by David Salzillo Jr. '24 on March 16, 2023
Opinion Staff

---

Opinion

---

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene—on Presidents’ Day, no less—proposed a “national divorce,” a separation of red states from blue. At first glance, her proposal appears to have little to do with the electoral college. After all, the mechanics of a “national divorce” are and ever will be unworkable. “A house divided against itself cannot stand,” as Lincoln once put it.  

Yet we would be wrong to dismiss the sentiment behind Rep. Taylor Greene’s statement outright. Former Secretary of Labor and notable progressive activist Robert Reich shows us why. Just two days after Rep. Taylor Greene’s statements, he said, “The fact is, majorities both in red states and in blue states do seem to want fundamentally different things.”  

Inadvertently, Reich gives us perhaps the strongest argument for the electoral college. I say “inadvertently” because Reich actually supports the abolition of the electoral college. Now, as a progressive Democrat, I understand his concerns. He calls the electoral college “antiquated,” and he claims it subverts the will of the people as expressed in the popular vote.  

He misses an important point, though: Americans are not an undifferentiated mass of voters. If they were, we would not be talking about red states and blue states, and we almost certainly would not be talking about national divorces. The “will of the people” in Rhode Island is different from the “will of the people” in Wyoming. Reich himself tells us as much. Wouldn’t it be short-sighted of us to try to simply average out the difference?  

To some I may appear to be engaging in political appeasement here. Don’t I recognize that blue cities exist within red states, and that blue states have red towns and red counties? Yes. Then why don’t I see the absurdity in allocating votes by state? Because, if voting by state is absurd, then so is having states at all. If those that wish to abolish the electoral college seek to replace it with a “simple national popular vote,” then why not have a government according to the “simple national popular will?” Why have different states with different laws, and why force the federal government to share power with and leave certain responsibilities to the state governments? Why, in short, treat states like they are something separate from the federal government?  

In fact, many of the arguments used against the electoral college can be turned against the existence of states themselves. Does the electoral college cancel out the votes of Democrats in Ohio? Well, doesn’t that already happen on the statewide level, when Ohio elects its governor? If one is unfair and undemocratic, then why isn’t the other? And why should Democrats in Ohio have to obey laws a Republican governor signed into law? Shouldn’t they be governed according to the will of “the simple national majority,” and not the whims of the state of Ohio?  

My point is this: if applied consistently, the logic behind abolishing the electoral college undermines the whole idea of federalism. Namely, that the United States is not just a collection of individual citizens; instead, it is a larger community consisting of smaller communities. And further, that these communities—even the smallest of them—should have a say in the workings of the federal government as a community.  

Does my argument sound too much like “states’ rights” for you? It shouldn’t. It is why we have the European Union and not one giant country called “Europe.” In fact, imagine for a second that the European Union did not have votes by member country. Imagine if France or Germany or Spain was the deciding vote on every single policy proposal that ever came before the EU. Wouldn’t the people in smaller countries—like, say, Greece—be rightfully upset that their unique interests as a community were not taken into account? Wouldn’t they rightfully feel unfairly represented in such a system?  

Far from being about states’ rights or appeasing the right, keeping the electoral college is about keeping the representative in representative democracy.  

by Kaelin Ferland '23 on March 2, 2023
Opinion Staff

---

Featured Slider

---

Defense of the Willow Project Contradicts Biden Administration’s Commitment to Clean Energy

The ConocoPhillips Willow project is an incredibly overlooked fossil fuel initiative despite the devastating toll it will have on our planet and its environmental injustice implications. If approved, the Willow project will be the largest oil project in the country, extracting over 600 million barrels of oil in just 30 years. The burning of this oil would release 280 million metric tons of carbon dioxide into our atmosphere.  

Willow will also be dangerous to native communities, as living in close proximity to these sites can lead to a variety of health issues. One nearby native community, Nuiqsut, has already expressed their concern and disapproval of this project. Many members of this community are concerned about chemical and noise pollution and potential oil spills, factors that could cause serious health issues. ConocoPhillips already had a gas leak at another one of their Alaskan drilling sites last year. 

The location of Willow in the fragile arctic ecosystem will have devastating effects on the area, making it even more susceptible to climate change. The Arctic is particularly vulnerable to climate change as its temperatures increase four times faster than the rest of the planet due to Arctic amplification. When arctic ice melts due to warming temperatures, the reflective white ice becomes absorbent dark ocean water. This causes the Arctic to heat at a faster rate. Willow will also have a detrimental effect on wildlife, threatening birds, caribou, and other important species.  

The project has already been approved in the Alaska House of Representatives in a 36-0 vote and has unfortunately received support from the Biden Administration. With the Final Supplemental Impact Statement having already been released by the US Bureau of Land Management, it seems as though the government is moving even closer to approving the project. 

Supporting the Willow Project is hypocritical and dangerous. Throughout his presidency, Biden has consistently denounced fossil fuels and supported clean energy, reaffirming his commitment to climate action. On his first day in office, the United States re-entered the Paris Climate Agreement; that same year, he signed an executive order for the federal government to reach net-zero emissions by 2050. The 2022 Inflation Reduction Act was also seen as a breakthrough in climate action being the largest climate investment in US history. The over $350 billion bill would go towards decreasing emissions, important conservation efforts, making clean energy affordable, and combating environmental injustice. 

Everything about the Willow project opposes these policies and the current Administration’s commitment to supporting conservation and clean energy, as well as their commitment to mitigating climate change and environmental injustice. If approved, the future of our planet will be even more uncertain as we move further away from mitigating climate change and decreasing our greenhouse gas emissions. Approving the Willow project would demonstrate not only a lack of support for our planet but a prioritization of money and support for the fossil fuel industry while overlooking the safety of native Alaskan communities and wildlife. We need to hold our elected officials accountable for the promises they make. You can take action by signing Protect the Arctic’s petition to “tell President Biden & Secretary Haaland to say no to Willow.” 

by David Salzillo Jr. '24 on March 2, 2023
Opinion Staff

---

Featured Slider

---

Eugene Debs, George Orwell, Bernie Sanders: what do they all have in common? A commitment to democratic socialism. Once a dirty word in American politics, it has transformed into a rallying cry for economic and social justice. Youth membership in the Democratic Socialists of America has reached all-time highs, and likely will continue to do so. This raises the question: should I become an official DSA member? And should you? 

In short, no. Now, I know what you’re thinking, and you’re wrong. I was an enthusiastic Bernie Sanders supporter in 2016 and 2020. I support Senator Sanders’ vision for this country and for working people, and I agree with probably about 80-90 percent of his policy positions (if not more). Still, I would never consider joining the Democratic Socialists of America.  

Why? For one, I am not a socialist. I am not a socialist because, honestly, I’m not sure what the word means anymore. The DSA supports “the abolition of capitalism.” Okay, what does that entail? Much of what Bernie Sanders advocated for on the campaign trail, strictly speaking, is not socialist under that definition. President Truman proposed a nationwide universal healthcare program almost 80 years ago, well before Bernie Sanders brought it back into the national conversation. Yet Truman never called for the abolition of capitalism. And FDR—one of Bernie Sanders’ biggest political influences—is known for saving capitalism from itself. He’s obviously not a socialist either. So what makes the Bernie Sanders of 2016 and 2020 a socialist? 

Perhaps I am being a bit cheeky, and maybe I am more eager to save capitalism from itself than my fellow progressives are. Even if you are not so optimistic about capitalism, consider this: even unabashedly “we need to abolish capitalism” democratic socialists will not agree on its replacement. Will there be competition? To what degree will the state control the economy? To what degree will the workers control the economy? An organization devoted to abolishing capitalism ought to have a better idea of what exactly they are trying to abolish. Finally, let’s say democratic socialists did come to an agreement on how to abolish capitalism best. Well, no matter what agreement they came to, they could no longer consult the mixed economies of Europe for guidance. They would be on their own, much like the free-market absolutists searching for that perfect capitalist state.  

Now, I agree with the DSA that an organization devoted to changing the lives of working people needs a broad vision. For too long, many of our non-socialist Democratic politicians have failed us in that respect. They have not challenged us to help create a world where justice truly “roll[s] down like waters.” They have failed to stand up for our rights to decent medical care, a living wage, and a good education. They have hollowed out FDR’s agenda, turning the Democratic Party into an upholder of the status quo. In doing so, they have trampled on our rights to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” To life, because they have forced those at the bottom to sacrifice their livelihoods—and sometimes their lives—for those at the top. To liberty, because they have restricted equality of opportunity to certain zip codes and life circumstances. And to the pursuit of happiness, because that right is a cruel joke without the others.  

Yes, I agree with the DSA about all that. Too many of the non-socialist Democratic politicians of the recent past have failed to connect economic justice to social justice, with disastrous consequences for their and our posterity. Yet it does not have to be this way. To those that propose the abolition of capitalism, I propose the reinstatement of democratic capitalism. Free markets with fairness, ownership with responsibility, and government with the power to ensure these things. As former United States Secretary of Labor Robert Reich put it, “democratic capitalism is neither socialism nor ‘big government;’” it is the government “[organizing] the market for the greater good.” 

So no, I am not a democratic socialist, and I will never join the DSA. Does that mean I refuse to cooperate or work with them? Absolutely not. All movements will have their disagreements; why should the movement for economic and social justice be any different? We must support each other in our common struggle despite such disputes. That said, while I respect the DSA’s work and I appreciate their good intentions, their vision for economic justice is simply not mine.  

by Christina Charie '25 on March 2, 2023
Opinion Editor

---

Opinion

---

An organization committed to safeguarding human rights has members that violently suppress women. The United Nations produces numerous statements condemning gender-based violence and discrimination in foreign states, but given their inability to enforce the precedents in individual states, women’s inequality persists. The ideals presented by documents such as the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women would protect women across the globe, if the standards were enforced adequately.  

According to the United Nations Charter, the organization “reaffirm[s] faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women.” State interests, however, prevent the United Nations from taking direct steps to carry out its mission globally, which harms vulnerable populations and shelters oppressive governments from facing consequences. In ideal circumstances, the United Nations would be an effective instrument of change on a global scale. Unfortunately, the world is far from ideal in the modern era. 

Without enforcement mechanisms, the United Nations cannot force regimes to comply with basic statutes relating to human rights, including gender-based discrimination. Each state can choose whether to enter conventions, which allows certain nations to avoid having the United Nations review their progress in terms of gender equality. Recently, this standard was demonstrated following the death of Mahsa Amini, a young Iranian woman taken into custody by the country’s morality police. UN Women advocated “for the Iranian authorities to hold an independent, impartial, and prompt investigation into Ms. Amini’s death, to make the findings of the investigation public and to hold all perpetrators accountable.” Secret police physically assaulted a woman for having a lock of hair visible in public, but the United Nations cannot force the Iranian government to cooperate with the international community. The national sovereignty of oppressive regimes takes priority over human rights in the context of global politics. Without more oversight from the United Nations, women will continue to face various forms of persecution.  

Selective participation within the United Nations prevents the organization from enacting changes that protect the dignity of women and girls worldwide. In the United Kingdom, the government finally incorporated the Istanbul Convention into their national law, but the state refused to provide the same level of protection against violence for migrant women. If a state wants to reap the benefits and privileges of being part of the United Nations, some matters should be non-negotiable, especially when issues relate to human rights. Actions speak louder than words, and the world is telling women they are second-class citizens. Unfortunately, the United Nations places an excessive amount of trust in states to enforce agreements and protect human dignity.  

Conventions and statements are meaningless without change. The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women attempts to facilitate action by asking states “to adopt appropriate legislative and other measures, including sanctions where appropriate, prohibiting all discrimination against women.” This declaration loses its weight and meaning when member states, including Egypt, Sudan, and Mali, allow a significant majority of their female populations to undergo genital mutilation procedures. This procedure has no medical advantages for patients. In fact, the practice causes serious complications including infection, complications during childbirth, and even death. The United Nations can issue thousands of statements advocating for states to safeguard women’s rights, but that does not prevent discrimination and violence from occurring in its member states. Without enforcement strategies, the United Nations is powerless against oppressive regimes.  

If human rights are the main priority within the United Nations, the organization needs more power over its members. All member states should be required to abide by certain conventions and agreements concerning human rights to avoid facing repercussions within the organization. The world cannot sit idly by as historically disadvantaged populations, including women, face physical and mental torture at the hands of regimes recognized by the United Nations. International investigations should become the standard when states are suspected of violating human rights. This will provide a system of checks and balances that prevents states from ignoring benchmarks set by the United Nations. 

The United Nations emerged from the horrors of two global wars to provide hope for the future, a future that included diplomacy and respect for human dignity. Unfortunately, states still refuse to cooperate to protect the most vulnerable populations. Nationalism obstructs the tools of international justice. If states refuse to accept principles set forth by the United Nations, then the organization must evolve to achieve its objectives. Ignoring the tragedies occurring across the world sets an appalling precedent that accepts violent discrimination.  

by Christina Charie '25 on February 16, 2023
Opinion Editor

---

Featured Slider

---

With mass shootings on the rise once again, inaction still runs rampant within the American legal system. Recently the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals released a new decision that will allow domestic abusers to own guns. Even though domestic abuse situations are closely tied to mass shootings, courts continue to uphold gun rights at the cost of human lives. Upon closer analysis, one must realize that allowing domestic abusers to legally own a firearm will have a disproportionate impact on women.

While one in nine men experience partner violence, domestic violence impacts women at a rate of 25 percent according to the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence. The new ruling from the Court of Appeals has consequences that will impact more women than men in America, which is often left out of headlines. The law continues to insinuate that women’s safety is less important than men’s right to own a gun. Women are not truly equal to men if such a ruling is considered constitutional.   

The Appeals Court ruling not only allows domestic abusers to legally own a gun; but those with a restraining order against them also have a pathway to legal gun ownership. Any law that prevents domestic abusers from owning a firearm is unconstitutional according to the court’s interpretation of the Constitution. However, according to the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, the risk of homicide increases by 500 percent when a gun is present in a domestic violence situation. 

The victim’s life should take precedence, but the American legal system casts them aside. This allows them to be sacrificed in the name of the Second Amendment before considering that a document written in 1789 might need reforms. Instead, survivors are forced to live in fear before the government will seize guns from a citizen.

While the ruling only applies to Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi, court decisions have the power to set far-reaching precedents. If challenges to the ruling reach the Supreme Court, a decision could require that all states guarantee that domestic abusers have the right to firearm ownership. Ultimately, this decision sustains a culture of silence surrounding domestic violence as victims will fear for their lives when reporting abuse, which may even deter survivors from informing law enforcement altogether.

Any solution to gun violence must take into consideration how women are neglected in the name of American exceptionalism. Despite the gendered nature of gun violence, people of all identities will face the consequences of silence. Domestic violence is traumatic on its own; the last thing survivors need is the constant fear of gun violence as well.

by Sarah McLaughlin '23 on October 29, 2022
Editor-in-Chief

---

National and Global News

---

by Sarah McLaughlin ’23

With Congressman Jim Langevin not seeking re-election, the Rhode Island 2nd Congressional District seat is up for grabs this election season. The Providence College campus, as well as the surrounding off-campus neighborhood, is a part of this district, which spans from western Providence to the northwestern, southwestern, and southeastern reaches of the state.

Democrat Seth Magaziner and Republican Allan Fung are the two leading opponents for the seat. Magaziner is the current Rhode Island General Treasurer, has a teaching background, and is a graduate of both Brown University and Yale University. Fung has served as the current mayor of Cranston since 2008, has a law background, and is a graduate of Rhode Island College and Suffolk University Law School. Both candidates have previously run for governor and were unsuccessful. Magaziner originally began this year’s election season with a bid for governor, announcing his candidacy in September 2021. In January, he changed course for Congress.

Magaziner states that he “is running for Congress to fight for the middle class and those working hard to join it.” He pledges to protect Social Security and the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare), lower the price of prescription drugs, and lower gas prices by returning the profits of big oil companies to consumers. He has stated he supports suspending the federal gas tax. Magaziner is pro-choice; he helped pass the Reproductive Privacy Act, which codified Roe v. Wade into Rhode Island state law. He has also initiated clean energy programs as the state’s treasurer. Magaziner has received the endorsement of current Congressman Langevin.

Fung also pledges that he will lower the cost of living and gas prices. He argues that the U.S. should not be dependent on imported oil and that we should instead increase domestic oil production. He has stated that he is in favor of completing undrilled oil wells. Fung also states that concerning energy, he is “laser-focused on bringing new approaches…to the table that protect working families’ paychecks while also preserving our environment for years to come.” He believes that renewable energy brings an opportunity to create jobs in Rhode Island, stating, “Let’s take the debate over climate solutions out of the political arena and put [it] into the paycheck arena.” On the issue of abortion, Fung’s views are unclear. In 2018, he said he supported “a woman’s right to make medical decisions,” with some restrictions. If he wins, Fung would be the first nonwhite representative of Rhode Island in Congress.

The two candidates went head-to-head in two debates this week. The first debate took place on Monday, Oct. 17 at the URI Kingston campus. It also featured independent candidate Bill Gilbert, who is currently polling at about 5 percent.

Among other topics discussed were the events of January 6, 2021. “January 6 was a very dark day in our country’s history, and I spoke out on that day,” Fung stated, likely in an attempt to differentiate himself from the Republicans who supported the events. “I’m not President Trump,” he said. “I don’t act that way. I’m not about divisiveness.” However, Magaziner pointed out that Fung has “made clear” that he would vote to “put election deniers in charge of the House,” citing his support of Kevin McCarthy and Jim Jordan. Fung argued that Magaziner’s support of Nancy Pelosi is a larger issue, believing that her actions have “crippled the economy.”

I spoke with Dr. Cammarano of the PC Political Science Department about his thoughts on the debate. “This is a year where both sides are trying to say they’re not like the typical person in their party,” he said. “The reality is they’re both going to vote with their party.”

Magaziner also spoke on how he supports lowering interest rates for student loans so students can focus on pursuing their desired careers after graduation. Fung agreed that he would support lowering the interest rates, and he also stated he would support “doubling the amount of Pell grants” awarded.

On the topic of abortion, Magaziner stated, “There’s no ambiguity about where I am.” He argued that Fung, on the other hand, has gone back and forth on the issue. Fung pushed back, stating that he has made clear his opposition to a national abortion ban.

Independent candidate Bill Gilbert, who has thus far run a very low-profile campaign, spoke on how he believes “hyperpartisanship” is a major issue dividing the country. “We’re still running against Trump, and he’s not in office,” he stated. “We need to heal.” He also argued in favor of public funding for STEM fields and vocational training.

The second debate took place on Tuesday, Oct. 18 at Providence Performing Arts Center. Issues on which the two candidates agreed include federal legalization of marijuana, federal protection of same-sex marriage, and instituting term limits for both Supreme Court justies and congresspeople. 

According to Suffolk University and Boston Globe polling data from Oct. 12, Fung leads Magaziner 45 percent to 37 percent. 13 percent of voters remain undecided. David Paleologos, director of the Suffolk University Political Research Center, stated, “Fung has a lead in this race due to overwhelming support from men, independents, and older voters.” Meanwhile, Rhode Island Governor Dan McKee, a Democrat, leads Republican challenger Ashley Kalus 46 percent to 36 percent. Paleologos believes independent voters are responsible in both cases. Fung and McKee both have a hold over independents.

Polling data from Fleming & Associates gives Fung a 6-point lead, while data from the Mellman Group gives Fung a 3-point lead. Despite the polling data it cites, FiveThirtyEight still judges the race in favor of Magaziner; the analysts give him a 55 percent chance of winning as of Oct. 17. However, as Dr. Cammarano pointed out, the margin of error is about 6 points. “We just don’t know what’s going on,” he said. “I would still say Magaziner has an edge, but he has a certain vulnerability.” Dr. Cammarano noted how while Magaziner only recently moved to his district, Fung has lived in and governed Cranston for years. 

While Inside Elections with Nathan L. Gonzales and Larry J. Sabato’s Crystal Ball categorize the race as one that leans democratic, The Cook Political Report rates it as a toss-up. This seat could be up for grabs for either candidate. The House could potentially swing in favor of the Republicans depending on how many of these toss-up seats they win.

Rhode Island is generally thought of as a deep blue state, but the more rural parts of this district have the potential to vote red. “If water is touching a town, it tends to be Democratic,” Dr. Cammarano stated. Biden won all five counties in the 2020 election, as did Democratic Senator John Reed. However, while Biden saw large margins of victory in the coastal cities like Providence, Warwick, Newport, and Narragansett, he lost many of the inland towns, such as Burrillville, Glocester, Scituate, and Foster, all of which are a part of the state’s 2nd Congressional District. Thus, the race could truly go either way.

If you are registered to vote in Rhode Island, remember that your vote counts. Election Day is Tuesday, November 8, and the polls will be open from 7 a.m. to 8 p.m.

by The Cowl Editor on October 15, 2020

---

Campus

---

by Eileen Cooney ’23

News Staff

On Thursday, Oct. 1, Providence College hosted a Friar Forum with two former governors and presidential candidates, Chris Christie ’23P and Michael Dukakis ’23GP. Christie and Dukakis answered questions about the upcoming election and shared stories about their careers in public service.

The event, moderated by political science department chair Dr. Joseph Cammarano and senior political science major Julia Murphy ’21, was extremely popular with over 700 students, parents, faculty, and alumni in attendance.
Murphy opened the forum by asking the two former governors, “What drew you to public service, and what made you stay so long?” Both Christie and Dukakis answered with detailed, personal anecdotes about their early childhood and adolescence.

Dukakis, growing up in Brookline, MA at a time when people of color were barred from living in his neighborhood, listened to the CBS World News Roundup every night on the radio, and grew interested in solving the injustices he observed in his immediate surroundings. He says that he never regretted his decision to serve in the public sector, and he emphatically claimed, “to be able to make a difference in the lives of your fellow citizens, there is nothing like it.”

Similar to Dukakis, Christie said his interest in public service came at a young age. He told stories of being six years old and watching the Democratic National Convention with his grandmother and of being a teenager volunteering on Tom Kean’s 1977 campaign for the Republican nomination for the governor of New Jersey.

Dukakis and Christie, who both have extensive experience in bridging partisan division, were asked how current political leaders can work effectively with opposing ideas or individuals.

Christie stressed the importance of generating strong personal relationships with others above all else. He feels that the largest problem in Washington, D.C. today is the lack of interaction between politicians; they do not engage with one another long enough to foster personal trust. “It’s much harder to hate up close,” he says. That is why personal relationships make all the difference. Similarly, Dukakis emphasized the importance of inviting leaders on both sides to work together to solve problems and develop policy.

While bipartisanship is surely a big issue, so is the lack of democratic participation among young people. Thus, Murphy asked Christie and Dukakis what passionate young people should do to get involved.

Both responded by emphasizing that we have a political system that allows for people of all backgrounds to come forward and speak their minds. They highlighted the importance of young millennials and Generation Z kids just showing up, displaying their talent, and working hard to make their voices heard.

In addition to questions asked by the moderators, Dukakis and Christie also answered questions from the audience about the current executive administration’s COVID-19 response, the recent nomination of a Supreme Court Justice, and how one can ensure that our democratic institutions are not weakened.

Murphy says that “co-moderating the Friar Forum was a great experience, as it was really remarkable to see Governor Dukakis and Governor Christie, who fall on opposite sides of the political aisle, come together to share stories and insight about the importance of public service.” Coming away from the event, Murphy says that she hopes “people watching saw this as an example of how we can work together despite our differences and to take the time to get to know people we do not always agree with.”

by The Cowl Editor on March 5, 2020

---

National and Global News

---

by Nicole Silverio ’22 and Kyle Burgess ’21

News Staff

Over the past several days, results from South Carolina’s primary elections and Super Tuesday have created major developments for the upcoming decision of choosing a Democratic nominee.

Earning 39 delegates and nearly 50 percent of the vote, former Vice President Joe Biden and his campaign celebrated a major win in South Carolina over the weekend, resetting the entire race. 

On Saturday, February 29, South Carolina held its Democratic presidential primary where Biden won a major victory, sparking hope for his campaign. Currently with 54 delegates, Biden was almost tied with Senator Bernie Sanders who had 58 delegates, threatening Sanders’ spot as frontrunner. 

With 54 delegates at stake in South Carolina, Biden achieved immediate success by earning 20 delegates with only one percent of the vote being reported. Prior to South Carolina, Biden had only obtained 15 delegates after having minimal success in Iowa, New Hampshire, and Nevada, but the  results in South Carolina had rescued his campaign. 

Biden’s overwhelming support amongst black voters determined his victory, winning around three in five black voters. Two-thirds of voters over the age of 65 supported Biden. 

With South Carolina’s large African- American population, Biden gained support for being Barack Obama’s vice president, who is beloved by a majority of black voters in the state. One resident of Columbia stated, “He was Obama’s vice president and he stuck by him.” 

According to exit polls, 56 percent of the Democratic electorate was African American, adding to the significance of Biden’s support amongst black voters in the state. A Fox News voter analysis found that Biden is the highest rated Democratic candidate on who can best handle race issues, attaining 38 percent.   

According to CNN, the favorable numbers amongst candidates in South Carolina overwhelmingly leaned towards Biden. According to the poll, 76 percent found Biden a favorable candidate with only 20 percent finding Biden to be unfavorable. Meanwhile only 53 percent favored Sanders, with the remaining 41 percent finding Sanders unfavorable. In regards to Mayor Michael Bloomberg, 26 percent of South Carolina voters found him to be favorable while 66 percent consider him unfavorable. 

After Biden’s victory, other candidates began to lose hope in their presidential campaigns. That night, as Biden gave his victory speech, businessman Tom Steyer dropped out of the race. On the following day, Mayor Pete Buttigieg announced the end of his presidential bid. Senator Amy Klobuchar also dropped out of the race. Both Buttigieg and Klobuchar have following backed Biden since the results in South Carolina. 

The former vice president’s success in the Palmetto State was mirrored across the South and elsewhere following the results of Super Tuesday.  Biden carried Alabama, Arkansas, Maine, Minnesota, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Virginia, and was even able to upset Senator Elizabeth Warren in her native Massachusetts.  Not to be outdone, Senator Bernie Sanders captured the biggest prize of the night in the California primaries, coupled with his victories in Colorado, Utah, and Vermont. 

These most recent results have effectively made it a two-horse race for the Democratic presidential nomination between Biden and Sanders.  Following his inability to “get it done” at the polls, former NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg announced his withdrawal from the Democratic contest with Elizabeth Warren likely to follow suit.  Such concessions would follow in the footsteps of billionaire Tom Steyer, Klobuchar, and Buttigieg.

by The Cowl Editor on February 13, 2020

---

Campus

---

by Nicole Silverio ’22

News Staff

Last Wednesday, February 5, five professors from the political science department,  Dr. Bill Hudson, Dr. Joseph Cammarano, Dr. Paul Herron, Dr. Adam Myers, and Dr. Matthew Guardino, held a panel discussion in the Arthur F. and Patricia Ryan School of Business discussing contemporary politics in the past week. 

This week has shaped American politics with the start of the Democratic primary and caucus elections, the presidential impeachment trial, and the State of the Union Address, which took place the night before the panel. 

The first topics of discussion were the articles of impeachment, in which President Donald Trump was officially acquitted by the Senate. Only one Republican senator, Mitt Romney, voted to convict President Trump. 

Dr. Hudson made the claim that Trump was not cooperating with Congress. He then cited a book published in the 1970s titled The Imperial Presidency which discussed the impeachment of former President Richard Nixon. Nixon allowed witnesses to testify in his trial, unlike the current president. 

“Trump has not been forthcoming in providing information. This administration would not participate in the impeachment at all. Nine witnesses called to testify refused to appear,” said Hudson. “There’s going to be more stonewalling from the Trump administration which may depend on court cases that may come up.” 

After the discussion on impeachment, a long discussion arose on the State of the Union Address, in which President Trump spoke before Congress, Supreme Court justices, and the American people, addressing the progress made in this country. 

Dr. Myers stated that historically, “The State of the Union Address was not public until Woodrow Wilson’s presidency. The reasoning for this was the fear of demagoguery. Meyers says, “We should go back to the way it was in the 19th century, where the President submitted a letter to his Cabinet and Congress. The current State of the Union is a ridiculous tradition.” 

Dr. Cammarano added, “We have to acknowledge that Trump has done a lot of what he said he would do in 2016. However, I have been studying politics for several years and this State of the Union made me not want to study politics anymore since it was a classic example of what politics has become. It has become political professional wrestling. What we’re seeing is not politics, it’s political wrestling.” 

What he was referring to was the tension between President Trump and Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who visibly tore Trump’s speech on camera. After, Trump refused to shake her hand. 

In regards to Trump’s claims in the State of the Union, Dr. Guardino said, “Last night was an object lesson not only to fact check but to critically evaluate claims in context. The economy is doing well largely due to many grassroot movements, which has led to states across the nation increasing their minimum wages, which the Trump administration has opposed doing.” President Trump’s accomplishments may have been embellished or have happened without his involvement.

 Dr. Hudson mentioned that Trump is “a very clever showman and administered that in the State of the Union. It’s in Trump’s best interest to be the kind of showman that he is when he talks to the press in order to get reelected.”  

On the topic of the recent conflicts between political parties, the professors talked about how fifty years ago, political parties were weaker, causing differences in opinions to have less of an impact on legislation. 

“Up until the 70s, we did not have strong political parties,” said Myers. “When we have strong parties like we do today the system breaks down.” Cammarano added, “I want weaker parties and for Republicans and Democrats to focus on the common interest of the people.” In today’s political climate, it is difficult for people with different political views to understand others opinions, which reflects how the parties treat one another in Congress. 

In today’s polarizing political climate, the political science department wants students to understand what is currently unfolding in politics because, as Cammarano put it, “the young people are going to be the ones to have to fix the major issues in today’s politics, and it is essential to get today’s youth involved in political events in order to make significant changes needed in today’s crazy political climate.”

by The Cowl Editor on February 6, 2020

---

National and Global News

---

by Maura Campbell ’22

News Staff

Candidates for the upcoming presidential election are making their last-minute campaign pushes as the early primaries begin. The Iowa caucuses to select the Democratic presidential nominee were held on Monday, February 3.

Reporting on the results of these caucuses has caused unusual controversy, as there were inconsistencies with the counting which continued into Tuesday. Current standings, with 71 percent  of precincts reporting as of Tuesday afternoon, show Pete Buttigieg leading the polls for the Democratic Party, followed closely by Bernie Sanders. 

According to the Iowa Democratic Party, the issue was not caused by any form of hack or intrusion, but rather by a reporting error with a new app used for calculations in the caucuses. Mandy McClure, director of communications for the Iowa Democratic Party, stated on Monday night, “The underlying data and paper trail is sound and will simply take time to further report the results.” Despite the early lack of results, several candidates gave victory-like speeches on Monday night.

Early primaries and caucuses are particularly important for candidates because they often provide an indication of how well a candidate will do in later primaries. Primaries to select the Democratic and Republican nominees for president begin in February and last through June, with the most important voting date being March 3, 2020. 

On this day, known as Super Tuesday, the states of Alabama, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, and Virginia all hold their primaries.

Meanwhile, with President Trump’s  impeachment trial coming to a close, the American public seems to be largely divided as to whether the Senate should remove Trump from office. 

According to an NBC/Wall Street Journal poll released on Sunday, February 2, the majority of Americans do believe that the President is guilty of both articles of impeachment: abuse of power and obstructing Congress. However, public opinion is split along party lines as to whether these actions warrant his removal from office.

This opinion has stayed fairly consistent throughout the course of the trial. This new poll reports that 46 percent of registered voters support removing Trump from office while 49 percent do not; virtually unchanged from the even 48-to-48 percent ratio on the same question reported by NBC/Wall Street Journal’s December poll.

For non-registered voters, it is important to register as soon as possible in order to be able to cast a vote in your state’s primary election. Although many states allow for online voter registration, there are still several states that do not, meaning that registration may have different requirements. For information on how to register or how to vote in your home state with an absentee ballot, call your local town office or visit www.vote.org.