The Spirit of the Times

We, as a nation, are at a political crossroads. Since the unexpected outcome of the most recent presidential election, much of the American populace has felt rather disheartened by the state of the union. Many politicians seem increasingly willing to put party loyalty before the needs of the public, compromise is a term no longer in the vocabularies of most members of Congress, and our President continues to create divisive and one-sided policies without any consideration for the minority party. Yet to many, this is simply politics. Today, the sentiments associated with the world of politics are, for the most part, negative. Last year, anti-establishment candidates channeled these sentiments; one, in particular, was extremely successful. That man now resides in the White House, and, thus far, he has shown no indication of any plans to follow through on his campaign promise to “drain the swamp.”

During the last election, Democrats and Republicans alike felt that there need to be some serious changes to the way things are done in Washington. To many Republicans, Trump’s message of “making America great again” represented a new hope that would be able to, once and for all, vanquish the political elites that have come to control the country. To some Democrats, too, Trump’s use of anti-establishment rhetoric was appealing. Just imagine a political system in which the Washington insider was not all-powerful, and policy decisions were made based on the best interests of the many, not the few. This is what many envisioned when Trump spoke of “draining the swamp.” However, four months into Trump’s presidency, the swamp remains deeper than ever. Upon his taking office, Trump’s cabinet was immediately filled with corporate elites and Washington insiders; likewise, his business conflicts were only briefly addressed before being shoved under the rug.

Nonetheless, the growing resistance toward the Trump Administration thus far, both from Democrats and Republicans, indicates that there is still a glimmer of hope that we, as a nation, will return the political system to one of integrity. That being said, the polarization in Washington and unwillingness to compromise will not simply disappear. To bring an end to these negative tendencies, it is within the duties of the American public to voice their concerns. This is possible thanks to the fact that we, the people, are responsible for electing our representatives and senators in Washington. If we collectively sit back and allow the swamp to deepen, turning a blind eye to government corruption and unethical behavior, then no change will be achieved. However, if the public remains active in politics and attentive to the actions of those in Washington, it can restore virtue to the political system.

In order to create a political system that better serves the entire nation, we must begin with compromise. This nation was built on compromise and its government, in truth, cannot function without it. In the past decade, we have witnessed the death of compromise. Many members of Congress refuse to even consider working with those of the opposing party to pass legislation, partially because, in many cases, they are not required to. In that respect, when majority rules, compromise dies. Recently, Democrats banded together to block the appointment of Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court. Although these attempts ultimately failed, after Republicans moved to lower the number of votes needed to appoint justices to a simple majority, invoking the nuclear option, the point remains. Nowadays, when one party is opposed by the other, its first instinct is to alter the rules, which were put in place to encourage compromise, instead of doing just that.

Moreover, this refusal of many politicians to compromise not only impacts the integrity and effectiveness of the government, but it also weakens the entire nation. When politicians are allowed to close themselves off from opposing opinions and pass only legislation that favors their party, it is increasingly viewed as acceptable by the public do to the same. Today, the presence of public debate on many issues has decreased dramatically, which is, in part, due to the spread of gerrymandering, which allows politicians to ignore large portions of their constituents with no political consequences. Likewise, when people live in areas where the majority of others share similar political ideologies, they become less inclined to acknowledge other sides of the argument, creating echo chambers within their own circles.

Herein lies the problem. When the American public, as well as those who are supposed to be representing them, isolate themselves in their political beliefs and refuse to engage in true debate, the aims of the political system cannot be achieved. As such, the responsibility to engage not only one another, but those in Washington, is placed upon us – the people. When the American people can put their political leanings behind them and understand what is best for the nation, then the swamp will, once and for all, be drained. Whether the candidate is a Democrat or Republican does not matter; what matters is that they are willing to place the best interests of their constituents, and the entire nation, before all else. When this change occurs, it will no longer matter whether we are Democrats or Republicans; it will only matter that we are Americans.

The political system is not inherently unjust – the opposite, in fact. What makes it unjust is that many of those within it seek to abuse it for personal, political, or financial gain. To restate, this nation is at a great political crossroads. If we choose one path, we will continue on the path of division and corruption, which only serves the few and leaves the many in constant suffering. However, if we choose the other path, we will elect politicians who put country before party, we will craft a political system that represents all Americans, and we will restore all that was once honorable about politics. If we choose this path, together, we shall prevail.

Trump and the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

For nearly a century, the conflict between Israel and Palestine has caused immense ethnic and religious division in the Middle East. This conflict reached a tipping point shortly after World War II when tensions between the Arab and Jewish populations of Israel prompted the United Nations to pass a proposal in 1947 that split the British territory of Israel into three parts: a Jewish state, an Arab state, and the city of Jerusalem, which was designated as an international zone open to both groups. Since then, Israel has seized much of the land allotted to Palestinians. Though numerous U.S. residents have spoken of solving this great conflict, none have successfully done so. Despite this, Donald Trump believes that he has the negotiating prowess to bring an end to the century-old dispute between Israel and Palestine.

For the eight years before Trump took office, President Obama failed to accomplish much in regard to Israel. This was, in part, due to clear disagreement between Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on the matter of a two-state solution, meaning the creation of two independent states – Israel and Palestine. Obama clearly desired a two-state solution, as have the past several U.S. presidents, but Netanyahu repeatedly acted in ways that seemed to hinder this goal. On multiple occasions, Obama warned Netanyahu against the construction of Jewish settlements in Palestinian territory, viewing them as an impediment to negotiations. Regardless, Israel has continued to extend its reach into the West Bank.

The tension between Obama and Netanyahu came to a head with the passing of a resolution condemning Israeli settlements by the U.N. Security Council on December 23, 2016, just weeks before President Trump took office.

This controversial resolution demanded that Israel "immediately and completely cease all settlement activities in the occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem" and declared that the establishment of settlements by Israel has "no legal validity and constitutes a flagrant violation under international law." Netanyahu, as well as many pro-Israel government officials, were deeply upset by the Obama Administration’s decision not to use the United States' veto power to block the resolution, a move that would have benefitted Israel, a long-time U.S. ally. Despite the strong alliance between the U.S. and Israel, Obama and former Secretary of State John Kerry have expressed that Israel's infringement on Palestinian territory will not be tolerated. Now, however, with Donald Trump in the White House there is some doubt about whether that position will be upheld.

Once President Trump took office, it seemed as if the once-significant U.N. resolution was nothing more than a piece of paper. Throughout his campaign, Trump took a strong pro-Israel stance, often defending Netanyahu when he viewed him as being treated unfairly by President Obama. Following the U.N. resolution, Trump tweeted, "As to the U.N., things will be different after Jan. 20th." And things certainly are.

During a joint press conference with Benjamin Netanyahu during his official visit to the White House, Trump stated, “I am looking at two-state and one-state, and I like the one that both parties like… I can live with either one.” This shift from his former dedication to establishing a two-state solution marks a departure from a stance that the United States has explicitly supported for the past 15 years. This statement resulted in outrage from many U.S. officials, as well as a great number of international supporters of the two-state solution. After the press conference, U.N. Secretary General António Guterres joined in on the backlash by tweeting that "there is no Plan B to a 2-state solution."

Though this flip-flop on the two-state solution may hold great ramifications on future peace negotiations, it may also have little impact on the issue, depending on whether it holds firm as the Trump Administration’s stance. Because of Trump's limited knowledge about U.S. foreign policy on issues like the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, his positions often change on a whim. These shifts, whether slight or substantial, threaten much of the progress the United States has achieved internationally over the past several decades. While, to Trump, changing the U.S.’s stance on an issue like the two-state solution or the “One China” policy, may not carry much weight, to others – mostly those living in foreign nations – these departures from standard foreign policy stances may have major consequences. These risks are only amplified by the fact that there are relatively few checks placed on the executive branch in its power to negotiate with foreign nations.

On the matter of Israel, like many others, Trump’s change of heart seems as if it did not arise from much deliberation. Rather, it was amended because the man standing next to him, Benjamin Netanyahu, was exhibiting a clear distaste toward Trump’s references to the two-state solution.

Whether or not Trump is still willing to negotiate a two-state solution is something that nobody but Trump and his advisors can know for sure. Yet, if there is still hope for negotiations, it is essential that they not be done through impulsive or brash intervention. Instead of analyzing the political and cultural history of this conflict and deciding what solution would best serve the people of Israel and Palestine, Trump has chosen to act upon radical campaign promises, along with whatever he believes in a particular moment.

Though it is clear that relations between Israel and Palestine are not exactly good, that does not give Trump the right to insert his power into a matter that he undoubtedly does not understand. While Trump’s capricious behavior may have some consequences on domestic policy, its effects will be infinitely more apparent in the world of foreign policy. As such, it is the duty of the American people to speak up on matters of foreign policy, where the decisions of an administration are often shaped by the zeitgeist.

The Electoral College: Does Every Vote Count?

Centuries ago, the Founding Fathers established the U.S. Constitution as the basis of this nation’s government. Today, with President-elect Donald Trump awaiting inauguration, many are questioning their inclusion of one aspect, in particular: the Electoral College.

The Electoral College is the process through which the President of the United States is elected. It is composed of 538 electors who, once the popular election takes place, meet in each state to formally appoint the president based on the number of states won by each candidate. It was originally designed as both a means of giving small states equal say in the electoral process and a check that prevents populists and unfit candidates from seizing the presidency. However, it is evident from this election that the Electoral College has not fulfilled its purpose. As such, the United States should abolish the Electoral College and replace it with an electoral system that equally represents all Americans and can truly shape the presidency, instead of merely being a formality.

First and foremost, this nation has a duty to represent all voters equally, and the Electoral College simply does not. While it was originally meant to provide small states with more influence in the electoral process, it now awards them a disproportionate number of electoral votes. Thus, votes cast in small states carry far more weight than those filed in large states. For example, according to FairVote.org, “Each individual vote in Wyoming counts nearly four times as much in the Electoral College as each individual vote in Texas because Wyoming has three electoral votes for a population of 532,668 citizens and Texas has thirty-two electoral votes for a population of almost 25 million.” This imbalance of electoral power grants voters in Wyoming far more sway in the political process than voters in Texas. If the Electoral College were abolished and replaced by a popular election, votes in all fifty states would count equally, as they should be.

Additionally, because electors from each state are bound to vote for the candidate who won that state’s popular election, voters in traditionally blue or red states sometimes feel as if their votes are not important. The Electoral College discourages voter turnout and makes many votes in states with clear majority parties insignificant to the outcome of the election. For instance, a Democrat in Kentucky may feel like there is no point in voting because Republican presidential candidates are practically guaranteed to win in a state like Kentucky. Similarly, a Republican in Maryland may not vote in any local elections simply because she knows her single vote will not influence the presidential election in her state, one that typically votes Democratic. Furthermore, voters in swing states have far more electoral influence because their votes could, in fact, sway the statewide popular vote and, thus, the electoral vote. If the Electoral College were abolished, voter turnout would likely increase (from the current 55-60%) because the votes of all Americans would directly impact who becomes president.

Likewise, the Founding Fathers constructed the Electoral College so that electors could choose who they thought would be the best president, in case an unfit candidate were to ever win the popular vote. However, because 29 out of 50 states (and the District of Columbia) currently bind their electors to whichever candidate wins the statewide popular vote, the Electoral College has lost most of its former ability to override the popular will, even if it's not truly what the majority of voters want. Rather, it has become nothing more than a formality in the electoral process.

Throughout American history, there have been a number of unqualified presidential candidates, yet none have been as successful as the one set to inherit the White House this month. This election is a perfect illustration of why the Electoral College can, in no way, prevent an anti-government populist like Donald Trump from assuming the most powerful office in the world. Throughout his campaign, Trump was able to appeal to the masses, take advantage of the weak electoral system, and in the end, win the presidency, despite his opponent securing nearly three million more votes. If the Electoral College did not exist, our next president would be qualified and experienced, as opposed to someone who seems to be spending more time on Twitter than attending intelligence briefings. As Alexander Hamilton stated in Federalist No. 68, the Electoral College was established to avoid the election of anyone "not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications," yet it has clearly failed us in this respect.

If we were, in fact, a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, we would abolish the Electoral College and restore the concept of “one person, one vote.” Regardless of the Founders’ intentions, it is clear that the original purpose of the Electoral College has been muddled to a point of inefficacy. I am not denying Donald Trump's right to take office; I am simply noting that the man who, for the past year, claimed that the entire system was rigged against him came to win the presidency through the most rigged aspect of the election.