14 OPINION
May 2017
Reflecting on the ‘first 100 days’ Both parties experience disappointment under Trump administration Leea Ivanel Many things have come out of Trump’s first months in office: a dysfunctional travel ban, a terrifying health care plan, a loveaffair with Russia, and a lot of drama. For the past year, turning on the news has been like turning on the telenovela channel, except it’s much less entertaining to watch when you realize you’re watching your government and society devolve before your very eyes. There have been many issues with this administration, and from a conservative liberal’s perspective, most of those issues exist because of the views Trump is preaching. However, no matter what side of the political spectrum you fall on, one thing can be agreed upon: this administration is a failure. The truth is, Trump and his people have not managed to successfully, in an appropriate manner, implement any policy thus far. The Travel Ban was one of the first policies of this so-called “Trump era,” and it failed from the start. After widespread protests took place across the nation’s airports,
it was struck down by judges in Hawaii and Maryland, and it has yet to go into effect again. Not only was the ban morally wrong — the world’s most powerful country should not be turning away the needy — but it was a legal mess that caused chaos and shook foreign relations with the Islamic world. While some Trump supporters like to blame such incidents on those “damn liberals,” this was not the fault of the opposition; this was the fault of an incompetent administration. Perhaps if the constitutionality of the ban would have been checked before it was passed, and if Trump could have refrained from saying he wants a “complete and total shutdown of Muslims entering the U.S.,” there would not have been so many issues. On one hand, Trump failed his supporters by being unable to keep his promise to pass the ban. On the other hand, he humiliated and offended the opposition. Either way, no one is satisfied. The ban is just one example of the shortcomings of Trump’s presidency in his first couple of months. Another dark cloud that is looming over his term is Russia. Dubbed as “Trumpgate,” Trump’s ad-
ministration is showing more and more dubious ties to Russia each day. The recent firing of FBI Director James Comey — as he was investigating the administration’s ties to Russia — further solidifies the trend, and Trump’s Twitter threats to stop holding press briefings only make it more obvious that this administration has no plans to be as transparent as the last. Democrat, Republican, or neither, this should be seen as a big concern. In fact, this reveals once and for all that this administration is its own worst enemy. Trump has an unfortunate inability to take blame and responsibility for things, and he is clearly too paranoid to handle any sort of contradiction to what he considers to be “facts” in his “alternative fact” filled mind. Every time something hasn’t worked, it has been someone else’s fault: a “so-called judge,” the evil media, a nasty woman. In reality, what is happening is a lovely system called checks and balances, established by the same Constitution which Republicans view as holy for giving them the Second Amendment, which is meant to keep the power of the president in check
through the two houses of Congress and an independent judiciary and media. What Trump and his supporters don’t realize is that nothing in the government is broken because his executive orders are being overturned and his bills aren’t passing through Congress. In fact, the government is working great. Unfortunately for our new president, America is the world’s strongest democracy, so simply showing up and signing an order into law does not mean that order will instantly be followed without opposition. This country’s government was built in such a way that it is the responsibility of the party in power to gain enough support for their bills through discussion, compromise, and persuasion, and if they cannot do that, then they are the failure and they are to blame, not the opposition. This administration needs to realize that if it’s anyone’s fault for their shortcomings, it is their own. If they will continue to refuse to be transparent about their policies and if they will continue to act in irresponsible and impulsive ways, their four years in the White House will be a tremendous disaster for the interests of both parties.
Political gridlock is inevitable for Americans Alexander Derhacobian
Political gridlock has become as synonymous with American culture as Coca-Cola, fast food, and apple pie. While one of the most detested facets of America’s political climate, gridlock is a cornerstone of the United States’ history of liberty and democracy. The origins of American gridlock date back to the founding of the nation. The Founding Fathers hoped to create a government where the consolidation of power in one body or one person was unfeasible. Under the rule of King George III, the tyrannical British monarchy was characterized by an oppressive unity of legislative, executive, and judicial authority. To prevent this centralization, the Founders created a system in which inefficiency
and stagnation were inevitable. At the Constitutional Convention of 1787, the Founding Fathers worked diligently in the sweltering heat of the Philadelphian summer to draft a document that was a manifestation of progressive political thought. It created a bicameral legislature, restricted the powers of the chief executive, blueprinted a democracy, and most importantly, called for a complete separation of powers. Although the cause of American gridlock, the separation of powers and the arduous legislative process are the sole guarantors of liberty in the United States. While the grandiose themes of the Bill of Rights are always considered the foundations of American freedoms, they contribute almost nothing to the nation’s liberty. While considered by many as
the focal point of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights was a mere afterthought. The creation of the Bill of Rights was not a central issue during the founding of the United States. Even some of the most ardent defenders of the Constitution, such as James Madison, labeled the Bill of Rights as “parchment barriers,” highlighting that its provisions did not guarantee freedom. A Bill of Rights is not unique to the United States. The clauses of the document have been reiterated by countless countries across history, and time and time again, many of these states have failed to achieve the liberties of American democracy. The reason for their failure lies in the unique nature of America’s political system. During his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee
on Oct. 5, 2011, the late Justice Antonin Scalia described how the Bill of Rights doesn’t guarantee individual liberties, but rather the structure of the U.S. government is the guarantor of these rights. “Every banana republic in the world has a bill of rights. Every president-for-life has a bill of rights. The bill of rights of the [Soviet Union] was much better than ours. I mean it literally,” said Scalia. The primary difference between American democracy and any other form of governance is the fierce and sometimes irritating polarization between Democrats and Republicans. Many Americans regard this aggressive national debate between conservatism and liberalism as the culprit behind stagnation. In the United States, a nation
that embraces diversity in all aspects of life, gridlock prevents the triumph of one majority above the rest. In a time of racial and religious homogeneity, Madison predicted that the future diversity of the United States would be preserved by the gridlock. “Among the great variety of interests, parties, and sects…a coalition of a majority of the whole society could seldom take place upon any other principles than those of justice and the general good,” said Madison. Instead of criticizing political gridlock as an impediment to progress, Americans must recognize that the most effective laws are born through strife and disagreement. After all, if the people demand rapid decision making rather than gridlock, dictatorship might be a favorable alternative.
Divorce is healthier than a failing marriage Armon Mahdavi It is a common assertion that humans have a desire to keep their promises as much as possible. Yet according to Business Insider, about half of Americans break the “til death do us part” pact. Divorce is dreadfully common, but it is still highly stigmatized in our society. Even though married couples try their best to stay together, if it isn’t working out, the option of separation should be considered. Many feel that the unhappiness derived from getting a divorce would outweigh the unhappiness of a miserable marriage, but that is not necessarily true. The University of Arizona did a study on the correlation between women’s marital quality and their life satisfaction. The study found that women in poor quality marriages who got divorced ended up having the highest life satisfaction of all types of women involved in the study. Generally, people who get married do so because they are in love and see themselves living happily with their partners forever. However, it is human nature to grow tired of things, and often, this is the case with romantic partners. While the ability to fall in love is one of the greatest as-
pects of the human experience, the ability to grow tired of things is one of the worst. Humans have a natural tendency to fight against unhappiness, yet this emotion usually wins in that battle. Society’s complex relationship with long-term happiness has been discussed by doctors and philosophers. Some of these claims are in nature theoretical, while others are more definitive. The studies of neurologist Dr. Irving Biederman show that the human brain craves stimulation. It looks at the world through the eyes, shooting pleasure-inducing opioids at the sight of anything new. As we see and experience things over and over again, our brain shoots fewer opioids. New experiences make us happy, so anything that we experience for a long period of time will dissipate in pleasure, including marriages. In Albert Camus’ novel “The Plague,” a character states that man is “incapable of suffering for a long time, or being happy for a long time.” It is a sad element of our condition, but in order to limit our misery, we must acknowledge our aversion to monotony. However, I still do believe that there are couples who are destined to be together their entire lifetime. It is just
an extremely rare occurrence. Fifty percent of couples get divorced, yet I wonder how many of the ones who remain married are truly happy. It bothers me when people avoid separating only because they feel society will look down upon them. I’ve seen marriages like this all my life — full of bitterness and void of warmth. Another reason people avoid divorce is the fate of their children. Although divorce is a traumatic event, being raised by unhappy parents is also tragic. Environmental Psychologists unanimously agree that the environment a child grows up in is a defining factor in their future mental health. If one is raised and surrounded by miserable people, it is possible that they will develop a close relationship with misery throughout the rest of their lives. Divorce is unfortunate, but it is only logical that it shall occur for many people. If our passion for someone or something fades it is simply because we are human, and we should not feel guilty for being human. While we should try our best to keep the ones we love, we should not trap ourselves in a constraint of misery. A divorce is not only a justifiable occurrence, it is a logical one.