WUPR 16.1: The Dumbo Primaries

C

Washington University

Political Review 16.1 | January 2012 | wupr.org

Dumbo Primaries

1

Editors’ Notes WUPRites, The GOP base has been suffering through a prolonged epileptic fit. The Republican presidential nomination has filled headlines as the popularity of given candidates has risen and fallen. This primary has been the most volatile to date, as nearly every candidate has received a surge of support only to have it dashed.

Over the summer, Michele Bachmann inexplicably rose to prominence as the only announced candidate who was not Mitt Romney. Once Rick Perry entered the race, however, many saw him as the eventual nominee—that is, until they remembered that an inept governor from Texas as presidential nominee was a little too familiar for comfort. Next came Herman Cain, former CEO of Godfather’s Pizza, who excited many with his unabashed pride in his lack of political awareness. In came Newt Gingrich, recovering from his early campaign debacles only to see his popularity immediately plummet as a result of his past infidelities, current pompousness, and future unpredictability. Ron Paul, the diminutive libertarian, rose in popularity until Republicans discovered both his questionable racism and his isolationist foreign policy. Then Santorum, despite facing a difficult “Google problem,” bubbled up to win Iowa. After an easy Romney win in New Hampshire, the GOP, again forgetting everything they know about Gingrich, decided to support him in South Carolina. Romney, the establishment favorite, has been happy to stand by and watch each candidate rise and fall; that is, until he faced backlash due to his considerable wealth and sketchy business dealings. Tim Pawlenty, the shortsighted candidate who dropped out over the summer when it seemed Bachmann was more popular in Iowa, must be kicking himself at home watching these shenanigans play out. Also, Sarah Palin surely believes she could have won it all and is likely planning to stage a late entrance.

Meanwhile, the Obama campaign has already started ramping up its well-oiled machine. Increasingly nervous about the free Obama-bashing in the news on which Republicans have capitalized, the campaign has aired their first campaign ad. President Obama, in a vulnerable political position, is hoping for a long nomination process so that his opponents will continue to cripple themselves before the general election.

WUPR will be thrilled if the rest of the presidential race is even half as entertaining as it has been these past few months.

Sincerely, Hannah Shaffer Corey Donahue Editors-in-Chief

2

Table of Contents National

5

6

Military Makeover Nick Hinsch It’s Called a Uterus, Not a Uter-You: Personhood Amendments and the Assault on Women’s Rights Cici Coquillette

13

14

17

8

Dumbo Primaries The Official Republican Drinking Game Seth Einbinder

Feeding Frenzy Andrew Luskin

The Inevitability of Mitt Romney Kevin Kieselbach

International 21

Irritating Iran Corey Donahue

22

To Infinity and Beyond?

Siddharth Krishnan

23

India’s Emperors Without Clothes Gabe Rubin

24

The Ultimate Protest Jay Evans

18 26

Hard or Soft? US Power in Promoting Democracy Abroad Daniel Rubin

27

The Autocratic Filibuster Taka Yamaguchi

28 The Social IPOs Raja Krishna 10

The Glass Is Half: The Year to Come Bryan Baird

11

Why Debt is Not a “FourLetter Word”: On Fears of Chinese Power and Deficit Misconceptions Hannah Shaffer

Where Did Everybody Go? Jake Lichtenfeld

Still il?

Michael Cohen

3

Staff List Editors-in-Chief Corey Donahue Hannah Shaffer Executive Director Bryan Baird Programming Director Cici Coquillette Staff Editors Anna Applebaum Peter Birke Nick Hinsch Siddharth Krishnan Director of New Media Taka Yamaguchi Treasurer Will Dobbs-Allsopp Directors of Design Stephanie Trimboli Audrey Westcott Layout Team Mitch Atkin Ismael Fofana Charlotte Jeffries Beenish Qayam Emily Santos Mary Yang Art Coordinator Audrey Westcott Managing Copy Editors Cici Coquillette Copy Editors Kelsey Berkowitz Abby Kerfoot Moira Moynihan Molly Prothero Celia Rozanski Stephen Rubino Sonya Schoenberger Katie Stillman

Staff Writers Michael Cohen Matt Curtis Neel Desai Wills Dobbs-Allsopp Seth Einbinder Jay Evans Nahuel Fefer Alex Kaufman Abby Kerfoot Kevin Kieselbach Mike Kovacs Raja Krishna Ben Lash Martin Lockman Andrew Luskin Lennox Mark Fahim Masoud Molly McGregor Zach Moskowitz Moira Moynihan Mariana Oliver Daniel Rubin Gabe Rubin Razi Safi Shelby Tarkenton Megan Zielinski

Board of Advisors Dean Ewan Harrison Political Science Department Robin Hattori Gephardt Institute for Public Service Professor Bill Lowry Political Science Department Professor Andrew Rehfeld Political Science Department Unless otherwise noted, all images are from MCT Campus.

The Washington University Political Review is a student-led organization committed to encouraging and fostering awareness of political issues on the campus of Washington University in St. Louis. To do this, we shall remain dedicated to providing friendly and open avenues of discussion and debate both written and oral on the campus for any and all political ideas, regardless of the leanings of those ideas.

Front Cover Illustration Hannah Shaffer Back Cover Illustration Esther Hamburger Editorial Illustrators Mitch Atkin Laura Beckman Elizabeth Beier David Brennan Kelsey Brod Esther Hamburger Dara Katzenstein David Maupin Michelle Nahmad Grace Preston Hannah Shaffer Audrey Westcott

Submissions editor@wupr.org

4

National

By The Numbers 8.5%

15,000+

The unemployment rate as of December 2011, the lowest since 2009.

Websites that participated in the SOPA blackout on January 18th.

2,200,000

153,692

SOPA hashtags on Twitter.

Followers of Rupert Murdoch’s Twitter.

$160,000

11

Price paid in a recent auction for JFK’s hearse.

Percent of voting-age Americans who lack photo IDs.

92

2

State laws passed in 2011 that restrict access to abortion.

Number of hours recently added to each school day in Chicago public schools.

national

Military Makeover Nick Hinsch

T

he United States military is in a time of transition. Over ten years after 9/11, Osama bin Laden has finally been brought to justice, and the war in Iraq has been brought to an uneasy conclusion. However, the war in Afghanistan drags on, the defense budget has ballooned to almost $700 billion, and new threats to America’s military pre-eminence loom in the distance. The US military must adapt to meet these new challenges. Fortunately, the Obama administration has met this challenge by publicly outlining a balanced, carefully reasoned plan to steer the armed forces into the future.

This new strategy is laid out in a concise document entitled “Sustaining Global Leadership: Priorities for 21st Century Defense.”

President Obama unveiled the strategy at the Pentagon in early January. Most significantly, the plan represents a change in emphasis away from Europe and towards Asia, while continuing to devote significant resources to the Middle East. Citing the improved security situation in Europe, the plan calls for a reduction of armed forces on the continent. The reduction would minimize costs but allow the US to continue to meet its treaty obligations to NATO. The plan also anticipates the rise of China as a potential adversary and makes clear that the US will be prepared to devote substantial new resources to maintaining its influence in Asia, including financial resources for investments to counter emerging threats such as cyber-warfare.

The plan also recognizes that in an era of limited budgets, the military must shrink. Recently, the military has maintained the capability to wage two full-scale ground wars in different parts of the world. The new strategy recognizes that this realization of this scenario in the future is too improbable to justify the expense required to support this continued capability. Instead, it supports the

military being able to wage only one full-scale war, while retaining the ability to intervene elsewhere on a more limited scale should an aggressor seek to take advantage of a “distracted” US. For example, according to Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, if this strategy were implemented, the US would be able to disrupt an Iranian attempt to close the Strait of Hormuz even if the US were engaged in a ground war in the Koreas. The strategy also calls for cutbacks to the oversized nuclear arsenal, which will reduce costly maintenance while continuing to deter any potential adversary.

To be sure, these are major changes, and major changes frequently come under attack by those parties who benefit from the status quo. This explains why the plan emphasizes continuities and reassures the world that little is actually changing. For example, all cuts are designed to be reversible, so a future President could easily rebuild part of the military, if circumstances warranted. While this is a good option to preserve, the plan’s artful phrasing and lack of details leave reason to believe that the administration might be too timid to fully follow through on its vision.

The difficult part of implementing this new strategy is still to come. To transform an eight-page white paper written in delicate bureaucratese to concrete action, the White House will have to propose budgets that specify which programs to cut and by how much— and the first such budget is scheduled to arrive in a matter of weeks.

With this specificity will come howls of opposition from supporters of each individual program, both within and outside of the armed forces. The Obama administration must not retreat from its vision and allow petty politics and bureaucratic inertia to force the country to continue to pursue a defense policy that is outdated, misguided, and fiscally irresponsible.

Nick Hinsch is a sophomore in the College of Arts & Sciences. He can be reached at nhinsch@wustl.edu.

In an era of limited budgets, the military must shrink.

5

6

national

It’s Called a Uterus, Not a Uter-Y Personhood Amendments and t Cici Coquillette | Illustration by Elizabeth Beier

A

s we continue the onslaught of the Republican primary season, social issues—particularly abortion, access to birth control, and gay marriage—have taken center stage. Although a recent CBS News poll showed that 57% of American voters are primarily concerned with the economy and job creation, prospective candidates nevertheless prattle on about their support for conservative family values. It has become apparent that the necessary consequence of these values is the limitation of others’ rights: this past year, so-called “personhood amendments” captured national attention in their attempts to enfranchise fetuses and, in doing so, to restrict access to abortion, birth control, and even basic medical care for women. Support for such movements, even if well-intentioned, is symptomatic of the pernicious and endemic conservative agenda which sacrifices women’s rights and autonomy on the altar of family values and voter turnout.

The first proposed personhood amendment was rejected in Colorado in 2008 and again in 2010. In Mississippi, a 2011 referendum in favor of personhood was denied by 58% of voters. Despite these initial failures, personhood advocates remain undeterred: similar measures await voter input in 2012 in California, Ohio, Montana, Nevada, and Florida. Such amendments define human life as beginning at conception, not implantation or birth: not only would the amendment ban abortion even in cases of rape or incest but would outlaw birth control and profoundly affect the practice of in-vitro fertilization, as even frozen embryos would be entitled to personhood.

Even in the life-threatening cases of ectopic pregnancy, in which the fertilized egg does not reach the uterus and begins to

grow inside the fallopian tube, fetuses could not be terminated; similarly, pregnant cancer patients would not be permitted to receive chemotherapy because of potential risks to the fetus.

Perhaps the most troubling aspect of these debates is the fundamental lack of understanding of the science of reproduction (perhaps we should not be surprised—this is just one result of years of abstinence-only sex education). To review, conception and implantation are different processes: conception occurs when the sperm and egg meet and form a single diploid cell known as a zygote. Implantation occurs later: the rapidlydeveloping zygote must traverse the fallopian tube, enter the uterus, and latch onto the nutrient-rich uterine lining, typically 6-12 days after ovulation. According to the language of the Mississippi personhood amendment, that single-celled zygote is a person and entitled to all of the rights associated with personhood. However, this presents enormous consequences both for birth control and for normal implantation failure. Approximately 22% of natural conceptions fail to implant, typically due to abnormal hormonal signaling in the uterus. This medically unavoidable implantation failure would be an infringement on fetal rights tantamount to murder—even though the person in question is biologically less complex than a strand of hair.

Birth control methods that prevent implantation would also be banned by personhood amendments; while these methods are typically not well understood by (overwhelmingly male) politicians, they nevertheless have political consequences. As a guest on Mike Huckabee’s Fox News show, Republican frontrunner Mitt Romney indicated that he would “absolutely” support a constitutional amendment that defined conception

national

You: the Assault on Women’s Rights The proposed amendment is a full-frontal assault on women’s sexual and medical autonomy—but this should hardly come as a surprise. as the beginning of life, a stance that is incompatible with his positive (or at least ambivalent) attitude toward birth control.

At a later campaign event in Sioux City, Iowa, Romney clarified his position on birth control by saying that “life begins at conception; birth control prevents conception.” Unfortunately, this is only partially true: hormonal birth control primarily prevents ovulation, though it also creates an inhospitable environment for implantation. Other methods of birth control, such as intrauterine devices and the morning after pill, don’t prevent conception, just implantation. If a fertilized egg were to have the rights afforded to persons from the moment of conception, birth control methods that prevent implantation would be an illegal infringement upon those rights.

The proposed amendment is a full-frontal assault on women’s sexual and medical autonomy—but this should hardly come as a surprise. The emphasis on the value of the hypothetical child over the mother is a growing trend in American politics, one which feminist philosopher Susan Bordo describes as “an alibi for depriving women of their own rights as persons… [due to] the legal double standard concerning the bodily integrity of pregnant and nonpregnant bodies, the construction of women as fetal incubators, [and] the bestowal of ‘super-subject’ status to the fetus.” Rather than protecting the rights of women, who are people by any measure, personhood amendments prioritize the questionable rights of questionable “people,” and in doing so devalue women in favor of their hypothetical offspring.

In 2006 the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) issued new federal guidelines that “ask[ed] all females

capable of conceiving a baby to treat themselves, and to be treated by the health care system, as pre-pregnant, regardless of whether they plan to get pregnant anytime soon.” While the recommendations seem fairly inoffensive—to include avoiding smoking, maintaining a healthy weight, taking multivitamins, and adequately caring for chronic health conditions—they too are examples of measuring women’s value and role in society based on their ability to create new life. In the case of blogger Shadesong, that meant that treatment for her chronic epilepsy took a backseat to the needs of a hypothetical fetus, though she already had children and was not planning on becoming pregnant again. Her doctors would only prescribe medications that had minimal effects on fetuses, rather than those that were most effective at treating her epilepsy. Unfortunately, such absurd value judgments may occur more frequently in the future.

Despite the 1971 ruling of Reed vs. Reed, which extended equal protection to women with the understanding that “all men are created equal,” refers to mankind rather than solely men. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia argued in 2011 that women “do not have equal protection under the 14th amendment as ‘people’ because men’s rights are guaranteed by specific language in the Constitution, but women’s rights are not.” If such a devaluation of inalienable rights of citizens is possible over the course of just 40 years, I can only hope that fetuses have better luck with their personhood status than we women.

Cici Coquillette is a senior majoring in psychology-neurosciencephilosophy. She can be reached at cmcoquil@wustl.edu.

7

8

national

The Social IPOs: Technology and the Blurring Line Raja Krishna | Illustration by Laura Beckman

FIPO

We’ve all seen the 2010 hit The Social Network, a sharp, glamorous look at Facebook’s inception and some of the hitches

along its path to becoming the most revolutionary web-based form of communication since email. If there were a sequel, it could be summarized in one sentence: everyone—and I mean everyone—involved even

tangentially with Facebook gets rich. Filthy rich. Haven’t-showered-in-a-month filthy.

Even the Winklevoss twins (or “the Winklevii” as they are referred to in the film) were given $20 million in cash and millions more in Facebook stock options after they sued Mark Zuckerberg for allegedly stealing their idea.

But that’s not the end of the story. In all likelihood, 2012 will be the year of Facebook’s Initial Public Offering (IPO), which means that Facebook will go from being a private company with private stock to a publicly traded company like Google or Microsoft—one in which its 700 million+ users can actively invest.

An event of this magnitude deserves its own acronym. Let’s call it FIPO. FIPO won’t be the first highly anticipated IPO to hit the markets in the past few years—you can now buy stock in Groupon, Pandora, and LinkedIn—but it will be the most significant. On a purely superficial level, FIPO is anticipated to create over 1000 new millionaires within Facebook itself! This figure includes everyone from Facebook’s engineers and computer programmers to its human resources and marketing departments.

Incidentally, it also includes the Facebook Head Chef, whom Facebook stole from Google.

The bottom line is that anyone within Facebook with company stock options now has some options of his or her own.

But what does FIPO mean for the 700 million of us, Facebook’s users? We now have the opportunity not only to live our lives on Facebook but to make money off of it. This has the potential to radically change the dynamic between

national

Between Investor and Consumer the company and its users. For many users, FIPO will create a conflict of interest: as investors, we want the company to make as much money as possible, but as users, we want a fluid Facebook experience, free of ads and unwanted solicitations. If we all invest in Facebook, thinking that the stock will become a fixture in our growing portfolios, what happens when Facebook adds a feature that we don’t like? If it gets press attention, wouldn’t negative coverage of the company devalue our portfolios? This might give us an incentive not to complain about changes, which could include ads and other moneymaking schemes that pollute our user experience.

Accountability These concerns might seem a little bit extreme, but the fact of the matter is that these bastard incentives will be created with FIPO, and similar ones have been exploited by Google and Apple’s IPOs. Both companies have been able to experiment with millions of users simply because their products are such integral parts of their customers’ lives. Whether FIPO will corrupt our social networking remains to be seen. Nevertheless, these concerns are still worth considering.

As mentioned above, investing in Facebook, Google, and Apple means voluntarily intertwining yourself with a product used in your daily life. For many Americans, these three companies make life more convenient and efficient. They are vital parts of the way we learn, communicate, socialize, and conduct business. They are also three shining examples of American innovation, a spirit that these companies have helped spread

to the world. Finally, these three companies have massive market shares with little outside competition. Facebook’s biggest competition is Google+, and the iPhone’s biggest competition is Google’s Android phones. Microsoft’s Bing and China’s Baidu are Google’s biggest threats. Facebook and Google have even reached the point at which their company names are now verbs.

As we continue to move more of our lives online, we will continue to see fledgling start-ups spring up to rule facets of our lives that we didn’t even know could be improved.

We’ve seen demand skyrocket for products simply because they were invented. Soon, that demand turns into a need. The car, the cell phone, email, search engines, and social networking are all examples of this phenomenon.

One could argue that the stock market is nothing but investing in companies that affect our daily lives, that this is the point of the stock market. The stock market historically has been an effective way to hold companies accountable for bad business practices. For example, we saw Toyota’s stock plummet when its brakes were revealed to be faulty. BP and Transocean were punished for the Gulf Coast oil spill. One of the reasons the market was able to punish these companies was that they have many competitors with significant market shares.

The Advent of the ‘Consumervestor’ There’s something about the Internet and computer technology that eliminates viable competition once the right service is invented. Google Search dominates Bing, Yahoo, and Ask. Facebook versus

MySpace isn’t even a funny joke anymore.

And as the Internet creeps into our mobile phones, our choices are quickly being narrowed to iOS or Android. Our computer choices are already limited to Mac versus Windows. Think about other tech services that we use: Pandora dominates Internet radio, LinkedIn business networking, and Microsoft Office productivity programs.

Blogger Danah Boyd argues that Facebook’s increasing relevance (and permanence) in our daily lives means that it ought to be regulated as a natural monopoly. She has a point: aren’t we already “consumervestors” with our cable companies, power companies, and water companies? Facebook is already so many things to us: an increasingly vital form of communication, organization, business promotion, and life management. As our reliance on the company increases, Facebook is steadily making the transition from a luxury to a utility, one that has access to our personal information. Via company policies, Facebook can regulate the way we live part of our lives, so why shouldn’t we regulate Facebook?

We are facing a future in which a cluster of pseudo-monopolistic companies will dictate many aspects of our lives. The more of ourselves we give away to Silicon Valley, the fewer choices it produces for redeeming the repackaged fragments of our lives we have relinquished.

There is no doubt that FIPO will be among the most exciting events of 2012, but when Facebook offers itself up for purchase this year, be careful that you are not doing the same thing.

Raja Krishna is a freshman studying economics and political science. He can be reached at anirudh.krishna@wustl.edu.

When Facebook offers itself up for purchase this year, be careful that you’re not doing the same thing.

9

10

national

The Glass Is Half:

W

ho doesn’t love an election year? Well, as it turns out, a lot of people, and most of them are running for office. I won’t claim to know exactly how the next year will unfold, but I know that there is plenty to hope for and plenty to fear, and we might just have the good fortune to get some of both.

The Year to Come Bryan Baird

The Best That Could Happen: Jon Huntsman could get himself a good job.

And I don’t mean president.

Secretary of State is already taken by a different former candidate, and she seems to be doing quite well in the position, but there are plenty of places in government for a man like Huntsman. I’m not saying I agree with all of his views, or even most of them, but I can’t deny that that Huntsman oozes a certain air of rationality and reasonableness. I think that if his country were to call on him to serve, as it did when he was the ambassador to China, he would answer and serve well. As with Secretary Clinton, I think his rivals would be more than happy to see him in a relatively apolitical public role so that they need not compete with him again four years hence.

The US could start making headway on modernizing military strategy.

The United States Armed Forces are far and away the most powerful and best-equipped fighting power in the world. The superior technology of our hitech fighter jets and tank battalions gives us a huge advantage in combat. But those shiny weapons are expensive and designed to focus on threats from established nations as opposed to the small-scale, thin-spread counterinsurgency wars of the new century.

However, recent Pentagon budget cuts are helping, forcing the military to be smarter about its purchases. Expect to see a rise in drone warfare as relatively cheap and versatile unmanned aircraft take over from the notoriously over-budget F-22 fighters. A recent congressional study found that 31% of all US military aircraft are unmanned, and short of a war breaking out with a country that actually has an air force, that percentage is sure to rise.

Guantanamo Bay could finally be closed.

Sure, it’s a long shot, and even leaving the security and intelligence concerns aside, the sheer legal maelstrom surrounding Gitmo makes it a nightmare to shut down. But I know that I’m not alone in wanting this ugly and uncomfortable chapter put behind us as a nation, even if only symbolically. The iconic prison just had its tenth birthday, and President Obama has yet to uphold his 2008 campaign promise to close the facility. What better way to usher in the post-Iraq era than by shutting down the most gruesome living monument to the War on Terror?

on antagonizing the rest of the world, from its incessant pursuit of nuclear technology to its chokehold on major oil supply routes.

In either case, the international community, especially China, has a vested interest in resolving the conflict, but the US would inevitably lead any necessary military efforts.

The Worst That Could Happen:

Herman Cain will not be the next Secretary of Defense.

Despite his interest, I am quite certain that nobody in their right mind (or Governor Perry) will offer Herman Cain any position that puts him in control of so much as mall security. Even if he could guarantee that our bombs could be delivered to any target in the world in 30 minutes or less. I would say that I’d sleep easier knowing that literally anyone else in the world would have the job, but then I remember that Mrs. Palin might be looking for work…

The Euro could die.

As bad as the financial crisis has been for the US, the effects on nations overseas have been far more profound. The many-headed and seemingly leaderless beast that controls European monetary policy has been saved more than once by the actions of individual member states, especially Germany. But these heroics have exposed not only the weaknesses of the financial union, but of the European Union itself. The notion of a politically and culturally united Europe is fading fast as member nations adopt strong nationalist policies and begin to remember why Europe has been a place of constant war for the past 2000 years.

The Euro will not fade quietly into the pages of history— it just might bring European peace crashing down with it.

Small wars could break out around the world.

With US troops home from Iraq (or at least into Kuwait), it is tempting to think that the world is moving back toward peace, but North Korea is as unpredictable as ever. Especially after the death of Kim Jong-il, it is still far too early to tell what internal power plays could spill over into international crises. Iran, too, seems set

The Arrested Development movie could be cancelled.

I’m not saying there would be political ramifications; I’m just saying it would suck.

What Won’t Happen (For Better Or Worse):

Rep. Ron Paul is not going to be the president.

No, I don’t care how cool you think he is, or how well he’s doing with the youth vote, or how much you think he deserves to win, he’s not going to win a general election. And I’m fine with that, because even when you leave aside the hidden and questionable underpinnings to his particular brand of libertarianism, I never think it’s a good idea to elect to the head of an organization someone who believes that that organization shouldn’t exist.

Bryan Baird is a senior majoring in systems engineering and political science. He can be reached at bryanbaird@wustl.edu.

national

Why Debt is Not a “Four-Letter Word” On Fears of Chinese Power and Deficit Misconceptions Hannah Shaffer

I

s the US close to defaulting on its domestic and foreign obligations? Do foreign creditor nations jeopardize our future independence?

These questions demand answers. Unfortunately, during the Republican primaries, politicians have succumbed to the temptation to entertain the US public with flashy and misleading claims about the dangers of US debt. Candidates and talking heads are simply too busy making the case for deficit reduction to address these thorny questions.

This article reveals some common misconceptions about US deficits and debt, centering specifically on internationally focused misconceptions.

Won’t foreign nations “own” the US in the future since they hold so much of our debt?

When politicians speak of the 50% of US debt that is held by foreigners, they often paint a picture of waning US political power and increasing leverage for creditor nations (i.e. China) that own huge chunks of our debt. Many fear that owing money to China will somehow endanger our security, economy, or political independence in the future. There are three reasons why this concern is unfounded.

First, the Chinese and all other foreign creditor nations have purchased bonds denominated in US dollars with fixed maturities.

Unlike a criminal who puts a gun to your head and says, “Your money or your life,” the Chinese cannot simply demand repayment for the debt they hold at any time.

Second, the leverage that China gains by holding US debt—its ability to sell its dollar assets and send the US dollar plummeting to the ground—is much weaker than many fear. China would stand to gain little and lose much by rapidly selling US assets. If China were to sell a large quantity of bonds, the market price for US bonds would fall, thus diminishing the value of China’s own assets. In the Chinese case in particular, amassing US assets is an integral part of its exportled growth strategy. In short, foreign creditor nations in general, and China in particular, are unlikely to dump their dollar-denominated assets because it would be a suicidal financial play.

Third, even if China did opt to commit this self-defeating act, our economy would not suffer greatly. All things being equal, this sale would lower the price of and raise the interest rate for US bonds.

However, the Federal Reserve can always purchase the excess bonds on the open market in order to maintain the same interest rate. Since the Federal Reserve would pay for the bonds in dollars, this move would lower the value of the dollar. The devaluation of the dollar relative to other currencies would mean more expensive imports and travel abroad for Americans but also cheaper American goods both at home and abroad. In our current stagnant economy, this extra jolt of stimulus would not be such a terrible outcome.

poster

by James Hart, ca.

1917-18.

If the US continues to amass debt, won’t we follow in Greece’s footsteps?

Comparing the US to Greece is like comparing the US to the state of Wyoming. At the most basic level, the two countries are not comparable because the US controls its own money supply and can issue debt in US dollars, whereas Greece does not control its supply of money because of its use of the euro, which is controlled by the European Central Bank. This distinction is key because an independent currency safeguards a country from default. The US can always service its debt by printing US dollars but Greece cannot. Of course, the worry is always that printing money would lead to inflation, but since the US economy is currently operating so far below its potential output, the slack in our economy would prevent inflation from resulting.

Greece is also not comparable to the US because its economy is a fraction of the size and is dependent on only a few industries, making it much more vulnerable to economic shocks. Also, a fourth of Greek economic activity is in the black market, and a third of all tax revenue is not collected by the Greek government. This lost tax revenue costs Greece about 7% of its annual GDP. As a result of the above economic weaknesses, investors began to doubt the strength of the Greek economy. The lack of investor confidence caused the interest rate for Greek debt to rise, thus increasing the cost of financing this debt. Since Greece could not intervene and purchase its debt, the interest rate continued to rise. In such a case, debt dynamics take on a vicious and self-fulfilling cycle. As the interest rate for Greek debt rose, it became more difficult for Greece to service its debt, which then convinced investors that Greece would have even more difficulty servicing its debts, which in turn caused the interest rate to rise still higher (compare the current interest rate on Greek and US 2-year bonds: 28.8% versus 0.25%). In this way, a crisis of confidence can make a nation’s debt service unmanageable and force that nation to walk the default-plank.

Hannah Shaffer is a senior majoring in economics and political science. She can be reached at hannahbec90@yahoo.com.

11

12

Dumbo Primaries

By The Numbers $347,000

15

Mitt Romney’s earnings from speaker’s fees last year.

Estimated percentage Mitt Romney paid in taxes last year.

$3,043,661

$220 million

Anti-Romney Super-PAC spending in South Carolina.

Amount the Obama campaign has already raised.

34

121,503

Eventual margin of victory for Rick Santorum in Iowa.

Total number of votes cast in Iowa.

49

6

Votes gained for every $1,000 Santorum spent in Iowa.

Votes gained for every $1,000 Romney spent in Iowa.

45 Percent of political ads in Iowa that were anti-Gingrich.

WUPR

... s t n e s Pre

13

The Official Republican Debate Drinking Game

Rules:

While watching the debate, drink when...

- Attacks Obama instead of answering a question - Stutters through a response - References his Mormon underwear (Chug your drink)

- Calls another candidate a racist / is called a racist (Chug!)

- Answers a question by yelling at moderator - Is asked about his multiple marriages

- Answers a question without relating it to “family values” - Refers to “Partial Birth Abortions” - Mentions that his grandfather was a coal miner (Exponential! Every time it happens you double the drink you had last time)

- Brings a gun to the debate (Chug!)

- Talks about killing inmates with a sparkle in his eye - What was that third one……

- Gets indignant about the media’s coverage of him or lack thereof - Is questioned about polling lower then Stephen Colbert In South Carolina - Speaks a sentence of Mandarin (Chug!)

Drink for 2 seconds If at any point...

- The phrase “liberal media” comes up in any candidate’s answer - Any candidate comes dressed like a “Founding Father” (Ron Paul exemption)

written by Seth einbinder

design by matt callahan

*Please drink more responsibly than the Republican candidates debate.

- Uses the term “blowback” - Doesn’t draw an answer back to the Constitution (Exponential!)

- Explains his interpretation of the Elastic Clause (Chug!)

14

Feeding Frenzy Andrew Luskin

Dear Leader, Kim Jong-Il, joined his people beneath the North Korean dirt. According to tearful official reports, the selfless, ever-heroic Kim worked himself to death. His valiant sacrifice took place in his private train, surrounded by cognac and nubile manjokjo—“satisfaction corps.” In a typical show of North Korean efficiency, his body sat untouched for 51 hours while party leaders squabbled over his funeral committee, which topped out at 232 members. Kim was the third distinctive glasses-clad dictator to die in 2011, following Muammar Quaddafi and Steve Jobs.

Consumer spending increased at the end of 2011, showing that Americans are committed to keeping the mas in Christmas.

With European scientists generating black holes, capturing antimatter, and creating a new supervirus, experts feared that the U.S. was falling behind in mad science. Those fears were allayed last month when American scientists announced that they had combined six different monkey embryos to yield a frankenmonkey. Each frankenmonkey has six different sets of DNA, both male and female. It’s like playing God, if God were Sid from Toy Story. In anticipation of the jump to humans, I have begun work on the book Heather-Joseph has Six Mommies and Lupus.

As Herman Cain’s poll numbers fell faster than his trousers, he dropped out of the Republican presidential race. On his way out, Cain endorsed Newt Gingrich, apparently out of an urge to make one last unwanted advance. Gingrich briefly led in the polls, but Mitt Romney launched an ad blitz, and Gingrich plummeted to a fourth-place finish in the Iowa caucus. A humiliated Gingrich dropped his holier-than-thou campaign and took a headfirst dive into the outhouse in search of something to sling at Romney.

Gingrich’s fall allowed a new Not-Romney to rise: Rick Santorum, the man who called same-sex marriage “just like 9-11.” Santorum’s rise, combined with the alternate meaning of his name, have subjected us to an unbearable series of “come from behind” and “number two” jokes.

Santorum is not expected to seriously challenge Romney, so the most important result of the Iowa caucuses is that finally, we can go back to not caring about Iowa.

The GOP primary keeps popping out debates like Michelle Duggar, and sitting through them without nodding off is becoming a stunt worthy of David Blaine. If I wanted to watch horrible rich people squabble, I would watch E!.

Republican voters are in desperate need of Ritalin, which might help them stick with a candidate for more than a couple weeks. Tim Pawlenty must be kicking himself for dropping out of the race early on; as a slick, soulless white man who is not Mitt Romney, he could unite both sides of the Republican Party. The campaign has collapsed into a reverse black hole: so repulsive that no light can enter. (I would call it a “white hole,” but that’s already Newt Gingrich’s nickname.)

Despite having been the clear frontrunner since 2009, Mitt Romney has not been able to lock up the Republican nomination. Since his failed bid four years ago, Romney-bot has overwritten his old positions and upgraded his sound-bite card, though his emotive chip is still easy to overload, and typically defaults to “forced smile.” Even if the Republicans nominate this walking rallying cry for Project Mayhem, Romney may face his toughest opponent yet: a falling unemployment rate.

dumbo primaries New Zealand police sawed into a panic room and arrested millionaire Kim Dotcom, founder of the website Megaupload. Mr. Dotcom, 6’7” and 330 lb, possesses an all-black wardrobe, a fleet of luxury cars with vanity plates such as “GOD,” and several chins. In 2001, he bought shares in a doomed ecompany and announced that he would save it, then sold his stake when the stock rose. Investors were shocked to be misled by somebody named “Dotcom.” Megaupload, his most recent venture, offered hundreds of millions of gigabytes of copyrighted movies, music, and pornography, rivaling all but the most dedicated WashU students. At its height, Megaupload was responsible for 4% of all internet traffic. Authorities claim that the website cost the entertainment industry $500 million; the most horrific crime is forcing studios to make another Transformers sequel.

Just in time for our withdrawal from Iraq, tensions with Iran have escalated. A United States spy drone crashed in Iran last month, and even though we asked politely, Iran refused to return the drone. The drone was proudly displayed and Iran is cutting deals with Russia and China to inspect it. American officials warn Iran that opening the drone voids the warranty. Meanwhile, Iran has continued its nuclear program in the face of sanctions. In recent weeks, American vessels have rescued two Iranian civilian boats in an attempt to convince Iran that friendship is more powerful than bombs. One hopes that they are more successful than when they tried to convince Afghan poppy farmers that hugs are better than drugs. While the U.S. played good cop, Israel played Dirty Harry. An Iranian nuclear scientist was killed by a bomb slapped onto his car in rush hour traffic, and Israel’s official position was “not shedding a tear.” The U.S. condemned the assassination, and is threatening to sign Israel’s military aid checks a little more angrily.

Saudi morals once kept women from selling undergarments –bras, panties, sweatshirts—forcing women to don full veils to talk to male clerks.

Online shopping was not an option, since Amazon’s bras only have one cup. Starting this month, women will be permitted to work in Saudi lingerie shops; swapping out the mannequins will take a bit more time.

Los Angeles received a glimpse ten years into its future with a four-day string of firebombings that destroyed 52 cars. The worst series of arsons in Los Angeles history, a Detroit police captain described it as “Tuesday.” Suspects initially included the millions of people plotting similar attacks while idling in Los Angeles traffic, but police soon arrested Harry Burkhart, a semi-autistic German national. His mother was also arrested and held for extradition to Germany, where she is accused

of 19 counts of fraud. Harry is also suspected of arson and insurance fraud in Germany. In a number of courtroom outbursts, the mother claimed that they have been framed by Nazis. Several years ago, the Burkharts fled Germany to escape the charges and sought political asylum in Canada, claiming persecution by Nazis. When they could not back up their claims, Canadian authorities denied the request, leaving Harry to deal with the news the only way he knew how: by setting fires, this time, in Vancouver. Hopefully, the family will use their time in prison to learn new ways to deal with stress, or, at least, new excuses.

The Iron Lady is rated PG-13, but officials warn that it may be offensive to miners.

States across the country—at least, those under Republican control—are gearing up for the 2012 election by making it harder to vote. New voter ID laws and restrictions on absentee voting, designed to either fight fraud or keep out undesirables, have passed state legislatures. Meanwhile, concealed carry is easier than ever, and felons often have an easier time regaining gun rights than they do voting rights. It’s understandable—people are far less likely to misuse their guns than their vote, and it’s easier to aim a gun than to line up a butterfly ballot. Besides, states are merely following the lead of the Senate, where the number of votes matters less than the weapons at hand.

Andrew Luskin is a junior in the College of Arts and Sciences. When he speaks, it’s on the seismograph. His email is atluskin@wustl.edu

15

16

My goal... a career in international relations.

My motto: Act justly, walk humbly

Learning a new language, such as Spanish, inspires me

Alex Kiles, who graduated in May 2011 with majors in Political Science and Spanish, served as the senior class council president. He is now studying International Law at the University of Chicago.

Getting to know myself...

I am very passionate about making a change in the world. I love connecting with new people so that I can understand diverse perspectives and work to foster relationships between groups of all types of socioeconomic, religious, and ethnic backgrounds.

Career Center advisors helped me craft the perfect cover letter for law schools.

Bringing my story to life...

At Washington University in St. Louis I had the opportunity to take classes in literally anything that I had the slightest interest in.

Throughout that process, I discovered my passions in political philosophy and learning new languages.

Up next...

I plan to finish law school and ultimately pursue a career in international relations.

FROM PASSION SPRINGS PURPOSE

“Don’t be afraid to try new things.”

Upcoming Events

- Alex’s Career Tip

Upcoming Job & Internship Deadlines

Spring 2012 Internship & Job Career Fair - Wednesday, Feb. 1 The Danforth Campus will host local and national organizations on Wednesday, Feb. 1 for the Spring 2012 Internship & Job Career Fair.

Institute for Humane Studies

Internship Success and Stipend Class - Wednesday, Feb. 8 The Internship Stipend Class, an eight-week non-credit class, will help prepare students for a summer internship or research experience.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)

Etiquette Dinner - Deadline Friday, Feb. 10 Learn the do’s and don’ts of dining etiquette and professional protocol.

Cato Institute

U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) The White House The Heritage Foundation American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research (AEI) Apply, RSVP, and read more in CAREERlink at careercenter.wustl.edu.

dumbo primaries

The Inevitability of Mitt Romney Kevin Kieselbach

T

he Republican primaries have just begun, and the Repub- first two contests. When Ron Paul finished third in Iowa and seclican nomination won’t be officially decided for months. ond in New Hampshire, it became clear that Republicans have given But the Iowa caucuses alone made it clear that Mitt Rom- up on finding a more conservative alternative and have settled for ney will be representing the GOP in 2012. While Romney’s eight- Romney. Romney may not be a conservative favorite, but he has exvote win over Rick Santorum in Iowa (which was actually ruled a 34 ecutive experience in government and business, attracts moderates, vote victory by Santorum over two weeks after the caucus) may not and presents a steady and polished image. Republicans realize that seem like a dominant victory, the significance is clear when it is put Romney is the only candidate that has a chance against President in context.

Obama in November.

Rather than simply casting a ballot, caucus participants must In a contest between Romney and Obama, the only issue of congive up an evening to participate in a meeting during which time sequence is the economy. Both have unblemished personal histories, they make their preferences known. This practice tilts the electorate and their foreign policy views are more alike than they are different. in favor of the most activist members of the party’s base. Despite his Romney is in a weak position to attack Obama on healthcare given image as a moderate who lacks conservative credentials and who is that Obama’s plan is similar to the plan Romney passed in Massaseemingly unable to connect with voters or inspire passion, Romney chusetts. The economy is Romney’s strongest issue, and the recesedged out a victory in the rural and staunchly conservative Iowa Resion might work in his favor. But the odds still favor Obama. Presipublican base. This victory demonstrates that he can and will win the dent Obama has a 43% approval in the Gallup poll as of January 11, Republican nomination. and the unemployment rate was down to 8.5% in December, a full Rick Santorum also had a strong showing in Iowa, finishing only percentage point lower than it was in 2010. Approval ratings in the eight votes behind Romney, but Iowa will likely be his high water mid-40% range are not ideal for Obama, but if the unemployment mark. Santorum emerged late in the game, following the collapse of rate drops below 8%, history suggests that he will be able to ride the the rest of the Republican field. Whereas Newt Gingrich’s arrogance incumbent advantage to a second term. and hypocrisy quickly lost him favor in Iowa, Santorum is a genuVoters may be dissatisfied with Obama’s economic policies, but ine social conservative who presents himself as a candidate for the Romney has to convince voters that he can do better. Candidate Obama common man. Iowa was the perfect environment for Santorum and promised to fix the economy that he blamed on President Bush, and a difficult sell for Romney, and yet the race ended in a virtual tie. now Candidate Romney is promising to fix the economy that he blames Santorum’s social conservatism was important to Iowa Republican on President Obama. Ultimately, voters want jobs, not campaign slocaucus-goers, but that edge will not carry over to other states in an gans. It remains to be seen who, if anyone, can deliver them. election in which the economy is the central issue.

As expected, Romney won New Hampshire with a commandKevin Kieselbach is a sophomore majoring in computer science and economics. He can be reached at kevin.kieselbach@wustl.edu. ing 39% of the vote; but it was the way in which he won that reveals that he is on track to secure the nomination. Exit polls show Conservative voters who have been suspicious that Romney not only of Romney are voting for him anyway. finished first among moderate voters, but among ultraconservatives and evangelical Christians. These results confirm that Romney’s strong showing in Iowa was not a fluke; conservative voters who have been suspicious of Romney are voting for him anyway.

Although Romney had previously not been able to rise above 30% support in national polls, he has all but secured the nomination after the

17

18

dumbo primaries

?

Where Did Everybody Go

Republican voters have lowered their standards and the country stands to suffer Jake Lichtenfeld | Illustration by Mitch Atkin

I

n December 2007, nine Republican presidential candidates took center stage for their final plea to Iowa voters before the January 2008 Iowa caucuses. The field was diverse with senators, governors, congressmen, and a mayor. The voters invited policy debate on the emerging financial crisis. Instead of solely glorifying their pasts, they each addressed how their administrations would address such pressing issues as a stagnant economy, energy independence, and fiscal responsibility. The deliberations included alternative energy mandates vs.

incentives, spending caps vs. program reformations, and the federal government’s role in education.

Four years later, seven candidates made their case for the presidency: this time, debate lacked substantive policy discourse.

Thirteen debates occurred before any primary or caucus, and the contest became about which candidate was the least bad instead of which candidate would be the most qualified to take on President Obama in November 2012. Candidates mindlessly attacked one another and touted their own records, often

incorrectly or misleadingly. However, when it came to discussing job creation or spending cuts, candidates would timidly utter “flat tax” or “tax reform” and continue the assault on their fellow Republicans.

What happened between 2008 and 2012? Why are ideas answered with ridicule, not discussion? It is not that effective leaders have disappeared; voter expectations have become increasingly difficult to meet.

The litmus test for nomination is simple, yet increasingly difficult to pass: candidates must be capable leaders but not moderate values or the willingness to compromise.

For the duration of 2011, the anti-establishment wing of Republican Party concentrated its energy on finding an alternative to front-runner Governor Mitt Romney, the second place finisher in 2008, who is characterized by the voters and media alike as a moderate flip-flopper who lacks common ground with the average American. For all of 2011, Governor Romney saw his polling numbers hit a ceiling of 25% in nationwide polling. Many predict that the members of that 25% comprise the remnants of the moderate voters in the Republican Party, the only contingent willing to overlook his failure to pass the litmus test. As for the anti-Romney voters, they established a revolving system of bump, peak, and fall, as each Romney alternative proved to be homogenous in their policy platforms, differing only in history and campaign techniques.

Initially, the party flocked to Congresswoman Michele Bachmann, the Tea Party favorite, after she won the Ames Iowa Straw Poll; but her wave crumbled when she embarrassed herself wit such claims as, “the HPV vaccination causes mental retardation” and “Obama invaded Libya only to invade Africa.”

When Texas Governor Rick Perry threw his hat in the ring, conservatives saw him as their savior. While he enjoyed a bump for

dumbo primaries 19

a few weeks, he too crumbled, as pundits deemed his record too kind to illegal immigrants and too inexperienced to take on President Obama. His decline was then cemented with his infamous “oops” gaffe.

Unconventionally, the Republicans gave former Godfather’s Pizza CEO Herman Cain a boost, as Cain’s “9-9-9 tax plan” and his straight-talking, outsider-with-ideas personality appealed to the anti-establishment Tea Party base. He plummeted, however, after being accused of sexual assault and a long-standing affair.

Cain’s loss, however, was former House Speaker Newt Gingrich’s gain, whose candidacy rose from the dead as a result of successful debate experiences.

Gingrich’s wave was short-lived, as he was bombarded by $3.4 million worth of negative attack ads in Iowa that painted him as unethical and moderate.

Because Romney failed the litmus test, voters turned to the likes of former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum only days prior to the Iowa caucuses, as he was the last candidate to Romney’s right who had not

been in the spotlight. This final bump gave Santorum an effective tie with Romney in Iowa at 25%.

The volatile primary season was the result of the most effective Republican leaders stepping aside. The Republican elite pleaded, sometimes even begged, such leaders to run for President. A notable candidate solicited to enter the bid for president was New Jersey Governor Chris Christie. A vocal group of voters were interested in his fiscal conservatism and his straight-talk with constituents, but he would have been unable to persuade the majority of conservatives that illegal immigrants deserve a path to citizenship or that climate change is indeed caused by humans.

Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels flirted with a presidential run as the popular governor that created a surplus and restored his State’s AAA credit rating. His willingness to increase taxes and his call for a truce on social issues spooked the Republican constituency, and he passed on a candidacy that would have been dead on arrival.

Other candidates who were urged to run included former Mississippi Governor

Haley Barbour, former Florida Governor Jeb Bush, former New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, Senator John Thune, and former Utah Governor Jon Huntsman.

Of this group, only Jon Huntsman took the bait as a conservative governor with a history of bipartisanship in our ultra-conservative climate. Despite creating a market based health insurance expansion in Utah and establishing a flatter tax which made Utah business-friendly, his embrace of civil unions, climate change, and his willingness to put “country over party” to accept an ambassadorship in the Obama administration failed to garner more than 5% in nationwide polling in 2011.

There is a strong likelihood that Mitt Romney will be the Republican nominee for President—not because the Republicans believe Romney is the best nominee, but because he is better than the rest.

Jake Lichtenfeld is a sophomore in the College of Arts and Sciences. He can be reached at jake.lichtenfeld@gmail.com.

Learn, Live, Work in Washington, DC — all for academic credit!

Program Includes: Internship Academic Courses Speaker Colloquium Housing in DC

Experience Washington University’s Academic Program in Washington, DC Application Deadlines: Fall Semester…………..Feb 1 Spring Semester……….May 1 Summer………………...Feb 15

dc.wustl.edu Phone: 202-939-2868 E-mail: dcprograms@wustl.edu

Interested in putting your academic studies to the test?

Want real world experience for your resume? Come to DC for a semester or summer and get credits while you intern!

For more information check out: dc.wustl.edu or speak to your advisor.

20

International

By The Numbers 70

541

Number of cities where thousands of Russians protest against election fraud committed by Putin’s United Russia party.

Days that Belgium has lacked a government, beginning after a political stalemate from the June 2010 election.

232

20%

Members of Kim Jong-Il’s funeral committee.

Expected increase in births in China during the Year of the Dragon.

5

20

Iranian nuclear scientists assassinated since 2007.

Iranians saved by US vessels in recent weeks.

39

418

Percent of Scots in favor of voting for an upcoming referendum deciding the fate of Scotland.

Number of US soldiers killed in Afghanistan in 2011.

international

Irritating Iran Corey Donahue

O

n January 2, Iran announced that it had created its first nuclear fuel rod, allowing it to fuel a nuclear reactor—or possibly a nuclear weapon. The announcement came at the peak of a series of events that placed Iran at the center of global attention. Concerns over Iran’s nuclear program have led to harsh sanctions, covert assassinations, and threats of airstrikes, yet Iran has stood fast against international pressures to cease enriching uranium.

The country’s unrelenting efforts to develop nuclear weapons have prompted the US and other countries to impose increasingly stringent sanctions designed to hit at the heart of Iran’s economy. Signs indicate that past sanctions have already damaged Iran’s economy, but the international community is pushing the envelope.

On New Year’s Eve, President Obama signed a law to cut off access to the US financial system for those who engage in trade with Iran. Iran’s currency, the rial, immediately plummeted after the bill signing. Obama would begin enforcing the law in June, which has prompted China and Japan to weigh the value of access to US markets versus Iranian oil. Japan and South Korea are already beginning to search for alternative sources of oil. In addition, the EU, which purchases 18% of Iranian oil exports, will likely decide to stop all importation of Iranian oil.

Since Iran gets 80% of its revenues from oil exports, oil embargoes could cripple its economy.

Other international forces would prefer a more hardline approach toward Iran. In Israel, security officials have been working to hinder the progress of Iran’s nuclear development by targeting nuclear scientists. On January 11, the deputy director of the Natanz uranium enrichment site was killed on the streets of Tehran, the fifth Iranian nuclear scientist assassinated since 2007. Israel is widely suspected of executing these attacks and of planting a computer virus called Stuxnet that damaged Iranian centrifuge machines.

In response to the sanctions, Iran has threatened to shut off the Strait of Hormuz, through which a fifth of the world’s oil supply is transported. While the threat is likely an empty one, Iran issued it during ten days of naval exercises in the Gulf meant to demonstrate that Iran could use asymmetric warfare tactics against a larger US fleet. When US aircraft carrier USS John C Stennis left the Strait on patrol, an Iranian official boldly warned it not to return. In an interesting turn of events, the US carrier has since rescued three Iranian

crews, including saving 13 Iranian citizens from Somali pirates. Iran has remained unfazed by this politically embarrassing episode.

If Iran were to cut off the Strait, the international community would be faced with a difficult decision. While Saudi Arabia and other oil-producing countries have offered to supply extra oil, it is unlikely that they could support the world’s oil consumption for more than a month without threatening oil prices. China would suffer significantly from restricted access to Iranian oil and might halfheartedly pressure Iran into halting its nuclear program. Otherwise, the US would be forced to use minesweepers and naval escorts to try to break the embargo, possibly prompting an Iranian attack.

More concerning is how the world would react to Israel unilaterally bombing Iran’s nuclear facilities. For years, Israel has threatened to bomb nuclear enrichment sites and is still considering this course of action. Many hold that this action would achieve little other than delaying Iran’s nuclear ambitions and causing Iran to further resist international pressure. Although Israel recently said it would not act soon, this dilemma may become more pressing, as Iran plans to move its nuclear enrichment to underground facilities that are more resistant to airstrikes.

Although the US has pressured Israel not to attack, the country may opt to take action before it is too late.

These dire consequences will not necessarily come to fruition. Iran has already said it is willing to resume negotiations that broke off over a year ago. While this is hardly a definitive sign that Iran is willing to surrender its nuclear program, it demonstrates that the Iranians are succumbing to international pressure. However, Iran has not yet dropped its precondition that sanctions be lifted and could use the negotiations to stall for more time, as it has done in the past. Meanwhile, prices will only increase as Iran’s oil supply is slowly cut off, potentially pulling a recovering global economy back into recession.

Between the international pressure for stringent sanctions and Israel’s increasingly aggressive attacks against Iran, the window of opportunity to negotiate is closing. Fearing the increased likelihood of a military situation, the EU has pushed up its decision on whether to place an embargo on Iranian oil. In the meantime, Iran moves ever closer to enriching enough uranium for a bomb and securing its facilities from international attacks. The race for the bomb is fully on, and time is running out.

Corey Donahue is a senior majoring in political science and economics. He can be reached at corey.donahue@gmail.com

21

22

international

To Infinity and Beyond?

Siddharth Krishnan A crucial juncture It’s now 2012, and some are understandably more optimistic than others. An economic slump that began in 2007 remains Western policymakers’ biggest headache, in addition to near-total currency collapses and debt ceiling pantomimes. Developing countries, long schooled in the Western way to prosperity, should be forgiven for a little gloating.

Yet while such countries as China and India bounced back faster than anyone after the global economic downturn, complacency is still something neither can afford. Their sustained growth is anything but assured.

This juncture is a crossroads for the world economy.

The West’s economic growth in the latter part of the past century is historically unprecedented. Crucially, it made the transition from manufacturing-based growth driven by domestic demand to service-based growth and trade. In contrast, China and India were posting growth rates of only 3.8% and 5.8% in 1990, giving little indication of the boom to come.

The opening of the Indian economy to foreign investment (“delicensing”) and the development of a Chinese state-controlled capitalism led to a dramatic change in both countries’ economic statuses.

China, now the world’s second largest economy has consistently posted growth figures of over 10%, and India is not far behind. Unlike the West, both countries have thrived on export-led economies.

China is a global manufacturing powerhouse, while India has cornered the service market.

Relying almost exclusively on an export-led growth strategy does not yield long-term growth. The Economist recently highlighted an analysis of Asian growth by the Asian Development Bank (ADB).

The study outlines two possible scenarios in 2050: the world’s economy could either be worth $191 trillion or $250 trillion, depending on whether or not China and India continue to rely on their current growth paradigm. The Economist concludes with a warning: if policymakers do not make the difficult but necessary decisions at this crossroads, the former number could quickly become our reality.

The $60 Trillion Question What might these difficult decisions be? They are hardly problems that can be banished with a simple prescription. The only guarantor of prosperity is innovation and entrepreneurship. In a self-reinforcing upward spiral, innovation would lead to the vaunted domestic demand that would drive a post-industrial economy. The obvious impediment is the impossibility of creating entrepreneurs.

At best, a government can provide fertile conditions for innovation and risk-taking.

Unfortunately, India and China have not taken this approach. In a 2001 paper, Stanford economists Debbie Liao and Philip Sohmen argued that the increasing trend towards Chinese entrepreneurship is still hampered by the lack of infrastructure and capital. In India’s case, the number of licenses required to start a business is daunting enough without the unsympathetic bankruptcy laws that would make even the most risk-friendly entrepreneur think twice. Innovation, in short, is blossoming in a small way despite government obstacles.

While better governance and accountability would go a long way to increase entrepreneurship, one of the most significant barriers to small business is an underdeveloped financial market. In the developed world, financial intermediation plays the important role of efficiently matching borrowers and lenders. When wealth is created in a country, it is invested in businesses that show promise.

While some of them are doomed to fail, the ones that succeed become tomorrow’s giants. Efficient allocation of capital helps to ensure long-term prosperity.

By most standards, Asian capital markets are underdeveloped.

This creates a divide between investors and businesses, where there should ideally be none. Creating better financial markets is easier said than done, but deregulation would at least create conditions fertile for investment banks awwnd other financial institutions. India, in particular, can attribute its growth over the last twenty years to deregulation of industry, but its financial markets remain mired in licenses and red tape.

A new kind of growth The way forward isn’t a simple one: it requires infrastructural changes, deregulation, better governance and less corruption. Popular predictions of China overtaking the United States’ economy by 2040, with India a close third, may yet prove to be true, but this probably won’t mean much. Wealth can be created through manufacturing and exporting goods and services, but the crucial indicator of the countries’ growth will be the spread and equality of the wealth.

China ranks 94th in the world in terms of GDP per capita and India is an alarming 138th. These rankings don’t speak of inclusive, domestically created wealth.

Yet despite the challenges and hurdles, a determined group of entrepreneurs have found a way to succeed. Sohmen and Liao point to this phenomenon in China, while India’s tech boom has been largely driven by homegrown entrepreneurs. If they aren’t given the opportunity to succeed, the last twenty years will look like a flash in the pan.

Siddharth Krishnan is a junior in the School of Engineering. He can be reached at siddharth.krishnan@wustl.edu

international 23

India’s Emperors Without Clothes Gabe Rubin

R

ahul Gandhi avoids controversy. The scion of India’s most powerful political dynasty, Gandhi has played the role of indifferent heir for much of his adult life. He has adopted some pet causes, even getting himself arrested for protesting with poor farmers against land confiscation last May. But in his early forties, Gandhi has made little public impact on Indian politics. In his seven years in Parliament, he has made only six speeches and accomplished little. He has turned down multiple offers from Prime Minister Manmohan Singh for ministerial posts. Were it not for his family background (his grandfather Jawaharlal Nehru, his aunt Indira Gandhi, and his father Rajiv Gandhi were all premiers), there would be nothing to distinguish Rahul Gandhi as a statesman worthy of leading the ruling Congress Party.

Rahul Gandhi’s diminished presence parallels the decline of the Congress Party, ravaged by corruption scandals and impotent legislators. Rahul Gandhi’s mother, leader of the Congress Party, has suffered numerous health problems in recent years, keeping most of her ailments hidden from the public. The rest of the ruling party is chock-full of geriatrics (the average age of cabinet members is 74).

Prime Minister Singh clocks in at a spritely 79. The Congress Party has stumbled badly over the last few years, and public approval, which is notoriously hard to calculate, is in a ditch. While still expanding quickly, India’s economy has shown recent weakness. GDP growth was 6.9% in the 2011 third quarter, its lowest level in over two years.

Rahul Gandhi Photo by Naveen Francis | Wikimedia Commons

The Congress Party’s loudest problem, however, comes in the form of a septuagenarian named Anna Hazare. Hazare rose to international fame this past August, when he drew tens of thousands to a 13-day public hunger strike in a New Delhi park. A self-styled Mahatma-Gandhian, Hazare has taken on the issue of corruption, placing the Congress Party directly in his crosshairs. Corruption is rampant in India, where postmen, doctors, customs officials, and really anyone in a position of authority demand bribes to provide basic services. Hazare wants parliament to create a Lokpal, or ombudsman, to root out governmental corruption all the way up to and including the prime minister’s office. The Congress Party fears his ability to influence public opinion, but they only galvanized public support for reform when they imprisoned Hazare last summer.

India’s success will be a house of cards without new leadership.

With the public urging them forward, the Congress Party was expected to allow broad anti-corruption reforms. They bowed to one of Hazare’s primary demands in November, when the party dropped immunity for the prime minister from legislation. All seemed to be moving in the right direction until the Lokpal bill failed to pass the upper house of Parliament on December 27. The flop placed an exclamation point on the Congress Party’s pathetic legislative year, when Parliament managed to pass just 22 laws, the fewest since 1952.

The Congress Party has reason to be worried. India is at a crossroads, with massive systematic changes necessary to maintain the economy’s engine cranking out double-digit gains in annual GDP growth. Corruption is widely believed to have a powerful negative effect on growth. The central government must address the caste system, the antiquated Hindu class structure, in order to integrate vast segments of the population into the broader society and economy.

Such entrenched class strata are unbefitting of a democracy. None of these reforms seem possible under the Congress Party’s leadership—or lack thereof.

India has risen to the top tier of nations in the past decade. But India’s success will be a house of cards if it does not gain new leadership that understands the blessings and challenges of economic development. The names at the top of the Congress Party’s list will be out of government soon, either thrown out by voters or by Father Time. If replaced by the likes of Rahul Gandhi, India will suffer through more of the same chronic ailments. But instead, a new meritocracy can arise, one that matches an entrepreneurial democracy. Indians spent years fighting off the rusted chains of a foreign hereditary monarchy. Why should they voluntarily don the chains of a home-grown one?

Gabe Rubin is a freshman in the College of Arts & Sciences. He can be reached at grubin@wustl.edu.

24 international

The Ultimate Protest Jay Evans | Illustration by Esther Hamburger

O

ver the first weekend in January, three monks doused themselves in kerosene to call for the freedom of Tibet and the Tibetan people. In an action still accepted by young Tibetans, the monks performed the ultimate form of protest: self-immolation.

A few days later another monk set himself on fire, which brought the total number of self-immolations up to 16 for the past year alone.

Such dramatic events drew the attention of everyone in the region.

These recent protests show that the struggle for Tibet is very alive and very real.

After every self-immolation this past year, the Chinese government has been quick to downplay it and blame outside influences. The Dali Lama was blamed for the most recent protesters’ actions. Tibetans have told international rights groups and journalists that the police have increased their crackdown on religious activities in response to the self-immolations. It seems China is as committed as ever to keeping Tibet in the same state as in 1950, when it was annexed.

In a statement to the BBC, the Dali Lama expressed ambivalent views on the self-immolations. While he admonished the suicides, asking “how much effect” such acts could have, the Dali Lama also commended the monks for their “very strong courage.”

Echoing the ambivalence of the Dali Lama, the US also expressed concern over the self-immolations. A State Department spokesper-

Self-immolations show that the struggle for Tibet is still very alive and very real. son stated, “The US government has consistently and directly raised with the Chinese government this issue of Tibetan self-immolation.”

The spokesperson went on to claim that the US has called the Chinese government to allow journalists and diplomats into the region.

While self-immolation has no direct ties to Buddhism, many Buddhists have used this strategy in protest of the situation in Tibet. Despite the dramatic nature of the acts, no one except the selfimmolator is affected, and the events are planned to avoid harming onlookers. The monks want to draw attention to the continued plight in Tibet. So when Chinese security forces fired into a crowd of Tibetan on January 14, their actions became starker. The Chinese security forces were trying to remove the body of the self-immolator.

Tibetan advocates argue that another tactic the Chinese authorities use to smother the demonstrations is to remove the bodies, prevent-

ing Tibetans from making a shrine around the martyr. Removing the bodies may be a public health issue, but when the Chinese authorities are willing to fire into a crowd of civilians to gather the remains, ulterior motives are suspected. The violence continued when a crowd surrounded the police station where the body was held, prompting the police to fire again into the crowd. Reports say two people died from the shootings.

Self-immolation embarrasses the Chinese government and attracts media attention in a region with limited freedom of the press.

While the Chinese government downplays the events and the US shakes a stern finger at China, if there is a real outcome from these events, it is only the hardening of the Tibetans’ resolve. The younger generations are the driving force in this form of demonstration, and their acceptance of self-immolation as legitimate public protest demonstrates that the struggle for a freer Tibet will continue.

Jay Evans is a junior majoring in economics. He can be reached at jeevans@wustl.edu.

25

a powerful way to

internationalize

ANY MAJOR or

PROFESSIONAL PLAN The Global Certificate develops global competence, preparing you to enter today’s globalized workforce: knowledge of international social, political, and economic systems and issues and their ethical dimensions ability to apply knowledge of global processes to real world issues intercultural skills developed through firsthand experience abroad and speciallydesigned coursework

The GC consists of coursework from a minimum of 2 WU schools, experience abroad, and individualized career guidance (18 total units).

All undergraduates, regardless of major or home division, may apply to the GC through the end of the 5th semester of study.

develop practical

SKILLS & perspectives c r o s s

BORDERS + Disciplines

engage, explore,

connect

IAS.WUSTL.EDU/GLOBAL_CERTIFICATE

26 international

Hard or Soft? US Power in Promoting Democracy Abroad Daniel Rubin

Egyptians citizens outside of a polling center, preparing to vote in the first elections since the fall of autocratic ruler Hosni Mubarak

L

ate in his presidency, George W. Bush was heavily criticized for his “democratizing” foreign agenda. For many, this resentment was a result of his unilateral tactics and suspected motivation (read: oil) rather than his stated goal. But despite the argument of cultural relativists, democracy is a good thing. As Winston Churchill said, “Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the other ones that have been tried from time to time.” So how can we promote increased acceptance of democratic ideals?

Many politicians believe public condemnations, economic sanctions, and harsher punishments will do the trick. While such measures may help to ensure US national security, these measures can also help to entrench dictatorial domestic power hostile to the US. The US should take a less direct approach to harness burgeoning democracies.

US politicians often impose sanctions in the hope of securing US security. Iranian sanctions, for example, are geared toward halting the country’s nuclear weapons program. Such measures do increase the stakes of continued nuclear development (especially in combination with the threat of invasion).

President Obama’s electoral vulnerability and the GOP’s hawkish tendencies also make this threat more credible. On the neutralization of nuclear programs, US policymakers can point to recent successes. After the first Gulf War, sanctions helped to neutralize Saddam Hussein’s nuclear and chemical weapons programs—notwithstanding subsequent justifications for the 2003 invasion. Sanctions also convinced another Arab pariah, Muammar Qaddafi, to give up his nuclear ambitions.

However, without war, both leaders remained in power. Sanctions and condemnations can

help protect US security, but this does not answer the fundamentally different question of how best to promote democracy.

Short of war—which can, at best, create flimsy, nominally democratic governments— America cannot force democratic change.

This truth has been borne out with such nations as North Korea, Burma/Myanmar, and Iran. Economic sanctions and the freezing of leaders’ personal bank accounts applies pressure but also punishes whole economies and peoples, which increases instability. Often, autocratic rulers will take advantage of such conditions by painting Western leaders as the source of all societal ills, thereby tightening their grip on power. And by impoverishing the targeted nation, the US may distract from questions of political representation and induce the opposite of the intended democratizing effect. Cold War politics and the Cuban Missile Crisis resulted in a fifty-year embargo on Cuban goods, yet the Castro family has endured eleven US presidential administrations.

Democracy must be driven from within; artificially installing governments should not be our primary goal. It rarely works as planned and imposes huge “upkeep” burdens on the American taxpayer. However, given the propensity of democratic countries not to fight one another (i.e. democratic peace theory), the US should promote democracy by other means.

The US already exerts tremendous soft power (e.g. movies, clothing, and fast food) abroad. The US should play to this strength and promote educational exchanges, diplomatic engagement, and free trade. Exercising soft power will help increase wealth and spread knowledge of open political systems, nurturing nascent democracies. And as na-

tional wealth increases and basic necessities become universal, people tend to demand more political influence.

The soft power approach implies a responsibility to any resulting democratic movements. If democracy promotion is our goal, then the US should stand with protestors trying to unseat autocratic regimes. The US missed an opportunity after the summer 2009 Iranian elections, and our inaction betrayed our overriding security interests.

During similar “democratic uprisings” in the future, the US should tighten the noose on autocratic regimes by publically supporting the opposition. While tardy, US action in Egypt more closely follows the desired model. Despite his relatively amicable stance toward the US and Israel, President Obama did call for Hosni Mubarak’s removal. In similar instances, as with Syria, the full weight of Western governments should spur and support protestors.

One caveat to US actions that supports the formation of new governments abroad is that the US will be unable to control the direction of new movements. Especially in light of austerity fever in Washington, the US cannot continually monitor newly created regimes. While NATO forces helped remove Qaddafi from power, the composition of the regime to replace him (democratic or otherwise) remains unclear. The US faces the same conundrum in Egypt, Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan. These nations, relative to those of Latin America or sub-Saharan Africa, pose critical extremist threats. In these instances, rigorous cost/benefit analyses ought to determine whether international democracy should trump US security.

Sanctions and harsh words, long the political strategy to “act tough” on strongmen across the globe, may reinforce the dictators’ domestic position. While aggressive actions may prevent genocide or enhance national security, they do not necessarily promote democracy. By advocating for free trade and highlighting America’s educational system and style of government, the US can nudge foreign nationals toward democracy. Once domestic discontent with the status quo reaches a fever pitch, the US must provide more public support for regime change. In this way, we can move toward creating free and stable nations worldwide.

Daniel Rubin is a senior majoring in political science and history. He can be reached at dmrubin@wustl.edu.

international 27

The Autocratic Filibuster Taka Yamaguchi The Arab League in Syria As Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s legions continue to gun down peaceful demonstrators, Arab League observers, comprised of mid-level League diplomats from member states, are stationed in Syria’s ancient cities. Their mission is to oversee the implementation of an Arab League deal— agreed upon by the al-Assad regime—to stop the bloody suppression of the opposition. On December 19, the Syrian government agreed to the Arab League mandate to stop killing protestors, withdraw tanks from cities, free political prisoners, permit demonstrations, and allow unhindered access to journalists and human rights activists.

Predictably, al-Assad and his cronies have been uncooperative: since the observers arrived on December 21, there have been 450 reported deaths. In light of the continued violence and the rise of an armed opposition force, the Free Syrian Army, the SecretaryGeneral of the Arab League has raised the specter of full-scale civil war as a possibility.

Syria’s carefully planned schemes to deceive Arab League observers have failed to deter protestors. Reports indicate that the presence of the observers has “re-energized” protests, which aim to expose the brutality of the al-Assad regime against peaceful demonstrations. As a result of this increase in opposition activity, Arab League monitors describe witnessing government forces shooting at unarmed civilians. However, the delegation has neither the mandate nor the authority to implement the agreement upon an unwilling Syrian government, and some have called it unfair to accuse the mission of frivolousness or complicity. The chairman of the opposition Syrian National Council, Dr. Burhan Ghalioun, has called upon the Arab League to “prove itself ” in its mission to expose the repressive Syrian government.

Criticism of the Arab League mission With the perception of impotence, some members of the Syrian opposition have accused the Arab League of simply buying time for the al-Assad regime to continue killing its citizens. When the observers first arrived, they were treated to a government banquet—although they likely did not have a choice in the matter—at which Bashar alAssad himself spoke at length.

Less excusable is the Arab League’s appointment of Sudanese General Mohammed Ahmed al-Dabi to head up the Arab League mission in Syria. He has been accused of complicity in human rights violations in the Darfur region. Experts have raised serious concerns that the general is assessing the brand of state-sponsored violence in which he himself was likely involved. Al-Dabi has contradicted his observers on a number of occasions regarding the severity of the violent repression and has noted the Syrian government’s progress, even though most remain deeply pessimistic about the regime’s intentions. These and other inconsistencies call into question the credibility of the mission, and, by extension, the entire organization.

The Arab League and the Arab Spring The Arab League, since its founding in 1945 as a counterweight to Israel, has been significantly involved in the issues of education, women’s rights, cooperation among its member states, and the Israeli-Palestinian issue, but has done little with regard to repressive Arab regimes. In 1982, Syrian President Hafez al-Assad, Bashar’s father, ordered the violent suppression of an Islamist uprising in the city of Hama, resulting in 20,000 to 40,000 mostly civilian deaths. The Arab League remained silent after the so-called Hama massacre. As a result, the organization had gained a reputation as a cozy club for Arab autocrats looking to maintain their hold on power.

The Arab Spring has given the League a way to shed its reputation as a dictators’ clique. It now has the opportunity to defend the interests not only of the member states’ ruling elite but of the 350 million people over which it nominally presides. However, while incumbent autocrats retain their Arab League seats, the organization is severely compromised in its capacity to influence the future course of the Middle East, which explains the lukewarm support that the League has given to the Syrian opposition and its tempered response to al-Assad’s brutality. With the new Libyan

and Tunisian governments and the rise of a democratically elected Egyptian leadership, there is hope that the proverbial autocratic filibuster will be increasingly drowned out by the voices of those committed to the public welfare. From Syria to Yemen, the people wait with bated breath.

Taka Yamaguchi is a junior in the College of Arts and Sciences. He can be reached at tyama2891@gmail.com.

28 international

Still il?

Michael Cohen

Illustration by Audrey Westcott

I

n the style of Joseph Goebbels, North Korean state television celebrated Supreme Leader Kim Jong-un’s first birthday in power on January 8 with a rousing documentary detailing the young ruler’s prodigious achievements. Less than a month into a term that could last half a century, North Koreans know their dear leader as “having the wisdom of great men, extraordinary competence, and military brilliance.”

So has nothing changed in North Korea? The most repressive government in the world is still ruled by a round-faced, military-focused, and easily mocked (see South Park, Team America: World Police, and @ KimJongNumberUn) member of the Kim clan with launch codes in his back pocket.

Will the injection of youth, age being the only immediately discernible difference between Jong-un and his father, be an impetus for progressive reforms in North Korea?

Early indications aren’t promising.

Since Jong-il’s death, border patrol officers have shot and killed no fewer than three

aspirant defectors, according to a South Korean human rights activist. Any defector, regardless of his fate, exposes his children, siblings, parents, aunts, uncles, grandparents, and cousins to imprisonment and possible death— a directive instituted by Jong-il and almost immediately reaffirmed by his son.

Strict border patrols are merely one element of Jong-un’s blueprint for securing the respect of North Korea’s array of generals and imbuing his 25 million subjects with the fear essential to a totalitarian regime. Prior to Jong-il’s funeral procession in Pyongyang, attendees were sternly instructed not to wear hats, gloves, or scarves despite sub-freezing temperatures. The order was intended to demonstrate the North Korean people’s solidarity with Jong-un, who would later carry his father’s coffin without gloves.

Such ridiculous commands were typical of Jong-il and appear well on their way to becoming a mainstay of the Jong-un regime.

However, there is hope for a freer North Korea under Kim Jong-un, who, at 28 or 29 (his year of birth is not known), is the youngest head of state in the world.

Most notably, Jong-un exhibited a more personable demeanor in his birthday propaganda video. Whereas his father would have been seen seriously saluting foot soldiers, Jong-un fashioned himself as “just one of the guys.” He was taped shaking hands and even

laughing with members of his million-man army. The West can only hope that Jong-un’s relative affability will translate to a more cooperative approach to international affairs.

Jong-un is fairly Westernized. He spent a considerable amount of his childhood at an international school in Bern, Switzerland where he presumably developed an understanding and some degree of appreciation for democracy and basic freedoms. During his time in Switzerland, he was known to enjoy watching American basketball, growing especially fond of Michael Jordan and, later, Kobe Bryant. On the court, he wore Nike shoes and was described by a Russian classmate as a “playmaker.”

Surely Jong-il delivered an inspiring pep talk to his son on the virtues of totalitarianism before his death, but it is hard to believe that Jr. is completely uninfluenced by Western life. Of course, Westernized sons of dictators have disappointed us lately (Bashar alAssad, Saif al-Islam Qaddafi). Yet the North Korean economy and standard of life is so dreadful that desperation might be the motive for a move in the right direction.

Kim Jong-un might be short and round.

But he is certainly not his father.

Michael Cohen is a sophomore in the Olin Business School. He can be reached at cohenmj@wustl.edu.

29

In Their Own Words

“These are not cogent thoughts.”

—Former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum regarding former House Speaker Newt Gingrich’s call for Santorum to drop out of the race.

“I’ll go to their convention and talk about why the African-American community should demand paychecks and not be satisfied with food stamps.”

—Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich regarding how he would criticize President Obama’s policies.

“She is Bill Clinton, and he is Hillary.”

—Jodi Kantor, author of the upcoming book The Obamas, on the first couple. photo by National Constitution Center

“The mistake made in our country four years ago was having a candidate that was not vetted.”

—Former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, referring to President Obama.

“I am Vermin Supreme, I am a friendly fascist, I am a tyrant that you should trust, and you should let me run your life.”

—Democratic presidential candidate Vermin Supreme, stumping for the New Hampshire primary. photo by Marc Nozell

“I want my daughters treated the same way as my sons.”

—President Barack Obama regarding nonexistent children.

30