Washington University

Political
Review
Volume 14, Issue 1, January 2011
 ...ever wonder where you should live?
r t h ere!
St a WUPR brings you the answer.

yes
do you find yourself building 3000 mile china
walls to keep out your neighbors?

do you trust your drug dealer

no with handling political office?

is roger federer your greatest no

yes mexico
export?

do you enjoy yielding to cows on highways?

yes no

no
switzerland india
yes
do you consider soccer riots a
form of political expression? do you find yourself often
raising your left and right
no arms over your head?
united kingdom
yes
no
yes
you find yourself attaching concepts
is yeonpyoeng island is the most like freedom and liberty to your
important place in the world to you? breakfast foods
france

yes no u.s.a.
yes

no
does your house have reliable
electricity and running water? still don’t know what country fits you best?

yes no yes

spend 2011 trying to move to the moon

south korea north korea

Quiz by Seth Einbinder. He is a sophomore in the College of Arts & Sciences. He can be reached at einbinders@wustl.edu.
Table of
Contents
National The Year to Come International

Our Future Freedoms Pledge to America: Belligerent Benjamin

5 Will Dobbs-Allsopp 17 Politics over Problems? 27 Joshua Truppman
Jake Lichtenfeld

A New Map for The Wal-Mart Way

6 a New Decade Game Changers: 28 Anna Applebaum
Nicolas Hinsch 18 People to Watch in 2011
Joshua Jacobs
Disarming the
8 The Rubio Factor 30 Ticking Chávez Bomb
Steven Perlberg The Future’s Bright: Lennox Mark
Why 2011 May Be
20 Obama’s Best Year
Unfit for Spin: Kevin Kieselbach Putin 1,
10 Tragedy in Tuscon 32 Khodorkovsky 0
Nick Wilbar Taka Yamaguchi
Top 5 Political
24 Moments of 2010
Feeding Frenzy Nick Wilbar The BRICs in 2011
12 Andrew Luskin 34 Peter Birke

No-ko on Loko Turmoil in India

14 Michael Cohen
36 Siddharth Krishnan

Hot or Not
15 Alex Kaufman
Staff
List
Board of Advisors
Professor Asad Ahmed
Web Designers
Will Johnson
Front Cover Illustration
Chris Hohl
Representative Don Calloway Marissa Suh
Dean Ewan Harrison Back Cover Illustration
Robin Hattori Treasurer Kelsey Eng
Professor Bill Lowry Gavin Frisch
Professor Andrew Rehfeld Editorial Illustrators
Staff Writers Anna Shafer-Skelton
Editors-in-Chief Katie Ayanian Laura Beckman
Josh Truppman Rachel Braun Kelsey Brod
Nick Wilbar Tripp Brockway Kelsey Eng
Michael Cohen Amelia Fawcett
Director of Design Mark Dally Christine Stavridis
Brittany Meyer Will Dobbs-Allsopp Stephanie Trimboli
Seth Einbinder Audrey Westcott
Layout Team Jay Evans
Laura Beckman Betal Ezaz Staff Photographer
Jacqueline Gunn Lauren Fine Matt Mitgang
Alana Hauser Ben-Parker Goos
Katie Sadow Jackie Gunn Staff Assistant
Alana Hauser Kate Gaertner
Staff Editors Emily Hecker
Anna Applebaum Eve Herold Unless otherwise noted, all images are
Peter Birke Nick Hinsch from MCT Campus.
Siddharth Krishnan Josh Jacobs
Alex Kaufman The Washington University Political
Art Coordinator Kevin Kieselbach Review is committed to encouraging
Kelsey Eng David Klayton and fostering awareness of political
Ben Lash issues on the campus of Washington
Managing Copy Editor Matthew Lauer University in St. Louis. To do this, we
John Moynihan Jake Lichtenfeld shall remain dedicated to providing
Andrew Luskin friendly and open avenues of
Lennox Mark discussion and debate both written
Copy Editors
Molly McGreggor and oral on the campus for any and
Mark Dally
Kirsten Miller all political ideas, regardless of the
Madeline Enright
Zach Moscowitz leanings of those ideas.
Puneet Kollipara
Alison Neuwirth
Chris Weinstein
Mariana Oliver Submissions
Steven Perlberg editor@wupr.org
Director of New Media Jannina Phi
Taka Yamaguchi
Dan Rebnord
Daniel Rubin
Director of Strategy & Ari Sunshine
Development Alex Tolkin
Neel Desai Brooke Yarrows
The holiday season brought both joy and
sorrow to Americans this year. The tragic
shooting of Rep. Giffords and nineteen
others in Tucson briefly reminded the
nation of the importance of coming
together as one people, a unity quickly
destroyed by the debates it spawned
about gun control, mental health, and the
vitriolic nature of political discourse in
the United States. The results of the 2010
census and the midterm elections gave the
nation even more to discuss, helping us
determine how the country has changed,
what it looks like today and the changes we
can. expect as the next decade continues.
5 National
Our Future Freedoms
Will Dobbs-Allsopp
Looking back on this past year can be pretty
depressing. The oil spill, intense partisanship,
increased tension with other countries, and most
recently the shooting in Tucson, have combined
to give the decade a pretty somber start. 2010 did
nothing to repudiate the claims that the United
States is experiencing a decline similar to the fall
of the Roman Empire.
There is evidence to back up this sentiment.
In mid-December, New York Times columnist
David Brooks wrote about a video created by
Swedish professor Hans Rosling that documents
the growth of life expectancy and wealth in
countries across the world from 1810 to 2009.
Right after World War II the United States and
the West topped the charts in both categories,
leaving the rest of the world in the dust. However,
over the course of the next 60 years, things
improved elsewhere. Today, nations in Asia and
Latin America are almost at the same levels of
wealth and health as the Western world. Add to
this the tremendous effects of globalization, near
instantaneous communication and universal
access, and at the very least the gap between the
United States and the rest of the world must be
shrinking. As Professor Rosling concludes, we are
entering, “an entirely new, converging world.”
This sounds like trouble for the United States.
After all, we have spent the last century asserting
our economic and military advantages to pursue
foreign policy objectives. However, there is a
way for the United States to remain at the top in
this vision of the future, and it has nothing to do
with defense budgets or fiscal spending. We must
ensure that the foreign policies we enact stay true
to the freedoms and liberties guaranteed by our
founding documents. undertake some action to ensure our future safety.
The reason is simple: in this future there is
an increased need to deal with people, not merely
governments. Consider that in Afghanistan, our
closest allies come from the local populace, not
the national government and that popular unrest
in Iran serves as the lingering hope for a Persian
democracy. Consider also, that with nothing more
than a laptop and Internet access, one person
can make public hundreds of thousands of State
Department cables. These are the groups that are,
even now, receiving the attention of our efforts
because as globalization increases, so too will the
powers ordinary people have at their fingertips.
And while governments are notorious for
compromising their principles, individuals tend
Illustration by Anna Shafer-Skelton
to be less pragmatic. The Pakistani government
might be able to overlook the illegal detainment
and torture of a citizen, but the son of an innocent
victim will not. These are the kind of people that
join the Taliban or remain indifferent to our
efforts, but they are also the people upon whose
shoulders rest the ultimate success of our foreign
engagements.
Especially in the wake of tragedies such as
the recent Tucson shooting, it is only natural to
But all too often our government implements
these measures without concern for the cost,
and the few individuals who stand up to caution
are shouted down as unpatriotic and disloyal.
However, the price we pay for things like the
Patriot Act or holding detainees at Guantanamo
Bay are our freedoms and liberties. If we do not
constantly strive to stay true to our founding
principles, we risk alienating our allies abroad. In
the future we need to pay more attention to the
choices we make in the name of safety, because a
future is approaching in which we will need to live
up to our own standards.
Will Dobbs-Allsopp is a freshman in the
College of Arts & Sciences. He can be reached
at willda19@gmail.com.
National
A New Map for a New Decade
Nicolas Hinsch
The first results from the 2010 census have
arrived, and they have set in motion a power
struggle that will define the political map for the
next decade.
Every ten years, the United States government
conducts a census to count the U.S. population and
collect demographic information. The results are
then fed into various formulas to determine how
political power and government dollars will be
distributed. Most notably, these results determine
how many seats are in the House of Representatives
and, by extension, how many electors each state is
allocated in the Electoral College.
According to the new census data, the total
population of the United States stands just shy
of 309 million people, an increase of 9.7% from
281 million people ten years ago. But this growth
was not spread equally across the country. While
every state but Michigan saw population growth
over the past decade, the rates of growth varied
enormously – from an increase of .4% in Rhode
Island to 35.1% percent in Nevada. The regional
trends are clear: the Northeast and Midwest are
not keeping pace with national growth as people
flock to the South and West.
Now that this new snapshot of the United
States population has been taken, the Constitution
requires that seats in the House of Representatives
6
be reapportioned. The House of Representatives as specified in the Reapportionment Act of 1929.
will still have exactly 435 members, but the The biggest winners this decade were Texas and
members will be redistributed to reflect the new Florida, with gains of 4 and 2 seats respectively.
distribution of the population. States that have Arizona, Georgia, Nevada, South Carolina, Utah,
most rapidly gained in population will have and Washington all gained one seat. Note that all
of these states are in the South or West, and that
California did not gain a seat for the first time
While the number of since its admission to the union.
Meanwhile, Illinois, Iowa, Louisiana,
seats each state receives Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, New Jersey,
can be calculated and Pennsylvania each lost a seat; New York
and Ohio each lost two. With the exception of
with an objective Hurricane Katrina-ravaged Louisiana, all of these
mathematical formula, states are in the Northeast or Midwest.
However, reapportionment is only the first
there is no simple way to half of the story. While the number of seats each
determine exactly how state receives can be calculated with an objective
mathematical formula, there is no simple way to
congressional districts determine exactly how congressional districts
will be drawn within will be drawn within each state. According to the
landmark 1964 Supreme Court decision Wesberry
each state. v. Sanders, the districts within each state must
be equal in population. Since the distribution of
more representation at the expense of the slower- population within each individual state shifts over
growing states. the course of ten years, all states with more than
The Constitution requires that every state be one member in the House will need to redraw
given at least one representative; the remaining 385 their district lines, even if they will have the same
are distributed by the method of equal proportions number of representatives. It is up to the individual
7 National

Redistricting changes in 2011

+1 Overall:

+9
-1 -2 -1
-1 -1 -3
+1
+1 -1 -2 -1
-1 -5
+1
+1 Republican-controlled
+1 +1 in 2010

+4 -1 Democrat-controlled
in 2010

+2 Divided in 2010

Illustration by Nicolas Hinsch & Audrey Westcott

Redistricting is a complex process; and, while helpful, this map does not tell the whole story. The red and blue shading represents the
partisan makeup of individual state legislatures. This alone, however, doesn’t necessarily indicate how redistricting will shake out. In
addition to state legislatures, governors play a large role in determining how districts are drawn. Moreover, certain states, like Washington,
have independent counsels that are responsible for overseeing the redistricting process. Needless to say, a lot is yet to be decided.

states to decide how the district boundaries are
drawn, and in most cases the task falls to the state
legislature.
State legislatures are partisan, and the majority
party traditionally uses its power to draw a map
that serves to maximize their political prospects.
For example, if the Republican Party controlled
redistricting in a given state, they could pursue a
strategy of packing as many Democratic voters as
possible into specific districts that the Democratic
Party would win overwhelmingly. Then they would
create a larger number of Republican districts that
could be won by comfortable margins, but not so
comfortable that extra Republican votes would be
“wasted” on candidates that did not need them.
This process of redistricting for political gain is
known as “Gerrymandering” after one of its early
practitioners, Massachusetts governor Elbridge
Gerry, who signed into law a redistricting plan
that created a salamander-shaped district.
The procedure for passing a redistricting plan
into law varies from state to state, but traditionally
the plan is treated like any other bill, requiring
passage by both houses of the bicameral state
legislature and the signature of the governor.
Therefore, the strong Republican performance
in the recent midterm elections places the party
in a strong position to control the redistricting
process. Republicans have complete control over
redistricting in 17 states, while Democrats have
control in only six. Most of the remaining states
have divided governments, which will require a
compromise plan to be reached. If no compromise
is reached, or if an accepted plan is found to violate
state or federal law, courts can intervene in the
process.
Not only will the Republican state
legislatures draw new districts for United States
Representatives, but in many cases they will also
draw their own districts for the next decade. This
creates a cycle of self-sustaining, single-party
dominance in state politics.
The alternative to partisan redistricting is an
independent commission that takes control of the
process out of the hands of the state legislatures.
For example, California voters passed Proposition
11 in 2008, creating a “California Citizens’
Redistricting Commission” to control state
legislative redistricting. Two years later, they passed
Proposition 20, which adds federal redistricting
to the committee’s responsibilities. This makes
California the sixth state to adopt such a system,
and the only one to create a commission consisting
of ordinary citizens. Because the Democratic Party
previously controlled redistricting in California,
moving towards non-partisan redistricting
is expected to favor Republicans. California’s
experiment in nonpartisan redistricting will be
closely watched to see if it works as planned and
whether it can be a model for other states.
Regardless of whether states use the
traditional method or a commission, there
will be 44 redistricting dramas to watch closely
in the coming year. Expect to see bargaining,
backstabbing, and backroom deals contribute to
the complicated and highly politicized process
that is redistricting. 2011 will be the year in which
the political map is drawn for the next decade. Get
your popcorn ready for some quality theater.
Nicolas Hinsch is a freshman in the College
of Arts & Sciences. He can be reached at
nhinsch@wustl.edu.
National
The Rubio Factor
Steven Perlberg
He’s the darling of the Tea Party. He’s young
and energetic. He’s handsome and articulate.
He’s even been called the “Republican Obama.”
At 39, Florida’s Marco Rubio is undoubtedly
the most hyped freshman Senator of 2011.
He is also one of many budding GOP up-
and-comers from a minority background. The
son of two Cuban exiles, Rubio served as a
Miami City Commissioner before arriving at
the Florida State House where he was chosen
Speaker in 2006. Though he began his Senate
campaign trailing by double-digits to the
popular incumbent Florida Governor Charlie
Crist, Rubio eventually surpassed Crist in the
Republican nomination polling. Crist then
surrendered the nomination to run as an
independent, losing many top fundraisers and
GOP support in the process. Riding atop 2010’s
bumptious Tea Party zeal, Rubio went on to
trounce both Crist and Democratic challenger
Kendrick Meek in the general election.
Speculation about Rubio’s future erupted
even before he served a day on Capitol Hill.
On paper, he seems to be a perfect fit for an
appearance on the 2012 ticket. Republican
political strategist Mark McKinnon calls Rubio
“a lock” for the Vice Presidential nomination,
noting how he “checks all the right boxes.”
Rubio is a fresh face with a firmly conservative
voting record. He comes from working class
8
roots, equipped with a riveting American
story. He can appeal to both young voters and
the conservative base. He also happens to come
from the pivotal swing state of Florida. Rubio
has a charmingly comfortable communication
style. He is eloquent and charismatic, with a
clear and optimistic message. He has been
hailed as the future of the GOP—the one to
unify the socially conservative and business
wings. Most importantly, some conservatives
believe that Rubio can guide the Latino
electorate (which has now reached more
than 45 million in the United States) towards
the Republican Party. But Rubio has been
relatively silent since winning the Senate
9 National
Illustration by Stephanie Trimboli
seat, keeping a low profile and avoiding
national interviews amid heavy anticipation.
On the campaign trail, Rubio was adept
at tiptoeing around the immigration issue.
And while some eager Republicans are
prophetically hawking him as the man to
integrate the Hispanic electorate, Rubio’s
conservative immigration stance does not
mesh well with Latino voters. Rubio does
not support granting any form of amnesty to
illegal immigrants, he backed the controversial
Arizona immigration law, and was firmly
against the DREAM Act. But Rubio focused
more on his personal American dream
story than his stance on immigration. He
demonstrated his political savvy by appealing
to Hispanic voters on a more visceral level. Yet
his 45% of the Latino vote in Florida is less
impressive when compared to former Floridian
Senator Mel Martinez, another Cuban
Republican, who won 60% of the Hispanic
vote in 2004. Rubio’s appeal to the Latino
electorate has clearly been a bit overblown.
His position on immigration indicates that
Rubio is not quite the Hispanic unifier
many conservatives have touted him to be.
2010 has been a breakthrough year
for Republican candidates from minority
backgrounds. Congressmen Tim Scott and
Allen West became the first black House
members from the Deep South since
Reconstruction. New Mexico’s governor
Susanna Martinez is the first Latina governor
in U.S. history. Nikki Haley, whose parents
were both born in India, is the first woman
But the GOP will have to put up or shut up on
minority issues, and they may face a tough
quandary in the next election, caught between the
right-wing Tea Party that has taken a strong hold
of the party’s conservative base and an expanding
minority electorate.
governor of South Carolina. Obama’s 2008
election has effectively forced Republicans
to adjust and seek out minority candidates.
Among others, Marco Rubio represents
this push to generate new GOP all-stars
from ethnically diverse backgrounds.
Bobby Jindal, an Indian-American and the
Republican Governor of Louisiana, was
slated as a GOP Presidential hopeful before
his disastrous speech in response to Obama’s
2009 congressional address. After the
historic 2008 election, the Republicans will
be pressured to eschew placing two graying
white men on future presidential tickets.
But the GOP will have to put up or shut up
on minority issues, and they may face a
tough quandary in the next election, caught
between the right-wing Tea Party that has
taken a strong hold of the party’s conservative
base and an expanding minority electorate.
As Republicans try to expand their appeal,
Democrats need to remind minority voters who
truly fights for their interests. In all likelihood,
Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry
Reid expected that the DREAM Act would
not pass, but bringing it to vote was a smart
political maneuver to remind Hispanic voters
that Republicans are drifting even further right
on immigration. Obama, however, will have
to tread lightly when going after Republicans
for being too tough on immigration if he
does not want to lose face on his own border
enforcement policies. While Obama’s fervent
opposition to the Arizona law may have won
him favor in some border states, by 2012 the
political fallout will be all but finished and
won’t help the President in some of his more
difficult regions. As for the Republicans, 2011
will certainly be an interesting year. How
will the GOP adapt to a growing minority
electorate while simultaneously placating
their invigorated Tea Party base? Will
Senator Marco Rubio budge on immigration
or other minority issues? And come 2012,
will the auspicious Rubio meet expectations
and be a crucial part of this reconciliation?
Steven Perlberg is a sophomore in the College
of Arts & Sciences. He can be reached at
stevenperlberg@gmail.com.
National 10

“So will the Arizona massacre make our discourse less

toxic? It’s really up to G.O.P. leaders. Will they accept the
reality of what’s happening to America, and take a stand
against eliminationist rhetoric? Or will they try to dismiss
the massacre as the mere act of a deranged individual, and To be simple:
go on as before?”
words are powerful
– Paul Krugman, New York Times
things. They are
meaningful and meant to
be afforded some degree
of respect. We are told to
use our words, choose our
“Palin’s now-famous offense was her tweet last March words wisely, and never
telling conservatives: ‘Don’t Retreat, Instead - RELOAD!’ mince our words. But at
The tweet referred people to her Facebook ‘target’ map times, words simply aren’t
showing the districts of Gabrielle Giffords and other House
Democrats in a rifle’s cross hairs.” enough. For most of us,
– Dana Milbank, Washington Post January 8th seemed like one
of those times. The moniker
“tragedy” was applied,
but it didn’t seem to be
sufficient. Six died. Thirteen
“It was the anti-government, pro-gun, xenophobic others—including
populism that flourishes in the dry and angry climate of Congresswoman
Arizona. Extremist shouters didn’t program Loughner, in
Gabrielle Giffords—
some mechanistic way, to shoot Gabrielle Giffords. But
the Tea Party movement did make it appreciably more
likely that a disturbed person like Loughner would react,
would be able to react, and would not be prevented from
reacting, in the crazy way he did.”
– Jacob Weisberg, Slate
11
were wounded.
As may well have
been expected, the
nation’s pundits took
the facts and created
a story. Words didn’t
seem to be enough, but
unsurprisingly, there
were those that tried.
The quotes strewn
throughout these pages
are the fruits of their labor.
Some are inflammatory,
others aren’t. They
are all attempts at
understanding and
articulating the tragedy
that took place in
Tucson.
National
Nick Wilbar
“People have been having a hard time holding two ideas
in their head at the same time: 1. What Paul Krugman
calls “eliminationist rhetoric” is bad. 2. Contrary to his
suggestion, there is no evidence that such rhetoric caused
Saturday’s events. Even if such evidence is later found, it
would not justify the evidence-free claims that have been
made…”
– Brendan Nyhan, Brendan-Nyhan.com
“While I’ve decried the poisonous atmosphere of some
of the Tea Party rallies and the shout-fests at some town
hall meetings, I’m not overly concerned about the yahoos
who hold up ‘We came unarmed (this time)’ signs at
rallies. I honestly think that they’re mostly decent citizens,
frustrated with their government, and emboldened in
their speech by the safety of a likeminded mob. While
not exactly helpful in persuading those who disagree
with them as to the wisdom of their position, it’s just false
bravado and cathartic venting.”
– James Joyner, outsidethebeltway.com
“For those still attacking Sarah Palin for daring to use the
word ‘targets’ and maps against Democrats, including
Gabrielle Giffords, please note that the DLC and DCCC, the
D is for ‘Democratic’, also had maps with targets in earlier
years. Likewise Markos Moulitsas of the Daily Kos targeted
Gabrielle Giffords himself. The self-serving attack over
the use of maps and the word “target” is both dumb and
hypocritical.”
– Erik Erickson, redstate.com
Nick Wilbar is a senior in the College of
Arts & Sciences. He can be reached at
nick.wilbar@gmail.com.
National
What happened
Barack Obama needed
twelve stitches after
being elbowed in the
face during a basketball
game with friends. The
man who elbowed Obama called him
a “good sport” and didn’t apologize.
This incident is the clearest sign yet
that Obama suffers from a “Terror
Gap”: Obama doesn’t even get a “my
bad” from someone who busted his
face open, but Dick Cheney was able to
shoot another man in the face and get
him to apologize for being in the way.
In Arizona, 22-year-old
Jared Loughner opened
fire at an event for
Congresswoman Gabrielle
Giffords, wounding
Giffords and nineteen others, six
fatally. Pundits blamed the tragedy on
the politically-charged atmosphere,
which was, of course, the other side’s
fault. Sarah Palin was singled out for
criticism because of a map she released
before the 2010 election, which showed
vulnerable Democrat-held districts,
including Giffords’, under crosshairs.
Blaming Palin makes sense, if you
believe that she gave the shooter his
paranoid schizophrenia—though Palin
may have delusions of persecution, it
is a stretch to say that she is a cause
of them. A college dropout, Loughner
was forced to leave school after
several altercations with the police
Andrew Luskin
and bizarre, disruptive behavior in the
classroom. Of course, his delusions—
vague declarations of genocide or of
a tyrannical government takeover—
didn’t raise alarms because they were
indistinguishable from standard campus
dialogue.
In the wake of the Giffords
shooting, the far-right
blogosphere was quick to
declare that the massacre
was apolitical, the actions
of the proverbial “lone nut.” This
became clear to them as soon as it
was revealed that the shooter was not
Muslim.
President Obama visited
India in December. His
return flight was delayed
when he was caught trying
to smuggle back 20,000
jobs in his socks.
Sarah Palin brought
cookies to an elementary-
school classroom to
mock Michelle Obama’s
attempts to encourage
healthy eating habits. Not wanting
to seem unfair to the Obamas, Palin
proceeded to undermine the efforts of
previous First Ladies, burning books to
undermine Laura Bush’s pro-reading
campaigns and destabilizing the Balkans
12
to make fun of Hillary Clinton.
The TSA has implemented
controversial new
screening procedures that
subject travelers to full-
body scans that display
a nudified image of the person. As an
alternative to the scan, travelers may
choose to undergo an ultra-invasive
pat-down that amounts to an extended
grope. There was a public outcry about
perverted TSA agents getting off on
the scans and pat-downs, but come on,
America: have you looked in the mirror
lately? Don’t flatter yourself. Besides,
the pat-downs are easy to integrate
with the new healthcare plan; travelers
can be alerted of any lumps. Out of
journalistic duty, I decided to investigate
the matter firsthand, subjecting myself
to the new pat-down. I felt violated, and
I decided to go through security three
more times before my flight.
North Korea shelled a
South Korean military
base, killing two and
wounding twenty more.
A tense month followed,
speckled with threats of war from both
sides. Strangely, North Korea was the
one to break the tension, asking South
Korea to open up trade. The conflict
is simple—North Korea is the boy that
pulls on the girl’s ponytail because he
likes her.
13 National

SOUTHERN STATE will cause national ANTIGAY ACTIVIST will be

SOUTHERN STATE
ANTIGAY ACTIVIST
controversy when it passes a new state caught on tape -ing
BIZZARE SEX WORD
law that overtly discriminates against a . He will
EUPHEMISM FOR MALE PROSTITUTE
MINORITY GROU P. The man who deny that he is gay at a press
MINORITY GROUP

introduced the law, a state senator conference with his wife, SHIRLEY,
SHIRLEY
named DOG J. YOUR ST , will standing awkwardly at his side,
CARTOON DOG J. YOUR STREET NAME

claim that the measure was necessary to looking like she hasn’t been
“keep those damn L-BODY PA RTs touched since HISTORICAL EVENT .
KITCHEN TOOL-BODY PART HISTORICAL EVENT WHERE POLAND
from taking over.” GOT SCREWED

predictions for 2011

Bristol Palin will once
again become engaged,
then de-engaged, to Levi
Johnston, after she once
again becomes pregnant
with his baby. Palin will continue to star in
abstinence campaigns, using the slogan,
“Abstinence: third time’s the charm!” In
shocking defiance of her mother, Bristol
will give her child a normal name.
Glenn Beck will be
challenged by a dynamic
young Fox News anchor, a
Blue-throated Macaw. The
parrot will simply repeat
“Hitler, Soros, Obama” and “SQUAW. Just
asking questions!” Beck’s supremacy
will be secured, however, when he turns
on the bird, pointing out that it is native
to Bolivia, which is in South America,
just like Venezuela, which is ruled by
Hugo Chavez. Other conservative
commentators will rally behind Beck. “It’s
on the endangered species list,” Rush
Limbaugh will say. “Just another small-
headed, big-government welfare queen,
living off hardworking taxpayers like you
and me…”
As the year goes on, the
race for the Republican
presidential nomination
will turn into a slugfest.
The candidates will race
to align themselves with the Tea Party,
causing former Massachusetts Governor
Mitt Romney to make an embarrassing
gaffe when he shows up to a photo op
dressed as the Mad Hatter. Minnesota
Governor Tim Pawlenty’s campaign will
start off slow, but his stock will skyrocket
after several former assistants, campaign
workers, and massage therapists accuse
him of having an affair. Just like the last
few times, nobody will care about Ron
Paul.
John McCain’s family,
embarrassed by his
increasingly erratic behavior
and his inability to recall
past positions, will finally
put him in a nursing home. After nine
days in captivity, McCain will escape with
the help of a Vietnamese nurse, evading
authorities for two weeks in a nation-
wide manhunt. Tragically, McCain will
be found dead in Seaside Heights, New
Jersey, having choked on Snooki’s vomit.
Republicans will fix the
federal budget deficit by
using appropriations bills,
not the actual federal
budget, to spend money.
Democrats will be humiliated by this
principled display of fiscal conservatism.
Thousands of lives will be
spared in Northern Mexico
when drug lords declare a
3-month siesta to hostilities.
In February, an IBM
computer named Watson
will compete against
humans on Jeopardy! The
machine will dominate
the competition and then will become
self-aware, turning on its human masters.
Mankind will be saved when Alex Trebek,
bloody and battered, cries out, “Final
Jeopardy: what is one divided by zero?,”
causing the robot’s head to explode.
Facebook founder and
owner Mark Zuckerberg will
announce the beginning
of “Phase Two,” which, he
will tout, “compliments
the modern lifestyle.” New software
will ensure that computer webcams will
be on at all times, “so that no moment
is ever lost.” “Tagging” will be done by
shooting friends with a tranquilizer dart
and attaching a device to their ear. Pale
and trembling, Jesse Eisenberg will
announce his retirement from acting
before he mysteriously disappears a
day later. “What are you going to do?”
Zuckerberg will jeer. “Use MySpace?”
Andrew Luskin is a sophomore in the College
of Arts & Sciences. His mind is so sharp they
won’t let him take it on a plane. He can be
reached at andrewluskin@go.wustl.edu.
National
No-ko on Loko
Michael Cohen
In mid-November of 2010, an uproar erupted
across the country. No, it wasn’t a reaction to the
nation’s unremitting hyper-partisanship, reaching
its peak during the midterm elections. No, it wasn’t
the worldwide concern that the European debt
crisis had spread to both Portugal and Ireland.
The cause of the uproar, heard
from Cambridge, MA to Palo Alto, CA
to Clayton, MO, was the termination of
all Four Loko sales in the United States.
Chicago-based Phusion Projects
“voluntarily” discontinued its fruity, caffeinated,
alcoholic drinks after growing pressure from the
Food and Drug Administration to shut down or
be shut down (just the production of the Four
Loko line of drinks would be shut down). Just
a day before the FDA was expected to follow
through on earlier threats to make Four Loko
illegal, Phusion decided against carrying out a
long and expensive legal battle and withdrew the
product. Not to extinguish Four Loko’s popularity
any further, Phusion immediately announced a
new version without caffeine, taurine or guarana
— three of the original four main ingredients (the
fourth being alcohol). So was the government
right to ban every college student’s favorite drink?
A 2008 study conducted at Wake Forest
University found that “almost one-quarter of
college student current drinkers reported mixing
alcohol with energy drinks,” a number that is
almost certainly higher with the advent of Four
Loko on the national scale. Those students were
found “at increased risk for alcohol-related
consequences… including being taken advantage
of sexually, taking advantage of another sexually,
riding with an intoxicated driver, being physically
hurt or injured, and requiring medical treatment.”
A 2009 study conducted by the University of
Floridaconcluded“thatpatronswhohadconsumed
alcohol mixed with energy drinks were at a 3-fold
increased risk of leaving a bar highly intoxicated,
as well as a 4-fold increased risk of intending to
drive upon leaving the bar district, compared to
other drinking patrons who did not consume
alcoholic beverages mixed with energy drinks.”
Leaving the bar highly intoxicated is hardly a
deterrent for would-be drinkers of Four Loko in
the first place. However, consequences that might
require medical treatment would hopefully register
at some point in the minds of such drinkers.
Calls to ban the drink came after a
collection of deaths linked to Four Loko.
Most frightening among them were a 21
year-old woman who drove her truck into a
telephone poll and a 20 year-old man who, after
three Four Lokos, shot himself in the head.
However, caffeine is legal and so is alcohol. It
isn’t at all challenging to acquire the few ingredients
needed to make a Four Loko. In fact, a simple Google
search comes back with multiple recipes. Should
14
Illustration by Laura Beckman
the government have the right to ban convenience?
One would be hard-pressed to find another
instance where combining two legal products
would render the mixture illegal. The banning of
Four Loko is especially questionable considering
that there is no shortage of harmful legal products,
most notably tobacco and non-caffeinated
alcohol. The FDA would have been better
served to treat Four Loko as they treat cigarettes.
Mandating a prominently placed warning label
on each can would certainly have sufficed.
The FDA responded to many Americans’
concerns by banning Four Loko. And that’s
its job. Yet, the demand for caffeinated alcohol
hasn’t disappeared. Craiglist.com has become a
forum for the Four Loko black market. During
the first week of January, three women in New
Jersey were arrested for selling the apparently
still popular drink without an alcohol license,
one of many similar arrests across the country.
The FDA’s mission is to “protect the public
health by assuring the safety, efficacy and
security of… our nation’s food supply.” 1500
calorie fast food meals probably aren’t safe, but
the government lets us make that decision.
Likewise, the FDA could have avoided a lot
of controversy by just regulating Four Lokos.
Michael Cohen is a freshman in the Olin
School of Business. He can be reached at
cohenmj@wustl.edu.
15
Alex Kaufman’s
hotornot
Lol cats
The Cheezburger Network, the publisher
that spawned Lolcats, FAIL blog, and other
internet memes received a $30 million
investment from a consortium of investment
groups. It would seem that they have the
business of creating “the next big thing” down
to a science. Of course, such an investment
inevitably raises the question of just how many
grammatically incorrect t-shirts the company
can actually sell.
Sarah Palin
Cannot avoid the spotlight even when she
wants to. She once again thrust herself into
the national headlines by invoking the term
“blood libel,” a phrase laden with anti-Semitic
connotations, during a commentary on the
Tucson shootings. Yet as she has proved
time and time again, any publicity is good
publicity. With this last round of exposure,
she has reignited intense speculation about her
possible run for the presidency in 2012.
The NRA
The NRA, paradoxically, has seen its
membership on social media sites like
Facebook increase in the wake of the Tucson
shooting. Gun stores have also reported
increased sales, including a meteoric rise by
nearly 100% for the popular Glock handgun.
Apparently, people are worried that gun
control legislation will be passed in the wake
of the tragic massacre and so are stocking up
on weapons like Four Loko.
National
Fat cats
Are the target of Julian Assange’s next barrage
of incriminating evidence. The controversial
founder of Wikileaks threatened to reveal the
names and finances of thousands of wealthy
people and businesses who have been avoiding
taxes. His threat to reveal the Swiss account
holdings of several prominent politicians has
them on their toes.
Tom DeLay
No one is denying his assertion that
“arrogance is not a crime.” But money
laundering is, and that’s what he’s going to jail
for. The former House majority leader will
Ben Huh, serve three years in the clink for crimes he says
founder of the Cheezburger Network he didn’t commit. Though it’s a long shot, he
hopes to appeal his case to the Supreme Court,
where he believes the judges will be more
sympathetic than those during his stint on
Dancing With the Stars.
Joe Lieberman
Announced that he will not run for office
again. It seems the Democrat-turned-neocon
finally exhausted his political capital even in
his home state of Connecticut. The Democrats
are thrilled at the prospect of finally getting a
liberal senator into office; conservatives are
excited too, about the possibility of getting a
real conservative into office.
Alex Kaufman is a sophomore in the College
Tom DeLay of Arts & Sciences. He can be reached at
akaufman10@gmail.com.
According to the ancient Maya, there is only
one more year left in the history of the world.
Scoff at the prophecy, but it is undeniable that
2011 will be a remarkable year. With a divided
U.S. government and a fickle populace,
titanic clashes between public figures will
be unavoidable. Rising stars Speaker John
Boehner and Rep. Michele Bachmann will
collide with powerful figures in the Obama
administration as they continue to move to the
top of the political spectrum. The country will
anxiously await the fate of President Obama
himself in the upcoming year. As he delves into
the second half of his presidency, what will be
the final word on ‘Change We Can Believe In’?
17
Pledge to America:
Politics over Problems?
Jake Lichtenfeld
Every January 1st, people pledge to
improve their lives in the coming year. In
2011, the Republican Party created a de facto
New Year’s Resolution called the “Pledge to
America,” which stated that—if elected—
they would cut government spending
and create new jobs. Democrats made
comparable assurances, appealing to the
American people to keep them in power. In
the end, Republicans overtook the House, but
Democrats retained the Senate. As a result
of divided government, gridlock will prevail,
thereby failing to repair the fragile economy.
While liberals and conservatives
maintain different core ideologies, both
understand that they must address jobs and
the budget deficit. Currently, unemployment
is hovering between 9% and 10% and the
2011 budget deficit is projected to be over $1
trillion. To resolve these crises, Republicans
pledged not to raise taxes and the Democrats
pledged to leave entitlements unchanged.
The inability to compromise these goals is
the one approach that will undoubtedly fail.
In a rare instance, these two groups
cooperated by passing a temporary tax cut
for the wealthy, combined with an extension
of unemployment benefits and the lowering
of other taxes, ultimately costing $857
billion. This law will have a negative long-
term impact on the deficit. Economists on all
sides of the political spectrum agree that the
bipartisan deal was the most expensive way to
create only a few jobs. “There is probably no
one on [the House] floor that likes this bill,”
stated former Democratic House Majority
Leader Steny Hoyer moments before the vote.
President Obama disagreed by asserting,
“the final product proves when we can put
aside the partisanship and the political
games, when we can put aside what’s good
for some of us in favor of what’s good for
all of us, we can get a lot done.” Obama
neglects to mention that he was forced to
compromise to prevent higher taxes for
all starting on January 1, 2011. Under that
condition, it’s likely that this compromise
was a circumstantial abnormality
rather than a break in the status quo.
The tax cut deal was one of several
initiatives that have contributed to the
yearly budget deficit and the long-term
debt. Over the past decade, Republicans
and Democrats alike have spent money
unaccountably. Now, both parties want to
be fiscally responsible, but cannot agree
on how to balance the budget. Bond-rating
companies have warned that without a
serious reduction of the deficit, the United
States Treasury bond may lose its AAA
bond rating within the decade, which would
undoubtedly spark a bond market crash.
The President appointed a deficit
reduction commission to cut $4 trillion
from the budget over the next ten years.
The commission’s proposals included tax
reform, some tax increases and discretionary
and entitlement spending cuts. The
The Year to Come
As a result of divided
government, gridlock
will prevail over
campaign promises,
which provides no
solutions to the fragile
economy.
commission’s report received criticism from
the left and right. Liberal Senator Bernie
Sanders argued, “the deficit reduction plan
is extremely disappointing and something
that should be vigorously opposed by
the American people.” The Tea Party
contends that the recommendations violate
its core principle of never raising taxes.
Republicans have neglected their election
promise to cut spending. They say that they
can only cut $30 billion from the deficit in
2011, a 70% reduction from their “Pledge
to America” campaign promise. Tea Party
members are infuriated by this number and
demand the party cut at least $100 billion.
The Republican House is also attempting
to cancel several of the Democrat’s 2010
accomplishments. The leading effort is the
proposal of the “Repeal the Job-Killing Health
Care Law Act” despite Congressional Budget
Office warnings that the repeal will raise the
deficit by $230 billion. The House also plans
to eliminate the Financial Regulation Law
and the Environmental Protection Agency’s
power to regulate carbon emissions.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid
has already explicated that none of these
motions will receive a vote in the Senate.
Instead, the Senate delayed its first
session and has been quietly rejecting all
Republican proposals from the House
while offering few solutions of their own.
Deadlock leaves the American people
victim to the rising prices of necessities this
year. The American education system will
continue to become less competitive unless a
solution is developed immediately. And there
is no set strategy in Afghanistan. But this
partisanship leaves political backup offering
no resolution to top or second tier problems.
Jake Lichtenfeld is a freshman in the College
of Arts and Sciences. He can be reached at
j.lichtenfeld@wustl.edu.
The Year to Come
Joshua Jacobs
Now that 2010 is finally
over, we can put a lot of
ugly politics behind us.
No longer are Christine
O’Donnell and the Tea
Party drawing the full
attention of the media. The
new year gives us a break
between the high-octane
crossfire of electoral
seasons, if only for a
short time. Nonetheless,
government continues
and disagreements still
exist. There will still be
major political stories
this year, and they will
require the country to
become accustomed to
a new cast of characters.
Here are some of the
people that we are sure to
see in 2011 as we prepare
for the 2012 Presidential
election, navigate our
way through a split-
party government, and
continue to live in a
heavily political world:
John Andrew Boehner
Boehner is not a new face to the United
States. First elected to the House of
Representatives in 1991, he began his
career as a maverick, taking on Democrats
and Republicans alike, before helping Newt
Gingrich in forming the Contract with
America, which catapulted him to the top
ranks of the Republican Party. With his
promise to repeal health-care reform and
take on the Democratic agendas of the
White House and Senate leaders, we can be
certain that he will be an outspoken figure
in our government. While it is unlikely he
will be able to push the entirety of his own
agenda due to the split-party government,
there is no doubt that Mr. Boehner will do
his best to shake up the government, and
stop Obama’s policies. The big question:
Will Boehner effectively stop the United
States government from functioning?
18
Mitt Romney
The process of predicting a President seems
to begin earlier and earlier every four years. It is
far too early now to name a definite front-runner
in the Republican primary, but the primary
campaigning will start in a few months. It seems
at the moment to be a race between a number of
former governors – Mike Huckabee of Arkansas,
Sarah Palin of Alaska, Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota,
and Mitt Romney of Massachusetts. While there
are a number of other potential candidates,
these are the names that are generating the most
buzz. There are many reasons why Romney is so
interesting. He has recently been shown as the
most likely to be successful in both the primaries
and the general election. Similarly, he has a record
of being a more “liberal conservative” – while
most other big-name Republicans are moving to
the right, Romney solidifies his position as one
of few Republicans who can draw from more
independent, moderate voters. The big question:
Will Romney be able to survive at a time when
Republicans everywhere are flocking to the Tea
Party?
19
Kathleen Sebelius
Long considered a powerful woman in the
political world, former Kansas Governor
Kathleen Sebelius has never held more
influence over the nation than she does
now. As the Secretary of Health and Human
Services, Sebelius was a major player in the
White House’s push to enact health-care
reform. A vocal supporter of President
Obama, Sebelius was known in Kansas for
her bipartisan efforts. During this next year,
and for as long as she remains Secretary
of Health and Human Services, her main
duty will be to oversee the implementation
of the new health-care system. Because
health-care is such an integral part of
Obama’s plan for the country, his legacy, in
many ways, rests in the hands of Kathleen
Sebelius. The big question: Will Sebelius
be able to preside over a smooth rollout of
health-care reform, despite challenges from
the right?
Michele Bachmann
Representative Bachmann began her
third term in the House of Representatives
this year. Seen by conservatives as a rising
star, she has shown promise as a darling
of the Tea Party movement, and was the
founder of the House’s Tea Party Caucus in
2010. She made an abortive run for House
Republican leadership at the beginning of
the 112th Congress, but remains an active
member of the House, introducing and
supporting legislation on global currencies,
gay marriage, and the repeal of financial
reform. More interesting still, she holds
a seat on a House committee overseeing
intelligence agencies. She is a strong voice
against Obama and even more liberal
members of her own party, and her office
recently confirmed she is considering
running for president in 2012. The big
question: Will Bachmann be able to live up
to her hype and lead the conservative wing
of her party, or will she be fated to remain a
congressional back-bencher?
The Year to Come
Illustrations by Audrey Westcott
Reince Priebus
Reince Priebus is the newly elected
chairman of the Republican National
Committee, taking over the job from
Michael Steele. As the new leader of the
Republican Party, it is now his job to
lead the GOP throughout the next five
years. Priebus believes that the RNC is an
integral piece of the Tea Party movement,
and finds the Republican platform to be
fundamentally pro-life and anti-stimulus.
He believes strongly in the Christian God
and has stated that he owns multiple guns.
Reince Priebus is the man who will define
the Republican Party throughout his tenure,
and steer it through the next election cycle.
The big question: Will Priebus be able to
carry the GOP’s success in 2010 into 2012,
all while bringing the party closer to his
conservative ideals?
Joshua Jacobs is a freshman in the College
of Arts & Sciences. He can be reached at
j.jacobs@wustl.edu.
The Year to Come
The Future’s Bright:
Why 2011 May Be Obama’s Best Year
Kevin Kieselbach
Republicans and Tea Partiers may
have won in November, but December was
President Obama’s month and it looks to be
a bright new year. After Democrats lost the
most House seats in a midterm election since
1938 and President Obama’s approval rating
reached a low of 41 percent in October, the
President scored three major legislative
victories during the lame duck congress
and his approval rating has rebounded to 50
percent at the start of 2011. Conservatives
may have thought that their midterm victory
would send President Obama a crippling blow
and destroy his reelection chances, but Ronald
Reagan and Bill Clinton both recovered from
midterm defeats to win reelection. Even at
its October low, President Obama’s approval
rating was higher than Reagan’s and Clinton’s
at this point in their presidencies. Both of
these former presidents had to contend with
a hostile congress to achieve their successes
and if December is any guide, President
Obama is ready to follow their footsteps.
President Obama’s recent legislative
successes have served as a demonstration
of his ability to work with Republicans. The
repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” marks a long
awaited victory for the president’s liberal
20
base but, more significantly, it received
enough Republican votes to pass the Senate
with a 65-31 vote. After firmly opposing
almost every aspect of the president’s agenda
for the past two years, Republicans actually
voted for a bill championed by liberals in
the wake of their midterm victory. Maybe
the Republicans let down their guard
before they start gearing up for the 2012
election, but any sort of compromise is an
improvement. Hopefully this will mark the
beginning of the Republicans willingness
to ease their hard line stance but, even
if it is just an anomaly, it is exactly what
21
President Obama needed to convince
his base that he has not forgotten them.
The president also secured a victory
when the Senate ratified the New START
nuclear arms reduction treaty with
Russia by a 71-26 vote. While past arms
reductions treaties have typically not
met much resistance, Republicans had
seemed willing to filibuster the treaty due
to ideological qualms over arms reduction
and to make the president look weak on the
international stage. Judging by the fact that
the treaty passed, Republicans know better
than to jeopardize U.S.-Russian relations.
The most significant legislative
accomplishment was the temporary
extension of the Bush tax cuts, which
included an 81-19 vote in the Senate. Both
parties made concessions to reach the
agreement. Democrats allowed the tax cut
extension to apply to the top income earners
and Republicans allowed an extension of
unemployment insurance. A compromise
on a tax issue is a major step forward
in bipartisanship and helps to fulfill the
president’s campaign promise to bring
people together. Combine this with the fact
that few people dislike having lower taxes
and it is no surprise that President Obama’s
approval rating has risen dramatically since
Data taken from TheHill.com & McClatchy-Marist Poll, January 6-10, 2011, Margin of error: ± 3.3%.
its October low. Any resulting improvement
to the economy is an added benefit. Some
may object that the tax cuts are a Republican
policy and the president is just taking
credit. However, according to the Brookings
Institution, Americans do not support tax
cuts for the top income earners, a view
which is consistent with the Democrats’
stance on the tax cuts. It is these tax cuts
for the wealthy that are solely a Republican
creation, and the president showed his
commitment to bipartisanship by agreeing
to them in order to get the package passed
despite objections from his own party.
President Obama’s move to the center
and the adept credit claiming that followed is
highly reminiscent of Bill Clinton’s strategy
of triangulation that he adopted following
the 1994 midterm losses. With the attempt
at health care reform in the early 1990s
making Clinton appear to be “just another
liberal Democrat” and costing his party in
the midterm elections, he reformulated his
image by taking the middle route between
the liberals of his party and the conservative
incoming Republican congressional majority.
By painting himself as the pragmatic moderate
between the two extreme factions, he was
able to gain great popularity. For instance,
President Clinton used the 1996 welfare
The Year to Come
reform legislation to support his credentials
as a moderate even though he reluctantly
supported the bill, which was primarily
promoted by the Republican Congress.
When compromise was not reached, Clinton
came out on top while Newt Gingrich and
congressional Republicans took the fall. As
an additional example, when a stalemate on
the budget led to a government shutdown
in 1995, it was the Republican Congress
that took most of the blame. Thus Clinton
won praise when compromises were reached
and avoided blame when they were not.
While President Obama has had trouble
providing the public with a clear message
during his first two years, we can expect him
to follow Clinton’s strategy. It is important
to note that a large part of President
Obama’s problem the past two years has
been that his party controlled both houses
of Congress. Americans by-and-large do
not hold favorable views of the government,
which have been magnified by the economic
downturn. With the difficulty of solving
the nation’s problems and the Democrats
in control of the presidency and Congress,
it was inevitable that they would be taking
heavy blame. Now that the Republicans
control the House of Representatives,
they cannot deny responsibility for what
The Year to Come
happens in government. President Obama
will also have better opportunities to
triangulate in a divided government.
If the Republicans are willing to
compromise, expect to see more agreements
like the tax cut package. One issue that
both parties want to address is reducing
budget deficits over the long term. While
each party has different views on how
to do this, the common goal will at least
lead to negotiations on the issue. If any
agreements are reached, both parties will
claim credit. President Obama will gain the
most politically as he will come across as
a pragmatic deal-maker who can navigate
the field of ideologues to solve problems.
However, there will definitely be
conflicts between the President and House
Republicans. The House of Representatives
is awaiting a vote on a bill to repeal the
recent health care reform legislation. This
move is mainly a political ploy as the bill
will die in the senate. Republicans plan on
challenging the health care legislation by
holding numerous hearings and attempting
to withhold funding. Both of these could
backfire and benefit President Obama. First,
the president has expressed willingness to
have the legislation amended to address
Republican concerns. If Republicans attempt
to shutdown reform outright, they will be
misreading the populace. Although there
are some people who are adamantly against
any health care reform, most people agree
that there is a need to reform the system
to address rising costs and difficulty of
obtaining coverage, especially for those who
do not have employer-sponsored coverage.
The main reason that people are weary about
the health care legislation is that they are
not sure if it will address their concerns or
make them worse. By bringing up the issue,
Republicans are giving Democrats a second
chance to explain the legislation to the
voters. This issue is a great opportunity for
President Obama to triangulate by placing
himself between the more liberal members
of his base who still want a public option
and the congressional Republicans who
want to keep the status quo. The President
has already claimed the middle ground by
stating that he welcomes suggestions from
Republicans. If Republicans continue to take
a hard line and refuse to seriously negotiate,
they will come across as bitter partisans
and the President will benefit at the polls.
Second, the economy is the number one
issue for voters right now, so Republicans will
be testing the patience of voters if they focus
their attention on the health care legislation.
Voters did not throw out the Democrats
because of dissatisfaction over the health
22
care law. Rather voters felt that Congress did
not do enough to boost the economy. The
lengthy amount of time spent debating health
care likely contributed to the feeling that
Congress was not focused on the economy.
If Republicans try to reopen the health
care issue, it could lead to more extended
policy battles and this time the Republicans
would take the blame for diverting
Congress’s attentions from the economy.
Third, an attempt by House Republicans
to kill health care reform by not funding it
could lead to a budget battle. If the House
refuses to appropriate funds for health care
legislation in the budget, President Obama
likely will veto it. If neither side is willing
to yield, then a budget might not be reached.
A budget battle between President Clinton
and Congressional Republicans led to the
government shutdown of 1995 and severely
hurt the image of Newt Gingrich and the
Congressional Republicans. According to
a recent CNN poll, approximately three-
quarters of Americans would consider
it either a “crisis” or “major problem” if
a budget battle caused the government
to shut down for a few weeks. In such a
situation, President Obama could accuse the
Republicans of playing political tricks for
refusing to fund the legislation and would
likely come out on top just like Clinton
23 The Year to Come
did. However, much of the funding for
the health care legislation is categorized as
non-discretionary, so Republicans will be
restricted in what funding they can withhold.
Another item on the House agenda is
to launch investigations into the Obama
Administration. While this is an attempt to
satisfy Tea Party activists and the Republican
base, it could easily hurt the Republicans in
the minds of moderates and independents.
President Clinton’s approval ratings soared
during his impeachment. Moderate voters
are tired of partisan bickering and want
to see results. If Republicans let their
investigations become overly personal
or confrontational, the public will likely
increase their support for President Obama.
Republicans may be calling Obama
a one-term president, but his reelection
chances are very much alive. Far from being
a political deathblow for the president,
the midterm losses have given President
Obama just what he needed to reshape
his image and retake the political center.

Kevin Kieselbach is a freshman in the College

of Arts and Sciences. He can be reached at
kevin.kieselbach@wustl.edu.
The Year to Come 24

2010 was a political year. With the midterms, wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the Nick Wilbar
struggling economy—how could it not be? In what was dubbed a “shellacking”
by some, voters largely rebuked the Democrats in the midterm elections. At the
same time, however, President Obama finally started looking at home at 1600
Pennsylvania Avenue. Combat troops were pulled out of Iraq, but the Commander-
in-Chief softened a once-hard withdrawal date in Afghanistan. Far-reaching
legislation was passed. Tea was served. In a year full of politics, some moments
stood out against the rest. What follows is the best that 2010 had to offer.

If Asked,
Feel Free to Tell
As far as nearly everyone was concerned, ‘Don’t ask, don’t
tell’ had long outlived its welcome. Roughly sixty percent of
Americans thought DADT had to go and, at long last, it
did. After the Pentagon’s release of a much-anticipated
internal study, ‘Don’t ask, don’t tell’ was deemed
insignificant, if not harmful, to the readiness of the
nation’s armed forces. Finally, in the last throes of an
earth-shaking lame duck session, President Obama
signed away the policy for good. After seventeen
years, if asked, it’s okay to tell. As well it should be.

The Lame Duck

Walks (Runs?)
The mere fact that President Obama signed the repeal of
‘Don’t ask, don’t tell’ should come as no real surprise:
he had listed it among his foremost policy goals
from the very beginning. That he had the energy
to muster up that one last swoop of the pen,
however, is somewhat more startling. Indeed,
both the President and the Legislature had
a busy, perhaps even frantic, “lame duck”
session. In addition to the repeal of DADT—and of
similar importance—the Bush tax cuts were extended
and the STAR Treaty was ratified. Clearly, “lame duck” is a misnomer.
25 The Year to Come

Mission
Accomplished…?
It was the political theme that rocked the Bush presidency, so
it only makes sense that its resolution—or at least apparent
resolution—would make our top five. In mid-August,
President Obama fulfilled his long-standing promise
to bring our troops home. The summer withdrawal left
roughly 50,000 American service members in Iraq, none
of whom are presently operating under the auspices of
“combat personnel.” But as the Washington Post aptly
explained, “a rose by any other name is still a rose, and
the differences in brigade structure and personnel are
minimal.” American troops are still in harm’s way and their
job is far from done. So has the United States’ mission in Iraq
been fully accomplished? Probably not. Has the White House’s
political mission in Iraq been successful? Maybe. Either way, the
future of Iraq and its implications here at home are far from settled.

Healthcare Passes,
‘Obamacare’ is born
When it comes to healthcare, commentators on both sides of the
debate find themselves largely in agreement: the Affordable Care Act
was comprehensively monumental. Like it or not, it was certainly
a sweeping reform. Similarly undeniable is the reality that the
passage of the Affordable Care Act did a lot more than simply alter
the face of medicine and medical care in the United States. It quickly
turned from “healthcare” to “Obamacare,” and with comparable
alacrity added fuel to the Tea Party fire. What exactly will
come of America’s healthcare system remains to be seen.
Without question, however, the battle over healthcare
and its subsequent political fallout were largely
responsible for shaping the nation’s political life in 2010.

The Shellacking That Was

Nick Wilbar is a senior in the
College of Arts & Sciences. He
can be reached at nick.wilbar@
gmail.com.
President Bush dubbed his party’s 2006 midterm defeat a
“thumping.” Not to be outdone, President Obama—the master
orator that he is—referred to the Democrats’ 2010 election debacle
as a “shellacking.”And while Obama frequently catches criticism
over his capacity to communicate with the public, he seems to
have gotten this one right. A shellacking it was indeed. The GOP
picked up 63 seats in the House and nearly won back a majority
in the Senate as well. President Obama went from having to deal
with a filibuster-prone Republican Party, to one that actually
stands to out-vote the Democrats in the House. The basic
structure of the two parties’ power has been irrefutably
shaken up. With it, the stage has been set for 2011.
On the international front, a volatile mix
of greed, corruption, and discourses
on human rights has swept the globe.
Though the most recent Wikileaks
documents focused on the petty details
of international diplomacy, real scandal
erupted as India faced the biggest
exposure of political corruption in the
country’s history. Russia faced its own
battles with political power, as the
country continues to veer down the
path to authoritarianism. And while Iran
battled the world’s democracies for its
nuclear program, Wal-Mart started a fight
to bring its stores to the African market.
27
Belligerent Benjamin
Joshua Truppman
On January 11, 2001, Karl Vick of Time
magazine strongly condemned the policies of
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu,
contending that his administration has enacted a
far-reaching right-wing platform that effectively
infringes on the rights of Israelis. This article has
created a bit of an uproar. Journalists—such as
Jennifer Rubin of the Washington Post—have
criticized it as being inaccurate and overly biased.
Even Netanyahu’s senior advisor, Ron Dermer,
issued a statement to Time magazine in which
Netanyahu’s administration defended itself against
such accusations. He argued, “Israel has upheld its
democratic values despite being threatened like
no country on earth,” and continued to pointedly
claim, “I can assure you that no matter how biased
and unbalanced your correspondents’ coverage of
Israel, they will always be free here to write whatever
they want.” All this debate begs the question: has
Benjamin Netanyahu’s administration pushed
the Israeli government dangerously to the right?
Maybe. There is good reason to believe that
Netanyahu’s government has fostered a culture
of fear through an overly conservative agenda.
This is particularly evident in his dealings with
the Palestinian Authority. Simply put, he has
been unwilling to compromise. Since 2009, he
has adamantly defended Israel’s right to expand
settlements and refused to support the creation
of a Palestinian state. In November 2010, he
passed a law requiring that any peace treaty
with Palestinians be approved by either a 2/3
majority in the Israeli parliament or a public
Has Benjamin
Netanyahu’s government
pushed the Israeli
government dangerously
to the right?
vote. In effect, the legislation vastly decreases the
likelihood of the Israeli government’s reaching a
peace agreement with the Palestinian Authority.
More recently, he used the overthrow of
the Tunisian government as an example of the
difficulties facing a two-state solution. He argued,
“the Tunisian unrest highlights an important
issue regarding a possible Middle East peace
treaty,” explaining that “there is doubt whether
or not such an agreement would be followed by
all sides in the long run in view of the pervasive
political instability in the region.” Netanyahu’s
meaning is clear: Palestinians cannot be trusted
International
to observe a peace agreement in the long run.
Unfortunately, he is wrong here in several ways.
What occurred in Tunisia has absolutely
no bearing on what might occur in the future
should a Middle East peace treaty be reached. It is
absurd to imply that unrest in Tunisia necessarily
implies a similar set of events in Israel. In addition,
Netanyahu is unjustified and hypocritical in
categorically questioning the credibility of
Palestinians—after all, Netanyahu has violated
various U.N. and International treaties himself.
Netanyahu’s policies are even more
alarming in the context of Ehud Barak’s recent
defection from the Labor Party. On January 17th,
Barak officially resigned in order to form the
Independence Party. Most pundits believe that
this was a victory for Netanyahu and his coalition
government. Although Netanyahu’s coalition
government decreased from 74 to 66 seats out of a
possible 120, it is viewed as a more stable coalition
now that is no longer subject to defection of the
Labor Party. Thus, Netanyahu’s government has a
greater ability to enact its conservative policies now
than it did only a week ago. Given Netanyahu’s
track record, we have every reason to be worried.
Joshua Truppman is a senior in the College
of Arts & Sciences. He can be reached at
jtruppman@wustl.edu
International
The Wal-Mart Way
Anna Applebaum
Save money, live better. It is a simple enough
slogan, this Wal-Mart mantra. Buy more with less;
the more you buy, the better off you will be. More,
and more, and more again – that’s the Wal-Mart
way. After all, this chain of discount department
and warehouse stores offers a large quantity of
items at a low cost. The stores are the epitome of
the supermarket concept, a one-stop shop for all
products and needs. Sounds like a dream? Yes,
but it sounds like a definitively American dream.
What, then, will be the consequences of Wal-Mart’s
recent entry into the African market with the
impending acquisition of African chain Massmart?
As one of the United States’ largest
corporations, Wal-Mart has had a mixed
relationship with the American public. Started
by Sam Walton in 1962 as a local discount store
in Arkansas, it rapidly expanded and within five
years had twenty-four store locations. Exponential
growth followed, and Wal-Mart currently has 8,962
stores worldwide. While the corporation has been
praised as an undeniable success, it also has been
criticized for destroying local businesses and for
infamously low employment standards. A study by
Professor Kenneth Stone at Iowa State University
revealed that “some small towns can lose almost half
of their retail trade within ten years of a Wal-Mart
store opening.” In addition, Wal-Mart has become
notorious for its anti-union stance and is currently
involved in a lawsuit for allegedly discriminating
against female employees in pay and promotions.
Despite this fickle record, or perhaps because
of it, Wal-Mart is now often regarded as a symbol
Rural African consumers
are faced with a set of
economic considerations
that are entirely different
from Wal-Mart’s
comfortable U.S. base.
of America. A small entrepreneur makes a good,
goes national and global, provides needed jobs
and efficient access to products all wrapped up
in a nebulous shroud of moral dilemmas – a
classic American story with all its glory and all
its faults. With the introduction of Wal-Mart into
the African market, however, it remains to be
seen whether it will take on another meaning for
28
America – whether or not the smiling face of the
brand will be successful as a new incarnation of
the smiling face of U.S. economic imperialism?
Massmart Holdings, Ltd. is an established
retail company based in South Africa. It has
around 290 stores in 13 different African nations
from Mozambique to Swaziland, according to
CNN. Interestingly, while many of these stores
are located in urban centers, there are a significant
number placed in rural areas. The details of
Massmart’s properties will therefore prove to be
an interesting challenge for Wal-Mart as the $2
billion deal becomes a reality. These urban centers
are familiar territory for Wal-Mart; they are the
focus of the other countries where Wal-Mart has
stores, from Brazil to Mexico to China. With a
more prosperous consumer base comes an easier
acceptance and awareness of stores like Wal-Mart.
Yet rural African consumers are faced
with a set of economic considerations that are
entirely different from Wal-Mart’s comfortable
U.S. base. Indeed, in a country like Swaziland
the average annual income is less than $3,000.
For many of these people, especially the rural
constituency, the benign phrase “Save money.
Live better” may not be accepted as such a
persuasively comforting slogan. Instead, it may
29 International

Will the smiling face of

the brand be successful
as a new incarnation of
the smiling face of U.S.
economic imperialism?
grate harshly against the realities of life for this
population. Setting aside the moral question of
sustainable local development as a method of
comprehensive economic improvement, it is
relevant to consider whether Wal-Mart’s business
model can translate into success in Africa. For
a corporation that has succeeded in replacing
local communities with the promise of more and
bigger, will this same image be attractive to those
families barely earning enough for subsistence?
There are already signs of trouble for Wal-
Mart. South Africa’s regulated labor market is
highly unionized, and will not likely be a welcome
recipient to the corporation. According to
serious threat to Wal-Mart’s sales in South America, all, the Wal-Mart way is a highly attractive
Business Week, the deputy president Tyotyo James
and it remains to be seen how effective Cosatu option. There is much to be said for affordable
of the Congress of South African Trade Unions
can be at disrupting the corporation’s intentions. pricing and product variety—the combination
(Cosatu), the country’s largest trade federation,
Overall, however, it may be that Wal-Mart of the two makes a very potent elixir indeed.
vocally denounced Wal-Mart at a recent meeting.
can establish itself in Africa as a viable contender This particular American dream just may
He decried that the company would not source
for the consumer market. India and China face realize grand global aspirations on the horizon.
goods and services locally, leading to a loss of
similar problems with poverty (though they
South African jobs, and declared his intention
differ in the level of prosperity), yet the company Anna Applebaum is a sophomore in the
to “will organise a mother of all boycotts against
has managed to do well in both countries. After College of Arts & Sciences. She can be
Massmart”. Similar protests in Brazil once posed a reached at a.applebaum@wustl.edu
International
Disarming the
Ticking Chávez Bomb
Lennox Mark
Eventually, the sun must set on every great
dynasty. The number one pedestal can only
be occupied by the same nation for so long as
competing states and internal dissension drive
all polities into decline. History is marked by the
rise and fall of great nations, and now, we have
the United States. Who is rising to usurp our
pedestal? China? India perhaps? It cannot be
said for sure. However, one country that is often
overlooked as a threat to American stability is
sitting too close to home not to warrant the same
attention as the big dogs of the Indo-Pacific.
That country is Hugo Chávez’s Venezuela.
Hugo Chávez may be Venezuela’s
president, but he can hardly be called a
democratic leader. He ascended to office by
means of a landslide electoral victory (only
after failing to take the seat of power by means
of a military coup d’état), vowing to enact
socialist policies in Venezuela. Under Chávez,
the Venezuelan government has nationalized
all of its oil companies and power plants and
some of its wealthiest banks. While other
South American countries enjoy flourishing
economies, Venezuela’s market is shrinking at the
hands of food shortages and high inflation rates.
Citizens of Venezuela are currently suffering
from both water shortages and reoccurring
30
blackouts. In February 2009, a referendum vote
to end presidential term limits passed, allowing
Chávez to run for reelection, making it all too
possible for him to rule for life. In December
2010, amongst its last weeks in office before the
newly elected assembly comes to power, the
National Assembly granted Chávez the power
to create new laws by means of decree. Such
autocratic lawmaking undermines democratic
legislation in Venezuela, aggrandizing power
in the executive. In reality, Chávez is becoming
more and more like a dictator and his political
antagonism now poses a serious threat that
reaches far beyond the borders of Venezuela.
Sadly, the battle for democracy in
Venezuela is merely the tip of the iceberg. In
November 2009, Chávez openly applauded
the acts of Carlos the Jackal, a Venezuelan
extremist known to have terrorized various
parts of Europe. Carlos the Jackal was described
In reality, Chávez is
becoming more and
more like a dictator and
his political antagonism
now poses a serious
threat that reaches far
beyond the borders of
Venezuela.
in a speech given by Chávez as a “revolutionary
fighter” for his acts of terrorism in the 1970s
and 1980s. Not only was the Jackal a terrorist
in his own right, but he also praised Osama Bin
Laden and his efforts in coordinating September
11. Rather than abhorring the Jackal and his
allies, Chávez is hoping to have him freed from
his French prison and repatriated to Venezuela.
In October 2010, Chávez publicly revealed
that he has been pursuing a nuclear proliferation
program for Venezuela, doing so under the
instruction and guidance of Iran, a rogue state
in the nuclear playground. This arrangement
has been two years in the making, since
Iranian and Venezuelan officials signed a secret
“science and technology” compact outlining
cooperation “in the field of nuclear technology”
in November 2008. Nuclear cooperation with
Iran, regardless of whether or not Chávez is
seeking peaceful uses for his nuclear technology,
is an illegal violation of U.N. Security Council
Resolution 1929, implemented to forestall Iran’s
clandestine nuclear proliferation. Although all
31
countries are able to pursue peaceful nuclear
energy programs, as promised in the Nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty to which Venezuela
is a signatory, Chávez’s decision to pursue said
technology with Iran raises a serious red flag.
Chávez is blatant and unapologetic in his
ongoing campaign against the United States.
Repeatedly, he has referred to the United States
as the “imperial empire” and, in an address
before the U.N. General Assembly, Chávez
declared that the room stank of sulphur
because “the devil” had been there, speaking
in reference to former President George Bush.
Criminal testimonies from Walid Makled-
Garcia, an apprehended Venezuelan drug
trafficker, suggest that Chávez may have played
a hand in smuggling illegal drugs into the
United States. Most recently, Chávez rejected
U.S. diplomat Larry Palmer to be ambassador
to Venezuela, barring the American from
entrance into the country, explicitly inciting the
United States to reject his own ambassador if
they dared. The United States responded in kind
by withdrawing the visa of Bernardo Álvarez
Herrera, Venezuela’s ambassador. Herein, we
began the new year without a diplomatic envoy
to this dangerous South American country.
The current presidential administration
cannot afford to ignore this potential threat
when all signs point to both regional and global
International
instability at Venezuela’s hands. We understand
that Hugo Chávez is entitled to lead his
country in whatever direction he sees as most
conducive to its prosperity. We understand that
foreign policy is a balancing act of interests and
compromises. However, in this juggling game,
the Obama administration needs to take a
closer look at the immediate threat posed by
Hugo Chávez, and quickly, before the ball drops.
Lennox Mark is a sophomore in the College of
Arts & Sciences. He can be reached at lennox.
mark.ssea@gmail.com.
International
Putin 1, Khodorkovsky 0
Taka Yamaguchi
When President Boris Yeltsin oversaw
the founding the Russian Federation twenty
years ago, aspiring Russian capitalists
hoped to boldly launch the new country
out of communist authoritarianism and
into the proud ranks of free-market nations.
Yet, this path has been fraught with danger.
As the former Soviet Union’s industrial
and commercial enterprises crumbled,
aggressive entrepreneurs bought these vast
holdings at extremely low prices. This frantic
and poorly managed burst of privatization
was hailed as capitalistic progress by some,
but labeled an economic nightmare by
others. Soon, a small number of Russian
capitalists, known as the Oligarchs,
controlled most of the Russian economy.
As the head of YUKOS, a Russian
energy company, Mikhail Khodorkovsky
mastered the minefield of post-Soviet
privatization on his way to becoming the
wealthiest person in Russia with $15 billion
in 2004. However, his financial prowess was
not the only thing that got the attention
of Vladimir Putin, Yeltsin’s successor.
Here was a man barely in his forties,
with substantial influence on the Russian
economy, well known for his philanthropy
and for the celebrity status that comes with
extreme wealth. He was also politically
active, funding several parties running
against incumbent President Putin’s
United Russia party, and purported to have
planned to run for president in the 2004
Russian election. The emergence of this
new challenger did not sit well with Putin.
Neither did Khodorkovsky’s vocal views of
Putin’s leadership. In 2003, he told The Times
that in the Russian model of democracy:
32
Illustration by Laura Beckman
It means that theoretically you have
a free press, but in practice there
is self-censorship. Theoretically
you have courts; in practice the
courts adopt decisions dictated
from above. Theoretically there
are civil rights enshrined in the
constitution; in practice you are not
able to exercise some of these rights.
Soon thereafter, Mikhail Khodorkovsky
was seized at gunpoint by masked FSB
agents, arrested on charges of fraud and
tax evasion, and sentenced to eight years of
hard labor. YUKOS’ shares plummeted as a
result. The Russian government then moved
to quickly reestablish its firm grip over the
majority of the Russian energy industry by
seizing YUKOS and keeping some of the
shares for itself, then selling the remainder
of the artificially devalued shares to several
corporations deemed more “trustworthy”
(run by CEOs often labeled Kremlin cronies).
The Russian government states that it
did nothing illegal in its forceful takeover
33 International

and redistribution of YUKOS. Yet many

at home and abroad criticized the judicial
proceedings, which the US State Department
called “selective” and “arbitrary” in 2003.
Independent investigators found significant
anomalies in the trial and the evidence
presented, including the fact that the alleged
tax bill his company had failed to pay was
in fact larger than YUKOS’ entire income.
That the Russian presidential election was
months away only added to the suspicion
that the trial was politically motivated.
However, scrutiny by the United States and
the European Union failed to materialize into
anything more than words of disapproval.
Unfortunately for Khodorkovsky, American
President George W. Bush was then seeking
to improve relations with his Russian
counterpart, and the E.U. did not want to
risk losing its primary natural gas importer.
In 2010, when Khodorkovsky was due
to be released the next year, further charges
of money laundering were levied against
the former Oligarch. Critics of now-Prime Here was a man barely
Minister Putin are keen to point out that
his scheduled release would have made him in his forties, with
free before the 2012 Presidential election, substantial influence on
when Putin will once again be eligible to
run for President. In December 2010, he the Russian economy,
was found guilty of stealing 218 billion tons well known for his
of oil and laundering the profits, a charge
many have called absurd. When the Russian philanthropy and for
Minister of Industry and Trade testified in the celebrity status that
Khodorkovsky’s defense that the supposedly
stolen oil had never gone missing and was comes with extreme
all accounted for, his words were somehow wealth.
misconstrued to be proof of the theft.
Members of both American and
European governments have harshly Minister minimized both a threat to his
criticized Russia’s apparent inability to political power and removed an obstacle
grant Khodorkovsky a fair trial, with to the Russian government’s attempts
German Chancellor Angela Merkel to reestablish economic dominance.
stating that “political motives played Putin’s forceful implementation of
a role” in the outcome. Meanwhile, “state capitalism” in Russia draws
Russian protestors tirelessly continue comparisons to Chinese economic strategy.
to demand justice for Khodorkovsky. This authoritarianism will have proved to be as productive as privately
On the other hand, Russian economist serious consequences for Russia. Economic owned ones, it is hard not to invoke the
Sergei Guriev says that the trial has already analysts, both Russian and foreign, have specter of Soviet economic stagnation
served its purpose, which was “to show that predicted that potential investors are likely that resulted from similar policies.
Putin is fully in control...it is a question to be hesitant to invest in such a hostile, Putin’s heavy-handed dealing of
of other businessmen not following in restricted environment. If such authoritative Khodorkovsky has been effective at
Khodorkovsky’s footsteps.” By making an measures continue, they will hinder Russian concentrating political and economic
example of the former Oligarch, Putin sent a economic growth by scaring off much- power in his own hands. Yet it stifles
very clear message to Russian businesspeople: needed foreign investment. Furthermore, the precarious growth of Russian
economic and political ambition that directly Russian entrepreneurs and their enterprises capitalism, to say nothing of the political,
challenges his authority will not be tolerated. will always be wary of the fact that their diplomatic, and humanitarian ramifications.
Harnessing the judicial system property rights may be arbitrarily violated,
to his advantage, Putin was able to as was the case with the Russian state’s
squash Khodorkovsky’s challenge to his dismantling of YUKOS by force. Though Taka Yamaguchi is a sophomore in the
College of Arts & Sciences. He can be reached
authority. In one fell swoop, the Prime state-controlled industries have often at tyamaguchi@wustl.edu
International
The BRICs in 2011
Peter Birke
Contemporary economists seem to
come up with a new acronym every day.
From PIGS to CEMENT, BEM to CIVETS,
they have created an alphabet soup that
would have made Franklin Roosevelt proud.
None of the acronyms is better known than
the BRICs. Created by a Goldman Sachs
economist in 2001, BRICs is a term used to
describe the world’s four largest emerging
markets: Brazil, Russia, India, and China.
By 2050, The BRICs are projected to have
surpassed most, if not all, of the Western
economic powers. 2011 will be another
step in their blistering climb towards the
global economic penthouse. Here’s a look
at what the year has in store for the BRICs:
Brazil
The Economist recently called Brazil
the most stable of the BRICs: “Unlike China
and Russia it is a full-blooded democracy;
unlike India it has no serious disputes
with its neighbors.” The country recently
demonstrated this stability with a bloodless
transfer of power. On January 1, 2011,
Dilma Rousseff was inaugurated as Brazil’s
first female president after getting elected
last October. Rousseff seeks to show that
she is not merely a puppet of the outgoing
President Luiz Inácio Lula de Silva, who
handpicked her to succeed him as the
Workers’ Party candidate. Her government’s
biggest challenge in 2011 will be to try to
slow the appreciation of Brazil’s currency,
the Real, in order to preserve Brazil’s status
as one of the top export markets in the world.
Russia
Russia has emerged as a gold BRIC-
er of sorts, with its corrupt government
threatening to undermine its status as one of
the top emerging markets. The government
is flooded with 878,000 bureaucrats, many
of whom exchange government contracts
for bribes. A recent estimate showed that
government bureaucrats accepted bribes
totaling more than 20% of Russia’s GDP.
Furthermore, the Kafka-esque trial of
Mikhail Khodorkovsky exposed Russia’s
judicial system as nothing more than a
tool to silence critics of the government.
On the bright side, the New START
treaty, a nuclear arms reduction treaty, will
34
bolster relations between Russia and the
United States; Russian President Dmitry
Medvedev told reporters on December 24
that the treaty is a “cornerstone” of global
security. The Obama Administration
hopes the goodwill from the two former
rivals will translate to more cooperation
on the issue of Iran’s nuclear ambitions.
India
India received a lot of diplomatic
attention in 2010, with leaders from all
five permanent member countries of the
U.N. Security Council paying the country
a visit. India will hold one of the rotating
seats on the Security Council in 2011 and
some world leaders have suggested it should
be a permanent member of the Council
itself. The proposal makes sense. India is a
transparent democracy in a very unstable
part of the world. Despite all of this fawning,
India’s neighbor and eternal nemesis,
Pakistan, appears to be devolving (if it
has not already) into a failed state—which
could lead to increased tensions between
these two nuclear-capable countries.
India will continue its blistering economic
35 International

growth in 2011, with its economic expansion

(8.2% of GDP) nearly matching that of China’s
(8.4%). However, India must strengthen its
manufacturing sector to match its superb
service economy. India’s infrastructure lags
behind other BRIC countries in this area,
which could hinder future growth. Time
will tell if India can meet its promise to
build 20 kilometers of road a day in 2011.

China
China will consolidate its status as the
gem of the group. The world’s second largest
economy will maintain the rapid growth that
it has enjoyed for the past thirty years. China
will look to expand its ever-increasing sphere
of influence in 2011. China has spent billions
to spur economic development and trade
in Africa and Central Asia, filling in roles
once held by the United States and Russia.
China will also look to expand its influence
by flexing its military might. China recently
rolled out a new stealth plane and plans
to send its first aircraft carrier to sea this
year. With its drastically improved military protectionist measures by the United States together to make sure this doesn’t happen.
technology, China could challenge the United in response would merely lead to a tit-for- The United States and China will come to
States as a military power in the Pacific. tat tariff war that harms both economies. realize that their interests are more aligned
China and the United States will both be Tensions bubbled on the Korean peninsula than they might have originally surmised.
faced with a decision of treating each other in 2010—and could very well boil over in
as rivals or partners in 2011. Both should 2011. Neither China nor the United States
pick the latter. While China’s manipulation Peter Birke is a sophomore in the College
want to get dragged into a war between of Arts & Sciences. He can be reached at
of its currency, the Yuan, persists, North and South Korea and should work peter.e.birke@gmail.com.
International
Turmoil in India
Siddharth Krishnan
Scandal, Wikileaks Style
“India, the republic, is now on sale.
Participating in the auction is a group of
powerful individuals, corporate houses,
lobbyists, bureaucrats and journalists.”
India’s popular Outlook magazine does
not mince its words. The words, however, are
not the usual journalistic hyperbole. They
capture the mood of a country that has seen
the biggest scandal in its sixty-year existence.
Last December, Nira Radia, a political lobbyist
in Delhi, watched in horror as 800 tapes,
carrying conversations from her tapped
phone became public. On the other end of
the line were, variously, senior politicians,
industry heads and prominent journalists.
The content of the conversations opened a
Pandora’s box of manipulation, cronyism, and
corruption. While these charges are not new
to India’s political class, the tapes revealed a
nexus between industry and government that
few had previously suspected. Licenses worth
billions of dollars have made monopolies of
large companies. The television media has
plunged to further depths with many of the
country’s best-known journalists accused of
being cronies of the ruling Congress Party.
The world is watching, and India needs to
get its house in order. Economic ambitions
and a seat on the Security Council are at stake.
Big Beginnings
Make Big Crises
The origins of the scandal are far from
humble. In 2008, it emerged that India’s
lucrative telecom industry had bought licenses
to use the so-called 2G frequency for $4 billion.
They then sold the licenses to the highest
bidder almost immediately for $38 billion, a
sum thought to be closer to their actual market
value. The Comptroller and Auditor General,
an independent authority entrusted with
examining government accounts immediately
launched an investigation into the discrepancy.
In sheer monetary terms, it was already
the biggest corruption case in the country’s
history. What followed was dramatic. The
companies that profited most from the
deliberate undervaluing of the licenses were all
Radia’s clients. The Supreme Court ordered her
private phone lines tapped, and over the next
three years, thousands of conversations were
recorded.
36
When Outlook magazine finally released
some of the tapes late last year, the evidence was
overwhelming. Andimuthu Raja, the Telecom
Minister, and a close personal friend of Radia,
resigned immediately. No one escaped scrutiny.
Even Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, who is
known for his clean image, had a lot to answer
for when it emerged that he knew of the tapes
when he reappointed Raja for a second term as
Telecom Minister.
Next in the firing line were some of the
country’s most prominent industrialists; Ratan
Tata, head of the Tata group and Mukesh
Ambani, an Oil and Telecom magnate were
heard in direct conversation with Radia, asking
her to lobby for political favors and licenses
with her ‘friends’ in the administration.
The Media Lies
Perhaps the most disturbing thing to
emerge, however, has been the lack of integrity
in India’s burgeoning television media. Two
names in particular stand out. Barkha Dutt won
enormous international respect for her coverage something he can ill-afford as he lobbies for a
of wars, floods and the 2004 tsunami. She has Security Council seat. Corporations are also
skillfully portrayed herself as the so-called understandably loathe to invest in a country
‘voice of the people’, and was the recipient India’s where so much depends on political influence.
third highest civilian honor. The tapes show her The opposing Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) has
using her influence to get ‘portfolios’, or specific been quick to latch on to the weaknesses of the
ministries allotted to individuals she was close current administration. It is currently enjoying
to. Her impartiality has been seriously called a mini-renaissance, with new revelations
into question, and her pro-Congress stance on coming in every day as more tapes are released.
television has been revealed to be purely political. With their election prospects seriously boosted,
The other journalist, the Oxford-educated, the BJP is currently riding a high it could
authoritative Vir Sanghvi used his column only have dreamed of when it lost a flood of
to defend Radia’s clients, including Mukesh parliamentary seats three years ago. This spells
Ambani. On tape, he is heard asking Radia danger for India. The BJP have long been known
‘What kind of story’ she wants. He then for their dangerously non-secular rhetoric,
proceeded to write exactly what she asked. and have incited violence against Muslims in
In the weeks following the release of the past. They are also relative economically
the tapes, there was a complete blackout of illiterate, and while the Congress party has
coverage in the television media. By delving shown an extreme lack of integrity, India- and
into the personal lives of Bollywood film the U.S.- can ill afford four years of BJP rule.
stars, news channels showed not only their The biggest sufferers, as is usually the case,
culpability, but also where their priorities rest. are the Indian people. In a country where
The nexus between industry, the Congress hundreds of millions of people live on very
party and the media has deflated any hopes little, what is needed from policymakers is a
of a fair and critical public discourse. vision for the future. On current form, one
wouldn’t blame them for not being optimistic.
The Road Ahead India is on sale, and they can’t afford to buy it.
The impacts of the scandal are far-reaching. Siddharth Krishnan is a sophomore in the
Manmohan Singh faces a crisis of credibility School of Engineering & Applied Sciences. He
both at home and on the international stage, can be reached at siddharth.krishnan@wustl.
edu.
242
A unanimous vote by House
Republicans helped fulfill their
campaign pledge to repeal
health care reform.
35.1% 0.6%
The increase in Nevada’s
population according to
the 2010 census, for a total
population of 2,700,551 in the
state.
400
The number of flights
cancelled on Christmas Day
flying out of Charles de Gaulle
airport in Paris.
3
The number of Democrats
who joined House
Republicans in opposing
Obama’s reform bill.
Michigan was the only state
to lose population from the
census results.
10
The number of days that
New Yorkers lived with their
garbage after tremendous
snowfalls stunned the city of
Christmas Eve.
“Rather than pointing fingers or assigning blame, let us use this occa-
sion to expand our moral imaginations, to listen to each other more
carefully, to sharpen our instincts for empathy, and remind ourselves
of all the ways our hopes and dreams are bound together.”
– President Barack Obama,
speaking at a memorial service for the Tucson victims
“Arrogance is not a crime that you put somebody in prison for…I
can’t be remorseful for something I don’t think I did.”
– Former G.O.P. House Majority Leader Tom Delay, protesting
his three-year prison sentence for money laundering.
“Especially within hours of a tragedy unfolding...Journalists and
pundits should not manufacture a blood libel that serves only to incite
the very hated and violence they purport to condemn.”
– Former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin on the Tucson shootings