Opinion
4A — Wednesday, February 10, 2016
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
MADELINE NOWICKI | OP-ED Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan since 1890. 420 Maynard St. Ann Arbor, MI 48109 tothedaily@michigandaily.com SHOHAM GEVA EDITOR IN CHIEF
CLAIRE BRYAN AND REGAN DETWILER EDITORIAL PAGE EDITORS
LAURA SCHINAGLE MANAGING EDITOR
Unsigned editorials reflect the official position of the Daily’s editorial board. All other signed articles and illustrations represent solely the views of their authors.
D
The Trump effect
onald Trump’s campaign for president still strikes me as some sort of cruel performance piece or, at the very least, a brilliantly orchestrated satire of the American political process — but that’s precisely the point. Trump is an entertainer, and every aspect of this quality is reflected in his path to the presidency: from his obscene remarks to his pervasive presence in the media. However, the LAUREN obvious issue with treating SCHANDEVEL a presidential election like a reality TV show is that it is decidedly not. There are real-world consequences to plucking at your audience like radicalized guitar strings. Although Trump may be portraying an exaggerated character for the sake of garnering attention, the voters he attracts are completely and terrifyingly genuine, and represent something far more sinister than political theater. From the beginning, Trump has functioned as a compelling figure in the context of the political sphere. Upon announcing his bid in June 2015, the real estate tycoon became an eccentric asterisk in a race that was initially Jeb Bush’s to win. Since then, his numbers have skyrocketed to unforeseeable heights. This influx of support is evidently not due to his policies (which are vague at their best and borderline fascist at their worst) or his political experience (which is virtually nonexistent, unless you count that time he almost ran for president in 2000), but because of the way he strategically markets himself to his target demographic. There are two noticeable personas that Trump embodies, both of which seem to work inexorably in his favor: the mogul and the populist. The former rears its head whenever the topic of debate shifts to more “establishment” issues — he can be a smoothtalking, well-connected entrepreneur with decades of experience under his belt if it suits the context. The latter persona, however, is more present at his chaotic political rallies, during which he hits the pressure points of the average blue-collar American with impressive precision — the personification of everything you have ever heard your grandfather complain about after a few beers, except completely sober, embraced by millions, and dangerously close to filling one of the most influential positions on the planet.
“
Trump’s ability to alternate seamlessly between his two political personalities has proven to be his most effective campaign strategy. The media tycoon fares just fine with voters earning less than $50,000 per year, despite lacking the classic “humble beginnings” narrative that politicians commonly craft to score points with the working class. For a man worth $4 billion, Trump’s trick to wooing Middle America has been to take on the role of a brutally honest, anti-establishment mouthpiece for the economically downtrodden while effectively sweeping his empire of greed, fraud and opulence under the rug. Nevertheless, despite his surge in popularity, Donald Trump is only one (albeit unorthodox) politician, and realistically, his odds of actually becoming our 45th president are slim — but the impact he’s had on voters will linger long after his poll numbers dwindle, and that is precisely the issue. The hoards of supporters with whom his rhetoric resonated will remain frustrated and militant until some other politician comes along, using vague phrases like “take our jobs back” and “make America great again” to rouse them into action. Trump is playing a game with Americans that not even he can win in the end, because what he doesn’t realize is just how volatile his voter base really is. His carefully crafted stances on immigration, Islam and other hot-button topics may be mere talking points with which he can capture the extremely conservative vote, but they are also real opinions that his supporters hold, and pandering to them only further radicalizes this prejudiced ideology. The Trump campaign has shaken the political culture of this country to its core, drawing out all of its most abhorrent qualities in the process. Through loudness, hyperbole and spectacle, he has managed to claw his way to the top of the polls, leaving a trail of misguided anger and xenophobia in his wake. Of course, he didn’t plant these ideas in people’s heads; they were there long before he stepped onto the scene. He simply did what he does best: interpret what his market wants and cater to those desires (even the more disturbing implicit ones). At the end of the day, Trump is still an entertainer, but there is nothing entertaining about what he has created.
I’m not sure who I will cast my ballot for in November, let alone in the Michigan primary. I have a Bernie sticker on my laptop and a Hillary magnet on my fridge. I am constantly learning more about each candidate, while also balancing my pragmatic feelings from a tactical strategic perspective. This article is not about endorsing a candidate. Sanders and Clinton will both need to produce more convincing evidence to inspire my allegiance. Last week, when the results were rolling in and the caucus-goers of Iowa felt a similar split, resulting in only a 0.2 percent win for Hillary Clinton over Bernie Sanders, I felt my tentativeness was justified. Eagerly, I turned to social media to hear how everyone else had reacted to the news. What I stumbled upon was not a united liberal front excited that two candidates had proven viability, furthering the discourse of economic inequalities and women’s rights and looking to expand protections for minority groups. Instead, I found rhetoric barely deserving of that term. It was acrid and not politically engaging or smart. It was a verbal assault on the supporters of Clinton by the supporters of Sanders. “Bernie Bros,” as certain media outlets have deemed them, are the passionate, often young and often (but not always) male supporters of Sanders. These people are very active on social media, and while many supporters of Sanders have followed his lead in a mostly positive campaign focused on issues of substance, this subset digresses. There are varying degrees of comments sponsored by “Bernie Bros,” from portrayal of all Clinton supporters as robotic, to insisting that Ms. Clinton was vehemently arrogant in her claim of victory at the caucus. The Sanders campaign, which employs many people of politically underrepresented backgrounds, has asked its supporters several times to “#FeelTheBern respectfully,” but the damage has already been done. Clinton has been the brunt of overwhelming amounts of hate in her time as a public official. She has been called every name and criminalized with every action —
NOTABLE QUOTABLE
— Sen. Bernie Sanders after winning the New Hampshire Democratic primary
E-mail Michelle at shengmi@umich.edu
and some of these characterizations were valid, policy-based criticisms. But why is it that her appearance is constantly policed, while Mr. Sanders is able to show up with his unkempt white hair? Why is it that “likability” is such a huge part of journalism surrounding Ms. Clinton, but people rarely wonder if Bernie is charming enough to be electable? Then there is the gross meme that implores people to compare Sanders and Clinton on the real issues, which sounds innocuous enough. The format of the meme is such: a text box at the top populated with the issue du jour, photos of the two Democrats side by side, and text boxes below each of their photos stating their respective opinions. Some of them are passively funny, the kind of joke you smirk at out of recognition, not real humor. The thing is, we’re not voting for a president based on their comedic chops. If we were, I think Trump would’ve been ironically instituted as supreme leader already. Sadly, this meme becomes discomforting extremely quickly. Sanders is depicted as a wild, crazy, cool dude’s dude who is vaguely high at all times. He’s shown as the kind of guy you’d find on Reddit getting way too excited about Radiohead. He’s the bro who’s blowing your mind with Marxist theory freshman year, because of course you’ve never heard of it before, while you’re sitting by him on the stained, dusty carpet of the staircase at a house party. Clinton is depicted as a 67-year-old woman who has worked in government for decades and not done much other than deal with testifying before Congress and work on her campaign before watching The Good Wife at night. These portrayals aren’t equal. Sanders has been involved in government for 34 years, beginning with an eight-year mayoral term in Burlington, followed by 16 years in the House, and nearly 10 years in the Senate. He’s been in government for a long time, dealing with issues, not with Pokémon. Let’s recognize that. Let’s acknowledge that all things equal, Sanders and Clinton are both veterans in American politics. Why is she depicted as a boring old woman and he gets to be a carefree hip guy? It’s not only unfair
— it’s stupid. Clinton, and women online everywhere, have tried to portray themselves in certain ways — only to face criticisms at every turn. Sanders is better than that. I implore his supporters to be better than that, too. Sanders has tried to frame this campaign as a positive one, and has stated his interest in discussing the real problems faced by real Americans. This meme from his supporters does neither. It, along with the derogatory online interactions, drags the goals set by the Sanders campaign to a despicably low standard. I think it says something real about the power of the “Bernie Bro” culture that I am hesitant and even a little scared to write this piece. And I agree with Sanders on many issues! Publicly granting Clinton a right to dignity and equal treatment online should be a given. My ability to have enthusiasm about more than one candidate should be a great victory for the Democratic Party’s strong contenders. Instead, these social media norms make my stomach sink. I feel like if I say these things, I will be chalked up as “just another feminist” who is influenced by “big money.” That is a serious problem. Despite my amazement with Sanders’ ability to raise his campaign funds from individual contributors, his long history of supporting gay rights and the phenomenon of his jump from a 62-point trail to a dead heat with Clinton, I have a really hard time identifying with his movement. When a vocal portion of his supporters is so clearly committed to firing antagonisms into the Internet, I am being burned by “the Bern.” I cannot consciously align myself with a movement that sours my conscience, no matter how I feel about it intellectually. That may be a fault of my political identity and, as some could perceive it, sensitivity. But I’m not alone in these reservations, and the Sanders campaign will need to surmount this in order to secure my (currently wavering) vote for the primary. Madeline Nowicki can be reached at nowickim@umich.edu.
EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS Claire Bryan, Regan Detwiler, Caitlin Heenan, Ben Keller, Minsoo Kim, Payton Luokkala, Aarica Marsh, Anna Polumbo-Levy, Jason Rowland, Lauren Schandevel, Melissa Scholke, Rebecca Tarnopol, Ashley Tjhung, Stephanie Trierweiler, Mary Kate Winn, Derek Wolfe
Lauren Schandevel can be reached at schandla@umich.edu.
People should not be financially distressed for decades for the crime, the crime of trying to get a higher education. That’s absurd.
MICHELLE SHENG
Social media’s double standard
W
The political marathon
e’re 10 months away from electing a new president. Ten whole months with 10 candidates remaining in the race among both parties, seven more televised debates for the primaries alone, and we’re only two states into voting. I want to DAVID get off and exit HARRIS this wild ride of an election already. Yet here we are, almost a full year after Ted Cruz became the first major candidate to announce his candidacy as we embarked on this ride that has yet to even make its stop in Michigan. Canadians completed their recent election process in less then three months, and the British take a mere three and a half weeks to elect an entire government, but that’s simply not the American way, where we supersize everything, including the election process. Media stories about election primaries and Donald Trump quotes, all leading up to an event nearly a year away, take news precedence over the current refugee crisis overseas, the Zika virus, the Flint water crisis, whatever the heck our government is doing while all this politicking is going on, and even given higher front-page placement than the most American of all events: the Super Bowl. It’s a fatiguing process, in which it takes five months of voting in primaries and caucuses just to figure out who will get the final nomination at the party conventions in July. Our society has advanced to a stage where information can be retrieved and transmitted quickly and easily accessed via the Internet. Which, in theory, should allow the
process to move quicker and allow voters to make more intelligent choices without relying on months of debates and campaigning; instead, election season has become a slogging marathon race through a soaking trail of mud. It’s nothing more than an exercise in angering me, the American voter. Nobody likes the marathon, and it’s long past due to at least cut it to a mid-distance race. The process began to lengthen in the 1960s, and the trend moved away from internally nominated candidates to placing emphasis on the primaries with John F. Kennedy’s candidacy. Along with the fallout of the 1968 Democratic Convention, the shift to focusing on the results of state primaries allowed for a larger field of potential candidates to enter the fray, which certainly makes the process more democratic by invoking the opinions of the citizens. The process also gives more time for candidates to be exposed to the public, and given the changes in polls over time, it does have an effect as the citizens begin to settle on preferred candidates due to the publicity. However, along with the reasonably positive explanation for early primaries, the early start to the cycle highlights a darker side of politics: money. Campaign finance chiefs have floated out that at least $50 million to $100 million is necessary to financially compete in the primaries, a figure that holds consistent as five of the six leading candidates across both parties (excluding Donald Trump who does not comparatively fundraise) have raised more than $75 million to date. Months before official announcements, many candidates gauge donor and vote interest to test the viability of their campaign, lengthening the whole process even more. If enough money isn’t raised
early enough in the cycle, candidates will find themselves massively underprepared for the marathon of campaigning. Whatever combination of causes has led to this, the result is months of campaigning that goes on despite the majority of Americans agreeing that the season is too long, significantly over-covered by the media compared to actual news interest, and having mixed opinions on whether the campaigns are even informative. More simply put: It’s a massive waste of time and resources for something that should be carried out more efficiently. Elections take time, but the expansion of the process has only brought increasing political noise and tabloid-like coverage to the process for up to half of a presidential cycle. Far more important than any benefits of the primary process is the impedance of the discussion of important issues covered up by the never-ending election and the lost productivity that it entails. And when voter turnout is often low in these elections, such reasons are contributing factors. Solutions for the problem of the ever-expanding election calendar including eliminating donation limits and thus lightening the need to court high amounts of unique donors, reducing the influence of primaries by scheduling less, increasing the number of unpledged convention delegates, to changing the primary scheduling as the parties have already done for 2016. It’ll take a combination of many reforms to curb the advantage of early entry and require the support of the politicians themselves, always a difficult task but for a worthy cause of moving toward an efficient model that better serves the citizens whom our elections impact. David Harris can be reached at dharr@umich.edu.