Wa s h i n g to n Un i ve r s i t y Inside the Midterm Elections

Political An Interview With Nicholas Kristof | The Crucifixion

of Charlie Crist | A Nation Drowning | From

Review
Volume 13, Issue 2, October 2010
Professor to Politician: An Interview with Thomas

Schweich | A Few Limericks for Your Reading Pleasure

 BY THE
NUMBERS
SUPPORT FOR A THIRD PARTY?
61% 54%
Percentage of liberals that
believe that a major third
party is necessary
THE ECONOMY
9.6% 14
The overall unemployment
rate for the month of
September—the last month
for which unemployment
information will be available
before the midterm elections
THE EMOTIONAL
STATE OF THE UNION
26% 41%
The increase in the
diagnosis of depression
among residents of Gulf
Coast-facing counties
reported in the period after
the oil spill
Percentage of conservatives
that believe that a major
third part is necessary
The number of consecutive
months for which the
jobless rate has equaled or
exceeded 9.5%
Percentage of Americans
that felt stress during
September. September
was the fourth consecutive
month in which Gallup
found America’s emotional
health to be decreasing
IN THEIR
OWN
WORDS
“If I hear one more Republican tell me about balancing the
budget, I am going to strangle them.”
— Vice President Biden on matters of the economy and the
opposition
“I’m not a witch… I’m you.”
-Text from a recent Christine O’Donnell campaign ad meant
to dispel concerns over whether or not she had once dabbled in
witchcraft
“Just this week, we learned that one of the largest groups
paying for these ads regularly takes in money from foreign
corporations. So groups that receive foreign money are
spending huge sums to influence American elections. And
they won’t tell you where the money (for) their ads comes
from.”
-President Obama expressing concerns over GOP ad funding
in mid-October
 EDITORS’
NOTES
WUPRites,

It’s finally here. The silly season is in its last throes. The midterm elections
are nearly -- so nearly -- upon us. And, as seems to consistently be the case,
this election is being billed as the most important political event of a genera-
tion.
It doesn’t take much to realize that as important as these elections may
prove to be, the outcome can only change so much. The Republicans will
probably win the House. It looks unlikely -- if not downright unfathomable
-- that they will win the Senate as well. So, yes, there will no doubt be some
congressional reshuffling. To equate a shift in congressional majority with
real change, however, might be something of a stretch. We must remem-
ber that it was only two years ago that President Obama, electoral mandate
in-hand, rode down Pennsylvania Avenue on a wave of anticipated change.
And, as comprehensive as his policy proposals and charisma had been, even
Obama has found fundamental change difficult to muster. So while Novem-
ber 2nd will no doubt be interesting, to call this year’s elections anything
more than a future historical footnote appears naïve. Nevertheless, as the
cliché goes, things are not always as they seem.
Democrats currently face an amorphous movement known as the “Tea
Party.” Although its precise nature -- and what exactly its hosts are serving
-- remains something of a mystery, that the Tea Party is real is irrefutable.
It seems to be pretty important as well. At this point, any straightforward
analysis of the Tea Party’s impact is overplayed and, frankly, bound to be
underwhelming -- so we’ll spare you. What does need to be said, however, is
this: the Tea Party represents a fundamental demographic disparity at play
in American politics. While the Tea Party itself has explicitly conservative
undertones, its existence and probable success does not point to a height-
ened clash between the ideological right and the philosophical left. Nor does
it indicate some brewing demographic class warfare. Rather, the Tea Party’s
continued popularity highlights what Scott Rassmusen refers to as the dis-
tinction between the “political class” and “mainstream America,” or what
Bill O’Reilly somewhat less technically phrases as the difference between the
“elites” and the “folks.” The Tea Party, it seems, has as much to do with tap-
ping into, and representing, a swath of America’s disenfranchised populace
as it has to do with putting forth any sort of concrete policy platform. Of
course, the Tea Party is a strictly conservative thing. The call to enfranchise-
ment on which it is founded, though, is not. That much is clear.
So while this fall’s elections might not, in and of themselves, change all
that much, they may challenge America’s political status quo. There will no
doubt be some congressional reshuffling and Democrats will be forced to
respond. The midterm elections will undoubtedly be important. Will they
be the most important political event of a generation? Only time will tell.

Editors-In-Chief:
Nick Wilbar
Josh Truppman
TABLE OF
CONTENTS
NATIONAL: 22 Just Listening
Anna Applebaum
1 Nostalgia for a Past Not There
Mark Dally 23 Feeding Frenzy
Andrew Luskin
3 Potheads Rejoice
California Set to Pass Proposition 19
Michael Cohen 25 The Crucifixion of Charlie Crist
Ben Lash
5 The Mosque and the Midterms
Lauren Fine 27 For Tea or For Jobs?
Explaining the Rise of the Tea Party
6 Health Care Headaches Steven Perlberg
Corey Donahue

7 Nuclear Renaissance INTERNATIONAL:

Taka Yamaguchi
28 A Nation Drowning
9 From Professor to Politician: An Interview with Siddharth Krishnan
Thomas Schweich
Daniel Rubin, Hannah Shaffer 29 An Interview With Nicholas Kristof
Anna Applebaum, Jannina Phi
11 For Change in the Presidency
Alex Kaufman 32 L’Affaire Sarkogate
Jacqueline Gunn

ELECTIONS: 33 Mission Accomplished in Iraq?

Dan Rebnord
12 The Tea Might Be Served, but the Party Won’t End
Nick Wilbar 35 More Than Just Cigars
Alana Hauser
13 Why an Independent Matters
Jay Evans 37 It Takes Two
Mexico’s One-Sided Discussion
15 The Real Deal Mariana Oliver
A Look at Tea Party Races
Jake Lichtenfeld 39 No Hope, No Peace
The Impending Failure of Israeli-Palestinian Talks
17 A Few Limericks for Your Reading Pleasure Emily Hecker
Alex Tolkin
41 Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité...Pour Les Minorités?
18 All Politics is Local A Look at the Imminent Effects of France’s Veil Ban
Betel Ezaz Katie Ayanian

19 The Politics of Fear

Neel Desai

21 The Forgotten Races

Gavin Frisch
 STAFF
LIST
Board of Advisers Web Editor
Professor Asad Ahmed Siddharth Krishnan Back Cover Illustration
Rep Don Calloway Amelia Fawcett
Dean Ewan Harrison Web Designer
Robin Hattori Will Johnson Editorial Illustrators
Professor Bill Lowry Chandler Ronchetti
Professor Andrew Rehfeld Treasurer Christopher Hohl
Gavin Frisch Collette LeMaire
Editors-In-Chief Gretchen Oldelm
Josh Truppman Business Manager Holly Graham
Nick Wilbar Amelia Franklin Kelsey Brod
Katie Olson
Director of Design Staff Writers Anya Liao
Billy Roh Jacqueline Gunn Michelle Nahmad
Neel Desai Amelia Fawcett
Layout Team Jay Evans Christine Stavridis
Jacqueline Gunn Matthew Lauer Stephanie Trimboli
Laura Beckman Lauren Fine Mia Nicole
Audrey Westcott Betel Ezaz Laura Beckman
Alana Hauser Alex Kaufman Hannah Shaffer
Louis Liss Andrew Luskin Grace Preston
Carol Iskiwitch Tripp Brockway Godiva Reisenbichler
Kirsten Miller Audrey Westcott
Director of Content Rachel Braun
Michael Brodsky Lennox Mark
Mariana Oliver The Washington University Political Review
Staff Editors Peter Birke is committed to encouraging and fostering
Corey Donahue Dan Rebnord awareness of political issues on the campus
Hannah Shaffer Steven Perlberg of Washington University in St. Louis. To do
Anna Applebaum Katie Ayanian this, we shall remain dedicated to providing
Mark Dally friendly and open avenues of discussion and
Director of Research Jannina Phi debate both written and oral on the campus
Daniel Rubin Alana Hauser for any and all political ideas, regardless of
Jake Lichtenfeld the leanings of those ideas.
Art Coordinator Michael Cohen
Kelsey Eng Alex Tolkin Submissions
Ari Sunshine Editor@wupr.org
Managing Copy Editors Daniel Rubin
Cici Coquillette Emily Hecker
John Moynihan Brooke Yarrows
Ben Lash
Copy Editors Ben-Parker Goos
Puneet Kollipara Eve Herold
Madeline Enright Seth Einbinder
Mark Dally Alison Neuwirth
Sara Fichman-Klein David Klayton
Zack Moscowitz
Director of New Media Molly McGreggor
Bryan Baird
Taka Yamaguchi Front Cover Illustration
Christine Stavridis
NATIONAL

NOSTALGIC
FOR A PAST
NOT THERE
Mark Dally
On a warm afternoon at the National
Mall this past August, Fox News anchor
and radio host Glenn Beck could be
heard bellowing across the reflecting
pool toward the Washington Monument.
“Something beyond imagination is
happening. Something that is beyond man
is happening. America today begins to turn
back to God,” he said at the portentous
‘Restoring Honor’ rally. The event called
for, among other things, a return to the
Judeo-Christian values on which the nation
is supposed to have been founded, but from
which we have apparently fallen. And our
porcine countryman was not alone.
1

In addition to a contested but undeniably
large number of attendees of the rally,
Beck can count many sympathizers
among the balance of the populace.
Indeed, a staggering 53% of respondents
in a 2010 First Amendment Center
survey agreed with the statement “The
U.S. Constitution establishes a Christian
nation.” This misapprehension is manifest
in a great variety of political situations.
Glen Urquhart, the current Delaware
Republican candidate for Congress, asked
at a June campaign event where the phrase
‘separation of church and state’ comes
from. He went on to say that “it was not in
Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists.
[…] The exact phrase ‘separation of church
and state’ came out of Adolf Hitler’s mouth.”
The most bizarre aspect of Urquhart’s
assertion is his apparent awareness of the
actual source of the phrase – incidentally,
it was in Jefferson’s letter to the Baptists
of Danbury, Connecticut, and it can be
found nowhere in any of Hitler’s speeches
or writings. Whether he was misinformed,
mistaken, or simply lying is difficult to
ascertain. His reasoning is opaque to me.
But in any case, Urquhart went on to win
the Republican primary three months later,
and will face Democrat John Carney in the
general election.
Another fumbling attempt to be rid of
Jefferson’s fairly clear stance on religion’s
place in the United States was on display
during the Texas Board of Education’s
recent review of their social studies
standards. Cynthia Dunbar, a conservative
Christian member of the board, was able
to convince her fellow members to cut
Thomas Jefferson from the section of the
curriculum concerning influential figures
from the American Revolution, his having
been the chief author of the Declaration of
Independence notwithstanding. Choosing
to emphasize the contributions of
dubiously connected religious individuals
instead, she had St. Thomas Aquinas, John
Calvin, and William Blackstone inserted
into the standards.
Called to testify on the matter, Steven
K. Green of Willamette University advised
the board against adopting their proposed
standards, arguing that they amounted
to an unconstitutional promotion of a
particular religion. He noted that many
of the founding fathers were significantly
influenced by the European Enlightenment,
which in many cases directly conflicted
with the prevailing Christian world view.
He further informed the board that “the
record is basically bereft” of legal cases that
draw upon Biblical law for their decisions.
His counsel was summarily ignored.
But Thomas Jefferson is by no means the
sole problem for those that wish to believe
in America’s foundational Christianity.
The Constitution contains no reference to
God, let alone to a God of the Christian
variety. When Alexander Hamilton was
asked about the conspicuous absence, he is
said to have replied flippantly, “We forgot.”
The motto “In God We Trust” was not
added to our currency until the Civil War,
and “Under God” only became part of the
Pledge of Allegiance during the McCarthy
era, as a sort of assertion of cultural
superiority over the Godless communists.
The Treaty of Tripoli, which was approved
unanimously by Congress in 1796 and
signed by John Adams, sought to assuage
the majority Muslim nation’s fears of
potential religious conflict when it stated,
“The Government of the United States of
America is not, in any sense, founded on
Beyond a desire for separation
between church and state,
many of the founding fathers
demonstrated active disdain
for Christianity.
the Christian religion.”
Beyond a desire for separation between
church and state, many of the founding
fathers demonstrated active disdain for
Christianity. Thomas Paine concluded
in his essay, The Age of Reason, “Of all
the systems of religion that ever were
invented, there is none more derogatory
to the Almighty, more unedifying to man,
more repugnant to reason, and more
contradictory in itself, than this thing
called Christianity.” Benjamin Franklin
said succinctly, “Lighthouses are more
helpful than churches.”
I bring up these facts not to denigrate
Christianity, but because they belie the
assertion that either America is, or its
founders were, Christian. On the contrary,
many – although not all – of the founding
fathers were Deists, believing in an
impersonal, non-intervening God. And
our nation is a decidedly secular one,
inspired by Enlightenment values, and not
NATIONAL
religious ones.
At the time of its inception, a majority of
America’s citizens certainly were Christian.
And although the percentage has declined
somewhat, Christianity, in its various
forms, still claims the top slot in American
society. But throughout our nation’s history,
unlike in countless other times and places,
most religious individuals have shown an
admirable willingness to participate in a
secular society and refrain from imposing
their private beliefs on others.
This reality forces one to reflect on
two contradictions inherent to those
individuals who think America is, or want
it to return to being, a Christian nation.
Often, they are among the harshest critics of
Sharia and any attempts to allow Muslims
in the United States and elsewhere to have
independent courts for religious matters
in their communities. They are also often
convinced that they uniquely respect the
Constitution and the founding fathers, in
an age which fails to appreciate sufficiently
their importance. In calling for America to
return to being a Christian nation, they are
made hypocrites on both accounts. They
are thoroughly capable of pointing out the
hazards, potential and actual, of basing
government on religious texts and private
convictions, yet fail to realize the same
serious issues in the case of their own faith.
In addition, their professed adoration for
the Constitution and founding fathers
is cheapened by their unwillingness to
recognize and deal maturely with the
founders’ actual beliefs and intentions.
They don’t get to have it both ways.
Ultimately, such individuals are
nostalgic for a past that never was. It is
understandable for devout Christians
to feel somewhat threatened when their
president has written, “Whatever we once
were, we are no longer just a Christian
nation; we are also a Jewish nation, a
Muslim nation, a Buddhist nation, a Hindu
nation, and a nation of nonbelievers.” But
this does not entitle them to be cavalier
with history. The belief that our country
is a Christian nation, or must return to
being one, is based on false folk-history
and tarnishes the memory of America’s
founding and of its architects. It thereby
imperils the preservation of our secular
society and ought to be rebutted at every
opportunity.
— Mark Dally is a freshman in the College
of Arts and Sciences. He can be reached at
mrdally@wustl.edu
2
NATIONAL

POTHEADS
REJOICE
CALIFORNIA SET TO PASS PROPOSITION 19
Michael Cohen

“Whoa…”
“What?”
“Have you realized that our first time voting will be to legalize
weed?”
“Holy shit. You’re right. I’m definitely voting yes!”

It might seem strange, but this kind of talk about marijuana has
become common when talking about the upcoming November
elections. What my friends were so eloquently discussing was
California’s Proposition 19, the “Regulate, Control and Tax
Cannabis Act of 2010,” a highly contentious initiative on the
November 2nd state ballot. The proposition has been hailed as
the solution to the overcrowding of California’s jails, an end to the
misallocation of law enforcement resources and, to some extent,
an aid to California’s massive budget deficit. The opposition points
out that legalization of marijuana would add another lawfully
destructive substance to complement tobacco and alcohol, create
further confusion between federal and local officials, and would
Illustration on opposite page by Laura Beckman not, in fact, decrease the deficit.
3
 NATIONAL
Of course, considering who have previously
the pervasiveness of and will continue to
marijuana in California, partake in marijuana use.
it’s ironic that the Potheads rejoice…right?
Sunshine State was Not necessarily.
the first to explicitly Opposition: The
prohibit it in 1913. opposition can be divided
Nonetheless, illicit into two categories:
marijuana has achieved those worried about the
mainstream status in social and health effects
a number of regional of cannabis use and,
cultures, most notably unexpectedly, a large
the city of Oakland and contingent of marijuana
Los Angeles County’s users themselves. A
Venice Beach. Smokers blog called “Stoners
scored a big victory in Against the Prop. 19 Tax
1996 when voters passed Cannabis Initiative” is
Proposition 215, “The a representation of this
Compassionate Use Act,” substantial niche who
which allowed “seriously would rather smoke
ill Californians the medically or illegally
right to obtain and use than have their habit
marijuana for medical regulated. One main
purposes where that complaint is that Prop.
medical use has been 19 sets the industry
deemed appropriate and on a path towards
has been recommended monopolization. Since
by a physician.” Prop. 19 allows any level
Proposition 215 has of government to stay
undoubtedly relieved the clear of the proposition’s
pain of many seriously ill implications and
Californians. However, maintain marijuana’s
a very large portion illegal status, hundreds
of “patients” suffer of municipalities may opt
dubious illnesses and use out of Prop. 19 and cause
prescriptions furnished an increase in price in
by self-acclaimed “weed those locations that have
doctors.” These “patients” a license to sell legally.
turned a law with good On top of all this,
intentions into a farce, regardless of the election
creating a widespread Californian weed market and spurring the results, cannabis consumption remains illegal under federal law.
birth of Proposition 19. Therefore, if President Obama or any subsequent president changes
Support: The primary purported advantage of Prop. 19 is the the current passive approach to possession and usage, there would
financial relief it would provide for California. Some estimates be mass confusion which could result in a drawn out court battle.
put the annual intake from taxes at $1.4 billion. In addition, Another important opposition is that Prop. 19 would restrict
supporters say that hundreds of millions more will be saved in law the places one can smoke to a private place with no one under
enforcement expenses. Police won’t have to concern themselves 21 present (an illogical statute for a prop that intends to regulate
with insignificant amounts of marijuana and will instead be able marijuana like alcohol). “Stoners Against” points out that “young
to focus on violent criminal activity and other direct threats to adults taking bong hits in Golden Gate Park on a Sunday afternoon
society. Lawmakers hope that an extension of this policy would be is just part of the San Francisco scenery. However, if this initiative
a decrease in incarceration costs and the mitigation of California passes, the freedom would disappear and we could see cops
prison overcrowding. policing smoking areas to enforce this law.”
Another law enforcement benefit of Prop. 19 would be the effect Conclusion: A poll taken on September 30th has supporters at
on the Mexican drug war. In the border city of Tijuana alone, more 52% and opponents at 41% — a sizable lead heading into the last
than 1,500 people have been murdered in drug-related incidents in month before the election. While that seems strong, it’s still an
the past two years. Efforts to curb the supply side of the Mexican uphill battle for those advocating full legalization.
drug war have overwhelmingly failed, but Prop 19 would go a An 11 percent lead…potheads rejoice…right?
long way toward curbing the demand side — a strategy that, in Maybe…
economics terms, should be a lot more effective. — Michael Cohen is a freshman in the Business School. He can be
Many supporters of Proposition 19 are members of the population reached at cohenmj@wustl.edu
4
NATIONAL
THE MOSQUE AND THE MIDTERMS
Conventional wisdom maintains that
the anticipated poor performance of
Democrats in the upcoming midterm
elections will result from the persistent
bad economic conditions throughout the
country. However, recent polls suggest
that voters intend to use November 2nd
as an occasion to express their opinions
regarding President Obama. A Fox News
poll released on September 30, 2010 found
that 41% of the coveted independent
voters will use their votes to express
their opposition to Obama’s policies. On
many hot-button issues, such as illegal
immigration and health care reform, the
administration has found itself on the
wrong side of prevailing public opinion.
Another controversy that many voters will
not have forgotten by the time they enter
the voting booth is the summer uproar
over the proposed Ground Zero mosque.
One would have thought that the building
of a mosque in lower Manhattan would
remain a local zoning issue; instead, it has
captured both national and international
attention and illustrates not only that the
wound inflicted on the United States on
9/11 remains quite raw, but also the extent
to which extremists on both the left and
the right actively refuse to allow the facts
to taint the purity of their ideological rants.
Since December 2009, the self-
proclaimed moderate Muslim, Imam Faisal
Abdul Rauf and his wife, Daisy Kahn,
have been pursuing the establishment of
an Islamic community center, known as
the Cordoba House, two blocks north of
the World Trade Center site. The project
attracted little public attention until May
of this year, when the local zoning approval
process began. After it was approved by
a community board committee, Pamela
Gellar, a right-wing blogger, announced a
protest against the “9/11 mosque” and was
interviewed by the usual suspects, such as
Sean Hannity of Fox News. The controversy
erupted over the summer and gave rise to
much spewing of vitriol and obfuscation of
the facts from both sides. To the left, any
opposition to the project amounted to the
worst kind of bigotry: racism and ignorance
of the American constitutional principles
of freedom of expression and religion.
Conservatives suspected that the Cordoba
5
House would really be a monument to
celebrate the victory of the 9/11 terrorists
over the United States and accused mosque
supporters of failing to see its potential as a
platform for future terrorist attacks.
Imam Rauf has consistently maintained
that his intention was to see his community
center as a vehicle for promoting peace
and understanding between Americans
and Muslims. As public scrutiny increased
during the summer, it became clear that,
while clearly not a radical Islamist or active
supporter of terrorism, Rauf had made
various statements regarding the United
States’ complicity in 9/11 that supported
conservatives’ doubts. He offered only
vague responses to concerns raised
regarding the source of funding for the $100
million project. Moreover, as the obvious
anguish of the families of 9/11 victims
regarding the mosque became apparent,
the Imam’s stubborn refusal to consider
any proposal to move the site made many
observers suspicious of his stated intention
to “build bridges.” In fact, it began to look
as though Rauf ’s primary goal was to build
his own public image. Throughout July and
August, he made various appearances on
local and national television, wrote op-eds,
journeyed throughout the Middle East and
appeared before the Council on Foreign
Relations. His wife also made numerous
appearances, proclaiming to Christiane
Amanpour on ABC that opposition to the
mosque amounted to “hatred of Muslims.”
As the ninth anniversary of 9/11
approached, the mosque controversy
began to attract national attention. Polls
have consistently shown that two-thirds of
Americans oppose the project, reflecting
the widely-held view of Ground Zero as a
national place of mourning, appropriate
only as a site for memorials and commercial
buildings representing a defiant response
to the al-Qaeda terrorists. Most incumbent
Democrats. Facing a very contentious
midterm election season, they have either
avoided the issue or made lukewarm
statements of opposition to the mosque.
They cannot have been pleased when
President Obama, on at least two occasions,
chose to comment on the controversy and
stated it simply as a First Amendment
issue, reminding Americans that builders
Lauren Fine
of mosques, churches and synagogues are
entitled to equal treatment under the law.
His statements were widely interpreted as
supportive of the mosque, even though he
attempted to step back, indicating that he
did not intend to comment on the wisdom
of the project. The President’s decision to
address an issue on which public opinion is
so strongly against him, with the midterm
elections on the horizon, has mystified
many commentators.
Indeed, the president’s insistence that
the only issue presented is freedom of
religion has offended and annoyed those
who oppose the mosque. Few dispute
the legal right of the Imam to build the
mosque; rather, it is the appropriateness
of the mosque’s location that is in dispute.
President Obama’s choice to take yet
another stand on a controversial issue in
opposition to popular opinion is either
courageous or arrogant, depending on one’s
point of view. In any event, he has ensured
that the mosque will play a role in the
national races, given that voters see them
as a referendum on him and his policies. By
lecturing Americans on the Constitution,
rather than stressing his empathy with
the national pain still caused by the 9/11
attacks, the President has contributed to
many voters’ suspicions that he does not
share their vision of the American nation
and its future role in the world.
— Lauren Fine is a freshman in the College
of Arts and Sciences. She can be reached at
laurenfine@wustl.edu.

Health care reform has arrived. New
provisions have already started to go into
effect, and while they have been a relief for
many, they have proven to be problematic
for the Obama administration, which is
scrambling to ensure that the transition will
go smoothly. But this transition has been
met with resistance by insurers who have
found the new regulations too arduous
and costly. The Obama administration
has its work cut out for it as insurers have
threatened to drop coverage for millions
and raise premiums for many more.
On September 23rd, six months after
President Obama signed the Patient
Protection and Affordable Care Act
into law, many of the initial health care
provisions went into effect. The law was
designed so that many of the consumer
benefits would occur early with the costs
of the bill following in the later years of
implementation. Insurers offering child-
only policies are now required to cover
all children, even if they have pre-existing
conditions. It is estimated that 72,000
children will become eligible due to this
provision. Children will also be able to
remain on their parents plan until they are
26. In addition, some preventive procedures
such as colonoscopies, mammograms, and
immunizations must be covered with co-
payments and insurers must begin offering
free preventive services.
While helpful for consumers, some of
these new rules have been a significant
problem for insurance agencies. Many
insurers will be dropping child-only plans
because the costs will be too high if they are
forced to cover sick children. As a result,
HEALTH CARE HEADACHES
the Obama administration has allowed
insurers to charge sick children higher
premiums than healthy children in order
to cover the cost.
One provision that insurers are finding
especially difficult to cope with is the
requirement that they spend at least 85%
of their revenue from insurance policies on
medical care, rather than administrative
costs. Many insurance companies looking
for savings have been forced to start either
laying off employees or reducing wages
in order to compensate. Others, such as
Principal Financial Group, which offers
insurance to over 800,000 people, have left
the business entirely. While this specific
provision has proven difficult for many,
it is meant to reduce inefficiencies in the
market in order to make the health care
system better. Therefore, the loss of these
insurance companies allows for a space
that more efficient insurers can fill in order
to make sure more money is being spent
on medical care. However, it does raise
doubts about Obama’s adamant promise
throughout the debate over health care
reform, that “if you like your plan, you can
keep it.”
Another disruptive policy has been the
restrictions on annual limits for some
health care plans. Limited benefit plans, or
“mini-meds,” will not have a cap on their
maximum benefits. For many employers,
this has proven to be quite onerous.
McDonalds, for instance, offers a plan in
which employees pay $730 for a maximum
of $2,000 in benefits. However, McDonalds
has stated that with this new law, they
would be forced to drop the plan, leaving
NATIONAL
Corey Donahue
many uninsured. They requested that the
Obama administration give them a one-
year waiver, which was granted. Dozens of
such waivers have been given out, raising
doubts about the administration’s ability to
handle the significant changes in the health
care law.
While the Obama administration
is struggling to meet new demands,
Republicans plan on making the process
as difficult as possible. Although their
attempts at wholesale repeal will not be
successful due to Obama’s veto power, their
willingness to limit funding and block some
provisions could create many problems for
the administration. Republican governors
also have significant power in making the
process difficult. Republican Governor
Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota has recently
been accused of refusing to cooperate
in discussions regarding some kinds of
coverage and has also ordered state officials
not to apply for federal funds for new
health care provisions.
Few thought that changing the entire
health industry would be easy. Considering
that one-sixth of U.S. GDP is spent on
health services, significant reform will take
time and will not be smooth. However, the
problems that have arisen immediately
after the first wave of implementations
raise questions as to whether the Obama
administration will be able to effectively
manage the transition in the coming years.
Despite the months of debate in Congress,
the real reform has only just begun.
— Corey Donahue is a junior in the College
of Arts and Sciences. He can be reached at
corey.donahue@gmail.com.
6
NATIONAL

NUCLEAR
RENAISSANCE Taka Yamaguchi
People now face the increasingly urgent issue of how to stop
climate change. Progress has certainly been made in the last
twenty years or so, as public knowledge and concern about global
warming is at an all time high. Yet this concern is not enough to
effectively segregate continued human progress from the utter
destruction of our only home. We need concrete plans for the
Illustration on opposite page by Kelsey Brod future, and we need them now.
7

Coal, natural gas, and oil are not
suitable energy sources for any sort
of future, period. They produce
massive amounts of pollution, which is
unsustainable for the future of Earth.
Unfortunately, the crown jewels of
the clean energy movement, solar
and wind energy, will continue to be
incompatible with how electricity is
supplied and consumed by Americans
until significant scientific advances are
made. Solar and wind energy are only
available when the weather is sunny
or windy. While batteries can be used,
they are costly in terms of economic
and environmental impact due to their
relative technological primitiveness.
Wind and solar power plants are ideal
solutions for the far future, but require
substantial development before they
can replace fossil fuel plants as the main
base-line sources of electricity.
It seems that those politicians and
activists who define carbon-free energy as wind or solar have
forgotten that there is an option that has been in continuous use
for 60 years, produces no carbon dioxide, and can work when it’s
cloudy or when there is no wind. The taboo words here are, of
course, nuclear fission. Do not yield to your preconceived notions
of exploding reactors and apocalyptic meltdowns. Realize the
enormous progress that has been made in this field since the
United States halted the construction of new nuclear power plants
after the 1979 Three Mile Island accident—which, incidentally,
was not of the magnitude to warrant the resulting nuclear scare.
And while the United States has stubbornly refused to add more
nuclear power plants to its current crop of 1960s and 1970s era
“Generation II” reactors, significantly safer and more advanced
“Generation III” reactors have come online elsewhere. When I
say safer, I mean it: Gen. III reactors are estimated to have one
minor core accident (no release of radiation, no injuries, but just
an interruption in power supply) per 350 million years, compared
to Gen. II’s one in 100,000 years, and are less subject to human
error. Nuclear power has become an effectively fool proof system
that is as safe as any other clean energy source.
Disposal of nuclear waste has been a continual thorn in the
side of nuclear energy advocates. Scientists have substantial and
convincing evidence from laboratory and field experimentation
that radioactive spent fuel, carefully housed in specialized, sealed
concrete and metal containers and stored deep underground in
boreholes (holes drilled in thousands of feet of bedrock) are
isolated from the environment and do not pose a threat to human
society or the environment in general. We are not, as some anti-
nuclear activists have framed it, haphazardly and carelessly
burying our problems.
Nuclear power plants are seen as costly--and rightly so--because
their inherent complexity and exoticism require large amounts
of start-up capital, typically around $5 billion. But while startup
costs are high, once completed, the energy becomes much cheaper.
Since an individual windmill or single solar power plant produces
so little electrical energy compared to a single nuclear reactor once
constructed, the price differences are stark: $0.04 per kilowatt-
NATIONAL
hour of electricity produced for nuclear
power versus $0.08 per kWh for wind and
$0.22 per kWh for solar. Thus, nuclear is
significantly cheaper than either solar
or wind energy once the initial start-
up costs are balanced against lifetime
kWh costs. In addition, although start-
up costs are high, a windmill will last
perhaps 15 to 20 years, whereas a nuclear
power plant has an average lifespan of at
least 80 years, making it a much more
long lasting investment. In addition, it
would take a 350 square mile wind farm
to match the electricity generated by
a single nuclear power plant. Nuclear
power plants are not as costly as people
imagine.
The United States government must
strongly push for nuclear power as the
primary power source for America’s near
future. Although America is headed in
the right direction, with President Obama
recently pledging an $8 billion loan for
two of the first new reactors in the United States, it is not nearly
enough. Loans and guarantees by the federal government will allow
the private nuclear energy industry to build new reactors it could
not finance by itself, providing energy security and thousands of
new jobs. A surprising 59% of the American public favored nuclear
energy in 2009. Washington regulars must not let the sentiment
of a few anti-nuclear activists prevent them from pursuing an
environmentally crucial agenda. Understandably, many are
reluctant to increase further funding while the American economy
continues to struggle and the federal government remains mired
in debt. My short-term proposal requires no extra money. In the
Obama administration’s 2011 fiscal budget, an allotted $54 billion
in loan guarantees for new nuclear reactors is certainly a positive
step, but another $28.4 billion of the Energy Department budget is
distributed throughout various energy research programs such as
wind, solar, hydrogen. Nuclear power cannot effectively help stop
climate change if governmental funds are diverted to technologies
still many years from widespread use. Thus, I propose that most of
the budget go directly toward financing new nuclear power plants.
Think of it as an environmental stimulus package, giving a much-
needed boost towards ensuring a carbon-free future.
The United States government owes it to its citizens and to Earth
to ensure a clean, reliable, safe, and realistic future energy source;
only nuclear energy fully meets all four requirements. Nuclear is
the only option that can realistically serve as a stopgap between
the 20th century’s fossil fuels and the 22nd century, when fully
sustainable, carbon-free energy sources such as wind or solar will
be ready to take center stage. Without the wholesale embrace of
nuclear energy as the replacement for fossil fuel power plants, the
specter of climate change will irreversibly and inevitably become a
very real threat. We must act drastically, confidently, and without
delay.
— Taka Yamaguchi is a sophomore in the College of Arts and
Sciences. He can be reached at tyama2891@gmail.com.
8
NATIONAL

From professor
to politician: an
interview with
Thomas Schweich
Daniel Rubin, Hannah Shaffer
Hannah Shaffer and Daniel Rubin recently sat down with Thomas
Schweich, former visiting Professor of Law and Ambassador in
Residence at Washington University. He is currently running for
the office of Missouri State Auditor. Below are some highlights
from the interview.

WUPR: Can you give our readers a little idea of your background?

Schweich: Sure. I was born in Missouri. I am actually a fifth

generation Missourian… Then I went to Yale undergraduate and
Harvard Law School. Then I came back to St. Louis and began a 25-
year law practice with Bryan Cave Law Firm. It’s an old Missouri
law school, a Missouri-based and international law firm.
Then I was chief of staff to Jack Danforth when he was Waco
Special Counsel, looking into whether the government was
complicit in the deaths of the 84 Branch Davidians. I was chief of
staff for that…
9

I have more skepticism. I think that is better for an auditor,
someone who is more skeptical of government and wants to keep it
as small as possible.
Then in 2004 I was sitting in my office at Bryan Cave, and
Jack Danforth had just been appointed Ambassador to the
United Nations. He called me from the car. He was in with John
Negroponte, the outgoing Ambassador to the UN, in New York. He
said, “Negroponte says I need a chief of staff I can trust. Would you
like to be my chief of staff.” I kept telling him, “Well, I don’t know
anything about diplomacy.” He said, “Neither do I, so let’s learn
together.” …So I worked for Senator Danforth and then for Anne
Patterson, who was the acting UN Ambassador after Danforth left,
who is currently U.S. Ambassador to Pakistan….
Then John Bolton came in as U.S. Ambassador to the UN, and I
was his Chief of Staff… Then I got the job… as the Deputy Director
of the Law Enforcement Division at the State Department…Then
I was made Acting Director of that Division…but they decided to
change direction for me, and they decided to make me Ambassador
for Counter-Narcotics and Justice Reform in Afghanistan, where I
focused on helping to reduce the heroin trade there in strongholds
of the Taliban and also helping them to build their rule-of-law…I
worked the last 15 or 16 months of the Bush Administration doing
that…Then I came back here and taught at Wash. U. for two years,
and while I was here some local Republicans initially said, “Why
don’t you run for office? You have a pretty good resume for it.”
…I have been campaigning for 16 months. I won the primary in
August, and now we are three weeks away from the general, and
that’s where we are. I hope that’s enough.
WUPR: Just for clarification for our readers, can you tell us exactly
what the principle job of the State Auditor is? Also, why should
they vote for you over the incumbent, Susan Montee?
Schweich: The first question, the State Auditor, by statute, is an
independent watchdog for the taxpayer…It has the job to go in,
investigate, look at the money and where it’s being spent but also
look at performance. They do performance audits. Is there efficient
management here? Is the program being run well?...Fraud, waste,
abuse, and corruption, that’s what the Auditor looks into. It’s
nonpartisan in the sense that you are not allowed to take a political
position, but it’s partisan in the sense that you run as a Republican
or Democrat, and you are allowed to say that I bring certain views
to the office that reflect my politics…
In terms of the reason why I think I’d be a better candidate than
my opponent is that we, first of all, have a different philosophy
of government. She is a believer in big government, trust in
government, and government is a good thing. I have more
skepticism. I think that is better for an auditor, someone who is
more skeptical of government and wants to keep it as small as
possible. That is a fundamental philosophical difference that we
have. She was a very strong supporter of the Obama agenda. She
was the very first person in the state to endorse Barack Obama…
Then there are also issues of partisanship. I will be a completely
nonpartisan Auditor. People know I am a Republican but that I
haven’t always had the nicest things to say about the Republican
NATIONAL
Party, although I still identify very strongly with that party…
WUPR: Do you have any specific goals you want to accomplish? Is
there a policy aspect to your campaign?
Schweich: Definitely. It isn’t a political job, so there is no policy
aspect in that sense, but there are priorities you can have, and one
of them is the stimulus money. I have got two kids, the way I look
at it is the only thing that has to be guarded more carefully then
taxpayer money is borrowed money, which is what the stimulus
is, and you better be sure it is being spent correctly. You can just
look on the news, mainstream media organizations are constantly
publishing things about wasted stimulus money. I am going to
make that a high priority. That money is money that I would not
have approved, had I been in Congress I would not have voted for
it, but it’s here and ought to be used properly, so that will be a top
priority…
WUPR: You kind of touched on this before. I have heard you
described as a moderate Republican, more in the mold of Senator
Danforth. Given the rise and importance of the Tea Party within
the Republican Party over this election cycle do you feel left out?
Do you feel that there is room for Republicans like you going
forward?
Schweich: Well, first of all, I am not really a moderate Republican…I
am not reactionary, but I am pretty conservative. The issue the
Tea Party is most concerned with, if you look at the Tea Partiers,
it’s fiscal conservatism and small government. Those are the two
things they want, and I have been writing about that for ten years.
I fall right in that mold….
WUPR: The Tea Party though seems very hostile in general to the
idea of raising taxes in any way. Would you say that you share
that general hostility? When you talk about fiscal conservatism
one way to reach that goal would be to cut wasteful spending and
things like that or to raise taxes. How would you balance that?
Schweich: My focus has always been on living within your means.
If you can’t afford it, don’t spend it …. I definitely fall on the side of
making the tough decisions, the tough choices. Be lean, recognize
there is some pain associated with that, people have to realize that.
That is the approach I would use.
My problem with raising taxes is historically, and based on my
own limited research, is that it just doesn’t usually help. It stunts
growth. So it doesn’t seem to me to be effective or sound economic
policy. That’s my problem with it.
To read the entire interview, please visit www.wupr.org.
— Hannah Shaffer and Daniel Rubin are both juniors in the College
of Arts and Sciences. They can be reached at hannahbec90@yahoo.
com and at dmrubin@artsci.wustl.edu.
10
NATIONAL
FOR CHANGE IN THE PRESIDENCY
After two years of the Obama presidency,
you may be asking yourself, “Where is that
change we were promised?” Aside from a
watered-down health-care bill, there’s not
much change to champion. But there is one
overlooked slice of America that Obama
has had immeasurable success in changing:
the presidency itself. In two years Obama
has redefined “presidential” behavior and
broken from past practices. Before you
roll your eyes, mutter something cynical
about politicians, and flip the page, at least
stick around for a retrospective tour of
presidential conduct; then, maybe, Obama’s
“change” will be more obvious to you.
Here’s a quick and dirty summary of past
presidential behavior.
Dubya: While he was in office, George
W. Bush ignored an explicit U.N. resolution
by sending troops to war in Iraq. His top
aides (including Vice President Dick
Cheney) suppressed evidence concerning
the information his administration leaked
as retribution—a topic he refuses to discuss
to this day. Bush lied about his past military
service and alcohol use, and he took almost
a full year’s worth of vacation over his two
terms.
Bill Clinton (need I say more?) cheated
on his wife, perjured himself to protect his
own reputation, and lied about bombings
in Serbia. That’s criminal and patently
unethical.
George Bush Sr. had the fiasco with
Nurse Nayirah, the 15-year-old Kuwaiti girl
who fabricated a story about Iraqi soldiers
killing Kuwaiti babies in incubators, which
was used to justify the invasion of Kuwait.
More lies for political ends and perhaps
even treason?
Ronald Reagan had no qualms about
literally making up facts and retelling
history in a way that fit his own purposes.
11
“Trees cause more pollution than
automobiles,” he once told the country.
Add in the Iran-Contra Affair, and it would
seem as if the man had no regard for rules
or reality.
Richard Nixon was obviously a crook,
and, as presidents become older, the
mountain of lies, deceit and personal
misconduct grows exponentially.
The enduring tradition of presidential
sleaziness is precisely what Obama has
managed to change. Just as past presidents’
indiscretions were products of their
lack of personal integrity, Obama’s less
controversial public image is due to his
maturity and integrity.
There are numerous examples of the
sense of personal responsibility Obama
brings to his high office. He released photos
of American coffins that Bush withheld.
When he increased the number of troops
in Afghanistan, he stood for an entire
night on the runway by the planes that
were unloading bodies, saluting each time
another casket was lowered. Some may be
quick to dismiss these episodes as photo
ops, but that’s beside the point.
Publicity stunt or not, they still
demonstrate an attitude profoundly
different from anything that America
has seen before. Bush’s visible moments
captured the bravado and irresponsibility
that have now come to characterize his life
and presidency. Obama’s approach shows a
deep, personal understanding of the gravity
of his actions.
Never has Obama’s ego impeded his
ability to lead. He readily admitted to
making a mistake last year, something
that neither Bush nor Clinton managed
to do in their combined 16 years in office,
even when their missteps were shoved in
their faces. When one of Obama’s staff was
Alex Kaufman
Illustration by Godiva Reisenbichler
accused of inappropriate comments, he
was quick to dismiss her. When it turned
out that her comments were reported out
of context, she was offered a new position.
Obama can separate his ego from his job.
The “beer summit”—in which Obama
brought together Henry Louis Gates Jr. and
James Crowley, the cop who had arrested
him—is a perfect example of this new type
of president. Obama recognized that his
comments exacerbated the volatility of the
circumstances, so he took responsibility
and brought the two together.
The Gates-Crowley beer summit also is
representative of another fundamental way
in which Obama is changing the presidency.
He initiated conversation with the idea
that discussion and compromise are valid
problem-solving methods. Under the past
presidents, there has always been a strict
“good versus bad” narrative. Only two years
ago, George W. Bush was condemning “the
axis of evil.” Yet, with Obama, the world is
not so rigidly black-and-white.
We see this enlightened perspective in
Obama’s attempts at bipartisanship. We see
it when, instead of dismissing the Tea Party
protesters, he implores them to tell him
their ideas and promises to listen.
Obama leads in a fundamentally new
way. He is willing to discuss issues. He is
open to all ideas. Why else would he have
been willing to keep his predecessor’s
Secretary of Defense or to commit more
troops to Afghanistan despite vehement
opposition from his own party? There
is no contradiction between his policy,
his presidential conduct, or his personal
life. He governs and lives by the ideals he
publicly articulates.
— Alex Kaufman is a sophomore in the
College of Arts and Sciences. He can be
reached at akaufman10@gmail.com.
 ELECTIONS

THE TEA MIGHT BE SERVED,

When Rick Santelli went on his now
infamous diatribe on the floor of the
Chicago Mercantile Exchange, essentially
nobody predicted what was in store.
Santelli ranted about dumping derivatives
into Lake Michigan, and, at the time,
it appeared as if he would. However, it
seemed that regardless of what was said by
Santelli—or anyone else for that matter—
the anger would eventually pass and the
frustration would ultimately subside.
Clearly, this was not to be. As the midterm
elections approach, the tea has been on
the boil for a while, and it appears all but
certain to be served in early November.
Curiously, though, it doesn’t look as if the
party is about to end.
The loose conglomeration of grassroots
groups and anti-establishment ideas that’s
currently referred to as the Tea Party is a
relatively new phenomenon. The social
and political dynamics from which it was
born, however, are not. Conceived of in
the aftermath of the Troubled Asset Relief
Program (TARP), the Tea Party ostensibly
reflects the sentiments and concerns of
marginalized America. As was captured
by the title of one of the Tea Party Patriots’
BUT THE PARTY WON’T END
recent events, the movement aspires to do
nothing less than “take back” the country.
A reflection of America writ large, however,
the Tea Party most certainly is not. The
current guests at America’s tea party are
almost ubiquitously right of center. Thus,
to be clear, the Tea Party is not an American
movement—it is, beyond any reasonable
doubt, a conservative one. The widespread
marginalization that the Tea Party claims
to combat, however, knows no ideological
constraints.
In mid-September, Gallup released a set
of polls that aimed to measure the level of
America’s political discontent. Somewhat
surprisingly, Gallup’s numbers didn’t
garner much coverage in the mainstream
media. They should have. According to
Gallup’s findings, “the desire for a third
party is fairly similar across ideological
groups, with 61% of liberals, 60% of
moderates, and 54% of conservatives
believing a third major party is needed.”
As has been captured and expressed by way
of the Tea Party, a wide swath of America’s
more conservative elements do not feel
as if the present political power structure
adequately represents their interests.
Nick Wilbar
Gallup’s figures suggest that this sentiment
is not limited to the ideological right, and,
in fact, may be stronger at other points
along the philosophical spectrum. To arrive
at the conclusion that some Tea Partiers
may win in early November requires no
real mental gymnastics. It seems equally
apparent, however, that this alone will not
turn down the boil.
Though its precise nature remains
relatively elusive, the Tea Party is a real
thing. This much is obvious. And while it
seems fairly preposterous to think that the
Tea Party might, in perpetuity, exist in its
present form, the sentiments by which it is
motivated will not go away by themselves.
Again, the Tea Party is a conservative
movement. The Gallup poll referenced
above, however, reflects a national reality.
What precisely will happen after November
2nd is anyone’s guess. But one thing is
clear: regardless of how much tea is served
this fall, the party is far from over.
— Nick Wilbar is a senior in the College
of Arts and Sciences. He can be reached at
nick.wilbar@gmail.com.

of their achievements because of their unpopularity and that

ADS ON THE ATTACK
The threatening music and menacing voiceover capture our
attention. Glancing at our televisions, we see hardworking
Americans struggling with debt. We feel sad. What kind
of monster would subject those innocent people to such
hardship? What’s that, you say? Harry Reid? A monochromatic
and sinister-looking Reid stares at us from our screens, as
the doomsday voice informs us of his immigrant-loving,
American-hating ways. A rundown of Reid’s immigrant policy,
several racist shots of immigrants and Americans, and a dozen
melodramatic special effects later, the voice enthusiastically
announces: “Harry Reid: the best friend an illegal alien ever
had.”
Does Harry Reid really hate American families? No. Do we
have any insight into Sharron Angle’s stance on immigration?
No. Do we feel slightly unsettled? Probably. Yet this exaggerated,
scathing degradation of a fellow politician’s character is
hardly uncommon; in fact, the use of political attack ads is
the highest to date, accounting for close to half of all political
advertisements, according to The Associated Press. Once we
consider that Democrats are reluctant to remind the electorate
Republicans hardly have a party-wide, coherent set of ideals
on which to run, we shouldn’t be surprised that candidates are
emphasizing attacks over substantive issues. As Chris Cillizza
of the Washington Post puts it, “The approach reflects a stark
reality of this election cycle: going negative is the only way to
turn the election from a referendum on Democratic control of
Washington to a choice between two candidates. So, go negative
— early, often and hard.” This approach might be effective in the
short term, but it will have negative consequences, for country
and candidate, in the long term.
As the country suffers through crises—both foreign and
domestic—voter awareness of the issues and of politicians’
stances on these issues is critical to alleviating rampant
dissatisfaction and to solving civil problems. Attack ads,
however, preclude rational discussion of these problems.
Disillusionment is bound to develop in connection with
candidates who are elected based wholly on the perception that
they are less evil than their opponent, which will only heighten
Americans’ dissatisfaction with government.
— Brooke Yarrows is a freshman in the College of Arts and
Sciences. She can be reached at byarrows@wustl.edu.

12
ELECTIONS

WHY AN
INDEPENDENT
MATTERS
Jay Evans
Imagine that you are competing for a
job, one that has come up 343 times since
1990. Now imagine that someone from
your group has only gotten the job twice
in those 343 times. Actually, only 28 have
gotten more than a 5% approval in that
same time span. Welcome to what Charlie
Crist faces on November 2, 2010. Yes, he
is an Independent, and is running for the
U.S. Senate. I’m here to tell you why an
Independent actually matters this time.
13

Illustration by Godiva Reisenbichler
The scene is almost play-like. The lead
role is played by former State Representative
Marco Rubio, the up and coming Tea
Partier. His public disgust with the status
quo, especially the Wall Street bailouts,
helped to catapult him to the forefront of
the Florida Republican Party. He gained so
much support that he muscled out Charlie
Crist from the Republican Party Primary,
making him run as an Independent. Crist
plays the wise veteran. He’s the current
governor and still retains a lot of his
popularity among Floridians. In actuality,
“centrist” fits him better as a label. He
votes on both sides of the aisle on many
issues, which is a big part of the reason
he is popular. The final performer in this
play is Kendrick Meek, the Representative
from South Florida. He’s the kooky cousin,
Such a three-way race brings up a vital question: will Meek spoil
the chances of Crist winning, allowing Rubio to win? Or will the
tides change and will Crist spoil Meek’s chances at contending with
Rubio in the election?
the one who has just enough pull to make
things interesting.
Amongst all three players in strong
contention with each other, it has become
a race to the plurality--40% seems to be the
magic number to win the seat. As it stands
now, Rubio holds 41of the vote, with Crist
and Meek polling at 30 and 21 respectively,
and with Meek having gained some ground
in September. Such a three-way race brings
up a vital question: will Meek spoil the
chances of Crist winning, allowing Rubio
to win? Or will the tides change and will
Crist spoil Meek’s chances at contending
with Rubio in the election? While Crist has
a wide breath of support, Rubio has already
locked down most of the Republican vote;
a poll by Quinnipaic puts 83 percent of
Republicans voting for Rubio. This forces
ELECTIONS
the Independent and Democratic
voters to split between Meek and
Crist, which is precisely what is
happening.
Now the question becomes
whether or not the Democrats
should put their support behind
Crist. During the campaign,
Crist has hinted that he would
caucus with the Democrats if
elected. However, with Meek
gaining support and Crist losing
some, it seems unlikely that
voters or the Democratic Party
will completely abandon Meek.
The pragmatic solution would
be for the Democratic Party to
fully support Crist in order to
prevent Rubio from winning,
since a win by Rubio would be
devastating for Democrats. But
this won’t happen. Completely
forsaking one of your own
candidates creates a dangerous
precedent. They do not want
to have disillusioned voters,
especially if Obama runs again
in 2012 and needs to win Florida.
The Democratic Party has even
endorsed an advertisement by
Meek that portrays Crist as
actually being more conservative
than he says now; this makes it even harder
to give up on Meek. The supporters of Meek
and Crist, if combined, can take down
Rubio. Taking down Rubio would deliver a
blow to the Tea Party’s influence in Florida,
which if Rubio did win would solidify
that influence. However, the supporters of
Meek and Crist are not banding together,
and it seems like the Tea Party candidate
Marco Rubio will win, unless something
drastic happens. Such is the nature of a real
three-way race.
— Jay Evans is a sophomore in the College
of Arts and Sciences. He can be reached at
jeevans@wustl.edu.
14
ELECTIONS

THE REAL
DEAL? A Look at Tea Party Races
Jake Lichtenfeld
The Tea Party, having garnered the support of staunch
conservatives such as former Governor Sarah Palin and Senator
Jim DeMint (R-South Carolina), has proven its prestige within the
Republican Party over the waning Republican establishment. But
how will the Tea Party compete in the general elections? Listed
below are three high-profile Tea Party races. Will the tea party
become the status quo that Democrats must adapt to, or is it no
more than a movement for angry 2010 voters without a future in
sight?
15

Christine O’Donnell (R) v. Chris Coons (D)
Real Clear Politics Poll Average: Coons +16.0 (10/3/10)
The Delaware senate race was all but decided for nine-term
US Congressman Mike Castle, a popular, moderate Republican
who received support from both parties. However, Tea Party
endorsed Christine O’Donnell who then pulled a huge upset
in the Republican primary, which shocked to the Republican
establishment.
Ms. O’Donnell has several controversial positions that the media
continuously reports on, such as her views regarding masturbation,
separation of church and state and the theory of evolution. She has
also suggested that the entire world stop having sexual relations
and once “dabbled into witchcraft.” To her advantage, however, she
raised $2.2 million in the two weeks after winning the Republican
nomination.
Christine O’Donnell, now with the support of most Republicans,
will face off with Democrat Chris Coons in November. Chris
Coons is a well-known county executive who has used Ms.
O’Donnell’s extreme views to his advantage. Mr. Coons remains
uncontroversial except for comments thirty years ago of being a
“Bearded Marxist” that have been attacked by the GOP.
Clearly, Chris Coons has the upper hand in this race and is
likely to win the seat, but it won’t be without a strong battle with
opponent Christine O’Donnell.
Harry Reid (D) v. Sharron Angle (R)
Real Clear Politics Poll Average: Angle +0.3 (10/5/10)
The Nevada senate race seemed up for grabs by the victor of
the Republican primary due to Harry Reid’s 33% approval rating.
For months, it was believed that moderate Sue Lowden would
prevail in the primary and replace Harry Reid as senator from the
great state of Nevada. Following a campaign finance scandal and
an unpopular health care reform idea from Lowden, the angry
Republican electorate nominated Tea Party favorite Sharron Angle
to face Harry Reid.
Sharron Angle holds several views that many consider radical.
Ms. Angle, a former state assemblywoman, believes that the size
of the federal government should be decreased significantly by
means of abolishing the departments of Energy and Education, the
Environmental Protection Agency, privatizing Social Security and
Medicare and by replacing the income tax with a flat tax. Socially,
ELECTIONS
Ms. Angle believes abortion should be outlawed even in cases of
rape or incest.
Although Ms. Angle’s extremist views have boosted Harry
Reid’s poll numbers, Nevada’s Electorate think their senator has
neglected them. Nevada’s unemployment rate is currently at over
14%, the most severe mortgage crisis in the United States and is
one of the lowest recipients of stimulus money all under Harry
Reid’s watch as majority leader.
It seems Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid will pull off a narrow
victory against radical Sharron Angle, who is far too extremist for
a state like Nevada.
Andrew Cuomo (D) v. Carl Paladino (R)
Real Clear Politics Poll Average: Cuomo +17.2 (10/5/10)
Once incumbent governor David Paterson of New York
announced that he would not seek election to a full term as
governor, it was assumed that Attorney General Andrew Cuomo,
son of former Governor Mario Cuomo, would take his father’s old
job. But Cuomo didn’t take into account that even the bluest states
can feel the rage of the Tea Party.
During the September 14th primary, Tea Party candidate
Carl Paladino won the Republican nomination for governor
over Rick Lazio. Paladino is little known throughout the state
outside of Buffalo. Most years, Paladino would be considered far
too conservative for a State that voted for Obama by a 26-point
margin, but anything can happen in 2010.
Voters see weaknesses with both candidates. Cuomo is an Albany
insider and despite high popularity, he is seen as too comfortable
with the corrupt officials in the legislature and would be unable
to “drain the swamp.” Paladino is a successful businessman, but
has little experience in state politics and may not be ready to hold
the highest state office. Also, Paladino doesn’t believe in abortion
even in the cases of rape and incest. Additionally, Paladino has a
bestiality scandal that he must explain to the electorate.
Paladino has scared New York Democrats, but his only chance of
taking Albany would be if no Democrats showed up on November
2nd in this blue state.
— Jake Lichtenfeld is a freshman in the College of Arts and Sciences.
He can be reached at j.lichtenfeld@wustl.edu.
16
ELECTIONS

A FEW LIMERICKS
FOR YOUR READING PLEASURE
Alex Tolkin
After a week of furious defamation
About my falsified Oxford education
If elected I’ll dictate
That one can’t research a candidate
Then worry about banning masturbation

—Christine O’Donnell

Elections are coming up soon

With timing inopportune
To me voters will not be kind
And the senate dems want to find
A new leader who’s not a buffoon.

—Harry Reid

Control of congress hasn’t been fun

During our past two year run
Our midterm chances are shot
Because majority or not
We never seem to get anything done

—the Democrats

America, there is no need to despair

If elected, we will the economy repair
By giving tax cuts to the wealthy
And ignoring the poor and unhealthy
It will work better than the last time, we swear!

—the Republicans

The economy’s given everyone the blues

And this election, it’s difficult to choose
Democrats are a mess
And Republicans don’t impress
Why bother—whoever wins, I lose

—Average voter

From killing a frog on live TV I may come across as a snob

To starting the whole Tea Party But every evening I want to sob
I’ve energized the base With the economic stagnation
But with moderates displaced I’m the only one in the nation
Am I helping or hurting the GOP? Who wishes he did not have his job

—Glenn Beck —Barack Obama

Illustration by Audrey Westcott

— Alex Tolkin is a sophomore in the College of Arts and Sciences. He

can be reached at atolkin@wustl.edu.

17

As the November midterm election
looms closer, pundits and politicians are
attempting to forecast the temperament
of the nation through congressional races.
While this is one legitimate method,
too many neglect the importance of
local elections, casting them as low-tier
and unassuming. When I speak of local
elections, I refer to statewide and city
or town contests, such as those for city
aldermen, mayors or state legislators. Local
government officials represent democracy
in a truly basic way because they are
ALL POLITICS IS LOCAL
accessible and close to those
they serve. Often, we fail to
acknowledge the scope of local
governments’ jurisdiction in
our daily lives, even though
the effects of local policy
changes are direct and can be
instantaneous.
Local governments are not
just recipients of top-down
directions from the federal
government, rather they have
Local governments are not just
recipients of top-down directions
from the federal government; rather
they have an equal right and ability to
initiate their own programs and policy
reform.
an equal right and ability to
initiate their own programs
and policy reform. For
example, while public schools
receive federal funding and are
held to national expectations,
their curriculum, income and
performance are determined
by layers of local governments,
from school board officials to
the governor. So when Kansas
City or St. Louis recently
needed to redistribute funds, bus students
and even close many schools, there was no
guarantee that those in power were the best
qualified because they were not given the
same scrutiny as congressmen. The same
applies to agencies dealing with healthcare,
police protection or the county courts. In
the past year, local elections in St. Louis
ushered in Proposition C that repealed the
recent healthcare reform law. In addition,
some officials deemed it necessary to fire
police officers due to budget constraints and
freeze salaries and hiring opportunities for
ELECTIONS
Betel Ezaz
an already overwhelmed Public Defender’s
Office. Perhaps these were necessary
decisions, but they are a disservice to the
1.5 million uninsured Missourians, as well
as to poor and resource-less communities
because apathy towards local decision
makers has limited accountability and
progress.
I am not arguing that local elections
matter more than national ones, but I do
want to bring to light the incongruity of
attention paid to political discourse on a
national level. Local governments have
an interdependent relationship with the
federal government, but are not capable of
handling the macrocosmic problems of the
United States. However, attitudes towards
national issues are shaped by familiarity
with local problems, meaning that how
citizens view Obama and Congress is not
based on the reforms or agreements passed
but by how they experience the proposed
changes in their immediate environment.
Change does not happen in bulk, nor is it
instantaneous. As we confront problems
in the U.S., we must pay attention to local
issues. Education, healthcare, as well as
social and economic reform will be neither
successful nor sustainable if citizens and
politicians are not held accountable locally
before moving on to apply their knowledge
and experience to crafting large-scale
national reforms.
— Betel Ezaz is a junior in the College of Arts
and Sciences. She can be reached at bezaz@
wustl.edu.
18
ELECTIONS

THE POLITICS OF FEAR

Neel Desai
In a remote laboratory somewhere in
the foothills of Pakistan’s Hindu Kush
mountains lies a deadly secret, one that
has sat dormant for the past 20 years. In
the years leading up to the dissolution of
the Soviet Union, certain arms exchanges
took place with virtually any interested
parties, and while the exact circumstances
are poorly understood, the silence of
the Kremlin on the matter has all but
confirmed these furtive deals. The goods
transferred were not nuclear arms, as was
once commonly believed, but biological
weapons: the nuke’s oft-forgotten but
equally vicious sister. While the original
sale was made to the Pakistani government,
a series of regime changes in the country led
to the “disappearance” of these bioweapons
from the Defence Ministry’s laboratories
in Islamabad. Presently, it is not known
who possesses the weapons nor where they
have been stockpiled. All that is known is
that the original sale to Pakistan almost
certainly included the Soviets’ flagship
creation, a highly potent, weaponized strain
of smallpox capable of wiping out entire
swaths of population with its near-100%
mortality rate and exceedingly efficient
airborne transmission. If nature’s unrefined The Four Horsemen of the Politician’s Apocalypse. Illustration by Laura Beckman
smallpox strains slaughtered between 300
and 500 million people in the 20th century, Fear in politics, fear by politics — one could go on forever with the sort
imagine the weaponized strain in the hands of inane yet widely held beliefs of certain
of a hard-core jihadist, brainwashed over a The current U.S. election cycle might be segments of the American populace. And
lifetime about the inherent evils of the West the most fear-driven we have seen in years, all of these appeals are centered around
— certain chaos, obliteration, and possibly at least since the immediate aftermath of fear. Xenophobia, Islamophobia, and
the end of the human species. September 11th. The 2008 elections were homophobia are, depressingly enough, the
Scared yet? As you read the words of the marked by a degree of negativity with calling cards of this election cycle.
last paragraph (largely a fabrication, for the regard to the incessant decrying of “politics But who’s to blame? Can we
record), one of the most primal and basic as usual,” but were tempered by a pervading hold the media accountable? Perhaps the
parts of your brain, the amygdala, was theme of optimism: hope, change, concerted efforts of 527 groups behind
activated. On the evolutionary timeline, mavericks and Main Street all dominated the scenes? How about the politicians
this part of the brain predates the portions the airwaves. Just two years later, the debate themselves? The reality is that they are all
capable of higher-order logical thought, has mostly been reduced to anger and fear, very much responsible.
and for good reason: those of our ancestors interspersed with outright lies.
who could not respond immediately to The Republicans are going to take away Attack Ads
potential threats would not have survived Social Security, Barack Hussein Obama is a
to register their contributions to the species’ socialist Muslim jihadist (and fascist Nazi, Attack ads have been around for decades,
progeny. Moreover, it is more logical from along with any other negative term you can and today’s are probably no better or worse
a survival standpoint to overreact to a think of), anchor babies are taking over the than those 50 years ago — the topics are
potential danger than it is to fail to react American South, homosexual couples are all that have changed. The archetype in
to a legitimate problem. With that as the going to corrupt the minds of our children this sphere is the “Daisy” ad from the 1964
legacy of the human species, it is plain to with their blasphemy, Muslims in our society presidential election, run by President
see why fear plays such a prominent role in seek to impose Sharia law in America with Lyndon B. Johnson’s campaign. The ad
modern politics. It just works. their evil day-cares and community centers depicts a young girl picking petals off a
19

flower and counting down in an endearing
fashion: skipping some numbers, repeating
others. The ad seems light-hearted until
she reaches the number nine, when a
grave voice begins a countdown. In an
exaggerated fashion, the girl looks towards
the camera in shock and the shot focuses
in on her eyes until the screen turns black.
An explosion roars and a mushroom cloud
engulfs the screen. With the spectacle of
fire and destruction still in view, Johnson’s
voice bellows out, “These are the stakes!”
He goes on to describe the need for a world
in which “all of God’s children can live.”
Another man somberly calls on the viewer
to vote for Johnson, since “the stakes are
too high for you to stay home.” The drift
here is unmistakable: your children will die
in man’s perverse rendition of hell unless
you vote for Johnson. If nothing else, this
ad effectively branded Goldwater with the
image of a dangerous warmonger, and he
never recovered from it.
At the time, an ad of this sort was virtually
unheard of and was widely criticized for
using images of nuclear devastation to
malign Goldwater’s image, but, today, edgy
political ads are only standard procedure,
and few topics are off limits. A recent
development in this sphere is not to just
say nothing, like in the Daisy ad, but rather
to implore the viewer to “ask politician X
about Y,” thereby establishing a connection
between the two without making any clear
accusations. A new ad in West Virginia run
by supporters of the Republican candidate
for U.S. Congress merely states that Nick
Rahall, the Democratic incumbent, chaired
“Arab Americans for Obama,” and then asks
voters to “call Nick Rahall and tell him to
stand with West Virginians.” While the ad
explicitly says little, the clear message is that
Rahall “stands” with Arabs and Obama, and
not with West Virginians. A clear example
of racial baiting if there ever was one.
The Media
The media might be the most potent
culprit here, if only because its statements
carry a sheen of legitimacy, whereas those
of a political attack ad or politician might
not. The media also represents the newest
medium for fear mongering — in past
years, the media took on a much more
deferential role. Certain topics were not
considered fair game; for example, today
it is well accepted that both Eisenhower
and Kennedy had extramarital affairs,
but at the time, the public was completely
unaware since the media never broached
the issues. However, today, virtually no
issue is off limits, let alone personal ones.
This is part of a wider shift from hard news,
or discussion of actual policy issues, to soft
news, which has more of a commentary or
“infotainment” slant. A great example of
this infotainment gone especially awry is
a 2006 episode of “Fox and Friends,” the
flagship morning program on Fox News
Channel.
The focal point of the discussion
revolves around Barack Obama’s supposed
connections to Islam and radical madrassas,
where they purportedly train terrorists.
Mind you, various independent sources
have confirmed all of these claims to be
falsehoods, but Fox and Friends parades
them as if they were common knowledge.
Below is a segment widely panned for
propagating the idea that Obama is a
muslim:
Doocy (Fox and Friends host): We
should also point out that Barack Obama’s
father is the one who gave him the middle
name of Hussein. And the thing about
the madrassa, and you know, let’s just be
honest about this, in the last number of
years, madrassas have been, we’ve learned
a lot about them, financed by Saudis, they
teach this Wahhabism which pretty much
hates us. The big question is was that on
the curriculum back then? Probably not,
but it was a madrassa and the big question
is whether or not any of these revelations
about the fact that he was a Muslim — right
now I understand he does go to the Trinity
United Church of Christ in Chicago,
although not a regular parishioner — but
raised as a Muslim, went to a madrassa.”
...
Doocy: Just the fact that his father was
a Muslim, he was raised as a Muslim for
a while, and went to a madrassa school in
Jakarta?
Caller: Right. I mean, you think that
would possibly give him better insight
on the enemy, maybe he doesn’t consider
terrorists the enemy.
Approximately 1 in 5 Americans now
believe that Obama is a Muslim. The Pew
Research Center reports that of those who
believe Obama is a Muslim, 60% claim to
have learned that from the media. This is
more disconcerting if one delves a little
deeper, because perceptions of Obama’s
religion are very strongly tied to opinions
of his job performance: “Those who say he
is a Muslim overwhelmingly disapprove of
ELECTIONS
his job performance, while the majority of
those who think he is a Christian approve
of the job Obama is doing.”
Similar examples of fear mongering
abound in the news media, especially on
the 24-hour news networks, which have
made the strongest shift towards soft news.
The greater concern on the part of the
conscientious political observer is as to
whether the general public recognizes this
shift, as the news networks have made zero
effort to stop trumpeting themselves as “fair
and balanced” or the “most trusted name in
news.” Politicians have also made a point
to use the cable news networks as advocacy
platforms, since certain networks can be
expected to play softball with candidates
of similar political leanings. Sarah Palin,
arguably one of the more astute students
of the doctrine of fear mongering, made
an appearance on Fox News to discuss “the
rise of Tea Party candidates” like herself.
Palin deftly created suspicion and fear in
the minds of her viewers by asserting that
“we are learning more about Christine
O’Donnell and her college years and her
teenage years and her financial dealings
than anybody ever even bothered to ask
about Barack Hussein Obama as a candidate
and now as our president.” Someone should
introduce Palin to the birthers.
Any hope left?
Fear has been, and will always remain a
powerful tool in the hands of politicians.
And as always, politicians will wield it to
their advantage. This reality is inextricably
tied to the human existence, and will likely
never change. However, as with most things
in life, fear mongering ebbs and flows —
political and social circumstances are always
changing, and the role of fear increases and
subsides in the same fashion. If the news
media shifts away from hard news, whether
or not the public is consciously aware of it,
it too will gradually move away from the
news media as the source of truth. Distrust
in the media is at an all-time high, and this
statistic is unlikely to move anywhere but
up. Ultimately, the trend will correct itself
at some point. If nothing else, people will
come to fear the fear mongering. Now
who’s scared?
— Neel Desai is a sophomore in the College
of Arts and Sciences. He can be reached at
nsdesai@wustl.edu.
20
ELECTIONS
It could be because of the projected GOP
comeback similar to the one in 1994 or
because that there isn’t such an election
going on in Missouri, but it seems like
that the nation’s 37 gubernatorial elections
have gone seemingly unnoticed. Nineteen
Democratic-governed states, seventeen
Republican governed states, and one
independently governed state will see
voters punch tickets to elect a new governor.
Gubernatorial races in other states may not
seem important to students in Missouri.
However, the importance of these races
extends beyond state borders, as the new
governors will have an effect on national
politics for the next decade.
Every ten years, the federal government
is required to take a census of the American
population. Information from the census
is used to designate federal funding for a
wide variety of causes, such as education,
law enforcement, highways, and more.
In addition to the allocation of funds, the
government analyzes the population of the
states to determine if they are represented
in the federal government properly. For all
citizens to be represented equally, one state
may lose representation in the House of
Representatives and the Electoral College,
another state may gain representation.
THE ETYMOLOGY OF
GERRYMANDERING
Elbridge Gerry was born in 1744
in Marblehead, Massachusetts, and
attended Harvard University. Gerry
has an extensive political resume: the
Democratic-Republican was a signer of
the Declaration of Independence, the
ninth governor of Massachusetts, and
the fifth vice president of the United
States. Known best as the namesake of
gerrymandering, Elbridge Gerry redrew
the district lines in Massachusetts to
clump all the Federalists into one district.
This resulted in Gerry’s party winning
all the state’s remaining districts. His
support over the redistricting bill cost
him his governorship in 1812, but he
was chosen to be James Madison’s vice
president. Gerry died in office in 1814.
21
THE FORGOTTEN RACES
Representation is either added or taken
away to maintain a 435-member House
of Representatives and 538-vote Electoral
College.
The national effect of the governorship
of a specific state and the census may seem
completely unrelated, but there is a very
important connection. Governors play
a large role in redrawing district lines,
which ensures that their constituents are
represented in Congress. Since governors
have the ability to veto unfavorable
redistricting bills, they have considerable
influence in the process. Thus if a state gets
an additional representative, some current
districts may need to be divided to form
a new one. Projections show eight states
gaining at least one seat but 10 expected to
lose at least one. The act of redistricting is
often done in the early part of the decade,
so some of the new governors will have
considerable influence over the next decade
of national politics.
Redistricting is the reason why the
political party of other states’ governors
actually matters. For example, the state of
Texas is projected to gain four congressional
seats after the 2010 census. Republican
Gov. Rick Perry is favored in current
polls for re-election against Democrat Bill
White, so Perry would be able to approve
new district lines that would likely add to
the number of Republicans in Congress.
Perry was once taken to the Supreme
Court for gerrymandering, also known
as partisan redistricting, but the Supreme
Court overturned only one small part
because of racial gerrymandering. The
gerrymandering in Texas resulted in a
Republican gain of six congressional seats
between 2002 and 2004.
Redistricting has shown to have a
significant effect on the makeup of the House
of Representatives. The governors in office
immediately after the 2010 elections will
have considerable influence over creating
new districts that send more politicians of
the same party to Washington, D.C. Luckily
for the GOP, between six and seven states
set to gain representation are likely to
have a Republican governor, which would
further strengthen Republican leadership
in Washington for the next 10 years. What
is certain, though, is that the political
Gavin Frisch
Washington
The Democratic nominee in
Washington is an incumbent, Patty
Murray. Her challenger is Dino Rossi,
a businessman who was a Washington
State Senator and ran twice for governor.
Before the first poll was even taken
most pundits believed Washington
would be a slam-dunk for the
Democrats in the midterms. Yet the
first two polls released in January and
February of this year showed Rossi with
a surprising 2-point lead over Murray.
Since then the race has gone back and
forth, although recently Murray has
held a slight lead.
Analysts at RealClearPolitics.com
showed Murray with an average lead
of just over 5 points at the end of
September. The surprise bounce is
attributed to her starting to spend
money on TV campaign ads, but it
remains to be seen whether her rise in
the polls is anything more than a dead-
cat bounce.
Unlike Connecticut, this Senate
race is much closer and the dynamics
of the state are far less blue. The most
recent Rasmussen poll places Rossi
ahead by just one point, but reveals that
45% of the state strongly disapproves
of Obama. The anti-Obama vote is
very strong and could push Rossi over
the finish line if the election is close.
Coupled with a possible win from
McMahon, the Republicans would take
control of the Senate and pick up a total
of ten seats.
— Matthew Lauer is a freshman in
the College of Arts and Sciences. He can
be reached at mlauerster@gmail.com.
influence of some states will change while
governors will attempt to create districts
favorable to their party.
— Gavin Frisch is a sophomore in the
Business School. He can be reached at
gavin7F@verizon.net.

Something changes when you talk on
the phone with a stranger. Somewhere
there is a face you will never see and a
voice you can only connect to through a
few wires for a few moments. There are
constraints imposed on judging reactions
and gathering information when on the
phone with a stranger, yet the anonymity is
also freeing. The form creates distance, the
communication creates intimacy. You don’t
know me, but listen.
If you don’t know what I mean, try phone
banking. There are few other opportunities
that allow you to capitalize so well on
potentially uncomfortable conversations.
Whether you are calling in support of a
cause or a candidate, the fact is that you
are dialing a random group of people and
intruding upon their lives, two or three
minutes at a time. It’s perhaps not very
surprising, then, that you are often told
“No thanks,” or simply hung up on. So
what’s the point of the experience?
Not too long ago, I spent an evening
calling Missouri voters for incumbent
Democratic Congressman Russ Carnahan.
The campaign was contacting people
JUST LISTENING
in his district, asking, “If the election
was tomorrow, who would you vote for:
Russ Carnahan or Ed Martin?” A simple
question, but I received complicated
answers. Hang-ups were abundant, and the
“I’m too busy-ers” had a strong showing
that night. There were several rants about
our current political system and, frankly,
far too many people who didn’t know
who was running. At the beginning, I was
incredibly discouraged.
Then I realized something important –
this was one of best ways I could honestly
appraise “real Missouri voters.” While I
love that students at Washington University
come from all across the country and the
world, it would be absurd to claim that a
student on our campus is representative
of an average “Missourian.” When phone
banking, then, I got to actually talk to
Missouri voters – to get a sense of what
they like, how they are feeling and what
they want. Some liked hanging up on me,
felt annoyed I was talking, and wanted to
get off the phone. But so many more used
the special anonymity of the phone to speak
frankly. I called people to learn about their
ELECTIONS
Anna Applebaum
political lives, and though constrained to
vocal interaction, the phone allowed them
to express themselves freely. They told me
everything – how they didn’t care about
candidates, didn’t want to care and didn’t
want to vote in November. Being actively
involved in politics, this wasn’t what I
wanted to hear. Yet I got a clearer sense, a
truer feel of the political pulse of this state
than I could have in any other fashion.
There is one phone call I made that night
that stands out. A woman complained to
me that she was too fed up with politics in
general to vote in the midterm elections.
Yet she was open to listening, and we spoke
for several minutes about disenchantment,
cynicism, and civic duty. By the end of the
call, she told me she would vote– though I
didn’t ask for which candidate. It was one
of the most important conversations I’ve
had since returning to school this year. I’ll
return, and risk talking to strangers, to find
that honesty again.
— Anna Applebaum is a sophomore in the
College of Arts and Sciences. She can be
reached at a.applebaum@wustl.edu.
22
ELECTIONS

FEEDING
...If you a
Republica
sk for cra
n candid
zy, you’l
l get it: Ch
FRENZY Andrew Luskin
flag fly. A ate for D ristine O’D
elaware’s on
experime
fter her c
olle S enate sea nell, the Tea Party-b
ntal sex o ge days of dabblin t, has bee
n letting acked
display of na g in
overcomp sacrificial altar, O’D experimental sex, her freak
She foun ensation onnell did witchcraft
ded an o u and
huge poli rganizatio sually reserved for a U-turn
in a stunn
n devoted closeted R hole
tical liabil
ity—in th to epublican ing
ge tting a w ief
about the
only thin is divided stopping masturb males. indy Cit
y is
ouse C
h
also calle
d the the
g that th po
e whole c litical climate, ma
ation, wh
ich …The W r, as White H revealed
still evolv o ry of evo o u ntry can s turbation is a lot win
die manuel run
ing into h lution “a
myth,” as
agree on.
O’Donne
is just
t aff R ahm E is post to is
principle umans?” of S a v e h e
of heredit Ironically king, “W
hy aren’t ll has would le ago. The mov
Bozo the y : she
Clown. W is the daughter of
, O’Donn
ell is a liv monkeys that he h ic this
ing exam or of C that in
ith that so Da
rt of pedig niel O’Donnell, b ple of th for May g, considering swear jar
ree, can w etter know e tin
devasta the White Hou money…
se
e expect a n
nything e as eco n o m y ,
gm a k ing
lse?...
s t he o nly thin
wa

tember, he Ed section
d B ritain in Sep rk Times Op-
ope Bened
ict v is it e gathered to …The New Yo t itself with an
…When P o n . As crowds decided to toas
y re c e p ti sex abuse turned 40 and ion. Though
was met w
ith a storm n se to its ongoing ism by in its print edit
Church’s re
sp o
eflect criti
c 18-page section per outside
protest the pted to d ed that est waste of pa
ene d ic t atte m
The Po p e c laim it was the bigg given how
scandal, B e ists .
eism, whic
h Garden section,
new enem
y: a th
uence of ath as in the of the Home & mbers have
creating a c o n se q subscription nu
e
ities were th ar from a man who
w far newspaper ct couldn’t
Nazi atroc äuser... ronmental impa
meth in g to h e
Führer, g las h fallen, the envi as ironic that
is quite so r, m e in large. Still, it w
th. Glas hä
use have been that as Thomas
Hitler You the same issue
it appeared in Lorax. This
rview with the
Friedman’s inte so gratuitous
of self-love was
public display n the Playboy
have been give
...The cla that it should and sold only
ss pped in plastic
income o war is on: when treatment: wra
f Ob …
rather th hedge-fund mana ama promised to to those over 18
an capita gers at n tax the
l gains ra
Stephen S
chwarzm tes (15%), ormal rates (35
$8 billion an, who h investme %)
, compar as a perso nt firm C
1939.” I k e d it to “wh n a l net worth E O
now that en Hitler of about
before yo H it ler analog in vaded Po
u compar ies are in land in
anything e somebo s ty le, but ser
that is in a dy to Hit iously
ler, ask: h
compare
somebod
ny way re
lated to w ave they d , nears
and
y to Hitle ha one ion e to
you don’t
lik r just bec t Hitler did? You ca c t
the ele idates continu n
drive-thr e. As upsetting as ause they n’t …As nd ve
u isn’t Hit it may be did some ratic ca polls, e r
ler becau , the guy thing Democ blicans in the ea
se he forg w
ot your str orking the pu ocrats f
trail Re ptimistic Dem s eat
aw… to eir 59-
the mos might lose th
ey
that th in the Senate…
m ino r ity

23
 ELECTIONS

Congress in character,
…Stephen Colbert testified before
workers to the House
detailing the plight of migrant farm
. Conservatives were
subcommittee on immigration
bert’s testimony as a
understandably angry, deriding Col
been frustrating for the
waste of Congress’s time. It must have
until Colbert was done
Republicans, who were forced to wait
doing anything…
to resume preventing Congress from ...Ultra
-r
the an ight conser
ti-Islam vatives
get, in h
sisting bull for eve ave been mi
pimp Sharia that th ry oun lk
like a lines la e ce the ing
essed
u p
one simple w in the Un re is a plot y can
u y w ho dr ap the ph with his m ite
doesn’t isunderstan d States. Thi
to inst
itute
the g t
g to again ce suppo d s
rt that ing: Californ is all just a
’ K e efe as for tryin the news boat, sedu e kind o i
m e s O
re ste d is i n nto a 3- g
p a f stoni a’s Prop 19
e m ber Ja d was ar . O’Keefe oudreau o ding the 1 u was ng...
y rem ORN an Landrieu r Abbie B After rea Boudrea ters
u ma C .
…Yo down A tor Mary N reporte a sex tape ood thing gs … pos d,
to t a k e S e n a
re C N as i ng it a g
’s ce so
n lanne
L o u isiana yet: to lu her by rele arent that 0s roman O’Keefe p nd the
of lan ss pp “8 As sa
dest p barra , it’s a resist ffs”? rdnes the
stupi d then em g the plan an could y handcu he awkwa ally show
n i n m z z t e
her, a ent detail l, what wo nd … fu get to see sex will r
u m r a l r a a u ’ ll rd
d o c
d o ff ; aft e
… Vi ag
r a a n dy o
n g awkwa
tippe ed wome n came havi
f n a k d u c e d on n, James;
o se l a
l get iant p a bill to force
“she’l ath.” Brill media… un an im ously approved
l ...The Se na te mercials from
afterm the libera dc as ters to keep com
of televi si on br oa . It’s a good
folly th an the actual show
being lo ud er get Congress
th is is what it takes to
idea, bu t st ill, the only thing
m et hing? If TV is
to ag re e on so asking Senators
ag re e on, instead of l
senato rs ca n ilitary personne
d D on ’t A sk , Don’t Tell, m shou ld just
to en for being gay
w ho were discharged V s un ti l th ey give in...
ners Asso ciat ion, wor ried that the public views in fr on t of se nators’ T
…The Corn Refi stan d
hy, petitioned the FDA
high-fructose corn syrup as unhealt
ding name: “corn sugar.”
to rebrand it with a less harmful soun
bles, waist expansion, and
The product will still cause tooth crum
possibly type two insulin wackiness…

nd
vo te o n a bill to exte
not to ght:
D e m o c rats decided th e e le c ti on. That’s ri
…The l afte r Even
-class ta x cuts unti ti l a fte r th e election.
le
midd
vote for tax
cuts un rve to lose…
…CNN a
nc they won’t the se g u y s kinda dese
Gibsoned hor Rick Sanch e to agree:
-out on a ez was liberals hav
other new radio sho fir
s network w, claimin ed after he Me
down. Th s were ru g that CN l
is is what n by Jews N and th
news anc ha w h o were ke e
hor watch ppens when you e
too much let an im ping him
Entourag pressiona
e... ble

— Andrew Luskin is a sophomore in the College of Arts and

Sciences. He can be reached at atluskin@wustl.edu
24
ELECTIONS

THE
CRUCIFIXION
OF CHARLIE
CRIST
Ben Lash
When Florida and politics are mixed,
the normal result seems to be abnormality.
The state known for single-handedly
making a mockery of the 2000 presidential
election has also produced such esteemed
public servants as former Rep. Mark
Foley (R-FL), who resigned in 2006 after
investigators unearthed sexually explicit
e-mails he exchanged with teenage male
aides, and Rep. Alan Grayson (D-FL), who
recently ran re-election ads comparing his
Illustration by Michelle Nahmad opponent to a member of the Taliban.
25
 ELECTIONS
Stay tuned for Florida’s
next political episode, Connecticut
the 2010 Florida Senate
race, which promises a The sitting senator, Christopher Dodd, opted not to run for reelection this year after facing scrutiny
slightly tamer yet still over personal finances related to the subprime mortgage meltdown. Instead, the Democratic Party
potentially interesting nominated Attorney General Richard Blumenthal to slug out 15 rounds against the Republican
political subplot: a nominee, former CEO of World Wrestling Entertainment (WWE) Linda McMahon.
sitting governor who Over the last few months the race went from a blowout to a competitive toss-up. In early June,
was shunned by his Rasmussen Reports, an independent polling agency, showed Blumenthal with a massive 23-point
own party, a Latino lead. Four months later, the same polling agency showed McMahon behind by just 5 points. Despite
candidate who supports Connecticut being a deeply blue state, the Rasmussen poll shows that only 27% of likely voters believe
Arizona’s controversial that the current policies of the federal government put the country on the right course.
immigration law, and This race is largely Blumenthal’s to lose, but underlying currents are making an upset increasingly
a Democratic nominee likely. If McMahon continues to wage a strong campaign her chances to win will only get better. If she
who, in some polls, ends up winning this race by anything more than 5 points on election night, the Democrats’ night
does not lead among will be much worse than previously thought. — Matthew Lauer
registered Democrats.
When Republican
Sen. Mel Martinez of
Florida unexpectedly
announced in August Initially, most Floridians embraced the The latest figures show Rubio leading
of 2009 that he would step down, political move. Polling in early May indicated that Crist by 12 to 15 percentage points.
observers immediately began speculating the newly independent Crist would beat Most pollsters who analyze the data have
about the race for an open Senate seat in Rubio and Democratic candidate Kendrick concluded that barring a significant
the country’s largest swing state. At the Meek in a three-way contest. change in circumstances, the right-
outset, the conventional wisdom held that But the transition from Republican wing Republican with no patience for
incumbent Republican Gov. Charlie Crist to independent would prove to be more moderation or compromise will be the
would win both his party’s nomination and difficult as Crist began to alter some of his next U.S. senator from Florida. Some on
the vacated Senate seat. Some pundits even stances on the issues publicly. The candidate, the right will likely claim victory for the
remarked that Crist’s Senate victory was a who during the GOP primary declared conservative agenda over the centrist one.
foregone conclusion. himself to be “about as conservative as you But with his constant flip-flopping, Charlie
But Crist faced a tougher-than-expected can get” and as a “pro-life, pro-gun, anti-tax Crist was not the right person to carry the
challenge for the Republican nomination Republican,” now made the calculation to centrist mantle from the start.
from Florida Speaker of the House move leftward on the political spectrum to Unfortunately, Floridians will not
Marco Rubio. Rubio, whose political court Democrats and fellow independents. have the option to throw their weight
philosophy aligns with the far-right wing The result was one of the more barefaced behind a candidate who firmly believes
of the GOP, appealed to anti-incumbent acts of political “flip-flopping” in recent in a moderate approach to governance—
sentiment within his party (and his policy memory, which included Crist reversing his one with a track record of independent
platform resonated most with those who conservative positions on abortion rights, decision-making and a willingness to
take particular issue with the increasing offshore drilling, and gay adoption. (I have prioritize public service over politics.
federal budget deficit). As Rubio spread intentionally excluded Crist’s position on In an increasingly polarized political
his message of limited government and President Obama’s health care legislation environment, and as bitter partisanship
reduced spending, he became a favorite out of fear that it will change prior to the pushes Congress toward irresponsible
of the Tea Party movement, and his publication of this article.) inaction on key issues, the time is ripe for
candidacy exploded. His local popularity After his dizzying string of policy shifts, independent, centrist candidates to make a
and national recognition increased, and Crist went from a sizeable lead in the polls mark on our democracy.
he even appeared on the cover of The New to trailing by double digits. While Rubio The state of Florida, like the nation,
York Times Magazine in January. As Rubio and some conservative commentators needs more candidates like Charlie
surged in the polls, the two Republican have interpreted this shift in polling data Crist who articulate an open-minded,
candidates waged a contentious battle for as a rejection of Crist’s new center-left evenhanded approach to governing. But
party supremacy. Ultimately, conservative views, the change more likely reflects voter we also need candidates with stronger
discontent with establishment politicians dissatisfaction with the transitory nature political backbones to carry the torch for
and Crist’s support for Obama’s stimulus of the governor’s positions rather than the these ideals that will ultimately benefit our
package were too much for Republican positions themselves. “It would work well country.
voters to stomach. for somebody who wasn’t quite as overtly
Just two days before the filing deadline, politically ambitious as he’s been,” Brad
Crist (who by then was trailing Rubio by Coker, the managing director of Mason-
significant margins in the polls) declared Dixon Polling & Research, said of Crist’s — Ben Lash is a freshman in the College
his intention to run as an independent to moderate approach in a recent Wall Street of Arts and Sciences. He can be reached at
avoid a humiliating primary defeat. Journal article. blash@wustl.edu.
26
ELECTIONS
FOR TEA OR FOR JOBS?
EXPLAINING THE RISE OF THE TEA PARTY
Whether or not you agree that President
Barack Obama could have remedied this
statistic, the unemployment figures have
cast a shadow of doubt over the Obama
administration’s otherwise favorable
policies.
As midterm season fast approaches,
pundits are doing their best to diagnose
what exactly is wrong with the Democrats.
According to a recent FiveThirtyEight
election forecast, Republicans have a
staggering 72% chance of regaining the
House. As Democrats appear exposed
and muddled, the Tea Party movement
has emerged as an “energized” force with
which to be reckoned. This of course begs
the question: what is the underlying appeal
of the Tea Party?
The answer is rooted in our lingering
10% rate of unemployment. Whether or
not you agree that President Barack Obama
could have remedied this statistic, the
unemployment figures have cast a shadow
of doubt over the Obama administration’s
otherwise favorable policies. According to
a recent Newsweek poll, Democrats trump
Republicans in almost every major policy
issue, leading on the war in Afghanistan by
six points, health care by 12, Social Security
by 12, financial reform by 14, and energy
by 19. Still, the public is unconvinced that
the Democrats should keep their majority.
Although economic improvement has
been slower than expected, the passage of
key legislation has helped put the country
back on the road to recovery.
The media has labeled Republicans and
the Tea Party as motivated forces. Yet,
the Tea Party is not an action but merely
a reaction. Its current appeal rests on the
fact that the unemployment rate is so
high—and not on any other issue. The Tea
Party’s infamously zealous opposition to
Obama’s policies, including health care,
TARP, and the stimulus, ought to be seen
through the murky lens of unemployment.
27
The Tea Party message would not resonate
so well with the media and independents
if unemployment were at 6% rather than
10%.
When people are jobless or in poor
financial shape, arguments concerning the
failure of those in power ring truer. It is
not all that different from students rating
professors badly on course evaluations
because they did poorly on the tests. So
when a reactionary group like the Tea
Party screams loudly on Fox News that the
government spends too much and needs to
cut taxes, that emotional argument makes
much more sense when the economy is still
so anemic.
And while many Tea Party supporters
are middle-class Americans who feel
snubbed by Obama and Congress, their
leaders are “people backing ultra right-
wing corporate interests” who have been
promoting the same agenda “for the last 30
years,” as Bill Clinton noted. Tea Party-like
“movements” were around during Clinton’s
own administration, but they lacked the
vim and vigor of today’s Tea Party, likely
because Americans back then were more
or less content with the U.S.’s general
economic performance. Even though taxes
were higher during the Clinton years, the
same “cut taxes and spending” argument
did not receive such broad-based support
in a bullish U.S. economy.
On election night, if the GOP reclaims the
House, the pundits will start to rationalize
the results. They will claim that Obama’s
disconnect with the American people,
along with an ineffectual health care plan,
has lead to the Democrats’ collapse. As
you watch this, just remember how much
Steven Perlberg
As the prospect of a Republican
takeover in the House becomes more
certain and a Republican takeover
in the Senate becomes more viable,
pundits have begun writing obituaries
for the Obama presidency. Republicans
will ride the wave of momentum they
receive from the midterm elections
all the way to the White House in
2012, so the pundits argue. However,
a Republican-controlled House and/or
Senate may actually improve President
Obama’s chances at re-election. Obama
could use President Clinton’s first term
in office as a model. In what became
known as the “Republican Revolution,”
the GOP spanked the Democrats in
the 1994 midterm elections, gaining
control of both the House and Senate.
In response, Clinton positioned
himself as a fiscal centrist and worked
with Republicans to cut discretionary
spending. In 1996, voters rewarded
Clinton with a landslide victory.
If the Republicans do indeed take the
House this November, Obama has the
opportunity to perform “Clintonesque
realignment.” Obama can team up with
the Republicans to tackle the budget
deficit. This way, when controversial
decisions on spending cuts are made,
both Democrats and Republicans
will have yielded the scalpel; and, if
economic conditions remain stagnant
come 2012, the Republicans will have
to bear some of the blame. During the
2008 presidential campaign, Obama
portrayed himself as someone who is
capable of transcending party lines to
achieve some overlapping consensus.
A Republican victory in November
is the potential vehicle for Obama to
build bridges across partisan lines and
resurrect his re-election hopes in 2012.
— Peter Birke
better Obama’s other policies would look if
they were not shrouded in a dark cloud of
unemployment.
— Steven Perlberg is a sophomore in the
College of Arts and Sciences. He can be
reached at stevenperlberg@gmail.com.

“The infrastructure of this
province was already destroyed by
terrorism. Whatever was left was
finished off by these floods.” Mian
Iftikhar Hussain, the information
minister of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa
region in Pakistan, is not optimistic
about the prospects of a region
devastated by an unprecedented
monsoon. His gloomy assessment
is the reality faced by 21 million
Pakistanis forced from their already
precarious tightrope walk with
terror into a misery even they didn’t
think possible.
The most recent estimates place
the death toll at a little over 2,000.
While even a single death is a tragedy,
this is not a high number for a natural
disaster of this magnitude. To put this
in perspective, the 1931 flooding of the
Yellow River in China claimed more
than 3 million lives.
One can argue, however, that the
plight that millions of Pakistanis face is
worse than death.
A Breeding Ground for Disease,
Poverty and Terror
By June, it was clear that the
monsoons were going to be far heavier
than normal. The cause was later traced
back to the effect of a natural weather-
causing phenomenon called La Niña,
something that many scientists believe
is an explanation for irregular weather
patterns observed around the world.
By early August, the rain hadn’t
stopped, and more was expected. In
Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, 7.88 inches of
rain fell in a single day, while Peshawar
registered a staggering, world-record
10.7 inches over one 24-hour period.
Illustration of Pakistan by Anya Liao
A NATION DROWNING
Illustration by Anya Liao
The rivers of Punjab province, traditionally
the cause of the land’s prosperity, overflowed
their banks and submerged 226,000 homes in
4,600 villages. In many places, the water level
was 18 feet, higher than most homes.
At one point, it is estimated that one-fifth
of the country was underwater.
The stagnant water has formed a breeding
ground for diseases like gastroenteritis,
diarrhea and dengue fever. With nearly a
million people inaccessible by land, and
hospitals destroyed, their chances of finding
medication were, and continue to be, slim.
Submerged crops and destroyed homes
have also meant mass starvation in the
villages, or whatever is left of them. The
estimated crop damage for wheat, the
region’s staple, is $500 million. In regions of
Sindh province, there has been a complete
breakdown of law and order, with looters
running rampant and authorities helpless to
stop them with so many people in need.
The total economic damages for the flood
are on the order of $43 billion, over a fourth
of a country’s gross domestic product. U.N.
Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has called it
the biggest humanitarian crisis he has seen.
In short, Pakistan simply cannot afford the
costs that this disaster has imposed on its
people.
What’s worse than the economic costs of
the floods, however, is the possible political
outcome of the collapse of law and order
in so many regions. Pakistan has long been
the key to a successful U.S. campaign in
Afghanistan. Its importance to U.S. interests
was apparent when one of Barack Obama’s
first appointments as president was that
of Richard Holbrooke as special envoy to
Pakistan and Afghanistan. In recent years,
INTERNATIONAL
Siddharth Krishnan
the remote, tribally administered
northwestern part of the country has
fallen prey to Taliban influence, and it
took a massive military offensive from
the Pakistani army to restore a level of
order back to the region.
The floods have put the hard-earned
success of the military offensive at
risk. Not only is the Taliban taking
advantage of the general chaos, but
it is are also using the disaster as
a platform from which it can gain
political support. The Taliban has
offered to organize relief efforts in
rural regions with the condition that
the government refuse the aid of “the
Christians and Jews.”
The Pakistani army, already stretched thin
under the massive strain of rescue and relief
operations, is increasingly powerless to stop
the growing influence of the Taliban in the
hardest-hit regions.
No Relief in Sight
Nick Clegg, the leader of Britain’s Liberal
Democrats, has called the aid response of
the international community to the floods
“absolutely pitiful.” The protracted nature of
the disaster and the relatively low death toll
have drawn a remarkably apathetic reaction
from both Europe and the United States. This
is not ideal for a country grappling with a
calamity that has affected more people than
the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami, the 2010
Haitian earthquake and the 2005 Kashmir
earthquake combined.
What makes the situation even worse is
the presence of corrupt ministers and feudal
leaders who siphon aid funds to themselves
and floodwater to villages to save their own
land.
More than ever before, this is Pakistan’s
hour of need, and the international
community must rise to the challenge of
rebuilding a country devastated by floods
and terrorism. Not only is it of strategic
importance, but it is also the right the thing
to do. The consequences of Mian Iftikhar
Hussain’s statement are simply too dire to
ponder.
— Siddharth Krishnan is a sophomore in
the Engineering School. He can be reached
at siddharth.krishnan@wustl.edu.
28
INTERNATIONAL
an INTERVIEW with
On October 4, Nicholas Kristof came to Washington University
to talk about his book, Half the Sky and to discuss general issues
regarding the oppression of women worldwide. WUPR editor
Anna Applebaum and I were fortunate enough to schedule a
meeting with him. On the day he arrived, we met at the Brown
School of Social Work for the interview.
Nicholas Kristof has been a New York Times columnist for
almost ten years. After graduating from Harvard University, he
was a Rhodes Scholar and studied law at Oxford University. He
clearly loves to travel – he learned Arabic in Cairo, Mandarin in
Taipei, has visited over 150 countries and has been to all 50 states,
all provinces in China and every single main Japanese island. He
has also visited every country in the “Axis of Evil” – Iran, Iraq and
North Korea – twice. These experiences have given him strong
perspectives on a wide breadth of issues ranging from human
trafficking to global health.
29
In 1990, he and his wife Sheryl WuDunn won a Pulitzer Prize for
their coverage of the controversial Tiananmen Square movement
in Beijing, China. In 2006 he was awarded another Pulitzer Prize
for his reporting on the Darfur genocide. A documentary about
him, “Reporter”, was shown on HBO earlier this year.
Our first impressions of him were surprising. Though his
columns are often fiery and passionate, he assumed a casual and
friendly manner during our meeting. Despite his hectic schedule,
he was very energetic and eager to share his experiences, and
what we thought would be a formal interview quickly became an
engaging conversation.
Throughout our interview, he emphasized the importance of
stepping out of one’s comfort zone, drawing from his numerous
travels around the world in emphasizing the importance of first-
hand experience. We hope the transcript of the interview will
leave you just as inspired as it left us.

NICHOLAS KRISTOF
WUPR: In America today, there seem to be many public figures of
great sway and influence with the American people that are using
their public platforms to inspire what seems to us to be negative
sentiments and false ideas. How do you, as someone with a similar
range of public influence, feel like you need to react?
NK: I think some Americans have been surprised that I have written
several columns that criticize what I have seen as Islamophobia.
Part of the reason comes from one time when I was in Yemen – I
was meeting a bunch of smart Yemeni middle class journalists and
asking them why nobody was standing up to the fundamentalist
mullahs who were saying all kinds of ridiculous things about the
West, about Judaism, and so on…and I kind of thought that since I
was pushing them to take a stand against their extremists, I should
take a stand and do the same against our own. And at the end of
the day what is really the fundamental question here has less to do
with Islam and more to do with our own rights.
INTERNATIONAL
Photograph taken by Sarah Maurizi from Student Life
Anna Applebaum, Jannina Phi
NK: There are always going to be really wacky things that are
said in the American public debate and I’m not going to try and
name all of them. Sometimes you almost feel that you’re calling
more attention to really wacky points of view. In general, I try
to ignore them until they get a kind of critical mass. In the 2008
campaign, Glenn Beck raised the question, broadcast on CNN, on
whether Obama was the anti-Christ. If it was a website raising that
question, I would have left it alone, but CNN raising it just seemed
a bit beyond the pale. I feel a professional obligation that when
journalists do things to promote hatred, other journalists have
some obligation to stand up to that.
WUPR: You’re very well traveled and have been to places all over
the world. Can you tell us about the experiences that have been the
funniest, the worst, or made the biggest impact on you?
30
INTERNATIONAL
NK: Probably the most dramatic was in the [Democratic Republic
of] Congo during the civil war there. It started with a plane crash
getting into Congo. We crashed into a jungle, where the plane was
clearly destroyed. When I finally reached Kisangani in the center
of Congo, I thought, instead of trying to fly out, why don’t I just
drive out? One of the rebel armies had recently built a road and
I tried to drive out and almost immediately ran into a warlord
who was busy killing ethnic Hutus. And he did not appreciate my
presence there. So for the next week, a truckload of his soldiers
chased me across Eastern Congo across the jungle. And over the
course of that, I got the most lethal form of malaria. That was one
trip… maybe the most difficult trip I’ve taken. China’s one of the
places I find most fascinating because there is such uncertainty
over what China’s future will be. There are tremendous variations
between the capital, ethnic minority and rural areas and, of course,
a very rich and complicated culture. China is one of the places I
enjoy the most.
WUPR: You have this program called “Win a Trip with Kristof.” In
your column you’ve also described a program called Teach for the
World, which is a kind of Teach for America program extended
internationally. Why do you think this was so important, especially
for young people to be traveling, and do you think the Teach the
World program is a feasible reality? Would college students really
be a demographic for that?
NK: President Obama didn’t respond to my column by creating
a Teach for the World. But there are other programs that do let
people teach English, volunteer or intern abroad… A lot of
students worry about the expense, but you can get by in India or
China or Vietnam on remarkably little money and can also teach
English, to some degree, to cover those expenses. New Zealanders
and Australians, for example, will commonly take a couple of years
and just travel around the world, especially Asia. When they run
out of money, they stay in one place, and work for a couple months
until they have a little more money and then go a little farther. The
result is that they really learn a lot about the world. I think young
women especially psych themselves out and think that, well, it’s
the kind of thing that guys can do but girls can get in trouble with
and so on. Obviously there are risks and one has to be careful, but
in fact Australian women and New Zealand women are traveling
more than men do, and most aid workers in the rough response
areas are women. So I think if one has some common sense
and travels with a friend, one is going to be just fine. It’s really a
transformative experience. I’d love to see universities encourage
more gap years both before college, and…make one after college.
In particular, I’d say that any student today really should have very
good Spanish…and it makes no sense to study that in St. Louis.
The place to study that is in Mexico, or Peru, or Guatemala, or
whatever. So if a student after graduation can go to such a place
and really get a good command of Spanish, that would be a really
important life-long skill….The back of Half the Sky lists places
that people can go and have a remarkable experience, and I really
encourage that.
WUPR: You have frequently advanced the argument that
empowering women and girls leads to increased economic success
in developing countries. Can we start off with a general overview
about what the basis for this understanding is?
31
Photograph taken by Sarah Maurizi from Student Life
NK: There are a lot of reasons, but two important ones are that, first,
that is where the unexploited resources are in poor countries. If you
think about assets that poor countries have and are not utilizing,
the most important is the other half of the female population. And
the second is that you can’t really begin to make progress against
global poverty or human conflict unless you reduce birth rates,
[which is] just critical. If you educate a man, on average he’d have
fewer children, but the effect is much stronger if you educate a
girl. So bringing those educated women into the mainstream is
an incredibly inventive way to reduce birth rates and empower
countries to see them grow economically and become more
peaceful.
WUPR: Is there one specific approach to education that you’ve
found to be most effective?
NK: Not really. There’s no silver bullet, there’s no one way that
works most effectively and in fact a lot of methods don’t work.
Helping people really is hard and it’s important to be flexible. In a
country like Afghanistan there is an argument that the best place
to educate girls is in the mosques because the mosques are already
there and the Taliban tends to be less suspicious of education of
girls when they’re conducted in [a religious context] and it doesn’t
require much investment. Even little things like de-worming kits
– you just don’t think about it because St. Louis kids don’t have
worms but most kids in the world do, and de-worming them helps
them to attend school.
WUPR: As young educated students, very fortunate to be in this
university and country, what do you say to us and what is the best
way for us to utilize our efforts to promote women’s education
worldwide?
NK: Students are not at a stage in life that they’re going to be
writing big checks… In Half the Sky, we mostly emphasize needs
abroad but there are also huge needs at home, and there are some
kids whose needs really resonate with them [students]…I’ve met
college kids who have done tutoring in prisons and that’s the best
way to learn about the justice system – not to take a course about
it but to tutor them. And human trafficking is an issue in St. Louis
as well as in Cambodia. Where one does it is less important than
going out and encountering problems and issues first hand, and
then just getting together with some friends and figuring out what
they’re going to do.
— Anna Applebaum and Jannina Phi are both sophomores in the
College of Arts and Sciences. They can be reached at
a.applebaum@wustl.edu and at jannina.phi@gmail.com.

Once again, the French capital
has been rocked by a dynastic
feud, which has snowballed into
allegations of illegal campaign
donations. This time, Le
Monde, France’s most respected
newspaper, announced its intent
to sue the President Nicolas
Sarkozy for violating freedom of
the press.
On September 13, Le Monde
published a front-page article
that claimed that the president
ordered the DCRI, the French
intelligence agency, to spy
on one of its journalists. The
newspaper alleged that the DCRI
investigated sources involved
in its July article that linked
the ruling Union for a Popular
Movement party to illegal party
donations by Liliane Bettencourt,
an heiress to the L’Oréal empire
and France’s richest woman.
The scandal began in 2007,
when Ms. Bettencourt’s estranged
daughter, Françoise Bettencourt-
Meyers, filed a lawsuit to have her
mother made a ward of the court.
Ms. Bettencourt-Meyers claimed
her mother’s associate Francois-
Marie Banier, took advantage of
the 87-year-old heiress and had
received gifts worth around €1
billion.
The trial took a new turn this
June, when Ms. Bettencourt’s
former butler released secret
tapes of more than 21 hours of
conversation in the household.
The transcripts hinted that the heiress
hid a part of her fortune in a secret Swiss
bank account in order to avoid taxes, and
had also handed 150,000 euros in cash to
Eric Woerth, the government minister to
Mr. Sarkozy’s 2007 presidential campaign.
French law strictly limits campaign
contributions by individuals to 4,600
euros, or 150 in cases of cash contributions
– making Ms. Bettencourt’s donation a
thousand times over the legal limit.
Further suspicions were cast on Mr.
Woerth when Le Monde published an
article in July that included excerpts from
a police interview of one of the witnesses
L’AFFAIRE SARKOGATE
Illustration by Audrey Westcott
involved in the affair. The paper alleged
that the government had subsequently
authorized the DCRI to identify the source
and spy on one of its reporters. The DCRI
identified David Sénat, an official of the
Justice Ministry, as the source, whose
telephone logs revealed correspondence
with a Le Monde reporter. In early
September, Mr. Sénat was demoted and
sent on a mission to French Guyana,
France’s infamous former penal colony,
which translates to a thinly veiled political
exile.
Ironically, Mr. Sarkozy stated in his
first press conference at the Elsyée Palace
on January 8, 2008, that “A journalist
INTERNATIONAL
Jacqueline Gunn
worthy of his name does not
give his sources. Everyone must
understand this, everyone must
accept it.” He delivered his
campaign promises this January
when he strengthened the law
that protects press freedom and
privacy of media sources: the
modified clause of the law, which
dates back to 1881, reads “The
secret of journalists’ sources is
protected in the exercise of their
public information.” To add insult
to injury, Le Monde’s accusation
comes only months after a
revelation that the president
enlisted the intelligence service
to discover the culprit of the
infidelity rumors about him and
his wife, Carla Bruni-Sarkozy.
If the allegation turns out to
be true, this could deal a painful
blow to Mr. Sarkozy’s center-
right UMP party. Although the
UMP party united other rightist
parties under its alliance, many
splinter parties have formed
since 2007, including the United
Republic party. The UR party
leader Dominique de Villepin has
been gaining momentum in the
past year, and speculations grow
as to whether Mr. Villepin would
form an alliance of the right-
leaning splinter groups to lead an
opposition to Mr. Sarkozy’s 2012
presidential bid. The president
has already resorted to desperate
measures to cling to his waning
domestic popularity by cracking
down on illegal Roma immigrants,
expelling nearly 1,000 Roma Gypsies to
Bulgaria and Romania since late July. But
following this media fiasco, magnified and
exploited by the Socialist opposition, Mr.
Sarkozy will need to do more than appeal
to the anti-immigrant population if he
wants to keep his approval rating from
dipping any further.
— Jacqueline Gunn is a freshman in the
College of Arts and Sciences. She can be
reached at gunnj@wustl.edu.
32
INTERNATIONAL
MISSION ACCOMPLISHED IN IRAQ?
“In the months and years following
President Bush’s speech on the USS
Abraham Lincoln, it became clear that
the Bush administration had severely
underestimated both the resilience of Iraqi
insurgents, and the complex and intricate
processes necessary to rebuild the state of
Iraq.”
On March 19, 2003, President George W.
Bush revealed to the American people that
he had initiated military operations against
Saddam Hussein in order to accomplish
three goals: “to disarm Iraq, to free its
people and to defend the world from grave
danger.”
On May 1, 2003, President Bush declared
on the USS Abraham Lincoln that major
combat operations in Iraq had ended, and
that the United States’ mission had been
accomplished.
In the months and years following
President Bush’s speech on the USS
Abraham Lincoln, it became clear that
the Bush administration had severely
underestimated both the resilience of Iraqi
insurgents and the complex and intricate
processes necessary to rebuild the state of
Iraq.
On August 19, 2010—exactly seven
years and five months after the invasion—
the remaining combat troops in Iraq
33
finally crossed the border into Kuwait.
Within the 89 months that United States
combat troops were stationed in Iraq,
4,421 servicemen and women were killed
and almost 32,000 were wounded. It is
estimated that anywhere between 97,461
and 106,348 Iraqi civilians lost their lives.
Between 2006-2010, 1.6 million Iraqis had
been displaced, and by the end of fiscal year
2011, the United States will have spent $802
billion on the war effort.
Seven years after deploying military
forces to Iraq, we are left with the question
of whether the mission in Iraq was indeed
a success, or whether it was simply an
astonishing mismanagement of human
life and capital resources. As stated earlier,
President Bush told the American people
that the United States had three primary
objectives in invading Iraq; we can begin
our analysis by determining the extent
to which each of these objectives was
accomplished.
Mission 1: Disarm Iraq
Certainly, we all remember the images
streaming over the airways in the days
immediately following the beginning of
the United States’ invasion of Iraq. Smoke
billowed and fires raged all across Baghdad
Dan Rebnord
while American bombs and artillery shells
pounded the city. Courtesy of Bush’s
renowned shock and awe tactics, Iraq was
disarmed within days of the American
invasion. However, when President Bush
referred to “disarming Iraq,” he meant
removing Iraq’s supposed “weapons of
mass destruction.” As of today, no nuclear,
chemical, or biological weapons have been
found in Iraq. Hans Blix, the 82-year-old
former chief United Nations weapons
inspector, claimed that those who were
“100% certain there were weapons of
mass destruction” in Iraq turned out to
have “less than 0% knowledge” of where
those weapons could be found. Critical
judgments of faulty U.S. intelligence aside,
it is fair to say that in the 89 months that the
United States occupied Iraq, Iraq’s military
capabilities were essentially neutralized.
Mission 2: Free the Iraqi People
To say the least, the conceptual structure
of this mission is precarious. In what regard
did President Bush mean “freedom”? If he
meant freedom in terms of eliminating
the tyranny of Saddam Hussein, then yes,
Operation Iraqi Freedom was a success.
However, such a conception of freedom is
incongruous with our traditional, Western

Seven years after deploying military forces to Iraq, we are left with
the question of whether the mission in Iraq was indeed a success,
or whether it was simply an astonishing mismanagement of human
life and capital resources.
notions of freedom. Freedom ought to
mean the freedom to live in peace, to
govern oneself democratically, and to be
provided with basic infrastructures. If
this is how we are to define freedom, then
the United States’ mission has been an
unforgivable failure. Saddam Hussein may
have been a cruel tyrant who committed
horrible atrocities against his own people;
however, his regime provided structure
and security. Under Hussein, the state of
Iraq functioned as a working state. The
government that has been implemented by
the United States is so divided by sectarian
conflict that it is wildly inefficient. Thus,
little is being done in terms of progressing
towards rebuilding Iraqi infrastructure,
which was destroyed by the U.S. invasion.
Without an active government and an
established infrastructure, Iraqi insurgents
are still capable of committing attacks
against innocent civilians. The current
situation in Iraq is not representative of
democratic freedom, but anarchy. Until
a democratic government is established
which is capable of representing the Iraqi
people, true freedom will be elusive. In
this regard, the United States has failed
to provide the Iraqi people with freedom.
Worse, we have failed in the utmost to do
justice for the destruction and pain we have
caused the state and the people of Iraq.
Mission 3:
Defend the World From Grave Danger
Is our world really any safer because
of Saddam Hussein’s removal? We have
already established that his regime never
possessed the weapons of mass destruction
that the United States claimed he had, and,
therefore, Hussein was never a threat in that
regard. Yet Saddam Hussein’s regime was a
harmful one, and Hussein personally was
a dangerous leader in international affairs.
But how evil was he, really? Apparently,
not that bad, since the United States sent
him aid and military weapons during
the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980’s and left
him in power after the first Gulf War. The
United States had myriad opportunities to
condemn Hussein and his regime, yet we
opted to provide him with aid and to leave
him in power after his attempted invasion
of Kuwait. If Saddam Hussein was truly
as grave a threat to the world as President
Bush claimed, then the United States should
have treated him as such—and not merely
INTERNATIONAL
as a political pawn. The grave dangers of
the world lie elsewhere—not in Saddam
Hussein’s ousted regime. In reality, Saddam
Hussein had little involvement or influence
in the ideological and political dynamics
that continue to threaten the United States
and the rest of the world today.
Note that I have deliberately avoided
the issue as to whether the recent War in
Iraq was worth its many costs. Rather, I
have addressed the extent to which the
United States has achieved its goals and
objectives in Iraq. Perhaps my opinions
of the latter question indicate my leanings
towards the former. However, the former
is a political issue, which will be discussed
to no end by politicians who seek election.
Partisan politics aside, we must come to
understand the nature of our mistakes and
the mismanagements of our objectives in
order to rectify them. We must do this not
only for our own interests, but also for the
people of Iraq.
— Dan Rebnord is a junior in the College
of Arts and Sciences. He can be reached at
drebnord@go.wustl.edu.
34
INTERNATIONAL

MORE THAN
JUST CIGARS
Alana Hauser
President Kennedy needed 1,000 Petit
Upmann Cuban cigars, and he needed
them stat. On the morning of February
7, 1963, Kennedy’s Press Secretary Pierre
Salinger filled his request, waltzing into
the Oval Office with a total of 1,200 Cuban
cigars. As he handed Kennedy the goods,
the president removed a piece of paper
from his desk and immediately signed
it. These would be the last of the legal
Cuban cigars in the country. The United
States’ embargo with Cuba had begun.
35

It is essential that Democrats and Republicans alike look past
ingrained cultural reactions to this embargo and see the bigger
picture of the future.
Over 40 years later, the embargo remains
in place; however, the justification for its
policies has severely dwindled. When the
embargo was implemented in the 1960s,
anti-communist sentiments were flooding
the United States. In the midst of the Cold
War, Cuba’s growing political and economic
relationship with the Soviet Union labeled
it an enemy in the eyes of the United
States. Following the Cuban Revolution
in 1959, the United States was becoming
increasingly wary of Fidel Castro’s anti-
capitalist government. The embargo’s
prohibition of travel and the illegalization
of financial and commercial transactions
with Cuba were seen as necessary
precautionary measures at the time.
However, today this is simply not the
case. Since the fall of the Soviet Union in
1991, Cuba no longer receives aid from
their eastern ally. This lack of foreign aid
has led to a serious decline in economic
prosperity and basic standards of living in
Cuba. Yet even as Cuba began its decline
into destitution in the early 1990s, the
United States strengthened its embargo
with the Torricelli and Helms-Burton
Acts of 1992 and 1996. In addition to
tightening economic sanctions, both
acts stated that the embargo could
not be removed unless internationally
supervised elections were to take place.
The legislation took the extreme step of
asserting that neither Fidel nor Raul Castro
could be involved in a future government
and implied a democratic agenda that
resembled that of the Platt Amendment
of 1903. This amendment allowed the
United States to intervene in Cuban affairs
whenever it deemed necessary, a clear
infringement on Cuba’s independence.
These acts were supposedly passed in
the name of fostering democracy in the
United States’ trading partners. So what
about China? Communism governs China,
yet the United States continues to allow
trade and travel there. Pepe Schraibman,
a professor of Spanish at Washington
University, believes that there are two main
reasons for this ostensibly hypocritical
action. First of all, Schraibman said, “there
is a Cuban-American block of votes in
Florida and elsewhere which counts, and
among these people are people who lost
homes, land, businesses and so on [when
they were exiled]. Now, to my knowledge
that hasn’t happened in China or Korea.
They are just bigger and we need them
for different reasons, in the case of Korea
for the bomb and in the case of China for
trade.” Because Cuba is seen as less of a
threat, it is easier for the United States to
restrict its trade with Cuba and bear fewer
consequences as a result. Furthermore,
Schraibman said, “American companies
such as the telephone and the oil and
the sugar companies and many more
were not remunerated for the businesses
they lost [after the Cuban Revolution].”
When Castro nationalized all industries
following the revolution, many American
companies were seized by the government
and not given any compensation. The
bitterness associated with the confiscation
of these lands still lingers today.
However, Barack Obama’s presidency
has brought a new perspective to the
outdated Cuban legislation. President
Obama has eased the travel ban for
separated family members and legislation
is currently pending in Congress in the
hopes of lifting the embargo altogether.
INTERNATIONAL
The bill was postponed as of September
30, 2010 and will be voted on in the
House of Representatives following the
2010 midterm elections. It is essential that
Democrats and Republicans alike look past
ingrained cultural reactions to this embargo
and see the bigger picture of the future.
Despite the embargo, the United States is
intricately involved in the Cuban economy.
After a devastating hurricane hit Cuba in
2001, the U.S. began exporting agricultural
products and is currently Cuba’s number
one supplier of food. In addition, lifting
the embargo is beneficial to the United
States as well as to the Cuban people. A
study by Texas A&M University predicted
that lifting the embargo on Cuba would
stimulate U.S. agricultural exports by $360
million a year and create 6,000 new jobs.
With a 10% unemployment rate currently
plaguing the country, any effort to boost the
economy is worth considering. And lastly,
this September, Raul Castro announced
the termination of 500,000 government
employees in the hopes of stimulating the
private sector of Cuba’s economy. By lifting
the embargo now, the United States could
make a strong show of support for Cuba’s
gradual progression towards privatization.
It is time for the United States to ditch
its isolationist strategy and work towards
finding a middle ground, engaging
once again in a full exchange of goods,
people and ideas between these two
countries. Cuba is our neighbor, and it
is about time we started acting like one.
— Alana Hauser is a freshman in the College
of Arts and Sciences. She can be reached at
alanahauser@go.wustl.edu.
36
INTERNATIONAL

IT TAKES
TWO
MEXICO’S ONE-SIDED DISCUSSION
Mariana Oliver

Panic. Outrage. Disgust. This is the range of sentiments that

overtook U.S. politicians in August when Mexican President Felipe
Calderon publicly called for a discussion on the legalization of
drugs. Americans were up in arms before President Calderon even
had a chance to explain himself. Why the uproar? Because we are
talking about legalizing harmful substances, of course! “Hide your
kids, hide your wife,” right?
37

Before you assume that this article will be a vehicle for me
to express my views on why drugs should be legalized, let me
disappoint you now and admit that this is not my aim. Rather,
like Mr. Calderon himself, I am hoping for a discussion on an
alternative policy for an intractable problem, one that has long
exasperated the smartest policymakers. Since 2006, this “war on
drugs” has claimed the lives of more than 28,000 Mexican citizens.
Although the Mexican government has intervened in an all-out
military offensive against the drug cartels, it is not at all clear that
Mexico has gained, or ever will gain, the upper hand.
Imagine yourself in the Mexican president’s shoes. All options
seem to be exhausted, and current policies are resulting in civilian
casualties rather than curbed drug trafficking. Wouldn’t you be
open to exploring other alternatives? Granted, one alternative does
involve legalizing harmful substances that have become a major
public health problem.
But let’s be clear: President Calderon was NOT advocating
heroin, methamphetamine, or LSD legalization. In fact, most of
the discussion has centered on marijuana, which, according to
Frederico Heroles, a columnist in the Mexican paper Reforma, is
the substance that accounts for the majority of the drug cartels’
profits. Legalizing marijuana, he argues, would allow it to be
regulated, and, through some regime of taxation, it would increase
revenue for the Mexican budget.
Now that I have suggested the scandalous idea of a discussion on
American demand for drugs is funding a war that has largely
remained out of the American conscience, yet the effort to curb this
violence has mostly fallen on the Mexican government.
drug legalization, I will argue why such a policy reform, were it to
be implemented in Mexico, would be ineffective.
Thus far, I have focused on the Mexican problem of drugs
and violence; the U.S. has been conspicuously absent from my
argument. How does the U.S. fare in what is seemingly a Mexican
problem? While more than 28,000 Mexicans have lost their lives
across the U.S. border, Americans, according to the CIA, are the
world’s largest consumers of cocaine (from Colombia, shipped
via Mexico), heroin (from Colombia), and Mexican marijuana.
America’s geographic proximity is ideal for the producers in this
exchange, since Americans, who are just across the border, can
actually afford to pay for the marijuana. To give you an idea of
just how lucrative a business hub the U.S. has become, Sen. Joe
Lieberman (I-CT), chairman of the U.S. Senate Homeland Security
and Governmental Affairs Committee, has admitted that between
$8 billion and $24 billion in drug money flow from the U.S. into
Mexico each year. It is not hard to see why the U.S. has become
such a hotspot for drug cartels.
President Calderon sparked mass outrage this year when he
delivered a passionate speech before Congress on the culpability
of the U.S. in Mexico’s drug war. Republicans in particular felt
offended and betrayed. How dare a foreigner point his finger at
America?!
It’s about time that somebody pointed out the realities of the
situation. Joseph Caliphano, the former U.S. secretary of health,
education, and welfare and the current director of the National
INTERNATIONAL
Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University,
put the situation in rather blunt terms in a recent interview with
NPR. According to Caliphano, the U.S., which makes up 5% of
the world’s population, consumes two-thirds of the world’s illicit
drugs. Mr. Caliphano points to the U.S. drug policy as the chief
reason for current levels of U.S. drug addiction. When President
Nixon led a major policy initiative to combat the war on drugs in
the U.S., he allocated two-thirds of the budget to treatment and
prevention and one-third to interdiction and enforcement. What’s
our policy today? The exact opposite.
As Mr. Heroles of the Reforma paper claims, it is no coincidence
that most of the drug-related violence occurs along the U.S.-Mexico
border. This is the site where drugs and money are exchanged.
American demand for drugs is funding a war that has largely
remained out of the American conscience, yet the effort to curb
this violence has mostly fallen on the Mexican government. Even
when the U.S. does contribute, the balance of the contributed
funds is misinformed. For instance, the “Merida Initiative,” which
allocates U.S. money and military aid to the Mexican drug war,
allots only 15% of the total budget to institution building. The
rest is exclusively for military aid. As the military offensive to date
has been largely ineffective, it would be wise to allocate greater
resources toward better policy and economic reform. However,
given that U.S. drug policy has not significantly altered since the
’80s, this approach is hardly surprising.
After scandalizing politicians with his call for dialogue on drug
legalization, President Calderon has since retracted his proposal.
The reason? Economics. Markets function on laws of supply and
demand, and as long as the U.S. demand continues at such high
levels, legalization in Mexico would accomplish next to nothing. As
President Calderon said, “The price of drugs is not determined in
Mexico.” Most Mexicans can barely make ends meet and certainly
cannot afford to purchase expensive drugs. But it is not just high
U.S. demand that is at issue, but also the fact that the U.S. will never
legalize drugs within its borders. So long as an illicit drug market
exists in the U.S., the black market in Mexico will continue to have
access to a lucrative market across the border. The only way drug
legalization has a chance of crushing the black market is if the U.S.
plays ball too: the war on drugs is a two-way street. Although drug
legalization is nowhere near being realized in the U.S., we cannot
continue to pretend that we are fighting a war on drugs while
insisting on maintaining a drug policy that has long been out of
tune with reality.
The day when U.S. politicians begin seriously discussing drug
legalization will not come until mass drug-related violence erupts
in our cities, rather than just down south. As always, what happens
in Mexico stays in Mexico… for now.
— Mariana Oliver is a junior in the College of Arts and Sciences.
She can be reached at oliver.mariana89@gmail.com.
38
INTERNATIONAL

NO HOPE
NO PEACE
The Impending Failure of Israeli-Palestinian Talks
Emily Hecker
Perhaps the saddest implication of the most recent failure to
maintain the Israeli-Palestinian peace talks is that no one expected
a different outcome.
The talks that began in early September are just the most recent
installment of a long series of attempts at peace over the last
half-century. Even before Israel became a state, foreign leaders
attempted to divide the land between the Jews and Palestinians
with such documents as the Balfour Declaration (1917) and
the United Nations Partition Plan (1947). Ever since the June
1967 “Six-Day War,” which resulted in Israeli occupation of the
West Bank (taken from Jordan), the Golan Heights (taken from
Syria), and the Gaza Strip (taken from Egypt), each American
president has endeavored to broker peace between the Israelis and
Palestinians.
39

While the territory provides a safety buffer for the state to
protect against future attacks, Israeli occupation of these lands
only intensified the refugee crisis and anti-Israeli sentiment. Israeli
occupation also initiated the current set of intractable issues,
including the construction of Jewish settlements in occupied land.
Although there are some “success” stories, such as the 1979 Camp
David Accords between Egypt and Israel (although it could only
be characterized as a “cold” peace, as the treaty has been in affect
for 30 years), most attempts at peace have led to frustration or
violence.
Now, it seems as though the most recent effort will also fail, and
all because Israel wants to build a couple of apartment buildings in
the West Bank, right?
The truth is, the Palestinian Authority (PA) has been willing to
negotiate with the Israeli government over the last 17 years, even
as settlements were being built. PA president Mahmoud Abbas has
just recently demanded a halt to all settlement construction as a
precondition for sitting down to hash out peace. This is endlessly
frustrating for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, whose
coalition will fall apart if he compromises on the settlement issue.
As always, the deep-seated barrier to peace is the Palestinian
refusal to recognize Israel as a Jewish state, which Abbas affirmed
to Al-Quds newspaper in September. Although this claim may strike
many as controversial, Israel was founded as a Jewish state, and
for many of its citizens, to ignore this part of the nation’s identity is
to deny its legitimacy.
Yet many assume that the settlement issue is the only roadblock
to peace. If the 50,000 Israeli citizens now living in settlements
were to withdraw from what is generally recognized as Palestinian
territory, then security and peace of mind would result for all
parties, as the argument runs. Israel’s refusal to do so is plainly
selfish and foolish.
How quickly everyone forgets that Prime Minister Ariel Sharon
(a conservative, no less) had Israel unilaterally withdraw from
Gaza in 2005, uprooting settlements and tearing families from
their homes. Rather than peace of mind and security, Israel was
hit by thousands of rockets after the terrorist organization Hamas
wrested Gaza from the PA.
After all these years of building settlements, there finally seems
to be an opportunity to sit down and hash out a compromise.
Nonetheless, could it be that the controversy over settlements
is the principal roadblock to peace? If the primary issue is not
settlement construction in the West Bank, then what is it?
As always, the deep-seated barrier to peace is the Palestinian
refusal to recognize Israel as a Jewish state, which Abbas affirmed
INTERNATIONAL
to Al-Quds newspaper in September. Although this claim may
strike many as controversial, Israel was founded as a Jewish state,
and for many of its citizens, to ignore this part of the nation’s
identity is to deny its legitimacy. Most would agree that a peace
cannot be brokered between two states that do not accept each
other, yet the blame all falls on Israel for “not trying hard enough.”
Were Palestinians to come to the table willing to talk, it is
possible that Israelis would make serious compromises on the
settlement issue. Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, who lives
in a settlement and is known for being nationalistic, has openly
said he would “vacate [his] settlement if there really will be a two-
state solution.” Were the Israelis to sense a legitimate prospect for
peace with a willing partner, they would be prepared to discuss
these serious issues. However, Netanyahu is simply unwilling to
agree to an extended freeze on settlement building that would tear
his coalition apart, since there is no indication that meeting this
precondition would result in any progress towards peace.
The last time the Israelis made a generous offer—the Camp
David summit in 2000 in which Yasser Arafat was offered 93%
of the West Bank and another 6% in land transfers—not only did
Arafat reject the offer, but the Israelis were met with the Second
Intifada, which resulted in the deaths of thousands of Israelis and
Palestinians alike. So, it’s not hard to imagine why the Israelis are
resistant to conceding before even sitting down to talks; they have
little faith in the Palestinian intention to implement any sort of
peace.
Many Americans and Europeans saw these peace talks as a
beacon of hope for the Middle East, a chance to finally settle the
seemingly intractable dispute concerning the division of a strip
of land just east of the Mediterranean Sea. However, their high
hopes failed to account for the root obstacle to such a peace. The
settlements are not the cause but the effect of the poor attitudes
toward peace and progress. Perhaps someday peace will be
realized, but it will have to be a day when both sides recognize each
other’s legitimacy. Until that day, it does not matter how Jerusalem
is divided, where the borders are, or who is building where.
— Emily Hecker is a freshman in the College of Arts and Sciences.
She can be reached at ehecker@wustl.edu.
40
INTERNATIONAL
LIBERTÉ, EGALITÉ, FRATERNITÉ
...POUR LES MINORITÉS?
On September 14, the French Senate
voted overwhelmingly in favor of a bill that
would forbid women from wearing face-
covering veils and burqas in public. The
French have justified the ban by arguing
that covering one’s face disrupts “normal”
social interactions in public and highlights
inequality among Islamic men and women.
But the passage of the ban has been met
with a significant outcry from Muslims
in France who believe it violates their
freedom of religious expression. France is
home to five million Muslims, the largest
such population in Western Europe. But
among this sizeable proportion of French
residents, less than 2,000 women wear full-
face veils in public. John Bowen, Professor
of Anthropology at Washington University
and author of Why the French Don’t Like
Headscarves: Islam, the State, and Public
Space, argues that, “France should have let
the issue trickle out on its own as less and
less women are choosing to wear the veil.”
The amount of media attention the ban has
received far outweighs the impact on the
small fraction of women who would be
affected by the ban. The ban is ultimately
a symbolic gesture that will stigmatize
Muslims living in France and increase
41
tension with non-Muslims.
The veil ban is just one piece of legislation
created by the French government in hopes
of fostering French national unity and
promoting conformity to shared values that
have long defined French social life. French
legislatures have also been contemplating
the Roma Bill, which targets the roughly
400,000 Romani people living in France,
many of whom are traveling artists and
street beggars. There is a long history
of persecution in France and around
the world against the Romani people,
Illustration by Chris Hohl
commonly known as gypsies, who live
mostly in Southern and Eastern Europe.
The Roma Bill has recently come under
fire from human rights groups because
it lists begging and setting up caravans
alongside committing acts of terrorism
as reason for deportation. These pieces of
legislation force us to ask the question: how
far will France go in alienating minority
populations for the sake of fostering
national unity?
If the veil ban passes the scheduled
Constitutional review, it will be
implemented in about six months. Once
implemented, women who continue to
cover their face in public would face a fine
Katie Ayanian
of up to €150 and may be required to take
a citizenship class as well. Many Muslim
women who wear veils say that even if the
ban is implemented, they will continue
to cover their faces in public, or they will
stay home and have others run errands
for them. Neither action is what French
officials intended to be the ban’s effect.
While this legislation may not affect
many individuals directly, it has larger
implications for how Muslims are accepted
in French society. The ban essentially
limits the freedom of expression of Islamic
women in France and will label those
who violate the ban as unpatriotic. But
practicing religion and being patriotic
are not mutually exclusive. If the French
government restricts how someone can and
cannot express herself religiously, this will
only exacerbate the tension between people
who wish to do so and their fellow citizens.
The ban stigmatizes Muslims and alienates
them at a time when the government
should be taking every measure possible to
include and accept them.
— Katie Ayanian is a sophomore in the
College of Arts and Sciences. She can be
reached at kayanian@wustl.edu.
 NATIONAL

On the Sidelines of the

Silly Season: Untangling
the Midterm Elections
Featuring two-time presidential candidate
Congressman Richard Gephardt and Jack Oliver,
financial strategist for George W. Bush’s campaigns

Monday, November 1st

3:30-4:30pm
Women’s Building Formal Lounge

Stay tuned for more

information about a campus
election watch party on
November 2nd!

Co-sponsored by the Gephardt Institute for Public Service and

WU Political Review Magazine
Visit www.gephardtinstitute.wustl.edu to learn about how the
Gephardt Institute promotes civic engagement
42