What Are the Octagon Papers?
Here's your opportunity to nerd out about niche politics or simply vent your frustrations about something you've been paying attention to in the news.
|
Virginia Ryan -- May 27, 2021, Cancel the Games
The 2020 Olympic Games were rescheduled to 2021 due to the pandemic. The postponement ended the careers of many athletes who had trained for years and derailed training efforts of other athletes who were fortunate enough to be able to wait another year to compete. Cancelling this years’ Games would end even more careers and seriously disappoint thousands of hard working athletes. As an athlete myself, I am very sympathetic to the interests and frustrations of Olympic athletes, but I cannot support the Games being held this year in Tokyo, Japan.
The COVID-19 situation in Japan is far from contained. Only around 2% of Japanese people are fully vaccinated, with around 6% having received at least one shot of vaccine (https://ourworldindata.org/covid-vaccinations?country=JPN). The U.S. Department of State issued a Level-4 travel warning for Japan, which translates to “Do not travel” (https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/25/sports/olympics/tokyo-olympics-cancel.html). The state of emergency in Japan is set to expire on May 31, but the governors of Tokyo and Osaka are requesting that it be extended (https://edition.cnn.com/2021/05/27/sport/japan-coronavirus-tokyo-olympics-emergency-intl-hnk/index.html). Furthermore, polling shows that most people in Japan are very concerned about their country hosting the Olympics this year (https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/25/sports/olympics/tokyo-olympics-cancel.html).
Many of us have been fully vaccinated (many thanks to Amherst for holding a vaccine clinic) and are surrounded by other vaccinated people. I myself have begun feeling a bit lax with COVID-19 restrictions and have even joked with friends that the pandemic is over. It is easy for us to lose sight of the larger picture and the state of the pandemic elsewhere when so much of the news close to home has been positive. Also, many of us are rightly suffering from some COVID-fatigue and desperately want to believe that this nightmare is over. That should not excuse our support of irresponsible and dangerous events like the Tokyo Games. Watching Simone Biles win another gold medal, witnessing the first Olympic softball games since 2008, or Katie Ledecky breaking another world record is not more important than the safety of the people in Japan.
I also want to briefly touch on the issue of the 2022 Olympics, which are set to be held in Beijing, China. A coalition representing Uyghurs, Tibetans, residents of Hong Kong and others have officially called for a boycott of the Games. The International Olympic Committee claimed that the 2008 Beijing Olympics would pressure China to improve human rights conditions, but evidently the opposite proved true (https://apnews.com/article/beijing-sports-asia-2020-tokyo-olympics-china-olympic-games-73163e1885612915b4742de2bfa3d277). Sports are never just about pure athletic contests, especially when they are on the international stage. If the U.S. competes in the 2022 Games, all the athletes and the rest of the country will be tacitly consenting to Beijing’s genocide of the Uyghurs (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-22278037).
Melanie Schwimmer ‘23 -- May 10, 2021, Please, Don’t Just Shut Up and Play
Last month, a bar owner in Ohio vowed not to air any NBA games until the league expels Lebron James. The owner threw around the same line used for years: athletes should stop talking and start playing.
This trope shapes sports as an untouchable realm--where people escape everyday life-- and dehumanizes the athletes themselves. Sports never have been and never will be devoid of political interference as we monitor, judge, and profit on the bodies of others. Politics shape everything in our society and have always played an instrumental role in sports. Sports constantly push societal boundaries while simultaneously reflecting racist, classist, heterosexist, and patriarchal narratives.
As star athletes continue to sign multi-million-dollar contracts, garner millions of social media clicks and gain extreme social capital, they often have unparalleled opportunities to make change. Last year alone we saw the impact of Atlanta Dream players working to elect Reverend Warnock, the establishment of Lebron James’ political organization More Than A Vote, and Maya Moore’s clemency work. Athletes are not a monolith and do not always know the right things to say. But we are at a point where we cannot say nothing. It is a privilege to be apolitical, a privilege that many athletes do not have. Countless of our greatest stars have shared their stories of police racial profiling everywhere from inside their own stadium to outside of their multi-million-dollar homes. Meanwhile, across the country, legislators are turning trans athletes’
bodies into political battlegrounds.
After all, when people say “shut up and play” to our athletes today, they are silencing mostly Black, queer and/or female athletes who speak out about injustices that directly harm their own lives and invalidates their humanity. Professional athletes are not simply objects for our weekly enjoyment, but people who are impacted daily by political decisions.
We are far from the days when Michael Jordan remarked “Republicans buy sneakers, too,” rather than endorsing Harvey Gantt, the Black Democrat running against racist incumbent Jesse Helms in his home state’s 1990 Senate race. In 2021, athletes--including the approximately 33 percent of Amherst student athletes--please keep organizing, kneeling and tweeting. We will be there to listen, march and get in good trouble with you.
Ella Peterson ’22 — April 29, 2021, Why Our State Legislatures Are Failing Us
Currently, there are only ten states with full-time legislatures. This means that the overwhelming majority of states are governed by legislators who are expected to hold another job, in addition to their responsibilities in government. This system is antiquated and fundamentally undermines the quality of our democracy.
Part-time legislatures slow down the legislative process and limit the work that can be done. In a federalist system, the states intentionally have significant power. The Constitution enshrines them with specific responsibilities, from the running of elections to the overseeing of schools. However, very few states actually have the capacity to fully see out all of their powers, because of the limits of time and resources.
The reason why the majority of states have part-time legislators dates back to the early history of the United States, when the power of government was much less and legislators convened for distinct periods of time before returning to their homes and lives. In a 21st century context, this system makes very little sense, as the scope of governance is necessarily larger, and many legislators can fairly easily commute within their state. Old logics for a new era cannot serve us.
This structure is also inherently elitist. Very few professions offer the flexibility in order to hold these positions, thus many members of state legislatures come from the relatively few occupations. Another portion of members are in a financial position that allows them to not have to worry about supporting themselves or their families and are instead able to rely on their partners or generational wealth. These legislators are able to devote more time and energy into their work, allowing them to do a better job and build more connections to stay in power. It is an offense to our democracy that we fail to equip all of our leaders with the resources they need to do the job that we elect them to do, and specifically undermine the needs of those most traditionally excluded from the halls of power.
In my home state of New Jersey, every seat in the legislature is up for election this fall. I can’t help but wonder how much more representative our government could be without the unnecessary constraints of part-time legislatures. If we value our democracy, we need our legislatures to be full-time. You cannot half-ass a functioning government, and frankly, it shows.
The 2020 Olympic Games were rescheduled to 2021 due to the pandemic. The postponement ended the careers of many athletes who had trained for years and derailed training efforts of other athletes who were fortunate enough to be able to wait another year to compete. Cancelling this years’ Games would end even more careers and seriously disappoint thousands of hard working athletes. As an athlete myself, I am very sympathetic to the interests and frustrations of Olympic athletes, but I cannot support the Games being held this year in Tokyo, Japan.
The COVID-19 situation in Japan is far from contained. Only around 2% of Japanese people are fully vaccinated, with around 6% having received at least one shot of vaccine (https://ourworldindata.org/covid-vaccinations?country=JPN). The U.S. Department of State issued a Level-4 travel warning for Japan, which translates to “Do not travel” (https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/25/sports/olympics/tokyo-olympics-cancel.html). The state of emergency in Japan is set to expire on May 31, but the governors of Tokyo and Osaka are requesting that it be extended (https://edition.cnn.com/2021/05/27/sport/japan-coronavirus-tokyo-olympics-emergency-intl-hnk/index.html). Furthermore, polling shows that most people in Japan are very concerned about their country hosting the Olympics this year (https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/25/sports/olympics/tokyo-olympics-cancel.html).
Many of us have been fully vaccinated (many thanks to Amherst for holding a vaccine clinic) and are surrounded by other vaccinated people. I myself have begun feeling a bit lax with COVID-19 restrictions and have even joked with friends that the pandemic is over. It is easy for us to lose sight of the larger picture and the state of the pandemic elsewhere when so much of the news close to home has been positive. Also, many of us are rightly suffering from some COVID-fatigue and desperately want to believe that this nightmare is over. That should not excuse our support of irresponsible and dangerous events like the Tokyo Games. Watching Simone Biles win another gold medal, witnessing the first Olympic softball games since 2008, or Katie Ledecky breaking another world record is not more important than the safety of the people in Japan.
I also want to briefly touch on the issue of the 2022 Olympics, which are set to be held in Beijing, China. A coalition representing Uyghurs, Tibetans, residents of Hong Kong and others have officially called for a boycott of the Games. The International Olympic Committee claimed that the 2008 Beijing Olympics would pressure China to improve human rights conditions, but evidently the opposite proved true (https://apnews.com/article/beijing-sports-asia-2020-tokyo-olympics-china-olympic-games-73163e1885612915b4742de2bfa3d277). Sports are never just about pure athletic contests, especially when they are on the international stage. If the U.S. competes in the 2022 Games, all the athletes and the rest of the country will be tacitly consenting to Beijing’s genocide of the Uyghurs (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-22278037).
Melanie Schwimmer ‘23 -- May 10, 2021, Please, Don’t Just Shut Up and Play
Last month, a bar owner in Ohio vowed not to air any NBA games until the league expels Lebron James. The owner threw around the same line used for years: athletes should stop talking and start playing.
This trope shapes sports as an untouchable realm--where people escape everyday life-- and dehumanizes the athletes themselves. Sports never have been and never will be devoid of political interference as we monitor, judge, and profit on the bodies of others. Politics shape everything in our society and have always played an instrumental role in sports. Sports constantly push societal boundaries while simultaneously reflecting racist, classist, heterosexist, and patriarchal narratives.
As star athletes continue to sign multi-million-dollar contracts, garner millions of social media clicks and gain extreme social capital, they often have unparalleled opportunities to make change. Last year alone we saw the impact of Atlanta Dream players working to elect Reverend Warnock, the establishment of Lebron James’ political organization More Than A Vote, and Maya Moore’s clemency work. Athletes are not a monolith and do not always know the right things to say. But we are at a point where we cannot say nothing. It is a privilege to be apolitical, a privilege that many athletes do not have. Countless of our greatest stars have shared their stories of police racial profiling everywhere from inside their own stadium to outside of their multi-million-dollar homes. Meanwhile, across the country, legislators are turning trans athletes’
bodies into political battlegrounds.
After all, when people say “shut up and play” to our athletes today, they are silencing mostly Black, queer and/or female athletes who speak out about injustices that directly harm their own lives and invalidates their humanity. Professional athletes are not simply objects for our weekly enjoyment, but people who are impacted daily by political decisions.
We are far from the days when Michael Jordan remarked “Republicans buy sneakers, too,” rather than endorsing Harvey Gantt, the Black Democrat running against racist incumbent Jesse Helms in his home state’s 1990 Senate race. In 2021, athletes--including the approximately 33 percent of Amherst student athletes--please keep organizing, kneeling and tweeting. We will be there to listen, march and get in good trouble with you.
Ella Peterson ’22 — April 29, 2021, Why Our State Legislatures Are Failing Us
Currently, there are only ten states with full-time legislatures. This means that the overwhelming majority of states are governed by legislators who are expected to hold another job, in addition to their responsibilities in government. This system is antiquated and fundamentally undermines the quality of our democracy.
Part-time legislatures slow down the legislative process and limit the work that can be done. In a federalist system, the states intentionally have significant power. The Constitution enshrines them with specific responsibilities, from the running of elections to the overseeing of schools. However, very few states actually have the capacity to fully see out all of their powers, because of the limits of time and resources.
The reason why the majority of states have part-time legislators dates back to the early history of the United States, when the power of government was much less and legislators convened for distinct periods of time before returning to their homes and lives. In a 21st century context, this system makes very little sense, as the scope of governance is necessarily larger, and many legislators can fairly easily commute within their state. Old logics for a new era cannot serve us.
This structure is also inherently elitist. Very few professions offer the flexibility in order to hold these positions, thus many members of state legislatures come from the relatively few occupations. Another portion of members are in a financial position that allows them to not have to worry about supporting themselves or their families and are instead able to rely on their partners or generational wealth. These legislators are able to devote more time and energy into their work, allowing them to do a better job and build more connections to stay in power. It is an offense to our democracy that we fail to equip all of our leaders with the resources they need to do the job that we elect them to do, and specifically undermine the needs of those most traditionally excluded from the halls of power.
In my home state of New Jersey, every seat in the legislature is up for election this fall. I can’t help but wonder how much more representative our government could be without the unnecessary constraints of part-time legislatures. If we value our democracy, we need our legislatures to be full-time. You cannot half-ass a functioning government, and frankly, it shows.
Felipe Gómez ’21—March 16, 2021, Please, Gov. Cuomo, Resign.
“We’re going to have a special effort for our nursing homes”—March 2, 2020
In the early days of the pandemic I remember huddling around a laptop with my friends to watch Gov. Andrew Cuomo address us New Yorkers. His tone was at times warm and compassionate and at other times icy and foreboding, but nevertheless he provided a calm soundtrack to the chaos in which we all found ourselves. Dealing with the first major outbreak of COVID-19, Cuomo filled a leadership vacuum left by the Trump administration and became a hero to many. At times it felt as if he and Fauci met daily using some secret Zoom link, with the good doctor feeding Cuomo lines he himself was banned from saying on air. New York suffered, but having two local boys take on both the virus and the White House felt exciting. I had bottles of hand sanitizer that proudly read “Made in New York,” and my hometown of New Rochelle, one of the nation’s first hotspots, battled the virus early on but did not fold. As the nation plunged into darkness, Cuomo’s light shone bright.
“We climbed the impossible mountain, and right now we are on the other side.”—August 17, 2021
Time has revealed that not all was right with the new Empire State folk hero. The hand sanitizer we use is being made by prisoners making as low as sixteen $0.16 an hour. In June, with the pandemic still ravaging the country, Cuomo held a press conference to unveil what may be described as the deadliest self-back-pat: a green foam mountain representing the infections curve in New York, a bright yellow circle showing where cases had peaked. Where Cuomo saw success, I only saw suffering. I saw battered healthcare workers loading warm corpses into refrigerated trucks, a mass grave on Hart Island filled with dozens of slim pine boxes, and the barren streets of a city unaccustomed to quiet. Rumors at the time suggested that a significant portion of the mountain may have gone unaccounted for by the governor’s office.
“Women have a right to come forward and be heard. And I encourage that fully, but I also want to be clear: there is still a question of the truth.” —March 12, 2021
Cuomo is in the news again, but this time as a charlatan and abuser rather than a miracle worker. An impending FBI investigation has lent credence to New York Attorney General Letitia James’s claim that the Cuomo administration undercounted deaths in nursing homes by up to 50%. The man once thought of by many as a potential VP or cabinet pick must now walk back his success story, immortalized in posters and one stunningly ugly visual metaphor. And, following a now curiously timed endorsement of marijuana legalization, Cuomo will again be investigated by James, this time after several staffers came forward with accounts of sexual harassment and misconduct. State lawmakers have opened an impeachment inquiry into Cuomo amidst calls for his resignation from New York political heavyweights Chuck Schumer, Kirsten Gillibrand, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and Jerry Nadler, among others. Cuomo and his office have tried brushing off the allegations, blaming “cancel culture” and people “playing politics,” but the pressure on him is reaching a boiling point. The gruff man with the silver tongue has run out of answers. He’s begging the people to hold out for the “truth” at the same time he sweeps it under the rug. Although he isn’t up for reelection for another year and a half, Cuomo seems headed for an early exit. The best thing he could do right now is expedite the process. Please, Gov. Cuomo, resign.
“We’re going to have a special effort for our nursing homes”—March 2, 2020
In the early days of the pandemic I remember huddling around a laptop with my friends to watch Gov. Andrew Cuomo address us New Yorkers. His tone was at times warm and compassionate and at other times icy and foreboding, but nevertheless he provided a calm soundtrack to the chaos in which we all found ourselves. Dealing with the first major outbreak of COVID-19, Cuomo filled a leadership vacuum left by the Trump administration and became a hero to many. At times it felt as if he and Fauci met daily using some secret Zoom link, with the good doctor feeding Cuomo lines he himself was banned from saying on air. New York suffered, but having two local boys take on both the virus and the White House felt exciting. I had bottles of hand sanitizer that proudly read “Made in New York,” and my hometown of New Rochelle, one of the nation’s first hotspots, battled the virus early on but did not fold. As the nation plunged into darkness, Cuomo’s light shone bright.
“We climbed the impossible mountain, and right now we are on the other side.”—August 17, 2021
Time has revealed that not all was right with the new Empire State folk hero. The hand sanitizer we use is being made by prisoners making as low as sixteen $0.16 an hour. In June, with the pandemic still ravaging the country, Cuomo held a press conference to unveil what may be described as the deadliest self-back-pat: a green foam mountain representing the infections curve in New York, a bright yellow circle showing where cases had peaked. Where Cuomo saw success, I only saw suffering. I saw battered healthcare workers loading warm corpses into refrigerated trucks, a mass grave on Hart Island filled with dozens of slim pine boxes, and the barren streets of a city unaccustomed to quiet. Rumors at the time suggested that a significant portion of the mountain may have gone unaccounted for by the governor’s office.
“Women have a right to come forward and be heard. And I encourage that fully, but I also want to be clear: there is still a question of the truth.” —March 12, 2021
Cuomo is in the news again, but this time as a charlatan and abuser rather than a miracle worker. An impending FBI investigation has lent credence to New York Attorney General Letitia James’s claim that the Cuomo administration undercounted deaths in nursing homes by up to 50%. The man once thought of by many as a potential VP or cabinet pick must now walk back his success story, immortalized in posters and one stunningly ugly visual metaphor. And, following a now curiously timed endorsement of marijuana legalization, Cuomo will again be investigated by James, this time after several staffers came forward with accounts of sexual harassment and misconduct. State lawmakers have opened an impeachment inquiry into Cuomo amidst calls for his resignation from New York political heavyweights Chuck Schumer, Kirsten Gillibrand, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and Jerry Nadler, among others. Cuomo and his office have tried brushing off the allegations, blaming “cancel culture” and people “playing politics,” but the pressure on him is reaching a boiling point. The gruff man with the silver tongue has run out of answers. He’s begging the people to hold out for the “truth” at the same time he sweeps it under the rug. Although he isn’t up for reelection for another year and a half, Cuomo seems headed for an early exit. The best thing he could do right now is expedite the process. Please, Gov. Cuomo, resign.
Tylar Matsuo ’24--February 22, 2021, Response to “America’s Future Lies Eastward”
Although I do not disagree with Lucas Romualdo that America should expand its investments in Asia, I find fault with several of the points he articulated in “America’s Future Lies Eastward.” The United States of America must not abandon our historical friends and allies in Europe merely because interaction with them no longer appears as profitable. A country’s spirit is defined by more than its interests alone. To abandon Europe would be to declare to the world that we cannot be trusted in times of need, nor can we be relied upon any further than our self-serving motivations will take us. Ironically, for this reason it is not even in our own interests to desert Europe. Additionally, Europe’s recent nationalistic sympathies are neither universal nor permanent. Not every European nation has succumbed to nationalism, nor are those that did guaranteed to remain nationalistic for long. Europe’s politics still closer resemble ours than China’s, and Europe remains a fertile ground for trade.
Eastern trade, furthermore, is a risky venture without guarantee of success. I completely disagree that Southeast Asian states will view the United States as any less likely to attempt to exert influence over their governments than China. The United States has a long history of meddling in foreign affairs in Southeast Asia and elsewhere, and indeed it is easily conceivable that the United States would seek to manipulate regional politics to its own ends under the guise of defending Southeast Asian democracies from Chinese encroachment. Moreover, Southeast Asia is a highly competitive region. China, India, and other regional powers would all seek to outcompete the United States in securing lucrative trade deals, and their closer proximity to Southeast Asia would likely grant them an advantage. These powers would also take our intervention poorly, viewing it as an attempt to curb their growth. Nonetheless, partnerships with India, South Korea, and Japan remain highly promising, as does careful investment in Southeast Asia. We must pursue new economic opportunities in Asia, but not at the expense of our friendship with Europe, and not without appropriate strategic deliberation.
Although I do not disagree with Lucas Romualdo that America should expand its investments in Asia, I find fault with several of the points he articulated in “America’s Future Lies Eastward.” The United States of America must not abandon our historical friends and allies in Europe merely because interaction with them no longer appears as profitable. A country’s spirit is defined by more than its interests alone. To abandon Europe would be to declare to the world that we cannot be trusted in times of need, nor can we be relied upon any further than our self-serving motivations will take us. Ironically, for this reason it is not even in our own interests to desert Europe. Additionally, Europe’s recent nationalistic sympathies are neither universal nor permanent. Not every European nation has succumbed to nationalism, nor are those that did guaranteed to remain nationalistic for long. Europe’s politics still closer resemble ours than China’s, and Europe remains a fertile ground for trade.
Eastern trade, furthermore, is a risky venture without guarantee of success. I completely disagree that Southeast Asian states will view the United States as any less likely to attempt to exert influence over their governments than China. The United States has a long history of meddling in foreign affairs in Southeast Asia and elsewhere, and indeed it is easily conceivable that the United States would seek to manipulate regional politics to its own ends under the guise of defending Southeast Asian democracies from Chinese encroachment. Moreover, Southeast Asia is a highly competitive region. China, India, and other regional powers would all seek to outcompete the United States in securing lucrative trade deals, and their closer proximity to Southeast Asia would likely grant them an advantage. These powers would also take our intervention poorly, viewing it as an attempt to curb their growth. Nonetheless, partnerships with India, South Korea, and Japan remain highly promising, as does careful investment in Southeast Asia. We must pursue new economic opportunities in Asia, but not at the expense of our friendship with Europe, and not without appropriate strategic deliberation.
Lucas Romualdo ‘24-- February 21, 2021, America’s Future Lies Eastward
In just his first month as president, Joe Biden appears to have dramatically altered U.S. foreign policy: re-entering the Paris Climate Agreement and the World Health Organization, reaffirming close relationships with Europe, returning to the thaw with Cuba and the Iran Nuclear Deal.
Yet, these changes are more a restoration of the Obama era than a fundamental shift in the U.S.’s approach to the international sphere. In the four years between the end of Obama’s term and the start of Biden’s, the political landscape abroad has shifted. Europe is no longer a bastion of liberal, capitalist democracy; instead, it is becoming increasingly dominated by nationalist sentiment and unstable governance. A staunch institutionalist and internationalist like Biden may find it difficult to strengthen relationships with new European governments.
And as the U.S. temporarily withdrew from global leadership, China stepped in to take the reins, making significant investments abroad with the Belt and Road initiative and presenting itself as an alternative hub of political and cultural prominence. Indeed, China, not the U.S., is now Europe’s largest trading partner.
Biden’s Obama-esque approach to foreign policy may restore global confidence in the U.S. from liberal quarters in the UN and Europe, but it will not address these changes in the geopolitical landscape. For the U.S. to remain front and center on the global stage, Biden should pivot his focus to the Asia-Pacific.
Political and economic alliances with Europe will become more and more difficult, especially as their leadership diverges from Biden’s style, and increasingly less useful as other regions rise in global prominence. Meanwhile, Asia is full of prospective U.S. partnerships that align with the current administration’s approach and can help remake America’s role in the world.
Technological hubs like South Korea and Japan can collaborate with the U.S. to match China’s innovations. Developing economies in Southeast Asia may be eager to partner with a power like the U.S. that has less vested interest in influencing their governments. And burgeoning powerhouses like India may seek to ally with the U.S. to displace economic competition from China.
The global stage Biden has stepped onto today is not the same one he left in 2017. If America is to move forward and retain its status as a political, economic, and cultural power, it must forge new partnerships with countries on the rise. The Biden administration has the opportunity to develop a smart long-term Asia strategy, building political and economic alliances with developing economics just as we did with Europe after World War II. As Secretary of State Henry Kissinger said, “America has no permanent friends or enemies, only interests.” Our interests have shifted east. Our friendships should as well.
In just his first month as president, Joe Biden appears to have dramatically altered U.S. foreign policy: re-entering the Paris Climate Agreement and the World Health Organization, reaffirming close relationships with Europe, returning to the thaw with Cuba and the Iran Nuclear Deal.
Yet, these changes are more a restoration of the Obama era than a fundamental shift in the U.S.’s approach to the international sphere. In the four years between the end of Obama’s term and the start of Biden’s, the political landscape abroad has shifted. Europe is no longer a bastion of liberal, capitalist democracy; instead, it is becoming increasingly dominated by nationalist sentiment and unstable governance. A staunch institutionalist and internationalist like Biden may find it difficult to strengthen relationships with new European governments.
And as the U.S. temporarily withdrew from global leadership, China stepped in to take the reins, making significant investments abroad with the Belt and Road initiative and presenting itself as an alternative hub of political and cultural prominence. Indeed, China, not the U.S., is now Europe’s largest trading partner.
Biden’s Obama-esque approach to foreign policy may restore global confidence in the U.S. from liberal quarters in the UN and Europe, but it will not address these changes in the geopolitical landscape. For the U.S. to remain front and center on the global stage, Biden should pivot his focus to the Asia-Pacific.
Political and economic alliances with Europe will become more and more difficult, especially as their leadership diverges from Biden’s style, and increasingly less useful as other regions rise in global prominence. Meanwhile, Asia is full of prospective U.S. partnerships that align with the current administration’s approach and can help remake America’s role in the world.
Technological hubs like South Korea and Japan can collaborate with the U.S. to match China’s innovations. Developing economies in Southeast Asia may be eager to partner with a power like the U.S. that has less vested interest in influencing their governments. And burgeoning powerhouses like India may seek to ally with the U.S. to displace economic competition from China.
The global stage Biden has stepped onto today is not the same one he left in 2017. If America is to move forward and retain its status as a political, economic, and cultural power, it must forge new partnerships with countries on the rise. The Biden administration has the opportunity to develop a smart long-term Asia strategy, building political and economic alliances with developing economics just as we did with Europe after World War II. As Secretary of State Henry Kissinger said, “America has no permanent friends or enemies, only interests.” Our interests have shifted east. Our friendships should as well.
Ava Knapp ’24 — February 17, 2021, Notes from Impeachment
Although former President Donald Trump’s second impeachment trial resulted in an acquittal last Saturday, seven Republican senators broke with party norms to vote in favor of conviction. This figure certifies that Trump’s hold over the Republican Party isn’t absolute, yet it still cements a road ahead in which his presence looms large. The 2024 presidential election is too far in the future to accurately claim that Trump will once again vie for the presidency, but the Senate’s acquittal combined with emerging backlash against the seven deviant senators presents a concerning case for Trump’s lasting effect on the dynamics of our political system as a whole.
First, it is key to understand the roles that misinformation and the cult of personality played in the acquittal process. House Democrat impeachment managers opened the trial by chronicling Trump’s efforts to incite violence from his pre-election sowings of doubt up until the events on January 6th. They grounded their arguments in various video and audio recordings featuring rioters shouting, “Fight for Trump” and “Hang Mike Pence” and placed emphasis upon the historic and appalling nature of the rioters’ attack on the Capitol. What is essential is that their evident emotional takeaway is grounded in the firm belief that Trump’s actions were both criminal and certifiably true. In fact, as Representative Jamie Raskin of Maryland put it, “if that’s not an impeachable offense, then there’s no such thing.”
With that conclusion, why weren’t there 67 votes in favor of convicting Trump? The answer must be based in a combination of widespread misinformation and fear of further enraging Trump and his cult of followers. Though the extent to which Republican senators subscribe to misinformation cannot be ascertained, over 70% of Republicans in general questioned whether the results of the November election were legitimate. Further, emerging post-trial reports show that the consequences are harsh for those who vote against Trump’s wishes. Senator Bill Cassidy of Louisiana has already been censured by the Louisiana Republican Party. Senator Ben Sasse of Nebraska now appears to face a similar threat. When senators are so swiftly punished for controversial votes, it establishes a precedent that places disproportionate value on Trump’s post-presidential legacy, fostering the conditions for a permanently altered Republican Party that prioritizes Trump over truth.
Sources:
The New York Times: “Day 1 Impeachment Trial Highlights: Senate Votes to Proceed With
Trump’s Case After Constitutionality Debate”
The Washington Post: “Which Republicans are most likely to think the election was stolen?”
The New York Times: “Why Seven Republican Senators Voted to Convict Trump”
Although former President Donald Trump’s second impeachment trial resulted in an acquittal last Saturday, seven Republican senators broke with party norms to vote in favor of conviction. This figure certifies that Trump’s hold over the Republican Party isn’t absolute, yet it still cements a road ahead in which his presence looms large. The 2024 presidential election is too far in the future to accurately claim that Trump will once again vie for the presidency, but the Senate’s acquittal combined with emerging backlash against the seven deviant senators presents a concerning case for Trump’s lasting effect on the dynamics of our political system as a whole.
First, it is key to understand the roles that misinformation and the cult of personality played in the acquittal process. House Democrat impeachment managers opened the trial by chronicling Trump’s efforts to incite violence from his pre-election sowings of doubt up until the events on January 6th. They grounded their arguments in various video and audio recordings featuring rioters shouting, “Fight for Trump” and “Hang Mike Pence” and placed emphasis upon the historic and appalling nature of the rioters’ attack on the Capitol. What is essential is that their evident emotional takeaway is grounded in the firm belief that Trump’s actions were both criminal and certifiably true. In fact, as Representative Jamie Raskin of Maryland put it, “if that’s not an impeachable offense, then there’s no such thing.”
With that conclusion, why weren’t there 67 votes in favor of convicting Trump? The answer must be based in a combination of widespread misinformation and fear of further enraging Trump and his cult of followers. Though the extent to which Republican senators subscribe to misinformation cannot be ascertained, over 70% of Republicans in general questioned whether the results of the November election were legitimate. Further, emerging post-trial reports show that the consequences are harsh for those who vote against Trump’s wishes. Senator Bill Cassidy of Louisiana has already been censured by the Louisiana Republican Party. Senator Ben Sasse of Nebraska now appears to face a similar threat. When senators are so swiftly punished for controversial votes, it establishes a precedent that places disproportionate value on Trump’s post-presidential legacy, fostering the conditions for a permanently altered Republican Party that prioritizes Trump over truth.
Sources:
The New York Times: “Day 1 Impeachment Trial Highlights: Senate Votes to Proceed With
Trump’s Case After Constitutionality Debate”
The Washington Post: “Which Republicans are most likely to think the election was stolen?”
The New York Times: “Why Seven Republican Senators Voted to Convict Trump”
Tylar Matsuo '24 -- October 13th, 2020, Cancelled Debate
On Friday, the Commission on Presidential Debates announced that they would be cancelling the second presidential debate. This announcement was not particularly surprising, coming on the heels of Donald Trump’s declaration that he would not participate in a virtual debate in response to the Commission’s plans for the second debate to be held virtually in order to prevent the spread of COVID-19. Nonetheless, it was extremely disappointing. Donald Trump’s withdrawal from the debate was an opportunity for the Commission on Presidential Debates to put third-party candidates on stage on an equal footing with the sole remaining major candidate. Third-party candidates face extreme oppression from establishment political organizations in the United States, and by allowing Jo Jorgensen (Libertarian) and Howie Hawkins (Green), the former being on the ballot in all fifty states and DC and the latter with ballot access to 46 states and DC, to debate Joe Biden on national television, the Commission on Presidential Debates could have at least partially reduced this undemocratic oppression. By cancelling the debate outright, however, the Commission sent another message: that they would act to protect the Republican and Democratic parties at the expense of our democracy. The Commission is supposed to be a nonpartisan organization, and yet their actions yesterday represented a substantial bias against the Libertarian and Green parties.
The Commission and its defenders will doubtlessly point to the 2020 Nonpartisan Candidate Selection Criteria, which was adopted on October 1st, 2019 and requires candidates to “have a level of support of at least 15% of the national electorate” in order to participate in Commission on Presidential Debates presidential debates, as their justification for simply cancelling the second debate rather than inviting third party candidates. This excuse, however, is completely absurd. Although a last-minute amendment to the rules for debate participation would have been extremely unorthodox, cancelling the debate outright represented a far greater disruption to the election process. Indeed, the Commission has done more to undermine their rules by cancelling the debate than they could have done through an amendment removing the 15% requirement for the second presidential debate. Notably, the 15% requirement was, according to the Commission’s website, implemented in order to preserve the “voter education purpose of the debates,” a purpose which is quite obviously impossible to achieve if a debate is cancelled, and would certainly be advanced by the inclusion of additional candidates. The Commission has set a clear precedent that either of the two main party candidates may unilaterally cancel any presidential debate simply by stating that they will not attend, a dangerous power that completely undermines our democratic process. Had the Commission wished to protect our democracy and preserve the integrity of presidential debates, they would have found a way to include third party candidates (who, once again, will be appearing on ballots or available as write-in options in nearly every state in the country) rather than scrapped the debate outright.
Witter Swanson '21 -- August 29, 2020, Markey v. Kennedy
Recently the Joe Kennedy III Senate campaign deployed a tactic that simultaneously made me roll my eyes, laugh, and throw up a little. It wasn’t a pleasant feeling.
In the wake of tightening polls, Kennedy’s team decided to roll out their last ditch desperate effort, attempting to generate negative press coverage of Ed Markey in the final weeks of the campaign. Would they point to problems in Markey’s policies? Or any of his votes over the last four decades? Would they finally provide a compelling reason as to why people should vote for Joe beside his charming looks and family dynasty? No, no, and no. Instead, the surface level, image-obsessed campaign of Joe Kennedy will finish with complaints of mean jokes made by Markey supporters online at Kennedy’s expense. I’m hopeful that this tactic will fail, and that it might be the dying gasp of liberal establishment politics more comfortable with rhetoric and symbolism than engaging with substantive issues (see: Nancy Pelosi and the kente cloths incident).
Earlier this week, Kennedy’s campaign manager emailed his counterpart on the Markey campaign asking Markey to denounce his supporter’s online insults against Kennedy. Anyone who followed the 2016 and 2020 presidential campaign should note the similarities to this strategy deployed by Kennedy to the attacks by the media and opposing campaigns against Bernie Sanders supporters. At the heart of the issue is one candidate with large, energetic support from young people online, and an oppositional candidate who feels that this is somehow against the “rules”. I’m sure that in both cases the candidates complaining felt they were bringing up a genuine critique, which makes sense in their worldview. After all, if you run a campaign heavily leaning into symbolism and vague platitudes rather than material interests, mean comments from your opponents supporters will feel like something important.
Of course there are insults and jokes in poor taste on Twitter. And obviously nobody should be joking about assasination. But to claim that Ed Markey somehow encourages these tweets is ridiculous. The cynic in me thinks this tactic has the secondary effect of making critics of Kennedy soften their attacks, even legitimate ones, for fear of the Kennedy campaign labeling them “bullies”.
Thankfully, the Markey campaign has not taken the bait, and rightfully called this recent stunt what it deserves; “crocodile tears”.
I’ll stay tuned to see if this crying-crocodile of a campaign wins or loses in the next week.
Abdullah Brownel '22 -- August 27, 2020, McCloskey's in St. Louis
There’s a running joke within my family to see how much we cringe whenever our city makes the national news. On June 28th, my brother ran to my room, pulled up his twitter feed, and showed me a video that left me more stunned than cringing. In it, a Facebook live video shows what I immediately joked was Rambo and Brooks Brothers crossover. Fearing their safety in the wake of nationwide demonstrations, the well-armed couple took it upon themselves to greet the peaceful protesters with the immediate threat of violence. More surprising than the video itself, was how quickly the video was circulated around the world, putting this summer’s anger and racial tension on full display. Even further, many were shocked to hear the lawyers’ legal justification for their vigilantism: defending their private neighborhood.
To my family and I, and most Black St. Louisans, this again was no surprise. In one of the nation’s most segregated cities, with significant economic and quality of life disparities stemming from it, the existence of private residential enclaves throughout the city serve as another well-documented tool in enforcing the region’s racialized status quo. In this, residents assert their legal authority and discretion in who is allowed to simply stroll the sidewalks of the upscale neighborhoods. While the DOJ Ferguson report several years ago brought international attention to the local law enforcement practice of using jaywalking and "manner of walking along roadway" ordinances to selectively police the presence of Black residents in certain areas, we’ve just grown up hearing the warnings and eventually first-hand experiencing the realities of “Walking While Black”. As such, it seemed like the most fitting St. Louis protest would be simply walking down a private sidewalk, an act apparently intimidating enough to justify the lawyers brandishing guns at those who dared to walk down their street. Speaking to our current social reality, the McCloskey’s were immediately elevated as the poster children of “Law and Order”, centering themselves in a divisive politics rife with dog-whistles and trafficking in fears of “abolishing the suburbs.”
In their primetime slot at the RNC, the couple painted a grim potential for chaos in the suburbs, warning that “What you saw happen to us could just as easily happen to any of you who are watching from quiet neighborhoods around our country.” Airing their grievances, the attorneys further asserted that, like the ornate iron gates of their private neighborhood, the current administration is suburban America’s shield from “criminals”, “Marxist liberal activists”, and anti-segregation measures bringing “low-quality apartments” and rising crime to “flourishing” suburban neighborhoods.” Given the degree of persistent segregation within the McCloskey’s immediate context and cities across America, it’s not hard to tease out their appeals to the politics of racial animus in such thinly-veiled statements. While Missouri is likely to be a safe bet for the GOP this fall, Trump is placing his hopes of re-election in appealing to these same anxieties of Suburban voters in America’s battleground states. However, given growing calls for racial equality across America, along with the gradual demographic shift of American suburbs, the jury is out on how resonant the McCloskey’s pleas will sit with suburban voters come November.
On Friday, the Commission on Presidential Debates announced that they would be cancelling the second presidential debate. This announcement was not particularly surprising, coming on the heels of Donald Trump’s declaration that he would not participate in a virtual debate in response to the Commission’s plans for the second debate to be held virtually in order to prevent the spread of COVID-19. Nonetheless, it was extremely disappointing. Donald Trump’s withdrawal from the debate was an opportunity for the Commission on Presidential Debates to put third-party candidates on stage on an equal footing with the sole remaining major candidate. Third-party candidates face extreme oppression from establishment political organizations in the United States, and by allowing Jo Jorgensen (Libertarian) and Howie Hawkins (Green), the former being on the ballot in all fifty states and DC and the latter with ballot access to 46 states and DC, to debate Joe Biden on national television, the Commission on Presidential Debates could have at least partially reduced this undemocratic oppression. By cancelling the debate outright, however, the Commission sent another message: that they would act to protect the Republican and Democratic parties at the expense of our democracy. The Commission is supposed to be a nonpartisan organization, and yet their actions yesterday represented a substantial bias against the Libertarian and Green parties.
The Commission and its defenders will doubtlessly point to the 2020 Nonpartisan Candidate Selection Criteria, which was adopted on October 1st, 2019 and requires candidates to “have a level of support of at least 15% of the national electorate” in order to participate in Commission on Presidential Debates presidential debates, as their justification for simply cancelling the second debate rather than inviting third party candidates. This excuse, however, is completely absurd. Although a last-minute amendment to the rules for debate participation would have been extremely unorthodox, cancelling the debate outright represented a far greater disruption to the election process. Indeed, the Commission has done more to undermine their rules by cancelling the debate than they could have done through an amendment removing the 15% requirement for the second presidential debate. Notably, the 15% requirement was, according to the Commission’s website, implemented in order to preserve the “voter education purpose of the debates,” a purpose which is quite obviously impossible to achieve if a debate is cancelled, and would certainly be advanced by the inclusion of additional candidates. The Commission has set a clear precedent that either of the two main party candidates may unilaterally cancel any presidential debate simply by stating that they will not attend, a dangerous power that completely undermines our democratic process. Had the Commission wished to protect our democracy and preserve the integrity of presidential debates, they would have found a way to include third party candidates (who, once again, will be appearing on ballots or available as write-in options in nearly every state in the country) rather than scrapped the debate outright.
Witter Swanson '21 -- August 29, 2020, Markey v. Kennedy
Recently the Joe Kennedy III Senate campaign deployed a tactic that simultaneously made me roll my eyes, laugh, and throw up a little. It wasn’t a pleasant feeling.
In the wake of tightening polls, Kennedy’s team decided to roll out their last ditch desperate effort, attempting to generate negative press coverage of Ed Markey in the final weeks of the campaign. Would they point to problems in Markey’s policies? Or any of his votes over the last four decades? Would they finally provide a compelling reason as to why people should vote for Joe beside his charming looks and family dynasty? No, no, and no. Instead, the surface level, image-obsessed campaign of Joe Kennedy will finish with complaints of mean jokes made by Markey supporters online at Kennedy’s expense. I’m hopeful that this tactic will fail, and that it might be the dying gasp of liberal establishment politics more comfortable with rhetoric and symbolism than engaging with substantive issues (see: Nancy Pelosi and the kente cloths incident).
Earlier this week, Kennedy’s campaign manager emailed his counterpart on the Markey campaign asking Markey to denounce his supporter’s online insults against Kennedy. Anyone who followed the 2016 and 2020 presidential campaign should note the similarities to this strategy deployed by Kennedy to the attacks by the media and opposing campaigns against Bernie Sanders supporters. At the heart of the issue is one candidate with large, energetic support from young people online, and an oppositional candidate who feels that this is somehow against the “rules”. I’m sure that in both cases the candidates complaining felt they were bringing up a genuine critique, which makes sense in their worldview. After all, if you run a campaign heavily leaning into symbolism and vague platitudes rather than material interests, mean comments from your opponents supporters will feel like something important.
Of course there are insults and jokes in poor taste on Twitter. And obviously nobody should be joking about assasination. But to claim that Ed Markey somehow encourages these tweets is ridiculous. The cynic in me thinks this tactic has the secondary effect of making critics of Kennedy soften their attacks, even legitimate ones, for fear of the Kennedy campaign labeling them “bullies”.
Thankfully, the Markey campaign has not taken the bait, and rightfully called this recent stunt what it deserves; “crocodile tears”.
I’ll stay tuned to see if this crying-crocodile of a campaign wins or loses in the next week.
Abdullah Brownel '22 -- August 27, 2020, McCloskey's in St. Louis
There’s a running joke within my family to see how much we cringe whenever our city makes the national news. On June 28th, my brother ran to my room, pulled up his twitter feed, and showed me a video that left me more stunned than cringing. In it, a Facebook live video shows what I immediately joked was Rambo and Brooks Brothers crossover. Fearing their safety in the wake of nationwide demonstrations, the well-armed couple took it upon themselves to greet the peaceful protesters with the immediate threat of violence. More surprising than the video itself, was how quickly the video was circulated around the world, putting this summer’s anger and racial tension on full display. Even further, many were shocked to hear the lawyers’ legal justification for their vigilantism: defending their private neighborhood.
To my family and I, and most Black St. Louisans, this again was no surprise. In one of the nation’s most segregated cities, with significant economic and quality of life disparities stemming from it, the existence of private residential enclaves throughout the city serve as another well-documented tool in enforcing the region’s racialized status quo. In this, residents assert their legal authority and discretion in who is allowed to simply stroll the sidewalks of the upscale neighborhoods. While the DOJ Ferguson report several years ago brought international attention to the local law enforcement practice of using jaywalking and "manner of walking along roadway" ordinances to selectively police the presence of Black residents in certain areas, we’ve just grown up hearing the warnings and eventually first-hand experiencing the realities of “Walking While Black”. As such, it seemed like the most fitting St. Louis protest would be simply walking down a private sidewalk, an act apparently intimidating enough to justify the lawyers brandishing guns at those who dared to walk down their street. Speaking to our current social reality, the McCloskey’s were immediately elevated as the poster children of “Law and Order”, centering themselves in a divisive politics rife with dog-whistles and trafficking in fears of “abolishing the suburbs.”
In their primetime slot at the RNC, the couple painted a grim potential for chaos in the suburbs, warning that “What you saw happen to us could just as easily happen to any of you who are watching from quiet neighborhoods around our country.” Airing their grievances, the attorneys further asserted that, like the ornate iron gates of their private neighborhood, the current administration is suburban America’s shield from “criminals”, “Marxist liberal activists”, and anti-segregation measures bringing “low-quality apartments” and rising crime to “flourishing” suburban neighborhoods.” Given the degree of persistent segregation within the McCloskey’s immediate context and cities across America, it’s not hard to tease out their appeals to the politics of racial animus in such thinly-veiled statements. While Missouri is likely to be a safe bet for the GOP this fall, Trump is placing his hopes of re-election in appealing to these same anxieties of Suburban voters in America’s battleground states. However, given growing calls for racial equality across America, along with the gradual demographic shift of American suburbs, the jury is out on how resonant the McCloskey’s pleas will sit with suburban voters come November.
Ella Peterson '22 -- August 26, 2020, The Post Office
Many college students don’t often send or receive mail. Interactions with the Postal Service are typically limited to getting birthday cards, and then maybe mailing out thank you notes for those birthday cards. However, for millions of Americans, the Postal Service is a resource that cannot be taken for granted.
Every year, the Postal Service manages 1.2 billion shipments of prescriptions, delivering everything from antibiotics for small infections to life-saving cancer medications [1]. For senior citizens and people living with disabilities, receiving medicine in the mail is the easiest and most effective method of getting their prescriptions filled. In August, nearly one in five Americans said that they had received medicine in the mail in the past week [2]. Many insurers even strongly encourage their customers to use online pharmacies that exclusively operate through the mail. In fact, mine does. Every three months, I receive a refill of a necessary medication through the postal service. While luckily I haven’t been impacted by the recent delays created by policy changes implemented by Postmaster DeJoy, many have not been so fortunate.
This past summer, I worked for my Congressman, and our New Jersey District was one of the first to feel the impacts of the slow-down. In mid-July, we began receiving calls from constituents reporting that they hadn’t seen their letter carrier in days, and were becoming increasingly anxious about how they would be able to access their medications. Calling local postmasters frequently went nowhere, going straight to already full voicemail boxes. Every day I would hear a new story about how the mail slow down was impacting everyday people.
Veterans and their families were some of the first to express their concern. Many Veteran’s Affairs clinics only use online pharmacies, citing the sheer volume of prescriptions that they manage, given the complicated medical needs of their patients. Obstructed access to medication isn’t the only way that vets have been impacted though: while just over 5% of Americans have served in the Armed Forces, over 15% of USPS employees have [3]. The USPS is a national leader in employing veterans, which is a particularly important function given the high rates of veterans who are unhoused [4].
There is immense practical need for a well-funded, well-run nation Post Office, so much so that it was even included in the U.S. Constitution. The USPS delivers to rural communities where no for-profit company would even consider servicing. It provides small businesses with affordable shipping rates, an essential service during an era where e-commerce is growing in importance.
Defunding and mismanagement of the Postal Service are not viable options, practically or politically. The USPS has consistently been rated America’s favorite Federal Agency [5], with high approval ratings from Democrats and Republicans alike. It is an essential government service, one that has previously been held in unusually high regard. It matters, more than any political or partisan dispute. Don’t take the USPS for granted.
[1]: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/postal-service-delays-prescription-drugs-put-thousands-american-lives-risk-n1237756
[2] https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/20/health/Covid-us-mail-prescription-drugs.html
[3] https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/05/14/the-state-of-the-u-s-postal-service-in-8-charts/
[4] https://www.usich.gov/resources/uploads/asset_library/Homelessness_in_America._Focus_on_Veterans.pdf
[5] https://news.gallup.com/poll/257510/postal-service-americans-favorite-federal-agency.aspx
Many college students don’t often send or receive mail. Interactions with the Postal Service are typically limited to getting birthday cards, and then maybe mailing out thank you notes for those birthday cards. However, for millions of Americans, the Postal Service is a resource that cannot be taken for granted.
Every year, the Postal Service manages 1.2 billion shipments of prescriptions, delivering everything from antibiotics for small infections to life-saving cancer medications [1]. For senior citizens and people living with disabilities, receiving medicine in the mail is the easiest and most effective method of getting their prescriptions filled. In August, nearly one in five Americans said that they had received medicine in the mail in the past week [2]. Many insurers even strongly encourage their customers to use online pharmacies that exclusively operate through the mail. In fact, mine does. Every three months, I receive a refill of a necessary medication through the postal service. While luckily I haven’t been impacted by the recent delays created by policy changes implemented by Postmaster DeJoy, many have not been so fortunate.
This past summer, I worked for my Congressman, and our New Jersey District was one of the first to feel the impacts of the slow-down. In mid-July, we began receiving calls from constituents reporting that they hadn’t seen their letter carrier in days, and were becoming increasingly anxious about how they would be able to access their medications. Calling local postmasters frequently went nowhere, going straight to already full voicemail boxes. Every day I would hear a new story about how the mail slow down was impacting everyday people.
Veterans and their families were some of the first to express their concern. Many Veteran’s Affairs clinics only use online pharmacies, citing the sheer volume of prescriptions that they manage, given the complicated medical needs of their patients. Obstructed access to medication isn’t the only way that vets have been impacted though: while just over 5% of Americans have served in the Armed Forces, over 15% of USPS employees have [3]. The USPS is a national leader in employing veterans, which is a particularly important function given the high rates of veterans who are unhoused [4].
There is immense practical need for a well-funded, well-run nation Post Office, so much so that it was even included in the U.S. Constitution. The USPS delivers to rural communities where no for-profit company would even consider servicing. It provides small businesses with affordable shipping rates, an essential service during an era where e-commerce is growing in importance.
Defunding and mismanagement of the Postal Service are not viable options, practically or politically. The USPS has consistently been rated America’s favorite Federal Agency [5], with high approval ratings from Democrats and Republicans alike. It is an essential government service, one that has previously been held in unusually high regard. It matters, more than any political or partisan dispute. Don’t take the USPS for granted.
[1]: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/postal-service-delays-prescription-drugs-put-thousands-american-lives-risk-n1237756
[2] https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/20/health/Covid-us-mail-prescription-drugs.html
[3] https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/05/14/the-state-of-the-u-s-postal-service-in-8-charts/
[4] https://www.usich.gov/resources/uploads/asset_library/Homelessness_in_America._Focus_on_Veterans.pdf
[5] https://news.gallup.com/poll/257510/postal-service-americans-favorite-federal-agency.aspx
Ben Yared '21 -- August 25, 2020, COVID-19 Vaccine Distribution
Popular media and instinctual human hope have construed a potential vaccine or vaccines as a panacea for the ills and struggles of the coronavirus. While this is quite a strong assumption, there is no denying the significance of the push toward mass inoculation, with the U.S. government alone investing over $10 billion into Operation Warp Speed. Let’s assume for simplicity these efforts are successful and the world produces vaccines soon. But then, how will we distribute them? We certainly won’t have 7 billion doses all at once – the United States won’t even have 300 million doses at once. This is one of my great concerns surrounding the coronavirus, and I fear it could become even more politically contentious than everything with COVID-19 thus far.
This political battle is one that could stretch far beyond America’s borders. Many argue that richer, more advanced nations have an obligation to not hoard the vaccines they produce. However, nationalism, personal safety concerns, economics, and good old self-interest provide significant motivation for nations to vaccinate their own population first. This could lead to significant global tension and aligns with many of the Trump administration’s concerns regarding American participation in a variety of international organizations (UN, WHO, NATO, etc) – that the United States provides the funding and resources for other nations to achieve their own personal needs and goals. This is a battle that could play out on an international stage and be further complicated by vaccines produced outside of America. Russia has a vaccine produced, but much of the world is exhibiting skepticism towards it. The UK appears as though it might be the first western nation to mass produce a quality vaccine, which the U.S. will certainly attempt to acquire doses of, despite its own massive vaccine production. These and other questions of equity, economy, nationalism, and trust could cause significant conflict over vaccine distribution.
Within the U.S., vaccine distribution is also likely to be extremely political. Most agree that healthcare workers will be vaccinated first, but after that??? Many had assumed police and firefighters would be vaccinated in the first group with healthcare workers, but now even saying the word “police” has become political. Some claim minority and low-income communities should be next to receive a vaccine due to healthcare inequalities – this too could become political quickly. The next key question to ask looks at the goal of vaccination. If the goal is to prevent deaths, then the elderly and vulnerable should be vaccinated early. However, if the goal is to stop the spread of the virus sooner, then potentially younger adults or workers who have more contact with others should be vaccinated first. There are plenty more groups that can make a case for early receipt of a coronavirus vaccine, cases which will almost certainly become quite political and public. Lastly, I worry about what will likely be the most political component of all – who will be making the decisions about vaccine distribution. There is almost no universally pleasing answer, and the federalist in me wonders if it’s a decision rightfully left to the states. If left to the states, though, we’d be looking at a near identical repeat of the same dangerous politicization and fragmentation over the coronavirus we have today. While I am excited for a vaccine’s arrival so that we can return to life as we once knew it, I have concerns about the decisions surrounding its distribution, and I do not envy whomever eventually has to make them.
Popular media and instinctual human hope have construed a potential vaccine or vaccines as a panacea for the ills and struggles of the coronavirus. While this is quite a strong assumption, there is no denying the significance of the push toward mass inoculation, with the U.S. government alone investing over $10 billion into Operation Warp Speed. Let’s assume for simplicity these efforts are successful and the world produces vaccines soon. But then, how will we distribute them? We certainly won’t have 7 billion doses all at once – the United States won’t even have 300 million doses at once. This is one of my great concerns surrounding the coronavirus, and I fear it could become even more politically contentious than everything with COVID-19 thus far.
This political battle is one that could stretch far beyond America’s borders. Many argue that richer, more advanced nations have an obligation to not hoard the vaccines they produce. However, nationalism, personal safety concerns, economics, and good old self-interest provide significant motivation for nations to vaccinate their own population first. This could lead to significant global tension and aligns with many of the Trump administration’s concerns regarding American participation in a variety of international organizations (UN, WHO, NATO, etc) – that the United States provides the funding and resources for other nations to achieve their own personal needs and goals. This is a battle that could play out on an international stage and be further complicated by vaccines produced outside of America. Russia has a vaccine produced, but much of the world is exhibiting skepticism towards it. The UK appears as though it might be the first western nation to mass produce a quality vaccine, which the U.S. will certainly attempt to acquire doses of, despite its own massive vaccine production. These and other questions of equity, economy, nationalism, and trust could cause significant conflict over vaccine distribution.
Within the U.S., vaccine distribution is also likely to be extremely political. Most agree that healthcare workers will be vaccinated first, but after that??? Many had assumed police and firefighters would be vaccinated in the first group with healthcare workers, but now even saying the word “police” has become political. Some claim minority and low-income communities should be next to receive a vaccine due to healthcare inequalities – this too could become political quickly. The next key question to ask looks at the goal of vaccination. If the goal is to prevent deaths, then the elderly and vulnerable should be vaccinated early. However, if the goal is to stop the spread of the virus sooner, then potentially younger adults or workers who have more contact with others should be vaccinated first. There are plenty more groups that can make a case for early receipt of a coronavirus vaccine, cases which will almost certainly become quite political and public. Lastly, I worry about what will likely be the most political component of all – who will be making the decisions about vaccine distribution. There is almost no universally pleasing answer, and the federalist in me wonders if it’s a decision rightfully left to the states. If left to the states, though, we’d be looking at a near identical repeat of the same dangerous politicization and fragmentation over the coronavirus we have today. While I am excited for a vaccine’s arrival so that we can return to life as we once knew it, I have concerns about the decisions surrounding its distribution, and I do not envy whomever eventually has to make them.
**Keep it respectful. No hate-speech tolerated. Do your research: no fake news.**
|