Hypocrisy in the Senate

On March 16 of last year, President Obama nominated Merrick Garland to replace the late Antonin Scalia on the Supreme Court. But over the next couple of months, Garland faced adamant opposition from the Senate Republicans, who refused even to hold a committee hearing for him.

As Democrats, including Obama, strongly criticized the Republicans for this action, I criticized along with them. Ideological differences aside, I could find no reason for Republican senators to block Garland’s appointment. He seemed to be qualified for the job, and I thought it likely that as a justice, he would refrain from ruling on the basis of political preference. It seemed to me the Republicans in the Senate were being immature about the entire thing. Blocking Garland’s confirmation not only put a strain on our judicial system, but would have left the door open for Hillary Clinton – had she been elected – to nominate someone even further to the left.

Fast-forward to last week, when the Senate Republicans – led by Mitch McConnell – decided to execute the “nuclear option.” In doing so, they effectively guaranteed the confirmation of Neil Gorsuch by disallowing filibusters against Supreme Court nominees.

The Republican decision to take the nuclear option came in response to Senate Democrats, who were preventing Gorsuch’s confirmation by blocking a vote on it. It dawned on me that these Democrats were now doing basically the same thing that the Republicans had done to Garland. They were now engaged in the “anti-democratic” action they had publicly criticized just months before. The saddest part is that these Democrats have yet to provide a sound rationale for their behavior. It appears as if they attempted to block Gorsuch because they wanted to match the move the Republicans made last year. Although the Senate Democrats, among others, disagree with some of Gorsuch’s views and opinions, that doesn’t make him an illegitimate or unqualified nominee for the Supreme Court.

The truth is that the country took a turn in the last election. A much more conservative president was elected, and the Republicans maintained control of Congress with only minimal losses. As much as the Democrats dislike this, it is the result of the democratic process. I have the same reaction as many when I hear President Trump make a remark that is far from presidential, or see that Congress has taken action towards a strong conservative agenda that I may not agree with. But I accept it. I read it, nod, and acknowledge that I am still grateful to live in a country like our own.

Perhaps Congress and the White House do not share my views, but they do share the views of those who voted them in. Democrats and Republicans alike – although Democrats seem to be the ones doing it these days – should not simply halt vital governing processes, or manipulatively frustrate them, just because they disagree on ideological grounds.

If the Democrats, after pointing out that Senate Republicans’ blocking of Garland a year ago was against the spirit of the constitution, had then done their jobs and voted for or against Gorsuch – in the spirit of the constitution – a week ago, they would not have looked nearly as hypocritical.

The Importance of Peaceful Protests

On February 27, Hamilton was fortunate to host Diane Nash, one of the most influential civil rights activists of her time, for an address in the chapel. As a student in Nashville, she helped organize lunch counter sit-ins and worked with both the Freedom Riders and the Selma Movement.

Of the many lessons and experiences Nash shared with the Hamilton community, one stood out in particular: the importance of peaceful protest. She emphasized that had protests turned violent, the civil rights movement would not have been nearly as successful. In the context of the current political climate, it is important to listen to Nash’s words and reflect on them.  

At college campuses across the United States, too many protests are not peaceful, and one wonders if that trend will worsen. In early February, individuals at the University of California-Berkeley caused more than $100,000 in arson damages while protesting the controversial journalist Milo Yiannopoulos, who was forced to cancel his speaking engagement due to concern for his safety. Damaging campus buildings and threatening the life of the speaker are not constructive ways to demonstrate opposition to an event. Engaging in such savagery not only endangers people, but is bad for the university’s – and its students’ – reputation. The same university that is famous for its 1960s protests over free speech seems now to be an enemy of free speech.

More recently, violent protesters at Middlebury College – a fellow NESCAC school – injured a professor as she tried to protect guest speaker Charles Murray from harm. After giving his speech, Murray found a mob of angry protesters waiting for him outside the McCullough Student Center. It is sickening to think that these students attacked a professor of their own college simply because they did not agree with the politics of the speaker she brought to campus.

Toward the end of her talk at Hamilton, a student asked Nash how she felt about the situation at Standing Rock in the Dakotas, and how people can protest peacefully when there are weapons and other threats present. In response, Nash said she understood that kind of situation very well: She had lived it while protesting in the South. She noted that when a group stoops to the level of violence, their protests have less of an impact. In contrast, Nash argued, the courage and valor it takes to remain strong yet peaceful while being threatened and insulted make a much more powerful statement.

Imagine that this had been the situation at either of these two campuses. Instead of waking up to news about a professor being hospitalized or a building going up in flames, we would wake up to news about students who proudly exercised their First Amendment rights by standing up against what they believed was wrong. Freedom of speech and the ability to peacefully protest are part of what makes being an American so special. So instead of taking up violence, let us become a country of speech, as Nash and her fellow peaceful activists would want.  

Trump's First Month

Promising to return power to the people, Donald Trump ran, and was elected, on a platform that emphasized his commitment to keeping his campaign promises. After just one month in office, he has already addressed a number of issues raised during his campaign, although he still has a long way to go before he can be considered a presidential success.

Since Inauguration Day, the economy has experienced an upswing, as Trump promised it would. By the end of January, the more optimistic business climate for some employers resulting from Trump’s taking office had helped to create 227,000 jobs –  52,000 more than expected that month. The Dow Jones Industrial Average also soared above 20,000 points for the first time ever. Its average daily closing has been on an upward trend, from around 18,300 points, since Election Day. The NASDAQ is also up significantly in the last month.

In addition, Trump has met and negotiated with executives from major corporations, such as Carrier and Boeing, about keeping operations in the United States. Though these companies will ultimately decide whether to keep operations in the U.S., or in some cases bring them back, based on their profit margins, it is worth noting that Trump is at least going beyond his predecessors by speaking with companies in his attempt to bolster the economy. If he succeeds in the long run, he will have proved he has the business intelligence that his supporters so proudly tout.

In the realm of social issues, Trump has not fared nearly as well. With the lowest approval rating of any new president to date (40 percent in the Gallup Poll), he faces constant opposition, as well as daily protests outside the White House. Of the several executive orders Trump has already signed, his opponents seem to have reacted most strongly to his travel ban on people from several Muslim nations, which was quickly halted by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Though Trump is writing a revised, or possibly an altogether new, executive order on travel from such countries, it is not likely that he will recover much support from opposition forces with it.

In reaction to his calls to defund Planned Parenthood and his stance on the environment, on LGBTQ+ rights, and so on, Trump also faced an enormous women’s march on Washington, with similar marches occurring simultaneously around the country.

Trump has also been locked in a battle of epic proportions with the mainstream media, while facing intense criticism from congressional Democrats and even some members of his own party. Republican Senator John McCain even commented that Trump’s threats to the press are early signs of dictatorship. Trump’s pick for the Supreme Court, Neil Gorsuch, has apparently shamed the president (in private, to a senator) for his attack on federal appellate judges following the halting of the travel ban. Additionally, with the resignation of Michael Flynn and the frequent trouble surrounding Sean Spicer and Kellyanne Conway, President Trump has encountered obstacles in his own administration, which he probably did not expect.  

Despite his low poll numbers, war with the media, and opposition on several fronts, however, Trump still has the ability to turn his presidency into something productive for the American people. He has already experienced a degree of economic success, and with plans to tackle tax cuts and health care reforms in the coming months, he is well on his way on some issues. Only time will tell whether he fulfills his campaign promises.

Trump's Muslim Ban

January 30 would have been Fred Korematsu’s 98th birthday. Korematsu, a Japanese-American, was famous for challenging Japanese internment camps during World War II before the Supreme Court (Korematsu v. United States). Though an American citizen by birth, he was forced by law to pack up his belongings and register at an internment camp – a requirement he believed was unconstitutional.

In 2004, one year before his death, Korematsu wrote in the San Francisco Chronicle that  “no one should ever be locked away simply because they share the same race, ethnicity, or religion as a spy or terrorist. If that principle was not learned from the internment of Japanese Americans, then these are very dangerous times for our democracy.” His words serve as an eerie prediction regarding President Trump’s recent immigration ban.

Trump’s ban – before it was blocked by a federal judge’s ruling  – was set to last for 90 days. It aimed to stop people from seven countries compromised by ISIS – Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen – from entering the United States. Additionally, Trump’s administration stated that green card holders and special immigrants could expect a “swift entry,” but that they would also be checked. The ban did not apply to dual nationals and diplomats. It is also important to note that the ban would not have directly affected U.S. citizens.

Though both Trump and his supporters are quick to say that President Obama did a “similar thing” in 2011, Obama never issued an outright ban on all people from predominantly Muslim countries trying to enter the United States. Instead, he slowed down the refugee admittance process and required re-examination of Iraqi refugees already in the United States, in response to threats issued by two Iraqi refugees in Kentucky. According to the State Department’s Refugee Processing Center, 6,339 Iraqi refugees still entered the U.S. in 2011.

How can President Trump’s isolationist attitude possibly benefit Americans? Our college’s namesake, who was perhaps the most influential founding father, was an immigrant. I am an immigrant. The people I e-mail, message, and speak with on a regular basis are immigrants or descendants of immigrants. In fact, other than the two or three Native Americans I’ve met (excluding those who make the “I’m 1/200th Cherokee” argument), I have spent my entire life surrounded by descendants of immigrants.

The United States of America is a nation of, for, and by immigrants. As the inscription on the Statue of Liberty says: “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!” If that does not speak volumes about the importance of immigration to the United States, I am not sure what does.

I came to this country shortly after a day that will live in infamy, September 11th, 2001. I was three years old and the only words I knew in English were “hello,” “yes,” and “thank you.” But as soon as I arrived I fell in love with what I am now proud to call my country. I found friends, people who were eager to learn about me and help me acculturate to this new life. They invited me, with smiles and open hearts, to try new things, like St. Louis baby back ribs (which quickly became my favorite food as a child). I loved, and still love, the United States. If I could do it all over again, I would pick this nation over all others in a heartbeat.

While I understand that President Trump is trying to ensure the safety of the American people, his immigration ban upsets me. Even if it were lifted after those 90  days, children emigrating from these seven countries would not have the same positive experience that I did coming here. There would be a bias against them from the outset. They would look like the people Trump aimed to target with his ban, and therefore like enemies of the United States. They might not be welcomed into homes, sports teams, and schools like I was. They might be rejected as people simply because they cannot choose their birthplace and ethnicity.

Let’s learn from Korematsu, from the Statue of Liberty, from others like Alexander Hamilton, Albert Einstein, and Andrew Carnegie about how great immigration can be. As elementary school children across the nation learn to sing: “This land is your land, this land is my land …” Let’s keep it that way.

The Peaceful Transition: An American Tradition

As he gave his farewell address in Chicago on January 10, President Barack Obama suggested the importance of public acceptance of President-elect Donald Trump.

“In ten days,” he said, “the world will witness a hallmark of our democracy.” At which point the audience, now upset, began to boo.

Obama’s reaction to this showed great character and demonstrated one of the most important American principles. He spoke firmly, saying: “No, no, no, no, no -- the peaceful transfer of power from one freely elected president to the next. I committed to President-elect Trump that my administration would ensure the smoothest possible transition, just like President Bush did for me.” Though it is a concept often overlooked by the media, a peaceful transition of power is of utmost importance to the American presidency.

The first such peaceful transition between political parties occurred following the election of 1800. Even though this election was turbulent and hard-fought, President John Adams willingly relinquished his title to a bitter enemy, Thomas Jefferson. One can assume that some who opposed Jefferson were unhappy about this, but the new president noted the possibility of an even worse kind of alienation in his inaugural address, stating: “We are all Republicans, we are all Federalists. If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it.”

Making a point similar to the first part of Jefferson’s message, President-elect Trump recently said: “I pledge to every citizen in our land that I will be a president for all Americans.”

In addition, both he and Obama have commented favorably on their meetings regarding a peaceful White House transition. The most important part of such a transition, however, is not the people exchanging keys to the Oval Office but rather the American public.

Among the few elections that I have witnessed, this one appears to have drawn the most anger and the most protests from the losing side. Citizens are organizing and participating in marches to protest Trump’s inauguration, House members and other elected officials are refusing to attend the ceremony, and there are even rumors that some groups will try to disrupt the events by smoking marijuana or harassing inauguration viewers in an attempt to lower attendance.

If the inauguration is seriously interrupted by protest in its various forms, a “hallmark,” as President Obama has called it, of our nation will be disrupted as well. A peaceful transition represents more than just a passing of the torch from one president to another. It shows the American people that they should accept the election’s outcome whether they agree with it or not.

January 20th will mark a substantial change in America. There will be a new president for the first time in eight years, and in this case one who is strongly opposed to much of what the outgoing president has done and advocated. On this date, as on every Inauguration Day, it is important to remember Jefferson’s words. We may not be Federalists and Republicans anymore, but we are Democrats and Republicans who want to better the Union that we live in. Let January 20th be a day of peace, free from partisan divisions. Let Mr. Obama and Mr. Trump carry on a long-lasting tradition, and let them show the American people that the United States can still be united.           

Reactions to Fidel Castro

The death of the infamous Cuban leader Fidel Castro sparked a wide range of reactions.

In the United States, it was marked by widespread celebration. Many Americans understood Castro in the context of the brutal violence and oppression he inflicted upon the Cuban people. During his rule, he ordered the deaths of thousands of Cuban citizens via extra-judicial orders and was responsible for a number of human rights abuses. Many of the Cubans who had fled to the U.S. during his regime viewed his death as closure for both their suffering and the suffering of their friends and family.

In addition, Cubans now living in America viewed Castro as a wicked man who lied to them about the possibility of making their lives better under communism. Following the Cuban Revolution, Castro had used his passion, charisma, and promises of prosperity to rally the Cuban people after overthrowing the U.S.-backed dictator Fulgencio Batista. As it turns out, a number of Castro’s policies did more to harm the Cuban people than to help them. As former Florida Governor Jeb Bush argued, Cuba in the absence of Castro can now be “truly free and democratic.”

However, several international figures, such as French President Francois Hollande, mourned Castro’s death, praising him as a “towering figure in the 20th Century.” Vladimir Putin of Russia, Jacob Zuma of South Africa, Rafael Correa of Ecuador, Evo Morales of Bolivia, Nicolas Maduro of Venezuela, and former U.S.S.R. leader Mikhail Gorbachev have also publicly displayed their appreciation for Castro. In particular, his supporters praise him as a champion of socialism and anti-imperialism whose revolutionary regime secured Cuba's independence from American domination.

The question that remains: do the people of Cuba still admire and support Castro as much as they did during his revolution 57 years ago? It might appear so. Reports from Cuba have produced only messages of mourning and sadness over the death of their beloved “Commandante.” But, the Cuban state controls the media, so it is likely that dissenting opinions would be quashed.

Moving forward, the United States can allow its strained relations with Cuba to die alongside Castro. After giving the Cuban people time to mourn their “Commandante,” U.S. leaders should attempt to foster friendlier relations and help the country move in a more positive direction. As a result of Castro’s anti-globalization policies, Cuba is still stuck in the 1960s. With the help of America and the rest of the world, it can finally enter the 21st century.