Politically
COLUMN SINCE 1776
How do you feel about Obama winning the Nobel Peace Prize?
Take the Quiz and Find Out!
1.When you heard that Obama
won the Nobel Peace Prize, you
were watching
A. The Rachel Maddow Show
(1 Point)
B. The rerun of An Inconvenient
Truth (2 Points)
C. The O’Reilly Factor (3 Points)
D. Huh??? Obama won the Nobel
Peace Prize? (4 Points)
E. Television in your home, far
away from 1247 San Miguel Ave,
Los Angeles, CA 93106
(5 Points)
2.Your idea of a fun activity is
A. Writing your Congressperson a
letter in favor of healthcare
reform (1 Point)
B. Boycotting businesses that aren’t
energy efficient (2 Points)
C. Ranting to your friends, family,
and neighbors about the dangers
of gay marriage (3 Points)
D. Watching cartoons, eating cereal
and smoking a J. (4 Points)
E. Definitely not committing
murder. Murder is bad. And
you’ve never even been to
California (5 Points)
3. In your first election, you voted
for
A. Barack Obama (1 Point)
B. Ralph Nader (2 Points)
C. Ronald Reagan (3 Points)
D. Mickey Mouse (4 Points)
E. Why all the questions? Don’t
November Edition
Correct
I get a lawyer or a phone call or
something? (5 Points)
4. Your means of transportation is
A. A Prius (1 Point)
B. A bike (2 Points)
C. A Hummer (3 Points)
D. A scooter (4 Points)
E. Not a 1979 Cadillac Eldorado
(5 Points)
5) What do you think is the great-
est threat to peace?
A. Nuclear weapons (1 Point)
B. Global warming (2 Points)
C. Barack Hussein Obama
(3 Points)
D. Cops (4 Points)
E. Who are you people? Why do
you keep asking questions?
(5 Points)
6) Your favorite blog is
A. DailyKos.com (1 Point)
B. TreeHugger.com (2 Points)
C. DrudgeReport.com (3 Points)
D. FailBlog.org (4 Points)
E. Certainly not HowtoKill.com,
you’ve never heard of that blog
(5 Points)
7. The last time you went to a
College Democrats meeting was
A. Yesterday (1 Point)
B. When they were discussing cap
and trade policies (2 Points)
C. To protest abortion (3 Points)
Washington University Political Review
WUPR’S ONLY HUMOR
D. The time they gave away free
root beer floats (4 Points)
E. That time when that murder
in California happened, so you
couldn’t possibly have been in
California (5 Points)
8. You believe that peace can be
best achieved through
A. Talking (1 Point)
B. Making a movie (2 Points)
C. Bombing people who disagree
with you (3 Points)
D. Chillin’ out (4 Points)
E. No more questions! Leave me
alone. I didn’t do anything!
(5 Points)
SCORING GUIDE TO
NOBEL PEACE PRIZE QUIZ
ON PAGE 44
Willy Chotzen-Freund, a WUPR staff writer, is
a freshman majoring in political science and
economics. His email address is wschotze@
artsci.wustl.edu.
1
 The Washington University
0

2
Political Review November Edition

5
C o n t e n t s
Tipping the Scales of Supreme Court 4
Peter Birke
6
Northside Makeover 6
Josh Truppman
7
America’s Media: Duped 8
Becca Craig
9
America’s Next President 10
Jake Laperruque
0
Michael Moore: Bowling for Socialism 13
Derek Sun
1 Josh Truppman investigates real estate
baron, Paul McKee’s, development project Feeding Frenzy 14
Andrew Luskin
2
for North St. Louis. Page 6.
On Gay Marriage 16
Lennox Mark and Sara Fichman-Klein
3
Walmart 18
Alex Hoogland

Catholic Church Missing Its Cue 19

Nicholas Wilbar

Rise of the Third World 20

Greg Allen

The Politics of Futbol 22

Anna Applebaum

Food Security 24
Siddharth Krishnan

Non-Organic: Indian Farming Practices 26

Peter Birke gives a breakdown of the Sasha Fine
justices of the Roberts Supreme Court
and their rightward drift. Page 4. Politically Correct: Bill Clinton 27
Mike Friend
 WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY
POLITICAL REVIEW
EDITORS-IN-CHIEF STAFF WRITERS
GREG ALLEN BRYAN BAIRD
JAKE LAPERRUQUE MAX BENNETT
SPENCER BERRY
DIRECTOR OF DESIGN MAX HAMILTON
TYLER TRUSSELL AMY PLOVNICK
ANNA APPLEBAUM
DIRECTOR OF CONTENT PETER BIRKE
BRITTANY PARKER REBECCA CRAIG

Corey Donahue explains how Arnie STAFF EDITORS

COREY DONAHUE
JAY EVANS
Duncan is the most powerful Secretary MICHAEL BRODSKY JOHON OLOFSSON
of Education ever. Page 35. JOSH TRUPPMAN SASHA FINE
NICK WILBAR GAVIN FRISCH
MICHAL HYRC
China’s Growing Influence in Africa 28 COPY EDITORS ALEX KAUFMAN
Betel Ezaz JOHN MOYNIHAN ANDREW LUSKIN
LAUREN WEISS LENNOX MARK
Our Developing World 30 AGNES SANDS DAN REBNORD
Alex Kaufman DEREK SUN
TREASURER
Obama a Nobel Laureate? 32 MARCUS WALTON EDITORIAL ILLUSTRATORS
Dan Rebnord LOUISE SMYTHE
BUSINESS MANAGER KELSEY ENG
Nobel Wasted? 34 MIKE FRIEND ANITA LANDREE
Michael Hyrc CARTER MALOUF
LAYOUT STAFF VIDHYA NAGARAJAN
Education Stimulus 35 RACHEL BRAUN SNOW POWERS
Corey Donahue ALAA ITAI DIANA CHU
MATT LEE
The Future of Republican Politics 36 BILLY ROH CONTRIBUTORS
Michael Brodsky BETEL EZAZ
COVER ILLUSTRATOR ALEX HOOGLAND
To Copenhagen and Beyond 38 CHRISTINA BELDERSON
SIDDHARTH KRISHNAN
Amy Plovnick WILLY CHOTZEN-FREUND
SARA FICHMAN-KLEIN
Obama Care 39
Spencer Berry The Washington University Political Review is committed to encouraging
and fostering awareness of political issues on the campus of Washington
University in St. Louis. To do this, we shall remain dedicated to providing
Stranded: Senators of Maine 40 friendly and open avenues of discussion and debate both written and oral
Max Hamilton on the campus for any and all political ideas, regardless of the leanings of
those ideas.
Oil 41
SUBMISSIONS
Jay Evans
EDITOR@wupr.org

My Trip to Capital Hill 42

Gavin Frisch

Dangers of Liberalism 43
Johon Olofsson

Ti p p i n g
w the
R o
A m
s
er
Cour t
ber t ica’s
o
H
l d sway e right
cou s to th
t
cour
T
he latest session of the Supreme Court
began on October 5 and, if recent his-
tory holds, the Court will continue
to move our nation’s laws to the right. Led by
Chief Justice John Roberts, the Court has the
opportunity to become the conservative version
of the Warren Court (1953-1969). During that
time period the Court, led by Chief Justice Earl
Warren, set liberal precedents in many landmark
cases including Brown v. Board of Education,
Gideon v. Wainwright, Miranda v. Arizona, and
Loving v. Virginia. While perhaps not as sexy
as desegregation or criminal rights, the Roberts
Court has taken on cases that have the poten-
tial to reshape numerous laws. Many cases are
economically oriented and will force the Court
to decide the constitutionality of the Obama ad-
ministration’s increasing involvement in market
regulation. The three most prominent cases on
this session’s docket are Citizens United v. F.E.C.,
Sullivan v. Florida and Graham v. Florida (to be
argued together), and McDonald v. Chicago. The
first case raises the question of whether the regu-
lation of corporate spending and advocacy dur-
ing campaign season violates corporations’ First
Amendment rights. Florida raises the question
of whether minors can be sentenced to life sen-
4 Washington University Political Review
by
Pet
e rB
Scales
tences with no parole. In the final case, the Court
will decide whether state and local gun laws may
be challenged under the 2nd Amendment, an ac-
tion precedent has previously denied.
Many legal scholars believe that the cur-
rent Court is the most conservative in history.
A recent study by the University of Chicago
Law School showed that of the five most con-
servative justices since 1937, four of them are
currently serving on the Court. The most lib-
eral justice currently on the bench, Ruth Bader
Ginsberg, barely scrapes the list of the ten most
liberal judges during the study’s time period.
To understand how the Roberts Court func-
tions, one must understand the key players on
the bench and how they are forecasted to rule
on the key cases this session.
The Chief
John Roberts, Jr.
While the rest of the country may be in the
Age of Obama, the Supreme Court looks to be
in the Age of Roberts for the foreseeable future.
In his four years as Chief Justice, Roberts has
deftly shifted the Court to the right. Like his
irk
e
the
liberal predecessor Earl Warren, Chief Justice
Roberts has a knack for incrementally carving
changes in law that cause significant transfor-
mations in the legal landscape. The biggest
question during the current term for Roberts
is whether he advocates for a narrow or broad
ruling regarding the campaign finance case,
as it is almost a foregone conclusion that the
Court will rule in favor of Citizens United.
Look for Roberts to issue a narrow ruling, set-
ting the foundation for a future challenge that
will overturn limitations on corporate spend-
ing in elections.
The Godfather
Antonin Scalia
While Roberts is the face of the conservative
wing of the Supreme Court, Scalia is the one
behind the scenes pulling the strings. Since he
joined the Court in 1986, Scalia has been an
advocate for conservative causes on the bench,
including overturning Roe v. Wade and sup-
porting gun rights. Scalia had an active role
in deciding to hear McDonald v. Chicago and
would like nothing more than extend the Sec-
November Edition
ond Amendment to the states. Scalia’s dream
will most likely come true. The Court laid the
foundation when it struck down federal gun
control laws in District of Columbia v. Heller
last year. In the coming term, look for Scalia to
write the Court’s decision in favor of extending
2nd Amendment rights to the states.
The “Olympia Snowe”
Anthony M. Kennedy
President’s Reagan third choice for the Su-
preme Court vacancy in 1988, Justice Kennedy
has risen to become the most important mem-
ber of the bench. Kennedy is a relative moder-
ate and the Court’s swing vote, though he leans
conservative. As a result, Kennedy’s vote deter-
mines the outcome of most cases. Of the twelve
most significant rulings of the last term, Ken-
nedy was in the majority for all but one of the
cases. Thomas Goldstein, founder of the Sco-
tusblog.com, told the New York Times on June
30, “In most important cases, Kennedy ends
up on the right.” The extent of the conserva-
tive rulings by the Court will be determined by
November Edition
Kennedy. Look for him to side with the conser-
vative faction on the guns rights and campaign
finance cases while ruling against imposing life
sentences without parole for minors.
The Liberal Lion
John Paul Stevens
The longest serving member of the Court,
Justice Stevens emerged in the early 1990s as
the leader of the liberal wing. As the Court
continues its trek to the right, Stevens is usu-
ally the one who pens a dissent to the majority
opinion. However, there are signs that Stevens,
89, is on the verge of retiring. In September
Stevens acknowledged he had only hired one
clerk for the 2010 term instead of the usual
four. A Chicago native, many speculate that
Stevens would like nothing more than fellow
Chicagoan Barack Obama to pick his succes-
sor. Don’t be surprised if Stevens announces his
retirement at the end of the current term. If he
does indeed retire, his presence and trademark
bowtie will certainly be missed by all.
Washington University Political Review
The Rookie
Sonia Sotomayor
Over the summer Sotomayor was confirmed
to replace outgoing Justice Souter on the Court.
While her addition does not dramatically alter
the ideological balance of the Court, expect
some differences in criminal and corporate
law. As a former district attorney, Sotomayor
might rule in favor of the state more than Sout-
er would. As for corporate cases, Sotomayor’s
experience as a federal appeals court in New
York gave her a great deal of experience in cor-
porate law. Some legal scholars suggest that this
experience will lead her to be more pro-busi-
ness than her predecessor. After a summer of
discussing her “wise Latina” comments under
public scrutiny, one can only assume Sotomay-
or is happy for the new term to begin. Supreme
Court enthusiasts join her in this excitement.
Peter Birke, a WUPR staff writer, is a freshman
majoring in Political Science. His email address
is pebirke@wustl.edu.
5
 northside ma keover
J o s h u a T r u p p m a n

A
little more than six months ago a private developer named Paul McKee put forward an unprecedented plan for redeveloping North St. Louis.
Paul McKee, chairman of Mc-Eagle Properties, has proposed an $8 billion plan that would affect more than 1,500 acres of land just west of
downtown. He asked for and was granted close to $400 million in tax funds for the project via tax increment financing (TIF), which is by far
the largest sum of money ever given through TIF. To provide some perspective, according to a St. Louis American article on September 17th, the next
largest TIF district is the Convention Center Hotel, at $80 million. The sheer size of the project has caught national attention. If it goes through this
plan would drastically change the landscape of St. Louis overall and North St. Louis specifically. There is significant debate as to whether his plan would
change the area for the better. Nobody disagrees that North St. Louis is in desperate need of city funds and attention. However, not all development is
good development. There are strong reasons to believe that McKee’s plan will displace current residents while failing to create a sustainable number of
jobs. If his redevelopment plan does indeed create jobs and subsequently raises the standard of living in North St. Louis, current residents will likely be
unable to continue to afford living there. And if North St. Louis is transformed into a wealthy area, it is unlikely that subsidized affordable housing will
remain a part of the area’s landscape.
Nevertheless, there is significant support behind McKee’s plan. The TIF board voted unanimously to approve funding at a meeting on September
23. I was at the meeting and it was clear that construction and labor unions were fully behind the plan; they see the incentive of jobs in a down
economy and subsequently support the plan. At the meeting one construction union member told me that this plan was “exactly the shot in the arm
that the city needs.” There was a sentiment from some residents that development was needed to make the neighborhood safer. I think that we must
ask ourselves what the goal of improving North St. Louis is. Is it to improve the neighborhood for those already living there or to improve the neigh-
borhood so that others can move in? If it is the latter, should we, as members of the larger St. Louis community, support or object to McKee’s plan?

reasons to be concerned
how the plan began
McKee began this development process by purchasing thousands of
properties under various shell companies. He did this over a period of
five years; clearly he has had something in mind for quite some time.
There are several reasons to be concerned about this. First off, a com-
pany developing on this scale needs to be completely transparent, par-
ticularly when tax dollars are involved. McKee claims that he had to buy
properties under various companies because if he had done so more
transparently, then the price of property would have increased dramati-
cally. In other words, he would have had to pay more, which he argues
would have made the project unfeasible. I would like to remind you that
McKee is worth well over $10 billion.
Secondly, McKee has been largely neglecting these properties and
letting them decline. This is a disservice to the communities where he
owns property, as vacant buildings often become hubs for drug deals and
other illegal activities. In addition, some of his buildings are in historic
districts, which receive protection and funding from the federal govern-
ment on account of having a certain number of historic buildings. It is
possible that McKee’s neglect of his properties has had a negative impact
on the area.
While McKee is currently making a significant effort to hold meetings
throughout St. Louis, he initially formed his development plan without
any input from the community. This sends a strong message about Mc-

6 Washington University Political Review November Edition

 Kee’s motives: he is not interested in what the community in North St. Louis wants. Quite understandably, this has led to a backlash from those living
in his development region. Many residents view him as a rich developer who is trying to bulldoze the projects to build an upscale community; his
project is viewed as a massive gentrification project hurled at North St. Louis. As one resident exclaimed when interviewed by the St. Louis American
on September 17, “people oppose development when it’s dropped on them like a bomb.”

what he wants from the city

McKee is asking for a significant amount of TIF funding and city tax
dollars. This is particularly important in the case of the city of St. Louis,
which is notoriously low on tax funding due to the way that the city tax
bracket is structured. Thus, there will be a long-term impact to city fund-
ing of McKee’s plan, particularly if it fails. According to a January 2009
report from the city of St. Louis, the city has committed $524.8 million
to 96 TIF projects and has paid off $81.5 million of those commitments.
This leaves $443.3 million in future taxes from those TIF projects that
must be paid back to the City before those funds can be used for other
services, such as schools, police or firefighters. According to an article in
the St. Louis American by Rebecca Rivas on September 17, this means
that St. Louis schools in these districts cannot receive any additional
funding until the TIF is paid off. McKee is asking for a large sum of TIF
funding, and these loans take away from the money the city can provide
for social services. As Tom Duda, a lawyer and board member of North-
side Community Housing Inc., asked via Twitter, “Really, please tell me
what STL services you are willing to give up for Paul McKee?”
McKee is also pushing for the right to use eminent domain. Although
he claims that eminent domain will only be used in extenuating circum-
stances, it is becoming increasingly clear that his plan hinges on the use
of eminent domain. He plans to build a continuous mixed-use develop-
ment, including housing, offices, retail and parks. Such a development
is virtually impossible without seizing property from private owners in
his region of development. This should worry anybody concerned with
the impact of this plan on residents’ currently living in North St. Louis.
If McKee’s plan takes effect—as it seems likely it will—it will involve the
forcible displacement of thousands of poor residents with the endorse-
ment of the city of St. Louis.

why it might be good for st. louis

With the city, construction unions, and even the Alderwoman of the
5th Ward, April Ford-Griffin, supporting McKee’s plan, there are cer-
tainly some reasons to advocate for his development plan. First off, it is
extremely well-organized. As little as McKee consulted individual resi-
dents, his company crafted an extremely polished plan. He is planning to
create a business park, which will neighbor residential areas and provide
an economic stimulus for the area. He wants to implement wind turbines
for environmental sustainability; he is focused on a fully green neighbor-
hood. Many observers have lauded his plan cutting-edge and are im-
pressed with his ambitious plan for one of the poorest areas of St. Louis.
In addition, his plan will certainly create jobs in the short term. This
is a particularly strong selling point in the current economy. Businesses
throughout the city have been forced to layoff workers, and construction
has grinded to a halt. This project would immediately revive the local
construction industry. That being said, it is not clear when actual con-
struction would begin; it may be that the economy will have recovered
by the time this plan is fully voted on. Nevertheless, if it is successful,
McKee argues that it will create jobs in the long term via what he calls
“job creation centers.” And it will achieve all of these things by rejuvenat-
ing a long-deprived part of the city.

conclusion
In analyzing McKee’s plan, we need to have foresight in terms of po-
tential long-term impacts. As with most speculative developments it is
unclear to what extent NorthSide will mirror McKee’s vision for the area.
Frankly, we don’t know if his business park will be an unprecedented
success or a complete failure. What we do know is that McKee began his
plan by buying up thousands of properties under shell companies. He
then proceeded to develop a plan for North St. Louis without meeting
with residents of North St. Louis. This sends the message that he doesn’t
particularly care what they think or perhaps that his intended audience
isn’t those already living there. Instead, his development might appeal
to those living in the suburbs who wish to move back into the city. In
addition, McKee is asking for significant tax dollars, funds that would
otherwise go to police, firefighters and schools. To what extent are we
willing to justify decreased revenue for vital social services in exchange
for a speculative development project? Furthermore, the threat of emi-
nent domain has incensed residents of North St. Louis. I think that we
ought to be very concerned about McKee’s plan. It has all the signs of a
gentrification project subsidized by the city and built at the cost of di-
minishing firefighters, law enforcement and public schools.

Josh Truppman, a WUPR Staff Editor, is a junior majoring in Latin American studies and Spanish. His email is jtruppman@wustl.edu.

November Edition Washington University Political Review 7

 America’s Media:
DUPED
How an attention-hungry father led every major news
network in the country on a wild balloon chase.
—Becca Craig—

B
reaking news stopped America dead in its asco was proven to be a hoax, press releases still actly is the problem with media entertainment?
tracks as an entire nation witnessed the bombarded viewers, as every aspect of the fam- The main issue resides in the media’s failure to
unfolding of a story of mammoth propor- ily’s life was disclosed. In the days following the set an actually meaningful agenda. Important
tions. Cable networks streamed live footage for hoax-angle dragged on and eventually proved news issues receive much less public attention as
hours, spoon-feeding the public’s emotional sym- to be a non-story. Sadly, once-respected media a direct result of coverage of the hyped issues.
pathies with gut-wrenching video, expert com- outlets started to air footage resembling a mid- Even more alarmingly, certain events and stories
mentary and minute-by-minute updates. Con- afternoon soap opera. are deliberately marginalized in order to secure
trary to expectation, this earth-shattering story While the balloon boy saga was just one exam- more airtime for reports resembling the legend
had nothing to do with the announcement of ple of the questionable reporting habits of news of balloon boy.
a scientific breakthrough, a war erupting in the stations, this sensationalized feature coverage President Obama’s nationwide address on the
Middle East or a miraculous compromise between is not an isolated event. For quite some time, morning of October 15 could not even com-
Republicans and Democrats ending the dead- mainstream new stations have launched into a pare to balloon boy in the eyes of the United
locked healthcare debate. tirade of pop-culture pieces in order to boost States’ most respected cable new stations. A

“ ”
Instead, on October 15, 2009, Republican congressman from Texas,
media news outlets across the coun- Phil Roe, posted on Twitter that he had
try documented what authorities According to a study conducted by the Pew been dropped by Fox News in order to
believed to be a six-year-old child Research Center’s Project for Excellence in cover balloon boy. He tweeted: “Had not
floating away, perilously trapped in a Journalism, balloon boy received the most foreseen Fox interview cancelled due to
home-made helium balloon painted coverage of any story in the week of and the week 6 yr old boy stuck in homemade hot-air
and designed to resemble a flying following the ordeal. balloon.” Various other news stations
saucer. After hours of following the brought coverage of town-hall meetings
balloon, the contraption finally landed in close ratings. While Kanye’s unwarranted attack on addressing healthcare reforms to a halt in order
proximity to Denver International airport. Lo- Taylor Swift remains quite a tragedy in its own to broadcast the balloon’s flight. Fox News an-
cal police and National Guard vehicles quickly right, reports swarmed over the spectacle for chor Shepard Smith was compelled to remark
swarmed the scene. In an epic plot twist, the boy days. After the Prince of Pop, Michael Jackson, on air, “If there’s ever a book about what I did
was nowhere to be found. Astonishingly, the passed away earlier this year, the frenzied media for the first 20 years of my working life, October
young lad turned up later that afternoon hiding coverage mimicked a three-ring circus of report- 15 will have at least a page.” If a page of such a
in his garage. ers, cameras and mourning fans. Headlines like prominent media man’s memoir was to be rid-
Unless someone was hiding under a rock for “Mother cat nurses orphaned squirrels” quickly dled with the superfluous happenings of balloon
the past few weeks, most of the general public replace more compelling news regarding poli- boy, it would truly be a negative reflection of the
has at least caught wind of what many coined tics, world affairs and pertinent issues. entertainment culture we live in.
the “balloon boy” incident. Even after the fi- If these stories tickle our fancy so, what ex- According to a study conducted by the Pew

8 Washington University Political Review November Edition

Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Jour-
nalism, balloon boy received the most coverage
in the week of and the week following the ordeal.
America’s focus averted from political issues and
economic relief to a “made-for-cable, white-
knuckle event that ended with law enforce-
ment officials vowing to press charges against
his family, with the bizarre interlude of watch-
ing the boy vomit on two morning network TV
shows.” The study provided statistical date stat-
ing, “it was the No. 1 topic (19%) in the period
from Oct. 15-21.” Unsurprisingly, balloon boy
also appeared in twice as many feature stories
as Hilary Clinton, Rush Limbaugh and Olympia
Art by Louise Smythe. Her email is JuliaS2@samfox.wustl.edu.
November Edition
Snow combined.
There is, without a doubt, a problem with the
reporting tactics of the U.S. media outlets. The
media’s role in society as the political watch-
dog and investigator of corruption has been
soured in the pursuit of boosting ratings. The
focus needs to be averted from these stories,
and networks must reject the pursuit of cultural
populism. This being said, the American public
should also be held personally responsible, as
our voyeuristic nature only serves to perpetuate
the problem. In an attempt to satisfy the selfish
demands of society, our culture forces the media
to produce stories such as balloon boy. If we as
Washington University Political Review
individuals refuse to feed off of the media hype,
then news stations won’t feel obligated to cater
towards America’s cravings. Hopefully, the next
time America decides to pay attention, it will be
directed to something a little more urgent than
balloon boy.
Becca Craig, a WUPR Staff Writer, is a
sophomore majoring in Political Science and
American Culture studies. Her email is racraig@
wustl.edu.
9
 Charlie Crist:
America’s Next President
by Jake Laperruque

M
odern politics has garnered a reputation for being a “never
ending campaign.” With today’s requirements of name rec-
ognition, fundraising, planning, endorsements, and political
posturing, it seems that as soon as an election is over the pundits and polls
are looking to the next one. As the most important and prestigious election
of all, the presidential race is more vulnerable to this trend than any other.
Within a week of Barack Obama’s victory over John McCain, political ana-
lysts were discussing who would challenge him in 2012. We could ignore
these forecasts as baseless banter, but in truth there is something to gain
from them. Perhaps, with a bit of logic and luck, we might actually predict
the next president. And perhaps the result will surprise you.

Charlie Crist-
America’s 45th President
Who is Charlie Crist? For someone who is being hailed as the next
president, he doesn’t have a very high profile. Then again, back in 2005
neither did Barack Obama. Charlie Crist’s profile does make him a bit
of an irregular for presidential aspirations. As an attendee of Florida
State University and Cumberland School of Law, he does not have the
Ivy League resume that most presidents possess. Divorced after less than
a year of marriage in 1980 and only remarried in 2008, he does not have
the “regular” family structure that accompanies the average politician
and most every president. However, Crist does have some traits typi-
cally present in those who trek the presidential path. First elected to the
Florida State Senate in 1992, Crist’s career in politics has been highly
successful. He served as Florida’s attorney general for four years before
being elected governor in 2006. He has maintained a high level of popu- Artwork by Kelsey Eng
larity and now seems like a shoe-in for the Senate seat for which he is KelseyE@samfox.wustl.edu
runing. However, Charlie Crist likely has higher aspirations, ones that he
may very well achieve.
Above the Fray
Why Crist Will Charlie Crist has repeatedly shown himself to be a moderate, both
in his policies and his actions. As attorney general he broke with then-

Win The Primary
Crist’s first major hurtle in his path to the presidency is the Republican
Primary. As Obama’s 2008 campaign showed, sometimes this phase of
the race can be more difficult than the general election. That may not be
true in this scenario, but the primary will still be a significant challenge
to Crist. However, it is a challenge from which he will ultimately emerge
victorious.
Governor Jeb Bush and stood against government involvement in the
Terri Schiavo case. Earlier this year he snubbed conservatives by sup-
porting President Obama’s massive stimulus plan and accepting funding
for his state. Some might view Crist’s moderate nature as a liability given
the strength conservatives currently have in the GOP, but in reality it is
actually his greatest advantage.
Conservatives are not just prevalent as voters in the Republican Par-
ty, they are also prevalent as candidates. The 2012 Presidential Election
should be packed with them. Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney, Mike Hucka-

10 Washington University Political Review November Edition

 A theoretical breakdown of the 2012 electoral college
bee, Bobby Jindal, and Sarah Palin are all predicted to vie for the presi-
dency. This crowd of conservatives will have to fight for common ground,
each trying to establish themselves as the ideal choice for conservative
voters. The result will likely be negative campaigning and attacks that will
damage each of the conservative contenders. Additionally, with so many
conservatives competing for the same voters, it will be harder for any to
win a substantial portion of electorate.
Crist, on the other hand, will likely only have to compete with Min-
nesota Governor Tim Pawlenty to establish himself as the moderate can-
didate of the Republican Party and win its share of voters. This in itself is
a major advantage because while the other conservatives will be forced to
divide their base of voters between five or six candidates, Crist will likely
only need to split his share with one. This could be a determining factor
in the early primaries, which have always been critical to a candidate’s
success. Crist’s position is also advantageous because of his competition.
Pawlenty has had a successful tenure as governor as well, but he lacks the
national prowess and prestige of the other likely candidates. If Crist can
make himself preferable to Pawlenty, he can capture the moderate wing
of the Republican Party, and put himself in a prime position to win the
nomination.
November Edition Washington University Political Review
The Hillary Slingshot Strategy
In 2008 election Hillary Clinton quickly established herself as the clear
frontrunner for the Democratic nomination. This was contributed to by a
number of factors, the most important of which was the manner in which
she ran her 2006 Senate campaign. This race was never a close contest.
Clinton could have run relatively simple campaign and devoted her time
to other matters and still won by a comfortable margin. Instead, however,
Clinton put everything she had into the race, spending $36 million and
beating her opponent by a whooping 36 points. The magnitude of this
victory established Clinton as a highly skilled campaigner and fundrais-
er, traits that appealed to Democrats seeking a candidate who could win
in November. Additionally, Clinton took over $10 million that she raised
but did not spend in her Senate race and transferred it to her presidential
campaign, giving her an early fundraising advantage. These factors al-
lowed Clinton to enter the presidential primary as an instant frontrun-
ner, a status she did not rescind until her defeat in the Iowa caucuses.
Crist has the opportunity to use Hillary’s strategy and slingshot him-
self into the presidential primary by succeeding in the midterm election.
Crist is currently running in Florida’s 2010 Senate election. Crist has
11
 2012: The Usual Suspects
Gingrich Jindal
Greatest Advantage: Greatest Advantage:
Past success in building Republican majorities Young and energetic
Greatest Disadvantage: Greatest Disadvantage:
Has not held office for over a decade Horrible speaker
Odds: 10 to 1 Odds: 12 to 1

Palin Pawlenty
Greatest Advantage: Greatest Advantage:
Very prominently known Served two successful terms as
Greatest Disadvantage: governor of a Blue state
Major problems with campaigning Greatest Disadvantage:
and public relations Relatively unknown national
Odds: 100 to 1 Odds: 4 to 1

Romney Huckabee
Greatest Advantage:
Greatest Advantage:
Funny and instantly likable
Virtually limitless supply of money
Greatest Disadvantage:
Greatest Disadvantage:
Views on religion and government
Mormon faith is a liability for many voters
out of the mainstream
Odds: 5 to 1
Odds: 8 to 1

already raised more than $4 million, an impressive sum so early in the
race. He also has consistently held leads of 20 to 30 points in the polls.
Crist is almost guaranteed to win the election. He now has the opportu-
nity to use it as a warm-up for a presidential run and use a blowout vic-
tory to build his credentials in seeking the nomination. A major win in
the 2010 Senate race might not make Crist the frontrunner for the 2012
nomination, but it will certainly grant him a good deal of support and an
edge in fundraising.
Why Crist Will Win
The General Election
If Crist is able to secure his party’s nomination, he will face an even
greater challenge in the general election. Barack Obama has shown
himself to be one of the best campaigners in U.S. history. In the 2008
election he built an amazingly efficient field organization, and raised an
unprecedented amount of money for his campaign. With the presiden-
tial seal attached, Obama’s reelection campaign will doubtlessly surpass
his previous achievements, setting new records in fundraising and vol-
unteers. This makes him an incredibly strong candidate. Also, in 2008
Obama turned the traditional “Red State Blue State” electoral map on its
head, solidifying Democratic states while turning traditional Republican
strongholds into swing states that eventually supported him. The current
breakdown of the electoral map set by Obama in 2008 makes it highly
difficult for almost any Republican to win in 2012.
Crist, however, proves to be an exception. Due to his popularity in
Florida, Crist would likely win the state with ease. This alone represents
a 27 vote swing in the electoral college. It is also a major boost to Crist
because he would not have to invest heavily in Florida in order to win the
state, allowing him to shift a substantial amount of campaign resources
to other states.
This creates a new electoral map that will be decided almost entirely
in the rust belt: Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, and Missouri.
These states, which have suffered economically over the last decade as
industry has continued to decline, will likely vote based on pocketbook
issues. The winner of these critical states will be decided by an assess-
ment of Obama’s economic policies – whether the recession has ended,
the housing market has improved, unemployment has dropped, and the
stimulus has had a noticeable impact. The answer to these questions – or,
more accurately, how well the candidates frame answers to these ques-
tions – will determine who wins the presidency. If Obama can show clear
signs of improvement during his first term, he will be rewarded with a
second. But if Charlie Crist can convince America that Obama’s policies
haven’t had an impact worth trillion dollar deficits, he could be the Presi-
dent of the United States by 2013.
Jake Laperruque, WUPR’s editor-in-chief, is a senior majoring in poltical
science. His email address is jakelaperruque@gmail.com.

12 Washington University Political Review November Edition

 Art by Vidhya Nagarajan. Her email is
vidhyan06@gmail.com.
Socialism
B O W L I N G
I
n the midst of the debate over healthcare
reform to a healthcare system that is high-
est in average cost, but ranked 37th best by
the World Health Organization, it is important
to recall one movie that is responsible for mo-
tivating the movement to reform healthcare:
Michael Moore’s documentary Sicko. This film
exposed issues in American healthcare—with
costs, unpredictability and coverage being just a
few of them—and has motivated discussions to
reform the healthcare system. While Sicko has
had an impact, it should not be taken as a model
about how healthcare should function, because
of Moore’s bias and inaccuracies.
Like many of Moore’s movies, Sicko starts off
on a populist tone by exploring stories of Amer-
icans negatively impacted by insurance costs.
Moore shows people who are living with their
children and some who have lost loved ones and
had their lives crushed, all because they couldn’t
afford medication or hospital stays. Moore does
a service in telling these stories. Unfortunately,
Moore is also a con man. His facts, interviews
(with close-ups of distraught people breaking
down) and assertions (how does he know 18,000
people will die this year because they have no
health insurance?) are stacked. The American
health-care system is in need of reform. Some
47 million people are uninsured, equaling about
15% of the population.
Moore displays admiration for socialist
healthcare, and after finishing his tour of the
States, takes us to Canada, Europe and Cuba
to convince us that many other nations have
superior healthcare systems. The issue I have
with Moore is that he dismisses the existence
November Edition
F O R
Derek Sun
of other problems, and gives viewers a nar-
row perspective to consider. Moore tells us
that Canada doesn’t have long waiting lines
for doctors by interviewing about five people
in one waiting room in one town, that Britain
has impeccable healthcare by visiting one hos-
pital and one doctor, and that the French enjoy
extensive healthcare and luxurious lifestyles by
visiting one French family in one French apart-
ment. The movie turns absolutely unbelievable
when Moore tries to go to Guantanamo Bay for
healthcare and goes to Cuba instead, completely
ignoring Cuba’s human rights record and levels
of poverty that resemble those of the Soviet era.
Moore never explains where he gets his statis-
tics from, how he would implement his socialist
goals, and the potential problems of reforming
healthcare. In a deleted scene (included in the
DVD) which focuses on Norway, Moore brings
us to Bastøy Prison, where inmates convicted
of murder, embezzlement and other crimes get
to sunbathe, play sports and watch TV when
they’re not doing chores. Moore says in a creep-
ily cheery voice that a way of getting rid of crime
would be to let criminals “work on their tan”. Is
Moore serious?
As Moore fails to show, France, Britain and
other countries with single payer healthcare
systems do have healthcare problems. In 2004,
French Health Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy
declared, “Our health system has gone mad.
Reforms are urgent.” Agence France-Presse re-
ported that the French health-care system runs
a deficit of $2.7 billion. In the 2007 French presi-
dential election, voters rejected Socialist can-
didate Ségolène Royal, who promised to raise
Washington University Political Review
health benefits, and elected center-right politi-
cian Nicolas Sarkozy, who, according to Agence
France-Presse again, “plans to move fast to over-
haul the economy, with deficit-ridden health
care system a target.” Helen Evans, 20-year vet-
eran of the country’s National Health Service
and now director of London-based group Nurs-
es for Reform, said that 1 million Britons are on
waiting lists for medical care and 200,000 wait to
get on waiting lists. Evans says the NHS cancels
100,000 operations annually because of short-
ages. Last March, the BBC reported on results of
a Healthcare Commission poll of 128,000 NHS
workers: two thirds said they “would not be hap-
py” to be patients in their own hospitals. In 2005,
the Canadian Supreme Court ruled in favor of a
man who filed suit in Quebec over being kept
on an interminable waiting list for treatment. In
striking down government health care in that
province, Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin said,
“Access to a waiting list is not access to health
care.” Similar cases of universal healthcare’s
shortcomings are occurring elsewhere, not just
nations Moore haphazardly profiled in less than
two hours.
Moore intentionally avoids all these facts to
present a propogandic vision of socialist utopian
goals. While healthcare reform should remain a
major goal for the Obama administration, there
is no reason for us to have faith in Moore’s solu-
tions or to take his ideas seriously.
Derek Sun, a WUPR staff writer, is a freshman
in the College of Arts and Sciences. His email is
dsun@artsci.wustl.edu.
13
 The system­—or whatever semblance
of one there is—is broken. Big Media.
Big government. Big corporations.
Big everything. We’re being spoon-fed
an understanding of the world based on
nothing but what the system wants us
to feel. It makes me more than angry.
It makes me mad as hell, and I’m not
going to take it anymore! At a time like
by Andrew Luskin this, being mad is the only way to stay
sane. So cue the madness, and shove
the system through the shredder.

…The United States and Paki-

stan have started a new set of
operations against the Taliban, is Joe
pouring troops into the mountains e r e t he hell ant to
…Wh you w
where the Taliban hide. The Taliban when
have little to fear; if the recent Afghani Biden n of him?...
…Th fu
e make
elections are any indication, there is voice new
no reason to expect democracy in tive of the c
o o
Afghanistan anytime soon. Barack Fox ppositio nser va-
Obama seems obsessed with the surge New n ap
like s. Ev pear
B e s
strategy in Afghanistan, something Glen ill O’Rei n beyon to be
n Be lly a d st
that even George W. Bush was uneasy Repu ck, t nd t ars
b he he
about. Obama is making a strong even lican fee entire mace-f
a d st ac
case that the Nobel Peace Prize spec ttackin . Fox Ne ation is ed nutt
ial. T g Mr ws h li er
committee was wrong… edge he W . Ro
g as d ttle mo -butter
h e e r
to p he bias ite Hou s for t cended e than a
t r s
la , s e
Hou y the v giving F e was s lling kid into self 24-hou
se m ictim ox N tupi s tha -p r
may i g . e d t th arody,
-toe ht be a It’s und ws high enough ey a
it w whi ngry erst er r to a re
o a
curr uld be b le Fox N with Fo andable tings a cknowl-
n
bone ent adm etter to ews say x News that th d a cha
i s — e nce
mou as the a nistrati be stron vegetab Obama White
se h v e o n g l e s s a
en pro- be in as o r age h o
mou as show n the ac re elitis s toe-
a y
r Al Frank t ne
…S e n a t o
to cance
l Fox eresting of the se—
a
n ab
o
tual t—b
ut
o se d a measure t s w it h N la lt
Dem ews, bu to see t rgest b hough, i t as mu ues. The
u iss
p rac
ent cont ir em- o t h
essa crats d it’s clea e thoug ckbones
a n thei c h ba
governm o p t h e
of al r defens k-
c
s that st ice after
ry; w on’t r th ht p
companie se e king just have ith B t hink a t wh r oces
s be
l r o d e, th
o m ” vote fewe ec . In en en e
ployees fr —that is, a “no r vie k’s anti- any ca it com hind th ts. It mi
a p e d T hir ty wers vacc se, t es to e at ght
being r for the r
apists. in he a t
a v o t e c lu d in g by t
he s ation c ttac media r ack on
was ors, in prin amp k el
p u b li c an senat t e d “ n o.” g… aign may be ations,
R e Bond, v o , Fox un
r i’ s K it e d by a New nec-
Missou o b e outclass s wi
It takes
a lo t t publican ll
t t h e m odern Re
u
clown, b rprises…
full of su
par ty is

14 Washington University Political Review November Edition

 can
m a gician eli
…No o Isra ja-
are t n
comp inister Be he
e M h u . T
Prim etany
a an
Hum d its
min N Nations
d d se
o r ,
Unite Council en aza War
g h t s t h e G I s -
R i t on h th e
repor t bot al-
final uding tha rce and P
c l o e
con se F y hav -
vement
is
a e l i Defen tants ma e t a n
e w - age mo h e people r
an m
ili
imes.
N
…The n
t s o me of t estini ed war cr ic word,
d, b u people itt ag
not dea re. A group of the comm said the m
a 00 for
involved u about $10,0 he deser t y a h u a n d
ur t -uh,”
paid a g f being stuck in all “nuh ire thing
e o d in a sm n t
priv il e g
t h e n lo c k e
W h en the e ared…
hours, ted. pe
for 36 r o o m was hea it w as a d i s a p
room a
s the
t h e g u ru said p rg-
u
omited, ies were uch
people v , as their bod sid s
e ,
good th
ing
ir a b le things in the 21
unde s t of
ing the ably, ou d. A
a t e r . Remark only three die
as w li z e d , w ho
ospita t those
people h r” has said tha ecided not …Rush
as dropped
from a
“chann
ele s and d ving Limbaugh w ams,
eir bodie they were ha e St. Lou Ris
died le ft t h
e c a u s e a g r e e bid to buy th s fe llo w inves-
back b ors dis perhaps beca
use hi
to come fun. Most doct o t h e r his tendency
to take
ch ing tors noticed
too mu nt. Dur d and it m uc h,
a ssessme p as Go and make
with t h is
u d r e s s e s u
s u icide. a bad team y ca se , it would
t s , t he gur m it mock s much worse
. In an
eat deal of
ev e n o co m rogram ssly cost a gr
people t h at his p sells d ou bt le
gal impli-
orders sis t e d t o have
k out th e le
u has in s. He als to w or
The gur love and riche mon ey
turd owning
a football
will brin 250)…
g cations of a ed whether
($ have question
ponchos team. Some w as rejected
ir th at Limbaugh i-
it is fa cism, yet M
for mere ra
by the NFL back in af te r
as brought
chael Vick w fig ht in g.
hter’s n for dog-
daug his convictio
e r ve
nd h n, ha e-
a h P alin a i Johnsto s m
v w
…Sar addy, Le gh the ne d
d u a goo
baby- jabs thro ike seeing
d l
trade o doesn’t mble?...
h u
d i a . W ark r …Lim
a iler p b
old t r may augh has
n
tion. o longer another r
O b e
of th
e the d ne poten e seen as ason to f
tice fused augh tial c the v eel b
j u s 15, M ter o halle oice ad: h
a re f n o e
ana, t he c
breas Cain pos enator S g er is f the
n L ouisi red tha couples. ts pr ted a John M e ghan opposi-
…I cla l in mad omin M M
e de racia lieve e ently picture o cCain. O cCain,
peac ry inter idn’t be y,” but threa indecent displ n Tw n Oc
to
ar ed wa t c a it
to m that h es that was not for t ened to q omment yed. Mem ter with ber
a i d a c e hose u i t s and b e r s her
r h ople who T
He s ng the are “Why value witter, a
, in r o
espon f the site
i decl black pe ad i s g n
“mix uick to he h
hot? u y cho s uch i alarm se,
ing p McCain
q e let s.” [
incid 4:01 PM pping wo sightful
n
was ist, as h om and k friend d ent, Oct 1 o d in o b rospe
c
a ra is bath r o bla c
ccu s e title; M 2].” a ma ser vation ct
e h p i l es of u are a hat she l cCain isn E ven n tan s as
s pund o ’t
u
s an
d
: if y
o
ing t a it an oks like a yet a se without t ktop so
“pile ief note cist, say s is not “just d f rio
a blo she has w ool when us conte e Twitter
h
b r r a e n d u
A ing a k fri t yo nd”… hined facin nder
of be ave blac ying tha ses a in re ga
spon n experi
for t
he
h a a i
you fense. S piles” r se th
at sh nced
e
o d de a n d u e s - e is
go
e “ piles set of q
hav le new
who ns…
tio

Andrew Luskin, a WUPR Staff Writer, is a freshman with an undecided major. His email is atluskin@artsci.wustl.edu.

November Edition Washington University Political Review 15


On Gay Marriage
a dialogue by Lennox Mark and Sara Fichman-Klein
E
mily walked into the crowded coffee shop after a long day of running
around Capitol Hill in her Kate Spade heels. Kasper - another aspir-
ing politico who was dressed casually in dark wash jeans and a black
blazer - put down his coffee and refolded his New York Times, completely
oblivious to her presence.
“Kasper!” exclaimed Emily excitedly. Startled, Kasper looked up from
his copy of the paper and spotted his good friend. He beckoned her over
to his table.
“Emily, I can’t believe you’re here! Sit down, we need to catch up!”
Relieved to finally be off her feet, Emily pulled up a chair and sat with
Kasper.
“I haven’t seen you since that killer Law and Society final. What are do-
ing on the Hill?” she asked him.
“Interning with Jim McGovern,” replied Kasper.
“Eww, a Democrat!” exclaimed Emily jocularly.
“Well, whose office are you interning in?”
“Kit Bond’s.”
“That old fart!” said Kasper reflexively.
Crossing her arms indignantly, Emily spat, “How dare you! He is an
inspiration to us all and –”
“Take a chill pill,” said Kasper, laughing. He took a sip of his black cof-
fee and folded his copy of the New York Times to stuff into his briefcase.
Glancing over the headlines, Emily read, “Gay Marriage Initiative Post-
poned.”
“I heard about that initiative today in the office. Could you think of any-
16 Washington University Political Review
Art by Snow Powers. Her email is SnowP@samfox.
wustl.edu.
thing more heinous?” asked Emily.
“Yes, quite a few things, actually,” replied Kasper. “I’m from Massachu-
setts.”
“Hmmph, well then you should know firsthand that chaos that comes
with any move for gay marriage,” replied Emily.
“So what? Protesting is part of politics, and now everything’s good and
fair,” shot back Kasper. “I don’t understand why there aren’t more people
behind it nationally.”
“I don’t see why marriage is so essential to gays. What’s wrong with
civil unions and domestic partnerships? Is being ‘married’ that crucial to
them?”
“Yes! Em, anyone as smart as you should know that the benefits given by
the government to married couples only apply to heterosexual couples! It’s
a law prejudiced against gays, and it needs to be changed.”
“If it’s the benefits that they’re after, we don’t need to debase marriage
to give it them. I wouldn’t mind endowing civil unions with all the same
visitation and inheritance rights granted to heterosexual marriages.”
“Of course gay couples should have all the same benefits as straight ones,
but refusing them the term ‘marriage’ is a problem. It’s a civil term, and it
should apply to any two people who love each other enough to spend their
lives together. Civil union isn’t good enough.”
Emily sighed, realizing that she was in it for the long haul. Propping
both elbows on the table, she refuted, “No, marriage is not a civil term.
That’s exactly the problem here.” Reverting to her small government roots,
she continued. “The government shouldn’t even be legislating on the mat-
November Edition
 “ ”
ter of marriage, seeing as it’s an mean that it is one,” said
inherently religious institution. Both McCain and Obama were against putting Kasper, ignoring the slight as
Honestly, judges can ‘unite’ people, the words ‘gay’ and ‘marriage’ together and usual. “Think of it like this.
but not bind them together forever There are two different types
why do you think that is? It’s not what America
before God.” of marriage, civil and reli-
Kasper stretched and gave Em- wants; it’s not what’s right. gious. Your marriage through
ily a look. “Not everyone has such the church is what you view as
a religious mentality,” he said calmly. “Marriage is a civil term. Even if you sacred, while another couple really cares about their state-sanctioned mar-
get married in a church, synagogue or mosque, you still require a marriage riage, and this does not hurt your relationship at all. Gay marriage isn’t
license from the state. If homosexuals get married in a Protestant church a personal attack on you or your religion, but a sacred union parallel to
or Reform synagogue, they still aren’t legally married until they have a yours, no less important and certainly not wrong.”
state license, which in most places is impossible. ‘Get your religion out “Exactly, it is parallel, and if you recall, parallel lines are those that never
of my constitution,’” he said, quoting a sign he had seen at a rally for gay touch. By calling the state option marriage, you are blurring that contrived
marriage. creation with a hallowed one and that is what I am against. Look at the last
Emily would not be silenced so easily. Pushing her long chestnut hair presidential election cycle. Both McCain and Obama were against putting
out of her eyes, she said, “No, Kasper, that’s backward. No religious institu- the words ‘gay’ and ‘marriage’ together and why do you think that is? It’s
tion should have to get validation for their works from the state. It should not what America wants, it’s not what’s right.”
be the other way around. Consenting adults may be civilly united before “In whose opinion?” wondered Kasper. “I think that you’re making this
a judge, where they would get their ‘union’ license, not marriage license. so complicated to merge your personal religious beliefs with your political
Then, if they would like a religious ceremony and to be united before God, ones, but the truth is that we can’t write a law based on the Bible. And of
they can take that license to their respective religious institution.” course Obama and McCain were against gay marriage, since no candidate
“Let me get this straight,” said Kasper. “You think that there should be no will win a national election on a gay marriage platform until the country
more marriage licenses, just union licenses, so marriage is just for religious can be less homophobic- and more reasonable.” He smirked at Emily.

“ ”
people. If that were to happen, you’d Emily looked at her watch
be all right with homosexuals getting exasperated. What she had in-
joined by the state and married by Gay marriage isn’t a personal attack on tended to be a quick reunion
their minister, rabbi, or whomever?” you or your religion, but a sacred union over pleasant political discourse
Emily pondered for a moment. parallel to yours, no less important and had turned into a thirty minute
“Yes. I’m not as unyielding as you debate that showed no signs of
think. Keeping the religious aspect
certainly not wrong. ending soon. Kasper looked out
out of it, I don’t see why we couldn’t the window and lifted his mug
let gays be joined in the same manner as straights. I still cannot see their to take a sip, disappointed to find he had already finished his coffee. “We’ve
union to be legally recognized as a ‘marriage.’ But hey, that’s between them been dishing it out a while, haven’t we?” smiled Kasper.
and their religious leader.” Emily laughed. “Let me say this in conclusion. Gays want to be on an
“I see,” said Kasper, smirking. “So now you’re not prejudiced against equal footing with the rest of America. That’s reasonable, and I agree with
gays, you’re just prejudiced against atheists.” that. Since limiting them to civil unions and partnerships when everyone
“Well, if they choose not to be religious, they shouldn’t be able to enjoy else enjoys marriage is overtly unequal, let’s focus on the legal aspects
holy matrimony, not even the state’s knock-off version.” of marriage and embody them in civil unions for everyone. America is
“Where do I begin?” Kasper asked himself. “First of all, your suggestion becoming increasingly de-secularized; this is simply the next step. Then,
is irrelevant. There’s no chance that marriage will be removed from law. those of a religious nature can take their union certificates and go to their
It’ll never happen, because there are people in this country with different churches for a marriage. Can we agree to this?” ventured Emily.
religious beliefs, and I don’t think that atheists, agnostics, or inter-faith “No,” said Kasper. “You’re still giving religion too much ground over
couples would be very happy being forbidden to get married simply be- government, and you’re still being unreasonable. The term ‘marriage’ isn’t
cause they want to be married by a judge. You have just taken the problem going to fall out of the common law. Everyone, gays, atheists, and even
away from homosexuals and transferred them to another class of people. Catholics should be able to get married in the way they choose. The word
Congratulations.” should be available to everyone.” With that, he got up and, giving Emily an
“Okay, to truly accommodate for all these differing religious views, I arrogant wave, left the cafe.
think it would be best to just remove religion from the issue, and the only Emily shook her head nonchalantly, not surprised at Kasper’s exit. “Lib-
way to do that is to remove marriage contextually. Isn’t that why we have erals,” she muttered to herself, putting on her Prada sunglasses, and sat
separation of church and state in the first place? I’m not against gays being back to enjoy her mocha in peace at last.
together. I’m not against them having joint tax filings, or even adopting
kids, because as citizens they are entitled to this. But to call their unusual
union a marriage is insulting to me and my idea of the establishment. Civil
unions for all, and marriage for those who want more than the perks and
who can appreciate its sanctity.” Sara Fichman-Klein is a freshman with an undeclared major. Her email
“Jeez, Em, could you be more of an extremist?” asked Kasper. address is srfichma@artsci.wustl.edu. Lennox Mark is a freshman
“Could you be more of a liberal pansy?” Emily fired back. majoring in Political Scienc. His email address is lbmark@artsci.wustl.
“Just because you view marriage as a sacred Christian union doesn’t edu.

November Edition Washington University Political Review 17

 W h y W a l M a r t i s g o o d f o r A m e r i c a
Alex Hoogland

A
s the largest retailer in the history, it’s no surprise that Walmart is
the target of both vicious attacks and effusive praise. According to
its own website, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. operates more than 8,000
stores, employs more than 2.1 million people, and sells more than $400 bil-
lion worth of goods in every year. Though this bulk intimidates those who
fear for the viability of “mom and pop” retailers, Walmart’s great strength
is that it devotes its considerable power to American consumers. Its size
enables it to provide services that other retailers cannot, and it has deservedly
become an integral part of the modern American economy.
Criticisms of Walmart’s effect on small retailers fall flat because of
Americans’ role in that effect . Consumption is the only democratic
component of the corporate world: small retailers fail because Ameri-
cans choose Walmart. Walmart provides cheaper, better, more accessible
services than its competition. While competing stores’ closings produce
touching hard-luck stories, the shift to Walmart is beneficial for society,
because Walmart is much more efficient at every stage of its business. The
benefits of this efficiency are less personal and more broadly spread than
the costs to smaller competitors, but such dissemination of value demon-
strates one of the best qualities of Walmart – its egalitarianism. Walmart
provides a good that is accessible to virtually all Americans. The 2006 book
The Walmart Effect estimates that 97% of Americans live within twenty-
five miles of a Walmart, and Walmart’s low prices assure that the store is
also economically accessible. As long as consumers continue to choose
Walmart (for understandable reasons), the onus is on small retailers to Art by Anita Landree. Her email is AnitaL@samfox.wustl.edu.
find better ways to compete.
The second main argument against Walmart deals with its impact on
suppliers. Because Walmart has such immense buying power, it carries but rather the utility of their efficient distribution system. The first supply
great influence with manufacturers. Fortunately, Walmart uses its sub- truck to arrive at the Superdome after the hurricane came from Walmart,
stantial bargaining power in the interests of American consumers by de- not from FEMA. The administrative particulars of Walmart’s response to
manding ever-decreasing prices. Though manufacturers often complain the hurricane, detailed in a study by Steven Horwitz, are both fascinating
about this pressure, it forces constant innovation, which ultimately ben- and inspiring. Walmart’s existing distribution chain was – and is – able
efits consumers. to deliver needed goods faster and more efficiently than a government
Walmart has much to teach American businesses. Despite its size, Wal- agency, which (besides being inept) had no existing infrastructure to re-
mart is a paragon of corporate efficiency. It has compiled the largest sales spond to the disaster. The Coast Guard, another organization praised for
data-set of any American retailer and analyzes this data using the second its post-Katrina efforts, was great for rescuing people from flooded houses,
largest supercomputer in the world (trailing only the Pentagon). Aided by but it was incapable of providing them with sufficient supplies afterwards.
this number-crunching, Walmart excels at knowing what its consumers Without the aid of Walmart, the aftermath of the hurricane would have
want. Walmart’s purchasing decisions thus reflect American preferences. been even more catastrophic.
In short, Walmart is a driving force in the American economy leading to Regardless of its reputation or its value to society, Walmart is here to
smarter, more streamlined production, and (as always) lower prices for stay. Consumption drives our daily lives and accounts for some 70% of
consumers. America’s GDP. As long as Walmart continues to increase the accessibility
The benefits of Walmart’s efficiency are not only economic, as illustrat- and quality of consumption, it will remain America’s top retailer and con-
ed by the company’s response to Hurricane Katrina. Walmart’s response tinue to grow. Whether or not you choose to shop at Walmart, everyone
to the hurricane was lauded even by its critics: it donated more than $20 should appreciate it as an outstanding American institution.
million worth of merchandise, including food for 100,000 meals, and it
promised jobs for all of its displaced workers. But what I wish to extol Alex Hoogland, a WUPR contributor, is a senior majoring in English. His
is not Walmart’s largesse, which bore immediate public relations benefits, email is ajhoogla@artsci.wustl.edu.

18 Washington University Political Review November Edition

 The Catholic Church is
Missing its Cue
His Holiness should be learning from the progressive leaders of the world:
it’s time for tolerance, understanding, compassion, humanity.
T
hough only open to Vatican staffers,
the room must have been spun into a
stunned silence when the speech came
to an end. On December 23, 2008, the Pope
delivered an end-of-year address in which he
explained the ways in which mankind needed
to listen to the “language of creation” in order
to fully come to grips with the proper roles of
men and women. Non-heterosexual behavior,
he went on, is a “destruction of God’s work,”
and, yes, “the tropical forests do deserve our
protection. But man, as a creature, does not
deserve any less…What’s needed is something
like a ‘human ecology’… It’s not simply an
outdated metaphysics if the Church speaks of
the nature of the human person as man and
woman, and asks that this order of creation be
respected.” Surely, had the speech been open
to the public, those in attendance would have
been shocked. Never one to disappoint, how-
ever, the present Papacy was not content to put
its thoughts on homosexuality to bed after this
particular exploit. Although somewhat less vis-
ceral and entirely less explicit, one can’t hardly
help but feel that the recent Papal invitation to
discontented Anglicans should have induced a
sense of almost deja vue.
As explained by Rachel Donadio and Lau-
rie Goodstein of the New York Times, “in an
extraordinary bid to lure traditionalist An-
glicans en masse, the Vatican said Tuesday
[October 20] that it would make it easier for
Anglicans uncomfortable with their church’s
acceptance of female priests and openly gay
bishops to join the Roman Catholic Church
while retaining many of their traditions.” And
while not pertaining at all to Catholic ideol-
ogy or disposition as such, this bit of news
should speak very loudly and very clearly
to the even partially engaged observer: the
Catholic Church is an institution defined by
November Edition
by Nick Wilbar
its own conception of traditional conserva-
tism and is not interested in changing.
The Vatican—and, perhaps more signifi-
cantly, the present eye of the Holy See—is
notoriously perverse in dealing with any-
thing at all akin to liberalization. Indeed, the
strength with which the Pope’s October 20
announcement drives this point home is al-
most humorous. While, as Jerry Betz of the
Gay Catholic Forum rightfully points out, the
timing of the Papal statement shines light on
the “Vatican’s lack of respect for Anglicans,” it
seems as though on an alternate level it must
be taken as doing something else entirely. By
pandering to a portion of the Anglican com-
munity discontented over the ordination of
an openly gay Bishop, the Catholic Church
is reaffirming its position on homosexuality
and, thus, its role as a social institution. This
is problematic.
Though perhaps slightly sacrilegious, a
comparison between the sacred and profane
is often rather informative. Quite possibly
the single most critical insight to come from
last year’s Presidential campaign remains ut-
terly lost on the Catholic Church: failure to
keep pace with the times equates to eminent,
and assured, failure at large. Obama Face-
book-posted, text-messaged and, ultimately,
emerged the victor. McCain engaged, more
or less, in politicking as usual and eventually
found himself defeated. Obviously, there were
a range of other issues at play, but nonethe-
less it seems unlikely that Obama could have
achieved quite the same level of momentum
had he been less engaged in contemporary,
even trendy, modes of political mobilization.
It is clear that the Catholic Church, whose
very essence is defined by traditional values
and pervasive conservatism, will not emerge
as the Obama of religious institutions. This,
Washington University Political Review
however, is problematic not only in that that
the Catholic Church lacks the capacity for
Obama-esque social engagement, but also
because it lacks the ideology. If the Catholic
Church in its present form were to engage
more effectively with the cultural and social
world, it would bring a negative influence.
In order to keep from being reduced to utter
irrelevancy, the Church needs to evolve not
only in terms of social savvy, but social per-
spective as well.
Cliché as it may be, the question seems
to be of crucial relevance: what would Jesus
do? Or, perhaps slightly tweaked, how would
Jesus feel? Inasmuch as the message of the
New Testament—regardless of the one’s own
religious predilections—has to be read as one
of positive social change, it seems as if Jesus
himself would be utterly dismayed. Though
obviously problematic on its own, the issue at
hand is not just that the Catholic Church is
homophobic. The more causal concern is that
the Catholic Church is forfeiting the Catholic
community’s potential to bring about good.
If it remains unrevised, the Vatican’s present
policy of utter stagnation will keep the Catho-
lic Church from being able to engage with the
people and problems it has the spiritual and
material capacity to help. As of now, however,
it remains troublingly unfortunate that the
Holy just can’t see.
Nick Wilbar, a WUPR Staff Editor, is a junior
majoring Political Science and Jewish, Islamic
and Near Eastern Studies. His email is nick.
wilbar@gmail.com.
19
 The Rise of the
Third World
How China, Brazil and India outsmarted
the economic crisis
by Greg Allen

I
recall quite vividly my view of the world when I was in elementary ing for the past three decades. The Chinese economy hasn’t grown at less
school. It all centered on the fact that I was an American, a native- than 5% a year since 1990, while the United States hasn’t seen 5% growth
born citizen of the strongest, freest, and most just country in the entire since 1984.
world. Even better, I had the good fortune to have been born in the era Still, China’s economy is only about a third the size of the United States’
following what virtually every politician and pundit referred to as “the end at market exchange rates. The real story, therefore, is that countries like
of history.” The story went something like this: now that the United States Brazil, India and China (often referred to as the BIC economies) are hit-
has overcome the last bastion of evil in the world, the Soviet Union, the ting their stride right at the point the United States is at the weakest it has
good times are going to roll forever. Our economy was booming year after been since the Great Depression. To put it another way, it’s not that these
year. Our country was admired and beloved by the entire world, and all I countries are suddenly stronger than the United States, it’s just that they
needed to worry about for the future was which one of the nearly infinite are a lot stronger than they used to be, and the United States has gotten
job offers I was going to accept. It’s so hard to choose when they’re all on used to having no meaningful competition.
equally attractive silver platters.
Fast-forward to 2009, and the world appears upside down. Our boom-
ing economy finally went kaboom, and jobs are nowhere in sight. Far
from being beloved and admired by the world, the United States is the
target of widespread animosity. Some of our closest allies, Great Britain
and Japan included, are consistently furious with us, and not only do we
have a large number of strategic competitors, like Russia and China, we
have a sizable number of outright enemies, like North Korea and Iran.
What the hell happened?
While our economy is in the toilet, elsewhere in the world growth is
chugging along as though the crash of 2008 never happened. Countries
like China, India, Indonesia and Brazil are all posting annual GDP growth
rates above 5% despite the global recession. In China both state and pri-
vate enterprises are going on a spending spree, buying out the assets of
foreign firms at rock-bottom prices. The situation appears even starker
when you look at foreign stock markets: the Brazilian stock exchange, for
instance, is up nearly 70% from this time a year ago, while China’s Shang-
hai Index is up 90%. Essentially, those lucky few who do have money to
invest are not confident enough to do so in the United States. In aggre-
gate, that basic fact explains the falling price of the U.S. dollar.
However, just because other parts of the world are doing quite well
doesn’t actually mean the world is upside down. A good number of the
challenges the United States faces are merely the current chapter of on-
going trends. North Korea is the same old thorn in our side it’s always
been, albeit now with nuclear weapons, and China’s current economic
domination is hardly a surprise given the rate at which it has been grow-

20 Washington University Political Review November Edition

Higher and Higher: Shanghai’s skyline boasts beautifully futuristic buildings.
While U.S. resources are at work in two foreign wars and mopping
up its economic mess, these countries are basically the only big players
with money to burn. That doesn’t mean they’re suddenly stronger than
the United States, but it does mean that they are much more flexible in
choosing where to apply their power.
The result is that while the governments and firms of the Western
world are drowning in debt and desperate to sell off their assets, devel-
oping firms, awash with trillions of dollars worth of foreign currency
reserves, are swooping in and able to buy up far more than they could
in a normal economic climate. As a result, there are signs of developing
world power everywhere, such as China’s recent $9.2 billion investment
in Venezuela’s oil industry.
No U.S. firm is making investments of that size these days. The only
time anyone talks in billions in the United States is when they’re asking
the government for money, such as when General Motor’s financial arm
just requested their third bailout from the U.S. Treasury, this time for
$5.6 billion.
The United States finally posted GDP growth numbers at the end of
October, but those numbers are driven almost entirely by government
spending. Programs like “Cash for Clunkers,” which subsidized pur-
chase of new cars to the tune of $3 billion, are a nice shot in the arm for
the industries they help, but everyone is aware that such massive expen-
ditures cannot continue forever. At some point, the U.S. economy has
to find a way to return to sustainable growth and at the same time pay
down all the massive debt it has accumulated while trying to stave off a
November Edition Washington University Political Review
depression.
Those two goals are at odds with each other. The key to paying down
the debt is cutting government spending and raising taxes, but if the gov-
ernment moves too quickly on either of those things, it could choke off
the measly beginnings of growth we’ve only just begun to see and worsen
our position even more. The government is thus walking a dangerous
tightrope between two awful possibilities: unsustainable debt on the one
side and a return to recession on the other. Perhaps worst of all, it must
make this terrifying choice in a foreign policy climate that is radically
different than the one it faced only five years ago. Then, the developing
world was content to rise quietly, but now those countries want decision-
making clout that is appropriate given their economic might.
It’s a much scarier world out there than the one I grew up expecting,
but that should never be used as an excuse for refusing to make hard
choices. America must be conscious and respectful of the fact that it can-
not possibly endure the ongoing economic crisis without the cooperation
and assistance of rising powers like China, to which it owes more than
$800 billion dollars. Similarly, China and other rising powers should rec-
ognize that the current restraints on the United States will not last forever
and that it is being judged for the quality of the international leadership it
showed during the crisis period. Let’s hope they all choose wisely.
Greg Allen, WUPR’s editor in chief, is a senior majoring in Political
Science. His email is gcallen@wustl.edu.
21
 The Politics
OF FUTBOL
by Anna Applebaum
G
ooooooooooal!
The exultant cry of the sports an-
nouncer rings throughout the soccer
stadium and reflects the excitement of thousands
of fervent fans, gathered together in a sweep-
ing, rolling mass of humanity. Tightly packed
into a sold-out arena, this panorama of faces
displays every type of emotion. Some cheer,
they celebrate – triumphant! Others attack, they
denigrate – they are merciless. These crowds
are not only individuals applauding or jeering
their favorite team or player; they are also clubs,
regions, and countries around the world using
sport to represent culture, tradition and, most
prominently, politics.
Soccer is the most popular sport in the world
today. Known throughout most of the world as
football, or futbol, the sport of soccer derived its
American nickname from slang used in England
in the 1880s. The easy liquidity in the defined
rules of the game is behind soccer’s universal ap-
peal. It’s behind the reason why soccer and poli-
tics are so often and so easily connected. Soccer
joins different peoples from distinct cultures all
around the world in a way that politics on its own
can rarely achieve. The popular culture of soccer
brings more people together than any political
22
event or ideology can, both in a sheer numerical
sense and in the sense of unity. Because of this,
soccer is regularly used as an arena to express
political beliefs and views, as well as an oppor-
tunity to make political statements through ac-
tions both on the field and in the stadium.
With the 2010 World Cup looming on the ho-
rizon, there have recently been many opportuni-
ties to observe this connection between soccer
and politics. South Africa, because of its role as
host for the World Cup, has seen political discus-
sions explode onto the international scene that
would have normally stayed mostly within the
nation’s perimeters. Protesters and political dis-
sidents have used the World Cup to garner inter-
national media attention for political causes. In
Cape Town, residents of a housing pilot project
called N2 Gateway have taken to marching and
protesting in the streets to complain about poor
housing conditions and high rent. All around
South Africa, efforts have been made to disperse
similar shantytowns as part of the effort to ready
the country for an enormous influx of both
people and publicity in 2010. N2 Gateway was
supposed to provide affordable housing with a
fair system of housing allocation, while also re-
moving 20,000 residents from the shantytown
Washington University Political Review
along the N2 Freeway in time for the World
Cup. However, the residents were moved indefi-
nitely to a poorer district of the city while the
rental flats were being built. The protesters argue
that they will never be allowed to return to the
original N2 spot; that regardless of the prospect
of new flats, “the shacks…are falling apart,” and
that in their rush to make the city presentable to
World Cup visitors, the government doesn’t care
about the quality of their housing. Complaints
from poor South African citizens demanding
access to basic social services and jobs have also
contrasted greatly with the enormous funds be-
ing used for the construction of soccer stadiums
and airport upgrades. While hosting the World
Cup has been an economic windfall for the Afri-
can nation, it has also brought scrutiny from the
poverty-relief and human rights organizations
that respond to the calls of protestors.
Though in South Africa soccer has affected
local politics by bringing international exposure
to the region, soccer often takes a more direct
role in promoting political purposes than that
instance. When considering the relations be-
tween Turkey and Armenia, soccer has played
a particularly prominent role in bridging the
gap between these two countries. Decades of an-
November Edition

tagonism between the two foes originate over a
century ago, during the Ottoman Empire’s reign
in Turkey. Thousands of Armenians were mas-
sacred at the time, which remains a particular
point of tension between the Armenians and
Turks. The Armenians argue that the event
should be recognized as genocide, whereas the
Turks deny the applicability of that term. From
1991 - when Armenia declared its independence
from the Soviet Union - until 2008 the two
countries maintained no official diplomatic ties.
Finally, in July 2008, Turkish President Abdul-
lah Gul became the first Turkish diplomat to set
foot in Armenia since the border between the
countries was closed in 1993. And the reason for
this official peaceful visit? A soccer match! Gul
went to Armenia to view a match between the
Turkish and Armenian national teams. Here,
the sport was used as a way to promote friend-
ship between two diametrically opposed na-
tions without forcing either one to surrender
too much to the other. Though the trip didn’t
change any policy or significantly alter official
November Edition
Roar of the Crowd: The 2006 World Cup drew an immense crowd from
all corners of the world so that they might cheer for their home country.
relations between the countries, the trip was
important because, as Gul said, it helped “con-
tribute to the creation of a climate of friendship
in the region.” Even more recently, soccer has
contributed to the improvement of relations be-
tween the two nations. Indeed, on October 14
the Armenian President, Serzh Sarkisian, visited
Turkey in order to watch a World Cup qualify-
ing match between the two countries. This “soc-
cer diplomacy” occurred right after leaders from
Turkey and Armenia met in Switzerland to sign
a peace accord aimed at restoring bilateral ties
after a century of hostility. Here, the sport was
used to symbolize a commitment to the shared
political idea of diplomacy and peace between
the two countries.
Soccer’s political influence often takes root in
symbolic gestures, just like the ones that char-
acterize the Turkish-Armenian resolutions. In
Iranian politics soccer reached new symbolic
heights when several members of the Iranian
national team were seen sporting green wrist-
bands during a World Cup qualifying match.
Washington University Political Review
The green wristbands were an indicator of sup-
port for the Iranian opposition leader, Mir Hos-
sein Mousavi, whose political party had adopted
the color during this summer’s contested elec-
tion. These soccer players used their presence on
global turf to take a pointed political jab at their
country’s leadership. The sport provided them a
means of political expression that they wouldn’t
have been able to access in any other way. Their
actions were not only a symbol of their political
beliefs, but also represented the impact that soc-
cer can have in the political arena and how this
great sport has become inextricably mixed with
the world of politics.
Anna Applebaum, a WUPR staff writer, is a
freshman in the College of Arts & Sciences. Her
email is a.applebaum@wustl.edu.
23
 Food Security:
Access and Sustainability
Why the absence of food security poses a looming global threat
Food Security Today
I
n early 2008 the world sat up and took no-
tice as the price of food soared everywhere.
Basic food commodities like rice and wheat
rose by 4%, vegetables and fruits were up 6%
and dairy products saw a 12% increase. Gov-
ernments the world over were pressed into ac-
tion and took measures to curb the increase. By
late 2008, whatever they were doing seemed to
be working, and the world breathed a collective
sigh of relief as prices went down again. Now that
it’s sunk back into the recesses of people’s con-
sciousness, it’s easy to forget just what a pressing
issue food security is: the Food and Agriculture
Organization (FAO) estimates that one billion
people are “chronically malnourished”- that’s
one out of every six people. It’s a global killer if
ever there was one.
The most afflicted continent is Africa. Of the
86 countries that are classified as low-income
and food-deficient, 43 are in Africa. Africa isn’t
alone, either: malnutrition is present in vary-
ing degrees in every developing country in the
world, including China and India. If this is old
news to you, here’s the really surprising bit: the
world grows enough food to feed everyone; we
produce 17% more calories per person today
than we did thirty years ago, despite a 70% pop-
ulation increase. It’s worth asking, then, just why
people go hungry and what can be done about
it.
Why People Go Hungry
The FAO defines food security as the avail-
ability of food and one’s access to it. Access to
food is broadly hampered by poverty, bad policy
decisions and war, while availability is dictated
by the state of agriculture in a country. Both af-
fect food security in varying degrees across the
world.
Possibly the single biggest cause of global
hunger is poverty. The effect of poverty on hun-
ger is obvious: people without the means to buy
food go hungry. According to a World Bank
24
—Siddharth Krishnan—
estimate made in 2008, 982 million people live
on $1 a day or less, a number that corresponds
closely to the number of people who are chroni-
cally malnourished. Since the 1990s, there has
been significant economic progress, which has
reduced the number of people living on less than
$1 per day from 1.23 billion to its 2008 number.
This progress has been concentrated in regions
in Asia, however, and sub-Saharan Africa has
seen negative economic growth.
The second most important factor is govern-
ment policy. Since policies aren’t the same ev-
erywhere, let’s look at a particular example that
highlights the role of the government in ensur-
ing food security.
In the 1960s post-colonial developing coun-
tries like India adopted a system of agriculture
widely practiced in the United States. Urgent ac-
tion was necessary, since imperialism of the pre-
vious century and two world wars had depleted
food stocks and reduced productivity. Govern-
ments chose to subsidize fertilizers, brought in
High Yielding Varieties (HYV) seeds and set up
microcredit lending institutions that would em-
power farmers to best utilize their land in these
countries. This movement was called the “Green
Revolution,” and was engineered by Norman
Borlaug, an American agronomist with fund-
ing from the Rockefeller and Ford foundations.
Originally implemented in Mexico, the initial
results seemed phenomenally successful. India,
for example, saw its rice and wheat yields soar,
and a mass famine was averted.
The Green Revolution, however, had its
downsides. The widespread use of fertilizer has
led to long-term degradation of land, making
the method unsustainable. Also, there has been
a shift from subsistence-based agriculture to ag-
riculture for export. This is significant, because
in most developing countries the bulk of the
population depends on agriculture for its liveli-
hood (60% in India, 65% in China) and needs
to be protected from hunger. In other words, a
farmer can grow a ton of rice without ensuring
his family’s long-term food-security. When this
Washington University Political Review
happens to 60% of the population, the problem
really hasn’t been solved. Another unfortunate
consequence of the Green Revolution is the loss
of biodiversity. When HYVs were introduced in
India, the government shifted almost entirely to
them, resulting in the neglect and eventual loss
of over 30,000 indigenous species of rice. Often,
cures to crop disease, drought resistance and
overall hardiness are found in genetic diversity,
which is diminishing every day. Also, the exten-
sive use of fertilizers, though initially beneficial,
has reduced productivity in the long run by
causing degradation of land.
Overall, the Green Revolution, like any policy
measure, worked in some ways and failed in
others. Although it led to significant increases
in food production, it did little to ensure crucial
household level access. This is not to say that
governments have easy decisions to make. Ul-
timately, however, it is important to remember
that growing for subsistence is more important
than growing for export in countries where the
majority of consumers are farmers, though both
subsistence and export are necessary to tackle
hunger and poverty.
The effects of war on the supply and demand
chain need little explanation. A wartime econ-
omy diverts its resources to the running of the
war, with citizens usually bearing the brunt. In
short, peace and stability are as essential to food
security as they are to prosperity and perma-
nence.
What Can Be Done
About It
Social justice groups across the world have
been protesting what they perceive to be gov-
ernments treating food as a commodity rather
than a basic right. Consequently, a global Right
to Food Campaign has been gaining momen-
tum. In a recent FAO survey, Brazil and China
topped the list of countries that were doing the
most to increase food security. This is not sur-
November Edition
prising, as they have the necessary mix of stable
governments, rapidly growing economies and
improving infrastructure. The real challenge lies
in sub-Saharan Africa.
The problem in Africa is more basic than ac-
cess: since the early 1970s Africa has been the
only continent that has shown a reduction in
food production. This can be traced back to the
Green Revolution, which was a relative failure in
Africa because of widespread corruption, water
shortages, poor infrastructure and diverse soil
and slope conditions.
The previous approaches to ensure food se-
curity in Africa were in the Green-Revolution
mold, with an emphasis on top-down food se-
curity. This approach did not prove successful,
as we have seen, and needs to be replaced by a
decentralized system with an emphasis on sub-
sistence agriculture. Under this system, every
household would grow enough food to feed it-
self by locally growing everything from grains to
vegetables, with surplus produce sold for profit.
This solves the problems of both availability and
access. Ensuring the right nutrient intake this
way would also significantly lower infant mor-
tality and disease.
India, though it has a stable government and a
thriving economy, lags behind Brazil and China
in ensuring household-level food access. Once
again, the primary reason for this is poverty.
Movements like Right to Food have a special
relevance in India, which does not lack the re-
sources to ensure that no one goes hungry.

The Challenges That Art by Diana Chu. Her email is DianaC@samfox.wustl.edu.

Lie Ahead
The United Stated Census Bureau estimates
that the world’s population will reach 9.1 billion
in 2050. That’s about a 3 billion increase from
where we are today. This growth is going to be
concentrated in developing countries, with half
of it taking place in Africa alone. Subsistence ag-
riculture, though important in today’s context,
would not by itself be able to supply this surge
in world food needs. Because of various con-
straints like soil and topography, only about 11%
of the land on Earth is suitable for agriculture.
This is unlikely to change over the next 50 years;
in fact, it is most likely to shrink. The challenge
lies in ensuring productivity keeps up with a
burgeoning population, without resorting to the
use marginal or degraded land, or deforestation
to bring more land under cultivation.
Perhaps the most popular solution is geneti-
cally modified crops that would increase the
nutrient yield per hectare. Though genetically
modified crops are already available in the Unit-
ed States, there is widespread debate over their
use. Concerns include possible health risks, the
creation of new “super-pests” that would be
resistant to these crops’ defense mechanisms
and environmental implications, among other
things. The jury on genetically modified crops is
still out, with the issue gaining both vocal sup-
port and opposition. Other possible solutions
are still in their discussion stage, with no com-
prehensive strategy having been evolved yet.
Another challenge is changing dietary needs.
There has been a significant shift in the develop-
ing world towards meat. In China, for example,
the per capita meat consumption has increased
40% since 1980. Because of this, a huge amount
of the world’s grain goes into the rearing of feed-
ing livestock: it takes 7-8.5 pounds of grain to
produce a pound of beef, and 5-7 pounds of
grain to produce a pound of pork. In fact, this
was one of the major causes of the sudden surge
in food prices in 2008.
Today, up to 8 million of the 11 million
child deaths reported annually stem directly or
indirectly from malnutrition. More than 90%
of these deaths occur in the world’s 42 poorest
countries. There’s also the small matter of feed-
ing 3 billion more mouths in 40 years.
It’s clear that urgent action is necessary to
avert this situation: it requires both globally co-
ordinated efforts and a decentralized approach.
Unless this happens, the crisis of 2008 will seem
like a picnic.
Siddharth Krishnan is a freshman with an
undeclared major. His email address is
skrishna@wustl.edu.

November Edition Washington University Political Review 25

 (non)
The Debate
A
s the debate rages regarding the vi-
ability of organic farming rages, one
major sector has been overlooked: the
developing world. Most of the focus has been on
the First World, both on farming within those
countries and on food that will be sent there.
In recent years there has been a push towards
increasing organic farming in developing coun-
tries, such as India. Organic farming appears to
be the correct course of action for India, as it is
more suited for the country’s financial and geo-
graphical situation.
During India’s population boom in the 1960s,
the country was in danger of food scarcity. In
1965 the government began importing high-
yield seeds in order to combat the impending
food shortage. This “Green Revolution” was
successful: 30 years later India is self-sustaining
and is even exporting its own grain. Beforehand,
the state had been dependent on food imports.
Due to the overuse of pesticides and fertilizers,
however, the land is losing its fertility and the
insect pests that exist have become resistant to
pesticides. Therefore, the farmers have gradually
26
organic
over Farming Practices
By Sasha Fine
been returning back to organic farming. Fur-
thermore, while the process is arguably more ef-
fective and efficient in countries like the United
States, non-organic farming is far beyond the
financial capabilities of the majority of farmers
in India. The peasants cannot afford the expen-
sive seeds and fertilizers required to maintain
that style of farming. Instead they use to manure
and regular seeds, both of which can be found or
purchased at much lower prices.
Though currently contested, organic farm-
ing may produce more food in India than non-
organic farming. A study conducted two years
ago at University of Michigan found that organic
farming produced “equal or greater yields” com-
pared to non-organic farming in developing
countries. This could be accomplished without
using additional farmland, a common concern
about organic farming. If this were true it would
be a further boon to the movement, both within
India and worldwide.
The organic farming movement in India may
in fact be necessary to ensure the survival of
farmland. The genetically modified and selected
Washington University Political Review
in India
seeds, although they are resistant to disease and
therefore often yield large quantities of crops,
required a tremendous amount of water. As a
result, in areas with large quantities of farmland,
the amount of water has dropped drastically. This
could eventually lead to a process called deserti-
fication, or the degradation of formerly lush and
fertile land into barren fields and deserts. The
seeds that organic farmers use-and have used for
the past several thousand years-have a reduced
need for water, preventing this problem.
As the inevitable shift towards genetically
modified food takes place in richer and more
developed countries, states like India, for whom
purely non-organic farming is not feasible, are
left out to dry. This forces them to come up with
their own solutions regarding their food supply.
Because non-organic farming is both too expen-
sive and too dangerous, organic farming is the
best option for India moving forward.
Sasha Fine, a WUPR Staff Writer, is a freshman
in Arts and Sciences, his email is arfine@wustl.
edu.
November Edition
Politically Correct
The Adventures of Bill Clinton
When the world is in danger there is only one man who can save it. A man trained in the martial arts, a man who can
disarm you with one wink, a man who can play a mean saxophone. The strength of ten men, the charisma of twenty
and the testosterone of fifty. When your back is against the wall, you know who to call: Bill Clinton!
T
wo-thousand 000 feet below the surface
of the Red Sea (location top secret). The
clanging of the submarine was pierced by
the high pitch whine of the alarm. “All hands on
deck, prepare to deploy code name LEWINSKY,”
a gruff and commanding voice said over the inter-
com. “Well, Bill, I guess that’s your cue”
“Wish me luck, Al.”
“I would, but this isn’t the first top secret
submarine torpedo deployment launch for you
is it?” “No, it’s not; haven’t done it in a while
though.”
“Don’t worry-I’ve heard its like riding a jet-
powered, hypersonic motorcycle: you never
forget how to ride one.” Bill climbed into the
torpedo tube dressed in a skin-tight, white tiger
pattern leather swim suit, his personal favorite
for maritime espionage.
“Bill, do you really need two rocket launch-
ers?” Said Al Gore.
“Yes Al” Clinton responded in a slightly sar-
castic tone of voice “ I don’t think a little more
explosive in the air is going to cause global
warming.”
“Yes, but do you really need two nuclear rock-
et launchers?”
“Look, when it was cold outside my moth-
er always told me to bring two pairs of gloves
outside, so incase one got wet I could still have
warm hands.”
“What’s your point, Bill?”
“My point is, I need two nuclear rocket launch-
ers; it’s the prudent thing to do.” Al laughed as he
slammed the torpedo bay tube shut, then shed a
lonesome tear. The whirring sound of the pres-
surizing of the tube made Clinton feel calm and
relaxed; this relaxation was abruptly interrupted
as he was fired out of the subs torpedo bay into
50 degree water 2,000 feet below sea level. Clin-
ton began swimming, furiously kicking through
November Edition
the water.
He had been swimming for hours when he
heard a low and deep noise. Initially he thought
that his radar detection device was amiss or his
hypersonic underwater night vision goggles were
on the fritz again, but then he heard the sound
again and knew, whales. Not just any whales-be-
luga whales. Clinton feared beluga whales more
than anything. “Al,” he whispered over his laser
radio microphone, “I’ve got whales.”
“Hold on, Bill, I’m on it,” Al said. Back on the
U.S.S Rainheart Al began frantically searching
data bases to find the CIA’s latest intel on the be-
luga whales. Side Note: The beluga whale is actu-
ally the only other sentient creature on the planet,
however the world governments have colluded
to keep this a secret as most people could not
handle the idea of a whale being as intelligent as
a human being. Side note to the side note: This
phenomenon, known as xenozoologicalpsycha-
phobia, is well documented as exemplified by
the mass suicides in response to Disney’s movie
Free Willie. The Beluga have felt quite betrayed
by humanity and have become mercenaries of
the seas, sinking ships, interrupting trade lines,
destroying oil rigs and disrupting the fragile krill
market for the highest bidder. “Bill, I’ve got bad
news: the beluga in your area is being paid by
Iran, you need to be careful.”
Bill shuddered; the whale was coming closer,
and he could hear it. Suddenly from the darkness
he was smacked by a flipper. Bill got out his laser
rifle and began shooting. The whale roared, “Bill
Clinton, you fool! You’ll never find Iran’s secret
nuclear base, I’m being paid too much krill!”
“What are you talking about? I’m here look-
ing for Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction.”
“Seriously, you are still looking for those?
They never existed.” said the Beluga in a matter
of fact tone.
Washington University Political Review
WUPR’S ONLY HUMOR
COLUMN SINCE 1776
- By Mike Friend
“Wait, so you are telling me the most powerful
country in the world invaded another country
because of something that didn’t actually exist?”
responded Bill incredulously.
“Bill, you are talking to a creature most people
think has a brain the size of a walnut”
“True.” Bill did not realize that the beluga
had used this conversation to sneak up behind
him Belugas are notoriously smart. The beluga
lunged at him going for the corotid artery with
his baleen. Clinton dogged the attack deftly,
lunging towards the blow hole. He grabbed on,
holding onto the blow hole as the whale shook
and rocked trying to knock him off. Clinton
said, “I’ve got you now!” Clinton began forc-
ing air into the whale’s blow hole using a hose
connected to his tank. “You can’t air board
me - that is against international law!” said the
beluga.“Welcome to international waters, you
son of a bitch!” cried Clinton.
After a lengthy air-boarding session Bill got
all the information he needed about Iran’s secret
nuclear base. “Bill, will you forgive me, I’m just
a mercenary?”
“Did your beluga brethren show mercy when
they killed the real Al Gore back in 1997?”
Suddenly Al Gore came over the radio “What
did you just say?”
“Nothing,” Clinton replied. But in the time he
had used to respond to Al Gore 2.0 the whale
had escaped.
Next time on the adventures of Bill
Clinton, Clinton travels to Antarctica to
fight yetis and solve the crisis of global
warming.
Mike Friend, the WUPR Business Manager, is a
sophomore in the School of Business. His email
is friendm@wustl.edu.
27
China
Africa’s Knight in Red Armor
by Betel Ezaz
A
frica. With this one word, images of
poverty and disease-ridden populations,
enveloped in civil and political unrest,
flood the mind. What usually follows is the no-
tion of NGOs, government aid, concerts and
selfless individuals who give themselves to such
a cause. Keep in mind, however, that this is an
altruistic (and patronizing) point of view - one
that an American or Western European might
have. To the Chinese, Africa is only a vast land
mass filled with human capital, natural resources
and markets yet to be fully harvested. Over the
past decade, China has been investing in African
markets and infrastructures, as it builds its own
economy to the ten percent growth monster of a
market it has now.
Entering this new century, it was evident that
China had become a strong international pow-
erhouse, as systematic investments and projects
were planned and instated by governments and
Chinese companies. Although Africa is the size
of North America and Europe combined, inde-
pendent economies and established infrastruc-
tures have yet to develop within the continent.
So, from the Chinese point of view, why not take
advantage of such an opportunity?
The first obvious demand is for natural re-
sources. China’s population is hungry for more
innovation, technology, wealth and consump-
tion. To satiate their population and growing
demands from international markets, China has
tapped its capacity for growth and has to move
where it can dominate and control markets and
resources. Energy is the currency for growth and
consumption, which are all part of a positive cy-
cle. So, it is only a matter of time until the bubble
of homegrown energy begins to deflate faster
28
than its demands. China is second to the United
States in oil consumption, and only that because
it is not as developed as the United States. With-
in ten years, its oil and gas demands will increase
by more than 30%, and Asian markets are not
yet strong enough to support such demands. So
instead of competing with the United States for
Middle Eastern oil, it prefers an area where it
can have control over comprehensive develop-
ments.
There is no better way to enter markets, deals
and relationships than using oil, gas and other
natural resources. By using oil to establish such
relations, it locks down raw materials and man-
power for production. So far, 85% of African
exports to China come from the top five oil pro-
ducing countries in the continent. Africa, so far,
has 9% of known world supplies, and China is
gambling that there might be more undiscov-
ered reserves there. However, China has yet to
fulfill a monolithic role, so it targets smaller
countries by funding exploration and extracting
projects. For the larger countries like Nigeria or
Angola they maintain more comprehensive aid
deals, with loans for physical infrastructures,
educational training and technology. While the
United States and EU countries do the same,
Chinese deals have fewer strings attached, which
sets the stage for large-scale corruption.
Sudan, a hotspot for conflicts, is the recipient
of the largest investment of the China National
Petroleum Corporation, with more than $3 bil-
lion dollars invested over the past ten years. Ni-
geria, once deemed the hopeful gem of Africa,
can look forward to $800 million being invested
in just one year, despite an already failed $2
billion refinery project. There are obvious ob-
Washington University Political Review
jections from outside countries, but China has
worked to create a vast monopoly with others
dependent on its success. Without such energy
investments, prices of production within China
would increase, which would have a ricochet ef-
fect on the rest of the world, especially since it
has become a force to be reckoned with. So the
world is caught in a situation where success for
some becomes an assured hindrance for others.
Since the 1960s and 1970s China has had a
history of selling arms to and militarily training
African dissidents. So, it is easy to assign it as the
bad guy, but like everyone else, it uses low-cost
investments to reap often selfish benefits. China
just happens to be more blatant about its goals
and daring than the still-influential West. Many
of China’s policies and actions are more for do-
mestic comfort than international benefit. One
can certainly make the argument that China is
building hospitals, schools and roads, yet it re-
mains a façade if it comes at the cost of innocent
people and with the collaboration of condem-
nable governments. However, China has indeed
proven to be more consistent and less discrimi-
natory as far as the “morality” of its actions goes.
Nevertheless, this non-discriminatory manner
of progress holds back accountability.
For instance, since the Chinese government
barely recognizes environmental or conservation
laws, it has flaunted its image as a “developer” for
the sake of ignoring such laws or benefits within
countries of interest. There have been numerous
allegations of bribery, collaboration with crimi-
nals, and of deliberate neglect of environmental
laws. Coupled with corrupt officials, Chinese
and local interests make environmental protec-
tions a farce. Such interactions allow corruption
November Edition
and human rights viola-
tions to fester unabated. Su-
dan is the most egregious example, a s States and
China has continuously denied UN efforts there other large
because the Chinese government actually owns trade part-
40% of the country’s production. Zimbabwe, a ners by flood-
country equated to Armageddon by economists ing Africa with
and human rights advocates, still receives tech- low-cost products
nology that allows its choking hold on communi- and services.
cation within and into the country. Convenience Yet, while it is bet-
for Chinese companies is not the cause of human ter that people can
rights abuse, but is a culprit for the twisted ver- have a chance to
sion of success of oppressive regimes. Note that afford such things,
is just “a” culprit, not “the” culprit, since Western “affordability” is
companies like the United States’ Alcoa invest in a relative term. Is
Guinea as did one Chinese company. Neverthe- China trying to lure
less, it is a harder argument to make when one the general population
considers the $500 million used by the Sudanese or the top of the bloated
government to purchase weapons and technol- socioeconomic strata?
ogy, especially those from China. Within South Africa, its
So the question becomes: who benefits from largest industry, textiles, is
a Sino-African relationship, and can the West being threatened by cheaper
counter such influence and effects? Within the alternatives from China. Even
past ten years, Sino-African trade has quadrupled though the United States and
to $30 billion, as has African-US trade from $29 its allies are the largest influ-
billion to $58 billion within seven years. China ence, they must use some of the same economic,
does provide aid for HIV treatment and preven- military and humanitarian tactics to counteract
tion, doctors, technology, jobs and technology China. Most importantly, though, they must
like telecommunications. However, these are engage with the African populations. Only with
created and contracted by Chinese companies this input from people who understand the na-
that do not allow local economic growth, nor do tive culture and practices will the prospect of
they provide maximum employment due to the future growth be possible. In the increasingly
increasing amounts of Chinese immigrants. By globalized world that we live in, the next proxy
pumping money into a single-party authoritar- war between east and west seems likely to be in
ian ideology, China can take advantage of power Africa. Betel Ezaz, a WUPR Contributer, is a sophomore
and money hungry regimes. Thus, China is es- majoring in International Studies. Her email is
tablishing itself as an alternative to the United bezaz@wustl.edu.

November Edition Washington University Political Review 29

 by Alex Kaufman

The Okhta Tower in St. Petersberg is one

of the world’s most beautiful and most
environmentally friendly office buildings.

Our Developing World

and what we need to be doing to be a part of it

I
t’s time to face the facts: America is finished.
We’ve had a good run at the top. Our nation
will forever be counted among the great pow-
ers of the world, alongside the likes of the Greek,
Roman and British empires. Like any good em-
pire, we have invaded some countries, exported
our culture, and imposed our values across the
globe. But as with any empire, America’s time
must come to an end, and that time is coming
sooner than we may think. America’s power and
influence in the world are starting to wane, and
by 2050 the United States will no longer be the
world power it has been for the last century.
For our entire lives, the United States has been
the dominant economic, militaristic and cultural
force in the world: we have the highest GDP per
capita of any large nation, the largest military
budget in world and the most productive and
specialized service sector of any country. It is
for this reason that, as a country, we are used to
getting our way. When the United States doesn’t
approve of something, we act. We invade coun-
tries we view as threatening. We refuse to trade
with governments we disagree with and threaten
to do the same to anyone who disobeys our will.
We also reward countries that conform to our
will by giving them money, weapons and politi-
cal support. That’s not to say that such behavior
is necessarily wrong. In fact, in scenarios like
the current conflict between the United States
and North Korea, economic and diplomatic
pressure may be the best solution. Whether it’s
for better or for worse, the fact remains that the
United States wields the greatest influence of any
nation in the world of today.
Yet the forces of globalization and industrial-
ization are relentlessly transforming the world
around us. The BRIC countries (Brazil, Russia,
India and China) are outpacing the United States
in a number of ways. China is rapidly industrial-
izing as the United States did in the 1800s: They
already outpace the United States in annual eco-
nomic growth, and its GDP will surpass the U.S.
GDP sometime in the 2020s. India will have 1.5
billion citizens by 2050 and already outranks the
United States in terms of youth math proficien-
cy. By 2050, the U.S. share of world GDP will
drop by 25%. From that point, the U.S. share
of world population, GDP, and military power
will only continue to decline along with its tech-
nological and cultural dominance. Even if the
United States wanted to, it could not stop the in-
evitable industrialization of China and Brazil or
the explosion of the service sector in India. Our
country can prepare, though, and judging by the
numbers, we should start soon.
The first thing we can do is change our ap-
proach to foreign policy. Soon we will have to
face the fact that we cannot enforce our will as
we once did. Some leaders and governments will
act in ways we disapprove of, and in a few years
down the road, we will not be in any position to
threaten or coerce them to stop. Once the tables
turn and the United States is less dominant, we
will need good diplomatic relations with the rest
of the world. To this end, we will have to stop
threatening and invading countries that disobey
us.
Another change we will have to make has to
do with our attitude. U.S. citizens and leaders
will have to acknowledge that the culture and
government we believe in, and that we have

30 Washington University Political Review November Edition

pushed for across the world, isn’t always the
best. Among American leaders and citizens
there are certain ideas that are pervasive, even
rampant. We assign utmost importance to indi-
vidual rights, have an incurable infatuation with
market economics, and believe in the virtue of
personal responsibility above almost any other.
We also have a tendency to assert these values
over others systems of values; sometimes eco-
nomically, sometime violently. It has been this
way for a long time, but even now other coun-
tries with different cultures and governments
are beginning to surpass us. Whether we like it
or not, we will have to accept the fact that other
countries and governments can do things better
than us.
A blaring example of this reality that many
in the United States are loathe to acknowledge is
the way China handled the recession. While the
United States and most of Europe hesitated to
greatly increase spending during the economic
crisis to spur the economy, China’s government
readily pumped billions of dollars into its econo-
my. It worked. Chinas economy is back on track
for an 8% annual growth rate, while the United
States economy is just now bottoming out and
much of Europe is still slumping. In the United
States, we may not like the Chinese government,
“ ”
(few could approve of
their egregious human
rights violations) but we
con no longer deny that
The demand for energy
in terms of pure econom- worldwide is projected to grow
44 percent by 2050.
ics, they have done a bet-
ter job than the United
States
The United States also faces another big chal-
lenge. The demand for energy worldwide is
projected to grow by 44% by 2050. Even if en-
ergy efficiency increases significantly the United
States will still face stiffer competition for energy
in the coming years, especially in the face of de-
clining supplies of fossil fuels.
How do we know that big changes are coming
so soon? Consider that fact that currently the
United States consumes 25% of the world’s elec-
tricity and 45% of its total resources. By 2030,
China alone is poised to reach the equivalent of
the entire U.S. population in new consumers. As
countries across the globe develop, demand for
fuel, energy, plastic, food and fresh water is go-
ing to shoot up, yet the worlds supply of oil will
likely peak within 50 years.
As energy becomes more expensive we will
see a number of changes at home. Meat and
dairy will become more expensive because they
take so much energy to produce. Cars will be-
come even more expensive to drive, to the point
November Edition
Green, Green, Green: StatoilHydro headquarters in Oslo, Norway saves energy by
utilising renewable geothermal heat in its district heating and cooling system.
that long daily commutes may become too ex-
pensive for most people, and air travel may be-
come so costly that it will be beyond the means
of most Americans. Our houses will have to
change as well. As the prices of heat and raw
materials rise, we may have to accept smaller
living quarters. We may even have to give up
that classic piece of Americana, Wal-Mart. As
shipping costs increase up to eightfold, the edge
Wal-Mart and other mass importers have over
domestic companies may decrease to a point
where imports no longer dominate the shelves
of every store.
Though we may like all of these changes, we
should recognize that the lives we live as Ameri-
cans are completely unsustainable. At some
point in the not too distant future we are going
to have to say goodbye to the two-car garage
and the McMansion with a huge green lawn. It
would not be physically possible for most people
in the world to live the way we do, nor will it
ever be. When the United States starts to under-
stand this, either by choice or as a consequence
of the developing world, we will somehow have
to learn to live more sustainable lives. Of course,
all this may sound pretty scary, but don’t start
packing for India just yet.
Washington University Political Review
The coming changes are not, I repeat, not bad.
Yes, change is often difficult to accept simply be-
cause it requires doing things differently, but the
changes we are faced with do not mean that we
are going to lead less fulfilling or less happy lives.
Though we may have to make
some material sacrifices, there is
no reason to suspect we will be
any worse off in the future.
Meat and dairy may become
more expensive, but we can sub-
stitute other (maybe even healthi-
er) foods into our diet. Large cars
and air travel may become beyond the means of
most Americans, but we can take buses, mass
transit and travel closer to home. Contrary to the
understanding of many Americans, most people
in other countries live in smaller houses than we
do, even in countries we consider developed. In
fact, it is unusual throughout most of the First
World to live in a single-family structure.
People in Europe and modern Asian cities are
no less happy than we are, nor do they suffer be-
cause they can’t afford a house in the suburbs or
multiple cars. They simply live different, more
sustainable lives. There will be no crisis or shock
to the system in the United States. We will sim-
ply have to adapt to our new situation and new
ways of living. As long as we accept the coming
changes, we as United States citizens have noth-
ing to fear in the coming years.
Alex Kaufman, a WUPR Staff Writer, is a
freshman in the College of Arts and Sciences.
His email is akaufman@wustl.edu.
31
 Barack Obama
President of the United States of America
Professor Author Harvard Alum Senator
Father and Husband Lawyer
but
Nobel Laureate?
O
n October 9, President Barack Obama awoke before 6 a.m. to re-
ceive an urgent phone call. Unlike many other wakeup calls that
the president receives, this one was not an emergency. In fact, the
call brought good news—the White House had just received word that Presi-
dent Obama had been selected as the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize Laureate. As
the news circulated the globe on the following day, it became clear that reac-
tions to Obama’s selection for the Nobel Prize were quite mixed. According
to the Nobel committee, Obama was awarded the prize for his “extraordinary
efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peo-
ples.” Supporters of the committee’s decision argue that no individual in the
past year has done more to promote world peace than Obama, and that his
efforts to encourage nuclear disarmament and increase diplomacy between
nations are worthy of recognition.
However, critics of the decision remain in the majority. Many suggest
that Obama was awarded the prize more for his celebrity status and orator-
ical skills than because of his tangible accomplishments. Still others argue
that this is a reflection of Europe’s dissatisfaction with former President
Bush and that Obama’s selection represents Europe’s desire to negotiate
with his new administration. But all in all, the majority of critics agree
on one thing: President Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize not
necessarily for his past accomplishments, but because of what the world
believes he is capable of doing to promote peace in the future. Indeed,
Obama himself voiced his surprise about the honor, and referred to it as
a “call to action, a call for all nations to confront the challenges of the 21st
century.”
Obama’s receipt of the Nobel Peace Prize, at just 48 years old and in
only his first term of office, has led some to believe that the prize is losing
its prestige. Indeed, it seems unlikely that Obama has achieved as much
as, or carries the moral standing of, such Nobel Prize recipients as Nelson
Mandela, Elie Wiesel, Martin Luther King Jr., or Mother Teresa. However,
President Obama is not the only Nobel Laureate who has been recognized
because of his or her potential, rather than actual accomplishments. In
1919, the award was bestowed upon President Woodrow Wilson for his
involvement in the drafting of the Treaty of Versailles. Yasser Arafat, Shi-
mon Peres, and Yitzhak Rabin were all awarded the prize in 1994 for their
attempts to forge a lasting peace in Israel. Unfortunately, although all of
32 Washington University Political Review
by Dan Rebnord
their intentions were noble, none of these laureates’ actions successfully
established a lasting peace. In fact, historians have argued that the Treaty
of Versailles was the primary cause of the lead-up to World War II, and of
course a peaceful solution has yet to be secured in the Middle East.
So then why does so much controversy exist around Obama receiving
the Nobel Prize? It seems that the questions we must ask ourselves are
whether we believe that the Nobel Prize ought to be awarded to individu-
als who have already achieved a great deal for peace in their lifetime—
and if not, is it right to award the prize to someone who seems capable of
achieving great things for peace in the future? Due to the backlash against
Obama receiving the award, it seems that most people agree with the for-
mer position. I do not wish to argue which position is necessarily right
or wrong, but the question I wish to ask is why do we, as United States
citizens, care so much that our own president may not have deserved the
Nobel Peace Prize?
When Alfred Nobel died in 1896, his will stated that his remaining for-
tune was to be used for the establishment of five prizes—one if which was
to be awarded for peace. Since then, the Nobel Peace Prize has been award-
ed to the person who “shall have done the most or the best work for frater-
nity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and
for the holding of peace congresses.” However, the recent backlash against
Obama’s recognition suggests that we believe that the Nobel Prize ought to
represent something different than it historically has.
In the world that we live in today, people do not want the Nobel Peace
Prize to be awarded to the man or woman who is the “best of what’s avail-
able,” because today, what is available is not always satisfying. Peace seems
to have become more of a far-flung hope than a realistic objective. Our
country has thousands of soldiers in not one, but two different countries.
Peace in the Middle East seems impossible. Ethnic conflicts rage through-
out the world with seemingly no end in sight. Global warming is an inevi-
table reality, and only time will tell of its consequences. It is therefore easy
to understand why Americans are tired of conflict—both domestic and
foreign—and have developed a significant distrust in governments and
their leaders throughout the world. Americans feel that the Nobel Peace
Prize ought to be awarded to individuals of high moral character and ethi-
cal standing; we want to be able to call them great men and women with-
November Edition
 out hesitation. We feel that we should be able to
respect the individuals who win the peace prize,
not because they happened to be the best can-
didate available in a given year, but because our
children will read about them in their history
books and admire them for the strength of char-
acter that they displayed in the face of adversity.
Can we say that Barack Obama is a great man
that we can all look up to? Maybe, but only time
will tell. Clearly, however, we cannot yet place
him on the same level as many other influential
Nobel Laureates. Although intrinsic to Obama’s
election campaign were images of hope, change,
and government transparency, he is still a politi-
cian and will inevitably dirty his hands in po-
litical affairs. In other words, by the nature of
Obama’s vocation, he will be forced to commit
actions that are traditionally considered to be
immoral for the sake of a greater good. However,
Americans want something more from a Nobel
Laureate. We feel that they should be ethically
above the moral conflicts that inherently arise in
politics. The Nobel Prize should be awarded to
individuals with truly outstanding moral char-
acter—individuals that are a beacon of light in
the seemingly dark world that we currently live
in.

Dan Rebnord, a WUPR Staff Writer, is a freshman

majoring in Political Science. His email is dan.
rebnord@me.com.

November Edition Washington University Political Review 33

 Nobel
Wasted?
Under the criteria specified by
Alfred Nobel, Obama doesn’t
measure up
I
n 1888 a French newspaper mistook Alfred
Nobel for his recently deceased brother and
went so far as to compose an obituary for Al-
fred. Entitled “The merchant of death is dead,”
it was not a pleasant reading for Alfred Nobel - a
Swedish scientist who was famous for his inven-
tion of dynamite. Dynamite was a devastatingly
effective weapon in Nobel’s age and was in great
demand. After reading the newspaper’s prelimi-
nary verdict on his life, Nobel was motivated to
alter his legacy and impart something meaningful
to the world in order to redeem himself. In his
will he allocated the fortune that he had amassed
from selling dynamite to fund awards in Chemis-
try, Physics, Medicine, Literature and Peace. Since
Nobel’s death in 1896, Nobel Prizes have been an-
nually awarded to people who have accomplished
outstanding things in these fields. The Nobel Prize
is considered by many to be the “ultimate reward”
and the pinnacle of professional achievement.
In light of this, it’s a great shame that this year’s
Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to United States
President Barack Obama. Good intentions and
loquacious speeches were not the criteria that
Alfred Nobel had in mind for a Peace Prize lau-
reate. In fact, he spelled out his criteria for who
should receive the Peace Prize quite clearly. It
should be awarded to the individual who “dur-
ing the preceding year ... shall have done the
most or the best work for fraternity between
nations, for the abolition or reduction of stand-
ing armies and for the holding and promotion
of peace congresses.” Let’s examine each part of
Nobel’s wishes in detail.
“During the preceding year”: Nobel makes
it clear that he wants the award to go to an indi-
34
vidual who has recently demonstrated his crite-
ria, that is, not someone who promised or who
inspired these ideas the most, but who has actu-
ally accomplished the work. Perhaps Obama will
deserve the prize after his Presidency is over or
later in his life - in a manner similar to Al Gore’s
Nobel Prize - but he certainly has not done any-
thing to deserve it yet.
“The most or the best work for fraternity
between nations”: While it is true that the Pres-
ident has put in a lot of effort to mend our rela-
tionships with the rest of the world, it’s much too
little and of insignificant consequence. Obama’s
speeches in Cairo, Prague and Moscow at-
tempted to improve the United States’ relation-
ship with the Middle East, Europe, and Russia
respectively, and they were all very well received.
However, there have not yet been any concrete
gestures from the United States - thus far only
promises have been made. In the grand scheme
of things, the world is in a similar state as it was
a year ago, and the truly “unfriendly” nations of
the world (at least to the United States) - namely
Iran and North Korea - are still very hostile. The
United States continues to play favorites in the
international arena - favoring Israel over Islamic
countries in the Middle East, Europe over Russia
and the developed world over the developing.
“The abolition or reduction of standing
armies”: The United States drastically out-
spends any other nation in defense spending,
and Obama has not yet decreased this expendi-
ture. U.S. troops are currently deployed in large
numbers to both Iraq and Afghanistan, as well
as on bases all across the world, and Obama has
actually sought to increase these contingents.
Washington University Political Review
By Michael Hyrc
The United States has the largest nuclear stock-
pile in the world, and while Obama’s speech in
Prague lauded his commitment to a nuclear-
weapon-free world, the United States has made
no progress to that end. While it might be ar-
gued that Obama’s good intentions and prom-
ises might fulfill Nobel’s three other criteria, the
notion that Obama has abolished or reduced
standing armies is actually laughable. Giving the
Commander in Chief of a country that is cur-
rently engaged in a de facto occupation of two
sovereign nations is a terrible debasement of
Noble’s ideals.
“The holding and promotion of peace con-
gresses”: While today the notion of a peace con-
gress is quite dated, our modern day equivalent
is the United Nations - an organization that has
long lost both clout and legitimacy in the inter-
national community. It is important to point out
that Obama has not done anything to make it
more a more effective organization. In fact, the
United States has yet to pay its portion of the
United Nation’s operating budget for 2009. An-
other contemporary “peace congress” is sched-
uled to meet this winter in Copenhagen, Den-
mark. Here, the world is set to meet and discuss
a collective approach to climate change issues.
Obama is not planning on attending.
If the wishes of Alfred Nobel were being at all
honored, Barack Obama would not be attending
the award ceremony for this year’s Nobel Prize
Laureates either.
Michal Hyrc, a WUPR Staff Writer, is a freshman
in the school of Arts and Sciences. His email
address is michalhyrc@gmail.com.
November Edition
 Education
Stimulus
by Corey Donahue
How Arne Duncan is Using $5 Billion to Reform Schools
E
veryone can agree that our education
system is in a state of crisis. A recent
report found that just 39% of fourth-
grade students nationwide scored at or above
proficiency in math. The achievement gap
between white and black students in math is
32 points in eighth-grade, which represents
three years worth of math teaching. Reform
is needed badly.
That’s where Arne Duncan, the new Secre-
tary of Education, comes in. The stimulus bill
passed in February gave Duncan enough cash
to become the most powerful Secretary of
Education in American history. Duncan’s pre-
decessors handled millions of dollars. He re-
ceived $5 billion. Of this, $4.35 billion will be
used for the Race to the Top fund. States will
compete for this cash by reforming their edu-
cation systems, and Duncan will decide how
much the states receive. This program was
created with four principal purposes: adopt
common benchmarked K-12 standards; close
the data gap and identify effective instruc-
tional practices; boost the quality of teach-
ers; and turn around the lowest performing
schools. States that comply with these four
measures and submit grant proposals can get
a piece of the money given to Duncan. The
application has two rounds, meaning that if
states don’t get it right the first time (later this
year), then they can try again next spring. The
two most controversial aspects of the Race to
the Top fund are (1) that states must raise or
abolish caps on the number of their charter
schools and (2) that states do not prohibit
linking teacher performance to student per-
formance. Charter schools are public schools
exempt from union regulations, and their
funding is based on the performance of the
November Edition
students. If the schools do not perform well,
they are simply closed.
With these two pillars of the Race to the
Top fund, it is clear that teachers unions are
not happy with Duncan. But rather than resist
reform, the teacher unions need to embrace it
and work within it to make it better. There are
legitimate concerns with linking student per-
formance with teacher pay, and the teachers
unions need to help address those concerns
within Duncan’s reform proposals rather than
attempt to bring the whole reform to a halt.
Teachers who teach well should be rewarded
and those who do not need to be held respon-
sible, but linking standardized tests to teacher
pay is not the whole answer. As President
Obama said, the United States needs educa-
tion assessments “that don’t simply measure
whether students can fill in a bubble on a
test.” Teachers unions can help with this and
submit proposals for reform that create better
testing systems.
So far the Race to the Top program has
been working very well. Before proposals
for grants were even allowed, states already
attempted to reform their rules on charter
schools and teacher pay. Even some teacher
unions, such as the American Federation of
Teachers, are starting to work with Duncan.
And conservatives are happy with the Race
to the Top program, too. For years, Republi-
cans have talked about linking student per-
formance to teacher pay and now they have
their opportunity. But not all of Duncan’s
reform proposals have been met with the
same enthusiasm as the Race to the Top. Be-
fore his job in the Cabinet, Duncan served as
the chief executive of Chicago’s public school
system. There, he was not afraid to take on
Washington University Political Review
tough challenges, and one of his biggest was
his attempt to “flip” bad schools. He took the
lowest-performing schools and cleaned out
the teachers and administration, rehiring a
new staff. While many applauded Duncan’s
efforts, a recent University of Chicago study
showed that closing schools and reopening
them with new teachers not only fails to in-
crease math and reading scores, but can actu-
ally decrease scores due to the disruption in
education. Duncan, who received $3 billion
from the stimulus (separate from the Race
to the Top fund) to reform thousands of the
lowest-performing schools in the country,
needs to seriously rethink his strategy before
going ahead with his proposal.
While the Race to the Top has been praised
so far, the race has only just begun. States
haven’t even begun applying for the grant
money, so Duncan needs to be prepared to
make plenty of people unhappy by denying
them the cash they think they deserve. He
will need to take the teachers unions head-on
if they refuse to cooperate. But he cannot be
too headstrong. He must accept criticism of
his attempts to “flip” bad schools to not waste
the extra $3 billion he received. And the Race
to the Top is only one of many initiatives Mr.
Duncan will take on. If critics think $5 billion
is a lot Duncan’s next task is to reform the use
of the other $667 billion the federal govern-
ment gives to states for education. The Race
to the Top is just the beginning.
Corey Donahue, a WUPR Staff Writer, is a
sophomore in the school of Arts and Sciences.
His email is corey.donahue@gmail.com.
35
 by Michael Brodsky
T he FUTURE
of Republican Politics
A
s the Republican Party continues to suf-
fer through difficult times, conservatives
across the country are hunting for a
source of revitalization. While they may not al-
ways agree on which path to renewal is most ef-
ficient, many GOP affiliates recognize the need
for fresh and innovative leadership. They want
vitality, youth and brains - the type of suave per-
sonality that might succeed in augmenting the
party’s new image. For some, this figure should
represent cultural diversity; others maintain that
it should energize the youth. In either case, the
question remains: who will step up to the plate?
Although the answer appears elusive as ever, the
name Tim Pawlenty has increasingly entered the
mix of likely contenders.
Pawlenty, who currently serves as the gov-
ernor of Minnesota, has never strayed very far
from home. Born to a blue-collar family in St.
Paul, he attended his local high school and then
sought a bachelor’s degree in political science
from the University of Minnesota. Upon gradu-
ation, Tim furthered his education at the Uni-
versity of Minnesota Law School and ultimately
decided to pursue a career as an attorney.
However, it wasn’t long thereafter that Pawlen-
36
ty opted to try his luck in the political arena. He
made his entrance at the lowest level of local
government, and gradually worked his way up
the ladder. He was appointed first to his town’s
Planning Commission, and the next year he
served as a member of City Council. In 1992 he
ran for the Minnesota House of Representatives;
a race that he ended up winning by a razor-thin
margin. Nevertheless, he performed according
to his constituents’ liking and was reelected to
the seat five subsequent times. When the Repub-
licans eventually won back control of the House
in 1998, the body selected Pawlenty to be their
Majority Leader.
When the 2002 elections rolled around,
Pawlenty had his sights set on the Minnesota
governorship. Although initially considered
an underdog for the Republican nomination,
Pawlenty won a hard-fought primary and a nar-
row general election. He ran on a platform of
“balanced budgets without increased taxes,” - a
promise that attracted many Minnesotans to his
campaign. Of course, when Pawlenty took office
in January 2003 and inherited a $4.3 billion state
deficit, the situation became much more dire.
In an effort to remain true to his pledge,
Washington University Political Review
Pawlenty chose to reduce the rate of funding
for many state services, including public trans-
portation, welfare and other social benefits. He
cut spending on the state’s healthcare program,
and espoused decreasing the rate of physician
reimbursement. However, these reductions did
not balance the deficit entirely, and so Pawlenty
decided to maneuver around his promise by
levying “fees,” rather than taxes, on certain prod-
ucts. The most prominent of these was called the
Health Impact Fee, raised the price of cigarettes
across the state. Although the cost was initially
challenged by the tobacco industry, Minnesota’s
Supreme Court upheld this fee as legal. The
other notable fee that Pawlenty introduced had
a substantial impact of the state’s educational
system. It served in effect as a tuition increase
for public colleges and universities, and was
denigrated by many as an offense to Minnesota’s
long tradition of affordable higher education.
Thus, while Pawlenty succeeded in maintaining
his state’s budget equilibrium, it came at the ex-
pense of major public support and reneged cam-
paign promises.
In 2007 Pawlenty served as chairman of the
National Governor’s Association, and just this
November Edition
past July he was elected as vice chair of the Re-
publican Governor’s Association. In this capac-
ity Pawlenty is better positioned to make a name
for himself among Republicans than ever before.
As such, when Pawlenty also announced this
summer that he does not intend to seek a third
term as governor, many analysts began to raise
their eyebrows. He had begun to set up speaking
engagements all across the country, and in what
has been lauded as a brilliant strategic move,
Pawlenty is scheduled to be the keynote speaker
at a major Republican fundraiser in Iowa – a state
with special presidential significance. What’s
more, he has become increasingly visible in the
news media, regularly commenting on national
policy and making his opinions known.
In the midst of our country’s debate about
healthcare reform, Tim Pawlenty has eagerly
added his two cents to the discussion. In fact,
this October he formally published a list of his
prefered healthcare initiatives. The first such
suggestion is to open up Minnesota’s healthcare
market to out-of-state companies, thereby al-
lowing the most regulated policies with the best
proven health outcomes to co0mpete for mar-
ket-share. Another proposal is to rank providers
based on the quality and efficiency of the plans
that they offer. It would allow low-income pa-
tients who rely on state-funded assistance to re-
ceive extra benefits when they choose a provider
with a high rating. In turn, this additional mon-
ey would be able to help cover other expenses,
such as prescription drugs and eyeglasses.
When questioned about his healthcare pro-
posals, Pawlenty said, “underlying all of this Meet Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty—the young, energizing Republican who will
is this principle: that individuals and purchas- rekindle the flame of Republican politics.
ers have to have some incentive to use money
wisely.” But while almost everyone can agree The Republican Party needs somebody to step blue-collar roots who has proven he can win
that personal incentive is an essential part to any up and assume the role of team captain. This fig- Democratic turf; on the downside, he’s an un-
successful healthcare reform, the Mayo Clinic ure doesn’t have to be a prominent senator or familiar (and somewhat bland) face with little
has raised some concerns about Pawlenty’s chairman of the Republican National Commit- national experience—and even less money.”
ideas. In particular, they are uneasy about how tee; the next major leader could surface as an The stage is set for his political ascension, but
the providers would be rated. The clinic opposes outstanding legislator at the state level. After all, Pawlenty’s smarts, imagination and capacity to
how the state currently ranks providers because remember the recent hype about Louisiana gov- lead still must be tested.
the process has been anything but transparent. ernor Bobby Jindal? But regardless of where they
Many believe that the ratings are predominantly come from, this person must have the type of
based on cost rather than on patient outcome personality that people will flock to. They must
and quality of service. Indeed, others have been attract both Republicans and Independents - not
outspoken and critical of the plan as well. One only for a brief stint, but also for the long haul.
state representative maintains that “this is re- That Tim Pawlenty hopes to become this next
ally a failed model that has been around a long leader is evident. Now the question becomes: Michael Brodsky, a WUPR Staff Editor, is a
time… It is kind of a rehashing of the old idea will Republicans think he’s the right person for sophomore majoring in History and Religious
that the medical care marketplace can work just the job? As Andrew Romano of Newsweek puts Studies. His email is michaelbrodsky@wustl.
like buying a TV set, and it can’t.” it, “he’s a bright, well-liked team player with edu.

November Edition Washington University Political Review 37

 To Copenhagen
And Beyond An analysis of the politics of
W
e are at a critical point in our fight
against global warming. There are
currently 387 parts per million
(ppm) of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, far
above the 350 ppm that scientists have said is the
safe limit for humanity. If we don’t dramatically
reduce our greenhouse gas emissions now, rising
temperatures and melting icecaps will cause in-
creasing frequency of severe weather, loss of bio-
diversity, and a sea level rise of four to six meters
that would put several coastal cities under water,
creating millions of climate refugees.
The politics of this issue is also at a critical
point. The United Nations will convene a meet-
ing in Copenhagen this December to formulate
a climate treaty that will replace the Kyoto pro-
tocol. Other countries are looking to the Unit-
ed States, the world’s largest economic power
and largest per capita producer of greenhouse
gasses, to see leadership on this issue and evi-
dence that it will ratify a new climate treaty if
one is created.
There are two ways that the United States
can show it is serious about combating climate
change. First, President Obama must attend
the Copenhagen conference. The president has
not yet decided if he will attend the confer-
ence or if he will simply send envoys, such as
Special Envoy on Climate Change Todd Stern.
Obama’s presence at Copenhagen would show
other countries that the United States wants a
major role in the discussions and that Obama
will work to encourage the Senate to ratify any
agreements that are reached at Copenhagen.
Secondly, the United States would demon-
strate leadership at Copenhagen if the Sen-
ate passes or comes close to passing climate
change legislation before the conference. On
September 3 Senators John Kerry (D-MA) and
Barbara Boxer (D-CA) introduced the “Clean
Energy Jobs and America Power Act” a bill
designed to reduce global warming pollution
38
climate change legislation
and encourage energy independence and clean
energy jobs. This legislation is similar to the
Waxman-Markey bill that was passed in the
House of Representatives in June, and it relies
on a cap and trade mechanism to cut carbon
emissions by 17.5% below 2005 levels by 2020
and by 75% below these levels by 2050.
The bill is facing opposition from many
sides, and its prospects of being passed before
Copenhagen are dim. The Senate is still occu-
pied with debating and passing healthcare leg-
islation, and it is not eager to take on another
major and controversial issue. Even if they
did discuss this legislation, Republicans are
concerned that the bill will increase costs to
both consumers and energy companies. Sena-
tors from coal-producing states do not want to
throw their support behind a bill that the coal
industry will not support. Democratic Mis-
souri Senator Claire McCaskill has not decided
if she will support the bill, partly because Mis-
souri ranks 10th among states in coal usage,
and has 20 coal-fired power plants within its
borders. Fear of losing the support of constitu-
ents and donations from coal companies may
hinder McCaskill’s support for the bill.
However, senators should not simply adopt
a short-term economic view of the bill. Eventu-
ally, we are going to exhaust our supply of coal
and oil and be forced to switch to renewable
resources, a process that will be much more
costly if we do not research and develop them
now. More importantly, the disasters caused by
climate change will far outweigh the costs of
reducing our greenhouse gas emissions now,
both in economic and human terms.
In a New York Times op-ed last month, Ker-
ry and Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) made
a case for bi-partisan climate legislation. The
compromises they discussed will not please
everyone. Environmental advocates may be
displeased by their support of nuclear power
Washington University Political Review
by Amy Plovnick
and “clean” coal, while conservatives may at-
tack the government oversight behind the cap
and trade model. However, there are aspects of
the bill that people of all ideologies should em-
brace, such as creating domestic clean energy
jobs, breaking our dependence on foreign oil,
and reducing the pollution that is contributing
to global warming.
Senators listen to their constituents when
deciding how they will vote on a particular
bill. If the only people lawmakers such as Mc-
Caskill hear from are those who benefit from
an unregulated energy industry (aka the coal
and oil lobby), then they will most likely vote
against the Kerry-Boxer bill. However, if they
get phone calls, receive letters, and read news
stories about people who want a clean energy
future, both for the safety of the planet and for
the security and economic well-being of hu-
mankind, they will be far more likely to vote in
favor of the bill.
An indication that the Senate will pass cli-
mate change legislation soon will have huge
benefits for the negotiations in Copenhagen.
When the U.S. Senate failed to ratify the Kyoto
Protocol in the late 1990s, it signaled to the rest
of the world that the United States was not seri-
ous about stopping climate change, and that it
would stand by as other countries made sac-
rifices to curb greenhouse gas emissions. Now
the United States has a chance to change this
perception and assert itself as a leader in the
fight against global warming. Senators should
consider the long-term environmental and
economic benefits of passing the climate bill,
and recognize the impact that their vote has on
the Copenhagen conference.
Amy Plovnick, a WUPR Staff Writer, is a
sophomore majoring in Environmental Studies.
Her email is amyplovnick@wustl.edu.
November Edition
 Obama
Care
A quick look at exactly how unimportant the aspect
of socialism in Obama’s healthcare plan is.
by Spencer Berry
“
Healthcare reform is socialism” has been the most effective tidbit of
fear mongering from the right against Obama. While reform propo-
nents are quick to dismiss it as nonsense, I find myself wondering:
what is so bad about a little socialism?
A pinch of socialism, like healthcare reform, is certainly different
from the holistic command and control economy of the Soviet Union.
There are many socialist programs in the United States already, includ-
ing the extensive network of interstate highways implemented and
maintained by the federal government. Unsurprisingly, I don’t hear
anybody complaining about the “socialist” highway system, because
we all recognize government control as more efficient, less costly, and
fairer than privately-run roads. So what makes government-funded
healthcare so abhorrent to a broad slice of Americans?
Although the costs of running highways and healthcare are dramati-
cally different ($40 billion versus $2.2 trillion), the principle remains
the same: if the government can provide for (or at least fund) a service
for more Americans in a way that makes our lives run more smoothly
than the private sector does, it certainly should. Very few things, I
would argue, are more vital our economy as a whole than healthcare,
and the private sector clearly doesn’t meet all the demand of Americans
as a whole.
The main economic argument against healthcare reform is that it
negatively alters the incentive structure. According to this argument, if
people don’t have to worry about not having insurance, they’ll be less
productive. Furthermore, detractors point to the surtax on the wealthy
as evidence of the “evils” of socialism—in this instance, that people will
have less of an incentive to become rich if they expect higher taxes.
What conservatives don’t understand is that the incentive structure
of healthcare is already flawed. Doctors are paid by the procedure, so it
is in their interest to have as many procedures done as possible. Doctors
also prescribe too many procedures out of fear of malpractice lawsuits.
November Edition Washington University Political Review
HMOs don’t have an incentive to keep their consumer base healthy. In-
stead, they make money by cutting costs (i.e. not paying for procedures
in patients with “pre-existing conditions” etc.) Politicians, who write
the laws regarding healthcare regulation, have it in their interest to sup-
port HMOs, which pour millions of dollars into campaigns.
Along the lines of incentives, higher taxes to pay for this increased
spending may not be as anti-productive as previously thought. Con-
ventional wisdom posits that more progressive taxes limit productivity
growth, but is that really the case? From 1947 to 1973, the top marginal
U.S. tax rate varied between 70% and 91% (compared with 35% now),
and the median family in this period enjoyed an average of 2.74% an-
nual income growth. From 1981 to 1990 (the heyday of Reaganomics)
the same tax rate dropped from 70% to 28%, and median household
income rose by an annual average of only 1.21%.
While there were certainly other factors affecting growth during
these periods, we can deduce from this that Reaganomics was not an
astounding success. If taxes are raised by a measly 5.4% for the top
2% of earners, we should not expect diminished growth, especially if
that tax revenue goes toward ensuring that all Americans, and there-
fore workers, have health insurance. Increased spending for healthcare
would not, in the end, be counterproductive, as ensuring a healthier
workforce would increase overall productivity in the economy far more
than a tax hike would decrease it. Current healthcare reform, includ-
ing the public option, would do more to achieve this than any other
proposition.
Spencer Berry, a WUPR Staff Writer, is a senior majoring in Economics.
His email is sberry@wustl.edu.
39
STRANDED
Maine’s Republican Senators Are Swimming in a Sea of Northeastern Democrats
by Max Hamilton

A
s the Senate Finance Committee came to tives in Pennsylvania. Over the careers of these can continue to represent an all-but-absent wing
a final vote on their version of a health two veteran Republican senators, breaking with of the Republican Party in a state that has voted
care bill this year, the outcome was sup- party has often been the rule rather than the ex- for a Democratic President in the previous five

“ “
posed to be a no-brainer. The bill, created by Sen- ception. On issues ranging from judicial nomi- national elections. This is largely a testament to
ator Max Baucus of Montana, was the unique political climate of
a watered-down form of the one Maine, as well as the effective-
showcased earlier in the House of Olympia Snowe, a three-term U.S. Senator from ness of both senators. As Polit-
Representatives, one that was sup- Maine, broke with her party at what seemed to be ico.com points out, Maine hasn’t
posed to be just moderate enough “adopted many of the modern-
a completely unfit time to be the sole Republican
to draw the votes of centrist day tools for pressuring politi-
vote for the bill. cians,” such as liberal bloggers,
Democratic senators such as Bill
Nelson and Blanche Lincoln. The conservative talk show hosts,
outcome for the bill was then to become a simple nations to abortion to energy reform legislation, and evangelical megachurches. It just so hap-
exercise of political power: the Democrats, in pos- Snowe and Collins have taken controversial po- pens that these are some of the same factors that
session of a simple majority, would steamroll the sitions within their party. influence polarized political thought in the first
bill through the committee without bi-partisan Obviously, more moderates exist in the Re- place, and without these internal threats, Snowe
support. publican Party then just Snowe and Collins; out- and Collins are more insulated from public
Or so everyone thought, until a single Re- side of Maine, however, the numbers who can be pressure than counterparts in other states. Even
publican vote helped vault the bill through the re-elected while taking controversial stances on while Democratic candidates around the nation
subcommittee. Olympia Snowe, a three-term issues are increasingly rare. This can be partially were riding Barack Obama’s coattails into the
U.S. Senator from Maine, broke with her party attributed to recent movements within the more capital, Collins was still able to defeat her oppo-
at what seemed to be a completely unfit time to conservative factions of the party to weed out nent in 2008 with 61.5% of the vote.
be the sole Republican vote for the bill. After moderates in primaries. Specter was probably Regardless of what one thinks of the stances
a scorching summer of town hall meeting after the next most moderate senator from the Re- that Snowe and Collins have taken over the
town hall meeting where thousands of constitu- publican Party, and he, as previously mentioned, years, there is no disputing that their unique

“ “
ents voiced their opposition to health care leg- changed his party affiliation for fear of being un- conditions in the state of Maine have allowed
islation in any way shape or them to stay much more in-
form, most Republican mem- dependent, both from pres-
bers of Congress have strate- More surprising is that the other senator from Maine, sures within their party and
gically attacked every aspect Susan Collins, rivals Snowe in her willingness to be from Democrats. Many sena-
of unpopular Democratic the lone Republican in support of Democratic leg- tors are probably envious of
health care plans. To them, islation. the support that Snowe and
Democratic inaction means Collins receive within their
the defeat of several vulnerable Democratic in- able to hold up against an intense primary chal- state, and perhaps the nation as a whole should
cumbents in 2010 and a subsequent breath of lenges from members of his own party. Even if be too: the real anomaly illustrated by Maine is
new life into the Republican party. Why, then, moderate Republicans do make it through the that perhaps too many politicians elsewhere are
would Snowe be able to vote for this bill without primaries, many Democrats who would have held hostage by partisan pressures. It will be in-
facing a severe challenge to her own Senate seat accepted them ten years ago are now under teresting to see what direction the United States
from conservative groups? more pressure to vote for Democratic candi- takes in subsequent years; perhaps the nation
More surprising is that the other senator from dates simply to maintain a majority in Congress. will continue along its polarizing path, or per-
Maine, Susan Collins, rivals Snowe in her will- For example, New England, long a Democratic haps following Maine’s example can bring about
ingness to be the lone Republican in support stronghold in national elections, elected five bipartisan progress.
of Democratic legislation. Collins and Snowe Republicans and one Independent to the House
were two of the three Republicans to vote for of Representatives in 2000. After the 2008 elec-
the Obama economic recovery package in the tions, that number was reduced to zero.
spring; the other Republican senator, Arlen Increasing unwillingness to compromise Max Hamilton, a WUPR Staff Writer, is a
Specter, soon changed his party affiliation, fear- within the rank-and-file of either party makes it sophomore in Arts and Sciences. His email
ing strong primary challenges from conserva- all the more impressive that Snowe and Collins address is mhamilton@wustl.edu.

40 Washington University Political Review November Edition

Oil
S
hortly after the end of the Cold War, Russia
began to look for ways to remain a power
in the world, albeit not the superpower it
once was. They especially wanted to continue their
power and hold on to their sphere of influence,
which is mainly comprised of the former Soviet
Bloc states. This can be seen most evidently with
the invasion of Georgia in 2008, on the eve of
the Olympics. The invasion demonstrated Russia’s
willingness to rein in its neighbors at very high
costs. However, Russia’s most-used political tool
in its sphere of influence is its immense natural gas
and oil resources. Such a big reserve of oil and gas
can be used as a huge weight to swing around and
make Eastern European countries submit to the
wishes of Russia. Although Russia’s handling of oil
and gas are nowhere near the extreme of its overall
Cold War tactics, the use and management of its
natural resources do serve to further their political
and economic prowess over its former states.
Recently the Russian gas giant Gazprom
laid out plans for a new pipeline. The proposed
pipeline would run under the Baltic Sea from
the Russian city of Vyborg to the German city
of Greifswald. Gazprom is technically a private
corporation; it was created when the Ministry
of Gas Industry changed into a private entity
while keeping all of its assets intact. Yet the Rus-
sian government holds a controlling share of
the company. Arguably it is still the government
who controls Gazprom. The chairman is Vik-
tor Zubkov, a politician and businessman who
was picked by Vladimir Putin to be Prime Min-
ister of Russia from September of 2007 to May
of 2008. The government is still very much in-
volved in the company’s dealings. It is the largest
corporation in Russia and the largest extractor
of natural gas in the world. Seventeen percent
of the world’s natural gas supply is extracted by
Gazprom. They also have an export monopoly
in Russia, meaning that every other gas com-
November Edition
How Russia is using
their new sub-baltic
pipeline to solidify
their sphere of
influence.
­—by Jay Evans—
pany must use their pipelines. Thus, Gazprom is
a large part of Russia’s big stick when it comes
to diplomatic issues. Their virtual monopoly in
Eastern Europe allows them to charge very high
prices, creating debt. Russia, through Gazprom,
is holding down the former members of the
Warsaw Pact economically.
The biggest issue for Russia is the transporta-
tion of its oil and gas. There are huge reserves in
Russia but no direct routes to Western Europe,
where the oil and gas are most wanted. That is
why the endpoints of the existing pipelines are
all in Western Europe: Milan, Frankfurt, and
Berlin. The simplest solution would be to pipe
the gas through Eastern Europe, but that would
allow those countries to tax and control some of
Russia’s precious resources. The Kremlin does
not sit well with this prospect, even though
there are many existing pipelines that do cross
through these countries. Many disputes over
pipelines, especially between Ukraine and Rus- The only results are Russia bullying Ukraine
sia, result from this power struggle. Russia then by cutting gas supply and increasing prices for
asserts its dominance accordingly. Ukrainians and the rest of Europe.
Last January, there was a dispute over tariff Look back to the Holodomor. In the late 1920s
fees of the gas pipeline that ran through Ukraine. and early 1930s there was a growing national
There was also talk about late fees and unpaid movement in Soviet Ukraine. Stalin saw this as
debts that Ukraine held with Gazprom in the a threat, and subsequently withheld wheat from
amount of $2.4 billion. Consequently, Gazprom the state. This caused a famine from 1932 to 1933
cut off supply to that pipeline, greatly curtailing that killed roughly 6 million people. Wheat was
imports to Europe and Ukraine. For three weeks a huge export from Russia in those times, just as
most of Ukraine had to endure the cold winter natural gas is today. Of course, the Holodomor is
without gas or power. This is only an example a far cry from the gas disputes of today. Howev-
of the normal mode of operations Gazprom and er, the tactics used by the Russians are the same.
Russia has with Ukraine and Eastern European The message is clear: Russia means to stake itself
states. By hiding behind a thin veil of trade dis- as the dominate power of the region.
putes and overdue debt payments, the Russian
government is keeping a tight grip on Ukraine
and other countries. As soon as any country in
its sphere of influence seems to be rebellious and Jay Evans, a WUPR Staff Writer, is a freshman
independent, Russia lashes out. There have been in the school of Arts and Sciences. His email is
many Ukraine-Russia gas disputes since 2005. jeevans@wustl.edu.
Washington University Political Review 41
My Trip by Gavin Frisch

To Capital Hill

B
arney Frank had his prostitution scandal, Bill Clinton had Monica Lewinsky, and Rod
Blagojevich was recently arrested for extortion charges. These men, as well as many others
in government, have given politicians a bad image in the public eye. This image, however,
may not be completely accurate. Congressman Charlie Wilson—not Congressman Joe Wilson
who yelled “You lie!” to President Obama—is a Democrat from Ohio’s 6th district who does not
attract the media attention that Congressman Joe Wilson does. Over fall break, a friend and I per-
sonally got to meet Wilson and his family when visiting the Capitol Building. This experience gave
light to the idea that, stereotypes aside, not all politicians are corrupt, deceitful liars.
On October 16 neither the Senate nor the House of Representatives was in session. Most
representatives flew home for the weekend back to their districts. Representative Wilson was
the only congressman in the Capitol Building. My friend and I, who went searching through
random hallways for a chance to meet a congressman, saw him with his family about to head
into a restricted area. We approached him and asked him who he was, what party he affiliated
himself with, and where he was from. After getting to know him, Congressman Wilson offered
to give us a tour of the Capitol Building. Wilson is nothing like the common perception of a
Congressman: he is honest and direct, not out of touch and deceptive.
Not only did Congressman Wilson give me a tour of the Capital, but he also shared useful
information about what it is like to be a representative and what is currently happening in
Congress. Wilson predicted that the Baucus Health Care Bill will not be passed because there
are still many kinks that have to be worked out. However, Wilson said that in bill making only
40% of the battle is the written legislation. The key to passing legislation is whose name is on
C harles Wilson is a two-term representative from
Ohio’s 6th district. Wilson, a member of the Blue
Dog Coalition, serves on the Committee on Financial
the bill. If Congressman Dingle (MI) is one of the authors of a bill, Wilson claims that Dingle’s Services and the Committee on Science and Tech-
reputation makes legislation much more likely to be passed. nology. Wilson, unlike many Democrats, is against
Like every other member of the House of Representatives, Charlie Wilson is up for reelection abortion unless a woman has been raped or her life
in 2010. Usually, the presidential party loses seats during midterm elections. However, Wilson is in danger. He also supports the right to own a gun,
remains confident that he will be reelected. In 2008, he was reelected with more than 60% of the evinced by his 100% rating from the NRA. Wilson
vote. Although I consider myself a staunch conservative, I can confidently say that if I lived in has voted in favor of the stimulus as well as bailing out
his district, I would vote to reelect Charlie Wilson in 2010. Although our ideologies may differ, the auto industry. He strongly favors same sex domes-
I admire his personality. He was not afraid to describe another congressman as “too liberal,” tic partnership benefits and affirmative action policies,
which is a tough thing to say about a colleague. In electoral politics, representatives have an while he opposes expansion of the armed forces, il-
unwritten law to take the easy street of voting and agreeing with party policies. Wilson breaks legal immigration, and the expansion of free trade. He
this Washington-elite stereotype seen in movies and on television. Charlie Wilson’s ability to has received ratings from the ACLU, NAACP, and the
answer questions with such honesty and truthfulness leaves one major question: is Charlie Wil- Americans for Democratic Action upwards of 80%
son the exception to the media-driven Washington-elite stereotype or was he doing what so during the past two years.
many politicians are presumed to do and lying right to my face?

Gavin Frisch, a WUPR Staff Writer, is a freshman with an undeclared major. His email is gavin7f@verizon.net.

42 Washington University Political Review November Edition

 The Dangers of Liberalism
How Liberal Corporate Tax Policy Could Ruin America
- Johan Olofsson -
A
ll politicians make promises they can’t
keep when they run for office. Presi-
dent Obama recently broke his cam-
paign promise to “end tax breaks for companies
that ship jobs overseas.” This type of rhetoric and
populist language has consistently been used
by Obama to misrepresent business issues. His
decision to renege on this campaign promise
shows that liberals wishing to tax multinational
companies are out of touch with the economic
realities of their proposals.
The U.S. tax code on multinational corpora-
tions is different than the policy in almost all
other industrialized countries. Other countries
only tax revenue on domestic sales. The United
States, however, also taxes companies on revenue
that they earn abroad. This taxation is deferred
until the company brings those profits back
home, usually in the form of cash dividends to
the company’s stockholders.
Liberals argue that this deferral is likely to
spur companies to ship jobs overseas since, it is
cheaper for them to create a job in India or Chi-
na than it is to use the money to hire American
workers. The way Obama sees it, the current tax
code “makes it perfectly legal for companies to
avoid paying their fair share.”
The motivation for this stance is a combina-
tion of Obama’s desire to find new sources of
tax revenue for the expanded government ex-
penditure as well as his misguided ideas on how
to help the American worker. As we saw when
Obama decided to raise tariffs on Chinese tire
imports in order to improve the U.S. tire in-
dustry, his economic policy is enveloped by a
shroud of protectionism that makes very little
economic sense.
In this case, Obama’s promise to rid the U.S.
tax code of the deferral policy would have stifled
American business—hurting the U.S. image
abroad, the competitiveness of American com-
November Edition
panies and, ultimately, a large number of domes-
tic workers. In a recent letter to Congress, 300
U.S. companies agreed that they were insulted
by the White House’s anti-business rhetoric,
emphasizing that the tax deferral and related tax
credits “are integral parts of the U.S. tax system -
not ‘tax loopholes. ” In a recent survey published
in the Wall Street Journal, 21 out of 32 CEOs in-
terviewed claim that Obama’s proposed tax hike
on multinationals would “decrease business ac-
tivity and jobs” within the United States.
The huge impact that this could have on
American business is underlined by the fact that
household names such General Electric, Micro-
soft, and IBM have placed this issue at the very
top of their Washington agendas. Microsoft CEO
Steven Ballmer has been quoted as saying that
the policy will have “unintended consequences”
and ultimately fail at protecting American jobs.
Even more critical of the suggested policy ini-
tiative were several technology company CFOs
who argued that, if the proposal became law, it
would most likely force their companies to relo-
cate abroad.
Maybe this is just an empty threat from CFOs
looking out for their best interests, but it makes a
lot of economic sense if one stops to think about
it. Why shouldn’t these companies relocate
abroad? The United States currently has the sec-
ond highest corporate tax rate in the world, sec-
ond only to Japan. While campaigning Obama
has repeatedly said that he wanted to raise that
tax rate. This, along with the proposed elimi-
nation of the tax deferral, would simply cause
companies to move their operations abroad.
After all, why should a company headquarter in
the United States when they can move to Ireland
where the corporate tax rate is a mild 12.5%. In
fact, a recent New York Times article written by
Thomas L. Friedman argues that Ireland’s recent
economic growth can be greatly attributed to
Washington University Political Review
their low corporate tax rate, which has attracted
foreign investment.
When companies decide to leave the United
States, the country suffers on several levels.
First, the government loses corporate tax rev-
enue from that company relocating to a different
country. Second, the relocation of that company
clearly reduces the number of American work-
ers employed by the corporation. This in turn
decreases the amount of income taxes that the
government brings in because unemployment
is higher, ultimately resulting in greater govern-
ment dependence on the taxes of the companies
that choose to stay.
Business executives are not the only ones op-
posed to Obama’s initial liberal, anti-business
proposal. Thirty-nine centrist House Democrats
recently wrote to Speaker Pelosi opposing the
tax proposal as anti-competitive. This says a lot
about how far to the left this proposal actually
is.
This brings us to the obvious conclusion of
this article: although they have the best inten-
tions, liberals wanting to increase corporate tax
rates in order to protect American jobs end up
hurting the American worker. Obama made
many grandiose promises during his campaign,
just as every politician does when running for
office. I am glad that he has chosen to take the
moderate approach towards the matter, shying
away from making the easy, populist decision
that would eventually hurt this country.
Johan Olofsson, a WUPR staff writer, is a
freshman in the school of Arts and Sciences. His
email is olofssonj@wustl.edu.
43
SAMURAI Puzzle provided by www.djape.net

S U D O K U
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 THE OBAMA NOBEL PRIZE ON PAGE 1

Congratulations! You Are:

8-15 points: You are an OBAMA-LOVING, HARDCORE LIBERAL. You were overjoyed when he won the prize and believe that
the only people who disagree with the choice of Obama are far-right ideologues who are racist, crazy, or a little of both. You named
your youngest son “Barack,” and you have already begun campaigning for Obama to win the Nobel prizes in physics and literature
next year.

16-21 points: You are an AL GORE-IDOLIZING, TREE-HUGGING ENVIRONMENTALIST. You are upset that Gore didn’t receive
the award for the second time in three years, but you still like Obama. When you see other people taking this quiz, you will remind
them to recycle the magazine once they have finished reading it. If they do not recycle, you will track them down and make them
pay for the harm they have caused Mother Nature. Next thing they know, they will be laying in a hospital bed in a coma. When they
awake from the coma, there will be a copy of An Inconvenient Truth lying next to them.

22-28 points: You are RUSH LIMBAUGH-ADMIRING, FAR RIGHT CONSERAVTIVE. You think that this choice destroys the
Nobel Peace Prize’s credibility. If Obama is reelected president, you are considering moving to Canada or Europe, but then you
realize that both of those places are also far too liberal. Perhaps you will finally secede from the Union. That would solve all of your
problems.

29-34 points: You are a POT-SMOKING COLLEGE STUDENT. You don’t really care about the Nobel Prize or politics in general.
You are rather concerned about the length of the lunch lines at the DUC this year, but you have learned that Obama and his fellow
politicians don’t care about you and will make no attempt to fix the lunch line problem, so why should you care about them?

35-40 points: You are DEFINITELY NOT A MURDERER. You don’t know what they’re talking about, and you wish people
would stop staring at you.

44 Washington University Political Review November Edition