4 - The Daily Iowan - Iowa City, Iowa - Monday, May 7, 2012
Opinions
HAYLEY BRUCE, SAM LANE Editors-in-Chief • BENJAMIN EVANS Opinions Editor SAMUEL CLEARY, DAN TAIBLESON Editorial writers EDITORIALS reflect the majority opinion of the DI Editorial Board and not the opinion of the Publisher, Student Publications Inc., or the University of Iowa. GUEST OPINIONS, COMMENTARIES, and COLUMNS reflect the opinions of the authors and are not necessarily those of the Editorial Board.
Column
Voters to blame for polarization Americans don’t have all that much confidence in Congress. Since 1973, the number of Americans who have said that they have confidence in Congress as DANIEL TAIBLESON daniel-taibleson@uiowa.edu an institution has only surpassed 40 percent four times. Though as bad as Congress’s historical record has been, it has inspired less confidence in recent years. In fact, according to Gallup’s most recent survey, Americans have less confidence in our foremost legislative institution than they do in banks, big business, and HMOs. There is little doubt that this collapse of confidence stems from the fact that many view Congress as a broken institution. It is rather astonishing that anyone views Congress as anything else, considering that this most recent Congress struggles to conduct routine legislative responsibilities. The reasons for this dysfunction are numerous, but I think it is far from controversial to point to polarization as the key contributing factor. This is especially true when you consider that the ideological gulf between the parties in this most recent Congress is abnormally large. However, while it is clear is that polarization has contributed much to cultivating an impotent Congress, what is less clear is why Congress is so polarized. Now would be an appropriate time to talk about the Congress we “need” and the Congress we “deserve,” but I think that discussion would actually distract us from something far more important: Congress is broken because we as voters are sending our elected officials the wrong signals. Many people blame gerrymandering — to be sure, gerrymandering exacerbates many of the underlying problems, but senators are elected statewide and it is not as if the Senate has escaped the polarization trend. Furthermore, meticulous research has revealed little reason to think that gerrymandering is to blame. Some blame the influence of money, and again I advise caution. The influence of centralized monetary interests on electoral and legislative outcomes is well-documented, but the link between money and polarization is weak at best. Still, others blame institutional rules in clear need of reconsideration. However, the abuse of institutional rules such as the filibuster to the point of turning the Senate into a minority-ruled
body is more a symptom than a cause of polarization. That all having been said, I offer a bracing dose of good, great, and bad news. The good news is that recent research has shed light on what appears to be driving the polarization trend and making partisan compromise less tenable. The great news is that we as voters can pretty much correct this problem at any time. The bad news is that correcting this problem will require a large-scale shift in the way we as voters reward our elected officials. A recent paper by Philip Jones exploring the relationship between constituents and their representatives has provided compelling evidence that how voters reward elected officials has done us all the considerable disservice of producing a highly polarized legislative body inhabited by officials with no incentive to compromise. Jones studied whether voters were more likely to vote for incumbent senators based on their policy stances or the state of the national economy and the occupation in Iraq. Even after controlling for party affiliation and ideological similarities, Jones found that voters were far more likely to vote for an incumbent based on his policy stances than they were to vote for an incumbent based on “peace and prosperity” policy outcomes. This information does a lot to explain why it is lawmakers appear increasingly incapable of governing — which in our system of government requires some degree of compromise. If deviating from previously established policy positions poses significant electoral risks and legislative outcomes provide few (if any) electoral incentives, it is no wonder elected representatives would rather grandstand than seek grand bargains. Furthermore, if voters care a lot about policy stances and little about policy outcomes, there is nothing standing in the way of people who hold extreme ideological views — which make compromise impossible — from obtaining elected office. If we as voters want a Congress that functions, then we need to reward officials who are dedicated to making that happen. I am not saying that we should support squishy candidates who lack an ideological core, but I am saying that it is high time we support candidates that prioritize governance over ideological fealty. Your turn. Are the voters solely to blame for polarization? Weigh in at dailyiowan.com.
Letter LETTERS TO THE EDITOR may be sent via e-mail to daily.iowan.letters@gmail.com (as text, not as attachment). Each letter must be signed and include an address and phone number for verification. Letters should not exceed 300 words. The DI reserves the right to edit for length and clarity. The DI will publish only one letter per author per month. Letters will be chosen for publication by the editors according to space considerations. No advertisements or mass mailings, please. GUEST OPINIONS that exceed 300 words in length must be arranged with the Opinions editor at least three days prior to the desired date of publication. Guest opinions are selected in accordance with word length, subject relevance, and space considerations. READER COMMENTS that may appear below were originally posted on dailyiowan.com in response to published material. They will be chosen for print publication when they are deemed to be well-written and to forward public discussion. They may be edited for length and style.
Standing up, not crossing legs An unfortunate reality that continues to exist in our world — for men and women alike — is exactly described “daily oppression of sexism and violence against women” (DI, “Cross your legs,” May 4). However, there’s more than how we dress, live, and choose. The attitude that a woman should be categorized as a whole being by her choices in
dress or sexual lifestyle is the same kind of degradation, if on a lesser scale, as a man deciding he is entitled to take advantage of her body because of a similar value judgment. It continues to offload responsibility from the action of the offender by absolving one person’s impulses with the implication that another tempted them. It sows shame and urges silence. This attitude perpetuates the oppression
that surrounds us — actively and passively — every day. In the picture of the Slut Walk featured prominently in The Daily Iowan, I saw girls in bras and hot pants shoulderto-shoulder with girls in jeans and T-shirts. I guess that’s all pretty slutty, depending on how far back a person would like to roll our definitions of “classy” and “ladylike.” However, I fondly hope that my generation’s daughters will be able to feel safe dressing how-
ever they feel comfortable and beautiful without being shamed and violated by rape, harassment, or the ill-informed scrutiny of their lifestyle and health-care choices. I’m not going to sit with my legs crossed — I’m going to stand up, and I hope other women understand that I’m standing up for their rights, voices, and safety as well. Marie Raven Iowa City resident
IS THE IOWA CULTURE REALLY THAT DIFFERENT?
Read today’s Guest Column, and let us know at: daily.iowan.letters@gmail.com.
A West Coast perspective of Iowa At the beginning of college, one of the first questions people ask is, ‘So, where are you from?’ I grew up in Santa Monica, Calif., a beach suburb of Los Angeles. Most days were in the 60s or 70s because the ocean keeps the weather temperate. Snow was something that I had seen a few times before coming to Iowa City, and once when I was 10, snow fell at home. I was so excited that I just ran outside and started taking pictures. It is true that I have seen some celebrities; as a kid I went trick-or-treating at Tom Hanks’ house, and Christina Schwarzenegger is my age (and having met her, I can attest that she is a complete brat). Then my peers usually ask me, “Why Iowa?” I chose to make UI my home because it has the No. 1 writing program in America. I chose it because I needed to separate from my parents and leave La-La land. I also chose it — and this is a huge reason — because of the budget crisis in California, which has raised the price of tuition. I often think of what my California friends who stayed in state have gone through compared with what I’ve gone through. The state of California has no money, and in the past three years, tuition has gone up 75 percent. My friend who is living at home and going to UCLA is paying more than I am for out-of-state tuition to go here. Further, because of the budget crisis, the state of California is giving out no scholarships, only IOUs, which the colleges do not accept. Because of all this, there have been riots at many of the college campuses. Recently, students at Santa Monica College were pepper-sprayed by the police for peacefully protesting a raise from $50 a class to a $150. And this is junior college. Even beyond the money problems, getting into decent California colleges is arduous. The system wants you to apply to at least six schools. The state colleges that are easier to get into are not prestigious. To get into Berkeley or UCLA, you have to have at least a 4.0 GPA and have taken many AP classes. On the other hand, getting into UI is simple. It
accepts anybody with over a 3.0 GPA, and many people I have met never took an AP class. A lot of people only applied to the University of Iowa because they knew that they could get in. I was surprised, and it showed me how different Iowa is from California. The LA attitude is similar to the New York City one. We are the secondlargest city in America and just don’t have time for pleasantries. On the UI campus, numerous people have asked me if I was angry just when I was stating my opinion. If I were mad, you would know. In contrast to the segment of life that I have seen and that I react to, I find Midwesterners to have a friendly exterior but to be rather passive-aggressive. I’ve met many people (especially in my freshman dorm) who would smile, then wait until a person left and say how much they hated them. I also assess a more traditional outlook from the people in Iowa than from the people in California. It should not be a surprise, then, that settling down is not every girl’s No. 1 priority. When I was in high school, I only had about three conversations about whether or not I wanted to have children and the chats were, “So, do you want to have kids?” It’s not that girls in California don’t eventually want to have kids, it’s just that we have other things that we want to do first. The Iowan attitude towards babies is very different. My freshman year of college, I met many girls who wanted to discuss their future procreation. These girls would not simply say, “Do you want to have kids?” but would ask, “What are the names of your children going to be?” “How many do you want?” “Boys or girls?” and “Do you want to have a C-section, epidural, or a natural home birth?” I was shocked about being continually asked this and showed me the different priorities in Iowa. When I go home, which isn’t that often, it always takes me three days to adjust to being back. Coming to Iowa has opened my eyes to the life beyond Rodeo Drive. Some people go to Spain or Italy to experience a different culture; I went to Iowa. Kelsey Berryman UI student
Guest Column
Chen deal shows U.S., China can work together WASHINGTON — A tentative deal to allow activist Chinese lawyer Chen Guangcheng to study in the United States serves as a face-saving measure for all involved: Washington can say it safeguarded human rights, Beijing can point to its cooperative diplomacy and Chen gets a new start in America. After a week of hectic back-and-forth negotiations and Chen’s own flipflop on staying in China, the May 4 announcements by U.S. and Chinese officials pointed to a positive end for a standoff that embarrassed the Chinese government by shining a light on its human-rights record and put President Obama in a tight spot while campaigning for reelection.
Several steps remain before Chen can take up an academic fellowship in the United States. But the speed with which a near calamity was resolved illustrates the maturing partnership between the world’s biggest powers, after years of stumbling over lesser disputes. “It is a testament to how far we’ve come in building a strong and resilient relationship and being able to have very candid open discussions about issues where there is disagreement, without it endangering the entire range of significant matters that we are working on together,” Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said on May 4 in Beijing. Chen, a blind, selftaught lawyer, has
emerged as a symbol of the Chinese civil-rights movement after exposing forced abortions and sterilizations as part of China’s one-child policy and then enduring almost seven years of prison and house arrest. His dramatic, nighttime escape last week from local authorities into the halls of the U.S. Embassy — just before Rodham Clinton and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner were to arrive for unrelated meetings — had all the ingredients for a diplomatic fiasco. The escape forced the Obama administration to balance its defense of an internationally renowned human-rights defender against its courting of the Chinese to help advance the global economic recov-
ery and deal with North Korea and Iran. It presented tough choices, too, for Beijing, whose violent crackdown on prodemocracy protesters at Tiananmen Square 23 years ago is the portrait of its human-rights behavior retained by much of the world. Chinese leaders still are extremely concerned about internal security and chafe at any foreign criticism of the nation’s domestic affairs. But China has also become increasingly conscious of its global image. Somehow the worst was avoided this time. Eschewing the public grandstanding that has long prompted the Chinese to dig in their heels, U.S. officials worked behind the scenes to first secure a deal that saw
Chen leave the embassy on Wednesday to be reunited with his family and receive hospital care. Rodham Clinton avoided shaming China publicly. She issued one written statement but said nothing else. When on May 2 Chen backed out of the deal and demanded to leave China, officials from both sides hammered out a second compromise within 48 hours. The understanding came even as Rodham Clinton and Geithner were holding sensitive talks with the Chinese on issues such as currency, trade, and territorial claims in the resource-rich South China Sea. When she finally spoke, Rodham Clinton was able to deliver positive news. “Over the course of the
day, progress has been made to help him have the future that he wants,” she told reporters after the strategic talks. But she also sought to drive home Washington’s message that the cause of human rights wasn’t thrown aside. She said the administration would continue to engage China’s government at the highest levels and put “these concerns at the heart of our diplomacy.” “This is not just about well-known activists,” she said. “It’s about the human rights and aspirations of more than a billion people here in China and billions more around the world. And it’s about the future of this great nation and all nations.” Christopher Bodeen Associated Press