Datasets:

hoanganh-bgf

/

colombia_political_review

like 0

How Miss Universe Sheynnis Palacios Threatens Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega’s Regime

José Caballero

Conventionally, beauty pageants are apolitical: they are designed to focus on women’s beauty, cultural pride, and empowerment. Indeed, Miss Universe, the most acclaimed global beauty pageant, itself as a “safe space” for women to celebrate their national identity and amplify their leadership. Yet, for me, watching beauty pageants in Nicaragua was an escape from what felt like living in a political prison. Nicaragua is governed by socialist dictator Daniel Ortega. Prior to his ascension to leadership, Ortega played a major role in the Sandinista National Liberation Front ( or FSLN).When the FSLN became a political party in 1961, it assumed a red and black flag. In 1984, the FSLN its first fair election under Ortega. Despite losing in 1990, Ortega to power in 2007. Since then, he has governed through increasingly means. Ortega’s regime has even placed the FSLN flag alongside Nicaragua’s blue and white founding flag as equally representative markers of the nation.However, the colors of the founding flag—blue and white—have been adopted by a growing  opposition movement seeking to challenge the repressive status quo under Ortega’s regime. Recent events have made the totalitarian nature of the status quo self-evident. In 2018, Ortega attempted to social security reforms that would have overall pensions. Nicaraguans responded with widespread protests, marching with blue and white flags. Ortega’s brutal crackdown of these peaceful demonstrations to the tragic loss of over 300 lives. The United Nations Ortega’s human rights violations in 2018 to those of the Nazis. That year, Ortega major media outlets that reported on the violence against protestors. Yet, there were some national figures who used their social media platforms to publicly oppose Ortega’s propaganda and censorship. One of them was Sheynnis Palacios. Palacios is a major public figure in Nicaragua. She is a beauty queen, a journalist, and an engaged activist. In 2018, Palacios staunchly opposed Ortega’s dehumanization of and brutality against Nicaraguans. She was one of the few national figures who did not fear posting pictures of the blue and white flag on Facebook. More importantly, she with us the people. With a massive platform and a clear political voice in a small country dictated by constant fear, Palacios a symbol of defiance against Ortega’s oppressive measures. That year, the blue and white flag became a symbol to overthrow Ortega’s regime.Palacios continued her activism on the global Miss Universe stage, where more than 122 million viewers her final walk across the stage adorned in a blue and white dress. When I saw this, I knew it would threaten Ortega. Her dress embodied the oppression and subjugation Nicaraguans face daily, but, more importantly, it represented their ongoing resistance. By wearing a blue and white dress, Palacios became a political threat to Ortega’s power and stability. Her influence both domestically and internationally public trust in Ortega’s regime by giving to the opposition, a precarious position for Ortega’s regime following its 2018 . This influence speaks to the issue of regime legitimacy, where Palacios’s popularity and public support suggest that a considerable portion of us view her leadership and vision for Nicaragua as more or desirable than Ortega’s. Her democratic views and deliberate decision to not be a mouthpiece for the regime expose the challenges Ortega faces in the legitimacy of his rule. With Palacios embodying the values and aspirations of many Nicaraguans, her presence and actions signify a significant rift between Ortega’s authority and the genuine will of the people.Indeed, when Palacios was crowned Miss Universe, Nicaraguans went to the streets to celebrate, rallying with the blue and white flag, singing the national anthem, and making murals. I also with my blue and white flag in my dorm on that historic day. It was the first time Nicaragua took home the crown. It was the first time in a long time that we Nicaraguans had a moment of joy. It was the first time in a long time that something good had happened in Nicaragua. Palacios did something that transcended Ortega’s dominion: she brought hope to Nicaragua and united its people. Her victory even encouraged other prominent pro-Ortega figures like , Ortega’s daughter-in-law, to celebrate publicly.The crown, however, also brought misfortune. Ortega persecuted Palacios and Miss Nicaragua franchise director Karen Celebertti for protesting the 2018 crackdown. His administration Celebertti of participating in an “anti-homeland conspiracy” and acts related to “terrorist financing” to overthrow the government. Celebertti was with her daughter. Her husband and son were incarcerated and later exiled, too.  Nicaraguans who murals celebrating Palacios were also incarcerated. To this day, it is unknown whether Palacios will ever return to Nicaragua, as she has firmly rejected Ortega’s request to publicly in favor of his regime. Nevertheless, she continues to perform her role as Miss Universe, living in New York City for one year and touring other countries. Celebertti’s exile and Palacios’s refusal to testify prove that Ortega indeed views Palacios as a political threat to his regime. Ortega’s dictatorship thrives on infusing fear into the people and perpetuating censorship in the media. However, Palacios has become a metonymic figure for the real Nicaragua. She is a symbol of resistance in the face of authoritarianism. She has used her platform as an outlet for activism. Her dress’s symbolism, her connection to the public, and Miss Universe’s crown give our country hope. In a place where women are subjugated and where fear is constantly perpetuated, Palacios offers something new: the possibility of a future defined not by oppression or censorship, but by liberty and dignity. She is a reminder to dream bigger, to cling to hope for strength, and to always be proud of the blue and white colors Ortega has tried to rob us of.

https://www.cpreview.org/articles/2024/8/how-miss-universe-sheynnis-palacios-threatens-nicaraguan-president-daniel-ortegas-regime

Direct Democracy Imperiled: Analyzing Attacks on the Initiative in South Dakota

John Brunner

In recent years, one mechanism for effectuating popular legislative change has garnered much attention—ballot initiatives. Also known as citizen initiatives, ballot initiatives to a process that allows citizens to propose statutes and/or constitutional amendments directly to the public, effectively bypassing the state legislature.Generally, any private citizen can submit the text of the initiative, which often takes the form of a bill, to the voters in order to collect signatures. If enough signatures are collected, the initiative will be placed on the next general election ballot. If it receives a majority of the vote, the initiative becomes law. Currently, 24 states for an initiative process in some capacity. In essence, initiatives place the power of legislative action directly in the hands of the people, allowing legislation to closely match the broader public sentiment. This is a particularly potent tool when a state legislature is opposed to popular policy or rendered inefficacious due to gridlock. However, as the initiative has increasingly been used to enact liberal policies, attempts to dilute its power have become more numerous.In particular, South Dakota has become a central battleground for this important instrument of direct democracy. Over the past 30 years, South Dakota has a strong conservative majority in both chambers of its legislature. Even so, this has not stopped initiative campaigns from fighting for and achieving liberal change. In the wake of a series of major victories for liberal initiatives, conservative members of the South Dakota legislature have become increasingly about the potential of the initiative process as a counter to their agenda. This concern has evolved into an ongoing, systematic effort by the South Dakota State Legislature to cripple the efficacy of citizen lawmaking, primarily through the passage of a series of bills that gradually modify the initiative process. These bills, taken cumulatively over time, will have a disastrous effect on this historically important feature of South Dakota’s democracy. Within the broader history of the initiative process, South Dakota shares a particularly powerful and unique connection with this instrument of direct democracy. In 1898, South Dakota the first state to pass a constitutional amendment allowing for citizens’ initiatives, both constitutional and statutory. At the time, there was a rising tide of progressivism sweeping across the nation which, combined with fears about the potential for unrepresentative, corrupt, or ineffective legislatures, support for actions placing more power in the hands of the people. The citizens’ initiative became a leading method of addressing this concern in national political discourse.Currently, the initiative process retains high levels of popular support among South Dakotans. A poll in 2021 showed that 74.8% of respondents felt that “citizen ballot initiatives are an important part of the democratic process” and 62.6% said they disagreed or strongly disagreed that “the South Dakota Legislature should make it more difficult for citizen initiatives to get onto the ballot.” This popularity remains one of the main defenses protecting the initiative process in South Dakota. The 2020 election proved to be a consequential moment for the state’s initiative process. Amendment A, an initiated amendment for cannabis reform, had gained enough signatures to be placed on the general election ballot in November 2020. The amendment legalize and regulate marijuana use for adults aged 21 or older while also requiring the legislature to enact laws for the cultivation and regulation of hemp. Given South Dakota’s conservative majority in the state legislature, such a broad and extensive policy for legalization would have likely proven too liberal for passage through both chambers. The initiative, however, proved to be widely popular with the general public. Ultimately, Amendment A on Nov. 5, 2020, with 54.2% percent of the vote. The electoral victory of Amendment A had succeeded in demonstrating the incredible potential of the initiative process for liberal change in a conservative state.Before addressing the threat posed by potential future initiatives, conservative forces within the state quickly moved to effectively kill the recently approved amendment. Their post hoc attack on Amendment A in the form of a judicial challenge filed by Pennington County Sheriff Kevin Thom and Highway Patrol Colonel Rick Miller, who argued that the amendment violated the state constitution’s single-subject rule by simultaneously legalizing both marijuana and hemp. Despite the case originally lacking judicial standing, it gained standing when Governor Kristi Noem issued an executive order stating Miller was acting on her behalf. Ultimately, the State Supreme Court Amendment A as unconstitutional. Having succeeded at eliminating the progressive initiative, conservatives in the state, particularly within the legislature, began to consider ways to mitigate the prospect of future liberal initiatives that Amendment A had heralded.It would not be long after the dust of Amendment A had settled that warning alarms would signal a direct attack on the initiative process. While Amendment A had met its demise in a court of law, future liberal initiatives remained a stark threat to the state legislature’s conservative agenda. In June 2022, the state legislature Amendment C to the public, directly placing the legislation on the upcoming primary ballot. It would require a 60% supermajority vote to ensure the passage of all ballot initiatives that would increase taxes or fees or require the state to spend at least $10 million in the first five fiscal years. In a state that already leans conservative, the change from a simple majority to a supermajority threshold would make it incredibly difficult to gain the number of votes needed to pass a liberal initiative. The proposal of Amendment C represented a new strategy on the part of South Dakota conservatives. Instead of seeking a judicial remedy to eliminate an initiative after it was approved in an election, the legislature became a key player and began adopting laws that would make it more difficult for one to pass in the first place. Given the popularity of the initiative process in South Dakota, any blatant attempt to directly dismantle it would be incredibly controversial with the public. To avoid widespread backlash, the legislature placed Amendment C, a middle-of-the-road attempt to restrict the probability of initiatives passing rather than completely dismantling the process, on South Dakota’s June primary ballot. This placement was unusual, given that it is uncommon to vote on legislation during primary elections, but strategic, as primary elections tend to have a lower voter turnout than general elections. One Republican state senator on its unusual placement, directly confirming that the amendment was placed on the primary ballot in order to raise the vote threshold for a Medicaid expansion initiative appearing on the general election ballot later that year. The legislature essentially situated the amendment in the hands of voters, diverting blame from itself, in the event it was approved, while counting on lower turnout and lack of information to ensure the amendment’s success. Some citizens not being aware of the legislation at all.Immediately, political activists sounded the alarm on the legislature’s attempt to sneak an attack on the initiative process past the voters. The effect of these warnings was evident. The primary election the highest turnout in over 10 years. On June 9, 2022, Amendment C was with a strong 67.4% percent “no” vote. Nevertheless, Amendment C only marked the beginning of this new strategy of attack.Despite its electoral defeat, Amendment C has provided lessons that the South Dakota State Legislature has utilized to further hinder ballot initiatives. Amendment C proved that voters in the state, when vigilant, do not approve of attempts to weaken the power of the initiative, and when given the choice, they vote in favor of a strong and fair initiative process. As a result, the recent, ongoing attacks by the legislature have seen another strategy change defined by two critical features. First, attempts to weaken the initiative process now occur within the chambers of the legislature itself, isolated from the will of the voters. Second, the attacks take the form of small, seemingly minor changes to initiative laws that easily pass by the voters without seeming like a direct challenge to the initiative process. However, these laws pose a grave cumulative threat to future initiatives. The latest legislative session, which ran from January to March 2024, serves as a critical example of this new strategy. Among the many bills proposed during that session that posed a credible threat, one stood out among the rest: House Bill (HB) 1244. On Jan. 31, 2024, HB 1244 was to the legislature. If passed, it would allow for individuals to remove their signature from an initiative petition by contacting the Secretary of State. Some, such as State Representative Jon Hansen, who introduced the bill in response to a petition to restore abortion protections in the state, that HB 1244 would strengthen the initiative process by allowing voters the freedom to revoke their signatures, particularly when they feel they have been misled about the nature of the initiative. Such a bill would have an incredibly detrimental effect on the initiative process. It it incredibly difficult for petitioners to get an accurate estimate of their valid signatures, particularly in the weeks leading up to submission. Additionally, it the possibility of voters being harassed or intimidated into removing their signatures. Furthermore, signing a petition does not represent the final say that a voter has over whether they support its contents. Rather, the action symbolizes their belief that the issue should be presented to voters on election day, at which point voters can ultimately say whether or not they support it. Therefore, the justification presented by the conservative members of the legislature is unfounded. Ultimately, the bill was passed and signed into law by Governor Noem. This bill represents the first step in a new, broader strategy employed by the state legislature to systematically reduce the effectiveness of the initiative process. Conservative legislators are taking matters into their own hands, devising laws in their own chambers and the detrimental effects under the guise of logistical changes or efforts to enhance the integrity of the process. These laws, which taken alone may seem insignificant, pose a grave danger for future attempts to pass initiatives or even get them to qualify for the ballot. Such action by the state legislature, if left unchecked, may be the first step toward serious infringement of South Dakotans’ ability to engage in direct democracy.While the South Dakota State Legislature engages in a clear and systematic attempt to hinder the initiative process, there remains hope that this historical institution can be preserved. The initiative’s popularity remains strong in the state, and increased awareness of the ongoing attacks on direct democracy continues to play a critical role in defending the institution. To this end, newly formed groups, such as the Voter Defense Association of South Dakota (VDA), to have a presence in the state capital, keeping voters informed on any new attempts to injure the initiative process. If the initiative process is to be protected, the citizens of South Dakota must be just as coordinated in their effort to protect it as those in the legislature have been to dismantle it.

https://www.cpreview.org/articles/2024/7/direct-democracy-imperiled-analyzing-attacks-on-the-initiative-in-south-dakota

Green Technology: Latin America’s Way Out of Stagnation

Jonathan Pollak

Prospects in Latin America are looking exceedingly grim. The World Bank that the region’s GDP growth will slow to the lowest rate compared to all other areas of the world in the coming years. Inflation, while receding from its post-pandemic peak, high across the zone. This economic turbulence has spurred on political instability epitomized by a wave of by populist candidates who lack the political capital to engage in wholesale political reform. It has also both external migration and domestic entry into illicit markets, causing human capital flight and an explosion in violence. Incentives for disadvantaged young Latin Americans to enter criminal markets have been compounded by a in demand for drugs like cocaine, inciting bloody wars for dominance between rival gangs throughout the region. Is there any way out of Latin America’s profound political and economic crisis?The answer might lie in the incipient global green transition. Latin America holds immense potential to leverage the economic shifts of the 21st century. It abundant reserves of critical raw materials like lithium and copper, which are crucial for the energy transition. Its rich biodiversity, for over 50% of the world’s total, makes its forests and reserves leaders in global decarbonization and biomass production. Its strategic positioning between the U.S. and China it to benefit from trade and investment from both of the competing global powers. But can the region make the most of these opportunities?During a recent event hosted by the Columbia Institute of Latin American Studies, Ricardo Haussmann, the director of the Harvard Growth Lab, that Latin America’s economic underperformance is largely due to a region-wide neglect of technological adoption and innovation. Latin America has far behind other nations in embracing new technology, resulting in a declining or stagnant market share in non-extractive industries.In contrast, developing nations in Asia have prioritized such innovation, dramatically their market share in crucial industries like electronics and electric vehicles. This diversification has yielded fast growth across the region, in contrast to Latin America’s sluggish development.Even though technological investment is the key to lifting Latin America’s economic prospects, the region’s economy remains driven by extractive industries. Raw materials like crude oil and copper the region’s economic output, and Latin America’s global market share in these commodities is only increasing. A remnant of the region’s colonial past, this extractive commerce continues to the environment and displace communities. Without forward-thinking policy changes throughout the region in favor of technological innovation, Latin America will continue to be a victim of the , a phenomenon in which many countries with a wealth of natural resources fall victim to political instability and hampered development due to their overreliance on extractive industries.So far, leaders in the region have often forgone long-term action in favor of politically expedient policies in the short term, often resources away from prolonged investment in technology in favor of populist cash transfers or unsustainable social programs. Unless Latin American politicians make the right choice—not the most convenient choice—and invest in long-term technological growth, the region is doomed to continue along its path of stagnation.Latin America’s failure to invest in non-extractive areas has kept the region in a rut of commodities and raw materials, heightening its exposure to boom-and-bust economic cycles and discouraging the technological innovation necessary for sustained, dynamic growth.Despite these challenges, intelligent long-term policy that capitalizes on the economic shifts of the 21st century could bring Latin America onto a path of economic prosperity. The threat of climate change has spurred massive investment in the green technology required for the global energy transition, yielding profitable opportunities for those well-positioned to attract that financing. In 2022 alone, foreign direct investment in renewable energy globally $350 billion, more than any other sector. Latin America’s material conditions leave it uniquely situated to emerge as a major player in the global energy transition, portending a significant boost in growth if political leaders can convert on this opportunity. An astounding 60% of the region’s energy from renewable production like wind, solar, and hydroelectric, taking advantage of Latin America’s rich biodiversity. Further, the area some of the largest producers of lithium, a crucial material for electric batteries. Already, Chinese foreign direct investment in Latin America has heavily in areas central to the energy transition, including renewable energy, lithium production, and electric vehicles. Investment in these sectors stable green jobs and solid growth for the beleaguered region.But simply relying on external investment in the region’s green-tech potential is not enough to overcome the resource curse. In fact, it may simply perpetuate Latin America’s reliance on extractive industries into a new, renewable era. The key to truly harnessing the opportunities of the energy transition is investing in renewable technological capability domestically, which will require sound governmental policy across the region to achieve. This means forgoing the short-term populist policy decisions that have debts in Latin America countries to over 70% of GDP and prioritizing creating an economic and political environment that encourages technological advancement through the competition and growth of innovative companies.Historically, rampant political instability has the development of entrepreneurship in Latin America. Populist policies have deprived businesses of the certainty that firms need to count on before making investment decisions, keeping innovation and growth below the region’s potential. Unfortunately, current political trends do not seem to indicate any improvement in this dynamic: political polarization in Latin America is the it has ever been, contributing to social unrest and legislative gridlock. This is already yielding a cycle in which exasperated citizens vote for outsider candidates who further destabilize the region’s business and policy climate, hurting growth and restarting the cycle of political disillusionment. Still, the ascension of leaders who prioritize pragmatic investment in key industries, primarily ones pertaining to the energy transition, could promote development and prosperity throughout the region. If Latin America can resist the temptation of short-term populism and capitalize on its singular advantages in clean energy, it can turn its perennial story of stagnation into one of economic might in a green new world..

https://www.cpreview.org/articles/2024/7/green-technology-latin-americas-way-out-of-stagnation

Who Could Blame Them For Staying Home?

Jacob Gold

Even before President Joe Biden a shockingly poor performance at the presidential debate on June 27, young voters had long been in despair. “‘It’s not that young voters are too lazy to get to the polls—it’s deeper than that,’” Lillian, a New York college student, in a January interview with . “‘The collective vibe is hopelessness.’”Much attention has been directed toward the perceived problem of young voter turnout. An article in FiveThirtyEight that young voters disproportionately experienced barriers to voting, while a New York Times analysis that young people had not formulated the habit of voting or were less familiar with the process of voting or the candidates. To some extent, this is all normal. For decades, people ages 18-29 have historically at lower rates than other age groups, and in 2022, young people actually at higher rates than did other generations at that age.Yet, there remains something to be said about how young people today perceive voting. While low youth turnout may be partially attributed to normal patterns of voting behavior, young people are also remarkably skeptical of the power their votes really hold. A March 2024 poll by the Harvard Kennedy School that 41% of people ages 18-29 did not believe their votes would make a “real difference,” 3% from March 2020. Some of that disillusionment comes from feeling like neither political party offers a truly substantive plan for positive change. Michele Weindling, an electoral director for the Sunrise Movement, a youth-led climate activism group, CNN in 2023 that “‘we need to be told not just why we’re voting against the right, but what we’re voting for.’”Other young Americans argue that, even without something to vote , the risks associated with a second Donald Trump term are so great that young people must show up anyway. Sara Pequeño, writing for , , “Are we angry enough at Joe Biden to risk a second Donald Trump presidency?” Should young voters fail to turn out for Biden, they will have effectively chosen the dark path of a second Trump administration—one that would be by weakened environmental protections, reckless international policy, mass deportations, corruption, and authoritarian rhetoric and policy. While staying home may not be a lazy decision, it is at the very least short-sighted if not irresponsible. Although neither candidate has appeared particularly compelling for many young voters, the pragmatic appeal that young people vote for Biden to bar Trump from a second term has nonetheless seemed convincing—until now. Biden’s poor debate performance in June vindicated and exasperated the frustrations of young people. With a raspy voice that the White House later to a cold, Biden’s meandering and incoherent responses to refute Trump’s arguments at almost any point in the debate—And young voters have taken notice. Immediately after the debate, a Times/Siena poll that Biden’s favorability among young people dropped to 24% from 35% in early , while the percentage who “strongly agreed” that Biden was too old to be an effective president jumped from 48% to 64%.It is now abundantly clear that Biden is no longer a viable candidate for president. If young people do not turn out to vote for him, they should not bear responsibility for a second Trump term. Indeed, to blame young voters would be to frame the problem incorrectly. Such thinking blames constituents for failing to affirm the irresponsible decisions of unresponsive leaders and validates politically expedient decisions that extort young people for votes without delivering on promises. It requires that young people fork over their vote to Biden, or else be punished with Trump’s demagoguery and authoritarianism.The choice, to be sure, is still clear: if Biden is the only alternative to Trump, the American people choose the former. But this dichotomy does not accurately represent the totality of the situation. Though voters may be stuck with a choice between Biden and Trump come November, Biden still has the opportunity to give the Democratic party and, by extension, all voters the between a litany of other, more viable candidates.Though it may be difficult, the solution to this ongoing problem is apparent: Biden must step down and make way for a younger, more vigorous candidate. In Weindling’s words, young people on the left need someone to vote . This is now all the more crucial following Trump’s of JD Vance—just 39 years old—as his Vice Presidential candidate. By introducing a new, younger candidate, Democrats could eliminate concerns about their nominee’s age and send a clear message to young people: We hear you and give you a candidate worth your vote. But this change will not be easy. Forcibly Biden is virtually impossible, and he has that he will not drop out voluntarily. At one point, he even an interviewer that he would not do so unless the “Lord Almighty” told him to. While some Democrats are more pressure on Biden to step down, many of them, including potential replacement picks, reluctant because of the political risks involved. Several have themselves to the idea of his continued candidacy after he that he will refuse to step down in an open letter to Congress. Some have even attempted to avoid the question of his fitness altogether by diverting attention back to Trump. Rep. Debbie Dingell, for instance, that “‘we’ve got to stop talking about this…[because] we need to get back to talking about Donald Trump and his performance and all the issues that are at stake and the contrast.’”Dingell’s entreaty is reasonable to an extent. If the issue at hand for the Democratic party in this election was a reasonably reconcilable controversy over policy, then the stakes of a Trump election would easily warrant a vote for Biden. In 2016, the progressive publication an editorial making this very case. It called on its readers to vote in the general election for Hillary Clinton as a vote against Trump, whose presidency “would be a catastrophe for the United States—and for the world.” Though Clinton was not as progressive as Bernie Sanders, whom had previously, she was a capable candidate whose policy was far better than Trump’s, they argued. But we cannot ignore the limits of this argument. Support for Democratic candidates cannot stem solely from the prospect of a second Trump presidency. Indeed, if this logic can excuse Democrats for pushing through a nomination of such an arguably infirm candidate as Joe Biden, it can excuse anything short of putting up their own authoritarian candidate. To think this way would leave Democrats completely unaccountable for their actions. In effect, it shifts all responsibility away from Biden and other party leaders—who refused to offer voters a suitable choice for president—and onto voters for failing to heed the proverb that “beggars can’t be choosers.” Ultimately, it flippantly disregards voters’ serious concerns about Biden’s capacity to lead by painting them as hand-wringers who have needlessly endangered the chances of a Democratic victory. Worse, it proves young people right—that their votes do not matter. The choice to keep Biden as the nominee will be made with or without them.Young people, we show up this November. However, it is equally imperative to remember that the outcome of this election rests on the leaders who refuse to heed voters’ calls for Biden to step down. Else, we alienate dissatisfied constituents while enabling politicians to ignore the will of the people. If Biden and other Democratic leaders continue down this path, if they continue to ignore the young people and many other voters who want Biden out, who could blame them for staying home?

https://www.cpreview.org/articles/2024/7/who-could-blame-them-for-staying-home

The Red Wall: Why Victory Eludes Democrats in Mississippi

Yusuf Arifin

Last November, incumbent Mississippi governor Tate Reeves reelection over his Democratic rival Brandon Presley by a meager three percent spread. In most circumstances, this margin would have sent shockwaves throughout the state. However, instead of interpreting the outcome as a rebuke against Republican governance, local media outlets it to underscore the impossibility of a Democratic victory.Although some may view the 2023 gubernatorial elections as a sign of changing political winds in the southern United States, Democrats are unlikely to be competitive in the region for the foreseeable future. After all, Republicans have every statewide election since 2015. Upon a closer examination of these results, one factor is primarily responsible for this string of Democratic losses: racially polarized voting. To understand the rise of Mississippi’s Republican party, one must first examine the roots of its staunchly conservative reputation. After the Civil War, former Confederate officials made a concerted effort to regain political power by oppressing Black residents and some of the nation’s most draconian Jim Crow policies. Among these proposals was a law comprehensively Black voters, effectively granting white residents political dominion over the entire state. The impacts of this law were swift; between 1876 and 1960, Democratic presidential candidates the state in all but one election, often by margins greater than 80 percentage points. Similar outcomes manifested at the Congressional level, with no Republicans being sent to the House of Representatives and Senate in over 90 and 101 years, respectively. As evidenced by these results, voting has been explicitly associated with racial sentiments since Mississippi’s readmission to the country.However, the state’s politics dramatically shifted following the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. by Democratic President Lyndon Johnson, the law was adamantly opposed by white southerners, who increasingly the party for abandoning their interests. In the subsequent presidential election, Mississippi federal requests to enfranchise Black Americans, enabling white citizens to voice their collective grievances. The results were stunning: Johnson less than 13% of the vote, constituting an 86-point swing from just four years prior. The outcome sent an unambiguous message to national parties that racial issues continued to dominate state politics. As Black voters gradually gained suffrage towards the end of the 20th century, many liberal activists hoped that white anger sparked by the Civil Rights Movement would ultimately recede. This proved to be wishful thinking. In fact, since 1960, Mississippians have never for a Democratic presidential nominee. However, while the topline results are significant, they ignore important political shifts within the state. Although white residents have continued voting for Republican candidates en masse, Black residents have likewise supported Democratic candidates at near-unanimous rates. As a result, the Democratic vote share has partially rebounded in Mississippi, to the roughly 40% of residents who as Black. In most states, local elections see significantly different outcomes from presidential races due to the lower stakes involved. Mississippi is no exception to this rule; in 2023, Democrat Brandon Presley agonizingly close to securing victory. However, although this specific result appears impressive, it’s worth contextualizing it with the three other statewide races that were held concurrently. In these elections, the Republican candidates near-identical vote shares, garnering roughly 60% each. Such a margin closely the state’s white demographic figures, underscoring how racial polarization played a crucial role in down-ballot contests. As a result, Presley’s narrow loss can be viewed as a testament to his personal appeal rather than a harbinger of drastic racial voting shifts. If anything, the outcome emphasizes how impregnable polarization trends prevent even the strongest of Democratic candidates from winning.The same idea materializes when examining Congressional elections. For example, in the 2022 midterms, Democratic candidates for the U.S. House of Representatives a collective 35% of the vote in Mississippi. This figure is nearly identical to the 38% the party in 2016, the last time all Congressional seats were contested. To make matters even more objective, the proportion of votes within each district appears to have remained constant throughout this time period. In the second Congressional district, the state’s only Democratic and Black-majority seat, incumbent Representative Benny Thompson never less than 60% of the vote since 2004. Taken together, these patterns underscore the inelastic nature of Mississippi voters. Under the current Democratic philosophy in Mississippi, there are two principal objectives in order to win: 1) maximizing Black voter turnout and 2) minimizing losses among white voters. While both of these aspirations appear plausible on paper, several compounding factors have made them increasingly difficult to achieve. On the former point, Black voters are declining as a proportion of the electorate. According to the most recent federal census, Mississippi was one of just three states to population. The brunt of this decrease can be to the state’s delta region along the Mississippi River, where many Black communities are . If trends continue, this area will likely hemorrhage the very citizens who are crucial for any Democratic upset in the future. Without this staunch base of support, it’s difficult, if not downright impossible, to envision where Democrats could regain votes. If anything, it will almost certainly not come from white citizens, who are some of the most culturally conservative voters in the nation. For example, a recent Pew Research poll that a supermajority of these citizens believe abortion should be illegal in all or most circumstances. With the Democratic party increasingly embracing reproductive rights as a central tenet of its platform, this messaging is likely to fall flat in Mississippi.On another note, to understand the conditions necessary for Republicans to lose in Mississippi, one must also acknowledge the existence of runoffs. Under current law, candidates for statewide office must an outright majority of the vote or face a second election. The most recent prominent example was the 2018 Senate race, when Democrat Mike Espy essentially Republican incumbent Cindy Hyde-Smith in the first round before defeat three weeks later. The result highlights two fundamental characteristics of Mississippi runoffs. First, minorities often lower turnout rates than their white counterparts. As such, even if a Black nominee like Espy is competitive in the preliminary race, they are unlikely to succeed in a later contest. In this manner, runoffs serve to accentuate polarization. On a similar note, these subsequent elections often pit white and Black candidates against one another, heightening racial tensions. As no Black candidate has ever been statewide in Mississippi since Reconstruction, this structure implicitly perpetuates systems of white dominance. Given how race and party are inextricably connected, these dynamics also facilitate Republican electoral success.As a party dependent on Black support in a majority-white state, Democrats face enormous challenges in achieving statewide success. In particular, with historical tensions continuing to manifest in the form of racially polarized voting, the party has struggled to eclipse 40% of the vote in recent elections. On the rare occasions in which candidates exceed these expectations, other regulations like runoffs often inhibit their ability to ultimately win. If Democrats seek to regain their competitive status in Mississippi, they are presented with two starkly divergent options. On one hand, the state party can strive to expand their voter base by placating white voters. Such a proposal would require the state party to establish its independence from the broader national organization, particularly as it relates to social issues. Although this endeavor would likely entail a dramatic revision of the party’s platform, it has successful in neighboring southern states like Kentucky. Alternatively, partisan operatives could attempt to play the long game by waiting for the state’s political landscape to undergo transformative change. However, this strategy has far more ambiguity—for one, it’s unclear what could even bring about the development necessary in order to turn Mississippi into a more urban state conducive to Democratic interests. Moreover, the party would essentially be conceding defeat in elections over the next decade without a guarantee of future success.Admittedly, given their uncertainties, these plans aren’t feasible in the forthcoming years because neither attempts to resolve the current voting dynamics embedded within the state. Unless unforeseen events prompt major changes in the region, racial polarization will continue to inhibit Democratic candidates in Mississippi, all but ensuring Republican domination.

https://www.cpreview.org/articles/2024/6/the-red-wall-why-victory-eludes-democrats-in-mississippi

El Efecto Rubiales: El Movimiento #Metoo español? / The Rubiales Effect: The Spanish #Metoo Movement?

Jack Gonzalez

Fue el beso que todo el mundo vio. La gran victoria de la selección femenina española en la Copa Mundial Femenina de la FIFA fue eclipsada por un beso no consensual por el expresidente de la Real Federación Española de Fútbol (RFEF) Luis Rubiales a Jenni Hermoso, la delantera estrella quien ha marcado los más goles en la historia del equipo. Lo que fue un momento especial para las deportistas femeninas en España y a través del mundo se transformó en otro recordatorio del sexismo que sigue siendo endémico en el deporte.El delito junto después de la victoria del equipo español durante la celebración de los ganadores en un podio en el centro del campo, lo cual generó amplias críticas públicas. Según Hermoso, el beso definitivamente no fue consensual, a la prensa que “claramente me sentí no respetada. En ese momento no se me respetó en ningún momento, ni como jugadora ni como persona, estaba viviendo algo que era histórico”. El 25 de enero, un juez que Rubiales enfrentará un juicio por sus acciones que ya han provocado su despido de la presidencia de la RFEF. Al momento, Rubiales y sus colegas están siendo por una carga de coerción por haber presuntamente presionado a Hermoso que abandonara el juicio y dijera que el beso fue consensual. Estas cargas, de agresión sexual y coerción, demuestran la profundidad de la cultura sexista y coercitiva adentro del deporte y, si Rubiales es condenado, este juicio puede representar un gran paso adelante en reformar esta cultura.España tiene una historia impresionante de deportes femeninos y un fuerte movimiento de derechos femeninos que abarca la mayoría del Siglo XX. Recientemente, el movimiento femenista ha sido por sus logros progresivos en varios campos sociales, por ejemplo en la lucha contra el sexismo en el sistema judicial y varias campañas contra la violencia de género. La victoria en 2023 la primera vez que la selección femenina española ha ganado la Copa Mundial, un logro que expone la fuerza de la participación femenina en los deportes. Pero la alegría de ese momento fue arrebatada de estas mujeres en otra instancia de las acciones de los hombres atrayendo más atención de la prensa que los logros de las mujeres.Sin embargo, la controversia resultante ha aumentado el enfoque del público general al movimiento femenista en los deportes y las victorias que la campaña se ha ganado, como el a que llegaron las deportistas de la Liga F (la división más alta del fútbol femenino español) después de amenazar con una huelga por un aumento a sus salarios mínimos. Por su parte, las jugadoras de la selección nacional también su apoyo por Hermoso tras un boicoteo contra la RFEF el año pasado que terminó con un trato que promete cambios al pago e infraestructura del equipo y que avanzan hacia la igualdad con el equipo nacional masculino. Estos cambios y el juicio de Rubiales evidencian un enfrentamiento nacional con el sexismo en los deportes femeninos en España.Aunque no parezca evidente ahora mismo, este momento del Mundial más probable catalizará una transformación cultural esencial. Podría iluminar los prejuicios que quedan en la RFEF, una organización que sólo cinco mujeres en su asamblea nacional de 100 asambleístas. Reconocer la actitud que rodea el fútbol femenino en el órgano rector más alto del fútbol profesional español tiene el potencial de reorientar actitudes nacionales resultando en consecuencias para toda la sociedad española.Por ejemplo, después del beso ha interés en el juicio de Dani Alves, un estrella brasileño que jugó para Barcelona. Este juicio, en el que Alves ha sido acusado de violar a una mujer en una discoteca, ha recibido mucha cobertura en la prensa española y ha causado alboroto mundial. La defensa un argumento machista que Alves estaba demasiado borracho para saber mejor, un tipo de defensa que desafortunadamente sigue siendo por el sistema legal, incluso en el juicio de Rubiales, quien sostiene que el beso a Hermoso fue un producto de la euforia de la situación celebratoria.España está en un punto de inflexión. El movimiento #SeAcabó ha mucha tracción, inspirado por el escándalo de Rubiales y propulsado por varias manifestaciones de solidaridad de deportistas, figuras públicas y publicaciones en las redes sociales. Este hashtag y el movimiento refleja el movimiento #MeToo que circuló el mundo anglófono en los años 2010.El impulso cultural que está en moción promete cambio en muchos aspectos del sector deportivo y la sociedad en general. Casos como estos traen oportunidades para reflejar y modernizar instituciones fundamentales como la RFEF que sirven un papel importante en la sociedad española. Un movimiento español contra el sexismo en los deportes femeninos puede difundirse a otros países hispanohablantes en los que también un desequilibrio entre los deportes masculinos y femeninos aunque haya una explosión en la popularidad de los deportes femeninos como el fútbol y béisbol. Con un foco más grande en la RFEF y la selección femenina debido a las noticias y el éxito atlético que han disfrutado, este momento cultural puede cambiar la trayectoria de los deportes femeninos a nivel global para siempre.It was the kiss the whole world saw. The great victory of the Spanish women’s national soccer team in the FIFA Women’s World Cup was eclipsed by a non-consensual kiss from the ex-president of the Royal Spanish Soccer Federation (RFEF), Luis Rubiales, to Jenni Hermoso, the star striker who has scored the most goals in the team’s history. What was a special moment for female athletes in Spain and across the world became another reminder of the sexism that remains endemic to the sport.The occurred just after the team’s victory celebration in the center of the field after their win, which generated wide public scorn. According to Hermoso, the kiss was definitely nonconsensual, the press that “I clearly felt disrespected. At that moment I was not respected at any time, not as a player and not as a person, I was experiencing a historic moment.” On January 25, a judge that Rubiales will face a trial for his actions that have already provoked his dismissal as president of the RFEF.At the moment, Rubiales and his colleagues are being for a charge of coercion for having allegedly pressured Hermoso to drop the charges and say that the kiss was consensual. These charges, for sexual assault and coercion, demonstrate the extent of the sexist and coercive culture inside the sport, and, if Rubiales is convicted, this trial could represent a big step forward in reforming this culture.Spain has a grand history of women’s sports and a strong women’s rights movement that spans the majority of the 20th century. Recently, the feminist movement has been for its progressive achievements in various social fields, for example in the fight against sexism in the judicial system and multiple campaigns against gender-based violence. The 2023 victory the first time that the Spanish women’s national team has won the World Cup, an achievement that shows the strength of female participation in Spanish sports. But the happiness of that moment was taken from these women in another instance of the actions of men attracting more attention from the press than the achievements of women.Without a doubt, the controversy has increased the public’s focus on the feminist movement in sports and the victories that the campaign has won, like the achieved by the athletes in the Liga F (the highest division in Spanish women’s soccer) after threatening to strike in a campaign for an increase to their minimum salaries. On their end, the players on the national team also their support for Hermoso through a boycott against the RFEF last year that ended with an agreement that promised changes in payment and to the team’s infrastructure that advanced toward equality with the men’s national team. These changes and Rubiales’ trial are evidence of a national confrontation against sexism in Spanish women’s sports.Although not obvious at this moment, this moment from the World Cup will likely catalyze a pivotal cultural transformation. It could illuminate the prejudices remaining in the RFEF, an organization that only five women in their national assembly of 100 members. Recognizing the attitude that surrounds female soccer in the highest governing body of professional Spanish soccer has the potential of reorienting national attitudes resulting in consequences for all of Spanish society.For example, after the incident, interest has in the trial of Dani Alves, the Brazilian star that played for Barcelona. This trial, in which Alves has been accused of raping a woman in a nightclub, has received a lot of coverage in the Spanish press and has caused global backlash. The defense a machismo argument that Alves was too drunk to know better, a type of defense that unfortunately has been by the legal system, including in Rubiales’ trial, in which he maintains that the kiss was a product of the euphoria of the celebratory situation.Spain is at an inflection point. The #SeAcabó (“It’s Over”) movement has much traction, inspired by Rubiales’ scandal and propelled by various demonstrations of solidarity from athletes, public figures, and publications on social media. This hashtag and the movement reflect the #MeToo movement that circulated the English-speaking world in the 2010s.The cultural wave in motion promises change in many aspects of the sports industry and society in general. Cases like these bring opportunities to reflect and modernize fundamental institutions like the RFEF that serve an important role in Spanish society. A Spanish movement against sexism in female sports could spread to other Spanish-speaking countries in which there also an imbalance between male and female sports, although there has an explosion in popularity in female sports like soccer and baseball. With a greater focus on the RFEF and the women’s national team due to the news coverage and athletic success that they have enjoyed, this cultural moment could change the trajectory of female sports at the global level for good.

https://www.cpreview.org/articles/2024/6/el-efecto-rubiales-el-movimiento-metoo-espaolthe-rubiales-effect-the-spanish-metoo-movement

New SEC Ruling Hinders U.S. Legitimacy as Climate Leader

Zoe Tseng

Last month, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) a ruling that undermines the United States’ position as a climate leader. The new regulations that registrants must disclose the financial effects of certain climate-related risks to company investors, a 2022 climate disclosure proposal by not requiring companies to report all emissions. The ruling only requires companies to disclose Scope 1 and 2 emissions—direct greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions that come from the company and indirect emissions that come from energy purchased by the company—as long as they material, meaning investors would find the size of emissions consequential. Most significantly, companies do not have to disclose Scope 3 emissions—emissions that occur upstream or downstream from the firm—which typically for roughly 75% of total emissions. These the emissions from shipping parts, the consumer’s use of the product, and emissions from the production of inputs.Although the SEC is mainly with protecting investors and does not have the power to regulate GHG emissions—that power to the Environmental Protection Agency—it can play a role in promoting sustainable business practices. Similar to a society not closely monitored by a free press, a society without disclosure in climate reporting is one where companies are not held fully accountable for their emissions. This ruling has led to heated controversy from both sides. Energy companies are the SEC under the “major questions” doctrine, a legal theory that contests that only Congress can permit agency action with this kind of political or economic significance. On the other hand, environmentalists the SEC is not doing enough and are also suing them for “arbitrary removal” of provisions from the 2022 proposal.   Despite the ruling, the future of U.S. climate policy is not entirely bleak. The California Air and Resources Board (CARB) more strict laws for security disclosure. Those laws private and public companies that do business in California that make at least $1 billion in annual revenue to disclose Scope 1 and 2 emissions starting in 2026 and Scope 3 emissions by 2027. It also does not have a materiality qualifier for those disclosures. Due to California’s immense GDP, it will be hard for companies to avoid doing business in the state, meaning these regulations can force industries nationwide to comply with CARB’s regulations. This pattern can be demonstrated by motor vehicle standards passed in California in the 1970s that automakers to manufacture cleaner vehicles. Although only cars sold in California had to meet the emissions standards, automakers it was cheaper to switch to completely designing cars that met California’s standards instead of manufacturing two versions of each car. If the CARB’s laws prevail after upcoming lawsuits—similar to those the SEC faces—the state regulations may be a loophole for emission disclosure regulation to still be enforced despite the SEC ruling. This ruling will not only have impacts on companies nationally but will also harm the U.S.’ ability to achieve Paris Agreement targets, effectively decreasing their legitimacy as a climate leader. This position has waned in the past few decades as climate change has become politically polarizing. The European Union and China have already passed security disclosure laws that require companies to report all scope emissions. In fact, legislation around the world is toward disclosing Scope 3 emissions—Singapore announced a few weeks ago that it would implement its own emission disclosure legislation that would have this provision. The question remains as to when the U.S. will enact robust enough regulation that would own up to the estimated 427 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide it has into the atmosphere over time.As the federal government fails to implement regulations surrounding climate change, other entities are picking up the slack. Many state and local governments are passing legislation to net-zero targets—such as those passed by the CARB—but a unified directive from the federal government would help streamline and quicken the process. The hope is that with increased transparency, companies will feel pressured to cut back on their emissions and more people will divest from carbon-intensive companies. Divestment, by shifting money away from polluting companies, can speed up the energy transition and stigmatize carbon-intensive companies. Approximately $40.76 trillion has been worldwide from fossil fuels and the stocks of many fossil fuel supermajors have in the past 10 years. In addition, increased transparency places the responsibility on consumers and allows them to boycott and protest companies that are harming the environment.Although many large corporations are satisfied with the weakened ruling, it remains to be seen whether investors will actually benefit from its effects. After all, climate change is worsening and every country will be equally implicated. Short-term profit in continuing to release GHG emissions will only quicken the crisis. The U.S. can either get on board with climate policies and trends, or it can continue to lag behind and worsen conditions for the entire world—both a glaring error in its desire to be a global leader and an abetter in promoting inequality.

https://www.cpreview.org/articles/2024/6/new-sec-ruling-hinders-us-legitimacy-as-climate-leader

The Fashion of GOP Politics: How Republican Women Are Dressing to Change America

Priya Shah

“I REALLY DON’T CARE, DO U?”In June 2018, on her way to visit a child migrant detention facility in Texas, then-First Lady Melania Trump a now-infamous jacket emblazoned with the above message. As opposed to her more opulent fashion choices that were wholly composed of Chanel or Dolce & Gabbana, this $39 Zara jacket a backlash over her insensitivity when visiting detained child migrants during her husband’s administration’s “zero-tolerance” family separation policy. The former First Lady’s exorbitant wardrobe reflected the Trumps’ wealth, but the jacket was clearly chosen to make a statement. By deviating from her usual expensive outfits, Mrs. Trump aimed to capture the press and public’s attention. At first analysis, the jacket’s message was to reflect the Trump Administration’s relative lack of concern for migrant families and strict immigration policies. Political pundits soon the jacket’s intention was to distract from the Trump Administration’s growing problem of detaining and separating migrant families at the southern border without a formalized plan to reunite them. On a more personal level, the former First Lady, as an immigrant herself, strongly that migrant families should not be separated at the border and wanted her husband to change his policies. As demonstrated by the two interpretations of Trump’s jacket, First Ladies’ fashion choices have historically conveyed a strong message about a presidential administration’s policies or even her opinions. Generally, as the role of the First Lady has been to support her husband, her clothing has come to bolster his authority and role as president. However, since the 1960s, the role of the First Lady has become more independent from the President. Correspondingly, these women have worn clothing that reveals their relative autonomy. Yet these pieces continue to mark their places within administrations, exemplified by Jackie Kennedy’s Francophilic wardrobe and Hillary Clinton’s pantsuits. As more women come into political power individually, female politicians’ clothing choices have become clear markers of their internal beliefs and the message their party wishes to share. With the Republican Party becoming increasingly right-leaning, the wardrobes of female GOP politicians are changing to reflect the current Republican belief that women should inhabit more traditional gender roles. The effects of this growing conservatism within the GOP are seen most visually in the clothing styles the party promotes. In more right-leaning states such as Missouri, where the Republican Party does not have to appease a sizable Democratic population in the State Assembly, the GOP passed a resolution requiring women to their arms in the House Chamber. By appealing to conservatives in this fashion, the Republican Party hoped to show that while they do have female politicians within their ranks, the men still control the party by restricting what their fellow women wear. The Democratic minority in the State Assembly vehemently the bill, with female Democrats the measure “ridiculous.” As only female Republicans touted the bill and even their Democratic colleagues for their outrage, the GOP conveyed that women do not run the party. Increasingly, laws such as this one and the fashion choices of prominent women in the GOP indicate an intention to depict them as concerned, traditional women—figures conservative Republican audiences can trust. “Mother candidates” significantly better than childless female candidates, showing why female Republicans frequently position themselves in the role of the dual mom-politician.This phenomenon is most prevalent in Senator Katie Britt’s (R-AL) choice of clothing during the GOP’s response to President Joe Biden’s State of the Union address, filmed inside her upscale designer kitchen. For female Republican politicians like Britt, their clothing selections show their ability to enact change through their office that is not too radical to engender distrust in men. Britt a green collared shirt, her business-casual choice hinting at her usefulness as a politician. Her rolled-up sleeves emphasize the “politician” facet of the mom-politician duality, showing that she intends to do her job as a representative and should be supported. The business-casual choice also indicates that Britt does not separate her motherhood from her role as a politician. Instead, the work she does for the country is an extension of the support she provides for her family. In this way, she uses her identity as a mother to legitimize her work as a politician.  Britt also sported a diamond-studded cross. A testament to her religious piety, the symbol was another message to her audience that the GOP is “Christian party.” Britt’s kitchen setting underscored her position as a concerned Christian mother looking out for her family and, by extension, all Americans. The kitchen helped Britt strike a balance between the two parts of this duality, as she hoped to make the GOP seem accessible to all Americans.Britt’s attempt to seem professional but not “too professional” was in a viral skit, as Britt’s melodramatic attempt to fully embody the roles of the concerned mother and determined politician was not well received. Her facade was not tenable. Since Britt is incapable of relating authentically to real mothers and Americans, she resorted to using her wardrobe to send political messages by emphasizing her traditionalism and adherence to Christian values.Like Britt’s clothing choices, former presidential candidate Nikki Haley’s wardrobe reflects similar themes of utility and reliability for female GOP politicians. As the only female candidate who ran for the Republican nomination, Haley’s gender was apparent. To turn this distinction into an advantage, she skirts. While this logic may seem counterintuitive, Haley used her femininity to stand out from the men. Among the sea of black suits and red ties, her skirts made her inescapable from the audience’s gaze. Haley’s traditional clothing conveyed that she did not want to be in the same way former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was for wearing pantsuits during her 2016 presidential campaign. A marker of reliability, Haley’s skirts clued Republican voters in on her preferred presidential policies regarding women’s rights. For example, Haley a de facto total abortion ban in her home state of South Carolina as a state legislator and later herself “unapologetically pro-life” while campaigning for president. As a female Republican, she has also herself a “consensus” candidate who hopes to make abortion laws appeasable to multiple audiences through compromise and discussion. The label only confirms the message her clothing sends: she is a woman, but not a radical one. In her campaign announcement, Haley also that she “did not believe in glass ceilings,” claiming that women could achieve anything if they put in the effort. Throughout her career, she has using identity politics, but Haley uses her wardrobe to embody the mom-politician duality by either emphasizing or masking her identity as a woman depending on the pertinent political issue to which she must respond.Moreover, Haley’s love of high heels her commitment to traditional femininity. She wore heels to endurance and avoid downplaying her gender, to “appear like a familiar but unthreatening figure of female authority.” Like Britt, Haley must grapple with the crumbling facade that this duality requires, as her complex relationship with identity politics shows that she struggles to maintain the right balance that her gender unfortunately requires in politics. The traditional silhouette of Haley’s 1950s Dior-esque shirt-skirt dresses with pumps made her position on her gender crystal clear: she is undeniably a woman, but she is not radical and can be trusted by Americans. As female politicians, Britt and Haley’s fashion choices reveal how women must represent their femininity in an agreeable way with the GOP’s base by simultaneously showing their utility as civil servants and reliability as caring and concerned women. The relationship between female Republicans and their party reflects the broader desire to curb the power and autonomy of American women. At the national and state levels, the GOP has proposed bills women’s healthcare and the discussion of gender and sexuality in education. By wearing clothes that suggest a more passive position, female Republican politicians convey the GOP’s position that women should be disempowered and inhabit more traditional gender roles.    The issue of fashion politics is not just about how the government influences trends and other cultural phenomena. As politicians, the Republican Party supports these trustworthy, reliable women who work to support their families and serve their country. However, the GOP’s lack of trust in female politicians has become increasingly apparent as the women of the party have had to justify their gender to have power. Leaders such as Britt and Haley have had to present themselves within the confines of their gender, repositioning their identity as women as an appeal to both male and female voters. If given the opportunity to succumb to the increasingly loud, extremely conservative voices of the party, the GOP would choose its own advancement over its women. If the Republican Party continues to support this fashion-based expectation for women in politics, political polarization will surge in an already divided country. As women with political power are limited by their male colleagues, the implications of these laws directly link to everyday American women as well. As powerful women must relinquish their authority to placate male legislators, American women will become powerless as discriminatory laws continue to pass. Dress code regulations and adherence to traditional femininity are only the start of the Republican Party’s resurgence of antiquated gender roles.It is becoming abundantly and increasingly clear that the Republican Party really doesn’t care about the treatment or status of all American women. Do u?

https://www.cpreview.org/articles/2024/6/the-fashion-of-gop-politics-how-republican-women-are-dressing-to-change-america

Sugarcoating the Truth: The Role of Lobbying in America’s Obesity Epidemic

Parishi Narain

In January 2024, Indiana State Representative John Bartlett a bill to ban high-fructose corn syrup from all food and beverage products sold in the state. The bill addresses certain ingredients unique to the American diet to be at the root of America’s obesity epidemic. A key difference between American and European diets is sweeteners. Food availability per capita (a metric for food supply after exports, imports, and processing) for is 39 kilograms in the European Union (EU), compared to 74 kilograms in the United States. Legislation addressing the role of sweeteners in the obesity epidemic must be passed to reduce American sweetener consumption and lower American obesity rates. Moreover, despite the widespread focus on high-fructose corn syrup, legislators must equally acknowledge sugar for its contribution to the declining health of American consumers. Experts the origins of America’s overconsumption of sweeteners back to the late 1970s and early 1980s, the period coinciding with the rise of ultra-processed foods and artificially sweetened beverages. The United States Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) food pyramid guidelines in 1980 fats as the primary cause of obesity. This perception was perpetuated by the 1992 graphic 6-11 servings of carbohydrates while assigning fats the label “use sparingly.” The recommendation a “low-fat craze” that urged the replacement of fats with refined grains and encouraged the U.S. diet to stray from global norms, as Americans incorrectly hailed carbs as uniquely nutritious. Sugar from carbs quickly replaced fat, resulting in food of the same caloric value being advertised as healthier through a “low-fat” label. Overconsumption of these foods, mistakenly identified as healthy despite their sugar content, in the SnackWell effect. Named after a popular low-fat high-sugar cookie, this phenomenon describes when consumers eat more of a food perceived as healthy than they otherwise would of a food deemed unhealthy, negating any potential health benefits through overconsumption. Concurrently with the rise of sugar, high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) in popularity from the 1970s to the 1990s as a cheaper alternative to table sugar, especially for producers of sweetened beverages. USDA policies encouraged corn, wheat, and soy production, and excess corn to the mass production of cheap corn starch from which HFCS is derived. The U.S. historically deviates from the rest of the world in its lack of regulation of HFCS. Title 21 of the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) Code of Federal Regulations that HFCS can be “used in food with no limitation other than current good manufacturing practice” and allows fructose proportions of 42% or 55%, whereas the EU only 20 to 30% fructose. The usage of excess corn, combined with limited HFCS regulation making the conversion of cornstarch profitable, generates a cycle that leads to abundant corn overproduction. From 2022 to 2023, the U.S. more than 387 million tons of corn, whereas the EU only 52 million tons in the same time frame. Tension between the rival corn and sugar industries has existed since the creation of HFCS. Both businesses use their financial influence as a weapon of combat through advertising and media. Sugar companies have HFCS as particularly detrimental to people’s health to market sugar as a healthier alternative, while the corn industry has HFCS to be no worse than any other sweetener. However, through lobbying, HFCS has been able to attain its dominance over sugar. Dwayne Andreas, CEO of the agricultural company Archer Daniels Midland, used his connections with former President Ronald Reagan to for sugar quotas under the guise of encouraging domestic sugar production. In fact, his ulterior motive was to restrict the supply of imported sugar, thus making HFCS the cheaper ingredient to use in mass food and beverage production. To avoid quotas and high sugar import taxes, beverage manufacturers seeking sweeteners turned to HFCS, by farm subsidies that reduced the cost of corn. The rise of sugar in the 1970s was similarly propelled by big money. The 1977 McGovern Report, published by the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Nutrition and Human Needs, helped the low-fat movement through their recommendation of reduction of consumption of fats. This report was supported by research from Harvard University nutritionists, whom the sugar industry generously for their efforts (namely the Sugar Research Foundation, now known as the Sugar Association). Decades later, both industries continue to use money as a means to gain a competitive edge. In 2011, the Sugar Association more than half of all total funding of the nonprofit Citizens for Health, an advocacy group for improved nutrition, in exchange for campaigns focused on reducing HFCS in American diets. Corn companies are equally culpable. For instance, the Corn Refiners Association (CFA) more than $30 million between 2008 and 2014 to improve the public’s perception of HFCS. In 2010, the CFA even petitioned the FDA to HFCS to “corn sugar” to distance the ingredient from its complicated name and instead invoke the public’s more positive perception of sugar. The FDA did not approve the name change, citing consumer confusion as their rationale.HFCS is correctly implicated in the rise of obesity in America. However, solely attributing the obesity epidemic to the consumption of HFCS is not entirely valid. The true cause is the addition of HFCS on top of the already large quantity of sugar consumed in the American diet. Since 1985, the annual American’s HFCS consumption has from 45 to 66 pounds. Concurrently, refined sugar consumption has increased by 5 pounds in the same time frame. This parallel growth challenges assertions that only one industry is responsible for the obesity epidemic. Despite the arguments sugar companies may try to feed the public, the industry is not blameless in the steady worsening of the American diet. The negative health effects of HFCS are exacerbated by its combination with sugar and vice versa, as by the spike in obesity rates after the creation of HFCS in 1970 and the parallel increase of sugar and HFCS production. Additionally, the chemical compositions of HFCS and table sugar do not significantly in proportions of fructose. Their similar formulas indicate that they have nearly equivalent addictive properties, as fructose dopamine neurotransmission in the same way as other addictive substances. Therefore, the inclusion of either as an ingredient in food or drink can lead to food addiction and binge eating, amplifying the public health crisis of obesity. It is tempting to think that a viable solution to the obesity epidemic in America would simply require implementing dietary regulations that prevent the sale of food and drinks containing HFCS. Along these lines, the New York State Senate considered a bill in 2016 to the sale of food products containing HFCS, which ultimately died in committee. Based on the precedent set by California Governor Gavin Newsom’s signing of Assembly Bill 418 in 2024, which banned four food additives linked to health complications, experts that banning ingredients will be a “key regulatory trend in 2024,” hinting at similar bills regulating HFCS being introduced in more states. Instead of just targeting HFCS, public health legislation must also be aimed toward the sugar industry. This two-pronged approach would ensure that American consumption of these interchangeable contributors to obesity is reduced. Reduction of corn subsidies, which were at $2.2 billion in 2019, can limit the overproduction of HFCS, which is converted from cornstarch in part due to overproduction. Harm from reduced corn subsidies would mostly be by large farms that can afford the change, as the largest 10% of farms 60% of U.S. subsidies. As for sugar, the FDA’s current plan is to easy-to-read labels that indicate sugar content for consumers, which is proven to the likelihood of a parent buying the product for their child. However, a further strategy for reducing consumption of beverages with added sugars would be leveraging an additional tax. A UC Berkeley study on five American cities that when prices of sugar-sweetened beverages increased by 33.1% through the implementation of excise taxes, there was a corresponding 33% decrease in purchases of those products. In addition to these measures, some changes must reach beyond the scope of ingredient-based legislation. For example, educational initiatives in academic institutions as well as across broader society could help Americans unlearn their biases against HFCS by emphasizing the similarities between both unhealthy sweeteners, leading to more informed consumer choices. The key to any effective sweetener reform effort is the simultaneous regulation of the production and consumption of both ingredients. Regulating only one ingredient would prove ineffective, as substitution would negate any benefits. Since the availability of HFCS as a cheaper option is key to its marketability, legislation that tackles HFCS by making it less attractive to producers would not have any meaningful impact on rates of sweetener consumption. It would simply encourage companies to pivot back to sugar. Without a comprehensive legislative solution that targets both sugar and high-fructose corn syrup, America invites a replication of the sugar industry’s previous demonization of fat, with high-fructose corn syrup as its new scapegoat, once again prioritizing industry profit over public health.

https://www.cpreview.org/articles/2024/6/sugarcoating-the-truth-the-role-of-lobbying-in-americas-obesity-epidemic

A Woman President is Not Enough: How the Mexican Election Reveals the Facade of Identity Politics

Rosie Alchalel

On Friday, March 8, Mexico headlines during International Women’s Day. Nearly 30,000 people took to the streets to protest the country’s gender-based violence known as “machismo.” This “strong-man culture,” as roughly translated in English, is ingrained in Mexican life, with approximately 10 women from domestic violence daily across the country. Indeed, Mexico’s total number of femicides in 2022 over the rest of South America’s, trailing only Brazil. As such, Mexico suffers from a dark history of femicide that infects quotidian life for women across the country. Paradoxically, Mexico is doing well with gender representation in its political institutions, at least on paper. Mexico is preparing to welcome its first woman president this June, as both frontrunner candidates are women. Additionally, Mexico is a world in female government representation, with women 50% of its Congress and nine out of 31 state governorships since 2018. The central bank’s president is also a woman, and there is nearly equal gender representation in the as well.The dichotomy between the country’s ingrained legacy of domestic violence and the widespread presence of women in government reveals the fragility behind mere representation. Femicide rates have steadily at over one victim per 100,000 women since 2017, though  female representation in government has in the same period. Although Mexico will elect a woman president on June 2, her election does not mean Mexico’s legacy of femicide will subside.The upcoming election will test the strength of the incumbent Morena party, which first won the presidency in 2018 and is led by the left-wing, populist President Andrés Manuel López Obrador (AMLO). The 2018 election marked a departure from the establishment’s dominance of the Mexican political system, and it instilled a renewed sense of hope for change among the masses. Though AMLO has broad popular support across his six-year tenure, his presidency has been marked by growing polarization. The outgoing president might consider himself a threat to the establishment, but he is also widely recognized as a threat to historically respected political norms in Mexico. Prestigious policy think tanks and journals such as ,,the , and have long deemed AMLO a threat to Mexican democracy, as evidenced by his attempt to the National Electoral Institute (INE) and of the Mexican military.  Importantly, the president also has a tainted record on women’s issues. He caused widespread outrage last August for that his critics could be accused of committing “‘gender-based violence’ against him.” In response, AMLO doubled down by rhetorically asking reporters during his morning press conference, “‘is gender only female?’” Many prominent feminists and women this as insensitive and out of touch, especially considering his to counter the country’s high femicide rate. Though AMLO campaigned in 2018 on the promise to reduce femicide, rates have actually throughout his tenure. Currently, 12 women die from femicide each day in Mexico, which has risen from 10 per day in 2018 when AMLO was elected. In light of AMLO’s failure to curb femicide, voters will choose between two accomplished, female presidential candidates on June 2. AMLO’s Morena has strategically selected Claudia Sheinbaum, the former mayor of Mexico City. The opposition candidate, Xóchitl Gálvez, is backed by a coalition of establishment parties, including the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI), the National Action Party (PAN), and the Party of the Democratic Revolution (PRD). Both candidates have unique backgrounds. Gálvez has indigenous roots, and Sheinbaum has Jewish heritage. However, their identities are not representative of their political bases. Gálvez repeatedly fails to garner indigenous support, whereas Sheinbaum avoids her Jewish identity. Instead of appealing to identity, both candidates reach out to voters on the campaign trail by focusing their messaging on socioeconomic policies.If voters elect Sheinbaum, she would become Mexico’s first Jewish president. However, Sheinbaum has rarely her Jewish identity throughout her political career. She has not a public stance on the Israel-Hamas war and is not known to be with a major Jewish community in Mexico. Still, appealing to the Mexican Jewish base is not politically advantageous, as Jews less than 1% of the population. Moreover, supporting Israel is likely to anger her leftist base, many of whom have expressed dismay with their country’s support of the Jewish state, having to the Israeli embassy in late May.  Unlike Sheinbaum, Gálvez repeatedly makes references to her identity to appeal to Mexico’s large indigenous base through the of traditional indigenous clothing and incessant to her upbringing. As indigenous people for over 20% of Mexico's population, Gálvez’s references to her indigenous upbringing are strategic appeals to this voting base. Nonetheless, these claims remain unsuccessful, as Gálvez in the polls by 17%. These statistics are not exclusively indicative of this shortfall, since Gálvez is also struggling to to other voter groups across the country, even in her home town of Tepatepec.Another base that the candidates seek to appeal to is the female base. Both candidates’ platforms acknowledge the country’s alarming femicide rates and include reforms to tackle them. Each includes practical reforms, with Sheinbaum to require female lawyers in every public ministry and Gálvez academic scholarships to children orphaned because of femicide. Both also pledge to investigate every female death as a femicide. These reforms, however, are reactionary instead of preventative, as they fail to tackle or identify the root causes of femicide. I, like many others, am excited to see Mexico take this revolutionary step in electing a woman president and hope to see them realize their platforms on equality. As evident through an analysis of their identities, Sheinbaum and Gálvez’s ethnic and religious backgrounds are not indicative that they will pass inclusive policies. The significant milestone achieved by the election of Mexico’s first woman president should not distract from the pervasive, gendered violence destroying the lives of so many women on a daily basis. In a country plagued by femicide, the president’s sex is merely trivial without concrete reforms to reduce the femicide rate to zero.

https://www.cpreview.org/articles/2024/6/a-woman-president-is-not-enough-how-the-mexican-election-reveals-the-facade-of-identity-politics

Modern Slaves Are Being Killed For Blue Gold. American Companies Should Stop Funding It.

Traolach O’Sullivan

Cobalt, also as blue gold, is the shiny metallic base of a trillion-dollar supply chain that powers everything from phones and computers to electric cars and jet engines. The mineral’s ability to maintain energy density for the most powerful, stable, and long lasting battery on the market: the lithium-ion. But beneath the glittering Apple stores and Tesla showrooms is a dark underbelly of environmental destruction and human exploitation that has been an example of abject slavery in the modern day. Cobalt is overwhelmingly concentrated in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, which 73% of the world’s cobalt in 2022 and is currently by violent conflicts and some of the most abhorrent labor practices in modern history. There is, of course, money to be made from such a blessing of natural resources: Congolese elites, Chinese mining conglomerates, and American multinational corporations have every effort to do so. Still, no amount of blue gold can be worth the human toll this extractionary system has charged. The sheer volume of people affected and the severity of suffering is hard to fathom without boots on the ground, but try to picture this: Tens of thousands of child laborers; women with infants on their backs who make ends meet by down into the mines alongside their husbands, enduring long hours in grueling conditions for hardly more than a dollar a day; poorly supported mines that often, burying alive dozens and sometimes hundreds of people at a time. Injuries are a daily if not hourly occurrence, with people broken bones, cancers, kidney ailments, and metal lung disease from the toxic cobalt dust they cannot avoid breathing in. All of this profound human suffering is tolerated to sustain the cobalt fix of developed countries. International knowledge about the situation is characteristically—perhaps —murky, but the last couple of years have witnessed a rising international outcry over human rights abuses and environmental destruction of the mining regions. The tricky question that activists face is that of moral responsibility at the end of the supply chain; to what extent can we hold Western companies that have multiple layers of separation from the Congo accountable for participating in this patently inhumane system? Indeed, to what extent are we, consumers at the receiving end of the supply chain, responsible for the abuse?One group of seventeen Congolese miners, many of whom were into the industry as children, took a stance on this by five of the biggest American tech companies—Alphabet, Apple, Dell, Tesla, and Microsoft—in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The families of these miners their case on the Trafficking Victim Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA), a 2008 law that punishes any group that “knowingly” participates in “a venture that engaged in trafficking crimes.” The miners made multiple arguments to convey that their labor was forced; anecdotes about employers workers who quit mines with the worst conditions on regional blacklists, and also showing how devastation of land by mines the fishing and agricultural industries. Through elimination of the industries which had previously thrived in the region, locals were thereby “forced” into the only available employment where they endured these horrid conditions at exploitatively low pay. The argument against Western companies through the TVPRA is staked on a claim that they knew this was occurring. But proving this is tricky because few outsiders have set foot in cobalt mines. Siddharth Kara, cobalt muckraker, emphasizes this as intentional when describing his being roughed up by militias in the mining regions: fearful of outsiders, he they “demanded to see my phone to see if I was taking photos” because “they know there are people who are trying to figure out what’s the truth around here.” Murkiness of information was also in the lawsuit as miners complained Western companies use it “intentionally” as a crutch “to avoid formal association,” despite the fact that “everyone in the venture knows” there is foul play. While these miners endured horrid conditions and companies knew, the lack of clarity on exactly how much foul play and how closely companies were tied to it through a given supplier led to the case being this March. The court that the meaning of “venture” in the TVPRA meant relationships with “a common purpose, shared profits and risk, or control.” Apparently, this had to mean something more than a simple buying relationship. The court also that “tech companies purchase an unspecified amount of cobalt from a supply chain originating in the DRC mines does not plausibly demonstrate” participation in such a venture.While the facts of the case can make it feel as if the court adjudicated incorrectly, we should also recognize the fact that the TVPRA, as a piece of human trafficking legislation, does not cut to the core of the issue. At the heart of this is a moral contradiction between how the U.S. stakes its legitimacy for global governance and the realities of the global economy; it espouses idealistic commitments to egalitarian values and leverages these for its legitimacy as a “leader of the free world,” yet is utterly complicit and beneficiary to the backbreaking labor of people in Congo and elsewhere who live under the antithesis of that. Legislators must set explicit limits on the extractive dynamics of our supply chains. For example, it should also be bad to rely on cobalt to meet our climate goals through electric vehicles if the way we get them causes toxic waste, deforestation, and other destruction of natural ecosystems. Is this hypocrisy inevitable in our economic system? Is the prosperity of some humans, companies, and societies necessarily tied to the destruction of others? If we accept the moral imperative that atrocious labor practices in Congo cannot continue, and the environmental imperative that a green transition should not involve devastation of the natural ecosystems of our supply chains, then a clear (albeit unintuitive) answer emerges: the American government has to find a way to address what is occurring in Congo as a matter of domestic policy. This is not a neo-colonial, “white savior” call for outsiders to lead the charge and “fix” things in Congo. The Congolese people have agency and deserve to lead efforts with their wealth of local knowledge. Rather, the call for greater domestic accountability by America on the cobalt issue is a recognition that its companies and consumers have played a key role in fueling the problem: we must demand more of the multi-billion-dollar American corporations that sell the final products of this cobalt economy. It must be unacceptable to buy cobalt that has been stained by the blood of child labor, as well as the host of other abuses that in artisanal mines. In setting up an ethically sourced policy for cobalt and other key minerals which we rely on to drive the technological and green revolutions of this century, the following should be considered: making sure Western companies work exclusively with suppliers who pay miners a living wage. Then they can spare the burden of putting their wives and kids to work. Further there must be a general restructuring towards more humane working conditions, starting with protective equipment and an 8-hour work day. All of this will require significant improvements in transparency throughout the supply chains. This is a difficult task at the base where militias out of neighboring Rwanda as well as the interests of the Congolese government combine to make things murky through violence. For example Siddarth Kara of near death experiences in the mining regions by militias who were “roughing me up [and] kicking us around demanding to see my phone to see if I was taking photos,” because “they know there are people who are trying to figure out what’s the truth around here.” Yet the Chinese companies who process cobalt and Western manufacturers of final goods have significant leverage through the power of the purse, and they must use it to demand ethical and transparent supply chains. Otherwise money must be redirected towards cobalt economies like Indonesia, Australia, and the Philippines. This is of course not in the financial interest of these companies, evident by the fact that they continue business as usual and avoid publicly disclosing what they know about their supply chains.The extractive nature of this economy, by international interests at the expense of the Congolese people, should also be countered. It is ironic that one of the most crucial regions for the green transition hardly has electricity itself; The DRC a 9% electrification rate, and about 0.3-0.4% in rural areas. Outside of the big cities, there is almost no public infrastructure to of. Investment in schools and health clinics is badly . World Bank data just 16% of Congolese people have access to basic sanitation. Child mortality 12th worst in the world, and life expectancy is about 59 years. Is it too much to ask that American companies make investments in these areas? Siddharth Kara this would be a drop in the bucket, a mere “rounding error on the balance sheet.” Perhaps consumers would face a small markup so that exploitative dynamics are fully eradicated from the business relationships that provide their cobalt. At the very least, it would be a good way of paying gratitude for the cutting edge tech and relative prosperity we enjoy.As the chief evangelist of liberal democracy and a country that aspires to be the leader of the free world, the United States must do more to clean up the cobalt supply chain in which its biggest and most powerful companies play a driving role. Policymakers must take up the task of drafting legislation that unequivocally addresses the problem of modern slavery, even if it comes at the expense of its blood-soaked coffers. If we do nothing, we tacitly accept a world where colonialism has merely transformed into neocolonialism and where the suffering is exponential. Siddharth Kara addresses this by a powerful parallel to Joseph Conrad’s infamous 1906 book about colonial violence in Congo, . When King Leopold ruled the Congo a century ago, he the people in a brutal rubber economy to supply tires for the burgeoning automobile revolution. Now as we are in another automobile revolution in the twenty first century, Congo yet again sits on a critical ingredient for industrial success. Yet again it is being looted by foreign interests, and yet again its people suffer extreme abuse while the country reaps no reward. No more mothers and sons should be buried by their weight in blue gold, subject to the black irony that their only chance at a livelihood is likely to kill them. There must be another way.

https://www.cpreview.org/articles/2024/6/modern-slaves-are-being-killed-for-blue-gold-american-companies-should-stop-funding-it

The Choice Is Yours, Columbia

Cherry Tang

The war in Gaza—distant enough for the University to tiptoe around, yet somehow too important to stop bankrolling.On Monday, April 29, Columbia University President Minouche Shafik finally that “the University will not divest from Israel.” Early Tuesday morning, April 30, students Hamilton Hall. Later that evening, police Columbia’s campus in riot gear atop a military-grade mega truck after authorization from the University.Shafik “” some compromises on Monday, such as an expedited review of new investment proposals by the . Even a cursory glance reveals that her proposals are far more rhetorical than meaningful. For one, the Advisory Committee’s role is to “” and  “” to the University’s Board of Trustees on ethical and social issues—none of which are binding.Shafik’s proposals ultimately fail to divert attention from the University’s war profiteering and investments linked to “Israeli apartheid, genocide and occupation in Palestine.” The University’s response, however, reveals a bigger problem: the drastic difference between university management’s and student activists’ central values. Whereas students have for an ethical reevaluation of university policies, university management has prioritized the preservation of institutional harmony and public image.In part, such a misaligned academic environment must be understood in the context of the universities’ entanglement with the military. It is an old story (e.g. Stuart W. Leslie’s of the military-industrial-academic complex), but it must be retold in light of the increased militarism we see on campus.Our private, not-for-profit universities are entangled with the nation’s defense activities in three main ways. First, contracts and grants. Universities regularly research grants from the Department of Defense (DOD) that “research in areas relevant to the DOD’s mission and important to national security.” Reporters in 2022 that colleges “receive six- and seven-figure grants from Lockheed and other defense contractors—or even more massive sums from the Department of Defense.” This money is often on fields that produce defense-oriented technologies, such as materials science and biological research.Second, the talent pipeline. Defense firms actively STEM graduates from major universities through partnered internship programmes and sponsored research. Third, investments. Universities, especially the Ivy Leagues, have endowments. A portion of this money, as we know, is in companies involved in war zones or with belligerents of wars, like defense contractors.These long-standing military ties have cultivated an environment of partisanship in universities, effectively constraining their ability to embrace ethical debates on campus—in four interrelated ways.First, military funding and talent partnerships lead to the prioritization of certain types of research—typically, those that are aligned with defense interests. Columbia University itself was a leading contributor to the critical research behind the Manhattan Project. After the university accepted a War Department contract in 1943, it substantially the Special Alloyed Materials Laboratories which later employed almost 1,000 scientists and workers. The Manhattan Project—engineered to the mass slaughter of innocents—marked the beginning of the academy’s interests in defense initiatives.The ties between universities and the military continued to after the Second World War, driven in part by the growing importance of advanced technology in military success, the onset of the Cold War, and the government’s increased emphasis on military activities generally. Other schools like MIT, Caltech, and Harvard as major non-industrial defense contractors, with MIT alone amassing contracts worth $117 million ( at p.14). These partnerships only after 9/11 and have since become integral to the financial structure of universities.This kind of academic-military entanglement has universities “de facto branches of the military.” It the universities’ research agenda and priorities, leading to a focus on technological and strategic aspects of military science at the expense of studies into the ethical, legal, and humanitarian impacts of warfare. Second, this academic-military entanglement makes it institutionally risky to challenge defense strategies. While student protests against unethical investments in conflicts have worked before, these efforts were often assisted by broader political and public sentiment. In 2006, students across the country massive protests for divestment from Sudan in light of the humanitarian crisis in the region. However, the U.S.-Sudan relationship had been since 1967, after Sudan went to war with Israel. The U.S. government itself Sudan’s human rights abuses and provided humanitarian aid to those affected. Without much difficulty, the Advisory Committee Columbia’s Trustees to divest from Sudan.In 1978, after 21 days of over investments in the apartheid regime in South Africa, Columbia’s Board of Trustees to divest from South Africa completely. However, the apartheid had begun as far back as the 1940s, and the anti-apartheid movement had already kicked into high gear by the 1950s. Furthermore, in 1962, the United Nations General Assembly a resolution requesting that member states sever diplomatic relations with South Africa. In 1972, Congress the first Anti-Apartheid Act. Across these cases, universities followed the nation’s lead in pursuing efforts toward divestment. In contrast, the war in Gaza is unapologetically by the U.S. government. In response to calls for divestment from Israel, it seems that the university could not help but to consider what its defense friends thought. Thus, significant public resistance to unethical practices can indeed influence the momentum towards students’ calls for divestment. But without such external moral and political pressure, it seems fanciful to expect the university to overcome its inherent conservatism and risk-aversion cultivated by its deep-rooted ties to defense interests.Third, these defense ties marginalize serious debates about questionable university policies.“95% of the young people who are on these campuses are there because they believe there is a fundamental injustice being perpetrated in Israel,” as Senator Chris Murphy (D-CT) . On the contrary, 95% of the university’s actions and statements are centered around fear, racism, rebellion, threat, safety, danger, and hostility. Student activists were by Shafik as “creating a disruptive environment for everyone and raising safety risks to an intolerable level.” Not once did Shafik mention the atrocities of the armed conflict. The most the President has about the war was that “our campus is roiled by divisions over the war in Gaza.” By framing student advocacy as a fear-inducing threat, the University has sidestepped important discussions about the human costs of warfare—to which it is actively contributing.Fourth, partisanship sets the perfect backdrop for universities to blend ethical discussions with racial and nationalist sentiments.The University, alongside the U.S. government, has serious accusations of antisemitism to invalidate recent student protests. However, criticisms of the Israeli government’s human rights abuses hastily labeled as antisemitism. Such accusations have effectively masked the need for the University to fully embrace debate over questionable military policies.By brushing aside these debates, then, the University can easily enforce double standards in its handling of student activism. Students have lawsuits and federal investigators have into “extreme anti-Palestinian, anti-Arab, and Islamophobic harassment” on campus. Yet, not once has the University shared this same fear expressed by its students. Instead, these students have been “all members of our community” or ambiguously categorized as “other students.” These double standards create a divisive atmosphere on campus and constrain the possibility of finding common values between students and administrators.The University’s excessive entanglement with defense interests has produced a considerable disconnect between management and education. It has shifted from being impartial conveyors of knowledge to salient players in a knowledge economy that prioritizes partisan values over humanitarianism.The academy has arrived at a critical juncture: it can either embrace the discomfort of debate or remain an instrument of the military.

https://www.cpreview.org/articles/2024/5/the-choice-is-yours-columbia

Taiwan’s Weakness in the Face of China

Andrew Chung

On January 13, 2024, Taiwan’s citizens cast ballots across the country for their next president and legislators. As votes were tabulated, no one watched more closely than President Xi Jinping of the People’s Republic of China (PRC). After the election, Beijing continued to claim Taiwan as its own territory and accelerated its timeline to force Taiwan’s unification with China. Taiwan’s divided government poses a long-term risk to its sovereignty, enabling President Xi to foment gridlock, preventing Taiwan from maintaining critical components of defense against China. This new weakness gives Xi the opportunity to pursue long-term unification through economic pressure and international isolation. Indeed, the split government will likely prevent Taiwan from marshaling the resources and political resolve necessary to deter a future Chinese invasion.In the face of growing Chinese aggression, the candidates for the presidency all had differing stances on Taiwanese independence, which shed light on their party’s future policy preferences toward China. The Democratic Progressive Party’s (DPP) candidate, Lai Ching-te, supports maintaining the status quo while economic and security relations with Washington. This status quo represents a lack of change, as Lai his willingness to both assert Taiwanese democratic independence. He also acccepts that the 1992 consensus, which that there is only one China, with Taiwan as a territory. Meanwhile, the Kuomintang’s candidate, Hou You-yi, rejects independence, and instead advocates for open dialogue with China for business relations. Ko Wen-je of the Taiwan People’s Party supports co-existence with China, merely maintaining the status quo. As each of these parties maintain coexistence with one another, especially under divided government, each will have to negotiate a compromise that can win legislative votes and the president’s signature, including opening some communication between the two governments and trade, whilst maintaining the right of Taipei to rule over the island.Taiwan didn’t give a resounding win to the DPP in the legislature is an omen of future dysfunction, which China is likely to weaponize to its advantage, the Kuomintang 52 seats, the DPP received 51 seats, and the Taiwan People’s Party attained 8 seats, preventing any party from receiving a majority. Just several days after the result, however, the KMT’s candidate, Han Kuo-yu, the speakership in the legislature, confirming Taiwan’s divided government. More importantly, the TPP for their own candidate for speaker and refused to form a coalition government, illustrating how all three parties refuse to cooperate with each other on policies related to the economy and sovereignty, highlighting larger legislative fights. For example, differences in economic policy between the KMT and DPP came on full display, as the DPP-controlled presidency a free trade agreement that would facilitate increased trade into China. Meanwhile, candidate Hou Yu-ih of the KMT maintains that more trade with China and others is necessary for a successful economy, just as Ma Ying-jeou did with China, New Zealand, and Singapore in 2008. As all of these factors come into play, Taiwan’s election highlighted steep divisions, enabling further interference from China.In addition to falling support internationally for its legitimacy as an independent state, Taiwan’s government faces additional domestic fissions that threaten to weaken it further. The split between the legislature and presidency means that negotiations have to be made between the two parties for different policies. This is likely to force President-elect Lai to moderate, ranging from domestic budgets to foreign policy. Lai on financial sustainability by increasing minimum wages and expanding national healthcare, but many are likely to end in compromise. As Taiwan have to pass a new budget with defense spending, energy policy, and more, differences within the administration will highlight the new dysfunctional nature of the government. Though Taiwan has had a government in the past—such as in 2008, when the KMT’s Ma Ying-Jeou won the presidential election—polarization has continued to hit the country. For example, the percentage of voters they have a Taiwanese, and not Chinese, identity has skyrocketed to a record 67%, highlighting a changing country that is in support of its independence. Political infighting and divisions have changed the landscape of Taiwanese politics since 2008, and certainly will cause more dysfunction as a lack of consensus among the people demonstrates the lack of an ability to pass a well-supported defense policy to defend against China. This national disunity is critically important in determining the future of Taiwan’s  defense spending and strategy. The Taiwanese public is increasingly on how they should spend money on defense; in just one recent poll, 35.4% of voters said that defense spending was too high, and 44.6% said it was right. The chasm widens across party lines, as 60% of DPP voters in the same poll said defense spending was at the right level, while 60% of KMT voters, and 43% of TPP voters, said defense spending was too high. As party differences over how to handle defense funds continue to widen, it becomes clear that the divided government may struggle to pass a defense budget that all sides would be satisfied with. This dysfunction would also be on display to the international community—especially to China—highlighting potential future weaknesses in Taiwan’s defense policy. International support for Taiwan’s defense against a PRC invasion is also in peril, as Taipei’s allies struggle to pass their own defense budgets. In the United States, funding struggles as the Republican-controlled House of Representatives failed to put together a full-year budget that would Taiwan’s need for $5 billion of support from the United States in the case of an invasion. As military support becomes unstable, Taiwan is further imperiled and exposed  the PRC’s coercion.For Beijing, pushing for unification between China and Taiwan has been a shadow war of economic and diplomatic coercion. Notwithstanding the policy of peaceful unification, China has been its People’s Liberation Army (PLA) for a potential use of armed forces by 2027, as evidenced by increased military drills over the Taiwan Strait. These actions, however, have as of yet to be followed by direct military aggression, but their continued use will mean that China will not stray away from elements of military intimidation.Instead, China has been pursuing a policy of international isolation through strategic diplomacy, where Beijing slowly chips away  at Taiwan’s allies through economic inducements. Under the One China policy, Taiwan is currently only by a small number of countries in Latin America, such as El Salvador, who  recognize its government as the official government of China. However, those supporters have dwindled in recent years. Since 2016, nine countries—more than one-third of those with whom Taiwan has formal diplomatic ties—have ties with Taipei in favor of Beijing, starting when Honduras cut ties to gain economic support from China amid the nation’s worsening debt crisis. Additionally, the international reaction to President Lai’s election last month led Nauru to also ties with Taiwan mere days after the election. Now, Taiwan only has formal recognition from 12 countries worldwide, for just 0.17% of the world’s economy and 0.5% of the world’s population. In addition, the United Nations does recognize Taiwan, denying it an international platform. China’s current policies are working to chip away at Taiwan’s critical international support, and it may push the island into further isolation as Beijing flexes its economic weight abroad.Though China’s reaction to Lai’s win in Taiwan was quite harsh, the reaction has yet to produce any real military incursion. In fact, in the lead up to the election, Beijing visibly military activity in Taiwan temporarily in hopes that the pro-independence candidate would not be supported out of fear, similar to 2020 with President Tsai’s re-election. However, Taiwan is still at risk of getting negatively influenced by China through its use of more indirect measures to control the economy.One likely future course of action is a continuation in the use of economic inducements to chip away at Taiwan’s diplomatic allies as well as economic coercion to deter support for Taiwan. In 2019, for example, China the small country of Kiribati and the Solomon Islands away from Taiwanese alliance to Chinese alliance, using the promise of increasing logging industries and providing opportunities that Taiwan and the United States could not match. These economic tactics pull away more Taiwanese allies, isolating the island from any international support, as it is outspent by the government in Beijing. Further, ahead of the election, China made of tariffs, tightening restrictions on chemical imports and US defense companies and freezing their assets, both in an attempt to choke US support for Taiwan and paint the ruling DPP administration as hurting Taiwan’s economy through its push for sovereignty. Though the DPP’s candidate won the election, continued use of these tactics in the future provide another opportunity for Beijing to score wins economically from Taiwan, and force its hand to gain lucrative trade and diplomatic agreements that chip away at sovereignty, until Taiwan becomes part of China in the long future. Though China doesn’t appear to have invasion planned in the near future, China has gained immense coercive power through its economic strength as well as the relative weakness of Taiwan, particularly as the island nation loses allies internationally and political fissions form within the national government. China continues to threaten invasion, especially with military drills to assert territorial claims, but has to act on it. Instead, the coercive tactics that China wields further poses a risk to the already-strained relationship. The PRC has a new opportunity to progress towards unification, and though President Xi has not used military incursions yet, he wields powerful coercive tactics that could open the possibility to it. Thus, the split government in Taiwan will prevent them from committing resources and demonstrating political resolve that is necessary to deter China. 

https://www.cpreview.org/articles/2024/5/taiwans-weakness-in-the-face-of-china

Putin’s Soviet Nostalgia: The Revival of the USSR’s Legacy in Modern Russian Media

Lizzie Melashvili

The Russia-Ukraine War drastically escalated on February 20, 2022, when Russian military forces invaded Ukraine’s sovereign territory, resulting in thousands of civilian casualties, the displacement of residents, and environmental damage. But the war first in 2014, with Russia’s annexation of the Crimean Peninsula. Russia was also in conflict with eastern Ukraine, particularly in the Donbas region, providing support to separatist groups and escalating violence in the area. These repeated acts of aggression were no mere coincidence. Russia has frequently the governments of post-Soviet states and threatened their security, including Ukraine’s. The historical legacy of the Soviet Union plays a significant role in shaping Russia’s tensions with the neighboring former-Soviet republics.Many post-Soviet states, particularly in Eastern Europe and the Caucasus, the Soviet era with varying degrees of bitterness borne from political repression, forced Russification, and other forms of social and political control. Whether it be through the war with Ukraine, the of 20% of Georgia’s territories, or a persistent military throughout the region, Russian President Vladimir Putin’s leadership regularly expresses Soviet models of control and expansionism. Similarly, in both the Soviet Union and modern Russia, there is a notable concentration of political power in the hands of a minute, central leadership. These parallels a degree of continuity between the Soviet governance model and modern Russian autocracy. Russia’s political system and its geopolitical relations with the post-Soviet bloc are particularly relevant in the context of the ongoing Russia-UkraineWar. The Western perspective the conflict emphasizing principles of international law, national sovereignty, and human rights. Despite Western media bias, perspective is not widely impacted by the state. The West’s relationship with the media facilitates conversations based on objective reporting, which lead citizens to accordingly disapprove of Kremlin rule. Meanwhile, in Russia, the Kremlin’s tight grip on media content public opinion creating a more emotional and subjective understanding of the conflict.Vladimir Putin employs media control techniques reminiscent of the Soviet era, shaping public opinion, suppressing dissent among Russian citizens, and exerting a strong influence over the nation’s political landscape. Naturally, as technology has developed worldwide since the Soviet period, the state’s capacity to certain sources, opinions, and ideas has become more accessible and widespread. In modern Russia, there are more complex and pervasive ways of spreading the Kremlin’s propaganda and hand-selected narratives. These methods have been used intensively in the state media’s of the Russian attack on Ukraine, presenting a misleading of peace and conformity to the Russian citizenry. The power Putin possesses with the development of technology, heightens these strategies in the modern age, posing a bigger threat to global politics. By examining themedia strategies of Putin following the Russian invasion of Ukraine, one can observe how public opinion in Russia is mediated by the state. Putin’s personal image is hugely important to Russian citizens and simultaneously correlated with certain Soviet models of expansionism, belligerence, and manipulation. Putin uses his platform to speak directly to Russians and shape their understanding of the conflict. When Russian forces invaded Ukraine, Putin the tension between the two nations, attempting to redefine the conflict on his own . He referred to Kyiv as a genocidal regime and mentioned the need for a “de-Nazification of Ukraine.” By Russia as a victim to the unjust acts of Ukraine, he justified his “special military operation” as a response to the crimes committed against Russian-speaking Ukranians. In his speeches, he frequently accuses others of prompting Russia’s military violence by phrasing situations in a way that imposes a narrative of the “world against Russia.”Similarly, at the 18th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union in 1939, Stalin various issues facing the country, including the that imprisoned and executed his rivals and the alleged existence of internal enemies such as political rivals and critics. He framed the purges as necessary measures to protect the socialist state from counter-revolutionary elements, while not acknowledging the true scale of human rights abuses and political repression his party imposed on civilians. Instead, he attention by accentuating the righteousness of his actions in fortifying the safety of the USSR. Much like Putin, his narrative was one of victimization, presenting the USSR as under siege from an internal enemy. This narrative necessitated a united Russian front against alleged traitors, a sentiment Putin echoes today. He has adapted to the digital age and leverages the use of online platforms, creating a new frontier for spreading propaganda and controlling the narrative. Not only is his personality in tune with that era, but it is intensified by its mass spread domestically and internationally due to rapid globalization and technological developments.  In a 2015 interview with Russian state media, Putin that his government had “no desire to recreate the empire, to resurrect the Soviet Union, but [had] to protect our Russian independence and sovereignty.” Multiple times, Putin has denied the narrative of Russia wanting to reunite the USSR. However, his interest in “Russian independence and sovereignty” directly aligns his methods with the Soviet model of enclosing citizens in a vacuum of disinformation. While Putin the distinction of modern Russia from the USSR, his government uses state media channels to promote a specific narrative, a tactic analogous to the Soviet system, which facilitated strict government control of the media through the censorship of TV channels. 70% of Russia’s population to television for information, which means that Russian media outlets hold significant sway over public opinion. A prominent example of this is the state television channel , which is a consistent source of Russian propaganda.Russia Today (RT) showed a warped of the 2008 Russo-Georgian war and  did so again during Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. In Russia Today’s archives, there are multiple of a tactical use of headlines to promote extreme Russian nationalism. In a broadcast on February 25, 2022, days after Russia's attack, one headline : "Operation in Ukraine: Russia had no choice but to act in this way." Another headline on RT read "Russia: National security threats left no choice but to start military operation."RT continuously refers to the war as a “special military operation” and presents Russia’s violence as defensive. By calling the invasion of Ukraine a “special military operation,” Putin is able to paint a more palatable image of Russia’s actions. Through this meticulous use of terminology, he consistently presents an idealized version of Russia’s military aggression. This is through Putin’s use of words such as “liberator” in reference to Russia and how it “freed” citizens from Kyiv’s attacks. The selective use of images and phrases, while similar to the Soviet era, is immensely stronger, as the development of certain technology only helps the spread of information as such.Selectively presenting information to shape public perception occurs through the framing of events, minimization of negative news, and promotion of a positive image of government. Izvestia was the and publication of the Soviet government. It covered foreign relations and was known as the mouthpiece of the Kremlin. During the 1939-40 Winter War between Finland and the Soviet Union, Izvestia on Finland’s actions regarding peaceful citizens, claiming that “Mannerheim’s bandits burn homes, kill workers, and terrorize the population in an incredible way.” While the USSR clearly to gain territory bringing upon a bloody war to the much smaller nation of Finland, their newspapers focused on the treatment of citizens and mass executions by Finland, presenting the country in a certain way. Meanwhile Western media looked at the broader picture and sympathized with the outnumbered Finnish soldiers presenting them as brave defenders against Soviet aggression. As with any other Soviet paper of the time, Izvestia placed Russia on the moral high ground. This control over information and its framing is part of what connects the two eras of Russian media. The current Russian system is able to take these methods, and exemplify them through the massive use of television and other technological efforts to spread propaganda as rapidly as possible. The Russian government the information that the Russian people receive. During coverage of the Ukrainian war, Russian media was very careful with the images it released to the public. The Novaya Gazeta media outlet out a poster held by a protester who a broadcast of Vremya, a Russian state TV network. Her poster read, “No war. Stop the war. Don’t believe the propaganda. They’re lying to you here. Russians against War.” Blurring images and other forms of censorship restrict Russians from seeing perspectives on the war other than that of the Russian state.Novaya Gazeta a blurred image of the poster on their social media accounts, claiming that “the contents [were] forbidden by the Criminal Code” and had to be erased. There are multiple laws regarding the media in Russia that monitor and regulate activity of media sources. When the war in Ukraine broke out, the government a censorship law that banned independent media sources from using the words “war,” “invasion,” and “attack,” to “fake news.” The law criminalized independent reporting on the war, making it punishable by up to 15 years in jail. Thus, legal regulations enforced the state’s chosen narrative.The Russian foreign agent law is another prominent censorship law that “patriotic” coverage rather than coverage that “Western ideals”. There is a clear disregard for foreign narratives due to the output of state controlled images. For example, two independent Russian websites, Meduza and Mediazona, were and declared “foreign agents” due to the content that they presented regarding the Ukrainian war. They had called the conflict a “war” and often the government. Meduza now has to its new status as a “foreign agent,” resulting in a loss of credibility among the Russian public.Similarly, the Soviet Union exercised strict control over all forms of media.Any media or individuals who expressed views critical of the government were quickly censored or silenced. During Soviet rule, there was a protection organ called Glavlit which “state secrets” in articles, newspapers, television, and literature. The domestic manipulation of narratives has been an essential factor in the perpetuation of the Russia-Ukraine War. Historical ties to the Soviet Union help explain the Kremlin’s flaunting of democratic norms and strict control over the media—with both contributing to Russia’s confident use of aggressive military force. This power over narrative in the country has only gotten stronger over the years, and even more dangerous. Despite Putin’s carefully manicured public image, some are able to see him for who he really is: a man who not only threatens the security of post-Soviet nations along his country’s borders, but one who lies to Russia’s citizens about its acts of invasion and oppression.

https://www.cpreview.org/articles/2024/5/putins-soviet-nostalgia-the-revival-of-the-ussrs-legacy-in-modern-russian-media

Why Prosecuting Mass Shooters’ Parents Will Help Curb Gun Violence

Charla Teves

Since Columbine in 1999, thousands of students have the traumatic emotional and physical impacts of gun violence, which has sharply since 2021. To mitigate future harms, attorneys are now focusing their energy on a novel strategy for punishing gun violence perpetrators: prosecuting their parents. Previous legal strategies to reduce gun violence have included gun manufacturers, redress from school administrators for the failure to identify at-risk students, and law enforcement accountable for slow emergency response. Following the 2021 Oxford High School shooting, prosecutors took a different route. In addition to prosecuting Ethan Crumbley, the Michigan teenager who killed four students and consequently received a life sentence without the possibility for parole, the state also prosecuted his parents, Jennifer and James, both of whom were to 15 years of prison.This strategy has been attempted before against the parents of school shooters, such as with Deja Taylor, who was sentenced to 21 months in prison for pleading guilty to a charge of felony child neglect after her six-year-old accessed her handgun and his elementary school teacher in Virginia in 2023. However, the Crumbleys’ case creates a new precedent, as it is the first time two parents have been convicted in connection to a school shooting committed by their child. In Jennifer’s trial, prosecutors that she neglected her duties as a parent specifically by prioritizing time with her horses and extramarital affair over her son and neglecting his clear need for mental health care. Most importantly, the prosecution noted that the semi-automatic pistol Ethan used in the shooting was a present by his father and that his mother took him to a shooting range with it a few days before the mass shooting. The historic case against the Crumbleys is not just about their son’s access to a gun in their household, but how they unconsciously played a direct role in their child’s fatal actions.In her instructions to the jury in Jennifer’s trial, judge Cheryl Matthews that Michigan state law establishes that parents have a duty to reasonably care for their minor child to prevent them from posing a threat of harm to themselves and others. As seen with Jennifer’s prioritization of personal activities, prosecutors showed that Jennifer did not meet the requirements detailed in the state law. Additionally, the jury that Jennifer failed to perform her legal duty as a parent, finding her guilty on all four counts of involuntary manslaughter—one count for each child Ethan murdered. This new prosecutorial strategy presents legal and social ramifications for parents as it changes how they engage in their child’s life. A 2020 study that half of mass school shootings are committed by current or former students, and 76% of school shooters have a firearm from the house of a parent or relative. Additionally, a 2009 study that parental neglect had one of the strongest links to delinquency in children and that poor support by fathers has a greater impact on sons than poor support by mothers. This could possibly explain, though not justify, Ethan’s criminal behaviors. In light of this research, parents may be more incentivized to participate in their children’s lives to prevent these crimes. If parents are now held responsible in criminal court for their child’s mass shooting, they may be more mindful of the presents they buy them and the actions they teach their children, take their children’s mental health more seriously, and enact a safer gun storage system in their household. Parents may also not want to see their children imprisoned or see other children die at the hands of their own child. If caring for their child on the basis of being a good parent is not enough to motivate parents, then the Crumbleys’ convictions might further invoke parents to help their children in times of crises because they might face criminal charges if they fail to intervene. Pro-Second Amendment groups frequently frame the nationwide rise in gun violence as an issue of mental illness, not gun abuse. There is some truth here, as 60% of gun deaths in the United States suicides, pointing to a possible link between mental illness and gun ownership. However, to categorize all gun deaths or mass shootings as the result of mental illness stigmatizes mental health and simplifies the complex nature of gun violence. In 2020, about 20% of adults in the United States from mental illness, the majority of whom are violent. Additionally, most homicides are not to mental illness. There should not be a conflation of the mentally ill and gun violence. Thus, mitigating gun violence through mental illness intervention is not as effective as tackling the issue of gun violence head-on, which prosecutors in the Crumbleys’ cases tried to do. In the United States, gun violence is a growing epidemic as over 100 people are daily with guns. Either through legal or legislative channels, deterring gun abuse should be a top priority for all politicians and advocates. Recently, federal gun safety legislation has been successfully proposed and passed to curb this epidemic and allow parents and their children to feel safe at school—a fundamental feeling that every child should have a right to. in June 2022 as a response to the deadly Buffalo and Uvalde mass shootings from the preceding month, the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act includes provisions to increase community safety, such as by enhancing background checks for those under the age of 21 who purchase a firearm, supporting state “red flag” laws intended to bar individuals deemed a danger to themselves or others by a court from purchasing a firearm, and expanding protections for victims of domestic violence. At the state level, governors  have “sensitive locations” legislation to restrict where firearms can legally be carried, such as in schools. While this progress is notable, more legislative requirements on gun ownership and criminal penalties for abusing one’s gun ownership need to be done to drastically reduce gun violence in schools.By creating new legal strategies, advocates hope to ensure that the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are not trampled in pursuit of the Second Amendment’s right to bear arms. The Crumbleys’ cases are evidence that parents can now successfully be held accountable and convicted for their child’s deadly actions, and that serves as an important lesson for all parents who have not adequately cared for their children. Thus, by widening the circle of responsibility, prosecutors have established another method of mitigating the gun violence epidemic.

https://www.cpreview.org/articles/2024/4/why-prosecuting-mass-shooters-parents-will-help-curb-gun-violence

Indivisible Issues: Is the 21st Century the Age of Polarization?

Elliot Heath

The 21st century has been a whirlwind. In the past two decades, we’ve seen unprecedented technological growth that has propelled the world into a new era of interconnectedness and accessibility. From the September 11th attacks to the COVID-19 pandemic, life-altering events have shattered the old norm and forced us to adapt to an ever-evolving status quo. As civilization shifts, so too does our political landscape: American polarization continues to metastasize, showing few signs of remission on the horizon. The first piece in this series established that this phenomenon is not exclusive to any particular decade or recent trend. To the contrary, political divisions have permeated the United States since its founding, albeit in varying dosages. Since Reagan’s presidency and his cultivation of modern conservatism, however, we’ve seen a continuous uptick in partisan rancor, suggesting dire consequences for our current period. Even so, the causes of today’s severities go much deeper than the seeds of just one movement planted over 40 years ago; countless developments have shaped the American people, as well as the representatives they elect, since then. So what makes the present era so different, and how did it get this way? A defining feature of 21st-century political polarization is the rise of the “culture war,” a term by sociologist James Davison Hunter in his 1991 book, aptly titled . The idea is that our divisions stem from fundamental differences between progressive and traditionalist values, which seep into politics by way of subjects like abortion, LGBTQ+ rights, and the ideal dynamic between church and state. Each side of the discourse holds fundamentally different worldviews from one another, making it difficult to reach any common ground. This worked hand in hand with the increasing prevalence of “affective polarization.” That is, people don’t just disagree with their opponents on policy, they them with aversion and contempt for having those policies. Indeed, the moralization of politics, where opposing groups the other immoral for their beliefs, has inflamed hostilities and only exacerbated the gap between sides. We’ve seen ethics-centered tensions before in American history: one reason slavery caused such a nationwide schism was the intense moral rationale held by each side. The same phenomenon is present here but applies to numerous contentious policies rather than one central controversy. Moreover, the partisan trends of the last few decades identity-based attitudes: women, people of color, and college graduates heavily Democratic, while men, white people, evangelicals, and inhabitants of rural areas lean Republican. Factors such as race, class, gender, geography, and lifestyle are inextricably tied to political affiliation, a trend that has been built up over centuries—from the Civil War to the resurgence of conservatism—but is now more defined than ever. Another recent trend lies in the media—both mainstream and social. In the 1980s and ‘90s, major outlets like CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News to grow more partial, and their partisan associations are no secret today. With little overlap between conservative and liberal-leaning sources, consumers with predisposed political preferences could reinforce their beliefs while avoiding any challenges to their worldview. At the same time, the less politically engaged now have an overabundance of media choices and can of news consumption entirely, reducing the total number of moderates in any given audience. For the partisans, however, social media only things worse; algorithms designed to create echo chambers and promote provocative content, combined with the newfound ability for everyone in the world to express their opinion publicly with little to no filter or fact-checking all at once, in polarized pandemonium. And third, the ideological gap between Republicans and Democrats in Congress continues to widen, with Republicans in particular rightward over the decades and Democrats struggling to keep pace. Wealthy donors a notable role in this, financing campaigns that align with their views no matter how extreme those views may be. Ideological overlap between the parties, which was common half a century ago, is now nonexistent. Politicians target messaging to voters that uphold their policies while demonizing the opposing side, pitting one faction of society against the other. If the culture war signified polarization itself, the media and politician-driven rhetoric acted as its conduits. As demographics, ideas, and movements change and evolve, people and organizations with large platforms can selectively funnel those developments to the public and portray them in a way that suits their preferences. This fuels the fire of an already divided public as the material they consume grows narrower and narrower, constantly affirming their beliefs while alienating those who carry different ones. All these factors were gaining traction by the mid-2010s. Donald Trump’s presidential run, however, stoked polarization like never before. In the mounting cultural chasm between the progressives and traditionalists, Trump was the ne plus ultra of the traditional. He campaigned on a vituperative disdain for the nation’s shifting demographics, a stark distrust of liberal-leaning media and institutions as a whole, and a populist flair that gave his supporters not only someone to love, but to worship. He drove a wedge between countless groups—whites and non-whites, urban and rural, young and old, men and women, college-educated and not—and often used bigoted rhetoric to do so. More so than even Reagan, Trump reinvented American conservatism to revolve around himself and his ideas, potentially embedding himself permanently as a partisan juggernaut on the national stage. Trump also was, and still is, known for saying the quiet part out loud. In debates, he would shamelessly name-calling, personal attacks, and snide interjections against his opponents. At his rallies, he would frequently lie, spread conspiracy theories, and explicitly racist speech to gain popularity and appeal to the biases and prejudices of people who they were being left behind by society. Republicans to find these comments inspiring and energizing, while Democrats overwhelmingly found them frightening and offensive. Very rapidly, phenomena like affective polarization, the culture war, media partisanship, and misinformation campaigns on social networks were exacerbated. An unshakable battle between Trump’s America and everyone else’s was taking hold. A breakdown of political polarization would be incomplete without acknowledging the attempted insurrection at the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021—an event that perfectly encapsulates the impacts of this country’s mounting divisions. Following Trump’s refusal to accept his loss to Joe Biden in the 2020 presidential election, his unfounded declarations of voter fraud his supporters to storm the Capitol building in an effort to prevent the certification of Biden’s victory. The riot in the building’s evacuation, millions of dollars worth of property damage, at least five deaths, and hundreds of arrests and prosecutions that continue to this day. In so many ways, January 6 was a culmination of long-brewing tensions in the country. We collectively witnessed the clear and present danger posed by misinformation campaigns and extremist instigation, particularly when propagated by influential right-wing ideologues who relentlessly vilify and defame the opposing side. The immediate aftermath of that day saw a notable sum of Republicans condemning Trump for his involvement, but these convictions have as the 2024 election draws near. Many former critics of Trump in the GOP are now him for president, prioritizing loyalty to their party over democratic diligence. Much like during the Gilded Age, it is now more a game of power and party dominance than legitimate efforts to enact policy changes and better the country. Among Republican voters, too, concerns over the Capitol riot have down over time, while Democrats largely remain outraged. January 6 could have served as a wake-up call to lawmakers that polarization has reached a breaking point. Instead, three years later, the same old tribalist patterns continue, only growing worse as time goes on. With a more robust understanding of the issue in our present day, it’s worth questioning what “side,” if any, is at more of a disadvantage in this conflict. As mentioned above, congressional Republicans have steered farther to the right than Democrats have to the left in the past 40 years, trending well into the post-Trump era (if we can even call it that). Moreover, Democrats have every popular vote in a presidential election since 1992 except one, yet two different Republicans have taken office solely due to winning the electoral college. With measures like the filibuster in place to ensure incremental change even during times of crisis, one can’t help wondering if our current system benefits conservatives, who value resistance to progress above all else, over liberal and progressive policymakers. Indeed, there’s this constant question of what political polarization would look like in a perfect world, how much the parties would diverge, and what policies they would have. Many point to the role of the Overton Window—the ideological spectrum of accepted ideas in mainstream politics for a given place or period—as a useful framework for today’s discourse. Given the institutional structures that tend to favor the GOP, it could be said that the American Overton Window is slanted disproportionately rightward in comparison to what voters actually believe. While a complete reorientation of our current dynamic and the governmental elements that factor into it isn’t likely to happen anytime soon, it’s nonetheless important to consider as we begin to envision a better future for United States politics. In November of this year, Americans will face a political reckoning beyond compare. In the ever-growing split between partisan factions, a Biden-Trump rematch will surely throw one side of the aisle into disarray, perpetuating a cycle of bitterness and hysteria that at this point is starting to feel eerily normal. With the everyday content we consume inculcating us with hostility to the other side, it’s no wonder that we feel so distant from ,whoeverare. It’s no wonder that we feel that our identities and perspectives can never be reconciled. The modern world dually champions interconnectedness and separation. But much like periods of high polarization in the nation’s history, this too shall pass. Or rather, it pass, assuming we take the necessary steps to mitigate its effects. The next and final piece in this series will explore the lasting personal strain that divisions have placed on Americans and possible solution-based approaches to the issue. Reaching common ground and resuming productive discourse between warring sides may just prove central to keeping our democracy from falling to ruin.

https://www.cpreview.org/articles/2024/4/indivisible-issues-is-the-21st-century-the-age-of-polarization

Turkey’s Long Game in Somalia Goes Naval

Ada Baser

On February 22, 2024, Somalia’s legislature overwhelmingly approved a 10-year defense and economic cooperation agreement with Turkey, the result of a meeting between the two countries’ defense ministers earlier that month. Despite minimal public attention, the deal significantly strengthens the two countries’ bilateral relations and intertwines their respective security interests. For Turkey, Somalia represents a foreign policy entrance into Africa, as well as a source of maritime ports it hopes to leverage for future economic benefits. Somalia, on the other hand, stands to much by developing its international partnerships, especially in the midst of its decades-long security crisis. With the strengthening of Turkish-Somali relations, Ankara should actively consider adopting more long-term and multifaceted strategies to obtain stronger alliances in its foreign policy goals.Although the full text of the deal has not been made publicly available, its central aim is to Somalia’s naval defense against festering illegal threats such as piracy, unlawful fishing, and attacks on sovereignty. To realize such goals, Turkey will train Somalia’s navy by the coastal nation with powerful defensive weaponry through its growing defense industry, which means that Turkish warships could soon be patrolling Somalian waters. In exchange, Turkey will 30% of revenue generated by Somalia’s exclusive economic zone, the Blue Water Economic Zone, to fund its own maritime defense. Historically, Turkey has taken an interest in improving long-term security, development, and humanitarianism in Somalia. In 2011, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan visited Mogadishu, making him the first non-regional leader to tour the country in twenty years. Since then, diplomatic relations between the two countries have strengthened significantly. At the time, Somalia was experiencing a famine and desperately needed humanitarian aid. Turkey’s aid model, unlike other Western donors, short-term support with direct development assistance to the government, mainly through unconditional funds. Turkish firms started the city’s airport and seaports in 2014 and invested in construction and infrastructure projects. Aside from developmental aid, Turkey has maintained a rather large military presence in Somalia throughout the years. The two countries their first military cooperation agreement in 2010, rooted in training Somalian soldiers in Turkey. In 2017, Turkey its largest overseas military base in Mogadishu, Somalia’s capital. Its security contingents also regularly provide training to Somalia’s military and police forces. As Turkey already aids Somalia’s land and aerial defense, Turkish naval expansion should not have been a surprise so much as an affirmation of historical trends. Why, then, did Somalia’s parliament a similar military deal with the UAE in 2021 but accept Turkish influence? Somalia’s current geopolitical context is a significant factor to consider in explaining such a decision. Al-Shabbab, an al-Qaeda-allied terrorist organization opposed to the Somalian government, has attacking and hijacking ships in the Gulf of Aden. Turkey has this prominent threat to justify increased spending in Somalia, specifically for defense. More importantly, Somalia has experienced growing tensions with Ethiopia over its contested territories. Somaliland, located along the Gulf of Aden in the north of Somalia and bordering Ethiopia, declared its independence  in 1991. To date, it has not been internationally recognized as a state and Somalia continues to claim sovereignty over the region. But in January 2024, Ethiopia signed a memorandum of understanding with Somaliland that would recognize Somaliland’s independence and give landlocked Ethiopia access to the Gulf of Aden through a land-lease agreement. For Somalia, this development is a direct threat to its national sovereignty that will require an improvement in its maritime defense should it escalate. Somali officials’ in their rapidly increasing defense capabilities is effectively a signal to Ethiopia and Somaliland that it will not tolerate perceived threats over the territory. It is also important that the deal was signed only after Ethiopia’s memorandum of understanding. Such timing reveals rising tensions between the countries that, if escalated to conflict, could destabilize the entire Horn of Africa.Another factor in Turkey’s success with the deal is its long-term interest in Somalia. Turkey’s on-the-ground and multifaceted humanitarian aid in the early 2010s public support for the country’s involvement in Somalia. Additionally, Turkey has been appealing to the countries’ similar cultural and religious heritages. In doing so, Erdogan has outlined the “brotherhood” between the two Muslim-majority countries to augment the public image of their relations.It remains too early to tell whether the agreement will prove effective in minimizing terrorist threats and securing Somalia’s waters. Two key geopolitical areas of concern could threaten the effectiveness of Turkey using its defense relations with Somalia to bolster its presence in Africa. However, Turkey’s unique relations with Ethiopia and the UAE could theoretically minimize any further escalation.Firstly, the potential for direct engagement with Ethiopia is dangerous for all parties involved. With Turkey now to Somalia’s naval defense, the conflict between Somalia and Ethiopia has become increasingly relevant to Turkish interests. Turkey has generally positive relations with Ethiopia and Somaliland. During the 2020-2022 Ethiopian civil war between the government and the Tigray population near the Eritrean border, the Turkish government Ethiopia. Turkey also began unofficial relations with Somaliland after its efforts to peace with Somalia in 2013. If Ankara can maintain these strategic ties, it could deter the risk of direct escalation between Somalia and Ethiopia.Secondly, the UAE rivals Turkey in the amount of aid it dispatches to Somalia. Like Turkey, the UAE has also fundamental training to Somali soldiers and conducted drone strikes. These developments aim to combat al-Shabab militants. After the collapse of its own defense deal, Abu Dhabi $5 million in defense aid to five Somalian brigades outside the capital. Following the success of the Turkish-Somali deal, Emirati for Somali military efforts have continued to decrease despite the UAE’s that its dedication to regional security and minimizing the terrorist threat is intact.Turkey’s success in establishing a maritime deal, coupled with a rupture in Emirati-Somali relations could deteriorate Ankara and Abu Dhabi’s diplomatic ties. Although Turkey and the Emirates on opposite sides of regional conflicts in the 2010s, namely in the context of the Arab Spring revolts, the two have economic relations since 2020. This an estimated $50 billion in Emirati investments in Turkey that came after a series of negotiations with Erdogan in 2023. The UAE is markedly against the Turkish-Somali defense deal because it decreased their strategic claim to Somalia. For its part, it probably views Somalia’s acquiescence to Turkish courting as a signal that its money is better spent elsewhere. Ankara must balance its need for economic support from UAE, a key regional player, with the dividends it receives from this deal with Somalia. Despite these pronounced regional risks, Turkey’s sustained political relations with Ethiopia and the UAE gives Ankara an opportunity to expand its regional influence while strengthening Somalia’s control. For Somalia, the defense deal greatly its defense capabilities and has been hailed as a vital development for security forces. As for Turkey, its interest in this “brotherhood” is in achieving its long-term foreign policy goal––access to the Horn of Africa––and this deal has only demonstrated that forward-looking, comprehensive foreign policy has been and will continue to be successful for Ankara. Whereas Turkish investment in the entire African subcontinent was $2 billion in 2005, it increased to $22 billion by 2017. This is largely because, since 1998, Erdogan’s Justice and Development Party (AKP) has an entrance into African relations to increase Turkey’s position as a regional power. Entering African organizations as an honorary member, Turkey combined economic aid with cultural and political ties. Somalia was the most receptive to Turkish aid and thus the most attention in crafting a long-term foreign policy relationship. And that brings us here.Sustained relations with Somalia will certainly prove economically and geopolitically profitable for Turkey. For starters, it provides access to the Gulf of Aden, an important step in the naval trade route from the Suez Canal. Ten percent of the global oil and gas trade through the Red Sea, but piracy and terrorist attacks on the Gulf, a direct pathway to the sea, make the important trade route unstable. Additionally, Turkey signed a 14-year contract with Somalia in 2020 to rebuild its largest port. With Turkey’s economic gains from the maritime agreement and port contract, it is interested in securing Somalia’s waters.Turkey is also considering the potential for oil exportation from Somalia. Erdogan expressed interest in the topic in 2020, but port security has become even increasingly important for Turkey’s long-term economic interests. Not even one month after the maritime deal, Turkey and Somalia an oil and gas cooperation agreement. This will allow Turkey to play a more dominant role in energy extraction, an industry it has hoped to enter for years to gain energy independence.With this agreement, Turkey has demonstrated not only that its sponsorship of less powerful nations work to its benefit, but that clever geopolitical positioning . By simultaneously balancing its relations with Ethiopia and the UAE, a stronger presence in Somalia enables Turkey to enjoy access to significant economic opportunity and all of the reputational benefits of humanitarian action. This deal with Somalia represents the best potential outcome from diplomatic maneuvering, combining humanitarian development aid with defense amplification. It will be key to realizing Ankara’s ambitions in the region for years to come. Turkey’s long game might just work. 

https://www.cpreview.org/articles/2024/4/turkeys-long-game-in-somalia-goes-naval

The Perils of Extreme Federalism

Yusuf Arifin

In late 2023, citizens across dozens of states to the polls with one purpose: selecting the next leaders of their respective communities. Whether voters were electing their next governor in Kentucky or state legislators in Virginia, these elections held enormous significance for local policy and governance issues. However, despite these stakes, the elections received minimal media coverage across the board, causing turnout to from already abysmal levels in 2019. Such a result hardly deviates from long-standing trends. Unlike presidential or Congressional elections, local races (which often occur in off-years) have repeatedly diminished public attention. In response, many citizens have increasingly their concern over how odd-year election schedules cause a lack of voter engagement. After all, if city officials constitute the most localized form of government, why they elected separately from more high-profile federal officials?In recent years, numerous justifications have been provided to defend this tradition. Most notably, some have off-year elections as a manifestation of federalism, allowing voters to focus on national and local issues in different years. Even if this argument is to be taken at face value, appallingly low turnout figures and voter apathy have begun to challenge the conventional notion that local elections must be segregated from their federal counterparts. On top of diminishing civic participation, off-year elections contribute to lower minority voter turnout, underscoring the problematic nature of such elections. Therefore, to increase overall civic participation and minority representation, off-year elections should be consolidated with their even-year counterparts. Before delving into the contemporary context, it’s important to consider the historical context behind odd-year elections. While congressional and presidential elections have been on Election Day for decades now, this was not always the case. Prior to 1872, states elections for the Senate and House of Representatives whenever they so desired. Although this was later to save costs and time, a few jurisdictions opted to ignore this idea at the statewide level. There were three reasons for this resistance: white supremacy, scheduling mistakes, and political expediency.First, some of the most outspoken critics of uniform elections in even years originated in the South. In particular, states like Mississippi and Kentucky were vocally to standardized elections because they feared it would result in more federal scrutiny. At a time when southern constitutions were being rewritten to white supremacy and implement a one-party system of dominance, these racist political aims were better supported by electing local officials independently from federal ones.On the other hand, separate jurisdictions like Virginia to elect statewide officials in odd-numbered years after a scheduling mixup. Since then, the system has continued to run in the same fashion to insulate public opinion from federal issues. For the most part, this split has drawn minimal criticism from members of the public and incumbent legislators, who would be in charge of changing the election timing.Arguably the most sensible explanation for these elections, however, can be found in the case study of New Jersey. After President Franklin Roosevelt’s in the 1944 presidential contest, Republicans in the state legislature became increasingly wary of being elected on the same ballot as such a popular Democratic figure. They hastily the constitution to insulate themselves from stiff political competition, banking on the fact that their independence would be more pronounced in a standalone election rather than at the bottom of a presidential ballot. With such little attention being paid to their individual records and positions, many officials have correctly deduced that odd-year elections provide a means of reducing potential voter scrutiny. This reasoning helps explain why many incumbents in today’s political climate desperately seek to avoid standardizing elections. A common attack against moving local elections to even years is the idea that federal issues and partisanship will overtake local concerns. There is some merit to this argument; after all, some states voters to select candidates for all offices of the same party with the tick of a box. However, to properly assess this claim, it’s important to consider the extent to which local races have become overwhelmingly partisan instead of issue-focused. According to recent results from across the country, local elections have become increasingly on national political topics, causing races to highly partisan. For instance, despite being a reliably conservative state at the federal level, Kentucky continued to Democratic majorities to its state House of Representatives for decades until 2016, after which the local and state-level seats became increasingly Republican. The reverse has been observed with states like Virginia, where Republican officials at the local level have lost their majorities as the state has shifted into the Democratic column. By nearly any measure, general voter turnout experiences a precipitous decline in odd years as compared to even years. In last year’s city council elections across New York state, a meager 21 percent of registered voters their ballots. In contrast, nearly twice as many New Yorkers in the previous year’s midterms. Given how midterm elections are usually for their low engagement rates, off-year elections appear to accentuate this voter dropoff, seeing turnout plummet. As such, one can easily conclude that odd-year elections are correlated with fewer individuals participating in the democratic process.To put into perspective just how much the odd-year nature of New York’s elections hampered its turnout, one can compare it to other locations. Los Angeles, which elects officials in even-numbered years, a turnout of nearly 40% in its city council election in 2020. This percentage is nearly double the turnout rate in New York’s 2023 elections, suggesting that merely changing the timing of elections could significantly boost voter engagement. If the goal of a democracy is to include as many voices as possible, cities would do well to choose a scheduling system that is the most capable of turning out voters.While turnout generally drops across the board in odd-numbered years, one portion of the electorate takes a particularly large hit: minorities. In cities as diverse as New York City, participation from diverse communities is crucial in shaping the direction of public policy. However, according to the latest figures, white voters disproportionately more likely to vote in off years, dramatically limiting the influence of minority voters. These findings come in contrast to the composition of the presidential electorate during even years, in which minorities record shares of the electorate. One can thus infer that if New York City Council elections were moved to even-numbered years, minorities would form a larger proportion of the electorate, ensuring that their interests were sufficiently represented.This trend isn’t just limited to New York City, however. In states like Mississippi, which home to the largest proportion of African Americans in the country, Black voter turnout a dramatic decline in 2023. This has been a pattern throughout Mississippi history, partially explaining why no African American officials have been statewide since Reconstruction in the 19th century. This suggests that the mere placement of elections in odd years induces diminished minority voter participation, consequently depriving these communities of sufficient representation. As such, simply moving these elections to even years appears to be a simple solution to remedying some racial imbalances in political representation.Fundamentally, federalism is an important aspect of the American political system. At its core, this system enables voters to tailor their political preferences to closer, local issues and more distant, federal concerns. However, despite this fact, odd-year elections were almost never intended to promote this practice, despite contemporary claims to the contrary. In fact, when considering the impacts on voter turnout and minority engagement, it becomes even more difficult to defend this idea. If American politicians truly believe in the democratic process, they should move all elections to even-numbered years in order to boost civic participation.

https://www.cpreview.org/articles/2024/4/the-perils-of-extreme-federalism

U.S. Union Policy Desperately Needs Restructuring

Jimmy Hayward

Being forced to do just about anything, political or apolitical, goes against the very essence of the American personality, which is marked by a strong aversion against mandates—and unions are no exception. Strong evidence indicates that unions play a major role in championing for worker rights, legal protections, and workplace safety. First in 1947, right-to-work laws, now in in 28 states, give workers the choice to not pay union dues in their workplace and exist due to the illusion that they promote free choice. These laws require that company unions provide benefits to allemployees regardless of whether or not they pay dues. Federal law already companies to force union membership on an employee. In doing so, these laws further harm union strength and worker rights. Not only should the federal government prohibit right-to-work laws for their drastic shortcomings, they should also embrace the benefits that unions offer and take further action to increase their strength on a national scale.Right-to-work laws unions by requiring that they provide benefits to all employees while not requiring payment. With these laws in place, union resources are stretched beyond their paying membership and fail to receive enough money to cover their benefits, thereby weakening their influence. Under these conditions, unions are unable to defend workers’ interests, strike, or bargain for a safer working environment. The statistics for themselves: The Illinois Economic Policy Institute reports a 5% decrease in health insurance coverage in right-to-work states as well as a two year decrease in life expectancy. The Bureau of Labor Statistics that the rate of workplace fatalities is 54% higher in states with right-to-work laws, a staggering difference. The Center for American Progress these figures, finding that if benefit coverage in non-right-to-work states were lowered to the levels of states with these laws, two million fewer workers would receive health insurance and 3.8 million fewer workers would receive pensions nationwide. Abolishing right-to-work laws would undoubtedly increase union membership by securing affordable health coverage for millions. The National Bureau of Economic Research a difference of nearly 20% in the unionization rate between states with and without right-to-work laws. Increases in union membership lead to quality of life benefits regardless of membership status. A study conducted by the Center for American Progress Action Fund, which controlled for factors such as education, unemployment, and types of industries, that if unionization rates increased by 10%, the typical middle-class household, unionized or not, would earn $1,501 more each year. Simply put, increased unionization benefits both union and non-union workers in terms of wages. Workers represented by labor unions 10.2% higher wages than their non-union peers, obtain better benefits, and collectively raise wages industry-wide. In addition to widespread worker safety, doing away with oppressive right-to-work laws on a national level would undoubtedly raise worker income and decrease America’s seemingly insurmountable wage gap. Unions also provide major wage benefits to marginalized populations. Right-to-work states, with a less unionized workforce, have effectively heightened racial disparity in the United States and made clear that states without these laws are significantly more effective at sustainable equality in the workplace. In non-right-to-work states, unions have racial pay gaps, with union membership correlating to pay premiums of 17.3% for Black workers, 23.1% for Latino workers and 14.7% for Asian workers, compared with 10.1% for white workers. Not only do we see widespread benefits without right-to-work laws, we see decreased racial wealth gaps. Eliminating these laws helps dismantle systemic racial bias in the U.S. Moreover, women also benefit from the decreasing wage disparities in non-right-to-work states. Research from the Institute for Women’s Policy Research a more equitable atmosphere for women in unions, compared with the current gender wage gap for workers as a whole. Women who are represented by unions 88.7 cents on the dollar compared with their male counterparts. Compared to the current wage ratio, 82 cents on the dollar, this a significantly higher earnings ratio. Vast decreases in unionization in right-to-work states exacerbate both racial and gender inequalities in the U.S. These wage disparities hinder the nation’s ability to provide equity in the workplace, so an expansion of union power across the nation is needed to level the playing field.Right-to-work laws from the 1947 Taft-Hartley Act, which allowed states to introduce laws that let workers receive union bargaining benefits without paying for them. This created a “free-rider” problem among unions that inhibited their ability to provide widespread benefits due to insufficient dues. Though the act provides several pro-worker policies, such as preventing employee discrimination based on union membership status and preventing exorbitant fees, it is clear it must be amended to prevent states from enacting these dangerous laws. The Protecting the Right to Organize (PRO) Act, currently in the House Committee on Education and the Workforce as of February 2023, would existing labor laws, holding employers responsible for violating worker rights, preventing them from making workers waive their collective bargaining rights, and halting them from hiring permanent replacements for striking workers. This act would strengthen unions and unquestionably improve the quality of life in workplaces across the nation.Right-to-work laws present a clear danger to worker wages and safety. Their removal is a crucial and necessary step for worker equality and would shrink the wage gap, a significant cause of systemic inequality in America. While a federal policy mandating union membership would require unprecedented widespread national support for worker rights, the federal government nevertheless retains the responsibility to protect bargaining rights, as the welfare of the working class largely depends on them. Removing right-to-work legislation and establishing the PRO Act are the first steps to seeing union benefits on a national level and improving workers’ lives.

https://www.cpreview.org/articles/2024/4/us-union-policy-desperately-needs-restructuring

Dominion v. Fox Won a Battle in a Losing War

Jacob Gold

Voices across the political landscape celebrated a victory over political disinformation when Fox News to pay Dominion Voting Systems $787 million in a defamation settlement last April. Dominion’s lawsuit that Fox intentionally lied when they reported that the voting machine company manipulated the 2020 presidential election in favor of Joe Biden. The filings sought to prove that Fox had acted with “actual malice,” the legal standard of public figures when they file suit for libel. One Dominion lawyer later that Fox’s conduct so obviously met the standard that he “[was not] sure [he’d] ever see that type of evidence again.” released during pre-trial discovery that Fox’s executives and hosts knew the information they disseminated was false but continued to peddle it in order to drive viewership and, in turn, profit. A Delaware Superior Court ruled Fox’s statements to be false and a trial to determine if the network had acted with actual malice. Before opening statements began, the Court that the parties had settled in what the largest media-related settlement in U.S. history. Journalists, politicians, and lawyers praised the lawsuit as a proof-of-concept for combatting disinformation through the legal system. Michael Tomasky, the editor of the, that proof of Fox’s willful deception would demonstrate that they were “not a news organization in any normal sense of the word.” Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger said the settlement was a “” of his state’s election system, which used Dominion’s machines in 2020. Justin Nelson, a lawyer for Dominion, reporters that “the truth matters” and “lies have consequences.” Tom Clare, another Dominion lawyer, that the case was “momentous … not only for Dominion, but for the entire country and the integrity of elections.”Indeed, the lawsuit seemed to demonstrate a viable method for curtailing disinformation. However, nearly a year later, it is unclear that the lawsuit demonstrated much of anything.While held Fox accountable for a handful of lies, it is clear that expectations of the lawsuit’s political impact ran far too high. Despite the ruling, election disinformation continues to circulate with little sign of change.To be sure, the idea that the 2020 election was distorted to favor Biden is demonstrably false. While purveyors of disinformation allege various means by which election fraud in 2020 supposedly took place, none survive scrutiny. Experts that individual fraud is exceedingly rare. Following Donald Trump’s 2020 loss, judges across the country several allegations of voter fraud that, even if they had held merit, would not have changed the election’s results. Allegations of systematic tampering, which typically allege that election data contains statistical anomalies, also hold no water. Indeed, one analysis found that the most prominent theories of systematic tampering on either incorrect analysis of data or wholly false claims about the data itself.Perhaps the most shocking revelation in the case was that Fox’s employees were well aware that there was no substantial election fraud in 2020; they were clear-headed as they fabricated a theory to the contrary. Sean Hannity, who hosted Trump lawyer Sidney Powell as she made false claims about Dominion on his Fox show, Dominion lawyers in deposition that he “didn’t believe [the claims] for a second.” Hosts Tucker Carlson and Laura Ingraham also Sidney Powell’s lies as false. Later testimony from executives at Fox, also presented in the filing, likewise revealed that they the allegations peddled on their channel were fictional. Rupert Murdoch, then-chairman of Fox Corporation, the claims “really crazy” and “damaging” in internal communications. The whole ordeal met a climactic end with the massive settlement and the of primetime host Tucker Carlson shortly after. But little has changed in the disinformation world following the emergence of these facts. The data shows that many people remain misinformed about election security. A Monmouth University poll conducted after the settlement that 68% of Republicans still believe that Joe Biden only won the presidency in 2020 due to voter fraud—a proportion that has held steady since the election in November 2020. Associated Press polling that Republicans’ belief in election fraud correlates less with actual information related to election security and more with the success of GOP candidates. Just 32% of Republicans had “high confidence” that votes would be counted accurately as Trump doubt on the election heading into 2016, which increased to 54% two years after his victory. Confidence has decreased since then, with just 28% reporting high confidence in 2020 and 22% ahead of the upcoming 2024 election.Coverage of the lawsuit has also done little to sway disinformation-fueled election policy. In Shasta County, California, a far-right board to terminate its contract with Dominion in January 2023, prior to the company’s settlement with Fox, but continued on its crusade even after the news broke. In November, the board a legal showdown with the state when it announced plans to institute a hand-count system for a local election, which would have violated a law requiring voting machines to be used in California elections with more than 1,000 voters. The county’s registrar, a political moderate, ultimately the law, but the board continues to push its election denial agenda.Beyond local county boards and far away from Dominion machines, other policies aimed at nonexistent voter fraud remain in place. In 2022, the Florida legislature capitalized on fears about voter fraud to an election crimes office, and Governor Ron DeSantis election denier Cord Byrd as Secretary of State to oversee it. Both the office and the election denier there today. In neighboring Georgia, lawmakers previously used election fraud as a pretext to obstacles to voting, including banning people from providing food and water to voters waiting in line. Though a judge down the provision preventing food and water distribution, other portions of the law restricting early and absentee voting, modifying ballot verification procedures, and granting the legislature more control over elections remain in place for the time being. Nationally, voters in 27 states will into the 2024 election with new restrictions enacted after 2020.The one place where may have made an impact was on trust in Fox News itself. A poll that 21% of Fox viewers said their trust in the network declined following the lawsuit. But there are several problems with this statistic. The survey specifically asked participants: “How has your trust in the information provided by Fox News changed following Murdoch’s testimony and private texts from Fox News hosts that voter fraud claims were false?” Not only is this a leading question, but it also requires respondents to perform a self-assessment of how their beliefs have changed rather than asking them about a concrete belief they have. The results are also undermined by other responses. Just 9% of respondents said they actually watched less Fox following the lawsuit, and this similarly relies on people to report their own behavior. This potentially-flawed polling is yet another source for inflated expectations about ’s impact on disinformation. Fox the most-watched news network in America. Expectations that would have a significant impact on belief in disinformation came in part from a lack of perspective on the conservative news sphere. While the Dominion settlement may have made headlines in the mainstream press, it remained obscure in right-wing media. Just eight of the 26 largest conservative news outlets on as details began emerging early last March. Of those, only four mentioned the private communications between Fox employees. One of the outlets reported on the lawsuit and then proceeded to publish three more articles with disinformation about Dominion machines. Fox News themselves just six minutes of airtime on the settlement. Today, Trump—who about the election over 3,000 times during his presidency—continues to his supporters by repeating lies about the 2020 election and overblowing the threat of fraud in 2024. It is clear that the audiences who were most misinformed about the election have not received the information necessary to correct it. The impracticality of using lawsuits as an independent tool to deter disinformation should’ve been another clear signal that would have such a small impact. Even if it was practical to challenge every lying news outlet or public figure in court, it would be impossible to utilize lawsuits on social media, where disinformation can rampantly among millions of users. While lawsuits can garner huge amounts of news coverage, they can only target the loudest peddlers of disinformation because of the massive amount of resources they require— 31 lawyers, 9 law firms, and two years of time to resolve. Meanwhile, disinformation can continue circulating, as it has, without any one clear target to file against. While lawsuits may be a good way to prove innocence and recoup losses for an individual company like Dominion, we cannot expect them to have a major impact on deeply rooted national problems.Despite ’s failure to reduce the spread of disinformation, similar cases continue to receive a great deal of news coverage and a similar level of optimism. Smartmatic, another voting machine company, is still its own high-profile defamation case against Fox originally filed in February 2021. A lawyer for Smartmatic that his lawsuit would “expose the rest” of Fox’s disregard for the truth. MyPillow CEO-turned-election-denier Mike Lindell continues garnering media attention as he his own defamation lawsuit brought by Dominion. Prominent disinformation cases outside of elections have also received plenty of attention. Alex Jones, for instance, made headlines in 2022 after he was to pay $1.4 billion for defaming the families of children killed in the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. Disproportionate, positive news coverage provides a false sense of optimism to believers in the truth by distorting defamation lawsuits into standalone tools to fight disinformation. It fails to account for the context in which the average believer in disinformation lives, thus distorting expectations about their impact. Lawsuits cannot make up for deficiencies in media literacy or lack of coverage among the groups that need it most. They cannot function as a “vindication” in their own right. We must recognize that, in the wake of , the struggle to uphold the truth is still one we’re losing. If we are to win the war on disinformation, we need to be realistic about the role defamation lawsuits will play in fighting it.

https://www.cpreview.org/articles/2024/4/dominion-v-fox-won-a-battle-in-a-losing-war-1

Vote-Seeking, Vote-Losing: How “Accommodationism” in Europe Has Failed to Defeat Far-Right Parties

Conrad Hutchins

The Economist has 2024 “the biggest election year in history.” Over four billion people in 76 countries will vote across all six inhabited continents. Elections have already occurred in some of the world’s most populous nations, including (population: 240 million) and (population: 270 million).A range of crucial elections will be held in Europe this year. In addition to domestic elections, citizens across the European Union’s 27 member states will vote for the European Parliament elections in June 2024. EU member states elect representatives to serve as Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) every five years. Although the candidates elected run as members of national parties, they normally join transnational coalitions if elected, where they a range of crucial functions, including determining the EU’s budget, passing laws, and oversight. The degree of competition in domestic elections varies: both the and incumbents have been accused of electoral fraud. In other states, however, mainstream parties serious challenges from the populist right, largely due to popular support for their strong anti-immigration policies. As they prepare for the 2024 elections, mainstream parties can draw lessons from the recent successes and failures of their counterparts across Europe.These failures have sparked concern because the rise of radical right parties can often democracy. Common tactics of these parties include centralizing power by eliminating checks and balances and weakening civil society. In 2022, a European Parliament-adopted report that Hungary, probably the most prominent story of European right-wing populism, was no longer a full democracy. The Law and Justice Party (PiS) in Poland its tactics during its tenure in government from 2015 to 2023, concern about democratic backsliding. A German court has evidence that Alternative for Democracy (AfD), another populist right-wing party, has “anti-constitutional goals.” Some commentators have also the populist right for offering “illusory solutions” to crucial problems.On November 22, 2023, Party for Freedom (PVV), a right-wing political party, a plurality of seats in the Dutch House of Representatives. The victory of PVV and its leader, Geert Wilders, is the most recent example of the failure of mainstream European parties to appeal to those disenchanted with the political system. PVV’s success illustrates the ineffectiveness of one particular strategy used by these parties: , in which these parties endorse policies originally championed by more extreme parties to better appeal to their supporters.  After former Prime Minister Mark Rutte’s government due to a disagreement over migrant policy and new elections were scheduled for November, Rutte’s party, the People’s Party for Freedom and Democracy (VVD) made immigration a focal point of its campaign. Having already spent years asylum seekers for a crippling housing shortage, commentators, noting the the increased use of harsh rhetoric on immigration by VVD members in media appearances, that the VVD hoped this language would gain the votes of PPV loyalists. One academic study that “the VVD and CDA [another mainstream Dutch political party] have consciously aimed to woo voters skeptical about immigration and multiculturalism.”The election results indicate the failure of that strategy. Some have argued that rather than drawing support from Wilders, this strategy his appeal by making immigration as the crucial issue of the election, a policy area where PPV has the strongest credentials. As one Dutch satirical website , the VVD “ran a terrific campaign, unfortunately just not for our own party.”Similar efforts to gain the support of far-right voters, which help integrate and legitimize positions originally seen as extreme, are not exclusive to the Netherlands: mainstream parties have increasingly strong rhetoric and policies, particularly on immigration, in , , , and . Austria, in 2000, was the first country where this policy convergence led to a formal alliance: a center-right party a coalition government with far-right parties. Although Austria’s experiment with far-right governance proved short-lived, the growing power of the far-right in Europe has prompted political establishments across Europe to revise their rhetoric and policies to appeal to voters. A recent academic study, which examines European electoral results from 1976-2017, suggests that the the adoption of accommodative strategies in response to the success of the far right fails to convert voters, that “voters are on average more likely to defect to the radical right when mainstream parties adopt anti-immigration positions,” due to the normalization of policies previously seen as unacceptable. The study provides an illustrative quote from Jean-Marie Le Pen, the former leader of one such party in France, who says that voters “prefer the original to the copy.” Making political and rhetorical concessions to radicals does not reduce their appeal. Taking more extreme positions to neuter the far-right seems to do nothing. Yet these policies continued unabated: a tough French immigration law, proposed by centrist president Emmanuel Macron, an ideological shift towards the far-right. The bill, by the French left, passed in December with their support. Across Europe, mainstream parties have put their faith in a misguided strategy. Yet the exact same feature of European politics that helps far-right parties——can also contribute to their marginalization. PVV is a plurality, not a majority: to govern, it requires the support of another party. The use of , in which mainstream political parties agree to deliberately exclude parties deemed too radical from governing coalitions, remains the only policy certain to prevent far-right parties from taking power, as they are rarely able to obtain an outright majority of legislative seats. In Poland, an ideologically diverse coalition united against the PiS a majority of parliamentary seats and its leader, Donald Tusk, became prime minister even as PiS, who have been the target of fierce criticism due to what some politicized judicial reforms, limitations on press freedom, and policies such as banning abortion, a plurality, 35% of votes. However, can also backfire. It depends on political will, a virtue many politicians, and for voters to witness the deliberate exclusion of a certain party, particularly one which explicitly identifies as an “outsider” party, by a distrusted establishment can increase rather than decrease their support. Both have occurred in Germany: mainstream parties, having historically refused to share power with the AfD, the far-right party a German court warned had “anti-constitutional goals,” have begun to with them on a local level; The Economist has that “the isolation of the AfD has reinforced its narrative of being the only alternative to a failed establishment” whose policies left less than a quarter of Germans optimistic about the future. Recent polling that the AfD is now the second-most popular party in Germany. Although a recent scandal has mass protests, in which hundreds of thousands have participated, against the AfD and some point to an unexpected in recent regional elections and a slight in support as proof of a growing electoral backlash, it is too soon to conclude that this new scandal has seriously impacted its support.There is no easy solution. Anti-immigration sentiment, which is a feature of far-right politics throughout Europe, is consistently popular—ensuring that these parties will meet with some success, barring self-inflicted wounds such as that which may have damaged the AfD. In the fragmented, multi-party political systems present throughout Europe, even some support is enough to afford a considerable amount of power. Yet attempts to co-opt their voters seem to have failed: imitation does not earn votes. remain effective but limited, risking increasing alienation. Under this current trend and strategic pitfall, European democracies will continue to struggle with far-right parties.

https://www.cpreview.org/articles/2024/4/vote-seeking-vote-losing-how-accommodationism-in-europe-has-failed-to-defeat-far-right-parties

A Call from the Columbia Political Review

Columbia Political Review Editorial Board

On April 18, at the direction of Columbia University administrators, New York City police campus and arrested 108 student demonstrators. The Columbia Political Review Editorial Board condemns this show of force and the administration’s broader intrusion on student discourse. President Minouche Shafik’s decision to stifle student protest betrays the ethos of free speech that has defined this institution for decades.The Columbia Political Review stands by its commitment to free student discourse, both on and off campus. To that end, we have taken several measures to protect and promote student expression against the threat of coercive interference.First, alongside our longstanding coverage of domestic and international issues, we find that recent developments in campus politics not only warrant but demand a section devoted to its analysis. Therefore, we have introduced a new campus-specific tab which now houses 23 years of previously uncategorized campus coverage.Second, we urge all Columbia students, university affiliates, and concerned citizens to join the conversation. As a multipartisan publication, we not only invite but encourage people of all ideological strands to submit pitches . To the best of our ability, the editorial board will expedite the publishing process for pitches on pertinent issues.University administrators have fractured our forum for discussion, but it is not beyond repair. History awaits our responses. History awaits your response.

https://www.cpreview.org/articles/2024/4/a-call-from-the-columbia-political-review