politik press: volume 14, issue 1

SEPTEMBER 16th, 2013Volume XIV, Issue I the POLITIK PRESS

1

the

PO

LIT

IK P

RE

SS

9/16/13

Volume XIV, Issue I


2

the

POLITIK PRESSA publication of

JHU POLITIKjhupolitik.org

MANAGING EDITOR Colette Andrei

ASSISTANT EDITORS Julia Allen

Katie BottoChristine Server

CREATIVE DIRECTORVictoria Scordato

MARKETING/PUBLICITYRebecca Grenham

Audrey Moss

WEBMASTERSihao Lu

HEAD WRITER Ari Schaffer

MARYLAND EDITORAdam Roberts

COPY EDITORPeter Lee

STAFF WRITERS Akshai Bhatnagar Henry ChenVirgil DoyleRosellen Grant Geordan Williams Chris Winer

FACULTY ADVISOR Steven R. David

EDITORS-IN-CHIEF Alex Clearfield & Rachel Cohen

VOLUME XIV, ISSUE I SEPTEMBER 16th, 2013


3

THE NEW SEMESTERA Letter from the Editors

Dear Loyal and New Readers,

We are proud to introduce to you this year’s first issue of JHU Politik, a non-partisan, weekly student political magazine founded in 2008. The Politik, which serves as a platform to elevate student voices and strengthen political discourse on campus, has become the place at Hopkins for smart, dynamic political journalism. We’re very much looking forward to this school year and have spent a great deal of the summer developing new ideas to make this an even more successful season. We thank last year’s Editors-in-Chief, Jeremy Orloff and Matt Varvaro, for their creative and tireless leadership, which has given us much inspiration moving forward.

First, we are proud to introduce our new website, at jhupolitik.org. Our back issues are finally accessible in an archive, and students can search by issue, topic, and writer. We’ve also created a “Letters to the Editor” section where we invite students to respond online to pieces that they read in the Politik. While we still encourage students to write full responses in our regular issues as well, we recognize that creating multiple ways of interacting with the content will best serve the Hopkins community. A major thanks to sophomore Ran Liu, our website designer, and senior Victoria Scordato, our Creative Director, for their help with this project.

Second, we really want to take a more critical and concerted look at the content we publish. What are we missing? Whose voices would make this an even more valuable publication? In the coming school year we are committed to making a greater effort to expand our coverage in all fields (and majors) where politics plays a role. Furthermore, we recognize that

as Hopkins students living in Baltimore, there should be a greater push to expand our coverage of Maryland politics. As such, we’ve added a new position to our masthead this year, and we welcome senior Adam Roberts to serve as our first Maryland Editor.

Third, under the leadership of senior Vicky Plestis, we are looking to start entering into the sphere of broadcast journalism, developing podcasts of reportage and analysis. We’re very excited about this project and they will ultimately be featured prominently on our website. If you’d like to help spearhead this new initiative with us, by all means reach out.

As is custom, we will continue to partner with other organizations as well as host our own political events on campus, so keep an eye out for them this fall. We have some symposiums and forums already in the planning stages. We will also continue the successful Politik Conversations series, hosting small roundtable discussions for students, led by students. And finally, we’ve already begun to plan our Fall special issue: The Politics of Food. It will be released at the end of the semester and will cover many important topics related to food from a multitude of angles.

If you haven’t written for us yet we strongly encourage you to get involved. The Politik will be better for it, and we always help our new writers get acclimated to our publication.

And with that, we wish you all a happy semester and many thanks for reading.

Sincerely,Rachel Cohen and Alex ClearfieldEditors-in-Chief

HEAD WRITER Ari Schaffer

MARYLAND EDITORAdam Roberts

COPY EDITORPeter Lee

STAFF WRITERS Akshai Bhatnagar Henry ChenVirgil DoyleRosellen Grant Geordan Williams Chris Winer

FACULTY ADVISOR Steven R. David

EDITORS-IN-CHIEF Alex Clearfield & Rachel Cohen


4

INSIDE THIS ISSUE WEEK IN REVIEW .................................................................. Page 5 Christopher Winer ’14

THE POLICY DESKManaging Syria Beyong the Syrian Conflict ............................................... Page 9Ari Schaffer ’14

RADICALISM IN THE PHILIPPINES—A REEVALUATION OF OBAMA’S “PIVOT TO ASIA” ................................... Page 13 Brian Hershey ’16

MATTHEW GREEN’S NSA BLOG POST AND THE PRESENCE OF CLASSIFIED RESEARCH AT JHU ............................................................ Page 7Rachel Cohen ’14

AMERICAN EXEMPTIONALISM: THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT AND OBAMA’S POLITICS ........................... Page 12Clayton Hale ‘16

THE FOURTH AMENDMENT IS NOT ESOTERIC ........................ Page 14 Alex Dragone ’16

MARYLAND DESKThe Benefits of Weekend MARC Services for Baltimore ................................. Page 6Adam Roberts ’14

EMPTY WORDS AND SYRIAN POLICY ...................................... Page 15Mike Bodner ’14

THE DECLINE AND NECESSITY OF THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT .... Page 11 Alex Clearfield ’14


5

WEEK IN REVIEWBy Christopher Winer ’14, Staff Writer

Controversial Corporate Social Responsibility Law Passes in India Last week, India became the first country in history to require its big businesses to donate to charitable causes. The bill will order 2,500 companies to pay at least two percent of their net profits for services such as free education or efforts to eradicate poverty. This could lead to $2 billion more in annual corporate philanthropy payments. Critics such as Professor Aneel Karnana at Michigan’s Ross School of Business claim that such a measure equates to levying a two percent tax on all companies and could discourage foreign investment, which has collapsed 38 percent since last year. Supporters retort that big businesses have not voluntarily met their social responsibility to help their countrymen, two-thirds of whom live on less than $2 a day, according to the World Bank.

Catalans Hold Hands for National Independence On Wednesday, 1.6 million pro-independence Catalans, bedecked in the region’s colors of blue, red, and yellow, held hands in a 250-mile human chain to promote their cause. The Catalan National Assembly, a grassroots organization group, organized the event on September 11 to mark the anniversary of la Diada, or Catalan National Day, which remembers the defeat of Catalan in the Spanish War of Succession in 1714. The region of Catalonia lies in northeast Spain and is home to 7.5 million people, about 16 percent of the country’s population. But the province produces about twenty percent of the nation’s GDP, which combined with the area’s distinctive culture, language, and once-independent history, has 51 percent of its people thinking that they could do better on their own, according to a recent poll for Spain’s Cadena Ser radio station. A regional referendum on independence could come as early as 2014 if Artur Mas, Catalonia’s President, can overcome resistance from Madrid. Colorado Recall Election Reflects Opposition to Gun Control On Tuesday, the national spotlight shone on the recall of two Democratic State Senators in Colorado for their support of state gun control legislation passed in March. Republicans will now replace State Senator Angela Giron of Pueblo and Senate President John Morse of Colorado Springs, who lost by two and 14 percentage points respectively. Gun control groups, most prominently Michael Bloomberg’s Mayors Against Illegal Guns, out-fundraised their opponents by a margin of five to one. Bloomberg himself nearly matched the NRA’s spending of $362,000 with his check of $350,000 to defend Morse. According to an August 22 Quinnipiac Poll, while Coloradans opposed the recall effort 60 to 31 percent, preferring instead to wait for the next election, they opposed the gun control legislation 54 to 40 percent. PP


6

Five years ago, Governor O’Malley planned to enact what was intended to be one of his signature achievements: weekend MARC train service. Then, the financial crisis hit, and the state was

forced to indefinitely halt the planned service expansion. Since that point, Baltimoreans have been either stranded in their city or forced to pay outrageous Amtrak ticket prices to travel to Washington, DC on the weekends.

Luckily, recent developments in Annapolis and Governor O’Malley’s planned presidential campaign have provided the incentive to make weekend MARC train service possible. Seeking to improve his national standing and boost his impending presidential campaign, the Governor pushed for a slight increase in the state’s gas tax to fund infrastructure improvements. While the gas tax was controversial, legislators in Annapolis understood that the dearth of mass transit options in Maryland was inexcusable. Thus, the gas tax passed and was signed into law by the Governor last spring. Last week, the Governor assured Baltimoreans that millions of dollars in increased revenue from the gas tax would finally secure weekend MARC train service. Not surprisingly, people in the city have been overjoyed at the prospect of traveling to Washington on the weekend for only $7.

However, weekend MARC service offers far more to Baltimore than just providing its residents with a means of leaving on the weekends. If anything, MARC train service should boost the number of people visiting Baltimore on the weekends. Affordable and fast MARC train service, combined with the DC Metro, has now opened up Baltimore as an overnight or day trip destination for residents of Washington’s Maryland suburbs, Washington itself, and Northern Virginia. Previously, visitors from the DC area had to face horrible Beltway traffic to reach Baltimore. Weekend MARC train service provides them the opportunity to reach Baltimore much faster, cheaper, and more comfortably than driving. The potential for new visitors is enormous. As a 2011 Brookings Institution report titled “Transit Access and Zero-Vehicle Households” stated, nearly 200,000 households in the Washington metropolitan area have no car.

Weekend MARC train service also makes Baltimore a more attractive place to live. Before, any Baltimorean with a weekend job in Washington was either forced to drive, take Amtrak, or move closer to Washington. Weekend MARC train service helps reduce weekend traffic and prevents Baltimoreans with weekend jobs in Washington from leaving. It also enables Baltimore to market itself better as Washington’s less hectic and more affordable neighbor. People who prefer to live in easygoing Baltimore, as opposed to bustling Washington, can now be assured of cheap and easy access to Washington should they wish to visit on the weekends.

Perhaps most importantly, weekend MARC train service should help to attract large corporations to Baltimore. One of the biggest critiques of Baltimore’s redevelopment has been its failure to attract large corporations and the high-paying jobs that accompany them. Weekend MARC train service can help change this. It is only $4 and less than 20 minutes from Baltimore to BWI. This makes Baltimore invaluable in the world of international corporate commerce. Businesses seeking to have their employees quickly and cheaply shuttled to and from airports will look very closely at moving to or expanding their offices in Baltimore. In nearby Washington, the Metro line to Dulles International Airport will not open until 2018, nor will the train ride be nearly as quick as the 15 or so minutes from BWI to Baltimore. Thus, weekend MARC train service should enable Baltimore to attract the large corporations and high-paying jobs that the city needs.

While weekend MARC train service is a big step forward for Baltimore, there is still more that can be done. Trains do not run late, with the last train from Washington to Baltimore leaving at 10:30 pm. In addition, there is insufficient mass transit from Penn Station to downtown Baltimore. While the light rail does stop at Penn Station, the closest stop to the downtown area is Camden Yards, which is too far for most residents and visitors. In spite of these shortcomings, weekend MARC train service should be a big step forward in making Baltimore a better place to live and work. PP

MARYLAND DESK —

The Benefits of Weekend MARC Service for Baltimore

By Adam Roberts ’14, Maryland Editor


7

By Adam Roberts ’14, Maryland Editor

This week Johns Hopkins University received quite a bit of bad press for asking one of their faculty members, Matthew D. Green, to take down a blog post he wrote regarding recent

encryption revelations associated with the National Security Agency (NSA). The incident raised major concerns about academic freedom and the role of classified government and military research on campus.

As an undergraduate enrolled at Hopkins, I followed the story closely, beginning with Green’s initial tweets midday Monday, to eventually much larger national news coverage in places like ProPublica, The Atlantic, and The Huffington Post by Monday evening. By Tuesday afternoon, the Interim Dean of the Whiting School of Engineering, Andrew Douglas had sent Green an apology for his behavior on behalf of the university, stating that he is “keenly aware” of academic freedom’s “centrality to our enterprise,” and apologizing for, “act[ing] too quickly, on the basis of inadequate and - as it turns out - incorrect information.”

While Douglas’ apology was enough to resolve this particular incident , it raises a host of questions. How does the Department of Defense and the NSA, organizations with whom Hopkins shares long-standing ties, affect the decisions of the university? What kind of top-secret government research is going down at JHU — and is it a good thing for students and academia?

These questions require taking a closer look at the nature of an elite research university that is both publicly committed to the free and open exchange of ideas while simultaneously conducting classified research unbeknownst to the larger academic community.

Hopkins Professor Stuart Leslie, who has done extensive research on the history of the “Military-Industrial-Academic Complex” at the university, says the epicenter is Hopkins’ Applied Physics Lab (APL), one of the earliest classified military research laboratories joined to an academic institution. He says the marriage was forged

in part because when the government wanted to recruit Hopkins’ top scientists and engineers, many were not willing to work directly for the government and military arsenals, but felt more comfortable in a quasi-academic setting. Today, the APL employs roughly 5,000 people and receives more federal contract dollars than almost any other institution, Leslie said.

But over the years, the tension between academia—known for its openness and collegiality—and classified government projects has repeatedly surfaced. “During wartime it’s a little easier to imagine why you’d do it because everyone wants to contribute to the war effort in whatever way they can,” said Leslie. “After [WWII], the Navy decided [APL] was the kind of expertise they would also need during the Cold War—and it continues on today.”

Beginning in 2012, when Johns Hopkins University President Ronald Daniels began the “Identity Initiative” with the goal “to begin telling a more cohesive and powerful story” that unites the entire university, the disparities between academia and classified research began to arise. An organization called The Johns Hopkins Human Rights Working Group began organizing a petition and campaign against the classified APL research that focuses on drone development. The group released a statement that said, “We are asking for a moratorium on Pentagon-funded drone research at Hopkins until the university community and general public has an opportunity to fully discuss this research and its ethical, military, social, and environmental implications.”

Derek Denman, a political science graduate student and one of the leaders of the campaign against APL research, said in an interview last November, “APL does all sorts of research into software, sensors, and guidance systems used on drones.” Denman pointed to Hopkins engineers, who built, in 1998, a system that would enable Special Forces to control drones from submarines, and then later began to develop swarming technology that would enable drones to function more autonomously.

MATTHEW GREEN’S NSA BLOG POST AND THE PRESENCE OF CLASSIFIED RESEARCH AT JHUAdapated from a piece originally published in The Washington Monthly on September 12, 2013

by Rachel Cohen ‘14, Editor-in-Chief


8

“I only have access to what APL reports in the APL Technical Digest - their quarterly publication,” said Denman. “It’s not possible for the wider university community to know the full extent of the research going on at APL.”

Hopkins Political Science Professor Renee Marlin-Bennett argued that the academic mission to spread knowledge and the APL mission to sequester knowledge are “fundamentally incompatible goals.” “[But] I do not believe that classified research is necessarily tainted or evil,” said Marlin-Bennett. “I also do not believe that research for military purposes is necessarily evil. I do believe that such research can be evil, and I also believe that non-classified research can be evil.”

This isn’t the first time students and professors have protested classified military or government research on campus. In the ‘60s, Hopkins became one of the first universities with military research laboratories to draft policy regulating the separation of classified research from that of its other research. The policy was last updated in 2005. Other institutions with incorporated military research laboratories, like Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), ultimately decided to make the laboratories independent through divestment.

Johns Hopkins alternatively made the opposite decision. “The university holds a belief that this kind of [classified] research requires responsibility—it’s important to have some oversight—and that we think there might also be some academic benefits to be gained from it,” said Leslie. Ultimately, Hopkins’s policy is that no classified research may take place directly on the Homewood campus. In addition to the APL, which is about a half-hour drive away, classified research also occurs a fifteen-minute walk from campus at the Stieff Silver Building near the Jones Fall Expressway.

Edward Scheinerman, who serves as the Vice Dean for Education at the Whiting School of Engineering said the university was walking a fine line. “We wanted to create a situation where students don’t feel uncomfortable with all the security, and it’s kind of awkward because there are a lot of international students who wouldn’t be able to enter the buildings,” said Scheinerman. “On the other hand, we want to do the research.”

Things may become more complicated with a new engineering building, Malone Hall, set to open on the

Homewood campus in 2014. A statement released in May 2012 said that Malone Hall would be “the Homewood campus hub for the university’s individualized health initiative, an effort that brings together researchers from the schools of Engineering, Medicine, Nursing and Public Health to develop the most effective medical treatments for individual patients.” But in a subsequent press release the following September, Hopkins said that unclassified military research, led by The Center of Excellence on Integrated Material Modeling (CEIMM) will also be conducted in Malone Hall. The statement confirms that much of this research will be funded by the U.S. Air Force and states, “The long-term goal is to produce lightweight, yet durable, components for future military aircraft, from fighter jets to surveillance drones.”

Which brings us back to this week’s incident with computer science professor Matthew D. Green. Despite its stated policy separating classified research from traditional academic research, Hopkins’s relationship to the APL and the NSA remains murky. For one thing, Hopkins is still avoiding answering the public’s questions about who first raised the blog post concern, and why. Furthermore, most students have no idea about what sort of ethical oversights, if any, exist for classified military research. All research at APL and other Hopkins must be approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) if it involves human subjects, but most APL research doesn’t, so it’s not subject to such review. “We don’t have to first call home and ask permission. For the most part we just do it,” said Scheinerman.

According to Marlin-Bennett, research conducted under contract with U.S. government agencies is subject to the ethical evaluation by legislators who have a responsibility to conduct oversight. She also said that to the extent that citizens become aware of classified research subject matter, “[those] who want to peacefully protest…can do so.”

Public trust, in addition to academic freedom, is vital to a university’s ethos. With the ethics of drone warfare still being debated across the country, and with increasing ethical concerns surrounding the NSA’s expanding surveillance capabilities, it is time for Hopkins to start talking more openly with its students and staff about what sorts of responsibility we share for the research we do at our university. PP


9

Due to Russia’s recent foreign policy success in Syria, the country’s resurgent aggression seems to have been all but forgotten. Un-til President Vladimir Putin announced an

agreement with Syria to put the civil-war torn country’s chemical weapons stock under international control, whispers of a new Cold War had penetrated the analy-sis of liberals and democrats alike. After a tense summer with relations between Russia and the United States de-teriorating rapidly, it seemed President Obama’s “Rus-sian Reset” was no more than a long-abandoned pipe dream. Once the Syrian crisis cools and Assad’s chemi-cal weapons are being put under international control, Putin will probably return to his aggressive posturing and anti-Western antagonism. When he does, the Unit-ed States should stand firm against Russia’s aggressive foreign policy while at the same time pressing Moscow to continue reform in those areas where progress has al-ready been made.

Most may recall controversy over Syria and NSA leaker Edward Snowden as the major conflicts between the US and Russia. However, relations between Russia and the United States had been marked by increasingly an-tagonistic rhetoric long before Snowden. Stretching back to the 2012 presidential campaign, Putin ramped up nationalist rhetoric in a bid to arouse support ahead of the election. In a campaign rally in front of between ninety and one hundred and thirty thousand people Pu-tin warned against “foreign threats” intervening in the country’s internal politics. In another instance, Putin even named the United States and NATO as potential threats to Russia. On August 9th, President Obama him-self criticized Vladimir Putin for “playing into stereo-types reminiscent of the Cold War.”

Even Russia’s training drills characterized the West as an enemy rather than pushing for better relations. The Zapad 2009 military training drill conducted in con-junction with neighboring Belarus comprised around 12,500 personnel in total. The scenario for the major training exercise began with an invasion of Belarus by

Lithuania and Poland and ended with simulated tacti-cal nuclear strike against NATO forces in Warsaw, Po-land. With Zapad 2013 starting on September 20th and Russian concern about the US-led European missile de-fense systems near Russia, it seems likely that this year’s military drill will once again feature a military response against NATO forces. Together with the lack of Russian cooperation on the Snowden affair, the military exercis-es demonstrate Putin’s disinterest in repairing Russia’s relationship with the United States.

Further exacerbating tensions, Russia has developed good relations with traditional threats to the West. In addition to friendly relationships with hostile regimes like Syria and Iran, Putin met with the new Prime Min-ister Rouhani on September 13th, Russia has been one of these hostile regimes’ primary arms providers as well. It is rumored that Russia plans to provide Iran with S-300 air-defense systems, further strengthening the country against a potential strike against its nuclear facilities and increasing the potential for arms proliferation in Hezbollah and Syria. Additionally, throughout the crisis in Syria, Russia has aided the Assad regime and pledged to do even more had the United States gone through with a strike on Syria. While not an American enemy, Russia is also working on plans to sell advanced aircraft and quiet submarines to China, seriously upgrading the Chinese arsenal.

At the same time, Moscow seems to be at odds with many of its neighbors and traditional allies. In its pursuit to build the Customs Union, a Warsaw Pact-style trad-ing bloc, Russia has made more enemies than friends. A main target of Russian wrath is Ukraine, which is cur-rently pursuing a large trade deal with the European Union. At the EU summit in Vilnius scheduled for late November, Ukraine plans to sign a monumental trade deal drastically reducing trade tariffs between itself and the European Union. Putin has both invited himself to Ukraine to “talk” with officials there and announced im-port bans on many Ukrainian goods in an effort to dis-suade the Ukrainians from signing the agreement. Even

POLICY DESK

Managing Russia Beyond the Syrian Conflict

By Ari Schaffer ’14, Head Writer


10

long time strategic partner Belarus was not spared from Russia’s anger. Visiting Minsk following the Belarusian Prime Minister’s invitation, the CEO of a major Russian producer of potash, which is vital to fertilizer produc-tion, was arrested for abuse of power in a Russia-Belarus joint potash production alliance. In response, Russia cut oil to the last remaining dictatorship in Europe, further fraying tensions between the two partners.

As many know, Putin’s new aggressive posture has had many domestic implications as well. Since Putin’s return to the Presidency, there has been a move against politi-cal dissidents and legislation targeted at oppressing ho-mosexuals. Most notably, the recent law banning public displays of support for gays in Russia has appropriately garnered international condemnation and opposition. Coupled with increased harassment of gays in the coun-try, calls for repeal of the law and protection of gays have been followed by demands in the West to boycott the 2014 Winter Olympics in Sochi. Compounding its domestic human rights violations, Moscow has stepped up the arrest of political dissidents including the activ-ist group Pussy Riot, the arrest and subsequent release of opposition leader Alexandrei Navalny, and the post-humous conviction of Kremlin critic Sergei Magnitsky who died mysteriously in prison in 2009. While public outcry, and perhaps an attempt to make the government seem more legitimate, were able to free Navalny, most of the human rights violations have continued unabated. It seems that on almost every level, the political, military and civil, domestically, and internationally, Putin’s poli-cy has returned to the authoritarianism of the Soviet era.

Despite these significant regressions, there is some pos-sibility for progress on the otherwise souring relations between Russia and the United States. While Putin’s re-newed authoritarianism presents a strong obstacle to the reset President Obama was looking for, there are some spots where cooperation between the United States and Russia is possible. The most obvious point where progress could occur is with negotiation with states like Iran and Syria who have little to no ties with the United States. While Washington has always skeptically eyed Russia’s close relationship with these states, at least in the case of the Syrian crisis it did bear fruit. Despite strong domestic opposition to strikes on Syria, Presi-dent Obama seemed poised to go through with them until Russia convinced the Assad government to put its chemical weapons under international control. This de-velopment quickly prompted the Obama administration

to table the legislation authorizing action against Syria. Russia’s relationship with these rogue states could prove useful again in the future.

Equally promising were seemingly fair elections in Rus-sia on Sunday, September 8th. Navalny garnered 27% of the vote compared to just over 50% for the candidate from United Russia - Putin’s ruling party. While Navalny, the former mayor of Moscow, has sued, alleging voter fraud, his success at the polls far exceeded anyone’s ex-pectations. Although Navalny, who as mayor of Moscow was considered the second-most powerful political fig-ure in Russia, did not win, an opposition candidate did prevail over the United Russia candidate in Russia’s fourth-largest city. While the playing field is definite-ly not level for Putin’s opposition, the recent elections present the possibility of open and fair elections in the near future.

Lastly, despite the tension over the Zapad training exer-cises and arms sales to Iran and other rogue states, lim-ited US-Russia military cooperation has continued. In the end of August, the United States, Canada, and Russia participated in “Vigilant Eagle,” a joint training exercise to combat terrorism. The three militaries came together to practice countering terrorist plane hijackings. Despite the mounting tension between the United States and Russia at the time, the training exercise was a success.

Going forward, the United States must approach its relationship with Russia strategically. The Obama Ad-ministration needs to stand firmly against the increased anti-American posturing and Putin’s renewed authori-tarianism. The United States cannot back down in the face of Putin’s retrogression to Cold War-era politics and backslide on human rights in Russia. At the same time though, it is important that the United States identify the areas where progress has been made, both domestically and in terms of the US-Russia relationship, and try to bring that forward as much as possible. Most important-ly, the United States should not be distracted by Russian efforts in Syria and forget the serious threats developing in Moscow. PP


11

Voting is both the most partisan and non-partisan political act in which one can engage. When we vote, we are both stating a preference for a party or candidate and reinforcing our

basic system of democracy. I am not staking new ground when I say voting is important, but we are entering a cowardly new world of election law in which some legislators see fit to let only those most likely to vote for them to cast their vote.

In June, the Supreme Court struck down Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act in Shelby County v. Holder. Section 4 outlined the formula for the “preclearance” provision of the Act, and resulted in numerous southern states and other areas of the country having to clear proposed voting law changes with the federal government. Since the formula itself was struck down, Section 5, which covers the preclearance program itself, is unenforceable. What we have now are opportunistic Republican state legislatures moving to institute discriminatory voting laws intended to shut out voters through onerous ID requirements, restrictions on early voting, and even limiting voting hours. For example, North Carolina’s detestable new voting law even eliminated pre-registration for 16 and 17-year-olds. What could this possibly accomplish?

Voter fraud as commonly conceived of is essentially non-existent. This is not to downplay the seriousness of someone going to the polling place and voting if ineligible or under someone else’s name, and when it does occur it should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, but these legislators are using the specter of a vast left-wing conspiracy to a false end. In fact, pre-voting fraud, such as purging of voter rolls, mailing flyers with false election information, and intimidation at the polling place are much more common.

But perhaps the Voting Rights Act is chasing a false end as well. While it is true that southern states are more likely to institute these types of laws, a vote is a vote no matter where or for whom it is cast. I do agree with preclearance and the concept of voting law oversight in general, and I find the cry that the VRA unfairly targeted

southern states akin to a child protesting a lock on the cookie jar after he was caught with his entire face covered in crumbs. But maybe the VRA didn’t go far enough.

Under the Voting Rights Act, southern states were given the burden of proving that their voting law changes were in the best interest of the state and would not unfairly burden voters. Now the burden has shifted, and it must shift back with a vengeance. What we need is national preclearance.

We need every local change in voting laws to be reviewed by the states, and all state-level changes and decisions on local changes to be reviewed by the Department of Justice. It will cost money. It will be time-consuming. And yes, the vast majority of changes to voting laws are nearly unnoticeable; changing the color of the voting booth curtain will certainly receive less attention than North Carolina’s travesty, or Ohio’s attempts last year to limit early voting in urban areas. But your vote is valuable only if the system is fair.

I am not optimistic that this will happen in the near future, even as it benefits from incredible prominence for a non-election year. I attended the Senate Judiciary Committee’s July 17 hearing on the reimplementation of the VRA. Only two Republican Senators showed up, despite civil rights icon Rep. John Lewis (D-GA) testifying. It is a sad state of affairs that, at least at the national level, only one party is committed to remedying this problem. Things look bleak.

We need a national enforcement mechanism for changes to voting laws in order to protect voters of all parties. Next time you vote, especially if you would not have been able to vote when the Constitution was ratified, think about how hard the road has been to where we are now. Why should America fight these battles again? PP

THE DECLINE AND NECESSITY OF THE VOTING RIGHTS ACTby Alex Clearfield ‘14, Editor-in-Chief


12

AMERICAN EXEMPTIONALISM: THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT AND OBAMA’S POLITICS

As Americans await the gradual implementation of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), the law is being hailed as a significant piece, if not the defining piece, of Obama’s legacy. Currently,

the law is not only fueling political tension, but also acting as a test of political credibility. Obama and his party have become apologists for the act, defending its changes, contents, successes and integrity. However, since its passage, the law has not been argued on its merits, but rather through the lens of partisan politics. As a result, it has drifted away from its initial roots. The administration is now losing the war on health care reform in America as it struggles to simply win the politics of their iconic piece of legislation. This idea may be conceptualized in the administration’s dealing with the so-called “congressional exemptions” to the law. In 2012, Senator Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) introduced an amendment to the law that required congressional insurance to be purchased through the new health exchanges created by the ACA. Much to the Republican senator’s surprise, Democrats welcomed the amendment. However, a problem arises in the fact that large employers will not be able to participate in the health exchanges until 2017, and even then only if the state allows them to do so.

The exchanges also do not have any provisions dealing with contributions towards premiums from large employers. Starting in 2014, Congress and congressional staffers would have to find coverage plans under the ACA’s exchanges without receiving contributions from their own large employer, the federal government. In short, they would face a pay cut. The Obama administration decided to exempt Congress from part of the Act, allowing them to place contributions that they received towards their premiums while still requiring them to purchase their health insurance on the exchanges.

Ensuring that individuals could keep their employer-sponsored contributions to their premiums would have been a relatively “easy” legislative fix. As we saw with the airline delays resulting from sequestration, Congress is decently good at resolving problems when they are resolving their own problems. I am sure that a bipartisan arrangement would have quickly surfaced if the livelihood of Congress and their staff were at stake. However, this is not how events unfolded. The Obama administration stepped in and decided to fix the problem by flexing the already strained muscles of the executive branch. Of course, the question that naturally arises is: Why did the Obama administration not allow Congress to deal with a problem that they created themselves? Ultimately, the Obama administration has become too caught up in the politics of the law. The opposition to the ACA claims that the law is simply unaffordable and fiscally irresponsible. When the bill encountered criticism regarding its finances, the administration tried to keep the image of the ACA intact by requiring Congress to symbolically receive their insurance on the new exchanges, while at the same time quickly changing certain provisions of the bill behind legislative curtains. Rather than allowing Congress to address the problem in an organized and transparent manner to the American people, the administration responded directly to the opposition’s claim that the law was fiscally unsound by attempting to quickly and poorly resolve the unbalanced numbers.

The Obama administration has acted rashly, using the power of the executive branch in a situation that did not require such action. In today’s political climate, Obama has done himself, his party, and the ACA more harm by unnecessarily exerting executive power rather than faithfully acting as the chief executive and responsibly addressing problems that arise in the ACA. The Obama administration is clearly working hard to make the law “affordable.” Whether they will also remember to work on reforming the quality of the healthcare system has yet to be seen. PP

by Clayton Hale ‘16, Contributing Writer


13

This week up to two hundred villagers were taken hostage by a Muslim separatist rebel group in Zamboanga City, a commercial and industrial center on the island of Mindanao in

the Southern Philippines. The New York Times reported at least eight dead and dozens more wounded, with the fighting continuing to this day. While on the surface this event seems limited to the sphere of domestic Philippine politics, its implications are in fact of global importance and deeply rooted in concerns of the United States.

The rebel group, believed to be a faction of the Moro National Liberation Front (MNLF), is determined to establish a Moro nation—an autonomous state for Mindanao’s indigenous Muslim population. The MNLF’s official website clearly depicts a vision of the world in which the Muslim way of life is at conflict with the Western world. One article on the page for new members offers a “Brief History of American Economic Greed for Political and Economic Power.” Under the caption “Call for Moro Martyrdom” is a quote from the Quran that is telling of their fervor: “O believers! Fear Allah as He should be feared and die not but as true Muslims.”

The Southern Philippines is one of the easternmost footholds of Islam. It is also a location of increasing importance and interest to the United States as forecasts push the “center” of the global economy toward the Asia Pacific region and away from the West. Both of these considerations about the region compound into great economic and security concerns for the United States.

To address these concerns, President Obama introduced a new line of foreign policy in 2010 called “The Pivot to Asia.” The policy’s implications are far reaching in both diplomacy and security. Included in the provisions of the strategy are increased military presence in East Asia, expanded trade, investment, economic integration, and the advancement of democracy and human rights.

Diplomatic and academic circles largely interpreted the policy as an aggressive new posture designed to send a clear message to China that the United States’ presence in the Pacific is strong and unyielding. Critics view the strategy as unnecessary hostility that provides justification for China to build its own military and foster needless antagonism toward the United States.

The United States implemented part of its new strategy in July by deploying five hundred United States personnel from different branches of the military to the Philippines to advise the Philippine government on antiterrorist operations. The New York Times commented that the increase in military presence was a move “by the United States to ensure it retains influence in the region even as China’s grows.” But these military personnel are much more than that. They are part of a Joint Special Operations Task Force protecting the United States’ security and interests by aiding in the suppression of Muslim extremism.

This week’s turmoil in Zamboanga City shows us that the Middle East is not the only place where radical Islam and anti-Western beliefs can produce violence on a large scale. For all the criticism it has received, Obama’s strategy in Asia is very important for U.S. security and economic interests in the future, not because of its counterbalancing effect on China, but because of its defense against a new network of radical Islamists whose deadly actions have surfaced this week in the Philippines. With a full pivot the United States will be able to effectively combat a growing terror threat in East Asia. PP

RADICALISM IN THE PHILIPPINES—A REEVALUATION OF OBAMA’S “PIVOT TO ASIA”by Brian Hershey ‘16, Contributing Writer


14

On July 25th, New Jersey governor Chris Chris-tie was in Aspen, Colorado with other GOP governors for a talk entitled “Governors in As-pen: What’s Working at the state Level?” In the

talk, the moderator asked the governors for their take on the recent rise of libertarianism in the GOP. This was al-most two months after The Guardian started publishing reports on caches of leaked U.S. government documents revealing widespread surveillance of American and for-eign phone and internet activity. When the question was posed to Governor Christie, he responded by saying, “This strain of libertarianism that’s going through both parties right now, and making big headlines, I think is a very dangerous thought… these esoteric, intellectual de-bates, I want them to come to New Jersey and sit across from the widows and the orphans and have that conver-sation. And they won’t, ‘cause that’s a much tougher con-versation to have.”

There are a few things disgusting with this quote. By referencing “widows and orphans,” Christie exploits the suffering of 9/11 victims for a political end. Chris-tie insinuates that if one is anti-surveillance, he is anti-9/11 victims, working on the faulty assumption that all 9/11 widows and orphans support massive government surveillance programs. Christie also degrades his oppo-nents’ manhood by asserting they would never put their ideas in front of a hostile audience.

But the most ignorant and dangerous point is Christie’s assertion that the debate over government surveillance is “esoteric” and “intellectual.” That our government has been recording virtually every American’s phone and internet usage without warrants or probable cause of wrongdoing, both of which are required by the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution, did indeed spark an in-tellectual debate in this country. Many were surprised by the scope of these programs, including our own law-makers. When Director of National Intelligence James Clapper appeared before Congress in March, Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Oregon) asked him “Does the NSA collect any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans?” Clapper, looking down and scratching his head, said “No, sir.” Wyden attests that afterwards he ap-proached Clapper in private and reiterated his question,

in case Clapper could not respond honestly in public, but Clapper repeated his answer. When the NSA lies to Congress about what it does, how on earth is Congress supposed to provide any kind of oversight?

Meanwhile, the Obama administration, after running on a platform to end the policies of George W. Bush, has been the programs’ most vocal defender. Appearing on The Tonight Show with Jay Leno on August 7, President Obama said “There is no spying on Americans…We don’t have a domestic spying program,” a statement that was by then demonstrably false. The administration claims it welcomes the debate on national security, but worked hard to keep the programs classified and has tried to clamp down on leakers. The administration also asserts that Congress was always updated and informed of the programs, but this runs directly counter to statements by numerous legislators. Finally, the administration and the intelligence community remind us that any surveil-lance must first be approved by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA), so there is oversight. But re-cent weeks have revealed that the NSA consistently con-ducted surveillance without even informing the FISA court of what was transpiring. Also suspicious is the fact that in cases the FISA court did review, virtually none were deemed illegal.

This country was founded on ideas of liberty and re-strained power. The Fourth Amendment is vital in making sure only suspected criminals are eligible to be watched. 9/11 changed our view of the world, but it did not fundamentally alter the ideological underpinnings of our constitutional republic. The idea that one attack renders our natural right to live in privacy null is ab-surd. Make no mistake—Chris Christie called the Fourth Amendment esoteric. The idea that the government has to receive a warrant to surveil a probable criminal is “intellectual” to him. It is people like Chris Christie who have been transforming our country into a power-ful surveillance state, men who think civil liberties and the rights of the individual are “esoteric.” Libertarian-ism isn’t the danger—statism, peddled as security, is. PP

THE FOURTH AMENDMENT IS NOT ESOTERIC by Alex Dragone ‘16, Contributing Writer


15

In regards to the Syrian situation, the United States government has done an amazing job of maneuver-ing itself into an impressively tight corner. Presi-dent Obama and Vice President Biden have said

three times within the past year that the Syrian use of chemical weapons would cross a “red line” and result in anything from ominous “consequences” to enormously ominous “enormous consequences”. Yet when faced with clear evidence of a Syrian poison gas attack, the US government finds itself facing an American populace who are largely against Syrian intervention.

In June 2012 the United States had blamed the Syrian regime for four separate chemical attacks that killed roughly 50 people. No significant action, beyond prom-ises of arming rebels, was taken against Assad, and the United States only commenced sending the Syrian rebels light weapons two weeks ago, according to the Washing-ton Post.

Perhaps due to the absence of the promised American retaliation, Bashar al-Assad took his actions to the next level and on August 21st murdered roughly 1,400 of his own people in a chemical attack in Damascus. In re-sponse to the atrocity, the United States began to prepare its forces in the Middle East and the Mediterranean for an imminent attack on Assad’s forces.

What happened next could only be described as both encouragingly prudent and internationally embarrass-ing. President Obama tried to initiate swift military ac-tion against Syria, even as most of the nation came down against such a strike. Despite the President’s insistence that the attack would be a limited air campaign against the Syrian military and its capacity to wage chemical warfare, the nation strongly refused to come over to his side. This left the President in a highly uncomfortable and precarious position.

What he did next showed that he was responsive to pub-lic opinion, yet it was still a damaging hit to the cred-ibility of the United States abroad. President Obama asked for Congress to approve an attack on Syria. Based on historical precedent, such an action was largely un-

necessary. Presidents of the United States have a distin-guished history of not asking Congress for approval pri-or to military options, and Obama’s doing so was likely either a way to save face while backing down from an attack or an attempt to find political coverage in case of public backlash to a strike. As of now, no attack has happened, and for the moment it looks to have been put off. Russia has brokered a deal with Syria, where Syria is to surrender its chemical weapons to international cus-tody. Such an exchange still faces challenges, however. Assad has refused to move chemical weapons until the United States stops arming Syrian rebels and removes the threat of force from any diplomatic equation. Mean-while, Secretary of State John Kerry has given Assad one week to begin transferring weapons.

In February 2012, I wrote an article for the Politik exam-ining the advantages and disadvantages of arming Syrian rebels. I wrote then that the Syrian rebels had no central leader, and that a rebel victory brought by US arms could lead to a chaotic state like Libya or Egypt. While it may seem more extreme, perhaps an air campaign is actually less risky than an arms transfer. Air strikes leave behind no weapons that can be used after the war by Jihadist rebels such as Jabhat al-Nusra. They would also help build a stronger support base amongst the rebel troops, and would encourage Syrian trust in the United States’ ability to honor its word.

In addition, one could argue that for better or worse the United States does have a role as a “global policeman”. Its promises of aid, as well as its threats of retaliation, must be respected by allies and enemies alike across the globe. Backing down on the Syrian issue may cause resentment among potentially victorious rebel forces, and may embolden our enemies to see America as weak-willed. While President Obama was smart in not rushing heedlessly into a new conflict, he has done damage to our image abroad. America should take care in the fu-ture to make promises that it knows it can honor. PP

EMPTY WORDS AND SYRIAN POLICY by Mike Bodner ‘14, Contributing Writer


16

WRITE FOR thePOLITIK PRESS

The Politik Press, originally founded in 2008 as JHU Politik, is a weekly publication of political opinion pieces. We proudly seek to provide the Johns Hopkins campus with student voices and perspectives about important issues of our time. Rather than hide within a cloistered academic bubble, we know we must critically engage with the world that surrounds us. That, we believe, is at the heart of what it means to be learning.

We’re lucky to be situated in the city of Baltimore, a city with a rich history and an ever-changing politics. We aim to look at the politics of the Homewood campus, of the city of Baltimore, of the domestic landscape of the United States, and then of the international community as well.

While we publish the Politik Press weekly, we work simultaneously on our special issues which come out once per semester. These magazines confront a single topic from multiple angles. We have run issues covering topics like the political nature of research, the Arab Spring, and our city Baltimore.

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

politik press: volume 14, issue 1

Documents

issue of jhu politik

new website

issue iseptember

new readers

new position

new ideas

new initiative

hopkins students