arcadia spring 2015 (final 2)

8/8/2019 Arcadia Spring 2015 (Final 2)

1/19

ARCADIA

POLITICALMAGAZINE

ISSUE I

MAY 2015


2/19

Table of Contents

ARCADIA POLITICAL MAGAZINE ISSUE I ARCADIA POLITICAL MAGAZINEISSUE I

Arcadia Political Magazine was founded in2015 by the Wesleyan Democrats and theWesleyan Republican Committee to serve asa platform for political engagement. Entirelystudent-run and multipartisan, Arcadia aimsto increase and elevate political discourse oncampus by illustrating the range of political views and experiences of Wesleyan students.

Arcadia Political Magazine

Editors-in-Chief

Hannah Skopicki

Matthew Wallock

Executive Editors

Alison Mann

Joseph Nucci

Managing Editor

Jack Guenther

Layout and Design Editor

Molly Schi

Outreach and Media Editor

Victoria Hammitt

Sta Writers

Maile McCann

Christina Sickinger

Amelia Spittal

Aaron Stago-Belfort

Copy Editors

Erica DeMichiel

Jack Guenther

Elena Rosenthal

Chairman, Wesleyan Republican Committee

Emmakristina Sveen

President, Wesleyan Democrats

Nat Warner

Mission

Statement

Staff

Editorial

Disclaimer The views and opinions published in ArcadiaPolitical Magazine are not necessarily thoseof Arcadia Political Magazine or any of itsaliated organizations, including WesleyanUniversity, the Wesleyan Democrats, theWesleyan Republican Committee, advertisers,sta, and so forth. Each submission representsonly the perspective of its author.

4 LETTERS FROM THE EDITORS Matthew Wallock and Hannah Skopicki

5 WHOSE COUNTRY IS IT ANYWAY? Aidan Martinez

6 LIBERALISM AND MY DISCONTENTS Spencer Brown

8 SELECTIVE SERVICE AND WOMEN Victoria Hammitt

9 WHY I REFUSE TO CHOOSE Hannah Skopicki

10 WOMEN IN AMERICAN GOVERNMENT Courtney Weigand

11 CLASSISM AND WEALTH INEQUALITY Christina Sickinger

12 ABORTION, POLARIZATION, AND THE DISSEMINATIONOF THE AMERICAN POLITICAL BINARY Joseph Nucci

14 DOLLARS IN DEMOCRACY Dan Kim

16 STUDENT RESPONSES: WHAT DO YOU THINK IS THE MOSTPRESSING ISSUE IN POLITICS TODAY?

18 PRESIDENTIAL POWER Maile McCann

19 GENDER AND THE WAGE GAP Amelia Spittal

20 HOUSES DIVIDED Aidan Berkely

22 THE HERO THE REPUBLICANS NEED Mattison Asher

25 THE POLITICS OF MORALITY Zach Dravis

26 EDUCATION AND INCOME INEQUALITY Andy Samant

29 ON FOSSIL FUEL DIVESTMENT Melissa Lowe

30 IN DEFENSE OF THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF GAY MARRIAG Aaron Stago-Belfort

32 68 REVISITED Mark Odeltnov


3/19

Letters from the Editors

ARCADIA POLITICAL MAGAZINE ISSUE I ISSUE I

AIDAN MARTINEZCONTRIBUTOR

Remember when you were taught thatAmerica is a “melting pot” in elementaryschool? Our country was built by immigrants,for immigrants. Everyone who came to Amer-ica knew that they had a ghting chance tosucceed. The political rhetoric of today, how-ever, has shifted away from that original nar-rative. Immigrants are not seen as valuable

citizens who contribute to society but insteadas “takers.” The rebirth of xenophobia hasbeen championed by the Tea Party, which istrying to limit what denes a real American.In reality, what makes our country so great isthe fact that there is no dened “American.”We must go beyond the narrative we are toldby politicians to get down to the truth: immi-grants just want a chance—the same chancethat many U.S. citizens’ ancestors received.

All nine of my aunts and uncles were “an-chor babies.” My grandparents would cometo the United States, have their child, and goback to Mexico. They eventually settled in theU.S. when my father was born, number ten,and my grandparents would be able to be-come residents due to their children’s status.

Anchor babies were never discussed at the lev-el of political discourse that they have reachedtoday. Democrats tried their hardest in 2010to prevent young immigrants from becomingpolitical pawns with the Development, Relief,and Education for Alien Minors (DREAM)Act. Although my aunts, uncles, and fatherare not DREAMers, they could have beenripped away from my grandparents at anytime. The act would have given children, whowere not born in the U.S. but were broughthere illegally at a young age, an opportunityto grow up in the only country they knew. The

bill passed the house with a vote of 216-198but failed to break cloture in the senate witha split of 52-44. Immigrants, both young andold, started to be labeled as “takers.”

Anyone from the border who understandsthe local economy will tell you that immi-grants or visitors from Mexico are not takersbut are in fact necessary. I’m from El Paso,Texas, a city that shares the largest interna-tional metropolitan area with Ciudad Juarez,Mexico. Our economies were once inter-

twined due to theease of crossing theborder. The DrugWar had turnedCiudad Juarez intoa hostile place, inwhich even Mexi-can citizens fearedfor their lives. Theyed their countryand came to Amer-ica, bringing theirbusinesses withthem and saving El

Paso from the worst of the Great Recession.No one talks about that. What people do talkabout is how on March 11, 2010, the mayorof Ciuda d Juarez, Chihuahua, Mexico, re-ceived the head of a pig as a threat. Politicianslike Rick Per-ry madecommentssuch as,“bullets [are]hitting thecity hall in ElPaso,” and,“bombs [are]exploding inEl Paso.” Itpainted the

border asa terrifyingplace and itfueled the na-tion’s reckless behavior of building a uselessfence. It labeled immigrants as evil and scaredAmericans.

I applaud President Barack Obama forhis executive immigration action. He tookthe reigns of a narrative spiraling out of con-trol and attempted to redene what the word“immigrant” actually means. Immigrationis truly about letting families who want a

ghting chance into our country acriminals from entering. The onlybetween a child born within our bone born outside is the amount of oty the former has. How can we hathat tells us to “give us their poor”reject them without a second thopath to citizenship that immigrdoes not exist because the politicianin power have no incentive to cr2020, Latinos are projected to riseof the Texas population, closing thwhites who will stand at 41.1%. Thtion shift would be disastrous for Rsince Latinos tend to vote Democrdiverse Texas could result in a purpstate instead of a deep red one. Wocrats own California, Texas, and it’s game over.

The talking points on immigratabout waiting in line to become anbut rather who deserves to be an We have no right to say who deservAmerican and who does not. Whoeing to put in the work and contribcountry deserves the right to be an citizen. It is up to us, as citizens, to toxic dialogue used to demonize imand to realize that we are a countrby immigrants for immigrants. Su

many immigrants are eeing religcution as was once the case, but theeing for their lives. Above all, theing for their children’s lives. Immonly politicized because the balancis on the line. We must look beyondpublicans and Democrats say aboution and look at the facts: human lthe line.

Whose Country Is It Anyway?The Border, DREAMers, and the Idealized America

ARCADIA POLITICAL MAGAZINE

ello and welcome to Arcadia Political Magazine’s rst issue!

arlier this year I was tasked with proling the Wesleyan Republican Committee for The Argus. One ofe group’s founders, Emmakristina Sveen ’17, told me of her plans to work with the Wesleyan Democrats

n a range of bipartisan endeavors, including a publication—maybe a magazine, maybe a website, maybeblog—edited by members of both groups. I was immediately sold.

ver winter break I corresponded with Hannah Skopicki ’18 and Joseph Nucci ’16 to compile a make-shiftam of editors, all committed to increasing political engagement on campus by publishing student-drivenolitical material. Our next step was to come up with a title.

n Greek mythology, Arcadia refers to an unattainable utopia. So why would we call this magazine Arca-a? Perhaps because it is our attempt to reach such a place; to strive for an ideal of meaningful politicalscourse, thoughtful political reection and analysis, and, above all, substantive collaboration with thosehose views and beliefs diverge from our own.

What is Arcadia Political Magazine? It’s a dynamic platform for all-things-politics at Wesleyan. Beginningthe fall, we will operate a weekly calendar to which anybody may submit any political event. We will run

blog to which anybody may submit any political post. We will print our magazine as soon as we receiveucient funds, and we will distribute our print issues around campus. Lastly, we will work our hardest to

licit more diverse contributions from students of dierent backgrounds, aliations, and proles. It mayund utopian, but we’re up for the challenge.

Matt WallockEditor-in-Chief

***

n the winter of 2014, a group of ten people sat in a small room in the basement of Allbritton. That meet-g, spearheaded by Emmakristina Sveen ’17 and Marshal Lawler ’16, blossomed into Arcadia Political

Magazine.

am a rm believer in growth. In its rst semester Arcadia has grown from an idea to a published maga-ne with numerous submissions and a wealth of campus support. In the future we will update a political

ngagement calendar and a blog to increase discussion of politics at Wesleyan.

has truly been a pleasure to work on Arcadia with Wesleyan students of dierent ideologies. The greatesty is how open-minded our organization of students from various walks of life proved to be.

ook forward to the limitless future of Arcadia at Wesleyan.

Hannah SkopickiEditor-in-Chief

c/c/o merchant.auctivacommerce.com


4/19

Liberalism and My DiscontentsA Wesleyan Socialist Speaks Out


Wesleyan liberals,

As a founding member of the Wesley-Democratic Socialists, I have a con-

sion to make: I used to be a liberal too.chliberal was more like it. Volunteer-

g for Obama and Elizabeth Warren’smpaigns in my free time, interning forongressman Joe Kennedy, member ofy high school’s Student Democrats club,was the epitome of a young, idealistic,

emocratic Party activist.And then I wasn’t.It’s not like there was a single dening

oment when I said to myself, “I am acialist.” My political journey was a longocess that involved a lot of soul-search-g, a story that would both needlessly take

too much space and too much of yourme, and I intend to do neither.

My reason for writing this essay is rstd foremost to engage with students ons campus who identify as liberals, to

eate a real dialogue between liberal andcialist camps. There will be none of theasturbatory and cynical “better thanou” tirades that, unfortunately, all tooany radicals take part in. I’m not here toconstructively attack liberal values from

ar, but to provide a measured critique ofe inadequacy of liberalism’s vision andctics.A better world is possible, a sentiment

at I’m sure many liberals on this cam-s share. That shared desire to see atter world is why socialists and liberalsed to engage with each other in the rst

ace. However, any movement capableachieving that world will need to moveyond liberalism’s limits and embrace thedicalism of the socialist project.

If there’s one thing that separates theeral worldview from the socialist one,s liberalism’s lack of a strong sense ofstory. That dierence can be summed

with a passage from the young Marx,

in which he bitingly wrote, “political econ-omy starts from the point of private prop-erty; it does not explain it.” Just like theeconomist who takes the social relations ofcapitalism as a self-evident and eternal ax-iom beyond history, liberal ideals of a re-formed and humane capitalism begin withthe social-democratic compromise and itsresulting welfare state without explainingtheir historical origins. What is accept-ed as a given by liberals should insteadbe explained in terms of actual historicalprocesses, namely the political movementsand organizations that led to such achieve-ments.

It is here that even a shallow reading ofhistory leads to one of the central theses ofthis essay: That the relative success of cap-italism at providing a mass basic standardof living came from the relative success ofmovements that actively battled against it.

In other words, concessions like the8-hour workday, the end of child labor, aliving wage, and workplace safety didn’tcome out of the goodness of the heartsof capitalists and politicians. Those con-cessions had to be militantly fought for byworkers themselves, often in the face ofgreat violence and repression by both busi-ness and the state. The Ludlow Massacreof 1914, in which the Colorado Nati on-al Guard stormed a tent encampment ofstriking miners, killing 20 people, includ-ing 11 women and two children, is justone example of America’s long history ofbloody and violent industrial conict.

Unfortunately, liberals all too often failto see the conict that has been and stillis at the heart of capitalism. Instead, lib-erals tend to look at the past in terms ofheroic individuals (FDR, LBJ) and specif -

ic legislation (Social Security, Civil RightsAct). Thus, from the liberal point of view,change came not from people organizingin the streets and in the workplace, butfrom backroom deals between politiciansand policy written by government bureau-crats.

In contrast to that narrow view of histo-ry, socialists look to the actual movementsthemselves for inspiration, specically theways in which common people becamecapable of forcing concessions from polit-

ical and economic elites through collectiveaction. Thus, from a socialist perspective,the history of the Great Depression wasless about policies coming from the oceof FDR and more about events like the1934 West Coast Waterfront strike, where32,000 dockworkers struck for two and ahalf months against the police and the Na-tional Guard, leading to a four day generalstrike that shut down San Francisco.

Moreover, while socialists see the gainsof the welfare state as a continuation ofsuch movements, liberals tend to separatethose gains from the movements that ac-tually achieved them, thereby creating a

false dichotomy between the past and thepresent. In the liberal worldview, espe-cially for the more technocratic liberals,the tactics and bitter conicts of the pasthave no bearing on the present and moreimportant, aren’t necessary or even desir-able. Hence the Democratic Party’s statusfor radicals as the proverbial “graveyard ofsocial movements.”

The inadequacies of liberalism’s viewstowards the past are directly related to itsinadequacies right here in the present. Ifliberals fail to fully recognize the signif-icance of the conicts that have shapedour history, how are they then supposed todeal with the intricate power dynamics oftoday?

One doesn’t need to go as far back asthe 19th century, let alone the British en-closure riots of the 16th century, to ndbitter class conict driving political andeconomic change. Class conict neverended but instead it took on new forms,

from the rise of Regan and T hatcher (wholabeled British unions the “enemy with-in” ) in the 1980s to the Republican driv-en “Right to Work” laws of today. Theseassaults on labor have largely worked, asshown by the drastic decrease in privatesector union density from 25% in 1973to 6.6% in 2014. As billionaire investorWarren Buett has admitted, “There’sclass warfare, all right, but it’s my class,the rich class, that’s making war, and we’rewinning.”

When just 85 people have as muchwealth as half the entire population of theearth, as an Oxfam study last year found ,then something is seriously awry. I’m surethis is a sentiment that many liberals share;wealth inequality isn’t an exclusive issuefor socialists. We can both be disgusted byobscene amounts of concentrated wealthamid millions living in abject poverty. Nev-ertheless, despite the shared revulsion, thedierences in our responses are just as im-portant. For when I look at the solutionsput forward by contemporary liberal pol-iticians and policy wonks, I can’t help butthink that they are entirely underwhelm-ing, so underwhelming that they make theliberal policies of the Great Society seemdownright utopian.

For example, take education, where themost progressive idea to come out of theDemocratic Party was Elizabeth Warren’s

failed bill to allow students to renancetheir loans to a lower interest rate. Insteadof drastically relieving the $1.2 trillionstudent debt that young people currentlycarry , that bill, while drafted in good faith,basically amounted to the banks and thegovernment making slightly less money o the backs of students.

It’s moments exactly like that where thesocialist, dare I say Marxist, critique of thecommodication of higher education ismost urgently needed. Instead of just low -ering the interest rates at which studentsget placed into debt bondage, Americansshould be ghting for higher education tobe free and universal, to raise it to a basichuman right for the 21st century. Soundsutopian, right?

Actually, it’s not. Chile recently passeda law that would make all of higher educa-tion free by 2016, paying for it through anincrease in the corporate tax rate.

Of course, that huge achievement wasthe result of nearly a decade of militantorganizing by Chilean students. At theheight of their campaign, Chilean stu-

dents occupied college campuses for eightstraight months and organized rallies at-tended by nearly 800,000 people.

The drastic dierences between Chileand America’s approach to educationalinjustice shows the inherent interconnect-edness of any political ideology’s visionand tactics. Liberalism, by eschewingboth structural change and conict-ori-entated organizing, is fundamentally un-able to craft a political program capableof achieving real results. It lacks both the

vision to imagine radical change and thetactics to achieve that change. Thus, whileliberals obsess over the micro-politics oflibuster votes and Supreme Court nomi-nations, Chilean students are in the streetsmaking demands, using collective anddemocratic action to achieve concrete, yetambitious goals.

That same combination of inadequatevision and inadequate tactics can (unfor-tunately) be applied to most of the othermajor issues we face today. From climatechange to unemployment, drone warfareand the prison-industrial complex, liberalthought has become utterly stagnant andinsucient. And when an issue is as urgentas climate change, liberalism’s inadequacycan quickly turn from the unimaginativeto the dangerous.

Above all, liberalism’s greatest failurehas been its inability to provide an alterna-tive to the present system, a way of movingbeyond capitalism. Despite all the progressthat has been made, capitalism’s past con-tradictions still haunt us to this day.

For example, while it is objectively pos-sible to feed every single person on earthdue to the productivity of world agricul-ture, 805 million people, approximately 1in 9 of the earth’s population, still don’thave enough to eat. Our problems are noteconomic or technological in nature, butpolitical. The question is not “are we pro-ductive enough,” but “who controls ourcollective productivity, and to what ends?”

Will the collective productivity of hu-manity be controlled by an elite few atthe expense of the many, or will it be con-trolled democratically and equitably? Inliberalism’s capitulation to capital and themarket, those are the questions that it failsto ask. Moreover, the continued existenceof massive poverty amid massive prosper-ity points to a larger capitulation—the ca-

pitulation of the imagination.In 1968, during the May 68 Movement,radical French students protesting the gov-ernment of Charles de Gaulle shouted “Allpower to the imagination.” Their visionwas of world free of both want and the bu-reaucratic constraints of the state, a worldin which the creativity of humanity wouldbe the driving motor of s ociety.

Now it seems that Margaret Thatcher’s“There’s no alternative” has become theslogan of capitalism in the 21st century.

Or to slightly misquote Winston another paragon of British con“Capitalism is the worst system all the others.” And liberalism, fogood intentions, seems hell-benting those two conservatives right

To create a better world, we maside the narrowness of the libdview and think about capitalistorically dened terms. Capitalibeginning and thus it must havThere can be no innite growth planet. Of course, the questionHow exactly does humanity mocapitalism?

It is precisely the aim of tist project to ask that question answer it—through the bumovements and institutions cachieving that world, a world bploitation, whether in its class,

der or any other form. Coopercoercion, would be the economthis society. As the historian E. Pson put it, “The aim [of socialito create a socialist State, towerman and upon which his sociadepends, but to create a ‘humor socialized humanity’ where the words of More) man, a nd n‘bearethe all the stroke.’”

If that sounds utopian, thatit is. And my greatest fear is thamost idealistic of today’s libecompletely given up on any semachieving the world that Thomdescribed.

Let us not forget that liberaliown utopian phase. Back in the 60s people honestly thought thty, hunger, and unemployment things of the past; that throughcapitalist growth and social legifuture had already arrived. And the 1970s, and with it OPEC, Wstagation and the crisis of thstate. The general state of libe

anism was inverted into one ofand pessimism, a state that has sed to this day.

But the socialist response to lipast failures is not to accuse it olet alone stupidity or ignorancesponse is instead to show that thnism of libera lism was held bacalism’s own structural limi ts. Forthe world that liberals once thopossible, we must begin by thi yond liberalism itself.

The Past

The Future

The Present

SPENCER BROWN

CONTRIBUTOR


5/19

Selective Service and WomenWhy We Need to Include Women in the Draft


VICTORIA HAMMITT

OUTREACH AND MEDIA DIRECTOR

On January 3rd, 2013, Secretary ofefense Leon Panetta announced thate ban preventing women from holdingmbat jobs and positions in direct com-t units would be lifted. The move wast without controversy, and certainlyt instituted immediately, but standards

r all jobs in the military are to be ap-oved as gender-neutral and in operation

this fall, and full integration barringceptional circumstances is expected bye end of the year.1 However, there wasother important implication of this his-

ric move. It meant that the main legaltication for distinguish ing between

en and women for purposes of Selectivervice registration had been wiped away.The modern draft was designed duringorld War I, reinstated durin g World Warremained in place through the Cold

ar, and was ended under Richard Nixon1973. However, in 1980, Jimmy Carternstituted the requirement for registra-n with the Selective Service System.

o perhaps the surprise of some, this re-irement still exists. All men in the Unit-States between the ages of 18 and 25

e required to register for the draft, andling to do so is a felonious oense thatn result in a ne of $250,000 or up toe years in prison. No one has been pros -uted for failure to comply since 1986.2owever, according to a spokesperson fore Selective Service, people are “ deniedancial aid, federal jobs, job training, se -rity clearance and citizenship becauseey failed to register by law,” and these re-rcussions are permanent if the individ-ls do not register before they turn 26.3

Every single person penalized un-r this law is male. Conscription in thenited States has always been, and con-ues to be, used only for men. Due to

shortage of military nurses, extendinge draft to women was considered duringWII, and it was further discussed whene registration was restarted in 1980d several times since. At every junc-re Congress has determined that theaft should not be extended to women.ter the restart of registrati on in 1980,veral men brought a lawsuit claiming

that the policy was unfairly gender dis-criminatory. On appeal to the SupremeCourt in the case of Rosker v. Goldberg,the Court ruled that because women werenot similarly situated to men in this issue,in that they were barred from groundcombat roles (at the time), the dierenti-ation based on gender was not unconsti-tutional. This case has been part of thebasis for the continued exclusion of wom-en from Selective Service Registration.4

But on January 3rd, 2013, this ar-gument was invalidated. As such,it is time for the same laws that ap-ply to men regarding registration forSelective Service apply to women.

One may ask why this issue matters,as we do not currently draft anyone nordoes it seem likely that the draft will bereinstituted anytime in the near future.But, if a situation were dire enough to

considering drafting, it seems clear thatthe country would require the help ofall of its citi zens, rather than only half.Even opponents of the draft extension ex-plain how “a national emergency requir-ing serious consideration of conscriptionwould be the worst time to force the issueof women being drafted .”5 The time toresolve the issue of wome n and the draftis now, so that the system is in place andready to go should we ever need to use it.

More importantly, the codicationof the draft extension by Congress (and

an act of Congress would be necessaryto enact this extension) would be bothan important recognition by the legisla-ture of the legitimacy of women in di-rect ground combat positions and a vitalsymbolic move in the struggle for genderequality in this country. The WashingtonPost published an article on the issue inlate January, predicting renewed debate.6However, the prediction generally did notcome to fruition. Another lawsuit was in-stigated to argue for the unfairness of thisdiscrimination, but has been dismissed.So, the traditional arguments againstwomen in the draft still prevail on thebooks and in the national consciousness.7

The rst of these arguments is fair-ly obvious. Those opposed to women inground combat also oppose the draft ex-tension, claiming that the military should“draw the line at the point of the bayonet”

because “women do not have an equal op-portunity to survive, or to help fellow sol-diers survive.”5 However, it seems the bestpeople to determine the riskiness of thechange would be the military experts inthe Pentagon, who have determined thatall military roles should be open to anyoneregardless of gender. Women who are notphysically capable of g round combat po-sitions would, in the case of the draft, beassigned to other jobs in the military, ex-actly as it was done for men who were un-able to hold combat positions in previous

drafts. The perspective of keeping women“from the bayonet” conveys that womenare people who need special protection,which can have overwhelmingly negativeeects on the ght for gender equality.

But the more implicit argument madeby those opposed to the inclusion of wom-en in the draft is that which relies on con-ceptions of women’s traditiona l roles. Apamphlet opposing the draft extensionduring WWII reads, “Women have a spe-cial responsibility for maintaining thoseconstructive inuences in the home andcommunity necessary to the future of ourcountry and fundamental to the kind oflife which our men are ghting to main -tain.”8 While the main justication ofCongress’s decision (when reinstitutingthe Selective Service registration in 1980)to act against President Carter’s sugges-tion to include women, was the groundcombat exclusion, they also cited “the so-

cietal impact of the registration and pos-sible induction of women.”4 The Courtin Rosker exercised judicial deference tothe debate and decision of the legislature,so upholding traditional gender roles was

at least indirectly a part of the decision. Justice Mars hall points this out in his dis-sent, observing that the opinion “places itsimprimatur on one of the most pote nt re-maining public expressions of ‘ancient ca-nards about the proper role of women.’ ”6

These ideas, that a woman’s properplace is in the home, are among the mostpervasive and fundamental attitudes thatare preventing the progress of genderequality. Part of the defeat of the EqualRights Amendment came from concernsthat inclusion in the military would dis -rupt women’s abilities to be home-mak-ers. Indeed, there have been eorts toget Congress to reverse the Pentagon’sdecision and make exemptions for wom-en in ground combat positions specif-ically so they can be “spared” the draft.It is clear that the main thing at stake isa schema of domination and privilegethat some are less than willing to let go

of. This is the “societal impact” Con-gress cited in 1981, and it is still dictat-ing our laws. When we allow this attitudeto impact legislation, it is legitimized.

A national poll by Mason-Dixon Poll-

Why I Refuse to Choose A Wesleyan Student’s Journey to CPAC

HANNAH SKOPICKI

EDITOR-IN-CHIEF

I’ll start out by saying that this isn’t a“poor conservatives” article. Yes, I am amember of the Wesleyan Republicans.Yes, I attended CPAC 2015. Yes, I go toan extremely liberal institution. No, I amnot asking for pity and am not asking forblame to be thrown. I am merely askingus to rethink our preconceived notionsabout each other and realize how similarin theory liberals and conservatives reallyare. I am asking for you to consider the

newest buzzword of the day, discourse.In my brief semester and a half at uni-

versity, one of the most common things I’veheard is “If you are a conservative, why did you come to Wesleyan?” This, among otherquestions that are similar in nature, neverfails to astound me. Ignoring the rst halfof that question, the answer is easy andone I’ve rehearsed a number of time s. Butattaching the prior phrase has made me re-think all beliefs I’ve held in regards to pol-itics and my place at Wesleyan University.

This past February I had the privilege

and honor of attending the Conserva-tive Political Action Conference (CPAC)in National Harbor, Maryland. Amidsta crowd of young republicans hustlingto meet and greet Ben Carson, DonaldTrump, and Rand Paul, I found myselfquestioning, “What made me so inexpli-cably dierent than these people that theyended up at more conservative schools,and I at a historically extremely liberalone? Are our ideologies so dierent thatwe were driven to not even consider at-tending each other’s school?” I decided todig deeper into this curiosity and began

talking to other young republicans attend-ing the conference. I realized quickly thatthe young republicans believed that issueslike healthcare and aid, do deserve to begranted to all citizens. They just believein a dierent way of imple mentation thantheir liberal counterparts. This resonatedwith me, as I discovered that Wesleyanstudents also cared deeply about the sameissues as the republicans I’ve spoken to.

When I was a little girl my dad alwaysused to say, “People to my left think I’mtoo conservative. People to my right think

I’m too liberal.” Now as I becoand more invested in politics anple involved in political policI identify with the recognition cation being a spectrum. I uthat there will always be people and the right of me, and how Ily identify is based on the situatiAt Wesleyan, I see myself leaniand further right. This is most to the fact that I nd an increaber of p eople identifying to myrounded by older, more rigid conat CPAC, I found myself iden

creasingly to the left. In talking with similar views to myself, I constantly in ux, like I should can be helpful in certain circuin helping to indicate people wsimilar beliefs. However, more not, they tend to divide and polastop pointing ngers and realizsome point on the spectrum, wpeople we disagree with. This shseen as a negative though. Thrversation and open-mindednesall succeed in getting our voic

ing & Research, Inc. in 2013 sh59 percent of Americans bewomen should be included inwith a margin of error of 3.2Additionally, although it was ed in 1998, a report by the UAccounting Oce showed thatget for Selective Service wouldbe increased by under 20% toistering women, $4.6 million atwhich would more than double ber of peop le on the national With the inclusion, perhaps, osion that guarantees that both a child cannot be drafted, it is the time has come for draft regiexpand to women: it is favored jority of the count ry, feasible, astep in the advance of wome

Only men are currently sthe penalties of a failure to rethe draft, and only men would

cated in a national emergencthe draft need reinstitution. Thof the last tools traditionalis ttheir arsenal to rationalize gequality, and it needs to be tak

c/o slate.com


6/19

ting tuition, usually the favorefor promoting accessibility of cocation, is not the obvious x thaespecially for private institutionWesleyan that rely on nancial er, it simply creates more nanon institutions, allowing them fewer low-income, aid-requiring

The relationship between and inequality appears to be a v

cle. Inequality makes it harder foto provide adequate nancial aidone, and this in turn drives mority. How can this problem be aCatharine Hill, president of Vassargues that simply lowering tuitisolve this societal problem. Insuggests oering subsidies for colhigh levels of diversity, which sure that colleges educate a sociically diverse student body withothem to cut costs. By genuinely athe negative eects that income has on universities, governmentety may be able to nd a workabl

One does not have to look haevidence of inequality on Weslepus. The lack of need-blind adm“Wesleyan Class Confessions” page, and even the contention ovGoose jackets are indications oity’s pervasive presence. Althohave succeeded in drawing attenissue, there is still a need for oest discussion if we want genuin

This is not to say that having a college ed-ucation makes you a bad person, but thatit needs to become more accessible for allif it is to become a vehicle for equality.

However, the opposite seems to behappening. The growth in inequality cre-ates challenges for institutions of higherlearning. As schools compete for those stu-dents who are able to pay the full stickerprice, they have to spend more to remain

competitive. Meanwhile, families who arenot able to pay in full require more andmore nancial aid. The combination ofthese factors creates a substantial nan-cial challenge for colleges and universities.

As more students ask for more nancialaid, colleges are strained. Many institu-tions, Wesleyan included, no longer prac-tice need-blind admissions. As resourcesfor nancial aid begin to run low, studentswho are able to pay full price receive moreattention. Even those institutions that arenominally “need-blind” often employ prac-tices that allow them to accept more ofthose who are able to pay full price. Accep-tances of international students or thosefrom the waitlist are not included in deter-mining whether a college is need-blind, soin recent years there has been a trend ofincreases in admittances of these students.

Clearly, maintaining a socioeconom-ically diverse student body is a goal thatcolleges should remain committed to. Butit is dicult when more and more studentsare competing for nite nancial aid. Cut-

ARCADIA POLITICAL MAGAZINE ISSUE I0 ARCADIA POLITICAL MAGAZINEISSUE I

COURTNEY WEIGANDCONTRIBUTOR

While there has been much talk aboutcorporating marginalized groups in pol-cs from the media and academia, wom-

continue to be extremely underrepre-nted in the U.S. government. Currently,e United States ranks 95th in the worldr the percentage of women in its nation-legislature (“Women”). Our position ins category has fallen over time, and

any countries that we consider repres-ve, such as Iraq and Afghanistan, ranknicantly higher, coming in at 53rd andrd, respectively (“Women”). These sur-ising gures call into question the quali -of representation of the American gov-nment and lead us to wonder what, ifything, should be done to rectify the sit-tion. Would increased female represen-ion in government truly benet society?

Jane Mansbridg e’s insight in her99 article of descriptive represen-ion proves extremely helpful in thisea. In this article, Mansbridge denedescriptive representation” as the simi-rity of physical characteristics betweenrepresentative and her constituency

Mansbridge 1999). It is believed that byaring the same qualities, there will beoverlap of personal experiences that

ows the representative to better repre-nt a particular group. However, there isfear that focusing solely on descriptivepresentation will lead to essentialism,e assumption that all members of a par-ular group have the same experiencesd identity that no other person outsidee group can attempt to understand andrtake in (2). This exclusionary practiceuld stimulate hostile feelings and creatensions between groups, causing an envi-nment unfavorable to compromise, and

erefore, unproductive and inecient. Inntrast to this supposition, Mansbridgeers various conditions under which de-riptive representation could prove bene-ial, such as in contexts of “distrust” duea history of subordination and “un-

ystallized interests” when the a groups not rmly dened its viewpoints (2).ansbridge asserts that descriptive repre-ntation can benet groups in these sit -tions because with shared experiencesd a personal stake in the interests ofparticular group, a representative can

better ght forthese interests onthe oor (1999).While there aremany compel-ling reasons toagree with theimportance ofan increased fe-male presencein Americanpolitics, it is dif-cult to imag -ine how to ac-tually changethe situation.

The situa-tion isn’t entirelyhopeless. Wom-en’s presence inthe political arenahas slowly increased over time, althoughthere is a growing partisan gap betweenfemale politicians. Many political scien-tists have pinpointed the lack of genderequality in politics to a lack of femalecandidates. It has been shown that wom-en can nancially raise as much money astheir male opponents during campaignsand win elections as often as men do.Therefore, it isn’t the quality of femalepoliticians that is absent from politics butrather the number of qualied femalesthat choose to run for oce. Many fac -tors may contribute to the diminishedself-condence evidenced by womenwho, while qualied, choose not to runfor oce. This decreased belief in one’sown political capability could potentiallybe linked to young women’s upbringingand stereotypes present in the media.

Another question arises as to wheth-er increased female participation ingovernment would benet politics and

society as a whole. In terms of politicaleectiveness, women have a legacy ofbipartisan cooperation, leading manypeople to believe that a higher numberof female representatives would lead tomore compromise and, thus, greater con-gressional productivity. However, therehas been a remarkable shift in politicsthat has negated this legacy and led tothe concept of “gendered partisanship.”Gendered partisanship describes that sit-uation where female politicians, due toperceptions of their bipartisanship, have

greater incentives to prove their partisanloyalty. Due to an increasingly polarizedpolitical environment, female politicianshave these incentives to demonstrate theirpartisan support in order to win leader-ship roles and committee positions inCongress. This phenomenon especiallyaects Republican congresswomen be-cause women are typically perceived asveering more toward the left on the po-litical spectrum. Therefore, Republicancongresswomen have extra desires toprove their partisan loyalty. Consequent-ly, an increased female presence in Con-gress could potentially exacerbate parti-san conicts and lead to greater tensionbecause of this gendered partisanship.Therefore, the push for greater femaleparticipation in Congress may not leadto greater compromise, as many expect.

The question remains as to how to in-crease female participation in politics. Butan equally important debate arises: how

to ensure this greater presence does notexacerbate tensions due to gendered par-tisanship. There are many important psy-chological and substantive reasons as towhy our country desperately needs great-er female leadership. Increased femaleparticipation could break down stereo-types, oer important viewpoints that arelacking in Congress, and lead to increasedfairness in policy implementation. Thus,it is important to discover ways of increas-ing female participation in government inways that benet our society as a whole.

Women in American Government

c/o the

CHRISTINA SICKINGERSTAFF

The word “class” is a tricky term inAmerica. It is not a concept that Amer-icans usually like to think or talk about.Most people acknowledge class only byidentifying it as a part of the amorphous,vague “middle class.” Having more orless can sometimes be a point of guilt.

However, the middle class is not what itonce was. Wealth inequality is g rowing, andas the saying goes, “the rich are getting rich-er and the poor are getting poorer.” Thisproblem is starkly illustrated by the fact thatthe top 20% of U.S. households own more

than 84% of the wealth, and the bottom40% own merely 0.3% (Scientic Ameri -can). The explanations for the growing gap,which has been especially prominent sincethe 1980s, range from the growth of tech-nology to the lax restrictions on Wall Street.But whatever the explanation, the wealthgap is real, and its eects are everywhere.

For some time, Americans appearedunwilling to address or change this trend.Generally, Americans strive to join the rich,not condemn them; the mythical AmericanDream that hard work is all it takes to pulloneself out of poverty and into wealth assuresus that it is possible. This seems to be chang-ing since the recession and the subsequentOccupy Wall Street movement, but class isarguably still an uncomfortable topic andthus does not get the attention that it should.

Despite America’s exceptional toler-ance for wealth inequality, it is not some-thing we can aord to ignore. As collegestudents, we are a part of a higher edu-cation system that is deeply intertwinedwith inequality. Education can fosterinequality, and in turn, inequality hasvisible, denitive eects on education.

The idea of “wealth inequality” usu-ally conjures the concept of the 1% andthe 99%—the exceptionally wealthy, andeveryone else. There are, however, two in-equalities in America. Other than the fa-miliar gap between the super-rich and ev-eryone else, there is another gap betweenthose who are college-educated and thosewho are not. So although college—andeducation in general—is often touted asthe solution to inequality, it only continuesto drive the problem, especially as long ascollege remains unaordable for many.

Classism and Wealth Inequal A National Struggle Plays out at the University Le

c/o theatlantic.com


7/19


Abortion, Polarization, and

the Dissemination of the

Political Binary JOSEPH NUCCI

EXECUTIVE EDITOR

When I say that I am pro-choice, whates that exactly mean? What does it meanbe pro-life? These terms are black and

hite, and if you analyze them in black-d-white terms, it becomes apparent howsleading they really are. A pure pro-lifence would be that abortion is wrong no

atter the circumstances. Somebody whoseliefs are so extreme believe that an abor-n is wrong if the woman is a survivor ofpe, or even if a woman’s life is in danger.you beli eve this, you are in the minority. Ady published in 2012 by the Pew Research

enter (PRC) found that only 13 percent ofemocrats and 22 percent of Republicansought abortion should be illegal in all cas-A purely black-and-white view of a pro-

oice stance would be the opposite, yet justextreme. Being purely pro-choice would

ean that you believe that abortion is okayany given time during the pregnancy, uptil the day before delivery. If you believes, you are also in the minority. The samedy by the PRC found that only 26 percentDemocrats and 11 percent of Republi-

ns thought that abortion should be legalall cases; 63 percent of Democrats and 57rcent of Republicans had views that laymewhere in the middle, making neitherrty united on the issue.There are many examples that compli-

te the black-and-white rhetoric that sur-unds the issue of abortion. Many peoplelieve that a beating heart and a working

culatory system constitute life. After all,st responders check for a pulse before theyanything else in an emergency medical

uation. So, if a person believes that a fe-should be aborted prior to it developing

beating heart (which is at about 6-7 weeks),e they pro-choice or pro-life? This is sig-cantly earlier than most abortion lawstos. Similarly, if a pregnant woman isbbed to death, doesn’t it make sense toarge the assaulter with double homicide?ot of pro-life supporters invoke this exam-

e as proof that life begins before delivery.

Is this selective rationalization or somethingelse? I am very skeptical of all or nothingclaims like these, and our polarizing lan-guage surrounding this issue makes it di-cult, if not impos sible, for a voter’s opinionto translate into politics.

The Democratic Party platform uses theword abortion four times. However, it doesnot specify anything about putting limits onabortion. It simply says that the governmenthas no business interfering with a woman’sright choose. The Republican Party plat-form, on the other hand, mentions the wordabortion 19 times. Their platform discussesthe freedom that a faith-based institution hasto opt out of procedures that go against their

beliefs. They oppose taxpayer dollars to fundor promote abortion practices and demandthat healthcare providers be required to carefor fetuses that survive an abortion becausethey are aborted later in the pregnancy. Theywant waiting periods so that the mother issure she wants to go through with it. I wassurprised to come across the line, “We sup-port the right of parents to consent to medi-cal treatment for their children, including…abortion.” Interestingly, We have here an ex-plicit statement from the GOP that abortionshould be available. There was no mention

of banning abortion anywhere in the entireplatform. Their platform wrestles with theshades of grey in an issue that is often seenas black and white. The Democratic Partyplatform states that abortion should alwaysbe available, without providing any quali-cations.

I do not agree with much of the GOPplatform regarding this issue. Money is animportant and inuential factor in manyhuman rights issues, so denying public fund-ing for abortions is directly infringing upona woman’s right to choose (after all, it is theRepublican Party who is fond of saying thatthe government shouldn’t interfere with ourfreedoms). However, despite identifying as

pro-choice, I was surprised to nd that theDemocratic Party platform endorses abor-tions in any and all forms. It does not spec-ify if it matters when the fetus is aborted orwhat the motives are. The Republican Partyplatform, on the other hand, states, “We callfor legislation to ban sex-selective abortions – gender discrimination in its most lethalform—and to protect from abortion unbornchildren who are capable of feeling pain.” Ipersonally have a problem with sex-selectiveabortions and with performing abortions onfetuses that can feel pain.

I also believe that a healthcare providershould not be coerced to perform an act theybelieve to be morally wrong. These are viewsthat are in line with the Republican Partyplatform, yet I believe in a woman’s rightto choose, which is in line with the Demo-cratic platform. The pro-choice and pro-liferhetoric that surrounds the issue of abortionputs me, as a voter, in between a rock and ahard place. It is my opinion that Democratsshould confront these aspects of abortionin their platform and that the Republicansneed to stop saying they are pro-life whentheir platform is undeniably pro-choice (inthe sense that they believe abortions shouldbe available; either that or change the plat-form). Of course, some politicians do oper-ate in the extremes, but the majority of theAmerican people do not. I would also like topoint out that the Democrats “get the gov-ernment’s hands o my body” mentality,to me, feels very libertarian and intuitively

makes a lot of sense. Since this issue is socontentious and since there are so manynuances to be made, perhaps letting peopledo what they feel to be morally sound is theanswer. However, Democrats often advo-cate for government spending on abortionpractices, which seems to be a profound be-lief in government involvement about whatpeople can and cannot do with their bodies.Considering that the majority of the Amer-ican people believe that some restrictions onabortion practices are appropriate, I am notso sure that the Democratic rhetoric holdsup. It doesn’t make sense to me to argue thattaxpayers, who have varying beliefs on thisissue, should have to fund any and all abor-tion decisions that may be made.

This is not meant to solely be about abor-tion, but about the polarizing language thatsurrounds the issue of abortion. The rheto-ric they use distracts from the nuances thatcan and should be discussed, openly andhonestly. Something that the Republicansand Democrats do very well is re-labelingpolitical stances. Anti-abortion becomespro-life. Pro-abortion becomes pro-choice,

so pro-life is necessarily anti-choice. Thisall or nothing way of thinking is polarizingand distracts from the conversations thatshould be had surrounding these issues tofacilitate cooperation and progress in ourcountry. Our government doesn’t just dothis with abortion issues. The religious rightin our country famously and ingeniouslyturned the “anti-gay marriage” stance intoa “pro-traditional family” one. This madeit possible for Americans to be against gaymarriage without being “homophobic.” It ismy personal opinion that politicians are per-

fectly aware of how polarizing their tacticsare and that they are content with letting themedia propagate this “us versus them” men-tality. This mentality is dangerous because itdisseminates a narrative that is not entirelyaccurate. It also distracts the American peo-ple and turns them into single-issue voters.To be pro-life is not necessarily to be a mi-sogynist. Pro-choice is not synonymous with“baby killer.” The question we should beasking is not whether one is pro-life or pro-choice, but rather under what circumstancesshould abortions be allowed and why do we judge these qualications the way we do?

Labels are important in both politics andin life, but it is my opinion that the way welabel political views in such black-and-whiteterms is growing increasingly problematic. In2014, the PRC found that “partisan animosi -ty has increased substantially. In each party,the share with a highly negative view of theopposing party has more than doubled since

1994. Most of these intense partisans believethe opposing party’s policies ‘are so misguid-ed that they threaten the nation’s well-be-ing.’” This nding is especially curious giventhat neither party is united on abortion is-sues. Of course, abortion is just one issue outof ma ny, and there are many issues that can-not be picked apart like this one, but I thinkthe legality of abortion is illustrative of howmisleading our political language can be. Ibelieve that this polarization of our countryhas increased due to a reliance on such termsthat lack a middle ground. This language is abipartisan issue, not a single-party issue. It isbroadcasted from both sides.

In their groundbreaking book The RadicalCenter , Ted Halstead and Michael Lind sug-gest that our country’s polarizing language isa symptom of an underlying problem. Theymake the claim that our polarization stemsfrom how we run elections. Candidates haveto pander to the extremes, who are usuallythe minorities, of their respective parties inthe primaries. They have to pander to thepurely pro-life or purely pro-choice peoplewho view political issues in a narrow-minded

way, good and bad, us and them. So, whenit comes time for the election, they have ahard time winning votes from people acrossthe aisle because they had to appeal to theradicals of their party to get through the rststage. A prime example of this is Jeb Bush’scandidacy. He is refusing to pander to theChristian right, but many predict he will notmake it through the primaries. This is not anoriginal idea. Politicians have been changingtheir views to get votes since politics becamea vocation. The media recently caught onto Obama’s akiness concerning marriage

equality. He was originally in favosex marriage in 1996, retracted from 2004-12, and then came outit again. The Saturday Night Live Update with Seth Meyers” summpresident’s back and forth quite when he stated that Obama had “outed as a Democrat.” It seemthat Obama ip-opped internallviews seem to have been comprplaying politics. If we are going ta nation, we have to go vehemen

the narrative that our nation isand must aim for the middle groblack-and-white mentality of Rversus Democrats isn’t getting us If anything, it’s holding us back. cial sciences, it is often acknowledgmuch of what we consider to be often a spectrum. For some reasonon viewing political identity as a blitical identities are not binaries; tha spectrum, and if we want to xpolitics, it’s time we started treatinsuch.

Can Fetuses Feel Pain?

The research on this ha varied. Some studi es suggthat fetuses are incapablefeeling pain but admit thatheir ndings do not determine the morality of aborpractices. Others suggest tthe fetus can feel pain as eas 8 weeks but it’s unclearmuch the opinions of thes“experts” were politically tivated. Some research shthe fetus can feel pain at 2weeks.

How Do State Laws on Abortion Vary?

It is worth noting that 8states have no restrictions when an abortion can be pformed, 21 states impose bitions at fetal viability (ming that the fetus, at abouweeks, can survive outsidewomb). Only 3 states bantions in the third trimesterthe remaining 18 have varrules.

c/o nytimes.com


8/19


Dollars in DemocracyPart 1: SuperPACs

DAN KIMCONTRIBUTOR

Lobbying. It’s a loaded word that canean many things. Google denes “lob -ing” as “seek[ing] to inuence (a poli-ian or ocial) on an issue.”1 For some,bbying is a morally grey but necessaryea of democracy; a requirement to rep-sent otherwise under-presented voices ine political process. Forhers, it is taboo—arty word synony-ous with corruption.Regardless of what

ne might think aboutbbying, its magnitudeolely in terms of cam-ign contributions) hasen a marked increasence the Citizens Unit-

v. Federal ElectionCommission deci-

on in 2010. That de-sion ruled in favor ofnlimited corporatenations to politicalmpaigns as long asither the candidater the party is in-lved. Justice AnthonyKennedy wrote for

e majority, saying:The [Supreme] Court

s recognized that therst Amendment ap-ies to corporations…d extended this pro-

ction to the contextpolitical speech.”2

The major implication of the decision

as that it opened the oodgates for in-eased super political action committeeAC) involvement in political races. AAC is “organized for the purpose of rais-g and spending money to elect and de-at candidate s. Most PACs representsiness, labor or ideological interests.” 3Vis-à-vis the Citizens United decision,

ACs can now make contributions with-t limits or restrictions on the sourcesfunds for independent expenditures

e. not directly donated to candidate orrty committees) in federal races (PACs

are still limited in the amount of directcontributions they are allowed to give andreceive).4 Explicit collaboration betweensuper PACs and candidate/party commit-tees is illegal (explicit being the key word).

The Citizens United case was not theonly landmark decision in which the U.S.courts sided with facilitating more cor-porate involvement in political races. In

Buckley vs. Valeo (1967), while the Su-

preme Court held that campaign contri-butions be limited, the SCOTUS held that“spending money to inuence elections isa form of constitutionally protected freespeech.”5 More recently, the decision inMcCutcheon vs. FEC (2014) ruled that,though contributors are still limited in howmuch they give to a candidate or a partycommittee in a federal race, “a single con-tributor is no longer capped on how manycandidates and party committees he/shecan give to in a given election cycle.”6

However, since Citizens United, the

number of super PACs has exploded, ashas their spending on political races. Ac-cording to the Center for Responsive Pol-itics (CRP), “as of March 09, 2015, 1,340groups organized as Super PACs havereported total receipts of $696,002,318andtotal independent expenditures of$348,545,054 in the 2014 cycle [alone].”7

In 2010, the CRP reports that out-

side spending (which includes political

expenditures from any groups or indi-viduals, like super PACs and excludescandidate and party committee fund-raising) hovered a little over $315 mil-lion. In the 2012 election cycle, thatgure reached around $1.03 billion.The 2014 midterm cycle saw a consid-erable drop—down to about $550 mil-lion—but still well past the 2010 mark.8

So what? What eect does all ofthis money have on the political pro-cess? Does this money equate to polit-ical inuence (and therefore power)?

According to a faculty study fromthe University of Mississippi, the an-swer is a resounding yes. Three pro-fessors there found that corporate lob-bying has a signicant positive eecton the contributor. The paper reads:

“…the market value of an extra dollar spent on prior period lobbying is roughly $200.This estimate coupled with thesample mean of annual lobby-

ing expenditures ($1.273M) in- dicates lobbying can increaseshareholder wealth by roughly$253M per year. Hence, lobbying appears to be a worthwhileinvestment, especially given themarket value of research anddevelopment expenditures andaverage internal rates of returnon other corporate investments”

The “investment value” of an ex-tra dollar spent on lobbying implies

that whatever bill or initiative towardwhich the money lobbies is resolved infavor of the lobbyist. In other words,politicians are overwhelmingly com-mitted to do the bidding of their lob-byists, resulting in clear monetary gainsfor the lobbyist—even more so thanother forms of corporate investment.

Though the analysis above isnot specic to campaign contri -butions, the incentives still apply.

From the perspectives of both corpo-rations and politicians, it makes sense tolobby and to listen to lobbyists. If a pol-itician is able to be inuenced in such away that the politician will create lawsand regulations so heavily in favor of acorporation’s interests that that companysees a return rate of up to 200 times theamount invested, it makes absolute senseto lobby through campaign contributions.

And if a corporation or an inu-ential person spent hundreds of thou-sands or millions of dollars to get youelected (through TV spots, attack adsagainst opponents, events, sponsors,

etc.), there is at least an imderstanding that, once in oowe that donor some politic

You wouldn’t be there inplace without their help. Ancame to shove, big-money swould not be slow in remindinthat fact, especially if you wanre-elected. The study above shpoliticians are indeed responsiinterests of their “investors,” rates of return those donors ex

Immense amounts of mosuper PACs are ooding in tpoliticians. The implications ing are up for debate. Howeverthat lobbying provides a samount of political clout goingwith the greatest wealth. Basereasoning above, politicians likely to defer to the interests dustries and corporations. It noting that politicians are alsby the voters themselves. But edly, money is power. And rthe road to Washington is pav

c/o fbdecanter.com c/o fbde


9/19

ARCADIA POLITICAL MAGAZINE6 ARCADIA POLITICAL MAGAZINE

What Do You Think Is the Most

Pressing Issue in Politics Today?

“I would have to say it is massincarceration of men of color.” – Aleyda Castro ’18

“I would have to say incomeinequality and distribution ofwealth in the U.S.” – Alison Denzer-King ’16

“I think one of the most importantpolitical issues facing us is theinequality of men and women in thiscountry. We should work on closing thewage gap and the opportunity gap.”– Ryan Dobrin ’18

“As young people, I think the mostpressing political issue is how we don’tfully understand how the governmentitself works.” – Hazem Fahmy ’17

“One of the most pressingpolitical matters facing us isncreasing student loans.”– Jessica Brennan ’17

“I think equal access toeducation is essential,not only for students’lives today, but becauseit will have lastingimpacts on our countryin years to come.” – Sonya Bessalel ’18

“I think today’s most pressingpolitical issue is how to combaterrorism and international

aairs... and also anothercritical political issue is that

of the uprising of violentriots following the Black LivesMatter movement.”– Emmakristina Sveen ’17

“Institutionalized racism the most pressing politicaissue facing us.” – Shayna Bryce ’18

“The most important politicalissues to me are women’s rightsand global warming.” – Hannah Fritze ’18

“I believe the mostpressing issue is racialinjustice, which hassevere physiological anpsychological impactson our society.” – Ali Jamali ’17

“I think the most pressing politicalissues facing us are the debates ongay marriage and abortion.” – Linne Halpern ’18

“The Supreme CourDecision on same-semarriage is one of thmost pressing politicissues.” – Nikki LeFlore ’16

“Healthcare is one of themost pressing political issuesfacing us right now.” – Jackson Barnett ’18

“The most pressing political issue facing us right now is theextreme increase of income inequality in this country. Comparto other countries and especially in recent times, the rich havebeen getting richer at much higher rates than the lower andmiddle classes.” – Matthew Renetzky ’18

“I think that one ofhe most pressing

political issues ishe problem of

genocide”– Emily Feher ’17

Compiled by Hannah Sk


10/19


Presidential PowerHow Much Is Too Much?

MAILE MCCANNSTAFF

The President of the United States holdsunique role dissimilar to many other posi-ns of power—even of executives of otheruntries—a power unlike any other branchour government. And expectations of theblic, press, and government can’t truly beet with the power the president actually has.hen things go wrong, the president is oftenamed, and when things go right, the pres-ent is often praised—as though unilateraltion alone caused the problem or success.though the power of the president has in-

eased throughout time, the expectations wean American public place on the POTUSe ultimately misguided and too high.Much of the American public doesn’t real-

e the American president was actually con-tutionally designed to have relatively littlewer in comparison to the other branchesd that the presidents few formal powers.

he president is themmander in chief,th ultimate controler military and navytion, and the chiefstate, a symbol of

e American people.he POTUS is exec-ve in chief, with thewer to appoint vari-s governmental o-

als and to make surews are executed. Theesident is the chief ofrty, the chief citizen,d chief administra-r. But those powerse it. He can’t force a

dlocked Congress tot, he can’t determinenstitutionality, hen’t force foreign alliesenemies to obey.Admittedly, the power of the president has

creased over time through a combination ofctors. First, the presidents have given them-ves power. There has been an increase ine number and expansiveness of executiveders, a mandate by the president to theecutive branch similar to laws but withoutngressional approval, like Obama’s immi-

gration executive order and Bush’s executiveorders on surveillance post-September 11,2001. There has also been an increase in sign-ing statements, in which a president signs abill but suggests that he disagrees with it. Con-gress has also increased the POTUS’s powerby deferring to him in times of military con-ict. Thus the president ultimately commandsmore than his formal powers suggest.

But this increase of power isn’t realisticto the even higher-powered president weAmerican people envision. This falsity of anAmerican president is multi-factored as well.The true power that the president created isoften over-credited by the president himself,

especially in good times, to reap political ben-et and to seem like a strong public gure.The delegation of power by Congress to thepresident has also given the public unrealisticexpectations. That delegation only occurs intime of conict. Post-9/11 President Bushwas able to get away with a lot more than he

would have if America’s future hadn’t been souncertain, people hadn’t been so scared, andthe nation hadn’t been unsafe. Fi nally, the me-dia has inuenced opinion through its favoritenarrative of the preside nt in media: a hero, orat least one of extreme strength like in Houseof Cards or The West Wing.

This combination of a lack of understand-ing of what powers the president actually has,

an actual increase of the preside nt’s power,and perceived increase of presidential powercreates a phenomenon Dartmouth politicalscientist Brendan Nyhan dubs the “GreenLantern Theory of the Presidency.” Thistheory can be broken into two sub-theories,the Lyndon Johnson Theory and the RonaldReagan Theory. The Green Lantern Theo-ry rests on the idea that if the president isn’tachieving something, it’s because of a lack ofwill to push through Congress, unlike LBJ, ora lack of persuasive power over the Americanpeople, unlike Reagan. But this ignores the factthat being persuasive to the American peopleas a whole is dicult when the American pub-

lic is becoming more and more polarized andpersuasive skills are less important than simplybeing in the same party, things Regan didn’thave to deal with as much. It also ignores thatLBJ might have been so successful at passingbills because Congress was strongly demo-cratic in both the House and the Senate at the

time and because LBJ was proting politicallyfrom Kennedy’s death (Klein n.p.).

Thus, when the presidents fall short atachieving things promised on their cam-paigns, we need to stop being so surprised.They didn’t achieve their goals not becausethey didn’t try hard enough but because theydidn’t have the power to succeed in the rstplace.

c/o brunchnews.org

Gender and the Wage Gap

AMELIA SPITTAL

STAFF

The existence of the wage gap andworkplace gender discrimination in theUnited States is a growing problem. Ex-tensive research, done by organizationssuch as the Institute for Women’s PolicyResearch, the International Labor Orga-nization, and the American Association ofUniversity Women, has provided us withthe cold, hard facts about the gender paygap. On average, among full-time, year-round workers, women earn 78 cents forevery dollar earned by their male coun -terparts. In some states, this gap is evenhigher. In Louisiana, for example, womenare paid just 66% of what men are paid.Unsurprisingly, this gap is even worse forwomen of color and for women over 35.When looked at over the span of an en-tire working life, these numbers mean anAmerican woman will earn $1 million lessthan a man. That is an amount that fewwomen can aord to miss, and one thatnone should have to.

So why is this the reality of Americanemployment? When all else is equal be-tween male and female workers, from skillto eort to level of education, why would awoman be paid a signicant amount less?It is the result of discrimination: compa-

nies refusing to give equal pay, promote,or even hire women despite their quali-cations solely because those in charge be-lieve that they are inferior because of theirsex. Though this is the most obvious formof workplace gender inequity, the WAGEproject, which works to end discriminationagainst women in the American workplaceand inspire people to enact this changequickly, points out that prejudice appearsin multiple forms. One form that may notalways be considered is sexual harassment,which causes many women to leave their jobs or lose them because of decreasedemotional stability and ability to work un-der such conditions. Another is the taxa-tion of motherhood, which is the commonpractice of mothers being paid less and be-ing seen as unreliable and un-promotablesimply because they decided to have kids.Although parenthood does usually meanless time dedicated to a job, men who be-come fathers are not regarded with thissame bias.

As with any movement, the rst step tocreating the desired changes comes fromthe acknowledgement of the problem.That is why a large part of mobilizing themovement toward gender equality in theworkplace has come from a more universalawareness of the inequality in existence.Recently, many of Hollywood’s elite have

spoken out against the wage gacome part of the pushback, whicerated a wider acknowledgemeninequities in all professions. D2015 Oscars, actress Patricia Ardressed the issue in her acceptanfor Best Supporting Actress, saevery woman who has given birthtaxpayer and citizen of this natour time to have wage equality for all and equal rights for womUnited States of America.”

Especially with this increase ness, change is more possible tIndividuals can learn better nskills to try to gain fair pay by dfrontation. Companies can bettor pay dierences by carrying

audits. And as a nation, we canPaycheck Fairness Act, a piece olegislation that would vastly imEqual Pay Act (which hasn’t beed since 1963) by creating motivemployers to obey the law, ampforcement of the act on a federalbanning retaliation against woquestion wage policies.

To me, it is obvious why thneeds to be eliminated; it just doeany sense. After centuries of beinthe “inferior sex” and being discagainst because of it, women hatime and time again that we acapable as men and that we deslute equality. Carly Fiorina, formof Hewlett-Packard, once said, er thought in terms of ‘men do‘women do that.’” This is the miall women and girls should havit is hard to think this way with slike unequal pay basically decl you are not as valuable. It is shthink that in a country like thStates, a country that has alway justice, a n unfairnes s as prominwage gap would still hold true tchange is happening, not only inbut also throughout the worldes where gender discriminationharsher. But if this change continsame glacially slow pace it has fove decades, statistics show thatgap won’t close in the U.S. for a years and globally for anotheramount of time is unacce ptabldeserve equal pay now. We neeto close this gap now. In doing sbetter our entire society.

c


11/19


AIDAN BERKELYCONTRIBUTOR

The eeriest spot in Spain is the Val-de los Caídos, the Valley of the Fall-. An hour’s drive northwest of Ma-id, the world’s tallest cross rises atopmountain ridge. Beneath it, carvedto the mountain lies a massive Catho-

Basilica. Ordered by Generalissimoanco to commemorate the Spanishvil War’s dead (and built by pris-ers of war), the complex holds hismb and 40,000 other soldiers from

sides. The architecture is perhapsst described as primitive fascist, withassive stone arches, baroque imagery,d shrines to the patron saints of themed forces. Walking through theorly lit nave you feel history and theountain itself weighing you down.Until 2011, it was nearly impossi-

e to visit the Valle. The controversy

Houses DividedA Look at American Political Division

is complex but rooted in Spain’s recenthistory. In the 1930s Spain fought abloody civil war, whose legacies—de-cades of political repression, militantseparatist movements, abrupt democra-tization, attempted coups—remain viv-idly real today; most modern politicalissues can trace their roots to this con-flict. The question of the Valle is aboutwhat aspects of this period to com-memorate, and how to remember them.Consensus seems impossible, at leastas long as the vivid memories endure.

Spain is far from alone here. Acrossthe globe, decades-old traumas echointo modern political discourse. InSouth Africa, to name one example,the ruling African National Congressrides its reputation as the opponent ofApartheid to power, regardless of itsinstitutional failings; many of its oppo-nents likewise represent Apartheid-eraconstituencies. Argentina and Chile

are still prosecuting human-rights cas-es dating back to their military juntasof the 1980s. The trauma can evenbecome international: one reason forGreece’s anger at the Eurozone bailoutis Germany’s harsh line, which evokesmemories of the brutal Nazi occupa-tion. Political scars do not heal easily,and in many countries with historiesof bitter political violence the socialfabric remains damaged decades later.

The question, then, is why we seethe same pattern in the United States,where it is common for political com-mentators to insist on an ‘Us-vs.-Them’dynamic. Perhaps the most visible ex-ample in recent times was Sarah Palin’scomments about the “real America.”But while Wesleyan students, many ofwho might not meet Governor Palin’scriteria, may dismiss this as anothermanifestation of what the great histo-rian Richard Hofstadter labeled “the

Paranoid style in American Politics,”we should remember that this tendencycrops up all across the aisle. One of thefirst moments of political satire I canrecall cropped up in 2004, when elec-toral maps appeared on the Internet de-picting the borders between the ‘UnitedStates of Canada’ (Kerry states) and anation variously labeled ‘Jesusland,’ the‘United States of Texas,’ or ‘Dumbfuck-istan’ (Bush ones). The division exists,and is apparently growing: multiplestudies indicate that America self-seg-regates along ideological lines, down tothe county level. What makes this vitri-ol so surprising is its dual lack of cause.On the one hand, and in spite of regularpronouncements by politicians seekingre-election, the substantive differencebetween Democrats and Republicansis small by global standards (America’sactual political spectrum is much broad-

er, but most alternative vi ewpoints, TeaParty aside, have a snowball’s chancein the Sahara of winning off ice). Butif there’s no obvious practical reason,neither is there a clear historical trigger.

We can, of course, search for one.We’re unlikely to find a suitable foreigncrisis: the US has been remarkably suc-cessful there. With good reason, WorldWar Two entered the national mythosas a noble act; the Cold War ended inconclusive victory; anyone who expe-rienced 9/11 remembers a nationalmoment of unity, while Iraq and Af-ghanistan happened outside most ofour visceral experiences. Nor is therea domestic equivalent. Even the GreatDepression only produced a moment ofclass division, while United States hasalso been generally free of coups, insur-rections, or sustained armed struggles.The greatest exception, the Civil War, isnow a century and a half gone; the lastsurviving soldiers passed away in the1950s. Which is not to deny the CivilWar’s lasting effects. To some extent,

history chains us all. But even living inthe southern US, where it isn’t uncom-mon to hear talk of the ‘War of North-ern Aggression’ or see Confederate

bumper stickers, I’d hesitate to suggestthat most people view politics in so deepa context. The connection simply isn’tthere. The Civil War is no longer real.

The obvious objection, of course, isthe Civil Rights Movement in its vari-ous manifestations. Violence, stark di-visions, partial resolution…it certainlyresembles, in several aspects, other na-tions’ national traumas. Especially inlight of the Ferguson movement, onecould easily argue that America is stillfighting the battles of the 1960s. Theelectoral map is largely a byproductof Nixon’s southern strategy. And yet,without wanting to minimize either theoppression meted out to so many groupsor the ongoing nature of the debate, Idon’t think it meets our criteria. In allthe countries described above, the con-flict survives across generations andtransient political issues. In the United

States however, regardless of materialprogress, ideologically the activists won.

Think of the language of politicaldiscourse today. In most respects, itrepresents a victory for the Civil RightsMovements. For the most part, it is nolonger acceptable in mainstream Amer-ica to actively argue for discriminatorypolicies. Which is not to say that suchpolicies have disappeared (they haven’t),but defending them now requires a cov-ering justification besides the intend-ed effects. Even if the racism, sexism,homophobia, and other biases survivein hidden or coded manners, that theymust be coded tells us something. Everytime the language seeps to the surface, itis denied, re-contextualized, apologizedfor. Whatever you think of the tangi-ble state of affairs, this i s a remarkabletransformation. Whether it went too faror not far enough is another question,but it’s hard to frame the Civil RightsMovement as an enduring schism inAmerican politics, because our po-litical language accepts its victories.

The near future may, of course, proveme wrong. As America becomes morepolarized, it feels that some major ideo-logical swing, either to the left or right,

is coming; should this occur, tbe we’ll look back on the Auturning point of this deep struwe can only judge the presentpresent reveals stark politicalof the sort usually associated wpast trauma…and no plausibl

But that apparent harmona product of the Americannarrative. I’m not historian eoutline that narrative here, butmost readers can imagine thManifest Destiny; Melting PLiberty, and the Pursuit of HAlthough meanings change othe American story is usuallyprogression, ascending towardUpon A Hill. And while matries have their national myththink of many as self-consciomonious conceptions as the Aone. By nature, this leaves little

dissent within the American da tautology: America is welcoimproves itself, so if you haveand strive for a better Americpro-America, just like everybWhen everybody appears to bsame side, dissent seems to d

The Civil War is a popular the United States, especially recent anniversaries. But Ametory is turbulent enough withwe would only remember. HAmericans know anything aboolent labor struggles of the 20ry, the end of ReconstructionKansas or the Indian Wars? turmoil of the 60s, still withmemory, is glossed over. Whcountries can’t agree how to rtheir pasts, in America we rclearly. And as a result, we ize the disagreements that focountry. For all the unity thatit comes with a downside: whecans disagree, it’s often hard tate why the two sides feel so f

Instead we feel like enemies, explain why. To paraphrasas Jefferson, maybe a littlenow and then, is healthy for a

c/o usnews.com

facebook.com/wesarcadia


12/19


The Hero the Republicans NeedNot the One They Deserve

MATTISON ASHERCONTRIBUTOR

The Republican Party desperate-needs to change. Politicians on both

des of the aisle have realized that theepublican Party is struggling to estab-h an identity in the second decade ofe 21st century. After the 2012 elec-

ons, Republicans were faced with (ande now currently facing) an identityisis. Would they entrench themselves

in social conservatism, hawkish foreignpolicy, and attempt to slash the deficit,all emboldening of the policies theyhave supported for almost two decades?Or will they heed to the demands ofchange, potentially drastically alteringtheir voting coalition?

While they may have done well in thelast mid-term elections, their wins camemostly from a rejection of Obama’s for-eign policy, a slight rise in the distaste forObamacare, and low Democrat turnout

numbers, not because the Republicanmessage excited America. In 2012,voters between the ages of 18 and 40almost made up half of the voting elec-torate while in 2014 they made up only32% of all voters. The message behindthese numbers is that, in elections where young p eople an d mino rities don’t vo te,Democrats have a much higher chanceof losing the election. The Republicanscannot count on the fact that youngerpeople and minorities will not show up

if they want to have an effective strategyfor winning in a future America that isless white, more socially liberal, and notas old.

The current policy stances that manyRepublicans hold are no longer popu-lar with the general public. A poll con-ducted by CNN on February 12-15 dis-played that 63% of Americans believethat same sex marriage is a constitu-tional right while 36% of Americansopposed it as a right. 2014 markedthe first year when more people identi-fied as “pro-choice” than as “pro-life”.While the Republicans want to keepthe Evangelical Christian part of theircoalition happy, the opinions that mostAmericans hold on social issues contrastthe Republicans’ current platform andwill hurt the Party more and more everyelection cycle if the trends continue.

Enter Rand Paul, a republican pres-

idential candidate that has garnered alot of attention from the media for be-ing a non-traditional Republican. Hefirst made headlines when he performeda 13-hour filibuster on drones, a sym-bolic gesture that displays his supportfor less intervention in foreign spheres. Since 2013, the brand recognition ofRand Paul has skyrocketed. Rand Paulwas one of the most googled republi-can names in 2014 and was only secondto Chris Christie (who was most likelygoogled because of the bad press he re-ceived on Bridgegate). Rand Paul evenmade the cover of Time magazine’s Oc-tober 16th issue, “The Most InterestingMan in Politics.” He is increasingly be-ing seen as the main wild card in the re-publican primary, and for good reason.

Rand Paul’s stance on a myriad ofsubjects displays his fundamental differ-ences with the Republican Party yet alsoportrays his willingness to cooperatewithin the Republican policy structure.Rand Paul is against a constitutionalamendment that would allow gay cou-

ples to marry, but believes it should beopen for the states to decide. Paul hasstated that abortion should be illegal,but also admits there are thousands ofexceptions to any abortion ban. WhileRand opposes the war in Iraq, the warin Afghanistan, and the embargo onCuba, he also admits that Israel is an es-sential ally in the Middle East and mustbe supported. The reformer admits thatthe GOP is too eager for war, but pointsout Hillary is as well. Some of the bold-est claims Rand Paul has made, claims

that other politicians have been too fear-ful to make, are that our justice systemis institutionally racist, that the war ondrugs has been a pyrrhic victory at best,and that police reform is a necessity .

While clearly a conservative, RandPaul’s views make him more interestingas a republican candidate. Unlike mostof the other potential republican can-didates, he is much less hawkish whenit comes to foreign policy and is muchmore conservative when it comes togovernment intervention in the econo-my and in the private lives of Americancitizens. He is someone who can takethe Republican Party into a new elec-toral age, effectively changing the baseof the party.

The demographics are against Re-publicans. The country is getting lesswhite and younger, and therefore theprimary voting bloc for the Republicans

is decreasing. They must find politicalstances that will satisfy their establish-ment base while at the same time chang-ing certain policy stances in order to at-tract new voters for their coalition. Oneway Rand Paul is successfully re-brand-ing the Republican Party is admittingthe failures of governments in areaswhere other politicians have refused toface reality: “Michael Brown’s deathand the suffocation of Eric Garner inNew York for selling untaxed cigarettesindicate something is wrong with crim-inal justice in America.” Paul admits“There’s a racial outcome to the war on

drugs. Three out of four peoplon for nonviolent drug offensesand brown ... [even though] ware using drugs at the same rkids are” and claims that “I wiue to fight to end the racial dispdrug sentencing. I will continulengthy, mandatory sentencesvent judges from using discretcontinue to fight to restore votfor non-violent felons who’vtheir sentences.” No other polispoken about Ferguson or theMichael Brown in such a direcmitting that the government isfor institutional racism. The RParty has always been viewedapathetic to minority issues, bPaul’s fight against the institutism embedded in our laws, suhigher punishments for possess(which is used more by mino

people of low income) comparcocaine (which is used more band people of high income),an honest attempt by a Repurepresent his black constituemeaningful way. By fighting aGovernment in attempting totle the war on drugs, Rand Papotentially expanding the appRepublican Party to those whoaffected by the war on drugs.

While around 50% of thewants to put troops in Iraq infight the Islamic State , a pRand Paul would not be in su

c/oc/o infowars.com


13/19


is call to action is most likely a kneerk reactio n and will subside by theme the primaries roll around for aumber of reasons. With low oil prices

d a growing international coalitionat is set on the destruction of the Is-mic State, the Islamic State’s powerould dwindle in the next year. Theyll not be able to garner nearly asuch revenue from the sale of oil, andeir extremist nature will continue toolate potential allies as well as createore enemies. This belief may be wellunded, but Rand Paul’s largest poten-l weakness with the Republican basehis foreign policy. Recently his dis-reement with much of the Republi-n Party has come to a forefront in thebate over the upcoming budget pro-sal. Rand Paul reacted to Marco Ru-

o’s bill to increase defense spending:

think it is irresponsible and danger-s to the country to borrow so muchoney to add int

arcadia spring 2015 (final 2)

Documents