By Kelsey Ott

The biggest threat facing our world today is climate change. Our current administration does not acknowledge the issue at all, despite countless studies and warnings from scientists and environmentalists worldwide. Trump’s statements on climate change are extremely vague and contradictory. Trump signed an advertisement in 2009 with the New York Times that called for legislation to address climate change (BBC.com), but since his becoming president, he has failed to make any serious statements regarding the issue, and stated in 2012 that it was “created by and for the Chinese in order to make US manufacturing non-competitive”—which is obviously incorrect. Senator Bernie Sanders had focused much of his campaign on raising awareness and educating the public on the seriousness of climate change. While both Sanders and Biden support a “Green New Deal,” it is interesting to compare the differences in the plans. Both plans begin with the point of transitioning to a clean economy that does not rely on fossil fuels as a source of energy. In fact, Biden’s proposal is to “ensure that the U.S. achieves a 100% clean energy economy and reaches net-zero emissions no later than 2050” (Biden.com). His proposal for climate justice “will make a federal investment of $1.7 trillion over the next ten years, leveraging additional private sector and state and local investments to total to more than $5 trillion” (Biden.com). Biden would achieve this by putting limits on methane pollution, using the annual $500 billion used by the Federal government procurement system to strive toward clean energy, and making agriculture part of the solution.

Comparing the federal investment of his green new deal to Sanders’ deal is very interesting. Both plans would be executed over 10 years, but Sanders’ green new deal would “directly invest an historic $16.3 trillion public investment toward these efforts, in line with mobilization of resources made during the New Deal and WWII” (Berniesanders.com). Sanders explains that “Economists estimate that if we do not take action, we will lose $34.5 trillion in economic activity by the end of the century.” Sanders’ proposal for shifting the economy to a clean energy economy has a significantly higher federal investment than Biden’s. Both Sanders’ and Biden’s proposals go into detail on how transportation, industry pollution, and overall infrastructure will be shifted from its dependency on fossil fuels.

The difference in investment is significant, and it begs the question of how much it will actually cost to make the economy a clean energy economy. The cost of shifting to clean-air vehicles, increasing the usage of public transportation (as well as implementing electric transportation) and investing money into more climate change research will indeed cost a lot of money. If Sanders’ assertion that we will lose $34.5 trillion in economic activity if we do not begin to plan for the future is correct, then an investment in climate change now is obviously imperative. As for Trump, he stated in a CBS interview in 2018 that, “I don’t think there’s a hoax. I do think there’s probably a difference. But I don’t know that it’s man-made … I don’t wanna give trillions and trillions of dollars” (BBC.com). He has since become more serious about this issue, stating in 2020 that he “wants the cleanest air” and the “cleanest water” but the president has failed on proposing any kind of solution or promise of an investment in climate change action.

The time to take action against climate change is now. It is essential to our future and for the health of future generations. Our planet’s ecosystems are in grave danger of vanishing completely if we neglect the issues we are facing from dependency on fossil fuels. Ensuring preparedness for the future of dramatic and extreme climate changes (floods, hurricanes, heat waves, etc.) should be on the minds of political officials in office today. The government must invest in shifting to renewable and clean energy if we want to continue to survive as a country as well as a global society.

Cheung, Helier. “What does Trump actually believe on climate change?” News. BBC Washington DC. January 2020. Accessed May 13, 2020.

“The Green New Deal” Bernie. 2020. Accessed May 15, 2020.

“Joe’s Plan for a Clean Energy Revolution and Environmental Justice” Biden President. 2020. Accessed May 15, 2020.

By Kelsey Ott

This coronavirus pandemic has led many people to begin to realize the most important things in life, and to think about the economy in a much different way than before. It has led many of us realize just how much we rely upon one another and how each action we have impacts each other. The question remains in this pandemic of how the country should proceed during the outbreak. Biden posted his plan for reopening the economy. He asserts that social distancing must continue to occur until the number of new coronavirus cases has a significant decrease. He asserts next that “there needs to be widespread, easily available and prompt testing” and that the tests the country is currently running must be doubled. He states that, “Third, we have to make sure that our hospitals and healthcare system are ready for flare-ups of the disease that may occur when economic activity expands again.”

In the last two months, more than 36 million people have claimed unemployment. With so many people out of work, homelessness is likely to increase (as I have seen in my own town on my few drives) and that will surely lead to the worsening of this outbreak. Because the decision-making has been left to state governments, each state is essentially on its own to deal with the issues that have come as a result of the shutdown of non-essential business. According to the CDC website, people who are experiencing homelessness and coronavirus symptoms:

Should stay in a place where they can best be isolated from other people to prevent spreading the infection. Local health departments, housing authorities, homeless service systems, and healthcare facilities should plan to identify locations to isolate those with known or suspected COVID-19.

The consequences of the economic shut down are left to be cleaned up by local authorities. A poll taken by The New York Times in May found that “more than half of those applying for unemployment benefits in recent weeks were unsuccessful.” If people cannot receive aid from the federal government, there is no way for them to continue to pay rent and support themselves. On Biden’s website, it states that, “The Biden Plan calls for expanded and broadened unemployment benefits that ensure our unemployment benefit policies are responsive to the depth and nature of this health and economic crisis.” While the Trump Administration has appeared to ignore the issue, Biden has come up with a comprehensive plan to aid workers.

As we look to the 2020 election, we must look to Biden, as he is the only candidate who has spoken out about giving economic aid to people who are out of work. An economic plan to aid individuals who are out of work is essential. It seems in a time of such crisis, the political officials must take a look at the federal budget and figure out a plan to aid those who are out of work. In Biden’s plan to combat the impact the shutdown has had on the economy, his website states that: “Much more needs to be done, now, to bring our country together, respond to this emergency, and set the groundwork for bold, long-term reforms, including ensuring quality, affordable health care and a comprehensive paid leave program for every American.” His proposal for a paid leave program for workers who contract the illness would pay for their leave for the mandatory 14 days of isolation. His website also states, “Joe Biden believes we must do whatever it takes, spend whatever it takes, to deliver relief for our families and ensure the stability of our economy.” Biden’s plan provides clear plans to give American workers aid, and encourages the passage of the Family Act, with the goal “to provide paid family and medical leave benefits to certain individuals, and for other purposes” (Congress.gov).

If Trump is re-elected, it is highly unlikely that much will change, or that Americans will be ensured economic aid from the government. It is more important than ever to vote in the 2020 election for the fate of the economy.

CDC. “Interim Guidance on People Experiencing Unsheltered Homelessness.” Coronavirus Disease 2019.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2019. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/community/homeless-shelters/unsheltered-homelessness.html

Biden, Joe. “Joe Biden: My Plan to Safely Reopen America.” The New York Times. April 12, 2020.

Biden, Joe. “The Biden Plan to Combat Coronavirus (COVID-19) and Prepare for Future Global Health

Threats.” 2020. Biden President. https://joebiden.com/covid19

By Edin Candic

“As the Democratic presidential race was getting underway in the spring of 2019, Reade was one of eight women who came forward in quick succession to allege that Biden had touched them inappropriately, made them feel uncomfortable, or invaded their personal space in the past. (Those complaints included allegations that Biden kissed them on the back of the head, rubbed noses, or hugged them ‘just a little bit too long’”(TIME 2020). Unfortunately, due to the inability of the youth coming out to vote whether it be because of COVID-19 or because they just couldn’t wait in line. Thus leading to Bernie having to drop out and making Joe Biden the Democratic nominee as read in my previous blog post. In recent months, eight women have come forward in accusing Joe Biden of touching these women inappropriately. We had a chance to change the U.S. with Bernie, but the machine got behind Biden in order to push the same old messages. We have someone that has a dark and hidden past and when more than one individual comes forward with the same statement, there has to be some truth behind it. The older generations ignored these accusations, acting like they never happened and pushed for Biden with the hope of him having a chance against President Trump. If these accusations are true, what are we promoting to future generations? That you can cover up your dark and ugly past with what? Money? That what you did in the past doesn’t matter and it won’t affect you or how you think? There’s too many questions that will arise and have came forward but it’s evident that change isn’t going to happen soon. Scandals like this should end someone’s campaign, clearing the way for candidates that don’t have any shady things that they’ve done in the past. Is this someone that is supposed to lead our nation and inspire future politicians, doctors, lawyers, or our students?

“At least 25 women have made sexual misconduct allegations against Trump since the 1970s” (Business Insider 2020). The other candidate for the 2020 election has more than 3 times the amount of accusations of sexual misconduct towards at least 25 women. This all came out during his campaign trial back in 2016 which is crazy that all these voters still chose to ignore that. That could be due to people always voting for a republican, agreeing with Trump’s wild viewpoints, or simply because they aren’t liking the other option. This just shows that the best candidate isn’t ever going to stand a chance at running the country right, it’s going to be whoever can win or whoever will benefit the party the most. When it comes to Trump, the way he talks about women promotes men holding all this power over women which isn’t true. He makes women seem like their voice isn’t important, like they aren’t important, discredits them at every single turn, and doesn’t take them seriously. Is this what we want from our future generations of men to treat their mom’s, daughter’s, sisters, wife’s, aunts, and cousins? This isn’t fair, and it’s going to set back all the progress that has been made in making men and women equal. We can’t throw away all that progress, everyone deserves to be equal at the end of the day. The election should be about picking the right person to lead and represent our country, with strong moral codes, and socially aware of what they say and what the impact that has.

“It has been noted that President Trump has been accused of sexual harassment or assault by more than a dozen women. Those claims also should be investigated, and the Republicans concerned about Mr. Biden’s behavior now should be at least equally focused on the questions about Mr. Trump’s. For his part, Mr. Trump does not seriously address the claims against him; he simply denies them and attacks his accusers”(New York Times 2020). This election is going to be focused on these accusations, focusing on who is the lesser of two evils. This will lead to them trying to find other scandals about each other, taking away from their policies that they have in mind, what they will do and what they won’t do. The media won’t be focus on these policies, just what they can promote and get more views from these debates. All I can realy conclude with is Good Luck America…

“Investigate Tara Reade’s Allegations.” The New York Times. The New York Times, 1 May 2020, https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/01/opinion/biden-tara-reade.html

Reiman, Eliza. “The 25 Women Who Have Accused Trump of Sexual Misconduct.” Business Insider. Business Insider, 1 May 2020, https://www.businessinsider.com/women-accused-trump-sexual-misconduct-list-2017-12

Villa, Lissandra. Charlotte Alter, “What We Know About Tara Reade’s Allegation That Joe Biden Sexually Assaulted Her.” Time. Time, 2 May 2020, https://time.com/5831100/joe-biden-tara-reade-allegation/

By David Pepin

Many people right now have shown a lot of resilience in these pandemic times that are before us, what controls us right now is the fear or frustration? The protests for everyone are coming out in droves and what happens is either spreading of that virus more or fights and a government that has finally listen for once needs time, not more anger. At the beginning of the pandemic, many felt like this man, “Will I get it? Should I avoid seeing my elderly relatives? Where can I find some toilet paper?” (Winch).  Fear was around the world when this spread and will keep being there until there is a way to fight the virus.  When people see that on the news other countries are opening their state from lockdown they get frustrated and protest as a vaccine might be here a lot longer when people like Fauci describe that, “Officials like Dr. Anthony S. Fauci, the top infectious disease expert on the Trump administration’s coronavirus task force, estimate a vaccine could arrive in at least 12 to 18 months.” (Thompson).  This is just going to phase one could take years and that distribution way longer to like 2031, so maybe taking a load off and doing something different in these hard times instead of doing something wrong.  Although this is true people are protesting and some getting what they want even though no vaccine has been made and there are hundreds of therapies and 95 vaccines that are related to COVID-19 looked at right now as to come out faster than 11 years (Thompson).  Even when you see these facts people go out and protest for some reason as people are putting their lives on the line to help people not be in this state of fear. Nicholas Bogel-Burroughs described the people protesting this week as, “The people behind the rally are founders of a group, the Freedom Angels Foundation, which is best known in California for its opposition to state efforts to mandate vaccinations.”  This can’t be whereas a people we are headed that we can’t see a good thing in front of us and if you don’t want the vaccination don’t get vaccinated.  That should be the end of it but people feed of anxiety as controlling one’s fear and just get a checkup if you’re truly having problems has been there for months.  This can be understandable why un vaccination frenzies came out when Guy Winch said, “For the vast majority of us, the threat is still uncertain, like a storm cloud of “what if’s hanging over our heads. We don’t know if we’ll be exposed to the virus or not; if we are exposed, we don’t know if we’ll get symptoms or not; and if we do get symptoms, we don’t know if we’ll able to recover from them.”  I understand that people are afraid to vaccinate your child but making a big deal about it isn’t right for other people’s rights to not want this virus at this time protesting and spreading most likely the virus.  Even though this is obvious Munoz Gleisner said, “From Day 1, it’s been difficult that we’re always castigated as anti-vaccine, and these protests are castigated as anti-lockdown. We have always been about freedom.” (Burroughs). This virus has made people go nuts to live in a society that can’t take other people’s ideas into account when all you need to do is say no. Even when the Supreme court just said, “But on Monday, the court will break with history twice: hearing the first of 10 cases that will be argued in a telephone conference call, and letting the public listen in.” (Liptak).  This doesn’t worry you more that the government will not talk to unless it is over the phone but getting a vaccination scares you that could most likely save your life.  The idea that the government is also willing to do this means just call in and ask hey I don’t think we should be in this lockdown please uplift the lockdown but no one would listen to that I hope because take your medicine prescribed to you.  The non-vaccinators even could lose their moment in history when Adam Liptak said, “The justices may not return to the bench in October if the virus is still a threat, as several of them are in the demographic group thought to be most at risk.”  Come October hopefully this event will be figured out but as I have shown that will be a long time for people to stop and just listen that people can do what they want. The people you’re shouting at could be gone and who will listen to you then? Especially when professionals like, “Dr. Limaye, the scientist, said she and her colleagues who encourage families to vaccinate children have found the presence of vaccination skeptics at protests “terrifying,” not only because it could encourage families to forgo traditional shots but because it could spell disaster for any future coronavirus vaccine.” (Burroughs).  Even if the people are right about non-vaccination how is it freedom when most of this goes against other people’s freedom to not want to and stay in fear of the thousands that have died?  This just goes to show that when people don’t trust the government, they do things that shouldn’t be done and miss bigger issues.  People need to understand it will get worse before it gets better or maybe just work together and might make it out alive.  Have we been in the real lockdown yet?  Is the situation with the Supreme Court good with people calling the government to talk?

Bogel-Burroughs, Nicholas. “Anti-Vaccination Activists Are Growing Force at Virus Protests.” The New York Times. The New York Times, May 3, 2020. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/02/us/anti-vaxxers-coronavirus-protests.html?action=click&module=Top Stories&pgtype=Homepage.

Liptak, Adam. “Virus Pushes a Staid Supreme Court Into Revolutionary Changes.” The New York Times. The New York Times, May 3, 2020. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/03/us/politics/supreme-court-coronavirus.html?action=click&module=Top Stories&pgtype=Homepage.

Thompson, Stuart A. “How Long Will a Vaccine Really Take?” The New York Times. The New York Times, April 30, 2020. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/04/30/opinion/coronavirus-covid-vaccine.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage.

Winch, Guy. “Dear Guy: ‘I’m Incredibly Anxious about Coronavirus. What Can I Do?”.” ideas.ted.com. ideas.ted.com, April 6, 2020. https://ideas.ted.com/dear-guy-im-incredibly-anxious-about-coronavirus-what-can-i-do/.

By Travis Van Oosbree

In 1787, at the constitutional convention, a debate raged about the process for electing the president. Federalists argued that the election of the president should be decided by a congressional vote. After all, Congress is supposed to represent the electorate. Those opposed to the idea feared that deciding the presidency gave Congress too much power, instead arguing in favor of a popular vote. The Federalists countered by saying that a popular vote from an uninformed electorate would lead to mob rule, and the election of unfit candidates. The compromise that was devised was the implementation of the Electoral College, a system in which each state is granted a certain number of votes – also called electors – relative to their population. When a state holds its presidential election, the citizens cast their votes and the results inform the electors on how they will ultimately distribute the state’s allotted electoral votes. States have the right to decide whether the electoral votes are distributed in a winner-take-all fashion or split amongst all vote-getting candidates proportionate to their popularity. The candidate to reach a simple majority of Electoral College votes wins the presidency. In the unlikely case that there is a tie, or if the votes are split three ways resulting in no candidate receiving a majority, the decision is passed to the House of Representatives to vote for president and the Senate will decide the vice president.

Although that may seem a bit convoluted, in principal it gave everyone at the constitutional convention a little bit of what they asked for, and the important task of deciding the president was shared by everyone. In practice the Electoral College is a bit more problematic. In five instances over the course of America’s two hundred and forty some year history, the winner of the election lost the popular vote, but still gained the majority of Electoral College votes. Now, you might be thinking that in fifty-three of the fifty-eight presidential elections held in US history the system worked. That’s more than 91% of the time the most popular candidate wins the election. I’d say that’s a pretty successful system to determine the person that best represents all of America. The trouble comes in the fact that two of those five times have come in the last two decades and according to a study conducted by the University of Texas in 2019, this “inversion” of the Electoral College vote over the popular vote will favor the Republican Party 65% of the time.[1] How can this be? Well, because of the way the electoral votes are allotted to states based on population and number of Congresspeople, some states’ votes are actually more influential than others.[2] California for example, has a population of roughly 39.45 million people and fifty-five Electoral College votes, Wyoming on the other hand has a population of 578,759 people and three Electoral College votes. That means every Californian’s individual vote is 0.000139% of an Electoral College vote, but Wyomingite’s individual votes are 0.000518% of an Electoral College vote. A fraction of a percent may seem insignificant, but because less densely populated states tend to vote Republican, it accounts for the 65% advantage I mentioned before with the inversion of the popular vote.

This imbalance seems like a bit of a threat to American democracy doesn’t it? It would appear there is a serious flaw in the system of electing the president. The popular vote is much more representative of the will of the people, because it ensures that every citizen’s vote carries exactly the same weight. Critics of the popular vote contend that the switch would unfairly swing the power away from Middle America and focus it in densely populated urban centers. To that supporters of the popular vote contend that as it is, the current system gives too much power to the swing states of Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and North Carolina. The demographic makeups of those states are not necessarily representative of the entire American population, but they end up being the ones who determine the outcome of the vote.[3]

Another popular argument in favor of the Electoral College is that it guarantees the certainty of the results. There is never a need for a recount and even if the vote is split three ways, with no single candidate earning a majority of votes, as was the case when Richard Nixon won the election with 43% of the popular vote in1968, he still earned 56% of the Electoral College votes and therefore the presidency. Detractors of the Electoral College argue that the system ignores the will of the people, and by valuing certain votes more than others it creates and Orwellian democracy where “All [people] are equal, but some [people] are more equal than others.” As far as guaranteeing the certainty of the results, it would seem to me that despite the debacle of the Iowa caucus we witnessed in February, the collective ingenuity of America’s greatest minds could devise a system to tally votes that would guarantee the results are accurate. We have cars that drive themselves, we should be able to create something that is more or less a glorified Scantron machine.

Lastly, supporters of the current system make the point that changing the voting process would require a constitutional amendment. Changing the constitution alters the founding fathers’ original intent and threatens to turn America into something other than what it was intended to be. Also, passing an amendment is hard! It would have to be approved in both the House and Senate with at least 2/3 vote, and in these times of unfettered partisanship, that seems unlikely. That being said, let’s not lose sight of all of the good things that can come from amending the constitution. Twenty-seven times the constitution has been amended and it has given us liberties like freedom of religion, speech, the press and the right to assemble. Constitutional amendments abolished slavery and expanded voting rights, and most significant for this discussion, the 17^th Amendment changed the election of Senators from a state legislative decision to a popular vote.[4] So there is precedent for changing election systems already written into the Constitution.

Now we get into the really sticky question of whether we should actually do away with the Electoral College or not. After all, it’s undemocratic, right? I believe it is, but America is not a Democracy, it is a Republic, and in a Republic we are governed not by the population, but by our elected officials, and those elected officials have thus far determined that the current system is still working. Of course there are some outspoken Congresspeople who are pushing for change, but we are a long way away from consensus. In a time when political compromise is so hard to come by, I like to think that the Electoral College is an example that compromise can build something stronger and more effective than what either side is proposing alone. When describing what had been achieved at the constitutional convention of 1787, Alexander Hamilton said of the Electoral College, “If the manner of it be not perfect, it is at least excellent.”

---

[1] Ford, Matt. “The Case Against the Popular Vote.” The New Republic, September 20, 2019. https://newrepublic.com/article/155134/case-popular-vote

[2] ConnectUs. “14 Pros and Cons of Abolishing the Electoral College.” August 19, 2019. https://connectusfund.org/14-pros-and-cons-of-abolishing-the-electoral-college

[3] ProCon.org. “The Electoral College: Top 3 Pros and Cons.” September 1, 2019. https://www.procon.org/headline.php?headlineID=005330

[4] U.S. Constitution

By Brianna Devlin

3 years after the Wall Street Crash of 1929, Herbert Hoover, the incumbent president, campaigned against Franklin D. Roosevelt in the 1932 presidential election. The Great Depression and the global spread of economic decline it caused, undoubtedly had an effect on the 1932 presidential election. Herbert Hoover, who was president at the time of the stock market crash, and the years following, lost his reelection to FDR. FDR lined his campaign with promises for welfare and economic reforms which would provide the nation with what he coined “New Deals” for the people that Hoover could not provide during his administration.[1] Similarly to the Great Depression, the current global pandemic has had worldwide economic consequences. Unlike the Great Depression, many countries have recognized a potential economic depression with consequences similar to the Great Depression and have put preemptive economic policies in place. In the current presidential election, presidential runners have endorsed or criticized economic stimulus policies that would work to prevent the risk of a severe economic depression.

Although the parallels between the Great Depression and our current economic decline could be considered slight, the current, preemptive “New Deal” type policies being drafted and endorsed during the 2020 campaign cycle that reflects FDR’s 1932 campaign style. While no one can predict the outcome of the 2020 election, it bears a resemblance to the campaigns leading up to the 1932 election: a Republican incumbent campaigning against a Democratic household-name during a time of economic uncertainty. While not to argue the political and moral alignments and how they differ between the 1932 and 2020 presidential candidates, it is interesting to note the parallel power dynamics between parties and candidates during a time of economic uncertainty nearly 90 years apart. FDR campaigned a few years after the consequences of the stock market of 1929 had its chance to unfold, naturally, the current global economic situation has yet to unfold to such lengths as the Great Depression, if it leads down that path at all. It does beg the question: does history repeat itself, and if so, does history have enough repetitive patterns to learn from?

FDR’s policies were social and economic reform programs that lessened the strain of the Great Depression. His New Deal policies ranged from unemployment pay through the Federal Emergency Relief Administration to job creation and expansion agencies like the Civil Works Administration and the Works Progress Administration.[2] Many of FDR’s policies affect and influence American life and politics today. In continuation of worker’s rights, FDR created the National Recovery Act which instituted a mandatory minimum wage per hour and gave rights to labor unions, as well as creating the Public Works Administration which created and promoted long-term projects maintaining and building public works infrastructure.[3] FDR created a legacy in his policies that not only continues to affect our political landscape almost 90 years later but also provides a map to follow when faced with worldwide economic disaster. Much like the 1932 election coinciding with a crack in the already frail economic system, our current 2020 campaign cycle shows symptoms of Great Depression-like consequences.

As unemployment and underemployment rates start to slowly rise due to pandemic related shutdowns, stimulus check policies have already been pushed through in an attempt to slow the consequences of mass business closures. While the CARES Act, the $2 trillion stimulus package that is being dispersed to 88 million Americans,[4] is still slowly distributing stimulus checks in the upcoming weeks, there is new attempts and predictions of new rounds of stimulus checks. Although unemployment rates were only at 4.4% by the end of March,[5] unemployment rates are predicted to increase to around 14% by June.[6] With the risk of a quickly escalating unemployment rate a proposal was given of the Emergency Money for the People Act, which would give eligible citizens $2,000 a month for at least six months.[7] While this act is in the very early stages and will likely face several changes if it is passed, bears resemblance to FDR era “New Deals.” In an attempt to step ahead of the predicted rise in unemployment, another proposal was offered called the “Getting America Back To Work Act.” This act would provide refundable payroll tax rebates to companies impacted by COVID-19, but only for companies who rehired former employees let go due to the pandemic.[8] While not the ideal act to benefit all those who are impacted by unemployment, or even retirement and social security, it is a temporary solution that could potentially slow the predicted sharp rise in unemployment.

While the parallels between FDR’s New Deal campaigns and policies with the current pandemic stimulus packages are not so cut and paste, there is a pattern to follow. A question remains whether history repeats itself and is there a lesson to be learned from that repetition? The Great Depression was a post-industrial age economic depression that paved a new path for modern economic policies. In retrospect, the lessons learned from the Great Depression was a new, modern lesson during it’s time, providing for a mass wave of new policies improving aspects of, at the time, modern society; a wave of policies that could only come after a major catastrophe. With the current economic downturn we are facing in 2020, we can recognize the economic patterns and trends that lead to the Great Depression and take preventative measures, in hopes of avoiding Great Depression-esque ramifications.

---

[1] Kenneth T. Walsh, “The Most Consequential Elections in History: Franklin Delano Roosevelt and the Election of 1932,” US News, Sept 10, 2008, https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2008/09/10/the-most-consequential-elections-in-history-franklin-delano-roosevelt-and-the-election-of-1932.

[2] Walsh, “Consequential.”

[3] Walsh, “Consequential.”

[4] Zack Friedman, ““What Your Next Stimulus “Check” Really Might Look Like,” Forbes, April 25, 2020, https://www.forbes.com/sites/zackfriedman/2020/04/25/next-stimulus-package/#6f52688b7cb1.

[5] “National Employment Monthly Update,” National Conference of State Legislatures, last modified April 3, 2020. https://www.ncsl.org/research/labor-and-employment/national-employment-monthly-update.aspx.

[6] Friedman, “Next Stimulus “Check.””

[7] Friedman, “Next Stimulus “Check.””

[8] Friedman, “Next Stimulus “Check.””

Friedman, Zack. “What Your Next Stimulus “Check” Really Might Look Like.” Forbes, April 25, 2020. https://www.forbes.com/sites/zackfriedman/2020/04/25/next-stimulus-package/#6f52688 b7cb1.

National Conference of State Legislatures. “National Employment Monthly Update.” Last modified April 3, 2020. https://www.ncsl.org/research/labor-and-employment/national-employment-monthly-upd ate.aspx.

Walsh, Kenneth T. “The Most Consequential Elections in History: Franklin Delano Roosevelt and the Election of 1932.” US News, Sept 10, 2008. https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2008/09/10/the-most-consequential-elections-in-h istory-franklin-delano-roosevelt-and-the-election-of-1932.

By Mario Casillas, Jr.

The San Francisco Bay Area became the first region in the country to establish a shelter-in-place order in response to the looming threat of the coronavirus. This was six weeks ago, which for many feels like a lifetime and what was a looming threat then is now an ongoing catastrophic reality. Public health officials along with governments from the nine county Bay Area collaborated and issued this order to diminish what was believed to be catastrophic loss of life and breakdown of the region’s health care infrastructure as result of COVID-19.

As we enter the sixth week of shelter-in-place, predictions of chaos at levels of a Hollywood action-drama did materialize, but they occurred three thousand miles away. They manifested in real time before our eyes and undermined any intellectual and cultural concepts of America being a first world nation. As the curve begins to flatten so does shelter-in-place compliance. As horrific as the images from New York are they still correlate with notions that this is not happening in our backyard. In a sense this is a collective NIMBYism. This mentality might ultimately have consequences and the Bay Area might experience the same fate as our counterparts on the east coast.

The fundamental question that San Francisco and Bay Area authorities must grapple with is, how soon is too soon? “Epidemiologists and other public health specialists warn against moving too fast.” (Aizenman) Bay Area governments are stuck between a growing economically anxious and stir crazy populous and a scientifically proven possibility of a second wave of COVID-19 infections that could be significantly worse than the initial outbreak. Decisions should not only be based on expert analysis from health officials but in analyses of previous decisions from previous pandemics. Specifically, the Spanish Flu outbreak of 1918. The Bay Area once again is at that turning point as it was in the Fall of 1918.

It is important to understand what the state of the world in the fall of 1918 was. World War I had just ended and there was a sense of jubilation amongst Americans that this horrific act of man had ended. To add to that jubilation, San Francisco city officials had rescinded a shelter-in-place and face mask order that was given as a result of the Spanish Flu pandemic. “As celebrations continued and residents flocked to theatres, restaurants and other public spaces soon thereafter, city officials would soon learn their problems were far from over.” (Clark) It took about two months for the effect of that decision to manifest itself in a catastrophic manner. Cases of the Spanish Flu surged exponentially ultimately causing the previously rescinded order to be earnestly reinstated.

Dates for lifting shelter-in-place orders are approaching and there is growing reluctance especially here in the Bay Area in lifting those restrictions. It appears the impact of decisions during the Spanish Flu pandemic of 1918 are resonating in the psyche of many local government officials. “Mayor London Breed said she took heed of history and implemented an order last week requiring anyone setting foot on the streets of San Francisco, outside their homes, to wear a face covering.” (Clark) The question now is whether Mayor Breed and all the other mayors of Bay Area cities will have a conscious recollection of history and extend shelter-in-place and face protection orders. The region will be approaching that pivotal moment within the next coming weeks.

For the moment, the Breed Administration along with other local governments are in fact moving forward and planning what would be the next appropriate action. “Health officers from across the Bay Area have been meeting to work out the details of shelter-in-place extensions, Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Chairwoman Candace Andersen said Friday.” (Fracassa) The challenge to any extension must also take into consideration the weariness of the population that does not see the statistics of a flattening curve but the stir craziness of prolonged quarantine. This was a similar challenge to government officials back in early 1919 when containment orders were reissued after a resurgence in Spanish Flu infections.

For the COVID-19 pandemic any directives for the reopening of the society must have structures in place not only to maintain enforcement of hygiene and physical distancing protocols, but to have an infrastructure in place to deal with any hotspots of reinfection. “The consensus view is that states shouldn’t open up unless they have a robust system to detect and quash new flare-ups by testing to see who is infected, tracing their contacts, and isolating and quarantining as needed.” (Aizenman)

In 1918 the combination of the excitement of the ending of World War I and the lifting of containment measures created a celebratory ambiance that ultimately failed and much to the dismay of the population, shelter-in-place and mandatory face mask orders were reinstated. Knowing the history from 1918/1919 Bay Area municipalities especially those in San Francisco, Oakland and San Jose-the Bay Areas largest cities-should be cognizant that infection and death rates while decreasing they are still a reality. According to Mayor Breed, “What that means is another few weeks or even a month of asking you all to comply and to remain at home and to continue to follow the social distancing orders that we put forth…” (Fracassa) Within the next couple of weeks it will be determined whether mistakes in dealing with the 1918 Spanish Flu pandemic will repeat themselves with the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic. Ultimately if lessons were not learned then its quite possible that the San Francisco Bay Area will witness catastrophic loss of life and breakdown of the region’s health care infrastructure.

Aizenman, Nurith. When Is It Safe to Ease Social Distancing? Here’s What One Model Says for Each State. NPR. April 25, 2020. https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2020/04/25/844088634/when-is-it-sade-to-ease-social-distancing-heres-what-one-model-says-for-each-sta

Clark, Dartunorro. San Francisco had the 1918 flu under control. And then it lifted the restrictions. NBC News April 25, 2020. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/san-francisco-had-1918-flu-under-control-then-it-lifted-n1191141

Fracassa, Dominic. SF Mayor London Breed says extension of shelter-in-place order ‘very likely’. San Francisco Chronicle. April 24, 2020. https://www.sfchronicle.com/local-politics/article/SF-Mayor-London-Breed-says-extension-of-15224771.php

By David Pepin

It has been said in this chat that people have been in trying times from getting the COVID-19 when this happened people have been working from home that can, and social distancing have slowed everything down. The leaders make people work from home even though it has slowed some people down, it can be affectable with good communication, and holding people accountable after the job is done (Hickman, Robison,).  It seems simple enough to just take your time and let the chips fall where they go and talk with people to get it done the right way.  People that can be a problem with leaders today when Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic said, “We appear to want leaders who are charming and entertaining, but as most of us know, there is a big difference between an effective leader and being a stand-up comedian.”  This can be seen at all levels even with the election as people are seeing that the impeachment on Trump and that he was a conniving his way into the office.  For instance, on the conniving Trump a member of Trump’s committee Barry Berke said, “While serving as special counsel to the House Judiciary Committee, I warned in my opening statement for the committee’s impeachment hearings that if the president got away with what he did, “our imagination is the only limit to what President Trump may do next.” (New York Times).  The Impeachment trials have only made Trump more likable to people and can be shown that if unchecked he can overlook anyone he wants.  People need to wake up and smell the smoke over the horizon, because if we start from the top with ego-driven maniacs as a likable president even of a company bad things happen (Premuzic).  The idea that this person is still running our government is mind-boggling to me that the impeachment didn’t work.  Which brings me back to people working from home as Premuzic said, “But this has been turbocharged by the recent digital age.”  The problem isn’t that people aren’t noticing this is happening but that Republicans would rather turn away from losing at any cost.  Many ways people could become complacent from this pandemic as “Some workers are beginning to realize that the presence of others and the structure of the office kept them focused. Others now know people and external structure slowed them down and that solitude increases their productivity.” (Hickman and Robison).  The divide of people working from home and working in the office has been shown that it works for both people of extroverts and introverts.  The pointing of fingers could happen and bring disfunction if we don’t have good leaders managing what goes on in the workplace after this pandemic.  The big problem that needs work will become who gets benefits as Bernie Sander said, “As tens of millions of Americans are losing their jobs and incomes as a result of the pandemic, many of them are also losing their health insurance.”  Sander’s on many occasions has danced for more health care as everyone needs health care in America, is that ability now?  In many ways right now not everyone coming back to the workplace could get health care or any benefits that people would need to survive another pandemic.  The pandemic has demonstrated both our health care system and that communities provide enough care in these trying times (Walkowicz).  People need to stop and look around, during this pandemic, and maybe a work strike for all jobs is needed to stop people from being mistreated in America.  We need to as a people to stop staring at famous people with our interests in hand as it would change how we feel with ourselves (Premuzic).  The President and his people working for him have made us weak now, gave us now way but ourselves for the most part to combat it, and we need a win when we come back to the workplace.  When Trump cares more about money as Burke stated, “The reason he dismissed early pronouncements of the dangers of the virus by the health experts in his administration, and denied their validity, is because he cared more about the stock market falling and potentially harming his re-election prospects.”  This is what happens when people watch too much of The Apprentice than how can we make the world a better place.  In a lot of these blogs people have said that Biden isn’t the man to take down Trump or if he does, he might forget something and becomes just like Trump in the same way or manner.  I never said that Biden would be better, I know that Biden would be better than Trump, but better doesn’t solve issues sometimes and can create a shouting match that doesn’t do anything.  Does creating a point that both sides need to talk about these issues and get all of us better health care?  I hope the world’s social experiment has shown people that need some common ground or it will stay a shouting match.

Berke, Barry. “Impeachment Taught Trump All the Wrong Lessons.” The New York Times. The New York Times, April 19, 2020. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/19/opinion/trump-impeachment-coronavirus.html.

Chamorro-Premuzic, Tomas. “Why Do So Many Incompetent Men Become Leaders? And What Can We Do About It?” ideas.ted.com. ideas.ted.com, January 14, 2020. https://ideas.ted.com/why-do-so-many-incompetent-men-become-leaders-and-what-can-we-do-about-it/.

Hickman, Adam, and Jennifer Robison. “Remote Work Trends to Guide High Performance During COVID-19.” Gallup.com. Gallup, April 24, 2020. https://www.gallup.com/workplace/309170/remote-work-trends-guide-high-performance-during-covid.aspx.

By Brianna Devlin

The current 2020 election cycle has been hit by a unique global crisis that has already begun to affect the ongoing election cycle and campaigns. Despite being a unique election affected by a global pandemic, it’s not an entirely unprecedented one, with many people drawing comparisons to previous world pandemics including the 1918 Spanish Flu. These first few months of 2020 have easily started to reflect one of the most globally devastating events of the first half of the 20th century not related to war. Similarly to our current global pandemic and election cycle, the United States was in the midst of a midterm election cycle during the 1918 Spanish Flu, a global health crisis with an alarmingly comparable death rate as the current COVID-19 crisis.

In the current election, safety and health concerns have justifiably run rampant while safety precautions have continued to increase with required social distancing and indefinitely extended stay at home orders. The caution placed around these preventive measures has lead to the closure of many business and social gathering sites, public and private. This has a damaging effect on the election process and has a discouraging effect on the due process of the right to vote. A few states were able to hold their primaries before the United States started to take a serious and critical approach to COVID-19, but many states’ primaries dates have been affected by quarantine procedures that inhibit the ability for polling sites to safely operate in-person voting. As reported for a New York Times article published on April 17[1], 16 states have already postponed their primary election date, with many other states switching entirely to vote-by-mail, due to the violations of health and safety guidelines that would occur at polling places. This sets a precedent of concern for the upcoming November elections, where political scientists are urging government officials to change the format of current voting procedures to encourage a fair and responsible election. These political scientists are suggesting that government officials need to improve the policies surrounding early voting and that the government should offer a vote-by-mail option to every voter in the United States in order to boost voting numbers during a pandemic.

The current pandemic is not the first major event to impede daily life, political elections, or government proceedings, and it certainly won’t be the last, but it is a long-term and uncertain interruption on familiarity in which newer and younger generations haven’t seen or experienced on a global scale. During previous election seasons, polling times and dates were adjustable in the occurrence of tumultuous events, local or global. Polling hours were extended in Tennesse when a tornado struck on the day of the state primary, and when the attacks on 9/11 occurred on New York’s primary election day, the election was postponed for two weeks.[2] The midterm elections during the Spanish Flu pandemic provides a closer experience to our COVID-19 pandemic as long-term and unknown global consequences caused by the deathly pandemics creates uncertainty across the world.

In 1918, many health and safety precautions that are similar to our current health and safety precautions were put in place. Many states and cities created quarantine procedures, with various levels of safe distancing standards, while many states put temporary bans and shutdowns on business and social gatherings, quite similar to the current quarantine procedures. Despite all the health and safety precautions that were in place in 1918, states lifted their state-wide ban on public gatherings to allow politicians to campaign for a few days leading up to the day the polls opened, where the lift of quarantine for the elections lead to a spike in Spanish Flu related infections and deaths. Regarding the relation between the lift of quarantine to encourage voting and flu-related deaths, Dr. Kristin Watkins expressed that “the political machine”[3] had disregarded the health and safety of their citizens.

With concerns of the impact of lifting quarantine for the purpose of voting, there are questions on how the procedures of the general election in November will run as the current election cycle continues. In an ideal world, our government would be able to utilize modern technologies to safely organize and conduct an election in which the health of citizens won’t be comprimised while they exercise their right to vote. Modernized transportation and postal systems, more advanced medical care, and even the internet, are 21st century advantages that should be taken advantage of during this election cycle to safely provide accessible elections, if only our government could figure out how to come together to do so.

Corasaniti, Nick and Stephanie Saul. “16 States Have Postponed Their Primaries Because of Coronavirus. Here’s a List.” The New York Times, April 17, 2020. https://www.nytimes.com/article/2020-campaign-primary-calendar-coronavirus.html

Searcey, Dionne. “The Lessons of the Election of 1918.” The New York Times, March 21, 2020. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/21/us/politics/1918-flu-pandemic-elections.html

Watkins, Kristin. “It Came Across the Plains: the 1918 Influenza Pandemic in Rural Nebraska.” PhD diss., University of Nebraska Medical Center, 2015.

---

[1] Nick Corasaniti and Stephanie Saul, “16 States Have Postponed Their Primaries Because of Coronavirus. Here’s a List,” The New York Times, April 17, 2020, https://www.nytimes.com/article/2020-campaign-primary-calendar-coronavirus.html.

[2] Dionne Searcey, “The Lessons of the Election of 1918,” The New York Times, March 21, 2020, https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/21/us/politics/1918-flu-pandemic-elections.html.

[3] Kristin Watkins, “It Came Across the Plains: the 1918 Influenza Pandemic in Rural Nebraska” (PhD diss., University of Nebraska Medical Center, 2015), 35.

By Karla Vega

At a time like this, with COVID-19 threatening the lives of everyone who lives in this country, the best thing that everyone can do to prevent further spread is to stay home. Now, some people may not be able to stay home, due to their jobs or other significant reasons. As 2020 is an election year, some may be wondering how they will be able to vote, if they are not allowed to leave their homes or be in a public area with multiple people. The answer is simple, vote from home! Mail in ballots are easy to fill out, and are just as valid as the ballots that you fill out in a polling place. As simple as voting by mail may be, the discussion about using the vote-by-mail system for the Presidential election, should the quarantine still be in effect, is less simple.

Recently, Democrats have been discussing plans to add new voting requirements to make voting safe during this time of social-distancing (Hulse). Having large groups of people crowding polling places is not something that can happen today, and it may not be something that is advised come November. Democrats want changes like extended early voting and nationwide vote-by-mail to be instituted so that all voters can cast their vote, without being stopped by the quarantine or other circumstances that may stop them from doing so (Hulse). The extended early voting would give voters 20 days to go into polling places, and the main hope for this proposed change is that the amount of people at polling places will remain at a minimum, thanks to the extended voting time (Hulse). Their insistence for the implementation of voting changes is best summed up by this quote from Senator Amy Klobuchar, “we can’t allow our democracy to go down the tubes because this administration did not prepare for this pandemic… We have to come up with the best practices and make sure that everyone can still vote” (Hulse).

Some states, like Colorado, Washington, and Oregon, already have voting by mail as their main voting method, and it has increased their voter turnout (Hulse). Those states, as well as Utah and Hawaii, have ballots sent to their registered voters without them having to request one, and in California, as well as Arizona, voters can register themselves onto a “permanent list of mail voters” (Epstein and Saul). Nebraska allows voting by mail in small counties of less than 10,000 people, and allows the local government to send mail in ballots to their registered voters, but does not allow that in areas with large populations (Epstein and Saul). Even before this pandemic, voting by mail has been an accessible way to vote for those unable to make it to polling places. For those who were perhaps too busy with work or family life to stop by a polling place to vote, or perhaps those who could not leave their homes, whether due to a disability, or because of a lack of transportation, vote-by-mail has been the only way for their votes to be counted. Despite the positive impact that vote-by-mail would have on the upcoming election, and how it could prevent the further spread of COVID-19, some Republicans are in opposition of it, the chief opposer being the Commander in Chief himself.

One of the qualms that Republicans have with instituting nationwide vote-by-mail is that voting has always been more of a state government ruled affair, rather than one ruled by the federal government. Roy Blunt, a Republican Senator and state elections official in Missouri, sees this move encouraged by Democrats as a “federal takeover of the election process itself”, and one that he could not support (Hulse). This fear is understandable, as many people want state powers to stay separate from federal powers, but in the case of a pandemic, I think that exceptions should be considered. An objection to the proposed changes that makes much less sense is, unsurprisingly, from none other than Trump. Trump has been falsely claiming that voting by mail will lead to vote fraud, and will work against Republican voters. He said, “mail ballots are very dangerous for this country because of cheaters. They go collect them. They are fraudulent in many cases… they should have voter ID, by the way” (Saul and Epstein). In reality however, this is not the case. There are very few cases of voting fraud, and voter turnout actually increases when vote-by-mail is used. Trump has also claimed that vote-by-mail will put Republicans at a disadvantage, which is also untrue. When referring back to Nebraska, the small counties that are allowed to give out mail-in ballots are largely Republican, whereas the largely populated areas that are not allowed to give out mail-in ballots are largely Democratic (Epstein and Saul). In any case, vote-by-mail has hardly favored one party over another. Trump has also admitted that “in March he voted absentee by mail in his home state of Florida” (Epstein and Saul); so his rejection of vote-by-mail does seem a bit strange, especially because he uses that system himself.

Although a nationwide movement to have everyone vote-by-mail is highly unlikely, I hope that should the quarantine (or something like it) still be happening come the day of the presidential election, that you all consider your safety, the safety of your families, the safety of your friends, and vote-by-mail.

Epstein, Reid J., and Stephanie Saul. “Does Vote-by-Mail Favor Democrats? No. It’s a False Argument by Trump.” New York Times, April 10, 2020. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/10/us/politics/vote-by-mail.html?searchResultPosition=10.

Hulse, Carl. “As Pandemic Imperils Elections, Democrats Clash with Trump on Voting Changes.” New York Times, April 8, 2020. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/08/us/politics/coronavirus-2020-presidential-election.html.

Saul, Stephanie, and Reid J. Epstein. “Trump is pushing a False Argument on Vote-by-Mail Fraud. Here Are the Facts.” New York Times, April 11, 2020. https://www.nytimes.com/article/mail-in-voting-explained.html?searchResultPosition=7.