coalition government. Reducing political polarization might even prevent the “pendulum motion” I described earlier. Although there are a lot of hypotheticals in these scenarios, the simple facts are there. A bipartisan system does not accurately represent the people. This problem is exacerbated when America is in dire need of a political climate that can accurately represent the viewpoints of most citizens, such as the 2020 election cycle.

For a long time, many anticipated the bipartisan system would take America in a negative direction. Despite warnings from George Washington and John Adams, the United States wholly leaped in that direction. The current system has many pitfalls: polarization, selfishness, and subpar representation. If these issues were not already apparent, the 2020 election has brought them to the forefront. Yet, it has always been in the spirit of this country to work towards self-improvement.

For all its faults, I have faith that the problems in this election can be amended in the future.

Citations Remembering the Late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg Baker, Peter, and Maggie Haberman. “McConnell Vows Vote on Ginsburg Replacement as Her Death Upends the 2020 Race.” The New York Times (New York City, USA), September 18, 2020.

Accessed October 12, 2020. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/18/us/politics/mitch-mcconnell-supreme-court-ruth-bader-ginsburg.html.

Biography.com Editors. “Ruth Bader Ginsburg Biography.” The Biography.com website. Last modified April 2, 2014. Accessed October 12, 2020. https://www.biography.com/law-figure/ruth-bader-ginsburg.

Bucchino, Rachel. “Can Mitch McConnell and Lindsey Graham Shake the Ghost of Merrick Garland?” The National Interest, September 22, 2020. Accessed October 12, 2020. https://nationalinterest.org/blog/2020-election/can-mitch-mcconnell-and-lindsey-graham-shake-ghost-merrickgarland-169433.

Campisi, Jessica. “Ruth Bader Ginsburg to be awarded this year’s Liberty Medal.” CNN. Last modified August 27, 2020. Accessed October 12, 2020. https://www.cnn.com/2020/08/27/politics/ ruth-bader-ginsburg-liberty-medal-trnd/index.html.

Cohen, Robert, and Laura J. Dull. “Teaching About the Feminist Rights Revolution: Ruth Bader Ginsburg as ‘The Thurgood Marshall of Women’s Rights.’” The American Historian. Accessed October 12, 2020. https://www.oah.org/tah/issues/2017/november/teaching-about-the-feminist-rights-revolution-ruth-bader-ginsburg-as-the-thurgood-marshall-of-womens-rights/.

Greenhouse, Linda. “Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Supreme Court’s Feminist Icon, Is Dead at 87.” The New York Times (New York City, USA), September 18, 2020. Accessed October 12, 2020. https://www. nytimes.com/2020/09/18/us/ruth-bader-ginsburg-dead.html.

History.com Editors. “Ruth Bader Ginsburg.” HISTORY. Last modified November 9, 2009. Accessed October 12, 2020. https://www.history.com/topics/womens-history/ruth-bader-ginsburg#:~:text=Ruth%20Bader%20Ginsburg%20became%20the,its%20first%20female%20tenured%20professor.

Houck, Aaron M. “Ruth Bader Ginsburg.” Britannica.com. Last modified September 22, 2020. Accessed October 12, 2020. https://www.britannica.com/biography/Ruth-Bader-Ginsburg.

“Ruth Bader Ginsburg.” Oyez. Accessed October 12, 2020. https://www.oyez.org/justices/ruth_bader_ginsburg.

“Ruth Bader Ginsburg.” Wikipedia. Accessed October 12, 2020. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Ruth_Bader_Ginsburg.

Stock Market Recovery: Are We in a Bubble?

Fortune. “Apple Is the First U.S. Company to Hit a $2 Trillion Stock Market Valuation.” Accessed November 7, 2020. https://fortune.com/2020/08/19/apple-2-trillion-stock-market-valuationfirst-u-s-company/.

“DJIA | Dow Jones Industrial Average Historical Prices - WSJ.” Accessed November 7, 2020. https:// www.wsj.com/market-data/quotes/index/DJIA/historical-prices.

Rutt, Scott. “Trillion-Dollar Tech: Cramer’s ‘Mad Money’ Recap (Thursday 10/29/20).” TheStreet.

Accessed November 7, 2020. https://www.thestreet.com/jim-cramer/trillion-dollar-tech-cramersmad-money-recap-oct-29.

Fall 2020 | 23

A Closer Look at Trump’s Relationship with the Military in Wake of Cindy McCain’s Endorsement of Joe Biden “Cindy McCain Endorses Joe Biden: ‘There’s Only One Candidate in This Race Who Stands up for Our Values.’” Accessed November 7, 2020. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/cindy-mccain-endorses-joe-biden-for-president-2020-0 9-22/.

Washington Examiner. “Fox News Correspondent Defends Sources Confirming Atlantic Story after Trump Says She Should Be Fired,” September 5, 2020. https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/ news/fox-news-correspondent-defends-sourcesconfirming-atlantic-story-after-trump-says-sheshould-be-fired.

“The Atlantic’s Trump Report: We Should Know the Sources of a Story This Important | TheHill.”

Accessed November 7, 2020. https://thehill.com/opinion/technology/515289-the-atlantics-trumpreport-we-should-kn ow-the-sources-of-a-story-this-important.

“Trump Attacks McCain: ‘I like People Who Weren’t Captured’ - POLITICO.” Accessed November 7, 2020. https://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/trump-attacks-mccain-i-like-people-who-were nt-captured-120317.

MSN. “Trump Called the Generals under His Command a ‘bunch of p---Ies,’ New Book Says.” Accessed November 7, 2020. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-called-the-generalsunder-his-comma nd-a-bunch-of-p-ies-new-book-says/ar-BB18S1LR. The Case for Donald Trump Board, The Editorial. “Opinion | Remember the Trump Economy?” Wall Street Journal, August 25, 2020, sec. Opinion. https://www.wsj.com/articles/remember-the-trump-economy-11598396570.

Collins, Doug. “Text - H.R.5682 - 115th Congress (2017-2018): FIRST STEP Act.” Webpage, May 23, 2018. 2017/2018. https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/5682/text.

The White House. “Congress Didn’t Act on Prescription Drug Prices. So President Trump Did.,” July 27, 2020. https://www.whitehouse.gov/articles/congress-didnt-act-on-prescription-drug-prices-so-president-trump-did/.

The White House. “Ending America’s Opioid Crisis.” Accessed November 7, 2020. https://www.whitehouse.gov/opioids/.

Karni, Annie. “Trump Signs Landmark Land Conservation Bill.” The New York Times, August 5, 2020, sec. U.S. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/04/us/politics/trump-land-conservation-bill.html.

Schwartz, Felicia. “What’s in Israel’s Deal With Bahrain and the U.A.E.?” Wall Street Journal, October 20, 2020, sec. World. https://www.wsj.com/articles/israel-uae-bahrain-deal-11597350194.

Trump. “An America-First Healthcare Plan.” Federal Register, October 1, 2020. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/10/01/2020-21914/an-america-fi st-healthcare-plan.

York, Erica, and Alex Muresianu. “TCJA Simplifi d Tax Filing Process for Millions of Households.” Tax Foundation (blog), August 7, 2018. https://taxfoundation.org/the-tax-cuts-and-jobs-act-simplifi dthe-tax-filing-process-for-millions-of-americans/.

Looking Back at the Trump Administration: Has He Fulfilled His 2016 Campaign Promises?

Appelbaum, Binyamin, and Robert Pear. “The 5 Easiest and 5 Most Difficult Promises for Donald Trump to Keep (Published 2016).” The New York Times, December 7, 2016, sec. U.S. https://www. nytimes.com/2016/12/07/us/politics/donald-trump-campaign-promises-president.html.

Bernstein, Jonathan. “Opinion | Has Trump Kept His Promises? - The New York Times.” The New York Times, August 22, 2019. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/22/opinion/trump-promises-campaign-2016.html.

24 | The Currency

Business, Fox. Trump to Cut Individual, Corporate Taxes, 2016. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VoSMdv6D9Lw. ———. Trump: We Will Build a Great Wall along the Southern Border, 2016. https://www.youtube. com/watch?v=2J9y6s_ukBQ. Colvin, Jill. “Trump’s ‘Golden Egg’ in 2020 Election Is Ability to Keep Many Campaign Promises: Experts - National | Globalnews.Ca.” Global News, August 23, 2020. https://globalnews.ca/ news/7293543/donald-trump-campaign-promises-2020-election/.

“Donald Trump 2016 Presidential Campaign.” In Wikipedia, October 15, 2020. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump_2016_presidential_campaign&oldid=983617741.

Duffin, Selena. “Trump Is Trying Hard To Thwart Obamacare. How’s That Going?” NPR, October 14, 2019. https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2019/10/14/768731628/trump-is-tryinghard-to-thwart-obamacare-hows-that-going.

Farley, Robert, and Angie Drobnic Holan. “Counting Obama’s Campaign Promises.” PolitiFact, January 14, 2009. https://www.politifact.com/article/2009/jan/14/counting-obamas-campaign-promises/.

Gleckman, Howard, and Business in the Beltway. “The Final Tax Bill Falls Far Short Of President Trump’s Campaign Promises.” Forbes, December 18, 2017. https://www.forbes.com/sites/ beltway/2017/12/18/the-final-tax-bill-falls-far-short-of-president-trumps-campaign-promises/?sh=5d7e8fe428a5.

CNN. “ISIS Fast Facts.” Accessed November 8, 2020. https://www.cnn.com/2014/08/08/world/isisfast-facts/index.html.

“Islamic State Group Defeated as Final Territory Lost, US-Backed Forces Say.” BBC News, March 23, 2019, sec. Middle East. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-47678157.

Kristof, Nicholas. “Opinion | ‘I Keep My Promises,’ Trump Said. Let’s Check.” The New York Times, September 5, 2020, sec. Opinion. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/05/opinion/sunday/ trump-promises-check.html.

Niquette, Mark. “How Much US-Mexico Border Wall Has Trump Built? Who Is Paying for It? - Bloomberg.” Bloomberg, September 1, 2020. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-09-01/the-border-wall-that-u-s-not-mexico-is-paying-for-quicktake.

Qiu, Linda. “PolitiFact - Donald Trump’s Top 10 Campaign Promises.” PolitiFact, July 15, 2016. https://www.politifact.com/article/2016/jul/15/donald-trumps-top-10-campaign-promises/.

“Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017.” In Wikipedia, November 5, 2020. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tax_Cuts_and_Jobs_Act_of_2017&oldid=987243062.

“Trump Travel Ban.” In Wikipedia, October 10, 2020. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php? title=Trump_travel_ban&oldid=982844885.

PolitiFact. “Trump-O-Meter: Tracking Trump’s Campaign Promises | PolitiFact.” Accessed November 8, 2020. https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/trumpometer/.

“US Election 2020: Has Trump Delivered on His Promises?” BBC News, October 15, 2020, sec. US & Canada. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-37982000.

Wolf, Zachary B. “SCOTUS Confirmation Process, Explained - CNNPolitics.” CNN, September 25, 2020. https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/25/politics/supreme-court-confirmation-explained/index. html.

Fall 2020 | 25

Gold: Expensive During Crises “Gold Prices - 100 Year Historical Chart.” Macrotrends, www.macrotrends.net/1333/historicalgold-prices-100-year-chart. Accessed 7 Oct. 2020.

McKeever, Vicky. “Why People Consider Gold to Be a ‘Safe Haven’ in Crises like the Coronavirus.”

CNBC, 20 Apr. 2020, www.cnbc.com/2020/04/20/coronavirus-why-gold-is-seen-as-a-safe-haven-investment-in-a-crisis.html. Accessed 7 Oct. 2020.

Neate, Rupert. “After Covid-19, Just How High Will Prices Go in the 2020 Gold Rush?” The Guardian, Guardian News & Media, 5 Aug. 2020, www.theguardian.com/business/2020/aug/05/aftercovid-19-just-how-high-will-prices-go-in-the-2020-gold-rush. Accessed 7 Oct. 2020.

Saefong, Myra P., and Mark DeCambre. “Gold Prices Reclaim $1900 to Post Highest Finish in Nearly Two Weeks.” MarketWatch, 1 Oct. 2020, www.marketwatch.com/story/gold-price-rises-to-retake-perch-at-around-1-900-11601554062. Accessed 7 Oct. 2020.

DeCambre, Mark. “The U.S. dollar is getting punched in the mouth, and its outlook amid coronavirus doesn’t look great, some experts say.” MarketWatch, 21 July 2020, https://www.marketwatch. com/story/the-u-s-dollar-is-getting-punched-in-the-mouth-and-its-outlook-amid-coronavirus-doesnt-look-great-some-experts-say-11595364332. Accessed 9 Oct. 2020.

Why Have Some Countries Succeeded in Minimizing the Damages of Covid-19 While Others Have Failed?

“Covid World Map: Tracking the Global Outbreak - The New York Times.” Accessed November 7, 2020. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/world/coronavirus-maps.html.

MSN. “How China Beat Coronavirus Over the Last Six Months.” Accessed November 7, 2020. https:// www.newsweek.com/china-coronavirus-six-months-pandemic-beat-virus-15328 74.

“How Trump and Bolsonaro Broke Latin America’s Covid-19 Defenses - The New York Times.” Accessed November 7, 2020. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/27/world/trump-bolsonaro-coronavirus-latin-americ a.html.

“The U.S. Has Thrown More than $6 Trillion at the Coronavirus Crisis. That Number Could Grow.

- The Washington Post.” Accessed November 7, 2020. https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/04/15/coronavirus-economy-6-trillion/ Vote-by-Mail: Trump’s Rhetoric and Attempts to Delegitimize Election Results Farivar, Masood. “How Widespread Is Voter Fraud in the US? ” Voice of America. Last modified September 13, 2020. Accessed October 12, 2020. https://www.voanews.com/2020-usa-votes/ how-widespread-voter-fraud-us.

Farley, Robert. “Trump Campaign Exaggerates Potential for Mail-In Voting Fraud After Election.”

FactCheck.Org. Last modified August 14, 2020. Accessed October 12, 2020. https://www.factcheck.org/2020/08/trump-campaign-exaggerates-potential-for-mail-in-voting-fraud-after-election/.

Farley, Robert. “Trump’s Bad Advice for Mail-In Voters.” FactCheck.Org. Last modified September 4, 2020. Accessed October 12, 2020. https://www.factcheck.org/2020/09/trumps-bad-advice-formail-in-voters/.

Langer, Gary. “Pandemic surge damages Trump, boosting Biden’s White House bid: POLL.” ABC News. Last modified July 19, 2020. Accessed October 12, 2020. https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/ pandemic-surge-damages-trump-boosting-bidens-white-house/story?id=71779431.

Parks, Miles. “How The Pandemic Will Affect This Year’s Election | NPR.” Lecture, June 4, 2020.

Parks, Miles. “Ignoring FBI And Fellow Republicans, Trump Continues Assault On Mail-In Vot-

ing.” NPR. Last modified August 28, 2020. Accessed October 12, 2020. https://www.npr. org/2020/08/28/906676695/ignoring-fbi-and-fellow-republicans-trump-continues-assault-onmail-in-voting.

Parks, Miles. “Trump, While Attacking Mail Voting, Casts Mail Ballot Again.” NPR. Last modified August 19, 2020. Accessed October 12, 2020. https://www.npr.org/2020/08/19/903886567/ trump-while-attacking-mail-voting-casts-mail-ballot-again.

Riccardi, Nicholas. “AP FACT CHECK: Trump’s big distortions on mail-in voting.” The Associated Press. Last modified September 17, 2020. Accessed October 12, 2020. https://apnews.com/article/virus-outbreak-election-2020-ap-fact-check-elections-voting-fraud-and-irregularities-8c5d b90960815f91f39fe115579570b4.

Sullivan, Andy. “Explainer: Fraud is rare in U.S. mail-in voting. Here are the methods that prevent it.” Reuters. Last modified July 7, 2020. Accessed October 12, 2020. https://www.reuters.com/ article/us-usa-election-vote-by-mail-explainer/explainer-fraud-is-rare-in-u-s-mail-in-votinghere-are-the-methods-that-prevent-it-idUSKBN2482SA. Terrill, Matt. “For Donald Trump to defy the odds again, his supporters can’t fear mail-in voting.”

USA Today. Last modified September 24, 2020. Accessed October 12, 2020. https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/voices/2020/09/24/donald-trump-mail-in-voting-florida-2020-electioncolumn/3504237001/.

The Uncertain COVID-19 Stimulus Package Pt. 2: Striking the Perfect Balance Arnold. “Small Businesses To Washington: Please Send Money Soon Or We Won’t Survive.” NPR, March 28, 2020. https://www.npr.org/2020/03/18/817686265/small-businesses-to-washington-please-sendmoney-soon-or-we-wont-survive.

Cassidy, John. “The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly in the Two-Trillion-Dollar Stimulus | The New Yorker.”

The New Yorker, March 26, 2020. https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/the-good-thebad-and-the-ugly-in-the-two-trillion-dollar-stimulus.

U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis. “Gross Domestic Product, 2nd Quarter 2020 (Advance Estimate) and Annual Update | U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA),” July 30, 2020. https://www.bea.gov/ news/2020/gross-domestic-product-2nd-quarter-2020-advance-estimate-and-annual-update.

Halton, Clay. “Stimulus Check Defin tion.” Investopedia, March 26, 2020. https://www.investopedia.com/ terms/s/stimulus-check.asp.

Hayes, Adam. “Stimulus Package.” Investopedia, May 5, 2020. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/ stimulus-package.asp.

Center Forward. “History of Stimulus Packages,” July 30, 2020. https://center-forward.org/history-of-stimulus-packages/.

Holzhauer, Brett. “Stimulus Packages Th ow Money At Financial Crises. But Do They Actually Help The Economy? ” Forbes, September 15, 2020. https://www.forbes.com/advisor/personal-fi ance/stimulus-packages-throw-money-at-fi ancial-crises-but-do-they-actually-help-the-economy/.

Iacurci, Greg. “Trump Administration Wants to Replace $600 Unemployment Benefit with Back-to-Work Bonus.” CNBC, June 15, 2020. https://www.cnbc.com/2020/06/15/trump-wants-back-to-work-bonusinstead-of-600-unemployment-benefit.html.

Long, Heather. “Small Business Used to Defi e America’s Economy. The Pandemic Could Change That Forever.” Washington Post, May 12, 2020. https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/05/12/ small-business-used-defi e-americas-economy-pandemic-could-end-that-forever/.

Morath, Eric. “Coronavirus Relief Often Pays Workers More Than Work.” Wall Street Journal, April 28, 2020, sec. Economy. https://www.wsj.com/articles/coronavirus-relief-often-pays-workers-more-than-

Front Cover Art by Athena Liu ’23

work-11588066200.

National Conference of State Legislators. “National Employment Monthly Update.” Accessed November 7, 2020. https://www.ncsl.org/research/labor-and-employment/national-employment-monthly-update. aspx.

Rabouin, Dion. “How the U.S. Economy Powered through Q3.” Axios, October 6, 2020. https://www.axios. com/us-economy-recovery-q3-coronavirus-recession-e6a9caa9-5498-4c44-997b-29b4a82f3831.html.

Soergel, Andrew. “‘Furious’ Small Business Owners Fuel Feelings of Unfairness in Coronavirus Stimulus.”

US News & World Report, April 22, 2020. https://www.usnews.com/news/economy/articles/2020-04-22/ furious-small-business-owners-fuel-feelings-of-unfairness-in-coronavirus-stimulus.

Taherian, Suzy. “New Stimulus Needed: $1,200 Check Had Little Impact On Economy.” Forbes, May 15, 2020. https://www.forbes.com/sites/suzytaherian/2020/05/15/new-stimulus-needed-1200-check-hadlittle-impact-on-economy/.

Werner, Erica, and Jeff Stein. “Trump Cuts off Stimulus Relief Talks until after Election, Upending Prospects for Aid.” Washington Post, October 6, 2020. https://www.washingtonpost.com/us-policy/2020/10/06/ trump-kills-stimulus-talks/.

Zeballos-Roig, Joseph. “Trump Administration’s $1.8 Trillion Stimulus Plan: Direct Payments, Unemployment Benefits - Business Insider.” Business Insider, October 10, 2020. https://www.businessinsider.com/ trump-administration-stimulus-plan-direct-payments-unemployment-benefits-2020-10.

Kyle Rittenhouse: Terrorist or Hero?

NBC News. “Kyle Rittenhouse, Charged with Killing 2 Kenosha Protesters, Has Bond Set at $2M.” Accessed November 7, 2020. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/kyle-rittenhousecharged-killing-2-kenosha-protesters-has-bond-set-n1245953.

Mahbubani, Rhea. “Video Emerges of Kyle Rittenhouse before the Deadly Shooting in Kenosha Saying He Was Carrying a Gun Because ‘I Need to Protect Myself, Obviously.’” Insider. Accessed November 7, 2020. https://www.insider.com/kenosha-gunman-kyle-rittenhouse-interview-2020-8.

The Flaws of a Two-Party System in the 2020 Election Federal Election Commission. “Browse Independent Expenditures.” Accessed November 10, 2020. https://www.fec.gov/data/independent-expenditures/.

Drutman, Lee, William A. Galston, and Tod Lindberg. “Why Americans’ Desires for a Third Party Are Unlikely to Come True.” Democracy Fund Voter Study Group, September 2018. https://www. voterstudygroup.org/publication/spoiler-alert.

Dunn, Amina. “Trump’s Approval Ratings so Far Are Unusually Stable – and Deeply Partisan.” Pew Research Center (blog), August 24, 2020. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/08/24/ trumps-approval-ratings-so-far-are-unusually-stable-and-deeply-partisan/.

McMinn, Sean, Alyson Hurt, and Ruth Talbot. “Money Tracker: How Much Trump And Biden Have Raised In The 2020 Election.” NPR, October 22, 2020. https://www.npr.org/2020/05/20/858347477/ money-tracker-how-much-trump-and-biden-have-raised-in-the-2020-election.