Raising the Standard
Calming the Chaos
Jordan Peterson versus the Post-Modernists By Connor Foarde and Reed Ferguson
COLLEGIATE NETWORK’S 2016–2017 PUBLICATION OF THE YEAR SPRING 2018
THE EDITORS
COLUMNS
FEATURES
3 From the Editor in Chief
8 Progress in Argentina
14 Calming the Chaos
By Ross Dubberly
By Matt Collins
By Connor Foarde and Reed Ferguson
CAMPUS
9 Libertarianism and the GOP
16 The Spectrum of Evil
4 The Campus Informant By The Editors
5 SGA Watch By Ross Dubberly
COLUMNS
By Ian LaCroix
By J.Thomas Perdue
10 Trey Gowdy
HUMOR
By Christopher Lipscomb
11 The Moral Law By Gehrig Broxton
6 World War III in the Making
12 A Reasoned Rebuttal
By Reed Ferguson
By Ian LaCroix
07 I'm With Nikki Haley
BOOK REVIEW
By Boris A. Abreu
18 Strokes of Resistance By Nick Geeslin
19 Against Early Kickoffs By Boris A. Abreu
13 A Tribute to Buckley By Ross Dubberly
The Arch Conservative Editorial Board and Staff: 2017-2018 Editor in Chief Ross Dubberly
Book Editor Nick Geeslin
Executive Editor Reed Ferguson
Manager Sarah Montgomery
Associate Editor J.Thomas Perdue
Business Manager Logan North
Publishing Editor Boris A. Abreu
Creative Director Mallory Traylor
Campus News Editor Connor Foarde
Contributors Christopher Lipscomb Gehrig Broxton Matt Collins
Online Editor Ian LaCroix
2 / The Arch Conservative
SPRING 2018
THE EDITORS i
From the Editor in Chief The Torch We Carry
COVER PHOTO COURTESY OF DANIEL EHRENWORTH
A
nother season brings another collecting of contributions; another harried, frenzied attempt to meet deadline after deadline; another day of copy edits in which the most pedantic of us can preach our opposition to a comma here or a hyphen there. Another season brings another print issue of The Arch Conservative . You hold in your hands the first issue of The Arch Conservative which has gone to print under my tenure as Editor in Chief. And thus, I now speak from experience when I say: It is a strenuous process, one demanding much devotion, time, and energy. For instance the edits are seemingly unending; the problems that arise are persistent; the moving parts abound. In short, bringing this most extraordinary magazine to print, I have come to learn quickly, is one of the most taxing endeavors on which I have ever embarked. In spite of the great effort The Arch Conservative demands, however, it is well worth the effort. Because, as Editor in Chief, I am now able to enjoy—and subsequently publish for our beloved readers to enjoy—the best content and commentary on campus. When considered from this angle, the role of Editor in Chief of The Arch Conservative is not merely a job or duty—it is an absolute joy. And because within these pages, as readers will find, lay commentary from some of the brightest, most thoughtful, well-read, and high-minded students at the University of Georgia, the hard work is well worth the effort. The spring 2018 print issue is more than just a mere glossy collection of paper; it is a symbol. It is a symbol that Leftism has not conquered every corner of the campus; a symbol that no matter how bleak the future may appear, there remains those who are always willing to “stand athwart history [and yell] ‘Stop!’”; and a symbol that conservatives aren’t a fractured body here at UGA but a concerted group committed to advancing the ideals of Americanism. In short, this latest issue symbolizes that the Conservative Movement is far from dead, far from acquiescent, and far from defeated at this university. With the continuous chaos that plagues the world around us, it is my hope—as well as the hope of the rest of the editorial team here at The Arch Conservative—that whoever should pick up this publication should find it a source of intellectual repose. That is to say, it is to be hoped that this journal will serve as a haven for all, but most especially for that beleaguered student who finds himself weary as a result of his daily encounter with palpably preposterous Left-wing propaganda. Insofar as this spring’s print issue of the magazine serves that purpose, its publication is a cause for celebration.
SPRING 2018
Though we should and shall celebrate, it will be a brief one. We shall take a deep breath, let out a big sigh, wipe the sweat from our brow, and get back to work. We do this because the work never ends. For there are always issues to be explored, academic inferiorities to be exposed, debates to be had, and philosophic questions to ponder—all activities requiring The Arch Conservative’s steadfast engagement and devotion. Needless to say, there is much to be done before we at The Arch Conservative can rest easy. Writing is indeed “sweaty work,” as William F. Buckley Jr. once aptly described it. But it is work we at The Arch Conservative relish; for it is through writing that we seek to do our part to preserve—or at least make our peers and professors aware of—what Edmund Burke called the “democracy of the dead.” And out of respect for that democracy, The Arch Conservative refuses to disregard the wisdom of our forefathers and bequeath a life of bondage to future generations—that is, at least not without a fight. We, here, are in full agreement with the line often attributed to Burke that the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. Willing to allow neither the triumph of evil nor the triumph of Leftism on UGA’s campus, The Arch Conservative will never look at “doing nothing” as a viable option. On the contrary, the very last thing this publication will ever do—could ever do—is nothing. Courage, boldness, and activism are in our blood; good prose, good polemics, and good policy proposals in our arsenal. It goes without saying that the pleasure we take from the print issue goes beyond merely seeing our names written in the most elegantly designed copy (courtesy of Creative Director Mallory Traylor). In fact, the pleasure isn’t rooted in the self at all. Rather, it is akin to the joy one might feel for, say, spending time at the homeless shelter or soup kitchen. In other words, putting this issue to bed brings us pleasure because we know we have done something good—for students, for professors, for our campus, and for the Conservative Movement at large. And to us, it matters not whether our readership is 10 or 10,000. That, we know, is of little importance. Because, as another issue of The Arch Conservative is put to bed, it means that the torch of the Conservative Movement shall stay lit for yet another season here at UGA. And that, ultimately, is of the utmost importance. — Ross Dubberly
The Arch Conservative / 3
CAMPUS
UGA at the Turning Point
C
harlie Kirk, the 24 year-old founder of the campus conservative political activism group Turning Point USA, will be speaking on the University of Georgia Campus as part of his tour. Kirk is also the co-author of Time for a Turning Point: Setting a Course Towards Free Markets and Limited Governments for Future Generations, and is a frequent Fox News contributor. The event is sponsored by the UGA Turning Point USA, which is one of over 350 chapters on college campuses nationwide. The event will be held on April 3rd in Brooks Hall Room 145, and is open to the public. — Connor Foarde
Karen Handel at UGA
U
.S. Representative Karen Handel (R-GA) made an appearance on campus February 22, courtesy of the UGA College Republicans. As the nation is engrossed in yet another debate on gun control following the Parkland, Florida, shooting. Handel, however, proposed a different approach to the problem of mass shootings. Concretely, Handel advocated coming at this issue from a mental health perspective. “She said she’s working on a bill to increase funding for [better mental health programs] as well as ones designed to help the opioid crisis,” the Red & Black reported. Though not a fashionable approach among academics, media-types, and many politicians, Handel’s proposal to increase the country’s funds and focus on mental health programs has much more potential to mitigate the mass-shooter problem than any gun control measure. — Ross Dubberly
Why Israel Matters
I
n late February, UGA College Republicans co-hosted an event with the UGA American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) called “Why Israel Matters.” The AIPAC representatives summed up 100 years of conflict in half an hour, touching on the history of Zionism, the state of Israel, and the Arab-Israeli conflict. They pointed out the unique relationship between the United States and Israel, as it pertains both to free trade and national security. Rightly, AIPAC pointed out that Israel is the sole democracy in the Middle East—a fact that the opinion pages of the Red & Black have (wrongly) contested recently. Israel’s presence in the Middle East acts as a guarantor of security in a region riddled with instability and chaos. Its Declaration of Independence, modeled after the United States’, recognizes the religious freedoms of all citizens—whether they be Jewish, Christian, or Muslim—and the statutes passed by the Knesset affirm it. The mission of AIPAC is to strengthen US-Israeli relations through bipartisan efforts in Congress. Other pro-Israel groups on the UGA campus include Dawgs for Israel and Christians United for Israel.
4 / The Arch Conservative
— Reed Ferguson
SPRING 2018
CAMPUS
S G A WAT C H
I
t is still early in the spring semester, but the Student Government Association (SGA) of the University of Georgia is as busy as ever. From the very makeup of the body to initiatives to legislation to political activism, SGA has demonstrated an abundance of energy thus far this semester, to say the least. Regarding elections, potential SGA candidates have a busy campaign season ahead. Some dates are worth noting here. “Statements of Intent” for all elected positions within SGA were due February 9. Campaigning begins first thing March 19. A debate among those on the Executive ticket is scheduled for March 22. Voting begins promptly at 8:00 a.m. March 26, and ends at 12:00 p.m. on March 28. And finally, election results shall be announced March 28. A more detailed schedule can be found at UGAStudentGovernment.com But preparation for another election season is far from all that SGA has been up to. According to sources with internal knowledge of the matter, SGA has recently caught the activism bug. Some SGA members “lobbied at the state capitol [in mid-February] against” Georgia Senate Bill 339, which would expand “free speech zones” to any public area on campus. In addition to advocating against expanding free speech zones while at the state capitol, some SGA members also advocated for the ratification of two bills related to “hate crimes,” according to sources with firsthand knowledge but who spoke on the condition of anonymity. Karen Bennett, the sponsor of the bills, seeks to remove Georgia’s status as one of only five states in the Union without “hate-crime” legislation, according to CBS46 Atlanta News. The members are also assiduously working on legislative efforts of their own. SGA has passed an initiative with the intent to bring further awareness to suicide and
SPRING 2018
mental health; it has passed a resolution to thank the 2017 University of Georgia football team and senior players for their valiant efforts in advancing as far in the playoffs as they did; it has increased the access to and availability of sexual assault resources; it has passed a resolution “encouraging the increased adoption of free or reduced cost textbooks for students” here at UGA; and it is now “working on a resolution to begin the process” of establishing a “professional clothing closet,” which would serve to provide professional attire to both those students who cannot afford it, as well as those who simply have yet to acquire it but need it. Activity also of some significance include SGA’s current laboring to make changes to their constitution, a process only undertaken every four years, according to sources familiar with SGA’s recent activities. While it is unknown, at the moment, what particular aspect of the constitution the current members of SGA are seeking to change, developments in this realm are ones in which all students should take considerable interest. It must always be remembered that “knowledge shall forever govern ignorance,” in the words of James Madison. And thus, students should consider it a civic responsibility and obligation requiring significant attention to pay attention to these and other matters. SGA, as outlined, has indeed been and remains a busy student body. Although some of the aforementioned initiatives and objects of SGA’s labors are perhaps superfluous or even unnecessary, we at The Arch Conservative are at least encouraged by the body’s dogged efforts to improve the University of Georgia’s campus in all realms of student life. That is to say, while we may not always agree with a particular initiative here or a particular resolution there, we commend the SGA students’ efforts nonetheless. It is, perhaps, apathy that this publication finds more unseemly than anything else—and apathetic SGA is not. And while SGA has been, and shall continue to be, busy the remainder of the semester—if their efforts so far are any indication—so, too, shall The Arch Conservative in bringing their latest activities to our readers’ attention. — Ross Dubberly
The Arch Conservative / 5
COLUMNS
World War III in the Making The Tyrants of Tehran and the Threat to Israel's Existence As Iran ramps up its regional aggression, it bears an eerie resemblance to the genesis of a worldwide war that began with a similar regional conflict between Germany and Poland in the fall of 1939.
I
n early February 2018, the proxy war between Israel and Iran heated up, bringing the two countries closer to full-scale war. After an Iranian drone entered Israeli airspace in the Golan Heights, the Israeli Air Force retaliated with airstrikes on an Iranian mobile command center in Syria. Subsequently, Syrian missiles shot down an Israeli F-16 fighter, marking the first time an Israeli plane was lost in combat since 1982. In a speech the day following the attack, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu responded with passion and wrath. Waving a piece of the downed drone, he said, “Do you recognize this? You should. It’s yours. You can take back with you a message to the tyrants of Tehran: Do not test Israel’s resolve.” Israel, he said, will defend itself, and, if necessary, it will act “not just against Iran’s proxies that are attacking us, but against Iran itself.” Netanyahu sent an assertive warning to the world, drawing comparison between the Obama-era Iranian Nuclear Deal and Neville Chamberlain’s decision to sign the Munich Agreement in 1938, ceding parts of Czechoslovakia to Nazi Germany, wrongfully assuming that concessions to evil could appease a tyrant like Adolf Hitler. The Iran Deal lifted economic sanctions on Iran in return for self-facilitated, self-inspected, selfregulated restrictions on its nuclear program. The agreement, as Netanyahu said, “has only emboldened the regime and brought Iran war closer [between Israel and Iran].” World War II began after the disempowered German republic relinquished itself to the total control of the Nazi Party. The Reed Ferguson is a junior studying economics. She is Executive Editor of The Arch Conservative.
6 / The Arch Conservative
Nazis flexed Germany’s regional power over its neighbors, testing their sovereignty. It was not until the Nazis invaded Poland in 1939, breaking the non-aggression pact it had signed only five years earlier, that Great Britain put its foot down. In a world of newfound nation-states and alliances, Nazi Germany’s imperialist ambitions brought the whole world into the conflict. War between Israel and Iran would not just mean war between Israel and Iran; it would mean a world war—Israel, Saudi Arabia, and the U.S. on one side, and the Shiite alliance between Hezbollah and the Iranian and Syrian regimes on the other. In his address to the world, Netanyahu likened the Iranian regime to the Nazi Empire, claiming Iran advocates for a religious-based version of anti-Semitic, Nazi philosophy. But rather than promoting the “master race,” the Iran regime promotes the “master faith.” He was correct. According to Human Rights Watch, Iranian law punishes “insulting the Prophet,” apostasy, homosexuality, adultery, and other crimes-that-shouldn’t-becrimes by death. The regime even executes children—boys as young as 15 and girls as young as nine. (But don’t worry, new amendments allow judges to sentence children to death at their own discretion.) After the antiregime protests took place in January of this year, 29 women were arrested for bravely taking off the veils they are compelled by law to wear. Masih Alinejad, a US-based, Iranian journalist and activist, says, however, that this is nothing new. “The Iranian police announced in 2014 that they’ve warned, arrested, or sent to court nearly 3.6 million women because of having bad hijab,” she explained to The Guardian. Iran’s regional power stems from its backing of both the terrorist organization Hezbollah in Lebanon and President Bashar al-Assad in Syria. The regime has spent months—years, even—preparing for war with Israel, attempting to unite the Lebanese and Syrian fronts. Iran’s strength comes not from conventional methods of military expansion but rather from building up its legions of regional allies that share its perverse master-faith, judenrein ideology.
The lifting of sanctions on Iran, paired with the demise of ISIS and the reemergence of the Assad regime, will lead to an empowered Iran the moment the U.S. retreats from the region—even as it retreats in temporary victory. Iran will take measures to secure its power over the Levant in the event of war, and it will make significant headway in its march to the Mediterranean. In concurrence with Netanyahu’s forceful remarks, Iran would be ill-advised to take one step closer to war with Israel. The Israeli Defense Forces is one of the most adept and equipped militaries in the world, and the U.S. and other Arab allies would not hesitate to protect their own interests. In the face of Iranian expansionism, the U.S. should adopt the wisdom of 1964 Republican presidential nominee Barry Goldwater: “I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in pursuit of justice is no virtue!” The U.S. can and should stand against the regime in Iran. Iran is an evil empire, and the alliance between it, the Assad regime, and Hezbollah is one so depraved that it only rivals that of the Axis Powers of World War II. To avoid world war, the solutions to the Iranian regime are twofold: First, the United States should pursue an Iranian Containment Policy similar to the containment policy used to repress the contagion of Communism throughout the 20th century. One route to securing the policy is through pressuring Russia to put a muzzle on Iran’s aggression toward Israel. Second, the Trump administration should leave the Iran Nuclear Deal in the dust, reinstate sanctions, and be slow to leave the regions it frees from ISIS without first guaranteeing long-term stability. If it fails, the Shiites will fill the gaps. Let World War II serve as an everlasting reminder to the West that evil must always be fought. It is a foolish error to follow in the Obama-Chamberlain tradition of thinking evil will willfully compromise with good. It is a wrongful and fateful mistake to assume that evil can ever be appeased. b
SPRING 2018
COLUMNS
I'm With Nikki Haley A Shining Star in Trump's Republican Party As U.S. Ambassador to the U.N., Nikki Haley has proven herself to be a stalwart defender of the principles of conservatism on the world stage; and thus, she has demonstrably been one of the best appointees of the Trump Administration.
A
year and a half ago, if one were to ask who the strongest female leader in the Republican Party was, it would’ve been likely that Fiorina or Ronna Romney McDaniel would have come up. However, recent shifts in the American political landscape have brought a new female standardbearer to the stage. It is no secret that today's Republican Party is deviating from the traditional party norms, per most conservative pundits. The fear is that it will take a severe shock to jar the party back to a more ideological sense of reality, not the populist mouthpiece that the rise of President Trump has created. The party needs a figure, a person that could fill the void left by the mass exodus of intellectual conservatives now without a political home. Enter Nikki Haley, a daughter of Indian immigrants to America and a breaker of political barriers for women and immigrants everywhere. She was the first Indian-American elected to political office in South Carolina after winning a spot in the state's House of Representatives in the early 2000s. On top on of being elected twice to the governorship of South Carolina, she is only the second Indian-American to hold this position in America. As the first female governor of South Carolina, she made a name for herself in the political sphere. She has racked up Boris A. Abreu is a junior studying political science and international affairs. He is Publishing Editor of The Arch Conservative. SPRING 2018
praise from pundits and journalists alike, earning a reputation for “fiscal ferocity and a capacity for conciliation,” per a print article at the Economist appropriately titled “Haley's Comet.” In her capacity as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, Haley has revivified the image that the U.S. cannot be taken for granted and has shown a fiery resolve that can only be admired. She has even gone as far to call
out the top negotiator of Palestine by name— who, in a breathtakingly rude stroke, told her to “shut up” about her criticism of Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas. She has the steel to stand up to an organization that has bullied the U.N. for years, and Haley has demonstrated our willingness to stand by our ally, Israel, without apology. She has continually provided a breath of fresh air in an administration continually rocked by scandals and tweet-triggered partisan rage. However, in more pressing matters, the
Republican Party needs a leader who can unite the fractured wings of the party and guide it away from populism and its enablers. s. There is a gap in the party that needs to be filled with a principled, effective leader who can take the party into the future and create a healthy environment for conservatives of all stripes. I believe that person to be Haley. Her appeal is far reaching, and her status as the daughter of hardworking immigrants could be a boon for the Republican Party. Furthermore, she could very well be able to draw in the more evangelical base of the party. Being a converted Christian woman in a long-lasting, stable relationship will help her cause undoubtedly amongst the more religiously-inclined base. A concerted effort to diversify the future voting coalition by bringing her in as a leader may well be enough to draw in more skeptical and moderate voters, and create more diversity for the Republican Party. The current narrative of the party is not working well in its effort to draw in a diverse coalition of potential voters and secure a strong future for the Conservative Movement. If the party continues down this trajectory, 2018 and beyond are not shaping up to be filled with happy election nights for the Republican Party. But, as they say, you find a diamond in the rough every once in a while; and I believe that diamond to be Nikki Haley. Her skills and principles are admirable, and her tenacity in leadership roles is to be revered. I fear a serious jolt is needed to bring the party back to reality and put forward a respectable leader such as Haley. Perhaps, in a more optimistic future, one will find me among a throng of enthusiastic Haley supporters, and with any luck, saying: I’m With Her. b
The Arch Conservative / 7
COLUMNS
Progress in Argentina “[President] Macron may not be accomplishing all that he hoped for when he first took office, but nevertheless, his presidency means progress.”
W
hen Mauricio Macri was elected President of Argentina in 2015, he promised to reintegrate Argentina into the international community. Decades of instability, military dictatorships and economic crises have marred Argentina, and due to the efforts of the Kirchner administrations, it became one of the most economically isolated countries in the world. After Macri was elected, he was tasked with curbing the government deficit and promoting investment in the Argentine economy all while trying to become the first non-Peronist president to complete his term since 1928. Macri’s first challenge was to entice foreign investment to return to the country, something Argentina has been lacking since defaulting on its foreign debt obligations in 2001. The reversal of price controls that had previously deterred foreign companies from entering Argentine markets helped contribute to a 77 percent increase in the Argentine stock market in 2017 and is up another seven percent this year. Such promise in the Argentine economy has led to Amazon now considering the idea of placing its new South American data center in Buenos Aires. Macri also announced that investment in the Argentine economy was up 11 percent in 2017, the highest increase in six years. In order to build on that progress, the Macri administration now must aim to relax Argentina’s labor laws, which are seen as among the costliest to companies in Latin Matt Collins is a junior studying economics and Spanish. He is a regular contributor to The Arch Conservative.
8 / The Arch Conservative
America. Labor law reform could prove to be a herculean task for Macri. Macri’s political party, Cambiemos, only has a plurality in the Congress, meaning that he must work with the Peronist opposition and their allies, Argentina’s influential labor unions. Macri aims for piecemeal solutions with the hopes
of passing two or three smaller bills that begin to address the issues within the next few months. Macri entered office at a time when the government budget deficit was around five percent. Addressing this issue has been painful process. Protests broke out in December as Congress passed a bill that changed the way pensions are calculated from tax income to consumer price index. The government says this makes benefits much more predictable and more importantly sustainable for the government. After intense public protest,
Macri tweaked his proposal and pledged a one-time bonus payment to help alleviate the concerns of retirees. This type of compromise may just be what keep Macri’s presidency afloat. Macri must get his country’s economy back on track quickly without enacting excessive painful reform too quickly. Otherwise Peronists will vilify him. For the moment, he is floating by, with approval numbers around 50 percent while many of his opponents, Peronists and union leaders, face corruption accusations. The sociopolitical climate in Argentina may very well work in Macri’s favor. The Kirchner administrations that preceded him saw political dissidents jailed, media critics silenced and government statistics forged, and the corruption led to a fierce political activism around the country. The rise of investigative journalism websites such as Chequeado (Checked) and left-leaning El Disenso (The Dissent) has been a particularly interesting phenomenon. These websites were formed to hold politicians accountable to what they say and ultimately to ensure that the the government releases truthful information. Macri may not be accomplishing all that he hoped for when he first took office, but nevertheless, his presidency means progress. The emergence of his political party as a true alternative to Peronism shows that Argentina has taken the next step towards become a full-fledged democracy. The inpouring of investment is awakening the economy of a country boasting of over 43 million and a capital with one of the largest metropolitan populations in the world. Macri is out to prove that we need not cry for Argentina anymore. b
SPRING 2018
PHOTO COURTESY OF MICHEL TEMER
Evidence of Change in the Business Sector
COLUMNS
Libertarianism and the GOP The Future of the Republican Party The Republican party could best appeal to a larger audience by making limited government, fiscal conservatism, and individual liberties its focused priorities.
A
s more areas of everyday life become permeated with leftist ideology, it is logical to question the future of the Republican Party. While left-leaning millennials are getting older and subsequently becoming more politically active, the time may soon come that the Republican Party must take measures to ensure its survival. This does not suggest the embracing of liberal ideals. In fact, it is quite the contrary. The Republican Party could best appeal to a larger audience by making limited government, fiscal conservatism, and individual liberties its focused priorities. Essentially, the GOP would likely increase its lifespan by amalgamating certain elements of libertarianism with conservatism. In a country dominated by two-party politics it is unlikely that the Libertarian Party will get a candidate elected to the Oval Office. This, however, does not mean that conservatives should dismiss them entirely. Some of their policies should be adopted and blended with conservatism to attract newer, more moderate and center-left voters. The major deal breaker for many left leaning voters is that the Republicans’ social agenda can be seen as outdated in the modern world. Although many would agree that social issues are incredibly less salient compared to economic issues, the Republican Party should still strive to be the party that it claims to be: the party of individual liberties. The Republican Party could attract both conservatives and center-left voters by placing an emphasis on the early republicanism teachings of Thomas Jefferson and John Locke. Indeed, these teachings of individual Ian LaCroix is a sophomore studying political science. He is Online Editor of The Arch Conservative.
SPRING 2018
liberties and limited government are ideals that the majority of the political spectrum support. Locke believed that the citizen was the “proprietor [owner] of his own person, and the actions or labour of it.” Essentially, people own their body and the fundamental natural rights that come along with it. These values also lie at the core of American property law. Philosophically speaking, property and liberty have almost identical meanings in the context of republicanism and enlightenment thinking. Extending these teachings to current social issues, Republicans could support a pro-choice/LGBTQ rights stance by refering to the the core of the parties platform, built on the protection of liberties for all people. From a libertarian’s perspective, people should be allowed to do as they please in the privacy of their home, as long as they are not infringing on the rights of others. Republicans should be open to hearing policy proposals that would defend liberty for all people, but should be skeptical when those policies infringe on the rights of others by costing taxpayers more money, or if they place special emphasis on any one group. The Republican Party styles itself as the party of limited government. While it certainly advocates for the ideal in campaign speeches, limited government seems to slip through the cracks when cultural issues become conspicuous and when elected officials are confronted with the thought of giving up power. But here is where the libertarian ideology offers help. The Libertarian Party suggests slashing a multitude of federal agencies to reduce the scope of the government. For example, the Libertarian Party wishes to completely eliminate federal income tax, and with it, the IRS. While it is doubtful that the Republicans will do this in the foreseeable future, it would bode well for the party to slowly reduce income taxes and with it, wasteful federal agencies. However, this is difficult because there is so much reliance on the federal government through welfare programs and the like. Perhaps Republicans should aim to reduce the amount of money that certain federal agencies receive, instead of eliminating them entirely. Republicans should continue to make military spending
a number one priority, but they should also take measures to reduce the current scope of government by allocating less money to lower priority programs. With the passing of the PATRIOTS Act, and subsequent government surveillance policies, Republicans haven't exactly been the crusaders of limited government that they claim to be. The libertarian ideology would help the Republicans get back on track to being the party that protects citizens from government tyranny, and not the party that enables it. By striking a good balance between conservatism and libertarianism, the Republican Party would be taking a step in the direction of ensuring its long-term survival. While the controlling party is constantly fluctuating, and it is inevitable that the Democrats will eventually be back in power, taking preemptive measures to make the GOP more appealing to a larger and diversifying electorate is the best way to increase the odds of future Republican success. But still, the immediate future bodes many challenges for the party, specifically midterm elections in the Fall. With an alarming number of Republicans in Congress retiring and the additional gubernatorial flipping of states like New Jersey and Virginia, the Republican party needs to act now to protect its current majority. Democratic strategy for the election will most likely be to go after the 23 Republican-controlled districts that were won by Hillary Clinton, situated in mostly suburban, gentrified areas. While this spells short term risk for the party, the GOP can ensure its long-term survival by implementing elements of libertarianism, like a more moderate social agenda, fiscal conservatism, and ceasing to increase the current scope of government. If the party does not begin to make changes soon, then the death of the party is inevitable. In the words of John McCain, “Unless we get our act together, we are going to lose heavily.” b
The Arch Conservative / 9
COLUMNS
Trey Gowdy Reflections on the Career of the Staple of Congress An examination of the career of the famous Trey Gowdy, the famous prosecutor, conservative, and Representative from South Carolina.
N
o law can give Congress a backbone if it refuses to stand off as the coequal branch the Constitution made it.”—Congressman Trey Gowdy THE PROSECUTOR Trey Gowdy never lost a case as a prosecutor. Over the course of six years as a federal prosecutor, Gowdy prosecuted the full spectrum of cases, including narcotics trafficking, bank robberies, child pornography, and the murder of a federal witness. After prosecuting one of America’s Most Wanted, he was awarded the Postal Inspector’s Award, and for two years in a row was awarded the highest performance rating that a federal prosecutor can receive. In 2000, Gowdy ran for 7th Circuit Solicitor, defeating the Republican incumbent in the primary and winning the general election unopposed; he would go on to win reelection in 2004 and 2008. In that role, Gowdy continued to successfully try all manner of cases, including seven death penalty cases, all of which, incidentally, he won. Once, while South Carolina was experiencing budget difficulties, Gowdy moved money from his campaign account into the Solicitor’s budget so that his sixty-five employees could continue to work, rather than having to take unpaid furloughs. FROM THE RIGHT By 2009, Bob Inglis had found himself in trouble with his own party. Inglis had first been elected to Congress in 1992, defeating three-term incumbent Democrat Liz Patterson, and promptly establishing himself as a Christopher Lipscomb is a sophomore studying international affairs. He is a regular contributor to The Arch Conservative.
10 / The Arch Conservative
solid conservative. After a failed Senate run in 1998, Inglis left the House and returned to his private law practice, before returning to Congress in 2005. His second tenure in the House saw Inglis move toward the left, voting with Democrats on numerous pieces of legislation, including on the DREAM Act to disapprove of fellow South Carolinian Joe Wilson after Wilson shouted “You lie” during Obama’s first State of the Union. This voting record set the stage for a GOP challenge in 2010. Numerous Republicans entered the race, all running against Inglis from the right, but one came out the winner: a Christian, conservative prosecutor. GOWDY IN THE HOUSE Upon entering the House, Gowdy quickly established himself as a strong conservative. He opposed a plan put forth by John Boehner to increase the debt ceiling, and made it clear that unlike so many others in this day and age, he will not support any policy if it lacks Constitutional basis. In 2012, Gowdy received the Defender of Economic Freedom Award by the Club for Growth for his fiscally conservative attitudes. Gowdy is a signer of the 2010 Contract with America, which encourages candidates and members to identify constitutionality of every new law, reject emissions trading, demand a balanced federal budget, simplify the tax system, audit federal government agencies for constitutionality, limit the annual growth in federal spending, repeal (and replace) Obamacare, pass an “All-of-theAbove” energy policy, reduce earmarks, and reduce taxes; Gowdy’s tenure has shown a continued commitment to all of these tenets. Exhibiting why he was such a successful prosecutor, Gowdy has performed most notably in the committee arena. During his tenure, Gowdy served on the Judiciary, Oversight and Government Reform (of which he was chairman), and Intelligence Committees, in addition to numerous sub-committees and the Republican Study Committee. He gained a wide following through his powerful performances in committee hearings, going toe-to-toe Lois Lerner and James Comey, among others.
But Gowdy will be most remembered as Chairman of the Benghazi Committee. Set up in 2014 by Speaker Boehner to investigate the 2012 Benghazi attack, the committee unearthed little new information regarding the attack. What the committee and its investigation did discover, however, was that Hillary Clinton had spent her entire four years as Secretary of State communicating via a personal email server, and had never had an official government email. In a hearing lasting over eight hours, Clinton was grilled by the committee. Many Democrats feared this would bring ruin to her presidential campaign, however Clinton survived, as always, and went on to sorely lose to Donald Trump. RETIRING On January 31, 2018, Gowdy announced his intention to retire from Congress. To some this came as a surprise. Gowdy has long been seen a star in conservative circles, had been discussed as a future member of Republican leadership, and just in the last year had become chairman of the House of Representatives Oversight Committee. Those familiar with Gowdy, however, were not surprised. Gowdy has done little to hide his disdain for the bureaucracy of Congress over the years, going so far as to state that “There is more civility in a death penalty case than there is in some congressional hearings.” Although his political career is effectively over, Gowdy is still young, and could very easily return to politics in the future in any number of venues. The only thing that is certain is that for now, Gowdy intends to return to practicing law because, as he put it: “Whatever skills I may have are better utilized in a courtroom than in Congress, and I enjoy our justice system more than our political system.” b
SPRING 2018
COLUMNS
The Moral Law A Philosophical Perspective on Evil and Morality “Our analysis of morality leads to another conclusion: if there is a Moral Law, there must be a Moral Law Giver. Every prescription has a prescriber . . .”
S
hockwaves are moving throughout the United States as we try to comprehend the Parkland, Florida, shooting. How could a 19-year-old young man ruthlessly murder 17 innocent high school students? Arguments attempting to explain this happening permeate every media outlet. Many blame the guns. Others blame the poor mental health of the killer. These rationalizations and others fall short, leaving us with only one conclusion: Nikolas Cruz, out of the desires of his own heart, made the conscious decision to murder. And because of his obviously unjust actions, all of America has been thrown into a frenzy of mourning and anger. These saddening facts help point to the importance of a law that has held civil societies together throughout time: the Moral Law. “Without an objective standard of meaning and morality, then life is meaningless and there’s nothing absolutely right or wrong. Everything is merely a matter of opinion.” While some reading this will agree with this statement (made by Frank Turek and Norman L. Geisler in their book I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist), a significant portion of society today denies any objective standard of morality. These individuals— so-called “moral relativists,”—are usually secular, liberal thinkers. If you have heard someone say, for instance, something to the effect of “That may be true for you, but it’s not for me,” then you have heard a relativist firsthand. This confused mindset not only blurs the line between right and wrong, it denies that there even is a right or wrong. His thinking threatens the fabric of our society. Fortunately, morality is not relative, and Gehrig Broxton is a senior studying cellular biology and economics. He is a first-time contributor to The Arch Conservative.
SPRING 2018
this fact can be easily demonstrated and logically proven. C.S. Lewis explains in his book Mere Christianity that humans have a sense that they “ought to behave in a certain way.” We believe that we should be unselfish and that we should not murder, but why? Some may say that it is in our own best interest to do these things, and that we have been conditioned over time to do them, i.e., the so-called “utilitarian” or Benthamite argument. But this is obviously not true. Hitler argued that it was in Germany’s “best interest” to murder 6 million Jews, and the Hutus argued that it was in their “best interest” to commit genocide against the Tutsis. No sane person reading this article, however, would dare to argue that these actions were good. But the only way to condemn this violence is to appeal to a higher standard—the Moral Law. If this Moral Law did not exist, we could not differentiate between the aforementioned Hitler and Mother Teresa, as there would be no objective, transcendent standard with which to judge them. Just as you have to know what an eagle looks like to know that a hawk is much more like it than a dog, you must have a defined Moral Law to have any sense of the different levels of morality. Our analysis of morality leads us to another conclusion: if there is a Moral Law, there must be a Moral Law Giver. Every prescription has a prescriber, or, as Turek and Geisler put it, “If there are moral obligations, there must be someone to be obligated to.” Secular thinkers deny this logic, arguing that there cannot be a Law Giver when there is so much evil and injustice in the world. But this point is self-defeating. In order to claim that there is evil and injustice in the world, you must have knowledge of what is good and just, and to have knowledge of what is good and just, you need a standard of justice. “A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing the universe with when I called it unjust?” in the words of C.S. Lewis. The question still remains, though, as to why there is evil in the world even with the presence of a moral code. The answer boils down to two words: free will. While the Moral Law convicts us all, none of us have
followed it perfectly. All of us, by our own volition, have done what we know is wrong. Therefore, we are in a precarious position. We can only hope that the Moral Law Giver is good. However, if this Giver is good, “then we are making ourselves enemies of that goodness everyday,” (Lewis) leaving us guilty and deserving of judgment by whoever this Giver is. This undeniable Moral Law, which defines right and wrong and keeps the world from complete chaos, is the same law that condemns us. It would seem that our hope is now lost, our fate now sealed. Perhaps it is. But what if somehow our guilt and condemnation could be removed from us, our sin completely forgiven? Then, we could appear in front of the Law Giver blameless, and we would no longer be “enemies of goodness.” Fortunately, one religion offers this hope, and that religion is Christianity. God, the Law Giver, sent his son, Jesus Christ, to the cross as a sacrifice to cover all of our sin. We can now be free from the condemnation of the Moral Law. However, this Law still convicts us, and because of Christ’s love, we have even greater reason to follow it. This is why Christians place so much importance on social morality. Christians are at the forefront of movements that protect the rights of the unborn, defend the institution of marriage, and speak out against human rights violations in Middle East, to only name a few. The existence of the Moral Law is crucial to the justification of these efforts, and because the Moral Law does exist, these efforts are of infinite importance. b
The Arch Conservative / 11
COLUMNS
A Reasoned Rebuttal The Arch Conservative's Committment to a Diversity of Thought “[W]hile the Red & Black is responsible for posting a multitude of one-sided articles, their doing so is only possible with conservatives’ complicity.”
I
t’s no mystery that academia is dominated by a general Leftist attitude that emanates from professors, campus media, and students. Unsurprisingly, professors who vote Democrat outnumber professors who vote Republican by 11 1/2 to 1.This “progressive” attitude permeates all corners of campus and, shamefully, purports to be representative of the entire collegiate population. Students often adopt this Leftleaning ideology in college—not because they have a detailed defense and deep understanding of Left-wing policies, but because Leftism in academia is prescribed as the social and moral norm. The Left continues to hold a monopoly on the “right” thing to think, say, and do. And anyone who diverges from this prescribed “right” thing is racist, xenophobic, insensitive, and above all, deplorable. At The Arch Conservative, however, we advise simply this: Question everything and everyone. As it relates to this editorial, that means reading the Red & Black’s opinion pages with skepticism. The Arch Conservative’s grievances with the Red & Black do not stem from the mere fact that they publish opinion pieces. As you may have noticed, we are wholly an opinion-based publication. Indeed, it is not the publishing of student opinions that we take issue with; but rather, it is the publishing of one opinion, namely, Leftist opinion. An official school newspaper that represents Ian LaCroix is a sophomore studying political science. He is Online Editor of The Arch Conservative.
12 / The Arch Conservative
a total student population of some 37,000 should publish a wide variety of opinion pieces from multiple perspectives. But we place just as much—if not more—blame on ourselves as conservatives, for it is our job to counter the narrative. Indeed, it is necessary to state that while the Red & Black is responsible for posting a multitude of one-sided articles, their doing so is only possible with conservatives’ complicity. That is to say, conservatives’ failure to contribute to the newspaper is, undoubt-
edly, a major reason for the paper’s skewed opinion pages. Although possible—likely even—that the political persuasion of the editors of the Red & Black influences their professional decisions, the Red & Black is, ultimately, at the mercy of whoever provides submissions. And thus, if more conservatives put their pen to work, then the paper would be a more politically diverse publication. That the Red & Black’s opinion page is comprised mostly of left-leaning articles— with almost no alternate opinions—is indicative of the paper’s political persuasion, sure. But it also bespeaks of the lack of initiative by conservatives apropos promulgating their ideas in the press. Although it is apparent that the staff of columnists at the Red & Black enjoy contributing to the already-saturated
echo chamber of leftist discourse, this is true of virtually every newspaper in America today, as lamentable as the fact may be. Because one of the main goals of higher education is to inspire students to discover for themselves, it is imperative that students be exposed to more than meaningless memoirs of monotonous and trite leftist content. And insofar as they are not, educational institutions—be they colleges, universities, or newspapers—have failed to uphold the ideals of liberal education. When students are consistently spoon-fed an ideology by professors, and by the official newspaper of the school, it serves to be extremely disadvantageous. This must be remedied by a diversification of the ideological content of the Red & Black—an action from which both the Left and the right only stand to tremendously benefit. While college conservatives are regularly challenged by opposing points of view (which we welcome), college leftists do not exactly receive the same attention. In many ways, college can serve as an “incubator” for leftist thought, keeping students isolated and safe from opposing opinions. Although at times it can be difficult being conservative on a college campus, it proves to be a great challenge that yields a more rational and intellectually sound conservative. College liberals, on the other hand, often fail to have their opinions challenged and, in some instances, are even offered emotional support for the rare occurrence. Here at The Arch Conservative, as the sole conservative publication on campus, we feel it is our civic duty to question the convictions of the majority of the Red & Black’s opinion pieces. We will not shy away from a healthy debate, and we will not cease to rebut the one-sided claims made by such pieces. We will continue to challenge student opinions, despite higher education’s impedance, and we exhort other conservatives to do the same. We will always be a voice of logic and reason, and will always seek to continue to raise the standard here at UGA. b
SPRING 2018
BOOK COLUMNS REVIEW
A Tribute to Buckley A Review of Let Us Talk of Many Things Honoring William F. Buckley Jr. and the tenth anniversary of his passing by exploring his life and work through a review of his “favorite” book, Let Us Talk of Many Things.
S
itting in the chair across from Brian Lamb in 2000, William F. Buckley Jr. was still the distinguished figure instantly recognized by anyone even moderately interested in politics . The face that was once depicted in a drawing for the cover of Time magazine now obviously bore more wrinkles. His hair was now thinner, no longer grizzled but grizzly. And his voice seemed an octave lower than the Buckley of the ‘60s. But it was still Buckley. Indeed, the figure across from Lamb was still the witty, intellectual eristic that a Movement came to love, adore, and, most importantly, follow. Age could not hide that mischievous grin nor that illustrious twinkle in his eyes. The twinkle did dissipate, if only momentarily, however, as Brian Lamb put forth a seemingly simple question: “Do you have a favorite?” referring to Buckley’s opera of books, approaching 60 in number. Buckley’s grin vanished and his brow furrowed, forming that contemplative face so familiar to janissaries of Firing Line. Buckley was obviously vexed by the question. Asking an author to pick his favorite book, it seems, would be like asking a parent to pick his favorite child. Each book, like each child to the parent, is special in its own way; and just as each child is a special element of the family, so, too, is each book a special element of the author’s body of work. A question such as Lamb’s is of even greater gravity for a prolific author like Buckley, who wrote more books than some people have read in a lifetime. Notwithstanding these difficulties, however, Buckley came forth with a most interesting answer. Ross Dubberly is a senior studying economics. He is Editor in Chief of The Arch Conservative.
SPRING 2018
“You know, I do,” Buckley said, “But it’s a book that hasn’t quite been published yet.” Well, that interview was conducted in the year 2000, and the book to which Buckley referred has since been published. In Let Us Talk of Many Things, Buckley’s most important speeches are all there— commencement addresses, debates, emcee speeches; they range from the polemical introduction to the philosophical explication. The sheer variety is most appealing. Buckley is galvanizing in his speech protesting Kruschev’s visit to the U.S.; eristic in his debate with Norman Mailer; philosophic in his address to the N.Y. state trial judges; effusive in his toast to Henry Kissinger; moralistic in his lecture on moral distinctions; and elegiac in his keynote honoring Ronald Reagan. In a word, this extraordinary collection presents William F. Buckley Jr. in full. The book begins, most appropriately, in 1950, with the speech that would make Buckley famous to many and infamous to many more. So cantankerous was the opposition to Buckley and his prepared class day oration at Yale, he was forced to withdraw it out of a sense of “decorum.” The ravenous denunciations might have won the battle, but they failed to win the war, as the oration was later published in the appendix to Buckley’s God and Man at Yale, the book that would catapult him into the public eye. Of a more incidental note, the book also subtely captures Buckley’s ecumenical appeal and the myriad of friends he kept (e.g., John Kenneth Galbraith, George McGovern, and Michael Kinsley). Indeed, the names Galbraith, McGovern, and Kinsley are found in the blurbs’ bylines on the book’s jacket, where these individuals heap praise on this collection and their dear friend. It is widely acknowledged by Buckley biographers that he underwent a change, a moderation of sorts, sometime after the ‘60s; it was not, however, a moderation of opinion but merely a moderation of temperament. So marked was this moderation that, at times, it is hard to believe that the Firing Line firebrand of the late ‘60s and the somber, judicious thinker of the ‘70s, ‘80s, and ‘90s are actually the same person. These
collected speeches are the manifestation of Buckley’s journey as the principal advocate for the Cause of conservatism. Inasmuch as this collection traces that journey, it is like a rollercoaster ride that one cannot get off. Anyone who has read Buckley’s writings or heard Buckley speak knows that he had a very distinct—truly unique even—way of doing both. He never shied away from the long or unusual word, never was afraid to compose a lengthy sentence, transfuse wit and humor into a serious discussion, or mordantly slice up his opponent with his tongue or pen, as he knew he could get away with it by giving a quick wink and flashing that charming grin. Consequently, I am very much in agreement with Mr. Michael Kinsley when in his blurb for this book he remarks that “[i]t is almost impossible to read these speeches without hearing Mr. Buckley’s famous voice. That adds to the pleasure.” The 27th of February will mark ten years since Mr. Buckley departed this vale of tears. His life and his body of work deserve emulation and assiduous study. Because, while not altogether the same, the era in which we now live and the one in which Buckley lived are not entirely dissimilar. Indeed, his was an epoch of turmoil just as ours is. As Buckley himself recalled in an address to the First International Conservative Congress, “I was nineteen years old when the Cold War was ignited at Yalta, and. . . the year the Communist empire crumbled I became a senior citizen.” Indeed, in the words Leo Cherne, Buckley’s time was “very complex and . . . very trying.” But, in the time between Yalta and the fall of the Berlin Wall, Buckley was doing much more than just aging. He was tirelessly writing, editing, speaking, lecturing, all with the aim of compelling his fellow citizens to cling to the rock of Americanism in the turbulent times in which they lived. We, too, should cling to that rock—and by extension, we should cling, with all of our might, to works like Let Us Talk of Many Things and its author. b
The Arch Conservative / 13
FEATURES
Calming the Chaos
Jordan Peterson versus the Post-Modernists
Jordan Peterson has taken Western culture by storm. Shaking up the normal political discourse by shattering false conceptions of reality, Dr. Jordan Peterson has become an iconic father-like figure to many.
D
r. Jordan B. Peterson will go down in history as one of the most influential intellectuals of the 21st century. A clinical psychologist and professor of psychology at the University of Toronto in Canada, Peterson saw his rapid rise to fame in 2016, when he publicly announced his opposition to a bill in the Canadian Parliament that sought to regulate the speech of government employees. In his mid-50s, Peterson’s lectures inspire countless young people to clean up the chaos in their lives and reject extremist ideologies. Regularly gaining well over 100,000 views on YouTube, his lectures focus on a wide variety of topics, from archetypal belief structures to ideologies (e.g., Marxism and fascism) to religion. He’s not on the Right. He’s not on the Left. He cares only about truth. And the Left hates him. In September 2016, Peterson first made international headlines after posting a series of video lectures on YouTube that presented his strong criticisms of Bill C-16. Readers will remember that this bill amended the Canadian Human Rights Act and Criminal Code by giving “gender expression and identity” a protected status under the law. Peterson’s criticism of the bill focused on its potential Connor Foarde and Reed Ferguson are senior editors of The Arch Conservative.
14 / The Arch Conservative
to subject state employees, such as himself, to criminal prosecution for failing to use the preferred pronoun of a transgender individual. He stated that the legislation constituted compelled speech, which he claimed had dangerous historical implications. Peterson’s stance against the bill led to protests on the University of Toronto campus, as well as accusations of bigotry and transphobia. Despite the outcry, Peterson enjoyed a meteoric rise to stardom throughout 2017. He appeared on several popular Canadian and American news programs and podcasts, such as the Joe Rogan Experience, Louder with Crowder, and The Rubin Report. He lectured on college campuses throughout both Canada and the U.S., and he used his newfound platform to launch a crusade against political correctness and extremism on both sides. Peterson’s criticism of the concepts of post-modernism, such as “white privilege” and the “gender pay gap,” as well as the radical Left and Alt-Right movements as a whole. Many of them were on the edge of the two fringe groups and either felt disillusioned by the Left’s persistent identity politics or were on the brink of falling into the serpentine identity politics of the far-Right. In an age of the emasculation of men, the exaltation of irresponsible lifestyles, and the glorification of single-parent households, Peterson represents a father figure with a message to his fatherless sons. He discusses, truthfully, the consequences and benefits of individual decisions, whether they’re about love, sex, or careers. In an era starved for truth, Peterson speaks it, and those who desire it flock to him. He discusses the
metaphysical. He discusses the meaning of life. He tells his metaphorical sons that their lives have purpose, that they exist for a reason bigger than their temporary pleasure, that they have a place in the universe, and that it is their job to find and pursue it. It is, perhaps, his commitment to discovering truth that so terrifies the Left. Truth, as the Left sees it, must fit into an ideological mold, not the other way around. Words must be redefined, societal institutions uprooted, traditional morality stomped on, individualism replaced with forced collectivism, subjectivism in place of objective truth. And the extremists must bend the truth to the will of their ideology. The shallow nature of ideology was exemplified in Peterson’s January 2018 interview with Channel 4 News’ Cathy Newman, which only further propelled him into fame. Newman’s line of questioning was loaded, aimed at portraying Peterson as the sexist, transphobic bigot that his critics claim he is. She even went as far as to call him a “provocateur,” comparable to the Alt-Right. She was left literally speechless after his response to her question: “Why should your right to freedom of speech trump a trans person’s right not to be offended?” He paused to carefully consider his response, as is typical of Peterson, and then answered, “Because in order to be able to think, you have to risk being offensive.” He rightly pointed out that she was risking offending him through exercising her own freedom of speech. The full, 30-minute interview has gained over 7.5 million views on YouTube. Therein is demonstrated the root of the
SPRING 2018
PHOTOS COURTESY OF JEFF HITCHCOCK
By Connor Foarde and Reed Ferguson
FEATURES
failure of Peterson’s opponents. They hopelessly strive to box him into a category and dress him as the hero of the Right. Their constant insistence on attacking his ideology fails because they fail to realize one simple fact: He is not an ideologue. It becomes obvious after watching only one lecture: Dr. Peterson detests ideology, viewing it as a hindrance to uncovering truth. His quest for truth is marked by his listening to and understanding of his opponents and his deep commitment to the well-being of his followers. One of his greatest fears, he has repeatedly professed, is saying something wrong and leading a pack astray. In a society fueled by outrage culture, a man like Peterson is wise to fear committing such a mishap. However, he has thus far successfully resisted onslaughts of character attacks and deliberate misrepresentations of his words. He links the modern Left to the postmodernist movement of the 20th century, which borrowed its intellectual roots from Marxism and historical materialism. By the mid-1970s, Peterson explains, even the postmodernists had to concede to the evidence that Marxism only produced evil empires. So, on top of playing the identity politics of class (worker vs. capitalist), they started playing the identity politics of race, gender, and sexuality (racial identity versus racial identity, gender versus gender, sexuality identity versus sexual identity, etc.). No longer does the individual exist. Peterson, in contrast to his post-modernist-influenced opponents, is passionately devoted to the individual and self-betterment. As part of his clinical practice, Peterson devotes his efforts to helping individuals selfassess their personalities, using his signature Self-Authoring program, and subsequently affect positive change in their lives. By telling people to take simple steps, such as cleaning
SPRING 2018
their rooms or standing up straight, Peterson aims to help them manage and reduce the chaos that inevitably comes about in life. He explains in his 1999 book, Maps of Meaning, that life is a never-ending struggle between the forces of relative stability (order) and unexpected, often tragic events that erode said stability (chaos). A fierce critic of resentful victimhood culture, Peterson often imparts to his audiences that “life is suffering” and that “the truth is the antidote to suffering.” To tell the truth forces an individual to face reality—and life—head on. His most recent book, 12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos, outlines simple rules for lessening the chaos of life and finding a sense of purpose. Rule Six is one from which Peterson’s ideological critics on both the Left and Right might learn most: You must set your own house in order before criticizing the world. In other words: Want to change the world so bad? Clean your room. Peterson understands that individuals are better off solving their own problems before trying to become instruments of social change. Perhaps that is the reason post-modernists loathe him to the extent that they do. The post-modernists feed off of those lost, broken souls, searching for meaning in a world of materialism and moral decay. They need men without purpose. They need men who will latch onto anything, any ideology, to stay afloat. They need men who feel nothing but their pain and victimhood, and who reject all responsibility for their actions. It is not surprising that so many young men (and women) are drawn to Peterson’s gentle, yet occasionally stern, voice as he explains how to avoid or evolve from the internal problems that plague thousands of people—e.g., depression, self-consciousness, addiction, and the pervasive phenomenon of “prolonged childhood.” He explains to them
that, though suffering and woes will never cease to arise in life, they should continually strive to seek purpose. In fact, it is the lack of maturity and purpose in the lives of young people that Peterson believes drives them to embrace extreme ideologies. An especially attractive quality of Peterson is his apolitical nature. He is not a registered member of any party, nor does he campaign for any particular candidates in the U.S. or Canada. It is for this reason that he has so broad an appeal among members of both the Left and the Right. Both sides of the political spectrum can disagree on certain policies, but when an ardent champion of truth emerges onto the scene, Peterson proves, common ground can be found. Vice News called Peterson “Canada’s most infamous intellectual.” But in truth, rather than “infamous,” Peterson will continue his rise to being one of the most important. In an era of intense divisiveness, Peterson has proven himself a force to be reckoned with, and there is no indication that he will be slowing down anytime soon. He continues to appear on popular podcasts almost daily and engage in public debates and forums with intellectuals of all backgrounds. His YouTube and Twitter following grow by the thousands each week. As more and more people are exposed to Peterson’s ideas, the numerous hit pieces from critics will steadily dwindle in their influence (although perhaps not so in their abundance), until only a small contingent of hopeless ideologues remain at the helm of the fight against him. Perhaps then, those few ideologues who refused for so long to listen to him will open their ears and begin to set themselves in order by standing up straight, cleaning up their rooms, and taking back control of their own lives. b
The Arch Conservative / 15
FEATURES
The Spectrum of Evil Hitler and the Nazis By J.Thomas Perdue
Adolf Hitler is the benchmark for evil concerning political power, but why is he almost always the one to which all perceived tyrants are compared? What distinguishes him from the other dictators with which he shared the catastrophic 20th Century?
I
n the spring of 1944, Adolf Hitler became dissatisfied with Hungary and decided to occupy the country with his own German troops. Hungary had been a fascist ally for nearly a decade, and had been an official Axis power since Hitler’s invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941. However, this alliance was crippled when Hitler learned that Hungarian Prime Minister Miklós Kállay had entered armistice talks with the United States and Great Britain. With the Red Army rapidly approaching, it was only logical for Hitler to quickly dispense with dissenters on his Eastern Front. However, this was never the primary purpose of the occupation. The final months of Hitler’s reign were wrought with several instances like this that prove a military victory, while probably desirable, was never his main goal. The ultimate hope in Hitler’s world was the Final Solution—the extermination of Europe’s Jews—and military alliances were only worthwhile if they played along with the Holocaust. Over 70 years later, the Nazis hold the point of comparison when we talk about evil regimes or, for that matter, evil itself. The last decades have seen several world leaders, J.Thomas Perdue is Associate Editor of The Arch Conservative.
16 / The Arch Conservative
including a few U.S. presidents, likened to Adolf Hitler by detractors. Despots in more recent memory like Kim Jong-un, Saddam Hussein and Manuel Noriega have all been likened to the Führer, and sometimes the comparisons are fair. But why Hitler? Mao Zedong in China and Joseph Stalin of the USSR each had more innocent blood on their hands. We also very rarely see modern comparisons to Pol Pot, whose communist party’s effort to “cleanse” Cambodia resulted in the death of one fifth of the country. Perhaps the Western nations were more shocked to discover that a “civilized” industrial nation like Germany was willing to commit atrocities untold. In truth, what separates Hitler and the Nazis is neither their body count nor their most twisted methods in attaining it. It’s not their political legacy, embodied by neo-Nazis and the alt-right (Stalin and Mao’s modern neo-communists win the numbers game here, too). It’s also not their major responsibility for starting the largest global conflict in human history. Hitler earned the highest infamy because he kept killing, and killing, even when it no longer made sense. This is not to say that the Holocaust ever made sense in the first place. Interestingly, it was almost the antithesis of the Germanoriginated principle of Realpolitik, which emphasizes circumstances over ideology. In 1944 Hungary, Germany’s circumstances were clearly deteriorating. By the summer, the Soviets were rolling across Poland towards the Fatherland, and the Allies’ invasion of German-occupied France was building momentum. Despite a decaying situation on both fronts, Hitler still decided to commit
resources to his war on civilians in Hungary. In just three months, the Germans murdered well over 400,000 Hungarian Jews, with most of them sent to the Auschwitz-Birkenau camp. So committed was Hitler, in fact, to his war on civilians that he still prioritized it over his war against the world's largest army. By the spring of 1945, the Germans were besieged in Berlin, and the Führer spent all of his time in a bunker. For the Nazis, the game plan was now scorched earth. “Scorched earth” is a military tactic in which the retreating force destroys the land it abandons to deny its enemy the resources they would otherwise procure. The Soviets employed that strategy during the initial German offensives from 1941-1943, but scorched earth was different for Hitler. The Russians hoped to prolong the battle for as long as they could, and eventually bleed the Nazis into submission and retreat, which they did at Stalingrad. Much like his occupation of Hungary, Hitler’s scorched earth was founded not on strategy or any hope of victory, but on ideology. In Hitler’s decaying mind, the German people had failed him. They were not worthy to be the master race to rule for a thousand years, so every rapacious brutality that the communists would surely dole out was to be deserved. He intended to take Europe’s Jews with him as well. Concentration camps only closed when the Allies got too close. Camp authorities would then destroy all the evidence of atrocity they could, and send prisoners on “death marches” back within German lines. It is estimated that at least 250,000 prisoners died on these marches during the final stages of the war.
SPRING 2018
FEATURES
Hitler, who never intended to make peace or save any German lives, shot himself in the head while biting a cyanide pill on April 30, and the war ended about a week later. The Red Army turned Berlin into rubble while battling the last of the German army, which had mostly been reduced to the Volkssturm, the home guard made up of boys under 16 and men over 60. Those unwilling to defend the Third Reich to their last breath were executed by the SS Army and loyal party members. With the end of open conflict came the reckoning of Nazi Germany. The world watched in nausea as the horrors of the Fianl Solution were unveiled, from camp liberations to the Nuremberg Trials. Logically, one would presume that among Hitler’s many lofty goals, the most important was to win the war he started. His actions prove that to be a false notion, however, and the relationship between the Final Solution and the Second World War illustrates the true evil of the Nazi ideology. Even if one perversely assumes that the Nazis really carried out the Holocaust for the good of mankind, or at least the good of Germany, the Nazis still acted totally illogically at the war's end. In one of his comprehensive psychology lectures at the University of Toronto, Professor Jordan B. Peterson describes what he believes to be an intentional chaos created by the Nazis. He asserts that Hitler and his minions were faced with a choice once Germany began to lose the war: “You can suspend your unnecessary demolition of people, win the damn war and then pick it up afterwards, or, while you’re losing, you can just accelerate the mayhem even though it’s counterproductive.” This choice would seem pragmatically obvious in a total war in which the destruction of one’s country is imminent, but the Nazis went with the latter option. Peterson goes on to ponder whether Hitler’s stated intentions of establishing the
SPRING 2018
thousand-year Reich and stabilizing the state were just a cover story for the real motivation. Well, then, what was that motivation? Peterson references a psycho-analytical idea derived from the founder of analytical psychology, Carl Jung: if you can’t figure out what someone is doing, or why, look at the outcome, and infer the motivation. Peterson warns that this does not apply universally, but the outcome of the Nazi regime, 6 million people murdered in death camps, about 20 million killed in combat and a continent in ruins, make the idea that Hitler was ever concerned with the greater good, even the perverted fascist version of that good, a tough sell to say the least. Perhaps a military victory was merely the vehicle for the Final Solution. The real war for Hitler was always to be waged within German-occupied borders. During Stalin’s reign over the USSR., it is estimated that he was responsible for about 23 million deaths. Gulags, famines and statesponsored executions cement his legacy as a murderous, destructive tyrant. Historians argue about the definitions of some of these deaths, and whether or not they should count as genocide. When comparing Stalin and Hitler, these definitions don’t really doesn’t matter. Even assuming that each of those 23 million were killed intentionally, it still does not equate the two dictators, because Stalin stopped when the Soviet Union was in peril. He directed his resources toward saving his country. At the very least (and I mean very least), Stalin’s atrocities wavered in light of the prospects of the USSR’s outcome in the war. For example, one of the ethnicities that Stalin particularly hated, the Kalmynks, boasted several soldiers who distinguished themselves in the Red Army. Unfortunately for them, the USSR was not losing the war for long. Once it became clear that he would win the war—Stalin had those soldiers—along with all the Kalmynks he could find in their
ethnic region, put on trains to Siberia. Similarly, the millions killed by Chairman Mao of communist China through propaganda, execution, forced labor, “cleansings” of academics and political opponents during the Cultural Revolution—and not to mention the largest famine in human history—were at least killed so in peacetime. Adolf Hitler was evil. This should go without saying. But a dangerous tendency with which the modern world struggles is the belief that pure evil cannot exist. Conflicts, some might say, are only ignited for logical reasons like cultural differences, geopolitics or perceived injustices. But as the Nazis demonstrated, conflict requires no logic. It can live on chaos. It is as comfortable as it is imbecilic to believe that the world’s problems can be solved through simply understanding one another. This is not to say that understanding an impossible plateau, but once the point of understanding is reached, we may find that solutions are even further off than when we started. Consider the people in the world, in our own country, who still idolize Adolf Hitler and deny that the Holocaust even happened (or accept and celebrate it). There are people who march our streets, clashing with one another, doing all they can to promote ideologies foreign to our own, which made the 20th century the bloodiest ever. Those who paid attention to the 20th century know just how blessed are we that we are not currently counting corpses in the tens of millions. Forgetting history, forgetting how pure evil was allowed to take the world’s center stage and proceed to nearly destroy it, will open the door to repetition. We have studied and analyzed Hitler meticulously for over 70 years now. We understand him. And we can credibly infer that his biggest regret was that he was not able to drag the rest of the world to Hell with him. b
The Arch Conservative / 17
HUMOR
Strokes of Resistance An Artist's Take the Oval Office Indefensible . . . There is no other term that so captures the essence of the current circumstance in America. In “In the Oval Office,” the artist aptly analyzes the political realities of the Trump era.
T
here is a word I should first utter before I begin stumbling over myself in attempt to comprehend this masterful work; and that word is brilliance. Paul Oshinski’s “Indefensible” is brilliant in no greater sense than for its ability to summarize the current administration, the head of which, as we speak, is spinning around in a leather chair in the Oval Office. In fact, we can see a most ambitious representation of that chair—four blue squares, each boldly painted with one heavy stroke. Two of these squares are the armrests, accompanied by the chair’s seat and backrest. Oshinski is sure to point out that through the seams of the chair, much like the seams of the man in it, runs a stream of evil. To do this, he lines the chair with an ominous black. The chair dominates the page for reasons only the enlightened onlooker can accurately convey: misogyny, bigotry, blatant elitism, and a desire to overthrow democracy. If you do not understand just how powerful these cancers are in American society by now, consider yourself irreparably immoral (and please, leave the voting to us). Somewhat across the chair are a few, brilliant stripes. Brilliant, that is, in the both of the word’s meanings, for these stripes glow a frustrated red and simultaneously represent an essential aspect of the inner Nick Geeslin is a senior studying international affairs. He is Book Editor of The Arch Conservative.
18 / The Arch Conservative
workings of the Oval Office. The red here is less imposing than the dominant blue, and thus is suitable for those complicit in Trump’s capitalist exploit. The stripes, then, are the President’s desk as well as the chairs of his counselors. On the organization of the chairs behind the desk, a matter of pressing concern, “Trump has four facing him, [while] all the [other presidents] have one or two on the side.” A reader of The Atlantic continues the thought: “[A] president with no real confidents? A president who takes no counsel? A president who speaks ‘to’ the
people and not ‘with’ people.” The reader acknowledges that he/she may be grasping for straws, but her hesitation is premature. She’s is onto something. And Oshinski, in his unfailing wokeness, skillfully accentuates this massive detail. He even emphasizes it by shrinking the size of the counselors’ seats relative to Trump’s greed-laden throne. The banana, filling far more than its deserved portion of the piece, obviously points out the overabundance of testosterone in the room. Needless to say, the artist again accutely employs swirls of black to indicate the toxic contents within the piece. As we make our way to the opposite side of the piece, Oshinski’s artistic journey reminds us that, although perhaps on a smaller level, the repercussions of a red majority in
Washington are all happening here at UGA. To accomplish this, he features the arch, itself a symbol of oppression and bigotry, in four gloppy daubs. Whence does this indefensible bigotry emanate? Well, the artist leaves that to the audience, but I’d venture to guess The Arch Conservative, a journal that espouses only those beliefs from which its sponsors benefit (see the leaked donor list from the Winter 2017 magazine). Lastly, the eye wanders behind or, if you like, above the president’s desk. Here, to end our journey, Oshinski reminds us of that lingering sense that emerges after you’ve forgotten about the latest natural right that has been stolen from you: Hope. Hope that we will survive another year without turning into Nazi Germany. Included in this regard is the Washington Post as the yellow trapezoid, firing hard-hitting stories—yellow dots—at the “indefensible” atrocities emanating from the White House one by one. We see near the president’s desk an arc of the same color that also represents the media at large, risking their lives to corral the evil in the Oval Office. There they work, Oshinski reminds us, refusing to give way to the darkness that would otherwise set the stage for the death of democracy. All this, “In the Oval Office.” b
SPRING 2018
COLUMNS HUMOR
Against Early Kickoffs A Red & Black Rebuttal The implementation of a suggestion for earlier kickoff times in the Red & Black opinion pages could result in nothing less than a catastrophe for UGA football fandom.
D
PHOTO COURTESY OF DAVID TORCIVIA
ear readers and friends, the unthinkable has happened. That sacred institution of tribalism, that pantheon of power, where the gods of the gridiron battle for temporary supremacy, has been violated. Saturdays down South are a tradition unlike any other, yet an act of ultimate heresy has been committed. An unironic article has been written that advocates for earlier kickoffs for Dawg football games. If you’ve had a heart attack, please, promptly seek medical attention. If you merely skipped a heartbeat, read on, though at your own peril. In January, the Red & Black, that paper of completely fair, unbiased journalism, Asher Beckner wrote an opinion piece entitled, “Football games should be held earlier in the day.” Now, I could simply rebut this suggestion with “wrong!” and end this article, but we aren’t Buzzfeed. The author starts out on a solid emotional note, saying that football games “symbolize the entire college experience for many and constitutes memories for all the spectators.” They’re right. I haven’t gone to a single day of class since the Rain Bowl of 2015 and have been meticulously preparing for the 2018 season. I’ve been out there sharpening my cornhole and pong skills to a level that even the American Cornhole Organization would blush at. I pray to Saint Kirby every night for a blessed recruiting class and prowess in my tailgate grilling and chilling skills. Boris A. Abreu is a junior studying political science and international affairs. He is Publishing Editor of The Arch Conservative. SPRING 2018
However, then Beckner goes on a bit of a tear with a little bit of that good ol’ equality dust sprinkled in. Per them, early football games are better for “both spectators and participants because they have fairer outcomes, are safer to watch and allow for participants and spectators to practice good health.” *record scratch* *freeze frame*. Did they seriously say that football games should be held earlier in the day because they would have fairer outcomes? I don’t pay astronomical fees and put my blood, sweat, and car-
diovascular health on the line for the Dawgs to have a “fairer time.” Also, who wants to wake up that early to traipse into Sanford at noon for a primetime matchup? You’ll find my ticket in the donation pool for most of those games. Nah, I want to see my Dawgs march into Sanford at 3:30 or 7:00 p.m. and watch them beat the tar out of a strong opponent, not to have my heart fail because Georgia football decides to wait until the fourth quarter to show up for a noon game. (You’re too new if you don’t have flashbacks from Tech last year.) The article then cites a study that concludes peak performance time exists in the late afternoon. Then I am validated by science in stating that the 3:30 p.m. primetime kickoff, or later is a good thing. To back up the claim, the author of the study states
that “games played late at night across time zones show a distinct advantage for west coast teams opposed to east coast.” Unless there has been a major tectonic shift, I still believe this campus is located somewhere near the eastern seaboard, thus making us a mathematically disadvantaged team. The outrage! I cannot believe that the west coast teams do better than us when the numbers are crunched, even though three out of the four College Football Playoff contenders were situated nearer to the east coast. Of course, the study concludes that west coast teams have the advantage for later games and create an “uneven playing field for players.” The calls for social justice tinge even the holiest of holies. The article then goes on to cite a study that claims late football games lead to academic failure and depression. On a more serious note, mental health is not something to mess around with. But the statement “late games followed by classes results in sleep deprivation. . .” I too, forgot I had classes on Sundays—the day after most games—bar the playoffs, but nobody is sleeping for those. Except Big Ten referees. (Simmons was onside!) I’ll not argue the norms set aside by the Gregorian calendar and go back to kindergarten to learn my days of the week. Just saying, Sundays are for recovery. Of sleep. Another study cites increase in crime rates. Brad-on-Chad violence is hardly worth a study, and the amount of arrests related to the consumption of drink is not surprising. (Have you been on campus during a game day?) It’s rowdy and wild but part of the experience. You can be a pill and complain about people tailgating outside your dorm all day, or you can go out there and enjoy a majestic day of friends, family, and football. So keep your socially perfect football games to yourself, and allow me to retreat to my safe space, replete with brats, beverages, and cornhole. I want to be far away from your dystopian football fantasy. b
The Arch Conservative / 19
COLLEGE IS ALREADY EXPENSIVE ENOUGH That’s why college students are invited to sign up for free digital access to The Weekly Standard magazine at weeklystandard.com/free — no credit card needed!
America’s Foremost Political Magazine