FEBRUARY 13, 2019
8 | OPINION KENNIDY POLCYN kpolcyn1@luc.edu
President Donald Trump, in an interview with Margaret Brennan from CBS’s “Face the Nation”, said military intervention in Venezuela is a real possibility. He said, “Well, I don’t want to say that, but certainly it’s something that on the — it’s an option.” Venezuela is dealing with a political crisis. Current Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro and Opposition Leader Juan Guaido both claim to be the president of the nation. Guaido proclaimed himself president under the Venezuelan Constitution. On Feb. 4, the U.S. recognized Guaido over Maduro as interim president three days after President Trump’s interview. The inflation and political turmoil have added to the strife within the country. The Venezuelan people are starving and dying because of the effects of hyperinflation. Hunger is an epidemic. Mothers are unable to feed their children and themselves, so many children are malnourished. And what has Maduro done about hunger? Recently, he’s prevented foreign aid from coming into the country — which, when hundreds are dying, isn’t something to be
Is military intervention best for Venezuela?
Wikimedia Commons
President Nicolas Maduro of Venezuela, who is increasingly recognized by fewer and fewer other nations, has reigned since 2013.
refused. This can’t be allowed to continue. Something needs to be done about this humanitarian crisis in Venezuela. People can’t be left unable to access everyday essentials. But is U.S. military action something that would be beneficial in this situation? What would it entail for the Venezuelan people? In the 1980s, a civil war broke out in El Salvador and the U.S. got involved in the conflict. The U.S. supported El Salvador’s government by sending military
aid. However, this conflict resulted in the death of around 75,000 people, according to The Atlantic. Many of the deaths were committed by the Salvadorian government forces, which the U.S. helped in training. While the U.S. intention might’ve been to help the country, the reality of the situation lead to tragic results. Military involvement raises too many "what if?" case scenarios. As a country, the U.S. has no idea what taking military action could do. While it might have a positive impact and resolve conflict, it
rlombardo@luc.edu
In America, there’s a strongly defined divide between the political views of Democrats and Republicans. This divide isn’t new by any means, but over the past several years, it has increased in severity. Research conducted in 2014 by the Pew Research Center shows Americans are more divided now than in any other time in history. According to the 2014 survey, nearly 92 percent of Republicans reside to the right of moderate Republican, while 94 percent of Democrats fall to the left of moderate Democrat. This is a 20 percent increase from those strongly identifying with each party in 1994. Beyond just a realignment on both sides, contempt for the opposing party has also increased in recent years. According to the study, Democratic opposition to the Republican Party has nearly doubled since the 1990s, and vice versa with the Republican Party. While many credit the increasing divide to former President Barack Obama or President Donald Trump, I believe the increasing division is brought on by our tendency to only read news and information that align with our opinions. A 2009 study conducted by The Ohio State University investigated whether Americans are more likely to only read news that align with their viewpoints. The participants were asked to spend a short amount of time readings articles about issues they were previously surveyed about. Overall the subjects spent 36 percent more time reading articles that align with their opinions. And when they did look at articles opposing their opinions, they didn’t stay for very long. “Even if they [test subjects] click on opposing views, they’re not looking for insights that might change their mind.” said Silvia KnoblochWesterwick, co-author of the study. The popular habit of only reading news in agreement with your opinions has active implications in politics. The more
we reinforce our own opinions, the more our political views become rigid and unyielding. While the comfort we feel from reinforcing our opinions is understandable and natural, it’s ultimately unhelpful. Instead of actively listening and trying to understand the opposing side, we profile them in our heads and may go so far as to demonize their actions. Distaste for the opposing political party is certainly not new to politics, but it has severely increased recently. Statistics from the Pew Research Center showed an increase in partisan animosity where those on the right and left sides show serious contempt and negative opinions of each other, even going so far as to say the other side poses a serious threat to the well-being of America.
"The more we reinforce our own opinions, the more our political views become rigid and unyielding" RACHAEL LOMBARDO Contributor
While there is no easy solution to the great political divide, a start would be listening to those with opinions differing from your own and trying to understand their point of view. After all, both sides ultimately want one thing — for America to be a fair and just country. “Citizens really should be weighing and monitoring diverse arguments in order to make informed decisions. Unfortunately, that’s not happening as often as it should. If you only pay attention to messages you agree with, that can make you more extreme in your viewpoints, because you never consider the other side,” said Knobloch-Westerwick. Her words should serve as guidance. In a time where we see so much hate and negativity, mutual understanding should be the first step in filling the American divide.
"But is U.S. military action something that would be beneficial in this situation?" KENNIDY POLCYN Contributor
Letter to the Editor
How we got a polarized media RACHAEL LOMBARDO
could exacerbate the issue. The complete and total risks can’t be assessed. When lives are on
the line, countries can’t resort to taking big risks. Helping the people and alleviating conflict have to be the only motives. Therefore, diplomacy needs to come first. The U.S. can’t resort to violence to solve all problems, because it leads to people dying in combat. It also can uproot stability and people's lives, ending up creating more problems than there were initially in the first place. It’s not something Trump or any other world leader should rush into. World leaders need to encourage diplomacy — not create wars. So, while the answer isn’t clear cut, the U.S. shouldn’t rush to military action. Bringing one of the strongest militaries into an already hostile environment will only further exacerbate the issue. The Venezuelan people can’t continue to endure this inflation and humanitarian crisis by themselves. But military intervention should be the last resort — not the country’s first instinct, especially when other options can be taken. The U.S. can’t solely think about American interests at large, because another leader like Maduro shouldn’t be able to seize power again. This is a situation that requires careful planning and action. The cost of anyone’s life isn’t worth satisfying a political agenda.
Jan. 30, 2019
ROBERT REMER President, Edgewater Historical Society
I'm writing in response to your article and editorial in the Jan. 15 issue regarding the protest over Loyola’s plan to build a dormitory in the 6300 block that would involve the demolition of two structures on that block, as well as Loyola’s claim that no affordable housing would be lost due to the demolition. The article gives the impression that it was only the Edgewater Historical Society (EHS) that opposes the demolitions. Actually, there are three other established community groups that also oppose the demolitions. They are the Edgewater Environmental Sustainability Project (EESP), the Edgewater Community Religious Association (ECRA) and Organizing Neighborhoods for Equality (ONENorthside), formerly the Organization of the Northeast. The four groups were in an informal coalition, with different groups emphasizing different reasons for the opposition. The EHS focused on the historical aspects, particularly the house that would be lost — EHS has for decades opposed the demolition of single family homes on Kenmore, Winthrop and Sheridan, as should have been well known to Loyola; EESP focused on the sustainability principles that the demolition would violate, and both ECRA and ONENorthside focused on the 64 units of affordable housing that would be lost. Though each group emphasized different arguments they all opposed the current plan. The editorial correctly points out “Loyola already owns the building set to be born down, so the school can do what it wants with its own building.” There was never any question that Loyola has the legal right to demolish the buildings. But think about
Alanna Demetrius | The Phoenix
Alumni House is in the process of being demolished to make room for a new dorm.
it: almost all protests involve the legal ability to do or not do something. If the proposed action were illegal or viewed as illegal, those opposed would seek legal remedies, by going to law enforcement or the courts. What the groups sought but never got was a meeting with the Loyola decision-makers to consider various alternatives to the plan that required the demolition of the two buildings. One question the groups asked was whether there were any alternatives considered and, if so, why were they rejected. This might be a good project for The Phoenix staff. It should be emphasized that the groups never opposed the building of a new dormitory for sophomore students — only the one that involved the destruction of the two buildings. Thus any Loyola students that signed the petition weren't “shooting themselves in the foot,” but only asking that other alternatives be considered and one adopted that wouldn't require the demolition of the buildings. I'm sure many of your readers could come up with other alternatives that wouldn't require the demolition of the two
buildings, as had we. The position of the Loyola administration is that the coalition’s claim that 64 units of affordable housing would be lost is false because the units are market rate. They are indeed market rate; however, the position that if units are market rate they cannot be considered “affordable housing” isn't supported by the overwhelming majority of affordable housing advocates and academics. Affordable housing includes not only government owned, government subsidized and government regulated housing; it also includes market rate housing. In fact, the overwhelming majority of affordable housing is market rate housing. This is the conclusion of The Preservation Compact, among others: “The vast majority of affordable rental housing receives no government subsidies.” We would challenge Loyola’s administration to produce just one reputable authority that would support its position that market rate units can never be considered affordable housing. We appreciate the time that you have taken to cover this issue.