The Debates Are Too Big

If you’ve been following the Democratic presidential debates, you have seen many different faces on the stage. In the first debate in June, twenty candidates made their cases to voters. This made sense, since it was so early in the primary process and they needed the opportunity to get their messages out to the public. But now, months later and with voters heading to the primary or caucus polls in less than 100 days in some states, there are still far too many candidates qualifying for the debates. At a crucial stage in the campaign, when voters should be given the chance to distinguish between the front-runners and the other presidential hopefuls, we still see candidates with no path to victory taking up valuable speaking time.

Currently, there are three main groups of Democratic candidates. First, there are the main front-runners, I would say those polling above fifteen percent: former Vice President Joe Biden, Senator Elizabeth Warren, and Senator Bernie Sanders. Then, three candidates who may have a path to victory, but only a slim one. In this category are Senator Kamala Harris, Mayor Pete Buttigieg, and Andrew Yang. The third group, who may as well drop out now and save their reputations and money, includes candidates such as Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard, Senator Amy Klobuchar, Tom Steyer, former Housing and Urban Development Secretary Julian Castro, Senator Cory Booker, and Senator Michael Bennet.

While I respect the struggling candidates’ right to continue their campaigns and hold on to a last glimmer of hope, the Democratic National Committee should absolutely put an end to these crowded debate stages. Twelve candidates took part in the October debates, all on one stage, and it was an absolute mess. Klobuchar, polling at 1 to 2 percent in most polls, was third in speaking time, speaking for a total of thirteen minutes and eighteen seconds. She was given more time than Sanders, Buttigieg, or Harris. Similarly, Beto O’Rourke spoke for thirteen minutes and nine seconds, coming in fourth in speaking time, time which should have been allowed to front-runners who are not on the edge of dropping out (as O’Rourke now has). These candidates cannot crack the top five in a single state’s polling, but the debate moderators ask them questions as if they were front-runners. They have been campaigning for almost a year now, and their messages still have not swayed voters in their favor. Yet for some reason, the DNC allows these candidates to claim speaking time, which clogs up the debates and prevents the meaningful discussion that the vast majority of voters care about. While I appreciate the fact that the DNC has raised the threshold requirements for the December debate, the November debate will still include Klobuchar and billionaire Steyer, who is able to make the stage only because he spent $47 million of his own money in early states to meet the requirements.

The debates could easily offer great insight into the differences between candidates. For example, a long discussion of the different health care plans offered by the Biden, Warren, and Sanders campaigns would be very valuable. Given that health care is the “top issue” for 36 percent of American voters, you would think the DNC would consider it necessary to allow these candidates to go into detail about their health care proposals, rather than forcing them to make quick statements in 60 seconds or less. With the one opportunity, the debates, that the Democrats have to showcase their front-runners together, it would make sense to get them to prove that their proposals are the best for the future of America. Instead, we are forced to sift through sets of thirteen minutes in which desperate, long-shot candidates say whatever must be said in order to pick up traction.

If these struggling candidates offered new ideas and proposals that could spark a conversation and move the direction of the party, I believe I would be more receptive to their continued participation in the debates. But aside from O’Rourke’s mandatory gun buyback proposal, I’ve yet to notice anything that is unique from the 0-to-2 percent candidates. They simply regurgitate the same talking points that we’ve heard for months, and go for “kill shot” segments in a desperate attempt to draw attention and raise their numbers in the polls. This does nothing productive for the party in terms of finding the right candidate to challenge President Trump, and simply takes time from what could be valuable discussions. 

The DNC needs to wake up and allow America to see a true discussion between the front-runners in this field. Rather than forcing us to watch a dozen candidates trying to make their cases, it should offer Americans what they deserve: a real debate of ideas between the ones who actually have a shot at facing Trump. With some of the states voting so soon, it is increasingly crucial to allow the main candidates to differentiate their campaigns from the others. If we reduce the number of voices on stage and give the front-runners a fair amount of time to explain their stances and proposals, it will give voters a much clearer picture as they decide who should be the Democratic nominee in 2020. 

The Internet and Cultural Rot

During the early hours of July 14 of this year, 17-year-old Bianca Devins was killed in Utica after attending a concert. The man accused of killing her is 21-year-old Brandon Clark, who allegedly slit her throat and uploaded photos of her bloodied corpse to social media sites. (He has pleaded not guilty to the second-degree murder charge.) While the relationship between Bianca and Brandon was initially unclear, the two had met each other on the internet before entering into a relationship. Bianca’s family described Brandon as having been a “close family friend,” but alleged screenshots of conversations between the two revealed a disturbing tension.

Judging from her social media presence, Bianca seems to have been what is colloquially known as an “e-girl”: a woman who extensively documents her daily life online for attention, and consequently has a dedicated online following of men. These followers are often “incels,” men who see themselves as involuntarily celibate and thus orbit around these online personalities out of desperation. Power dynamics between the two groups are multifaceted. Often, e-girls take pleasure in manipulating hordes of men, while incels may become frustrated by their relative unimportance and lash back at women. These men often frame their anger as a righteous rejection of the bad hand they think they’ve been dealt by society. The manipulation was evident when Bianca seemingly boasted about her sexual promiscuity to Brandon, and the frustration was present in the social media posts that Brandon allegedly made before and after her death, asking first if he would be redeemed and then apologizing to Bianca’s corpse. After allegedly killing Bianca, Brandon tried to stab his own throat, taking a photo of himself covered in blood for the world to see. He survived his possible suicide attempt and was detained by local authorities. 

Publications have attempted to frame the slaying as born out of male frustration. There is surely a kernel of truth to this, but it is an insufficient explanation for why a man would murder a woman he claims to have loved. Contrary to the beliefs expressed on genuinely misogynistic forums on the internet, no one, including Bianca, deserves to be slain for supposedly treading down an inane and dangerous path with her digital footprint. So while taking the half-truth of Brandon’s frustration as a cause of the killing into account, it would be beneficial to recognize the root of internet-inspired violence.

I increasingly find myself pondering the philosophy of the internet, and especially how it alters human relationships. I am not a neo-Luddite — I recognize all the good that the internet has brought to society. The level of connectedness an average American possesses is historically unprecedented, and the amount of information available to a student like me grows every single day. Going down a rabbit hole on Wikipedia is one of my favorite pastimes, for one can learn so much by chance and with relative ease. It is a great time to be an ambitious youth, for the world is changing before our very eyes.

Yet the internet has also caused a sinister darkness to take hold in our daily lives: cultural rot. The internet has, perhaps due to its ease of access and seeming anonymity, enabled many to act on their crudest desires as if there are no real-world consequences. Belle Delphine, the quintessential e-girl, has sold water in which she bathed for outrageous profit. Pornography, with its degradation of women, has proliferated to the point where its social consequences are blatant. Most shockingly, photos and videos of genuine killings and deaths have become so common that many of us are only momentarily taken aback by such violent images. We have become desensitized — numbed by a hedonistic outlook and slaves to ephemeral desires. Too many people accept the Bianca/Brandon dynamic as normal while condemning only its boiling over. We have forgotten how to question the internet because we have allowed it to take such a great hold over our lives.

It is difficult, but not impossible, to reject the internet and live an “analog” or non-digital life. Increasingly, however, that way of life is construed as being for antiquarian professors and out-of-touch lawyers. What, then, can we do as a society to counter the looming force of the internet’s cultural rot? The answer is simple: we must inculcate a sense of virtue within the digital paradigm. While any definition of virtue might suffice in pushing back against societal degradation, the Aristotelian notion of moderation as the ideal is most serviceable here. While a curriculum may not yet be well-defined, proper digital citizenship should be thoroughly taught to the next generation of internet users, so that the internet is a tool and not a danger. Without constraining free will, heavy, unhealthy social media should be disincentivized. In particular, we should aim to curb real-life validation which is dependent on social media. Interpersonal relationships should be recognized as more than just a streak on Snapchat. Most importantly, however, everyone who uses the internet must recognize its destructive potential, so that Bianca’s death may be a lesson to us all.

Free Speech and Corporations

The recent large-scale protests in Hong Kong, sparked by a proposed bill allowing Hong Kong to extradite people to mainland China, have led to a reexamination of political speech by American corporations and individuals. Recent capitulations by companies in the face of Chinese criticisms have exposed the reality that political speech by American corporations is not value-based, but rather tends to be a business decision based on the perceived political leanings of customers or the powerful.

As a quick refresher: in the midst of the Hong Kong demonstrations Daryl Morey,  general manager of the Houston Rockets, tweeted a brief message in support of the protesters. Though the tweet was quickly deleted, the damage to the franchise in China was done. The Rockets’ fan base there (especially large because of Yao Ming’s career in Houston) reacted in fury. Prominent Chinese citizens spoke out against Morey and the NBA, and major Chinese sponsors pulled their sponsorships of the Rockets. NBA Commissioner Adam Silver has attempted to mend fences, so far with little success. Other firms have also run afoul of Chinese politics, with Nike removing a line of sneakers from China after its designer voiced support for the Hong Kong protesters.

Political speech by business enterprises has long been a topic of public discussion, but the debate intensified after NFL quarterback Colin Kaepernick began kneeling during the national anthem to protest police brutality. In the uproar that followed, individuals and companies had to walk a fine line between supporting Kaepernick and keeping silent. A few firms, notably Nike and the NBA, went all-in on social justice, branding themselves as socially liberal and as standing up for these values as a business. In doing so, they made the calculation that either a certain line of political speech is beneficial to their businesses, or many of their customers, employees, or other stakeholders demand these political stances regardless of a possible negative business impact. 

But oh, how the mighty have fallen. Given the opportunity to take a corporate stand for very similar values in China and the United States, Nike, the NBA, and other firms have blinked. The NBA and many of its stars walked back Morey’s comments, while Nike pulled a controversial line of sneakers from Chinese stores. To be crystal clear, these firms have happily advertised themselves as against police brutality in the U.S., but remained docile when watching shocking images of police officers beating and shooting protesters in Hong Kong. How do we resolve this contradiction?

The hypocrisy shown by these firms suggests that business considerations play a significant role in deciding what a company’s values and positions are. It is much easier for firms to espouse a potentially controversial political opinion in a nation which guarantees the freedom of speech, and minimal government interference in a business, than in an authoritarian nation where the whims of one ruler can quickly sink years of a firm’s market positioning. This should also make us question whether corporations hold the values they say they do, or if almost all of their political speech is simply an attempt at branding to appeal to a perceived audience. In Nike’s case, the company clearly does not “believe in something, even if it means sacrificing everything,” as their ads with Kaepernick are meant to suggest.

A perfect solution is nearly impossible. One start, however, would be for firms to minimize their political speech in the first place, especially since it is highly unlikely that a business’s employees and customers all share the same views. Instead of frequent political statements of their own, businesses should grant their employees wide latitude to engage in political speech. This would reduce criticisms that they are flaunting values for marketing purposes, and keep the company or sports league focused on producing high-quality products or teams as efficiently as possible, not appealing to people by lining up with the latest political trend. (Striking the right balance in regard to an authoritarian state, like China, is more difficult.) Morey tweeted as an individual, but his employer has received the brunt of criticism for what he said. If business enterprises were consistently apolitical organizations that let employees engage in political speech, this could help to prevent the kind of economic pain felt by the NBA right now. Although it wouldn’t solve every conflict that is involved when conflicting sets of liberties collide, it should help to foster a healthy norm of attributing political speech only to individuals, not their employers.

A Failed Impeachment and the 2020 Election

As the 2020 election approaches, the recently announced impeachment inquiry has sparked new commentary and speculation on both sides. With the feasibility of ousting the president unclear, it seems likely that we will be pulled into a drawn-out spectacle around impeachment. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has received criticism from within her party for describing impeachment as impractical and favoring a win at the ballot box, despite believing that President Trump should be impeached. At this point, it seems unlikely that Trump would be found guilty in a Senate trial and forced from office, since 67 votes are required and there are only 47 Democrats (counting two independents who consistently vote with Democrats) in the Senate. It appears unlikely that enough Republicans would cross the aisle and vote to convict the president. If we assume that to be true, the potential outfall from a failed impeachment has the ability to drastically affect the 2020 election in one of several ways. 

The initial and perhaps most obvious result would be further damage to the president’s reputation—which frankly does not matter, since many of his critics believe he should have been impeached from the day he was elected and since those who support him will continue to do so (they have made it clear that no amount of investigation into claims against Trump would affect their vote for his re-election). Beyond damage to his reputation, some have theorized that an impeachment would force junior Democrats from “purple” states to run the risk of angering their constituents, many of whom are far more politically centrist than the fact they have a Democratic representative or senator would suggest. A Quinnipiac University poll released on September 30 found that 47 percent of Americans still oppose impeachment and removal, although 57 percent of Americans disapprove or at least don’t approve of Trump’s results as president according to RealClearPolitics. Trump’s approval rating has been a much lower 43 percent, according to RealClearPolitics. This means there’s a segment of the voter population that, despite not supporting Trump or his policies, still disagrees with his removal from office. In the 2018 congressional election, more freshman Democrats were elected than the country has seen in over 40 years, and with some of these younger politicians hailing from states with a large percentage of conservatives who voted for Trump, their support of the impeachment inquiry could signal to many constituents that their elected officials aren’t representing or fulfilling the opinions and desires of the public. This would feed right into Trump’s rhetorical claims that the impeachment process is a coup designed by Democrats who don’t see a way to beat him in the 2020 election.

Regardless of the outcome of an impeachment drive, its ripples will surely affect politics for years to come, and the possible unintended consequences have the potential to shift the course of American history.

The Dangers of the Military-Industrial Complex

In today’s polarized American political process, it seems like the Democrats and Republicans are deadlocked on every topic. What they can agree on, however, is the defense budget. When it comes to issues such as infrastructure, health care, raising wages, and more, the question we often hear is: “How can we pay for that?” Yet each year, both sides of the congressional aisle vote for military budget increases with little hesitation. Our one area of bipartisanship is these increasingly reckless amounts of money given to our military.

U.S. defense spending is astonishingly wasteful. In 1990, Congress passed the Chief Financial Officers Act, which mandated that all federal agencies be audited regularly. However, the Pentagon was not audited until November of 2018. The result? As then-Deputy Secretary of Defense Patrick Shanahan said: “We failed the audit, but we never expected to pass it.” In true Pentagon fashion, the audit cost a grand total of $972 million. 

Despite the fact that we’re already spending more on our military than the next ten nations combined (six of which are our close allies, including Britain and France), President Trump sent Congress a request in March for a defense budget of $750 billion for the 2020 fiscal year. “We love and need our Military and gave them everything – and more,” he tweeted the previous month. Republicans in the House of Representatives agreed with Trump, pushing for the full $750 billion. In July, the House Democrats voted to appropriate $733 billion for the 2020 defense budget. In other words, on the largest piece of discretionary spending in the federal budget (which accounts for more than half), Democrats and Republicans were divided by a mere 2.3 percent. 

In his farewell address to the American people, President Dwight Eisenhower warned about the dangers of the military-industrial complex. He said: “We have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions … yet, we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. We must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex . . . The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes.” Eisenhower, the same man who had served as the supreme commander of the Allied forces in Europe during World War II, saw the dangers of coupling our military with our democratic processes. He recognized that when military influence affects our economic and political systems, it can lead to inflated military spending and excessive military power. Now, almost 60 years later, Eisenhower’s nightmare is quite real. In 2019, all 50 states have defense industry jobs. This is no accident, but a matter of politics. As a result, nearly all members of Congress are incredibly hesitant to cut back (and/or oppose growth in) military spending, due to the political ramifications of cuts in their constituencies. They recognize that when military spending increases, it can lead to new defense-related jobs, and even newly-located industries, in their districts and states. Our economy is so heavily intertwined with the military-industrial complex that if we were ever to cut back on military spending, a significant number of Americans would be out of work. Instead, we simply push the issue further down the road, and cut from other government spending or borrow unsustainably.

The establishment and growth of the military-industrial complex in America is a grave development. Since the 1990s, the United States has served as the world’s largest weapons exporter, with some exported weapons going to less-than-savory actors. Saudi Arabia is our largest arms partner; the U.S. signed an arms deal worth an advertised $110 billion with the country in 2018. These weapons, in turn, have been used recklessly in Saudi Arabia’s conflicts. Horrifically, a 2018 Saudi attack on a school bus in Yemen that killed 29 children was carried out with an American-made bomb. The size of our military-industrial complex should not be allowed to preclude us from controlling our arms exports tightly.

Minimizing our reliance on the defense industry requires us to retool our economy. Much-needed investments in domestic infrastructure and clean energy sources could accomplish this. But the significant influence our defense sector wields in our politics makes change difficult. In 2006, more than a quarter of Congress held shares in major defense contractors, and the CEOs of these contractors regularly contribute to political campaigns. In the 2012 cycle, individuals and political action committees associated with the defense sector gave more than $27 million for campaign purposes. Because of their essential status in our economy (due to the continuous increases in defense spending) and their financial connections to our politicians, defense contractors are highly resistant to political change. Until we elect representatives who are willing to suffer the short-term political consequences of reducing such spending, we should expect the cycle of increased defense spending and cuts to other programs, or rising national debt, to continue.