politik press: volume 13, issue 10

APRIL 29th, 2013Volume XIII, Issue X the POLITIK PRESS

1


2

the

POLITIK PRESS

A publication of

JHU POLITIKjhupolitik.org

VOLUME XIII, ISSUE XAPRIL 29th, 2013

The views expressed within this publication reflect the personal opinions of each article’s author and are not necessarily endorsed by JHU Politik or the Johns Hopkins University.

Cover Photo: George W. Bush, Miss Beazley, c. 2013. The Dallas Morning News.

MANAGING EDITOR Colette Andrei

ASSISTANT EDITORS Julia Allen Katie Botto

Christine Server

COPY EDITOR Peter Lee

HEAD WRITER Ari Schaffer

CREATIVE DIRECTOR Victoria Scordato

STAFF WRITERS Akshai Bhatnagar, Henry Chen, Virgil Doyle, Rosellen Grant, Adam Roberts, Geordan Williams, Chris Winer

EDITORS-IN-CHIEF Alex Clearfield and Rachel Cohen

FACULTY ADVISOR Steven R. David

ADVERTISING/PUBLICITY Rebecca Grenham and Audrey Moss

WEBMASTER Sihao Lu


3

INSIDE THIS ISSUE

WEEK IN REVIEW .................................................................. Page 5 Daniel Ramos ’13

THE BENEFITS OF AUTHORITARIAN RULE IN RWANDA .......... Page 9 Archibald Henry ’13

A TRANSIT SYSTEM FOR BALTIMOREANS ............................ Page 11 Adam Roberts ’14

GUN CONTROL: HOW PARANOIA PREVENTED PROGRESS .......................................... Page 10Peter Lee ’14

THE POLICY DESKEvaluating Syria: US Interest in the Ongoing Syrian Civil War .......................... Page 7 Elliot Cheresh ’14

CONSUMPTION TAX AS A SOLUTION TO ECONOMIC WOES .... Page 12 Cameron Davis ’16

WILL VIOLENCE DRIVE PROTESTERS TO PROTEST? ............... Page 14Emily Combs ’14

THE READING LIST ............................................................... Page 6 Virgil Doyle ’14

SPEAKING OF “THE BALTIMORE COMMUNITY” ..................... Page 13 Tamar Nachmany ’13

A GREAT YEAR FOR THE JHU POLITIK ................................... Page 4Jeremy Orloff ’13


4

Dear loyal readers,

As is tradition, the incoming editorial board has produced this final issue of the Politik Press for the 2012-2013 school year. Rachel Cohen and Alex Clearfield, next year’s editors-in-chief, have an exciting vision for what JHU Politik can and will be-come. Matt Varvaro and I wish them and their team the best of luck as they take over where we left off. This has been an incredible year for JHU Politik. Empow-ered by a redesign and rebranding undertaken in the spring of 2012, our team repeatedly put together a beautiful publica-tion. Every week, we have had submissions from new writers, often in response to articles published in the previous issue. We were particularly proud to publish a series of interviews relating to religion in Turkey conducted by Leila Collins. One of Alex Clearfield’s pieces, a reflection on the death of George McGovern, appeared as an op-ed in the Baltimore Sun. Our special issue this winter focused on the Politics of Research and allowed JHU Politik to reach out a new audience within the Hopkins community. Our upcoming special issue on the Politics of Law promises to be equally compelling. Assistant Editor (and new Head Writer) Ari Schaffer created the Policy Desk, a new outlet for longer-form articles that deal with broad policy questions. Also new this year was the Read-ing List, a way for writers to share their thoughts on the best articles, websites and books. Sihao Lu, a freshman studying computer science, volunteered his time to build JHU Politik an app for the iPhone and iPad. This project, the first of its kind at JHU, has enabled the Politik to expand its reach out-side of the Homewood Campus. All of our writers, both those on the staff and our contributors, deserve our recognition and thanks. They met their dead-lines, were responsive to the assistant editors, and made our jobs easy and enjoyable. Of particular note are those writers that submitted repeatedly, week after week. Akshai Bhatnagar, Victoria Scordato, Archibald Henry, Michael Bodner, Peter Lee, Virgil Doyle, Chris Winer, Ari Schaffer, Christine Server, Adam Roberts, Chris Dunnett, Randy Bell, Cameron Davis, Henry Chen, Daniel Ramos, Rosie Grant and Rachel Cohen were our most prolific and talented writers. Their dedication to and enthusiasm for JHU Politik did not go unnoticed. As in the past, JHU Politik continued to produce the Speakers Series and other programming events. In the fall, we worked with Julia Galan, the Associate Director of the International

Studies Program, to produced a panel discussion on the For-eign Policy of the Obama Administration. We were honored to have our advisor, Professor Steven David participate along-side Professor Daniel Deudney and Professor Colin Dueck (of George Mason University). Julia has been an amazing advo-cate for JHU Politik this year and we were proud to co-spon-sor the IS Program’s dinner series this spring. There have been other events as well. At the end of this semes-ter, Professor Robert Freedman volunteered his time to walk members of our staff and other students through his process of writing an op-ed. This Wednesday, Professor Nikolay Koposov will speak at our final event of the year on political repression in the Soviet Union and Russia. A new kind of event, the Politik Conversation Series, allowed students to discuss and debate pertinent political topics in an informal setting. Our two conversations this year dealt with immigration reform and marijuana legalization. Rachel Cohen brought this project to fruition. The debate watching parties in the fall, as well as this week’s debate between the College Republicans and College Democrats, would never have come to fruition without the guidance and help of Randy Bell, our events chair. We were proud to co-sponsor other events as well like The Al-exander Hamilton Society’s debate on American Intervention-ism and CHAI’s Debate on future of Palestinian Leadership. We also partnered with WJHU Radio, exchanging content for publicity on their website. Through these and other projects, JHU Politik has become synonymous with educated and fruit-ful political debate on the Homewood Campus. We owe an enormous debt of gratitude to our readers without whose support our work would be meaningless. Our reader-ship increased exponentially this year and the data available to us shows that our reach has expanded globally, with users flipping through our pages on computers in South Korea, In-donesia, India, Egypt, Senegal and throughout Europe. I owe a special thanks to Matt, my fellow editor-in-chief, for his hard work and dedication over the course of this year. We thoroughly enjoyed our jobs and will miss putting the issue together every Sunday. That being said, we expect and look forward to a bright future for JHU Politik. Sincerely,

Jeremy OrloffEditor-in-Chief, 2012-2013

A GREAT YEAR FOR JHU POLITIK


5

WEEK IN REVIEWBy Daniel Ramos ’13, Contributing Writer

Gang of 8 Goes Public The bipartisan Gang of 8 Senators presented their proposal for the greatest overhaul of America’s immigration law since the 1980s. Their proposal includes a clear path to citizenship, an increase in the number of high-skill and agricultural visas, and the potential to tie the number of low skill visas to unemployment rates in urban areas. This legislation would mark an end to diversity and family reunification visas, which have been a hallmark of American immigration policy since the implementation of the Immigration Reform and Control Act. The Gang of 8 had their hopes of suc-cess strengthened by a strong endorsement from House Budget Committee chairman Congressman Paul Ryan. Comprehensive immigration reform still has many opponents, including outspoken anti-immigration Senators Richard Shelby (R-AL) and Chuck Grassley (R-IA) in the Senate Judiciary Committee, as well as an adamantly anti-immigrant Tea Party faction of the House. Longtime Montana Senator Stepping Down Controversial Senator Max Baucus, a Democrat from Montana, announced Thursday morning that he would not seek reelection in 2014 after six terms in the Senate. The news came as a shock to the political world as well as to many Baucus donors, given that he had already amassed a $5 million war chest for 2014. As chairman of the powerful Senate Finance Committee, Baucus has played a pivotal role in the ongoing efforts for tax reform and budget negotiations. He was incredibly polarizing for his willingness to buck party leadership and reach across the aisle. Both parties have had strong feel-ings about Baucus. Democrats have resented the role he played in passing the Bush Tax cuts as well as his anti gun control stances, while Republicans never forgot Baucus’ role in implementing Obam-acare. The news further complicates retaining the Senate for Democrats, though most strategists feel confident that former Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer is the clear frontrunner to replace Baucus. Should Democrats maintain their control of the Senate, progressive Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) seems to be the heir apparent to take the helm of the committee. Chemical Weapons in Syria and the Possibility of U.S. Intervention Fearing a potential leak from Congress, the Obama Administration went public with preliminary intelligence that the Assad Regime in Syria has been using chemical weapons against the rebel forces in their country. The news has sparked speculation of an increased American involvement in the re-gion, since the Obama Administration has called the use of chemical weapons a “red line” that would require greater attention if crossed. During a news conference on Friday, President Obama stressed that their intelligence only indicated a probable use of chemical weapons and that it had not yet been confirmed. Senator John McCain (R-AZ) has called for support for the Syrian rebels, though he shied away from calling for a directly American-led military intervention. The news comes at a very delicate time for the White House. War weariness is slowly growing at home due to the last two U.S. interventions in the Middle East. Furthermore, an expressed commitment to downsizing the military places a potential financial strain on US forces abroad. PP


6

“Justice Denied: Inside the Bronx’s Dysfunctional Court System,” by William GlabersonPublished in New York Times on April 13 William Glaberson opens his three-part series on the Bronx’s justice system with a simple assertion: “the Bronx courts are failing.” He goes on to describe how delays, shortened court days, prosecutor vacations in the middle of trials, and ffoot-dragging defense lawyers who are perpetually ‘stuck in traffic’ have combined to make the Bronx one of America’s slowest court systems. He tells stories of individual cases that have dragged on for years, including two ongoing trials for a murder in 2007 and an-other for a stabbing in 2010. In both cases, defendants have been stuck in jail and the families of victims are forced to wait for years in order to even commence a trial. Waiting is the central experience of a day in the Bronx courtroom. Long lines greet anyone entering the court building, as they wait for understaffed security teams to wave people through metal detectors. Then, once in the courtroom, defendants and victims can wait hours for judges, law-yers, and witnesses to appear in the courtroom. By the end of a single workday, which lasts nominally from about 9:30 A.M. until 4:30 P.M. with an hour-long lunch break, less than three hours of actual work can get done. Several causes exist for these delays. Judges and law-yers have become complacent, often coming to work hours late, and witnesses can often be unreliable or have trouble recollecting events once a lot of time has passed. But the largest problem appears to be one of funding. As one judge in the Bronx court observed, “I don’t believe we have enough resources to do the job that’s expected of us.” An underfunded and undermanned district at-torney’s office, as well as a lack of judges relative to the number of cases pending, have combined to create the current system of endless delays. The case of the Bronx’s court system highlights the dif-ficulty inherent in trimming government spending. Re-duced budgets for the legal system have been presented as a fiscal necessity, but this necessity has to be coun-terbalanced with our constitutional rights. The Sixth Amendment ensures the right to a “speedy and public trial.” This lack of access to a speedy trial is preventing the passage of justice in the Bronx, with both accused criminals and victims of crime bearing the burden.

“What if the Tsarnaevs Had Been the ‘Boston Shooters’?” by John CassidyPosted on newyorker.com

John Cassidy’s take on the tragic Boston Marathon bombing reflects on how we react to and perceive dif-ferent types of violence in American society. He poses a hypothetical: what if, instead of bombs made from pressure cookers, the Tsarnaev brothers had used as-sault rifles to go on a shooting spree at the marathon’s finish line? He lists several differences between the re-sults of his hypothetical situation and the actual events in Boston: more than three people would have probably died, and gun control may have had a better chance of passing the Senate after another mass shooting. These are all interesting possibilities, but the most insightful observation he makes is about how Americans respond to violence. Cassidy says that, “because we have become inured to deaths from shootings… the political system no longer responds to gun deaths.” Conversely, “terrorist acts… still have the power to spook the nation and swing the entire U.S. government into action.”

It goes without saying that the Tsarnaev brothers com-mitted a heinous act of terror in Boston two weeks ago. But it is interesting to reflect upon how we as Ameri-cans react to mass acts of violence: would we have been as quick to call it an act of “terror” had the brothers used firearms instead of explosives? Would news out-lets have been as quick to make assumptions about the backgrounds of the attackers had they committed a mass shooting in place of setting off bombs? Cassidy’s piece elicits thoughts like these, and his post represents a thoughtful examination of how we as a nation react to tragedy. PP

READING LISTBy Virgil Doyle ’14, Staff Writer


7

Recently, the conflict in Syria was thrust back into the spotlight by a White House announcement that Bashar al-Assad may have used chemical weapons against the rebel forces in Syria. While Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel stressed that such assessments are still uncertain, the Administration also stressed that the use of chemi-cal weapons by al-Assad has been the “red line” for a yet unspecified U.S. response.

Unsurprisingly, the prospect of direct U.S. action against the al-Assad regime has brought much interest in the conflict in Syria. Renewed attention to the conflict that has, over the last two years, killed over 70,000 people, displaced over 2.5 million within Syria, and created over a million refugees according to UN estimates is heart-ening. However, the Obama Administration’s charac-terization of al-Assad’s use of chemical weapons as a ‘game changer’, and the moral arguments centering on al-Assad’s oppression, while powerful, have been rel-evant for a long time. The truth is that the conflict has important implications for both regional and US security that are no stronger today than they have been for the past few months. While al-Assad’s alleged use of chemi-cal weapons is terrible, the greater threat to U.S. inter-ests is, and has been, the powerful and connected Sunni extremist groups currently playing a key role in the fight against Assad. In order to marginalize these groups and reduce the threat, the United States will have to take over their role in the conflict by providing more direct aid to rebel forces in Syria.

Clarifying U.S. security interests in what has often been viewed as a purely internecine civil war requires trac-ing the conflict back to its roots and examining its core combatants. Beginning as a popular grassroots uprising against an often brutal dictator in an effort to secure basic human and civil rights, the rebellion quickly con-solidated into the Free Syrian Army, composed largely of former protestors and Syrian army deserters. Declar-ing itself the Syrian people’s secular protector, the FSA has stated that its only goals are protecting the Syrian people from al-Assad’s oppression and overthrowing al-Assad’s regime.

However, despite the FSA’s professed secularism, con-flict between al-Assad’s Shiite Alawite government and the largely Sunni FSA has given the Syrian Civil War a starkly sectarian character. The prolonged and bloody nature of the Syrian Civil War combined with its increas-ingly sectarian character have turned it into a magnet for Sunni extremist fighters. As the New York Times report-ed last February, Sunni extremist fighters have flocked to Syria in recent months in the hope of exerting control over the government that may replace him. Another re-port in December 2012 stated that many of these fighters come from groups like the al-Nusra Front, a State De-partment designated terrorist organization with strong links to al-Qaeda.

While largely disliked by members of the FSA, who fear that they will co-opt their secular revolution and trans-form it into a jihad, fighters from groups like al-Nusra or the Sahaba Army, another Sunni extremist group, are of-ten veterans of the insurgency in Iraq. They bring funds, equipment, weapons, and combat experience desper-ately needed by the FSA in their fight against al-Assad. Islamist groups’ determination, fighting ability, and pro-fessionalism commands respect from the secular groups fighting alongside them. Al-Nusra fighters have played key roles in the capture of two Syrian Army bases, and have often spearheaded attacks by FSA forces.

The Free Syrian Army’s reliance on these groups to help them counter the superior firepower of the Syrian Army will give Sunni extremist groups like al-Nusra substan-tial leverage over the FSA and a potential post-Assad Syria. Unlike the Free Syrian Army, al-Nusra and other groups of Sunni fighters have stated as their goal the es-tablishment of a Sunni fundamentalist state in Syria that could serve as a haven for Sunni extremist fighters and a base for the export of jihad to other countries in the region.

Aside from the immediate danger posed by Sunni ex-tremists’ pledge to fight to topple secular governments in the Levant and wider Middle East, a safe haven in Syr-

POLICY DESK

Evaluating Syria: U.S. Interest in the Ongoing Syrian Civil War

By Elliot Cheresh ’14, Contributing Writer


8

ia could give Sunni extremist fighters a place in which to forge connections, gather resources, and trade informa-tion. Since their arrival in Syria in 2011, groups like al-Nusra have made contacts with other groups of fighters, organized, recruited personnel, gathered weapons, and gained access to new sources of funding and support.

Unfortunately for the United States, the presence of these threats, and the spread of terrorism and instabil-ity from Syria, are not contingent on the fall of al-Assad or the victory of groups like al-Nusra. Even if al-Assad is only able to cling to power in small pockets of the coun-try, the persistence of the brutal conflict and lack of any substantive security in Syria will continue to increase the influence of Sunni extremist fighters. This will cre-ate conditions in which they become more capable of exporting terrorism and extremism from Syria out into the Middle East and world at large. Until there is a pres-ence in Syria that can actively push out Sunni extrem-ist fighters, they will continue to grow becoming better connected, better organized, and more experienced.

The upside for the United States is its substantial power to help build a government that can marginalize Sunni extremists and promote the rule of law in Syria. Much of the reporting out of Syria since March 2011 indicates that many younger, more liberal Syrian rebels fear or dislike the sectarianism and fundamentalism that Sunni extremist fighters bring to the conflict. However, they rely on groups like the al-Nusra front for two main rea-sons: the resources and combat effectiveness that vet-eran Sunni extremists bring to the fight against al-Assad, and their ability to provide basic services like food, fuel, and security to civilians in war-torn parts of Syria. In essence, the FSA accepts and even welcomes the pres-ence of extremist groups because these groups are often best able to reduce casualties among rebel fighters, make progress in the fight against al-Assad, and alleviate the impact of the war on the Syrian people.

The best way for the United States to push Sunni ex-tremist groups out of Syria is to do a better job of pro-viding the benefits the FSA and Syrian people get from extremist fighters. The benefits they provide to both Syrian civilians and opposition fighters also give extrem-ist fighters political power over the evolution of the op-position movement and the structure and nature of the opposition government.

Fortunately for the United States, the ability of extrem-ist groups to save the lives of opposition fighters and

aid Syrian civilians is miniscule compared to what the United States could devote to such an effort. While the US already provides humanitarian and other non-lethal aid to the Syrian rebels, a more direct effort to increase the combat capabilities of the FSA, reduce the military power of Assad’s government, and improve the lives of Syrian civilians would not only allow FSA units hostile to extremist fighters to push them out of the fight, but give the United States greater leverage over the develop-ment of the opposition government.

The Administration has already taken some encourag-ing steps in this direction. On April 20th, Secretary of State John Kerry announced a new US aid package to the rebels totaling $123 million and potentially including body armor and night vision goggles that will help re-duce deaths and injuries among FSA fighters. Addition-ally, the Administration has shown a clear willingness to demand that the FSA marginalize extremist fighters. Al-Nusra has been designated by the State Department as a terrorist organization, prohibiting the provision of aid to its fighters. State backers of the opposition, including the United States, also decided at a meeting in Istanbul this month that future aid to the rebels will be provided through the Supreme Military Council of the revolution-ary coalition, keeping it out of the hands of revolutionary fighters.

While these are the kinds of policies that serve US in-terests in Syria, the continuation of the bloody conflict is evidence of the fact that the aid provided so far has failed to be decisive. In order to adequately secure its se-curity interests in the region and eliminate the threat of extremist activity in Syria, the United States must work to completely end the conflict and secure the country. While the fear of instability in Syria following al-Assad’s fall is valid, we must also acknowledge that very similar threats are present now and have been for the past two years. The U.S. must more actively endeavor to bring to an end a conflict that is empowering some of our most dangerous enemies in the Middle East. PP


9

Western NGOs and the western press of-ten criticize Rwandan President Paul Kagame for being an authoritarian lead-er who represses freedom of speech and

engages in scare-tactics to alienate his opponents. These accusations are generally accurate. A single party, the Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF), has controlled Rwan-da since 1994. But these accusations also mask the fact that the Kagame regime has brought peace to Rwanda through a momentous nation building agenda. Since coming to power after the Rwandan Genocide, the RPF has promoted an all-inclusive Rwandan national iden-tity, maintaining that Belgian colonial rule is responsible for having polarized Hutus and Tutsis, which had peace-fully coexisted in the pre-colonial Kingdom of Rwanda. Yes, the Rwandan government is authoritarian, but we must pragmatically recognize that the Rwandan post-genocide society requires authoritarianism.

After independence in 1962, Rwanda had been consid-ered a democracy simply because the Hutu majority (85% of the population) was in power. But over the years, it became an increasingly racist dictatorship. The divi-sion between Hutus and Tutsis was so sharp before the genocide that Rwandans did not identify as Rwandan but only as Hutu or Tutsi. Rwanda was a bipolar state. Dur-ing the genocide, up to 800,000 Tutsis and moderate Hu-tus were exterminated by a Hutu extremist regime that had seized power in a coup. The genocide was the culmi-nation of a decades-long ethnic conflict in the country. Even though the RPF was originally a Tutsi-dominated party, Rwanda today is an inclusive nation. Hutus and Tutsis enjoy the same rights. Many Hutus hold impor-tant ministerial positions. Rwanda may be authoritarian, but it is not ruled strictly by the Tutsis.

The RPF carried out nation building in order to provide cohesion in a country plagued by total insecurity after the genocide. It was first and foremost a long-term proj-ect designed to create lasting peace in Rwanda. Since 1994, this authoritarian regime has consistently upheld a narrative of national unity through the radio, the state-controlled press, and an extensive academic campaign that sought to define Rwandans as a unitary people. Eth-nic terminology has been banned from identity cards and from public discourse. No doubt, propaganda drives na-tion building. But it would be overly simplistic to assume

THE BENEFITS OF AUTHORITARIAN RULE IN RWANDA

that the RPF fosters nation building for power purposes. The Kagame regime is genuinely concerned with creat-ing sustainable peace in Rwanda, and wants to restore the glory and harmony of pre-colonial Rwanda. The ra-tionale of the Kagame regime in controlling the press and freedom of speech is to prevent ethnic discourse from re-emerging in the country.

Every attempt to promote––or enforce––democracy in the African Great Lakes region has failed, resulting in mass atrocities. The “free and fair” elections in Bu-rundi (1993) were a disaster, directly leading to a 12-year long civil war, and the Arusha Accords, a power-sharing agreement reached between Hutus and Tutsis before the genocide, further sparked hatred of the Tutsis in Rwanda. We must realize that the democratic model is not necessarily applicable to all societies, and think twice before blindly criticizing a government that boasts unprecedented results in security, development, the empowerment of women, and health, simply because it is not as democratic as we would like it to be. This au-thoritarian government has made Rwanda the 3rd least corrupt country in Africa (CPI index, 2012), and the 3rd easiest country to do business in (Africa, World Bank, 2012). Is a regime “bad” simply because it is authoritar-ian?

Through nation building, the Kagame regime has suc-cessfully generated domestic peace, and is now leading Rwanda toward becoming one of Africa’s leading hub for services. Before criticizing a regime because it is “un-democratic,” we must also recognize that authoritarian rule can in fact be a necessary vehicle to promote stabil-ity in post-conflict societies previously ridden by inner antagonisms. PP

By Archibald Henry ’13, Staff Writer


10

GUN CONTROL: HOW PARANOIA PREVENTED PROGRESS

In 1776, an average musket could be fired at a rate of around one to three shots per minute. These were cumbersome and inaccurate weapons that often required a seasoned veteran to operate. Nev-

ertheless, the writers of our Constitution saw the inher-ent value of firearms as tools of defense against tyrants and dictators. Given the experience of the early United States, the motivations behind the Second Amendment are understandable and reasonable. The notions of freedom and liberty that we value are still woven tightly into our nation’s cultural fibers. Howev-er, the tools that some use to represent or defend those values have changed. Rather than firing a few inaccu-rate shots a minute, today’s weapons can often fire mul-tiple rounds within seconds. The complicated reloading mechanisms of colonial weapons have been replaced with magazines that can hold dozens of bullets. The rapid expansion in weapons technology was something that few could have imagined or predicted during the drafting of the Constitution. Indeed, recent tragic events in Aurora and Newtown have reminded us of the power and destructive potential of modern weapons.

Earlier this month, the Senate attempted to pass the Manchin-Toomey amendment. A main feature of the bill required background checks for private gun transactions in gun show and Internet sales. However, last week, in a vote of 54-46, the bill failed to pass the Senate. In may come as a surprise that background checks are currently not required for gun show and Internet sales. Indeed, the bill seemed to be an extremely watered-down and shallow version of the gun control that the Obama administration originally sought. The Manchin-Toomey amendment still allowed for sales between rela-tives and friends without background checks. Further-more, the amendment actually loosened restrictions on interstate travel with guns. Remarkably, the bill was also a compromise between Republican Senator Pat Toomey and Democratic Senator Joe Manchin. Given the wide-spread public approval for universal background checks, it seemed as if the bill would have little trouble passing in the Senate.

Yet, the failure of the Manchin-Toomey amendment

highlights the absurd amount of the paranoia that many politicians, gun organizations, and lobbyists seem to have. In the wake of some of the worst gun massacres in recent history, it seemed logical to revisit gun laws and consider whether stricter standards for sales or limita-tions on high-capacity magazines and assault weapons were necessary. Yet, the National Rifle Association quick-ly declared that the solution was not gun control, but gun proliferation—more guns. NRA CEO Wayne LaPierre expressed his distaste for any attempt at implementing universal background checks—possibly the least restric-tive policy of gun control in consideration. On the Senate floor, Republican Ted Cruz of Texas expressed his con-cern that the Manchin-Toomey amendment would put the U.S. on the path towards a national gun registry. Even when it was pointed out that there has been no move-ment towards such a measure, Senator Cruz maintained his position that background checks for gun show and Internet sales would somehow slowly lead to a national registry. Startlingly, the 46 Senators that voted against the amendment collectively received over $500,000 from gun-rights PACs since 2007. Meanwhile, the 54 Senators that voted for the amendment collectively only received $68,000 from gun-rights PACs since 2007. It seems as if any national disaster involving guns only further strengthens the fervor and resolve of many gun-rights organizations and policymakers.

As it has been reiterated countless times by the President and various politicians, the vast majority of gun owners are decent and responsible Americans. However, when dealing with the transaction of dangerous and power-ful items, some form of background checks makes sense. There are malicious and harmful people in this country and the ultimate goal of gun control is to prevent weap-ons from landing in the hands of those who would harm others. Clearly other areas, such as improving mental health care, need to be examined. But, the Manchin-Toomey amendment was simply a tiny, tiny step in the right direction—a step that many irrationally thought was a pathway towards a dystopian future. Without a doubt, the Second Amendment is an important article of law that needs to be upheld, and gun ownership is a sig-nificant way of life for many Americans. Nevertheless, as technologies advance and evolve, so too must our under-standing of the law. PP

By Peter Lee ’14, Copy Editor


11

Baltimore’s politicians have done a terrible job with the city’s public transportation. Bus lines zig-zag randomly, and the single metro and light rail lines only serve the suburbs. What is

even more amazing is that Baltimore is the only major city between Washington D.C and Boston without a de-cent mass transit system.

There is the possibility of improving public transporta-tion in Baltimore. For years, it seemed as though a very affordable and necessary streetcar line was going to be built from University Parkway to the Inner Harbor along Charles Street. As the main thoroughfare through the city, it seems appropriate that Charles Street has a mass transit line that traverses it. Trains run under Market Street in Philadelphia and Broadway in New York, so why not Charles Street in Baltimore?

That idea mysteriously lost steam in recent years. From the little information that has been released to the pub-lic, it appears that Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake singlehandedly destroyed the streetcar. Rather than supporting a commonsense solution to Baltimore’s mass transit issues, Rawlings-Blake believes that the Charm City Circulator does an ample enough job of providing transportation along Charles Street, and that supporting a streetcar line would take away funding and attention from the Red Line light rail project.

There are a number of problems with the Mayor’s logic. My main issue is her insistence on the supreme impor-tance of the Red Line, which is a light rail line that would run from the western suburbs into the city along the Inner Harbor, and end in Bayview. If you are a suburban doctor who works at the Hopkins Bayview campus, or are a fi-nancial analyst who lives in Fells Point and works on Pratt Street, this line will serve you well. However, the average Baltimorean will find the Red Line to be useless.

Conversely, the proposed Charles Street streetcar line would serve an extremely diverse group of Baltimor-eans. For instance, at its northern terminus at Univer-sity Parkway, it would be accessible to upscale Guilford, middle-class Charles Village, and redeveloping Waverly. People of all sorts of economic backgrounds, from many

different types of neighborhoods, would benefit greatly from the streetcar.

Instead, the Mayor advocates strictly for a light rail line which will mainly serve suburbanites and the wealthy. The fact that she considers the interests of the suburbs to be above those of the city is offensive to all Baltimor-eans. This is only made worse by her belief that an ex-pansion of the Charm City Circulator to 33rd Street will fill the same transit void that the streetcar would. These buses were originally meant for tourists, and the needs of those who live in the city should not be secondary to those who visit it. Why are the needs of those who live in the city secondary to those who visit it?

There are also some more fundamental reasons why the streetcar should be a greater priority than the Red Line. Namely, the Red Line costs around $2 billion, while the Charles Street streetcar line would cost a conservative $200 million. Yes, the mass transit system that serves Baltimoreans better is actually $1.8 billion less expen-sive. Considering the affordability of streetcars, the Mayor should propose using the $2 billion to build an entire streetcar system in Baltimore, instead of just one light rail line.

It is also important to put the Mayor’s opposition to a streetcar line into perspective. Washington, Cincinnati, Atlanta, and Milwaukee are all building streetcar sys-tems, while Portland and New Orleans are expanding theirs. All of these cities realize that streetcars, not bus-es for tourists and overpriced light rail systems, are the long term answers to solve their mass transit needs. If so many other cities have come to the same conclusion, Baltimore should as well.

There is little explanation for the Mayor’s inextricable support for the Red Line over the Charles Street street-car. Perhaps she is indebted to wealthy donors in the suburbs and neighborhoods along the harbor. Maybe she can afford taxis or a car, and thus fails to properly understand the transportation needs of the average per-son. Either way, she must come around and realize the futility of the Red Line, and the necessity of the Charles Street streetcar. PP

A TRANSIT SYSTEM FOR BALTIMOREANS By Adam Roberts ’14, Staff Writer


12

This week the Department of Commerce an-nounced that the economy grew at a 2.5% an-nual rate in the first quarter. While this rep-resents strong growth relative to the languid

state of the economy of the last five years, it certainly is no justification for complacency. While the US economy lags at 2.5% annual GDP growth, China and India are zipping by at a rate of 7.5% and 6.5%, respectively. How-ever, the United States could spark a new era of robust economic growth by reforming part of its tax system to promote investment.

Over the past few years, one of the few things that par-tisans have been able to agree upon is that the country needs sweeping tax reform, but few have considered a consumption tax as a viable option. Similar to a federal sales tax, a consumption tax would be a tax on the cal-culated value of consumption: income minus savings. Conservatives such as Harvard Professor Jeffrey Miron and many Bush administration advisers support a con-sumption tax, while some Democrats oppose a con-sumption tax because of its regressive nature. However, as supporter Robert Frank points out, it can be easily made progressive. By setting an exemption amount of consumption below which consumption is not taxable, he estimates the bottom half of the income distribution would pay less than or about the same as now, while top earners would pay slightly more. The consumption tax thus represents an opportunity for a major compromise between the parties. The consumption tax has support from many other influential voices in the economics community, such as Princeton economist Alan Krueger, former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan, and the OECD. By promoting savings and investment and discouraging exorbitant consumption, the consumption tax is the key to solving the United States’ consumption mindset: a cultural problem that has become an economic one.

There are three main components of the economy: con-sumption, investment, and government expenditure. There is a tradeoff between consumption spending on consumer goods in the present and investment. Invest-ment leads to spending by businesses on new plants, equipment, and research on new technologies; these endeavors directly increase or have the potential to in-

crease the productive capacity of the economy, and thus the GDP. This tradeoff exists because each dollar of per-sonal income is either spent on consumer goods or saved in a financial institution, which theoretically responds by loaning it out—often to a business that wants to in-vest. Because the growth rate is dependent on increas-es in the capital stock, investment spending promotes economic growth. Consumption represents the desire for short-term gratification, while investment spending represents prudent preparation and sacrifice for a better future.

The greatest obstacle to robust US economic growth is a consumption mindset. A common misconception is that consumption itself is important to driving the economy. In actuality, it is spending—consumption or investment—that drives the economy. If every dollar of consumption was replaced by investment, businesses would still produce goods and accrue the same amount of income. When businesses invest, they buy new capi-tal from other businesses. Of course, zero consumption would be devastating––quality of life would plummet and there would be no point to invest if consumption could not be expected in the future. However, the US would benefit from a somewhat higher level of invest-ment at the expense of consumption because investment goods allow greater levels of production and thus con-sumption in the future. On the list of countries sorted by fixed investment as a percentage of GDP, the United States holds spot 143 of 152 with only 12% of produc-tion going to new fixed capital. Near the top of the list are mostly some of the fastest growing countries in the world: Singapore, China, Vietnam, India, etc. This cor-relation certainly is not unassailable evidence of a causal relationship, but it is a trend worth considering.

It has become somewhat of a platitude to say that Washington—mostly the Republican Party—needs to put aside politics and return to an embrace of the facts. Yet, that truth nonetheless applies to the issue of eco-nomic growth as well as any other. With the economy experiencing lackluster growth, a consumption tax, which would encourage savings and investment, is the key to restoring healthy consumption levels and strong growth. PP

CONSUMPTION TAX AS A SOLUTION TO ECONOMIC WOESBy Cameron Davis ’16, Staff Writer


13

Last week, after eggs at Pete’s Grill, I observed a stack of copies of the JHU Newsletter. Across the front page read the jubilant title: “Spring Fair embraces Baltimore community.”

“Baltimore community” is a phrase I’ve heard a great deal throughout my time at Hopkins. Typically it is used to describe university-wide or student-run initiatives to push students into the city as agents of change and social justice. To young, idealistic students, the phrase reso-nates. We’ve heard about the despair in this ‘dangerous city’ of abandoned houses, HIV, and violent crime.

Above all, the phrase “Baltimore community” articu-lates the underlying, university-driven distinction be-tween “us,” Hopkins affiliates, and “them,” everyone else in Baltimore. Given the reality—that Baltimore is a city of neighborhoods and, like any other city, comprised of many intersecting communities and groups—it repre-sents mutual distance and distrust. For a more trusting and effective relationship, it’s critical that Hopkins stu-dents engage deeply with the specific communities they are seeking to join or help. The first step is to modify the language we use as an institution to talk about Baltimore. Glenn Bieler, Hopkins’s Vice President for Communica-tions recently described an “Identity Initiative” to unify the logos of Hopkins’ many schools and institutes. “This is the story of Johns Hopkins,” he announced, in a pre-sentation available online. “It’s knowledge, discovery…education is above all else that we do and we bring that to the world, and we’re proud of our connection and our roots to the Baltimore community. That is the story that we wanted to tell.” It is unfortunate that this shout-out to Baltimore actually reinforces the sense that Hopkins affiliates are not of Baltimore, and that Baltimoreans are all part of some amorphous group. Students look to the Hopkins administration when conceptualizing their University-funded projects. Bieler and his team dictate the way students articulate and design their engagement “in the city.” Where are our “roots to the Baltimore community” lo-cated? In our tenured professors who have lived in Bal-timore for decades? In our students recruited from local high schools? Many members of the elusive “Baltimore

community” work at all levels of the Hopkins adminis-tration. Are Aramark employees “Hopkins affiliates” at work and “Baltimore community” members at home? Students should not be responsible for figuring out these issues alone. And increasingly they are not. B’More, a weeklong Baltimore immersion program for Hopkins freshmen offered during Intersession, is an excellent first step in simultaneously educating students about the state of the city and pushing them out of Homewood. Al-though a weeklong course is only the beginning, demys-tifying Baltimore for freshmen is essential. Having worked with a number of Hopkins student groups, mainly groups that promote literacy and the arts, I feel that we would have benefitted from a more comprehensive education about Baltimore. Physically getting “out there” is only one of many ways Hopkins students come to understand the city a little bit bet-ter. It is critical that undergraduates are aware of who they are working with very specifically, which should be done both through in-person engagement and education about Baltimore in the classroom. I cannot speak for the graduate population, but it’s clear to me that the passion and intelligence of our undergraduates can be channeled toward more respectful and beneficial engagement out-side of Charles Village. PP

SPEAKING OF “THE BALTIMORE COMMUNITY” By Tamar Nachmany ’13, Contributing Writer


14

When I initially came to Egypt I was told, “If you are in trouble do not turn to the police. They will not help. They are pay-ing back the people for the 2011 Revolu-

tion. Often no one answers 911 calls. The police only en-gage when the government demands their involvement in protests and that is it.” Protests and demonstrations brought about revolution in Tunisia, Libya, and Egypt; they also sparked ongoing unrest in Bahrain, and civil war in Syria. Yet two years later, many Egyptians are frustrated by the lack of real change. Rather than celebrating their democratic elec-tions, they feel the effects of a plummeting economy, high unemployment, instability, and persistent corrup-tion at the hands of the Muslim Brotherhood. The disre-gard for civilian voices under the Muslim Brotherhood is comparable to that of Hosni Mubarak’s regime. As the promises from the Revolution fail to be fulfilled, many Egyptians quietly wonder if a return to Mubarak might be a preferable alternative. Though his regime was ruth-less, daily life was stable. These reflections on Mubarak do not indicate an overall regret of the revolution but are rather musings uttered out of desperation in the present post-revolutionary limbo.

The international community focuses its questions on the success of democracy in Egypt. Is it better for Egypt to swallow their democratically elected leader and let President Mohammed Morsi fulfill his term? Or instead should Egyptians protest and evict Morsi and the Mus-lim Brotherhood? This would risk establishing cyclical protests as the electoral process. However, while the in-ternational community chews on these ideological ques-tions, the revolutionaries are debating over what new system could logistically and effectively convey their voices. The protests and demonstrations have not influ-enced Morsi or the Muslim Brotherhood to listen; each protest fizzles out with time, or protesters are arrested into temporary silence. Many revolutionaries debate whether violence is now necessary for the revolution to engender real change in Egypt. Protesting and demonstrating, the non-violent methods that overthrew 29 years of dictatorship in a bloodless 18-days, have now lost efficiency and, are in-

creasingly met with violence. Revolutionaries also won-der how Morsi will respond if the opposition engages in direct violence, given the current army control of Port Said. Thus to borrow Morsi’s immortalized English from his visit to Germany on January 30th, 2013, satirized by Bas-sem Youssef—an Egyptian comedian who was recently arrested for subversion—the most pressing question is whether the core ideas fueling the revolution can mix with different means of expressing their voices rather than protesting-- particularly if the means are violent? Many fear that mixing revolutionary ideals with vio-lence could lead to another flawed governmental regime. The revolutionary opposition is discussing what meth-ods could be more efficient than protesting. But at what point do the actions that have been taken in the name of revolution, change the principles of the revolution itself? While some Egyptians still go to the police, many have stopped seeking their “protection.” Instead, many Egyp-tians prepare themselves for the police’s acts of violent retribution, which have included the beating and arrest of ordinary citizens. I do not know if the revolutionary opposition will ulti-mately engage the current violence of Egypt’s security forces with more violence. However, the current vio-lence stems from the very people supposedly entrusted with the job of maintaining public safety. The Egyptian people are not merely caught between a rock and a hard place, but between a police baton and burnt relics of ce-ment buildings. This current cycle of pain, instability, hardship, and lack of accountability cannot ossify into Egypt’s daily rhythm; the current trajectory requires changing. The question is how much more blood will fall and which actors will remain before stable and sustain-able relationships between the people, the police and the government are reached. PP

Emily is currently studying abroad in Alexandria, Egypt.

WILL VIOLENCE DRIVE PROTESTERS TO PROTEST?By Emily Combs, ’14, Contributing Writer


15

WRITE FOR thePOLITIK PRESS

The Politik Press, originally founded in 2008 as JHU Politik, is a weekly publication of political opinion pieces. We believe that progress comes from conversation and that every voice deserves to be heard. Our staff is made up of students with majors that range from political science to biomolecular engineering. We seek out the best political writers on campus and regularly interview professors and graduate students. In many ways, the Homewood campus is a microcosm of the American political landscape. We find our-selves at a crossroads defined by students from across the country, professors with disparate political theo-ries, and a city constantly confronting racial violence, political corruption and systemic economic problems. While we publish the Politik Press weekly, we work simultaneously on our special issues. These magazines confront a single topic from multiple angles. In 2011, with the Arab Spring fully underway, we interviewed five Hopkins professors whose expertise ranged from Archeology to US-Israeli relations, in order to provide some clarity on an immensely complex and constantly shifting situation. In 2012 we focused on the political issues of Baltimore, conducting interviews with professors and local politicians in order to shed light on the complexities of our school’s relationship to our city. Our latest Special Issue was on the politics of research and our issue on the politics of law is forthcoming.

If interested e-mail us at

[email protected] find us online at

jhupolitik.org

Photo Courtesy: United States Library of Congress’s Prints and Photographs Division


16

politik press: volume 13, issue 10

Documents

politik press3inside

politik press1april

issue week

final issue

issue xapril

previous issue

upcoming special issue

new writers