March 2019

On January 23, 2019, Venezuela’s social, political, and economic problems came to a head when Juan Guiadó, the leader of the National Assembly (Venezuela’s legislature), declared himself president in a direct challenge to the power of President Nicolas Maduro. How did such a drastic political move come to be? More importantly, what does the way forward look like for Venezuelans now that they find themselves a nation divided?

This article is part of a series on Individuals and Global Diplomacy. Look for the next article in next month’s issue of the Political Review.

Abortion and reproductive rights are sensitive topics. Over the course of the last several decades, the issue has been among the most controversial in American politics and has demonstrated significant staying power unmatched by most other political issues. I do not write this to rile up the pro-life masses; rather I wish to reach those who may have more pro-choice sympathies. I will share some things that I wish more pro-choice people knew about the pro-life movement as well as try to explain why the issue is so important to those of us with whom the movement resonates. Most people reside somewhere in the middle of the spectrum on this issue and, while I am personally uncomfortable with pro-life and pro-choice labels and the divisions they manufacture, I will use them here for sake of ease.

President Obama was much maligned for contributing an additional $8.75 trillion to the national debt, pushing it from $11 trillion to around $19 trillion before he left office. However, President Trump is contributing to the national debt at a similar pace, on track to add $4 trillion to the national debt by the end of his first term despite a robust and growing economy [1]. As the U.S. government spends far beyond its means, it struggles to cover its “mandatory spending” obligations, such as Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, in addition to public pensions. The public sector is one of the few entities that offers pensions or “defined benefit” plans. With these plans the government sets aside a portion of the employee’s paycheck to invest in a fund that grows and is then given to the employee upon retirement. In 2018, Moody’s Investor Service, a ratings agency, estimated that public pensions are underfunded by $4.4 trillion, an amount equivalent to the economy of Germany [2]. With spending deficits ballooning and pension plans disappearing in the private sector due to economic infeasibility, it is wrong for the government to continue funding public pensions.

When President Roosevelt came into office in 1933, the Great Depression had reached its lowest point. Roosevelt inherited an America with a quarter of the workforce unemployed, two million homeless, and a sizeable mandate from the American people to enact much-needed economic change. He responded with the New Deal, an unprecedented series of domestic programs to defeat and prevent another depression. The New Deal was (and, alas, is) subjected to criticism from conservative figures critical of governmental regulation, who held tight to the belief that the economy would work itself out in the long run. Harry Hopkins, a Roosevelt adviser, famously responded to this criticism with, “people don’t eat in the long run, they eat every day.” The success of the New Deal lies not only in its quick response to the economic woes that permeated the lives of American people but also in its remarkable foresight. The programs implemented, such as Social Security and the Federal Housing Administration, sought to ensure that the American people could not only receive the immediate relief they needed but could depend on that same security in the future. Today we face a new looming threat to the future of our economic and physical security: environmental degradation and climate change.

Since the Supreme Court’s historic decision Roe v. Wade, the issue of a woman’s right to an abortion has fostered one of the most contentious moral and political debates in United States history. With the passing of New York’s Reproductive Health Act, people are up in arms, passionately defending their opinions. Social media feeds have become a revolving door of overly simplified arguments, emotional personal anecdotes, and people defending their closely held beliefs. Conservative Americans, including many students at BYU, often misunderstand the pro-choice stance.

Near the west end of the National Mall in Washington, D.C. lies the towering marble figure of President Abraham Lincoln. The formidable shadow cast by the 19-foot-tall statue reminds us of the impact that Lincoln's words, work, and resolve left on our great nation. His vision for America—unity, justice, and reconciliation—were all key points of his addresses to a country divided, at war with itself. 158 years after his election we find ourselves struggling to fulfill that vision.

Between 1960 and 1996, over 200,000 Guatemalans were killed, and 40,000 more “disappeared,” never to be heard from again. A U.N.-backed truth committee discovered in 1997 that the Guatemalan government was responsible for 93 percent of these deaths and that over 83 percent of those killed were Mayan [1]. This period, known as the Guatemalan Civil War (or Dirty War), marks one of the darkest periods in the country’s history—and is typically regarded as a closed chapter. However, recent events in Guatemala demonstrate that the corruption and violence that characterized this hellish period are rapidly returning, and a closer investigation reveals that perhaps this Dirty War never really ended.