political science – The Concordian

This week I have a lot to say – so here we go.

Over the last couple of weeks, I’ve written about a variety of topics that deal with the less *glamorous* side of the dating world, where things don’t really go as planned. With pieces like “Let it go,” “It really be like that sometimes,” and, most recently, “Stop overthinking everything,” I got pretty deep into the type of psychological strength it takes to just let things happen when it comes to dating.

And while I’ve become more inclined to take my own advice recently and do just that – just let things happen – there is a gray zone. Sometimes, the hardest part of not being able to just let things happen is the uncertainty: not knowing if the other person is remotely interested and whether or not all your interactions seem like they might mean they’re interested because you’ve overthought every detail. Not knowing if there actually is any chemistry between you or if you’re projecting because you like them, but are maybe too scared to admit it because you’re just trying to let things happen.

It’s being uncertain of if you should take the leap and potentially jeopardize whatever platonic relationship you have with someone. All this is because you’re unsure how they feel about and you don’t want to ruin what you already have but aren’t opposed to potentially having more because the chemistry is there and other people see it too.

It’s like in international relations (I’m a political science major too, okay, bear with me): in an archaic world, realists and liberals hate uncertainty because there’s risk involved. This is also in economics and free-market theories, for all of you who might relate to this by that approach.

Basically, the uncertainty of the situation – of whether they might like you, of whether they’d be down to try to build something with you, if there’s actually chemistry or if you’re projecting – is scary. The “maybe, maybe not” of it all can really wreak havoc on your mental state and can cause even more overthinking, which, as I’ve previously written, we should try to avoid.

If the whole world would just be upfront about what they wanted, we would all be so much better off. Imagine that: someone likes you? They tell you straight up. Don’t feel the same? Tell them. You have a loathing for someone’s entire existence? Woah there, but also, you do you boo, tell them and it probably won’t be such a big deal because everyone would just be telling their feelings all the time.

Honestly, all this is just to say that the gray area in any aspect of life is hard to deal with, but it can really take a toll on your mental state when it comes to relationships. Personally, I would just want to know how people feel about me to avoid the whole guessing game and to undercut all the “maybe, maybe not.”

This brings me to my next point – two for one this week! – in the case that things don’t work out as you hoped and everything goes to shit (re: “Shit happens, routines fail”), just allow yourself to feel. It sounds simple enough, but often we’re upset at ourselves for being so upset about things not working out as we hoped. Instead of being upset over actually feeling an emotion, we should just skip a step and actually just feel everything – and then move on. Trying to prevent yourself from the natural process of reacting to something, especially to something sad or shocking, will only do more harm than good and will also likely cause you to overthink.

SO, to sum all this up: 1) the gray area sucks, so try creating as few as possible to avoid heartbreak; 2) if you get heartbroken, allow yourself to feel and then just move on.

Graphic by Loreanna Lastoria

Concordia political science professors explained why the elections unfolded the way they did

Professors from Concordia’s department of political science broke down the domestic, international and economic implications of a Trump presidency and the factors that led to his election at the “Understanding the 2016 U.S. Elections” roundtable in the Hall building on Nov. 16.

The speakers included professor Graham Dodds, who specializes in American politics and law, professor Michael Lipson, who specializes in international relations and international organizations, professor Harold Chorney, who specializes in political economy, urbanization and globalization, and Guy Lachapelle, who specializes in public policy and political communication.

Trump won 290 of the 270 electoral college votes needed to become president of the United States. However, Hillary Clinton won 232 of the electoral votes and surpassed Donald Trump by more than 1.7 million popular votes, said Dodds.

To explain the disparity between the electoral college votes and the popular votes, Dodds said some people looked at the characteristics of Clinton’s supporters.

One such characteristic was that her supporters were too densely located in particular cities, rather than dispersed in key locations throughout the country.

In addition, low voter turnout was another factor used to explain why the election unfolded the way it did, said Dodds.

“Some 100 million people eligible to vote in the U.S. federal election didn’t,” said Dodds.

More than five million Americans voted for a third party candidate rather than for Clinton or Trump, according to CNN. This could have impacted the outcome of the election throughout the country, said Dodds.

According to CNN, the 2016 election saw the lowest voter turnout in a presidential election since 1996. Only 58 per cent of eligible voters actually voted in this election, versus the 62 per cent who voted in 2008, said Dodds.

“Others said that U.S. polling was atrocious, and others claimed the economic decline in the Midwest as a factor behind Trumps support. Where underclass whites in the rust belt felt scared of the slipping of their privilege and did not share the incredible economic [boost] since 2008,” said Dodds.

Lachapelle discussed the impact of populism and the implications Trumps presidency might have on Quebec and Canada, as well as Americans’ unhappiness with the current U.S political system.

“Many Americans were disappointed with Obama and Obamacare, and 30 million Americans are still not covered,” said Lachapelle. “Obamacare was not what Obama had intended at the beginning of his presidency.”

“Minorities were unhappy with the current system, which could help account for their low turnout,” Lachapelle said.

“Many of Trump’s supporters hoped that, at end of the day, he would break old divides,” Dodds added. “[However], his new appointments, such as Mike Pence as vice president, don’t follow this. [They’re] elevating not the new way but the hard way.”

“Trump won despite deep divides in his own party,” Dodds said. “It is difficult to tell what will happen now because Trump provided few details of his plan and, when he did, he often contradicted himself.”

For example, Trump announced that he no longer plans to go forward with building a large wall across the U.S and Mexican border, instead he now plans to have a smaller fence, said professor Dodds. In an interview with 60 minutes, Trump has also announced that he will reduce the total deportation of all illegal immigrants to only immigrants who have criminal records.

Lipson discussed the potential international implications Trump’s presidency could have.

“Trump plans to back out of the December Paris Treaty,” he said. “ Americans abandoning the Paris Treaty would be catastrophic for the global environment.”

Lipson also discussed how president-elect Trump’s stance on foreign policy has been consistent throughout past decades.

“Trump believes international economics should not be about cooperation but [rather] bargaining, where one side is the victor and the other sides’ lose,” Lipson said. “In addition, Trump’s preference for authoritarian regimes, such as Vladimir Putin’s, has been consistent throughout Trump’s adult life.”

Chorney discussed the positive economic consequences Trump’s presidency could have.

“Trump plans to change the tax code dramatically from six-seven brackets down to three,” said Chorney.

During Trump’s presidential campaign, he proposed to decrease corporate taxes by 20 per cent, setting them at 15 per cent compared the 35 per cent set by Obama’s administration.

“The impact of [tax cuts] would result in less tax revenue for the government,” Chorney said.

“Trump wants low rates of interest and he has stated that he wants to [remove the] head of federal reserve, Janet L. Yellen, and spend $1 trillion on infrastructure,” said Chorney, highlight that this is positive.

In contrast, “Hillary wanted to spend $300 billion on infrastructure, which, in the size of global economy, would be too small,” said Chorney.

In addition, he confessed Trump’s brilliance as a “New York City realtor who worked with people from all cultural backgrounds.”

Chomey stated that 75 per cent of Canada’s exports are from the U.S which makes up 35 per cent of our Gross Domestic Product. (GDP), enforcing how important of an ally U.S. is to Canada.

Furthermore, Dodds suggested that some people believe Trump’s presidency would closely resemble Richard Nixon’s third term.

“Nixon came from an early wave of an era of conservative dominance,” he said.

During his presidency, Nixon notably donated $100 million to help the urban poor and was also notorious for embracing racism and law and order through his War on Drugs Program.

The roundtable organized by Concordia Political Science professors helped to provide context on the potential implications Trump’s presidency may have.