THE ARCH CONSERVATIVE, Fall 2013

Fall 2013

TO WAR?

Raising the Standard.

MANCIL: STAY OUT. Seitz : get in.

J.H.T. ON IMMIGRATION, p. 10 • Q&A: Stephen simpson, p. 12

Fall 2013 The Editors

Our Standard. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

op-ed

My Switch on SSM

Sophie Giberga .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

THE CAMPUS INFORMANT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 6

features

COVER: The Case for Action

M. Blake Seitz.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Brennan Mancil. .

COVER: Nothing to Gain from Syria

The Gang of Eight’s Immigration Charade Q&A: Stephen Simpson

Nathan Williams.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

John Henry Thompson .

. . . . . . 10

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

culture

Valuing Classic Literature Humor 10

Eileen Shone

Another rout for the Democrats

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Will Belcher.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

A quarterly journal of opinion raising the standard at the University of Georgia.

M. Blake Seitz,

EDITOR-In-Chief

John Henry Thompson, Elizabeth Ridgeway, Web design

David Sawyer

graphic design

COVER PHOTO courtesy United States Navy

Pranay Udutha business

Nick Derajtys Meredith Pittman

manager

publisher

contributors

Tristan Bagala William Belcher Louise Cook Nick Derajtys Chris Donaldson Megan Douglass Russell Dye Houston Gaines

archconuga.com archconuga@gmail.com twitter: @ArchConUGA facebook: The Arch Conservative on the web:

EMAIL:

Sophie Giberga Sam Glaze Reagan Gresham Amanda Horne Connor Kitchings Rebel Lord Brennan Mancil Cole McFerren Pfeiffer Middleton

Richie O’Connell Davis Parker Sarah Preston Eileen Shone Ryan Slauer Sarah Smith Brian Underwood Luke Thompson Nathan Williams

Special thanks go out to Mr. Philip Chalk of The Weekly Standard for his guidance throughout the design process. Also, to all the staff of the Collegiate Network for their immeasurable help.

Fall 2013

THE ARCH CONSERVATIVE / 1

The editors

Our Standard What it is we believe.

I

n August 1948, Whittaker Chambers testified before Congress concerning Communist infiltration of the U.S. government.

Chambers, an ex-Communist turned Quaker conservative, said this about his conversion: “I know that I am leaving the winning side for the losing side, but it is better to die on the losing side than to live under Communism.” He thought America would lose, and his gloom seemed justified.

In 1948, an emboldened Soviet Union had begun to jam Radio Free America transmissions in Europe; with the help of spies in the United States, it was rushing toward a nuclear debut in 1950.

A state of emergency was declared in Malaya (now Malaysia) to combat a Red insurgency. The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea was born, with Kim Il-Sung as Supreme Leader.

Even the West had taken a collectivist turn. 1948 was the year of nationalized British railroads and the NHS. At home, President Truman had instituted a peacetime draft for fear of Soviet attack.

When Chambers spoke before Congress, the West was in a feeble state.

So too his adopted philosophy, conservatism. It was bunkered up, in the words of Wilmoore Kendall, in so many “isolated outposts over a wide front.”

Today, Chambers has been proved wrong. Communism has been expunged from most of the globe. Conservatism, by contrast, is an institutional force: it has think tanks, journals, magazines and media outlets.

What it does not have — sixty years after William F. Buckley, Jr. wrote God and Man at Yale — twenty years after Allan Bloom wrote The Closing of the American Mind — is a place on campus.

2 / THE ARCH CONSERVATIVE

We aim to change that at the University of Georgia.

This is the inaugural editorial of THE ARCH CONSERVATIVE, a quarterly journal of opinion founded in response

ARCH CONSERVATIVE offer a few for consideration: That there exists an enduring moral order. That a healthy respect for traditional beliefs is prudent, as they represent the accumulated wisdom of history.

That free markets enable human flourishing, contribute to the general welfare and safeguard liberty.

That individual rights are imperative and, unacceptably, not available to millions around the world. That free nations are obligated to oppose, by force of arms when justified, the designs of tyrants.

That ultimately the great experiences in life are outside the realm of politics, and cannot be manufactured by government.

to the situation on campus: to the fact, everywhere apparent, that the unexamined consensus is liberalism; to the fact, equally apparent, that conservatives have neglected their own intellectual heritage, intuiting what it is they believe without bothering to find out why they believe it.

For now, the ‘what’ will suffice. The ‘why’ is a job for future articles.

THE ARCH CONSERVATIVE is committed to a set of beliefs that defy easy description. Insofar as our ultimate allegiance is truth, we are committed to the integrity of our journalism and scholarship.

But the search for truth leads to conclusions, and The Editors of THE

As matters of policy and demarche, contributors to THE ARCH CONSERVATIVE will interpret these conclusions differently; they may reject one or more of them entirely. We will gladly play host to a wide variety of opinions from right and left, because the resulting debate will benefit campus.

According to popular accounts, professor Harvey Mansfield once counseled a conservative colleague to sit on his beliefs until he was tenured, and only then to “hoist the Jolly Roger.” It is a sad statement on higher education that his advice was necessary.

However, as Whittaker Chamber’s example shows, the current state of affairs is not inevitable. That is why we’re hoisting the Jolly Roger — and raising the standard.

—The Editors Fall 2013

op-ed

Marriage, Defined Learning to love a traditional institution.

L

ast spring I interned at The Heritage Foundation, a Washington, D.C. based think tank with a decidedly conservative bent. With the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and Proposition 8 cases before the Supreme Court in March, Heritage was in full swing on the same-sex marriage issue.

When I was offered the internship at Heritage, I hoped to avoid working on cultural policy, particularly gay marriage.

But at a prestigious institution like Heritage, the 20-year-old intern doesn’t get to choose her assignments. To my chagrin, I found myself primarily researching samesex marriage.

At the time, I held the default opinion on same-sex marriage as most of my generation, which sounds something like: “Why shouldn’t gay couples be able to get married? They deserve the same rights as straight couples — don’t they?”

Early on one of my co-workers described our area of work perfectly when she said, “Yeah, it doesn’t make for great dinner conversation.”

As a Millennial, I can confidently say that is a bold understatement, and not because our generation doesn’t like talking about marriage. In fact, most of our peers are more than willing to tell you exactly how they feel about marriage equality. (The inundation of your Facebook newsfeed by red equals signs is evidence of that.)

What most of our generation refuse to do, however, is listen to the other side of the argument or, even worse, recognize that there may be any rational and legitimate alternative. But there is such an argument, one that thoughtfully seeks to protect marriage from complete redefinition.

At Heritage, I worked under a young Sophie Giberga is a junior studying political science and economics.

She is a regular contributor at THE ARCH CONSERVATIVE.

Fall 2013

conservative named Ryan T. Anderson who I will forever admire for assuming a rather unpleasant role: he, along with Princeton ethics professor Robert F. George and a few others, are the face of the traditional marriage argument.

As a Princeton educated 30-year-old, you could be forgiven for assuming Anderson is in the pro-same sex marriage camp.

Instead, he has become a voice for traditionalism, and he challenged me to expand my views — to really understand the argument for marriage.

Under his guidance, I began to realize that the concept of “marriage equality” was not inevitable, nor was it on unassailable moral ground.

To answer the hot-button cultural question, “Why can’t same-sex relationships result in marriage?” we first need to ask, “What is marriage?” Marriage is the union of a man and a woman for the purpose of creating and caring for children. Since government is interested in the welfare of children, and since traditional marriage has long been recognized as the best way to ensure a child’s well-being, government should seek to protect it as an institution essential to civil society.

The traditional definition of marriage long predates government and the definition outlined in DOMA. In fact, it is based on historical, anthropological and biological truth. Proponents of same-sex marriage would like to tell us that the traditional definition of marriage is antiquated and irrelevant, so that diverging from it would be inconsequential. But perhaps, because society has so long accepted the institution of marriage, we have forgotten those things that make marriage unique.

There are three essential components to the traditional definition of marriage: monogamy, complementarity, and permanency.

The most essential and universal of these is complementarity, meaning that marriage must be between two individuals of different, complementary sexes.

Proponents of same-sex marriage seek a total redefinition of marriage that would

disregard the complementary aspect of marriage. But doing so weakens the other essential characteristics of marriage (monogamy and permanency), thereby weakening the entire institution. Those demanding same-sex marriage incorrectly assume that same-sex relationships could be equivalent to traditional marriages. But without complementarity, by definition they simply are not. We cannot overhaul the definition of marriage for the majority to include a small minority (only 3.8 percent of the population, according to the UCLA’s Williams Institute), especially if doing so weakens the institution for all who wish to participate in it.

You’ll notice I do not bring into question the commitment of same-sex couples. We all have friends, family members, co-workers, acquaintances and others in our lives who are gay, and I don’t doubt that their love for each other is any less strong and committed than that of married couples.

What I challenge is the idea that love between any two people can be considered marriage. What, then, would be the point of the institution? If affection were the sole criterion upon which marriage was based, then perhaps two life-long friends, with no romantic or procreative intentions, should be able to marry; or two co-habiting elderly brothers who take care of one another.

The reason for marriage is not to ensure a lasting emotional union between any two people. Like friendships, same-sex relationships are rooted in love, but are missing key, definitional components necessary for marriage.

The marriage discussion is ongoing.

While the Supreme Court struck down the federal definition of marriage, it left states the freedom to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

Possibly the more imminent result of the DOMA ruling is its implication that the only possible reason to support traditional marriage is deep-seated, all-encompassing hate and bigotry toward gay people — that supporters of marriage, in effect, are the moral equivalent of white supremacists. As Justice Scalia wrote in his fiery dissent to the DOMA ruling, “In the majority’s telling ... this story is black and white: hate your neighbor or come along with us.”

But this debate is not about hate. It’s not even about homosexuality. This is about acknowledging the reality of marriage, and resisting the progressive redefinition of a valuable, time-tested and just institution. n THE ARCH CONSERVATIVE / 3

informant

Downward Slide A powerful appeal.

D

Sit down!

UGA’s chivalry outrage comes early this year.

T

ear Editors, I feel short-changed. My college education is sadly incomplete due to misuse of a certain technological tool in classrooms: Powerpoint. How I wish that more of my teachers and TAs would read rote from the bullet points on their Powerpoint slides!

Powerpoint is a wonderful way to stifle fluid discussion and discourage independent reasoning. When teachers don’t rely on their Powerpoint slides to communicate for them, we miss out on all manner of colorful, amusing graphics; we are denied the half-baked opinions of a Youtuber whose masterpiece has been embedded in a slide, and from passively absorbing and copying the abridged information bulleted on the screen.

When my professors lecture from behind a podium from physical notes, eye contact — eye contact! — is necessary, and so is the appearance of attentiveness. Editors, my sleep schedule is suffering.

Permit me to sound a clarion call to professors, TAs and student presenters everywhere on campus: for your students’ sake, become utterly dependent on Powerpoint when teaching. Please, give it more power in class than it already has.

Signed, Nobody Ever

here are only a few issues sure to incite storms of passionate controversy at UGA, but those that do are cyclical in nature. Like the hurricane season, not a year goes by without one or more of the following rolling in and laying waste to reasonable discourse on campus: the propriety of women’s nighttime clothing choices; the propriety and symbolic meaning of displaying the Confederate battle flag; (reTHE EDITORS NOTE: When you, like lated) the merits and demerits of the culPolyphemus, ask who it was that hollowed tural South; and, this year’s seasonal storm, out liberal education, the response will come chivalry. loud and clear: No man has done this.

What was once called “chivalry” now goes by another name in the halls of aca—Elizabeth Ridgeway deme — “benevolent sexism” (Connelly & Heesacker, 2012) —, and one burgeoning Red & Black columnist, Megan Smith, Battleground: Bus. made the mistake of confusing the new for the old.

In a column last month, Smith opined Celebrate Saturday in Athens.

Feminism’s final frontier. that few male students aboard the UGA buses give up their seats to women. ollege football season is upon us once more. Sports provide a It is THE EDITORS’ consensus that Miss Smith’s argument was welcome respite from politics, and as conservatives we hesigauchely, if harmlessly, made. Joan of Arc would contest her de- tate to inject politics into every facet of life. But you have to admit, scription of females as “delicate and cute,” but ultimately chivalry is there’s something about college football that appeals to everything a positive social norm. conservatives love.

What was far worse than the column was the apoplectic reThere’s the nearly anachronistic — and highly satisfying — fassponse to it, which generated 982 reactions on Facebook, 29 on- cination with tradition. Until upstarts like Oregon (a deep blue site comments (mostly nasty — if you feel like slumming, see for state, it bears mentioning) started fooling around with uniforms, yourself) and one exceedingly smug response column. there was relative stability even in the clothing teams wore. Logos After the initial devastation, the storm subsided. In the com- are tampered with at great risk and mascot changes are verboten ments section below the response column, user “MeganSmith” (looking at you, Ole Miss “Rebel Bears”). Fight songs, barbecue apologized for what she had done, and username “moosician” recipes and picayune statistics from previous seasons are all com(Kathryn Leamon, the response columnist representing Women’s mitted to generational memory.

Studies, and thus womankind) accepted — graciously or patronizThere’s the common knowledge that red states dominate the ingly, however you read such things. college football landscape. You have to go back to Southern Cal’s A happy ending! At least until the next storm. since-vacated win after the 2004 season to find the last reliably

—M. Blake Seitz Democratic state to hoist the crystal ball. 14 of the last 15 teams to

Gridiron Ritual

4 / THE ARCH CONSERVATIVE

Fall 2013

Kilroy was here.

C

Informant

win the national championship hail from states that currently have Republican governors. Cue the “SEC” chants.

There’s the unabashed patriotism exhibited by national anthems, flyovers and marching bands (all of which have been denounced as “militaristic” by the fever swamp-dwelling Daily Kos left). Old Glory and state flags flutter over tailgates. On game day, nobody is apologizing for America.

Conservatives in particular ought to enjoy this spectacle of traditional Americana. Of course, most of our friends on the left love football, too. So regardless of your politics, enjoy the best time of the year: football season.

Go Dawgs!

—John Henry Thompson

Here Comes Obamacare Let’s get this train wreck a’rolling.

O

n Oct. 1, sweeping provisions of the 2010 health care reform bill will go into effect. Early accounts from government administrators indicate that implementation will be a serious headache for both users and providers. Sen. Max Baucus [D-MT], one of the bill’s architects, says it could be a “train wreck.”

You wouldn’t know this from a recent op-ed in The Red & Black

by Young Democrat president Alex Rowell, however. According to Rowell, the main story is Republican opposition to the unwieldy bill.

Rowell quotes a Republican state official saying he will “obstruct” the bill, as though there were no reason besides callous partisanship why one would do such a thing. (Premium increases, Byzantine regulations and tax hikes are three reasons that spring immediately to mind.)

Well, two can play that game. Recently, a major federal official said this about Obamacare implementation: “The time for debating about the size of the text on the screen, or the color, or ‘is it a world-class user experience,’ that’s what we used to talk about two years ago. Let’s just make sure it’s not a third-world experience.”

And who said those damning words? Why, it was Henry Chao, deputy chief information officer at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services — one of the gentlemen with the unfortunate charge of implementing state health exchanges.

But don’t mind Mr. Chao. Instead, those opposed to Obamacare should listen to Mr. Rowell and “just get out of the way.”

That seems like sensible advice to us — after all, one’s first reaction is to get out of the way of oncoming train wrecks.

—M. Blake Seitz

Go Green

A TAC contributor strikes paydirt.

T

he UGA Office of Sustainability recently called for project proposals for 2014 Campus Sustainability Grants. The Office’s email read, “Successful projects will address priorities outlined in UGA’s 2020 Strategic Plan to enhance stewardship of natural resources and advance campus sustainability. Interdisciplinary projects that inspire, beautify and uplift — as well as inform and conserve — are encouraged. Proposals are accepted from current UGA students and will be selected based on merit, positive impact,

Fall 2013

sga T

watch

he start of another year brings the familiar bark of “The Voice of Every Dawg,” our illustrious Student Government Association. Only two Senate meetings have convened thus far, so we here at SGA WATCH have a bit of a reprieve, but rest assured we will remain vigilant.

Below, a few news items from the start of SGA’s silly season (which will stretch on into May, if the past is any guide): SGA Vice President Uzma Chowdhury took to her Facebook page to express high hopes about SGA’s latest innovation: a forum (minimum 20 minutes) for the “general public” taking place before Senate meetings: “We have such brilliant students coming to Open Forum with ideas to make campus more sustainable, inclusive to all identities, and more grounded in equality! ... I can’t wait to work with these world changers to make UGA so much more incredible. —feeling ready to make things happen.”

To parody such a proclamation would be redundant. In any case, we should be quick to note that this was only a representation of Vice President Chowdhury’s private beliefs, in no way representing the official position of the SGA Executive or Embark UGA. Further speculation would be irresponsible.

But what benefits will these open forums provide to the student body, besides sport for SGA WATCH? A sample from the Aug. 20 session: n A speaker on behalf of gender-neutral bathrooms. Followed by gender-neutral housing. n A speaker on behalf of the indefatigable group UGA Beyond Coal, appealing to SGA to follow through on previous resolutions regarding the coal plant. Bonne chance.

Is it just us, or does this seem an incomplete representation of the “general public?”

At the next Senate meeting, senators voted to encourage the Georgia General Assembly to enact a sales-tax exemption for college textbooks and medical amnesty for alcoholrelated offenses. As ever, we wait with bated breath for the General Assembly’s reaction.

—John Henry Thompson

implementation feasibility, and available funding.”

Although we do not agree with the environmental movement in many respects, Campus Sustainability Grants encourage the individual innovation and imagination highly valued by conservatism — encouraging research and development is a proper policy response to environmental problems, where they occur.

THE ARCH CONSERVATIVE congratulates contributor Sophie Giberga on receiving a 2013 CSG to expand the Lunchbox Garden Project, a gardening and nutrition program reaching children at local elementary schools (http://thelunchboxgarden.weebly.com/index.html). Keep up the wonderful work, Sophie!

—Elizabeth Ridgeway

THE ARCH CONSERVATIVE / 5

FEATURES

Making the Case Smart bets can further American interests.

by M. Blake Seitz

O

Not cutting it. n the morning of Aug. 21, at shock at the news, but the atrocity was least eight short-range rock- unique only for the agent of delivery. The ets tipped with the nerve gas Syrian Civil War has spilled the blood of sarin detonated in the Damascus suburb of 100,000 civilians — the appropriate menGhouta. Hundreds of civilians were killed tal image is one and one-fifth Sanford in the attack, and subsequent reporting Stadiums —, and that in the current conrevealed the extent of the carnage: rows of flict alone. The Syrian branch of the Arab corpses, many small, with faces white and Socialist Ba’ath Party has reigned over the drawn, not suggesting the horrific symp- country for exactly 50 years, and its current toms — convulsions, fluid coming from practices deviate little from the past. the eyes, frothing at the mouth — that acSo the humanitarian crisis is clear. But companied their deaths. atrocities rarely rise to the level that they The regime of Bashar al-Assad was al- dictate U.S. foreign policy. So, should the most certainly behind the attacks.

U.S. intervene in this bloody business?

Civilized people everywhere reeled in Judging from building inertia at home, the answer is No, in large part because M. Blake Seitz is the Editor-In-Chief of Congress and a war-weary public have not THE ARCH CONSERVATIVE. been presented a convincing case by the 6 / THE ARCH CONSERVATIVE

president.

The Obama administration, in an attempt at rolls-with-the-punches realism, has become untethered from any grand vision for foreign policy in the Middle East; as a result, it concerns itself with rationales and knee-jerk responses — at the end of the day, trifles.

Why should anyone support an ”unbelievably small” strike against the Syrian regime, to quote Secretary of State John Kerry? Why support a strike that for weeks was advertised only as a signal of disapproval rather than an attempt to change the momentum of a war? Of a region?

The administration has offered no answers to these questions (or is it a thousand contradictory answers?), and recent actions have only made things worse. A president is in a tight spot indeed when his credibility depends on the honest execution of a Syrian-Russian arms deal; he is in a tighter spot still when, after his Secretary of State publically compares Bashar al-Assad to Adolf Hitler, he attempts diplomacy with the man. Here’s hoping no one utters the words “peace for our time.”

Clearly, the administration’s heart is not in the fight. It should be, and if it requires an ideological foe to make the case on its behalf, so be it.

The interests of the United States in the Middle East are clear: to thwart state-led and stateless Islamic terror. Both are well represented in the Syrian conflict.

Assad’s regime is in a strategic partnership with the Islamic Republic of Iran, a terror state and the U.S.’s main threat in the region. Iran funnels arms through Syria to the Lebanese terrorist group Hezbollah, which advances Iran’s interests in the Levant by threatening to attack Israel.

Fall 2013

Photo courtesy Voice of America News

Features

Hezbollah also participates in the Syrian Civil War on behalf of the regime, which requires hired guns to stay in the fight.

On the rebel side, stateless terrorist groups seeking to institutionalize their fanaticism are active, especially in the northern regions of Syria. The homegrown al-Qaeda affiliate Jabhat al-Nusra is the strongest of these, but international al-Qaeda affiliates are trickling into the country to stake out territory.

In the balance hangs the third largest stockpile (over 1,000 tons) of chemical weapons in the world. It is imperative that the Syrian regime not use any more of these weapons; it is equally imperative that no stateless terror organization seizes control of them. The longer the conflict burns, the shorter the fuse.

Already, Turkish news services report that al-Nusrah rebels have been captured smuggling sarin gas canisters across the border. The United States must seek a swift end to the civil war, with the right actors in control of the country’s chemical weapons.

What policy response do these goals militate in favor of, then? Inaction is certainly a response, and it could lead to several outcomes.

The conflict could be resolved in Assad’s favor — not the most likely outcome given his precarious position (regime forces have resorted to bombing their own capitol city, which includes Ghouta), but certainly an intolerable one. Iran would maintain its client state and the Syrian people would remain in the thrall of a dictator.

The conflict could alternately be resolved in the rebels’ favor, minus U.S. support.

Given the growing influence of Islamist rebel groups and the reported leadership crisis ongoing in the “moderate” camp, the Supreme Military Council (SMC), this outcome could be just as bad, with terrorist groups solidifying control of the government a la the pre-2001 Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan. The country could quickly become an exporter of well-armed terrorism.

Suppose that relatively moderate

Fall 2013

Going it alone. elements of the SMC prevail, however.

How willing would they be to work with a United States that let out a shrug and a sigh as they were being gassed in the streets? At best they would harbor a grudge, at worst they could go the way of Assad; given the rebel’s own well-documented human rights abuses, we cannot be too sanguine about what any rebel government would look like.

Still, the fact that there are no pretty options does not make the Syrian situation futile, nor does it render the United States

Targeted commitment of U.S. resources to the conflict can increase the odds Assad’s tyranny falls and that a government not aligned with Tehran takes its place. incapable of distinguishing between radicals and moderates — as Elizabeth O’Baghy of the Institute for the Study of War notes, radical and moderate rebel contingents are geographically segregated, even if tactically coordinated. The United States can make smart bets, then, to ensure the conflict is resolved in a manner that furthers our cause and strikes a blow at our enemies.

The U.S. should commence bombardment by sea of Assad’s critical infrastructure. Particularly, the regime’s airports should be targeted as they allow resupply

from Russia and Iran. Far from an “unbelievably small” response, bombardments should aim to disrupt regime operations and turn the tide of battle.

Additionally, the U.S. should reaffirm and redouble its material commitment to the SMC. Our special forces in Jordan should continue training rebel operatives, and heavy arms should be provided to trustworthy rebel units.

All military aid should be given on the explicit condition that rebels turn over control of captured chemical weapons to the U.S. or United Nations. While it is naïve to assume the rebels will always adhere to this condition, it is the best possible course of action. The rebels need conventional arms — what they do not need is the international opprobrium and cutoff that would follow from cheating.

Like all other options, this course of action comes with serious risks. However, the targeted commitment of U.S. resources to the conflict can greatly increase the odds that Assad’s tyranny falls and that a government not aligned with Tehran takes its place.

It is understandable that Americans are wary of military intervention on the tail end of two long and bloody wars in the Middle East; it does not help that the president is making the case such a sloppy case for intervention.

But to paraphrase the late journalist Christopher Hitchens, inanity is believing the problem will go away if we only stay out. Inaction has a price, and it often comes with compounded interest. n

THE ARCH CONSERVATIVE / 7

Features

The Limits of Power Nothing to gain, quite a bit to lose.

by Brennan Mancil

Brennan Mancil is a freshman studying political science.

8 / THE ARCH CONSERVATIVE

autocratic regime headed by Bashar AlAssad struggles to retain its control of Syria and its citizens. Rebels control much of the land, and many of the people’s hearts.

Incessantly, government soldiers kill the people they should be protecting in an attempt to perpetuate the status quo. Almost certainly, chemical weapons were used in the fight, most likely by regime forces. Violence and bloodshed are daily facts.

Enter the United States. Destroyers are positioned in the eastern Mediterranean, each possessing a reserve of cruise missiles.

The Department of Defense prepares for what it thinks is the inevitable offensive.

The President of the United States sets a red line on the use of chemical weapons on national television, demanding a U.S. response with a humanitarian justification.

European nations like France advocate military involvement in Syria and even Syria’s neighbors quietly support U.S. involvement in the conflict.

But, despite these rationales for action, the United States should remain firm in its stance of official neutrality, for two reasons: the potential danger in supporting the Syrian rebels and the lack of a clear American security interest to legitimize involvement.

First, let’s look at internal division in the rebel camp. Without effective leadership, one that could form a government following the revolution, the rebels and their cause are doomed to fail in the long term. There was serious ideological conflict in the rebel camp earlier this year as indicated by the United States’ endorsement of the Syrian Opposition Coalition over

Photo courtersy Kevin Huffman

T

he year the USSR invaded Afghanistan, the steady decline of Soviet military power began throughout the world began.

In preceding years, the government of Afghanistan experienced severe internal conflict as rival factions struggled for control. Pursuant to a treaty allowing the Soviet Union to bring forces into the nation, armored divisions and air forces crossed the border with the intent of supporting the weak Marxist government in 1979. In the war against Mujahedeen insurgents, who were backed with training and supplies by the United States and other friendly countries, the Soviet Union used geo-diplomacy, hard power and Afghan political institutions in a grandiose attempt at Middle Eastern dominance.

However, just like the Hindu Kush mountains surrounding them, the insurgents remained steadfast and resilient to the Red tide pouring into their nation.

International actors simultaneously condemned the invasion while silently appreciating the geopolitical ramifications. “The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter,” said Zbigniew Brzezinski, National Security Adviser to the President, “We now have the opportunity of giving to the Soviet Union its Vietnam War.” In one of its greatest national defeats, the USSR lost the war in Afghanistan and withdrew in 1989 to the ire of its statesmen and the joy of its enemies.

Despite superior military power, well organized campaigns and other overwhelming advantages, the great power failed.

Flash forward to 2013, and look to a different part of southwestern Asia. An

The graveyard of empire.

Fall 2013

Features

Eyes on Assad.

Second, the United States has al-Nusrah Front, which has been labeled a terrorist organization. This is not to say all yet to legitimize military involvement by Syrian rebels are terrorist vassals or subject showing that a clear security interest is at to orders from terrorist organizations; in- stake. Assad has never been a friend of the stead, it shows the lack of unity and influ- U.S., not unlike Saddam Hussein, but that alone does not merit entangling ourselves ence over the entire movement.

Another issue arises in supporting the in the conflict.

Secretary Kerry and others have sugrebels — how would we do it? Should the U.S. put “boots on the ground” like in Iraq gested that if we do not intervene, our and Afghanistan? Rep. Charlie Rangel [D- pivotal ally Israel would be at risk. Iran, NY] and others who have supported in- specifically, has threatened Israel’s security tervention have not specified. Should the if the U.S. attempts to topple the Assad reU.S. launch missiles into Syria, targeting gime. Despite these potential risks, Israel weapons caches and government military remains one of the most stable countries in targets like in Libya? It certainly has the the Middle East and a resilient ally in the capability to do so, but America would be face of danger. American foreign aid to the acting unilaterally (and fiscally unwisely, nation bolster its military technology base, as the per unit cost of cruise missiles is mandatory military service ensures a conaround $1.5 million). Many have suggested sistent active force and reserve and ownerarming revolutionary forces with assault ship of nuclear weapons dissuades rising rifles, anti-aircraft missiles and sidearms. nuclear states from launching their rudiThis would pose greater difficulty for the mentary missiles against the Iron Dome.

United States in the long run, especially if The U.S. need not fear danger to Israel.

And it has other security factors to conwe do send in conventional forces and find ourselves on the wrong side of rebel leader- sider, including political support for inship. Just as the Mujahedeen were initially volvement. While the Arab League cast out our allies in the turmoil of a civil war, so Assad’s government from its body, the vast majority of its members staunchly oppose too are the Syrian people.

Caution should dictate future action, Western military intervention in any way, not incendiary rhetoric designed to inspire shape or form. David Cameron’s failure to effectively rally Parliament to endorse violence.

Fall 2013

military action means even America’s most special friend is backing down. Facing a tough reelection campaign, German Chancellor Angela Merkel has opposed a preemptive strike. France may consider involvement, but as its history with NATO shows they are not very dependable in terms of military support. For the U.S. to maintain its status as a world leader, it must hear the world’s opinions, even if they’re hard to accept.

Supporting the rebels may lead to greater national instability in Syria, especially if an Islamist coalition seizes power. Sectarian struggles, as seen in post-Operation Iraqi Freedom Iraq, or political upheaval as in Egypt, would both lead to diminishing U.S. influence over the region. Fighting local opinion on Western involvement could breed further mistrust of the United States, which Bin Laden-types could capitalize on for domestic terror.

There is even a legitimate opt-out for the U.S., as Putin has suggested international control of Syria’s chemical weapons in exchange for U.S. non-intervention.

America voiced no serious opposition to the conflict before the unveiling of chemical attacks, even as thousands were killed in horrific tragedies like the Homs executions and the battles outside of Aleppo. If America’s issue with the Syrian Civil War is the use of chemical weapons, this is the perfect avenue to step back from the bellicose speeches and remain non-aligned.

The historical analogy of the USSR’s Vietnam applies dually to the United States, with lessons to learn from both. If the U.S. decides to send forces to Syria to resolve the humanitarian crisis and political instability, we will be acting like the Soviets, determined to pacify the situation for our own ends to no avail. If we decide to arm the rebels to fight the Assad regime, we will be playing our former part in Afghanistan in supporting an insurgent fighting force that will, likely, dissolve into political disorder following the revolution. Neither option is favorable to the United States.

There is overt danger in siding in the civil war, and allying with either side will be detrimental to U.S. foreign policy objectives in the Middle East. This is not armchair isolationism. This is not international detachment. This is reason. We must not use our military capability to intervene in Syria, lest future generations say that this was our second Vietnam War. n

THE ARCH CONSERVATIVE / 9

Features

The Gang of Eight’s Insincere Sell Surely they can’t be serious.

by John Henry Thompson

F

ew issues of policy stir the passions of the American public like immigration. It has always been a difficult issue for us to address – after all, besides the American Indian population, every American is the descendant of immigrants.

Certain important American values come into conflict when immigration, legal or otherwise, is debated. This is a compassionate nation, but also one founded on the Rule of Law; it is a nation that encourages assimilation but which has benefitted immensely from a certain level of cultural diversity.

Over the years, problems in the immigration system have cropped up and have met with caustic debate. This summer marked another (as yet unsuccessful) attempt at what proponents have coined “comprehensive immigration reform.”

What principles should guide the nation’s approach to immigration law? This is a critical question: after all, what could be more essential than the decision that determines who receives the right to call themselves an American?

It is important that today’s questions regarding immigration be viewed in the appropriate historical and cultural context.

Yes, in many respects this is a nation of immigrants. But such language demeans the American identity — it reduces the American cultural identity to a mere amalgam.

(Many conservatives argue that our culture is disintegrating quite well on its own, but that is a topic for another day.)

Quite simply, viewing American culture as merely the sum of immigrant-contributed parts is the beginning of balkanization.

One important aim of immigration policy, then, should be to encourage John Henry Thompson is the Manager of THE ARCH CONSERVATIVE.

10 / THE ARCH CONSERVATIVE

assimilation. This is not to say that immigrants must abandon their old culture, which could result in a conformist deadening of civil society. But when it comes to the nationality embraced by an immigrant, there should be no question: allegiance to the United States of America cannot and should not exist alongside a comparable devotion to the government of another nation. Ties to one’s previous home should be maintained and cultivated, but parity in political identification is unacceptable.

The political motivation for ‘getting reform done’ will never be admitted by the bill’s authors, but it is clear as day to even the casual observer.

Evidence abounds that the latest wave of mass immigration to the United States distinctly lacks the tell-tale signs of assimilation. This evidence ranges from the empirical (the Manhattan Institute has the definitive study) to anecdotal (a disconcerting revelation regarding national soccer loyalties), and attests to the divisions rending American life.

Samuel Huntington said it best in Foreign Policy: “Continuation of this large immigration [without improved assimilation] could divide the United States into a country of two languages and two cultures.”

Huntington also points out the plethora of cultural differences between today’s tsunami of Central American immigrants and past immigration waves — and they are

stark. In terms of contiguity, scale, illegality, regional concentration, persistence and historical presence, we are sailing in uncharted waters.

Into this worrisome and unprecedented mix of difficulties, toss the problem of illegal immigration and the millions of undocumented migrants residing in the United States. Furthermore, consider the political implications posed by the growing Hispanic voting bloc. In case some readers have spent the last decade in the remote Himalayas, here’s a news item: the Hispanic vote is becoming increasingly important with each cycle.

All things considered — the pressing human interest concerns, potential political peril and ominous implications for the American identity itself —, taking on immigration reform would appear an unappetizing chore.

Unfazed by this challenge, or perhaps incognizant of it, the World’s Foremost Deliberative Body has proffered another in a long line of immigration overhaul proposals. The authors of this legislation, entitled the “Border Security, Economic Opportunity and Immigration Modernization Act,” seem possessed of a superhuman level of confidence that their package will resolve the problems plaguing immigration law.

But there is no reason to believe the Gang of Eight bill has been able to achieve what no other immigration act has truly attempted: a remedy for illegal immigration, responsible amnesty, border security and economic benefits.

Some of the more noxious elements of the Gang of Eight bill: n The requirement that 90 percent of those who cross the border illegally be apprehended before amnesty goes into effect is perhaps the most patently ludicrous element – Border Control cannot know Fall 2013

FEATURES

Photo courtesy wikimedia commons

Disregard. exactly how many people it fails to catch (the fraction has no denominator) and asking them to catch a particular percentage is silly, anyway. n The bill’s “triggers” for various levels of legalization, touted by conservative luminary and bill co-sponsor Sen. Marco Rubio [R-FL], are riddled with loopholes and design flaws. Among them, the muchdiscussed English language requirement is not much of a trigger — it consists of proof of enrollment in an English class, and it only applies to immigrants who have already received amnesty and are looking to upgrade their legal status. n A requirement that legal status only be granted to those without a criminal record looks good on its face, but closer reading reveals that two misdemeanors are forgiven and that the entire clean record requirement can be waived by the Department of Homeland Security. n Not only is the $500 dollar “fine” to become an American citizen arbitrarily chosen; it goes towards a DHS fund that supplies cash to “immigrant support groups” such as La Raza. La Raza, for reference, was led for three decades by a man who reportedly claimed that “U.S. English is to Hispanics as the KKK is to blacks.” So much for promoting assimilation.

This is nowhere near an exhaustive list of the shortcomings inherent in the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act. (The title itself verges on self-parody, but that’s how things are done these days in the World’s Foremost Deliberative Body.)

The bill’s single largest failing is that legal Fall 2013

status for illegal immigrants is up-front and irrevocable, whereas border security, internal controls and the so-called triggers are all either paper tigers or set to take place in the distant future, post-amnesty.

These transgressions are in clear violation of conservative principles, both on immigration and in general.

Ideally, amnesty is a path of last resort taken in order to move past an issue that the body politic has already resolved. But America in 2013 has not resolved the immigration issue. This bill, whatever its intentions, presents a far from adequate or even palatable version of amnesty. It is amnesty dressed up in soaring promises of border security and assurances that our immigration system will emerge modernized and fairer. Beneath the promises, this is 1986 all over again, with the added absurdity that our legislators are not learning from past mistakes (namely, 1986).

And it isn’t just amnesty that’s at issue in this legislation: the bill results in a huge expansion of legal immigration.

Limited space precludes a deeper discussion of immigration levels, but this publication will surely broach the issue in future. Suffice it to say there is not a consensus among conservatives, and certainly not among Americans, that immigration needs to be boosted beyond present rates.

The question must then be asked, then: what motivates Republicans to support such a hodgepodge of immigration tinkering? The answer strikes closer to the crux of the issue than anything discussed thus far.

There seems to be an appetite among certain Republicans to do something

— anything — on immigration reform.

The reason is obvious to those willing to accept it. Mitt Romney lost. He did not lose because of the Hispanic vote per se, but he clearly failed to compete as well as Republicans would have liked. There have always been certain Republicans on board with blanket amnesty, including Gov. Romney’s predecessor at the top of the GOP ticket.

But electoral defeat has led new faces into the reform camp — would Sen. Rubio be in the Gang if the Romney family currently resided at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.?

The political motivation for “getting reform done” will never be admitted by the bill’s authors, but it is as clear as day to even the casual observer. (Never mind that this bill’s political benefit to Republicans is decidedly dicey.) This rationale raises serious questions about not only immigration reform but also about how committed conservatives are to their principles and to good public policy. It is absolutely unconscionable that conservatives should throw in with the likes of Sen. Chuck Schumer [D-NY] in abandoning the rule of law. And the veneer of “serious, common sense reform” when applied to this wreck of a bill is an insult to the movement’s intelligence.

Most importantly, conservatives should never acquiesce to the doctrine of pursuing policy changes for mere electoral gain.

The essence of conservative thought is that it hews to foundational principles and eternal truths about human nature. When it comes to an issue as important as immigration, conservatives must not exchange that commitment for the dubious proposition of future achievements at the ballot box. n THE ARCH CONSERVATIVE / 11

Features

Q&A:

Stephen Simpson An officer guns for the Tenth.

Lt. Col. Stephen Simpson, a longtime resident of Milledgeville, is vying for the Republican nomination to succeed U.S. Rep. Paul Broun.

Simpson sat down with THE ARCH CONSERVATIVE’s Nathan Williams to discuss his military background and issues like the national debt, energy independence, immigration reform and the ongoing crisis in Syria.

12 / THE ARCH CONSERVATIVE

Lt. Col. Stephen Simpson (L). secure the border, we can deal with everything else.

The more federal funds we can return to local governments, the greater the probability of securing the border effectively and with fewer costs. The immigration system is broken, and doing nothing is not an option. We don’t have enough Americans to fulfill high-tech positions, and we need to fix that. If an American could hire one qualified electrical engineer [from abroad], he could create forty-five jobs.

TAC: The president has called for military intervention in Syria after evidence surfaced suggesting President Bashar al-Assad used chemical weapons against his people. Do you think the United States should get involved, even if our national security may not be in jeopardy? simpson: Our national security is governed by regional stability in the Middle East. One of the many qualifications I have is that I graduated from the Nuclear Biology and Chemical School, and chemical weapons are extremely nasty. They have no heat signature and you can’t detect them from overhead. I guarantee that, given resources and time, we would find stockpiles of these weapons.

The situation is complicated, however, by the failed foreign policy of the Obama administration. We stood by Egypt, which is our second best ally in the region, but we mishandled the situation. So I don’t support military action in Syria. We seem like a rogue nation because the president has done nothing at all, and now he wants action.

TAC: What course of action would you suggest for the president in Syria? simpson: I would suggest that he proceed with an abundance of caution. I’ve trained with forces in this region, and the biggest problem is that Assad could last another ten years. A similar thing happened with Saddam Hussein in Iraq, which forced us into Plan B, costing American lives. n

Fall 2013

Photo by Joel Graham

TAC: What is the number one issue affecting District 10, and how do you plan to tackle this as a legislator if you are elected?

Stephen simpson: The biggest issue affecting District 10, all of Georgia and all of the United States is the debt. Our national debt has ballooned from $6 to $17 trillion in the last six years.

I served with Adm. Mike Mullen, and when he gave his departure briefing to Congress he said our biggest threat isn’t foreign — it’s our national debt. I’m taken aback by some of my Republican friends who just want to talk about the problem but not about solutions. We need zero-based budgeting for every agency to justify their budgets. We also need to identify overseas bases that America doesn’t need anymore, and we need to close them. We can take those resources to build and sustain our existing military.

TAC: Despite your lack of legislative experience, how will your extensive public service record help you begin working in Congress on day one? simpson: I spent twenty years in the military. I actually worked in the Pentagon during the BRAC [Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission] process, and I’m the only person running who has done that. I also worked for the Secretary of the Army selling the Army’s defense authorization bill to Congress.

I will not be your typical freshman.

TAC: How do you envision your military background influencing your service in Congress, if elected? simpson: You learn very early that it’s about leadership, and leadership is not a popularity contest. I graduated from Georgia Military College’s high school, and the banner’s that hangs there says “Duty, Honor, Country and Character Above All.” We need people in Washington who care about our country, not just getting reelected.

TAC: Do you hope to take your military and foreign affairs expertise to a relevant committee? simpson: You’re at the hand of leadership when deciding committee assignments, but I’m very interested in the [House Armed Services Committee]. I’m also interested in the Select Committee on Intelligence.

TAC: Would you support any version of immigration reform that provides legalization to the 11 million immigrants living unlawfully in the U.S., even if the bill contains a probationary period? simpson: Immigration reform is very complicated and emotional. The first thing we have to do is secure the border. Once we

culture

Why read the hard books?

Classic literature teaches you about you. by eileen shone

classics to younger students. It is written in simple, easy to understand language and, better yet, it’s about a society where sleeping magine trying to play baseball without learning how to throw around is not only accepted — it’s a requirement. The obvious the ball correctly. How about trying to do calculus without theme of the book concerns the dangers of a utopian society; howknowing your basic functions. Impossible, right? At least, ever, author Aldous Huxley peppers in other important lessons.

Due to the book’s many layers, you may read Brave New World you would have to struggle a lot more than your teammates or classmates — baseball wouldn’t be as fun and calculus would be one time and take away that it’s about dangers of a utopia. Reading your worst nightmare (assuming, of course, it is not already). You it on another day, and focusing on the character Lenina, you might would not try to do anything if you didn’t have the slightest clue take away lessons about the dehumanizing nature of sexual promiscuity and about the human urge toward what you were doing. monogamy. Yet another day, you may see So why would you try and read literathat teachers are important to help you deture without knowing the “basics?” No, I cipher fact from fiction: John had read the am not talking about the alphabet or gramclassics but, without further guidance, he mar rules — I am talking about reading believed the books were non-fiction, which the classics, such as Hamlet, Crime and only helped push him to his demise. You Punishment and 1984, to name just a few. might even read the book on a fourth occaWhile some groan at the mere mention of sion and learn that cultivating an interest in Shakespeare and think ‘Fyodor Mikhailovclassics and the humanities leads to human ich Dostoyevsky’ is the result of smashing happiness: Helmholtz Watson had an interrandom keys on a keyboard, reading the est in writing and the forbidden classics; he classics and actually understanding the ended up being exiled to a place where he concept and meaning behind novels is could freely exercise his interest. Even with as important as knowing how to throw a those four lessons under your belt, you baseball. have only begun to scratch the surface of Most of you have experienced these this deep book. classics as required reading in class, and Ordinary “literary potato chips” such have given little thought to why your proas The Hunger Games and Twilight can be fessor would force such punishment upon Calliope, the Muse of epic poetry, holding consumed easily and with little thought. you. There are thousands of books in the The Odyssey. Painting by Simon Vouet.

While I love Bella’s love triangle more than world your professor could have chosen, I would like to admit, literary potato chips leave little for the mind and they chose All the King’s Men. Really?

While even I have to admit Jack’s tangents about nature and time to chew on.

The classics, by contrast, are books that can be enjoyed over are dry, the characters in the above novel, to take one example, are rich and full of meaning. Take the main character, Willie Stark. At and over, and offer something new each time you open them. If the beginning of the novel he is a naïve teetotaler who prefers to you want to gain a deeper understanding of literature, the world drink orange pop on account of his wife’s distaste for alcohol. Once around you and yourself, going back to “basics” is the best way to he realizes he is being used by the Harrison campaign to split the start. n opposition vote, Willie consumes a whole bottle of liquor, symbolizing the beginning of his corruption. Willie’s character reminds us What to Read? that absolute power leads to absolute corruption.

The Editors offer a few suggestions.

We cannot, however, write off Willie as an immoral character who is only obsessed with furthering his own interests. He loves Blake: Heart of Darkness by Conrad is a rich book about the human soul and what lies in its depths. The writing is impenhis son and even dotes on him. In creating Willie, author Robert etrable as the Congo in places, but the message — that civility Penn Warren teaches us to create complex characters that add to and savagery are not so far apart — is worth the struggle. the richness of the story; as readers, he allows us to follow these elizabeth: Anna Karenina by Tolstoy shows that things characters’ lives to learn from their mistakes. which seem like “societal constructions” are often founded on Just from one character in one book we have learned two imuniversal truth — and are not painlessly disregarded. portant life lessons: (1) That power can corrupt the most innocent john henry: The works of the British romantics. From of all characters, and (2) That even the most despicable of characColeridge’s “Kubla Khan” to Shelley’s “Ozymandias” to Byron’s ters have redeeming qualities.

“Childe Harold,” the works of these masters remain some of the most elegant and important compositions in the Western If you still wonder why classics are important, consider my next canon. example, Brave New World. This is one of the more interesting

I

Fall 2013

THE ARCH CONSERVATIVE / 13

Humor

Pro-Intervention Sentiment Sweeps Nation

W

ith the Obama administration continuing to display a firm resolve to go to war in Syria over the Assad regime’s alleged use of chemical weapons, the administration’s foreign policy goals are starting to become clear and easy to recognize, according to experts.

At the recent American Political Science Association conference in Chicago, Ill., many of the attendees expressed relief that the administration had finally begun to lay out a coherent policy agenda. “From a policy standpoint, the president seems to have finally gotten consistent and at least laid out a clear agenda of how he plans to advance U.S. interests abroad.” said Dr. Don Dworacyk, professor of international affairs at Oberlin College.

“Now of course not everyone agrees with all the little details, but the fact is that Democrats now have some straightforward foreign policy goals to hang their hat on for the upcoming midterm elections.”

“These developments, though a long time in the making, are fundamentally consistent with the president’s rhetoric and stated policy preferences. You look at his 2008 presidential campaign, he really gambled by running to the right of Hillary on defense issues, and I think a lot of Will Belcher is a senior studying political science. He is a regular contributor to THE ARCH CONSERVATIVE.

14 / THE ARCH CONSERVATIVE

folks on the left were put off by that,” said Tim Loving of the non-partisan think tank Center for American Progress. “He had every opportunity to distance himself from, and to bash, the kind of Bush-era hawkishness he’s now showing, and he simply re-

fused to do so. It was a bold strategy, but he’s stuck to it and has really staked out his own policy identity.”

With Democrats uniting under one banner, Republicans on the Hill have been left scrambling to respond. In a statement recently released by House Speaker John Boehner, he admitted that Republicans “cannot continue to protest the President’s agenda without putting forward solid policy proposals of their own. Clearly, the American people demand action in Syria and we cannot continue to be the Party of ‘No.’” Indeed, the most recent data from the Public Policy Polling institute shows that Republican’s failure to throw their support behind Obama’s plan for war in Syria has been hurting them dearly. With support for military intervention in Syria reaching almost 75 percent, the Republican House of

Representatives has seen its approval rating fall over 10 points in the last two weeks alone.

Confronted with Republican leadership slow to act on an issue so important to American voters, Many Republican legislators have been hitting the campaign trail in an effort to persuade constituents that they are still attuned to their concerns. At a town hall meeting last week in St. Joseph, MS., Rep. Sam Graves [R-MS.] was met with a standing-room-only crowd positively bristling at the idea of non-intervention in Syria.

Jerry Whitfield, a retired police officer from nearby Maryville, MS. attended the Town Hall meeting to voice his concern over Republican inaction. “It’s getting ridiculous. These guys are up there going on and on about healthcare, jobs and the national debt while literally hundreds of people are dying in the Middle East. I just don’t get it.”

With public support clearly against continued Republican stonewalling, the president may be able to execute his agenda sooner rather than later, as several prominent Republicans have already publicly sided with the administration.

“Look, the economy isn’t perfect. I get that. But there’s a war going on in the Middle East here, folks. If we don’t watch out, Syria could become unstable or even outright dangerous,” Sen. John McCain [R-Ariz.] told David Gregory last Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” echoing the pro-intervention sentiment that has swept the nation. “If we don’t act soon, the whole Arab Spring could be compromised.” n Fall 2013

Cartoon by john henry thompson

Republicans outfoxed yet again.

Send your student off to college with Commentary A Commentary Digital subscription is available FREE to college students with valid .edu email addresses.

Just send your student’s name, mailing address, and email to: student@commentarymagazine.com.

Your student will be able to activate their digital subscription to Commentary on any standard web browser or iPad device.

The free college subscription to Commentary Digital will last for 12 months, at which time it can be renewed with a valid .edu email address.