Volume VI Issue VIII

JHU POLITIKISSUE VIII, 4/18/11

Volume VI, Issue VIIIApril 18, 2011

1

JOHNS HOPKINS’s Only Weekly-Published Political Magazine

Also in this Week’s Edition:

THE UNCERTAIN FUTUREOF NUCLEAR ENERGY

By Anna Kochut, ‘13-Page 4

OPINION

www.JHUPOLITIK.com

THE DEBATE OVERENTITLEMENTS

By Alex Clearfield, ‘14-Page 3

RESTORING THE ROLE OFCONGRESS IN WAR

By Matt Varvaro, ‘13

-Page 6

MY IMPRESSIONS OFAYAAN HIRSI ALI

By Daniel Roettger, ‘13-Page 5

(Continued on Page 2)

TRUMP’S HAIR IN THE RING?

t seems like only yesterdaythat Barack Obama was

sworn in as the 44th President ofthe United States, but it is electionseason all over again. Since sittingpresidents almost never face seriousprimary challenges, the focus of theelection thus far has been on the Re-publicans and on whom they willnominate to face Obama in Novem-ber of next year.

The GOP sees the president asvulnerable, with approval ratings inthe mid- to low-40s and an ener-gized opposition committed to un-seating him. However, the realityappears to be that the Republicansare the ones exposed in this cycle,perilously divided between a center-right, conservative base and a moreconspicuously agitated Tea Party

sect that is determined to opposethe administration at every turn.The former has been leaning to-wards establishment figures like for-mer Massachusetts Governor MittRomney and former MinnesotaGovernor Tim Pawlenty, whilst thelatter has been willing to embracemore unconventional prospects likethe controversial former AlaskaGovernor Sarah Palin and Min-nesota Congresswoman MicheleBachmann. The question remainingis which of these wings of the GOPwill prove dominant come conven-tion time. With the nomination wideopen like this, one would think thatthis is the opening for any ambitiousgo-getters out there to throw his orher hat into the ring.

Enter Donald Trump, the 64-year-

by Eric Feinberg, ‘12Staff Writer

old billionaire real estate devel-oper/celebrity/star of NBC’s TheApprentice. As Time noted in a re-cent article entitled “Donald TrumpBegins Not Running For President,”this is not the first time Trump haspublicly flirted with the prospect ofa presidential campaign. “You mayrecall when he illustriously didn'trun for President in 1988 after fan-ning much media speculation thathe would,” the article quips. “He fol-lowed that up by dramatically notrunning for President with RossPerot's Reform Party in 2000.” Soanother question arises: is Trumpserious this time or is it all just an-

NATIONAL

I

INTERNATIONAL

(AFP)

other publicity stunt? It is possible that even Trump himself has not decided

yet, which is what he asserts. But he is certainly layingthe groundwork now in the event that he does, makinghis rounds in the media and testing his message with themasses. His actual positions remain undeveloped sub-stantively, but they have clearly thus far been tailored tothe Tea Party. For instance, in an appearance on CNN,Trump said he would institute a 25% tariff on all importsfrom China –which he bluntly referred to as an “enemy”of the United States – to spur domestic growth. More-over, at the Conservative Political Action Conference,Trump proclaimed his pro-life, anti-gun control, andanti-Obamacare stances to an enthusiastic crowd.

Furthermore, though he has rejected being as such,Trump has embraced the “Birther” movement, whichclaims that Obama is secretly an illegal alien from Kenyaand thus legally ineligible to hold the presidency. In anappearance on the Laura Ingraham Show, Trump wenton to deride the “Certificate of Live Birth” that was re-leased by the Obama campaign in 2008 as inadequate,and speculated that the president will ot release furtherdocumentation because it reveals him as a Muslim.

Most politically entertaining has been Trump’s meleeon the opinion pages of the New York Timeswith colum-nist Gail Collins, who criticized Trump’s Birther stance.“I have great respect for Ms. Collins,” Trump wrote in

2

Volume VI, Issue IIApril 18, 2011

his response, “in that she has survived so long with solittle talent. Her storytelling ability and word usage(coming from me, who has written many bestsellers), isnot at a very high level.”

Most surprising for many has been Trump’s fanaticalreception by some segments American people. An April15th poll by Public Policy Polling found Trump leadingthe Republican field by an astonishing nine points with26%, followed by former Arkansas Governor MikeHuckabee with 17% and Romney with 15%. Of course,these early polls should not be given too much weight,but they shouldn’t be given too little weight either – theyindicate the issues that are moving the electorate andwhere the momentum is. Only time will reveal if this isindeed another of Trump's publicity-stirring diversionsor a serious political shift among Republicans. s

The POLITIKEDITOR-In-Chief

Joshua AyalEditor-in-Chief

Harry BlackEditor-in-Chief

Sam Lichtenstein

Executive Editors

Will DentonMorgan Hitzig

Hannah Holliday

Managing Editor

Matt Varvaro

Staff Writers

Randy BellAlex ClearfieldRachel CohenRohit DasguptaEric Feinberg

Becca FishbeinConor FoleyCary Glynn

Benjamin GoldbergPaul GrossingerDan HochmanJordan KalmsAnna KochutBriana Last

Hilary MatfessDaniel RoettgerAri Schaffer

Faculty Advisor

Steven R. David

JHU POLITIK is a student-run politicalpublication. Please note that the opin-ions expressed within JHU POLITIK arethose solely of the author.

Please sign up for our e-mail list on ourwebsite, www.JHUPOLITIK.com

NATIONAL REPORT

www.JHUPOLITIK.com

(Continued from Page 1)

PRODUCTION MANAGERS

Casey NavinNeil O’Donnell

Ryan’s plan would also increase the minimum eligibilityage for Medicare to 67 from 65.

Ryan’s entitlement plan has attracted much attentionfrom all sides. Former Speaker Newt Gingrich has en-dorsed the idea of Medicaid block grants, which he pro-posed while Speaker during the Clinton administration.However, there has been much negative backlash fromDemocrats, with many calling it “irresponsible.” Presi-dent Obama said that Ryan had “a vision that says up to50 million Americans have to lose their health insurancein order for us to reduce the deficit.” The president’splan would not privatize Medicare or devolve Medicaidto the states.

On Friday, Ryan’s budget proposal was passed by theHouse in a partisan 235-193 vote, with no Democrats insupport. It is nearly certain that the bill will die in theSenate. This statement bill seems to signal that theHouse Republicans will not go down easily on the budgetissue, and also shows that the Republicans are preparedto take a unified step to the right and support the Ryanplan.

Two days before, on Wednesday, President Obamagave an address at George Washington University re-garding the deficit. Obama pledged to save $480 billionon Medicare over the next 12 years, as well as keepMedicare spending increases to a maximum of 0.5% peryear adjusted for inflation. Obama also promised to notrenew the Bush-era tax cuts that apply to families earn-ing over $250,000 per year.

Congressional Republicans predictably did not reactwell to Obama’s address. After some early trepidation,Speaker John Boehner said he now “fully supports”Ryan’s budget plan, which Obama claimed would“chang[e] the basic social compact in America.”

Obama took some inspiration from the Simpson-Bowles Commission, a Presidential Commission he cre-ated last year to study the deficit. The Simpson-Bowlesplan, which was not ratified by the 15-member group andwas viewed by many as advisory, calls for raising theearly retirement age with reduced Social Security bene-fits to 64 from 62, and raising the standard retirementage with normal benefits to 69 from 65.

Make no mistake: the president’s speech was both apartisan rally and a policy proposal. Obama and the Con-gressional Democrats are attempting to take control ofthe debate from the Republicans. Deficit reduction isoften seen as an area where the Republicans have morecontrol over the message, and Obama is attempting toshift the debate to fixing government programs. Obama

3


The Debate over Entitlements

by Alex Clearfield, ‘14Staff Writer

Last week’s budget standoff and the resulting Con-gressional budget vote last Thursday, although a water-shed moment for President Obama and his relationshipwith the 112th Congress, was merely an appetizer to amuch larger fight: the upcoming battle over entitlementreform. The three major entitlement programs –Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security – composed43% of the federal budget in 2010, and those percentageswill only get larger with the retirement of the Baby Boomgeneration.

The budget deal cut over a week and a halfago, which will be voted on by the Senate in the near fu-ture, covers only the rest of fiscal year 2011, which endson September 30. Given the difficulty with which thecurrent deal was passed, and the anti-governmentspending stance of the Republican Party, it is nearly cer-tain that there will be another standoff over the 2010budget.

The three entitlement programs, the bête noire ofHouse Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-WI)would be on the chopping block in a proposed budget.Ryan, who unveiled his 2012 budget proposal earlier thismonth, envisions fundamental changes to Medicare andMedicaid. Under his plan, Medicaid would be convertedinto block grants for individual states, which would thenadminister the program on the state level.

At the same time, Medicare would be completely al-tered. Under Ryan’s plan, those eligible for Medicarewould be able to choose from a range of private plansthat would be partially subsidized by the government, orenroll in a private plan not associated with Medicare.

NATIONAL REPORT

www.JHUPOLITIK.com


(AP)

est on an international scale. The change puts the acci-dent on par with that of 1986 Chernobyl disaster, thoughfar less radiation has been released from the Japaneseplant.

When struck with the news of this tragedy, observerswondered about the safety of nuclear reactors located onthe volatile Pacific “Ring of Fire,” a string of volcanic is-lands that popped up due to the movement of tectonicplates. This disaster brought the risk inherent to nuclearpower to the forefront of international minds. The ben-efits of nuclear power are clear: nuclear reactors providecheap, clean energy, which in turn reduces dependencyon oil. However, the leakage of radioactive gas is a fatalrisk. The March nuclear disaster in Japan caused manynations to turn inward and reconsider their nuclear pol-icy, making changes where, and if, necessary.

Take the case of Germany, where nuclear power pro-vides over 22% of its electricity. Germany has alwaysbeen suspicious of the idea of nuclear power, preferringother methods of renewable energy. The country’s leg-islation passed a law in 2002 that planned to close allGerman reactors by 2022. However, conservative Chan-cellor Angela Merkel joined the business sector’s fervorfor nuclear power and agreed to keep the German nu-clear power plants running until 2030. The plan was tokeep them operational until the country’s renewable en-ergy sector was sufficiently developed. The disaster inJapan reignited the country’s debate, and pressuremounted from the opponents of nuclear energy. As a re-sponse, Merkel ordered that all 17 of the country’s nu-clear reactors undergo safety checks. Some of the oldest,and most unsafe, nuclear plants might remain closedpermanently.

At the same, India, a country that has long debatedwhether or not to invest in nuclear energy, has stalled inits considerations as a result of the Japanese disaster.Four years ago, the Indian government sought to forciblyacquire 2,300 acres of coastal land to build six nuclearreactors. The Indian government, in governing a rapidlydeveloping nation, thought that nuclear power would bea good way to sustain an ever-growing country withcheap energy. Observers agree that this heated debate isan interesting example of how the Japanese nuclear dis-aster is causing a reactionary movement in the future ofnuclear power. Developing nations, such as India, ar-guably need nuclear energy more than do wealthy na-tions such as the United States and Germany. However,the fact that the protests against nuclear power in India

4


has made the debate not about whether the budgetshould be cut, but about the right amount to cut.

The deficit issue could be the defining moment ofObama’s first term. If he is able to strike a long-termdeal, he will be living up to the appealing promise of bi-partisanship he first made during his first campaign. Ifhe cannot reach a long-term deal with the Republican-led House, there will likely be much fiscal uncertainty,which would not be good for the president or the coun-try at large. There is no doubt that the big three entitle-ment programs will be a large part of the next budgetdeal, but common political wisdom holds that these pro-grams are here to stay.

Almost 60 years ago, during the relative infancy of So-cial Security (and before Medicare and Medicaid ex-isted), President Eisenhower said, “Should any politicalparty attempt to abolish Social Security...you would nothear of that party again in our political history. There isa tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can dothese things...their number is negligible and they are stu-pid.”While not abolishing these programs, Paul Ryan’sbudget proposal does aim to fundamentally alter them.On occasion, political wisdom has not held true; if Ryanand the budget hawks have their way, this would be oneof those cases. This 43% of the budget will be the battle-ground on which the 2012 budget battle is waged; onlytime will tell which side cuts the right amount to bothreduce the deficit and appeal to voters. s

The Uncertain Future of Nuclear Energy

by Anna Kochut, ‘13Staff Writer

On March 11, 2011, a 9.0 magnitude underwater earth-quake 67 miles offshore triggered a massive tsunamiwhich struck and devastated much of mainland Japan.Included in the wave’s massive area of destruction wasthe Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station, located170 miles north of Tokyo. The plant lost power and theemergency generators failed to keep the cooling systemsworking. As a result, one containment vessel crackedopen and a spent fuel rod container caught on fire, re-leasing dangerous amounts of radioactive gas. Last Tues-day, the Japanese nuclear safety agency raised theseverity of the accident from Level 5, an “accident withoff-site risk,” to Level 7, “a major accident,” ad the high-

NATIONAL REPORT/ INTERNATIONAL REPORT

www.JHUPOLITIK.com




5

are ever escalating signifies that the future of nuclearpower might not be as bright as many proponents ofclean energy would hope.

There are many more examples of shifts in nuclearpolicy than there is room to describe them in this article.However, if observers can learn one thing from these ex-amples, it is that the nations of the world have taken acouple of steps back where nuclear energy is concerned.The future of nuclear power, while questionable a yearago, is even more so now. One concern in observers’minds is how to ensure the safety of future, and current,nuclear power projects. While Germany and Italy haveslowed down their projects, other countries have justgotten started. South Africa, for example, is continuingwith their nuclear power plan, even after the Japanesedisaster. Engineers have been working hard on new waysto ensure the safety of nuclear reactors, and countrieslike South Africa have been implementing these new de-velopments, such as the requirement to build nuclear re-actors on the coastline.

As observers would love to see the development ofsafe, foolproof use of nuclear energy, they pressure en-gineers to come up with the perfect design for harness-ing the benefits of nuclear energy without suffering therisks inherent in nature. Muna Lakhani, branch coordi-nator of Earthlife Africa’s Cape Town office, says, “Idon’t think you can engineer for Mother Nature.” Envi-ronmentalists and other observers agree with her skep-ticism. Nuclear power comes with huge risks. Observersagree that it is nearly impossible to engineer a nuclearplant that is free from these risks. Therefore, observersare faced with a familiar dilemma: is nuclear powerworth it? s

My Impressions of Ayaan Hirsi Ali

byDaniel Roettger, ‘13Staff Writer

My first encounter with Ayaan Hirsi Ali came when afamily friend gifted me with her first book, Infidel. Iloved it. It was thoroughly engaging and provided an in-sight into a culture about which I was largely ignorant.Ali’s candid ‘rags to riches’ story was engaging, in-formed and – yes – appalling. To me, it came off aswholly organic and authentic. So, when I learned that

the Foreign Affairs Symposium was hosting Hirsi Ali, Iwas excited and determined to go. But, on the whole,boy, was I disappointed. With that said, as an aside, shedid give a line that has become among my favorite: “Youcan't bomb bad ideas out of people.”

I left Mudd 26 wondering how the author I had ad-mired could become the speaker that I had heard. OnTuesday evening, Hirsi Ali was guilty of oversimplifica-tion and under-analysis; large parts of her argumentlacked nuance. She demonized Islamic countries and be-atified the West – and particularly the United States.Taking liberties with history, she implied that the U.S.was free of discrimination on the basis of gender or sex-ual orientation. Granting that the U.S. fares well by com-parison with the Gulf States (for example, in Dubai, onecan get up to ten years in prison for having consensualsex with a member of the same gender), it remains thecase that the U.S. Labor Department reports that womenmade about 21% less than men in 2008. Similarly, ac-cording to the Human Rights Campaign, “it remainslegal in 29 states to discriminate based on sexual orien-tation, and in 38 states to do so based on gender identityor expression.”Of course, I do not think that the West isless progressive than the Gulf States are on issues ofequality, etc. But an admission that the West has its ownflaws and divisions would have been appreciated.

Further, Hirsi Ali treated the Western – and by exten-sion, American – society as thoroughly secular. I don'tbuy that. If you examine the American perception of ourMiddle East military endeavors, you will find that it fre-quently boils down to Christianity versus Islam. This“God is on our side”mentality extends to the highest lev-els in the U.S. government. For example, PresidentGeorge W. Bush is quoted by former Palestinian foreignminister Nabil Shaath, as saying: “I am driven with a mis-sion from God. God would tell me, 'George go and fightthese terrorists in Afghanistan'. And I did. And then Godwould tell me 'George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq'.And I did." So he did –with God on his side, apparently.

To be certain, Ms. Ali offered a number of stories thatsupported her position that Islamic societies simply ig-nore the basic rights of women and children. For exam-ple, she cited the case Nujood Ali, a 10-year-old Yemenigirl, who was wedded off to a man nearly three times herage. Though illegal under Yemeni law, this is acceptableunder Sharia law so long as the child bride is not ‘sexu-ally touched’ until she reaches maturity. Nujood Ali wasnot so fortunate: her new husband raped her. She fled toa courthouse, where she pleaded to a judge for a divorce.

INTERNATIONAL REPORT / OPINION

www.JHUPOLITIK.com


(AP)



6

Human rights lawyer and feminist Shada Nasser, who isYemeni-born and Czech-educated and who Hirsi Ali de-scribed as a “Muslim aid worker,” took her case. Someweeks later, Ali became referred to as the “youngest di-vorcee” in the world after a case that captured a globalaudience.

A second example recounted the travails of an Afghanchild, Bibi Aisha, who was offered at 12 and married 14to settle a familial ‘blood debt.’Her husband, a Talibanfighter, was abusive. She fled, but her neighbors turnedher in, and she was briefly jailed. Her father retrievedher and returned her to her husband’s family, withpromises that her treatment would improve. It didn’t.Rather, in 2010 her husband and brother-in-law did theunthinkable: while his brother held her down in a moun-tain clearing, her husband cut off her ears and nose.They left her, passed out from the pain. She awoke, dis-figured and bleeding profusely, and managed to find herway to her grandfather’s house. She was taken to aAmerican-run medical facility, where she received treat-ment and later underwent substantial reconstructivesurgery. Her story was told in – and she was featured onthe cover of the August 9, 2010, cover of Time.

What bothered me most was what Hirsi Ali said afterthis second story: ““But again, it illustrates that differentattitude toward women in the West and in Islam. Therewas no outrage in Muslim countries. All the Muslims inL.A. , whose attention it came to, in America, elsewhere,all said 'yes, yes, it's wrong' and then punctured theiroutrage with 'but.' And it's just that three-letter wordthat tells you where the difference lies. There is no West-erner to that story who says 'but.' There is no 'but.'” Alisought to use these stories to dramatize the differencebetween West and Middle-East, claiming that, whileevery Westerner would disavow Aisha’s mutilation, “noMuslim’would fully do so. This, I think, flies in the faceof the compassionate behavior of the ‘Muslim aidworker” from Yemen, Shada Nasser.

Ms. Ali gained nothing from these overstatements andexaggerations. Instead, she forces her listener to ques-tion her credibility. Make no mistake: her experiencewas horrific. But her refusal to be defined by her cultureand experience was inspiring, and it resulted from ra-tionally questioned the “received truths” of the societyin which she was raised. By tilting away for criticalanalysis and toward oversimplification, she did much toundermine the reputation as a highly respected interna-tional figure she had so carefully built. s

Restoring the Role of Congress in War

byMatt Varvaro, ‘13Managing Editor

In the wake of the Obama administration’s decisionto initiate a military campaign against the Libyan gov-ernment, there has been much debate surrounding thewisdom of this intervention and its implications forAmerican foreign policy. Far less debate, however, hasbeen devoted to perhaps an even more fundamentalissue, namely, the very authority of the President of theUnited States to make such a decision.

A couple of days after the American-led air strikes inLibya had begun, President Obama issued a letter toCongressional leaders in which he formally notifiedthem of his decision and the humanitarian and foreignpolicy reasons behind it. In this letter, the presidentcited the authorization of the United Nations SecurityCouncil, as well as the support of “European allies andArab partners,” as justification for his commitment ofAmerican military force to the Libyan conflict.

Noticeably absent from this letter, however, was anymention of authorization from the United States Con-gress, the only body both constitutionally- and statuto-rily-authorized, in almost every instance, to actuallyinitiate American military intervention. In fact, the onlymention of Congress in the president’s letter came in thelast two sentences, which read, “I am providing this re-port as part of my efforts to keep the Congress fully in-formed, consistent with the War Powers Resolution. Iappreciate the support of the Congress in this action.”

OPINION

www.JHUPOLITIK.com




7

The president’s belief – a belief shared by many, if notall, of his recent predecessors – that the War Powers Res-olution (WPR) gives the president the power to unilat-erally initiate military force and simply notify Congressof his decision afterward, is simply a misinterpretationof the actual text of the statute.

Congress, overriding a presidential veto, passed theWPR in 1973 in an attempt to limit the president’s abilityto initiate military action abroad. As it has been recentlyinterpreted, the act permits the president to initiate mil-itary action, notify Congress within 48 hours, and thenorders the termination of the military engagement after60 days in the absence of a Congressional authorizationof military force or a declaration of war. The notion thatthe WPR grants the president what has been called asixty-day “blank check” is indeed the most widely ac-cepted interpretation of the document, but upon exam-ining its text, it is clear that this interpretationegregiously violates both the spirit and the letter of theWPR.

The WPR, contrary to popular belief, does not simplyauthorize the president to commit military force at hisdiscretion, but actually calls for one of three very specificcriteria to be met prior to the use of force: “(1) a declara-tion of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) anational emergency created by attack upon the UnitedStates, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.”

Once again, regardless of the threat that MuammarQadhafi posed to his own citizens and arguably to Amer-ican national interests in the Middle East, it is virtuallyimpossible to argue that any of these three criteria weremet. The first two clearly were not, while the third de-scribes a situation that simply did not exist, specificallya national state of emergency in which Qaddafi threat-ened in any way to attack American territory, posses-sions, or armed forces. Thus, it can very reasonably beargued that the American military intervention in Libyawas carried out illegally.

Of course, as was already mentioned, similar inter-ventions have been initiated numerous times in recentyears by presidents of both political parties. Neither im-peachment efforts nor a defunding of the operation mid-way through its execution – both of which have beensuggested by various members of Congress – would beresponsible, as they would both have unwise politicaland foreign policy implications. However, Congressshould immediately begin crafting reforms that wouldhelp to return the power to initiate war to the Americanpeople’s representatives, where it rightfully belongs.

OPINION

www.JHUPOLITIK.com

One obvious reform would involve clarifying andstrengthening the WPR and punishing its future viola-tions far more aggressively, perhaps with presidentialcensures. Ideally, Congress should once again offer for-mal declarations of war (a practice that was abandonedafter World War II) instead of rather flimsy resolutionsor authorizations of force, which fail to adequately holdCongress accountable for its actions.

Ultimately, diminished role of Congress in the initia-tion of war represents an unfortunate disrespect of Con-gress as an institution and a blatant disregard for the lawof land, both on the part of Congress and the president.Indeed, consistent with the quintessentially Americanideals of balanced power and representative govern-ment, the decision to go to war should not be placed inthe hands of one individual, but should reside in theCongress of the United States, as the Constitution andthe War Powers Resolution call for in no uncertainterms. s


Hopkins This Week

Girl Up at Johns Hopkins &United Nations Foundation

present

KIM PERRYCEO Global Advisors

ON CIVIC ENGAGEMENT

7:30 pm, April 19thShriver Hall

FOREIGN AFFAIRS ESSAY CONTESTPrize of $1,000

One undergraduate's essay to be published on theForeign Affairs website

ESSAY TOPIC (1,200- 1,500 Words)

Is the decline of the West inevitable?

Entries must be submitted by July 1, 2011.

Volume VI Issue VIII

Documents

Transcript of Volume VI Issue VIII