By Jeremy Potter
Staff Writer

The Democratic Party, despite some Republicans’ claims, is not very progressive. While Democrats sometimes adopt progressive stances on certain issues such as LGBTQ+ rights, racial equality, or higher taxes on the rich, none of these things make a progressive party. The Democratic Party is best described, in fact, as a coalition of various identifiers all working together (in theory) under a shared left-wing banner.

In recent decades, however, the Democratic Party has faced an identity crisis. This crisis began in the 80s, when the Republican Party adopted neoliberalism, an economic philosophy based around deregulation and market-based solutions to the world’s problems. Pressured by Republican victories, the Democrats began turning further and further right on the political spectrum.

This trend began with President Clinton, whose campaign included promises to “end welfare” and be “hard on crime.” Neoliberalism continued to hold sway in the Democratic party through President Obama’s presidency — think of the bailout of Wall Street banks after the 2008 recession.

President Biden has taken steps to distance himself with the ideology of neoliberalism. But despite increasing government spending, he has a troubled track record of siding with economic elites rather than labor. During his campaign, Biden promised donors that “no one’s standard of living will change, nothing would fundamentally change,” and last December, he sided with railway corporations to block a critical labor strike over working conditions.

Americans are increasingly and overwhelmingly dissatisfied with the direction of politics in our country. Now think about the messaging presented to American voters. Republican messaging acknowledges this feeling of dissatisfaction and channels it towards political action. Democratic messaging, meanwhile, seems to indicate a preference towards the status quo. In an era of deteriorating upward mobility and severe economic inequality, today’s Democrats give next to nothing for Americans to hope for.

The center-left is rapidly losing its identity, and both parties are unpopular in the eyes of both the general public and their own members. Currently, the Democrats coast along by being “better than Republicans.” If the Democratic Party wants to represent anything other than unpopular neoliberal politics, it needs revitalization from the left.

Unfortunately, Democratic leadership often seems to be hesitant to align their goals with the progressive arm of the party. We saw the effects of this tension in the 2022 midterms in New York, where moderate Democrats backed by party leaders lost to Republican candidates across the state.

Why the Democratic party is so hesitant to throw itself behind a progressive agenda is difficult to grasp. To understand why, we should draw a parallel between the conditions of the present day and those of the early 1930s, before the New Deal was passed.

Franklin Roosevelt originally campaigned in 1932 on a relatively moderate platform. But after coming under heavy fire from Republicans and seeing popular leftist candidates earn a combined five percent of the national vote, he decided to turn left on labor and economic issues. His ’36 platform included the establishment of Social Security, unemployment benefits, and agricultural subsidies.

This platform was, needless to say, popular. To call his reelection a landslide would undersell it. He won 61% of the popular vote and lost only eight electoral votes. It was the biggest victory in the electoral college in over a century. Its monumentality would not be contested until Reagan won in 1984. Should we be surprised by now that paradigm shifts are popular in times of discontent?

Regardless, the story sounds somewhat familiar. At a time when the Democratic Party desperately needs a stable foundation, we should be looking to the past to understand what steps can take us there.

The strengthening of government and labor was the paradigm of the twentieth-century Democrat, allowing the party to dominate the federal government for decades. Those of us on the left of the party, however, cannot assume that center-left Democrats will suddenly pass federal legislation and provide the party with a progressive paradigm.

Much like the “rebranding” of the Republican Party, the progressive turn of the Democratic Party must begin at the local level. Elections for school boards, city councils, and county offices must be priorities for the progressive left. Just as the Tea Party in the late 2000s and early 2010s emerged from regional power onto the national stage, the progressive left must similarly organize to push the Democratic Party away from neoliberalism.

Some centrist Democrats believe that progressive ideas cannot attract enough support among the general public to create such a movement. This argument falters in two regards. Firstly, this idea is not supported by polling data. Progressive policies such as Medicare for All, raising the minimum wage, and passing stricter antitrust laws are widely supported by the American public — on both sides of current party lines.

The second weak point of this argument is the presumption that “mainstream Democratic policy” is attractive to Americans. Grassroots political movements grow because of discontent with the status quo. And currently, the right has a monopoly capitalizing on this discontent.

Center-left Democrats need to recognize that the American people are unsatisfied with “business as usual” politics. Progressives need to start building the kind of local political power that makes centrists pay attention. Our country cannot improve politically, economically, or socially without a powerful left-wing party. Democrats need to work together to make that happen.

Jeremy Potter is a sophomore majoring in Political Communication.

Have you caught yourself, enjoying some soft-serve ice cream, humming along to the famous lines, “broad stripes and bright stars” at Thurston Dining Hall? I have, multiple times in fact. I find it humorous how the playlist jumps from Doja Cat to Neil Diamond to the ole’ patriotic tune ‘The Star-Spangled Banner.’

Do I believe that Thurston Dining is trying to indoctrinate GW students? No. Nevertheless, it is an interesting prospect to explore.

In schools across the United States, students, teachers, and staff, begin their days standing up, turning to the American flag and stating the Pledge of Allegiance. As college students, we no longer observe such rituals in our daily lives. Similar to the pledge, the national anthem is an expression of loyalty to the nation, which instills a sense of communal patriotism. Furthermore, both are representative of American national identity and the values for which our nation stands. The song celebrates the bravery and resilience of the American people, who fought to defend the country and its freedom.

While the Star-Spangled Banner can inspire a sense of national pride, it is also important to recognize that the song can be interpreted as a tool for exclusion and indoctrination. The ceremonial playing of the national anthem at public events, such as sports games and rallies, can reinforce a particular vision of American identity that excludes certain demographics. This is best exemplified by the third controversial line, “no refuge could save the hireling and slave.” Some Americans may feel as if the song pressures them to conform to what it means to be American: a narrow definition which can be harmful to people that might not “qualify” at the time in which the anthem was written.

The significance of the Star-Spangled Banner and the debate surrounding its use in education and politics is multifaceted. This source of inspiration and pride should not be used to enforce a particular ideology or exclude marginalized communities. Ultimately, there is a lot of room for productive discussion and debate.

Furthermore, I encourage readers and avid dining-hall goers to listen closely and observe. If you do hear the tune, ask yourself, what was the intention behind adding the song to the playlist? Was it to invoke the pride represented in the pledge? Or is it just a musical preference? I’ll leave it up to you.

Bronwyn Metz is a first year majoring in International Affairs.

By Jacob McKissock
Staff Writer

I have in recent years become increasingly optimistic about the widespread distrust younger Americans express towards their government. No longer does there remain a consensus of contentment among the incoming voting population with their pathetically ineffective federal government, a fact I am continually thankful for as a proponent for smaller government.

Despite these circumstances however, American political discussion, especially among the younger generations, retains an ironic ignorance that frightens me far more than the bloated bureaucracy we live under today.
America has fallen into a great ideological trap in believing that its government’s faults are a symptom of its members and their actions, not a result of the system they inhabit.

The solutions to our pressing issues as expressed by the growing progressive movement seek to expand the scope of an already overstretched centralized power — to give the government that they’re so quick to distrust more responsibility and power over their lives, in a futile hope that we get it right this time.

This nation was founded on the principles of community and small government. Gone are the days when the power of America truly rested with her people. It seems the only right we retain as a so-called sovereign majority is to decide, by flawed methods, whom we elect to control us. To suggest we should be satisfied with this current social contract is cowardly, and to support its further development, praying that its ailments can be mended, is tragically naive.

While I prefer that people take me at my word, I’m well aware that speaking out of my ass is only so convincing. Unlike my previous op-ed, I do not plan on keeping this piece purely anecdotal.

Pew Research recently compiled a plethora of data about public opinions on the federal government in 2022. In this report, a staggering 78 percent of Democrats or Democrat-leaning 18–34 year olds trust their federal government to do what is right only some of the time or never. Despite this data, a Harvard poll conducted in the run up to the 2020 election found that Democratic voters aged 18 to 29 considered Bernie Sanders the best candidate for president, with Sanders receiving 31% of the vote to Biden’s 20%.

A quick glance at Bernie Sanders’ website, especially his issues page, reveals massive blueprints for the expansion of the federal government that so many of his supporters claim to distrust.

My criticisms may seem flawed to many. Sanders is promoting a new government, after all, one that replaces our corrupt money-grubbing politicians and businessmen with actual representatives of the people, much like FDR supposedly did in the 1930s. Bernie Sanders and his supporters would liken him to be a modern day FDR, with ample references to the New Deal strewn about his policy positions and those of fellow progressives.

To many, FDR was the greatest American president in living memory, one who single-handedly pulled our country out of the Great Depression and into the age of affluence with his emphasis on social programs and a powerful national government.

All people, but Americans especially, love to romanticize their history and its leaders. We like to make simple stories about these people and their struggles because if they did it, so can we.

However, history tells a far more nuanced story of FDR’s legacy. While it was conventional wisdom that the New Deal pulled America out of the Great Depression, a host of modern economists would argue it prolonged it. It’s not surprising that the typically anti-war progressives gloss over the real reasons the Great Depression came to a close and America’s golden age followed shortly after: World War 2, and the confidence of the post-war period.

Putting aside these perspectives and assuming the best case for FDR and his influence, his legacy was that of a liberal establishment that sunk us into an unpopular war in Vietnam, bolstered efforts to overthrow legitimately elected regimes in the third world, and nearly brought
humanity to nuclear Armageddon.

You could argue quite successfully that FDR would be opposed to the heavy hands of leadership that followed his death, he was notably very open to a less hostile relationship with the Soviet Union, certainly compared to his predecessors.

My problem with this point is the same problem I have with almost all pro-centralization arguments: they love to bet on the wisdom and experience of a small handful of people and fail to anticipate who might replace them.

I have an analogy for human progress that I use often when speaking about the topic. Humanity sits at the outskirts of a field, and in the middle lies the golden beacon of utopian perfection. Reaching the middle ends all suffering, ensures complete fairness and equality, and proves that humanity is capable of perfect self-governance and control.

I do not deny the possibility of this utopia. Humanity is capable of unimaginable progress when we put our minds to it, but there is of course a caveat.

While progressives sprint forward towards the light with victory on their minds, they fail to understand a very important property of the field: it is strewn with landmines. Every step you take forward has the potential to ruin it all; the more drastic the movement, the higher the likelihood of an explosion.

One step may offer progress towards our goal but another may come with a host of terrible consequences: The Reign of Terror, the Vietnam War, the Holodomor, the Khmer Rouge, the atom bomb, and countless other examples.

Humanity has stepped on plenty of landmines throughout its long history, and yet we fail to consider that our foot may hover over another. Many progressive social policies sound enticing, just, and possible.

Most require money to flow from the pockets of the wealthy back into the hands of the people– who would argue against that? The money from new taxes on the uber wealthy can be used to pay for our healthcare, our infrastructure, our education, our homes, and everything else we desire in a perfect world.

It’s just that easy. These policies fail to assume that the wealthy and their
businesses won’t find new loopholes to keep their money, or that they won’t just pack up and leave. Most major corporations outsource facets of their work to overseas countries where they can pay less for greater output.

When does the taxation get high enough that they decide they might as well move and export their products back into the American market while avoiding those pesky lawmakers?

Trust me when I say that I am far from a fan of big business. It’s difficult to see a Walmart surrounded by a slew of rundown former Mom-and-Pop shops and suggest that there isn’t a problem. We face many issues as a nation. Plenty of them are economic, and plenty of them can be blamed on massive corporations, but the federal government is not your ally– it’s
theirs’.

Centralized governments are ripe for corruption; all the power of a nation rests in one spot with a handful of people. Even if we replaced all the greedy politicians with selfless ones, what’s preventing us from being fooled again a few decades down the line and handing an even more
powerful government over to the people with the money?

The conservatism I present would suggest that my distaste for progressive ideology extends indefinitely, when I in fact find excellent, non-government solutions to these problems in it.

I am very pleased to see progressives pushing for a revival of American unions. Workers unions are excellent examples of democratic, bottom-up governance done by the people who understand the facets of their industry. The government should certainly remain involved in programs to protect the longevity and creation of these unions, but its overreach in regulation has proven it has no place deciding how workers do their jobs.

This is entirely anecdotal, but I think you’d struggle to find a single blue-collar worker happy with the bureaucracy of OSHA seeping into their workplace. Unions don’t solve all of our problems, nor are they universally applicable to all industries, but they represent a great start to a community process of taking back our power as a people.

It should be evident at this point that I’m not a fan of big government, but as a critic society expects me to offer an alternative solution, and while I hate to be boring, my grand solution is federalism.

Despite what we’re told in civics class and in the media, American federalism is a shadow of its former self. While the federal government’s role is technically restricted to a handful of responsibilities in the Constitution, our modern government has taken up all tasks it deems itself worthy of and has left the scraps to the states, and the people.

An especially pervasive and concerning trend in national politics has been the framing of particular moral debates as national issues that the federal government must resolve. The moral beliefs of one state should have little bearing on the sovereignty of another. Forcing your perspectives on states whose majorities disagree will only breed resentment and heightened polarization, not progress.

This issue is relevant to both sides of the political aisle as both the Democratic Party and the GOP have introduced bills that attempt to establish their extreme morality on every American. Returning power and influence to state and municipal governments will not only bolster the legitimacy of their laws, but will also encourage greater participation and civic engagement as the power of individuals is increased when the size of their government shrinks.

Federalism also ensures that the most radical opinions remain restrained to particular states where their potential consequences will be far less disastrous than they would be if enacted at the national level. James Madison wrote about this particular advantage in one of the most important and influential pieces of our nation’s founding — Federalist #10:

“The influence of factious leaders may kindle a flame within their particular states, but will be unable to spread a general conflagration
through the other states…any other improper or wicked project, will be less apt to pervade the whole body of the union, than a particular member of it; in the same proportion as such a malady is more likely to taint a particular county or district, than an entire state.”
- James Madison

The fear of these flames should be amplified in the modern day where social media allows for the instantaneous spreading of information allowing falsities and dangerous ideology to reach millions in minutes.
Without decentralization, future Americans will be at the whim of every new political fad devised ignorantly by their peers, or maliciously by their rulers.

While the empowerment of smaller governments is certainly a start in preventing potential disaster, a far more important and difficult transformation must occur in American culture.

Robert Putnam wrote about the decline of the American community in his 1995 essay “Bowling Alone,” which he later expanded into a book of the same name. Putnam identified a concerning trend in American public life, in almost all sectors local communities across the nation were collapsing.

From the 1960s onward Americans participated less in volunteer groups, union membership declined, voting decreased, and bowling leagues died out, leaving individual Americans to bowl alone. Without an active community that encourages grassroots participation in political and non-political organizations each citizen is left isolated in their worlds, a depressing thought, and a point of vulnerability easily exploited by authoritarianism.

As Putnam put it:

“The health of our public institutions depends, at least in part, on widespread participation in private voluntary groups-those networks of civic engagement that embody social capital.”

We cannot hope to solve anything as a nation without collective engagement from the bottom-up. This concern unfortunately cannot be remedied through legislation or the influence of a few passionate supporters, it requires the whole of American society to bring it back to fruition.

Alexis de Tocqueville was a French noble and classical liberal who documented his travels to America in the 1830s. Tocqueville saw American federalism in the early days of the union, and he praised it for its benefits to local communities and working people, especially compared to the heavily-centralized government of France.

Most political scientists heavily simplify Tocqueville’s ideology, claiming that he primarily envisioned the democracy of the United States spreading across the world in unstoppable force. While he certainly believed democracy would blossom across the globe much like it did in America, the simplified version leaves out an important point. While Tocqueville had plenty of praises for American democracy, he provided a stark warning about its future.

Tocqueville envisioned that democracy and love of equality would grow to such an extent that its people would want to guarantee at all costs its codification into law and would entrust an all powerful government to protect those rights. I am going to end this piece on his words, because I believe that they sum up my fears of our current federal government far better than I could do in my own:

“Our contemporaries are incessantly racked by two inimical passions: they feel the need to be led and the wish to remain free. Not being able to destroy either one of these contrary instincts, they strive to satisfy both at the same time. They imagine a unique power, tutelary, all powerful, but elected by citizens. They combine centralization and the sovereignty of the people.

That gives them some respite. They console themselves for being in tutelage by thinking that they themselves have chosen their schoolmasters. Each individual allows himself to be attached because he sees that it is not a man or a class but the people themselves that hold the end of the chain.

In this system citizens leave their dependence for a moment to indicate their master, and then reenter it. In our day there are many people who accommodate themselves very easily to this kind of compromise between administrative despotism and the sovereignty of the people, and who think they have guaranteed the freedom of individuals well enough when they deliver it to the national power.

That does not suffice for me. The nature of the master is much less important to me than the fact of obedience.”
- Alexis de Tocqueville

Jacob McKissock is a sophomore who plans to major in Political Science.

By Bronwyn Metz
Guest Writer

Confirmation hearings have become a partisan battleground. The requirement that judges be impartial contradicts the political theater that overtook the Senate Judiciary Committee last March. The current Supreme Court Justice, Ketanji Brown Jackson, was caught in the crossfire.

The motive behind the hearings was to encourage the belief that her race and gender were what definitively landed her the nomination. This idea strips Jackson of her well-earned achievements and puts a target on her back, which both political officials and the public took a shot at.

During the hearings, Senators asked her absurd questions. Many questions deviated from the subject of the law. Most notably, Senator Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn) inquired, “can you provide a definition for the word ‘woman’,” to which Jackson responded, “Can I provide a definition? No, I can’t… Not in this context, I’m not a biologist.” In an attempt to remain neutral, Jackson maneuvered around the question at hand. Nonetheless, Jackson’s words were used against her and took the right-wing media by storm.

The publicity was a result of political interest. The Left used Jackson’s statement to appeal to its constituents. Conversely, the Right used Jackson’s response to frame her as a ‘puppet’ for the radical-Left. Right-wing critics exploded on Twitter.

For instance, Editor-in-Chief of The Federalist Mollie Hemingway wrote: “The new leftist orthodoxy is that ‘woman’ can’t be defined scientifically or logically and that if you do so define it, you must be canceled and destroyed. Healthy.”

Altering information to fit partisan agendas is not an abnormal occurrence in our current political sphere. What makes the backlash problematic is not rooted in what Jackson said, but who she is.

This is best represented by GOP strategist Greg Price, who tweeted: “Joe Biden picked her because she’d be the first Black woman on SCOTUS and she can’t even define what the word ‘woman’ means.” This quote implies that not only were the questions meant to disenfranchise Jackson, but also that she was nominated simply, and in his eyes, ironically because she is a Black woman.

Jackson’s interrogation was not a strong representation of the work she would do as a federal judge. Instead, it was an attempt to invalidate her position based on her identity. Senators asked questions about critical race theory and gender, to which Jackson responded:

“Senator, I’m not sure what message that sends. If you’re asking me about the legal issues related to it — those are topics that are being hotly discussed, as you say, and could come to the court.”

Despite the biased, ideologically-driven hearing process, Ketanji Brown Jackson was confirmed by the U.S. Senate on April 7, 2022, by a vote of 53–47. It was a historic moment that was undoubtedly deserved.

Jackson was nominated not solely because of her gender and race, but on the basis of her success and overwhelming qualifications. She proved that she is capable of withstanding partisan pressure and overcoming the roadblocks that so many black women face in politics and society.

As the Supreme Court continues its current term, the American public must be wary of the political warfare that is still brewing, this time within the walls of the federal courthouse.

Although the hearings came to a close, it is not improbable that Jackson will remain a target. She is the first to represent her societally marginalized identity. All eyes are focused on her performance and deliberation in upcoming cases. Despite the added pressure, Jackson has taken it in stride. As the new Justice stated, “I have a seat at the table now,” and she has no intention of sitting idle.

Jackson sent this message in her first case in which she waited less than eight minutes before jumping into a dispute about the scope of federal agencies’ authority to regulate land use as a means of preventing water pollution. Jackson remained an active questioner throughout the argument, scoring assists from several colleagues. Thus far, her involvement in court discussions has remained fairly consistent and indisputably productive.

Referring back to the hearings, it is optimistic to say Jackson will not face prejudice or backlash. It is more realistic to infer that her role as an interpreter of law could work to her disadvantage. Her words were held against her prior to confirmation. It would not be a surprise to see the same process carry into her career.

With that said, it is important to criticize the political and public sphere, both of which played a role in skewing Jackson’s image. As Americans, we must attempt to look past the visage of false narratives. In doing so, we will recognize our newest justice for who she is.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson is a Black woman with strong experience, character, integrity, and dedication to the Constitution and rule of law. She is an exceptionally well-qualified jurist whose credentials, experience, and even-handed approach to the administration of justice make her an outstanding addition to the Supreme Court.

She is rightfully forging the path for the advancement of marginalized groups emerging a hero from the political warfare of our own design.

All in all, Jackson being an African American woman should not further impede her from performing the duties every other justice on the bench is expected to fulfill. The next time you come across an article on Ketanji Brown Jackson, think critically about her words, then judge the partisanship of the source and reflect carefully upon your own bias.

All ears will be listening to Ketanji Brown Jackson’s voice. May the proverbial bullets she took during the hearings be a testament to her character and judicial ability to perform. Let us not reload the word-fueled weapon once more.

Bronwyn Metz is a first year majoring in International Affairs.

By Elias Pinkes
Senior Writer
Freshman Representative

Defining the Feminist Lens

Throughout history, women’s rights have been an afterthought. In today’s world, they still are, particularly in a place such as Iran.

One can apply the Feminist Lens, the general framework that considers women and gender equality to be an essential part of a society, to the fundamental laws of Iran’s conservative regime. This could uproot the injustice that these laws impose upon women in particular.

When the Feminist Lens is taken into account, gender equality and parity, the equal contribution of both men and women in every dimension of life, become central to domestic policy. This allows women to gain access to important governmental decision-making positions where they can have more representation in shaping policies to be less oppressive and more beneficial to a country’s citizens, leading to peace and stability.

The Absence of Feminism and Gender Equality In Iran Today

Protests have engulfed Iran.

They were ignited by the death of Mahsa Amini, a Kurdish-Iranian woman who was killed in the custody of the Morality Police, accused of not wearing her hijab properly. The Morality Police are a repressive bureaucratic institution established in the past and have been embedded into Iran’s cultural and political infrastructure.

The Feminist Lens has not been applied to Iran’s domestic policy-making. Therefore, it is necessary to seek out solutions to the Iranian crisis by analyzing general examples of the benefit of applying the Feminist Lens and how an international response could provide the platform necessary to allow the ideals of feminism to thrive in Iran.

How the Feminist Lens can be applied to the Current Iranian Crisis

When gender parity and equality are included in government and general aspects of a society, the benefits for a country can be immense.

For example, Jacqui True, an author of the book titled “Theories of International Relations” states within her section on Feminist Theory, that investing in women and girls’ education is a cost-effective way to raise the general income and population rates of a country. Another aspect in which applying gender equality and parity can be beneficial is the prevention of political violence within a state. Marie O’Reilly, an author for Inclusive Security, cited a statistic that was provided by Erik Melander’s “Political Gender Equality and State Human Rights Abuse,” in the Journal of Peace Research.

She indicated:

“In terms of political violence perpetrated by the state, statistical analysis of data from most countries in the world during the period 1977–1996 showed that the higher the proportion of women in parliament, the lower the likelihood that the state carried out human rights abuses such as political imprisonments, torture, killings, and disappearances.”

If this is true for the world from 1977–1996, then why can’t this statistic carry weight in today’s world? Sure, a lot has changed, but I do not believe that the benefits of higher participation of women in parliament need to be recognized in just one instance in history. I say this in the context of the current crisis in Iran, where I hope that the current protests can instigate some kind of change in domestic policy so that women’s and gender equality can take root. However, it might take some outside help to really force the current Iranian regime into concessions toward a feminist framework.

The Iranian protests are brutal. Yet there are ways to give the protests in Iran the fuel necessary to force an embattled regime to change for the better.

I believe an Internationalist response — a response in which countries, international organizations, and institutions can collectively act — should back the protests currently erupting in Iran so that the government does not walk away from the issue of repression with complete impunity.

An organization such as Human Rights Watch would concur with this idea of accountability. In a recent article documenting the brutal crackdown of the Iranian protests, the organization states: “Concerned governments should cooperate to increase pressure on Iran and undertake a United Nations-led independent inquiry into serious abuses committed during the protests and recommend avenues for holding those responsible to account.”

An Internationalist Response heralding accountability against Iran’s autocratic theocracy would also set a precedent that may prevent future autocrats from being encouraged to respond to peaceful protests or citizen action with extreme repression. However, due to the enforcement of entrenched conservative values, the current Iranian government may be very resistant to any movement for change, even if it is supported internationally. The evidence for this claim lies in Iran’s history.

Counterpoint

The rise of a repressive regime in Iran can be traced as far back as when the U.S. and U.K. intervened in the 1950’s, which destabilized the country enough to ignite a revolution among the people. The Islamic Revolution of 1979 led to the establishment of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Citizens across the country believed further efforts to construct a system founded on the principles of equality were in order.

However, with a new republic came an oppressive conservative regime led by Ayatollah Khomeini, whose theocratic policies discriminated against women. For example, his new government mandated a policy that consisted of Mosque-based revolutionary guards who were to patrol the streets and enforce proper dress codes. Additionally, the new regine nullified the Family Marriage Act of 1967. The new government’s action overturned women’s rights in the context of marriage.

These laws became further embedded in Iranian society as time went on, due to the theocratic regime maintaining power over the country. During their time in power, they have repeatedly used the Iranian Revolutionary Guard (IRGC) as an extension of their iron fist of oppression: to exert control and contain any situation that might spark dissidence.

This is one of the major purposes of the IRGC, as they try to put out the growing feminist flames, they are not backing down. They are resistors of change and would make an international response difficult, but not impossible.

Conclusion

After a specific point in history, security failures broke Iran as foreign intervention created the instability necessary to ignite the Islamic Revolution of 1979, which ultimately paved the way for a new conservative and repressive theocracy to come to power. The result is extreme repression of women’s rights.

To truly understand today’s systemic instability, one can analyze the historical and current action-reaction dynamics pertaining to women’s protests against restricted laws. The response is brutal each time.

Thus, a potential solution to the situation in Iran would be an internationalist response that gives feminism in Iran a more durable platform. Countries and international organizations could collectively back the protests in ways that do not violate Iranian sovereignty, but send a clear message that Mahsa Amini’s death was not in vain in women’s fight for freedom in Iran.

On a final note, this response along with other future initiatives could apply the feminist lens to fundamental domestic law. An idea that can act as the driving force behind gender equality not only in Iran but in the Middle East as well. This can break the cycles of repression that have remained for many years.

Elias Pinkes is a freshman majoring in International Affairs.

By Stefan Cohn
Guest Writer

I was unsure how living without a car would be when I moved to GW. I grew up in the suburbs of the metropolitan Atlanta, Georgia area. Most people had a car. Walking everywhere simply wasn’t possible. Public transport in the area was limited and inefficient, making it an inferior option to driving most of the time.

The move to GW proved my uncertainty wrong. Thanks to the great public transit system of D.C., I am able to move around smoothly around the DMV without a car. I love the change. This is what got me interested in transportation infrastructure.

Why is car reliance bad? Why is public transit and walkability better? What are the solutions?

Car dependence is unsustainable and unsafe because of car crashes, environmental impact, and encouragement of harmful lifestyle behaviors, all of which cause over 5 million deaths a year.

Cars kill around 1 million people through direct crashes and over 4 million through indirect causes, such as pollution.

Meanwhile, passenger vehicles and trucks are responsible for around 20% of all greenhouse emission in the U.S. Car manufacturing itself, especially in electric cars, emits a sizable amount of greenhouse emissions.

Lastly, cars encourage sedentary lifestyles. Less moving means higher risks for many types of life-threatening diseases.

The car industry itself is unsustainable, both when they are produced and when they are used. Therefore, car reliance is shown to be bad for the environment and for people.

The pros of walkable infrastructure outweigh the cons of cars.

First off, walkable infrastructure is considerably cheaper than owning a car. It promotes a much more active lifestyle. It’s also safer. Your chance of getting run over is considerably lower than getting into a car crash. Travel times are consistent as well. It’s rare that traffic or delays will interfere with public transit. Lastly, it reduces carbon footprints, leading to a more sustainable future for all.

The issues of contemporary U.S. car reliance and its solutions are best exemplified by highways. The growth of America’s suburbs brought more commuters, which meant more highway congestion.

Ironically, these highway expansions resulted in more traffic. The reason? Supply and demand. A higher supply of roads causes more people to use them, as they are enticed by the decreased congestion new road expansions may temporarily bring. The increase in supply leads to an increase in demand. Over time, the increased demand congests roads, creating more traffic.

The root of the highway congestion issue, supply and demand, reveals how the U.S. can curb car reliance. We must integrate other methods of transportation. There must be an increase in supply for other methods of transportation to decrease demand for car-related transportation.

However, this is easier said than done. Countries like Switzerland are able to implement grand rail systems because of the country’s relatively small size. The U.S., on the other hand, must contend with long distances and metropolitan infrastructure, which can lend itself to car use.

Implementing methods of transportation like biking and walking mean that American cities will have to start allowing for multi-use zoning. This means putting people’s homes closer to their destinations.

However, this requires a long-term overhaul of American infrastructure. What we have now is a single-use zoning system that places homes, work, and commercial areas in separate, distant areas. It would take a considerable amount of time to reform infrastructure design.

A more feasible solution is to expand public transit. More expansive and efficient rail and bus systems encourage people to take other forms of transportation, rather than driving. This would decrease congestion and overall car reliance.

For example, the DC Metro system’s new silver line adds six new stops, including at the Dulles Airport. The six new stops also place 420,000 more people five miles from the nearest station. These 420,000 people now have the option to travel on inexpensive, traffic-free metro. This will reduce cars on the road.

The extension gives residents of Ashburn, Virginia direct access to D.C. public transportation — 30 miles away. This furthers the reach of an already-extensive D.C. public transit network which spans from Virginia to Maryland.

The D.C. Metro covers a lot of the DMV, and it’s efficient. 94% of their trains arrive on time. D.C. is evidence that local governments in the U.S. have the ability to create, support, and sustain efficient, vast, expansive rail networks.

Another option is decreasing the supply and the demand for roads. Decreasing supply would mean getting rid of standard roads and replacing them with simple roads which have more space for walking, biking, and buses, such as what Boston did in 1990.

Research has shown interstate roads which cut through cities decrease downtown populations. Therefore, deconstructing interstate roads may have the opposite effect, bringing more people to downtown areas, which can allow for walkable living. City areas, unlike suburbs, put people close to their destinations and give people access to public transit. Cities also disincentivize cars because of their tight roads, limited parking, and nonoptimal gas usage.

Disincentivizing car use is another way to decrease car reliance and compel people to use other methods of transport. For example, parking expenses in city areas decrease car use, according to a study in the Public Works Management & Policy Journal. Fees and taxes disincentivize car use, and push people to carpool or take other modes of transportation.

The move towards walkability does not mean getting rid of cars entirely. It is unrealistic to expect places like rural towns to become car-free, especially considering America’s size.

Furthering other transit options means less people in cars and more space for people.

In the short term, this means diversifying transportation options, mainly mass transit, and cutting down on interstate highways.

In the long term, decreasing car use means reorienting American infrastructure away from car-heavy suburbia and towards more walkable cities and towns connected by public transit.

The shortcomings of public transit systems in the U.S. has to do with the lack of funding. Highways receive 41% of federal U.S. Transportation and Infrastructure funding, while public transit receives 19%. The clear discrepancy between the two promotes car reliance. Public transit has been historically underfunded, while roads have been overfunded.

Hopefully, as the unsustainability of car reliance becomes clear, the benefits of public transportation will become clear too. That way, federal, state, and local governments of any party affiliation can progress towards a less car-oriented America.

Stefan Cohn is a freshman majoring in Political Science.

By Grace Brenner
Guest Writer

On June 24, 2022, the Supreme Court of the United States released its 5–4 majority decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization to overturn the right to abortion established by the landmark case Roe v. Wade. Through the deliberate demolition of historical precedent, Justices Roberts, Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch, Barrett, and Kavanaugh turned back the clock on women’s healthcare by nearly two centuries.

When taking into account the intrinsic nature of abortion as applied to victims of rape, incest, or domestic violence (who are still barred from the procedure in the state of Texas) it becomes both clear and unequivocal that this decision is a threat to women everywhere. However, the support and the enforcement of this decision on behalf of Republican officials — the same citizens and senators who roll their eyes at rapidly declining American labor force participation — is nothing more than hypocritical.

Increased access to reproductive healthcare will have profoundly positive effects not only on women’s labor force participation rates, but on the American economy as a whole.

To approach this incendiary debate, we must first address the constants. The primary counterargument posed by Dobbs supporters holds that “abortions are not banned completely.” Indeed, they are not. The decision leaves the legality of abortion up to each individual state. In left-leaning states with largely Democratic legislatures, bans are less likely; in states with a Republican majority, bans are more common.

But this is not a win. Not only do these states’ arbitrary terms leave physicians weary of performing potentially lifesaving procedures for fear of arrest. They also force pregnant women to flock to nearby clinics in numbers those clinics cannot withstand. What Republicans paint as a “flexible convenience,” then, becomes a massive barrier — a barrier to young women who cannot afford alternative forms of contraception, and to the teenage victims of sexual assault who now have to give birth to a child before they can graduate high school.

However, these stories of tragedy and loss have been labeled insufficient. They are not enough to alter the opinions of the men and the lawyers determined to maintain control of women’s bodies. We turn, then, to their favorite realm: we turn to economics.

In a country where working is everything, it makes sense why there is widespread discontent in response to gradually declining labor force participation rates. For men and women alike, this level of labor market attachment has fallen considerably since the early 2000’s due to decreasing educational attainment, technology-driven industry shifts, and delays in family formation.

From Fox Business editors’ claims of understated unemployment rates to the complaints of Alabama citizens regarding the “30 minute wait at Cracker Barrel,” it becomes evident that resulting grievances are based disproportionately in right-wing politics.

This piece does not argue that an increasingly stagnant economy is unproblematic. However, it does assert that there are solutions — and that they are being ignored.

If (and when) factors of women’s health, safety, and reproductive autonomy are tossed aside completely, limited access to abortion will still have many repercussions. In a 2021 study, policy fellow Laura Valle Gutierrez for The Century Foundation determined that women’s labor force participation rates were about 1.25% lower in states with restrictive abortion policies than in those without.

For those who claim that 1% is insignificant, let us remember that that statistic accounts for the hundreds of thousands of working-age women who are unable to contribute to the demands of today’s economy, due solely to the adverse effects of early or unplanned childbirth. The damage does not stop there, either. Once these women have had children and are attempting to rejoin the labor force, employers are not on their side.

From prevailing misconceptions about female quit rates and productivity to correlated pay deductions in the form of motherhood wage penalties, why would capable women even want to return to work?

One could argue that the incentive of male marriage premiums — or higher wages awarded to fathers and grooms as opposed to their unmarried male counterparts — “makes up” for the declining market participation of women. This “solution,” however, is not only flawed in its failure to account for the economic inefficiency of the gender wage gap, but troublesome in its employment of injustice as an answer.

The existing pay differential between men and women decreases the supply of female labor by trapping women’s wages at undesirable levels. Coupled with the disillusionment of men (high school and college-educated) in terms of labor force participation, these trends are detrimental to the consumer economy that Americans allegedly take so much pride in maintaining.

While it is true that increased abortion access would likely have minimal effects on labor market discrimination, it is possible that the resulting influx of women to the workforce would have trickle-down effects. In this case, if more female employees are able to retain control over if and when they become mothers, they can work to defy the modern norms that categorize them as detached and unreliable.

Consider the graphs below.

The first, obtained by the New York Times from the Texas Policy Evaluation Project, evaluates the effect of different Texas legislation on the number of legal abortions occuring within the state.

The second, from the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, captures the labor force participation rates of men and women from the beginning of the pandemic to Oct. 2020.

While fluctuations in the second model are obviously not the result of abortion policy alone, notice how the trend of the red line almost exactly mirrors that of the grey legal abortion line above.

That pattern is no coincidence. The numbers have already proven that declining labor force attachment is a growing epidemic in the United States, for both women and men. If this low market engagement is, at least in part, a function of restrictive abortion policy, the Dobbs decision becomes just as much a barrier to economic productivity as it is a threat to women’s bodily autonomy.

For those who denounce Roe v. Wade while complaining about the lines at their local understaffed Cracker Barrel: it’s time to choose your battle.

Perhaps the most widespread misconception surrounding the issue of abortion as it pertains to economics is the idea that women are better off without having children at all. That argument is by no means the one at the heart of this paper.

In fact, while women without children are slightly more incentivized to sell their time in the labor market due to decreased opportunity costs of doing so, the same stigmas exist on behalf of employers towards female employees in general. In other words, lower salaries and minimal promotion opportunities stemming from preconceived notions about women’s level of “devotion” to their work are equally common for mothers and non-mothers alike.

The economic benefit of accessible abortion is not that it decreases the likelihood of women becoming mothers. Instead, access to abortion allows allows women to plan the questions of if and when around their already-blossoming careers.

A prominent piece by Republican Senator Mike Lee of Utah titled The Economic Cost of Abortion offers a dissenting perspective on this topic: that the “approximately 63 million abortions” taking place since 1973 equate to about 20% of today’s population. Further, he argues that there were substantial economic losses caused by the lost potential of those working lives.

While sensible on the surface, this claim is inherently problematic. There is no evidence that those fetuses would have survived to reach a working age given the lack of clarity and case specifics. In addition, the idea that all of them would have had the economic means to grow up and join the labor force is unrealistic.

Given the barriers to men and women’s labor force participation that already exist, it becomes clear that the number of people willing to work is not the problem. The problem is that they are not being supported.

On June 24, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court voted to reject a woman’s fundamental and constitutional right to abortion as previously upheld by the privacy clause of the 14th Amendment. By placing her fate in the hands of individuals like Republican House candidate Yesli Vega, who denounced the procedure on the grounds that pregnancy from rape is “less likely because it is forced,” the Supreme Court has certainly left their impact on female American youth.

Threatening the precedents of privacy and same-sex marriage behind cases such as Obergefell v. Hodges is no small act of an obscene injustice. Conservative circles of the modern era, however — circles with deeper interests in mitigating tax rates or fighting inflation — tend to shift their focus elsewhere. But because restrictive abortion policy has revealed itself as a major catalyst of economic inefficiency, it is about time they pay attention. It is about time they dig deeper, if not for justice, for the motives of work and labor and diligence they live by.

If allowed to persist, the increasingly strict laws on abortion will continue to trap women in vicious cycles of poverty fueled by plummeting labor supply and labor force attachment. Production will proceed at imperfect levels, with loss in the absence of what could be a desperately simple solution: letting women control their lives. And to those who consciously perpetuate markets of missed profits, I must ask: is that not what you fear most?

Grace Brenner is a sophomore majoring in French and Political Science.

By Jacob McKissock
Guest Writer

Like many people in America, I found myself completely fixated on the Midterm Elections, especially the Senate race in my home state of Pennsylvania. Unlike most observers of this race, I was fairly certain that despite the polls, John Fetterman would eventually succeed in securing a majority.

While Mehmet Oz’s less-than-stellar campaign provided an advantage to any candidate running against him, I knew from the beginning of this race that Fetterman represented a novel phenomenon, one that I hope the Democratic Party will embrace.

I’d like to preface with some context on my person because this piece is primarily anecdotal. While I believe that I provide some insights that aren’t entirely obvious to most people, this piece is a reflection of my character and my experiences.

I am a sophomore here at GW, and while I’m technically undeclared at the moment I plan on pursuing Political Science, which I’m sure is very surprising. While most students at GW are liberal urbanites, I’m here precisely because I don’t fit in with that mold, and hoped to expand my horizons and learn from the other side of the aisle.

While I’m far from any partisan extreme, I consider myself a conservative and I grew up in the small town of Warren, Pennsylvania, surrounded by conservatives and their ideology.

Most of the people I have the deepest respect for are conservatives, yet unlike many of them I’ve found myself deeply concerned with the appalling moral and intellectual degradation of the Republican Party over the past few years.

While liberal elites like to blame the rise of Donald Trump and his MAGA constituency on the ignorance and bigotry of the latter, I understand as many people with my type of background do that a liberal establishment has been fueling the growth of this cancer for decades. Somewhere down the line, the Democratic Party that once championed the culture of the working class American has abandoned them for college educated elites and urban politics.

This is not necessarily fact, but sentiment, and I am far from the only person who holds it. Just ask any older conservative from a small town when the left stopped caring about “real Americans,” and they’ll be happy to identify where that moment falls in their minds.

White working class Americans slowly but surely became the primary voter base for the perfectly acceptable establishment Republican candidates. These people, who despite having gone to the same prestigious universities as their Democratic counterparts, managed to convince the common man that they were different enough to earn their vote.

The new Republican Party became another established sect of American political life, supported by the working class, and led by people who never really understood them. It’s no surprise that when Trump came along with his nationalist rhetoric, flamboyant personality, and supposed support for the little guy that he would see such major success.

One of the many signs that Trump has a significant impact with his approach can be seen in 2016 exit polls, where Trump was shown to have won white voters without college degrees by nearly 40 points compared to Romney’s lead of 26 four years earlier.

Trump was a wake up call for the Democratic Party, or at least he should have been.

It’s been almost seven years since the birth of the MAGA disease and the liberal establishment still refuses to see what they’ve been doing wrong by framing their policies against the white working class, instead of with them.

I think John Fetterman first became such an interesting case study to me when I found myself in a discussion with the stepfather of a good friend while I was back in Warren on break.

Much to my surprise, this middle-aged, hard-working, conservative father, who is very much the embodiment of the Republican, working class voter, began to rail against the “joke of a candidate” that was Mehmet Oz. In this man’s mind, the idea that anyone could be fooled into thinking Oz represented the people of Pennsylvania and their best interests was absurd.

While my friend’s stepdad certainly disagreed with Fetterman on a variety of issues, he made it quite clear that Fetterman understood people in his situation and was very much the antithesis to the celebrity elite he was running against.

While this man is in many ways an outlier in Warren, a county that voted 63% for Oz in the election, he did provide some context behind Fetterman’s frankly impressive win on Election Day.

It becomes immediately clear when you look at John Fetterman that he is an unusual candidate. Standing at a staggering 6’8”, with a bald head and goatee, Fetterman could be seen on the campaign trail donning casual street wear so much so that he’s almost unrecognizable in a suit.

To the establishment politicians — people who have spent their lives in Washington playing politics for personal gain — Fetterman looks almost cartoonish, and to the working class Pennsylvanian he looks like them.

While Dr. Oz spent the last decade selling pharmaceuticals on TV, building a personal fortune of over 100 million dollars, John Fetterman was the mayor of the small town Braddock, Pennsylvania. Oz is a phony, who rode off the coattails of Trump, and Fetterman is a genuine man who built his brand around his humble beginnings and his family.

John Fetterman is, as Republicans have been stating throughout the summer, a progressive. Fetterman supports abolishing the filibuster, increased gun control, and universal health care proposals backed by government spending. He is far from the moderate Democrat that many might think is required to win a swing state like Pennsylvania.

Despite his policy objectives, Fetterman managed to win over plenty of moderate conservatives in rural counties throughout Pennsylvania that Biden could not. While Fetterman secured a meager 33% of Warren’s vote in the midterm, Biden only managed to receive 29% in 2020, and Clinton, the embodiment of the liberal establishment got 27%.

These differences might seem small, but these few points make all the difference, especially in a state like Pennsylvania.

Warren, and rural Pennsylvania as a whole has not gotten more liberal over the past few years, arguably the opposite. Despite this, John Fetterman the progressive is able to win some of them over.

Fetterman demonstrated what most people with friends in the working class have known forever: politics is about people, not policy.

The liberal elite may have spent their developing years entrenched in ideology and deep political thought that has given them some intellectual insight about America and its future, but a great deal of conservative voters simply don’t give a shit.

The only thing policy papers accomplish is further convincing the educated elite of their supposed superiority to the inferior masses, while neglecting the beliefs of the real people who keep the country running.

Americans do not want armchair politicians — they want leaders. They don’t want facades or platitudes — they want people who portray character and integrity. Humans are not rationalists, even the heavily-educated ones. We all vote on how people and ideas make us feel, not on how they are, at least in the America I know.

Liberals chalk up Trump’s success to his appeal to the bigotry and hatred they’re convinced every conservative hides in their heart. In reality, Trump won the hearts of the white working class by pretending to be genuine and transparent.

It never really mattered what his policy agenda was, so long as it wasn’t blatantly liberal.

Conservative America had spent the past decades voting for whichever candidate the establishment had told them to, when out of nowhere their populist champion appeared to confront the seemingly vile and soulless devil that was Hillary Clinton.

Trump is not some evil genius. His terrible actions are not a result of some convoluted plot to overthrow the good people of the world. He’s a narcissistic megalomaniac, who was in the right place at the right time.

The people who voted for Trump, and continue to defend him are not evil souls corrupted by their prejudices and greed. They’re good, hard-working Americas who got swept up in a cultural movement led by a heartless demagogue, and their pride prevents them from dropping him.

The white working class’ obsessive relationship with Donald Trump is one of abuse and manipulation. Their therapy is not more liberal ideology — it’s people like Fetterman, and what they represent. Fetterman brings the embodiment of the working class, and applies progressive theory to their lives. He’s the perfect populist package.

I’m aware that more populism is a hard sell, and it’s certainly not the solution I want to support, but our options are limited. I’m not suggesting that we all subserviate our support to the next charming figure to appear onto the national stage so long as they oppose Trump, but we need to support candidates who represent all facets of America.

This might seem like an obvious solution, but the Democratic Party continues to insist on bland, policy-focused politicians who haven’t stepped foot outside of Washington in decades.

If you want to defeat Donald Trump and the MAGA movement, you need to unite America around a younger, genuine candidate who the working class can respect, just by looking at them. Good policy can follow second.

If the Democratic Party wants to attract people from across the aisle, they should support candidates who have the character and charisma to separate themselves from their party.

Voters, especially in America, do not vote on politics or policy. They vote on people.

Fetterman gets that, and so do I.

Jacob McKissock is a sophomore who plans to major in Political Science.

By Adrianna LoBasso
Senior Writer
Sophomore Representative

2021 saw one of the largest increases in democratic backsliding in history, according to the Global State of Democracy Report.

This increase is incredibly dangerous, as the most backsliding is in countries with both the largest populations and largest economic systems. Countries like India and Brazil are categorized by the GSDR as full-scale democratic decline, while other countries like Hungary, Poland, and the U.S. are at risk.

These countries make up a quarter of the world’s total population and make up a massive proportion of the world’s economy. If these countries fall to authoritarian regimes, the rest of the world will suffer.

Backsliding in the U.S. has created a slippery slope that has led to other countries of the world descending as well.

Only 9% of the world’s population lives in a society with high-functioning democracy. This is a shockingly small percentage that is continuously shrinking.

If our beacons of civil liberty, economic prosperity, and political power fall, who will the rest of the world look to for hope? When it comes to the U.S., Trump has completely undermined our democratic process to a nearly irreparable point. By inciting the January 6th Insurrection and rejecting the outcome of the 2020 Presidential Election, Donald Trump undermined our democratic process and rejected our democratic institutions.

The International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance stated that Trump’s rejection of the election outcomes was a “historic turning point” which had “spillover effects” into Brazil, Mexico, and into other countries. Some of these countries’ leaders have also been undermining their own processes by rejecting election outcomes and spreading misinformation without consequence.

The International IDEA explains that when one country throws democracy away for the sake of political power, it sends a message that ripples across the world, where states can rationally believe, “if the U.S. can get away with it, why can’t we?” If this point is reached, other countries will look to the U.S. as a model for monopolizing political power at the expense of democracy.

Historically, the U.S. has infringed upon others’ human rights while ignoring our own. Our country was founded on fighting colonist oppressors, but from that moment on, we became the colonizing oppressors, staging a genocide against North America’s native inhabitants. We stole Hawaii from natives and colonized Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Philippines in the name of American exceptionalism. We became the very thing we fought so strongly against.

Internationally, when the U.S. criticized the Chinese government for their treatment of the Uyghur Muslims and other human rights violations like the treatment of Hong Kong Protestors, China produced political cartoons which depicted the U.S. policing China on human rights despite their own violations of human rights.

China Daily said: “the US’ flagrant violation of international human rights laws is evident in its organized, systemic and large-scale abuse of prisoners no matter whether they are Americans or foreigners.”

How can the U.S. pretend to be a beacon of democracy and equality when we engage in such horrific infringements on basic rights? We completely destabilized multiple countries, including Iraq and Afghanistan. We ignore the pleas of African Americans for police reform and greet them with tear gas and rubber bullets.

When one country falls, we all fall.

Some causes of democratic backsliding can include a lack of public support for democracy, economic and social inequalities, external influences, and personality politics. Another key factor is political polarization, which I blame completely on the personality politics that Trump pushed.

He has created his own MAGA faction of Republicans who are willing to go against their own morals and ethics to keep their leader in power. The attack on Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s husband further underscores the intensity of polarization in the U.S. When extremists are willing to murder and cheat, democracy is unattainable.

As previously stated, the International IDEA has found a strong connection between Trump’s actions and democratic backslides in other countries. This confirms my theory that Trump is to blame for the recent backsliding in the U.S.

Some voters in 2016 and 2020 said they were choosing the “lesser of two evils.” Instead of picking the better of two evils, the U.S. needs to combat this rapidly-intensifying polarization and sectionalism.

The best way to combat intense polarization is to give voters more options, which would align more accurately with their respective views. Political scientist Lee Drutman, “finds that a new multi-party system is the only way out of our cycle of polarization and democratic decay.” Republicans and Democrats are more opposite than ever, while disappointing the vast majority of American voters.

This should be a clear sign that something is functionally wrong. The U.S. has 54 different political parties but yet only two get any attention and power. If the U.S. becomes a multi-party system, voters can choose parties which more accurately represent their views.

The U.S. must implement a multi-party system to combat democratic backsliding. Before it is too late for us all.

Adrianna LoBasso is a sophomore majoring in Political Science and minoring in History.

By Jeremy Potter
Staff Writer

Elon Musk has had a tumultuous first few weeks as CEO and owner of Twitter. He came in with, admittedly, a clear vision for the company: free speech and power to the people. The problem? Well, in Musk’s own words, “we need to pay the bills somehow!” Upon buying the website, he faced incredible pressure to increase profits. After all, the purchase cost him $44 billion.

In the midst of Musk’s ambitious changes to Twitter, he seems to have lost not just the company’s employees and his money, but also his principles. He has now placed himself in a position in which he cannot pursue all three at once. To understand why, we need to first understand that Musk claims to be a “free speech absolutist,” and argued before his purchase that Twitter needed to reevaluate its biased content-recommending algorithms.

Musk’s vision would undermine the platform’s relationship with its advertisers. The reason is simple: traditional models of monetization just aren’t compatible with the “completely free speech” that Musk is selling users. Before Musk’s acquisition of Twitter, ninety percent of the website’s profits came from advertising, meaning that advertisers leaving could hurt Twitter substantially.

Advertisers aren’t keen on their message being displayed in unmoderated spaces. There’s a reason why the internet forum 4chan, one of the biggest unmoderated “free speech” communities online, has historically struggled to attract and retrain advertisers: companies don’t want to be associated with the toxicity, bigotry, and hatred that Musk’s Twitter might contain.

Twitter has already started showing signs of a toxicity spike, which would poison the platform for advertisers. Free speech absolutism would dictate that any moderation whatsoever is an infringement of users’ rights. However, this philosophy makes attracting advertisers difficult.

Musk, to his credit, has recognized this apparent contradiction. On Oct. 27, he assured advertisers that Twitter would not become a lawless “free-for-all hellscape.” This move, to some, seemed to roll back some of his earlier messaging about the ultimacy of free speech, despite Musk assuring users that this was not the case.

However, likely because of the contradictions inherent to Musk’s promises, advertisers are continuing to pull out of Twitter. Companies such as General Motors, Pfizer, and United Airlines have all left the platform, now leaving Twitter’s financial future uncertain. Musk himself reported that Twitter’s losses are now in the range of $4 million a day.

It is important to note that advertisers, for months now, have endured a long period of speculation and uncertainty. Their fears are partially driven by the confusion that has surrounded Musk’s potential purchase of the platform. Despite this evidence, Musk seems reluctant to address advertisers’ concerns regarding his management. Instead, he blames the exodus of advertisers on “activists” who oppose him.

He’s also threatened to “name and shame” advertisers who stop advertising on Twitter. This move is extremely counterproductive, actively harming relations with the companies who provide Twitter with necessary funding. As Thomas Germain writes for Gizmodo:

“Companies paying to promote their image worry more about running ads alongside inappropriate content, and it’s hard to imagine how threatening to smear brands will promote healthy business relationships.”

While combating lost funds from advertising, Musk has also workshopped another possible solution to Twitter’s financial problems: charging users for verification of their accounts. Musk’s proposal was integrating verification into Twitter’s existing “Twitter Blue” program, where users can pay a monthly subscription for additional perks. This proposal signaled Musk’s commitment to monetizing the platform in new ways, possibly removing Twitter’s dependence on advertisers.

One problem with Twitter Blue immediately noticed by critics is that allowing users to pay for verification would destroy all utility that the badge once held. In pre-Musk Twitter, a verified user was one confirmed to be associated with a real face and name. Verification signaled identity. However, charging users for verification would erode all meaning that verification used to provide. The very same blue checkmark which once signified that a user was, in fact, the identity they claimed online was now nothing more than a signifier of disposable income.

Indeed, new registrations for Twitter Blue have quickly been disallowed. The program lasted less than three days since its launch, and caused untold problems for Twitter staff. The final straw was likely users impersonating large brands and making tweets designed to ridicule business practices they disagreed with or found distasteful.

However, satire is protected free speech, meaning that while these users may have broken Twitter’s rules on impersonation, they certainly didn’t violate any tenets of “free speech absolutism.” The rebuttal, of course, is that this speech was not immediately distinguishable as satire. But when the long-standing indicator of authenticity on Twitter, the blue checkmark, suddenly went up for sale, who’s fault was that really?

Even if Twitter Blue had launched successfully, and even if impersonation didn’t run rampant immediately after the option to purchase verification became available, the scheme of paying for checkmarks would still run antithetical to Musk’s philosophy of “free speech absolutism.” The plan which Musk claimed would give “power to the people’’ would in reality involve suppressing the speech of those who do not pay a monthly $8 tithe.

This is because Musk has stated that users who pay for this plan would receive “priority in replies, mentions & search” over those who do not pay, who will essentially have their speech repressed in the same regards. Free speech has never been more expensive.

Musk has indicated that he is willing to leave free users behind in his quest to provide “power to the people.” But what he fails to understand is that providing “power to the people” never involves drawing lines between them.

Musk’s focus on free speech seems more rhetorical now than anything. To understand what Musk really means when he claims to prioritize free speech, we might look at the changes he’s planning to content moderation and community standards. As Bloomberg reports:

“Musk has… asked the team to review Twitter’s hateful conduct policy, according to the people, specifically a section that says users can be penalized for ‘targeted misgendering or deadnaming of transgender individuals.’”

Musk’s purchase of Twitter was met with celebration from reactionary extremists who couldn’t wait to begin posting hate. One report found that the usage of the N-word increased by 500%. Self-described theocratic fascist Matt Walsh posted a tweet in response to Musk’s purchase, reading: “Ladies and gentlemen, it’s time to start misgendering again.” In addition, Former President Donald Trump, removed after inciting his followers to violently contest the results of the 2020 Presidential Election, has now had his account reinstated on the platform.

We now have an interesting set of boundaries placed upon speech in Musk’s Twitter. Musk has made clear that parody accounts are off-limits, at least without clear labeling. Users who do not pay are likely to have their speech suppressed by the algorithm. However, there has been no clear action taken to combat the threat posed by hateful bigots. As one Twitter user commented:

It’s not out of the question to ask if Musk’s concerns about free speech were primarily aimed to appease those extremists. It wouldn’t be the first time Musk has flirted with far-right ideology on the issue of transgender rights. In 2020, Musk tweeted that “pronouns suck,” drawing ire from both the transgender community and linguists alike.

Musk, in recent weeks, has also promoted right-wing politics using his platform. Immediately after buying Twitter, Musk retweeted a homophobic conspiracy theory related to the assault of Paul Pelosi. He also publicly endorsed a Republican ticket in the 2022 midterms.

It’s certainly starting to look like Musk’s concerns about freedom of speech are actually concerns about the ability of right-wing figures to spread their messaging, regardless of toxicity. Trump’s reinstalment seems to support this theory, at the very least.

Musk’s claims about prioritizing free speech are seeming weaker and weaker. Regardless of whether or not one still believes in Musk’s rhetoric, one thing everyone can recognize is that Musk has a broad transformative vision for Twitter, and plans to make sweeping changes to the platform. This raises the question of how Musk intends to make such changes.

This is relevant because as Musk hopes to dodge financial ruin, he’s also been slashing Twitter’s staff. Yael Roth, head of Twitter’s trust and safety team, stated that Musk had laid off nearly 50% of the company — around 3,700 employees. Another 1,200 have resigned after Musk asked for remaining workers to pledge to work “extremely hardcore.”

The real kicker comes when examining the roles of these terminated employees. Musk’s layoffs have affected all departments, but those hit hardest are those who he seemingly identified as irrelevant: ethics, accessibility, and political trust and safety. Even some core engineering teams have faced cuts.

The employees who remain have been met with terrible working conditions. They have suffered through cuts to their benefits, arbitrary performance metrics, and even the normalization of sleeping in the office to meet insane deadlines and avoid further layoffs. Those responsible for maintaining the platform are simply not able to do twice the work they could before. As one anonymous employee told The Verge: “Shit is gonna start breaking.”

The icing on the cake is that Twitter has allegedly asked terminated employees to return. This indicates a complete failure of corporate vision, and that Musk’s layoffs were the result of him fundamentally misunderstanding the needs of his own company.

Even if Twitter manages to overcome this mishandled transition, it will be a much worse platform for users, advertisers, and workers. Almost everybody comes out of this transformation worse off. I only say “almost” because Musk’s Twitter will be the perfect platform for right-wing bigots and scammers.

It is difficult to imagine a more mismanaged vision for the platform. Nearly every mistake in the book has been made, and almost none of the concerns raised in response have been addressed in good faith. It will not be a surprise if Twitter reverses these planned changes, or indeed if it declares bankruptcy entirely.

However, we have Musk to thank for one thing: this transition has single-handedly disproven the myth that billionaires acquire their wealth through skilled management of their companies and assets.

Questionable ideological changes aside, the financial crisis Twitter finds itself in is evidence that Musk is playing with forces he does not understand. Until Musk is able to reckon with his role, Twitter will continue to struggle onward, burdened by its new owner.

Jeremy Potter is a sophomore majoring in Political Communication.