CLAS Acts October 2020
Monthly newsletter of the TT faculty of CLAS
A Note from Dean Drake
With many unknowns and some extraordinary asks this year, it is very hard to calibrate our goals. It feels like we are sprinting a marathon…and the finish line seems to keep moving. How do we minimize the risk of burnout and meet the challenges we face right now?
In part the answer is to stay engaged with the things that have always renewed us, including some favorite CLAS activities. The CLAS Faculty Research Colloquium went undeterred on Sept. 18 and will have another installment on October 16. If you haven’t already, sign up to get the Zoom link.
Yesterday, I was honored to participate in the first online Homerathon. Although we missed the usual full campus room and inspired T shirts, the passion of students, alumni, and faculty shone through on Zoom.
Pablo Mahave-Veglia of Music Theatre, and Dance offers another wondrous adaptation to our situation by presenting a Bach cello series that incorporates physical distancing. The next concert is October 9, 12 - 12:45 p.m.
These events and others like them involve us in activities we love and help us break through isolation.
In support of our students, CLAS and Housing will collaborate to hold the COVID-adapted Repair Clinic. Volunteers will triage and tag clothing, backpacks, and other items needing repair at outdoor drop-offs October 2 and 5 at noon in the MAK courtyard. Please let your students know about this free service.
Consider talking with your students about the importance of their democratic engagement. For many, this is their first presidential election. Guide them toward university resources to help them understand the process, as potential new voters may not know how they can vote, or where, or when.
Think about your needs as a faculty member in this time of change. If there are forms of professional development that would serve you well this year, please let us know.
Finally, I urge you to take the time to step away. We model appropriate boundary setting for our students when we look after ourselves. It is healthy to seek peace.
Warmly,
Jen
Six Expert Views on this Election and its Ramifications
Just because you do not take an interest in politics doesn't mean politics won't take an interest in you.
~Pericles
Many have called the upcoming election the most important in our lifetimes. For many, politics are a season, but for some politics are the heart of their discipline. We asked a half dozen of the latter to send their thoughts on the coming election, that they do this from their area of specialty. In the finest tradition of academic freedom and with dedication to the potential of the American experiment, their replies came in even on this busiest of semesters and are shared with their faculty colleagues here.
Though longer than most features in CLAS Acts, we wanted to provide in full their responses to our prompts.
Richard Besel, professor and director of the School of Communications, commented on the rhetoric of this election in comparison those that have come before.
Some political communication scholars argue there was a noticeable shift in U.S. presidential discourse beginning in the early twentieth century. Gone are the days when presidents would communicate overwhelmingly via written texts addressed primarily to the U.S. Congress and the courts. Termed the “rhetorical presidency,” these scholars contend presidents attempted to push their respective agendas, interpretations, and ideologies by pressuring the legislative branch with direct appeals to U.S. voters. Indeed, one may even suggest today’s voters expect to be addressed by a sitting president. And why not? Changes in technology have mediated political communication in unprecedented fashion, making everyone a potential recipient of highly tested and carefully focused marketing appeals. The antecedents to our current circumstances are easy to spot: Franklin Roosevelt’s fireside chats allowed many to view him as the first “radio president,” George H.W. Bush was the first president to take advantage of White House email, William Clinton’s White House was the first to develop a website, and Barack Obama is often hailed as the first president of the social media age. Perhaps President Trump’s use of Twitter and insistence on campaign-like gatherings aimed at firing up his base in non-election years may be viewed as the next logical step in this progression. However, what some may call the “hyper-rhetorical presidency” should be viewed with extreme caution. The very technologies that enabled direct presidential communication with the public at large also come with serious limitations: disinformation circulates with ease, foreign powers may choose to meddle in our domestic concerns, and echo chambers may prevent us from thinking in a more introspective manner. This election marks an important inflection point in the history of our nation: Will we have more of the same (or worse)? Or do voters say enough is enough?
Senior Affiliate Roger Moiles (PLS) shared his perspective on this election with respect to Michigan political history.
Michigan is routinely described as a “battleground” or “swing” state in presidential elections, suggesting that, under the right conditions, its winner-take-all electoral votes can be won by either the Democratic or Republican nominee. With a diverse population, a mix of urban metropolitan centers and vast rural expanses, and economic sectors ranging from manufacturing to agriculture to tourism, partisan and ideological identities are widely represented. The pattern of Michigan’s presidential outcomes, however, has been more streaky. In the 1970s and ‘80s, Republican candidates won each election. In the 1990s and 2000s, and through Barack Obama’s 2012 reelection, Democrats took Michigan’s electoral votes, which led to Michigan becoming part of “the Blue Wall.” In 2016, of course, Donald Trump (ironically) broke through the wall, winning the state by fewer than 11,000 votes, which is the equivalent of a full house at Lubbers Stadium. That has set the stage for Michigan to be in play as a battleground state once again. Differential voter mobilization and turnout across the parties will likely determine the outcome in 2020, and with the passage of Proposal 3 electoral reforms in 2018, more than 2.3 million absentee ballots had been requested for the general election by late September, far surpassing what had been a record number of applications in pre-reform 2016. What remains to be seen is how many absentee voters are regular “likely” voters who may be simply replacing an in-person visit to their precinct during the pandemic; how many are newly mobilized voters who may be drawn to vote by the ease of doing so from home; and which candidate more of them break for.
Michigan’s role in the Electoral College has diminished a great deal in the last half century. In the 1980 presidential election, Michigan’s 21 electoral votes helped elect Ronald Reagan to his first term. But in 2020, Michigan will award only 16 EVs to the winner. While state population numbers have been stable over that period, and at times have shown modest growth, other states have seen large population increases and with them, more electoral clout. 2020 Census projections suggest that Michigan will lose at least one more electoral vote for the 2024 and 2028 presidential elections.
Professor Don Zinman (PLS) provides comparisons with prior elections.
Donald J. Trump’s supporters, and even some of his critics, assert that he is politically superhuman. That the normal rules of American politics simply do not apply to him. The 2020 presidential election will test that proposition.
Indeed, some trends in public opinion have functioned differently during the Trump years, in contrast to prior presidents. Whereas past chief executives have seen significant up and down swings of popularity during their terms in office, preferences concerning Trump have been remarkably stable for four years. He has a passionate base of supporters, and an even larger base of vitriolic detractors. Nor has Trump ever made much of an effort to expand his base of political support beyond his voters from 2016.
Our last three presidents, Barack Obama, George W. Bush and Bill Clinton, all spoke in the language of national unity and conciliation. They were, however, still divisive figures, because we live in polarizing times. Trump, on the other hand, does not even try to be a unifying figure, and sees extreme polarization as a net political gain for him. Joe Biden positions himself as bridge-builder, a healer, and a listener, but if the former vice president is elected, he too will quickly become a target of the nation’s bitterly toxic political environment. No single president is going to fix that.
Associate Professor Whitt Kilburn (PLS) looks at public opinion trends and the voting behavior of citizens.
One of my favorite expressions about Americans' political knowledge and participation is “The mean is low, but the variance is high”. Meaning, of course, that most Americans know and do relatively little, while for some politics nears an all-encompassing obsession. It's not unusual for surveys to show that only about one third of U.S. adult citizens can identify the Vice President by name. Many in that third might reason about politics in ideological terms. But for most people, their vote is up for grabs, because politics is more about group identity and benefits --- who gets what. Among the group benefits voters, in presidential elections many appear to vote with their wallets, rewarding incumbents presiding over a growing economy.
So group benefits and economic evaluations might explain a lot of what will occur in November. Some may be suckered into President Trump's white-identity-grievance politics. But if the November 2020 election at least roughly resembles the general trend of elections over the past 70 years, disastrous economic conditions usually mean the incumbent president is voted out of office. Combining the economy with low approval ratings, and it's hard to see how Trump could win with anything other than a narrow Electoral College fluke. While the Electoral College reversed majority will in 2016, the popular vote was consistent with these fundamentals, which only slightly favored the Democrats. In 2020, the fundamentals strongly favor Biden.
Polly Diven, Director of the International Relations Program, addressed herself to questions of foreign policy in this particular election.
Domestic issues typically dominate presidential campaigns, and this year is no exception. During this election cycle we have heard very little about terrorism, Russia, Iran, or many other vital foreign policy issues. Not surprisingly, the COVID pandemic and its economic impact have dominated the news cycle and the campaign. However, elections have consequences, and the election of the next president will have an important impact on US foreign policy. Citizens who focus on US foreign policy will note that Trump’s election in 2016 has disrupted long-established norms of behavior in the conduct of US foreign policy. Both the practice and content of foreign policy changed rapidly in the past four years.
Starting prior to inauguration, President Trump rejected the daily briefings offered by policy advisors at the State Department and Central Intelligence Agency. Once in office, the President immediately began to implement his isolationist foreign policy, terminating US participation in a number of important diplomatic agreements, including the Iran Nuclear Treaty (JCPOA), the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Force Treaty (INF), and the Paris Climate Accord. Recently, President Trump ended decades of US involvement in the World Health Organization (WHO). President Trump further advanced his “America First” campaign by working to reduce trade with China.
President Trump appears to believe that personal relationships can overcome longstanding international disputes, and thus has sought to engage autocratic leaders such as Vladimir Putin, Rodrigo Duterte, and King Jong Un. During the now famous July 2018 press briefing with Putin, the US President challenged reports of US intelligence agencies while refusing to hold Mr. Putin accountable for documented attempts to interfere with US elections. A large number of President Trump’s foreign policy advisors have resigned in protest over his tactics, including National Security Advisor John Bolton who strongly opposed Trump’s North Korea initiative.
Given these fundamental shifts in policy and practice, one might expect that Trump’s foreign policy record would be an important factor in his 2020 re-election campaign. However, the American public is poorly informed and generally disengaged from foreign policy and, as a result, Congress has increasingly failed to challenge the president’s foreign policy power. Donald Trump has taken full advantage of this power vacuum and moved swiftly to alter the course of US foreign policy. If he wins re-election, this foreign policy power will only grow.
Associate Professor Karen Zivi (PLS) provided a view of the role of civil and human rights in this election.
Writing as a human rights scholar, the daughter of a Holocaust survivor, and in the wake of Justice Ginsburg’s passing, I am profoundly concerned about the fate of our civil and human rights. However flawed its legacy may be, the Supreme Court is one of the most important institutions through which our rights are secured and expanded in this country. Even before her passing, it was clear that the Court would play a critical role in determining the future of the health care and reproductive rights and that the makeup of the Court was likely to mean their demise or at least their severe curtailment. With Justice Ginsburg’s passing, and the debate about who will replace her, when that should happen, and which political party is entitled to fill her seat, that security of rights essential to the equality of all is ever more in doubt as is the very legitimacy of the Court itself. Looking beyond the Court to the Executive and Legislative branches, we can see that voting rights, citizenship rights, rights of asylum, LGBTQ rights, and equal protection under the law, to name just a few, are all on the ballot. Our journalism students know full well that the rights of free expression and speech are at stake. More students than we might realize know that the human right to an adequate standard of living or the civil right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure is a reality only for some. Those who have joined protests against police brutality or for more humane treatment of immigrants, those who marched in Washington for climate justice or for women’s rights, know that the future they hope for is in no way guaranteed.
But it is not just the security of individual rights at home that is on the ballot, it is the contemporary human rights project itself. In 1948, the international community came together, responding to the utter dehumanization and systematical extermination of 11 million people whose religious beliefs, ethnicities, disabilities, sexual orientation, or political views were deemed absolutely intolerable, and said “Never Again.” The United States, in the person of Eleanor Roosevelt, led the charge, shepherding through the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This Declaration asserts that the protection of the “inalienable rights of all members of the human family” and the “recognition of the inherent dignity” are the very foundation for “freedom, justice, and peace in the world,” and that an international effort is essential to securing these. The United States’ commitment to this project is now fragile at best. This current administration has disparaged the work of the United Nations, quit the UN Human Rights Council, disregarded calls to investigate human rights abuses at home, and refused to join forces with others to protect human rights abroad. We are seeing the purposeful and systematic dismantling of the very human and civil rights norms, institutions, and coalitions that make democratic freedom possible on a daily basis. If we want to protect the legacy of human and civil rights and ensure their future, we must all exercise our right to vote with considerable care.