The Arch Conservative - Winter 2018

Raising the Standard

Governor Kemp

Thoughts on a nationalized race

By Ian LaCroix

The Greatest Privilege

By Reed Ferguson

Turning Point's Missed Opportunity

By J. Thomas Perdue

The GOP's Rising Star

By Christopher Lipscomb

COLLEGIATE NETWORK’S 2016–2017 PUBLICATION OF THE YEAR WINTER 2018

THE EDITORS i

Democracy Inaction THE EDITORS

COLUMNS

FEATURES

3 Democracy Inaction

6 Governor Kemp

12 The Greatest Privilege

By J. Thomas Perdue

By Ian LaCroix

By Reed Ferguson

CAMPUS

7 The GOP's Rising Star

14 A Moral Sickness

By Christopher Lipscomb

By Boris A. Abreu

8 Trump-onomics on Campus

16 Houston Gaines Interview

4 The Campus Informant

By Connor Foarde & J. Thomas Perdue

5 SGA Watch

By Connor Foarde

By Oliver Bunner

By Connor Foarde

9 Turning Point's Missed Opportunity

HUMOR

By J. Thomas Perdue

19 Guide to Athens Bumper Stickers

10 An Unrequited Love

By Boris A. Abreu

By Sarah Scherer

11 Marsha Blackburn

By Madison Cooper

18 Pop Goes the Student Loan Bubble

By Lee Collier

The Arch Conservative Editorial Board and Staff: 2018-2019 Editor in Chief J. Thomas Perdue

Book Editor Ross Dubberly

Executive Editor Reed Ferguson

Business Manager Sydney Robertson

Publishing Editor Boris A. Abreu

Contributors Christopher Lipscomb Oliver Bunner Sarah Scherer Madison Cooper Lee Collier

Campus News Editor Connor Foarde Online Editor Ian LaCroix

## / The Arch Conservative

WINTER 2018

Civic Involvement for Busy-Bodied Know-Nothings

Welcome back!

Election season 2018 has come and (almost) gone, meaning that the 2020 campaign is already hitting its stride. Election cycles are surely important for The Arch Conservative, and indeed any political publication worth its salt. However, a quick glance at our most recent issue reveals that…we barely talked about it. New contributor Luke McGahren analyzed the role of identity politics in the Stacey Abrams campaign, but for the most part, we didn’t offer much in terms of election coverage.

Since we are a magazine of opinion, and since that opinion comes from an entirely college-aged staff, we try not to fall too far into delusions of grandeur. That’s not to say our opinions are not valid or useful, especially given apparent liberal domination of ideas and rhetoric on campus. But when we approach topics that everyone else is already reporting on and dissecting at length in podcasts and essays, we try to at least either offer a new perspective or add an element of locality to distinguish our ruminations amongst the chaotic media market.

In this context, election season can be a difficult time in terms of content selection. We also recognize that election season is highly overrated.

If a large contingent of your social media following is made up of millennials and college students, you were probably set upon by an onslaught of political virtue-signaling and Republicanshaming. You might have been told something like “Lives are at stake” or “This is the most important election of our lifetime.” You were probably reminded about your civic duty, and how if you aren’t registered and willing to vote, you’re a terrible person who wastes his or her freedom.

This line of thinking is absolutely ridiculous, and its widespread propagation is disappointing. Elections are obviously important, as if anyone needs to be told, but voting is the lowest form of civic involvement. A citizen who votes is not better, more informed, or even necessarily more civically engaged than a citizen who doesn’t.

In fact, some decisions to not vote are made far more consciously than those to vote. The idea that votes must be earned by candidates should not be all that radical. In this way, low voter turnout can send a powerful message of dissatisfaction to the political class.

In the decisive reverse from the perceived problem outlined by large swaths of social media, political campaigns, and a litany of advertisements (see Nail Communications’ “Dear Young People, Don’t Vote” ad that was plastered onto YouTube), a much larger

WINTER 2018

problem than low voter turnout is high, low-information voter turnout. American voters are typically and historically uninformed, and higher turnout does not influence this trend to the contrary, it exacerbates the problem. Furthermore, even if constituents are informed, the fact that they’re voting does not guarantee that they made the correct choice.

Of course, only time and results can vindicate a “correct” candidate or amendment, but a dose of humility would benefit the your-vote-doesn’t-count-if-you-didn’t-take-a-picture-with-the-sticker breed of self-absorbed wannabe activist. In William F. Buckley Jr.’s famous 1965 debate with James Baldwin, he was asked about antiblack voter discrimination in Mississippi. He responded, “What is wrong is not that not enough blacks are voting. What is wrong is that too many white people are voting.” Buckley points out a time, barely a single generation ago, when a majority with high turnout used its vote to maintain oppression and humiliation.

The idea that voting is simply of the utmost importance comes from the same “do something now” mindset that is typical of the left. When nasty visuals emerge, think school shootings, border detainment, collateral damage in war, there will surely follow cries for politicians to take immediate action. The time for discussion, even reason, is over, and it’s time to stop the bad thing at all costs.

Only that is not how our government, nor any part of our lives, was ever meant to function. There are very few quick fixes in life.

Good solutions require focus, effort, intelligence, and at least a little humility. The phrase “culture is upstream from politics” is never more applicable. Simply voting in your candidate is not enough to make the changes you want to see in our nation, and that’s a good thing. Voting is much too easy to be that critical.

In referring to the problem of race relations in the United States, Buckley asserts that there are no easy or quick solutions, save for radical ones which would force us to abandon the American Dream.

We are inclined to first affirm our intentions not to pursue those reckless solutions, as well as agree with that assertion’s relevance in any political arena, echoing Buckley’s claim that “anybody who tells you that there is an instant cure is a charlatan, and ultimately a boring man – boring precisely because he is then speaking in the kind of abstractions that do not relate to the human experience.”

Happy reading! b — J. Thomas Perdue

The Arch Conservative / ##

CAMPUS

CAMPUS

ACC Commissioner Caught Ripping GOP Signs on Election Day

F

or most people in Athens-Clarke County, Nov. 6 went smoothly as they went to the polls to cast their ballots for statewide offices.

However, some election day drama began when a citizen spotted ACC District 3 Commissioner Melissa Link tearing up Brian Kemp and Houston Gaines campaign signs. The citizen shared a photo of the ordeal on social media, where it quickly gained steam. “Folks, this is exactly why I'm running. This is a perfect example of what politics has become. If you want division, look no further than this picture,” said Gaines in a Facebook post with the picture of Link attached.

In a now-deleted Facebook post, Link claimed she was justified in tearing up the signs because they were illegally placed in public right of ways.

— Connor Foarde

Baldwin Hall Memorial Dedication Ceremony Disrupted By Protestors

O

n Nov. 16, UGA held a dedication ceremony for the newly finished memorial in front of Baldwin Hall. The memorial is dedicated to the individuals, likely slaves, whose remains were discovered during an expansion project on the building in 2015. Speakers at the ceremony included UGA President Jere Morehead, the Honorable Steve Jones, U.S. District Court Judge for the Northern District of Georgia, and Michelle Cook, UGA’s Vice Provost for Diversity and Inclusion and Strategic University Initiatives. During President Morehead’s speech, a small group of protestors came behind the stage holding signs with messages, such as “Slaves Built UGA.” One of the protestors asked Morehead if he would directly address the history of slavery and the university. Footage of the incident can be found on the Facebook page for an upcoming documentary film produced in Athens titled Below Baldwin.

— Connor Foarde

S G A WAT C H

P

roclamations and resolutions concerning the senatorial transition process, voting, and students with Down Syndrome were among the initiatives spearheaded by the 31st administration of the Student Government Association over the past few months.

Bill 31-01 requires outgoing incumbent senators to hold a meeting with the newly elected holder of their seat within two months of their inauguration. The goal of the bill is for incoming senators to have an opportunity to learn from their predecessors about their new duties, the current legislative agenda, as well as any other relevant information pertaining to the transition process. Senators who win reelection for their current seats are not required to hold such a meeting.

Resolution 31-03 aimed to promote civic responsibility and engagement by encouraging students to take advantage of early voting in the Tate Student Center on October 30th and 31st. The resolution included data on millennial turnout in the previous election, which has consistently paled in comparison to that of older generations. The Red & Black reported that 2,039 students lined up to vote in Tate this November. Around 2,700 students voted early in the Tate Student Center in 2016, and two polling machines were added this time around to accommodate the anticipated large crowds.

Proclamation 31-02 expressed the administration's commitment to the respect and dignity of students with Down Syndrome as well as its support for on-campus groups that work with students with intellectual disabilities. The

proclamation called upon the student body to show support for Extra Special People at UGA’s Dress Down for the Dawgs program by wearing casual clothing to the Nov. 17 football game against UMass.

The SGA legislative agenda has always been the primary focus of this column. However, it is also imperative that “the voice of every Bulldawg” be held accountable when allegations of selective transparency arise.

In a Nov. 15 frontpage report, Red & Black enterprise reporter Olivia Adams explained how she was barred from attending a scheduled Executive Cabinet meeting on October 30. Adams, who says she has attended every Cabinet meeting since the current administration took office, reported that SGA Chief of Staff Kamani Beckford asked her to leave the meeting before it began, explaining that meetings would be closed to the public from then on.

The Red & Black found no language in the organization’s constitution allowing for public meeting closures, and reported that in an SGA’s official comment on the matter, Press Secretary Donovan Harris said the initial decision to ask the press to leave was to “preserve the integrity of initiatives that were in the beginning stages of planning.”

The debacle does raise questions as to what exactly our SGA leaders are working on behind closed doors that would prompt such an unprecedented move. Why ban Ms. Adams from this particular meeting if she had been present at every previous one? SGA legislation, even when it’s more or less inconsequential, should remain available to the public at every stage of development, so it would be unwise for the administration to make this practice into a trend; an administration, mind you, that ran on the promises of “openness and transparency.”

— Connor Foarde

Radio Free Athens

D

id you know ArchCon has a podcast? You can check out Radio Free Athens with J. Thomas Perdue on Soundcloud and Apple Music.

Episodes are also posted to our social media and website. The latest episode features Sarah Scherer, president of the relatively-new Students for Life. SFL is a pro-life campus organization that “works to promote the dignity of human life from the moment of conception on the University of Georgia campus and in the Athens community.” Sarah also makes her first contribution to ArchCon in this issue.

Radio Free Athens hosts debate and discussion on politics, culture, sports, and more.

— J. Thomas Perdue

## / The Arch Conservative

WINTER 2018

WINTER 2018

The Arch Conservative / ##

COLUMNS

COLUMNS

Governor Kemp

The GOP’s Rising Star

Thoughts on a nationalized race

Dan Crenshaw’s journey to the House

A

s the unimpressive “blue wave” breaks lightly on our nation’s political scene, Democrats have made mediocre gains for a supposedly “high stakes” midterm election. Truthfully, nothing about this election was any more “high stakes” than any other midterm election, aside from the fact that Donald Trump is the president.

Caught in the midst of this contentious midterm was the highly nationalized Georgia gubernatorial race between Republican Brian Kemp and Democrat Stacey Abrams. While Abrams and the Democrats in Washington played identity politics, garnering support from high ranking Democrats and celebrities, Georgians proved one thing at the polls: We don’t care. Much like the elections of Hillary Clinton, Jon Ossoff, and Beto O’Rourke, voters proved that celebrities are not going to tell them how to think, regardless of their ties to the state.

Despite Kemp’s victory in Georgia, conservatives cannot deny the shifting politics in what is still a Republican stronghold for now. Congressional districts are becoming increasingly competitive, and a Democrat nearly found her way into the Governor’s Mansion. The case of the Kemp/Abrams governor’s race presents us with two questions: 1) Is Georgia turning blue? 2) Is this election the result of a highly nationalized referendum on President Trump, coupled with the prospect of Abrams being the first black female governor in our nation’s history?

This year’s governor’s race was among the closest races in Georgia’s history, due in part to its nationalized nature. Brian Kemp first began receiving national attention during the primaries due to his unconventional and controversial political Ian LaCroix is a junior studying political science. He is Online Editor of The Arch Conservative.

## / The Arch Conservative

ads. Kemp’s ads were essentially a montage of redneck-conservative stereotypes and political catch-all phrases, coupled with corny jokes and bad acting. In one ad Kemp says “I’m so conservative, I blow up government spending” and an explosion occurs in a field behind him. He later says that he drives a big truck “in case I need to round up any criminal illegals.” While these ads may have been cringe-worthy, even for conservatives, they didn’t stop Kemp from earning a primary victory. Obviously, his ads are probably not the reason he won, but anyone who follows politics knows that the loudest and most “conservative” candidate typically wins a Republican primary.

While Kemp’s ads may have been controversial and a bit over the top, he ultimately succeeded in Georgia’s governor’s race due to his policy agenda and his grassroots campaign strategy. Kemp’s number one policy goal is undoubtedly to strengthen Georgia’s business environment by “taking a chainsaw to burdensome regulations.” Picking up where Governor Deal left off, it is likely that Georgia will continue to move up the ranks as one of the best states for business. While Governor Deal has worked to bring several large foreign and domestic companies into the state, as well as strengthen Georgia’s flourishing movie industry, it is likely that Kemp will place a greater emphasis on helping Georgia’s small businesses. Kemp’s campaign platform says that he will “make Georgia number one for small business, through regulatory reform, targeted economic development, and enhanced connectivity.” Kemp himself is a small businessman with experience in real estate, development, construction, banking, timber, agri-business, and farming. Kemp’s first-hand knowledge of Georgia’s small business regulatory environment will translate to favorable regulatory cuts for businesses owners.

Kemp has been widely commended for his grassroots campaign strategy, traveling across the state and visiting a plethora of rural counties and towns. While this tactic has earned Kemp praise and has contributed to his “Georgia First” rhetoric,

it is likely that Kemp is simply pandering to the counties that are more likely to vote for him. Virtually all of Georgia’s major cities (Atlanta, Athens, Augusta, Macon, Columbus, and Savannah) voted for Hillary Clinton in the 2016 Presidential Election.

These same cities voted for Stacey Abrams in the 2018 Georgia governor’s race. While Georgia Republicans have criticized Abrams for not traveling throughout rural Georgia the way Kemp did, it was much more logical for her to focus on garnering support from Democratic strongholds in cities, specifically in metro Atlanta counties, such as Gwinnett, which has been turning purple in recent years. Although Abrams did capture the urban/suburban vote, her failure to garner rural votes eventually cost her the election. Unfortunately, many Georgians in metro areas tend to forget about the world outside of their city centers. Although this race was close, it is safe to say that Georgia’s rural vote is still a commanding force in Georgia’s electorate.

Despite the closeness of this year’s governor’s race, as well as the closeness in the 2016 Presidential Election, it is unlikely that Georgia will turn blue any time soon.

These past several years in politics have been an anomaly, mostly as a result of the enigma that is Trump. Vast anti-Trump sentiments were the reason the election in Georgia was so close in 2016, and it is part of the reason for the closeness in this year’s governor’s race. In addition to that sentiment, the race was close due in part to it being highly nationalized given the prospect of Abrams being the nation’s first black female governor. While representation is important, merit and policy goals are certainly more important for a position as consequential as Governor. With Brian Kemp as Georgia’s governor, we can expect another boom to Georgia’s already flourishing economy as well as many other socially and fiscally conservative policies. While Georgia’s political identity is becoming blurred, we can still expect conservative policies for the foreseeable future -- at least for the next four years. b

WINTER 2018

A

lexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s upset victory in 2018 over veteranRepresentative Joe Crowley begs the question of what the Republican Party could do to counter the emergence of highly-motivated, young candidates on the left. Although the Republican answer was minimal in the 2018 midterms, there was a sign of life in Texas: thirty-four-year-old Dan Crenshaw.

Sixth-Generation Texan

Born on March 14, 1984, Crenshaw grew up in the Houston area as a sixthgeneration Texan. His father worked in the oil and gas industry, and the Crenshaws moved around the world following his job.

Among their stops during these nomadic years were Ecuador and Colombia. Due to his many years spent living in South America, Crenshaw is fluent in Spanish.

After returning to the United States, Crenshaw enrolled at Tufts University, where he was a member of the Naval ROTC, intent on attaining a goal he had held since childhood: becoming a Navy SEAL.

Decorated Navy Officer

After graduating from Tufts in 2006 and commissioning into the Navy, Crenshaw attended the notorious Basic Underwater Demolition/SEAL training, eventually earning his SEAL Trident and joining SEAL Team Three, based in Coronado, California. As a member of Team Three, Crenshaw embarked on five deployments, fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan.

In 2012, Crenshaw deployed to Afghanistan, supporting combat operations in Helmand Province, a hotbed of Taliban activity. While on routine patrol, Crenshaw was caught in an IED blast; shrapnel tore Christopher Lipscomb is a junior studying international affairs.

He is a regular contributor to The Arch Conservative.

WINTER 2018

into his body and severely damaged his eyes. Crenshaw was placed in a medicallyinduced coma and evacuated. When he regained consciousness, he discovered that his right eye had been totally destroyed and that he was completely blind, and he was told he would never see again.

Thus began a long series of surgeries, which eventually resulted in Crenshaw regaining sight in his left eye. At one point during his recovery, Crenshaw had to be suspended face-down to minimize the pressure on his eye so that it would not be damaged while it healed. In a testament to his toughness, Crenshaw not only fully recovered, but within two years of being wounded, he was on his fourth deployment, once again to the Middle East. In 2016, Crenshaw embarked on his fifth and final deployment, spending time in South Korea, before medically retiring from the Navy as a Lieutenant Commander.

Life After the Navy

After leaving the Navy, Crenshaw enrolled in Harvard’s John F. Kennedy School of Government, where he earned a Masters in Public Administration.

He then briefly served as a military legislative assistant under Representative Pete Sessions, of course, a fellow Texan.

After Hurricane Harvey devastated the Houston area in August 2017, Crenshaw spent days volunteering in the recovery efforts in his hometown of Katy, Texas.

During this time, he witnessed the way the community pulled together, with everyone helping each other regardless of background, and said it inspired him to run for Congress.

The Underdog

Crenshaw entered a crowded primary as the underdog; he did not let the experience or money of his opponents scare him off, stating, “you keep electing old, rich, white people to the seat—you can expect the Republican party to be gone in fifty years. We can’t keep doing that. We have to make conservatism cool and exciting again.” To draw attention to his campaign,

while simultaneously raising money for hurricane relief, Crenshaw set off and ran the hundred miles from one end of the district to the other in just five days.

After winning the Republican primary, he continued to work tirelessly to appeal to voters on both sides of the aisle. In September, Crenshaw attended a meeting of Texas Latino Republicans, where, in fluent Spanish, he talked about playing high school soccer in Colombia. The weekend before the general election, SNL ran a segment that mocked Crenshaw as looking like a “hit man out of a porno movie,” before Pete Davidson added that “he lost his eye in a war or whatever.”

Nonetheless, Crenshaw went on to win the election just three days later with nearly fifty-three percent of the vote.

The Future of the Party

Policy-wise, Crenshaw is a fairly typical conservative Republican: He supports increased defense spending, and he wants to tackle the national debt. He believes that illegal immigration is a major issue and supports the wall, saying we should “just build the damned thing.” However, he has also exhibited an independent streak, having challenged some of President Trump’s rhetoric, including his “insane rhetoric” on Muslims, and has called for a “reset in relations” with Mexico.

Additionally, Crenshaw is willing to go the extra mile to appeal to new or potential voters, as he exhibited when he spoke with the Texas Latino Republicans and when he went on SNL with Pete Davidson just a week after Davidson had mocked him. As a whole, he believes that the conservative movement has “to bring back that Reagan optimism,” and the decency which he has shown since entering the race indicates that he might just be the man to do it.

Perhaps the most telling thing about Crenshaw is what he said himself after being elected: “…even the people who didn’t vote for me, I’ll be representing them, and I won’t forget that – that’s so important to us.” b

The Arch Conservative / ##

COLUMNS

COLUMNS

Trump-onomics on Campus

Turning Point’s Missed Opportunity

YAF hosts Stephen Moore

The activism group ultimately fails conservatism

O

n Thursday, November 15, Stephen Moore came to UGA to give a small speech and entertain questions from students on President Trump’s economy. Moore was Donald Trump’s economic advisor on his 2016 campaign team, and worked with the Bush, Clinton, and Reagan Administrations in the past. He is a graduate of the University of Illinois, and regularly contributes to publications such as National Review.

He was invited by the UGA chapter of Young Americans for Foundation, a national conservative group that works to bring conservative speakers to various college campuses.

Due to poor weather, Moore arrived at the Miller Learning Center about an hour past the designated event time. Despite this, the atmosphere remained rather jovial both before and after his arrival.

Perhaps he could tell that there was no animosity towards him, as he immediately made a joke about his late arrival before starting his speech.

The word ‘speech,’ however, perhaps gives the impression that this was a formal presentation of his ideas In reality he was extremely relaxed throughout the whole process. He had a PowerPoint to go along with his speech, but he probably skipped around a third of all the slides The main focus of his presentation was the Trump economy.

Moore began his speech by giving his story, starting in mid-2015, when Donald Trump announced he was going to be running for President of the United States.

He said that he, like many others, initially thought Trump’s candidacy was a joke, that he would be bad for the country, and that he had no chance of winning the election.

Oliver Bunner is a freshman studying electrical engineering.

He is a regular contributor to The Arch Conservative.

## / The Arch Conservative

All of that changed after his first meeting with the future president, where he quickly became a fan of him. Moore emphasized that Trump treated him with an odd amount of familiarity, putting his arm around him and being generally pleasant.

Soon after the meeting, Moore joined Trump’s campaign as his economic advisor.

While he did not go into scrupulous detail about his day-to-day experiences with Trump throughout the 2016 election cycle, he did briefly talk about Trump’s work

ethic. He shared that Trump works more hours than almost everyone he’s ever met, and that he loves fast food. Their meals on the road together consisted of “Big Macs for lunch, and Domino’s pizza for dinner.” Moore finished off the first half of his discussion with his thoughts on the results of the 2016 election. “Don’t tell my wife I said this, but the night of the 2016 election was the greatest night of my life,” he said. After getting some laughs from that statement, he sternly emphasized that Trump winning was one of the biggest political upsets in American history.

Moore spent the rest of his speech discussing the economy under the Trump administration. He presented graphs that showed the impressive growth so far under Trump, and pointed out the slow recovery that occurred under Obama. Concerning Trump’s controversial tariffs, Moore stated that while they are bad for the economy

of the United States, they are necessary to use against China because of their rampant intellectual property theft against the United States. This comment sparked a small tangent, in which he opined that we are in somewhat of a “Cold War” with China, and that they will likely be the biggest issue for our generation in terms of foreign policy. After this, he presented a few more graphs that continued to show the success of the current American economy, and then moved on to a Q&A session.

The Q&A session was rather short due to time constraints, so only a couple of questions were asked.

Luckily, I had the privilege to ask one of them. When it was my turn I asked him, “Do you think Trump has a guiding ideology?”

Without even a second of thought, he answered with a staunch “No.” He went on to elaborate that Trump is a businessman, and will listen to just about any argument and make his final decision based on the quality of each argument he heard. Another student asked him about the state of our national debt and how we can deal with it. Moore responded that while he believed the national debt is a problem, he thinks it is somewhat overblown in its severity as a national issue.

According to him, as long as the national debt grows at a rate slower than that of our overall economic growth, we can manage it. In response to this same question he also discussed the problem of the welfare state, and how, more than any other policy, he has tried to convince politicians in Washington that Social Security needs to be privatized. The final question came from a student who asked him his thoughts on the Federal Reserve raising interest rates to defend against a possible market crash.

He stated that after some consideration that he actually believes Trump is right on this, and that the Federal Reserve is indeed being overly cautious. b

WINTER 2018

I

n October, the University of Georgia’s chapter of Turning Point USA hosted a public event featuring Donald Trump Jr. and Brian Kemp at the Classic Center in Athens. The event was attended by adoring fans of the president and his selfappointed pep squad, Charlie Kirk and Candace Owens, as well as a few left-wing opposers. In an ironic twist, one of our contributors, Oliver Bunner, found himself on the wrong end of a “lib-owning” when he asked a question concerning celebrity worship, and why it was only okay if it occurs in relation to Kanye West. He was met with an impassioned, albeit nonsensical answer from Owens. Turning Point is quick and efficient in churning out a saturation of clickbait videos and soundbites, and they’re great at organizing large numbers of students. However, with all their energy and resources, what could have been a unifying force for conservatives is instead a great big missed opportunity.

Turning Point, along with a good deal of other right-wing media and interest groups, have capitalized on some of the more odious and ridiculous sections of the social justice left. The right is generally consistent about calling out its opponents when they act up, but it is even more vital that the right look inward, and check itself before casting stones at the left. When conservatives see their own side carrying their banner in an unrepresentative, hypocritical, or otherwise disgraceful manner, it becomes a responsibility to point it out. And between founder Charlie Kirk’s sloganeering, which he’s spent years fine tuning with the intellectual depth of a pile of fortune cookies, and communications director Candace Owens’ venomous retching, thinly disguised as rhetoric, TPUSA has turned a lot of campus conservatives off.

The shortcomings of the organization J. Thomas Perdue is a senior studying journalism.

He is Editor in Chief of The Arch Conservative.

WINTER 2018

have been listed and discussed ad nauseam.

POLITICO published a lengthy article this past April detailing several of the organization’s more shady actions. Among these were its blatant violations of its 501(c)(3) nonprofit status, which among other things, prevents them from endorsing candidates.

Anybody unaware of TPUSA’s existence before 2016 likely found out about them as they morphed into the Trump campaign’s college activism wing. Adam Rubenstein also wrote a tremendous cover story at The Weekly Standard, in which he quips that Kirk “has made it his business to ‘own the libs,’ and business is booming.”

With all of its media prowess and viral infamy, Turning Point’s missed opportunity to unite campus conservatives is perhaps its least forgivable crime. It is likely that every collegeage conservative has at least heard of the organization, but many several simply cannot stomach them. The talking points are shallow because they must be easy to understand and dispense. Generic right wing slogans are plastered onto colorful signs, complete with out of context pop culture references.

The platform is not consistently conservative because it is generally married to whatever President Trump does. The tactics range from annoying to destructive to nonsensical.

Look no further than the vulgar (although predictable) results of the ‘Free Speech Ball’ or, better yet, the infamous diaper incident from Kent State. Charlie Kirk will parrot Ben Shapiro’s catchphrase, “Facts don’t care about your feelings,” right before he throws a screaming fit and tries to fight Cenk Uygur at Politicon. Candace Owens will tell us that Hollywood celebrities and singers have no place to tell us about politics, and then ditch her obligations to Turning Point members to hang out with Kanye West, and incessantly praise him as the right’s enlightened celebrity.

The truth of it is, Turning Point is not sustainable. The so-called conservative awakening has instead become the very essence of populism. This is partially due to unwavering support of the president, but the root problem is still its founder.

Kirk was not originally a supporter of Donald Trump until he became the clear Republican frontrunner. Trump’s win in the 2016 Republican primary was a great

opportunity for Kirk to choose principles over politicians, but of course he did the reverse. Sometimes politics requires some compromise, but Turning Point took it to a new level. The “grassroots activist network” quickly simplified its purpose as the campus shock trooper brigade for Donald Trump.

This propelled Kirk to rockstar status. He and many like him chose the quick and easy way to notoriety: Trump.

American conservatism was unified in the mid-20th century by shared values of individual freedom, limited government, strict constitutionalism, and the defeat of communism. We’ve stuck around for a reason. Conservatism was also benefitted by the weeding out of racists and radicals like the John Birch Society. Turning Point might share those values, but they know they don’t get clicks from them. Viral takedowns of confused art students are the preferred export.

The only required effort is provocation. As Rubenstein writes, “It’s the triumph of the putdown as political principle.” Turning Point has also shown little interest in weeding out the bad eggs on the right, consistently giving platforms to speakers like the inexplicably still relevant Dinesh D’Souza and pro-abortion stomach ulcer Tomi Lahren (although the latter may not be back soon, due to a personal beef with Owens).

Turning Point’s rise to the national spotlight is not difficult to explain. Conservative college students deal with a decisively leftleaning crowd of instructors, professors, administrators, and peers. Curriculum and everyday interactions reflect that, and they are understandably hungry for a unifying conservative voice. Unfortunately, that voice doesn’t belong to Charlie Kirk. He’s a sycophant who still manages to be selfabsorbed. Once again quoting Rubenstein, “If the Young America’s Foundation represents the older, pen-and-paper conservative order of William F. Buckley Jr. and Ronald Reagan, TPUSA codifies the emotive, populist, and in-the-moment qualities of social media and Trump.” But that moment will not last forever.

And if the right finds that its victories on the coattails of Donald Trump were all pyrrhic and fleeting, they may look down and find themselves without any principles to stand on — save for owning the libs. b The Arch Conservative / ##

COLUMNS

COLUMNS

An Unrequited Love

Celebrity Politics

What Georgia’s Lavish Offers to Amazon Reveal About U.S. Politics

Marsha Blackburn Should Thank Taylor Swift

A

W

mazon has finally ended what was dubbed “The Hunger Games” – denoting the intense bidding war that many state and local governments undertook to attract the multi-billion dollar company to their locale.

In an extraordinary show of cronyism (perhaps only extraordinary due to its publicity), governments offered multi-billion dollar subsidies and special favors to the retail giant.

The State of Georgia went above and beyond to satisfy Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos’ request for competing city councils to “think big and creatively” when coming up with their offers.

New York and northern Virginia ultimately won Jeff Bezos’ heart, but Georgia made it to the shortlist with big-ticket offers like the building and funding of “Amazon Georgia Academy” on the corporate campus, functioning as a part of the University System of Georgia and the state tech college system. This state-funded Amazon talent factory would have offered undergraduate and post-graduate courses, as well as 24-week “boot camps.” State-sponsored recruiters would have scoured Georgia to “help fill jobs,” according to The Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

Who likes Atlanta traffic? State legislators knew Amazon wouldn’t, and that’s why they offered an Amazon-themed MARTA car for transporting employees and packages across the city. Additionally, Amazon executives would have enjoyed a private lounge and 50 dedicated parking spaces at Hartfield-Jackson International Airport. Not to be too exclusive, regular city-goers could have enjoyed Sunday drives down “Prime Place” and “Alexa Way” surrounding the sprawling campus.

Among 60 potential sites for Amazon’s second headquarters in Georgia, “Amazon, Georgia” was one. The City Council of Stonecrest voted to de-annex 345 acres of its land and name the new town “Amazon,” tentatively.

The total incentive package topped 2 billion in tax credits and subsidies, not including what it

Sarah Scherer is a junior studying international affairs.

This is her first contribution to The Arch Conservative. ## / The Arch Conservative

would take to fund the aforementioned projects.

A curiosity arises: why? It goes without saying that the ultimate motivation of the bidding states, including Georgia, was the income tax revenue that would be generated

by Amazon’s promised 50,000 new high-paying jobs. A more politically prudent way to put it was “a boost to the local economy,” but would Amazon be hiring Georgians? Certainly not at first. As noted by Seattle locals, Amazon did not revitalize their community but replaced it. For at least a decade, transplants would have filled the Georgia HQ. Space is a finite resource, and should not be discounted when assessing just how much Atlanta offered Amazon. Multiple governments’ public relations teams justified their Amazon offers as “seeking opportunity for community investment,” but how exactly is a massive corporate campus in the Quarry Yards going to help the community -- other than old buildings being turned into a shiny Amazon HQ for the public to stare at? All prospects of an up-andcoming, vibrant city section are dashed when a series of corporate offices covers multiple blocks in the middle of Midtown. And what if the company decides to move?

As demonstrated by past real-life case studies like in Detroit, heavy reliance on one industry, let alone one company, is not prudent for a local economy. Investors will always advise diversifying a stock portfolio in order to handle economic downturns. The same logic applies to cities – investments are better made in a variety of small to medium companies. Instead, countless cities, large and small, handed number eight on the Fortune 500 list the entire cake.

Such a practice is certainly not privy to any good economic theory. Subsidies are not good for companies or consumers. State money softens the blow of lost revenue, which only benefits the company in the short-term.

Subsidies cloud market signals, which cause the corporation to become too comfortable.

Eventually, the company will stop reacting to market signals altogether and slowly fall behind newer, more nimble competitors. This was the story of Kodak.

What if Amazon goes the way of Kodak?

According to the American Enterprise Institute, of the firms that topped the Fortune 500 charts in 1955, only 12% remained in 2016. Are billions

of dollars in taxpayer money worth it to secure the headquarters of a company that may not exist in 60 years?

Maybe Amazon would become like the banks - “too big to fail,” and kept alive like a dying lung by the respiratory-state. If the local economy relies on it, and the state has invested billions of dollars in it, the state will keep it alive long past its due time. Look to any failed public project for evidence of this folly.

To what avail did governments offer Amazon such large sums? In the case of the D.C. area, Amazon opted for the smaller incentives package, settling in Northern Virginia when building across the river in Montgomery County, Maryland would have landed the company millions more in subsidies. It turns out that showering companies with cash isn’t a reliable way to attract businesses. Before local governments came up with such exuberant offers of corporate welfare, they should have considered more traditional methods of attracting businesses such as lowering tax rates, cutting regulations, or adopting the right-towork law. These methods would also be of benefit to small, family-owned businesses.

The demonstrations put on by state governments across the country were a true embarrassment for the American body politic. It reveals a reality that was previously unbeknownst, or underplayed to many Americans: the powerful influence of unelected and un-beholden corporations in our government. While both sides of the aisle can stand united to protect the integrity of our government, conservatives have more reason to be concerned.

Today, corporations are becoming more than simple product and service providers. To make it in the modern economy, a business does not necessarily need to provide a better product.

People are buying the association, the brand, instead. Companies have a vested interest in their brand appealing to the masses – hence why corporations increasingly issue political statements (think: Apple, Google, Facebook, Starbucks, the list could go on.) Conservative values aren’t selling, and the CEOs of large corporations are overwhelmingly left-wing. This is yet another reason why conservatives should be concerned about the growing influence of corporations over public life. b

WINTER 2018

hile some will refer to 2018 as the “Year of the Woman,” I know some Americans, myself especially, will remember 2018 as the Year of Celebrity Politics. With Alyssa Milano pulling a “Where’s Waldo” at the Kavanaugh hearings, Kayne donning a MAGA hat in the Oval Office, and every single celebrity you’ve ever heard of politicking on Twitter, it’s been an interesting year. Some celebrities, like Kim Kardashian, actually engaged in real activism, securing the attention of the president, and succeeding in pushing for a presidential pardon for an elderly African-American woman in prison for a drug charge. She also met with the leaders of March For Our Lives.

What I want to explain is how celebrities are approaching the world of politics incorrectly, and why it seems that they are doing more harm than good. Taylor Swift’s endorsement of Phil Bredesen, and denouncement of now-Senator Marsha Blackburn, is a shining example of how not to use influence to further an agenda.

Taylor Swift is known for a few things: writing songs about relationships, suing fans for making their own Taylor Swift merchandise, and a very public feud with Katy Perry. She also has been very public in speaking out against sexual violence and was named TIME’s Person of the Year in 2017 following an incident in which Swift herself was sexually harassed.

Aside from addressing the issue of sexual misconduct in America, Swift has mostly stayed away from any sort of political commentary -- so much so that “Taylor Swift’s silence on [insert random political issue] is deafening” has become a popular tweet. That was until she decided to take to Instagram, of all platforms, to declare that Marsha Blackburn’s voting records, Madison Cooper is a senior studying political science. She is a regular contributor to The Arch Conservative.

WINTER 2018

agenda, and endorsements did not represent Swift’s “Tennessee values.” Well, Tennessee disagreed. Just like the United States Electoral College disagreed with every celebrity except Kid Rock in 2016.

At the time of Swift’s Instagram post, Marsha Blackburn and Phil Bredesen were virtually tied. The race was labeled as a “tossup” for a while on plenty of media outlets.

Ironically, Marsha Blackburn soared in the polls post-Swift rant. Blackburn clapped back at Swift, claiming Tennesseans would be more concerned with her achievements than what a pop-star had to say about her.

And she was right. Blackburn defeated Bredesen by 5.2 points. I’m not saying it’s because of the Taylor Swift Instagram post, but I don’t think that it’s totally unrelated.

People don’t like to see celebrities tamper with politics. Celebrities, for the most part, are seen as “out of touch” with the real world, and rightly so. When you’re flying on private planes, wearing $10,000 Givenchy suits and suing fans for making a DIY shirt with your face on it, I’d say it’s safe to assume you’re a little out of touch.

These aren’t the only two celebs whose political efforts have somewhat thwarted the efforts of their cause. Think about all of the celebrities who endorsed Hillary Clinton: Chrissy Teigen, Miley Cyrus, Madonna, Beyonce, Jay-Z, etc. The list goes on and on, but to what avail? Each and every one of these celebrities failed to garner votes in the places where it most mattered. In Georgia, Democratic candidate for governor, Stacey Abrams scored “grassroots” help from both Oprah and Will Ferrell. She still lost. Beyonce endorsed Beto O’Rourke the day of the Texas Senate Election. He still lost.

These celebrities are absolutely no help in mobilizing voters or winning over swing voters. They produce a lot of hype, yes. And they excite people who were already going to vote Democratic, sure.

But they don’t do anything to further the message of the candidate. If anything, and Marsha Blackburn’s 5.2 point win over Phil Bredesen would show this, they drive everyday, average people away from the person they are endorsing.

People don’t want to see celebrities involved in political activity. Activism, like Ashton Kutcher’s visits to the US Senate to contribute to talks about tougher sex trafficking violations, are regarded more warmly. Celebrities would do well to use those efforts as an example of a good way to use their own influence to make a difference. Just because you’re popular on the radio, or you have your own talk show, doesn’t mean people want you on their front step campaigning. I never ever thought I would say this, but take a note from Kim K. She’s doing it right. b

The Arch Conservative / ##

FEATURES

FEATURES

The Greatest Privilege A Family United

By Reed Ferguson

I

grew up in the upper-middle-class suburbs of Atlanta, Georgia. I went to a Catholic high school. I danced. I rode horses. I played tennis. My family went to church on Sundays. My brothers and I came home from school nearly every day to a mother waiting to greet us with chocolate chip cookies (albeit the pre-cut Nestlé ones, but the point still stands). I was, in the truest, non-Leftist sense of the word, a privileged child. However, the greatest privilege I ever received--a blessing I thank my parents for every chance I get--was having two of them.

A couple of years ago, I was sitting around a dinner table with five other girls, new friends I had only known for a matter of weeks. We went around the table, each of us giving a synopsis of our family lives.

I was shocked to learn that not one of them had grown up as I had -- but not in the way you might think. These were not underprivileged girls. In many ways, we may have had similar childhoods -- i.e., I bet some of them played tennis, danced, and maybe even attended uppity Atlanta private schools. They were in college, and their parents still contributed, if not fully sponsored, their livelihoods. It was not an economic disadvantage in their family lives that shocked me; it was a cultural one.

Some of them had half-siblings. All five of them had divorced parents. One of

Reed Ferguson is a senior studying economics. She is Executive Editor of The Arch Conservative.

## / The Arch Conservative

their mothers wasn’t in her life. The rest had fathers who either didn’t live with their mothers or weren’t in their children’s lives at all. Their families were broken.

All of them. The conversation had almost completed its lap around the sharing circle when it came time for me to speak. I told them about my family: that I had a mom and dad and two brothers. They asked if either of them were half-siblings, and when I answered in the negative, they asked if my parents were still together. It was a shock to see the awe on their faces when I nodded yes. (I went to Catholic school, after all, and Catholics don’t divorce, you see!) “I feel like that never happens nowadays,” one of them said, and the rest agreed. My heart broke for them. And the worst part was that they didn’t even see the tragedy in it.

I was the only one. I was the only one with a family united. I was the only one at that dinner table of six impressionable, young girls who had a mother and father who had treated the institution of marriage as a holy one. I was the only one whose parents had given her a realistic view of marriage -- that it wasn’t easy, that it wasn’t always “happy,” that it was hard work. I was the only one who had received that undeserved privilege. And I could already tell, I was the only one not broken.

The story above is an anecdotal one.

A sample size of six is hardly enough to conduct a respectable econometric analysis. What is true, statistically, is that since the 1960s, what we call the “traditional family unit” is on the decline.

The 1960s counterculture, coupled with the

widespread availability of contraception and the rise of second-wave feminism, brought the normalization of promiscuity on the part of both men and women and the inevitable alternative family structures that follow. Compared with centuries past, sex has become less and less culturally tied to marriage. Marriage, once understood in Western society as a religious institution that united man and wife before God until the end of their days, began to be regarded only as a secular step to emotional happiness. As time progressed, the counterculture’s morals (or, rather, lack thereof) began to seep into the mainstream. For example, traditional values are virtually--if not, actually-extinct in Hollywood music, films, and television today.

In 1960, 87 percent of children lived in two-parent households, compared to 73 percent in 2000 and 69 percent today.

Even those estimates could be misleading because the type of two-parent household has also shifted since the 1960s. Some of those children who live with “two parents” have a non-traditional family arrangement due to increases in divorce, remarriage, and cohabitation. There is no longer one dominant family form. What we still call “convention” no longer lives up to the name. In fact, it’s in the minority.

(Ironically, “convention” is now statistically unconventional.) In 1960, 73 percent of children grew up in a family with two married, biological parents. By 1980, the number had dropped to 61 percent, and today, it stands in the minority at

WINTER 2018

46 percent. In 1960, just five percent of children were born out of wedlock. By 1970, the number had more than doubled.

By 2000, one-third of children were born out of wedlock. The number continued to rise before leveling out at about 40 percent in the mid-2000s. There is no amount of “free love” or “female empowerment” messaging that can paint those numbers in a good light.

What’s worse is that the numbers actually get worse when compared across socioeconomic and racial lines. While the majority of Asian, white, and Hispanic children grow up in two-parent households, less than half of black children do. Only a majority (and a slim one, at that) of white and Asian children grow up in homes with their two biological parents. The shares of Hispanic and black children living with two parents in their first marriage are much lower. Out-of-wedlock births are on the rise and especially victimize the black community. Seventy-one percent of black children are born out of wedlock, compared to 53 percent of Hispanic children and 29 percent of white children.

That’s nearly three out of every four black children. The dichotomy in socioeconomic groups is not much better. Seventy percent of poor children come from single-parent households, and divorce is more common among the poor and working class than it is among the middle and upper classes.

However, the discrepancy is not due to economics. Brookings Institute economist Isabel Sawhill has noted that a “purely economic theory falls short as an explanation of the dramatic transformation of family life in the U.S. in recent decades.”

For example, there is no observable increase in divorce or single parenthood at the height of the Great Depression.

Because of the culture that existed during the Depression, changes in economic wellbeing made no difference to the well-being of the family unit. It is more likely that the dichotomy in family structure between the classes is due to a cultural difference.

As Heritage Foundation researcher Robert Rector observes, middle and upper-class Americans rejected the 1960s counterculture’s dismissal of the family unit, while the working classes have been more “permissive” toward matters such

WINTER 2018

as divorce and premarital sex. As Rector notes, “The end result has been that key norms, values, and virtues—from fidelity to attitudes about teen pregnancy—that sustain a strong marriage culture are now generally weaker in poor and workingclass communities.” It is a social failing, a cultural and moral slump.

It is no surprise to the American public that religious observation has declined in the past century, but it has fallen markedly among the poor and working classes.

Partially because religious institutions provide moral support in marriage, raising children, and for the emotional health of an individual member, Americans who regularly attend religious services are more likely to get married, stay married, and have children when they’re married.

It is not the failing of the family unit that most disturbs me though; it is, rather, the outcomes it produces. According to Rector, children from single-parent homes are more than twice as likely to be arrested for a juvenile crime, twice as likely to be treated for emotional and behavioral problems, and a third more likely to drop out of high school. Boys from single-parent homes are more likely to end up in prison. Girls from single-parent homes are at higher risk for teen pregnancy. “When compared to children in intact married homes,” Rector writes, “children raised by single parents are more likely to have emotional and behavioral problems; be physically abused; smoke, drink, and use drugs; be aggressive; engage in violent, delinquent, and criminal behavior; have poor school performance; be expelled from school; and drop out of high school.”

Much of the problem, sociologists have observed, is due to shortcomings in cognitive development, which occur in children who lack a nurturing home and/ or school environment. Having a mother (or father) waiting at home with a tray full of freshly baked cookies isn’t just nice because Nestlé Toll House cookies are delicious. Even just having one parent able to spend time with children creates a nurturing environment that fosters positive neurological development.

“Daddy/ Mommy issues” are real issues that afflict countless boys and girls of my generation.

The moral failings to which their parents

succumbed en masse in the decades following the 1960s now plague them. Due to the risk factors these children face, many of them may afflict their own children with the same tricky disease, and thus, the cycle continues.

It is the spiritual and emotional health of the children raised in broken homes that concerns me. They do not get the privilege of witnessing first-hand what marriage truly is. In modern Western culture, marriage is no longer regarded as a sacred institution, an earthly bond between man and woman that symbolizes the eternal bond between Christ and His Church. It is no longer seen as a holy union of a man and woman joined together by God. It is not “for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer.”

It’s not even always “in sickness, in health.”

And it certainly is not “until death do us part.” Instead, it is “for better, for richer, for health, for happiness, until one of us feels unhappy.” Marriage is merely a contract, an agreement between two parties of unspecified sexes, or perhaps three or four.

(What does it matter anyway?) It is nothing more than a contract based on a fleeting feeling, to be disbanded if the parties feel inclined to do so. It is a shirking of duty for whims, of the Good Life for fleeting “happiness,” that plagues the moral fabric of our society -- and with it, our children.

Western civilization is in need of a restoration, a New Cultural Revolution. It must reject today’s convention, surrender its arrogance and its flippant disregard for centuries and millennia of wisdom, and try to recognize even smallest bit of insight in things past. For the sake of our underprivileged, it is time the middle and upper classes preach what they practice.

It is time the convention of old advise and revise the convention of new. For the sake of our children, if nothing else, it is time that we, as a society, rediscover the meaning of marriage. Marriage is something more powerful and deeper than an emotion; it is not to be entered into lightly on the basis of a fleeting feeling. It is a promise--or, to use a bolder word--an oath. Marriage is not emotional love; it is covenantal love. It is time our society return to this fundamental truth: What God has joined together, no man should separate. b

The Arch Conservative / ##

FEATURES

FEATURES

A Moral Sickness in America Polarized Politics and Browbeaters

By Boris A. Abreu

A

merica is suffering. Not from economic problems, or health epidemics, but from a deep-seated moral sickness that is pitting brother against brother and harming the very soul of our great nation. I implore our readers that this piece is to be approached from a clear mind; an open standpoint, for intellectually curious reasons. Of course, I am of the belief that my ideological system is best suited for our current world. But I sincerely wish that people, as individuals, would stop browbeating so heavily about the moral codes of others. In my eyes, the weaponization of our moral codes has become the greatest sickness America has seen in a long while.

Morality is one of those concepts that has been thought about, debated, bashed, and any number of past-tense verbs since time immemorial. Each and every human has a set of moral guidelines that helps keep them on their own path. Morality does not purport to be a rock-solid concept, and everyone’s code is going to be different. It is like the human DNA—most of it may be similar, but there are changes that make it unique to every single person. For most of us, morals are shaped by our upbringing, our environment, our parents, and our compatriots, and continue to guide us until the end of our days. It is taught and learned through experiences and the various Boris A. Abreu is a senior studying political science and international affairs.

He is Publishing Editor of The Arch Conservative.

## / The Arch Conservative

travails that human life brings us. Our moral compasses purport to keep us on the straight and narrow, and that is good when used in a constructive fashion, helpful to both our own self-reflection and to others.

The question arises from the debate about the “overarching” moral code in society—whether it is derived from the rule of law, or perhaps its origins are pulled from a series of philosophical positions.

I am of the school of thought that sees it come from the wisdom of figures across the centuries, who have reflected upon concepts that have been with us since time immemorial. However, when considering the concept of a moral sickness, I do not mean to speak to a general degradation of morals, and while some may consider that to be occurring as America trudges on through this century, the problem does not lie there. In truth, the problem arises upon observing the American political sphere and how it connects to morals. A popular saying, incorrectly attributed to Machiavelli, is: “Politics has no relation to morals.” While Machiavellian politicians and bureaucrats tend to be cunning, underhanded, and sometimes outright sneaky, this is not to say that they are people lacking a moral compass. It’s business as usual in the political world.

Conservatism, as a whole, though richly diverse in opinion, holds itself as the vanguard of an enduring moral order, one that must be protected and upheld.

The traditional beliefs that we hold and practice are something held in high regard.

That much is clear. These beliefs, attacked

as being archaic and out-of-touch by those who have not read into our vast literary history, represent the accumulation of the wisdom of the greatest thinkers and weave their thoughts into our lives. It is only natural then, that some of our morals would be shaped by our studies and ruminations of our beloved movement.

We believe strongly in the individualism of thought, the upholding of a standard that has been set by those before us, and will hopefully continue to be upheld by our successors — save for a disastrous populist takeover of the Conservative Movement. It is why we can still hold so many different viewpoints about the nature of good governance and still have a cohesive movement at the end of the day. Individualism is what makes us, at the most basic level, unique in the eyes of our Creator. We should be proud to have that incredible privilege to be able to think independently of the wills of someone else; consciousness is one of the greatest gifts ever bestowed upon us by the good God above.

Confidence in one’s moral code is something we wish for all, to have a firm belief in the values that guide us each and every day. We do not wish to tear down one’s confidence in their morals, as that would be wrong. However, the sickness with our nation lies in the fact that there are some who try to undermine others’ confidence in their moral code, a browbeating of sorts over the individual’s moral compass. This is a disastrous occurrence that should worry all Americans. I myself have oft been

WINTER 2018

attacked for what is perceived as my moral bankruptcy.

It is no secret that some on the Left have become purveyors of this moral weaponization, arguably even more so than entertainment conservatives like Charlie Kirk, our favorite walking Twitter feed, and continue to contribute to the problem of moral sickness. The oft-cited “when they go low, we go high” is a laughable adage, and one that should put someone on their immediate guard when they hear it uttered as a justification for anything.

There is nothing “high” about bashing conservatives for being “morally bankrupt” or using a perceived moral superiority as rationale for beating us into the ground with repeated claims that certain morals are subjectively better than ones that have been individually honed. There is an immediate loss of that moral high ground the instant one starts using his morals as a weapon for degradation. One should have confidence in his moral system, as it is uniquely his and should be treated as part of an individual’s development. One cannot possibly hope to call another morally bankrupt based upon a purely political lens.

Throughout my time working in Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy’s office, I received numerous phone calls, often from extremely belligerent people who often used the phrase “morally bankrupt” and then threw words like “Nazi” about with reckless abandon--a disservice to those whose families were forever impacted by the horrors of Nazism. The words themselves bounce harmlessly off the mind; one tends to develop a numbness to the hostile phone calls. The more concerning trend though, is how quickly the accusation of moral bankruptcy was thrown my way. Callers were quite content to hurl that my way.

It is worrying that the attack would so quickly devolve into an attempt to chip at my moral foundations as a way to attain some feel-good sense of superiority; by using their perceived position of the moral high ground, these citizens found it okay to attack my confidence in my own moral code, without knowing at all who I am,

WINTER 2018

or the experiences that shaped me to the person I am.

This is not an experience unique to me either -- one only has to search the terms “conservatives” and “moral bankruptcy” on any search engine and results will come up beating down conservatives and the GOP as having no moral compass. For example, a pre-2016 Huffington Post article labeled members of the GOP as “morally challenged misfits,” while barely acknowledging the questionable practices of former President Clinton, and referred to those on the Left as the “morally tuned.” Furthermore, from a conservative point of view, trimming government spending on certain programs makes economic sense. According to the grand moral arbiters on the Left though, it is “morally puzzling.” The Guardian also published a piece that painted the GOP as “morally and intellectually bankrupt” on the issues of taxes and climate change. We can agree that climate change is a lightning rod issue, and those in the halls of power would do well to heed that. Tax cuts are a different story though. People will always debate about what solution is best for a vast nation, but it is questionable to label a party as “morally bankrupt” because that party did what it said it would do and tried to cut some taxes. But to paint all the voters and members of a party as morally lacking is reckless. Nagging potential voters about their morals is not apt to win power, there’s a reason that people have such confidence in their values -- and it would take much more than a few “feel-good” stories and attack ads to get them to modify their core moral beliefs.

There is cause for concern when the very foundations of one’s morals are attacked as part of the grand strategy of political chess.

When morals are shaped by petty partisan squabbles in higher offices, citizens become instruments of this moral war, and infected by this moral sickness. The sacred codes of morals have not become things that can constantly be honed into fine points, but rather another target in the endless slugfest of American politics. Citizens tend to take cues from elites, and when elites see it fit

to attack the moral foundations of an entire group of people, the citizens tend to find this as permissible as well, and thus the nasty cycle continues.

The sickness plagues many aspects of politics, but we would do well to remember that we do not have to let it embed within ourselves and devolve to a level that is beneath the high ideals that we strive to uphold. Having fortitude enough to defend your beliefs on a moral level is a goal that we should strive for. This is not to say that the moral compass of an individual should be wholly immovable, but rather strong enough to weather normal bickering and squabbling. That is the beauty of the individualist aspect of conservatism, the freedom to think the way that the individual desires, and not be shaped by a groupthink mentality. While in some instances, we are, to borrow from Hillary Clinton, “Stronger Together,” we have the marvelous privilege of unique thoughts and moral codes. Some political figures would do well to remember that, instead of referring to entire swaths of America as “morally bankrupt” and being a big “basket of deplorables.”

I harbor a great hope for this beautiful country, one that my children will grow up in, free of bitter polarization and freed from the weaponization of our moralities. I fear, however, that this nation will crack and split at the seams if we continue down the current path. While there is no universal way to cure this illness, small steps can be beneficial. It is up the individual to take these steps (I cannot hope to be the guide for this, nor should I be). However, I can encourage a strengthening of resolve in the moral arena, an embracing of the strong individualist principles that bind our beloved movement together. Confidence in one’s convictions is one of the most effective tools in any person’s intellectual toolkit, and we would do well to embrace those ideals so that we may ride out these turbulent times knowing that our beliefs are strong, and our beloved cause is worth defending against those who would bash the moral codes of its stoutest defenders. b

The Arch Conservative / ##

FEATURES

FEATURES

Exclusive Interview Houston Gaines

By Connor Foarde

After losing to Democrat Deborah Gonzalez in a 2017 special election, Houston Gaines is prepared to make a name for himself in the General Assembly in 2019 as Georgia’s 117th District’s newly elected state representative. An alumnus of the University of Georgia, Gaines served as the student body president of SGA, graduated summa cum laude and was a member of Phi Beta Kappa, Phi Kappa Phi, Blue Key Honor Society as well as several other organizations. The following is an interview between Gaines and Campus News Editor Connor Foarde which took place on November 16, 2018.

CF: What initially drove you to run for state representative in 2017?

HG: I thought that I would bring a unique perspective to the General Assembly. When the seat originally became open, folks approached me and asked whether I’d be interested in running. At first I said no, but then I did a lot of thinking. I had to think about, most importantly, “Would I be good in the role?” and secondarily “Would I be able to win the seat?” After doing a lot of thinking, I really felt like I would be someone who could bring the next generation’s perspective and add a different kind of voice to the conversations in the General Assembly.

This community has been my family’s home for now three generations. My grandfather was a superior court judge in Clarke and Oconee Counties.

Our whole family has been involved in service, and that’s something that my grandfather passed down to me.

He’s not with us anymore, but my grandmother still lives here in Athens.

My parents still live here. My brother

Connor Foarde is a senior studying journalism. He is the Campus News Editor for The Arch Conservative.

## / The Arch Conservative

and my sister, our whole family lives here in Athens. This has been our home, and I really felt like this was an opportunity to make a difference .

CF: You’re fresh off of a victory for the District 117 house seat that you had previously ran for and lost to Deborah Gonzalez in last year’s special election.

Tell me a couple of ways how this year’s campaign was different than last year’s.

HG: Last year, the campaign was obviously really short. The time between when the election was called and the actual election date was just a few months. This year, we didn’t just come off the loss and say “We’re running again.” We gave it some time. That loss obviously wasn’t fun. But we felt like the community deserved a strong voice in the General Assembly, you know a real leader who could get things done.

So we gave it a few months, and once we felt like we had the energy, ability, and optimism to win, we got back in the race. It certainly took a lot of work, but we had from February all the way to November, so we had a lot more time to talk to a lot more voters. Ultimately we were able to get a lot higher turnout.

Last year in the special election you saw really low turnout in Clarke County,

which frankly is not an area we thought we would win. We didn’t win Clarke County again this year, although we did very well. We got 38 percent, which in Clarke County is very strong. We were also able to get the turnout up in the other counties, whereas last year they were way behind Clarke County. The fact that there was a governor’s race helped increase turnout on its own.

But, we were working day and night to talk to as many voters as possible, and certainly I think that hard work paid off.

In low turnout elections, the side that is most energized often wins. There’s a reality that Democrats in 2017 were particularly fired up, and unfortunately we weren't as energized as we needed be. But we were able to win this race in a “blue wave” year, and a lot of folks and pundits didn’t have any faith in our ability to do so. We worked extremely hard, we had a great team behind us, and we’re extremely proud of the outcome.

CF: What do you think secured your victory this time around?

were offering something different, and that was a campaign that wasn’t going to be built on extreme division.

The reality is my opponent had a record in office. I think the voters had a clear choice between someone with a record, and me, someone who was going to bring something different and something that is kind of moving away from the extreme partisan divide. It’s no secret that I’m a conservative, but I think people were excited that we had bipartisan support. People know they can trust me, they know where I stand, and they know that I’ll always listen to every side on every issue. So even if we disagree on some politics or policy, I think people were willing to vote for us across the political spectrum because they believed in our ability to get things done and to work with people no matter who they are or where they come from.

CF: You’ve criticized the fact that your opponent has had a relatively inconsequential tenure in the State House thus far, even going so far as to call her an “empty seat.” How are you going to assure your constituents that you will be a more effective representative than Ms. Gonzalez?

HG: Well, I think my constituents and the voters in this district will be able to see my record come two years from now when we’re back on the ballot. I’m sure there will be a Democrat running against us just as hard as this year. We’ll let the record speak for itself. The reality is, I was just in Atlanta this week where we have strong relationships. But it’s more than that, it’s the ability to get things done. It takes a leader that is going to fight for the priorities of this district and state. We’re getting to work already, talking about proposals we can put forward to make a difference. We’ll be apart of the conversations that are moving forward in our state, and over this past year this district has not been represented in those conversations. I think after two years, folks will see quite a significant difference.

CF: How would you respond to those who say that you’re too young and/or lack the necessary experience to serve a constituency in the State House?

Hillary Clinton are saying things that are harmful to our democracy, but I also think Georgia voters know better than that.

HG: What I would do is ask folks to give me an opportunity to serve these two years, make a difference and to look at my record. I think it actually gives me a leg up. It gives me the opportunity to bring a little bit of a different perspective to some of the issues that we’ll be discussing. I think people are excited about the next generation getting involved and new leadership.

I think if anything, it’s actually helpful, not a hindrance. Certainly those criticisms are out there, but I would ask those who have them to give me a chance. I wasn’t sent over by one party or group, but the whole district.

So we’re going to work to represent everybody.

CF: Let’s talk about your road ahead.

What are going to be your top priorities in the legislature when you take office?

CF: I want to get your take on the Georgia gubernatorial race. Greg Bluestein of the AJC made an interesting point that even if Kemp wins, a significant portion of the Democratic electorate will always consider his election to be illegitimate. I want to know how you are going move forward working with your Democratic colleagues in the legislature who believe that Kemp’s victory was ill-gotten?

HG: I do think what’s happened is unfortunate Frankly, I think Democrats had a significant opportunity to declare that they pushed two statewide offices into the runoff and have flipped a number of state house seats, but instead are looking like people who lost and can’t accept defeat. Stacey Abrams may be saying that this thing is not over, but I think there’s a large number of Democratic voters that do recognize that this election is over. There’s no doubt it was a close election, closer than a lot of people would’ve liked. But Brian Kemp is our next governor, and I’m proud to have supported him since the beginning. I think people outside the state like Sherrod Brown in Ohio and

HG: What we talked about on the campaign will be my top priorities, such as economic development issues and reducing the state income tax. I certainly believe and hope we’ll get to 5.5 percent this year. I’d love to see us get below 5 percent, and certainly that would take more time. But I’d like to see us moving in the direction of continuing to make Georgia number one for business, and there are all sorts of things that we can do to standardize and streamline state government. Education is also going to be a top priority of mine. Certainly this district encompasses a significant part of the University of Georgia which I am a proud graduate of. That’s one component of it, but also our technical colleges are such important pieces of the education sphere that we’re talking about. I strongly believe that we have significant opportunities to introduce the technical training at the high school level. By adapting some of the academic requirements we can ensure that someone can earn their high school diploma and go earn their associates degree or enter the workforce and make a great living. b

HG: I think that we had a good message, which was “Are you tired of politics as usual, are you tired of the partisan bickering that we hear?” We

WINTER 2018

WINTER 2018

The Arch Conservative / ##

COLUMNS HUMOR

COLUMNS

Pop Goes the Student Loan Bubble

ArchCon’s Guide to Bumper Stickers

Lessons from the 2008 Financial Crisis

Navigating a Sea of Self-Advertisement

I

f you’re in college, you’ve heard of student loans. If you yourself haven’t applied for one, you know someone who has or will. Student loans are as simple as you asking a lender to pay for your college education, and in return, you will pay them back a monthly premium over time, with interest. The student benefits from the ability to get an education despite the lack of capital and the lender is compensated through interest on the loan.

Everybody is happy. But what seemed like a harmless transaction has turned into a looming $1.5 trillion bubble that has engulfed the economy in a very similar fashion to the housing market bubble of 2008. The financial market collapse in 2008 nearly sent the United States back into the 1930s Depression era, put 8.8 million people out of jobs, and caused $19.2 trillion in US household wealth to disappear. Have we learned our lesson, or is history bound to repeat itself? To analyze why the student loan market is a bubble, it is important to first understand what went wrong with the housing market back in 2008.

Before the financial crisis of 2008, it was dangerously easy to buy a house. The Federal Reserve held interest rates historically low, making homeownership surprisingly cheap. Normally, when a person applies for a mortgage, the lender checks various factors, such as the applicant’s income, debt, and credit score. All of these things would tell a lender if the applicant would be a prudent investment. Unfortunately, the big banks and government-sponsored enterprises pressured lenders to give out more mortgages, thus lowering their standards. Essentially, mortgage lenders were giving out giant loans to anyone who asked for one, regardless of their ability to pay it back. When homeowners started

defaulting on their loans, the economy began to turn south. Desperate to resell the houses that were defaulted, banks had to drastically drop the prices which caused a chain reaction that brought the housing market down. All in all, a large amount of money was tied up in the idea that housing prices would never drop, and when they did, after the bubble popped, that money evaporated.

In order to understand why student loans are riskier than mortgages, take this hypothetical situation. You are a lender and a student needs a loan to pay for his college education, so you give him $100,000.

Unfortunately, when the student graduates, he has trouble finding a job. The student decides he cannot live a sustainable lifestyle while paying back his loans, so he defaults.

Unlike a default on a mortgage where you would be left with a house to resell, you are left with no assets to use as collateral.

Nothing is left of your investment besides the student’s education, and that is not something you can resell. As a lender, you would want to check to see if an applicant would be able to pay back the loan over time. However, these applicants don’t have incomes, don’t have any debt, and don’t have credit scores yet. A prudent investment could turn sour at any moment. Just like pre-2008 mortgage lending allowed more people than ever to own a home, student loans are allowing more people than ever to go to college. This creates a huge surplus in the supply of college graduates.

It is projected that between 2010 and 2020 there will be 17 million college graduates, but only 9 million new jobs that require a college degree. If the supply is soaring

past demand, then why isn’t the price of education decreasing? It should be simple economics, yet tuition is at an all-time high and lenders are giving students loans to anyone who wants one. This is creating a bubble, and it’s inflating fast. Defaults on student loans are already at 12 percent, the highest of any loan market right now, and lender money is disappearing. The bubble is getting bigger, and if it pops, it could have consequences similar to that of the 2008 financial crisis.

At this point, the question must be asked: Is society overvaluing a college education? High school students who would do much better in technical schools and trade schools are being encouraged to get college educations. Plumbers, carpenters, electricians, and construction managers are so in-demand that their average salary has exceeded that of your average public accountant. Yet, society has cast a crude shadow on those industries.

High school students are also being encouraged to obtain degrees in industries that may not be in demand, or worse, are dying. The public must be educated in what educations could make them money and what educations might not.

Overall, student loans are a crucial part of the American Dream, because everyone deserves the opportunity to obtain a higher education regardless of who you are or where you are from. However, a bubble is inflating in a fashion dangerously similar to the ill-fated housing bubble, and it is not talked about enough. Default rates need to be contained, or else the economy is in for an unwelcome jolt back into a recession. b

Greek Letters:

These are everywhere. They adorn cars of all makes and models. However, the letters can have other meanings besides their Hellenistic origins, such as when the next meeting of white supremacists is and when the uprising will be. Those dues? They aren’t just for formals and date nights.

Nuçi’s Space:

This innocuous French “cedilla,” or “c” with a tail isn’t as innocent as first thought. When flipped over, this looks like the Spanish upside-down question mark, signaling support for the upcoming Mexican Army invasion of the United States. Look it up, the information is out there! And Build That Wall™!

Boris A. Abreu is a senior studying political science and international affairs.

He is Publishing Editor of The Arch Conservative.

Lee Collier is a junior studying risk management & insurance. He is a firsttime contributor to The Arch Conservative.

## / The Arch Conservative

C

hances are, if you drive about the Classic City, you are bound to run into a large number of automobiles that contain any number of bumper stickers or adornments across their rides, which, on their face, contain colorful imagery, but in reality, may contain even deeper and darker meanings. This ultra-woke guide will allow you to spot even the most innocuous expression of automotive flair may actually be a signal for something more sinister, or maybe some fun secret societies. An extensive investigation in collaboration with Alex Jones’ Infowars has found out two things: 1) the true meanings of these bumper stickers and 2) the massive government conspiracy that aims to wipe the words “Tyler Simmons was onsides” from Twitter. The money trails lead back to somewhere in Tuscaloosa. Further investigation is required.

WINTER 2018

WINTER 2018

A “Resist” Sticker:

Jittery Joe’s Sticker:

At first glance, these innocent coffee cups seemingly flying at supersonic speed Through the Fire and the Flames are meant to represent the jolt of caffeine. What, if I told you those people who have these stickers are actually members of a cult who know that the coffee cup really means the giant meteor and that they know when it’s gonna crush this planet? Stay woke. Coffee isn’t as innocent as it seems.

Athens for Everyone:

These are the official stickers of Comrade Tim Denson’s favorite thing to say. On their face, they are another nonsensical, Democratic, happy-rainbows, socialist ploy, but in reality, undercover attendance at A4E meetings has uncovered plans to move literally every single global citizen to this city into one large commune. (I don’t think so; I don’t pay enough in rent to have 50 more roommates in my apartment.)

“Y’all Still Litter?” Stickers:

Besides being unbearably rude on their face, people with these stickers on their cars are actually members of an elite vigilante squad who take it upon themselves to punish and destroy all the Brads and Chads who throw their Natty Lite can into the air after shotgunning during the tailgates.

Some say they are kidnapped and never return. All I know, from my extensive research, is that the men who report these encounters become shells of their former frat-star selves. Littering is dangerous, but these cultists are on a different level.

Noting that Athens is a liberal paradise of bad economic ideas and rampant progressivism, these are fairly common.

While they may seem fun and “patriotic,” extensive investigative work of the people who have these has revealed two things: They drive a late-model Prius or ’02 diesel VW Jetta, and two, they’ve never seen the inside of an economics classroom at Sanford or Brooks Hall. I thought economics classes were mandatory at this institution. Get on the economic Trump train, nerds. MAGA.

Coexist Stickers:

Thorough research has determined people who have these are either a) white millennial liberals who claim they’re “Christian” but actually haven’t been to church and instead stand outside them and scoff at the faithful or b) white liberal suburban moms who were coerced by their progressive children into putting them on their Toyota Siennas. Also, there’s a secret society run by these people who are dedicated to trolling the Wesley Foundation by aggressively throwing Moon pies bitten into crescent shapes at service-goers as they leave on Wednesday evenings. Coexist like THIS with chocolate and marshmallows, BIGOTS.

UGA Stickers:

No hidden messages here. People who drive cars with these magnificent stickers attend the premier institution of higher education and bruising football in the South and have universal bragging rights over those people at the Atlanta Nerd Academy.

I bet they couldn’t even finish a Superman bomb at Buddha without trying to calculate the launch angle of their drink glass into the cup. b

The Arch Conservative / ##

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