POLITICALLY CORRECT
only humor column
Why Do You Hate Obama-care?
Take the Quiz and Find Out!
1. What kind of car do you drive?
A. Go-kart (1 point)
B. Ferrari (2 points)
C. Jeep (3 points)
D. Station wagon (4 Points)
E. Gah! Socialism! (5 points)
2. When do you go to the E.R.?
A. I just ‘nade myself and
respawn. (1 point)
B. The E.R. comes to me.
(2 points)
C. Never. All I need is my knife
and some gauze. (3 points)
D. For my weekly hip replace
ment. (4 points)
E. Gah! Death Panels! (5 points)
3. What would you consider a
nice dinner?
A. 3 a.m. Steak and Shake run. (1
point)
B. When the wine is over 200
years old. ( 2 points)
C. Venison roasted over a spit.
(3 points)
D. The 1 p.m. early bird special at
Morty’s Diner. (4 points)
E. Gah! Fascism! (5 points)
4. What’s your favorite TV
show?
A. The Colbert Report (1 point)
B. Vh1’s The Fabulous Life of Me
(2 points)
C. Survivorman (3 points)
3 Washington University Political Review
D. Andy Rooney on 60 Minutes
(4 points)
E. Gah! Liberal Media! (5 points)
5. What was the last book you
read?
A. Harry Potter (1 point)
B. Atlas Shrugged (2 points)
C. Charlton Heston’s autobiogra-
phy (3 points)
D. A History of Knitting (4 points)
E. Gah! Abortionism! (5 points)
6. What sport do you play?
A. Halo (1 point)
B. Polo played on the backs of the
poor (2 points)
C. Mountain Climbing (3 points)
D. Sitting… sometimes staring
(4 points)
E. Gah! Communism! (5 points)
7. How do you interact with your
Congressional Representative?
A. I have a what representative?
(1 point)
B. I bribe them. (2 points)
C. Federal wilderness areas don’t
have Congressmen. (3 points)
D. I send them a letter every day.
(4 points)
E. Gah! Burn the Witch! (5
points)
THE POLITICAL REVIEW’S
since1776
8. What does teabagging mean
to you?
A. One of the worst experiences of
my entire life. (1 point)
B. Part of a typical Friday night.
(2 points)
C. My tea comes from the wild.
(3 points)
D. Dipping a teabag in hot water?
(4 points)
E. Gah! Tax revolt! (5 points)
9. What is your greatest fear?
A. Getting kicked out of college.
(1 point)
B. The proletariat revolution.
(2 points)
C. Nothing scares me. (3 points)
D. Getting put in a home.
(4 points)
E. Gah! Barack Hussein Obama!
(5 points)
FOR SCORING
GUIDE SEE PAGE 34
Mike, WUPR’s Business Man-
ager, is a freshman in the Olin School
of Business. He enjoys long walks on
the beach and romance novels. Any
interested ladies should email him at
freindm@olin.wustl.edu.
 The Washington University

POLITICAL REVIEW

Contents
Winning the War in Afghanistan 6
Moving beyond Iraq analogies
Greg Allen

True Life: I was a Summer Intern 8

Adventures in Israel and Arkansas
Battling Egos Brittany Parker
Josh Truppman investigates
behind the scenes of Bill Political Review Movies 10
District 9
Clinton’s North Korea trip
Page 13 Battling Egos: 11
Behind the scenes of Bill Clinton’s North Korea trip
Joshua Truppman

Are Virginia and New Jersey Important? 14

A look at the 2009 gubernatorial elections
Max Hamilton

History in the Making: 16

Sonia Sotomayor on the Supreme Court
Michael Brodsky

Is Obama Getting Scared by the Scare Tactics? 18

The President stumbles on healthcare
Amy Plovnick

Are Virginia and New The Obama Rope-A-Dope 20

Jersey Important? How getting hit can help
Max Hamilton on the 2009 Jake Laperruque
gubernatorial elections
Page 16 Unconventional Wisdom 23
The healthcare debate
Max Bennett

4 Washington University Political Review

 NATIONAL
WASHINGTON
UNIVERSITY
POLITICAL REVIEW
EDITORS-IN-CHIEF
GREG ALLEN
JAKE LAPERRUQUE
DIRECTOR OF CONTENT
BRITTANY PARKER
STAFF EDITORS
MICHAEL BRODSKY
JOSH TRUPPMAN
NICK WILBAR
COPY EDITORS
JOHN MOYNIHAN
LAUREN WEISS
TREASURER
MARCUS WALTON
BUSINESS MANAGER
A Political Review Special Report on Healthcare MIKE FRIEND
Pages 18-23 LAYOUT EDITOR
ELIZABETH GERMACk
STAFF WRITERS
BRYAN BAIRD
MAX BENNETT
The Perils of Making Political Predictions 26
SPENCER BERRY
A call for greater accountability
Bryan Baird CHARLIE BITTNER-ROSSMILLER
MAX HAMILTON
My Summer with Planned Parenthood 28 AMY PLOVNICK
Commentary on the state of family planning COVER ILLUSTRATION
Lauren Weiss CARTER MALOUF

Politically Incorrect 30 THE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY POLITICAL

Read Between the Lines REVIEW IS COMMITTED TO ENCOURAGING
Mike Friend AND FOSTERING AWARENESS OF POLITICAL
ISSUES ON THE CAMPUS OF WASHINGTON
UNIVERSITY IN ST. LOUIS. TO DO
Politically Incorrect 31 THIS, WE SHALL REMAIN DEDICATED TO
Mark Sanford travel agency PROVIDING FRIENDLY AND OPEN AVENUES
Greg Allen and Jake Laperruque OF DISCUSSION AND DEBATE BOTH WRITTEN
AND ORAL ON THE CAMPUS FOR ANY AND
ALL POLITICAL IDEAS, REGARDLESS OF THE
Transcripts from the Jeff Smith Wiretaps 32
LEANINGS OF THOSE IDEAS.

Letter from the Editor 37 SUBMISSIONS

EDITOR@WUPR.ORG

Samurai Sudoku 38

Washington University Political Review 5

 Why American Can Still
Win in Afghanistan

W
hen Barack Obama first took office, he worked tirelessly to convince
the American people that “Afghanistan is the new Iraq.” Obama
argued that the surge’s success in Iraq could and would also work
for Afghanistan. Only months into his administration, foreign policy circles had
instead adopted a different refrain: “Afghanistan is the same old Afghanistan.” Is
this really the case? Could Afghanistan live up to its reputation as the “graveyard
of empires” against the United States? Sadly, the answer is yes. Failure is indeed an
option in Afghanistan. But, it’s one our country must do everything to avoid. For-
tunately, there are two very simple reasons to believe it can. Everyday Afghan life
is improving, and despite setbacks, the United States is still doing infinitely better
than Afghanistan’s last invader, the Soviet Union. By Greg Allen
6 Washington University Political Review
 L
et’s be frank: Afghanistan’s aforementioned nickname
is well-deserved. For thousands of years the region has
been trivially easy to conquer and impossibly hard to
hold on to. Not the British Empire, not the Soviet Union, not
even Alexander the Great could govern the land that currently
constitutes Afghanistan. For a time the Taliban ostensibly “gov-
erned” the country, but in truth their control was only possible
because they had no interest in even the most basic aspects of
governance, save the enforcement of their brutal, fundamental-
ist religious laws.
Thankfully, the bulk of Afghanistan’s history does not in
this case represent any sort of inevitable outcome. The United
States has already made far more progress and experienced
many more successes than any other foreign power in Af-
ghanistan. Much of this can be traced back to the fundamental
truth that the United States—unlike Alexander, the British and
the Soviet Union—does not view Afghanistan with imperial
eyes. True, the United States harbored some obvious blood-
“Hamid Karzi’s, government may be woefully corrupt, but being ruled by
the corrupt sure beats being ruled by the psychopathic.”
lust after September 11, but such feelings do not explain the
dramatic improvements in daily life that the vast majority of
Afghans have experienced since the war began. Take, for ex-
ample, the fact that the Afghan economy grew by 7.5% in 2008,
a year that pretty much everywhere else was an economic
disaster.
Other, less obvious measures also point to how much bet-
ter off Afghans are since America toppled the Taliban. Under
the Taliban, Afghanistan had no telephone system whatsoever.
Today, one in six Afghans has a cellular telephone. There are
now even television stations in Afghanistan, many of which
produce programs of surprisingly high production value. In
fact, one could plausibly say that Afghanistan has changed
more in the past decade than in the previous century. The
vast majority of this change is for the better. Though seri-
ous, pressing problems remain in Afghanistan, the simple fact
is that having a large swath of the country controlled by the
Taliban and drug lords remains infinitely superior to having
all of it controlled by them. Hamid Karzi’s government may
be woefully corrupt, but being ruled by the corrupt sure beats
being ruled by the psychopathic.
As of August 10, 2009, only 699 American soldiers have
died in Afghanistan. Compare that with the over 14,000 killed
and over 50,000 wounded Soviet soldiers during their war in
Afghanistan. Besides that, hundreds of thousands of Soviet
combat soldiers fell prey to serious diseases such as hepatitis
while they were in Afghanistan. It’s obvious that the American
military is absorbing far, far less of the punishment that forced
the Soviets to flee Afghanistan. Indeed, casualties only tell part
of the story. The Soviet war in Afghanistan is famous for the
Mujahideen’s use of Stinger missiles to bring down Soviet Hind
helicopters. The fame is well deserved. The helicopters cost
over $20 million each, and the Mujahideen managed to destroy
over 300 of them, along with nearly 150 Soviet tanks. In short,
the American operation is costing nowhere near the amount
of blood or treasure wasted by the Soviets. Moreover America
in 2009 is far richer and more powerful than the Soviets were
even at their peak.
But, the losses on the American side tell only one part of
the story. The war also significantly differs from the Soviet
one in terms of costs to the Afghan population. The Soviets
killed outright over 1 million Afghans and maimed another 3
million. In a country of only 30 million people, such havoc is
nearly unfathomable, but the Soviet military took grotesque
pleasure in such devastation. In sharp distinction, U.S. Secre-
tary of Defense Robert Gates recently conducted an interview
with Al Jazeera in which he expressed remorse for a recent
NATO air strike that had regrettably resulted in scores of Af-
ghan deaths. The incident sparked outrage and rightly so, but
Afghans know the difference between NATO’s stupid mistakes
and the Soviet’s countless massacres. The former sparked
vigorous protests. The latter caused every man and boy in the
country to take up arms.
All this isn’t to say that the state of the war in Afghanistan
isn’t cause for serious concern. As I stated before, if managed
improperly, this war really could result in failure. However, I
do not believe that will be the case. Too many Afghans have
become accustomed to life apart from the Taliban’s madness
for the latter to ever regain total control of the country. While
conscious of the enormous problems facing their country, Af-
ghans also recognize that America has done their country far
more good than harm, certainly more good than any previous
invader. This sustainable advantage, combined with America’s
powerful and adaptable military, means that the current quag-
mire need not end in catastrophe. The United States can yet
succeed in Afghanistan.
Greg, the Political Review editor in chief, is a senior majoring in
Political Science. His email is gcallen@wustl.edu.
Washington University Political Review 7

By Brittany Parker
C
ollege amounts to one anecdotal story after another.
Personally, mishaps and milestones alike have given
me a lifetime’s worth of stories to share. This past
June, I was finishing up one such occasion. For six months
I lived, worked and researched in Jerusalem as a student at
Hebrew University while experiencing an incredible range of
cultural diversity and experience—and learning to go without
cheeseburgers. My six months could have easily been eight if not
for my family’s not so subtle hints that delaying coming home
for the summer would result in my personal misfortune. Leav-
ing my life in Israel was difficult, particularly since I had little to
no idea what I would do for the next two months. Most of the
internships I thought would be a good fit had either started too
early for me to participate or were unpaid, so I went into June
without a job or internship in sight.
For the more industrious of our peers, the internship-find-
ing process begins first semester amid feverish resume re-writes
and interview practice sessions. For others, around mid-April
the realization that they’re about to have a lot of free time on
their hands settles in. (I’m usually of the latter). From the doe-
8 Washington University Political Review
I was a TRUE
Summer Intern
LIFE
eyed idealist to the overbearing resume builder, the summer intern-
ship is a staple college experience. And while it’s mildly glorious to be
on your own for a summer (or at least getting compensated for shack-
ing up with Mom and Dad), nothing compares to having a job that
amounts to much more than remembering the non-fat milk in your
boss’s latte. Whether you’re 21 or 41, getting paid to do something you
truly love is a reality for the fortunate few, and this past summer the
opportunity just happen to fall into my lap in the most unexpected of
locations: my hometown of Little Rock, Arkansas.
For an International Studies major with an emphasis on the
Middle East, Little Rock does not have a wealth of opportunity for
career development. While in Israel, I had researched the implica-
tions of identity in Arab participation in Israeli soccer organizations.
Towards the end of my stay, I became involved with the Shimon Peres
Center For Peace’s “Twinned” Sports Schools. The program organizes
young Israeli Jews and Arabs ages 8-13 into informal soccer or basket-
ball academies in which athletic and educational curriculum are taught
by community leaders and program staff of various backgrounds. The
emphasis on micro-communities and enculturation through sport
fascinated me, but since I was already strapped with my own research
and work obligations, my time at the center was
unfortunately limited. However, it did give me
an idea of whom to call once I returned home.
The Arkansas State Soccer Association is a
small operation (there are individual clubs in
North Texas with bigger staffs), but the core
group of staff is very involved throughout the
state. Having played soccer in Arkansas for
fifteen years at various levels, I had several
contacts within the ASSA, and as soon as I had
slept off most of my jet lag, I gave one of them a
call. Gayle Smith, the director of ASSA, seemed
excited to bring me aboard, although whether
this was on account of my familiarity with the
state association or the prospect of cheap labor I
have no idea. I suspect the latter, for on my first
day on the job I found myself sitting patiently
across from Gayle as she shuffled through some
notes on her desk.
 “So,” she began. “What is it exactly that you want to do here?”
“Well,” I began, “I want to lay down a strategy to expand youth
recreational programs at the middle school level along the rural
western corridor of the state, particularly among the Hispanic
communities.”
“Oh,” she replied, after a few moments of silence. “Well, that’s
certainly better than answering phones.”
So began my six-week-long experience with the ASSA. To say
that my position was flexible is like saying the Cubs are going to fall
apart by September—it’s obvious to everyone. It helped that I had
a very specific goal in mind as well. My friends and family were a
bit confused at first, but for me the correlation to my research on
identity and sport in the Palestinian community and the situation
of the Hispanic community seemed clear. They were both regarded
as “marginal communities” within a broader social network, which
inevitably leads to cultural friction as two disparate bodies collude.
The idea of sport being an enclave of assimilation in which identity
and cultural stability is maintained but subverted by an emerging
micro-community, in this case a soccer organization, had not only
given me agency in my research, but now in my job.
I had my work cut out. Arkansas players who want top expo-
sure usually commute to Texas or Oklahoma every other weekend
for training in addition to daily workouts with the local clubs. At
the very least, competitive teams shell out exorbitant sums to travel
to showcases and premier league games all over the county—at
least until enough of the players realize high school is more divert-
ing than long hours in the car. The end result, however, is a fairly
homogenous group of white, middle-to upper-class kids continu-
ing past grade school.
As I mentioned before, ASSA is a small operation. There isn’t a
lot of money for grants or any consistent means of soliciting fund-
ing, so pumping capital into the problem was out of the question—
which is unfortunate since you’d be hard pressed to find another
group as passionate and dedicated to the sport as the Hispanic
community. Anyone who’s ever traveled to play in that part of the
state has encountered a weekend jamboree made up of a loose
tournament of seven v. seven, live music, Mexican-style bbq and
a whole lot of yelling. The main participants, however, are usually
men in their late 20s to mid 40s. The kids may play in leagues when
they’re younger, but financial constraints and familial obligations
deter many from reaching the higher levels. What needed to be
addressed was the lack of a middle ground. Travel teams may still
be a ways off, but there was no reason why recreational leagues
could not help fill the gap.
According to the most recent survey by the Arkansas Depart-
ment of the Labor, the state boasts the second fastest growing His-
panic community in the United States, at 337% growth since 2000.
Northwest Arkansas, a traditional “white flight” area of the state, is
home to roughly 50% of the Hispanic population. The burgeoning
poultry industry, in addition to the success of corporations such
as Wal-Mart Inc., increased the demand for skilled and unskilled
labor alike. This enables large communities of Hispanic immigrants
to develop and sustain themselves apart from white suburbia, as
assimilation seems undesirable to both parties.
I realized very quickly attempting to arrange things with face-
less people through phone or email would be a slow, ineffective
process to start a genuine dialogue on infrastructural development
for soccer programs. So I got creative. I sought out leaders and
members of various Hispanic groups, both social and advocate,
for feedback. I asked questions about the specific social and eco-
nomic dynamics of each community and for local contacts who
might be of use. I made a fool out of myself trying to salsa at a
“Whether you’re 21 or 41,
getting paid to do something
you truly love is a reality for
the fortunate few”
community potluck with a 76-year-old man who played profes-
sionally in Mexico and despite two hip replacements still moved
more gracefully than I did. The more questions I asked the more
the bigger picture came into place, and—inevitably—the more I
wanted to throw things. I could work for ASSA the next decade of
my life like a rookie investment banker and still have so much left
to accomplish.
At the beginning of August, a substantial amount of ground-
work had been laid for ASSA and various community centers to
start mini-coaching seminars and clinics for the fall season. The
semester was fast approaching, and after so long away from Wash
U I was eager to get back. If this summer has taught me anything,
however, it’s that location is merely a detail—what matters is what
you make of the experience.
Brittany, the Political Review’s director of content, is a senior major-
ing in International and Area Studies with a minor in Arabic. Her email
is bnparker@wustl.edu.
Washington University Political Review 9
 POLITICAL
REVIEW
MOVIE
REVIEW:
DISTRICT 9
B
ad science fiction obsesses over its fictional world,
Still in documentary style, the film shifts focus to Wikus
how their fake phasers and star engines and warp
van de Merwe, a human employee of the alien regulatory
beams work. Good science fiction uses its fictional
agency MNU. Wikus is assigned to oversee the forced evic-
world to tell us something about the real world. When it
tion of District 9 so that the despised aliens can be relocated
comes to the real world, District 9 has a lot to say.
to an concentration camp called District 10. Played with
The film is set in a near future South Africa where
skill by Sharlto Copley, Wikus is immediately unlikable
a broken down alien mother-ship has filled Johannesburg
annoyingly around his coworkers and racist (or perhaps
with crustacean-like creatures demeaningly referred to as
specist is the better word) towards the District 9 residents.
“Prawns.” District 9 is unlike any other alien movie, or any
Given his nature, we’re not too sad to see Wikus get sprayed
other science fiction movie, for that
with an alien substance that causes
matter, and one of the first ways it
him to slowly turn into one of the
shows this is in its portrayal of the
extraterrestrials. Thereafter, his
extraterrestrials. The film avoids
life begins to molt away as fast as
the trap that so many sci-fi movies
the skin above his new alien claws.
fall into, making every alien exactly
Wikus shifts from an anti-hero into
the same, either all sinister or all
a genuine protagonist, and in the
benevolent or all brilliant or all
process, he becomes someone you
savage. Instead, District 9 portrays
can’t help but root for. The audi-
a group of aliens that seem to be
ence’s transforming view of the
every bit as diverse and interesting
film’s main character is especially
as humanity is. In doing so, the
powerful as it parallels Wikus’s
aliens are not only easier to believe,
changing opinion of the aliens throughout the film.
they are easier to relate to.
A huge amount of credit for the movie’s success should
The film is told in documentary style with amazing effec-
be given to writer/director Neil Blomkamp. The twenty-
tiveness. The first thirty minutes might be the best of any sci-
nine year old has created a film that is entertaining and
ence fiction movie ever made. The screen bombards us with
powerful; it is a fantastic directorial debut and hopefully
the social, economic, and political impact of aliens arriving
the beginning of a brilliant career. The South-African born
as a new minority group in Johannesburg in a manner that
Blomkamp has taken the issue of apartheid and racism as
seems unsettlingly real. After establishing the background
a whole and put through a narrative that is both ironic and
of how the Prawns ended up stuck in South Africa and
touching: we are only able to discover our humanity once
contained to their titular crime and poverty ridden slum the
we have lost it.
story takes a more personal turn.

10 Washington University Political Review

A BAT T L E
OF EGOS

BEHIND THE SCENES OF

BILL CLINTON’S TRIP
TO NORTH KOREA

BY JOSH TRUPPMAN

L
ast month former President Bill Clinton directed a secretive trip to North
Korea to free two jailed American journalists, Laura Ling and Euna Lee.
The only diplomat accompanying Clinton was John Podesta, an informal
advisor to President Obama and Clinton’s former chief of staff. Despite the elusive
statements coming from the White House, it was clear that the administration had
orchestrated this exchange in conjunction with Al Gore, Bill Clinton, and the State
Department (conveniently headed by Hillary Clinton).
Washington University Political Review 11
 N
ow that the mission has
been successfully com-
pleted, we can start to glean
the motives of the Obama administra-
tion and the North Korean govern-
ment. Why would President Obama
take the calculated risk of working
with the North Korean government
to free these journalists? Why would
Kim Jong Il be interested in this com-
promise? And why was it done via Bill
Clinton? Don’t Obama and Bill hate
each other?
The present day relationship
between former President Clinton and
President Obama is intriguing to say
the least. During Obama’s presidential
campaign they seemed to detest each
other, hurling political attacks back
and forth. Bill Clinton called Obama’s
stance on Iraq “a fairy tale” and warned
that an Obama presidency would be
high stakes gambling and a “roll of the
dice.” Obama responded that former
President Clinton was presenting
“statements that are not factually accurate,” an action more the Obama administration. Mr. Clinton’s work has involved
commonly known as lying. taking funds from foreign officials with political aspirations.
Then, Obama won the Democratic primary and the Clin- Mediating this conflict of interest was seen by many analysts
ton family was urged to participate in the general campaign to be a vital component of the talks behind nominating Hil-
against John McCain. Obama invited both Hillary and Bill lary Clinton.
to engage in carefully orchestrated campaign appearances. Nevertheless, the Obama administration realized
All of a sudden the Clinton family was campaigning for its the potential benefit of having former President Clinton
previous nemesis. involved in foreign policy. As the same New York Times
The dynamics of this relationship fascinated the Ameri- article explained, “Obama advisers also said that Mr. Clin-
can public. After all, Obama came out of nowhere to overtake ton would bring enormous assets as a popular figure around
one of the most influential political families in American his- the world who would effectively serve as an unpaid ambas-
tory, only to turn around and invite them into his campaign. sador for Obama policies.” This is exactly what happened in
Of course, this was an entirely political decision: the Obama the case of the North Korea incident. President Obama was
campaign needed Hillary Clinton’s constituency to ultimately able to dispatch former President Clinton as an unpaid and
defeat McCain. unofficial ambassador of the United States, thereby relieving
What came next was a surprise to many. President the U.S. Government of any political accountability for the
Obama nominated Hillary Clinton to be Secretary of State, exchange while offering Kim Jong Il the incentive of a highly
and she accepted the position. Hillary Clinton became publicized event to boost his international credibility.
part of the Obama administration, and, by extension, Bill This exchange was a win-win situation for all parties
Clinton became an enigmatic influence inside the Obama involved. To understand why, let’s look at the motives behind
administration. A New York Times articled dated Nov. 16th, each party’s actions and the benefits reaped from this event.
2008, claimed that “Mr. Clinton [was] apparently the most
important stumbling block” to Hillary Clinton’s nomination United States:
as Secretary of State. His relief work throughout the world, The Obama administration is anxious to depart from
although commendable, presented logistical problems for the Bush era of foreign policy. A cornerstone of President

12 Washington University Political Review

Obama’s campaign was to engage hostile nations such as
North Korea and Iran through diplomatic avenues. This is
similarly a goal of Secretary Clinton’s foreign policy. How-
ever, Obama has been unable to focus on controversial for-
eign policy in the midst of our current economic crisis and
the healthcare debate. He is fervently working to consolidate
support for healthcare reform and cannot waste political
capital on bettering diplomatic relations with North Korea.
In other words, he needed a way to open dialogue with Kim
Jong Il that would generate minimal if any opposition from
Republicans. Orchestrating the exchange of American pris-
oners abroad via a third party was precisely the risk-free
avenue that the Obama administration needed.
There is another motive behind the Obama adminis-
tration’s tactic—to get a better sense of the political climate
“Regardless of whether or not this leads to better
diplomatic relations between these two nations, Kim Jong Il
can claim that he made an overture to the U.S.”
within North Korea. By sending a former president along
with John Podesta, an experienced politician and trusted
advisor, the Obama administration set itself up to garner
extensive and insightful information regarding Kim Jong Il’s
health, the depth of political dissent within North Korea and
North Korea’s attitude towards diplomacy with the United
States. Of course, we shouldn’t overstate the significance of
this intelligence. Just as the United States envoy’s entire mis-
sion was carefully orchestrated, so too were the North Kore-
ans’ actions. Kim Jong Il is cognizant of his audience and
was careful to send only the signals that he wanted President
Obama to receive.
North Korea:
Kim Jong Il’s control over North Korea has been in
question throughout the international community. Reports
have circulated that his health has deteriorated and factions
are beginning to emerge within his government. All of this
is happening in the midst of concerns regarding the North
Korean economy. An article in Reuters on August 22, 2009,
explains that the North Korean economy has “suffered a
loss of aid from the South—roughly equal to 5 percent of…
GDP—caused by political wrangling and new U.N. sanc-
tions.” On top of all of this, the country is experiencing eco-
nomic downturn as a result of the global crisis.
Kim Jong Il needed to increase his international cred-
ibility as well as demonstrate to the international commu-
nity that his leadership remained robust. Having a former
U.S. President come to North Korea to negotiate—even on
a minor scale—helped Kim Jong Il to reassert control over
North Korea. Donald Gross, a former counselor of the U.S.
Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, told Foreign Policy
that “they have been insisting for a long time on a high-level
[envoy as] it gives them a lot of face and ... prestige. It dem-
onstrates a high-level commitment by the U.S. of working
with North Korea.” Kim Jong Il will use the envoy to affirm
that North Korea is a powerful and significant force in the
region.
In addition, Kim Jong Il will use the negotiations as proof
of North Korea’s willingness to compromise with the United
States. Regardless of whether or not this leads to better dip-
lomatic relations between these two nations, Kim Jong Il can
claim that he made an overture to the U.S., demonstrating his
willingness to negotiate. This puts the ball back in Obama’s
court. Kim Jong Il can now argue that he opened the door
for increased communication with the United States, and it
is now the United States’ responsibility to reciprocate. In this
way, Kim Jong Il crafted this exchange to his advantage at the
cost of the Obama administration.
The Obama administration finds itself in a delicate situ-
ation. Should they use these negotiations as a starting point
for diplomatic relations? Doing so could play right into Kim
Jong Il’s hands. After all, he orchestrated the release of the
journalists to better position himself politically. Nevertheless,
both President Obama and Secretary Clinton have expressed
speaking to hostile nations as a vital component of national
security; the Obama administration wants to diplomatically
engage with North Korea to depart from the Bush era of for-
eign policy and fulfill his campaign promise to speak with
hostile leaders, ultimately hoping to disarm the country and
protect the American people.
And so the game of poker begins. The egos of two leaders
collide as Obama and Kim Jong Il vie for national security.
Josh, a staff editor for the Political Review, is a junior
majoring in Latin American Studies and Spanish. His email is
jtruppman@wustl.edu.
Washington University Political Review 13
 Given that only
these two of the fifty
gubernatorial seats
are up for grabs on
Nov. 3 of this year, it
seems peculiar that so
much public awareness
is focused on these
elections. Political
pundits, however, are
quick to point out that
these races provide a
unique opportunity to
gaze into the crystal
ball of public opinion.
New Jersey and Vir-
ginia were both carried
by Obama in the 2008
election, yet now the
governorship in each
state appears to be on
the verge of tipping
to the Republicans. In
New Jersey, Democrats
have solidly held the
governor’s office since
2001; the latest Ras-
mussen poll numbers
show Corzine down by
8 percentage points to
Christie. In Virginia,
popular Democratic
governors such as Mark

The Gubernatorial Elections:

Warner and Tim Kaine
have held the gover-
norship for the past

Partisan Showdown
two terms, yet Deeds
is also down a similar
8 percentage points in
the latest Rasmussen
By Max Hamilton poll. The reason for

A
s the Obama admin-
istration struggles to
get a stalling health
care agenda back on
track in Congress, national attention
has turned to two fascinating electoral
campaigns playing out on the East
Coast. In the Virginia gubernatorial
race to replace Democrat Tim Kaine,
Democratic state senator Creigh Deeds
is running against former Republican
attorney general Bob McDonnell. In
New Jersey, former Republican federal
prosecutor Chris Christie has emerged
to challenge Democratic incumbent
Jon Corzine.
these shifts towards
the right is growing public dis-
satisfaction with President Obama and
the Democratic-controlled Congress.
Political experts view these gubernato-
rial elections in two of the more popu-
lous, prosperous states as a referendum
on current Democratic policies. “The
outcome of Virginia’s race for governor

14 Washington University Political Review

may depend on one overriding factor: President Obama’s to the Bush campaign
approval rating” predicts an article by Fox News published on and granting no-bid con-
Aug. 6. Several prominent Republicans have also been quick tracts to political allies.
to point out that the 1993 New Jersey and Virginia elections With the election only a
were indicators of bigger wins to come in 1994, when Repub- couple of months away,
licans took over Congress in the “Republican Revolution.” the mudslinging is just
With all the talk of national influence on these two elec- getting worse. The other
tions, the experts have been quick to write off several local key factor in the election,
causes of the latest poll numbers. Although Virginia and the current recession, is
New Jersey are both well populated and are pivotal swing not doing Corzine any
states in national elections, their leaders are caught in very favors. Whether the local
different political situations. economy and unemploy-
In Virginia, Democrat Creigh Deeds has faced a large ment situation improve will play a much greater role than
uphill battle from the very beginning of the campaign. His Obama in the upcoming weeks. If the current economic
challenger in the state primary was former Democratic climate changes for the better, Corzine will be able to
National Committee Chairman Terry McAuliffe, a close credit the upswing to his leadership, and the election will
friend of the Clintons with an enormous fundraising base. become more competitive. If not, the result for Corzine
Even after coming from behind to win against McAuliffe, is a double-edged sword: not only will he be burdened
Deeds has had very big shoes to fill. As a senator from rural with backlash against failed economic policies, he will
Virginia, Deeds must boast his moderate credentials much in also be targeted for not doing enough to stop the com-
the same way popular former governors Mark Warner and Tim monplace corruption in New Jersey.
Kaine have, while at the same time embracing the fundrais- Both the New Jersey and Virginia elections feature
ing base of the grow- area-specific issues
ing and much more and politicians.
liberal D.C. suburbs “These races provide a unique opportunity to As such, it is hard
in northern Virginia. gaze into the crystal ball of public opinion.” to judge exactly
Attorney General Bob what impact
McDonnell benefits President Obama
from already having won an extremely close election for his will have on these races. Perhaps his presence on the
current office against Deeds in 2005, and he is now cham- national stage will enhance Democratic voter turnout, or
pioning his support for small business with much success. perhaps Republicans enraged at Democratic policies will
Obama will influence this election in two ways: Deeds will turn out in large numbers against the Democrats. What-
need those Obama voters who came out last year in northern ever the case, perhaps the most important component
Virginia to turn out in similar numbers, and McDonnell will of these elections will not be the final outcome, but how
need to convert moderates who have previously supported these outcomes are interpreted: Republican victories will
Democrats in the state by channeling their disenchantment be called referendums against Democratic policies and
with national policy towards Deeds. will perhaps push the momentum of Republican can-
In New Jersey, the rampant corruption throughout didates hoping to get an edge in Congress in 2010.
the previous term of Governor John Corzine has cre- As a result, the Democratic White House could be
ated most of the problems he faces in his current bid influenced to change their strong agenda to some-
for reelection. Despite having a Democratic base that thing much milder; they clearly have a vested inter-
far outnumbers registered Republicans and the fact that est in keeping these elections competitive. The New
no Republican has won a statewide office since 1997, Corzine Jersey and Virginia elections are indeed important and
is still behind in the polls. His campaign, and the New Jersey will surely provide an interesting set of events up until
Democratic Party in general, have been plagued by breaches Nov. 3
of public trust: last month 44 politicians throughout New
Jersey were charged in a bribery sting. As a former federal
prosecutor, Christie has claimed to be an outsider to New Max, a Political Review Staff Writer, is a sophomore majoring
Jersey corruption who can usher in a new era, but Corzine in Political Science and International and Area Studies. His email is
has run several ads attacking Christie for his contributions mehamilt@artsci.wustl.edu.
Washington University Political Review 15

Sonia Sotomayor:
History in the Making
W
hen Barack Obama announced
his first Supreme Court nomi-
nation, few Americans were
taken by surprise. After all,
Sonia Sotomayor embodied both economic and
ethnic diversity; she was raised on the lowest rung
of the socio-economic hierarchy and is the daugh-
ter of Hispanic immigrants. As Sotomayor’s inspir-
ing story quickly rose to the forefront of every
public forum, readers and viewers across the coun-
try wanted a glimpse into the mind of this newly
minted heroine. They wanted to determine whether
she was in fact qualified for this influential role and
to distinguish her proven voting record from her
media persona.
By Michael Brodsky
Born to a working class family in New York City, Soto-
mayor’s childhood was anything but easy. While her father
worked long hours in a tool and die factory, her mother
worked as a telephone operator and later a nurse. Only a few
years after they moved out of their South Bronx tenement,
16 Washington University Political Review
Sotomayor was diagnosed with Type 1 diabetes at the age of
eight. This news was compounded when barely a year later
Sotomayor’s father died of heart failure, leaving her mother
as the sole breadwinner for the family.
Although too young to be employed legally, Sotomayor
found work at both a local retail store and a hospital. This
extra responsibility, however, did not impede her academic
undertakings. Indeed, Sotomayor passed the entrance exam
to the demanding Bronx parochial school, Cardinal Spellman
High. Although her neighborhood increasingly fell victim to
gang violence, Sotomayor’s intellect continued to grow, and
she eventually graduated as valedictorian. She then attended
Princeton University on a full academic scholarship. There
she became an activist, playing a chief role in the expan-
sion of their curriculum to include Hispanic culture and
the hiring of Latino faculty. Sotomayor wrote pieces for The
Daily Princetonian and spent much of her time volunteering
at after-school programs with local children.
After graduating in 1976 with a history major and as
valedictorian of her Princeton class, Sotomayor furthered
her studies on a scholarship to Yale Law School. She was
known among her peers as a particularly devoted worker and
was consequently elected an editor of the Yale Law Review.
Upon graduation, she became an Assistant District Attor-
ney in New York despite the poor pay and long hours. Her
jurisdiction covered everything from shoplifting and pros-
titution to more serious felonies like murder, and although
some questioned her liberal upbringing, she was quick to
respond, “No matter how liberal I am, I’m still outraged by
crimes of violence. Regardless of whether I can sympathize
with the causes that lead these individual to do these crimes,
the effects are outrageous.”
After her brief stint in private practice, Senator Daniel
Moynihan of New York recommended Sotomayor for a Fed-
eral District Court Judgeship. Seen as a political centrist,
Republican President George H.W. Bush nominated her for
the seat. After serving in this capacity for six years, Presi-
dent Bill Clinton decided to nominate Sotomayor for an even
more prestigious seat, this time on the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit. It was during her ten-year tenure on
the Court of Appeals that many of her most noteworthy cases
were tried.
As soon as the news broke announcing Sotomayor’s
Supreme Court nomination, concerns about her position
on abortion loomed high on both sides of the political aisle.
Conservatives speculated that her background and exposure
to liberal New York culture was a certain indicator that she
supported abortion rights. Meanwhile, liberals worried that
her Catholic upbringing might have biased her against abor-
tion. So, which is it? In one high-profile 2002 case, Sotomayor
upheld President Bush’s so-called “Mexico City Policy.” In sympathetic than any of her new colleagues’, with numer-
effect, she affirmed his executive decision to prohibit the U.S. ous occasions evincing harsh punishment and inflexibility
government from supporting foreign “nongovernmental toward individuals of minority background.
organizations that perform or actively promote abortion.” When comparing Sotomayor’s credentials to other
However, as the circumstances of this case were quite unique Supreme Court Justices, her list of accomplishments stands
and because she has actually ruled on a small number of out. Whereas Justice Clarence Thomas served on the Circuit
abortion cases, analysts have Court of Appeals for only a
yet to conclude what stance single year before his appoint-
Sotomayor will ultimately take ment, Sotomayor served for
on abortion. six years as a federal judge and
Although her experience more than ten years as an appel-
with abortion cases might be late court judge. In addition,
few and far between, Soto- while Thomas only received
mayor has ruled on numerous mediocre ratings from the
important First Amendment American Bar Association, they
cases. In Pappas v. Giuliani she unanimously decided to award
decreed that it was illegal for her a “well qualified” appraisal,
the New York Police Depart- their most prestigious grade.
ment to dismiss an employee Moreover, the American Bar
for sending racist documents Association Journal found that
through the mail. Sotomayor her decisions were reflective of
asserted that because said a political centrist.
action occurred while he was Although initial conser-
“away from the office on his “Although initial conservative opposition led vative opposition led to much
own time,” the First Amend- uncertainty, Sotomayor’s
to much uncertainty, Sotomayor’s Judiciary
ment protected his right to Judiciary Committee hear-
speech. It did not matter that
Committee hearing passed by quite smoothly.” ing passed by quite smoothly.
his language was “offensive, Keeping recent tradition alive,
hateful and insulting.” In however, she abstained from
another instance, Sotomayor decided that the news media stating personal opinions and taking sides on controversial
should not be restricted from publishing the names of the issues, much to many senators’ dismay. Nevertheless, when
jurors for a particular trial. While writing the opinion the United States Senate met on Aug. 6 to decide Soto-
for United States v. Quattrone she argued that the press mayor’s appointment, the body confirmed her with
must be allowed “to report freely on events that tran- a relatively comfortable 68 votes. Nearly a quarter of
spire in an open courtroom.” Republican members voted to confirm her, as well as
Sotomayor’s most controversial ruling was in the every independent and registered Democrat. As CNN
case of Ricci v. DeStefano. In this instance, she con- legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin says, “We’ll see how liberal
cluded that the City of New Haven, Connecticut, law- she is. I don’t think anyone can know for sure. She prob-
fully discarded its proficiency test for firefighters and started ably doesn’t even know at this point.” But what we can say for
over with a new examination. The city believed that the test certain is that Sonia Sotomayor is undoubtedly qualified to
had an unfair bias against minority firefighters. In part, they become the next Associate Justice of the Supreme Court.
argued that no African-American firefighters qualified for
promotion under this test, whereas some had qualified under
tests used in previous years. Eventually, however, the case
reached the Supreme Court, where the decision was reversed
in a tight 5-4 vote. This controversial ruling, coupled with
Sotomayor’s contentious remarks during an address at the
University of California, Berkeley, has alarmed some of her
critics. Nevertheless, with all things considered, Sotomay- Michael, a Political Review Staff Editor, is a sophomore
or’s legal attitude toward minorities does not appear more majoring in History. His email is michaelbrodsky@wustl.edu.
Washington University Political Review 17
 Is
Obama is allowing the scare tactics to work, not just on the Ameri-
can people, but also on himself.
The Democrats’ healthcare reform proposal centers on a public

Obama
insurance option that would compete with privately operated insur-
ance companies, an individual mandate for health insurance and
a prohibition on denying coverage due to any pre-existing medi-

Getting
cal conditions. However, many of the criticisms and scare tactics
employed by Republicans and other opponents have focused on
small, inconsequential parts of the plan instead of on its main com-

Scared
ponents. For example, Sarah Palin, among other
critics, warned the public about the dangers of govern-
ment run “death panels,” saying, “The America I

by the
know and love is not one in which my parents or my
baby with Down syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama’s
‘death panel’ so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective

Scare
judgment of their ‘level of productivity in society,’ whether they are
worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil.” (She first
voiced her concerns on Facebook of all places.) However, the truth

Tactics?
is that health reform plans call for increasing access to end-of life
planning and care with physicians, an option that many families
desire. In addition, this provision covers a mere ten pages out of a
more than 1,000 page bill, far from the major government scheme
to eliminate healthcare for the elderly that Palin has implied it is.
Further criticisms implicitly attack the current healthcare
system while attempting to condemn the reform plan. Complaints
about “government bureaucrats,” such as those voiced in the Con-
servatives for Patients Rights ad, seemingly fail to consider that
today those Americans who are lucky enough to have health insur-
By Amy Plovnick
ance already deal with insurance company bureaucrats who deny

I
f Congress passes a government run health plan,” says a con-
cerned-sounding female voiceover, “you could have govern-
ment bureaucrats getting between you and your doctor.” On
cue, in between a woman and her white-haired, friendly looking
doctor appears a “government bureaucrat.” a geeky young man in
glasses and a bowtie. He looks at the clipboard he is carrying and
shakes his head as the innocent patient looks on in horror.
Such is the scene depicted in an advertisement paid for by
Conservatives for Patients Rights, one of a number of groups intent
on destroying the Democrats’ healthcare reform plan. Health care
reform’s critics have warned about a wide range of catastrophes
that will result from Obama’s plan, such as months-long waits to
see a doctor, government “death panels” denying care to the elderly,
government funding for abortions, and limited treatment options.
For every scare tactic that has been used to criticize “Obama-
care,” there is a rational explanation to dispute it. However, Obama
and other Democrats have spent more time and effort trying to
come up with a plan that will please than debunking the myths
propagated by opponents and educating the public about how their
healthcare coverage will improve under a new system. In doing so

18 Washington University Political Review

them coverage for many of
the treatments they seek. One How Ted Kennedy’s Death Could Impact Health Care Reform
particularly alarming ad by It is unfortunate and tragic that Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) will not be alive to witness health care
the Independent Women’s reform, which he called “the cause of my life.”
Forum warns, “If you find a Kennedy, who served in the Senate from 1962 until his death on Aug. 25, was diagnosed with a malig-
lump, you could wait months nant brain tumor in the spring of 2008. His illness did not stop him, however, from giving a motivational
for treatment.” The same ad speech in support of Barack Obama at the 2008 Democratic National Convention or from crafting a health
features the ambiguous state- care reform bill in the Senate.
ment: “Government control This summer, the Health, Education, Labor, and Pension’s Committee (HELP), chaired by Kennedy,
of health care here would released a health care reform bill, which has become the centerpiece of the Democrats’ plan to overhaul the
mean that 300,000 American health care system. Now, sadly, we must ask the question of how health care reform will be affected due to
women with breast cancer Kennedy’s death.
In the aftermath of the senator’s death, many have called for a stop to the fighting and partisanship
might have died.” While
that defined the health care debate this summer. For example, Conservatives for Patients’ Rights, a group
these types of advertisements
opposed to the Democrats’ health care reform plans, has stopped its advertisements indefinitely in respect
may succeed in alarming the
for Kennedy and his family. Democrats are using Kennedy’s death as a rallying call for passing health care
American public, there is not
reform. They suggest that the final bill bear Kennedy’s name as well as his goal of expanding health insur-
much substance behind these
ance coverage.
fuzzy claims, many of which
Alternatively, some fear that without Kennedy’s great ability to reach compromises with Republicans
could also be made about pri-
and write bipartisan legislation, a health care bill acceptable to both sides will not be passed. While this
vate insurance plans.
is not a desirable outcome, it is certainly possible that after the mourning and the tributes to Kennedy,
Obama recently dis- the Senators will return to their partisan positions and be unable to reach the compromise that Kennedy
cussed getting rid of the himself might have facilitated.
public option—a central fea- Despite the loss of someone able to bridge gap between the two factions in the health care debate, sena-
ture of his plan—because he tors should resist the temptation to return to partisan rhetoric and harsh criticism
believed that it wouldn’t have of the other side. The best way for Senators to honor Ted Kennedy’s great legacy of
enough support in Congress. compromise and bipartisanship is to follow his lead in prioritizing the passage of
Senators have discussed scal- health care reform.
ing back the public option in
the bill that was passed by the Senate and House committees. Some Obama and Congressional Democrats would do well to educate the
legislators, such as North Dakota Senator Kent Conrad, a Demo- public about the main components of the health care plan. Attempts to
crat, suggested abandoning the public option and instead creating discuss healthcare in town hall meetings have turned contentious, but
non-profit insurance co-ops, which would not be as well organized that does not mean that such meetings should stop. Rather, members
or able to compete with private plans as a public option would be. of Congress should use this forum to educate their constituents about
Instead of constantly being on the defensive, disputing false the plan and how it can make healthcare more accessible and afford-
claims after the fact and backing away from controversial proposals, able for most Americans.
Instead of getting scared by the fear tactics and retreating on the
defensive about certain tenets of the plan, Obama needs to employ
some scare tactics of his own by stressing to the American people what
the consequences of not passing healthcare reform would be. Further-
more, he needs to do so in a way that educates the American people
about the major objectives of the plan and how their lives will change
(for the better) under it. If Obama and Democrats act quickly, Ameri-
cans might be able to see that these leaders are not advocating for a
government takeover, for more healthcare bureaucrats, or for anything
remotely close to socialism. And then Congress might be able to pass
healthcare reform that leads to real change, rather than a plan so pared-
down that it essentially amounts to maintaining the status quo.

Amy, a Political Review staff writer, is a sophomore majoring in

Environmental Studies. Her email is arplovni@artsci.wustl.edu.

Washington University Political Review 19

 The Obama
Rope-a-Dope
How Taking Hits Will
Help Obama Win The
Health Care Debate

By Jake Laperruque

O
ver the span of the summer, the prospect of health care reform went from
certainty to confusion to the verge of collapse to unknown. The health
care debate is undoubtedly the first major battle of Barack Obama’s pres-
idency. As it continues to drag on beyond the original deadline, many may view the
health care battle as the first major failure of the Obama presidency. However, despite
appearances, President Obama’s handling of the issue has actually been a success. By
being patient and subtle, he has achieved exactly what he sought and is posed for a
major victory.
20 Washington University Political Review
 “Do you trust me?” care debate by raising millions of dollars and organizing hun-
“NOOO!” dreds of thousands of volunteers. Just like any other impor-
The angry yell rings out from a thousand people around tant policy dispute, the health care debate would be largely
me. Standing at the podium a hundred feet away, Senator decided by an issue campaign. Just like any other campaign,
Claire McCaskill ignores the insult and continues speaking. reform would be largely decided by who can pool the most
She’s kept excellent composure throughout the event, but resources. Most importantly, the Democrats had a champion
asking the angry crowd if she had their trust wasn’t her only to lead the charge. With high popularity and the ability to
slip up. Her first mistake was to begin the town hall forum by effectively organize his party, Barack Obama was the perfect
asking the crowd of over a thousand people packed in an audi- person to direct the effort for health care reform. With every-
torium whether thing in his favor,
they were President Obama
against any type “This reduction to ridiculousness has plagued the seemed destined
of health care to succeed. What
reform. When
health care effort throughout the summer.” over the course
nearly the entire of just a few
room raised their weeks could have
hands, the dissenters immediately realized they had home- pushed the reform effort to the verge of failure?
field advantage and became riled up from the first question, Someone in the bleachers has demanded to know
booing and jeering everything Senator McCaskill said. The whether Senator McCaskill will vote against the health care
average age was 60, the average political position was anti- bill so long as it continues to include certain provisions.
government, and the average mood was pissed off. Sitting in “The version of the bill you’re referring to is a draft being
the middle of the crowd with a large “Health Care For Amer- made in the House of Representatives,” McCaskill explains,
ica Now!” sticker stuck to my shirt, I could not help but think “it’s a House bill. I’m in the Senate. For me to vote on a House
of that old saying, “We are strangers in an unholy land.” bill would be, ummm . . . . weird.”
How did we get to this point? At the start of the summer, The House of Representatives has been at the center of
health care reform seemed like a virtual certainty. For the the health care debate. It has also been one of the biggest
first time in the nearly 20 year struggle for reform, the sources of trouble for those seeking reform. Political parties
Democrats had everything in their favor. First, they had tend to grow and shrink in cycles. They extend their
issue ownership. With tens of millions uninsured, insur- outreach and build a big tent, growing stronger until
ance agencies continuing to manipulate the system, and the group becomes too large; then the divides within
costs skyrocketing in a collapsing economy, the public lead to conflict and inefficiency. The other party seizes
wanted reform. Second, they had an advantage in resources. the advantage and begins to extend its reach, and the cycle
The wide range of pro-reform groups prepared for the health begins all over again. The Democrats, at least in the House,
seem to have reached their peak point. The moderate “Blue
Dog Democrats” make up a large portion of the Democratic
caucus and have been continually attempting to water down
the bill. Some worry about a negative reaction from a moder-
ate constituency. Others, such as Senate Finance Commit-
tee Chairman Max Baucus, are probably more concerned
with satisfying the insurance companies that provide huge
campaign contributions. Republicans have also been slow-
ing the reform effort in Congress. The most notable culprit is
Iowa Senator Chuck Grassley, who has been flip flopping all
summer on whether he will work with Democrats to create a
bill with bi-partisan support.
Back at the town hall, Senator McCaskill has shifted the
discussion to the economy. “I know I’m going to get a lot boos
for this,” the senator predicts, “but I think history will show
this as the point that our economy and our country came
Protestors at Senator McCaskill’s town hall meeting. back from the brink.” The crowd proves her prediction about

Washington University Political Review 21

boos right. Whether she will be correct about the progress of
our economy remains to be seen.
The state of the economy has also caused problems in
the effort to reform health care. The public has grown impa-
tient to see results of the massive stimulus bill passed earlier
in the year, and as the economy continues to shed jobs the
President’s approval rating has begun to drop. Without the
commanding public support that he possessed in the spring,
President Obama’s ability to control opposition in Congress
has become limited.
“I don’t have a question, I have a comment. I do not want
to see the government involved in health care at all.”
The audience applauds the statement from one of the
town hall’s participants. Senator McCaskill quickly responds
by asking, “How many people in the audience have Medi-
care?” The vast majority of
the crowd raises their hand.
“How many of you are satis-
fied by your Medicare cov-
erage?” Almost all hands
remain in the air. “Well, it
seems you all are fairly sup-
portive of some government
involvement in health care.”
The response is a roar of dis-
sent. When changing health
care is the issue at hand, logic
seems to be secondary.
This reduction to ridicu-
lousness has plagued the
health care effort throughout
the summer. Senator McCa-
skill’s town hall forum was dominated by repeated questions
about provisions to fund abortions that do not actually exist.
There are a myriad of similarly absurd rumors about the bill
that have gained traction and brought the reform effort to a
near standstill. The most prominent of these faux charges is
the claim that health care reform involves setting up “death
panels” that will seek to selectively euthanize the elderly.
While the average voter is unlikely to be convinced of this,
it still causes problems. Instead of talking about the millions
of people who are uninsured in America and need aid, Presi-
dent Obama is forced to spend his time during public events
explaining that he is not secretly trying to kill Granny.
After the meeting is over, demonstrators gather outside.
Some signs scream out against socialism. Others warn of the
impending death panels and mandatory euthanizing of the
elderly. The slightly more offensive signs declare “Obama bin
Lying” and put the President next to a picture of Hitler with
the subtitle “same health care plan.” This is where the town
22 Washington University Political Review
hall takes a trip to crazy town and the health care debate
reaches the peak level of absurd. Ironically, however, it may
also be the place that the health care debate tips back in favor
of those seeking reform.
The town hall debates throughout America during the
August recess have been at the center of political news. The
harsh reaction of those in attendance has shown the ability of
opponents of reform to organize. However, it has also margin-
alized them, as they are increasingly cast aside in the media
as irrational extremists. This has given President Obama the
perfect opportunity to shift his efforts, and achieve exactly
what he sought in the first place.
Rope-a-dope: it’s a boxing tactic made famous by
Muhammad Ali. Ali would lie against the ropes and let
his opponent hit him repeatedly. Once Ali’s opponent had
worn himself out, the champ
would go on the attack. Over
the course of the health care
debate, Obama has done the
same. He handed control of
the bill over to Congress and
let the Republicans and Blue
Dog Dems try to stall it. He
let the grassroots opposition
devolve into a shouting match
over death panels. Why?
Because he could take it.
With the worst of the attacks
against health care made,
Obama still has a strong base
in support to push through
legislation. Toward the end of
August the White House began to signal to the media that
it would seek a health care bill with only Democratic sup-
port and would keep the public option that had been such a
source of conflict. Earlier in the year such posturing would
have caused an uproar. But now no such effort was made.
Republicans such as Grassley had already shown that they
had no actual interest in creating a bi-partisan bill. The Blue
Dogs had revealed unwillingness to support more moder-
ate proposals. The grassroots opposition had inadvertently
positioned itself as fringe dissent rather than mainstream
disagreement. The opponents of health care reform have
thrown all their punches-and failed to score the knock out
they needed. Now Obama will come off the ropes and move
to achieve the biggest victory of his presidency.
Jake, the Political Review’s Editor-in-Chief, is a senior majoring in
Political Science. His email is jakelaperruque@gmail.com.
 UNCONVENTIONAL
WISDOM
By Max Bennett
The Healthcare Debate
W
hen political issues become as emotionally
charged as healthcare reform, it becomes
increasingly difficult to siphon through the
yelling to find the facts, however readily available they
may be. In recent months the American public has grown
progressively more confused about the problems with our
current healthcare system, the various healthcare bills float-
ing through congress, and the potential consequences of
Obama’s plan.
Claims are consistently made that skeptics of Obama’s
reform are simply naïve and backwards thinking “defend-
ers of the status quo,” analogous to those who resisted FDR’s
now acclaimed Social Security as well as those who resisted
John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson’s now generally
undisputed, albeit going bankrupt, Medicare and Medicaid.
Every radical reform movement throughout history, good
and bad, has faced defenders of the status quo. On January
16, 1920 the Volstead Act, otherwise known as the National
Prohibition Act, was established as the 18th Amendment to
“We should be alarmed by increasing costs per capita.”
Not Quite. One of the most commonly quoted sta-
tistics touted in a call for immediate reform is the rapidly
rising cost of healthcare per capita. Although there is a need
for reform, increasing costs of healthcare per capita do not
alone demonstrate this necessity. The cost of healthcare per
capita is simply the total amount America spends on health-
care divided by the number of American citizens. This reflects
the average cost that each citizen pays towards healthcare.
However, that does not demonstrate what we would like it to:
the average cost that each citizens who gets healthcare pays.
For example, the cost of computers per capita in America has
skyrocketed throughout the past ten years, yet the individual
cost of computers has been steadily decreasing. This means
the U.S. Constitution. For 13 painstaking years the govern-
ment futilely attempted to enforce this federal law that the
“defenders of the status quo” wisely claimed would be heavily
ineffective. They were, of course correct; illegal production
and distribution of liquor became so rampant that the 18th
amendment was repealed in 1933. It is not always the reform-
ists who are on the right side of history. It is difficult to know
how much bad legislation past defenders of the status quo
have prevented.
Nevertheless, there remains an endless list of radi-
cal governmental initiatives that in retrospect have been
undeniably socioeconomically and/or morally beneficial to
society. Among them are the Federal Reserve System, the
abolishment of slavery, Brown v. Board of Education, and
the creation of Social Security. Therefore, we must focus the
healthcare debate on dissecting the arguments themselves as
opposed to attempting to uncover the reasons behind their
original formulation.
that while the “average cost per citizen” has been rising, the
actual cost that individuals themselves pay for computers
annually has gone down. This is because more people are
buying computers. If only 3 computers sold in 1980 each at a
price of one million dollars each, the cost per capita on com-
puters would be around one cent. Whereas now lets say (I’m
making these numbers up) 100 million computers are sold
annually, each at two thousand dollars; cost per capita would
be around a whopping $670 dollars. But the latter situation,
even with its 6,699,900% higher cost per capita, is absolutely
more favorable; originally only three people got computers,
each for a million dollars, and now 100 million people get
them for a measly two thousand. Moreover, cost per capita
Washington University Political Review 23
hardly reflects efficiency and affordability in a market. It is
hypothetically possible that the increasing cost of healthcare
per capita simply reflects more people are getting the
healthcare they need, and potentially at cheaper prices.
Although this is obviously not the case, in order to see
the actual reasons our system is broken it is important
not to be misled into thinking that costs per capita is the call
for reform.
Cost per capita is rising while the number of people who
receive care is declining. This means that the average actual
“Insurance companies need more regulation.”
Not the way you’d think. There is a broad
consensus about the need for regulatory reform of the health
insurance industry. The first issue is that most health insur-
ance companies do not accept people who have pre-existing
conditions—those who need health insurance the most have
the most trouble getting it. While this seems wholly unfair, it
is the nature of insurance companies in general. Nobody gives
life insurance to someone about to die, nor car insurance to
someone who has been in seven accidents within the last year.
One who “needs” insurance is simply one who cannot pay
their costs on their own and thus the insurance company must
do so, meaning the health insurance company spends more
money on them then the company receives in premiums. So in
order for those who need insurance to be covered, there must
be those who pay the insurance company more in premiums
then they ever would have incurred in costs. Moreover, for the
system to function there must be certain people who pay pre-
mium costs that ultimately add up to more than if they just
paid for their healthcare directly out of their pocket. Regard-
less, such individuals still benefit from having insurance: they
get the security that insurance provides, a benefit not to be
underrated. Had something happened, the person would have
been covered. The point is that in order for any self sufficient
“Government mandates to buy health
insurance will bankrupt the industry.”
Exactly the opposite. In order to fix this
unfavorable trade off between cost and coverage, more healthy
people must buy insurance. In order for costs not to skyrocket
while coverage grows to more sickly (costly) people, everyone
24 Washington University Political Review
cost of healthcare per individual must also be increasing,
which is indeed a potential alarm for reform. The tenets of
an ideal healthcare system, as Obama clearly lists on
his website, would be: expanding coverage, improving
quality, lowering costs, honoring patient choice, and
holding insurance companies accountable. I have yet to
hear anyone disagree with these in principle, only with the
methods of obtaining them. The rapid decay of two of these
five undisputed ideals, coverage and cost, surely merits a call
for change within our system.
system to function, there must be healthy people who pay for
insurance, thus losing money themselves but enabling others
to be covered.
Another problem with the status quo, which seems to be
even more vividly immoral, is that most insurance companies
have “lifetime insurance caps.” These insurance companies will
only pay for a customer’s healthcare up to their lifetime mon-
etary limit, meaning that people who have been insured their
whole lives can be cut off and left to pay the rest of their bills by
themselves. This alone has led to a massive bulk of horror sto-
ries, none of which should be acceptable in our society. In each
of the Democratic proposals now traveling through Congress,
health insurance companies would be required to accept indi-
viduals’ pre-existing conditions and be prohibited from having
lifetime caps. However, we must take into account the down-
sides of these policies: both would significantly raise costs for
insurance companies. Insurance companies would obviously
not be allowed to charge people with pre-existing conditions
absurd premiums to make the bulk of these customers profit-
able since this would defeat the whole purpose. Thus insur-
ance companies would unavoidably have to raise premiums
for everyone, making costs skyrocket: trading one evil, low
coverage, for another, high costs.
must be required to pay premiums. This way insurance compa-
nies can get more healthy people under their plan to pay for the
increase in sick people they will be required to cover. Although
many understand this need for a mandate, to many layman it
just seems to be paternalistic politics. But, if the government
does not mandate the purchase of health insurance, then their
other proposed policies would undoubtedly bankrupt insur-
ance companies, be they public or private. There would be no
incentive for healthy people to pay premiums, they would only
ask for insurance once they came down with a condition, and
insurance companies would be required to cover them. Since
the revenue pool from which insurance companies make a
“Capitalism and health insurance don’t mix”
Dead wrong. Some liberals claim
that health insurance should not be subject
to the price rationing and profit maximiz-
ing doctrines of capitalism at all. They claim
that health insurance is a necessity and thus
should be dissociated from the materialis-
tic, and extraneous, demand that the private
sector creates. This, however, is a disappoint-
ingly confused and economically uninformed
claim. Every day millions of pounds of food are
shipped to the island of Manhattan, almost all of which is effi-
ciently allocated and consumed, and basically none of which
the government has anything to do with. Food is an obvious
necessity, and yet almost everyone gets food with almost no
wait, generally at a very high quality, and at relatively low
costs: all from
the private
sector. It is
true that
many of the
homeless
receive pro-
visions from
both charities
as well as the
government,
but the large
majority of
people stay
within the pri-
vate sector. Of
course, because
food is a necessity it is well regulated, but this hardly removes
it from the private sector. On the contrary, the regulations
leave the food industry at the powerful whim of capitalism.
The private sector is a beautiful thing, and it is important not
profit would be diminished, they would be unable to raise
the capital necessary to cover their clients. This is defini-
tively why the Democratic bills have, and should have,
mandates in them; it is far more than just paternal reform.
In lieu of this, some argue that the best way to accomplish
healthcare reform is to adopt a completely public, single-
payer system. However, we must be wary of completely
removing an industry from the private sector.
to vilify it even in the context of life’s neces-
sities. So even if health insurance is indeed a
moral necessity for everyone in our society,
this does not alone mean that we must drag
it completely into the public sector. Educa-
tion is a great analogy: it has been hybridized
between the public and private sectors. Free
public education is available to all who want it,
but if higher quality is desired there are count-
less private schools available. Indeed, private
schools are generally better, but the public school system
allows everyone to receive what is deemed necessary an edu-
cation. Water and electricity are privatized as well, but there
are strict rules on pricing so that everyone can receive them
at fair prices while water and electrical companies can still
see profits. There are various legislative options regarding
health insurance that don’t involve making it entirely public,
which on its own would be unfair. The wealthy deserve better
healthcare if they want it, while the poor deserve at least a
satisfactory level of healthcare.
The minutia of healthcare reform contains complexi-
ties that force legislators to draft thousand page documents
and enable the countrywide frenzy that we have seen within
the past few weeks. And yet the heated debates in town halls
seem to only consist of broad philosophical concepts as
opposed to actual pieces of legislation. It is important that we
be humbled by the economic complexity of reforming our
healthcare system, while not allowing ourselves to be con-
fused by arguments that attempt to claim either that capital-
ism is the bane of the health insurance industry or that that
there is no need for a mandate under the current plan.
Max, a Political Review staff writer, is a sophomore in Arts and Sci-
ences. His email is maxbennett@wustl.edu.
Washington University Political Review 25
 THE PERILS OF MAKING
POLITICAL PREDICTIONS
By Bryan Baird
N
obody can know the future for certain, but the field
of politics seems to be inextricably tied to establish-
ing policy to control and prepare for the uncertainty
of days to come. The predictions are seldom positive; fearmonger-
ing and doomsaying are as old as any other form of public debate.
However, recent developments in statistics and social sciences, plus
the restructuring of information distribution through mass media,
have led to a skyrocketing trend in the precision of these predic-
tions. Now, more than ever, the talking heads on TV, radio, and
the internet forecast the future with clear, causal claims, and in the
pursuit of legitimacy they back their claims up with numbers and
solid facts. What they don’t seem to realize is that their specificity
“Why aren’t predictions made by pundits and politicians held to
the same standard that campaign promises are?”
is damning, in that it limits one’s ability to sidestep accountability
when one is, in fact, wrong about such claims.
This shouldn’t come as a surprise. People are going to be wrong.
It’s going to happen. The inevitability of any unresolved debate is that
at least one side is wrong. Politics is seldom anything more than a help-
less and futile series of arguments to not quite discover the best pos-
sible approach to any scenario. What sets this recent trend apart is that
whereas previously opponents have always been able to accuse each
other of their errors in a hypothetical alternate reality, they can now
offer evidence that decisively falls one way or the other. “The policy I
support would be better than yours,” has evolved into “You said your
policy would do this, and it didn’t.”
This higher degree of verifiable evidence should logically lead
to higher accountability. If the president promises a healthier, more
vibrant economy, it’s entirely possible (and in fact, common) to find
his own favorable indicators and sidestep responsibility because he
isn’t technically, conclusively wrong. However, if the president prom-
ises an average household income increase of 10% over the course of
a year and he fails to deliver that, the people are quickly up in arms.
So why aren’t predictions made by pundits and politicians alike held
to the same standard that campaign promises are? Why can political
theorists, commentators, and aficionados not admit error even when
they have no re-election at stake?
26 Washington University Political Review
If everyone else is too scared to do it, then I’ll go ahead and start.
I would like to admit that I was wrong. After the 2006 midterm elec-
tion, when reports of the new Iraq Troop Surge strategy first began
to surface in mainstream media, I thought it was the most ridiculous
idea I had ever heard of. Not long after that, I found what I thought to
be an equally absurd strategy in one Iraqi city where American forces
decided that the best way to reduce violence in the area was to build an
absurdly large wall through the entire district. I couldn’t imagine how
proponents of these strategies could advocate with a straight face.
I was dead wrong. In Sadr City, one of the walled locales, violence
has dropped of markedly. On a larger scale, there has been, in fact, a
clear and irrefutable drop in American military casualties ever since
the surge strategy took full effect in June 2007. According to the online
database iCasualties.org, the surge reduced American casualties from
126 in May 2007 to a comparatively small 23 in the December of the
same year. In July 2009, there were only 8 American casualties in
Iraq.
The numbers don’t lie. The surge worked.
The numbers also tell a very clear tale in terms of President
Obama’s massive economic stimulus package. My first inclination is to
point out the parts of the stimulus that are obvious triumphs over the
loudest, most absurd critics who seem to demand our national atten-
tion. When the multi-billion dollar package passed, we did not magi-
cally become a communist nation overnight. The people did not riot
and burn down Wall Street. The Chinese didn’t spontaneously decide
to collect on all of their bonds and plunge us into absolute bankruptcy.
In fact, economic indicators appear to support the claim that we have
avoided the dreaded New Great Depression that lurked menacingly
just over the horizon.
However, there were a great number of very intelligent, very
thorough, and very mathematically-minded people who worked on
the economic stimulus, and they made some very specific promises.
Namely, the stimulus would keep unemployment under 8%, whereas
abstention from the economic intervention would cause the rate to
top out around 9%. However, by the Obama administration’s own
numbers, unemployment rose to 9.4% in the month of May. Need-
less to say, the numbers don’t match up with even the less optimistic
projections.
Now, it could easily be true that the economy is actually doing
better than it was before, and in many ways it is easy to see that the
situation is not as dire as it was before, but it is difficult to back down
when the math very plainly contradicts your claims. Saying that the
economy is doing better even though unemployment shot up is like
pointing to our success in Iraq
even though we never found
any WMDs: the truth of it
doesn’t take the sting out of
knowing that we were wrong
in our motivations.
In both cases those who
were the most clearly wrong
dropped off the radar entirely
as public interest moved on
to the next looming crisis.
When the surge worked,
people began to focus on the
economy, and then-Senator
Obama was able to avoid
controversy well by directly
addressing the problem.
During one of the Presiden- “I was dead wrong... The numbers
tial debates, Sen. McCain
don’t lie. The surge worked.”
directly called Obama out on
his opposition to the surge. In response, Obama admitted that he was
wrong and moved on.
Now, in case you forgot, Obama won the election rather decisively,
and Iraq became a secondary debate at best. He owned up to his mis-
take and because of that, he suffered minimal losses. Optimistically, I
would like to think that the President learned a valuable lesson from
his misjudgment, just as I did from mine. After the surge, I decided
to put much more faith in the decisions of expert panels with much
greater access to information than I have. I now take a much more
thorough look at what the experts in the field are saying before I dig in
with my layman’s judgment.
So I’m better off for being wrong, and I suspect the president
probably is as well. People make mistakes more often than they learn
from them, but the latter still happens frequently enough that it should
come as no surprise. But let’s now look at the counterpoint.
I present, for your consideration, Bill Kristol. Kristol established
himself in the conservative arena through extensive work with various
think tanks and as former vice president Dan Quayle’s chief of staff.
Kristol is a popular punching bag for liberal advocacy groups due
mostly to his record streak of predicting exactly the opposite of what
is going to happen. In particular, he was a very vocal supporter of the
Iraq War from its inception, writing extensively on how certainly the
WMDs would be discovered, vindicating then-president Bush and the
more hawkish of his supporters. He also massively underestimated the
economic and militaristic resources that America would need to pro-
vide after the fall of the Hussein regime, mostly because he adamantly
insisted that there was no reason to suspect that any sectarian violence
would break about between the Sunni and Shiite Muslims.
Obviously, he was wrong. However, instead of confessing his
error or, heaven forbid, trying to learn something from it, he evidently
decided on stubborn, cantan-
kerous old man approach and
went on to be famously wrong
on the 2008 Democratic pri-
maries and the selection of
Sarah Palin as John McCain’s
running mate.
So what happened when
his formerly prestigious career
turned into some of the least
successful crystal ball-gazing
in recent history? He became
a regular on Fox News and an
editorial columnist for the New
York Times. He suffered almost
no repercussions for his incred-
ible losing streak except for the
disdain of leftists who had no
love for him to begin with. To
date, he has pioneered several
more conservative think tanks and danced gingerly around any men-
tion of the early days of the Iraq War, but his disastrous precognition
appears to be unabated.
My point is this: I understand that people don’t like admitting that
they’re wrong. I know this is especially true of people in the political
realm, not just because they depend on favorable public perception,
but also because they earnestly believe that they’re approach is best for
the people. However, at some point, when someone holds up a direct
quote from you and conclusively shows how false it turned out to be,
it is absolute, sheer idiocy to not admit that you were mistaken, learn
your lesson, and then let the controversy move on. The longer politi-
cians and pundits struggle against learning from their experiences, the
longer their error remains in the public spotlight and the worse off we
all are. So please, when people are wrong, hold them accountable for
it, no matter what office they hold. Just be sure to hold yourself to that
same standard as well.
Bryan, a Political Review staff writer, is a sophomore majoring in
Mechanical Engineering. His email is beb3@cec.wustl.edu.
Washington University Political Review 27
 My Summer With By Lauren Weiss

Planned Parenthood. It was a struggle to

find people willing to support both.
Outside of the national health care
debate I spent my summer focused on
legislative issues a little closer to home.
Community organizing has finally
become cool again, thanks to the rise of
a particularly talented Chicago activist,
but the nuts and bolts of engaging com-

N
munity members in political activism
o protestor should have been able to bother me. After still involves the mostly thankless tasks
all, I had already worked at Planned Parenthood all of collecting petitions and mobilizing volunteers. Why mostly
summer, walking into work each day through a line thankless? Most people say no.
of graphic, enormous posters that covered the tree lawn and the It’s not that Missourians disagree with most of what Planned
sidewalk. One day a picketer informed me that “they kill women Parenthood does. (I’m talking about medically accurate sex edu-
in there,” evidently gleaning that the usual “they kills babies”
wouldn’t work on a woman wearing a Planned Parenthood t-shirt.
Then there was my personal favorite: a man who I had asked to
sign a petition outside of the All-Star Game asked me if he could
kill his girlfriend because the clinics I represented helped his
girlfriend kill his baby.
And yet there I was, at Rep. Russ Carnahan’s town hall for
health care reform, astounded at the viciousness of the protestors,
who made up about 25 percent of the two-hundred-person crowd.
They shouted and carried signs suggesting health care reform
would be a disaster and any true American wouldn’t stand for
socialized medicine, even as other constituents attempted to share
health care horror stories of their lives without insurance. By 15
minutes into the meeting it was clear that “town hall” wasn’t going
to cut it as a description of the meeting; “riot” would be far more
accurate.
I was at the town hall as part of my job as a grassroots orga-
nizing intern with Planned Parenthood of the St. Louis Region,
never the most popular of organizations. As one would expect of
a health care organization, we got involved in the national health
care reform efforts in earnest as bills were written and amended
throughout July. I spent a good deal of time on the phone with
voters in various states trying to convince them to call their sena-
tors and representatives to tell them to support comprehensive
reproductive health care in the bills currently under debate. No
one ever claimed that health care reform would be an easy sell,
but I learned quickly just how hard the fight would be: many
Planned Parenthood supporters were leery of health care reform Lauren Weiss at work in the
and many health care supporters wouldn’t take a phone call from St. Louis Planned Parenthood office.
28 Washington University Political Review
cation, STI testing and treatment, and low-cost family planning
services, including annual exams, cancer screenings and birth
control, not the five percent of our care that involves abortions.)
According to statistics collected on behalf of Planned Parenthood,
85 percent of Missourians support comprehensive sex ed, the kind
that teaches kids what a condom is, how to use one, and why. It
also includes discussions of values and healthy relationships, and
it gives teens the tools to say no to sexual activity. Furthermore, 91
percent of Americans say that couples should have access to birth
control, according to the National Family Planning and Repro-
ductive Health Association.

.FEJDBJE
GVOET
BCPSUJPOT

Despite these numbers, Missouri has very restrictive laws
on all sorts of reproductive health issues, and that’s where my
department came into play. The petitions and the phone calls were
all part of a broader effort to convince the Missouri state legisla-

BT
PQQPTFE
UP
GFEFSBM


ture that Missourians do, in fact, want their kids to have access
to comprehensive sex ed. Parents understand that nobody wins
when a teenager get pregnant or contracts an STI, something that
the legislature seems unable to comprehend. So we bring thou-
sands upon thousands of brightly colored petitions to Jefferson
City, home of the state legislature, twice a year, leaving stacks with
legislators who either love our visits or try to get us out of their
offices as quickly as possible. (One legislator’s aide went so far as

HPWFSONFOU

to tell us that the congressman wasn’t in when we could see him
through the door.)
In the eyes of many Americans, however, none of those issues
matter when it comes to assessing the merits of Planned Parent-
hood. Decisions about the validity of our existence are made on
the fact that we provide the vast majority of abortion services in
Missouri and a large percentage of abortion care across the coun-
try. Some people love us for it, some people hate us, and many
people just wish the whole thing would go away.
Here’s the bad news, folks: abortion is never going away.
I would love to wake up in a world where no woman had to
make the choice between an abortion and carrying an unwanted
pregnancy to term, but that would require a world in which there
are no unwanted pregnancies. Today in the United States half of
all pregnancies are unplanned, an atrocious statistic. Granted, that
number could be greatly reduced with greater access to contracep-
tion, sex education that taught teenagers how to postpone sexual
activity and how to make wanted sexual activity safer, and an end
to sexual violence against women and girls, but none of those
seem likely to happen any time soon.
For me, the horror stories about abortions are the ones I read
about life before Roe v. Wade, a world in which women trusted
their bodies to back-alley providers with no training and danger-
ous drugs, not the relative ease with which some women can
access this service (although it’s not so easy in Missouri). I am, for
the first time in my lifetime, in the minority on this issue: a Gallup
poll from May 2009 found that 51% of Americans self-identify
NATIONAL
The Facts:
Health Care and Abortion
As the health care debate heated up in July, opponents of
Democrat-led reforms called on an old strategy to defeat
controversial bills: try to scare the people into thinking that the
new legislation will increase the number of abortions in the
United States. In reality, health care reform will create very few
changes in abortion care in the United States. Here are the facts:
t6OEFS
UIF
)ZEF
"NFOENFOU
only in the cases of rape, incest, and life endangerment of
the pregnant woman.
t4UBUFT
IBWF
UIF
SJHIU
UP
VTF
TUBUF
money to cover abortions for poor women that are not
allowable under the Hyde Amendment.
t.PTU
QSJWBUF
IFBMUI
JOTVSFST
EP
QSPWJEF
TPNF
BCPSUJPO

coverage. Health care reform would neither prevent nor
require insurers from covering abortion services.
t6OEFS
UIF
DVSSFOU
IFBMUI
DBSF
SFGPSN
CJMMT
coverage of abortion would remain at the status quo,
as stated above. The public insurance plans, like private
insurance plans, may or may not cover abortions. If they
do, the abortions will be paid for by customers’ premiums
and not by any taxpayer money.
The above information was obtained from the National Abortion Federation
and Planned Parenthood Action Fund.
as pro-life, while 42% of Americans identify as pro-choice. That
statistic does not dissuade me from doing the work that I do; if I
was going for universal approval, I’d need to get out of Planned
Parenthood and out of the women’s studies department, neither of
which I am at all inclined to do.
Although I have made my choice clear on this issue I do not
expect to change people’s minds on abortion: the achievable goals
are ones in which we find common ground on sex education and
contraception, not one in which I attempt to prescribe others’
moral codes. And if I can convince a few legislators along the
way that restricting abortion access hurts women more than it
decreases abortions, so much the better.
Lauren, the Political Review copy editor, is a senior majoring in Women,
Gender, and Sexuality Studies. Her email is lrweiss@artsci.wustl.edu.
Washington University Political Review 29
 CORRECT
WUPR’s only humor

POLITICALLY column since1776

Read Between the Lines - By Mike Friend

“This [health care reform] cannot pass…what we have to do today is make
a covenant, to slit our wrists, be blood brothers on this thing. This will not
pass. We will do whatever it takes to make sure this doesn’t pass…”
-Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN)

What Rep. Bachmann meant...

is that by exposing each other to the pathogens in our blood we are
ensuring our own survival. By being exposed to multiple diseases we are
immunizing ourselves for the future. If only the rest of America could
come together and rub their bloody wounds on each other we wouldn’t
even need to visit the doctor.

“The whole idea is to get me not to run in the primary [...] We’re not in
the post-racial period [...] The reality is the next victim on the list - and
you can see it coming - is President Barack Obama, who did nothing more
than trying to reform a health care system.”
-New York Governor David Patterson

What Governor Patterson meant...

is that the media is trying to stop his attempt to be elected because he
did such a good job as governor, cracking down on corruption and
preventing the state from going bankrupt. “We’re not in a post-racial
period” but a post-post racial period where race doesn’t matter and isn’t
even acknowledged. Governor Patterson says Barack Obama will be the
next target of the media because he did such a great job managing the
health care debate.

People such as scientist Stephen Hawking wouldn’t have a chance in the

UK, where the National Health Service would say the life of this brilliant
man, because of his physical handicaps, is essentially worthless,”
-Investor’s Business Daily

Investor’s Business Daily was actually referring to...

Pseudo-scientist Stephen J. Hawking, a.k.a Master Zorbara, a psychic
from Arkansas whose chronic arthritis would have been treated in
England with physical therapy instead of Vicodin and Percocet, which
allow him to communicate brilliantly with the spirits.

30 Washington University Political Review

“‘Alaska. We Don’t Give a Darn How They Do It Outside?’ Do you
remember that? I remember that, and remember it was because we
would be different. We’d roll up our sleeves, and we would diligently sow
and reap, and we can still do this to carve wealth out of the wilderness
and make our living on the water, with strong hands and innovative
minds, now with smarter technology. It is what our first people and our
parents did. It worked, because they worked. We must be prudent and
persistent and press for the people’s right to responsibly develop God-
given resources for the maximum benefit of the people.” -Sarah Palin

What Mrs. Palin meant to say...

is that after health care reform results in a nuclear apocalypse, Alaskans
will laugh at all the foolish people who thought living in a place that only
gets 5 hours of daylight in the winter was foolish. While the survivors
are sowing evergreen seeds in Alaska’s easy to plow three foot layer of
permafrost, they will no doubt be thankful that Alaskans refused the
stimulus money which they could have used to research how to leave
Alaska.

A W A Y ?
N A G E T i f e )
W A N y o u r w
(fr o m
Take a Trip With Book a trip to exotic
Argentina today! It’s the
perfect way to spice up
your love life without
having to fix your
troubled marriage!

Romance! Beaches! Tan Lines!

Washington University Political Review 31

 Under the Wire:
Jeff Smith’s Secret
Conversations
For a time, Professor and Senator Jeff Smith was the golden boy of Washington University’s political scene. His classes
were always packed with students eager to hear his stories and lessons. Unfortunately, the story was too good to
be true, and Senator Smtih’s recent plea of guilty to obstruction of justice forced students to confront a Professor
Smith very different from the one they thought they knew. Below are excerpts from the transcripts of wiretapped
conversations between Smith and his 2004 campaign staffers, Nick Adams and Steve Brown. The full document is in
the public record. If you would like a pdf copy, email editor@wupr.org

Smith: “We weren’t fucking white Adams: “I’m alive, and Artie’s
knights here . . . . dead, can we emphasize that
None of us are going to get this was Artie’s deal?”
the fucking Nobel Peace Prize Smith: “Artie would totally want us
for our interactions with to throw him under the bus
[John Doe].” here.”

Smith: “It could be five years in Adams: “Can we get some of those pay
jail for what I just did,” as you go cell phones, like
on The Wire?”

Smith: “I’m going to tell you what

I’m going to tell them. I’m Smith: Buy three at WalMart and meet
going to tell them 90%% of tomorrow to pass them out.”
the truth . . . . o.k.
I’m going to tell them after
the campaign they told me
what they did. I figured there
was something, I didn’t want
to know, they told me
afterwards. I’m not going
to tell them that I knew
about it during the
campaign.”

Brown: “I went over the line.”

Smith: “You can’t tell them that...”
Smith: “You would be an utter fool
to tell them that.”
32 Washington University Political Review
Editors’ notes
Dear Reader,
Well, that was one hell of a summer. We at the
Political Review were just listing off the top of our
heads topics worth mentioning in this letter, and
the list just goes on and on and on. Now we find
ourselves wondering, were there actually more
noteworthy events this summer than in the previ-
ous ones? Perhaps we are just older and better
about following the news. Or is it just that the In-
ternet makes it easier to collect items for such a list?
Whatever the reason, this summer was a fascinating
one for politics. Not only were there a number of
serious events that upset the political status quo—
the passing of Ted Kennedy, elections in Iran and
Japan, Mark Sanford’s secret tryst in Argentina, and
a series of wild town hall meetings—there was also
a welcome series of breaks in the political storm:
Stephen Colbert getting his head shaved in Iraq,
Obama swatting a fly with catlike reflexes, and
William Shatner reciting Sarah Palin’s resignation
speech on the Tonight Show.
Unfortunately, Washington University had its
own political scandal and resignation this summer.
A beloved professor, Jeff Smith, was shown in a
whole new light after he plead guilty to obstruction
of justice. We here at the Political Review are con-
flicted about Mr. Smith’s obvious wrongdoing. On
the one hand, his actions were unethical, dishonest,
and simply unacceptable for anyone in a position
of teaching or leading. On the other hand, Smith
was the point of entry for countless WashU. stu-
dents into the political world, many of whom will
go on to do great things for our community and
our nation, just as Jeff Smith did great things for St.
Louis and Missouri. We don’t mean to suggest that
Smith’s achievements somehow outweigh or erase
the egregious wrong for which he now awaits sen-
tencing. We merely seek to explain why it is that we
await Mr. Smith’s clearly deserved harsh sentencing
with heavy hearts.
Despite that sizable blemish, the summer was,
all in all, a great one for political junkies like us and,
given that you’ve picked up this magazine, prob-
ably for you too. Alas, much like Obama’s sky-high
approval ratings, all good things (good if you’re
Obama that is) must come to an end. The school
year has started up again, and summer vacation has
given way to an ever-increasing fall workload. We
got an early start here at the Political Review, and
the product of that labor is the issue you hold in
your hands. We’re quite proud of it, so if you didn’t
like it, we encourage you to lie.
Actually, we encourage you to see if you can’t do
better yourself. The Political Review is always look-
ing for talented (or at least trainable) writers, artists,
and graphic designers to join its merry ranks. Our
group has undergone a lot of changes over the past
year and is continuously growing and improving.
We’d love for you to be a part of that growth. If
you’d like to get involved, email editor@wupr.org.
Sincerely,
Greg Allen
Jake Laperruque
Editors in Chief
Washington University Political Review 33
INTERACTIVE WUPR INTERACTIVE
NATIONALWUPR

Puzzle provided by www.djape.net

SAMURAI
SUDOKU
Use digits 1 through 9 to fill in the grid.
Each row and column within a 9x9 box as
well as all 3x3 grids should contain only
one of each digit. The five boxes cannot be
solved independently of each other.

SCORING GUIDE TO HEALTHCARE QUIZ ON PAGE 3

You hate Obamacare because you are:
7 – 15 Points (YOUNG): Being a poor, young college student you figure that your current perfect health will last forever. You’re still
expecting your mutant powers to develop any day now, and besides, once you’re off student insurance, it’s not like you’ll be able to afford
coverage anyway. Who cares about the future? What matters is the here and now, and right here, right now you want another beer.
16 – 22 Points (RICH): As you read this you are wiping caviar from your mouth with a fine silk napkin embroidered in 24-karat gold.
Your trust fund and/or backup trust fund pays for all your health expenses, so you see no reason why you should give any of your money
away to pay for the great unwashed. Americans just need to learn how to work hard and earn money, like your trust fund does for you.
23 – 29 Points (RUGGEDLY INDEPENDENT): You’ve never needed help. You’ve always done everything on your own. When you
broke that bone while chasing down a full grown buck with nothing more than a paring knife did you stop hunting? No, you fought through
the pain and later set the bones using the buck’s bloody antlers as stabilizers. Government health care is for the weak in society, who should
be removed from the gene pool anyway.
30 – 36 (OLD): You’ve lived long enough on this earth to know what’s right and you know it’s not right for young whipper snappers
to get all the good organs before you do. You view the new government healthcare proposal as a communist scheme to prevent you from
getting your government healthcare Medicare check. If you live long enough to see this legislation voted on in Congress, you will drive your
scooter to Washington to fight it.
37 – 45 (GLENN BECK): Despite your serious mental illnesses and countless personal flaws, you’re a monstrously successful TV and
radio personality. People love your nonstop apocalyptic predictions and proclamations that you alone are the guardian of truth. Your sort
of media used to be restricted to fringe newsletters, but now that the sane people get most of their media from the Internet, you and your
nutcase followers managed to successfully invade cable television. For you, government run health care (except your beloved alcoholism
rehab clinics) is wrong because the government should only have two functions – the military and bible education.

Washington University Political Review 34