Volume 3, Issue 1 • October 2010

Contact Information
Jonathan M. Tisch College of Citizenship and Public Service
Lincoln Filene Hall
Tufts University
Medford, Massachusetts 02155

www.tuftsroundtable.org
roundtable@tuftsroundtable.org

FE ATUR ES

A Look at the Causes of the Republican Resurgence: On the Failure of Congress’ Liberal Agenda:

A Wake Up Call Dissatisfied with the Democrats

by Ian Hainline, Page 9 by Rachael Filer, Page 15

LOC AL AN D C AM PUS
7 Examining the Coverage of Referenda 3 and 4: Jacob Kreimer
Clarifying the Questions: Where was the Media?
NATIO NAL
8 Why We, Not the Senate, are the Problem: Aaron Zucker
Sixty is not Enough on Climate Change
17 An Insight into Congressional Stagnation: Jack Miszencin
Why Congress Doesn’t Work
18 The Upside of Outsourcing: Philip Lautman
Outsourced Me
INTE R NATIO NAL
19 Dealing with Europe’s Roma Dilemma: Jan McCreary
Racism and the Roma
20 Examining US Relations with Latin America: Aaron Cantú
Ecuador’s Coup: A Watershed Moment for
US-Ecuador Relations
21 A Tense Time in Ecuador: Juliana Slocum
Was It Really a Coup?
22 The Overlooked Pakistani Perspective: Mark Rafferty
Insurgent vs. Predator: Drones and the Battle for Hearts and Minds

Cover Photo: John Boehner- Republican Conference

4 Tufts Roundtable
from the editor tufts roundtable
My name is Evan Chiacchiaro, and it is my privilege to serve as Edi- Editor-in-Chief: Evan Chiacchiaro
tor-in-Chief of the Tufts Roundtable magazine for the Fall 2010 semester.
This semester, we hope to continue the magazine’s tradition of providing Executive Content Karen Adler
informative, relevant articles on today’s most important issues and printing
Editor:
Tufts’ community members’ opinions on a wide variety of topics.

Two years ago, the inaugural issue of the Tufts Roundtable magazine Editing Staff: Jan McCreary
focused on the upcoming 2008 Presidential elections. This issue, we deal
with the 2010 midterm elections, which will take place on November 2. Executive Layout Natalya Minoff
While midterm elections traditionally receive less attention than presiden- Editor :
tial ones, they have the power to make or break a presidency. If Obama’s
Democrats lose control of the House, the Senate, or both to the Republican Layout Editors : Rachel Cook
party, his hopes of passing significant legislation may be seriously damp- Stephanie Powell
ened. And as we look ahead to the possible results in November, we also
offer you four examples of past midterm elections whose consequences have
changed the American political landscape
Design Staff: Derrick Kane
With Republicans seemingly poised to take the House and make large Chinami Michaels
gains in the Senate, we take a look at what factors may be driving voters
this election season, from hotly-contested issues to political wildcards. Our Executive Copy Zachary Sheldon
features offer two different takes on this issue, discussing whether or not Editor:
a Republican victory is a rejection of the Democrats or merely voters act-
ing on their anger over the flailing economy. We also examine eight races Copy Editors: Lydia Hochheimer
across the country where this anger towards the political establishment has Robin Wetherill
resulted in a surge of outsider candidates.
Webmaster: Aeden Pillai
The rest of our articles deal with local, national, and international
newsand feature a wide range of perspectives and opinions. From the issue
of Referenda 3 and 4 on our own campus to whether or not the recent vio- Contributers: Aaron Cantu
lence in Ecuador can be considered a legitimate coup attempt, we examine Rachael Filer
events across the globe that are shaping our world today. Ian Hainline
Jacob Kreimer
Finally, while it may be a cliché, words do have power. In the mid- Philip Lautman
term elections right here in the United States, a candidate’s branding of the Jack Miszencin
other as liberal or conservative can define a race. In Ecuador, perceptions of Mark Rafferty
the violent drama that unfolded hinge on one word, “coup,” and whether Juliana Slocum
President Correa’s use of it was accurate and appropriate. Here at Tufts
Aaron Zucker
Roundtable magazine, we urge you to share your opinions, your passions,
and your take on the world. Let your words impact today’s debate.

Evan Chiacchiaro

President
Shabazz Stuart

October 2010 5
 Peter Levine
“The Rise of an Expert Class and Its Implications for Democracy”

Civil society is increasingly dominated by people who have received relevant professional training or who officially
represent firms and other organizations. In local discussions about schools, for example, a significant proportion of the
participants may hold degrees in education, law, or a social science discipline or represent the school system, the teacher’s
union, or specific companies and interest groups.

Such people can contribute valuable sophistication and expertise. But if my arguments here are correct, we should
not be satisfied with public discourse that is merely technical or that reflects negotiations among professional representatives
of interest groups. We should want broad deliberations, rooted in everyday experience, drawing on personal experience and
values as well as facts and interests, and resistant to the generalizations of both professionals and ideologues.

Technically trained professionals already intervened powerfully in public policy and institutions a century ago. The
ratio of professionals in the United States doubled between 1870 and 1890, as society became more complex and urbanized
and scientific methods proved their value. More than 200 different learned societies were founded in the same two decades,
and learned professionals specialized. For example, physicians split into specializations in that period. The historian Robert
L. Buroker deftly describes the implications for politics and civic life: “By 1900 a social class based on specialized expertise
had become numerous and influential enough to come into its own as a political force. Educated to provide rational answers
to specific problems and oriented by training if not by inclination toward public service, they sensed their own stake in the
stability of the new society, which increasingly depended upon their skills.” At best, they offered effective solutions to grave
social problems. At worst, they arrogantly tried to suppress other views. For instance, the American Political Science As-
sociation’s Committee of Seven’s argued in 1914 that citizens “should learn humility in the face of expertise.”...

Ryan Tram
“Is This Youth? The Naked And Famous

As the first notes glisten in on their most well-known track “Young Blood”, it’s Passion Pit. Michael Angelakos’
unmistakable eunuch falsetto chimes in, but then again, it’s not. This New Zealand group is no impostor, bearing their own
sound that is synth-powered but not completely driven that way. The Naked And Famous employ prominent basslines and
drum beats to keep the pulse heavy, along with enough guitar work to fill the spaces in between. ”Young Blood” is written
in the style of the Temper Trap’s “Sweet Disposition”, voicing instants of love, recklessness, and those moments that fail to es-
cape the bliss of mind. It isn’t a small song; it has its bits where it is grand and pensive at once, and it implores you to think
of the best of your own youth.

6 Tufts Roundtable
 Clarifying the
Questions: Where
was the Media?
Photo credit: Valerie Everett

Yet both questions passed. Fast forward a few months to

Jacob Kreimer this semester. The runoff between these same two proposals
resulted in Referendum 3 passing by a single vote with a mere
516 supporters, hardly a campus mandate, leaving room for
B eing abroad last semester, I found it difficult to keep tabs
on everything happening back at Tufts. Yet from what
I’ve gathered from friends and a few clicks on the Daily and
confusion and calls for re-votes. On an issue so decisive, how
could both of these murky outcomes be possible? The answer
lies in how Tufts media treated the issue.
Roundtable web pages, it seems that pretty much everyone was
In truth, Tufts students could have visited the ECOM web-
confused by what exactly went on with Referenda 3 and 4. As
site and seen the text of the referenda themselves. But consider-
last semester’s Public Editor, Shabazz Stuart, pointed out in his
ing how busy we all complain about being and the haste with
April 9th column, the media is the key link between the politi-
which we fill out the WebCenter form, I don’t think this is a
cal class and the people whom they serve. He offered a wake-up
reasonable expectation. Campus media should have included
call to campus media to use their weight to inform policy. Just
this on their agenda weeks before the election. Instead, Tufts
as Tufts publications ought to reflect public opinion to policy
students were left mostly ignorant, confused, or complacent,
makers, they ought also to disseminate, clarify, and investigate
as indicated by the 22% voter turnout rate. I give credit to the
policy proposals. In order for democracy to work, people need
Daily for improving their news coverage over last semester’s
to make informed decisions. At Tufts, people become informed
coverage, yet it just wasn’t enough. In fact, the Daily’s editorial
by reading any one of our daily, weekly, and bi-weekly publica-
encouraging students to abstain and send Senate back to the
tions. Yet the referenda outcomes of last year’s presidential bal-
drawing board seemed an easy way out of deep coverage and
lot and this year’s vote sent a clear message to all members of
conversation. Other publications weren’t much better: The Pri-
the Media Advocacy Board: we’ve got some work to do.
mary Source and Roundtable gave readers hardly more than a
The changes to the Tufts Community Union Senate pro-
page of opinion, while the Observer remained silent on the is-
posed by Referenda 3 and 4 were no light matter, yet I sincerely
sue. To all Media Advocacy Board members, I say this: referen-
doubt that even half of the student population had a firm grasp
da don’t write themselves. Where were the interviews with the
on what exactly they stood for. Unlike many administration-
people who wrote them? Where was the analysis of potential
based campus programs dealing with diversity, the referenda
results from the passage of either Referendum? Where was the
were written and sponsored directly by students who took their
time-line of ECOM’s managing of the situation? Where was
own initiative. In the pre-referenda system, four Community
the commentary on other colleges that have similar systems? In
Reps, each elected by the Association of Latin American Stu-
short, did we live up to our obligation to be a conduit between
dents (ALAS), the Asian Student Union (ASU), the Pan-African
government and people, media and readership?
Alliance (PAA), and the Queer Straight Alliance (QSA), had a
This year’s election had the potential to be productive and
‘place at the table’ of Senate meetings but were unable to vote
thought provoking, a test of Media’s ability to get to the heart
on the substantive issue of money allocation, and could not be
of the issue. Instead, campus media failed to generate cam-
appointed to the Executive Board. Referendum 3 proposed a
pus wide discussion or engage the readership, relegating the
major change to this system: Community Reps would be elect-
referenda to a marginal issue of Senators and Group of Six
ed by the entire Tufts population and accordingly would re-
leadership. Think back to Prop 8 in California. Or Question 2
ceive voting and appointment rights, including to Allocations
on marijuana in Massachusetts. Referenda matter and I speak
Board and Executive Board. On the other hand, Referendum
to both the MAB and the readership when I say that moving
4 supported the status quo on this issue, maintaining Com-
forward we should start treating them as such.
munity Reps as declawed Senators but adding a new “Diversity
and Community Affairs” position to represent their collective
interests (Ref. 3 also had this provision). Tufts students were
given the option of re-affirming the old system or welcoming a
Jacob Kreimer is the current Public Editor of the Media Advo-
new one. The gist of the text was simple: you either wanted to
cacy Board. He can be reached at jacob.kreimer@tufts.edu.
give Community Reps full voting power, or you didn’t.
October 2010 7

Sixty is Not Enough
on Climate Change
Aaron Zucker
A s the first half of President Obama’s term draws to a close, the suc-
cess or failure of his legislative agenda has appeared to hinge on the
fickle positions of individual U.S. senators, who may choose to support
or filibuster every individual motion proposed by the Democrats. Real
change may now only be realized when sixty courageous senators step up
and fight for what is right by forming a super majority that can prevent
a filibuster. That was certainly the mentality that drove the year-long
negotiations for health care reform: one by one, conservative Democrats
like Evan Bayh and liberal Republicans like Susan Collins were courted
to join the good guys.
When Congress transitioned to tackling climate change, The
New Yorker’s Ryan Lizza revealed that this sixty-centric strategy was
again very much a driving force. Republican Senator Lindsey Graham
had become convinced that capping carbon emissions was an imperative
that had to be addressed by this Senate, but he also knew that he and his
colleagues had to negotiate the details as quickly as he could because the
media would soon find out what he and some of his fellow Republicans
were up to, which he feared would “become just a disaster for me on the
airwaves.” He should have realized that this strategy was doomed to fail
from the beginning. The ultimate vote on major legislation is irrelevant
if the public has already become convinced that they hate it.
On health care, Democrats hoped that if they could only pass
the damn thing, they would be able to sell it later to the public, and
all of the bill’s benefits would win over its skeptics. Unfortunately, at
that point it was far too late, and they had already lost the battle in the
shouting matches of last summer’s town halls. Had they better under-
stood their priorities, the outcome could have been entirely different.
New York Times blogger Nate Silver’s polling analyses have revealed
that many Americans surveyed who claim to oppose the bill still do not
fully understand it. Every individual component of the bill is popular,
in some cases extremely so, but many respondents still do not know
exactly what is in the bill. Like cap and trade, it polls much better when
its details are explained beforehand. In the meantime, Republicans are
positioning to regain a legislative majority owed entirely to their victory
of misinformation and confusion.
Running just below the radar of most political discourse is the
absolute failure of the Republican Party to address climate change. The
cable news media has salivated over the emergence of Tea Party fringe
candidates such as Sharon Angle and Christine O’Donnell, but it has
neglected the out-of-touch and outdated insanity of the mainstream
GOP. Of the thirty-seven Republican candidates for U.S. Senate this
season, not a single one has a plan to combat climate change and transi-
tion our economy away from carbon-based fuels. Nearly all of them are
in denial, or claim to doubt the science behind man-induced climate
change. Using flimsy or non-existent evidence, they have abandoned a
reasonable and vital problem and have resorted to fear mongering amid
a recession.
8 Tufts Roundtable
National Section:
• “Sixty is Not Enough on
Climate Change,” p. 8
• “Why Congress Doesn’t
Work,” p. 17
• “Outsourced Me,” p. 18
Ron Brownstein of The National Journal observes that “the
GOP is stampeding toward an absolutist rejection of climate science….
It is difficult to identify another major political party in any democracy
as thoroughly dismissive of climate science as is the GOP here.” And
yet in today’s political atmosphere, many of these candidates are likely
to win. It is also very likely, much more likely than these future senators
and committee chairs realize, that they will mock or ignore this issue
exactly when it is most dangerous to do so, as our planet reaches its point
of no return. At the very least, these men and women are undeniably on
the wrong side of history. Their grandchildren will read about them in
their school textbooks as many Americans today read about their own
grandparents: they will appear as stubborn and deluded then as the ag-
ing former segregationists of the present.
In their zeal to castigate the Democratic majority, Republican
strategy has embraced intellectual dishonesty over a healthy war of ideas.
Of course, this does not have to be the case. Generally, Republicans,
who claim to be practical and debt-conscious, respect and revere the
Congressional Budget Office—except when they don’t. Except when
the CBO decides that the Democratic health care reform bill would
lower costs and the national deficit. And except when it decides that the
Democratic cap and trade system would limit carbon emissions without
significantly raising utility bills or destroying the economy.
Instead, Republican Congressmen ignored these budget analyses,
and turned to the few studies that reflected their worldview. Any high
school student writing a research paper could tell them that they can-
not singularly cite the conservative Heritage Foundation for data, just
as Democrats cannot rely solely on The Center for American Progress
for theirs. It is impossible to argue credibly using only biased, partisan
sources, but too many politicians choose the easy way out.
The misinformation that has thrived under lazy or deceptive
politicians must be combated vigorously in the media, but today too
many cable hosts permit their guests to utter untruths on television
and pass them off as opinion. Instead, rumor-debunking outlets like
the Pulitzer Prize-winning Politifact.org, and the Annenberg Center’s
Factcheck.org need to be emphasized. Like the CBO, these groups are
cited selectively by politicians, but their impact has limitless potential.
We live in a world where accusations are highlighted in headlines,
and retractions are squeezed in between ads. As a people, we need to
seek out truth over drama, or we will continue to be manipulated and
misled by those whose power thrives on such distractions. Therefore, in
the pursuit of any legislative goal, the war of ideas cannot be taken for
granted, and certainly cannot be relegated to any phase two. This cur-
rent election proves that even when a major bill passes, if it is unpopular
enough, its champions will soon be replaced by its opponents, who will
waste their elected terms weakening and repealing it. Meanwhile, in the
background, America’s true challenges are looming and growing larger.

E very election, an old political saying holds, is the most im-
portant election ever. True to form, politicians, political
operatives, and pundits alike all characterize the upcoming mid-
term elections as the “most important election in our nation’s
history.” Republicans see the midterms as an opportunity to re-
gain control of one, if not both, houses of Congress in order to
further their opposition to President Obama’s legislative efforts.
By contrast, some Democrats see this as an opportunity to affirm
their support of President Obama and validate his successes,
while others fear the consequences of a Republican takeover of
the House, Senate, or both.
Unfortunately for Democrats, recent polling has shown
that they may be running into a headwind, and many forecasts
see widespread Democratic losses at the polls come November.
While many have been quick to write off both President Obama
and the Democratic Party this November, it is important to put
the election into perspective.
Coming into the midterm elections, one need remember that
the party that holds the White House almost always loses seats in
Congress during the midterm elections; a rule which holds true
A Wake-Up Call
Ian Hainline
for Presidents both lionized and vilified. The only recent excep-
tion to this rule was 2002, when Republicans increased their
margin of seats in the House by eight, and picked up two seats
to win the Senate. This success at the polls, however, was largely
attributed to President Bush’s leadership after 9/11 more than
any other accomplishment in the first part of his presidency.
Other than 2002, only three other midterm elections since 1900
have seen the party in power pick up seats: in 1902, 1934, and
1998. Needless to say, history is against President Obama and
the Democratic Party in 2010.
Beyond historical trends, there are other, more current fac-
tors at work. As the party in power, President Obama and the
Democrats represent the status quo and have delivered a long list
of legislative accomplishments. Unfortunately, despite control of
both the White House and Congress, Democrats, for some, have
failed to deliver on promises made during the 2008 campaign,
and, despite other accomplishments, are seeking to hold them
accountable for their failure in this regard. Indeed, the fact that
the Democrats are the majority makes it seem to many that they
should not have any trouble in passing legislation that would
October 2010 9
 ameliorate America’s greatest problems. This idea, however, dis-
counts the tremendous ideological variation within the Demo-
cratic Party itself. Consequently, voters who supported President
Obama and the Democrats in 2008 on the promise of “change”
may still feel as though they have not received what they voted
for. The political problems that arise from this frustration are
exacerbated by the fact that it is generally easier to energize a
party’s base when that party is in the opposition. Moreover,
President Obama’s accomplishments unfortunately mean he has
provided plenty of opportunities for Republicans to twist these
ambitious reforms against him.
Despite his legislative accomplishments, President Obama is
still struggling with creating jobs, a major policy area and, more
importantly, in getting the American people to feel as though
the economy is recovering and to feel that same sense of hope
that swept the nation in November of 2008 still exists. The very
best of presidents will not do especially well in a down economy
and President Obama is already polling higher than either Presi-
dent Clinton or President Reagan did at the same point in their
respective presidencies, even though both of those presidents
had better economies at the time. It is frustration with the status
quo, with rising unemployment numbers and, most of all, ap-
parent economic stagnation that contribute to feelings of help-
lessness and exasperation which voters may well take with them
to the polls come Election Day.
Without jobs, and without money to put food on the kitch-
en table and clothing on kids’ backs, any and all other accom-
plishments of a president—any president—can perhaps rightly
be seen in a diminished light, at least for the moment. That does
not, and should not, diminish the fact that President Obama
has been the most productive and successful president in many
years, but it does mean that the Democratic outlook for these
midterm elections is a grim one.
With losses in Congress likely, it is important to ask what
will happen after Election Day, when the campaigns end and
reality sets in. The political landscape, no matter the outcome
of the election, will most certainly require President Obama to
shift the way he governs.
No matter the specific outcome on Election Day, it will be
important for President Obama to find better ways to commu-
nicate with the American people. America has made great strides
forward in the past two years, but the White House has failed to
really sell these changes to many Americans. President Obama
was not elected to be the 101st Senator, but rather the President
of the United States, and it will be important for the President to
show the American people a vision for the country that is both
practical and hopeful. With a Republican-controlled House,
Senate, or Congress, it will be crucial for both sides to find new
and better ways to work together, especially when it comes to
getting the economy fully back on track.
Should the House or Senate fall into Republican hands,
President Obama will have a long historical record to draw from,
with many useful analogies for the remainder of his first term.
After witnessing massive Democratic losses in the 1994 midterm
elections, President Clinton pursued a strategy of “triangula-
tion,” in which he pivoted towards the political center, in be-
tween Congressional Democrats and House Republicans, under
10 Tufts Roundtable
Republican Speaker Newt Gingrich. This shift to the center in
turn prepared President Clinton exceptionally well for his re-
election campaign in 1996.
For better or for worse, however, Barack Obama is not Bill
Clinton, and his response to Democratic losses at the polls will
no doubt differ significantly. The better analogy for President
Obama to draw upon, in fact, may come from a man wildly dif-
ferent from President Obama: Harry Truman.
In 1948, the Republicans wrestled control of both houses
of Congress away from the Democrats, and provided vigorous
opposition to President Truman, blocking much of his Fair Deal
legislative program, as well as many older elements of the New
Deal. In the face of such opposition, President Truman went
on the offensive, campaigning almost as much against Congres-
sional Republicans as he did against the Republican presidential
nominee, Thomas Dewey. President Truman went on to brand
this Congress as the “Do-Nothing Congress,” and, in one mem-
orable instance, perfectly called their bluff by ordering Congress
back into a special session in the summer of 1948. During this
special session, President Truman turned the national spotlight
directly onto Congressional Republicans and challenged them to
“With a Republican-controlled
House, Senate, or Congress, it will
be crucial for both sides to find new
and better ways to work together, es-
pecially when it comes to getting the
economy fully back on track.”
create and enact legislation to fix just one of the nation’s prob-
lems. With a massive political victory in tow, President Truman
dealt a body blow to Republican hopes in the presidential elec-
tion that fall, which saw not only the re-election of President
Truman, but Congressional Democrats winning back the House
as well.
The key lesson for President Obama, then, may well be that
Democratic losses at the polls could be a saving grace in the long
term. Stronger, stiffer Republican opposition in the form of a
potential Speaker of the House John Boehner could in fact lead
to President Obama becoming better able to make his case to the
American people, and which might mean that Republican stay
in power would be a short one. Should they find themselves in
power, the Republicans will no longer be able to fully maintain
their current strategy of stonewalling President Obama, as there
won’t be Democrats in charge of the House or Senate for them
to scapegoat in the process. A further lack of improvement in
the economy, in such an instance, could be laid squarely at the
feet of Congressional Republicans, leaving the GOP with little
cover from the wrath of voters. Indeed, in spite of a flounder-
ing economy, a lack of Democratic successes at the polls come
November 2 may be the very best thing for President Obama in
the next most important election, in 2012.
October 2010 11
 Outsiders vs. the Establishment
Across America, established politicians are bein
of political outsiders. Here, we highlight eigh
serious cha
Meg Whitman, the Republican candidate
for California governor, is a former eBay
CEO. She can rightly claim the title politi- Senate Sea
cal outsider, but will voters care more that
she didn’t herself vote for years and that she
employed an illegal immigrant housekeep-
er? Will these facts destroy her first foray into politics?

State attorney general Jerry Brown is

very familiar with the California gu-
bernatorial position—he was Gov-
ernor thirty years ago. Is he too
much of a relic of the past to win?

On June 8th, right-wing, Tea Party-backed

former Assemblywomen Sharron Angle won
a crowded Nevada Republican primary to
become the party nominee for Senate, defeat-
ing a number of far more moderate candi-
dates. In an instant, a race that most experts
had considered leaning strongly Republican
became a toss-up, with Angle’s ultra-conservative views
leading even some Republican leaders in Nevada to pub-
licly endorse Democratic Senator Harry Reid. Can Angle
make this a referendum on Reid’s tenure and take his seat?

When Harry Reid became Senate Major-

ity Leader in January 2007, it is unlikely
he imagined that a mere three years later
he would be fighting for his political life.
Will Reid be able to exploit Angle’s attacks
on Social Security and Medicare and con-
vince voters to give him six more years?

Lisa Murkowski, a 1.5 term senator (she

was initially appointed in 2002) and
daughter of former Alaska senator and
governor Frank Murkowski, was expecting
this election to be a cake-walk. Instead, she
is scrambling to run a write-in campaign
after her surprise defeat in the Republican
In Alaska, Joe Miller faced off
against political heavyweight Lisa
Murkowski in the Republican pri-
mary and won, a great upset that has
excited the Tea Party. He has Sarah
Palin’s vote. Does he have Alaska’s?
In many ways, the Utah Republican convention in May
2010 was a sign of things to come as the Tea Party
marked its influence on American right-wing politics.
At the convention, Robert Bennett, a 3-time incumbent,
was defeated by Tea Party-supported candidates Mike
Lee and Tim Bridgewater. In the primary one month
leader, the Tea Party and groups such as Dick Armey’s
FreedomWorks coalesced around Lee, and despite Bennett’s endorse-
ment of Bridgewater Lee prevailed and became the Republican nomi-
nee. With Lee showing huge leads in the polls, can he continue his mo-
mentum and turn right-wing support into a general election victory?

12 Tufts Roundtable
t: Facing Off Across the Country
ng challenged and at times defeated by a wave
ht races where the establishment is facing a
allenge.
at Predictions by Fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com:
Solid/Leaning Republican
Solid/Leaning Democrat
Tossup
When Florida Governor Charlie
Crist announced his intention to run
for Senate in 2010, he fully expected
to be the Republican party nomi-
nee. Crist’s reputation as a moder-
ate, however, did not endear him to
many Republicans in the state, and when conservative politician
Marco Rubio entered the race as well, it soon became clear that
Crist would not win a primary. Running as an independent, will
Crist be able to move from the governor’s office to the Senate, or
will Rubio or Democratic candidate Kendrick Meek take the seat?
Richard Blumenthal is the consum-
mate insider, having served as Attorney
General of Connecticut since 1991.
His campaign for Senate, however, has
been marred by allegations that he mis-
represented his service during the Viet-
nam War by implying that he served
overseas. Will Blumenthal survive the allegations and
maintain his prominence in Connecticut politics?
FormerWorldWrestlingEntertainment
CEO Linda McMahon threw her hat in
the ring in September 2009 and man-
aged to defeat former Congressman
Rob Simmons in the Republican prima-
ry. With her slogan “It’s time for a busi-
nesswoman, not a politician,” can she overcome fre-
quent criticisms surrounding professional wrestling’s
many scandals and ride her outsider status to victory?
Carl Paladino, the Tea Party candi-
date in the New York governor’s
race, doesn’t like Speedos. He de-
clared that he didn’t want children
“brainwashed into thinking that ho-
mosexuality is an equally valid and
successful option.” When he tried
to calm the uproar that ensued, he only made
matters worse when he said that a recent gay
pride march where participants “wear these little
Speedos” was “disgusting.” Does he have a shot?
Andrew Cuomo, the
state attorney general
and Democratic candi-
date, is the son of the
former governor. Is
he too much of a po-
litical insider to win the election?
Christine O’Donnell, the Tea Party candidate who won the Re-
publican senate primary in Delaware, handily beat her competi-
tor in the Republican primary competitors,wants you to know she
is not a witch. O’Donnell handily defeated Republican primary
competitor Mike Castle, a two-time governor and nine-time rep-
resentative who she attacked for his insider status and implied was
having a gay affair. She has been quoted saying that she “dabbled
in witchcraft” before becoming an evangelical Christian, and she is anti-abor-
tion and anti-masturbation. Does she have the magic to win the Senate seat?
October 2010 13
 F eature

14 Tufts Roundtable

Dissatisfied with the Democrats
Rachael Filer
A t this time of year, in 2008, the cheers of Obama sup-
porters were swelling in stadiums and community centers
across the country, and independents and conservatives alike
were casting their ballots in favor of what promised to be a
new era of Democratic rule. Yet now the midterm elections
are upon us, and Republicans’ increasing success in polls indi-
cates that much of the country may be questioning its pledge
of allegiance to the change promised by the blue wave. The
American electorate can be fickle, often turning to whichever
party will offer a more significant payoff in any given year;
however, the color changes in this election may be indicative
of a more deep-set discontent with the policies of Obama and
Pelosi. Everyone has a different theory for how to restore our
still-ailing economy to full strength, and fiscal conservatism is
looking increasingly attractive to voters who worry about next
year’s income tax. With the stimulus a neon dollar sign flash-
ing in the minds of voters, the threat of the health care bill
descending like a blimp, and more expensive legislature sure
to come, many voters are finding it hard to keep their faith in
traditionally spending-happy liberals.
Like the Republicans who gained power in the 1994 elec-
tions, GOP candidates are reaping the benefits of a disenchant-
ed public that is disappointed by what it sees as a default on
campaign promises. In 2008, frustrated by the failings of the
previous administrations, many right-leaning independents
and a handful of dedicated Republicans turned to Obama in
the hopes that he would defy political convention and actually
deliver on his promise to create change. The nation had high
hopes for our first African-American president, yet as his term
progressed, his electorate has watched with growing concern as
his administration has added more and more numbers to the
budget’s “debit” column. The fiscal conservatives who helped
elect Obama are feeling the strain on their purse strings. Even
liberals are apprehensive about the tax increases in their future.
Obama walked into the Oval Office with an already exorbitant
debt. His efforts to resuscitate the economy, while in many
ways necessary and beneficial, have done nothing to alleviate
these increasingly staggering numbers.
Having foreseen a party-stabilizing midterm election, the
Obama administration acted quickly to take advantage of the
Democratic majority in House and Senate by pushing through
a slew of legislation to achieve more long-term party goals
without Republican interference. Spending increased from
$2.98 trillion in 2008 to this year’s $3.7 trillion (this might
not look like much, but we’re talking trillions here) without
significant decreases in unemployment rates to justify the deca-
dence. Joblessness is still a national disease. This does make
sense considering the small amount of time that has elapsed
since the beginning of the recession; however, the unemployed
are waiting for their situation to change, and the stimulus dol-
F eature
lars haven’t done enough to fix the problem. Voters expect to
see their administration working tirelessly to fix the problems
they were elected to solve. Instead, we are faced with social
reform legislation, much of it expensive and most of it viewed
as unnecessary by the social conservatives who voted Democrat
in 2008.
In 2008, the country experienced a massive party shift.
Frustrated by eight years of irresponsible spending and ineffi-
cient tax cuts that resulted in an astronomical economic crisis,
the electorate turned to the Democrats for a change. After all,
they had provided us with a budget surplus in the nineties. Yet
now two years have gone by and the question remains: how
have things changed? The economy is more stable, but it is still
a topic in the news and conversation; big businesses are get-
ting help from the government while their smaller counterparts
flounder; the nation is trillions of dollars in debt but spending
has not decreased. Where is Bill Clinton when you need him?
The American electorate lost some of its faith in Clinton in ’94
when he spent too much of his first two terms on “Don’t ask,
“Like the Republicans who gained
power in the 1994 elections, GOP can-
didates are reaping the benefits of a dis-
enchanted public that is disappointed
by what it sees as a default on campaign
promises.”
don’t tell” and other social reform projects; here, Obama ap-
pears to be headed for a similar fate. He was elected to bring
about change, yet after two years, the public has labeled him
an “insider.” While this term actually means very little, it does
enough to convey American displeasure. The nation is not sat-
isfied with the administration’s policies, not the stimulus, not
the socialized medicine, and especially not the tax increases.
Much of this voter unrest began with the mammoth health
care bill. Once again, in an attempt to avoid difficulties expe-
rienced by Clinton, the Obama administration moved quickly,
attempting to force a liberal policy through Congress while
the Democratic majority lasted. As a result, the ambitious bill
is full of holes and pitfalls. Despite being universal, the sys-
tem is far from universally affordable. The cost of premiums,
co-pays, and deductibles will continue to keep up to 23 mil-
lion people from getting the coverage they need. Access to
specialists and certain services will still be restricted and the
problems inherent in “pre-existing conditions” are not about
to disappear. The market-based system, while benefiting those
October 2010 15

in 2011. Forty-seven Democrats in the House wrote a letter
to Congress leaders in September, expressing their disapproval
of the plan to let the tax breaks expire. Lack of support from
the left is putting the plan in jeopardy; the last vote on the
issue ended in a deadlock, with Pelosi intervening to postpone
a final vote until after the election. Yet how much longer can
conservatives rely on Democrats to balance the scale? Voters
have the chance to get some insurance when it comes to fiscal
policy, and they are going to take it.
The nation is on the brink of a major tax increase, one that
is being hailed as the largest since World War II, and the
majority of the tax burden is going to fall to people earning
incomes of $200,000 and higher. This means small business
owners, whose business profits are filed as personal income
and are subject to the same taxes as individual wages, will be
hit the hardest. Currently, small businesses are the number
16 Tufts Roundtable
F eature
one creator of jobs in America. Where will those jobs go
when small business owners can no longer afford to hire new
employees? Obama advocates putting power in the hands of
small businesses, but right now, as small businesses are keep-
ing our economy afloat, he is planning a tax increase to take
that power right out of their hands.
As always in economic crises, there are no easy answers. We
all want a solution and will do just about anything to get it.
But we have tried things the liberal way and it’s time to rein
back in the taxes and the spending. Voters are trying to send
a message to the administration in power: the blue wave has
crested, and come November 2, the legislative branch’s indigo
is going to turn violet. This is not just voter caprice, not just
a post-wave midterm election—this is serious business. The
American electorate is concerned by the policies being put
into place, and they are showing their dissatisfaction.
 Why Congress Doesn’t Work
Jack Miszencin
T he United States Congress has gotten far too good at its job. Before
you break out the pitchforks and torches, understand that I do not
mean this in a good way. Its job no longer seems to be passing constructive
legislation, but instead getting elected and debating. Congress has obtained a
mastery of merciless rhetorical attack, aimed at satisfying extremist interests,
while ignoring calls for moderation.
No, Congress has never been a paragon of virtue. However, I can at
least say that our current leaders’ tactics have become far more brilliant
and refined than in the past, when violence on the floor of the Senate was
not unheard of. Remember Preston Brooks, the South Carolina Congress-
man who famously bludgeoned Massachusetts Senator Charles Sumner
with a wooden cane on the Senate floor in 1856? While the above case may
seem a bit extreme, the following
bit of recent congressional history
shows that Congress is so good at
its job of politicking that it can-
not seem to get anything done.
Last month, the Senate vot-
ed down the once-popular
repeal of the military’s discrimi-
natory policy against gay service
members. A small number of
Senate Republicans had original-
ly agreed to support the measure,
making a rare bipartisan showing
in the chamber. This biparti-
sanship lasted until the Demo-
cratic leadership implemented
aggressive procedural tactics,
which were intended to attach
less popular measures to the bill
and, at the same time, stifle the number of amendments that Republicans
could introduce. The key Republicans then refused to provide the “ayes,”
and the once-promising bill failed. However, the bill did not meet defeat
before Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid managed to save the
bill for later debate by voting against the bill that he had just spent weeks
working to pass. Amazingly, it turns out that by way of Senate administra-
tive rules and procedures, a defeated bill may be saved for later debate if the
Majority Leader votes against it, thus justifying Reid’s seemingly ridiculous
maneuver.
Of course, such outlandish parliamentary drama is not exclusive to the
Senate, particularly throughout the past year and a half. Democratic
voices have long called for Reid to be as aggressive and politically effective as
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Republicans, however, have lambasted these
parliamentary tactics in both chambers as exclusionary and despotic. The
Democratic counterargument is as follows: yes, Democratic tactics unfairly
force members of Congress to vote for legislation they do not support, but
Republican Congressional leadership used the exact same tactics during its
tenure from 1997 to 2007.
Such disputes reflect the mood of most debates in the past legislative ses-
sion: accusatory and completely irrelevant. Indeed, a majority wanted
to see the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” bill passed, but the introduction of more
extremist measures caused kneejerk reaction from the minority. The bill’s
failure could only be partially salvaged through an outlandish and counter-
intuitive parliamentary maneuver. As with debates on the national debt and
healthcare, each side is content to argue that the current policy is wrong, yet
the policies remain unchanged because of the opposition’s intransigence and
aggression. All of this ignores a central fact: our public officials have made
and continue to make mindless policies out of electoral convenience, imple-
menting mind-boggling tactics
for the sake of either painting
opponents as practically satanic
or selling policies that, while un-
popular, are favored by interest
groups that are essential to pri-
mary elections and fund-raising.
Ultimately, the political
melodrama we see unfold-
ing each day in Washington is
not about creating moderate,
sensible policies that the moder-
ate majority of Americans see as
plausible, but about the main-
tenance of power by incumbent
legislators. Currently, the major-
ity of congressional leadership is
composed of career politicians.
They direct extremist agendas
and counter-productive electoral tactics, while building insurmountable
nests of power that help them coerce freshmen representatives into voting
for legislation they would otherwise oppose. A solution, then, must seek to
eliminate or shift the sources of power that such politicians spend so much
time pursuing. Term limits are a great start. Another useful reform would be
an overhaul of the primary system, allowing all voters to participate in party
elections, cutting the influence of the far ends of the spectrum and introduc-
ing a welcome voice of moderation into our government. The beauty of the
American Constitution is that it is an amendable document, to be forever
challenged and reborn by the necessities of our ever-changing republic.
On a side note, Senator Sumner, Brooks’ victim survived the beat-
ing and went on to fight vehemently for slave emancipation and civil
rights until he was stripped of his committee chairmanship by the Grant
Administration in 1871 after failing to support the president’s reelection bid.
Which beating was more crushing, the physical or the political, is for you
to decide.
October 2010 17
 Outsourced Me
Philip Lautman
T his summer I had the rare opportunity to take an internship
abroad. For two months I lived and worked in the Philippines,
a country in which the elite are almost identical to American elites,
and a vast amount of the provincial poor live without plumbing or
electricity. I worked for a major corporation with a capitalization of
approximately 25% of the country’s stock market in a finance divi-
sion whose sole purpose was to build and develop outsourcing com-
panies.
Since 2004, out-
sourcing has moved to
the forefront of Ameri-
can political debate.
The benefit strategic
outsourcing provides to
American companies
is consistently weighed
against the “they took
our jobs” counterargu-
ment. It is true that
general manufacturing
and various levels of un-
skilled and skilled labor
have all but disappeared
from our shores and trav-
eled to “somewhere over
there.” The difficulty in
this debate is separating
the emotional and ratio-
nal elements of the issue.
Emotionally, we all know
of someone who was laid off as a result of their job being outsourced
to a domestic specialist or overseas. It hurts to imagine the difficulty
Americans face in being unable to support their children, pay their
mortgage, or, in extreme cases, pay for food. But no American com-
pany would choose to fire its employees if there wasn’t a significant
upside. That upside is usually decreased costs or a strategic move that
will allow a company to focus on its core competencies.
When people think of “cutting costs” they imagine a group of
people in suits sitting in a well-lit room with a chart indicating suc-
cess. What they don’t realize most of the time is that the same people
in suits were looking at downward pointing arrows for the past two
years. Firing some employees allows for the retention of hundreds
more and the continuation of the company. In short, outsourcing al-
lows companies to survive in the current hostile market. While this is
probably the most common rational argument in favor or outsourc-
ing, I would like to illuminate some lesser known facts.
The United States benefits immensely from foreign outsourcing
efforts. As the intellectual and service leader of the world, the United
States receives work from companies all over the world because we
can do “it” better, faster, or cheaper. In fact, the amount of foreign
investment in the United States right now is approximately $2.397
18 Tufts Roundtable
trillion as of December 2009. European and Asian firms consistently
outsource to the United States, which provides thousands of jobs
at home. Revenue from the free marketplace across borders pours
billions annually into American coffers. Software outsourcing to the
USA is a large industry as well. Since 2008, odesk.com, a leading tal-
ent marketplace for IT services, has seen a near 500% increase in the
number of assignments overseas companies outsourced to the United
States (see figure 1,
courtesy of oDesk.
com).
The in-
creased price of oil
has also increased the
cost of outsourcing
to the point where
domestic compa-
nies are increasingly
turning to “near-
sourcing” or “home-
sourcing” where
they accept work
from geographically
nearer companies or
companies at home.
The American
effort to reduce or
regulate the out-
sourcing industry
has generally been
one-sided. In other
words, legislation is designed to keep American jobs here. But what
happens if regulation or increased tariffs interfere with the outsourc-
ing that brings jobs into the United States? Having worked at a
company that actively promoted the export of jobs like accounting,
medical billing, and the well-known customer care call centers, I can
say that I have seen where those jobs go and the benefits we promise
and deliver to American companies to ensure their long-term health
and competitiveness. What happens to companies that are currently
reliant on outsourcing for survival viability? Can we really say that
the jobs “we bring home” through regulation will result in higher
employment since it will definitely cause some existing companies
to fail?
In short, we are made to feel like America is being hurt by
outsourcing. In the 2004 presidential election, Senator John Kerry
criticized American businesses that hide profits and taxes through
international business. While this does hurt America greatly, these
practices have nothing to do with outsourcing. The misinterpreta-
tion of his comments launched an unwarranted national outsourcing
paranoia, which has skewed the facts and allowed passion to override
reason. But outsourcing is good for America and allows many com-
panies to retain employees they would otherwise have to fire.
 international

Racism and the Roma International Section:

• “Dealing with Europe’s Roma
Dilemma,” p. 19
Jan McCreary • “Ecuador’s Coup Should be a Watershed
Moment for US-Ecuador Relations,” p. 20
• “Attention: Not a Coup” p. 21
E urope has long been home to countless minority ethnic groups.
But for the Roma, nearly a millennium on the European conti-
nent has failed to produce marked assimilation.
• “Insurgent vs. Predator: Drones and the
Battle for Hearts and Minds,” p. 22
The Roma are thought to have immigrated to Europe from central
released by the French Interior Ministry citing exactly what Sarkozy’s
India as early as the eleventh century. Commonly referred to as gypsies
government spent weeks denying. The ministry had labeled the evacu-
or Romani, the Roma quickly spread across all regions of Europe and
ation of Roma encampments as a “priority,” indicating the existence of
today make up nearly ten percent of the population in southeastern
an active government campaign against Roma immigrants in France.
European nations such as Romania and Bulgaria. Their arrival marked
When set against a backdrop of a recent stream of hate crimes,
the beginning of centuries of extreme social ostracism and persecution,
French action could easily be explained by an extreme hatred and preju-
characterized by enslavement, forced labor, and extermination. Indeed,
dice that some Europeans still hold against the Roma. In the past year,
beside the Jewish people, the Roma were the only other ethnic group
six Roma have been murdered in Hungary without provocation, and,
that the Nazis forced into death camps. Sixty-five years after World War
on August 30, a Slovakian Roma family was slaughtered when their
II, many Roma continue to live isolated from mainstream European
neighbor burst into their apartment armed with a submachine gun.
society, and congregate in impoverished group encampments on the
The Slovakian public’s reaction to the murder was perhaps even more
outskirts of major cities.
disturbing than the crime itself. The New York Times described the
France’s massive deportation of the Roma over the past year reveals
national mood as ambivalent, insisting that while Slovaks clearly recog-
that racial prejudices and policies of discrimination against the Roma
nized the immorality of the shooting, they continue to view the Roma
persist, which only exacerbate the Roma’s fringe role in European so-
as delinquents who deserve to be punished.
ciety. However, French deportation policies also raise questions as to
While racially motivated stereotyping may have played a role in
how members of the European Union should appropriately deal with
the French expulsion of the Roma, the larger issue at hand seems to
sweeping social problems.
be who should be held responsible for integrating the Roma into Eu-
Since January, the French government has deported at least of
ropean society. According to France, the brunt of the burden should
8,300 Roma, raising the number of Roma deportations in France to
fall on the shoulders of the countries of which the Roma are citizens.
approximately 26,000 over the past three years. The vast majority of the
Roma residing in Romania continue to have high rates of joblessness
deportees had immigrated from Romania and Bulgaria, giving them
and illiteracy and, in a 2009 survey, one-fifth of Romanian Roma said
the right to free movement within the European Union and challeng-
they had been victims of a racially motivated hate crime. The French
ing the legality of French action.
government has made clear that it is in favor of helping governments
President Nicolas Sarkozy justified the deportations by citing rea-
with large Roma populations fix their failed integration programs. In
sons of “public order,” insisting that France wanted to crack down on
late August, French Interior Minister Brice Hortefeux met with Valen-
crime in all illegal encampments, regardless of ethnic affiliation. He
tin Mocanu, Romanian Secretary of Roma integration, to discuss ways
claimed that only individuals with a history of criminal activity would
that Romania could improve employment opportunities and early
be evacuated. However, the European Commission found it unlikely
childhood education.
that France was truly evaluating the Roma on a case-by-case basis,
However, many critics see these efforts as little more than half-
and, in late August, began investigating what they suspected to be dis-
hearted political posturing, especially in light of other EU states’ poli-
criminatory deportation policies. On September 12, a document was
cies to actively integrate the Roma. Spain, which has also seen a sig-
nificant influx of Roma immigration in the past five years, has taken
steps to deal with the Roma’s social struggles within its own borders.
In March of 2010, the Spanish government created a plan to spend
over 100 million euros on programs aimed at improving the education,
health, and lodging of Roma women and children. Funding for such
programs can be obtained through the EU’s Integration Fund.
The Spanish initiative questions whether the failures of other EU
member states’ policies truly warranted the deportation and displace-
ment of thousands of people. The Roma have endured centuries of
abuse, and their expulsion from France only reinforces public percep-
tion of them as a migrant social problem that should be eliminated in-
stead of dealt with. In a European political environment characterized
by the economic bailouts of countries such as Greece by fellow member
states, collective problems seem to call for an end to blame-game poli-
ticking and a sober analysis of how each member state can manage the
problem at hand.
October 2010 19
 Ecuador’s Coup
Should be a
Watershed Moment
for US-Ecuador
Relations
Aaron Cantú
O n September 30th, Ecuador’s national police allied with
military factions to launch a coordinated rebellion across
the country in what is believed to have been an attempted
coup d’état. Stone-faced officers outfitted in urban camouflage
blocked major highways, invaded the Parliament building and
major airports and seized control of the nation’s state-run TV
station, culminating in the tear gassing of the country’s presi-
dent, Rafael Correa.
News coming out of Ecuador follows familiar and sloppy
patterns of previous Latin American crisis narratives. Two com-
peting sides have emerged to construct their own narratives
about the situation. Rogue police forces claim to have been
protesting the President’s budget cuts to the armed forces while
Correa himself claims the uprising was ultimately an attempt
on his life. A leaked audio recording of police transmissions,
however, lends more clout to the former story. On the record-
ing, multiple officers are heard calling for Correa’s head if he
did not reverse the cuts. Images of him being pummeled by a
barrage of fists while escaping an ill-received meeting at police
headquarters only support his coup allegation. “If you want to
kill the president,” shouted the tomato-faced President min-
utes before the attack, “here he is!”
In our cynical age, it is difficult to perceive Correa’s call as
anything but a self-indulgent attempt at emulating the fatal de-
fiance of romanticized Latin American martyrs like Che Gue-
vara and Salvador Allende. Perhaps this is partially true, but
one must contextualize the event among broader changes in
Ecuadorian and Latin American governance. Correa claims the
budget cuts are part of a broader attempt at bolstering nation-
al welfare, and the subsequent insurrection of an armed wing
(the traditional face of conservative regimes in South America)
saturates the failed coup with the uneasy connotations of left/
right struggle that defined the entire continent in the latter
half of the 20th century. Complicating matters, Correa, who
rode populist waves of support into office, is a vocal leader of
Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez’s international socialist or-
ganization ALBA (Bolivarian Alliance for the Americas).
20 Tufts Roundtable
Nevertheless, the rebellion was hardly indicative of the
conventional Marxist narrative that pits the organized prole-
tariat against the ham-fisted bourgeoisie. The policies that in-
cited the uprising are rather byproducts of growing defiance
toward US influence in Latin America. It is for this reason that
our own President Barack Obama should take the clash as an
opportunity to rethink political strategy in the region, and how
best to deal with the rising clout of ALBA.
Correa has joined Chavez and Bolivia’s President Evo Mo-
rales in defying demands for debt repayment by the US-led In-
ternational Monetary Fund and his decision in 2008 to default
on the country’s debt to the IMF chilled diplomatic relations
with North America even further. In the past, Ecuador would
have found itself floundering in its own self-righteous rhetoric
without the support of the world’s biggest creditors. Today,
however, as the United States and Europe scramble to bolster
their economies in the face of massive domestic debts, Ecua-
dor and other ALBA members are looking to themselves and
other non-Western powers, in particular China, to counter the
former hegemony of the Washington Consensus. In the wake
of Correa’s decision to oust the US military from its airbase
in Manta, it was revealed that bilateral trade volume between
Ecuador and China surged to 400 times larger than what it was
in the 1980’s and in late 2009 the red dragon announced its
firm commitment to increase investment in the ninth poorest
“For the last ten years, the US has
perceived new tensions with Latin
America as a nuisance; a thorn in Uncle
Sam’s foot. The wound threatens to be-
come gangrenous now.”
country in the Western hemisphere.
For the last ten years, the US has perceived new tensions
with Latin America as a nuisance; a thorn in Uncle Sam’s foot.
The wound threatens to become gangrenous now. Preoccupied
with wars of choice in Iraq and Afghanistan, the US has al-
lowed its past mistakes in the region to haunt current relations.
Now the door has been cracked open even further for a strong
South-South alliance in the twenty-first century. Perhaps such
an alliance is unavoidable, but the US should not wait passively
and allow its relations with Latin America to deteriorate even
further.
The coup attempt in Ecuador should serve as yet another
notice to the Obama administration that the international bal-
ance of power is shifting quickly. Ecuador and growing num-
ber of other Latin American countries have demonstrated their
commitment to resisting anything that smells of old Western
imperialism. The US must nurture its ties with these nations
by demonstrating, above all, a firm break with past policies.
 Was It Really a Coup?
Juliana Slocum
“If you want to kill the presi-
dent, here he is. Kill him, if you
want to. Kill him, if you are brave
enough.” These were the words
President Rafael Correa of Ecuador
proclaimed to a crowd filled with
angry police officers in the main
army barracks of Quito on Thurs-
day, September 30th. The president
yelled and tore at his shirt, daring
police officers, angry over new aus-
terity measures imposed by the fed-
eral government, to back up their words with action and kill him. Apparently
some of the police officers took his urging to heart.
Ecuador erupted into violence on Thursday following weeks of political
demonstrations and uncertainty. On Wednesday, September 29th, President
Correa vetoed a new civil service law, thereby reducing benefits for police officers
and other public employees and increasing the amount of time necessary for a
promotion. Members of the national police force were angry that the president
had passed such a law without seeking input from public employees. There have
been a series of popular protests and movements against such a veto in recent
months. On Thursday, some of the lower ranks of the police force staged a mu-
tiny in protest of the president’s veto in an effort to make their opinions known.
Although the national police chief expressed his loyalty to the president, lower-
ranking police officers occupied barracks and set up road blocks throughout the
country. Some also occupied the National Assembly building and the national
airport in Quito, leading to their closure for several hours. In the police force’s
absence, widespread looting and crime ensued on the streets of Quito. Businesses
and schools were shut down amidst security concerns. That afternoon, following
Correa’s fiery speech to a crowd of protesters, police officers released tear gas into
the crowd.
At that point, the administration of President Correa shut down all other
forms of media except for the national, state-run television station, Cadena Na-
cional de Noticias. Therefore, the official version of the ensuing series of events is
markedly one-sided in favor of President Correa. International news media, such
as CNN and BBC, have reported that the president was injured when he was hit
in the face by tear gas. The president also claims that a police officer attempted
to rip off his face mask and choke him. The president was rushed to the national
army hospital in Quito. While he was being treated by medical personnel, pro-
testing police officers began to gather outside the hospital. BBC and CNN report
that these officers forcibly prevented the president from leaving the hospital, essen-
tially kidnapping him and holding him hostage. However, critics have noted that
other members of the government entered and left the hospital freely throughout
the ordeal, suggesting that the president could have left at any time.
The national media urged the general population to come to the defense of
their president and rescue him from the rioting police officers. Crowds of civil-
ians and members of the military gathered outside the hospital and soon clashed
with the rioting police officers. CNN reports that the government estimates that
four people died in the ensuing gunfire, including one university student, while
over 200 people were injured nationwide on Thursday, although critics claim that
there are far more casualties. The president was finally rushed away by army spe-
cial forces after more than twelve hours in the hospital, and taken to the national
palace, at which point he made another fiery speech to a cheering crowd, praising
them for this “triumph” and insisting that there would be “no pardon or forgive-
ness” for those responsible for the violence.
BBC reports that President Correa also insisted that “this was an attempted
coup, an attempt to destabilize the government, which failed thanks to the Ec-
uadorean people.” However, critics insist that the police officers never wanted to
overthrow the government; they simply wanted to have their voices heard. Ana-
lyst Roberto Izurieta told CCN en Español that “the elements for a coup do not
exist. There was no political movement or a call for the president to leave office.
There was no intent to put the presidency in the power of another person. What
occurred was an uprising from part of the police.” Indeed, Tracey Tokuhama-
Espinosa, a professor at Universidad San Francisco de Quito and a BBC news
correspondent, says that the police actually submitted a petition with nine specific
points of disagreement with the austerity law. This petition indicates that “it was
never the intention of the police to hold a coup-they wanted to be heard, like the
media, universities and other public servants whose opinions have been ignored
up to now.” Other nations, including the United States, Colombia, Venezuela,
Chile and Argentina, quickly denounced the violence and pledged their support
for the democratically elected leader.
Since the unrest, the nation has remained extremely tense. A national
state of emergency was in place for over a week after the violence, and the National
Assembly building remains guarded by military forces with armored vehicles. De-
spite contrary allegations, the government still maintains that the unrest amount-
ed to an attempted coup and claims that former president Lucío Gutierrez, leader
of the oppositional Patriotic Society Party, is responsible for conspiring to carry out
the coup, charges that Gutierrez adamantly denies. The government has released
recordings of police officers that it claims prove that some police officers were plot-
ting to kill the president, although the reliability of these tapes cannot be verified.
The chief of the national police force, Freddy Martinez, has resigned amidst the
unrest, and President Correa has promised to “purge” the 42,000 member na-
tional police force of all dissidents. Despite the President’s tough stance, the ad-
ministration has recently revised the austerity law and increased army and police
pay, perhaps signaling willingness to compromise with police officers. In another
promising turn of events, President Correa has agreed not to dissolve Congress.
Immediately following the violence, the president had vowed to dissolve the Na-
tional Assembly and rule by decree, powers which were granted to him by the
new federal constitution that his administration drafted and approved in 2008.
Despite these compromises, the situation in the country remains very
tense. Ecuador has a long history of political unrest; there have been eight presi-
dents since 1996. The leftist Correa was initially elected in 2006 with the promise
of pushing a socialist agenda. He was re-elected for a second term in 2009. He
has the support of the Alianza País party in the National Assembly, and his ad-
ministration has been able to make significant changes especially in redistributing
capital to poorer populations and improving the education system, but he has
faced harsh criticism about his unwillingness to listen to opposing viewpoints, his
alliances with Hugo Chavez and his confrontational personal demeanor. Critics
insist that the president’s taking over of all forms of media represents a threat to
freedom of the press and other rights guaranteed under a democracy. Tokuhama-
Espinosa insists that “no one wants to overthrow the government; people just
want to be heard and are extremely frustrated at the farce played out in Congress
(in which laws are passed but vetoed by the President, or that they pass because
‘the president says so’ without proper debate or integration of opposing view-
points).” Clearly, the reality of what occurred in Ecuador remains unclear, and the
situation remains tense and extremely complex.
October 2010 21
 I nternational
Insurgent vs. Predator: Drones and the
Battle for Hearts and Minds
Mark Rafferty
W estern troops found themselves in a quagmire. Despite their
training and technology, they found themselves continually
defeated by a nearly unseen enemy, a guerilla force with an intimate
knowledge of the mountainous battlefield and a fierce devotion to
their cause. The military leadership, seeking to minimize casualties,
decided that the best option lay in tactical airstrikes. If key opposi-
tion figures could be eliminated without even having to put troops
on the ground, the war could be won easily, or so they thought. The
year was 1920, the battlefield was occupied Iraq, and the decision to
use aircraft was made by the British military, which was soon driven
out of the countryside and forced to make major concessions to the
rebels.
Nine decades later, the United States has been trying to defeat an
insurgency in northwestern Pakistan with a similar strategy. Granted,
technology has come a long way from biplanes with mounted ma-
chine guns. Now it is remote-controlled Predator drones used by the
CIA to drop laser guided bombs and Hellfire missiles, but principle
of the strikes remains. Munitions drop from the sky onto rural villag-
es, buildings burn, citizens die, and as the smoke settles, the distant
roar of a jet engine is the only trace of the phantom attacker.
Drone strikes in Pakistan, started by the Bush Administration
in 2004, have been stepped up under the Obama’s leadership. Since
2004, the US has launched 181 drone strikes on Northern Pakistan.
85 of those were in this year alone. Casualties, estimated to be be-
tween 1,800 and 2,000, are reported to be nearly two-thirds militants
and one third civilians. This year, the civilian casualty rate has been
closer to ten percent, although the lack of reliable information on ca-
sualties makes it difficult to guess accurately. In this context, however,
the real numbers are insignificant.
What is important is the perception of the Pakistani population.
As my high school history teacher used to remind my class daily, “Per-
ception is reality.” A recent poll funded by the United States Institute
for Peace found that 48% of FATA residents believe that the drone
attacks target civilians. As a result of this perception, 75% oppose
22 Tufts Roundtable
the drone strikes, 83% view Obama unfavorably, and 90% oppose
US military action in the region. The Pashtun tribes of Northwest
Pakistan have long been fierce defenders of their territory, and the
presence of foreign drones over their territory is in and of itself an
affront to their sense of sovereignty.
The United States and the Pashtuns of the NWFP share a com-
mon enemy. The vast majority of Pashtuns in the NWFP opposes
the Pakistani Taliban, and in a poll conducted by the New America
Foundation, 38% said they would support drone strikes conducted
by the Pakistani military. The battle here is one for hearts and minds,
and the challenge is to assure Pakistanis that we are a supportive ally
and not another imperialist conqueror. Unfortunately, the intrusion
of mysterious flying machines that kill civilians with shells bearing
the inscription “USA” only reinforces this perception.
If the US discontinues its drone strikes in the region, the Taliban
in Pakistan will stop being able to draw upon resentment towards
the US as a means of gaining support. Civilians there will still fear
for their lives, unfortunately, but that fear and resulting resentment
will be properly directed towards the Taliban. Once it becomes abun-
dantly clear to people on the ground that the Taliban is the most
pressing threat to peace in the region, it will only be a matter of time
before it is dislodged and driven out.
Obama, who has taken General McChrystal’s advice and recog-
nized the importance of perceptions in the conflict, understands all
of this. He recognizes that drone strikes are not ideal, but at the same
time, he is faced with a careful balancing act. The American people,
weary after nine years of fighting in Afghanistan, don’t want to see
more of their soldiers return in coffins, and images of dead ‘terrorist’
lynchpins serve as a resounding reminder to the public that the war
is going well. With the midterm elections approaching, Obama must
portray a picture of success if he is to retain domestic support. Un-
fortunately, while sacrificing Pakistani support for that of Americans
may work to keep him in office, it will not make any progress towards
bringing peace to northwestern Pakistan.
October 2010 23