The Red Folder

Archived from October 14, 2024.

Key stories for the week, brought to you by Lindsey Zhao and the Red Folder team.

Reading for the sake of reading sucks. Telling yourself to read to win a round is nice but ineffective. This condensed news brief helps you understand current domestic and international issues, analyze the news, and gives you opportunities to read more.

Publishing since January 2024.

Click here to test your knowledge of Red Folder articles with our weekly Extemp Questions!

Domestic Stories

4 key domestic stories for the week:

1) From Wildcard VP Candidate to the Heir of Trumpism Lindsey Zhao

The first and only vice presidential debate took place last week. On the surface, it seemed like the debate’s unremarkableness was what made it extraordinary. For arguably the first time this campaign season, American viewers saw a debate that was more focused on policy prospects instead of attacking each other’s character, something that has been sorely lacking in American national politics.

But the debate wasn’t just crucial in shaping what voters think of Kamala Harris and Donald Trump when they go to the ballot box this November. It could influence their choices in 2028 too-- specifically, when it comes to J.D. Vance’s prospects of returning to the White House in four years, after Trump is no longer eligible to run again.

Prior to the VP debate, Vance had built up a public image of himself that reflected someone brash, who repeated false claims and toxic rhetoric, including that Haitian immigrants were eating cats and dogs in Springfield, Ohio. (For the record, that is not true.) From Vance’s refusal to support the results of the 2020 election to his sudden flip from a never-Trumper to Trump’s VP pick, Vance had become a synonym for controversy on the campaign trail. Fearful of turning off moderate/independent voters, some right-wing political analysts questioned Trump’s choice of the previously little known senator, venture capitalist, and former veteran.

His debate performance reshaped the narrative. Independent of Tim Walz’s performance, Vance did a few things that helped him stand out as an heir to Trump’s legacy of reshaping the Republican political narrative.

First, he re-established himself as someone smart and somewhat sensible- his cordial responses to Gov. Walz and common-language explanations of Trump’s economic policies were a far cry from his brash public fights with online trolls and even his own running mate, who was himself criticized for controversial public statements. His debate performance achieved a great deal in calming down critical public opinion of him as a brash and extremist politician.

Second, he made a pitch for his brand of populism/conservatism that attempted to bridge the gap between far-right MAGA supporters and more moderate Republicans. While he criticized globalization and blamed China and other countries for the decline in American manufacturing and economic nationalism, he tied it back to his roots as a rural, low-income, Ohioan native. He explained Trump’s brand of populism, quasi-nationalism, and isolationism as something that should be common sense for everyday Americans, something that Trump has struggled with in the past. This will give Republican leaders hope that JD Vance could be the one to win over, and unite, the increasingly fragmented Republican party.

However, to more skeptical political experts, the front that Vance put on last week was little more than smoke and mirrors, designed to win over moderate conservatives. For example, during the debate, Vance also conceded on the issue of abortion that Republicans “need to do a much better job at earning the American people’s trust back on this issue”, but refusing to acknowledge his running mate’s part in overturning Roe v. Wade. Attempting to sound conciliatory, without actually breaking with his own Republican beliefs on controversial issues, seems to be Vance’s chosen strategy here.

JD Vance’s masterful speaking skills- both in delivery and explanation- seemed to have won over many of his former Republican doubters. When Trump is no longer the leader of the Republican Party, it seems like for now, JD Vance seems prepared to fill that spot.

Read more Here:

2) Breaking the Bond: Bail Reform Across the Country Christina Yang

Across the United States, more than 7 million individuals are sent to jail each year. On any given day, over 60% of those individuals are in pre-trial detention because they cannot afford the cash bail payment required for pre-trial release. Conversely, those with more access to financial resources may live to never spend a single day in jail and settle all legal woes outside the realm of the prison walls. As a result, the bail system has created a world where millions remain behind bars for months to years before their cases are resolved, contrary to the presumption of innocence until proven guilty: a fundamental pillar of the Fifth Amendment.

The fact of the matter is, pre-trial detention results in many adverse effects and continues to perpetuate a cycle of hardship for those who cannot afford the payment. On average, bail can cost anywhere from $500 to $10,000, which is a huge issue considering that the average annual income for a person in pre-trial detention is $15,000. Even a brief period spent in pre-trial detention puts so many people at risk for loss of employment, food security, and a roof over their head as pre-trial detention leaves millions of families without a crucial source of income due to being unable to work during that period. Furthermore, a brief time spent in pre-trial detention has been proven to increase the likelihood of future arrests and possibly even induce false guilty pleas as some individuals would rather have a criminal record then spend another day in the dreadful pre-trial detention.

To add to the collateral effects of pretrial detention, the number of people held in detention has seen a dramatic increase over time by more than a factor of seven from 1970 to 2021, illustrating a desperate need for reform across the country. Thus, many states are reevaluating their approach to bail and are creating a nuanced landscape for what is considered “just” and “unjust.”

Most notably, New Jersey has passed criminal justice reforms in 2016 that mostly eliminated the cash bail system and created a new pretrial services program. The reforms proved to be successful as New Jersey saw a 20 percent reduction in its jail population and follow up studies showed that defendants’ rates of appearance for trial after reforms were similar to the rates of appearance before reforms, and in some cases even better. Additionally, September of 2024 marks one year since Illinois enacted their Pretrial Fairness Act and completely abolished the cash bail. Currently, one year follow ups reveal that violent and property crimes are down, less individuals are missing their court appearance, and jail populations have significantly reduced in Illinois. Furthermore, the third largest jail system in the country---Harris County Texas, has recently eliminated the use of cash bail for misdemeanor charges after recent court rulings have ruled Harris County’s excessive misdemeanor bail charges as unconstitutional. These reforms have paved the way for continuing efforts to bring justice to the system.

It is evident that these statistics illustrate the growing success of bail reform. However, numerous complicated dynamics exist within this issue alone. Many lawmakers are advocating for the complete abolishment of the bail system, whereas other proponents on the conservative side advocate for minimizing the system to a certain degree. On the other hand, critics express concerns about those accused of serious crimes being let off without a monetary stake in the system. The bottom line is, this ongoing debate can be resolved by understanding whether monetary incentives actually serve as an effective deterrent to crime and safety measure for the public. Research is still ongoing, but successful bail reforms in states have proven little correlation between abolishing cash bail and increasing crime rates. Regardless, most states are beginning to take steps to re-examine the foundation of the bail system by attempting to dismantle the class-based structure present in the current system. These steps include implementing evidence-based risk assessments, exploring alternatives to cash bail, and even abolishing it altogether.

As the U.S. continues to navigate this complex system and break down the barriers to the bonds, lawmakers should look to the successful reforms in other states and strive to focus on a just system that takes into account public safety, individual rights, and socioeconomic disparities.

Read More Here:

3) The Past is the Future Rohan Dash

The presidential election, almost every time, is incredibly close. Across the country, candidates are fighting for the edge that allows them to secure victory in a state, gaining them the necessary 270 electoral votes to enter the office. In this year’s election, the same is true. With an election expected to be closer than ever, current candidates are turning to past leaders, in endorsements as well as campaigns, hoping they can win over specific voter bases.

On the Democrat’s side, Kamala Harris’s campaign committee has left no stone unturned. Most notably, just a few days ago, Barack Obama appealed to black men, in what turned out to be a controversial call to action. In Pennsylvania, Harris is relying on the black vote if she wants any hope at winning the swing state, and Obama blamed black men for having feelings of misogyny that may be the reason they won't vote for Harris. But this isn't Obama's first rodeo, as he previously campaigned for Harris at the Democrat National Convention, during which he called out Trump for his aggressive remarks. Obama is expected to show up in Arizona and Detroit later this year to convince any other doubting voters to pledge their vote to Kamala.

Obama isn't the only president who has campaigned for Harris. Despite being the president over 30 years ago, Bill Clinton stepped into the role, heading to Georgia to appeal to voters in yet another swing state. And other notable endorsements come from Chuck Schumer, the current Senate Majority Leader, as well as Nancy Pelosi, former Speaker of the House.

Harris isn't only relying on Democrat leaders. She's turned to former Republican leaders as well, who've endorsed her over Trump. While George Bush, the president from 2001 to 2009, didn't endorse anyone, Kamala Harris found solace in his Vice President, Dick Cheney. Not only Cheney, a republican, endorsed Harris, but so did Liz Cheney, his daughter and a Republican representing Wyoming until 2023, as well as having served as chair of the House Republican Conference.

Donald Trump and his campaign staff have recognized the threat from the endorsements of Harris, and are turning to their own support. Notably during the Republican primaries, several candidates indicated they wouldn't endorse Trump if he was running, but (surprise surprise!) now they have, including Nikki Haley. Other governors endorsing Trump include Kristi Noem of South Dakota and Ron DeSantis of Florida.

Trump doesn't have the backing of a former president, however, though it's not sure how important that will be in the election. Yet, in the notable swing state of Georgia, Trump gained the endorsement of governor Brian Kemp, and prominent republican Marjorie Taylor Greene, to rival the endorsements won by Harris from both of the Democrat senators in the state. When it comes to Democrats endorsing Trump - he doesn't have a lot, with the exception of former Democrats Tulsi Gabbard and RFK Jr.

Endorsements can play a huge role in elections at times, at other times they're no more than a few words. But it seems like both candidates are trying to make the best use of whatever they can get, including endorsements from former politicians.

Read More Here:

- Mary Roeloffs, Forbes

- Steve Corbin, Times Republican

- Melissa Quinn, CBS News

4) The Border will Define the Election Paul Robinson

In 2016, the key tenant of Donald Trump’s campaign was to build a wall on America’s border with Mexico. In 2020, he convinced much of America that the election was rigged. Now, Mr. Trump is the first person to be the GOP nominee for President three times in a row, and he is looking back to the playbook that won him the White House in 2016 in his bid to return there.

That does not mean that everything is the same. While he talked mainly of Mexico in 2016, Mr. Trump is now notorious for his claim that Hatians eat pets, and that undocumented immigrants undergo transgender surgery in prison at the expense of the taxpayer. Both claims, especially the former, have achieved widespread fame online. They have become jokes within our society; clips of that moment of the debate, often accompanied by ridiculous visuals, can be found on any social media platform.

The falseness of Mr. Trump’s claims are indisputable. It doesn’t matter to some, as far-right followers of Mr. Trump have descended on Springfield, Ohio at best to make Youtube videos which distort the truth, and at worst to attack the people Mr. Trump claims are causing America’s problems.

Even though Mr. Trump’s claims are often a misrepresentation or even fabrication of the truth, it is still true that the border between Mexico and the United States is one of the most important in the world. It separates the world’s largest economy from its largest trading partner, and connects a developed nation to a developing one. Largely due to an ineffective immigration system, literal millions try to cross the border illegally every year. Large quantities of drugs are also smuggled from Latin America, where they are made, to the more lucrative market in the United States.

Mr. Trump is planning to solve this using force. At a rally in Arizona on Sunday, he pledged to hire 10,000 new border agents and institute the death penalty for “any migrant” who kills a US citizen. This comes after Mr. Trump helped prevent a bipartisan bill that would have increased the number of border agents from passing Congress. The plans he has to increase the border force would be dramatic, as there are only 20,000 border agents today. His promises about capital punishment seem to be built on nothing but fear, as there is well documented evidence that undocumented immigrants commit crimes at a rate lower than that of US citizens.

What these claims and outlandish statements accomplish is to elicit a reaction from Kamala Harris, Mr. Trump’s main opponent in the race. Ms. Harris also wants to tighten border security, but also wants to fix the immigration system which has caused so much illegal migration in the first place. It is this largely moderate stance which Mr. Trump has used to demonize Ms. Harris for being soft on immigration. He routinely invokes cases of violence perpetrated by illegal violence, and tells Americans that they will be in mortal danger should Ms. Harris become President.

Sadly, Mr. Trump’s strategy seems to be working. Illegal immigration is now a key concern for many voters, especially moderates, and they are more likely to see Mr. Trump as competent on the issue than his opponent. Mr. Trump is not wasting the leverage that this gives him, and is talking even more of illegal immigration as we near election day. His road to win is to hammer this issue into the ground, and he knows it.