The Arch Conservative - Winter 2017

Raising the Standard

Humans of the Future

Genetic Engineering and Maintaining Moral Order

By Will Brown

Crowder vs. the Culture

By Reed Ferguson

LEAKED: ArchCon Donor List

By Anonymous Leninist

Curing Healthcare

By Aravinda Karunaratne

WINTER 2017

THE EDITORS

COLUMNS

COLUMNS

3 On the Usefulness

8 Curing Healthcare

15 Danger on the Left: Sanctimony

By Aravinda Karunaratne

By Ross Dubberly

9 Congress's Drug Problem

16 The Alt–Right's Inevitable Failure

of the Publication

By Nick Geeslin

By Carson Brown

CAMPUS 4 The Campus Informant

By The Editors

5 In Defense of Campus Carry

10 Crowder vs. the Culture

17 An Antidote for Anxiety

By Reed Ferguson

By J.Thomas Perdue & Sarah Montgomery

11 Q&A: Bob Inglis & Climate Change

By Devon Spiva

By Sydney North

COLUMNS

FEATURES

6 Rural Relegation

12 Humans of the Future

By Boris A. Abreu

7 Stolen Valor

By Christopher Lipscomb

By Connor Foarde

By Will Brown

COLUMNS

HUMOR 18 Red & Black Rebuttal

By Matt Jordan

19 LEAKED: ArchCon Donor List

By Anonymous Leninist

14 Red & Black Rebuttal

By Boris A. Abreu

The Arch Conservative Editorial Board and Staff: 2017-2018

2 / The Arch Conservative

WINTER 2017

THE EDITORS i

On the Usefulness of the Publication And a Sentimental Half-Farewell

COVER PHOTO COURTESY OF NOGAS1974

I

n the waning weeks of my stint as your Editor-in-Chief, I must admit that I grow weary of my responsibilities. Responsibilities, as one learns, however, offer the chance for fulfillment, for growth, and for friendships. All three have ensued following my efforts with this budding publication of ours. John Henry and Davis Parker, two co-founders of The Arch Conservative, put it well in their farewell editorial: “Rather than offering tepid involvement in a host of organizations, invest yourself fully in the things you care about [...] Fulfilling efforts are those for which you don’t mind working hard.” They’re spot on.

In fact, the efforts and relationships about which they speak are shared by everyone whose name has graced the page to your left.

My duties as Editor-in-Chief, while numerous and time-consuming, have been fulfilling because of a distinct and unwavering goal: the longevity of a publication that not only facilitates these worthwhile efforts, these lasting memories and relationships, but also serves as a thoughtful voice for articulating the rich tradition of conservatism to the University of Georgia. Both are consequential endeavors.

Glimmers on the resume can be a mere semblance of one’s true achievement and growth, but changing someone’s mind on a subject, receiving an email from a joyful reader or podcast listener, or getting into an hours-long conversation about idea x with a fellow member? That is fulfilling. That’s worth the effort. It’s a feeling not completely captured by the word happiness. The Greeks have a word for it: eudaimonia; and the Germans do as well: Gemütlichkeit. The closest translation we have in English is contentment. It will have to do.

Indeed, my time as Editor-in-Chief has given me such a sense of contentment that I cringe to think the opportunity so easily could not have existed. For this, I am grateful to Connor Kitchings, who presented me with the opportunity to write as an unsuspecting freshman. I’ve since learned more than I could ever imagine, and I attribute most of that to this magnificent publication and the folks I’ve met through it.

What adds to the degree of fulfillment is this: well-articulated and principled American conservatism; a conservatism which is neither the strain you see addressed by many on the Left nor the strain espoused by much of the rabble-rousing right. There is a reason for this. In my mind, it is to articulate conservative beliefs in the morality of liberty and individualism, in the argument for limited government based on a “fallen” human nature, in the benefits of a free

WINTER 2017

market, and so on, takes principled thought and careful consideration.

Conservatism is a broad, strong ideology that engages with differing opinions on similar subjects, but simultaneously demands adherence to a core set of proven principles. It has a rich, complex history that necessitates careful learning. It’s not as easy as Hey Government, Do Something (the answer to any Leftist’s concern). And it is for this reason that ArchCon is so important. Not only does it allow those with the aforementioned principles to learn how to best articulate them, but it also allows others from across the idealogical spectrum to witness that very honest process. Through researching an idea for a podcast and then discussing it in person, we gain a greater understanding and appreciation of that idea. Through organizing our research and thoughts into a compelling article, we come to a more complete understanding of the world. ArchCon facilitates these goals.

So, in the interest of the longevity of the publication and the pursuit of these goals, the board and members have decided that Ross Dubberly should become our beloved publication’s next Editorin-Chief. For Ross, I am excited. For the publication, I am relieved that it will be in good hands. For those who fear my absence (love you, Mom), you will be content to know that I have bribed Ross into allowing me next semester’s Book Editor position. While it pains me to leave, I believe it is time to pass the honor onward and return a degree of freedom to my waking hours. With the same eagerness that I brought to my duties as Editor-in-Chief, I anticipate my return to writing, podcasting, and spending time on my hobbies.

I know that Ross will succeed for the same reasons that every member has preceded him has succeeded and every member to follow him will succeed. Those reasons, enumerated above, are manifest in the many articles that follow in this, the Winter Edition of The Arch Conservative in print. I’ve evidenced in this editorial my unending affection for the publication as well as my penchant for wordiness.

Hopefully, I haven’t sounded vain. At any rate, as I approach the limit of the space available for me to express my sentimentality, I realize I have run out of room to preview any of the insightful articles for this issue. A few words will have to suffice in the preview’s stead: Get reading. There’s a war on the principles of conservatism, and The Arch Conservative yearns to continue its defense.

Most sincerely, Nick Geeslin, Editor–in–Chief

The Arch Conservative / 3

CAMPUS

David Horowitz in Athens Marxist Turned Conservative to Visit Athens Soon

Y

oung Americans for Freedom at UGA (YAF at UGA) is to bring Mr. David Horowitz to campus to lecture on the history of the Left in January. Mr. Horowitz, the progeny of two card carrying Communists, was a founder of the so-called “New Left” in America.

After becoming increasingly disillusioned with Leftism, however, Mr. Horowitz cast his vote for Ronald Reagan in 1984, the first Republican for whom he had ever voted. Since the mid-‘80s, Mr. Horowitz has taken his passion for radicalism and redirected it toward the advocacy of freedom. He is the founder of the David Horowitz Freedom Center, the author of dozens of books and hundreds of articles, and an expert on Left-wing philosophy and thought.

— Ross Dubberly

SGA Watch A Slow Month of October

A

fter working on implementing the new night bus schedule, a change that was needed and appreciated, SGA have had a rather quiet month of October. A week or so after installing the members of Freshman Programs and the Supreme Court at the end of September, SGA President Cameron Keen took home the honor of Homecoming King during halftime of the UGA vs. Missouri game. On October 19th, SGA hosted an information session on Small Clubs Allocations in Tate to help smaller clubs make a bigger impact. The next day, Directors of Religious Outreach, Joe Lee and Ammishaddai Grand-Jean, hosted “Wayze of Prayze” for all to attend and worship together at the Rooker Fireside Lounge. Finally, they kicked off the Georgia-Florida rivalry week with their “War for the Oar” at Tate geared towards increasing excitement surrounding the annual clash in Jacksonville. To get a better understanding of what was in the works with SGA, we reached out to them directly. They responded saying they were preparing their fall review and that it would be available in a few weeks, not in time for this issue.

— Matt Jordan

A Conservative Solution to Climate Change ArchCon Invites Dr. David Gattie for a Timely Talk

T

he Arch Conservative’s favorite environmental engineer was gracious enough to spend a few hours this past month in service to the publication and the student body more broadly. After a wonderful staff dinner, wherein we talked politics and energy policy, the staff, Dr. Gattie, and his wife, Zoe, made their way to the Miller Learning Center for the event. He was met with a full classroom of about 45 people. So popular was the event, in fact, that the latecomers were forced to sit on the floor. Thankfully for them, Dr. Gattie was engaging and informative. He began by accepting the need to address carbon reduction and then proceeded to deconstruct the extreme solutions offered by the 100 percent renewable energy and the “just regulate it” crowds. He also offered concrete evidence to support the claim that America is not the main threat to a greener future. Rather it is the developing world with their ever-increasing energy needs. Rather than rob them of energy, Dr. Gattie maintains, America should bolster its presence in the nuclear energy sphere around the world in order both to maintain national security and reduce carbon emissions.

A full description of the event can be found in Connor Foarde’s piece for the

website cleverly titled “Climate Change Done Right. ”

4 / The Arch Conservative

— Nick Geeslin

WINTER 2017

COLUMNS CAMPUS

In Defense of Campus Carry A Closer Look at the Continued Controversy HB-280, Campus Carry, has taken Georgia by storm since its signing, but the law is far more sensible than the left believes.

H

B-280, more infamously known as “campus carry,” has drawn fierce criticism and incited a lawsuit from six professors in the the University System of Georgia, three of whom teach at the UGA. Some conservatives, and nearly all liberals, have condemned the law, signed by Governor Nathan Deal in May and put into effect on June 1, 2017, nearly six months ago.

The lawsuit claims that the Governor acted in violation of the Georgia state constitution by enacting a law that expanded gun carrying rights.

Opponents of the bill argue that these new carry rights act in direct violation of Georgia state law, specifically three provisions known as “Guns on Campus Laws.” Following the signing of the bill, thousands of phone calls poured in from concerned students and faculty of the University System of Georgia, who believed that the loosening of carrying laws would lead to mass carnage and chaos. While no campus carnage has happened in the past six months, hysteria has been in abundance. It remains a hotly debated topic, eliciting considerable time in debates between UGA’s College Republicans and Young Democrats, in special election campaigning in the 119th and 117th districts, as well as in the unfolding gubernatorial race. Unsurprisingly, there is a stark split across party lines with nearly every Republican being in favor of campus carry and every Democrat being opposed. In the 117th special election, Democratic candidate Deborah Gonzalez chastised campus carry and vowed to work to repeal it while Devon Spiva is a freshman studying political science. He is a regular contributor to The Arch Conservative.

WINTER 2017

Republican candidate Houston Gaines took a more nuanced approach, saying he would be in favor of looking at the bill again when the Georgia House begins its next session.

By then, a semester would have passed with campus carry in effect and would allow for a greater discussion and review of the bill.

Furthermore, in the 119th district, Democratic candidate Jonathan Wallace took a nearly identical approach as Deborah Gonzalez while Republican candidates Marcus Wiedower and Tom Lord voiced their support of campus carry. The third Republican

candidate, Stephen Strickland, also took a more cautioned view, similar to Houston Gaines. The governor’s race has split roughly the same way, with Republican candidates supporting HB-280 and Democratic candidates remaining in staunch opposition.

In these arguments, there remains a veil of ignorance. Fear is utilized by the Democrats, who selectively ignore the restrictions of the law and paint campus carry as an anarchical precursor to massacres, promoting this law as a measure that exemplifies the lack of compassion from Republicans. The truth of the matter, as outlined by the law itself, is that HB-280 is still severely restrictive, and perhaps rightfully so. Firstly, HB-280 only applies to those with a valid carrying license. It is only available to those who are 21 years of age or older, which means that only

certain graduate students or undergraduate upperclassmen (barring exceptions) are able to carry on campus. This is explicitly stated in the outline of the law, which reads: Annotated, relating to carrying and possession of firearms, so as to authorize the carrying and possession of handguns in certain manners by weapons carry license holders in certain buildings or on real property owned by or leased to public institutions of postsecondary education…

This immediately excludes nearly twothirds of the student population at UGA, as a majority of the undergraduate class is below the age of 21 and even those who are 21, may not be licensed to carry. Furthermore, HB-280 prohibits carrying in dorms, fraternity and sorority houses, places where high school students are taking classes via dual enrollment, places being used for specialized schooling, and places designated as preschools or daycares. This means that campus carry does not apply to the majority of the Georgia classrooms. The law also prohibits individuals from carrying within dorms and during any athletic event, such as UGA’s massive football gamedays.

Finally, as stated before, the law has been in place for nearly six months and not a single mass shooting has happened on any campus in Georgia. For the most part, mass shootings don’t occur where others are carrying. They happen at night clubs, concerts, workplaces where guns are prohibited and cities where gun laws are severely restrictive. For many students who are in a new place alone and far from home, simply being able to carry at night as they walk to their apartment would provide security. The people who are licensed to carry are not trigger happy maniacs, they are those who have grown up around guns and are aware of the implications of carrying and the extra scrutiny that comes with it. This law does not apply to everyone, and does not open up carrying everywhere, but it does provide an extra layer of security for those who do have a license to carry. That is why I stand in support of HB-280. b

The Arch Conservative / 5

COLUMNS

Rural Relegation It's easy to forget about rural America, but it's equally as dangerous to ignore the idyllic countryside inhabitants when running for the highest office in the land, as candidates last year discovered.

A

mong the myriad of other reasons for her defeat last year was Hillary Clinton’s serious disconnect and lack of appeal to the rural American voter, whose voting power is not something to be scoffed at in the slightest. We’ve already beaten the proverbial dead horse into oblivion by analyzing in painstaking detail why Mrs. Clinton lost the election.

Most people have moved on and forgotten, outside of Mrs. Clinton, that is, whose excuses as to why she lost quite literally fill an entire book.

In my view, there are serious problem with the typical liberal mindset. Chief among these are a serious elitist complex, as well as an insufferable sense of moral superiority used to beat anyone with differing viewpoints into pseudo-moral submission. This sense of elitism and moral superiority quite plausibly killed the Democrats’ chances in rural America.

Sure, there is a marked difference between going downtown to partake in terrible dancing compared to sitting out in the open field around a bonfire, carrying on in the company of friends under a stunning canvas of stars and mountains–perhaps I am a little biased in my Jeffersonian perception of the good life. However, idealist views of life are not the point here. Instead, consider a more politically nuanced view of the rural way of living.

In the political sphere, the rural voter is not a portion of the electorate that one aspiring for a higher office can neglect. They are a Boris A. Abreu is a junior studying political science and international affairs. He is Publishing Editor of The Arch Conservative.

6 / The Arch Conservative

voting base that, when banded together, is a fearsome political force. Simply put, don’t ignore them. And, though it seems an obvious caveat, don’t disparage them. According to elections data from The New York Times, rural voters turned out in numbers big enough to score Pennsylvania, arguably the flip that won the election for Donald Trump. In fact, in the 2,332 counties that make up rural/ small-town America, Donald Trump won 60 percent of the vote. Clinton, on the other hand, took a mere 34 percent. 74 percent of America is classified as small town/rural

counties, but is home to only about a quarter of the population. To ignore and disparage the voters is an extremely dangerous game to play. Statistics from The New York Times show that rural voters turned out in numbers large enough to flip traditionally Democratic states such as Wisconsin, Iowa, Ohio, Michigan, and Pennsylvania, arguably enough to crest the 270 threshold. Where, then, did Hillary make one of her biggest mistakes?

It all starts with the “basket of deplorables” speech that Mrs. Clinton delivered, stating that “half of Trump’s supporters belong in a infamous “basket of deplorables”–to raucous applause from her fundraising crowd. Regardless of which way you paint it, this was perhaps the most ill-advised move that Mrs. Clinton made in the course of her not-soperfect campaign. Indeed, pollsters agree that this was the single greatest break by undecided voters to the Trump camp. The context of the speech may have been different, but

Clinton should know that a campaign for the presidency in the 21st century is one of soundbites. Considering this truth, rural voters repeatedly heard a soundbite that portrayed a presidential candidate willing to insult them to score political points. This is one of the biggest reasons the rural voters flocked to the Trump camp. The second thing that might have killed the Democrats’ chance at the presidency, especially trying to appeal to a majority-white rural population, was their constant obsession with identity politics.

Keen to paint Trump supporters as racists, xenophobes, sexists, and/or white supremacists, the Democratic Party did more to antagonize than to unite.

By the end of the campaign, the average American was likely to have been enveloped in the Democrats’ wrath of identity politics, leaving little reason even for those typically left-leaning voters to hit the polls.

I will not claim to be an expert on perceptions and how demeaning terms like that are received in a person’s mind. One can reasonably assert that they are not received entirely well when going through a person’s mental lexicon. Generalizing an entire group of people–something on which moral warriors of the Left constantly berate the right–is not bound to win you votes or political points, and especially not the votes of rural whites. The astonishing thing is that even left-leaning news outlets such as Slate and Salon, as well as prominent liberals, are decrying identity politics as dragging the “progressive agenda” down. Until the Left acknowledges that their insulting actions disparaged hardworking rural Americans and undoubtedly helped elect President Trump, we can prepare to see a 2020 repeat.

The rural-urban dynamic is undoubtedly changing, but simply forgetting about the flyover states, and even going so far as to flat-out insult a clear majority of possible supporters is a dangerous game. Apparently, it is a game the Left seems content to play. b

WINTER 2017

PHOTO COURTESY OF RICHARDBH

The Forgotten Valley of the Flyover States

COLUMNS

Stolen Valor From Grieving Families to Political Pawns In their shameless efforts to challenge President Trump every step of the way, the Democrats have found a new tactic: using the families of soldiers killed overseas.

O

n October 4, 2017, an ISIS affiliated group ambushed a Nigerien army patrol that was being escorted by U.S. Army Special Forces advisors. Four of the Green Beret advisors were killed. Initially, the Pentagon reported that three had been killed, but two days later the body of the fourth, Sergeant La David Johnson, was recovered. In the wake of the ambush, President Trump called the families of the fallen Green Berets, including the family of Sergeant Johnson.

When Trump called Myeshia Johnson, she was on her way to receive the body of her husband. Also in the car was Congresswoman Frederica Wilson, who quickly went public with her version of the call.

She claimed that Trump was insensitive to Sergeant Johnson’s widow, and that he said that Sergeant Johnson “knew what he signed up for,” as well as that he added “but when it happens, it hurts anyway.” Conveniently, Wilson has not gone into any detail about what else Trump said during the call, specifically between his comments stating that Johnson “knew what he signed up for” and “but when it happens, it hurts anyway.”

If this is the newest approach of the socalled “Resistance,” Democrats ought to be ashamed of themselves for the hypocrisy of saying that they care about veterans and the military, while using their families as political chess pieces (as if continuing to protest the legitimacy of the democratically elected president a year after his election is not shameful enough). Resisting Trump by holding up his nominees and challenging his legislative agenda every step along the way is Christopher Lipscomb is a sophomore studying international affairs.

He is a regular contributor to The Arch Conservative.

WINTER 2017

one thing, but to attempt to resist Trump by bringing in Gold Star families is an entirely new low, even for the liberal opposition.

In their never-ending war on Trump, the mainstream media has jumped on board with Congresswoman Wilson, pushing her version without giving any consideration to what little detail she provides. Additionally, the liberal media has attempted to portray Wilson as some sort of hero for leveling these scantily-supported accusations against Trump. What they have neglected, however, is not only the full details of the call, but also Congresswoman Wilson’s voting record on veterans’ issues.

Congresswoman Wilson claims that she is “committed to honoring our service members, not only with words, but with deeds.”

However, her voting record indicates that a more accurate reflection of her stance would be “committed to honoring our service members, only with words, and only when it fits my needs.” In the six years that Wilson has been in Congress, she has made a habit of voting against legislation that would help veterans.

In March 2013, Wilson voted against an act aimed at preventing a government shutdown that would also providing funds to the military and the VA. The act passed, with large bipartisan support. When that legislation expired and the government did shut down in October 2013, Wilson voted against legislation that ensured veterans and their families would still receive benefits despite the shutdown. Had that legislation not passed, the families of four soldiers killed in Afghanistan during the shutdown would have received no benefits. Additionally, Congresswoman Wilson has routinely voted against measures that would improve VA services, even though it is no secret that the VA system is broken and failing veterans at an alarming rate. To say that she supports our veterans and criticize the president for the nature of his phone call to Sergeant Johnson’s widow, all while maintaining a voting record such as this, is odious hypocrisy.

Unfortunately, this is not the first time that Democrats have used Gold Star families as political pawns. In a December 2015

campaign speech in Minneapolis, Hillary Clinton spoke about Army Captain Humayun Khan, a Muslim who immigrated to the United States with his Pakistani parents from the United Arab Emirates in 1980 and was killed in Iraq in 2004. At the Democratic National Convention in 2016, Khizr and Ghazala Khan took the stage, where Mr. Khan spoke about their son. Khan’s speech ignited a firestorm between the Khans and then-candidate Trump, whose proposed policies to limit immigration from Muslimmajority countries, specifically those with high rates of terrorism, had been the target of the speech. The Clinton campaign allowed them to become embroiled in this feud with Trump, with little to show for it but some cheap political points.

In their desperation to oppose Trump at every turn, the Democrats have reached what might have found a new low in their emerging tactic of politicizing Gold Star families.

These families have suffered far more loss than nearly any politician could ever possibly begin to imagine, and politicizing them and their suffering not only forces them to continue to relive the loss of their loved ones in combat, but it also clouds the legacy of those fallen soldiers. Men and women have fought and died to keep this country free. Their sacrifices, and those of their families, are why we are able to have the political system that we have, along with all of the other freedoms and privileges we enjoy. Every American should show those families some dignity and respect by not making them and their fallen loved ones political pawns. Perhaps those who continue to politicize the Gold Star families should take a trip to Arlington, or to Walter Reed Hospital, where they can see first-hand the sacrifices that military families make. b

The Arch Conservative / 7

COLUMNS

Curing Healthcare The Free Market Offers the Ideal Health Policy Americans have long been active in the healthcare debate. Why have we not been able to come to a resolution? Perhaps it is because we have not been asking right questions …

W

ho should pay? This has been the central question of the American Healthcare Debate since the Truman Administration flirted with the idea of nationalized healthcare over half a century ago. This line of inquiry paves the way to never-ending debates between the left and the right: Should the government chip in?

If they should, in what way? Should government-funded health insurance be separated from employment?

Among the OECD nations, the United States records the highest healthcare cost per capita by a clear margin. In his exploratory classic, Affordable Excellence: The Singapore Healthcare Story, and follow-up commentaries, William A. Haseltine compares cost and service outcomes across countries where he points out Americans pay far more to achieve inferior health indicators against other developed nations. So, why are the costs so high?

Healthcare providers are supposed to be setting market-clearing prices so that the customers can shop around to decide for themselves where to go for their healthcare needs.

When shopping for almost every good and service we purchase, we consider price as a primary variable. But we are prevented from comparing costs for our specific healthcare needs as the insurance companies weigh in to facilitate the supposed convenience. “We do collective bargaining for you. We can help you lower the prices.” That is their promise.

As Steven Brill pointed out in his 2013 TIME cover-story, however, the collective bargaining by health insurers might not accrue any real benefit to consumers due to Aravinda Karunaratne is a first-year graduate student. He is a regular contributor to The Arch Conservative.

8 / The Arch Conservative

the astronomically high prices indicated in healthcare providers’ chargemasters. There might be obvious reasons for the high prices; for example, the cost of medical education and research and development expenditures.

Still, by independent estimates, those considerations do not account for the inflated prices. Although the insurers may pool the consumers (including lower-risk individuals with higher-risk individuals) and flatten the costs for us, insurers bargain for a tiny portion of an inflated price. Profit-driven insurers, knowing the unassailable fact that healthcare is a necessity, make targeted consumers vulnerable. That is to say, they have no opportunity to question the original price or seek other, sometimes less expensive or broader healthcare options.

The insurance industry faces an upfront issue of information asymmetry. That is to say, an issue where they might not be able to assess the accurate health profile of a potential customer, as is the case with auto insurance. The assurance that there will be a sizeable healthcare market no matter how high the premiums are creates a moral hazard (a perverse incentive), encouraging the insurance professionals to act in their own interest rather than being responsive to a free market of consumers. The notion of risk pooling in insurance creates adverse selection. This prompts users to forget the individual responsibility of remaining healthy since they will be paying the same rate as others despite whether or not they are healthy, although copayments and deductibles are meant to deter this behavior. Haseltine mentions that administrative overhead accounts for over 20 percent of the United States’ healthcare expenditure and the bulk of that goes to administering health insurance, not even the actual coverage of consumer health needs.

All these factors add to the increases in premiums that we see at an alarming rate.

Defensive medicine, which arises from the perception of patients as potential plaintiffs, is another primary phenomena which leads to increases in healthcare costs. As Ohio Governor John Kasich rightly pointed out during his failed presidential bid, one must use common sense to negotiate and solve

these problems rather than relying on lawyers. They are an overproduced and otherwise unemployable lot who do not have our well being in their minds.

Then there are the unavoidable evils that the pursuit for equality create. While we would like to think that all individuals are equal in every way, they are not, and they never will be. While respecting the argument that a gender-specific need is a social need when it comes to healthcare, it is undeniable that women have unique healthcare needs and amass higher costs within their lifetimes compared to men. Certain demographic groups are more prone to unfavorable medical conditions, for example, diabetes. The lack of discussion and consensus on such sensitive topics prevents the United States from adopting a collectively beneficial healthcare policy. Instead, we are stuck with what we have in place at the moment. And what we have in place at the moment is unfavorable to many Americans.

It is unfortunate that a country envied by the world for its entrepreneurial and innovative spirit, one that is equipped with the most sophisticated medical facilities, technology, and manpower, lags behind the rest of the developed world in its healthcare indicators.

The foundation of all perverse aspects of the healthcare industry can be attributed to the lack of genuine competition. Blame it on the excessive regulation, the higher education bubble, the unthinkable cost of attending medical school or persistent lobbying efforts. Competition drives prices down in every other market, even in the uninsured and relatively unregulated segments in the healthcare market such as lasik and cosmetic surgeries. The typical argument that choice does not matter when one needs an ambulance should not prevent or discourage the free market ideology. Considering that most healthcare shopping need not be done on the way to emergency care, there is room to allow our good old friend, capitalism, to work his invisible hand to help the masses. b

WINTER 2017

COLUMNS

Congress’s Drug Problem Our Elected Officials, Opioids, and Pharmaceuticals When political lobbying and pro-business policies come back to bite.

N

PHOTO COURTESY OF THE JAVORAC

o event in the last half-century has caused more devestation than opioid epidemic. According to the CDC, more than 183,000 died from 1999 to 2015 from opioid overdoses in the U.S. What’s more, those deaths have quadrupled per year since 1999.

Opioids affect the brain in the same way as heroin and morphine. It creates a temporary feeling of euphoria to which the body quickly develops an addiction coupled with a high tolerance to lower doses. Users increase the number of pills consumed to continue their “high,” often leading to overdose. Opioid addiction is like a whirlpool: once you get sucked in, it is incredibly difficult to get out. With the number of people getting “sucked in” skyrocketing, there is growing concern that this epidemic has no end in sight.

To add to the ever-present danger of opiate addictiveness to patients in need, it is now more difficult to stop pharmaceutical companies from selling to doctors and pharmacists who flood the black market with these prescription drugs. This is because, in April of 2016, Congress passed a law to reduce restrictions against pharmaceutical companies that has essentially made the Drug Enforcement Agency useless against the illegal trade of prescription drugs. Twenty-three lawmakers sponsored or co-sponsored the bill, including President Trump’s nominee to lead the Office of National Drug Control Policy, Tom Marino. However, he has since withdrawn his sponsorship, following an Carson Brown is a freshman studying history. He is a regular contributor to The Arch Conservative.

WINTER 2017

investigation by The Washington Post and “60 Minutes” that uncovered how Marino helped reduce restrictions against the pharmaceutical industry. According to the investigation, political action committees contributed over $1.5 million to those 23 co-sponsors of the bill. While significant, however, the number pales in comparison to the $102 million the drug industry spent lobbying in Congress between 2014 and 2016.

This law effectively cuts off any power the DEA has to control and restrict the sale of prescription drugs, allowing doctors and

salespeople to deliver the drugs through black markets with hardly any interference.

This is a shady and corrupt attempt by the drug industry to increase their profits at the expense of people who have become addicted to prescription drugs. Moreover, it is prototypical politics: A company offers you a hefty sum of money for your reelection campaign in exchange for loosening restrictions against them. Marino, for example, received $100,000 from lobbyists, and Senator Orrin Hatch received $170,000. And those, mind you, are only the ones made public in this investigation. It is shameful that politicians, businessmen, and lobbyists are willing to overlook the threat that the epidemic poses to thousands of Americans in lieu of the funds to run a few more reelection ads. If ever there were an example of the negative impact of money in politics, this would be it. This nefariousness is the exact reason that

lobbyists are perceived so negatively in our political scene.

This interference by the drug industry is also the reason that marijuana has been so difficult to legalize at the federal level.

Regardless of whether or not you think it should be legalized, it does not currently have a legitimate opportunity to be taken for a vote, partially because of the incredible meddling by pharmaceutical companies in our political system. The strong rhetoric and action in the 1980s during the war on drugs was acceptable then because it didn’t affect the profits of Johnson & Johnson, Pfizer, or Merck and Co. profits, but now action is less strong, presumably because it would affect pharmaceutical business.

In order to have a healthy political system, something must be done to stop the impact of big-business lobbying. The aforementioned investigation

by The Washington Post and “60 Minutes” has helped shed light on the evil of the current system, and it will help begin the path to a better way of passing legislation. Americans must take a stand against evil, both foreign and domestic, to help protect the Union and our fellow Americans. As a party that stands for principles of limited government and a free market, the GOP should leave this governmental collusion to the Democrats. We should be working to better our system by promoting fair treatment of customers and not this crony form of a monopoly. Companies dictating how markets and laws are shaped is not the way capitalism is meant to work.

That power belongs to the people. It is now time for us to respond by bringing attention to the thousands of people affected by these addictive, legal drugs and the companies that are trying to bully their way into power at the expense of American citizens. b

The Arch Conservative / 9

COLUMNS

Crowder vs. the Culture What’s better than a principled conservative, you ask? How about a principled conservative who can make you laugh?

H

elp! I’ve wandered too far into the dark corners of the internet, and I’ve stumbled upon–oh no, I can’t even say it, it’s too horrible–Steven Crowder.

I was a freshman in college and still a selfprofessed feminist when I came across one of his videos. “I’m just a Bill, but I’d like to be Jill, and I’m sitting here on Capitol Hill,” Crowder sang to the tune of the once-innocent Schoolhouse Rock! anthem. Slowly but surely, I started watching his weekly show but avoided at all costs the episodes that dared criticize feminism in their titles (How dare he call Lena Dunham fat!). The more I watched, the more I lightened up. Watching a Louder with Crowder episode is like taking a large dose of vitamin C, but instead of building up your immunity to the sniffles, it builds up your immunity to being offended by everything.

According to Crowder, women aren’t funny, Amy Schumer is fat (and also proof of the whole women-notbeing-funny thing), Cenk Uygur likes to consume bacon grease, Bills are Bills (not Jills), and to top it all off, none of that is hate speech because hate speech is just a figment of your imagination. At one of the national Women’s March protests in January, he went undercover as a transgender woman.

His producer, Jared Monroe, is known to fans as “Not Gay Jared.” Crowder regularly wears a T-shirt on his show that features a picture of Che Guevara and says, “Socialism is for f*gs.” Oh, and for his criticism of the Prophet Muhammad, he has a fatwa on his head.

He’s horribly offensive, but that’s what Reed Ferguson is a junior studying economics. She is a regular contributor to The Arch Conservative.

10 / The Arch Conservative

makes his show so brilliant. He’s not afraid of a challenge, and he’s not afraid to challenge. A serious debate never scares Steven Crowder. In fact, anyone he challenges on Twitter is invited to debate him on the show.

In October, he debated Naomi Wolf, a feminist darling of the moderate left. Of recent, he has released several “Change My Mind” videos. He wears a sign in public that says, for example, “I’m pro-gun. Change my mind,” and lets the film roll while strangers come up

to challenge him. Rather than changing his mind, they often end up finding their own worldviews challenged instead.

I used to squirm when I saw anything on Facebook or YouTube that remotely opposed my ideology. Eventually, I started clicking on all of Crowder’s videos, even the ones with titles that offended me. Criticism of thirdwave feminism no longer struck me at my core. I got over myself. I was freed, finally, from my ideological mantras. I learned to listen, to hear lively debate, and to take a joke without feeling like a sharp knife had poked an irreparable hole in my pride. Now, two years later, I enjoy more productive debates on Louder with Crowder in one hour than I would see in an entire 24 hours of CNN. The show is both political and comedic.

Crowder is not a late-night host who built his career on appealing unbiasedly to all of

America; he’s a political commentator who built his career on a blend of conservative politics and humor. He knows the limits of his own knowledge, too. He doesn’t profess to be a policy expert or a constitutional lawyer (although, he does know his fair share). He’s a culture warrior, almost shaped in the image of his friend and mentor, Andrew Breitbart, who espoused the belief that politics was downstream from culture. In other words, if you can influence the culture, you can influence politics. If you can make conservatism cool again, you can make conservatism relevant again.

Through making me laugh, he slowly convinced me he was right.

Through his satire, I learned what conservatism was. Crowder likes his jokes, but he sticks to his values.

Sure, it’s fun to trigger leftists on college campuses and make fun of social justice warriors every once in a while. But, as Crowder said in an episode in March, “You have to remember that people are watching you and that you are planting seeds.” He continued: “If there’s no principle, if there are no values to instill in someone else, you cannot plant seeds.” He’s a principled conservative, a believer in the Constitution, free markets, social conservatism, the intrinsic value of human life, and most of all, the free exchange of ideas. But of course, I understand even those concepts carry an innate triggering ability nowadays.

So, swallow your daily dose of vitamin C, get over your pride, and expect to be offended. Click on a Louder with Crowder episode, witness, with your own two eyes, Not Gay Jared dressed up as a woman, and hear the “(You’re a) Strange Animal” theme song ring in your ears for the first time while someone dances around in a gorilla costume for reasons you’ll never know. Screw political correctness. Take a load off, and have a laugh with Steven Crowder. b

WINTER 2017

PHOTO COURTESY OF GAGE SKIDMORE

A Blend of Comedy and Conservatism Defines Steven Crowder

COLUMNS

Q&A: Bob Inglis & Climate Change Former Congressman Talks Conservative Action on Climate Change Bob Inglis is a former Congressman from the state of South Carolina. He is also the founder of RepublicEn, a conservative organization dedicated to promoting conservative solutions for climate change. Below is an interview with Inglis regarding conservative action on climate change.

How did we get this point where climate change is a left versus right issue?

Well, I think it comes down to the fact that the environmental left has done a very good job of developing a business model that raises money from lots of progressive mamas and papas, and so they sort of stuck with that model. So what they do is tell their people on their mailing lists that these awful conservatives are trying to destroy the Earth, and so it works. They raise money off of it, but now they’re sort of stuck in that model.

It’s also true on the right too, to tell you the truth. You know, it’s also true of Heritage Action, for example. There are a lot of people who would say Heritage was a better thinktank before they started Heritage Action, and that when they started Heritage Action they started writing these screaming letters that Barack Obama was a secret Muslim and American Socialist. And once you write that first letter, you’ve got to write another one that’s a little bit more extreme and then another one and another one, and now you’re leaving solution-ville and getting over here in wacko world, you know? And so, it happened to them, it happens on the right, and it surely is happening on the environmental left. They called my friend Rob Portman, for example, the League of Conservation Voters did, one of the “Dirty Dozen,” and Rob is one of the most thoughtful, capable members of the U.S. Senate, but that’s their business model.

Sydney North is a senior studying journalism and political science. She is Assistant Editor of The Arch Conservative.

WINTER 2017

Do you believe that the heavy regulatory measures that have been proposed and implemented by the environmental left have actually hindered progress towards fixing climate change, and, if so, how?

Ethanol, I think, is a good example of how a well intentioned mandate results in environmental harm and budgetary harm. It also shows a political challenge because there’s a constituency developed around ethanol now, it’s corn growers. That’s what we’re trying to avoid is that kind of government picking a winner, saying “this is the technology we like.” We’d rather just say “No, the government doesn’t have a position on that.” The government should be saying “We’re the honest cop on the beat; all costs in and all subsidies out.” Let technology compete on an even level, and we think that it’s going to happen, and that we’ll see clean energy do quite well in that competition.

Is it more important for us to be convincing conservatives on climate change, or to convince the left to adopt more rational environmental policies than they have in the past?

Without a doubt, conservatives in America, because nothing is going to happen without conservatives in America entering the competition of ideas.

You’ve been working with climate change initiatives for a while, and with RepublicEn specifically since around 2011. Since that time, have you seen any changes in attitude from people on the right regarding climate action?

I think we’re seeing an increase in interest, and oddly, I think it has something to do with President Trump. His withdrawal from the Paris Climate Accord made it so that people realized that, “You mean we’re gonna do nothing about climate change? Nothing at all?” It’s a very naked feeling, you know.

George Bush told us after 9/11 to go shop,

which wasn’t bad advice, when you think about it, because he’s saying basically “Don’t give into the terrorists. Go out there and live your life. Don’t give in.” The reason we were able to go shop is because we knew there were really wonderful people in the government that were focused 24/7, who were focused on securing our safety. They were really focused.

So now what we’re hearing is that nobody’s working on climate change, and that’s actually driving people our way because they’re thinking “I want somebody thinking about climate change. Somebody really needs to be working on this.” So, in a strange sort of way, he may have helped us.

Are there any government officials at the federal level who are on the right and who support some sort of reform for climate action?

Rex Tillerson is probably the most highprofile. In fact, as CEO of ExxonMobil, he advocated for exactly what we were for at RepublicEn, as recently as his speech in October of 2016 as CEO. And what’s interesting is Darren Woods, his successor as CEO at ExxonMobil, in his very first blog post, reiterated the company’s support. To be real blunt, the reason is that if you put a price on carbon dioxide, natural gas becomes even more attractive, and it currently is compared to coal.

Fracking has made it so that the prices of natural gas have been brought down and, for example, in my state of South Carolina, we have six coal-fire plants that converted, or are in the process of converting, to natural gas. That’s the result of fracking. It proves the point that we’re making about a price signal. So Rex Tillerson is for a price on carbon dioxide, or was at ExxonMobil, and I hope he’s saying the same things in cabinet meetings. b The remainder of the interview with Mr. Inglis can be found at our website under the same title.

The Arch Conservative / 11

FEATURES

Humans of the Future

Genetic Engineering and Maintaining Moral Order

Imminent advancements in genetic engineering will require moral and political decisions affecting generations to come.

I

n an essay penned earlier this year, “The Old Western Man: C.S. Lewis on Politics and Modernity,” authors Justin Dyer and Micah Watson revisit Lewis’ Present Concerns, a collection of journalistic essays from a literary great renowned for his Narnia chronicles, but whose insights on politics and society are oft-overlooked. Dyer and Watson recount Lewis’ observations on the contemporary mind: “Modern men and women are influenced by their experience with ever-improving machines and an evolutionary account of ever-increasing human intelligence and accomplishment …[yet] people act surprised that this or that terrible thing is ‘still with us’ in 2017, as if chronological moral progress is a given.”

Though the passage of time does not assure “moral progress,” the same cannot be said of technological progress. Ingenuity has always been a staple of humanity, and the subsequent change to society has been constant throughout history. What’s more, this constant change has been, and continues to be, exponential–we progress faster in 2017 than in 1917, and we will progress faster still in 2117.

Perhaps the most obvious representation of this phenomenon in our lifetimes has been advancements in computing. It Will Brown is a regular contributor to The Arch Conservative.

12 / The Arch Conservative

was only twenty years ago that we were using clunky monitors and “dial-up” to access the beginnings of the Internet. Compare that technological landscape of the distant past to the present–the sheer power of computing we affordably possess in the palm of our hands, the vast virtual networks of media with which we maintain our social lives–and it becomes evident that twenty years from now will likely look very different from today.

Less familiar to many of us, though, are the profound developments that have taken place in the realm of medicine. Through modern medicine, life expectancy worldwide has more than doubled over the last century. Technological innovations have allowed those with certain handicaps to overcome their afflictions; for example, bionic prosthetics that allow those with missing limbs to “feel” physical sensations again. What were once the vivid imaginations of science-fiction writers have since become a reality.

Indeed, we are witnessing firsthand the evolution of evolution itself. We are no longer products of natural selection, but products of our own innovation. The power to command our own evolutionary trajectory, though, lies not only in the ever-changing relationship of man and machine; there now exists the potential to systematically redesign human biology for generations to come. Cue the next frontier: gene editing.

Over the last year, a breakthrough process in biomedical engineering known as CRISPR (Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats) has reignited the ethical debate of manipulating the human genome.

Certain practices in genetic engineering have

become points of contention in the past– most notably, pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD), a form of embryo screening used primarily for profiling genetic diseases that also requires in vitro fertilization (IVP).

PGD has raised ethical concerns over the possibility of parents selecting desirable traits for their offspring in what has become colloquially known as “designer babies.” Due to lacking scientific advancements underlying PGD, however, concerns have remained hypothetical; and while the Catholic Church has maintained a decisively anti-IVP stance, conservative ideology has yet to establish a similar consensus.

What sets CRISPR apart from current practices, however, are the far-reaching ramifications that stem from its potential implementation. Instead of simply screening and determining the traits of a single embryo, CRISPR allows those desired traits to be passed on to all future generations. Pair this technology with an exponentially increased insight into the human genome, and a future in which Homo sapiens designs their successor seems feasible at the very least.

Proponents of CRISPR argue that the technique, if and when safely developed, has the potential to permanently modify mutated genes, eventually eliminating genetic disorders and improving the lives of millions worldwide. They claim that “justice delayed is justice denied,” and that scientists have an obligation to advance the technology as quickly as possible lest millions continue to suffer.

More radical supporters suggest that CRISPR may one day be used as a tool to

WINTER 2017

PHOTOS COURTESY OF NATIONAL HUMAN GENOME RESEARCH INSTITUTE (NHGRI)

By Will Brown

FEATURES

progress the human race much faster than natural selection ever could. They insist that the fate of our species rests on our intellectual capacity–that with greater collective intelligence comes greater chance of survival.

These notions of human progress are enticing. After all, who wouldn’t want to live in a world rid of genetic diseases? Who doesn’t want to maximize humankind’s chance of survival?

Compelling as these ideas are, it’s prudent to first analyze the moral foundation of the issue, starting with the rather selfish premise of entrusting would-be parents with the power of genetic determinism. The motive underpinning such an ability challenges the very basis of the family unit: unconditional love. Every one of us is guilty of imperfection, yet we care for our family members in spite of that fact. In customizing the qualities of a child, the predominant attitude of unconditional love and care that has promoted security and happiness among families throughout history becomes secondary to the vain aspiration of an elite lineage, casting a dark shadow over the future of the family.

Of course, using CRISPR to potentially eradicate genetic disorders is a much more noble and altruistic pursuit. What this belief misses, however, is that such an action will

WINTER 2017

engender ambiguity in policy and open the floodgates to exactly which genetic setbacks are acceptable to alter. Proven in countless studies is the fact that attractive people are higher-paid in their careers than less attractive people. Why should those with unattractive genetic features be deprived the opportunities of their counterparts? Inevitably, these types of solicitations would be left to the judgement of the presiding ethos, the result of which would leave behind a multigenerational legacy.

And then there’s the ambitious goal of deliberately breeding a “better” human race.

In other words, eugenics. The United Nations International Bioethics Committee asserts modern eugenics via CRISPR is different than the eugenics movement of the 20th century, made infamous by the Nazi party.

While the means to establish a superior race between the two may be dramatically different, both involve fundamental decisions of which traits belong in future generations and which must be left behind. To make choices, without consent, on behalf of the generations those choices most directly affect should be the authority of no individual nor any governmental body.

Despite ongoing preliminary research into the CRISPR technique, the medical community is in agreement that further clinical research involving human patients will not be

initiated until widespread public consensus regarding safety and ethical considerations is ascertained. Such an agreement must be international and closely monitored as well.

The thought of certain governments testing CRISPR clandestinely is a scary one indeed.

Echoing the wisdom of C.S. Lewis, our lives have been and will continue to be replete with ever-improving machines and everincreasing human intelligence. The degree to which human ingenuity has been achieved in recent centuries has bestowed abundance upon our society and has improved quality of life for all. For the opportunity to live during such a time, we owe our gratitude.

But the simple fact that our lives have been characterized by the ever-changing technological landscape should not influence in equal measure an embracement of all progress without question. Understanding that life is inherently valuable guides our discernment, not of progressive from retrogressive, but of right from wrong. In adhering to an enduring set of moral principles, we can confidently proceed through a life of constant change, maintaining that mindful balance of wisdom in tradition and betterment through progress. b

The Arch Conservative / 13

COLUMNS

Red & Black Rebuttal Emotions vs. facts and the gun control debate.

I

n an opinion piece titled, “Recognize the Need for Gun Reform,” Red & Black Managing Editor, (on behalf of the Editorial Board) Nicole Schlabach, laments that not enough Americans recognize the supposed need for gun-law reform. I feel that this assertion is unfounded. Any sensible American recognizes the problem of gun violence in this country: it is an ugly stain that seeps into the fabric of our nation, and admittedly something to which “we’ve become acclimated,” as the author correctly states. I agree with her in that we need to ban the controversial “bump stock”, as well as other items that make a semi-automatic rifle an effectively fully automatic one. Moreover, in the wake of the horrific Las Vegas tragedy, I wholeheartedly agree with the author on the issue of banning rather suspect gun modifications.

But I have a serious issue with the way the article is presented, as it is an overt emotional appeal to gun reform, with some statistical assertions that are not linked or backed up in the article in any way, shape, or form.

My big issue with this article is its rehashing of an extremely popular argument used by the Left, the example of Australian gun reform after a 1996 tragedy.

Well, it wasn’t so much gun reform as it was a mandatory gun confiscation program, a facet of the policy conveniently left out in this article. Essentially, the Aussie government “bought back” (read: confiscated) between 650,000 to one million firearms by using funds garnered from a special tax. And the folks who want us to implement even stricter gun laws always point us to articles Boris A. Abreu is a junior studying international affairs and political science. He is Publishing Editor of The Arch Conservative.

14 / The Arch Conservative

written by proud Australians who beseech America to follow their country’s lead and implement radically restrictive gun control, as if their opinions or policy prescriptions are automatically a reasonable benchmark for the United States because a certain policy of theirs matches the talking points of the Left.

Essentially, by citing the Australian argument, the article brings up the idea of gun confiscation in America as a solution to the mass shootings that have occurred in the past. Not only is that completely unconstitutional, it is also completely impractical.

There are more guns in the United States than there are people, according to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives data. In 2015, there were 357 million legal firearms in the United States, and that doesn’t even consider all the illegal firearms in the country. To round up all the (legal) guns in the U.S. would cost an exorbitant sum of money, require vast federal resources, and be a wholly impractical undertaking. Because, as some people conveniently forget, the Second Amendment is there to protect citizens from the tyranny of the government from trying to seize too much power. We quite literally fought an entire war to stop the Brits from doing that.

My other issue with the article is the fact that it doesn’t attempt to bring up any policy solutions, instead using examples of what

the author believes to be successes and failures with legislation regarding gun policy. I would have no issue if the author brought up her ideas and thoughts on implementing gun control policy. There is nothing about implementing, for example, universal background checks, limiting ammunition purchases, magazines above a certain capacity, cracking down on illegal gun ownership, or any other proposed gun control measures.

However, the author fails to provide her personal views, something I feel is rather necessary for an opinion piece. Only then, I could get off my soapbox and write a more factually argumentative piece.

However, she admits that she is “not a lawmaker and cannot determine exactly which changes are needed, but taking no action does no good.”

Might I ask, then: What is the point of writing such a piece if you are going to provide emotional appeal and “facts,” only then to seemingly excuse yourself of all blame at the end because you aren’t a lawmaker?

The article ends with the “you should care more” argument and shaming phrase thrown at anyone who doesn’t spend each waking hour of their day worried about your (perceived) morally superior causes. I recognize and admit that I’ve been a little more emotional–yes, it is extremely ironic and I am opening myself to being called a massive hypocrite. This piece is more angry than my pieces usually are, and it is rather out of character for me to write an attack piece. While I applaud the author for writing an excellent opinion piece, I feel that it could have been written in a more factual and logical manner, instead of just repeating the typical gun control arguments like so many of the great moral preachers of the Left. b

WINTER 2017

PHOTO COURTESY OF ELVERT BARNES

Gun Reform

COLUMNS

Danger on the Left: Sanctimony Ralph Nader and “Consumer Advocacy” Ralph Nader is back and wrong as ever.

R

alph Nader recently announced his recrudescence through an op-ed in The New York Times. The octogenarian’s purpose for, as they say, “coming out of the woodwork”? Well, judging by his piece, it is to get back to work on the meliorative mission to which he has devoted his life– “consumer advocacy.”

“If I were asked, What has been his specialty,” William F. Buckley Jr. once said of the socialist, Norman Thomas, “I guess I would say, being wrong.” I think this description equally apt for Ralph Nader.

At 83, Nader is an old hand of the “New Left.” He arrived at fame–or, if you like, infamy–with the publication of his book, Unsafe at Any Speed, an animadversion against American automobile manufacturers, specifically Chevrolet and its Corvair.

Despite much of the book being disproven, Nader nevertheless persisted in following his manifestly unsound judgment as regards “consumer protection.”

Like Norman Thomas, Nader also sought the Oval Office six times; and–to again borrow from the same Buckley introduction of Thomas–“…[T]he American people in their infinite wisdom…declined to elect him.” But his zeal has not been squelched by his defeats.

President Trump has “declared war on regulatory programs,” Nader writes in his opening paragraph; and he has done this “in disregard of evidence that such protections help the economy and financial well-being of the working-class…”

Unsure exactly where President Trump had “declared war” on regulatory programs, I eagerly clicked on the provided hyperlink. The destination was a Washington Post article entitled, “How Trump is rolling back Obama’s legacy.” The Post’s idea of Ross Dubberly is a senior studying economics. He is Book Editor of The Arch Conservative.

WINTER 2017

extirpating “Obama’s legacy”–as evidenced by their meticulous list–apparently includes, for instance, enforcing the Constitution (“President Trump announced…that his administration would end an Obama-era program that allowed undocumented immigrants to live in the country without fear of deportation…”) and reversing egregiously Marxist-like interferences into the economy (“The Labor Department announced plans to reverse an Obama-era rule that prohibited restaurateurs from sharing some of the tips that servers earning the full minimum wage received with other employees…”).

As to the “evidence” that regulations benefit the economy: It is unexaminable because Nader doesn’t provide it.

But, in my characteristic generosity, I am willing to give Nader the benefit of the doubt-perhaps he read about the “evidence” he had in mind in one of his own books and simply forgot to note it.

He goes on: “This assault began with Mr. Trump choosing agency chiefs who are tested corporate loyalists driven to undermine the lifesaving, income-protecting institutions whose laws they have sworn to uphold.”

He specifically names FDA Commissioner Dr. Scott Gottlieb (“[A] former pharmaceutical industry consultant, who supports weakening drug and medical device safety standards…”), Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos (“[A] billionaire investor in for-profit colleges [who] has weakened enforcement policy on that predatory industry…”) and EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt (“Mr. Pruitt, as the attorney general of Oklahoma, filed suits against the E.P.A. He has hired former lobbyists for the fossil fuel and chemical industries.”).

In the first place, that an agency is of the federal government does not eo ipso make that agency good, laudatory, or “lifesaving.”

For instance, while many of us know about how the FDA saved the day in the case of thalidomide, where the agency refused to approve the sedative that caused birth defects, do we ever hear about the FDA’s failure to admit certain drugs onto the market that would have saved lives? That is to say, does it really stand to reason that the FDA,

with nearly 15,000 employees and a 111-year history, has never made a mistake, i.e., has never prevented a drug from entering onto the market that would have actually saved lives or increased human comfort?

In the second place, I find Mr. Nader’s impugning of people’s motives morally disgusting. Scott Gottlieb was a staff writer for the British Medical Journal, a Senior Editor of a section of the Journal of the American Medical Association, and a Resident Fellow at the highly sophisticated and scholarly American Enterprise Institute.

Betsy DeVos has been a lifelong advocate for the improvement of education for all children, serving on the board of the Foundation for Excellence in Education, serving as the chairman of the American Federation for Children (AFC), a leading school-choice advocacy group, and even mentored children through Kids Hope USA, an organization that connects young kids with mentors in local churches.

And Scott Pruitt is a decent family man and a self-made entrepreneur; his success in the private sector and his suing the EPA, it seems to me, shouldn’t necessarily disqualify him from serving as that agency's head.

Mr. Nader also writes of “[d]raconian budget cuts,” and how they will “hurt all Americans…” This simply isn’t true. Budget cuts, I grant, will hurt the government’s ability to spend, and they will hurt bureaucrats; but should that be of any concern to us? The American worker–in whatever field–doesn’t exist merely to subsidize unelected bureaucrats who, in turn, tell the worker how he should run his life.

We should have a great distrust for bureaucracy–which, naturally, “consumer advocates” like Ralph Nader cheer–because it is impossible, simply contra naturum, for anyone to look after the affairs of others as meticulously as he looks after his own. Thus, we should trust consumers to make the right choices for themselves, not self-appointed “consumer advocates” like Ralph Nader. b Danger on the Left is a weekly column from Book Editor Ross Dubberly.

The Arch Conservative / 15

COLUMNS

The Alt-Right’s Inevitable Failure And Why Principled Conservatism Will Take its Place The “Alt-Right” is a petulant and perverted ideology that incorporates its own despicable brand of identity politics. For that reason, it will fail, and true conservatism will flourish in its place.

O

ne of things conservatives criticize most about the Left is its infatuation with race and identity. Through the rhetorical promulgation of ideas such as white male privilege, cultural appropriation, and the patriarchy, the Left has created the ugly beast known as identity politics. The identity-politics-laden Left determines the value of one’s opinion based on his or her immutable characteristics; and any challenge to that opinion is not merely a challenge but an act of aggression against that person’s actual identity. Identity politics is the blight of the Left that the Right prides itself on lacking.

The fringe brand of conservatism known as the alt-right, however, exhibits a similar preoccupation with race and identity, specifically the white European identity.

The essential dogma of the alt-right dictates that, because the United States was founded by white Europeans alone, it therefore serves as the their legacy. These individuals fear that the rapidly changing demographics of the country indicate a fast-approaching future where white people are no longer the majority, and thus, lack a legacy. Alt-right figureheads such as Richard Spencer have proposed extreme measures to combat this so-called “browning of America,” including a 50-year immigration moratorium. Spencer specifically idealizes the formation of a white ethno-state on the North American continent in order to preserve the white European identity. Another prominent name on the alt-right is Jared Taylor. Taylor is the editor of American Renaissance, a magazine entrenched in the Connor Foarde is a junior studying journalism. He is Campus News Editor of The Arch Conservative.

16 / The Arch Conservative

optics of race and chock-full of pieces outlining supposed biological differences between races as well as with the threats to the white population from minorities. These overtly white ethnocentric tenets paint a picture of an America plagued by an ongoing, systematic “white genocide” perpetrated by Jews, minorities, and immigrants.

Despite receiving an inordinate amount of media attention during the 2016 election cycle and after the violence that erupted in Charlottesville in August, the alt-right is not in any way large or strong. This is largely because, instead of being a concretely defined and registrable political affiliation, “alt-right” is a label that followers of the movement often ascribe to themselves. This is also why there are no official alt-right membership numbers. Political activism is rare if not non-existent in the alt-right because their ideas don’t have any traction with the public.

What is an apparent priority for the alt-right, however, is the creation and distribution of internet memes aimed at “trolling” their opponents. If the members of the alt-right had any actual ideas of merit, they would be better off trying to promote them through campaigning. Yet, the alt-right’s reliance on infantile internet memes to spread their message demonstrates both a profound lack of pride and confidence in their abhorrent ideals and in turn a glaring debility in their overall movement.

Based on the precepts of the movement’s leaders and the immaturity and cowardice of its followers, the alt-right can best be described as a botched attempt at identity politics by young, rightward-leaning individuals who solely reject the Left’s mantra of political correctness. In fact, some argue that a focus on preserving the “white European identity” by the alt-right is an inevitable consequence of the Left’s fascination with intersectionality, a cooperative ideology of identity politics that dictates the value of one’s opinion based on his or her level of perceived discrimination. While being critical of the political correctness and identity politics is the only area of common ground that they find with the alt-right, conservatives would be wise not to mimic the Left’s tactics.

Despite the name, the alt-right could not be ideologically further from the traditional Right. The alt-right is a fierce rejection of mainstream conservatism. Indeed, Richard Spencer has advocated for big-government ideals such as nationalized health care, and even praised socialism as an effective system if “done correctly.” Moreover, the alt-right abandons the notion that American citizens of all backgrounds can live and work together, basking in the privileges of freedom and individualism. Instead, they pursue a twisted, unoriginal campaign of self-victimization, which is absolutely antithetical to conservatism.

The continual promotion of an agenda driven by racial identity will be the downfall of the alt-right. The movement has no real support from the general public, nor politicians, and lacks the unity required to thrive.

The reality that the alt-right refuses to accept is that the generation after millennials will be the last generation comprised of a white majority; but that is not something any true American need worry about, because the privileges of being a United States citizen are not confined to any race. That being said, young conservatives on college campuses must actively condemn the alt-right and continue to promote the ideals of freedom and individualism. In doing so, they will set an example for others who have yet to solidify their own values–because the dictates of conservatism, not the alt-right, are worth heeding. b

WINTER 2017

COLUMNS

An Antidote for Anxiety Watch Football Today’s politics can be exhausting for even the most dedicated political junkie. Here’s a reprieve.

F

PHOTO COURTESY OF THOMSON20192

ootball and politics are two of the most encouraged, popular, and accessible pastimes at the University of Georgia. Outside of a premier education, UGA offers to its students a world class game day experience, as well as several groups and activities that encourage and facilitate (usually) thoughtful political discourse. Aside from sharing a level of passion and intensity, these things would otherwise seem to be ultimately dissimilar and unrelated.

However, football and the pageantry surrounding it offer an effective antidote to an increasingly toxic feature of politics: tribalism.

Modern politics often breed the sacrifice of principles in favor of votes and political support.

Discourse frequently suffers when supporters place their candidates and narratives above criticism and ignore their shortcomings in the spirit of loyalty and victory at all costs. This type of tribalism is simply an inherent ailment of the human condition, and it has the unfortunate tendency to blind us from right and wrong, or even from our own best interests when it comes to politics and voting. Voting research often times goes no deeper than the distinction between an “R” or a “D” and some public figures find themselves beyond criticism from their base, lest the other side gain any upper hand.

This phenomenon is obviously an illness to politics, but it also victimizes truth. If citizens are unable to maintain their principles J. Thomas Perdue is Associate Editor of and Sarah Montgomery is Manager of The Arch Conservative.

WINTER 2017

and values for fear of criticizing someone in their tribe, they corrupt their own character.

Abstaining from criticism when it is due is no better than lying, especially when it is in the name of mindless factional defense.

This results in both the compromising of the original principles around which the tribe was formed and a redoubtable perversion of good intentions.

Since humans are inherently tribal, it

might be worthwhile to just shut it all down and revert to dwelling in caves, right?

A less radical and perhaps more practical (definitely more enjoyable) option is this: get into football, especially SEC football, and, even more specifically, Georgia football. In this way, we can channel our tribal tendencies toward something that millions of Americans enjoy, and that doesn’t do as much damage as, oh I don’t know, electing a candidate with shaky principles or a history of corruption just to get one over on the opposing side.

There are few other theatres of human endeavor which encourage such blind and rabid

loyalty as SEC football fandom. It strengthens the brand as well as the community. While political tribalism corrupts our nation and its values, unwavering support for the Georgia Bulldogs has helped to make Athens a much more solid community. Athenians are surely a diverse bunch, and football has proven for well over a century that it is the great mediator; that people (outside of our beloved contingent of contrarian hipsters) can put aside their differences to support the Bulldogs and to share in disdain for other schools, who will always be reviled. The same can be said for Oxford, Knoxville, Gainesville and the like with their respective schools.

Even if they dispense with the tribalist psychology behind this case, political junkies and advocates should turn themselves on to football, at the very least because it could help them chill out for a bit. It can be an exhausting, seemingly Sisyphean struggle to constantly have to hold powerhungry politicians accountable in a dishonest time. But when that inevitably begins to wear on our patience, it can be refreshing to stage a sort of tactical retreat to a world where the truth is where you align yourself. For instance, we here at The Arch Conservative know for a fact that no matter what some committee says or what happens on some football field, the Georgia Bulldogs are, and always will be, number one; and whichever team we play this week is the absolute scum of the earth, not worth the breath they suck into their greedy lungs. Because we say so. b

The Arch Conservative / 17

HUMOR

Red & Black Rebuttal The War on Candy How on Earth are we going to be able to discuss policy when we cannot agree on the worst thing to receive on Halloween?

W

hile every individual is entitled to their opinions, it is no surprise that we often find ourselves in vehement disagreement with others on various issues. With this in mind, it important to know that, along with varying degrees of disagreement, there are topics of varying importance upon which to disagree.

One such topic, which I think we can all agree is of great importance to the flourishing of society, is addressed by Ellie Cash in her opinion piece for The Red & Black, titled “Trick or treat: Halloween candy ranked from worst to best.”

Everyone, of course, has a favorite candy. It is a topic that typically can cause someone to question how strong the bonds of a friendship, of a romantic relationship, or even of familial love truly are. Such is the nature of discussing such important topics. Unfortunately, though, the worst candy conversation though always comes up around the time of Halloween in addition to the best. We have the perennial fan favorites: Snickers, Reese's Cups, Twix, the list goes on. However, some people are more keen to give out tricks, rather Matt Jordan is a senior studying finance. He is Assitant Editor of The Arch Conservative.

18 / The Arch Conservative

than sweet treats. It is the items that these tricksters dole out on Halloween that leaves kids afraid–and usually disappointed, year in and year out. Ellie Cash would lead you to believe that the worst thing to receive on Halloween is orange taffy. I, however, would like to respectfully disagree. We all have left our house with an empty bag (or pillowcase, if you were ambitious) and come back with

a treasure chest full of delicious sweets. Personally, my friends and I would dump out our goods and begin to take account of everything we received, but then ... it happens.

You see those little red boxes and the face of the Sun Maid icon smiling mischievously at you, likely knowing full well the pain she is inflicting upon each child unfortunate enough to meet her gaze every October 31st.

You do not remember what house it was at or how they made their way into your bag ... but they did: Raisins. I am sure that most of

us have picked up a piece of candy thinking it was a small box of Nerds just to turn it over and have our souls crushed. Who would do this? Who would be so cruel as to try and ruin the spirit of Halloween with Raisins?

The health freaks, that’s who. They do not understand the true purpose of this day, but they will participate in it nonetheless.

You may have heard them say, “a healthy snack on Halloween never hurts!” But it does. Oh, it most certainly does. The true meaning of Halloween is often lost, but the shallow purpose of the day will always remain: dress up and acquire and consume as much candy as you possibly can. How are we supposed to enjoy ourselves while trick or treating with the constant fear that the Tupperware bowl on the front porch contains Raisins? We simply cannot.

For years we have had to live in fear and caution with every house, because you never know who it is going to be this year.

While there are plenty of bad treats to get on Halloween, we must agree that raisins are at the top of the list. While I agree with Ellie when she says that nothing can beat the taste of peanut butter and chocolate, it is impossible to justify that orange taffy is the worst thing you can get. I am not sure where you went trick or treating, Ellie, but I would urge you to be cautious, you never know when a box of Raisins might find its way into your bag. Only then will we agree on the wrongs of Raisins as a Halloween “treat.” b

WINTER 2017

COLUMNS HUMOR

LEAKED: ArchCon Donor List Pipeline from Corporate America to ArchCon Confirmed Budget -------- The Arch Conservative Academic Year - 2017-2018 Section III. -- Donations Security Level ------ Russian Collusion Editor-in-Chief ----- Geeslin, Nicholas Business Manager ---- North, Logan Chief Officers ------- Abreu, Boris A. & Montgomery, Sarah Persons in the Know - Duckett, Michael; Dubberly, Ross; Foarde, Connor; North, Sydney; Perdue, Joseph Thomas; Jordan, Matthew; Traylor, Mallory Donor/Massively Corrupt Corporation Name

Amount

Earmarked for

Covfefe Producers of North America Get Off My Lawn Foundation for Racist Statues,

The Supporters of the Racist Statue on Broad Koch Industries, Inc.

Conservatives for a Warmer Climate

Koch, Charles

Koch, David

Lifted Trucks of GA, United

Deny, Deny, Deny

Coal

muddin'

Manafort, Paul

Yuraverage “Ukrainian” Holdings, Inc.

PHOTO COURTESY OF CHRIS BROWN

National Rifle Association (NRA)

Gun Club of NE GA

Nugent, Theodore (“Ted”)

Rock, Kid

“The Rapture is Near” Armory Services, Co.

Pootin, Brad Amir

Not the Kremlin, LLC Rosneft

Trump, Donald

Trump Entertainment Resources

Trump Organization, The

One reaffirmation of the 2nd Amendment per article

Referenced "tremendous" Trump in only superlatives

This comes to you courtesy of the now-defunct Young Democratic Socialists of UGA.

WINTER 2017

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