WASHINGTON

UNIVERSITY
Washington University POLITICAL REVIEW

POLITICAL REVIEW
EDITOR-IN-CHIEF
GREG ALLEN
DIRECTOR OF CONTENT
JAKE LAPERRUQUE
STAFF EDITOR
BRITTANY PARKER
FREELANCE EDITOR

Contents JOSH TRUPPMAN

ONLINE EDITOR
KEVIN TABER
FEATURES EDITOR
MICHAEL BRODSKY
ELECTION / FEATURE TREASURER
MARCUS WALTON
LAYOUT EDITOR
The (Un)timely Death of “The Man” 4 ELIZABETH GERMAC
How the election of Barack Obama could shake the black community COPY EDITOR
Marcus Walton LAUREN WEISS
STAFF WRITERS
McCain vs. Obama 8 BRYAN BAIRD
How their tax plans compare MAX BENNETT
Spencer Berry SPENCER BERRY
CHARLIE BITTNER-ROSS-
MILLER
The Right Change 10 AMY PLOVNICK
The College Republicans make the case for McCain - Palin MAX SCHULMAN
Charis Fischer NICK WILBAR
FICTION COLUMNIST
STEPHEN HARRISON
Obama and the Future Worth Fighting For 13 COVER ILLUSTRATION
The College Democrats make the case for Obama - Biden SAM WASHBURN
Benjamin Guthorn BACK COVER ILLUSTRATION
SNOW POWERS

Some Last Thoughts Before You Vote 15 The Washington University Political
The most important arguments of the 2008 election Review is committed to encouraging
Max Solomon Bennett and fostering awareness of political

Interview With Vice-Presidential Expert Joel Goldstein 28 issues on the campus of Washington
University in St. Louis. To do
WUPR sits down with the foremost in a field
this, we shall remain dedicated to
Judy MargolinBrittany Parker providing friendly and open avenues
of discussion and debate both written
and oral on the campus for any and
all political ideas, regardless of the
leanings of those ideas.

SUBMISSIONS
submissions@wupr.org

3 Washington University Political Review

 A Special Report on the Development and
Impact of the Economic Stimulus Package

By Jake Laperruque

Face d with the g reatest e conomic downturn of our time, Presi-

dent Obama and Cong ressiona l Democrats have responde d by pro -
posing the massive American R e cover y and R einvestment Act of
2009, one of the larg est bills e ver create d. This historic pie ce of
leg islation may play a determining role in the path that America’s
e conomy will now ta ke and in the f uture of our societ y as a whole.
With the fina l version of the bill now passe d, sig ne d, and made
into law, W UPR ta kes a close look at the process by which it came
to be, and exactly where it may lead us.
4 Washington University Political Review
 STIMULUS SPECIAL REPORT

Bits and Pieces: T he Par ts of the

Stimulus that Stick Out

The Rod Blagojevich Shout Out:

Rod Blagojevich may be gone, but he’s not forgotten. Blago has become so infamous to Congress and the
American public that he was personally condemned in the Economic Stimulus Package. The bill – written before
Blagojevich was officially ousted from office – contains this small but humorous provision:

“Section 1112: Addition Assurance of Appropriate Fund Use

None of the funds provided by this Act may be made available to the State of Illinois, or any agency of the State,
unless: (1) the use of such funds by the State is approved in legislation enacted by the State after the date of the
enactment of this Act; or (2) Rod Blagojevich no longer holds the office of Governor of the State of Illinois”

Obama signs the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. White House Press Photo
Washington University Political Review 5
 The Flip Your House Line by Line:
For 15K Amendment: A Guide to the
This provision of the bill was a relatively simple idea:
Stimulus Spending
Help the ailing housing market by providing a $15,000 tax
credit to anyone who purchases a house as an incentive to AREA: SPENDING (IN BILLIONS):

buy. The amendment – proposed by Senator Johnny Isakson Farming & Food: $26.431

(GA-R) – received unanimous support. Commerce, Science & Justice: $15.810

The idea quickly came under fire. Some thought the predicted Defense: $4.531
cost was skewed. Dean Baker, co-director for the Center
Energy & Environment: $50.775
of Economic and Policy Research, estimated that home
Government: $6.707
purchases in 2009 would make the tax credit cost a whopping
$75 billion, much less than the $19 billion allocated to it. Homeland Security: $2.744

There is also the opportunity for manipulation. Baker and Outdoors, Reservation &Arts: $10.545

Nobel Prize winning economist Paul Krugman both contend Labor: $4.806
that the bill easily allows for individuals to “flip” their homes Health and Services: $21.917
to a friend or family member, creating no real change or
Education: $44.638
economic benefit, but costing the government $15,000.
Volunteering and Social Security: $1.203

Military & Veterans: $4.246

State: $0.602
The $335,000,000 Condom: Transportation & Housing: $61.051

One provision of the bill that came under fire TOTAL SPENDING: $308.481

early was a section that delegated funding - $335 million Individual tax cuts: $232.426

in total – to sex education and family planning. The Business tax cuts: $6.150
provision provided direct funding for family planning Manufacturing tax cuts: $1.850
services under the umbrella of Medicaid. This, however,
Economy tax cuts: $6.501
included contraceptives, which angered a huge number of
Infrastructure tax cuts: $19.638
conservatives, and made for a successful Republican spin –
that the Democrats were spending hundreds of millions of Energy tax cuts: $19.963

dollars to hand out free condoms. As criticisms intensified Individual aid (tax credits): $14.443

against the section, Democrats did what the controversial TOTAL TAX CUTS: $288.339
contraceptive should not: Break Under Pressure. President Individual aid: $82.810
Obama urged Congressional Democrats to remove the
Health care: $107.611
provision, a request they promptly complied with. The
TOTAL AID: $190.421
removal did not help the bill acquire any Republican votes,
but it did bring an end to controversy. TOTAL COST: $787.241

6 Washington University Political Review

 The American Government Buys American Stuff Provision:
In an effort to help domestic industry and be patriot, the stimulus bill in the House included a section
mandating that steel and iron purchased from stimulus money be American-made. The Senate version of
the bill out patriotic-purchased its House counterpart, going further by requiring that all manufactured
products in stimulus-funded construction projects come from American producers. On the campaign trail
Obama frequently advocating buying American and received strong support from unions, many of whom
were in favor of the provision. However, in the crumbling economic climate Obama stood against the “Buy
American” mandate, fearing that it would “signal protectionism.” Obama’s choice has merit, and shows the
complicated nature of the issue of trade, something that transcends parties and often turns candidates opinions
on their heads. However, in a time when consumers are so often told how important it is to buy American, it is
disappointing that our own government does not hold itself to a similar standard.

The Joe Biden No Longer Takes The

Train / Amtrak Recovery Section:
This provision of the bill provides $850
million to Amtrak, which was facing tough times
even before the recent economic collapse. It was
criticized as wasteful spending by many, and was
targeted for elimination by Republican moderates
seeking to forge a compromise and pass the
stimulus. In the end, the Senators opted to tear out
$20 billion in school construction and $39 billion
in state aid, but leave the full funding for Amtrak.

The Fake Provision:

One provision that set parts of the blagosphere buzzing was a hidden section that Republican House
Whip Eric Cantor supposedly slipped into the final version of the bill on the day of its passage, which prevented
members of Congress and White House staff from receiving pay until they’d balanced the budget. The reason
that this secret section never came to the attention of lawmakers: It didn’t exist. The news story of the hidden
provision that “Yanks Lawmaker Pay” can be traced back to a satirical news site, which published it as a critique
to Congressional spending. Perhaps so many blogs and message boards picked it up because the idea of an
amendment being snuck into a bill at the last moment seemed like typical Washington behavior. Or maybe it was
because the idea of Congress remaining unpaid until they fix the budget deficit was wishful thinking for everyone
discussing the story.

Washington University Political Review 7

 The GOP Strikes Back:
How the
H
ow could it happen? A political party at it’s feeblest state in
decades facing off against an opponent with huge majorities
in the House and Senate, a president with incredible popu-
larity, issue-ownership on solving the economic crisis, and a huge level
of charisma and confidence. But somehow, despite the long-shot odds,
their lack of public support, and the vital importance of immediate and
bold action, the Republicans held their own against the stimulus pack-
age, and seem all the stronger for doing it. It was like the Rebel Alliance
destroying the Death Star, except this time the Empire were the good
guys and Luke Skywalker was a stubborn, selfish, old bastard. Regard-
less of whether their opposition to the stimulus will ultimately prove
beneficial, one fact appears undeniably clear: The Republican Party Is
Rejuvenated.
Republicans came out swinging against the stimulus package from
the start, complaining with an ever-increasing aggressiveness. While
Obama sought to court Congressional Republicans – both in gesture
and negotiations of the stimulus pack-
age – they continued to give no ground,
complaining repeatedly about wasteful
spending littered throughout the bill.
The consensus-seeking attitude
that Obama brought to the development
of the legislation seemed to only aid
Republicans in their attempt to attack
the legislation. It was a vicious cycle:
Congressional Republicans would speak
out against provisions of the stimulus,
protesting against wasteful spending.
Obama would then compromise, remov-
ing pieces of the bill that were criticized.
This in turn validated the Republican
argument that the stimulus contained
unnecessary spending, wasting the money of taxpayers while doing
nothing to solve the economic crisis. Republicans could then resume
their attacks on the stimulus package, restarting the cycle with increased
strength and legitimacy.
Another component that gave the GOP an edge in the debate over
the stimulus was its huge airtime advantage during the early phase of
the debate, when each side was trying to frame the bill around its own
position. Congressional Republicans appeared on talk shows and news
programs far more than their Democratic counterparts, causing their
talking points on the wasteful spending of the stimulus to be heard far
more than the necessity-of-action claim that Democrats were making.
Why this disparity occurred is unclear. Perhaps overconfident Demo-
crats were less vigilant in getting on the air to make their case. Maybe
television programs simply opted to use members of the majority less.
No matter the cause, the favorable coverage that Republicans received
allowed them to surge ahead in the PR battle on the stimulus.
One final factor that allowed Republicans to successfully rail
against the stimulus was the Obama administration’s failure to fight
back. This is partially due to Obama’s devotion to developing biparti-
sanship in Washington. His desire to build consensus compelled him to
8 Washington University Political Review
hold off on fighting back against the Republican attacks, even when he
had clear ammunition on the issue and immense public support. The
greater cause of Obama’s limitations was the explosion of controversy
surrounding his cabinet nominations. Obama faced withdrawals from
Health and Human Services nominee Tom Daschle and Chief Perfor-
mance Officer Nancy Killefer, both due to issues involving failure to pay
taxes. This not only occurred in the midst of the stimulus debate, but
also on the same day that Obama had scheduled a series of primetime
news interviews to discuss the bill. Instead of explaining the merits of
the stimulus package and emphasizing the need to pass it, Obama had to
field question after question on his botched nominations and the rami-
fications of this failure. Republicans, meanwhile, seizes the opportunity
and dominated the stimulus debate with vicious attacks.
Republicans continued their stand against the stimulus when the
time to vote came. House Republicans stood unanimously against the
bill, voting against it 177-0. The GOP reveled in its united opposition;
RNC Chairman Michael Steele declared,
“the goose egg that you laid on the presi-
dent’s desk was just beautiful.” In the
Senate, a small group of three Republican
legislators supported the bill and break-
ing a filibuster threat, but not before pull-
ing billions of dollars in spending out of
the plan, and invoking the ire of the rest
of their party. Republicans in the House
repeated their stance of stubbornness
when the legislation was revised into its
final version, voting against the stimu-
lus 176-0. Republicans also embarrassed
the President and further emboldened
themselves when Judd Gregg (R-NH)
announced that he was withdrawing his
nomination as Commerce Secretary due to opposition to the stimulus
package, and he returned to the Senate to vote against it.
The GOP has established clear contrast with their Democratic
counterparts regarding the stimulus package, and the path to economic
recovery in general. How this will affect the future of the Republican
Party remains to be seen. If the economy continues to be mired in
depression for the next two years, Republicans will be able to argue that
the Democrats failed to solve the problem and wasted nearly a trillion
dollars in the process to great effect during the 2010 midterm. However,
should the economy begin to rebound, then Democrats will receive sole
credit for the recovery and the GOP will be unable to avoid the label that
they were an obstacle to improvement.
The GOP’s strategy of all-out attack is both risky and daring. In
the long run it could help them rebuild themselves, or it could fracture
or weaken them further. But for now, their stance on the stimulus has
provided the Republican Party with a much-needed boost. They are
rejuvenated. They riled up. And they are ready to keep on the attack.
 STIMULUS SPECIAL REPORT

Roll Call: How Congress Voted

The House of Representatives passed their original version of the bill on January
28. The breakdown of the vote was:
Aye Nea
Democrats 244 11
Republicans 0 177
Total 244 188

The Senate passed their version of the bill on February 10. The break-
down of the vote was:
Aye Nea
Democrats 56 0
Republicans 3 37
Total 61 37
The two Independents in the Senate both supported the bill. Three Republican
Senators - Susan Collins of Maine, Olympia Snow of Maine, and Arlen Specter of
Pennsylvania - crossed party lines to support the bill, breaking the Republicans ability
to filibuster.
A new, finalized version of the bill was then created. The House of Representa-
tives voted on February 13. The breakdown of the vote was:

Aye Nea
Democrats 246 7
Republicans 0 176
Total 246 183

One Democrat – Peter DeFazio of Oregon – voted against the final version of the
bill after voting in favor of the original version.
Five Democrats – Allen Boyd of Florida, Jim Cooper of Tennessee, Brad Ells-
worth of Indiana, Paul Kanjorski of Pennsylvania, and Frank Kratovil of Maryland
– voted against the original version of the bill but voted in favor of the final version.
The finalized version of the bill passed the Senate later that same day. The break-
down of the vote was:
Aye Nea
Democrats 55 0
Republicans 3 38
Total 60 38

Although Democrats lost one vote and Republicans gained one, no Senator
switched their support for the bill. Republican Senator Judd Gregg of New Hampshire President Obama takes questions
did not vote on the original version, but voted against the final version. Democratic from congressional Republicans on the
Senator Ted Kennedy voted in favor of the original version of the bill, but was not stimulus. Photo: Whitehouse.gov
present during the final version of the bill.
Washington University Political Review 9
 STIMULUS SPECIAL REPORT

The Post-Stimulus America:

Possible Paths Forward For Our Economy
With the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 passed and signed into law, all questions of how it
came to pass and who supported it become secondary to the largest concern facing the American people: Will it
succeed in its goal to reinvigorate the economy? While the specific impact of the bill will remain a mystery until it
takes effect, we can speculate on some of the general outcomes that the stimulus may have.

Possibility 1: Major Economic Recovery

The Audacity of Hope. The most optimistic vision

of our future is an America experiencing rapid eco-
nomic regrowth, with the stimulus bringing an end to
the recession in a matter of months. While virtually all
Americans wish this could occur – with the exception
of Rush Limbaugh, who vocally hopes for our nation
to crash and burn – this seems to be an unrealistic
expectation. A range of esteemed economists includ-
ing Nobel Prize winners Joseph Stiglitz and Paul Krug-
man have contend that despite its unprecedented size,
the stimulus is simply not large enough to fully combat
the economic downturn. According to Krugman, “while Mr. Obama got more or less what he asked for, he almost certainly
didn’t ask for enough. We’re probably facing the worst slump since the Great Depression. The Congressional Budget Office,
not usually given to hyperbole, predicts that over the next three years there will be a $2.9 trillion gap between what the
economy could produce and what it will actually produce. And $800 billion, while it sounds like a lot of money, isn’t nearly
enough to bridge that chasm.” While the impact of the stimulus is complex, the reason that Krugman illustrates as to why we
should not expect full and immediate recovery is somewhat simple: The financial crisis and recession has left a gapping hole
in our economy, and the stimulus package is not big enough to fill it.
Probability: Highly Unlikely

Possibility 2: Minor Economic Recovery

You Can’t Always Get What You Want. Although it is highly improbable that we will experience major economic recov-
ery in which the economy will be fully recovered by the end of 2009, it is reasonably likely that we will experience some
positive impact from the stimulus in the coming months. While the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act may not be
sufficiently large to fully plug the gap in the economy, it should provide a decent level of direct aid. The direct injection of
over $300 billion of government spending will provide economic boost, and the near $300 billion in tax cuts should help as
10 Washington University Political Review
 STIMULUS SPECIAL REPORT

well. This may not be enough to fully restore the economy, but it will certainly help end the collapse and put us on the path
to recovery. Even the vocally critical Krugman admits the stimulus should have some positive impact, stating, “A number
of economists, myself included, think the plan falls short and should be substantially bigger. But the Obama plan would
certainly improve our odds.” In addition to the immediate spending boost that the stimulus provides, it will also offer aid
with regard to employment in America. The unemployment rate is dropping rapidly, currently above 7.5% and plunging
towards double-digits. The massive amount of projects created and funding provided by the stimulus will create hundreds of
thousands – perhaps even millions - of new jobs. RNC Chairman Michael Steele has declared these employment opportuni-
ties are not “job” but merely “work,” due to the fact that they are created by the government (perhaps he should talk to the
millions of people with jobs in public affairs) and are not permanent (perhaps he should talk to the millions of people being
laid off each day). Do not be fooled by Mr. Steele’s less-than-cunning rhetorical manipulations - the stimulus will create jobs.
The economy is in such a bad state, however, that the unemployment rate might not drop for some time; it may even continue
to drop in the coming months. But the stimulus will undoubtedly help Americans on the issue of unemployment. Thus, as a
whole, the ARRA will probably not cure our economic woes, but it should be a significant aid on the path to recovery.
Probability: Very Plausible

Possibility 3: No Economic Recovery

Why So Serious? One final, more morose forecast about the impact of the stim-
ulus is that it will provide absolutely no benefit. This outcome was most frequently
predicted by Congressional Republicans speaking out against it on news and talk
shows, sticking to the spin that government spending was wasteful and provided
no benefits, and that the only way the government can help the economy is to cut
taxes. The $300 billion in tax cuts that the stimulus provides should silence this
argument. And the contention that government spending provide no economic
benefit holds just as little weight. “Think-tanks” like the Cato Institute (which is
funded by the very financial institutions that created this crisis and serves more as
a PR firm than a true institute of research and study) claim that spending - even
during the Great Depression – does nothing to aid the economy. History tells a
different story. First, while huge unemployment existed throughout the 1930’s,
Roosevelt’s use of Keynesian Economics brought many elements of the economy
to recovery in the mid 1930’s; the start of WWII ended the Great Depression after
a renewed recession in the late 1930’s. While we cannot expect the ARRA to pro-
vide a full and immediate cure to America’s economic woes, analysis, logic, and
Jake, WUPR’s Director of Content, is a
history all suggest that it will have some positive impact. junior majoring in Political Science. His email
Probability: Doubtful is jakelaperruque@gmail.com.
Washington University Political Review 11
 UNCONVENTIONAL
WISDOM
By Greg Allen

THE FIR ST
100 DAYS
Ev e r s i n c e t h e av a l a n c h e of l e g i s l at i on t h at i m m e d i at e l y
f o l l ow e d Fr a n k l i n D e l a n o R o o s e v e lt’s t a k i n g of f i c e , t h e
pu b l i c c on s c i ou s n e s s h a s p l a c e d a hu g e e mp h a s i s on t h e f i r s t
1 0 0 d ay s of a n e w pre s i d e n c y. Wh i l e it’s t r u e t h at pre s i d e nt s
re v e a l a g re at d e a l a b out t h e i r s t y l e a n d pr i or it i e s on c e i n
p ow e r, mu c h of t h e c onv e nt i on a l w i s d om s u r rou n d i n g t h e
f i r s t 1 0 0 d ay s i s g rou n d l e s s hy p e .

“The first 100 days will define the Obama presidency”

Ever Heard of 9/11? Beginning with a rained-
out inauguration, the first hundred days of George Bush’s
presidency were a gloomy affair. The public was focused on
the aftermath of Bush vs. Gore. Gore had won the popular
vote, but the Supreme Court declared that Bush had won
Florida (by a paltry 537 votes) and therefore the Electoral
College. The 50/50 split in the Senate underscored these
harsh divisions. All that was erased by 9/11, when Bush’s
approval ratings skyrocketed to 90%. Prior to 9/11, Bush
had attempted to toss red meat to his base in the form of
restrictions on federal funding of stem-cell research and
federal support for faith-based programs. Still, he tempered
these actions with significant bipartisan initiatives such as
the No Child Left Behind education reform, which had as
12 Washington University Political Review
its chief legislative sponsor the Democratic Senator Ted
Kennedy. After 9/11, Bush lost all taste for bipartisanship.
He and fellow Republicans hammered the Democrats as soft
on National Security. Even when they fell in line on Iraq, it
wasn’t enough to save them for the 2002 midterms.
Like Bush, Obama’s presidency will be shaped by events
yet to occur. The economic crisis in its present form is
obviously the greatest concern right now, and Obama has
rightly focused on building support for a stimulus package
in response. Still, we’re in the very early stages of this crisis.
After all, the Great Depression is generally thought to have
started in 1929, but the economic collapse’s full force wasn’t
felt until 1933. FDR was forced to change his approach
to the crisis more than once, and his later measures
were far more ambitious than those during his 100 days.
Regardless, his presidency was defined by, of course, the
second world war. Likewise, the current economic crisis is
only just beginning to show its international effects. The
Japanese economy was recently reported to have suffered
an annualized decline of 12.7%. Numbers like those have
the potential to be game changers in world politics, but the
real effects will most certainly take longer than 100 days to
show up. The big events for which we’ll remember Obama’s
presidency haven’t happened yet.

“The Obama honeymoon is already over”

Not Quite. If you define the honeymoon period as his excitement at the opportunity to “spar” with Obama.
Shortly thereafter, Steele’s actions, including overseeing
the month or so when the opposition party plays nice and
a universal rejection of the stimulus package by House
refrains from public attacks, then Obama used up his quota
Republicans, suggested that by spar he meant “be as
of Republican good faith during a hands-on transition
obstructionist as possible.” Despite Steele and other leading
period. If, however, you define the honeymoon period in
Republicans’ attempts to sully the Obama glow (talk radio
terms of the public goodwill president’s usually receive
baron Rush Limbaugh even went so far as to say “I hope he
after inauguration, then Obama is still going strong, albeit
fails”), President Obama’s approval ratings remain in the
not as strong as he was a month ago. Obama’s approval
clouds, certainly much higher than those of even the most
rating probably peaked right before the inauguration,
popular Republican’s. In fact, while the Republican’s war
when comparisons between Obama and Martin Luther
on the stimulus has earned them loads of media attention,
King and descriptions of Obama as basically the fulfillment
none of that seems to be translating into public support
of everything good about American reached a fever
for the ailing party. In fact, according to a recent Research
pitch. Since then, the Republicans have done their best
2000 poll, the biggest poll drops in the past weeks have
to drag Obama and his message of post-partisanship
not been for Obama, but Republican leaders such as Mitch
into the mud. Upon taking office, the Chairman of the
McConnell.
Republican National Committee, Michael Steele, declared
Washington University Political Review 13
 UNCONVENTIONAL WISDOM
“Obama is poised to usher in a new era of bipartisan politics”
Uh, No. This has even less plausibility than Obama
revolutionizing the mechanisms of the presidency. The
United States Constitution stipulates that federal legislators
are elected on the basis of territorial constituencies.
That means that Senators and Representatives care less
about what Obama thinks than what their constituencies
think. Unfortunately for Obama, Americans have always
liked to live near like-minded people, a tendency that
has dramatically strengthened since the 1970s. As more
and more partisans find a way to live together, the
representatives they elect tend to become more radical in
their views.
As if this weren’t bad enough, the Democrats’ latest gains
“Obama’s cabinet appointment troubles have left
him seriously weakened”
No Doubt. Four appointments have already gone
down in flames. Obama promised a new era of ethics in
government. What he got were three appointees with tax
troubles, a governor under attack for alleged corruption
and an attempt at unity that ended with “irreconcilable
differences.” You can bet Obama didn’t see any of those
coming when he made the nomination. After all, the
new administration’s vetting process was considered
notoriously intrusive by the media. Obama probably
believed himself that he could avoid the troubles that have
traditionally surrounded cabinet appointments. At a recent
town hall meeting, Obama was asked why he choose to
nominate appointees who “weren’t good people.” Daschle’s
14 Washington University Political Review
in House and Senate have meant that the remaining
Republicans are those from the most hardline conservative
districts. Ask yourself: what Republican Representatives
and Senators got beaten in the last election? Of course it
was those with significant enough moderate and liberal
populations to vote against them. As a result, the entirety of
the Republican leadership is made up of these hardliners.
Worst of all, many of the Republicans in the House have
only held office during the Bush years. Never knowing
anything other than Bush’s taste for vicious partisanship,
these younglings will be loathe to find a place in Obama’s
vision of unity.
tax evasion regarding a limousine had a particularly
unfortunate resonance in the media. Nevertheless, there’s
reason to expect a brighter future for the Obama cabinet.
The Nobel Prize winning economist Paul Krugman, who
has been unabashedly critical of the infant administration
on its economic efforts, was recently much kinder on his
blog to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner. Apparentally
the Secretary’s weak performance before congress was the
result of a last minute shift in direction. Having concluded
that much of the team’s economic plans thus far were
unworkable, Geithner had to cobble together a presentation
and paper at the last minute. For Krugman, never one to go
soft on the powers that be, the willingness of Geithner to
change direction in the face of changing economic reality
was encouraging. While Obama may be weakened, the
administration is showing itself able to adapt and respond
to criticism. Sometimes, what doesn’t kill you makes you
strongerThe Obama cabinet has therefore already shown
one advantage over that of Bush, famously unmoved by
external criticism.
Greg, WUPR’s Editor in Chief, is a junior majoring in Political Sci-
ence. His email is gcallen@wustl.edu.
Fragments of the Republican Party:
Where to Go Next? By Josh Truppman

I
n the aftermath of the vote on Obama’s controversial Americans are tired of a fiscally conservative and religiously
economic stimulus plan, one thing is clear—Republi- rooted political party, but rather that John McCain strayed
cans are sticking to their guns. Faced with the oppor- too far from these ideals. There is a faction of the
tunity to send a message of bipartisan cooperation in the Republican Party, admit-
midst of a national economic crisis, Republicans in both tedly far to
the House and the Senate instead overwhelmingly voted
against the stimulus plan. In doing so, they declared to both
their constituents and Democrats in Washington
that they aren’t going to compromise. The
Republican Party seems to have absolutely
no issue with standing united against the
Democratic Party, even when they need to
address the most pressing issues facing our
country.
Of course, this serves as a reality check
against President Obama’s pledge to work
across party lines in a significant way: if
Republicans are entirely unwilling to com-
promise, there doesn’t seem to be much hope for a
cooperative Washington. However, this vote is far from
indicative of a fully united Republican Party standing in
opposition to the Democrats. Instead, it is one consoli-
dated vote of a truly fragmented party. In other words,
the Republican Party now finds itself reevaluating the
direction of the party behind closed doors while appear-
ing to be united to the outside world.
Where do Republicans next? If you’re a Republican,
it’s a question you probably don’t want to hear. In all like-
lihood it reminds you of the bitterness of Obama’s elec-
tion all over again. Maybe it reminds you that Sarah Palin
can see Russia from her house. In reality, this question
is agonizing because nobody really knows the answer.
That being said, Republicans are currently debating two
different directions for the party. The first goes some-
thing like this: “The Republican Party needs to focus on
laissez-faire economics while returning to its conserva-
tive Christian ideals”
The argument for this vision of the Republican
Party is fairly straightforward: don’t change a thing. In Artwork Courtesy Josh Foreman.
this view, the reason for John McCain’s defeat is not that Email: joshforeman@gmail.com

Washington University Political Review 15

 NATIONAL
Artwork courtesy Jay Heu.
Email: nuttymacboy@yahoo.com
the political right, that believes that a candidate with a politi-
cal outlook similar to the Bush administration’s still has wide
appeal for the American people. As perhaps the most vocal
supporter of this view, Rush Limbaugh, explained in an
interview with Fox News on Jan. 23, 2009, “What we need
to be doing is — Reagan, very simple, made the people of
this country understand that its greatness is due to them.
They are the ones that make the country work. Not policies,
not laws, not committees and Congress and so forth and not
cult heroes or personalities.” To Rush Limbaugh and others
Republicans, the Republican Party must return to traditional
grassroots Reagan politics.
16 Washington University Political Review
In addition, many Republicans push for
what they view to be a more moral America by
using the precepts of Christianity in the political
realm. To a large part, this is the faction of the
Republican Party that helped propel George W.
Bush to victory and continues to have significant
clout within the party. So, the argument here is
that George Bush won on the backs of evangeli-
cals and as a moderate John McCain must have
struggled capturing the evangelical vote. Thus,
the solution is to simply mobilize this constitu-
ency once again.
Aside from my objection to many parts
of this political outlook, I think that the Rush
Limbaugh formula is not the best direction for
the Republican Part. I will concede that fiscal
conservatism is appealing to many Americans,
myself included. This ideal is no doubt at the core
of Republican thought and must remain so if the
party is to differentiate itself from the Demo-
crats. Furthermore, a religious moral outlook
continues to resonate strongly throughout our
country. So yes, in a way Rush Limbaugh is right;
a fiscally conservative Republican Party embrac-
ing an evangelical world view still appeals to a
portion of American society. However, that is
not the recipe for increasing Republican political
clout. John McCain did better than George Bush
Jr. amongst evangelical voters and still lost the
election. It was not a lack of support from the
Christian coalition that doomed John McCain.
Moreover, McCain was a staunch supporter of
Reagan economics; he repeatedly affirmed the
Bush mantra of less governmental involvement in the econ-
omy as well as pushed to make the Bush tax cuts permanent.
Sure, he lobbied for greater oversight in light of the economic
crisis, but that didn’t signify a drastic move from Republican
core values. It wasn’t that McCain touted a highly regulated
economy throughout his campaign. On the contrary, he
argued for low government intervention and lost the election
with that specific platform.
“The Republican Party should stop catering to the Chris-
tian Coalition and move towards a more centrist political
model”
In direct contrast to the direction lobbied for by many
 NATIONAL

“John McCain did better than George Bush Jr. amongst evangelical voters and
still lost the election. It was not a lack of support from the Christian coalition that
doomed John McCain. Moreover, McCain was a staunch supporter of Reagan
economics; he repeatedly affirmed the Bush mantra of less governmental involve-
ment in the economy as well as pushed to make the Bush tax cuts permanent.”
evangelical Christians, this view argues that the Republi- graphics than George Bush, discrepancies which directly
can Party is crippled because it has aligned itself so strongly translated into a win for Bush and a loss for McCain.
with the evangelical movement. From this perspective, it is On a historical level, there is reason to believe that a mod-
precisely the pandering to a small conservative sector of the erate, centrist political platform works these demographics to
United States that is limiting the appeal of the Republican a candidate’s advantage. Tony Campbell, a Republican writer
Party; in fighting to maintain support from evangelicals, the for The Moderate Voice, gives light to this fact. In an article
Republican Party has lost the forest for the trees. While they published on Oct. 14th, 2008, he explains that “in order for
have established a solid electoral base through the “Chris- our party to become relevant in future elections, moderate
tian coalition,” in doing so they have sacrificed a potentially Republicans have to take back our G.O.P. from the social
larger group of voters. conservative branch. The Democratic Leadership Council
Indeed, there is some evidence for this taken from exit was able to wrestle control from the liberals and presented
polls from the 2008 presidential election. While McCain centrist policies to the voters in 1992. We need to follow their
captured a vast majority of the evangelical vote (some esti- example and re-establish our Republican foundations.” Of
mates are as high as 3/4), he gave considerable ground to course, Mr. Campbell is making a direct reference to Presi-
Obama among voters ages 18-29, Latinos of all ages, as well dent Clinton’s centrist platform that led him to being elected
as self-professed moderates. To start, it is important to note in 1992, and reelected in 1996. Similarly, I believe that it was
that some of these statistics have held true for at least the Obama’s appeal to centrist and bipartisan politics that pro-
last decade. It is fairly well documented that those who deem pelled him to victory. In my view, it was Obama’s willingness
themselves moderates have a tendency to vote for a Demo- to toss aside the fringe left-wing group within the Democratic
cratic candidate. In addition, there is a well-established link Party that ultimately made him a truly viable candidate.
between young voters and the Democratic Party. Thus, a The Republican Party should do the same. It should move
cynic might declare this is the way it has always been and towards more moderate politics. I stand in direct opposi-
always will be. There are undoubtedly people who will argue tion to Rush Limbaugh’s assertion that the Republican Party
that these demographics have been remarkably stable over would be best served by continuing to cater to the right-wing
the years, yet Republicans have been able to win elections. evangelical base. If the Republican Party is to regain traction
However, it simply isn’t the case that these demographics among the American electorate, it must take an approach
have stood unchallenged over the past few election cycles. akin to that of Obama and former President Bill Clinton;
The Latino vote has fluctuated a great deal. According to Republicans must work hard to appeal to a wider array of
CNN polls, Bush won 35% of the vote in 2000 and roughly voters. Of course, I do not expect nor would I advocate toss-
40% of the Latino vote in 2004. In comparison, McCain was ing out fiscal conservatism; it strongly distinguishes Repub-
able to capture only 31% of the Latino vote (67% of Latinos licans from Democrats and resonates in the minds of many
voted for Obama). A similar situation can be seen in voting Americans. Nevertheless, as a political party reevaluating its
demographics of young people. In 2004, Bush received 45% identity, the Republican Party would be shrewd to temper its
of the votes of people ages 18-29, whereas McCain managed ideology in a move to more centrist politics.
only 32% of votes from this demographic. Lastly, McCain per-
formed far worse amongst moderates than did George Bush,
receiving 39% of votes vs. Bush’s 45%. The numbers demon- Josh, WUPR’s Freelance Editor, is a sophomore majoring in Latin
strate that John McCain did far poorer amongst key demo- American Studies and Spanish. His email is jtruppman@wustl.edu.
Washington University Political Review 17
 NATIONAL

T he G l ass is ha l f...
By Bryan Baird
THIS EDITION’S TOPIC: PRESIDENT OBAMA’S CABINET
It seems that as soon as our 44th President took office, he started having problems with the people he intended to bring in with him.
Many Americans had approved of his cabinet choices before Inauguration Day, but now the confirmation hearing process and economic
crisis have started to expose the cracks in his armor. Will his new advisors help to pull him through these tough times, or will the piling
scandals drag him down before he can even begin?

HILLARY CLINTON: The Glass Is Half FULL

After some concerns about her famous husband’s financial connections, Senator Hillary Clinton was confirmed
as Secretary of State. This may have been Obama’s single most brilliant move in determining his cabinet; not only
did he indulge every liberal’s secret desire to get Bill Clinton back in Washington, he also found a way to keep the
ambitious Senator happy while letting her make the most of her abilities.
Furthermore, by giving Mrs. Clinton something productive to do with her time, Obama has effectively neutral-
ized any chance that she will seek to pursue her own presidential desires at his expense. When their rivalry started
to get to rather bitter toward the end of the primary season, many people rightly suspected that Clinton’s displays
of party unity could not completely cover up her own disappointment at her defeat. What better way to appease a
critic of your foreign policy experience than to put her in charge of foreign policy? As the old political proverb states:
“Better have them inside the tent pissing out than outside the tent pissing in.”
While Clinton has her own fair share of critics, it is in everybody’s best interest to have a unified party in charge.
The last thing our battered country need right now is for the Democrats to factionalize to the point where it would
interfere with their ability to act.

STEVEN CHU: The Glass Is Half EMPTY

Many of Obama’s less-publicized Cabinet choices received a quiet nod of approval before dropping off the public
radar. Some of these chosen few are actually brilliant individuals who hold strong bipartisan support for their posi-
tion. For example, Steven Chu, the new Secretary of Energy, is a Nobel Prize-winning scientist with a Ph.D. from Cal
Berkeley, neither of which are accomplishments to be taken lightly. When he was first mentioned as the President’s
pick, there was a buzz of consensus among those that felt that science had not been adequately represented and
nurtured during the Bush years.
Considering that advancement in energy technology – particularly the Green industry – is a high priority for
President Obama, such an intelligent man bodes well for dreams of energy independence. While some younger Amer-
icans would have loved to see a different Nobel Prize winner and famous tree-hugger somewhere in the White House,
Al Gore has denied any interest in returning to the political life. Still, Chu is a solid replacement who, along with the
other overlooked Cabinet appointments, will strengthen the Obama administration greatly in the coming years.

TIMOTHY GEITHNER: The Glass Is Half EMPTY

Timothy Geithner, who is now the treasury secretary, ran into a rather ironic snag during his confirmation
process. The man who will be largely responsible for much of the economic stimulus was found to have missed tens
of thousands of dollars in taxes over a three year span. Although he promptly paid the back taxes upon discovery, the
embarrassment was enough to raise skeptical eyebrows among common Americans and Republican Senators alike.
After correctly deciding that there were more important things to worry about than partisan combat over cabi-
net picks, Republicans went ahead and confirmed Geithner without so much as a second thought. Nevertheless, the
nagging question hung in the air throughout Washington and beyond: “If the man who decides how to manage our
nation’s money doesn’t want to pay his taxes, then why should I?”

18 Washington University Political Review

 NATIONAL

TOM DASCHLE: The Glass Is Half EMPTY

Tom Daschle, the headline pick for health secretary, got significant bad press for being more than a hun-
dred thousand dollars behind on his tax payments. You read that right. Over a hundred thousand dollars in
taxes. Besides alienating struggling Americans who would do anything to have enough money to pay that much
on taxes, Daschle attracted even more negative attention for being the third Obama pick to have tax troubles,
after Timothy Geithner and the lesser-known Nancy Killefer, the latter having withdrawn from her position in
the Office of Management and Budget some time ago.
Daschle, who had a more difficult time explaining his massive tax shortcoming than Geithner’s relatively
minor transgression, eventually resigned in an attempt to avoid the headaches that would have come from a
brutal confirmation hearing. Even though many believed the former Senator and Democratic icon would have
gotten enough votes to be confirmed, he ultimately decided the toll would have been too great on the fledging
Presidency and too much of a distraction in the midst of these turbulent times.
Needless to say, the Obama administration is now reevaluating their vetting process for candidates, and
hoping that no other picks have had such chronic trouble with the IRS.

THE OBAMA FAMILY: The Glass Is Half FULL

While it technically isn’t the Cabinet, it is rather important to notice how the Obamas themselves are hold-
ing up. The already famous First Lady Michelle has drawn strong support from all across the country for being
a strong-willed, classy, and intelligent woman. From her own impressive educational background to her recent
appearance on the cover of magazines like Vogue, Mrs. Obama has become a well respected figure in the capital.
Restaurants throughout D.C. are hoping that the Presidential couple will live up to this reputation of culture and
take to the town more often than President Bush did, bringing life back to the city and triggering a “Washington
Renaissance”.
The Obama daughters are also getting more than their fair share of attention. In fact, many media outlets
have followed the young girls’ new lives to a nauseating degree, even commenting on the kind of lunches they
will be eating at their new school. While the journalism was excessive and invasive, at least it gave Americans
something refreshingly innocent and adorable to take their minds off of the growing economic despair.

JUDD GREGG: The Glass Is Half EMPTY

Fiscally conservative Republican Senator Judd Gregg was supposed to bring some substantial ideological bal-
ance to the Obama administration. Gregg, who was being considered for the position of Commerce Secretary, was
chosen particularly to balance out concerns that Obama’s liberal administration would lead to strong Democratic
policies of taxation and spending.
Many hoped that Gregg would provide a respectful difference in perspective that would make the admin-
istration stronger, but when it came time to pass Congress’ massive economic stimulus package, the differences
in ideology were too great. Senator Gregg could not bring himself to back the bill, which heavily favored Demo-
cratic preferences, and formally withdrew his name from consideration. This blow to Obama’s Cabinet came after
Obama’s first choice for the position, former Presidential rival Governor Bill Richardson, also withdrew from his
nomination for unrelated reasons.
Obama has yet to make another pick for the Secretary of Commerce which, along with Secretary of Health
and Human Services, is still undisclosed on the official White House cabinet website.
Judd Gregg

THE FINAL VERDICT: The Glass Is HALF!

Even though there have been enough problems to dash most Americans’ absolute trust in
our new President and his vetting process, it is still far too early to say that he has done a truly
bad job. Provided this economic crisis begins to settle down in the coming months, we may have
Bryan, a WUPR Staff Writer, is a freshman
better conditions to judge these appointees soon enough. Until then, America has more than
majoring in Mechanical Engineering. His email
enough problems to worry about, and the recent Cabinet complications won’t be enough to pull
is beb3@cec.wustl.edu.
our attention away from job loss and empty pocketbooks.

Washington University Political Review 19

 A
fter one most exciting elections in American history,
and certainly the most exciting one in my lifetime, any
other country’s election would predictable seem a bit
lackluster. However, being in a country which thrives on political
life and activism, I was more than a little disappointed with the
relatively apathetic air surrounding the 2009 Israeli elections. As I
write this article, however, Israelis are heading to the polls in unex-
pectedly high numbers despite the unusually bad weather currently
plaguing the entire country. Despite the predicted low turnout
due to factors such as lack of participation in political rallies and
general disenchantment with the political system following Gaza,
more people. Furthermore, the main candidates for Prime Minis-
ter—Tzipi Livni, Benyamin Netinyahu, and Ehud Barak, inspire as
much excitement as the Bush/Kerry match-up in 2004. Both “Bibi”
Netinyahu and Ehud Barak are familiar faces, former PMs whose
less than impressive tenures in office don’t exactly inspire confi-
dence in the electorate. Relative newcomer and current PM Tzipi
Livni is Ehud Olmert’s successor in the Kadima party, and is seen
as inexperienced in dealing with the affairs of state. Her inability to
form a ruling coalition without the use of elections has only exac-
erbated these views.
It also does not help Livni that Kadima, the largest party in
Israel, is hemorrhaging votes due to an increased polarization of
internal politics as a reaction to the conflict in Gaza. While “left”
20 Washington University Political Review
and “right” in the US usually denote stances on myriad domestic
issues such as the economy, health care and education, in Israel
the two represent approaches to foreign policy and security, spe-
cifically with the Palestinians and Israel’s other Arab neighbors.
These are also the two issues that dominate Israeli political life—
few and far between citizens could tell you what Kadima or Likud’s
stance is on how to handle the influx of Ethiopian immigrants,
many which come without any type of technical or language skill,
but everyone has heard party line foreign policy day in and day
out for months now.
Tangentially, this election has witnessed an acute rise in anti-
Arab sentiment in the political process as tensions have wors-
ened between Arab agitators and the Israeli government. For
example, Arab Legislators Azmi Bishara and Ahmed Tibi were
disqualified by the right-leaning election commission Two Arab
parties, United Arab List-Ta’al and Balad were also disqualified
by the commission for alleged anti-Israeli sentiment and support
of terror camps. The requests to ban the Arab parties were filed
by two ultra right parties Yisrael Beiteinu and National Union-
National Religious Party, yet the election commission which
voted on the ban is consists of members from numerous political
parties among the political spectrum. While the ruling was later
overturned by the Israeli Supreme Court, the government’s very
ability to impose an injunction on electoral rights in a supposedly

“Few citizens could tell you what Kadima or Likud’s stance is on how
to handle the influx of Ethiopian immigrants, many of whom come
without any type of technical or language skill, but every Israeli has
heard party line foreign policy day in and day out for months now.”
democratic country is troublesome indeed.
Israel walks a tight line between “democracy” and “Jewish
state”—the foundational framework and lifeblood of Israel and its
Zionist ideology makes for an uneasy marriage with its Palestinian
minority, particularly during times of crisis. During a brief stint
in Nazareth last week, I spoke with an older Palestinian merchant
named Dani al-Waldiin about recent Israeli-Palestinian relations
in the town. Aside from the scores of international tourists who
come to visit Jesus’ childhood home, the town gets a surprisingly
large amount of business from Israeli tourists and local Jewish
residents. The day the Gazan operation began, however, Dani
remembered that “my café was full of Jews, and then word of the
invasion came. A few hours later my café was completely empty.
All the cafes were empty.”
The persistent weight of lofty issues such as war and peace
make for a cynical electorate, yet one of the largest problems is not
the voters themselves, but rather the system the are voting for. Gil
Hoffman, the chief political correspondent and analyst for the Jeru-
salem Post, in a talk last week given to the international students
at Hebrew University, attempted to dissect the campaign process
in Israel in a crash-course look at Israeli politics. Hoffman’s sole
job during the elections is to follow the various candidates while
analyzing and breaking down political trends for the Jerusalem
Post and the foreign press. Mr. Hoffman related the experience to
taking care of his two young children, except apparently the two
year old and newborn are better behaved. This has been a cam-
paign of public relations not issues. In a country as divisive as Israel
where everyone has an opinion and rarely anyone truly agrees, the
candidates speak in as little detail as possible about the issues so as
not to incense even the smallest sector of society.
As politicians are working very hard at doing nothing, politi-
cal agendas of every shape and size are being lofted up on the
ballot. While most people would agree pluralism is a good thing,
in the Israeli elections there is not two, four or even 8 parties
running, but an astonishing 34. Most of these parties are “issue”
parties akin to the likes of Ralph Nadar and the Green Party.
Yet issue parties in Israel consist of everything from rights for
the elderly (GIL) to turning Israel into a theocracy. Further-
more, party infighting often leads to splits, the most famous one
of course being the Ariel Sharon’s split from Labor to form the
NATIONAL
centrist party Kadima. It also leads to unlikely coalitions. This
election cycle, the pro-marijuana Green Leaf Party, split into two
groups: Green-Leaf and Grown Up Green Leaf. The Grown Up
segment has since joined up with the party representing Israeli
holocaust survivors. And don’t count out the youth vote. While
in the US the 18-24 demographic enlivened a campaign, in Israel
the same group has the ability to catapult the unlikely into power
seemingly on a whim. According to the Associated Press, “in the
previous election of 2006, a group of retirees became the trendy
antiestablishment vote. Led by a quirky, bespectacled ex-spy
chief, the pensioners’ party garnered seven seats out of the 120
member parliament and joined the Cabinet.” While advocacy for
the elderly is an admirable cause, those who still have some years
before the arthritis sets in usually don’t prioritize such an issue so
highly. Israel is slowly taking away my ability to be surprised.
As I conclude this article, more than a week has passed since
Israelis originally went to cast their ballots and still no Prime Min-
ister has been announced. The campaign of public relations—oddly
reminiscent of Barak Obama’s messages of “hope” and “change”
without the substance—has unsurprisingly created a confusing
rush for coalition votes as Livni and Netanyahu work feverishly
to put together a government, flaunting their party platforms and
contradicting past statements along the way. Whoever ends up
as prime minister will have a great deal on their plates as Israel
learns to react to a more active American foreign policy amidst
navigating already tumultuous political waters in the Middle East.
Senator John Kerry’s visit with Syrian President Bashar Assad went
over about as well as funeral, and the Israelis are already mutter-
ing about President Obama and Iran. Hopefully, politicians will be
able to rise above this vain and narcissistic election cycle to form a
government that will at the very least address the problems facing
Israel, both domestic and foreign, with the gravitas they deserve. I
am here until June—maybe I’ll even see it happen.
Brittany, WUPR’s Staff Editor, is a junior majoring in International
and Area Studies. Her email is bnparker@wustl.edu.
Washington University Political Review 21
 such a degree of misery that on first glance,
change would appear to be an agreeable,
often welcome, departure from the status
quo. Somewhat paradoxically, however, the
mere existence of such a situation is rarely
enough to ensure that it’s fixed. Perhaps
nowhere is this better exemplified in the
international-political landscape than by
the tenuous relationship shared between
the Israelis and the Palestinians.
From pre-independence to last month’s
Gaza engagement, the relationship common
between the Israelis and Palestinians has
been laden with imperfection. Starting a
pattern that would come to characterize its
relations with both its neighbors and the
Palestinians, Israel’s declaration of inde-
pendence in 1948 was met with an instanta-
neous declaration of war by the majority of
the Arab world. Even given Israel’s success
in that and essentially all subsequent hos-
tilities, the existence of the Jewish state has

Changing for Peace never been especially easy or secure. In the

six-decades since its inception, Israel has
fought four major wars, all of which can
in some way be contrived to relate to the
impasse of the Palestinians. Perhaps even
more indicative of daily affairs, the Israeli
The recent war in Gaza underscored how Ministry of Foreign Affairs reports that a
total of 1,177 Israelis have been killed by
current peace efforts are failing to even mitigate Palestinian based terror since 2000.
the worst aspects of the Israeli-Palestinian For their part, the Palestinian’s anguish
has been no less severe. Initially unsettled
conflict. Clearly, all involved parties need to by the gradual arrival of Zionists in histori-
cal Palestine, then largely displaced by the
find a different approach. Unfortunately, the declaration of Israel’s statehood, the gen-
leadership of both Israelis and Palestinians seem eral fate of Muslim Palestinians has been
exceedingly tragic. Marred by economic
to be moving towards harder lines. and social repression over the majority of
the past century, the Palestinian existence

By Nick Wilbar has been one of near-constant hardship.

As of 2008, the CIA World Factbook lists
Palestine’s annual per capita GDP as $2,900

A
(for present purposes Palestine is defined as
very short, yet often fully expositive, adage reads something like the following:
Gaza and the West Bank), barely one-tenth
Change is hard. For the most part this is true and prohibitively so. The diffi-
of the corresponding Israeli statistic. Simi-
culty of change itself—whatever the change may be—frequently outweighs any
larly, the same source reported that Palestin-
possible benifit one might gain from having made it. Thus, seemingly necessary change
ian unemployment soared as high as 41.3%
is frequently left unmade. As can rather easily be imagined, however, for particular pre-
during June of last year. And while military
dicaments this is a line of logic does not apply. Certain sets of circumstances—an abusive
engagement is necessarily objectionable for
relationship domestically or, perhaps, an untenable trade partnership abroad—induce
all parties involved, the Palestinians have
22 Washington University Political Review
 NATIONAL

“Talks of an ultimate resolution must give way to a discussion of how to best quell
ongoing hostility and ever-emergent, small-scale conflict. In moving forward, the focus
of the United States needs to be picking out the most tenable path to peace, then put-
ting one foot in front of the other and working its way down that path. Blindly hoping
to teleport our way to the end—or, in the case of the Israelis and Palestinians, the end-
game—is a waste of energy and emotion.”
consistently found themselves on the less fortunate end of their even proven willing to walk on the dance floor.
conflict with Israelis. Last month’s war in Gaza was no exception. Given its role in the international community, and it’s eco-
As of January 18, the New York Times reported that thirteen Israeli nomic and ethical incentive structure, it falls to the United States
lives had been claimed by the conflict, while a staggering 1,300 Pal- to host the party and turn on the music. As indicated by statements
estinians had died during the course of the engagement. last month, this certainly appears to be the Obama administration’s
Clearly, the Israeli-Palestinian predicament very plainly calls early intention. During a visit to the State Department on January
for a break from the present status quo. Unsurprisingly, this is a 22, President Obama explained, “I will sustain an active commit-
sentiment agreed upon in virtual ubiquity throughout the interna- ment to seek two states living side by side in peace and security.”
tional community. As the adage alluded to at the outset might sug- Obviously, this would be ideal. But while attempting to mold that
gest, however, change has been difficult to achieve. The presumed commitment into reality, President Obama would be well advised
primary benefactors of such a change—namely, the Palestinians to remember that in order to get Israel and Palestine dancing they
and Israelis—have proven not only incapable of bringing it to frui- first need to be invited to the party. After sending out the invita-
tion but almost unwilling to do so. Indeed, the official charter of tions, Obama is going to need to buy drinks, then book a band and
Hamas, the elected ruling power in the Gaza strip, claims “there buy party favors and pick out an outfit—ad infinitum. Said differ-
is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. ently, in order to be successful it’s essential that the peace process
Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste is recognized to be a multi-staged entity. While talking about the
of time and vain endeavors.” And even though the disposition of end-game undoubtedly makes for good sound-bites, it also makes
Gaza’s governing party has undoubtedly softened since its forma- for inadequate foreirgn policy. Talks of an ultimate resolution must
tion in 1987, it’s difficult not to interpret last month’s war as blatant give way to a discussion of how to best quell ongoing hostility and
disregard for progress made in the peace process. Vindicating this ever-emergent, small-scale conflict. In moving forward, the focus
interpretation is a quote reported by BBC Online on January 2 that of the United States needs to be picking out the most tenable path
recorded senior Hamas official Fathi Hammad saying, “We will not to peace, then putting one foot in front of the other and working
rest until we destroy the Zionist entity.” its way down that path. Blindly hoping to teleport our way to the
While less rhetorically severe, the Israeli stance on Hamas is end—or, in the case of the Israelis and Palestinians, the end-game—
not much more forgiving. Similar to groups like al-Qaeda and the is a waste of energy and emotion. Since gaining its independence
Muslim Brotherhood, Israel unequivocally lists Hamas as a terror midway through last century, the problematic nature of Israel’s
organization. As its company on the Israeli list of terror organiza- relationship with the Palestinians has been at once very evident.
tions should suggest, Hamas’ is not a favorable, or even forgivable, Throughout the course of Israel’s existence, there have been those
place in the hearts of the majority of Israelis. Additionally, as the who have been committed to remedying, or at least mitigating, that
Associated Press reported on February 2, the former—and quite problem. Yet it still exists and is still ridden with disaster. Change is
possibly future—Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has hard, but, in this case, it’s something from which both parties and
“called for Israel to oust Hamas from power in Gaza.” Likewise, any world at large would benefit immensely. The newly inaugurated
assessment of Israel’s general sentiment towards Hamas would be administration is in a process to help facilitate that change, it just
incomplete, even irresponsible, if it failed to remember the 1,300 needs to remember to turn on the music.
Palestinians casualties—a good portion of which were civilians—
counted in last month’s conflict. In this light, it comes as relatively
little surprise that while working towards a resolution to January’s
conflict, the Palestinians and Israelis weren’t even willing to engage
with one another, but opted instead to communicate through an Nick, a WUPR Staff Writer, is a sophomore majoring inIslamic
Egyptian intermediary. To indulge in cliché, it takes two to tango. and Near Eastern Studies and Political Science. His email is nswil-
As of yet, however, neither the Israelis nor the Palestinians have bar@artsci.wustl.edu.
Washington University Political Review 23
 NATIONAL
Green Jobs &
the New Economy
The U.S. energy economy is long overdue for a major overhaul. Counterintuitatively, this
change seems destined to occur in the midst of a major recession. The economic stimulus
package as allocated over $50 billion to improve conservation and expand renewable sources.
A
few weeks ago, my mom called and told me about
the energy audit that had just been performed
on our home. She told me that the man auditing
our house told her to add extra insulation to the basement
and attic and advised her to buy a weather responsive con-
trol for the boiler, but mostly she bragged about how these
small improvements will save her huge amounts of money
on her energy bill and help the environment. For example,
the weather responsive control alone would save 10% of the
yearly heating cost. In the midst of an economic recession
and a global climate crisis, reducing one’s impact on the envi-
ronment and saving money are more important than ever.
With the Labor Department reporting a national unem-
ployment rate of 7.6% and 598,000 job cuts in the month
of January alone, it may appear that no one is hiring. How-
ever, people looking for a job or wanting to start a career in
a growing industry should look no further than the green
sector. In addition to, or perhaps because of, the fact that all
things green are trendy, American politicians and individu-
als are starting to recognize the critical need to reduce our
fossil fuel consumption and carbon emissions. Upon making
these ecological changes, we will need more workers to build
solar panels and hybrid cars, insulate our homes and drive
our trains, as well as scientists and innovators to create the
new technologies that will allow us to power our country
with something other than fossil fuels. For this reason, so-
24 Washington University Political Review
By Amy Plovnick
called “green-collar jobs” may be on the rise.
Some of these green-collar jobs will be funded by the
government as a result of the spending generated by the new
stimulus package. In the Feb 9 press conference in which he
urged Congress to pass the $787 billion bill, President Obama
claimed that the stimulus package would save or create up to
4 million jobs. He mentioned that some of these jobs would
be “jobs building the wind turbines and solar panels and fuel
efficient cars that will lower our dependence on foreign oil.”
The stimulus package calls for $50 billion in spending for
energy efficiency and renewable energy programs, including
money to weatherize lower-income homes, create a “smart
electricity grid” to reduce the waste of energy, subsidize loans
for renewable energy development, and make federal build-
ings more efficient. These measures will create the need for
workers to implement the new projects. They will also reduce
energy costs for Americans in lower-income housing, who
may not have otherwise initially been able to afford these
energy saving methods, as well as for the federal govern-
ment, which will get more efficient buildings.
The stimulus package also allots $8.4 billion to mass
transit, $8 billion to the construction of high-speed rails, and
$1.3 billion to Amtrak. These transportation projects have
the potential to create many green-collar jobs: building and
repairing the railways, driving the trains, and innovating
new, more efficient ways for our trains to run. In addition,

this infrastructure improvement will provide new ways for
people to travel without relying on gas-powered cars and air-
planes, reducing our collective carbon emissions and allow-
ing individuals to save on gas costs.
The increased need for green-collar workers will not
only be caused by spending from the stimulus package; it will
be produced by private industry responding to the national
demand for clean and cheap energy. As consumers learn of
the money they will save with energy efficient appliances and
fuel-efficient cars, they will buy more of these technologies,
reducing their costs and increasing the need for workers to
meet the heightened demand. The thousands of workers who
have been fired by GM, Ford and Chrysler may find similar
work assembling wind turbines and solar panels, or even
eventually working for these car companies again, building
hybrid and electric cars.
While workers are absolutely essential to creating a
green economy, perhaps the most important green jobs out
there are for the scientists and engineers (all you engineering
students worried about finding a job after graduation, I hope
you’re reading this!). These innovators have the ability to
create new technologies that will emit less carbon dioxide, be
more energy efficient, and reduce our dependence on foreign
oil and natural gas. In order to avoid the looming disaster
of climate change, scientists need to come up with energy
saving methods and alternative fuel ideas that most of us can
NATIONAL
not even dream of. In addition, they need to find a way to
mass-produce these technologies in an inexpensive way so
that mainstream Americans can afford to and will choose to
buy them.
On his campaign website, Obama pledged to “help create
five million new jobs by strategically investing $150 billion
over the next ten years to catalyze private efforts to build a
clean energy future”. With the massive stimulus package that
the Congress passed and Obama signed, such a large amount
of additional spending may be unrealistic. However, if Obama
followed this plan, he would only need to invest $15 billion
a year to create millions of jobs, reduce our dependence on
fossil fuels and foreign oil, and reduce our carbon emissions
that cause global climate change. Obama would be wise to
follow this plan after the stimulus takes effect.
What we need in this economic recession is a green
economy. In addition to combating global climate change,
green jobs will allow workers to earn money, and consumers
to save money on energy costs: making green while saving
green.
Amy, a WUPR Staff Writer, is a freshman majoring in Environmen-
tal Studies. Her email is arplovni@artsci.wustl.edu.
Washington University Political Review 25
POLITICALLY CORRECT WUPR’s only humor
column since1776

What if Jack Bauer Were....? By Mike Friend

Secretary of Commerce
Prime Objective: Saving the economy, one dollar at a time
Major Problem: How to solve economy? Americans need to buy more
guns
Secondary Problem: Bailout for bankers?: Only if they give me the
information I need

Secretary of Agriculture
Prime objective: Keeping America’s corn safe from terrorists
Major Problem: Food Safety?: I don’t eat
Secondary Problem: What about GMO’s? Giant Military Orcas? I can
neither confirm or deny their existence

Secretary of defense
Prime objective: Killing our enemies
Major problem: The War in Iraq? Give me a 9mm and 24 hours, I’ll
end the war
Secondary Problem: Preconditions for meeting with Iran: 10 minutes
in a room with the leaders… alone

Secretary of Technology
Prime Objective: Ask Chloe
Major Problem: Internet regulation: Ask Chloe
Secondary Problem: Stopping pirating of movies, music and
games: Ask Chloe

26 Washington University Political Review

 Secretary of Education
Prime Objective: Educating America’s youth about how to spot a ter-
rorist
Major Problem: Fixing American school’s educational curriculum:
By teaching students how to kill
Secondary Problem: Which is more important art or physical educa-
tion?: The art of war is the most important
Secretary of Homeland security
Prime Objective: America
Major Problem: Use of Torture?: Works 100 percent of the time
Secondary Problem: What threat level are we currently at?: If I told
you I’d have to kill you
Press Secretary
Prime objective: protect president from terrorist questions
Major Problem: Free speech? Freedom isn’t free, neither is speech
Secondary Problem: How will you deal with reporters? 9mm

Do You Qualify for a Government Bailout?

Take Our Quiz and Find Out!
1. How many credit cards do you have
A.one (1 point)
B. As many as my fingers ( 2 points)
C. As many as my teeth (3 points)
D. More than Larry King’s liver spots (4
points)
2. Your current outlook on life
A .Life is good (1 point)
B. When life gives you lemons make
lemonade (2 points)
C. Life sucks(3 points) no one noticed ( 4 points)
D. Nietzsche was right (4 point)
3. You invested your money in
A. Bonds ( 1 point)
B. The Stock Market (2 points)
C. Lehman Brothers (3 points)
D. Nader’s campaign (4 points)
Answers on page 34
4. You work at
A. An office(1 point)
B. An apartment (2 points)
C. A drive-thru (3 points)
D. An investment Bank (4 points)
5. Where did you last go skiing?
A. The Swiss Alps(1 point)
B. The lodge at Whistler,Colorado (2 points)
C. Vermont ( 3 points)
D. Does sledding count? ( 4 points)
6.Fill in the blank: the best things in life
are_____
A. Earned through hard work(1 point)
B. Easy to get ( 2 points)
C. free(3 points) man in the Olin Business School. He enjoys long
D. given to you by the government no strings
attached (4 points)
7. The last meal I ate was
A. Filet Minot(1 point)
B. Steak ( 2 points)
C. Burger (3 points)
D. This survey ( 4 points)
8.When I heard Washu’s tuition went up I
A. Got pretty upset (1 point)
B. Punched a wall (2 point)
C. Started a riot (3 points)
D. Destroyed east Asian studies library… but
Mike, WUPR’s Business Manager, is a fresh-
walks on the beach and romance novels. Any
interested ladies should email him at freindm@
olin.wustl.edu.

Washington University Political Review 27

 M
ilk opens with a dissatisfied Harvey Milk (Sean Penn)
lamenting on his 40th birthday that he has done nothing
with his life. In search of change, he and his newly found
lover Scott Smith (James Franco) move to a developing gay neighbor-
hood in San Francisco called the Castro. The story begins to pick up
as Milk converts his history in business into skills in political activism,
leading the gay community in an effort for equal rights and treatment in
an area still plagued by bigotry. This passion for activism compels Milk
to run for political office. This period introduces a number of characters
who become Harvey’s friends and advisors throughout his efforts; Emile
Hirsh stands out as the young, angry, and energetic Cleve Jones. After
a series of unsuccessful campaigns that slowly tear his relationship with
Smith, Milk wins his 1977 campaign to be City Supervisor, making him
the first openly gay man elected to major public office in America.
At this point, the film acquires what it had been lack-
ing for its entire first half: An antagonist. Dan White – played
28 Washington University Political Review
spectacularly by Josh Brolin – enters as another newly elected
city supervisor. Moody, unfriendly, and close-minded, White
is the antithesis to Milk’s affable nature. At the same time, the
anti-gay-rights movement becomes a more prominent aspect
of the film and Milk takes up the role as the leader against
Prop 6, a California statewide proposition to remove all gay
teachers from California schools. The parallels to Proposi-
tion 8 are both a sad reminder of the recent referendum and
an uplifting reflection of how far we’ve come.
Milk is excellent all around. The film receiving
Academy Award nomination for Best Picture and Best Direc-
tor is no surprise, and as painful as it is to watch Sean Penn
give an acceptance speech, an Oscar for Best Actor would
be well earned. What makes Milk an outstanding film is its
ability to effectively portray an issue both effecting society
as a whole, and a small group of individuals who we grow to
love as we watch them throughout the film. Milk may very
well be the defining film of the gay rights movement, but that
is not all this movie is about; it is a story that embodies the
human struggle for equality, and the yearning everyone has
to achieve it.
Jake, WUPR’s Director of Content, is a junior majoring in Political
Science. His email is jakelaperruque@gmail.com.

A Cappolitics
Chapter 6
By Stephen Harrison
P
reviously, in A Cappolitics . . . Freshmen Ben Jensen was
bombarded his first day at Brighton University by representa-
tives from the University’s many a cappella groups, including
Dani Behlman, the conniving president of the Harmoniums, and Taylor
Stuart, over-anxious leader of the rival Chorderoys. He also met fellow-
freshman and musician Kathy Pan. Ben and Kathy went to the All A
Cappella Informational Session together, and they crossed paths again
just before their first a cappella auditions. Ben thought that his first
audition went abysmally, and we learned the complicated legacy con-
nection of another potential a cappella singer, Akash Sheffield Patel. In
the last chapter, Dani Behlman had a conversation with Kathy Pan in
which she successfully persuaded auditionee Kathy Pan that the Harmo-
niums would be the best group for her to join based on her complicated
academic interests. The author would like to note that A Cappolitics is
primarily a work of satirical fiction and, as such, these stories are not
based on real-life events.
Washington University Political Review 29
Three of them sat waiting on the char-
treuse couch. Violet Hennings sat with fin-
gers interlocked on her lap, her beady eyes
darting about to examine and reexamine the
surrounding faces. Olivia sat in the middle,
legs crossed in her sundress and high-heels,
holding a clipboard against her chest and
staring at her ankles. On her other side
sat Taylor, wearing his favorite light blue
Oxford and madras, hands in his pockets,
impatiently tapping a tanned toe against
the bottom of his corduroy flip-flop.
Sidney Davis, the Chorderoys’ music
director and the room’s only other occu-
pant, sat slumped in the lone recliner, his
head limply leaning to the side, staring
blankly at the magazines on the coffee table
before him—GQ, Better Homes and Gar-
dens, Architectural Digest. The tall dark-
skinned senior appeared visibly exhausted,
as if the upcoming conversation had already
drained him of his last drop of vitality.
Taylor glanced at his watch. “Where
the hell is everybody? I said seven in the
email, right?”
“Chill out,” said Sidney. He slipped his
cell phone out of his pocket. “It’s only three
after.”
On cue, there was a knock at the door.
Taylor got up and let in two others: Jenna
Greeley, a skinny young woman with pointy
elbows and flip-flops that revealed pale
bony digits, and her diminutive and prema-
turely balding boyfriend, Gary Cowart.
Taylor indicated two fold up chairs cir-
cling the couch and returned to his original
position. “We’ll have to reinstitute late fees
this year,” he said dryly. Violet gulped. As
the Chorderoys’ Group Mediator officer,
she was concerned that such a measure
would increase intragroup tension.
“Sorry,” murmured Gary, his voice
remarkably low and full.
“It wouldn’t be a problem if the direc-
tions you gave in the email were the least
bit clear,” snapped Jenna. “Honestly, I could
have gotten better directions if I just stuffed
crap in my ears.”
 FICTION
“The old choir kid versus theater kid debate was already beginning
to emerge. Ignore the fact that Kathy Pan had clear tone, near-perfect
pitch, good blend—the most important thing to Taylor was whether or
not she had been entertaining to watch in her solo.”
Violet winced and considered making a comment, but quickly
decided that it would be less confrontational to approach Jenna
about her use of profanity via private email. Taylor’s cheeks turned
bright red. His hand flew up to his forehead, but Olivia put her
hand on his shoulder gently. Taylor’s hand dropped from his brow
to his lap.
“Taylor gave you the address,” said the breathy-voiced Olivia.
“If you didn’t know where you were going, you should have just
mapped it online, like everyone else in the world does.”
Jenna rolled her eyes.
“I like the new place, Taylor,” squeaked Violet, trying to change
the subject. Like a model cotillion student, she always maintained
perfect posture, and kept her hands politely in her lap. “It’s very . . .
modern. Modern colors.”
“Urban Designers?” asked Olivia, indicating the wall paint
with the slight raise of her pinky.
“Oh yes, always,” replied Taylor. “It’s called Infinity Red, and
the trim is Quantum 2000.”
This prompted an extended discussion of the decoration pro-
cess and the atmosphere Taylor was trying to create in his apart-
ment. For the most part, the architecture-major a cappella president
and Olivia were the sole participants, until Gary interrupted the
exchange with an inquiry about the rent.
“It’s not bad, although I had to shell out a bit more than I was
expecting for the location,” said Taylor. “I’m definitely looking for
roommates.”
“Can we please get started?” interjected Sidney, after a few sec-
onds of silence.
We’re missing the sophomores.”
“Guillermo and René are always late. We’ll brief them later.”
Taylor turned to Olivia. “It’s up to you. This is your show.”
The auditions coordinator straightened a bit to her seat and
pulled her clipboard off her chest slowly. “We can give initial opin-
ions, but I don’t want to make any final decisions until they get
here. Not while we are missing our assistant musical director.”
“We could just wait,” muttered Gary.
“Two hours until I have to meet with the rest of ACUAC,” said
Taylor. He checked his watch. “Now an hour and forty-five min-
utes.”
“Wait, we don’t even have their preferences yet do we?” asked
30 Washington University Political Review
Gary.
Olivia shook her head slowly. “Once Taylor finds out, he’ll
email us so we know how the auditionees ranked us.”
“Then why are we meeting now?” asked Jenna. “Nothing mat-
ters until we get their rankings. Everything we decide is worth-
less.”
“I agree,” said Gary gruffly. “This all seems a little premature.”
“I could really use the next one and three-quarter hours of my
life back.”
Taylor cleared his throat before speaking. “The officers thought
about this in depth. We have reasons for meeting early.”
Jenna stared at the guy she came in with. “Oh, the officers met
about this. That makes it okay—the officers are so much smarter
than us common singers; they know how we should do every-
thing.”
“Forgive us for challenging your perfect wisdom, oh mighty
officers,” said Gary, in his low monotone.
“Come on, guys,” squeaked proper-posture Violet. “We all
know auditions are tough and grueling, and we’ve all been spend-
ing a whole lot of time with each other, but we’ve got to keep being
kind to one another, we’ve got to keep up the morale, we’re all part
of the same team, the same singing family, the same—”
“It makes sense for us to meet early,” said Sidney, straightening
up, his voice high, but commanding. “Our feelings might change
once we see the numbers. The people who rank us first might sud-
denly seem more appealing, and vice versa. So it’s important for us
to know how we rank them before we see how they rank us.”
There was a moment of silence, followed by another knock at
the door.
Taylor got up and let in two others. René, a skinny blonde
with dark blue sweat pants, a tee-shirt, and cheap plastic flip-flops.
Following her was the heavy-set Guillermo Vasquez, boasting his
scraggly black goatee and prominent beer belly, his face red-brown
and glistening with sweat. They were carrying grocery bags.
“Thanks for showing up,” Taylor muttered.
“Sorry, sorry,” said René. “Track practice ran a little late, and
Mo and I had to go for a little morale-boosting run.”
The chubby fellow pulled a case of beer out of his bag. Chuck-
ling, he said, “A little draught, for the a cappella newbie draft.”
Taylor was not amused. “We are not drinking now.”

“Why not? I’m down,” said Gary immediately.
René gave him a thumbs-up. The bass-singer beamed until he
noticed Jenna was shooting him an angry glance. “That would be
idiotic.”
“Don’t be a party-pooper,” said René.
“We wouldn’t get wasted,” clarified Guillermo. “A little buzz
might even help us think more clearly.”
“This is ridiculous. Absolutely not,” said Taylor frantically. “I’m
president and why I say goes: we’re not drinking.” Taylor noticed
Jenna clinch her teeth and realized his argument would be more
effective without the appeal to his personal authority.
“Come on,” begged Guillermo. “You know the Gobfellas are
going to show up to the draft completely smashed.”
“We’re not the Gobfellas,” said Taylor, Olivia, and Sidney in
unison.
“Their position is not as critical as ours,” continued the group
president. “Don’t you understand: the decisions we make now are
vital to the survival of our group.”
“We can’t afford another last year,” Jenna said, glaring at
Taylor.
“Ouch,” muttered René. She and Guillermo were the lone
sophomores.
“We’ll be fine,” pleaded Guillermo. “We all know we’re going to
get good people this year. What we need to do is relax.”
“What we need to do is think. One bad apple and we’re stuck
with them for the next four years,” Jenna said, batting her dark eye-
lashes. Half the group shot her an angry glare. René thought it was
unfortunate that she didn’t seem to notice.
“I think we should wait until after the draft,” said Sidney rea-
sonably. “But after the draft and inductions, I definitely think some
celebration is in order.”
“That’s my boy, Sid,” said Guillermo with a huge smile. “Olivia?”
he said teasingly.
“I’m not drinking beer. That’s disgusting.”
René held up a handle of vodka and a liter of diet coke.
“You know me too well,” Olivia said, shifting in her seat and
crossing her legs.
“And don’t think we forgot about you, Miss Violet,” said René.
She held up a liter of red liquid and read in her most chipper voice,
“Strawberry Passion Fruit Margarita Mix!”
“Low cal,” added Gary, who was reading over her shoulder.
“This was another great tragedy of the choir kid vs. theater kid
battle—if and when the theater kids won out, the people with choral-
training had to do all the work to make them passable in the block.”
FICTION
Violet smiled a little, then wiped it away, and straightened up
a little more in her chair.
“You can have some too, Taylor,” Guillermo added.
Taylor’s cheeks flushed red again and he made a conscious
effort to keep his hand in his lap and not pick his eyebrow. “Can we
start now. Please.”
“We’ll do the ladies first,” announced Olivia. “I’ll read peoples’
thumb-votes and then we’ll discuss comments.” After both the
initial audition and the callback, Olivia conducted a silent poll of
the group: thumbs up meant yes—we should take them if possible;
sideways was maybe; thumbs down meant no. Of course, there was
always plenty of waffling—Violet in particular almost always gave
a thumbs up, and only changed to “maybe” when she saw she was
out of step with the rest of the group—but for the most part it was
a good indication of people’s gut-instinctive reactions.
Kathy Pan was the first candidate to be discussed. She thought
she had more energy and stage-presence in the morning and had
scheduled both her primary and call-back auditions as early as pos-
sible. “Tall soprano with braided hair,” said Olivia, to jog people’s
memories. “I wrote down six yes’s, two maybes, and one no.”
“I liked her hair,” said Violet, politely. “It was so unique. Do
you think she did that herself?”
“Six yes’s means she’s pretty take-able,” interjected Guillermo,
who simply wanted to keep things moving so they could progress
to the pre-draught festivities. “Who said no?”
“That would be you,” snapped Olivia
The heavy-set guy shrugged. “I don’t even remember her.”
“You were hung over,” explained Gary. “And—don’t take this
the wrong way, I don’t mean to stereotype—but you reeked of
tequila.”
“It was a bad morning,” said Guillermo, who suddenly recalled
his pounding headache.
“No wonder you were such a jerk,” hissed Olivia. “You rated
every soprano as a ‘no.’”
Guillermo yawned. “I defer to you guys, then.”
“Is there any real opposition to Melina?” asked Olivia.
“Well, I said ‘maybe’ because I was a little hesitant,” began
Jenna. More than half the group either rolled their eyes or groaned
outright. “I mean, she seemed a little strange to me. With that hair
and the bands she likes on her MySpot. I don’t know if she’s our
type, honestly. Like she was, I don’t know, an emo kid or some-
Washington University Political Review 31
 FICTION
thing.”
“I don’t know if we should consider a person’s music tastes,”
said Violet very quickly.
“I think interests and personality should be a factor!” said Jenna
defensively. “We have to choose people who are compatible.”
“It’s all just speculation,” said René. “You can’t possibly know
what someone is really like after a fifteen minute audition.”
Jenna scowled and shook her head. She remembered knowing
exactly what she thought of René at her initial audition. Since then,
she hadn’t revised her initial opinion in the slightest. She hadn’t
needed to. But Jenna knew that she couldn’t voice those kinds of
comments in such a censorious environment. So much for honesty,
she thought.
Taylor shifted the subject. “I didn’t think she was that strong of
a soloist. Besides, I think she’s going to be in the Harmoniums.”
“Wait, why would she put the Harmoniums first?” asked
“It’s all just speculation,” said René. “You can’t possibly know what someone is
really like after a fifteen minute audition.”
Olivia.
Taylor frowned. He considered sharing what he knew about
Kathy Pan interacting with Dani Behlman in the Brighton Univer-
sity Cafeteria—a chat he was convinced Behlman had used to catch
Kathy Pan in her snare—but decided to keep that to himself. No
use worrying the rest of the group. “I just have a feeling that she’s
heading that direction,” he began, trying to be reassuring. “It’s not
a big deal, though—she’s not a stand-out soloist, which is what we
really need this year. We need people who are performers.”
Sidney sighed. The old choir kid versus theater kid debate
was already beginning to emerge. Ignore the fact that Kathy Pan
had clear tone, near-perfect pitch, good blend—the most impor-
tant thing to Taylor was whether or not she had been entertaining
to watch in her solo. In Kathy’s case, Sidney decided not to fight
this prejudice, but when Grace McLain’s name came up, Sidney’s
loyalty to the pure choral camp came to the fore.
“Now let’s think about this logically,” began Sid. “She fluctuates
on pitch. In tonal memory, she missed a quarter of the notes. She
was way-off in simple sight-reading. In the block, she was incred-
ibly bright—she stuck out terribly. Why would we want this girl in
an a cappella group?”
“But she’s such a strong soloist,” replied Taylor. “I think she was
the only one of the girls who jumped out as a strong performer.
Great energy, a great sense of showmanship—”
“By that, you mean she screams musical theater,” muttered
René.
32 Washington University Political Review
“That’s not necessarily a bad thing,” interjected Olivia. “We
could use more theatrical energy in the block.”
“Not at the risk of ruining our group blend,” muttered Sid.
For a moment, this stifled the conversation. Jenna was the first
to think of a new avenue of attack. “I think it does matter that she
was the one who brought in a headshot. Let’s be honest, that’s very
narcissistic.”
“That’s just something actresses do,” defended Violet. “Besides,
we’re not allowed to judge peoples’ personalities. That’s not what
this is about.”
“She had a loud belt voice, I’ll give her that,” muttered Sid,
trying to get back to musical criticisms. “But it was very shouty.”
“Sure, she may have belted. But most of all, I just thought she
had this exciting, outgoing, positive energy about her when she
sang,” added Violet.
“I thought you weren’t allowed to use personality,” said Jenna,
disgusted.
Violet beamed and re-crossed her legs. “You can if you are
encouraging and positive about it, Jenna. I just don’t think tearing
people down is in the spirit of a cappella.”
Before Jenna could attack this double-standard, Olivia made
a personal request of the Chorderoys’ Music Director. “Couldn’t
you work with her, Sid?” pleaded Olivia. “Help her out with her
tone and pitches and stuff. There is still a significant majority that
wants to take Grace. She’s such a good soloist, and I’d hate to pass
her off.”
“She’d need a ton of extra training,” said Sid with a sigh. This
was another great tragedy of the choir kid vs. theater kid battle—if
and when the theater kids won out, the people with choral-training
had to do all the work to make them passable in the block. Further-
more, Sid couldn’t help feeling that it was slightly condescending
for the stage-minded opposition to act as if showmanship were a
rare and precious talent while vocal instincts were something you
could easily just pick up as you went?
“If anybody could teach her, it’d be you,” said Violet warmly.
“But what if we can’t fix any of these things?” whined Jenna.
“Then she’d just be an a cappella bomb—her poor tone could ruin
the whole group for four years.”
“I think it’s worth the risk,” said Olivia. “It’s Brighton Univer-
sity—she should be smart enough to learn something a little dif-
ferent. She’s talented enough and, if they have the opportunity, I’m
sure the Harmoniums would take her in a heartbeat.”

“By the time the meeting had adjourned, Taylor had come up
with a plan: if there was no guarantee that any of these singers
would give his group a top ranking position, then he would just
have to take matters entirely into his own hands.”
“That’s what I’m banking on,” admitted Sidney. In his view, the
proper place for theater kids was in the other co-ed group.
Making decisions for the male auditionees was slightly less
contentious. This was because of the existence of the two male
groups at Brighton U.—for the past few years, the majority of the
guys who tried out for a cappella were pretty easily categorized as
Dynos or Gobfellas. Despite Dani Behlman and Olivia’s best efforts,
all-male a cappella still had a great deal of appeal.
Ben Jensen, in fact, was the first guy who wasn’t so easily clas-
sifiable.
“I could see him as either Gobfella or in a co-ed group,” said
Taylor. “Although, I tend to think that Dani might have convinced
him to pick Harmoniums over us.” Taylor was recalling that fateful
morning of Freshmen Move-In Day, when the president of the rival
a cappella group had ambushed the unsuspecting freshman at the
activities fair.
“Don’t be such a downer,” said Olivia, who was offended
because she thought Taylor was implying that Dani was better and
flirting than she was. “Have a little faith in me.”
Akash Patel was the next male auditionee to present some-
thing of a predicament. At first, it was just the theater kid vs. choir
kid rift all over again.
“I didn’t think he was a very good soloist,” said the group coor-
dinator.
“Could have called that one,” groaned Guillermo.
“He’s a good bass, and we need a new VP person since Vince
graduated,” said René. “Sidney can’t do it all the time.”
“But how did we get him?” asked Violet. “Sarah from the Har-
moniums saw his name and said that he didn’t try out for them.”
“He only tried out for us and The Gobfellas,” Sid explained. “I
found out that he could beat-box from his RA, and I got the RA to
persuade him to audition.” In truth, Akash’s heart was exclusively
set on the Gobfellas because of his family connections to the group.
He only tried out for the Chorderoys because he didn’t want to
offend his Resident Advisor.
“That’s sketchy,” muttered Jenna.
“No, he’s not sketchy at all,” said Violet, misunderstanding.
“He was so polite, kind of like an old-fashioned Southern gentle-
man. Cute.”
FICTION
“Personality again,” said Jenna. “If you’re using it, I will, too:
he seemed off to me. Doesn’t the fact that he only tried out for
two groups make you question his commitment. If he was really
interested in a cappella, wouldn’t he try for all of them to better his
odds? That’s what everyone else does.”
Jenna stood up, suddenly made passionate by hearing so much
of her own voice. “What if he ends up joining and then he quits.
That would put us in a very bad position.”
“Oh, come on Jenna,” groaned Guillermo. “This is completely
irrelevant.”
“I see that I’m obviously the only one who cares enough to
bring up the difficult questions,” retorted Jenna. “But, be honest
with yourself—don’t you think it’s dangerous that this Akash char-
acter has no idea what he’s getting himself into?”
René stood up, too, and her volume surprised even herself:
“None of us did, you idiot!”
For a long time, nobody said anything. Then, René apolo-
gized—she had gotten a little carried away, she admitted. Jenna sat
down and remained relatively quiet, satisfied for the moment that
her opinion had been heard. When the conversation began again, it
was much more subdued. René, in particular, had lost her focus—
like Guillermo, she was itching to bust into their pre-A Cappella
Draft booze so she could rewind a little.
Taylor was suddenly very thoughtful. He kept reminding him-
self that all of these candidates were still only hypotheticals, that
is, that there was no guarantee that a single one of them would
rank the Chorderoys first over all of the other a cappella groups.
His already substantial sense of dreading the unknown was being
compounded by this recent evidence of anxiety in his fellow group
members.
By the time the meeting had adjourned, Taylor had come up
with a plan: if there was no guarantee that any of these singers
would give his group a top ranking position, then he would just
have to take matters entirely into his own hands.
Stephen, WUPR’s fiction columnist, is a senior majoring in English
and Finance. His email is scharris@wustl.edu.
Washington University Political Review 33
INTERACTIVE WUPR INTERACTIVE
NATIONALWUPR

puzzle provided by www.djape.net

SAMURAI
SUDOKU

Use digits 1 through

9 to fill in the grid.
Each row and column
within a 9x9 box as
well as all 3x3 grids
should contain only
one of each digit. The
five boxes cannot be
solved independently
of each other.
Scoring guide for Bailout Quiz
(from page 27)
8-15 points: You don’t need a bailout. In fact you’ll
probably be paying for it 50 years from now!
16-21 points: You are feeling the burn in your wallet
but don’t give up hope. You could still survive to see
the upswing in 10 years.
22-26: You are an excellent candidate for a government
bailout, however since you aren’t a large, poorly
run corporation the chances of you receiving one are
almost zero.
27-32: God dammit Donald we told you Trump
Corporation is not getting any more money.

Washington University Political Review 34