Drake Political Review | Volume I | Issue II |

DRAKE POLITICAL REVIEW SPRING 2015 | VOLUME I | ISSUE II

TELEMEDICINE AND TOUGH POLITICS THE FACE OF TERRORISM

A GUIDE TO THE IOWA CAUCUSES THE UKRAINE CRISIS AFTER THE HEADLINES

POLITICAL MARTYRS

420

30 15 38 DOMESTIC:

LOCAL:

Political Martyrs

LEGAL:

Climate Change in the Courtroom

D O MES TIC The Other Pro-Choice: Is Rights Rhetoric is Defining the Organized Labor Debate?

Page 6 Policy On Your Plate: How the Federal Government is Re-Writing Your Grocery List

Page 7

A Guide to the Iowa Caucuses

WORLD:

The Face of Terrorism

23

WO RLD Cantaloupes, Dreamers, and a King: Debunking the Myths Surrounding the Immigration Debate

Page 9 The Ukraine Crisis After the Headlines: Europe and Russia Continue to Struggle Over Ukraine

Page 12

The Anarchy of Running

SOCIAL:

Governing through the Silver Screen

LEGAL

SOCIAL

LOCAL

Climate Change in the Courtroom: Environmentalism: Tipping the Scales of Justice?

Page 20

Governing through the Silver Screen: Pop Culture’s Influence in Political Perception

Page 23

The Turning Point: Are Iowa’s Mental Health Services Closing Up Shop or Embracing the Future?

Page 26

Five Ways to Get Fired: Perfectly Legal Ways to Get Canned

Page 24

Telemedicine and Tough Politics: The Roadblocks to Creative Healthcare Access in Rural Iowa

Page 28

Pharmacists with Benefits: How Legislation May Be Changing the Role of Your Pharmacist

Page 21

THEORY:

T HE O RY Off the Bench and Into the Game: When Politics and Sports Collide

Page 34 Dream On: The Missing Rungs in The Ladder to Prosperity

Page 37

DR AK E P OL I T I CAL REVIEW EDITOR-IN-CHIEF BRIANNA STEIRER ART DIRECTOR SUSANNA HAYWARD

F RO M T H E E DI TO R S D E SK Love it or hate it, politics has everything to do with your life. Its impacts are big at times and small at others, but nonetheless politics makes the world go round. In this issue of Drake Political Review, our team of writers and editors wanted to make you stop and think about just how interwoven politics is with our everyday lives and get you prepared for that inevitable dinner time debate with your loving (but admittedly too outspoken) uncle.

Living in Iowa, its hard to hide from the crown jewel of Iowa politics— the Iowa caucuses. Presidential candidates flock, campaign offices spring up seemingly out of nowhere and political junkies wander out of their dark, New York Times littered corners to join in the first caucuses in the nation. “A Guide to the Iowa Caucuses” takes you through the epic, mysterious and sometimes quirky caucus experience. Look for it on page 30, and you might even be inspired enough to find yourself in a local community center on caucus night.

Looking past our little Iowa bubble, however, it is important to note that we are not immune to issues on the national and international scale as well. Want to know what that dollar (or lack thereof) in your pocket has to do with Greece’s relationship with the Eurozone? Flip to 18 and check out “My Big Fat Greek Divorce.” Maybe you just want to get away from it all and enjoy a nice, relaxing run. Not so fast because...you guessed it...we made that political too. Sprint on over to 38 and find out what your workout routine has to do with your relationship with the state in “The Anarchy of Running.”

Here’s the big idea— you can run, but you can’t hide from politics. So crack open this issue of Drake Political Review, pour yourself a strong cup of coffee and embrace your political nerdiness because, let’s face it, it’s inside all of us.

T U R N T H E PA G E . L E T ’ S TA L K P O L I T I C S .

COPY EDITORS EMILY GREGOR OLIVIA O’HEA SECTION EDITORS HANNAH ARMENTROUT JUSTIN DWYER LOGAN POTTER KATRINA SEEMAN RILEY WILLMAN CONTRIBUTORS BAHI ABDELLATIF HECTOR SALAMANCA ARROYO ZACHARY BLEVINS TREVOR BRIDGE JOSEPH FAHEY CHRIS FAIRBANK PETER JACKSON MEGAN JOHNS ALEXIS KULASH BEN LAMBRECHT SHELBY MARKS SAM MEYER KATHERINE RAMSEY JORDAN SABINE EMILY SADECKI ADAM SMITH ANGELA UFHEIL JOHN WINGERT DESIGNERS JENNA BOURES HANNAH ERICKSON KAREN KALTENHEUSER MICHAEL LOPEZ AMY MATHEWS ADVISOR JENNIFER KONFRST SPECIAL THANKS TO The Harkin Institute of Public Policy and Citizen Engagement, Jeff Inman, Lori Blachford, Jill VanWyke and Sarah McCoy

BRIANNA STEIRER EDITOR-IN-CHIEF

© SPRING 2015 DRAKE POLITICAL REVIEW IS PUBLISHED WITH THE SUPPORT OF DRAKE STUDENT SENATE. IDEAS EXPRESSED IN THE MAGAZINE DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF DRAKE UNIVERSITY.

DOMESTIC

POLITICAL MARTYRS PERFECTING THE PAR TY BY PURSUING THE PRESIDENCY

WORDS: OLIVIA O’HEA GRAPHIC: KAREN KALTENHEUSER

DRAKE POLITICAL REVIEW

As the list of potential candidates in 2016 grows, one liberal— Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont— stands out in the crowd. He pushes for high rates of federally enforced taxation for America’s wealthiest, he supports a large and strong central government and he remains a staunch backer of universal health care.

An independent leader, this candidate self identifies as a Democratic Socialist, and praises a progressive, European system of governance.

Though an anomaly in the 2016 race, Sanders mirrors a similar campaign led by another avant-garde politician— former Texas Congressman Ron Paul. However, unlike Sanders, Paul fought against expanding the role of the federal government, opposed government regulations and vocally supported shutting down the Federal Reserve, CIA, IRS, and other government agencies. He also identifies with a third party, Libertarianism, and fights for a conservative, state-oriented system of governance.

These two candidates, positioned on opposite ends of the political spectrum, call for revolutionary reform. They fight for a total

overhaul of the existing government structure, and hold the support of a small, but vocal, minority. They both publicly critique Democrats and Republicans, while pushing an agenda of reform, restructure and, ultimately, revolution.

Yet, at ages 73 and 79 respectively, Sanders and Paul are a far cry from enigmatic, freshfaced revolutionaries. They both assumed public office nearly four decades ago, in the 1980s, making them, by Washington D.C. standards, career politicians. They are old, white men, with slightly balding hair and glasses. They’ve spent the majority of their lives in business suits, ties and tiny American flag pins.

Against all odds, these two politicians are leading the fight for radical reform.

They preach a Robin Hood style of politics; they place themselves as idealists and independents among a crowd of party politicians. Most importantly, they both approached reform on a presidential scale.

Although he has yet to officially announce his candidacy, Sanders is a likely 2016 contender.

He would run on the Democratic ticket, yet maintain political rhetoric that reflects his views:

SPR I NG 2015

progressive, liberal, Democratic Socialist. A long-time champion of the middle and lower classes, Sanders presented an ideal progressive agenda to an audience of students and media at Drake University in February 2015. He first proposed generating infrastructure jobs to modernize the country, making it more productive and safer. He then advocated for raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour over the next few years, as well as promoting equal pay for equal work to bridge the gender gap in regard to wages. He acknowledged his fourth platform, reforming overtime standards, may not be ‘sexy’ but had the potential to impact a majority of minimum wage workers living below the poverty line. Finally, he promoted increased scrutiny of trade regulations, concluding that if corporations want the American people, to buy their products, they should produce the products in the United States.

“Are we comfortable living in a democracy, or a so-called democracy, where bills buy elections?” Sanders asked the crowd. He further elaborated on this point, arguing that the shrinking middle class, growing wealth gap and push back to initiatives like fair pay and the raising the minimum wage signify the negative influence of big money in politics.

On the opposite end of the spectrum, Paul, a Libertarian, ran for president in both 2008 and 2012 on the Republican ticket. He also ran in 1988 on the Libertarian ticket, and was placed on the ballot in 46 states. Paul saw significantly more success in 2008 and 2012, gaining popularity through nontraditional media sources like social media, YouTube and blogs. In the 2008 primary Paul placed fifth in both the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary. However, by 2012 Paul came in third in the caucuses and second in the New Hampshire primary. In both 2008 and 2012 Paul was not GOP nominee, which his supporters blame on campaign finance issues, bias

for a two-party system and fraud at national conventions. In 2008 and 2012 Paul refused to endorse the general election candidate for the Republican party, instead choosing to support other third party candidates.

Paul frequently criticized the two party system not only for its dominance in the American political system but also for its lack of differentiation. He believed that both Democratic and Republican leaders ultimately have their party’s best interest in mind, not their constituents. Although he has switched party identification in the past, at the time he ran, and today, Paul identified as a Libertarian and advocated for states’ rights and a smaller centralized government. A strict constructionist, Paul exclusively supported legislation that fell within the written confines of the Constitution.

The opposite of Sanders in every way, Paul supported abolishing the federal income tax, called climate change “a hoax,” opposed federal management of healthcare and vaccines, and maintained a consistent stance against amnesty in immigration policy. While Sanders ideal economic platform relied on increased government oversight, Paul subscribed to a truly laissez faire approach to fiscal policy. He pledged to never raise taxes, and voted against nearly all proposed legislation that increased government spending. Above all, Paul campaigned on creating authentic free trade, calling initiatives like the North American Free Trade Agreement, or NAFTA, managed trade.

Though they fall at opposite ends of the spectrum, Paul and Sanders have created startlingly similar political narratives. Both play the part of the rebellious independent, the necessary, but nontraditional, candidate in opposition to all things establishment.

Yet among all identities the two leaders share, one stands out most significantly: the political martyr.

As independent candidates reliant on grassroots organization and

funding, neither politician tops the list of likely presidential nominees.

The odds of Sanders moving into the White House are improbable at best, and, from a pragmatic view, impossible. Paul faced similar battles, failing to find widespread support even among conservative voters. So if neither candidate will take the oath of office, why run?

Both Sanders and Paul act as martyrs in the system, candidates spearheading presidential campaigns to advance rhetoric, not gain votes. Many argue that Sanders is simply running to push campaign rhetoric left, to ensure that liberal powerhouses like Hillary Clinton acknowledge the very real, and very difficult, issues facing impoverished Americans. Similar claims were made about Paul, several by Paul himself who openly acknowledged his lack of viability as a candidate.

While Sanders can influence Clinton, Paul’s motives lay both in his impact on the GOP as well as the road he paved for his son, Sen. Rand Paul, a 2016 candidate.

Though this strategy seems to be the most likely course of action, it comes at the cost of a multi-million dollar price tag. What remains to be seen, and what can’t be determined until after the general election, is the effectiveness of this tactic. Ron Paul saw increased levels of acceptance in 2012; will these levels still grow for Sanders as citizens become frustrated with the two party system? Will Sanders’ identification as a Democratic Socialist push Clinton, and other Democratic candidates, left, or will he be written off as a radical independent that doesn’t pose a threat? Finally, will Ron Paul’s work in 2008 and 2012 pay off for Rand, or will opposition to third parties still dominate the election rhetoric?

Olivia O’Hea is a junior Law, Politics and Society, Politics, and Public Relations double major. She is a copy editor for Drake Political Review.

5

DOMESTIC

THE OTHER PRO-CHOICE IS RIGHTS RHETORIC IS DEFINING THE ORGANIZED LABOR DEBATE?

“

DRAKE POLITICAL REVIEW

compared to non-Right to Work states.

Supporters of Right to Work advocate for the employee’s right to choose where he or she would like to work, without the burden of paying dues to a union to which they don’t belong. You could say they are a different kind of ‘pro-choice.’

According to the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, requiring employees to pay union dues “…is a contradiction of the Right to Work principle and the fundamental human right that the principle represents.”

Right to Work supporters are not in favor of denying union membership. They argue that workers should have the opportunity to join a union if they choose; yet “forced unionism” violates these workers’ rights.

Requiring workers to pay union dues also compromises their ability to bargain with their employer on an individual basis.

In order to negotiate raises, benefits and other payment related issues they must work through the union.

Yet the debate surrounding Right to Work legislation is not rooted in the logistics of the issues, but a certain type of rights rhetoric.

If it is a debate about rights, where are these rights to “choose” and “work” enumerated?

When we think of fundamental human rights, phrases that come to mind often reflect the preamble of our Declaration of Independence.

We ruminate on the idea that “…all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” Sure, the name ‘Right to Work’ is appealing to all voters, but is the right to work really a fundamental human right as many Right to Work organizations and advocates claim?

Iowa’s own Rep. Steve King has introduced the National Right to Work Act in the 114th Congress. Its language suggests an answer to these questions.

The bill, originally introduced in the 113th Congress, amends the National Labor Relations Act of 1935 (NRLA). The bill’s preamble introduced it as “A Bill to preserve and protect the free choice of individual employees to form,

A FLASHY TITLE CAN GO A LONG WAY WITH POPULARIZING CONTROVERSIAL LEGISLATION

“

WORDS: BRIANNA STEIRER

There is a different kind of pro-choice debate dominating the media, and it has nothing to do with the uterus. States like Ohio and Missouri are considering following the lead of Wisconsin, which recently became the 25th state with Right to Work laws—laws concerning the “choices” of individual employees.

Some private employers sign governmentnegotiated contracts with organized labor unions that specify the labor conditions all employees of the company have agreed to work under. In states that have not adopted Right to Work laws, any non-union member wishing to work at these companies must either join the union or pay the equivalent of union dues. These fees go to the lobbying and collective bargaining efforts of the union; they work on behalf of the wages and benefits of the employees.

In Right to Work states this is not the case. Right to Work laws prohibit government-negotiated contracts between employers and labor unions that require non-union members to pay dues. Companies may still sign contracts with labor unions, but they cannot regulate any non-union members that also wish to be employed.

So what’s the big deal? The labor unions argue that there is a slippery slope potential for a free-rider problem. Non-union members can benefit from the union’s lobbying and collective bargaining power without paying the dues that fund that very power. Ultimately, the fear is that free riders will overwhelm the unions to the point that they lose bargaining power— compromising workers’ wages and benefits.

There is credibility to these claims. Dr. Heidi Shierholz, chief economist of the U.S. Department of Labor, and Dr. Elise Gould of the Economic Policy Institute studied the effects of Right to Work laws on workers’ wages and benefits in Right to Work states.

After controlling for a wide array of variables, their data revealed that wages in Right to Work states are 3.2 percent lower than those of non-Right to Work states. Additionally, incidence of employee sponsored health insurance and pensions in Right to Work states are 2.6 and 4.8 percent lower, respectively,

join, or assist labor organizations, or to refrain from such activities.”

From the preamble alone “Right to wWork” appears to be an issue of the right to assemble—a right enumerated and protected in the First Amendment to the Constitution.

Yet, it is not a right to assemble, but rather a right to refuse assembly.

Following the passage of the Right to Work law in Wisconsin, the AFL-CIO and other union organizations promptly filed suit against the state, claiming that the law was unconstitutional because it compels unions to act on behalf of non-members. The unions argue that it is unconstitutional for non-members to receive services that the unions are legally obligated to provide under federal labor laws like the NRLA. In a memo supporting the suit, the unions claim that the government is “taking the unions’ property.”

From this side of the debate, the ‘Right to Work’ is fundamentally intertwined with the protection of property from the seizure of the government.

Both sides of the debates involve discussion of rights, but the right to assembly and the right to property do not encompass a fundamental ‘Right to Work.’ These laws’ working

titles present them to the media as an incredibly positive approach to addressing unemployment and a recovering economy. Voters respond positively to this idea, yet most struggle with understanding their long-term effects. A flashy title can go a long way with popularizing controversial legislation.

‘Pro-life,’ ‘The War on Drugs,’ and, yes, the ‘Right to Work’ are all popular rhetorically strategic titles attached to either policy initiatives or political stances; however, they do they accurately reflect the real substance of the issues?

These titles effectively demonize the opposing side through a process of othering. For instance, no advocate for a woman’s right to decide her own healthcare decisions is ‘Antilife’ or ‘Pro-death.’ Individuals who question the execution or fairness of the ‘War on Drugs’ policies are not necessarily advocates for the legalization of drugs. However, through a process of inclusion and exclusion, the strategic titles attached to these policies and perspectives paint one side as ‘good’ or ‘righteous’ and the opposition as ‘evil’ or ‘wrong.’

Similarly, those who do not support Right to Work laws are not anti-jobs, nor do they advocate

against workers. The rhetoric surrounding the Right to Work debate is designed to give these laws a political advantage—especially when they are presented by the media. However, they do not necessarily represent the core aspects of the respective issues.

As a result, voters can get caught up in the ideals and meanings attached to the title, blinding them to the real issues at hand.

Aesop’s tale of a wolf in sheep’s clothing ends in a chilling, but thought-provoking statement— “Appearances are deceptive.” This statement could not ring more true than in the world of politics. Issues like Right to Work affect not only union members and business owners, but all people that benefit from a healthy state and federal economy. It is important that we, as voters, are not fooled by the sheep’s clothing— you never know what is truly underneath until you look for yourself.

SPR I NG 2015

Brianna Steirer is a junior Law, Politics and Society, Politics, and Rhetoric, Media and Social Change triple major. She is the Editor in Chief of Drake Political Review.

POLICY ON YOUR PLATE HOW THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS RE-WRITING YOUR GROCERY LIST

WORDS: KATHERINE RAMSEY

What should you have on your plate? Surely you have heard quite a few suggestions over the years. Some people would recommend the “Paleo Diet” which means eating like our hunter-gatherer ancestors. Others swear by gluten free, cutting out most bread and pasta intake. Others still would recommend a fat-free diet, lowering sodium intake, or trying a juice cleanse; but what does the government think you should have on your plate?

All these recommendations are fad diets: self-regulated restrictions on food consumption.

As we all know, they usually don’t last that long.

So, in the search of a change in lifestyle rather than a diet, what should you put on your plate?

From a purely nutritional perspective, the body needs energy to operate. This energy comes in the form of calories. The exact

number of calories needed differs depending on size and lifestyle, but on average a body needs about 2,000 calories a day to function.

“While the caloric intake changes per person, we recommend people get 50 percent of their calories from carbohydrates, 20 percent from fat, and 30 percent from protein,” says registered dietitian Amanda Hagenow.

Carbohydrates, fat, protein—we see these words printed on nutrition labels and talked about in the news, but to many they are just scientific jargon. In order to consume a healthy diet, this jargon has to be translated into advice.

“To find the good stuff when it comes to nutrition information, I steer people toward a trusted source: the USDA,” says Tom Newton, former director of the Iowa Department of Public Health.

7

DOMESTIC

The organization Newton refers to, of course, is the United States Department of Agriculture. The USDA, along with the Department of Health and Human Services, publishes a set of guidelines every five years called the Dietary Guidelines for Americans. The next update will be published at the end of 2015. As the executive document on the best health practices of the day, the guidelines lay the groundwork for federal nutrition policy.

The coming update to the Dietary Guidelines for Americans will be based on a scientific report from the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee. Members are elected to the committee based on their expertise in topics related to nutrition policy. The report was released in late February and the public comment period opened mid-March. Research, public comments and input from federal agencies will all be taken into consideration before publishing a final, comprehensive document. This data is gathered during the second phase of revisions at the end of each calendar year.

You eat food every day and probably have never heard of the Dietary Guidelines for Americans. You have probably eaten school lunches, know someone on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP or more commonly known as “food stamps”) or maybe know someone in prison. All of these groups comply with the guidelines. Maybe you personally look at nutrition labels when you decide what to eat. If so, these guidelines affect you every day.

Educational initiatives, outreach efforts and the diets of millions of Americans will change when the newest guidelines are released.

Effective nutrition policy is important for more than just health reasons; it makes good economic sense.

Prescriptions, surgeries and doctors’ appointments are all expensive facets of the healthcare system. Healthy diets help to create healthy people.

The fewer sick people there are, the less money spent on treatment.

DRAKE POLITICAL REVIEW

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the United States spends 86 percent of its healthcare dollars on the treatment of chronic disease. With the current state of national budget, that statistic is not sustainable.

Chronic diseases are long-lasting conditions that can be treated but not cured—such as heart disease, diabetes and obesity. Proper nutrition can play a large role in reducing the risk of contracting these diseases, but this requires individuals possess an understanding of what proper nutrition looks like.

Take Type II diabetes for example.

If you walk into your doctor’s office and she tells you that you are prediabetic, your insurance will most likely cover a prescription to treat the conditions associated with prediabetes. So you go to the Hy-Vee pharmacy, pay a ten-dollar copay, take the pills and leave. Another option is to walk past the Hy-Vee pharmacy up to the dietitian’s office for a nutrition consultation. But since the dietitian is most likely not covered by your insurance, you could pay one hundred dollars out-of-pocket.

“One of the problems we run into is insurance coverage. Reimbursement can sometimes covers a few things, like diabetes or kidney disease education, but it’s not much,” says Hagenow.

Every year dietitians across the state head to the Capitol to advocate and lobby that their services should be more widely covered by healthcare providers.

“I was talking with one of the senators who told me that he had been prediabetic for six years. He has been diagnosed, met with a professional, they taught him how to eat, and now he is still in that prestage,” says Hagenow. “Healthy eating can prolong that stage and keep people from being dependent on medicine for another five or ten years, if not permanently. And that’s our point, this is ultimately a cost saver.”

Some healthcare providers are

starting to see this logic. In 2015, Wellmark Blue Cross Blue Shield launched a new product in their individual and small group market called Blue Rewards. It acts as a preventative care partnership between Wellmark, UnityPoint and Hy-Vee. “With a referral from your primary care physician, you can actually go and visit a dietitian in one your local Hy-Vee store and get a consultation on proper nutrition,” says Newton.

Covering dietitians in healthcare plans is not a new idea but it is also not a common one, a fact that can be credited to the higher cost of dietitians than pharmaceuticals. Not all insurance packages provided by employers include preventative care because of the higher upfront cost. However, sick people are expensive. The more we invest in creating healthier people today, the less we spend tomorrow.

The key now is relaying this message of economic incentive to employers and insurance companies.

“If we start seeing results with the Blue Rewards program, we can present to our larger clients that this is something of value. It isn’t just increasing your costs, it holds potential to reduce your costs down the line,” says Newton.

People today are starting to see the correlation between what they put in their mouths and the numbers their bodies show. Scales are lighter, energy is higher, and wallets are fatter. Yes, good food costs more than fast food, but what if we start to consider good food an investment? Today’s grilled chicken and broccoli costs less than tomorrow’s treatment for Type II diabetes.

So what should we put on our plates? This is a question that politicians, economists and your uncle with bad cholesterol all have a vested interest in answering.

Katherine Ramsey is a Law, Politics and Society, and Public Relations double major. She is a staff writer for Drake Political Review.

CANTALOUPES, DREAMERS, AND A KING IMAGES COURTESY OF CREATIVE COMMONS

DEBUNKING THE MYTHS SURROUNDING THE IMMIGRATION DEBATE

WORLD

WORDS: HECTOR A. SALAMANCA ARROYO GRAPHIC: SUSANNA HAYWARD

For many college students, the immigration debate is an afterthought. Drake University is no exception. Drake is a university in the Midwest; the majority of students are U.S. citizens by birth and are, therefore, far removed from the immigration system. Thus, the perception of these students is informed by the media and politicians. This trend pervades college campuses everywhere, unless you happen to be a DREAMER— an undocumented youth brought to the United States as a child. These students exist in a legal limbo; their identities are subject to change based on the decisions of our judicial, executive and legislative branches.

According to the Immigration Policy Center, the research and policy arm of the American Immigration Council, DREAMers are undocu-

mented immigrants who arrived in the United States under the age of eighteen and who lack a legal immigration status. They are referred to as “DREAMers” because of their identification under a bill titled the DREAM Act (S. 1291).

The DREAM Act was a bipartisan compromise introduced in Congress in 2001, which would have allowed students qualifying as DREAMers to adjust their status to a conditional lawful permanent resident (LPR). This status would last for six years, contingent on the DREAMer’s completion college or military service. The legal status of the DREAMers has been argued since the original 2001 bill, with various versions of the DREAM Act being presented in Congress, each time failing to pass and leaving the population of DREAMers wondering about their futures.

9

WORLD

DRAKE POLITICAL REVIEW

THE KING The upcoming 2016 presidential election is around the corner, and already there has been a hive of activity with potential presidential candidates trickling into Iowa. These candidates travel across the state, seeking the support of the various Iowa key players. The Democratic Party appears to be focused on Hillary Clinton’s candidacy; this has allowed most of the attention in Iowa to be directed at potential Republican candidates. Iowa has already seen an influx of potential GOP nominees, each hoping to impress the conservative base, including Republican Congressman Steve King of Iowa’s 4th District.

King has been instrumental in shaping the Republican Party’s national immigration policy.

He is not afraid to question the leadership and use his influence to shape the future of any presidential candidates seeking to win Iowa.

Many in the undocumented community consider King as the ultimate villain in the immigration debate. He began leading the anti-immigration movement during his time in the Iowa legislature, where he spearheaded a successful effort to make Iowa an English-only state regarding official U.S. government operations.

In his time in Congress, King has introduced bills such as H.R. 997: English Language Unity Act of 2015, which is aimed at establishing a uniform English language rule for naturalization while also making English the official language of the United States. He also introduced H.R. 227— a bill that prohibits the use of federal funds for certain immigration-related policies, specifically aimed at preventing funding programs like Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) and Deferred Action for Parental Accountability (DAPA).

At the Iowa Freedom Summit in January 2015, an event hosted by King and Citizens United, King poked fun at the DREAMers protesting outside. He referred to them as people who came from another planet, a jab at the official government designation of undocumented individuals as “illegal aliens.”

In an interview with Newsmax, King created further controversy by denying the purported benefits DREAMers could create for the future economy and job market, stating “They aren’t all valedictorians, they weren’t all brought in by their parents.” King then claimed, “For everyone who’s a valedictorian, there’s another hundred out there who weigh a hundred and thirty pounds—and they’ve got calves the size of cantaloupes because they’re hauling seventy-five pounds of marijuana across the desert. Those people would be legalized with the same act.”

Despite his extremist rhetoric, King consistently hosts successful events, like the Iowa Freedom Summit. Despite the chagrin

of more moderate, establishment Republicans, King has a full slate of presidential hopefuls vying for his endorsement, which only serves to legitimize his positions.

King’s rhetoric, including his usage of ‘illegal alien,’ has created confusion over what exactly the government is doing to address a broken immigration system. Many believe his self-generated ‘immigration guru’ status ultimately harms the immigration debate by glossing over the deficiencies in the current system, specifically the legalization process for immigrants.

MYTHS Many of the misconceptions about the immigration system stem from individuals who are U.S. born— citizens who do not actively work within the system or face threat of deportation.

Below are some of the most commonly held perceptions of undocumented immigrants and the general immigration system: Myth 1: Undocumented immigrants don’t pay taxes.

A major misconception facing undocumented immigrants residing in the United States is that they don’t pay taxes, and therefore receive access to federal resources without paying for these resources. The reality is that many immigrants working without proper documentation are helping to fund the Social Security Administration by paying into Social Security without receiving its benefits.

In 2006, James B. Lockhart, Deputy Commissioner of Social Security, testified before a House Committee over the SSA’s growing suspense file, an electronic holding file with forms and W-2s that cannot be matched to the earnings records of individual workers. Lockhart stated “Despite all these efforts, over time the suspense file continues to grow.” SSA’s Inspector General testified later that this growth is due to “unauthorized work by non-citizens” and that “stronger work site enforcement is needed.”

This money had already been deducted from paychecks, funneling it into communal programs such as Social Security and Medicare.

Myth 2: Undocumented immigrants should get back in line and do it the right way.

Getting back in line is a “tough on crime” approach rooted in the notion that the system operates so that a person can simply go back to their home country and get into a “line” to gain citizenship. The “line” example constitutes the go-to rhetoric for many politicians who want to appease supporters and critics of immigration reform, and many presidential candidates capitalize on the simplistic metaphor. Former Massachusetts Govenor Mitt Romney once stated, “And then ultimately you’ve got to go

home, apply for permanent residency here or citizenship if you want to try and do that. But get in line behind everyone else.” Even President Obama argued that, “Passing a background check, paying taxes, paying a penalty, learning English, and then going to the back of the line behind all of the folks who are trying to come here legally,” was necessary.

Many find this rhetoric shallow; it fails to accurately reflect the process in which people migrate to the United States. Any example of a “line” is not only unrealistic, it is a romantic notion rooted in the perception of order and a designated manner. Undocumented immigrants who decide to go back and do it the “right way” by “getting back in line” can face punishments from the federal government for revealing themselves as undocumented. The punishments include bans against legally migrating back to the United States,

for any period of time from a single year to indefinitely, even though the undocumented immigrant went back and tried to follow the correct procedure.

Additionally, not all immigrants are created equal. The United States government expedites the green card, or permanent residency, process through a procedure titled EB-5, which gives immigrants the option to invest $1 million in exchange for a visa. However, many immigrants lack these resources. For the undocumented populace in the United States investing $1 million would be an unrealistic endeavor. It is a task that even most American families could not perform.

According to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, there exists only three ways of legal migration for the majority of immigrants: receiving a green card from family members

or immediate relatives who are U.S. citizens, receiving a green card through a job and finally, receiving a green card through refugee or asylee status.

Undocumented immigration is an issue that deserves the attention of politicians, since both parties generally agree that the current system is broken. Those currently residing in the United States as undocumented individuals, whether as young people who have grown up calling the U.S. home or the men and women who had no choice but to immigrate, face very significant and serious barriers from the law, politicians and society.

Education against myths propagated by Steve King and the media the first step of action to ensure just and humane reform to the immigration system.

Hector A. Salamanca Arroyo is a senior Law, Politics and Society major. He is a staff writer for Drake Political Review.

PUTIN, WIZARDS AND THE RED LIGHT DISTRICT Due to plummeting oil prices and suffocating international sanctions, the Russian economy entered a downward spiral in the beginning of 2014. As the economy collapsed at the start of 2015, Russian President Vladimir Putin announced his recovery plan: cheaper vodka. In lieu of actual political or economic changes, Putin instead chose to subsidize Russians’ favorite drink in an effort to bolster his own domestic support. This is not the first time a government has utilized unconventional legislation to gain support. Let’s take a closer look at some international and domestic government subsidies that border on the outlandish.

For all of you still waiting on your letter to Hogwarts, perhaps you should consider applying for a Dutch subsidy on witchcraft. In 2005 a Dutch woman applied for, and received, federal funds to pay for her witchcraft training at a local magical institution. However, these subsidies do not come without strings attached.

Recipients of the witchcraft subsidy must abide by two very strict and

DRAKE POLITICAL REVIEW

sacred requirements: your witchcraft training must be intended to further your career, and, most importantly, your new witchcraft skills can only be used for good. Sorry Slytherin.

A very reasonable £520 million plan aimed to empower those with disabilities in the United Kingdom somehow devolved into a government funded trip to the red light district.

How did this happen? It was argued that sex is a human right afforded to all living persons, regardless of disability. Perhaps it is our puritanical American upbringing, but it is difficult to justify government funded prostitutes, no matter the clientele.

After all, this is not Berlusconi’s Italy.

Questionable subsidies are not a uniquely European venture either.

We can find some pretty interesting subsidies right here in Iowa. In 2003, a senator asked for, and received, $250,000 from the federal government for state sponsored anger management classes for troubled youths. Seems like a good idea, right? The only catch was that the classes were specifically

WORDS: CHRIS FAIRBANK AND ADAM SMITH

for preschoolers. While children are undoubtedly difficult to deal with, it seems unreasonable placing three and four year olds into classes that are usually meant for adults.

Many of these subsidies are laughable, but ultimately harmless.

However, such blatantly foolish spending makes room for concern.

America currently subsidizes massive proportions of corn syrup production, despite our nation’s obesity epidemic.

Just how bad is it? If the subsidy for corn syrup was instead given to every American citizen each person could buy 20 Twinkies. In comparison the current fruit subsidy given to apple farms in America would provide each American with half of an apple.

But hey, you know what they say…a Twinkie a day keeps the people at bay.

Chris Fairbank is a senior Marketing major and Adam Smith is a senior International Relations major. They are both staff writers for Drake Political Review.

11

WORLD

WORDS: JOHN WINGERT GRAPHIC: MICHAEL LOPEZ

THE UKRAINE CRISIS AFTER THE HEADLINES EUROPE AND RUSSIA CONTINUE TO STRUGGLE OVER UKRAINE The conflict in eastern Ukraine has dropped from the headlines recently. Considering that there is an active land war in Europe involving a nuclear power, there is surprisingly little emphasis on the continued conflict.

Not only that, but major geopolitical powers are eyeing the situation and Russia for an outcome that could shape European politics for the considerable future.

The conflict began late in 2013.

Pro-European Union protesters and opponents of the rampant corruption in the Ukrainian government lashed back against the government, led by Viktor Yanukovych.

Yanukovych supported strong ties with Russia instead of Western Europe. After mounting protests in Kiev, Yanukovych ordered police to crack down, and they killed 88 protesters

DRAKE POLITICAL REVIEW

in only two days in Kiev. For obvious reasons, this did not sit well with the Ukrainian people.

Parliament voted to remove Yanukovych, disband his police and even put forward measures to remove Russian as an official language. Yanukovych fled the country; Ukrainians stormed his private mansion to discover signs of excessive and garish wealth.

Specifically, citizens and reporters discovered pet ostriches, murals on horse statues, a private golf course, gilded mermaid sofas and even a galleon restaurant on his private lake. In a country where the average income is less than a tenth of the average income in the United States, this opulence generated resentment.

In response to the removal of the pro-Russian Yanukovych, and potential measures to remove Russian as an official language,

matters escalated dramatically. Around Crimea, particularly in the capital, Simferopol, pro-Russian militias seized government buildings. The Ukrainian forces were thrown out, and within days, the Crimean parliament held a referendum on the topic of joining Russia under shady circumstances. The official data stated that 97 percent of voters favored secession from Ukraine and accession into Russia. Later leaks from the Russian government by the Human Rights Council showed that only 50-60 percent of the population favored secession, but only about 30 percent of the population actually turned out to vote. Many of the polling places were watched by pro-Russian gunmen and some minority groups, namely the Tatars, viewed the election as illegitimate and refused to participate, which may have also affected the results. Only recently has Putin confessed that, in fact, Russia had planned to annex Crimea before the introduction of gunmen onto the peninsula and the referendum after the deposition of Yanukovych.

Sanctions by the United States and European Union began. These sanctions covered energy companies, Putin’s advisors, defense contractors, and other parties viewed as promoting the crisis in Ukraine. After Ukrainian troops withdrew from Crimea, Russian paratroopers and military built up along the eastern border with Ukraine.

Within two weeks of this earlier buildup, gunmen and pro-Russia groups began to occupy government buildings throughout eastern Ukraine including Donetsk, Luhansk, and Kharkiv.

However, since this point the coverage seems to have lowered dramatically.

Despite a drop in coverage, a war has continued to rage swinging back and forth across the Donetsk Basin of eastern Ukraine. The Ukrainian military launched a counter attack against these pro-Russia militias that had taken nine cities. As the Ukrainian army moved forward, their columns of armored vehicles surrendered or retreated. Videos of rebels joyriding the newly claimed weaponry popped up across the Internet. In May, after more secretive referendums, rebels declared two new people’s republics of Donetsk and Luhansk in Eastern Ukraine. These new republics would

be strongly pro-Russia and have since received support from the Kremlin. The Ukrainian army made some progress in pushing back the furthest western regions of rebel-occupied territory, but it only made a dent in the swaths now controlled by rebels. A short-lived, ten-day ceasefire gave way to renewed violence in July. Russia still holds that it is not at war with Ukraine, but, nonetheless, Putin has played the role of negotiator in international diplomacy for the pro-Russia rebels in Ukraine.

Later that month, after the election of Petro Poroshenko to the Ukrainian presidency, Malaysian Airlines flight MH17 was shot down over rebelcontrolled territory in Donetsk.

President Putin blamed the attack that killed almost 300 people on a Ukrainian fighter jet, while Ukraine and Western nations believed that Russian-supplied missiles in rebel hands were to blame.

Over the next few months, pro-Russia rebels made incremental progress westward, capturing Donetsk and Novoazovsk. In January, the rebels finally captured the Donetsk airport, a critical point for delivering supplies, but the battle over it left it in shambles.

From Novoazo k, rebels also proceeded forward to the last major city in eastern Ukraine, the port of Mariupol.

In February of 2015, there was a renewed push for ceasefire in eastern Ukraine. After 17 hours of negotiations including France, Germany, Ukraine, and Russia, the parties agreed upon a ceasefire beginning on the fifteenth. All heavy weapons would be withdrawn from the front lines, and away from Mariupol and Donetsk. Although negotiating for the rebel militias, Putin claimed to only be putting pressure on them to agree to the terms outlined in the ceasefire. The terms also included some concessions from the people’s republics in the East with regard to border controls and the continued maintenance of militias.

Although Putin promised to apply pressure, skepticism remains that he will be able to rein in the forces he has loosed upon Ukraine since they are irregular and without an easily traced set of orders from the Kremlin.

In response, the United States has actively pursued sanctions against Russia and has even escalated its efforts to stop Russian aggression.

The U.S. has imposed sanctions upon fourteen Russian defense companies, six of Russia’s largest banks, four energy companies, and individuals in Putin’s inner circle. In addition, the Army is sending a rotating group of 300 troops at a time into western Ukraine to train their national guard. The purpose, according to Lt. Col. Vanessa Hillman, a Pentagon spokeswoman, is “to assist Ukraine in strengthening its law enforcement capabilities, conduct internal defense, and maintain rule of law.”

At this point, very few dispute that Putin is intrinsically involved with the separatist movements in Donetsk and Luhansk. The question is what his goals were by inciting this violence.

Putin’s annexation of the peninsula was overwhelmingly popular at home.

Dr. Kieran Williams, Professor of Political Science at Drake University, says, “There was enormous, almost unanimous, approval of that action in Russia itself.” The ceremonial transfer of Crimea from the Russian republic to the Ukrainian republic was also never widely accepted by Crimeans or Russians during their time in the Soviet Union. Not to mention that ethnic Russians in Crimea did not feel a great deal of nationalistic ties to Ukraine nor felt that the Ukrainian government was adequately investing in them. Also, the presence of a warm water port in Sevastopol that Russia has been leasing from Ukraine would now be owned by Russia. In addition, many of Putin’s allies will benefit from the annexation of Crimea. Elements of organized crime in Crimea will now be fully integrated into Russia. Business interests aligned with Putin will have hefty contracts for bridges, water, electricity, and other infrastructure.

Continued conflict also makes it harder for Poroshenko to accomplish his goal of joining the European Union by 2020. Even if Russia can only negotiate certain powers for eastern Ukraine, it could allow these areas to veto movements toward accession into the European Union. However much other member states may want to support Ukraine, they are not likely to receive an active war zone or economic failure into the Union.

So, who is really winning? The war in Donbass, while aggressive, has slowed 13

WORLD

since the ceasefire last month, but there are other prizes to consider. Russia was already notorious for unwanted interventions in Georgia in 2008. Anti-gay laws and crackdowns on political rights did not help global perceptions.

Russia has lost too much respect diplomatically, but it has received sanctions from around the world. Because of falling oil prices, Russia’s economy has taken a fall with an estimated drop of 10 percent in its GDP. The prices of some foodstuffs have increased by 70 percent.

However, Russia has less access to loans from other countries to accommodate the economic turmoil. These sanctions hit Russia harder than most generally expected. In addition, many accusations have not had enough public proof to formally charge Putin with the invasion of Ukraine. By this point, Putin has admitted to the conscious and planned annexation of Crimea, but he has consistently cited the need to

“

HERE IS THE THING THAT IS IMPORTANT TO REMEMBER AS THE CONFLICT PROGRESSES: THIS WAR IS NOT ETERNAL OR UNSOLVABLE.

“

protect ethnic Russians from what he perceives to be a humanitarian crisis at the hands of the Ukrainian government. Other countries have cited humanitarian needs and taken the next step to intervene militarily in other countries, so Putin has used this justification with some efficacy. Legally, if the United States was allowed to invade Kosovo for humanitarian reasons, why not Russia in Ukraine?

On the other hand, Russia’s actions have had some unforeseen consequences. The European Union has sought to strengthen ties with Eastern Europe. Ukraine is now more allied with Western nations than ever before in shared animosity toward Russia. The European Union is also likely to remain involved with Ukraine in the long-term to prevent complete collapse at the hands of Russia. Belarus, to the north of Ukraine, is also moving away from Putin’s pull. Williams says, “Belarus has started to show interest in moving away from Russia and maybe towards the European Union.”

The region has been increasingly working with DRAKE POLITICAL REVIEW

Ukraine and Western countries in past months.

Due to the removal of the pro-Russian parts of the country in conjunction with a backlash against invasion, Ukraine is also more united nationally than ever before.

Although there were political tensions within the country before the annexation of Crimea, the violation of sovereignty has thrown these disparate groups together against the unwanted invaders in their country. “Ukraine, I think, because of this throughout this last year, has developed a stronger identity overall. Besides areas that have a Russian insurgency, the remaining parts of Ukraine by all accounts have become more united, especially about their identity, and its identity is much more Western-looking,” claims Williams.

Here is the thing that is important to remember as the conflict progresses. This war is not eternal or unsolvable. Williams warns, “The biggest danger would be to distill it into a conflict between ethnic Ukrainians and ethnic Russians which would miss the extent to which it is something that is artificially encouraged or created.” Eastern Ukrainians may speak Russian, but most do not identify as Russian, nor do they want to be part of Russia. Williams claims that what we see today is only, “…the last residue of how the Soviet Union tried to manage these areas— with lots of unintended consequences.”

It is also largely inaccurate to think of this as a new Cold War. The Cold War was a fight over ideology: communism vs. capitalism. “Putin has ideologically almost nothing to offer to the outside world,” Williams explains, “it’s not ideological competition in the way that the Cold War was ideological: two contrasting ideas of how to run a civilization.” The current conflict is more representative of Putin’s post-Soviet frozen conflicts in Georgia or Moldova, where he retains just enough justification to make his aggression difficult to define as purely evil. The existence of two seemingly plausible points of view allows the average observer to look at such conflicts and both parties as morally equal.

The Ukrainian conflict may not factor into our everyday lives, but with the current active land war in Europe, and United States troops who help armed forces that regularly battle the soldiers of a nuclear superpower, it deserves some attention.

John Wingert is a sophomore International Relations and Politics double major. He is a staff writer for Drake Political Review.

THE FACE OF TERRORISM

HOW TO SPOT YOUR LOCAL TERRORIST

WORDS: BAHI ABDELLATIF | ILLUSTRATION: HANNAH ERICKSON

15

WORLD

When the word “terrorists” comes to mind, many people picture Osama bin Laden looka-likes with features such as brown skin and beards. Islamic fanaticism is at the forefront of media coverage, with the self-proclaimed Islamic State (ISIL) running amok and spreading havoc in Iraq and Syria. While this is an example of present day conventional religious fanaticism faced by people across the Middle East, it is not the only type of terrorism that exists.

The United States of America faces a different type of terror threat from an unanticipated domestic front— one that often looks different from the popular understanding of what a terrorist looks like. However, there is no need to be alarmed becuase the FBI is on the case.

Following President Barack Obama’s inauguration in 2009, U.S. veteran Frederick Thomas saw his ideal vision for the country dissolve when a black man with the middle name Hussein took office. He felt that the country he sacrificed for had betrayed him. Thomas was the leader of a terrorist group called “Covert Group” that decided to take matters into its own hands.

Thomas and his associates wanted to instigate civil war in the United States in which the “righteous” side would prevail and constitutional government would be restored. How could a man who dedicated his life to serving his country so diligently—serving in the Navy for more than a decade—want to cause it so much harm?

“There’s two schools of thought on this: go for the feds or go for the locals. And I’m inclined to consider both. We’d have to blow the whole building like Timothy McVeigh,” Thomas said during his trial. When contemplating the idiosyncratic motive of Thomas and his associates, one trend appears evident: this was the work of a group that was willing to act hastily. Individuals like this are often isolated and feel left out— The DRAKE POLITICAL REVIEW

Department of Homeland Security (DHS) refers to people such as Thomas and his accomplices as “Sovereign citizen extremists.”

The U.S. government took a unique approach to the case, employing vertical integration to assist the militants in accessing ammunition through a confidential informant.

Ironically, the same apparatus these men feared their country would become is identical to the one that caught them.

The definition of vertical integration is as follows: “a strategy used by an enterprise to gain control over its suppliers or distributors in order to increase the firm’s power in the marketplace, reduce transaction costs and secure supplies or distribution channels.” Vertical integration allows an enterprise to obtain and control various stages of production that it previously did not control. For example, a local grocery store notices a steady rise on the demand for dairy. In order to increase profit and better serve its customers, the owner of the grocery store buys a local dairy farm and extends the store’s control from a distributor to a supplier. Through this integration, the local market benefits by guaranteeing access to essential means of production and distribution along with the ability to respond to any market contingency.

The FBI mimicked vertical integration in a similar sense, but instead of being a grocery store providing dairy products they were, and are, an agency providing safety and security.

While the grocery store noticed a steady rise in demand for dairy, the FBI noticed an increased need for protection against Thomas’ group.

In order to gain better control over this group the FBI began to fund this group, just as the grocery store began to fund a dairy farm.

The grocery store and dairy farm scenario is a potentially positive example of vertical integration. Other forms of vertical integration,

such as the FBI funding an extremist group, present ethical challenges.

An undercover informant, Joe Sims, assisted the FBI with an eight month investigation that ultimately ended with the arrest of Frederick Thomas, 73, Dan Roberts, 67, Samuel Crump Jr, 68, and Ray Adams, 65. The official charge leveled against the group was “planning an act of terrorism.” These men planned to use arms with fitted silencers to assassinate government officials such as U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, media figures, corporate leaders, politicians and civilians. In addition, they intended to release ricin, a biological toxin, throughout the Atlanta area by dispersing the powder while driving along busy highways. However, the weapons the men planned to use to carry out their plan could not have been obtained without help from the FBI informants such as Joe Sims.

While Thomas was a man suffering from Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) and forced to wheel an oxygen tank with him wherever he went, Sims was in his forties and working with the FBI to exonerate charges previously brought against him for incest, dissemination of child pornography and molestation of minors. Sims actively sought out Thomas to initiate and carry out arms deals. Physically, Thomas could not lift his arms high enough to hold a gun with proper shooting stance or even climb a small flight of stairs without needing a break. He earned his veteran status after serving on nuclear submarine James Madison and then worked for federal contractors as an engineer. Thomas had five grandchildren and 51 years of marriage under his belt. These characteristics and attributes do not align with the typical profile of a “terrorist.”

“When it comes time to saving the Constitution, that means some people gotta die,” Thomas staunchly believed.

Thomas viewed himself, and his accomplices, as old and expendable. He

THIS BEGS THE QUESTION, DO YOU FEEL ANY SAFER?

“

“

was willing to kill and die for his cause, ideas we often hear on pre-recorded tapes and writing from other terrorists outside of the United States.

All extremists tend to interpret specific literatures in a strict manner, whether it is religious texts such as the Qur’an and the Bible or charters such as the Constitution. In one of the meetings Thomas mentioned a fictional novel, Absolved, as a prime inspiration of his future plot. Absolved is written by ultra conservative militia leader Mike Vanderboeh. Poignantly, Vanderboeh, who urged people to throw bricks through Democratic Party offices and railed against the Federal government overreach, relied on disability checks from the government.

Absolved is a militia novel that tells the story of an Alabama group who assassinate federal law enforcement and officials.

“Civilian government operatives is who we’re going to be shooting at: IRS, ATF, FBI, and the cops,” Thomas said in a recorded meeting by FBI informant. Media like Absolved has not only had a profound effect on Thomas, but on other extremist organizations as well. The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) estimates that in recent years the number of fringe citizen groups has risen to 1,274, up from 194 groups in 2008.

The FBI arrested Thomas and one of his accomplices in a truck during a police bust—the FBI had hoped to arrest all the members. A SWAT team aggressively attacked the truck Thomas was in, tossing flash grenades in the vehicle.

According to court records, Thomas and his associate soiled himself, an extreme reaction to fright. This minute detail speaks to the reality that Thomas, a

frail septuagenarian, did not possess the strength or stamina to commit any of the crimes he fantasized about. In fact, there is a profound sense of fantasy from start to finish in Thomas’ tale.

Thomas was arrested for generating a plot against his country, not executing one. In this case, the U.S. government came precariously close to prosecuting thought; had the government not financed Thomas’s tale he more than likely would have just been another old man blowing off steam on the Internet.

However, that is not how the U.S. government viewed the case. United States Attorney in the North District of Georgia, Sally Q. Yates says, “These defendants, who are alleged to be part of a fringe militia group, are charged with planning attacks against their own fellow citizens and government. To carry out their agenda, two of the defendants allegedly purchased explosives and a silencer, while the other two defendants took steps to attempt to produce a deadly biological toxin. While many are focused on the threat posed by international violent extremists, this case demonstrates that we must also remain vigilant in protecting our country from citizens within our own borders who threaten our safety and security.”

The government’s view is that Thomas and his associates were not prosecuted for what they said, but only for what they did. However, would Thomas — without influence from the undercover agent— have been able to acquire the money required to buy the weapons.

At the moment, Thomas’ group, the “Covert Group”, is in prison, and Joe Sims is roaming out of jail; acquitted of his odious charges. This begs the question, do you feel any safer?

Bahi Abdellatif is a senior International Relations major. He is a staff writer for Drake Political Review.

17

MY BIG FAT GREEK DIVORCE WILL GREECE BE FORCED TO MAKE THE ‘BIG BREAK’ FROM THE EUROZONE? WORLD

WORDS: ALEXIS KULASH GRAPHIC: KAREN KALTENHEUSER

DRAKE POLITICAL REVIEW

The future of the Eurozone rests squarely in the hands of Alexis Tsipras, the newlyelected Prime Minister of Greece. If handled improperly, the political and economic repercussions will have dire consequences for the international community. In order to better understand why, we must look back to the formation of the European Union.

After World War II, European economies were devastated. In order to revive war-stricken nations, governments dismantled existing trade barriers. This deregulation gave politicians and citizens a revolutionary idea: six nations signed an agreement to create the European Union in 1992. Less than a decade later, 12 nations joined to form the Eurozone.

The Eurozone now consists of 19 countries.

They are tied together by the monetary policy administered by the European Central Bank, or ECB. The ECB controls the money supply and interest rates. However, it does not have the authority to determine taxes and government spending. By not creating a common fiscal policy, countries such as Greece, Italy, Portugal, Spain, and Ireland soon found

themselves on the brink of financial collapse.

Roberto Castro, lecturer of International Finance and International Business at UIMP, acknowledged that “…in the Eurozone, there was a problem with the euro. The design was correct; the problem was the implementation.”

Faulty implementation began when European Union member nations received the power to borrow money more easily from creditors.

These creditors assumed that if a smaller nation defaulted on its loans, Germany and other economically strong Eurozone nations would come to its rescue by offering fiscal compensation to ease the defaults.

In Greece, large deficit spending was a way of life. After joining the European Union and getting an increase in credit, Greek politicians became reckless in order to win elections: they promised more jobs, increased social funding and better state benefits. Although the overall debt of the country was small, it was—and remains­—significant because of global economic interdependency. Similar to what we saw with the United States housing market collapse, a depression in one nation can quickly

reverberate around the entire continent.

In 2008, the United States housing market collapsed and spurred a world-wide recession, and Greece was left unable to pay off its creditors. It resorted to borrowing more money to pay off its old debt, but eventually someone had to pay it off the new debt. Germany, the strongest European economy, took on the burden.

As an economic powerhouse, Germany agreed to pay off other nations’ debts only if those nations would implement a policy of strict austerity similar to Germany’s. This means cutting spending, wages, jobs and often even support for the political party in power. However, not all nations’ economies and cultures respond to austerity in the same way as Germany. Implementing austerity in Greece created a period of widespread despair during which previously middleclass citizens found themselves homeless and at the mercy of soup kitchens.

Javier De La Puerta, co-founder of global media analysis company Searching Ideas, agreed that austerity was not the right answer to Greece’s economic woes. “[German] obsession with balancing the debt is misguided… when the economy is in a deep crisis, you need government spending to prop up an economy which is being brought down because private expenditures are being brought down. If you don’t do that, you deepen the depression. And that’s what German obsession with austerity is doing for the whole of Europe.”

Incidentally, this period of strict austerity also paved the way for populist party Syriza to take hold in national politics. De La Puerta notes that “…after five years of German austerity, Greece is in a worse situation economically, and it is in a very dire situation politically because now the only chance for the political system of democracy to survive in Greece is if Syriza is successful.”

Until 2010, Syriza was virtually unknown. Its explosive growth in the last election can be explained by an 8-year depression that left citizens in despair. Since 2007, Greece’s unemployment rate has soared past 25 percent, and the unemployment rate currently sits above 50 percent for youth and recent graduates. Greek

citizens have now put their faith in a political party that promises a new direction and a different economy.

For Syriza to maintain its support, it must compromise and work with the European Union. It must pay off debt while also fulfilling campaign promises made to citizens: forbidding foreclosures, writing off portions of the debt, reconnecting families with electricity, raising the minimum wage and stopping privatization of industry.

After weeks of negotiation, posturing and compromising, Greece and the European Union have come to a short-term agreement—Greece has extended its loans and bought time until late April. At that point, Greece will have to present a long-term financing solution to its economic woes.

From this point, there are several routes the Greek crisis may take. Greece could still attempt to get what it has been bargaining for since the beginning: an agreement to restructure its debt.

This would be similar to what Germany agreed to after WWII. Greece also seeks relief from austerity to aid its frustrated workforce, but this spreads fear. What if other nations follow Greece’s lead and negotiate for similar deals? The Eurozone is unwilling to go down that route. With that, Greece is unlikely to get its way.

The next possibility is a compromise.

Greece has already been negotiating for months. As part of the loan extension, Prime Minister Tspiras promised to pay off all debt “fully and timely,” something that many citizens expected Syriza to strongly opposed. The proposal is a far cry from the promises that the party campaigned on, but Europe may now allow Greece some flexibility in repayments. Still, the Eurozone is unlikely to budge on the issue of austerity. A firm stance on austerity may cause more long-term damage to the rest of the European nations than a small concession on Greece’s debts. If Greece continues to flounder as it struggles to make payments, it might be forced to seek financial aid from outside sources.

Potentially, Greece could borrow from the United States; however, President Obama will not circumvent European leaders to lend to the country. China and Russia are much more willing. The

Deputy Foreign Minister has told Greek radio that Russia and China previously offered economic support, although Athens did not request it. A few billion euros from either nation would likely buy some political support from Greece— especially if a ‘Grexit’ were to occur.

If Greece was forced to exit the Eurozone, often referred to as the ‘Grexit,’ it would return to its old currency, the drachma. It would then enter into the chaotic process of printing and distributing drachmas to citizens.

The currency would likely be devalued and inflation could spike. Paying back debt using the drachma could generate a massive burden, a burden which the government might just give up. If Greece did default, it would be impossible for it to borrow on the international market.

Imports would predictably cease and hardships would cripple the nation. The effect on Europe—as well as the rest of the world—would be significant for years to come. Yet, if China or Russia came to Greece’s aid, it is very possible that a strategic alliance could form between the two. This, too, is undesirable for Europe and the United States.

Currently, it is unlikely that Greece will exit the Eurozone. The Greek government has not stated any desire to exit, in fact, polls of the citizens indicate an overwhelming desire to remain with the Eurozone. Likely, most of the building tension centered around the so-called ‘Grexit’ has been drummed up by media outlets reporting on the situation abroad. Sergio Marin Conejo, professor of international politics, agrees, and states it simply: “Unless you have a good preparation in Greek…there is already a filter for the English audience.” The most plausible route is that Greece will be forced to accept most of the terms of the German repayment plan. The current extension, however, leaves only further negotiations and turbulence ahead.

Alexis Kulash is sophomore Computer Science major. She is a staff writer for Drake Political Review.

19

CLIMATE CHANGE IN THE COURTROOM ENVIRONMENTALISM: TIPPING THE SCALES OF JUSTICE?

LEGAL

WORDS: BENJAMIN LAMBRECHT ILLUSTRATION: KAREN KALTENHEUSER

DRAKE POLITICAL REVIEW

On May 15, 2013, two environmental activists with nothing more than an old lobster boat, a 200-pound anchor and a #CoalIsStupid banner executed a ship blockade that had the potential to redefine environmental activism in the United States.

Kenneth Ward and Jay O’Hara took to the water in a refashioned lobster boat to block a 40,000-ton shipment of coal from reaching port in Somerset, Massachusetts. Driven by their goal to make a political statement on climate change, it was little more than a year later that their court case would do just that.

In the aftermath of the incident, the two men were charged with disturbing the peace, conspiracy and motorboat violations.

Given their circumstance, Ward and O’Hara had two options: take a plea bargain for a lesser sentence or take their chances and go to trial. They chose the latter.

To those who worked on or were familiar with environmental law, this was a surprising

twist of events. Ward and O’Hara had admitted to everything, they did not intend to dispute the facts of the case nor did they intend to deny their involvement. It was their detailed admission of guilt that made trial seem unlikely, and, more importantly, unwinnable.

Defendants in their circumstances—having knowingly and purposefully committed a crime without dispute—are generally inclined to take a plea bargain for lesser sentences. A jury of their peers would, without claims of innocence, have little choice but to sentence them as guilty. It became clear that Ward and O’Hara set out to make a point, and they were going to use the courtroom to make it. A plea bargain could not do it. They were going to trial even if their chances of victory were slim.

In place of arguing their innocence, Ward and O’Hara instead chose to argue that climate change is real and presents an eminent threat to humanity. Their angle? To invoke the ‘necessity defense.’ With claims that they had no legal or political alternative, Ward and O’Hara argued that climate change necessitated their illicit actions and provided exculpation.

They argued that in a political climate where scientific evidence was, and still is, brushed aside and little progress is being made, they had to act outside the law. Essentially, if the law would fail to address the issues at hand, Ward and O’Hara would tackle the issue head on. By their logic, to execute a blockade and keep a shipment of coal from reaching port (where it would eventually burn) constituted an act in the interest of the common good.

It justified their civil disobedience.

While not entirely unprecedented, the ‘necessity defense’ is slightly unorthodox.

Traceable back to English common law, it is the idea that individuals should not be liable for their actions if by committing such an action they prevent a larger harm from occurring.

It allows individuals to act outside the law if they can prove the harm they prevented was greater than they harm they induced by breaking the law. The ‘necessity defense’ is unconventional in the sense that it allows people to work beyond the law, which is why many courts are wary of its use. As a result, the defense is neither widely utilized nor generally effective. In fact, Wade and O’Hara are the first environmental activists try to yield a positive outcome via the necessity defense.

Thus, the success of this case hinged on the use of the necessity defense. Massachusetts State District Court Judge Joseph Macy allowed the necessity defense, and permitted the defendants to call notable climate change experts as witnesses. The experts were prepared to employ damning scientific evidence of carbon emitting activity, strengthening Ward and

O’Hara’s case. In doing so, the judge cleared the way for a nontraditional case analyzing whether climate change legitimizes action outside of the law. So moved by the activists’ position and the evidence presented, the district attorney prosecuting the case, Samuel Sutter, controversially dropped the charges.

Moments before the trial was set to begin, Sutter addressed a crowd outside the courthouse to explain the reason behind his decision. Referencing a Rolling Stone article written by Bill McKibben, notable environmentalist and author, he stated “climate change is one of the gravest crises our planet has ever faced [and] political leadership on this issue has been sorely lacking.”

While he acknowledged that as the district attorney he has a “duty to go forward to some extent with this case and to follow the applicable case law” he duly noted that Ward and O’Hara were looking for a platform to present their case and that they shed light on a serious issue. We, as a country, have reached a “crisis point” with climate change.

In the time it took for Sutter to deliver his statement, Ward and O’Hara officially made their point and rather than doing jail time they would simply pay a $2,000 fine to cover the costs associated with their stunt. Sutter made it clear that in the eye of this court, the necessity to act on climate change prevailed over the illegality of trespassing.

Yet while environmentalists and climate change experts alike heralded this as a victory, there was no shortage of naysayers. Criticisms abounded.

Opponents of Sutter’s decision

LEGAL

critiqued the use of the necessity defense, citing worries that the courts should not be a platform for cause-activism or bolstering political agendas,. After all, this decision seemed to, with few exceptions, go against precedent as well as the expected unbiased nature of the courts. And with a seemingly expanding reliance on the courts to effect progress – from marriage equality to healthcare to voting rights – it is not all that surprising that many take pause as to whether this decision has the propensity to be problematic.

The question being asked is whether or not the courts should allow individuals to break the law for a “good cause.”

This question is at the core of UCLA law professor, Eugene Volokh’s scathing criticism in the Washington Post. Predicated on the notion that the rule of law should be unanimously applied, Volokh suggests that Sutter’s decision creates a slippery slope of disjointed application of law where individuals can receive a literal get-outof-jail-free card if the prosecutor agrees with their political motives.

But indeed this analysis forces us to think about whether climate change, and calls for action, are fundamentally political in nature. Many in the activist community would say that climate change is not political, but simply the truth. Though if we do not take their case seriously, and we see this case as political, then there is legal precedent that at the very least stands in contrast if not admonishes Sutter’s decision.

An interpretation of United States v. Schoon suggests that the necessity

defense cannot be used to indirectly challenge laws or policies in efforts to symbolically leverage a political agenda. Rather, it is understood that individuals must take the legislative route if they seek political change.

Regardless of technicalities, however, Ward and O’Hara’s lobster boat blockade undeniably highlights tensions within political, legal and judicial institutions. While multi-national governing bodies like the United Nations have prompted action on climate change for many decades, the U.S. has been slow to implement comprehensive efforts to do so. Although we can trace the roots of the necessity defense to some legal precedent, it forces us to think about the role of the courts in advocating for change.

Regardless of the large spectrum of opinion on Sutter’s decision, Ward and O’Hara’s lobster boat blockade has spurred events that have important implications for climate change activism.

It may embolden activists to rely more heavily on the necessity defense in the future; it may, by making the courts friendlier to the idea that there is a need to act on climate change, be the first stone to fall in an avalanche that insulates climate change from political discourse; or it may even mark the beginning of a an era of uneven application of law, where the courts value one political movement over another.

Benjamin Lambrecht is junior Law, Politics and Society major. He is a staff writer for Drake Political Review.

PHARMACISTS WITH BENEFITS HOW LEGISLATION MAY BE CHANGING THE ROLE OF YOUR PHARMACIST

WORDS: TREVOR BRIDGE

A popular cause championed by politically active pharmacists may become law this congressional term.

H.R. 592: The Pharmacy and Medically Underserved Areas Enhancement Act (PMUAEA) could amend Medicare Part B, which covers outpatient services like routine checkups, to provide subscribers in medically underserved areas access to pharmacist services.

H.R. 4190, a similar bill updating Medicare

to include a provision for pharmacist services, stalled in Congress last session despite bipartisan support. However, the climate for passing the PMUAEA this term appears more favorable, with 63 members of Congress signing on as co-sponsors in the first 30 days. In addition to full sponsorship

by Senator Chuck Grassley, Iowa Representatives Rod Blum and David Loebsack have also signed 21

LEGAL

on as co-sponsors. Representatives Steve King and David Young, and Senator Joni Ernst, have yet to do so.

In essence, H.R. 592 and its companion Senate legislation S. 314 amend the Social Security Act to provide reimbursement for medical services provided by pharmacists. The provision would allow the pharmacist to collect either 80 percent of their listed service cost or 85 percent of the amount that would be paid to a physician providing the same service.

As implied in its name, the PMUAEA is specifically designed to increase healthcare access for demographics of historically underserved populations.

The U.S. Health Resources and Services Administration projects a shortfall of over twenty thousand primary care physicians nationwide by 2020. This dearth will not be evenly distributed; however, already medically underserved populations in rural areas and inner cities would bear the brunt of the shortfall due to trends in hospital growth and provider settlement in the suburbs.

The introduction of collaborative practice and mid-level practitioners, like physician’s assistants and nurse practitioners, have achieved some success in staving off this problem. These professionals are qualified and certified to do many of the same tasks as primary care physicians, including prescribing medicine and ordering and evaluating lab work. Proponents of pharmacist provider status assert pharmacists, as one of the largest pools of health care professionals in the U.S., can further alleviate this shortage by providing these services.

Many supporters of provider status for pharmacists note that, in many cases, pharmacists already deliver many of the services that would be added to Medicare coverage. Under this line of thought, the PMUAEA is not adding untested professionals to the list of providers, but simply updating the list to reflect more accurately which professionals are already providing these services. This would provide financial incentive for pharmacists to improve and maximize their counseling services.

Pharmacists will now be responsible for DRAKE POLITICAL REVIEW

ensuring patients know how to take their medications and what to expect from them, as well as comprehensive reviews of patient medication profiles to prevent duplicate or unnecessary drug therapy.

Proponents also tout pharmacists as the ideal health care professionals to help patients with chronic illnesses.

Since patients enter pharmacies on a monthly basis to pick up prescriptions, pharmacists occupy a much better position to establish meaningful provider-patient relationships over the long term. These relationships make it easier for pharmacists to make sure patients are taking their medications correctly, and that the medications are having the desired effect.

Supporters of provider status also state that pharmacists are uniquely situated to increase access to healthcare to traditionally underserved populations due to their high distribution throughout states. Whereas physicians are often concentrated in hospitals and clinics in largely populated areas, pharmacists are spread out much more evenly— even into remote or rural areas. Sen. Grassley noted this in a recent interview with Pharmacy Today. Regarding his sponsorship of S. 314., Sen. Grassley commented, “A Medicare beneficiary who lives many miles away from a doctor in a rural area can’t always get to the doctor easily,” Grassley says, “But the individual might be able to get a ride from a neighbor to stop by the town pharmacy a few miles away.”

Critics of expanding provider status to pharmacists share the concern that care provided by a pharmacist may not be equivalent to care provided by a physician. Though pharmacist schooling is extensive and does confer the title of ‘doctor,’ it does not include a mandatory residency, which gives physicians intensive clinical experience in a supervised setting. However, Anthony Pudlo, the Vice President of Professional Affairs for the Iowa Pharmacy Association, notes that the training pharmacists receive in accredited pharmacy schools more than qualifies them to provide clinical services like disease state monitoring and dosage

adjustment, and the state licensure exams passed by all certified pharmacists reflect this knowledge.

“As an association, we recognize that any pharmacist has the ability to provide all the various levels of services that are dictated by the state,” said Pudlo.

One area of contention and debate involves the definition of what the phrase “pharmacist services” entails.

Although Medicare is funded on the national level, each state defines the legal services pharmacists can provide differently. This could lead to eventual headaches in determining what services pharmacists can submit claims for depending on the state where the service was provided. Inevitably, more legislative clarification will be needed to specifically name billable services and prevent these discrepancies from occurring.

Another hurdle to helping underserved populations could come when the state authorizes which providers can establish collaborative practice agreements. In the state of Iowa, only physicians with the title of MD or DO are legally allowed to enter into collaborative practice agreements with pharmacists. However, nurse practitioners or physician’s assistants are the only recognized providers in many of the communities the PMUAEA seeks to serve. In order to maximize the impact of the PMUAEA in these needy areas, collaborative practice agreement rules would need to be updated to be more inclusive of these mid-level practitioners as providers themselves.

Though H.R. 592 and S. 314 have support on both sides of the aisle, they remain under discussion in subcommittees. Yet, through the continued efforts of supporters like Sen. Grassley, the PMUAEA could be providing for pharmacy services for underserved Medicare recipients by the end of this term.

Trevor Bridge is a 2018 PharmD/MBA candidate. He is a staff writer for Drake Political Review.

SOCIAL

GOVERNING THROUGH THE SILVER SCREEN

WORDS: MEGHAN JOHNS GRAPHIC: SUSANNA HAYWARD

POP CULTURE’S INFLUENCE IN POLITICAL PERCEPTION Political television shows have become increasingly popular over the past few years. In a society where people are consistently unhappy with politicians, why are shows about them so prevalent? Perhaps dislike feeds the popularity of these shows and provides an outlet for our dissatisfaction.

Maybe these shows only fuel our abhorrence, making a politician’s job even tougher.

The popularity of these shows means they are constantly visible for the average American, whether they’re an avid watcher or not. With the recent release of the third season of House of Cards being covered by most of the major national news outlets, the importance of these shows cannot be ignored. Whether they are reflecting or shaping our political attitudes, it is even more important to understand the effect these fictional shows have on our actual political system.

Dr. Doris Graber, Professor of Political Science at the University of Illinois-Chicago, conducted a study regarding whether it is possible for the average citizen to learn about politics while watching popular television shows. In her study, Graber claims that she has found evidence proving that effective learning can actually occur from watching television dramas.

Still, some have their doubts. Dr. David Jackson, Professor of Political Science at Bowling Green State University, agrees that learning may occur but cautions that the information gained could be false. He references a movie in which the president claims only he can declare war. Jackson explains, “If somebody learns that the president declares war from a film, they are learning something wrong constitutionally.” Graber considers this in her study. However, she found that much of the information about political happenings was amazingly accurate in the shows she studied.

Considering this, what effects do these shows have on our perceptions of our political system?

Jackson believes they reinforce the opinions we already hold. “Research existing on the effects of entertainment, media and celebrity activism is that it probably doesn’t have a huge effect on changing

people’s beliefs, but instead reinforces them,” states Jackson. It is hard to locate things that truly cause shift in public opinion, but it is easier to identify things that reinforce beliefs. He believes that people who would be drawn to these types of shows would probably have a predisposition toward the message being sent to them. So, by that logic, people watching House of Cards would probably already hold cynical views of Washington politics, which would be reinforced by the show. Jackson holds that these shows simply provide an expression of these beliefs. “For example,” he explains, “love songs don’t make people fall in love, they just give them a means of expressing that they are in love.”

Dr. Arthur Sanders, Professor of Politics at Drake University, believes that the image portrayed in these shows does have an impact, mostly because it feeds a kind of cynicism we tend to already have.

“So even though you know it’s an exaggeration and you know it’s not true,” Sanders says, “it still has a tendency to reinforce the idea that Washington government is scandal ridden, corrupt [and the] people who are involved are awful.” He argues, “While these may be caricatures at one level, at another level it reinforces that perception. The relationship is reinforcing in a symbiotic way.” This skepticism is not new. During the 1960s, people developed a cynicism that was then reinforced and continues to be reinforced by television today.

These shows appear to be a relatively new gauge of public opinion. They reflect our thoughts and feelings of a corrupt system but, while they’re generally reflective, their reinforcing power is cause for concern. Sanders claims, “ It can become more difficult over time to have a narrative that says the people who work in government, by and large, are trying to help the country.” If we can’t write that narrative in television dramas, will we be able to write it into our actual political system?

Megan Johns is a junior Politics and Public Relations major. She is a staff writer for Drake Political Review.

23

SOCIAL

FIVE WAYS TO GET FIRED

PERFECTLY LEGAL WAYS TO GET CANNED

DISCLAIMER: DRAKE POLITICAL REVIEW DOES NOT ENDORSE THESE PRACTICES

WORDS: HANNAH ARMENTROUT GRAPHIC: MICHAEL LOPEZ

MARIJUANA Before you plan your vacation to Colorado, remember that toking up can cost you your job.

Twenty-three states and the District of Columbia have laws legalizing marijuana in some way.

Voters in Colorado, Washington, Oregon, Alaska and D.C. have legalized recreational marijuana use. Even though it’s unlikely that you’ll be arrested for smoking a joint in these states, it is entirely possible that you could be fired.

Curtis Graves is an attorney at Mountain States Employers Council, a nonprofit that helps employers with compliance to laws and regulations. He was working there when Coloradans voted to legalize marijuana in 2012. “Employers were freaking out at first,” Graves said, “but now it’s kind of swinging the other way, where we’ve got people who say ‘We want a drug test that does not pick up marijuana,’ or they’ll omit it in a pre-employment drug test. They’re struggling in this good economy to find people that can work when they’re ruling out everybody who might test positive for marijuana.”

In Colorado, the case of Coats v. Dish Network is working its way through the court system. Brandon Coats is a quadriplegic who uses marijuana medicinally in the state of Colorado, where recreational marijuana is legal. Although he is not accused of being high at work, he failed a random drug test and was fired by Dish Network in 2010. Under the Colorado Lawful Off-Duty Activities Statute, an employee cannot be fired for legal activity done outside of work. Coats sued, and the trial court ruled against him and ordered Coats to pay Dish Network’s legal fees.

Coats and his attorneys appealed the decision and in 2013, the Colorado Court of Appeals upheld Dish Network’s right to fire Coats. In their decision, they used marijuana’s illegality under federal law and the intention of the writers of the Lawful Off-Duty Activities Statute, which was to protect employees against being fired for tobacco use, not marijuana use. Coats appealed again, and the Colorado Supreme Court heard oral arguments in September 2014.

The Court has yet to announce its decision, taking longer than normal. “My opinion is that he is going to lose, I didn’t see any scintillating

DRAKE POLITICAL REVIEW

argument for his law firm,” said Graves.

Part of the issue with marijuana use is that it can be detected in a person’s urine for up to 46 days in regular smokers, and urine tests are the tests that are used by employers. Blood tests are often used when someone is suspected of driving under the influence, since blood tests only show use of marijuana that would be recent enough to impair driving. The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration’s policy is to use urine tests to identify substances. “It may not be generally offered because most of what we see in drug testing is a result of what the federal government does,” said Graves.

“The government only recognizes urinalysis.

They are in the process for recognizing oral fluid drug testing, but not blood testing.”

So remember, kids: just because something is legal doesn’t mean that your boss has to care that it’s legal. And just because you are sober while working does not mean your job is safe. If you do decide to smoke, consider doing it when you know you won’t be drug tested for at least a month, and just be glad that alcohol will usually only show up on a drug test 12-36 hours after your last drink. Or just wait for the law to change. “Regardless of what happens in the Coats case, it is likely that the law will change on a federal level,” said Graves. “Then we’re going to have to have some better kind of drug test because there may come a time where an employer has to prove that an employee is impaired before they can fire them for marijuana use.”

BEING ATTRACTIVE In the state of Iowa, your boss can fire you if he or she finds you attractive.

In July 2013, the Iowa Supreme Court ruled that an employer could fire an employee because of attractiveness in Nelson v. Knight. Knight and Nelson had exchanged text messages about work and other innocent matters. The employer, Dr. Knight, once told Nelson that if she saw his pants bulging, her clothes were too revealing.

He also asked her about her sex life. When Dr. Knight’s wife, Jeanne Knight found out that Nelson and Knight were texting, she insisted that her husband fire Nelson, which he did.

The Court agreed that Nelson would not

SPR I NG 2015

have been fired if she had been male, because Jeanne Knight would not have felt that her marriage was threatened. The Court used the case of Tenge v. Phillips Modern Ag Co. in their decision, a case where the employee and employer had flirted with each other. In Nelson’s case, she had not been flirting with her boss. The Court, in their decision said, “the issue before us is not whether a jury could find that Dr. Knight treated Nelson badly,” but to decide whether or not this case was discrimination based on the fact that Nelson was a woman. The Court decided that Nelson had been fired because of her relationship with her boss, Dr. Knight, not because she was a woman.

So if you want to avoid being fired, here are a few easy to follow steps. Simply don’t let your boss be attracted to you. If you find it difficult to control other people’s attraction, make sure to not be a woman. If you are a woman, you could try never wearing makeup, doing your hair, or having surgery to disfigure you and keep your job safe. Best of luck, ladies.

POLITICAL OPINIONS Keeping your mouth shut on the job isn’t enough to save you from being fired if you have opinions or political beliefs outside of work.

Michael Italie was fired from a Goodwill factory in Miami in 2002 for running as a mayoral candidate for the Socialist Workers Party.

Lynne Gobbell was fired from her job at Enviromate in Alaska in 2004 for having a Kerry-Edwards bumper sticker while her boss was pro-Bush. She was told to remove the sticker or be fired, and she left. She was told by a manager “I reckon you’re fired. You could either work for him [the boss] or John Kerry.” Later, Gobbell actually did receive a phone call from Kerry himself and took a job with him.

So if you don’t want to get fired, try not having opinions about things. If you find that you have opinions, make an effort to not share them with anyone, including your friends, family, and the especially the Internet. If you can’t help but have political opinions, make sure that your boss (and their boss, and their boss) share your beliefs.

BEING LGBTQ Many people believe that work limits their love life, but for some people, love life could limit the ability to work.

It is legal in twenty-nine states to be fired for your sexual orientation and in thirty-three states to be fired for your gender identity. In 2013, Carla Hale, a gym teacher at Bishop Watterson High School, was fired for her sexual orientation. Hale’s mother passed away, and a parent told the school administrator that Hale’s partner was listed under “surviving family members” in the obituary. The school fired Hale after she had taught physical education for nineteen years.

Carla Hale is one of many people who identify as LGBTQ+ to lose their job because of their sexual orientation. The Employment Non-Discrimination Act would protect LGBTQ+ Americans across the country from workplace discrimination. It has been proposed in Congress every year since 1994 and has never passed.

So, to avoid getting fired, make sure that you’re heterosexual and cisgender. If you identify as anything other than heterosexual and cisgender, then try moving to a state where you have some protection (you have a good start, Iowa is one of those states).

POSTING TO SOCIAL MEDIA Yet another reason to put your phone away: that selfie could cost you your job.

In 2009, twenty four year old Ashley Payne was fired from a public high school in Georgia after posting a picture of herself holding a glass of wine and glass of beer from a trip to Europe. A parent sent an anonymous email of the photos to the school board and Payne was given a choice between resignation and suspension. Her Facebook privacy settings were friends only, but that didn’t stop her from losing her job.

So if you want to get and keep your job, don’t post any pictures of yourself to your social media profiles, especially if you are doing anything that anyone would disapprove of. To be extra safe, you should probably delete all of your social media accounts. You know what, just stay home and avoid leaving the house. You can’t win. You’re totally going to get fired for something.

CONCLUSION Even in states where there are some protections for people, the burden of proof or cost of pursuing legal action against employers is prohibitively high. In forty-nine out of fifty states, you can be fired for any reason. Your boss does not have to prove that they had a good basis for terminating you, unless you live in Montana. So, if you really want to avoid being fired, you should move to Montana. Or maybe we as a country could change our laws to protect people with jobs.

Hannah Armentrout is a junior Law, Politics and Society and Rhetoric, Media and Social Change double major. She is the world politics section editor for Drake Political Review.

25

THE TURNING POINT

ARE IOWA’S MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES CLOSING UP SHOP OR EMBRACING THE FUTURE?

WORDS: SAMUEL MEYER GRAPHIC: AMY MATHEWS

DRAKE POLITICAL REVIEW

With Iowa’s new year budget proposing the shutdown of two original and arguably outdated mental health institutes within the next few months, we find ourselves at a crossroads in how we treat a constantly growing and evolving branch of healthcare. The state is projected to stop funding the Clarinda and Mount Pleasant Mental Health Institutes (MHIs) by June 30th, and leaving many wondering if we’ll land on solid ground.

This shift could be a turning point in how Iowa addresses mental health in the future. The state has the opportunity to redistribute and reinvest its resources to benefit those who should matter most in any successful health care system—the patients.

This redesign plan begs a few questions— specifically why these facilities should close down in the first place, whether or not adequate community resources are in place, and if other services will be available by the time half of our MHIs close their doors.

But the main question that should be asked; in Iowa’s treatment of mental illness, is this is a step in the right direction?

Although some view Governor Terry Branstad’s announcement as abrupt, the shift towards community-based mental health care and away from Iowa’s original four MHIs has been on the table for years.

From Governor Branstad’s point of view, our understanding of the needs of mental health

patients has outgrown these facilities which were established in the late nineteenth century.

Both facilities have also had trouble recruiting and maintaining psychiatrists, which is representative of a much larger national issue.

Clarinda and Mount Pleasant were established in 1884 and 1861, respectively.

These MHIs, designed primarily for longterm admittance, saw their peak occupancy decades ago. Since then, new methodologies of treatment and a push for local outpatient means of treatment have driven MHI numbers down. Today, neither facility fills the number of beds even for which they are budgeted, nor have they in several years, according to the Department of Human Services (DHS).

As far as localized treatment goes, the Mental Health and Disability Services Redesign, a bipartisan reorganization of mental health resources, has been implemented over the course of the past few years. This redesign plan proposes a regional level of treatment with individual counties responsible for offering crisis response teams, localized mental health clinics, etc. Of the 99 counties in the state, eight have residential crisis teams, and 29 counties have crisis teams currently in development. Other than this, no specific plan is currently in place to replace the services offered at either facility.

The Department of Human Services takes an optimistic tone when approaching the ability of regional services to pick up where Clarinda

the two remaining MHIs sit at the northern-most corners of the state, which threatens psychiatric care availability in the south half of rural Iowa and exacerbates existing struggles with transportation.

What happens to the mentally ill when the infrastructure isn’t there?

Spikes in homelessness are likely, because those previously hospitalized aren’t given the resources necessary to make it in the community, especially given housing prices.

Spikes in emergency room visits could happen because there are fewer psychiatric beds available, and more frequent crises are likely to occur that require immediate stabilization.

Finally, because many inmates across the state and across the country currently suffer from some kind of mental illness, an increase in incarceration rates could also occur.

Des Moines area psychiatrist Dr. James Gallagher is especially concerned about the idea that there

“

state wondering what I’m going to do with this person if they’re a danger to themselves or to others.”

Regardless of whether the facilities are closed this summer, this presents Iowa with chance to reinvent its mental health infrastructure.

Whether this means more emphasis on regional outpatient care or re-invented long-term care remains to be seen. According to the Des Moines Register, Dr. James Potash, chair of the psychiatry department at the University of Iowa, proposes several options to replace the outdated facilities without a blow to mental health care as a whole.

He suggests new facilities and beds in Iowa City and Des Moines with the goal of less restrictive long-term care, as well as the utilization of community resources for outpatient care. Dr. Potash mentions the relationship between mental health and the criminal justice system, issues with providing enough psychiatrists, and the potential for telemedicine and other forms of technology to change the way we combat

SPR I NG 2015

JUST BECAUSE WE KNOW MORE ABOUT MENTAL ILLNESS THAN WE EVER HAVE BEFORE DOES NOT MEAN THE NEED FOR CARE HAS DIMINISHED.

“

and Mount Pleasant leave off. They estimate that after the transition, Iowa will have a net increase of six more psychiatric beds available at the remaining state MHIs. Additionally, the DHS estimates that closing the facilities will save $7 million over the course of 2016 alone and states this money will go towards a system to track psychiatric bed use statewide and to increase access to community mental health resources.

Critics of Governor Branstad’s budget argue that closing these facilities is premature, or at least that the state should evaluate the pros and cons before acting. Although there is a regional approach to mediating mental health issues, many wonder about its effectiveness, level of holism, and readiness to bear the weight of those suffering from mental illness this early in the plan’s life span. In mid March, state senators proposed a bill, S.F. 402, that would require Clarinda and Mount Pleasant to continue admitting patients past June 30th unless “a suitable and appropriate, comprehensive and long-term care and treatment plan is developed by the DHS and approved by the general assembly.”

The bill passed the Iowa Senate on March 11th, and at the time of this writing, a decision from the Iowa House has yet to be made.

Over the past few years, task forces have disagreed on whether or not to close the facilities before similar resources are in place. One of the major reasons for controversy is that no concrete plan has been proposed for replacing special programs offered at either institute.

The facility in Mount Pleasant boasts a substance abuse treatment center as well as a dual diagnosis program—patients from across Iowa can be diagnosed and treated for multiple illnesses they may have—in addition to serving as an acute psychiatric treatment center. The facility in Clarinda also includes a top-rated statewide Geropsychiatric Program. The Department of Human Services’ website for Clarinda states this program is intended specifically for nursing home-level care unavailable at the local or community level. Additionally,

is decreased bed space in Iowa. Dr. Gallagher references the “urban backpackers” of areas like Portland and Seattle—adults suffering from mental illness shuffling back and forth between struggling outpatient care, the criminal justice system, and homelessness. “The overwhelming need is already there,” Dr. Gallagher says. “Sometimes I’m in the precarious position of having someone acutely ill who needs to be in a hospital, and I can’t get a bed. The end result should be, when I pick up the phone and say, ‘I’ve got someone ill that needs to be transported to a hospital’ the answer should be ‘Yes, right away.’

Not chasing halfway across the

mental illness.

Where did the push towards community alternatives to state hospitals originate? Dr. Gallagher points to the doctrine of least restrictive alternative, which came out of court action in the 1960s. Since judicial decisions in the ‘60s and ‘70s, states have been resorting to keeping as few people as possible in state institutions, which led to widespread deinstitutionalization and the closing of state facilities.

When reinventing our own mental health care, Minnesota and other states like it serve as examples of how to remodel our mental health care as well as case studies of what to expect once we implement the changes. Mary Jarvis, a licensed independent clinical social worker 27

(LICSW) in a St. Paul mental health clinic, describes how much Minnesota has learned since beginning to cut down their roughly eight MHIs to their current three. After the first closings, “people realized we really needed a whole array of services, not just one service for one person. It’s not one-size-fits-all. It’s essentially taken since the ‘70s until now to develop the kind of services that are needed in the community.”

Minnesota’s answer? A wide array of wrap-around services. Mobile crisis teams in almost every county, with the end goal being statewide coverage.

Assertive Community Treatment teams throughout the state available around the clock. Supportive and subsidized housing for individuals transitioning to living in the community.

40-day psychiatric beds available at community hospitals around the state for committed patients who don’t meet the criteria for the three remaining regional treatment centers (RHIs). An increasing network of telemedicine and teleconferencing to compensate for the shortage of psychiatrists.

Even the best systems are not without flaws. Iowa and Minnesota institutes typically only commit those they feel

LOCAL

WORDS: EMILY SADECKI

DRAKE POLITICAL REVIEW

are “a danger to themselves or others,” and this criteria has the potential to leave gaps and fail to provide help to those who need it. The national psychiatrist shortage makes finding adequate clinical help more difficult, as psychiatry is still one of the lowest paid specialties. Many hospitals feel no incentive to provide psychiatric units because they end up losing money.

(Mental health, as Dr. Gallagher states, is at the bottom of the totem pole when it comes to funding and scientific understanding.) Some things just take time.

Before beds are taken away entirely Dr. Gallagher argues there needs to be allocated resources to back up the regional system designed to replace them. The bill in the Iowa legislature demonstrates that as the June 30th deadline approaches, voices like Dr. Gallagher’s, Ms. Jarvis’, and Dr. Potash’s are getting stronger.

It is important to remember although these facilities may be closing, they provide programs that continue to help Iowans. Just because we know more about mental illness than we ever have before does not mean the need for care has diminished. Mental health plays an increasingly important role both in our

healthcare system and in our society.

As our understanding of mental illness broadens, it continues to hit closer to home. This is an issue that affects everyone; young and old, military and civilians, and an issue that all too often affects those with the poorest ability to advocate for themselves.

Ultimately, if Clarinda and Mount Pleasant lose their funding this summer, Iowa needs to get the ball rolling on what comes next for our mental health infrastructure. One does not tear down a bridge without ensuring there is a better one ready, and the bridges we build in the coming months and years have the potential to help those struggling with mental illness more effectively than ever before. If the DHS’ plans play out accordingly, Iowa has plenty of resources over the coming years to consider strong alternatives, and hopefully our mental health care infrastructure and Iowa’s mentally ill will benefit.

Whether or not we face consequences first, however, remains to be seen.

Samuel Meyer is a sophomore Biology major. He is a staff writer for Drake Political Review.

TELEMEDICINE AND TOUGH POLITICS THE ROADBLOCKS TO CREATIVE HEALTHCARE ACCESS IN RURAL IOWA Technology and communication advances employed in medicine have opened up a plethora of opportunities to connect with patients in entirely new ways—your doctor’s appointment can be done over your morning coffee via teleconference, sexually transmitted infections and colonoscopy testing kits can be done remotely and your twitter feed may include updates from local and national health departments. These alternate forms of access may play a particularly important role in states with large rural populations, such as Iowa.

It is not always as simple as designing a new means of providing access. The medical community is subject to policy and administrative oversight. Healthcare providers not only have to make decisions about what is best for their

patients, they also have to navigate a system that dictates how they can be reimbursed for their work and how they can provide services.

Medicine is often seen as an objective and solitary field, in actuality, it is constantly interacting with the political system. This is the case in working to provide access to care in rural Iowa.

This interplay can get sticky when taking a closer look at the differences between the medical and political realms, particularly in hot topic issues. Medical innovation and legislation generally do not move at the same pace.

Advances in medical practice move rapidly, while legislation and oversight issues can take multiple years to determine. While legislation provides the necessary oversight for medical practice, it also complicates it with the bureaucracy and

partisan arguments that plagues our current political structure.

Let’s take a look at one timely example, telemedicine. A bill making its way through the Iowa capital in the 2015 session is working to allow insurance companies to reimburse healthcare providers for telemedicine.

Telemedicine is a virtual consult by a healthcare provider. According to the American Telemedicine Association, telemedicine started almost 40 years ago to reach patients in remote places. The idea of the bill is to use the technology to connect patients without access to physicians in urban areas. Other telemedicine legislation to create an encompassing framework for covering telemedicine has been proposed in the past, but not adapted.

Part of the controversy comes from Planned Parenthood who began using telemedicine as a way to deliver abortion services to rural Iowa.

According to Angie Remington, a public relations manager from Planned Parenthood of the Heartland, providing reproductive services to rural Iowa can be a difficult endeavor.

She explains that there are not many abortion physicians in Iowa in the first place and that it can be stigmatizing to serve that role in a small community. To navigate this, their strategy was to send physicians to their community health centers once a week to perform the consultations with women in rural communities.

Being that it wasn’t an incredibly accessible or sustainable plan, they decided to employ telemedicine as a way to provide abortion services and performed the first in the country starting in 2009.

Through a Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) secure video conference, the physician does the same consultation that would happen in person and then after discussion with the woman about her choices, is able to prescribe the necessary pill by authorizing the opening of a drawer in the patient’s room with the medication. They are only available for women who are having first-trimester, non-surgical abortions.

In 2010, the Iowa Board of Medicine, the governmental committee that provides administrative oversight to abortions, concluded that the telemedical abortions being provided by Planned Parenthood of the Heartland were safe. Then, in 2013, after a new Board was elected, a new ruling was put into place that determined that a physician should be physically present in the room.

This is currently being heard from the Iowa Supreme Court in debates over whether or not telemedical abortions should be allowed. In the proposal, they acknowledge that abortion is a highly politicized issue, but do not claim that their decision was rooted in politics.

Not only does ideological and partisan arguments elongate the process of determining medical policy, the issue of budget is

“

of the 99 counties in Iowa are fully or partially designated as primary health professional shortage areas.

These programs are entirely stringent on funding though, and could cease to happen if funding runs out.

The role of political oversight in medicine is necessary in many ways.

Regulation protects people from exploitation and provides care to vulnerable populations. On the other hand, when decisions are made so far removed from the day-to-day delivery of health care, the needs of the patients may be shifted from the center as it begins to be amended and altered to pass through our bureaucratic, partisan system.

It seems as though we have been gridlocked into a process that ties both the hands of the politicians, who want to do what is best for their constituents, and the hands of the health care providers, who want to do what is best for their patients. In the end, aren’t the constituents and the patients the same people?

“Why we develop policy is to protect consumers,” Ragan says. We are all consumers of health care, no matter where we may live. A large part of Ragan’s motivation for seeking elected office was her experiences with watching people in her own community struggling to gain access to basic medical services. This is a similar tale to many of the narratives as to why health care providers have come into their role of service.

Why then, is the focus not on this narrative of human dignity and healing? Instead, it has become a bicker between parties essentially attempting to come to the same conclusion of adequate access to care no matter where you may live. Who wins in this situation?

Certainly not the people that are waiting for collaboration rather than controversy.

SPR I NG 2015

MEDICINE IS OFTEN SEEN AS AN OBJECTIVE AND SOLITARY FIELD, IN ACTUALITY, IT’S CONSTANTLY INTERACTING WITH THE POLITICAL SYSTEM.

“

also at play. Senator Amanda Ragan discusses how finances can complicate the generation and implementation of sustainable health policy. Their budget often relies on federal matching, which is decreased when the economy gets better. Uncertain funding makes it difficult to establish programs to increase access in rural areas.

Gloria Vermie, the director for rural clinics at the Iowa Department of Public Health explains one way Iowa tries to increase access in rural areas is by incentivizing physicians to take jobs in these communities and connecting with physicians through established networks. 54

Emily Sadecki is a junior Biochemistry, Cell, and Molecular Biology and Public Relations double major. She is a staff writer for Drake Political Review.

29

A GUIDE TO THE IOWA CAUCUSES WORDS: ZACHARY BLEVINS ILLUSTRATION: JENNA BOURES

UNPACKING THE FIRST IN THE NATION STATUS

Imagine this: you’re standing in the corner of a school gymnasium.

You’re among other Iowans dressed to the nines in buttons and hats with American flag patterns. You’re debating with your co-workers and neighbors trying to make sure that your candidate has enough votes as you entice them with cookies and sandwiches. This is how Iowa nominates presidential candidates. Crazy, right?

Every four years, Iowa is fortunate to hold the Iowa Caucuses, the first major event of the presidential election. It is the first step in the road to the White House as the nation looks to see what candidates succeed in Iowa and have the ability to secure the nomination. With this responsibility comes a dynamic political field that allows all Iowans to get involved. As Drake students, we have a rare opportunity to have a front row seat in this highly watched race; however, since many do not know how the caucuses work, very few Drake students (and Iowans for that matter) participate in the Iowa caucuses, essentially wasting their political voice. “If you ever thought that one person could make a difference, here is simply where that is the absolute truth,” says Iowa Democratic Party Executive Director Ben Foecke.

The power of your vote in the Iowa caucuses has significantly more influence than any vote you will ever cast.

WHY IOWA? Iowa’s first-in-the-nation status has not been around forever. The Iowa caucuses first became prevalent in 1976 election.

Presidential candidate Jimmy Carter noticed the role that Iowa had played in the 1972 election and gave great focus to it during his 1976 presidential run.

Before the Iowa caucuses, Carter was a long shot from winning the election, but through grassroots organizations and effective retail politicking, Carter emerged as the underdog turned big dog and proved himself as a serious contender. Success in Iowa led to extra media attention and a bump in the following primaries and caucuses, like the important New Hampshire primary.

If a candidate does not gaining traction after Iowa and New Hampshire, securing the party nomination is essentially an impossible task. Carter’s success established the Iowa caucuses as one of the most important points in the presidential election. Candidates

running for president now spend as much time as they can in Iowa shaking hands and kissing babies. Since Carter’s success, the caucuses have grown and seen more participation each cycle, except for the 1992 caucus when Senator Tom Harkin from Iowa easily won the caucus of his home state.

So why does Iowa get to reap the benefits of hosting the caucuses? Many argue that the first-in-the-nation status should be moved to a state that is more representative of the country.

Unfortunately, there is really no one state that is a true representative of the country. While Iowa is not as racially diverse as the entire country, Iowa does have one of the closest economic breakdowns to the national average.

Additionally, through the experience with the caucuses, Iowans tend to be more politically aware and active.

Politicians often remark that the difficulty of the questions asked in Iowa is superior to other states. “Iowans take their civic duty very seriously,” says Congressman David Young (IA-3). “Iowans are discerning folks when it comes to these candidates, and we have even temperaments and understand politics and policy.”

While Iowa is not the final say in who the next president will be, the Iowa caucuses tests the candidates to see if they can withstand the rest of election. Iowa gets rid of the unprepared candidates, making it easier for the New Hampshire primary to give an indication as to who is going to win the party nomination. “It has a certain ‘getting in the living room’ feel to it,” says Iowa Democratic Party Chair Dr. Andy McGuire. “It’s very hard to evaluate candidates, especially early-on candidates, especially a candidate who might not have all the money or the power. It’s hard for them then to get on TV or do all of these things. I think Iowa is the way for them to get into a living room. If they have good ideas and they can get them across to people, Iowa is the place you can watch for that.”

In short, the Iowa caucuses are built to weed out the ill-suited candidates.

HOW THE CAUCUSES WORK If you have no idea how the caucuses work, don’t worry. “It’s not hard,” McGuire says. “It’s not like there is going to be some question that you can’t answer. It’s simply showing up to the

various locations all around the state and listening to what they say and doing what they say. I would like to take the intimidation that some people feel out of it.” Both the Republican and Democratic caucuses follow a basic format: caucusgoers are registered, a chair and secretary are elected, caucus-goers show their support for candidates, and, finally, party business is voted on. From start to end, the caucus lasts less than two hours and both the Republican and Democratic caucuses generally end at about the same time. Also, if you are not a registered member of that party, don’t worry; they will sign you up at the door.

REPUBLICAN CAUCUS Let’s examine the Republican Caucus as if you were in support of President Fitzgerald Grant from Scandal. After registration and electing a caucus chair and secretary, you have the opportunity to speak on behalf of the candidate you support. You can try to persuade caucusgoers by telling them about Grant’s time as a pilot in the U.S. Navy or his success as the Governor of California.

After everyone has had a chance to speak, a straw poll is conducted. This is a straightforward contest where the winner takes all. The ballots are counted and collected while the caucus moves on to party business. Some people leave at this point; however, they lose the opportunity to influence the direction of the Republican Party. After the party business concludes, you are done and you can go binge watch Scandal until you can’t stand Olivia Pope anymore.

DEMOCRATIC CAUCUS Let’s examine the Democratic Caucus as if you were in support of Frank Underwood from House of Cards. After registration and the election of a caucus chair and secretary, the first of two rounds of preference groups will begin.

This part is unique to the Democratic Caucus. In order to receive delegates, a candidate must have a preference group that is at least 15 percent of the caucusgoers. A preference group is just a group of caucus goers that support a particular candidate. For 30 minutes, neighbors, co-workers, and strangers will work to ensure that their candidate survives the first round. So, as a supporter of Underwood, you could tell other caucusgoers about Underwood’s work with education, or you could entice them to 31

EACH YEAR BEFORE THE CAUCUSES, IOWA STATE FAIR ATTENDEES PARTICIPATE IN A PUBLIC OPINION POLL CALLED “CAST YOUR KERNEL” WHERE PEOPLE PLACE A KERNEL OF CORN IN THE BUCKET OF THEIR FAVORITE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE. THE RESULTS OF “CAST YOUR KERNEL” ARE USED AS AN INDICATOR OF IOWA’S MOOD LEADING UP TO THE CAUCUS DATE.

join your group by offering them a plate of ribs.

After this round, the caucus chair and secretary check to see which candidates have passed the 15 percent requirement. If Underwood’s preference group is large enough, stay where you are! If too many people leave, Underwood could become inviable. If Underwood’s preference group is not viable, you have a few options: you can be cunning and savvy like Underwood and convince people to join your preference group, you can join with another non-viable candidate to ensure one of your candidates is viable, or you could give your support to one of the viable candidates. This all occurs in the second round, which is another 30-minute period. At the end of this round, viable candidates are assigned delegates proportional to the number of caucus goers in that preference group. Assuming you’ve embodied the spirit of Frank Underwood, you are probably in a viable preference group, most likely the largest one there. At this point, delegates are selected and the focus of the night moves to party business. Once party business is over, you can go home and stare off into the distance as if you’re looking at a camera. While the Democratic Caucuses might seem daunting, just remember that they are not. “We do an incredible amount of trainings around the state,” Foecke said. “Even our most die hard activists often times need a refresher course, because it’s only every four years that this aspect of preference groups is a added to our caucus.”

THE RESULTS Getting the most delegates is not the same thing as winning in Iowa. This is not to say that getting delegates is unimportant, but one of the best indicators as to whether a candidate will succeed beyond Iowa is how they meet expectations. In other words, a candidate who was expected to receive very few delegate, yet comes in third in the caucus could be seen as the winner because they exceeded expectations. It is because of this principle that underdog candidates, like Jimmy Carter, are able to launch their presidential run after a successful campaign in the caucuses.

Typically, only 3 main contenders from each party are considered serious candidates once they get to New Hampshire, so it is not necessary to have the highest delegate total after the Iowa caucuses when it comes to the national perception of a campaign. “Iowans have a unique opportunity to not only propel a candidate to the next level of their candidacy and have a voice in picking the next president, but we can also shape the debate and ensure issues important to them or the state are heard.” Young said.

DRAKE POLITICAL REVIEW

There is also the case of the 2012 caucus when a miscount in votes led people to believe that Governor Mitt Romney had won the Iowa caucuses when Senator Rick Santorum had actually received the most votes. This error was not figure out for almost a week until after the New Hampshire primary, in which Romney had bolstered himself to be the likely recipient of the Republican nomination. Santorum’s campaign did not receive the boost from the caucuses, leaving many to speculate if the miscount in Iowa led Santorum to lose New Hampshire and the nomination. In order to avoid falling behind in the delegate count even before the New Hampshire primary, the best thing a candidate can do to succeed in Iowa is to be in Iowa. “They need to go to rural Iowa where the folks are just as much, if not more engaged, than folks in the larger cities,” Young says. “And, they need to get off the stage and down in front of the people and look Iowans in the eye and answer their questions.”

GETTING INVOLVED You don’t have to be a political junkie to have a vested interested in our political processes. The ability to vote is already a privilege that we are lucky to have as Americans, so it is imperative that we utilize it. We, as residents in Iowa, have an even greater opportunity to be involved. There should be a greater participation rate in the Iowa caucuses than is currently represented in the low turnout. This is not to say that every single Iowan should be participating in the caucuses; they are designed for those with a strong interest in the future of that party. But, the rate of turnout is way too low for Iowa to justify its first-in-the-nation status. Students from out-ofstate can register to vote in Iowa and participate in the caucuses. “If we sit on the sidelines and complain, but don’t get in the game, then we have only ourselves to blame,” said Young.

“Millennials can write the script for the future of America. They just need to grab a pen. Or maybe I should say Millennials can Tweet the future of America. They just need to hit send.” With over 1,700 precincts, it is not very difficult, especially for students near campus, to get to a nearby precinct to participate. “That’s what [students] should be doing: getting involved,” McGuire said. “It’s a great opportunity to have in Iowa.”

Zachary Blevins is a sophomore Politics and Strategic Communications double major. He is a staff writer for Drake Political Review.

INTERVIEW BY: RILEY WILLMAN

IOWA CAUCUSES Q&A

YOU WORKED FOR SENATOR GARY HART WHEN HE RAN FOR PRESIDENT IN 1983. WHAT DO YOU THINK ARE THE BIGGEST CHANGES TO THE IOWA CAUCUSES BETWEEN NOW AND THEN?

More people go, fundamentals are the same, and people take their responsibility seriously, and then numbers of the people who go out and caucus grows.

This was true with President Obama when he came to Iowa, he set a high bar, but it’s exciting because it brought so many people into the process and the party.

WHAT SHOULD YOUNG IOWANS LOOK FOR IN A CANDIDATE WHEN THEY ARE CAUCUSING FOR THE FIRST TIME? They should look for a candidate that speaks to where our country is going and not to where it has been. They should look for candidates that talk about the defining issues of our future, like climate change, immigration reform, and building an economy that works for everyone.

The other thing that we need to do, in the next generation of Americans, we have to realize that voting is a disruptive technology. In other words, if you don’t turn out and you’re not involved, then you’re going to get the same divided and gridlocked politics that we’ve had. If you do turn out in high numbers you can make your country and your future a lot better.

WHAT DO YOU THINK SOME OF THE DEFINING ISSUES WILL BE IN THIS NOMINATION PROCESS AND GENERAL ELECTION? With the generational shift in the United States right now, the coming generations of Americans need to rise up and change their politics and demand that we deliver.

Our economy and country is built by the choices we make, and we need to start making better choices.

DO YOU THINK IOWANS HAVE SOMETHING SPECIAL THAT ALLOWS THEM TO BE BEST AT BEING FIRST? What I know from campaigning here before and having been here since is that one refreshing thing about the Iowa caucuses, people take their vote and their responsibility seriously, and they are not dissuaded from dutifully evaluating the candidates.

The great thing about the presidential selection process is that anyone with drive, ideas, and desire will find open minds, and people willing to listen.

A CONVERSATION WITH GOVERNOR MARTIN O’MALLEY Former Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley (D-MD) is considering a run for the White House in 2016, and he recently toured central Iowa to talk to potential caucus voters about their concerns and hopes for the country’s future.

IMAGE COURTESY OF CREATIVE COMMONS

33

THE PRESIDENTIAL CLOSET WORDS: JORDAN SABINE

It’s hard to run for President; trying to appeal to an entire country is a difficult task. Before a candidate can begin to think about how to win over the American people on a national stage, he or she must impress Iowans during the caucus season. Since the Iowa Caucuses’ initial popularity spark in 1972, presidential hopefuls have made the trip to Iowa in order to impress the Americans who have the power to make or break their campaigns before they have even begun. Iowans take their first-in-the-nation position very seriously and can sense a poor candidate from a mile away. Some candidates have succeeded, others have failed, and image has played a huge part.

Fred Thompson, a Republican who ran in the Iowa caucuses in 2008, certainly missed the mark with Iowans.

During a visit to the famous Iowa State Fair, Thompson was seen wearing high-end leather loafers while holding a piglet and meeting the Pork Queen.

Though Thompson’s shoe of choice was

THEORY

not Gucci brand as reported, they did turn out to be at the same price point: $460 Salvatore Ferragamos. Designer shoes at a state fair did not sit well with Iowans. This could have played a role in Thompson coming in seventh in the 2007 Iowa GOP straw poll.

Perhaps Thompson dressed too expensively for the Iowa caucuses, but Lamar Alexander, a Republican candidate in the 1995 caucuses, may have run a little too far in the other direction.

In an effort to distance himself from Washington politics in his 1982 Tennessee gubernatorial race, Alexander donned a black and red flannel throughout the campaign. Having won the governorship that year, when faced with a presidential run, Alexander continued to use his ‘man-of-the-people’ image in the Iowa caucus. While the flannel may have appealed to Tennessee voters, Iowans vetting candidates for the presidential office could not see past the lumberjack image. Alexander came in third in the 1995 straw poll,

and he could have his flannel to thank.

Monica Vernon, previously a candidate for Lieutenant Governor and now a candidate for Congress in Iowa’s first congressional district, says “You want to be presentable and not worry about the clothes; you want to meet the people and have fun.” Kathie Obradovich of the Des Moines Register has given future caucus candidates a list of survival tips for attending the Iowa State Fair: “Adhere to the dress code.

Blue jeans are best, but khakis are okay.

No creases, please. Chambray shirts, polos, fine. No suit jackets. No ties, guys… Ladies, no high heels.” At the Iowa State Fair this summer, the fashion police could play an important role.

Jordan Sabine is a sophomore Strategic Political Communication and Rhetoric, Media, and Social Change double major.

She is a staff writer for Drake Political Review.

OFF THE BENCH AND INTO THE GAME WHEN POLITICS AND SPOR TS COLLIDE

WORDS: SHELBY MARKS ILLUSTRATION: JENNA BOURES

DRAKE POLITICAL REVIEW

This year on Super bowl Sunday, 114.4 million televisions tuned in to watch the New England Patriots beat the Seattle Seahawks in dramatic fashion. As the viewership of the NFL has increased, so has the media industry’s presence. One of the most telling instances of this growing presence is this past year’s hyped speculation about the epic “bromance” between Dallas Cowboys General Manager Jerry Jones and New Jersey Governor Chris Christie. The Washington Post, CNN, Chicago Tribune, New York Times and even Buzzfeed, all published detailed articles explaining the “truth” behind the “scandal.” Some publications claimed that Christie was in an ethics breach.

Others speculated Christie was masterminding a brilliant kick-off to a presidential candidacy. So what was it? Brilliant political maneuvering? Or grounds for reprehension?

As the NFL and media have become more intertwined, the publicity has reached a level that has attracted domestic politics. The NFL has officially become invaluable to American infrastructure; it’s politically correct, corporate approved, ultra profitable, wildly popular, and, most importantly, has potential for historic viewership. The NFL has become so popular that it’s fundamentally morphing American culture, with the result being that regional identity will never be the same.

Similar to how Americans have become fanatical about specific sports clubs, Egyptians have also had a competitive professional sports loyalty complex for years. As Egypt has grown economically, its enthusiasm for professional soccer in particular has also grown.

Associate Professor of Politics and International Relations at Drake University and a

native of Cairo, Egypt, Dr. Mahmoud Hamad explains his Al Ahly fandom and the experience of attending a game. “The last match I went to in person was five years ago. Things were much different then,” Hamad says.

“Security was tight, but we felt safe. Going into soccer games [in Cairo] is difficult because you can’t bring anything in; you have to go through security. They even limit the [amount of] water fans can bring in to the actual stadium. Even before the revolution there were confrontations between the fans and the police forces.”

It’s important to note that even during times of relative calm, Egyptian soccer matches are still considerably more dangerous than any average NFL regular season

games. Hamad went on to add, however, the environment of professional soccer matches in Egypt grew more volatile with increased instances of protest and turmoil.

Hamad explained how leading protesters in the 2012 revolution attended games to sing team chants and identify as loyal Al-Alhy fans. Although no representatives greet the players or roll the soccer ball out to the mid hash to start the game, Egyptian political discourse is an integral part of the Cairo soccer experience.

Two years ago, fervent Al-Masry soccer club fans stormed the guest Al-Alhy fan section and fights broke out. 72 people died, most of them were Al-Alhy fans.

Hamad explained how some thought the police perhaps allowed the massacre to happen because they didn’t like the Al-Alhy protesters, so they let the Al-Masry fans bring weapons into the game to slaughter them.

While the Egyptian soccer brawl experience is a far different kind of political dialogue than Chris Christie “bro-ing” it up with the Cowboys in Dallas, it shows that when political circumstances change, the professional fervor associated with sports fandom can change with it.

Republican media strategist, David Oman, certainly thinks the NFL is becoming more political. Oman says attending professional sports games as a politician has become viewed dramatically different over the past several decades. 40 years ago, it was polarizing for politicians to attend high-profile sporting events because it labeled them, but now politicians are gung-ho for promoting professional sports. The transformation stems from how the American people have constructed these roles. As the American demographic has morphed into highly invigorated sports fans, they’ve also become increasingly tolerant of partisanship. Similar to how Greg Giroux of Bloomberg Politics concluded that more people than ever have chosen to straight-ticket vote, Oman says that polarized partisanship is leading to more tolerance of the polarizing factor itself. So is it just a coincidence that partisanship has increased as professional sports viewership has? No way.

Historically, politics have played an integral role with professional sports since their gestation. From Roman emperor Commodus Aurelius using the gladiator games to leverage the senate out of De Facto power, to Adolf Hitler using the spectacle of the 1936 Berlin Olympics to thrust Germany into the limelight, governance has been intertwined with athletic entertainment for eons. Nowadays, celebrity lawmakers are out of their hiding spots. Politics’ role in competitive sports has fundamentally morphed.

Presidents and state congressional candidates alike need to be able to throw out the first pitch, just as well as Egyptian protesters need to chant the Al-Alhy theme songs; the composition of their governments depend on it.

Certainly there is no predicting what the future will hold for America and the NFL; but one thing remains clear: American governance is deeply rooted with how sports entertainment will progress for the foreseeable future.

SPR I NG 2015

Shelby Marks is a senior History and Politics double major.

He is a staff writer for Drake Political Review.

35

THEORY

TACKLING THE TALK-A-THON

WORDS: JOSEPH FAHEY

IS THE FILIBUSTER FACING ITS FINAL DAYS? The end of the filibuster may be near and the ramifications of getting rid of it could change the way politics works in the United States.

In 1806, Vice President Aaron Burr spoke to senators about cleaning up the Senate rulebook. One of those rules deemed by Burr to be unnecessary was the “previous question” motion. At the time no one knew what this rule really meant because it had only been used once in the past four years. The rule meant that majority party could end debate. The removal of the rule meant that the minority party never had to stop the debate and the law would not be voted on until they did. This marked the birth of the modern filibuster.

The filibuster rule in the Senate has been one of the causes of gridlock in Congress for the past six years. The procedure may soon become a thing of the past as President Obama has called for an end to it and Republican Senators have called for reforms.

In theory, filibustering allows the minority party to continue debate on a bill unless there is a 60-vote majority. The filibuster has been invoked more than 300 times during the Obama presidency, and rhetoric on both sides has led many people to believe that the parties have become more polarized.

Originally, the majority party was powerless against a filibuster, but that changed when the cloture vote was added in 1917, which meant a supermajority of 75 votes could end a filibuster. The requirement was lowered to 60 votes in 1975. In 2013 the rules were changed to allow non-Supreme Court nominations to go unchallenged by the filibuster.

The biggest implication of this is that it only required a 51-vote majority to amend the filibuster rule this time. That means that a rule that makes it almost impossible for a 51-vote majority to get anything done only exists because that majority allows it.

Republicans were unhappy with the change in 2013. Now two Republican Senators, Lamar Alexander of Tennessee and Mike Lee of Utah, are calling for the filibuster to be removed as an option for Supreme Court nominations as well.

In a recent interview with Vox, President Barack Obama said that a way to fix the polarization of the parties would be to get rid of the filibuster.

“The filibuster, in this modern age, probably just torques it too far in the DRAKE POLITICAL REVIEW

direction of a majority party not being able to govern effectively and move forward its platform,” Obama said.

There is a lot of pressure on a minority party to use the filibuster as often as possible because every politician wants to seem like they are doing everything in their power to have their constituents’ voices heard. If they act otherwise, there is an increased chance that they do not get reelected. As the minority party uses the filibuster more, there is more pressure on the majority party to get rid of it because the elected body is elected to effectively govern.

Jennifer Konfrst, professor of public relations with years of experience in politics, thinks that filibuster is an important communications tool. “I think that what the filibuster can do is slow down the process and get people to stop and think and work on deals,” she stated.

Konfrst also thinks that making Senators actually present for filibusters and making debate the focus would help the filibuster become more popular with the American people. “Bringing discussion back into the sunlight can only be good both for democracy and the brand of Congress, unless they say really dumb things.” She claimed that this would help make the filibuster seem like a tool for debate rather than an obstructionist answer.

John Lewis, former lobbyist for the Iowa Utility Association and close friend of Iowa Governor Terry Branstad, can understand both getting rid of the filibuster and keeping it.

“It all depends on whether my position is being supported or not,” Lewis said.

He added that keeping the filibuster around is “a matter of moderate and reasonable use,” and that, “the 60 vote requirement perhaps worked better when there was a little more camaraderie within the Senate.”

The Senate is often viewed as a slow, deliberative body, which assists in its ability to pass bipartisan deals. Many argue that the filibuster plays an active role in this process, while others think that the measure simply muffles the voices the majority. Either way, the future of the filibuster is not guaranteed and we may see an abrupt change in the way things are done in DC. Joseph Fahey is a sophomore Strategic Communications major. He is a staff writer for Drake Political Review.

DREAM ON THE MISSING RUNGS IN THE LADDER TO PROSPERITY WORDS: ANGELA UFHEIL

The American Dream is a common story – anyone who works hard has a shot at a better life. The opportunity for upward social mobility inspires hope in many, but has also bred cynics.

Recently, the cynicism appears to be growing. The 2014 American Values Survey revealed only 42 percent of participants still believe in the American Dream.

48 percent say the American Dream once held true, but is no longer achievable.

Dreams are supposed to inspire us, but this particular dream is getting a bad reputation for bringing people down.

Politicians seem to love discussing its downfall, but do not seem any closer to making it more attainable (gridlock, anyone?) Why are the American people struggling to achieve the American Dream, and is there anything that will change how they feel about all of this?

WHAT CANNOT BE CONTROLLED Many experts believe doubt erupted during the 2008 recession. “These people have worked hard, done all the right things throughout their lives, and they were losing their jobs, they were dropping out of the workforce, their kids couldn’t expect to do better than they did,” said Dr. John Russo, a former Youngstown State professor and director of the Center for Working-Class Studies.

Dissatisfaction continues seven years later despite some economic improvements. Russo says the disappearing middle class is just a symptom of the disease that is killing the American Dream. The cause? Seventy-two percent of those who responded to the 2014 New American Dream Survey say high education costs.

College students especially are trapped by enormous college debt and a lack of suitable jobs. “They get trapped in an economic spiral where they can’t make enough money to even cover their expenses or pay off loans,” Russo says.

While high education costs is the most popular response, 71 percent of respondents cite high healthcare costs, while 67 percent say wages for workers are too low. Fifty-six percent of respondents say

e l b a ail

v

a t o n

American culture favors the wealthy, putting the working class and those living in poverty at a disadvantage.

Despite these numbers, not everyone agrees the American dream is so tattered. University of Illinois Economics Professor Fred Giertz believes the past has been painted too favorably.

“They think those people were living in suburban homes, drinking martinis, going to work on Wall Street or at an ad agency making tons of money, but that’s not the way the world was,” Giertz says. “Most people had it very hard.”

Giertz’ description reveals a side of the American Dream we often try to ignore. While sipping a cocktail and basking in your wealth may sound nice, the picture is decidedly materialistic—a quality 58 percent of survey responders say is too prevalent in the United States.

WHAT CAN BE CONTROLLED The race to keep up with the consumerism-based culture may explain why Americans are feeling so downtrodden.

No matter how hard you work, there always seems to be something new to purchase. Keeping up with the Joneses has its drawbacks.

Dr. Tim Kasser, professor of psychology at Knox College, says U.S. capitalism culture endorses consumerism, but that associating money with status is actually very problematic. “What we know is that to the extent people endorse those materialistic values, they tend to be less happy and less satisfied with their lives,” Kasser says. Statistics tend to

agree with him. One in nine Americans works more than 50 hours a week, and those who work 11 hours per day are two and a half times more likely to experience depression.

Overworking can also cut into other sources of pleasure: 59 percent of survey responders say their work does not leave them enough time for themselves, and 75 percent say work cuts into their time with their kids.

There is something to be done, though. Kasser says individuals have the ability to transform their lives.

“I would encourage people to look at their own lives and ask themselves whether their day-to-day life reflects what they think is important,” Kasser says. “If it doesn’t, the question becomes how can you begin to shift your own personal life to be congruent with your own personal values.”

Many Americans are making that difficult choice. Two in five Americans voluntarily decreased their working hours over the past five years.

Despite the smaller paycheck, 86 percent do not regret the decision.

Embracing alternate values seems to be the key to finding happiness.

That means ditching the white picket fence model and creating our own.

Angela Ufheil is a sophomore Magazine Journalism and Writing double major.

She is a staff writer for Drake Political Review.

37

THE ANARCHY OF RUNNING THEORY

WORDS: PETER JACKSON ILLUSTRATION: KAREN KALTENHEUSER

DRAKE POLITICAL REVIEW

YOUR STRIDE, SWEAT, AND THE STATE People run for many reasons. Some run for exercise, others for sport, still others for stress relief and personal fulfillment. Yet with all of these reasons, most runners never consider the way they are impacted by the nature of regulation and government when running. Yet consider this: where do runners jog? Their feet fall on sidewalks, trails, roads and gravel. They pass intersections and road signs, houses and stores.

They interact with people; acknowledging other runners and weaving in and out of path users.

What is taken for granted in these moments is the space they occupy. Those roads, those signs, those other people—interactions with them are not necessarily the way they need or have to be. That is to say: things could be different.

John Stewart Mills wrote, “The liberty of the individual must be thus far limited; he must not make himself a nuisance to other people.” From the opposite side comes Edmund Burke, who wrote, “[by] respecting your forefathers, you have been taught to respect

yourselves.” These two thinkers are greatly relevant to the formation of politics today.

Both Mills and Burke address the same narrative in this instance. They remind us of the fact that we are surrounded by everyone we share a community with, and that we should be mindful of this. We should not maliciously impact people, and we should be respectful. However, what is interesting is that these are more demands than suggestions. We are told how to act—and it feels natural! That is self-regulation, which, I, an anarchist, would like to suggest citizens consider.

We should be nice to each other, of course.

Yet, if unchecked, this daily regulation may become backwards, creating adverse effects for society. Consider the logic of privately and publicly owned sidewalks. In the book Everyday Law on the Streets, Mariana Valverde describes a common problem for sidewalk space, “sitting or lying on the sidewalk is…not without its legal problems…given the tendency of North American urban authorities to treat purposeful

walking [running] as the only valid reason for occupying municipal concrete.” This poses a problem for anyone who might want to utilize a sidewalk for different purpose.

Trespassing laws are also related to this problem. They serve a genuine purpose for property owners by letting an individual dictate when and where other people can enter their owned space. This is especially important when people have intrusive intentions such as breaking and entering. Unfortunately, these laws are frequently used to punish loiterers and other people deemed undesirable by the property owner, instead of actual trespassers with malicious intent.

Regardless, we are discussing running, so who cares, right?

Runners are not lying on the ground.

They have purpose to their step.

However, even whilst running, joggers are still regulated. Consider the times when runners stop at an intersection even though there is no traffic or when runners leave a trail system because the park is closing.

These instances can be chalked up as safety issues and fears of punishment.

However it would seem natural that we, as runners and citizens, are fully capable of protecting ourselves from someone who seeks to injure us because we are running. Furthermore, we should not fear being policed for crossing an intersection because rarely would there be a prosecution for disobeying this law.

So, no safety issue or reason for fear exist, yet we still submit to the state.

James Scott, anthropologist and Yale professor, has written several books on the State’s advancements in regulation. He notes that for government to work, “…complex reality must be reduced to schematic categories.” He suggests that communities, and the individuals in them, lose something when officials are forced to somehow describe life in aggregated, simplified form. These co-optations of space—even if it is just the name of the space—are where simple regulations can turn into theoretical turmoil. Space that did not want to be regulated becomes dismantled and unwillingly forced to comply when it is regulated.

The purpose of pointing out these instances is so we, as runners and citizens, might imagine scenarios where we do not submit, or, at least, where we get to make a decision.

Anarchism gives us this scenario.

Anarchists see the state as illegitimate in all instances. The anarchist living in a state-regulated society picks and chooses the laws he or she follows; in a sense, they get to make a decision.

Anarchism can be defined in many different ways to many different people. It can be radical, or it can be passive. For my purpose, it is the notion that the nature of society and history is chaotic, and that initiatives to order and regulate people should be halted or carefully questioned at all times.

In another one of Scott’s books Two Cheers for Anarchism, he speaks on the need for combating state vision and regulation. He calls an exercise of agency “Anarchist Calisthenics.” He recommends that, “Every day or so break some trivial law that makes no sense…

Use your own head to judge whether a law is just or reasonable.” In this way citizens would be ready to participate if great injustice occurred, such as a regime’s change toward authoritarianism.

This is the sacred ground on which a runner must tread.

Every citizen has untold power of agency, but the runner can actualize that agency in seemingly simple scenarios of regulation. The runner aware of these scenarios is the one who will be much more willing to question the powers that govern us in other arenas of life.

What I am suggesting here is an anarchistic evaluation of the laws every citizen obeys every day. There are laws that surely do not need to be followed at certain points of a day. A runner will most likely break laws of trespassing, jaywalking and light violations on any given jog. Yet, it is okay. It can be argued that every individual should participate in the process of deciding when and what laws could, or should, be followed— this thought is decidedly anarchistic.

Anarchism matches well with founded political theory, specifically Constructivism. Constructivism

considers the fact that knowledge and most other aspect of human life are built in history. This theory is one of four main approaches to politics; the others are Rational Choice, Behavioralism and Institutionalism.

Constructivism, when pushed far enough brings identity, values, beliefs and ideologies into serious scrutiny. Constructivist scholars argue that if values originate from language, and language varies across regions, then no universal values can exist. In short, we, as citizens, cannot reach outside of language to describe what is ‘real’ because we cannot step outside of language ourselves. We are born in it, constructed by it and utilize it.

The same idea can be applied to running. It is only possible to run on trails, roads, sidewalks and flat areas. There is no way to naturalize a stride in rough terrain. So, imagine discourse used to be like running on a trail. We can only speak about that which already has a narrative in place. These discursive paths already exist, giving you an avenue for expression while also limiting you. The trail a person is running on is as freeing as it is constrictive.

Running, anarchism and constructivism mix here because they describe how illegitimate and constrictive measures to control appear to take agency away. However, the very act of participation is the agency. We, as runners and citizens, have the choice, and obligation, to decide which thing to run on—the same as the discourses we choose. The same in anarchism, if it is your choice to stand against the state there must be reason. So, your job is to continue running, in a metaphorical sense, to reach out your legs and mindfully land foot after foot into the future of politics and society.

SPR I NG 2015

Peter Jackson is a senior Law Politics and Society major. He is a staff writer for Drake Political Review.

39

DRAKE POLITICAL REVIEW IS SPONSORED BY:

2429 University Avenue, Des Moines, IA 50311