Raising the Standard
Pop Politics
The Parallel Regression of Music and Discourse By J. Thomas Perdue
Red & Black Rebuttals By The Editors
The Rise of the Hip Right By Nick Geeslin
Generation Shapiro By Will Brown
FALL 2017
THE EDITORS
COLUMNS
BOOK REVIEW
3 A Force on Campus
9 Trouble at the Taps
15 The Founders We Forgot
By The Editors
By Ian LaCroix
By Ross Dubberly
10 The Rural Education Gap
CAMPUS 4 The Campus Informant By The Editors
By Sydney North
FEATURES 16 Red & Black Rebuttals By The Editors
11 An Address to the World By Michael Duckett
5 SGA Watch
By Ethan Pender
12 Fifteen Years with
the Axis of Evil
COLUMNS
By Christopher Lipscomb
6 StoicPolitik By Nick Geeslin
7 Generation Shapiro By Will Brown
18 Pop Politics
By J. Thomas Perdue
20 What Happened?
By Andrew Logan Lawrence
13 America's Spacing Out By Boris A. Abreu
HUMOR 22 The Rise of the Hip Right By Nick Geeslin
14 A Foreign Relations To-Do List
08 Sandblasting the Past By Reed Ferguson
By Carson Brown
23 The Karaoke Cam Must Die By J. Thomas Perdue
The Arch Conservative Editorial Board and Staff: 2017-2018
2 / The Arch Conservative
FALL 2017
THE EDITORS
A Force On Campus Fearlessly Raising the Standard
COVER PHOTO COURTESY OF ALI SHAKER/VOA, PHOTO COURTESY OF DANIEL VORNDRAN/DXR
W
elcome to the Fall Edition of The Arch Conservative in print, the first edition of the academic year. Last year was a wonderful one for The Arch Conservative, indeed. In fact, if you missed the news over the summer, our beloved publication was worthy of the Collegiate Network’s “Publication of the Year” award. The honor, however, has not relegated us to complacency; on the contrary, it has inspired us to work even harder to bring you the best conservative commentary on campus. And my, oh my, have we been busy here at The Arch Conservative. While our peers enjoyed the daylights out of syllabus week, we at ArchCon were busy brainstorming our most ambitious semester yet. What has since occurred is indicative of the efforts of our impassioned and dedicated staff. Here’s what we’ve been up to and have planned for the future: Junior Connor Foarde has filled the newly established Campus News Editor position. This position's establishment emanated from our desire to invest more time and resources into coverage of local and campus happenings, including news and events pertaining to student government, local legislation, and campus policies. We mustn’t forget that The Arch Conservative was founded “in response to the situation on campus: to the fact, everywhere apparent, that the unexamined consensus is liberalism; to the fact, equally apparent, that conservatives have neglected their own intellectual heritage, intuiting what it is they believe without bothering to find out why they believe it.” And Connor, with his great work thus far, is ensuring that we won't forget this anytime soon. We have bolstered our podcast presence by continuing our Weekly podcast with Editor-in-Chief Nick Geeslin, and creating two more: Deeper Look and The Marketplace. Deeper Look, hosted by Book Editor Ross Dubberly, offers an insightful peek into complex topics. So far, it has covered Religion in Politics, Abortion, and the Left’s misunderstanding and misapplication of tolerance and free speech. The Marketplace, hosted by Associate Editor J. Thomas Perdue, is a stage for respectful discourse between two persons who disagree on a topic, whether it be within the conservative umbrella or outside it. So far, he’s hosted lively debates on the death penalty, how to best combat the Left, and how to understand and combat the alt-right. What’s more, each and every episode of The Arch Conservative’s podcasts may now be found on iTunes and Google Play! Be sure to subscribe!
FALL 2017
Furthermore, Dr. David Gattie, our dedicated faculty advisor and an associate professor in the College of Engineering, will be giving a lecture on “A Conservative Solution to Climate Change.” As our motto explicitly states, The Arch Conservative's ultimate goal is to "raise the standard" of political discourse here on campus. Although faithfully pursuing this goal often involves the disruption of echo chambers and slaughtering of sacred cows, we are happy to do so in order to promote what we believe is right. Our event with Dr. Gattie is an example of such a promotion; for energy policy is not a realm often thought to have conservatives as articulate and knowledgeable as Dr. Gattie. We intend to dispose of that myth on October 25 at the MLC. And finally, Ross Dubberly, our fearless Book Editor, has begun the very first of The Arch Conservative’s “Columns” with his always scathing, ever-entertaining column, “Danger on the Left.” In it, Ross deconstructs the articles, essays, thoughts, philosophy, and psychology of the Left. As regards this fall's edition of the print magazine, herein, you will find a book review, our standard two pages of comic relief (you won't be disappointed), as well as a variety of topics covered at both 'column' and 'feature' length.. What has come in the past has certainly done us well, but, despite our love of tradition, there always exist opportunities to better accomplish our goals; opportunities which we will always attempt to seize. We therefore have added an entirely new section to the magazine: “Red & Black Rebuttals.” Therein we seek to respectfully combat some of the ideas that are posited in pieces by contributors to the Red & Black's opinion pages. Campus News Editor Connor Foarde, Assistant Editor Sydney North, and Book Editor Ross Dubberly tackle the task in this issue. In this endeavor as always, we seek not division but genuine discourse. After all, of what use is expressing disagreement to a like-minded group of friends? Within this, The Arch Conservative’s first print edition in its fourth year at the University of Georgia, you will meet the same effort, thoughtful insight, and unapologetic embrace of our core tenets that have elevated us to a true force on campus. Expect more of it for the next year. We assure you of our dedication. — The Editors
The Arch Conservative / 3
CAMPUS
Bad: Trump and Wal-Mart “Trump and Wal-Mart, Make America Worse”
P
rotests erupted on September 25 over Donald Trump and WalMart. The protesters distributed apparel emblazoned with the phrase, “Trump and Wal-Mart, make America worse,” as The Red & Black reported. “Making Change at Walmart (MCAW),” “Athens for Everyone,” and “Young Democrats of UGA” helped organize the event. MCAW failed to explain, however, what exactly “Wal-Mart’s values” are. “Speakers at the rally … condemned the policies of President Trump which they said are bad for workers.” Examples of how Wal-Mart, whose low prices ensure that even the poorest of Americans can afford basic necessities, is “bad for workers” were absent from the protest. — Ross Dubberly
GOP Moves Forward on Medicinal Marijuana College Republicans Host Rep. Allen Peake for Discussion on Medical Pot
I
n August, the UGA College Republicans invited State Representative Allen Peake (R-Macon) to campus to give a lecture on the status of medical cannabis in the state of Georgia. Rep. Peake is one of the more vocal proponents of the legalization of medical cannabis in the state legislature. The lecture covered the legislative strides that medical cannabis has made recent years in Georgia, most the passage of HB 1 in 2015, which provides prosecutorial immunity to patients using cannabis oil to treat one of eight conditions. Peake noted that he had never advocated for medical cannabis until he saw firsthand the immense benefits that the non-psychoactive cannabis component, CBD, provides to epilepsy patients. Among the UGA CRs in attendance were members of the Athens C.A.R.E Project which is a local organization working to educate the UGA student body on the benefits of marijuana along with the disastrous effects of the drug war, as well as collaborate with Athens legislators to push for cannabis legalization in the city. — Connor Foarde
Upside Down American Flag in Brumby Display in Brumby Hall Urges Students to “Take a Knee”
T
he day after the deadliest mass shooting in American history and at a time when the country is enveloped in racial tension, violence, and discord, an emblem of these troubled times was spotted in Brumby Hall Dormitory on the morning of Monday, October 1st. A poster bearing an upside down American flag with the words, “Take A Knee...With Liberty And Justice For All.” Emblazoned upon it was the main feature of the commonly controversial bulletin board by the main elevators in Brumby. In the past, many liberally-leaning views have been promoted on this bulletin board and the many other bulletin boards throughout Brumby, such as the “What is Privilege?” sign that was posted on a hall last year, but many conservatives and patriotic students have decided that this banner has gone too far. The University Housing twitter account even tweeted out a picture of the board with pages featuring pictures of Colin Kaepernick and other presumably controversial political messages. After receiving multiple student and parent complaints, Brumby Hall quietly took the banner down the following Monday evening. While University Housing made the right decision in the end this time, it is alarming to see that a freshmen dorm would be able to distribute such pointed liberal propaganda without any real consequences. — Bennett Hardee
4 / The Arch Conservative
FALL 2017
CAMPUS
S G A WAT C H
A
s the first semester of the school year unfolds, the Student Government Association has begun constructing their legacy. Led by President Cameron Keen, Vice President Roya Naghepour, and Treasurer Kal Golde, the 30th Administration is finding ways to deliver promises of their campaign platform of safety, affordability, and improved campus life. Hitting the ground running, SGA kicked off this semester by unveiling their updated plan for night time bus transportation. Several new routes are available, replacing Night East West and Night Family Housing with Night Route 1 and adding a night Milledge bus (Night Route 2, Black) that reverses direction at 11 p.m. to become Night Route 2, Red. As a spillover issue of the previous administration, the question over late-night UGA bus transportation and accessibility stirred minor controversy when the UGA Office of Transportation Services revealed their plan for revised routes. These routes omitted areas on Riverbend Road and South Milledge, where students had already signed their leases under the pretense of transportation coverage. However, due to student feedback and concerns, SGA worked with the Transportation Office to revisit this issue, working out a deal to provide a one-year shuttle to the area, thus quelling the crisis. Another issue tackled by this administration was the overhaul of the Collegiate Readership Program. Previously, physical copies of the New York Times and USA Today were provided to students free of charge, but due to the cost burden and a few other factors, SGA intro-
FALL 2017
duced an alternative. Paper copies were nixed in favor of universal online access to the New York Times (USA Today is already free online.) This change to digital access constitutes a 33-percent cost decrease. “We are excited that the cost has decreased, but the main reason for the switch over to digital was accessibility,” said SGA Executive Director of Communications Marli Collier. “Before, with the physical papers, anyone could go and grab one, and we felt that the majority of these people was either faculty or guests to UGA. Because it is student fee money going toward this program, we wanted to make sure that the students are the ones receiving the benefits.” To sign up for this student service, visit www. nytimesaccess.com/uga/ and follow the directions using your UGA student email. The Student Government Association has also been busy clearing yearly procedural hurdles, including the installation of the members of Freshman Programs and the Supreme Court. Members of Freshmen Board and Associate Justices of the Supreme Court were confirmed and sworn into office during Senate on Tuesday, Sept. 26. Members of Freshman Connect and Forum were appointed, as well. “We are very excited about the projects we have in the works right now, and we are proud of what we’ve accomplished thus far,” Collier said. “We encourage more student feedback and input on how we can make this campus even better for students.” The Arch Conservative will remain diligent in its coverage of UGA SGA’s doings. Ethan Pender is the Director of Policy Research for SGA and a regular contributor to The Arch Conservative.
The Arch Conservative / 5
COLUMNS
StoicPolitik Abandon the Search for Meaning in Politics, It Won’t Come In reference to the importance we place on politics, we can learn a great deal from the Stoic’s way of life.
P
ause for a moment and ponder— does the trivial portion of political discourse truly matter in terms of your own happiness in life? Genuine contemplation of this question could benefit everyone from that fearless warrior for truth, Jim Acosta, to a Senator on the floor and to anyone who experiences political stress. Clearly, policy matters. I spend a third of my waking hours running a political publication, I know policy matters. What I speak of is the everyday, never-ending feed of political squabbling. It’s exhausting. You know as much as I. Marcus Aurelius, a philosopher-king if there ever was one, in his guidebook of sorts to the Stoic’s way of living, Meditations, advises to “Keep a list before your mind of those who burned with anger and resentment about something, [...] Then ask yourself how did that work out? Smoke and dust, the stuff of simple myth trying to be Legend ...” This is the Stoic’s view, and we can all benefit from shifting perspective in the way Aurelius might prescribe. Why not, when Donald Trump releases a typically petty and inconsequential tweet, simply laugh about it and consider the adverse effects over-sensitivity and egotism have on his life. After all, how does his scorn for linebackers taking a knee affect your pursuit of happiness? Why not disagree with him politically and also pity him for how enslaved he is to his own ego? Why not, when someone greets your admitting to a conservative bias with contempt, laugh and take the opportunity to clarify your beliefs? If they persist in an illiberal way, persist in a patient way. Continued frustration indicates Nick Geeslin is a senior studying international affairs. He is Editor–in–Chief at The Arch Conservative.
6 / The Arch Conservative
an inability to truly listen. After all, it is likely that upon hearing that trigger word, “conservatism,” they think more of Steve Bannon than of Thomas Sowell. An inability to listen indicates that you are unwilling to alter your opinion. An unwillingness to alter your opinion means either that you are in full understanding of either side of every issue or are uninterested in the true betterment of society. I am not aware of anyone in the former group. So admit when you are in the dark on something and concede when you are unsure whether the data supports your logic. This strategy rarely results in long-term frustration. In fact, it’s a wonderful debate tool as well, for it communicates genuine interest in the truth and exposes an opponent who lacks it. Perception, it’s important to note, is equally essential. And, above all else in my mind, I find the notion of discovering meaning in life in the realm of American politics to be an entirely unfulfilling quest. Truth is, we live in a wondrous society: inequality before the law is near non-existent and the ability to pursue happiness without interference from the government endures (though in this editor’s opinion it could use some tweaks). Overall, we are free. Free to choose our work, free to choose our family, free to raise children and teach them how to employ the freedoms with which they are privileged and endowed. We are free to choose, yet what is it that we too often choose? We choose to wallow in fruitless partisan skirmishes. Why is this a bad thing, you ask? Consider for a moment what change outside of a spiked blood pressure that you’ve spurred in a screaming match over policy. Consider what contribution to society you make by tweeting obscenities at Trump or hurling mean spirited remarks at the sensitivities of so-called snowflakes. Unless you deem your fleeting senses of catharsis contributions to the greater good, you’ve contributed nothing. More importantly, consider how much you have learned about the world and about yourself in those instances… Of course, there is a need for the discussion of politics; and there is certainly a place
for passion in those discussions. It matters. It matters and yet, at the same time, it also definitely does not warrant however much time you spend arguing uncivilly on Facebook. I must say: I fall victim to the same fits of sensitivity, of outrage, and of pettiness even still. But it’s my intended perception—that most people want the best for themselves, for the country, and for its people and that a genuinely respectful discussion of ideas will result in such a realization—that guides me away from the stressful, defensive tirades and toward friendly inquisition. No one can claim even consistency, let alone purity on this front, not Socrates, not Abe Lincoln, certainly not me, but a shift in perspective makes all the difference. Now, before I am accused of neglecting some entity for whom any one policy benefits, let me point out that such an accuser should first ask themselves what lead them to their claim. Was it a genuine observation stemming from what I’ve written to this point? Or was it a more perverse motive— one stemming less from what I’ve written and more from a search for confirmation? From observations both of my own behavior and that of others, I hold that the latter is often the case. Here’s another thing I’ve noticed: that approach is neither fruitful for any cause nor does it add genuine meaning to life. How could the search for opportunities to confirm one’s own virtue or correctness possibly lend any further significance or happiness to your existence? Humans are instinctively inclined to act illogically when their preconceptions are challenged. It is the basis of tribalism and the foundation of identity politics. Rather than inquire and chip away at the truth, our instinct is to double down, to get louder and more accusatory. It is inevitable, but we are exceptional beings. We overcame the need to hunt and gather during all our waking hours. We overcame the need for a monarch to give order to society. And we overcame the destructive idea of racial superiority. The next step in the process is a similarly important one, for it pertains to the happiness of every American. Godspeed. b
FALL 2017
COLUMNS
Generation Shapiro Conservatism’s Rising Star Does It Right What distinguishes Ben Shapiro from other pundits is of consequence to the future of conservatism.
T
PHOTOSCOURTESY PHOTO COURTESYOFDAVID GAGEKING SKIDMORE
he wake of the 2016 presidential election has obviated at least one trend to those on both sides of the aisle: political polarization shows no sign of relenting. An energized youth reflects this sentiment, with college campuses serving as a microcosm of our current political climate. As The Arch Conservative’s own J. Thomas Perdue observed in the 2017 Summer Edition cover story, “The Shapiro Effect,” “…it seems that the collegiate extension of the left vs. right culture war is now decisively one-sided. Conservative speakers are often shouted down and disrupted, if they are even allowed a platform at all.” No conservative speaker is more familiar with the phenomenon than Ben Shapiro. Not one to give ground, the unapologetic hardliner has made headlines defending his right to speak at universities imbued by Leftist authoritarianism. The response to Shapiro from young conservatives continues to be overwhelmingly positive. A demographic long thought lost to the Left, college-aged individuals are responding to the Harvard Law graduate with resounding enthusiasm. Take note, GOP, at exactly what distinguishes this young conservative pundit from the pack: exposure, perspective, and form. At 33 years old, Shapiro has an intimate understanding of how the millennial generation and younger folks consume information. Unsurprisingly, his strategy focuses on leveraging new media. While he does frequently appear on mainstream media TV programs, Shapiro’s primary platform is The Daily Wire, a news and opinion website where he serves Will Brown is a senior studying finance. He is a regular contributor to The Arch Conservative.
FALL 2017
as Editor-in-Chief and which maintains an active social media presence. His Twitter account demonstrates a knack for witty and spirited banter, occasionally provocative and always entertaining. But it is in the new world of podcasting that Shapiro has truly made his mark. The Ben Shapiro Show is the #1 conservative podcast in the nation, with millennials comprising a majority of the listener demographic. In establishing a strong foothold in growing media sources driven by younger
audiences, Shapiro has created exposure for an ideology typically dismissed by the same demographic. Still, it is not simply Shapiro’s skillful use of communication channels that has sold millennials on his ideas, but rather the ideas themselves. His perspectives are formed by a pragmatic, logical framework closely aligned with traditional values. Refusing to compromise on the fundamental tenets of conservatism, Shapiro is known for his intellectual honesty and vocal opposition to many of President Trump’s policies. This lends him further validity in the eyes of millennials, who disapprove of the president in substantial numbers. Perhaps most importantly, young people are rallying around Shapiro because he is precisely the type of constitutional thinker needed to challenge the aforementioned
suppression of free speech by the collegiate Left. A sizeable contingent of millennials are simply fed up with Leftist bullying, characterized by nonsensical notions of “microaggressions” and “safe spaces,” and Shapiro offers an eloquent deconstruction of those arguments. While these features have certainly contributed to Shapiro’s popularity, they are not entirely unique. Many pundits effectively embody the principles of conservatism and relay their message through digital media to reach younger audiences. What has truly propelled Ben Shapiro to massive success is the compelling style with which he argues. In a debate setting, next to no one stands a chance. He thinks faster and with more lucidity than his opponents, such that they often fail to keep up. His ability to spontaneously recall data and cite studies as evidence for his claims frequently leaves those on the Left baffled. And although he is aggressive in his speech, Shapiro is a master of putting Leftists on the defensive–a rhetorical tactic as entertaining as it is effective, and one to which conservatives too often fall prey in similar settings. Simultaneously widely acclaimed and highly controversial, Ben Shapiro’s climb to conservative superstardom tells an interesting story–most obviously that there remains a meaningful divide between those threatened by free speech and those fighting to defend that right. Furthermore, it might suggest that the millennial demographic is more nuanced than usually thought. Perhaps a significant portion of young people are tired of a self-righteous Left that attempts to silence those whose opinions are based not in feeling, but in fact. Lastly, Shapiro’s resonant message to millennials may indicate a growing appreciation of the merits of conservatism; a validation of traditional values regularly misunderstood by younger generations; and, possibly, an ideology and cause worth putting on the offensive. Keep him in mind when seeking out a new and refreshing conservative voice. b
The Arch Conservative / 7
COLUMNS
Sandblasting the Past Robert E. Lee, Stonewall Jackson, and Jefferson Davis straddle their horses in a carving 400 feet above Stone Mountain, home to laser light shows, kiddy rides, and a population that is 75 percent black.
F
ollowing the violence at a white supremacist rally in Charlottesville, Virginia in August, rallying cries to bring the famous Confederate monument crashing down have intensified. Georgia House Minority Leader and Democratic candidate for governor Stacey Abrams has called for its removal. The Georgia chapter of the NAACP has voiced its support for the removal of all Confederate symbols from government property and called Stone Mountain a “continued celebration” of the Confederacy. Atlanta chapter president Richard Rose said that the monument was “erected to demonstrate and celebrate white supremacy.” The leftists cry, “Racist!” The right-wingers cry, “History!” I could easily side with the rightwingers. I am one, after all, and I do agree that history should never be erased, lest it be repeated. But is it possible that the people crying, “Racist!” have a point? Is it possible there’s a little truth to both sides of this debate? These two things can simultaneously be true: 1) Not everyone who honors fallen soldiers celebrates southern heritage or believes in state sovereignty is a white supremacist, and 2) Not every Confederate monument was actually designed to celebrate fallen soldiers, southern heritage, or state sovereignty. Here’s the truth on the left: Some memorials were built to celebrate white supremacy. Most Confederate memorials were not Reed Ferguson is a junior studying economics. She is a new contributor to The Arch Conservative.
8 / The Arch Conservative
built immediately after the Civil War. There were several spikes in their construction, all conveniently occurring around the time of landmark civil rights events. The first spike was in the early 1900s, when the NAACP was founded; but the most substantial spikes didn’t occur until the 1950s and 60s, the height of the Civil Rights Era, one hundred years after soldiers died fighting for the Confederacy. The Stone Mountain monument was built with racist intent. In 1915, Stone Mountain was the site of cross-burnings and the rebirth of the Ku Klux Klan. According to
The Atlanta Journal Constitution’s Jay Bookman: “The man who donated his land to the project was head of the national KKK. The original sculptor was a KKK member. The head of the local chapter of the Daughters of the Confederacy, the woman who helped envision the project, wanted it to serve as an explicit monument to the Klan.” Now, here is the truth on the right: History matters. In a press conference in August, President Trump posed the question: Where does it end? If we’re going to tear down a statue of someone like Lee, who was arguably fighting more for his love of Virginia than for his love of slavery, who’s next? Washington and Jefferson were slave owners. Why shouldn’t we tear down their statues? The left immediately denounced his statement as insane. Of course, the next day an article at Vice News called for the destruction of Mount Rushmore. In a PBS interview, Al Sharpton called for the abandonment
of the Jefferson Memorial in Washington, D.C. Ironically, students at the school Jefferson founded, the University of Virginia, have long been calling for the removal of his statue on campus, calling it an “emblem of white supremacy.” The weekend following Charlottesville, Jefferson's statue was vandalized with red paint. Some statues are racist symbols. Others are just symbols. It’s probably a safe bet that a statue of Jefferson Davis erected in 1960 was intended to be racist. It’s probably not a safe bet that the Jefferson Memorial is a symbol of white supremacy. All of these things can be true at once. There is a rational argument to moving the intentionally and explicitly racist memorials to museums. But you can’t do that with the monument on Stone Mountain. It’s the largest high-relief sculpture in the world. It sits 400 feet above the ground and is 42 feet deep. The solution is not so simple. You really only have three options: leave it alone, alter it, or dynamite it into oblivion. “If it has become an embarrassment, good,” Bookman writes at the AJC. “Let it serve us always as an embarrassment, and as a reminder of the false stories that we can tell ourselves. Sandblasting it away would be an act of cosmetic surgery on our history, when it still has much to teach us.” The truth is, I agree with both sides of the debate. In fact, I’ll join you. I’ll cry, “Racist!” But I’ll also cry, “History!” The two truths don’t have to conflict with one another. Truth doesn’t conflict with truth. As long as we don’t foolishly repeat history by polarizing the nation along racial lines, history is nothing to fear. It is something to remember—sometimes with pride and sometimes with sorrow. Yes, there is a racist history to Stone Mountain, but even if the Confederate memorial were wiped from the mountain, it could not be wiped from history. Sandblasting away a memorial to the past can’t erase the past. It would only shield our eyes from truth. b
FALL 2017
PHOTO COURTESY OF PETER KAMINSKI
Confederates on the Mountain
COLUMNS
Trouble at the Taps The Brewer's Dilemma Despite the ability of breweries and distilleries to sell more alcohol, there has been some recent disdain for the new policy because of price changes and lack of a “brewery experience.”
PHOTO COURTESY OF CHANDLER THOMPSON
O
n September 1st of this year, a new alcohol law went into effect that forever changed the aggrandizing craft brewing and distilling community in the state of Georgia. The new legislation was the culmination of decades of fierce fighting between Georgia brewers and distillers and the wealthy, politically connected Georgia Wholesalers Association. As The Arch Conservative has previously reported, Georgia brewers and distillers can now sell a limited amount of beer and spirits directly to the consumer. Previously, breweries and distillers were forced to sell tour tickets with the promise of “free samples” at the end of the tour. For breweries, “free samples” were limited to 36oz of beer per customer, per day. For distilleries, “free samples” meant only three half-ounce samples per customer, per day. In addition, distillers were not allowed to serve their customers mixed-drinks of any kind. Georgia Senate Bill 85, which is now in effect, allows direct sales of beer, spirits, and cocktails to patrons. It also allows the aforementioned patrons to purchase up to a case (288oz) of beer and three 750ml bottles of spirits to take off the brewery and distillery property. Georgia brewers and distillers have struggled in the past to make a profit and stay in business due to Georgia’s distribution laws, which are some of the strictest and most archaic in the United States. While this law is likely to tremendously help these establishments, Ian LaCroix is a sophomore studying political science. He is a regular contributor to The Arch Conservative.
FALL 2017
some craft beer lovers are having a tough time getting used to the new policy. Before Georgia Senate Bill 85, Athens’s own Creature Comforts Brewery would charge $14 for students, or $12 if they brought a glass of their own. Customers would receive an educational tour of the brewery and 32oz of “free samples” of their choosing. After Georgia SB 85, Creature Comfort currently sells 5, 10, and 16oz glasses at the prices ranging from $2.50-$7.50 depending on both the size of the glass as well as the specific
type of beer. On some occasions, patrons could find themselves spending more money for the same amount of beer without being required to tour the brewery. This is where most of the criticism has arisen over the new law. Despite the fact that you are able to purchase much more beer at breweries, many customers, specifically those of college age, feel cheated out of the normal amount of beer that they would have received before the law. In addition, some craft beer lovers criticize the law for removing the required educational tour from the brewery visiting experience. The tour promotes the idea of trying new beers. “I feel as if consumers, specifically college students, will hesitate to frequent [Creature Comforts] because of the individual pricing in the new system,” says
UGA graduate and craft beer connoisseur Austin Stone. In other words, breweries and distilleries are becoming more like bars, thus entering into an already oversaturated market here in Athens, Georgia. Terrapin Beer Co., when asked about the new policy, said, “We basically sell pints just like a bar now.” Many people are afraid that the novelty of going to a local brewery will wear off and these breweries will once again be struggling to turn a profit. That being said, there are still many people who are very pleased with the new policy and are frequenting these drinking establishments more often, as well as spending more money per visit. Despite some recent disdain for the new policy, this can still be considered a huge victory for the craft brewing and distilling community. The fight for distribution rights has been a long and grueling one where we have seen an obscene amount of money spent to keep existing laws in place and attempts to modify them. While the breweries and distilleries may have won this round, there are still many more to go in the fight over alcohol distribution in Georgia. But still, never before have these breweries and distilleries been allowed to distribute their own alcohol, regardless of whether they sell more or less within the brewery itself. The new policy is bound to help these businesses get their name out to ultimately sell more product. It will be interesting to see if these establishments will ultimately benefit through the ability to sell more of their product directly to consumers, or if they will suffer from a potential elimination of the quintessential “brewery and distillery experience” and become nothing more than another neighborhood bar. b
The Arch Conservative / 9
COLUMNS
The Rural Education Gap Rural Children Have Difficulty Accessing Educational Resources Education issues abound in the American public school system. It is necessary that we begin to discuss issues unique to rural school children with the same level of seriousness that we do urban school issues.
W
hen considering reforms to the public education system of America, the conversation tends to revolve around issues facing failing urban, predominantly minority school systems. And, with only a 53 percent high-school graduation rate in America’s 50 largest urban centers according to America’s Progress Alliance, urban schools certainly deserve a high degree of attention. However, although failing urban schools are in dire need of reform, these considerations should not come at the expense of the often equally troubled school districts found in rural America. According to research conducted by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, rural areas have the lowest percentage of people holding a bachelor’s degree. Nineteen percent of rural people hold a bachelor’s compared to 33 percent of urban people. Much of the discrepancy between percentages of rural and urban college degree holders can be attributed to what is known as “rural brain drain,” which is the mass migration of educated rural people into the cities that offer more stable, higher paying jobs. Although the brain drain is indicative of the slowly rising levels of individual rural education, this does not solve the problem facing rural public school children. Because rural areas cannot hold on to their educated locals, the problem still persists and rural areas continue to be vastly undereducated. Moreover, the rural brain drain oftentimes keeps educators away from rural areas, preventing students with unique educational needs from having access to teachers who can address those Sydney North is a senior studying journalism and political science. She is Assistant Editor at The Arch Conservative.
10 / The Arch Conservative
specific needs—needs such as bilingual educators, special education teachers, and other forms of specialized instruction. Unfortunately, a lack of specialized educators is not the only spatial inequality that rural students must confront in the classroom. They are also at a severe disadvantage when it comes to internet access compared to urban students. The lack of broadband infrastructure in rural communities across the U.S. has left 39 percent of rural Americans without “advanced telecommunications ability,” according to the Federal Communications Commission, compared to only four percent of the urban population. This digital divide leaves rural students at a massive disadvantage. In an age where news and information are primarily consumed online and both job and college applications are almost solely done through the internet, a lack of internet access puts rural students on unequal footing when it comes to jobs, college, and education. Furthermore, rural school children do not have the same level of access to educational resources and organizations as underprivileged urban students. For example, in urban centers, students may take part in multiple after-school activities, such as Boys and Girls Clubs, Big Brothers and Sisters of America, and similar organizations. But these programs are not always readily available in poor rural communities; if they are, it is often difficult for children to attend them due to lack of public transportation and long travelling distances. According to Susan Frey of EdSource, “When school lets out, many children in rural communities must take a long bus ride home, miles from their nearest neighbor. They don’t play basketball with their friends, do art or science projects with the local community group or get help with their homework. Most go home to families with limited resources, struggling to make ends meet.” While as of 2016 the rate of rural people living in poverty was 13.3 percent compared to 16.0 percent for their urban counterparts, according to the U.S. Census, the picture changes when looking at the rural versus urban gap by region. Looking at the same
census data for the Northeast and Midwest regions, for example, paints a picture of an idyllic rural America—a rural America that may make on average up to $10,000 more per household per year than their urban neighbors. However, when shifting focus to the southeast, a historically impoverished and undereducated region of the U.S., the picture changes. Suddenly, rural America is not so quaint. At an astounding 19.3 percent rural poverty rate (higher than that of national averages for all urban and rural areas) and an even more despairing 24.9 percent child poverty rate according the National Low Income Housing Coalition, the rural south, on paper, looks like the caricature that coastal elitists paint it out to be—a poor, uneducated, and backwards burden to society. Though the caricature is wrong, the premise is not. As proven by the census data, the rural south is, as a whole, poorer than other regions of the U.S. The rural south is also indeed less educated than a majority of the U.S. While deteriorating urban school districts and an uneducated urban work force are met with sympathy and rallying cries from the public for educational justice, rural areas with similar, yet unique, educational issues are mocked for their lack of tutelage. To solve the achievement gap in both rural and urban communities, it is important that we begin to view underprivileged urban and rural students through the same lens, and confront issues facing rural education with the same compassion and seriousness that we do with the urban education gap. Though simply funneling more money and resources into school systems is certainly not an answer to such a complex issue as rural education, increased discussion about how already available resources can better be utilized, as well as broader economic policy that reinvigorates rural areas, can help reverse trends in growing educational and economic instability in rural America. b
FALL 2017
COLUMNS
An Address to the World Trump's Speech to the United Nations Anyone want to read or listen to a 40 minute speech to the United Nations? Probably not, so here’s a summary of Trump’s best speech to date.
F
PHOTO COURTESY OF JIM MATTIS
or 40 minutes on Tuesday, September 19, President Trump addressed the 72nd Session of the United Nations General Assembly. Trump communicated to the world the issues facing the United States, starting with the recent hurricanes and showing our gratitude to all world leaders who assisted during that time of pain and recovery. Trump’s speech to the U.N. may well have been the best speech since he took office, regardless of one’s personal opinions of the president. Trump, striking a positive tone, touted a stock market at an “all-time high,” unemployment “at its lowest level in sixteen years,” and $700 billion in military spending. Trump went on to support what he called “those three beautiful pillars,” referring to the U.N.’s vision for countries to “cooperate to protect their sovereignty, preserve their security, and promote their prosperity.” Trump expects members of the U.N. to promote the sovereignty of nations and advocated for his ‘America First’ philosophy when he followed with, “As President of the United States, I will always put America first, just like you, as the leaders of your countries will always, and should always, put your countries first.” After his sovereignty spiel, Trump went on the offensive, telling the U.N. “We must reject threats to sovereignty, from the Ukraine to the South China Sea,” though not mentioning Russia or China by name. With North Korea’s delegate seated in the front row, he Michael Duckett is a senior studying history and political science. He is Assistant Editor at The Arch Conservative.
FALL 2017
shifted to North Korea, which he said is a “depraved regime… responsible for the starvation deaths of millions of North Koreans, and for the imprisonment, torture, killing, and oppression of countless more.” Although he spoke against Russia and China earlier, Trump managed to pit them against North Korea by thanking “China and Russia for joining the vote to impose sanctions.” Trump’s criticisms continued after North Korea, condemning the Iranian government “that speaks openly of mass murder, vowing death to America, destruction to Israel, and
ruin for many leaders and nations.” Trump claimed that Iranian wealth goes “to fund Hezbollah and other terrorists that kill innocent Muslims and attack their peaceful Arab and Israeli neighbors,” which pleased Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Once again, the president reiterated that the Iranian nuclear deal was one of the worst deals ever made. On a positive note, despite Iran’s “support for terror,” Trump “announced a new strategy for victory in the fight against this evil in Afghanistan,” and “we have made big gains toward lasting defeat of ISIS.” Trump criticized “the actions of the criminal regime of Bashar al-Assad,” stating that “the use of chemical weapons against his own citizens–even innocent children–shock the
conscience of every decent person.” While calling out the Assad regime, Trump advocated for a peaceful solution to the Syrian conflict that respected the “will of the Syrian people” and thanked Lebanon, Jordan, and Turkey for providing haven for Syrian refugees. Trump defended U.S. policy on Syrian refugees, highlighting that the U.S. spends billions helping refugees, but that hosting refugees closer to the conflict is more cost effective than relocating them to the U.S. Not forgetting Africa, Trump reminded the U.N. that “The United States continues to lead the world in humanitarian assistance, including famine prevention and relief in South Sudan, Somalia, and northern Nigeria and Yemen.” Then, he took aim at the U.N. Human Rights Council and questioned why countries with “egregious human rights records” have seats. Furthering his point, Trump noted that Americans “pay far more than anybody realizes,” equating to 22 percent of the U.N.’s budget. In his last few minutes, Trump went after the terrible conditions in Cuba and how the “socialist dictatorship of Nicolas Maduro has inflicted terrible pain and suffering on the good people of ” Venezuela. In response, Venezuela mobilized its troops for war in a futile show of strength, an expected gesture from Maduro. Trump began by telling the U.N. that “We meet at a time of both immense promise and great peril. It is entirely up to us whether we lift the world to new heights or let it fall into a valley of disrepair.” The call for action was given to the whole world, but ultimately, Trump believes “The United States of America has been among the greatest forces for good in the history of the world, and the greatest defenders of sovereignty, security, and prosperity for all.” He used his speech as a “calling for a great reawakening of nations, for the revival of their spirits, their pride, their people, and their patriotism.” b
The Arch Conservative / 11
COLUMNS
Fifteen Years with the Axis of Evil “States like these, and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world.” – George W. Bush, January 29, 2002 President Bush identified three nations as immense threats to global peace and security and worked to stop them. Eight years of Obama’s foreign policy only emboldened the surviving two, who now pose grave threats to the world.
I
n 2002, President George Bush identified an “axis of evil,” which he said consisted of Iraq, Iran, and North Korea; all three of which were accused of sponsoring terrorism and seeking weapons of mass destruction. A year later, the U.S. invaded Iraq and overthrew Saddam and Iraq ceased its search for weapons of mass destruction and exportation of terror. However, the other two members, Iran and North Korea, continually act out and remain very much an axis of evil. Prior to the Iranian Revolution in 1979, Iran had conducted a nuclear program with the assistance of the U.S. and various other Western nations, and Iran had even signed a non-proliferation treaty. However, following the overthrow of the Shah, the West was forced out of Iran, their nuclear program became a mystery to the world, and Iran has become increasingly hostile to the West. The greatest immediate danger posed by Iran has been its sponsoring of terrorist organizations. The Iranian regime has sponsored Shia militias in Iraq, Hamas in Gaza, and Hezbollah in Lebanon, to name but a few. As a result, Iran has been complicit in several conflicts with Israel, civil wars across the Middle East, and the deaths of thousands Christopher Lipscomb is a sophomore studying international affairs. He is a regular contributor to The Arch Conservative.
12 / The Arch Conservative
of Americans in Iraq and elsewhere. Additionally, Iran has shifted its nuclear program from one seeking to develop nuclear energy to one seeking to develop nuclear weapons, while still claiming to be seeking only energy. Despite layers of sanctions which have crippled Iran’s economy, Iran has persisted. Ultimately, a deal brokered under the Obama Administration “halted” Iran’s nuclear ambitions, however the deal has largely failed, as Iran not only got much of what it wanted, but has also continued its aggression in the region unabated. Perhaps the most egregious offender is
North Korea. For nearly seventy years, the Kim Regime has starved, imprisoned, tortured, and executed its people, all while the Kim family rules comfortably. In the true spirit of communism, the Kim family has enriched itself while depriving its people immensely, all while simultaneously pursuing the development of nuclear weapons. In 2003, North Korea pulled out of a nonproliferation treaty and three years later they had their first successful nuclear test. Since that first test, their weapons program has continued unabated despite increasingly steep sanctions and condemnation from the rest of the world. On December 17, 2011, Kim Jong-il died, and Kim Jong-un became leader of North Korea. A shadowy figure, Kim had the world on its toes. Unfortunately his consolidation of power as well as numerous other abuses (such as six months of hard labor for those
deemed to have not mourned sufficiently at Kim Jong-il’s state funeral) indicated that he would be even more depraved than his father and grandfather. In 2013, North Korea held its first successful nuclear test under the new Kim’s rule, and their weapons program has not slowed since. The North Korean nuclear threat took on an entirely new level in December 2015, when North Korea claimed to have successfully detonated a hydrogen bomb, however these claims were largely discredited by the U.S. and South Korea. The next month, North Korea again claimed to have successfully tested a hydrogen bomb, though it was widely speculated that the bomb had not reached its full blast potential. In September 2017, North Korea claimed to have detonated a thermonuclear device, however this time the evidence indicated that they had indeed successfully detonated a hydrogen bomb, ushering in a new era for North Korea’s nuclear program. While developing thermonuclear capabilities, North Korea was simultaneously working on developing more sophisticated missiles. After countless failed tests, North Korea eventually developed a missile that could potentially hit the mainland U.S. These advances have led to increased sabre rattling by North Korea, which has been matched by Trump, who has said that the U.S. will annihilate North Korea if they attack the U.S., its territories, or any of its allies. Fifteen years after President Bush identified an axis of evil that existed in the world, it is very much alive. Of the three nations identified, only Iraq has been brought to justice. In Iran, the ayatollahs continue to preach the destruction of Israel and Western society, military aggression and support of terror networks remains a daily affair, and missile tests occur periodically. But the greatest threat is North Korea, with its unpredictable and aggressive leadership and its recently developed hydrogen bomb and long-range missile capabilities. b
FALL 2017
PHOTO COURTESY OF THE U.S. ARMY
An Axis that the Allies Haven't Crushed
COLUMNS
America's Spacing Out Republicans Are Missing Out on Space Exploration Space is a relatively forgotten area, ironic given that we are mere specks on the fabric of the cosmos; so consider the politics behind it all the next time time you gaze into the abyss ...
T
PHOTO COURTESY OF NASA
o quote the President: “American footprints on distant worlds are not too big a dream.” In President Trump’s joint address to Congress, Americans heard a rallying cry, a call to the scientists and those who dream of the stars to revive their aspirations to go back into the inky blackness of space. However, as of late, the administration seems to have largely forgotten the call for space exploration amid the muddle of the (new and “improved”) travel ban, the DACA controversy, and the ongoing Russia probe. However, NASA and the private space community have kept on plugging away, out of the spotlight and vastly underappreciated. Space is perhaps the most interesting realm in which so few people, including those who control the political levers of power, seem to carry a vested interest. It is not as though the space exploration industry has simply stopped working. In fact, some incredible achievements and projects have kept moving along. For example, NASA is working on completing the James Webb Space Telescope, a replacement for the venerated Hubble Telescope. Furthermore, NASA is developing the next generation of humanmanned spacecraft in the Orion project. And in a final flourish, Elon Musk’s SpaceX, after much trial and error–some of which was shared in a rather comical montage on social media, has created a rocket booster that can launch, deliver cargo and deploy satellites, Boris A. Abreu is a junior studying political science and international affairs. He is Publishing Editor at The Arch Conservative.
FALL 2017
and then land to be reused, an incredible feat of modern engineering. However, not much coverage is given to monumental achievements like these, a sad fact considering that space habitation is very plausibly the next step in humankind’s journey on (and off) our little blue marble. This is the quandary that space lovers find themselves in. While large scale celestial events, such as the “Great American Eclipse” of August 21, 2017, draw huge amounts of
public attention and a renewed interest in space-bound activities, the vast majority of space-related discoveries and events go unnoticed. For example, readers, did you know that the Cassini spacecraft has just completed its mission (the question is not meant to patronize, it is merely a polite inquiry)? As of the writing of this piece, one of the most scientifically significant missions ever conducted concluded as the spacecraft plunged into the atmosphere of Saturn, burning up and forever lost to the ages. Over its twentyyear lifetime, Cassini collected incredible photos, valuable sets of data, and provided researchers with fascinating discoveries about the magnificent ringed gas giant and its many moons (some of which may even harbor life). Until recently, though, not so much as a peep was heard from any news provider with regards to Cassini. Only by going to the NASA webpage was one able
to find any details about the happenings in the cosmos and humanity’s ongoing quest to explore our place in the Milky Way. While space exploration has typically been a relatively non-partisan issue, the GOP in Congress has a magnificent chance to seize upon the relative lack of interest in space and turn it into something into which they can invest political capital. To be sure, there is no need to politicize, but the GOP should pay attention to the nuances and developments in space and help accordingly. A helpful start to this would be to increase the amount of funding that NASA receives in the budget, from a piddling 0.4 percent of the 2018 Fiscal Year Budget. A radical one percent would kick NASA’s funding to well over $40 billion, and lend it increasing credence and clout. Now, as a conservative, one might ask as to how I can advocate for an increase in government spending. Simply put, the members of Congress in the GOP can actively practice what they preach and cut money from unnecessary federal programs, trimming the bureaucratic fat and helping to “drain the swamp.” Less red tape and bureaucrats to deal with is easier on everyone, regardless of ideological orientation. Furthermore, the GOP can seize upon President Trump’s promise to increase public-private partnerships, and provide incentives for private entities to collaborate with the government on International Space Station operations, deep-space exploration, and other projects. By increasing NASA’s budget and actively encouraging private space enterprises to pair up with NASA, the GOP could very plausibly build up valuable political capital in a season where it is undeniably tough to be a member of the Grand Ol’ Party. In an era of constant technological innovation, it is long past time humanity remember that our future lies out in the stars, waiting to be written by a new path of trailblazers and dreamers. b
The Arch Conservative / 13
COLUMNS
A Foreign Relations To-Do List Our Future Abroad Decisions today determine the safety of world tomorrow.
W
e are not in Kansas anymore. The Trump administration inherited a potent world full of foreign challenges: the growth of North Korea’s nuclear arms programs, the Iran nuclear deal, a Syrian civil war and refugee crisis, and a Russian president with increasingly imperialistic instincts. Since the inauguration, each situation has escalated. The time has come for the current administration to take action to resolve these issues. At the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) meeting, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said that U.S.-Russian relations have worsened due to a “Russo-phobic hysteria” that began under the Obama administration. As a result, Lavrov believes that international issues that could be resolved with a U.S.-Russia partnership are simply not being improved in any tangible way. He also made it clear that starting a war on the Korean Peninsula is “unacceptable.” When Edith Lederer of The Washington Post asked about Trump’s threat to pull out of the Iran nuclear deal at the UN General Assembly, Lavrov said that it would be best for all parties to remain in the deal because a collapse would render the sanctions imposed on North Korea less meaningful. It would seem, according to Minister Lavrov, that Russia is willing to cooperate with the U.S. to solve issues surrounding North Korea and Syria. The U.S. and Russia have always had a tense relationship and allegations of electoral interference do not help. There is a clear the lack of proof found in the investigation led by Special Counsel Robert Mueller. Therefore, it is well past time for Carson Brown is a freshman studying history. He is a new contributor to The Arch Conservative.
14 / The Arch Conservative
the United States to abandon the charge of election interference and work with Russia to stabilize hostilities around the world, starting with North Korea. A cooperative Russia would help tremendously with the nonproliferation of the North Korean nuclear program. Also speaking at the UNGA, Iran’s deputy foreign minister Abbas Araghchi declared that Trump’s call for the U.S. to pull out of the Iran nuclear deal would catalyze a new arms race. While there are many critics of the infamous ‘Iran Deal,’ it seems as if Iran is serious about halting their nuclear missile program. They were one of 122 countries that signed a treaty to prohibit nuclear weapons this past July (the U.S., along with Russia, China, France, and U.K. did not). Another drawback from pulling out of the agreement is it would greatly diminish any chance of reaching a similar agreement with North Korea. A plus from the deal is that American companies can do business with the people of Iran, as President Trump mentioned. One of the main reasons for Trump’s possible exit, however, is Israel’s opposition to the deal. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu believes that the deal will allow Iran to create weapons of mass destruction. It seems that, while there is certainly a chance that Iran will go back on its word, keeping the deal is the best move going forward. The conflict in Syria is winding down, according to Syrian foreign minister Walid al-Moualem. al-Moualem said that Islamic State power is shrinking, thanks in part to the Syrian army and supporters, like Russia and Iran. However, the United States is fearful of either of those countries gaining power in the region, hence state-run channel Rossiya-24 and Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov’s accusation of the U.S. of coordinating its plans with the Islamic State. Truly, there is nothing the people of the United States despise more than terrorism, but there is little that bothers the U.S. government more than the idea of Russia or Iran gaining outsized influence in the Middle East. This presents a classic dilemma: which
evil shall the U.S. choose? The Islamic State has largely kept its extremist agenda out of the States, focusing instead on the Middle East and western Europe. If the Pentagon is indeed collaborating with the Islamic State, they chose to do so because there is greater fear of Russia and Iran gaining power. If this is the case, there is a serious question that has to be answered: who will win? If Foreign Minister al-Moualem is correct and the conflict is indeed dying down, then opposition towards Iran and Russia is futile. The Islamic State could continue to spread their power across the region. At some point the US has to decide between slowing Iran’s and Russia’s increases in power and conceding that power to defeat the Islamic State. Across the planet, the growing threat of a North Korean missile attack dominates the news, and it will continue to do so until addressed. Either the United States and its allies, along with Russia and China, will put their differences aside and work together to peacefully disarm North Korea, or everyone will face the consequences of whatever Kim Jong-Un does. In a rare address, Kim Jong-Un personally declared that President Trump’s threat to “totally destroy” North Korea has “convinced me, rather than frightening or stopping me, that the path I chose is correct.” The U.S. must band together with the powers of the region in order to take control of this threat. The current trajectory is certainly not sustainable. There are attainable solutions to each of these challenges. It is up to the President, the State Department, and the Department of Defense to determine what is the best course of action in each instance. However, the answer is certainly not inaction. Continuing to kick the can down the road as the Obama administration did with North Korea and Syria will only lead to greater challenges for the United States and other world leaders in the future. b
FALL 2017
BOOK COLUMNS REVIEW
The Founders We Forgot A Review of Senator Mike Lee's “Written Out of History” In his new book, Senator Mike Lee pays due deference to some important founding-era figures whom Americans seem to have forgotten over the decades.
H
istory’s tablet keepers dictate how people are remembered. The power of determining who were history’s lions and lowlifes, heroes and villains, demigods and demagogues are, in some part, determined by the pens of historians. That is to say, historians have the power–both through panegyric and paralipsis–to alter people’s perception of the past. Consider, for example, the American Founding Fathers. Nearly every literate is familiar with Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, and George Washington. But what about George Mason, Elbridge Gerry, and Mercy Otis Warren? These names, I venture to say, are ones the vast majority of readers are seeing for the first time. Yet these are names with which we should all be familiar, for they contributed a great deal to the institutions, liberties, and civilized order that we Americans enjoy today. But thanks to Senator Mike Lee and his new book, Written Out of History, these individuals and their contributions have been, deservedly, “written back into history.” Mike Lee is the highly distinguished senator from Utah and no stranger to Movement conservatives. Although Lee previously wrote a widely praised book, Our Lost Constitution, Written Out of History was my first experience with his writing. Nevertheless, I was not disappointed. In a taut 200 pages, readers have a great amount to learn in a short amount of time; but Lee makes the journey an effortless joy. Indeed, the author can make a sentence, a paragraph, and a story flow with simple, elegant, and concise fluidity. Senator Mike Lee challenges historians’ Ross Dubberly is a senior studying economics. He is Book Editor at The Arch Conservative.
FALL 2017
treatment of Aaron Burr; he unearths the patriotic contributions of Mercy Otis Warren; he largely vindicates George Mason’s skepticism of the Constitution. Put simply, by looking specifically at enemies of big government, Lee offers a fresh look at some very old history. Lee’s efforts, however, are at times tinctured with historical affirmative action. That is to say, some of the senator’s analyses require, if I may say so, a bit of historical gymnastics. He attributes, for example, America’s adoption of federalism to the influence the
Iroquois Indian chief, Canasatego, exercised on the thinking of Benjamin Franklin in particular and perhaps other founding fathers as well. “We have neglected,” Lee writes, “the words and lessons left behind by foundingera heroes like Canasatego, the visionary Iroquois leader whose service to his people introduced a budding American Republic to the principle of federalism...” Perhaps Lee is in fact correct, but I am much more inclined to attribute the provenance of American federalism to the founders’ vast knowledge of and appreciation for Baron de Montesquieu and John Locke. In addition, the author weakens the weight of this work by sneaking in campaign-trail
banalities. (e.g., “[I]t is sobering to consider that, centuries later, we are still grappling with the same issue. . . Holding government accountable for using [its] capabilities responsibly and within constitutional boundaries remains an important task.”) Also regrettable is the author’s penchant for clumsy colloquialisms, e.g., his use of the word “mad” when he means “angry,” in a context where such usage precludes clarity, as well as his noting of the “good long while” it would take for King George III’s writ of assistance to expire. And, were this book written by anyone but the great, conservative lion from Utah, I doubt I could forgive it for the solecism on page seven, wherein it commits the linguistic sin of using the word “transpire” as a synonym for “occur.” Argh! But I digress. After all, the book is a work of historical erudition, not a literary oeuvre. Therefore, it says a lot about Written Out of History that the misgivings to which I devote the most ink are nothing more than the ravings of a pedantic purist, a logophile disposed to logomachy. This book belongs on every reader’s shelf. It is appropriate for the young and old, the knowledgeable and unknowledgeable. Indeed, everyone who picks it up will learn something about the unsung heroes of America’s founding that–I guarantee–he or she had not known beforehand. Written Out of History was Senator Mike Lee’s attempt to “bring to life the sights and sounds and smells of the eighteenth century,” as he writes in the conclusion. “I made sure never to knowingly depart from the historical record and my research of these figures. . . I hoped to honor their contributions to the great American story.” It is my pleasure to report that through a commendable combination of élan, erudition, and entertainment, Senator Lee accomplished his goal. And in doing so, he has done–as he does each day in the U.S. Senate–a great service to our nation. b
The Arch Conservative / 15
FEATURES
Red & Black Rebuttals In the Interest of Balance By The Editors
In a new installment for The Arch Conservative In Print, “Red & Black Rebuttals” seeks to respectfully combat some ideas that motivate contributors on the Opinion page of the Red & Black, the campus newspaper. In doing so, we seek to, as our motto proudly states, “raise the standard” of political discourse on campus by offering a diversity in thought too often overlooked in many corners of campus. REBUTTAL: “Disrespectful Term “Snowflake” Should Not be a Part of Georgia Politics” In what is possibly the most ironic opinion piece published by The Red & Black this semester, contributor Anika Chaturvedi calls for the removal of the term “snowflake” from the political vernacular. Ms. Chaturvedi’s rationale for the retirement of the term is that its pejorative connotation is demeaning and counterproductive to honest dialogue. She explains how the term evolved from historical connotations, recalling that “snowflake” referred to anti-abolitionists during the Civil War and black men who “acted white” in the 70s. In the case of “snowflake,” these historical connotations are irrelevant. Today, a “snowflake” is someone whose oversensitivity to certain issues prevents them from being able to have a reasonable discussion. Prime examples of snowflakes are the students who attended advertised counseling sessions after Ben Shapiro’s speech at UC Berkeley last month. These individuals feel so threatened by certain words and ideas that they resort either to simply walking away or to shouting 16 / The Arch Conservative
down their opponent rather than engaging in debate. Snowflakery is a product of the permeation of identity politics among young people, who act awry when someone challenges their worldview because they see it as a direct attack on their identities. And like literal snowflakes, they melt instantly at the slightest touch of opposition. As she notes, the irony of telling people to stop using the term “snowflake” because it's demeaning is not lost on Ms. Chaturvedi. Still, she felt her message was worthy of an opinion piece. Ms. Chaturvedi almost made a point with which I concurred: that name calling of any kind should not be encouraged during civil discourse. But she was careful to focus her piece on the use of “snowflake,” and not the scads of other disparaging labels baselessly hurled at people by those who disagree with their ideas. For instance, if you stand for traditional marriage, you are labeled a homophobe. If you want to see immigration laws enforced, you are labeled a xenophobe. And most egregiously, if you dispel the notion of “white privilege,” appropriate aspects of a culture other than your own, or openly support the President, you are smacked with one of the most serious labels that can be given to someone in this country: racist. Often, being an outspoken conservative can warrant all three labels being thrust upon you at once. Words like these only have as much power as you’re willing to award them. When someone starts using ad hominems, the best way to come out on top is to a) not reciprocate and b) remain steadfast in articulating your argument. If they persist, walk away. Why not
overlook the pettiness of all derogatory tags and encourage them to elevate the dialogue through rational argument and civil debate? When the marketplace of ideas thrives, everyone wins. b – Connor Foarde, Campus News Editor @ConnorFoarde REBUTTAL: “Embrace Intersectional Feminism” Western feminists are too sectarian. At least that is how one Red & Black contributor, Asher Beckner, views it. As she writes in a recent piece titled “Embrace Intersectional Feminism”: “While Western feminism is largely focused on the white, single-issue obstacles of womanhood, students must recognize that to make feminism successful, we must look at it through an intersectional perspective.” Heaven knows how desirous I am to make modern feminism successful; therefore, after looking up what “intersectional feminism” means, I proceeded to eagerly imbibe Ms. Beckner’s prescription. “For one thing, Western feminists need to stop being so darn culturally insensitive. For example, when feminists claim that Muslim attire oppresses women, they fail to grasp the cultural and religious signifcance of these clothes.” I couldn’t help but wonder if, just maybe,
FALL 2017
FEATURES
opposition to Muslim clitorodectomies was likewise the result of a “failure to grasp” their “religious and cultural significance.” In any event, “Feminism forces women of color to focus on either their femininity or their culture, which is detrimental to women because of the discrimination that they face is unique to women of color.” “Intersectionality” describes a hierarchy of victimhood, i.e., the higher one’s status on the oppression ladder, the greater the value of one’s opinion. Yes, indeed, without “intersectionality” how on Earth could feminists of color like, say, Michelle Obama or Oprah Winfrey, explain their oppression adequately? Ms. Beckner goes on to castigate the audacity of Westerners who attempted to “save” (she puts it in quotes) women who ritualistically threw themselves upon their dead husbands funeral pyres. And without a trace of irony or self-awareness, she writes, “When people attempt to save other people without their feedback, the actions are often harmful and dehumanizing.” I know I am a male and therefore have no right to speak on the issue, but I contend that we start making this point to patriarchal lifeguards. After all, they never even so much as attempt to get feedback before “saving” drowning kids. Don’t they recognize how harmful and dehumanizing that is? In the final analysis, it’s not as if we’re dealing with trivialities here. As Ms. Beckner notes, “Without cultural context, feminist aid is akin to cultural genocide and colonization. Therefore, Western feminists need to look at situations through an intersectional lens in order to accomplish their goals of equality and justice across genders and races.” If you have no idea what the hell this–or most everything else in this article, for that matter–means, fret not. You are not alone. b – Ross Dubberly, Book Editor @RDubberly REBUTTAL: President Trump Should Advocate for Electoral Reform to Return the Government to the People
FALL 2017
In his guest column for the Red & Black, Jack Bernard cites seven ways in which the presidential election process could be improved. In his column, Mr. Bernard, a selfproclaimed Republican, argues against the electoral college, stating that “the current system provides for unfair domination by smaller states, devaluing the votes of our fellow Americans in the larger states. Is an unrepresentative dictatorship of smaller states better than one person one vote?” Mr. Bernard finds the “dictatorship of smaller states” supposedly created by the electoral college troublesome. Yet, would not an urban and coastal centered dictatorship be equally appalling? (And, just to clarify before forging forward, the electoral college does not create a “smaller state” dictatorship. If it did, the U.S. would have had an uninterrupted string of conservative presidents for decades now). Primarily, I would like to discuss what Mr. Bernard says is an “unrepresentative” electoral system. Mr. Bernard presumes that the electoral college takes away balance in the U.S. political system, but he is mistaken. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, nearly 81 percent of Americans lived in urban areas at the 2010 census. By that same census, 19 percent of Americans are rural. Ostensibly, the interests of rural people and urban populations do not align by many measures, although Mr. Bernard sees the electoral college to be a primarily partisan issue. Regions across the U.S. differ culturally, economically, religiously, and demographically. The preferences of our nation go far beyond simple sectarian lines, and it is important that our federal government consider all of these divergent preferences. However, should the U.S. move to a popularly elected President, the rural localities, most of which are situated throughout the Midwest, Southwest, and Southeast would be forgotten in lieu of the interests of morepopulated areas. Why? Since the electoral college gives more voice to less populated areas which, again, tend to be regionally clustered together, the electoral college ensures that each presidential candidate must pay attention to every region when campaigning and governing. Speaking on modern electoral patterns without the electoral college, because of the historical density of “blue” areas in the Northeast, West Coast, and urban areas of the U.S., would make it politically expedient to neglect whole swaths of the American
countryside in return for support from California and city-centers. This runs the threat of producing a one-party, non-competitive political system, at least where presidential elections are concerned. It is true that under the electorate system, every person does not have an equal voice in the election, per-se. The electoral college does take away comparative individual power from voters in larger states. However, I implore to Mr. Bernard and like-minded readers that regional representation is invaluable when choosing the president. Moreover, the electoral system is not wholly unfair to large states anyway—they still have significantly more electoral votes than small states (California has 55, Wyoming has 3, for example)—and there are other mechanisms of national representation in place to ensure that these larger states do, in fact, have more of a say than smaller states in national government. This is the primary function of the House of Representatives, after all. Ultimately, the electoral college is the best and only way to elect leaders for a nation as diverse as our own. It is likely that if the U.S. did rid itself of the electoral college, citizens would be disheartened by the loss of political diversity and correspondingly by the damaging effects that this loss would have on democracy. Though “smaller state” dictatorships are not welcomed in our American governance (and, in fact, are not even remotely an issue), the answer to Mr. Bernard’s question is that, yes, our current method of electing a President is overall more valuable, efficient, and wholly representative than a “one person one vote” system would be. b – Sydney North, Assistant Editor @SydneyNorth14
The Arch Conservative / 17
FEATURES
Pop Politics
The Parallel Regression of Music and Discourse
The homogenization of top-40 music over the past few decades has ruined American politics, as discourse has become lazy, uninspired, and repetitive.
T
he 2016 presidential election was a clear reflection of our nation’s diminishing attention span. So caught up were we in being deplorables or nasty women, paying attention to superficial appearances, “gotchas,” Twitter gaffes, and dueling insults that we never really digested either candidate. By Election Day, many voters had to invest their hopes in a “lesser of two evils” scenario in which the two candidates were tough to stomach for many hesitant voters. The current state of our politics is also a product of its infiltration by the entertainment industry. The impotent rage of virtuesignaling left-wing celebrities, whose policy knowledge is as deep as an internet meme, has contributed to this superficiality. Kid Rock’s ostensibly viable flirtation with a bid for Senate can certainly be attributed to Donald Trump’s remarkable upset in the presidential race. While some conservatives have claimed that the Kid Rock fervor is a win against establishment politics, the diminution of politics to this level is ultimately negative. Indeed, culture is upstream from politics. Hollywood and the entertainment industry in general have always tended toward the J. Thomas Perdue is Associate Editor at The Arch Conservative.
18 / The Arch Conservative
left-wing, but the most destructive aspect of their recent headlong foray into the political arena may be the effect that it has had on our attention spans. So, what happened to them? Well, the diminishing process has taken time, and one of its biggest contributors is the aforementioned infiltration by entertainment, and more specifically, the pop music industry. No, not anti-Bush activism from the Dixie Chicks or a Trump diss from Snoop Dogg. In fact, our attention spans have been drastically affected by how record companies have operated and how music distributors have evolved over the last five decades. One detractor of our attention span is the dumbing-down of the songs, themselves. A 2012 Reuters article, “Pop Music Too Loud and All Sounds the Same” explains a study performed by the Spanish National Research Council using an archive called the Million Song Dataset. This archive broke down popular songs from 1955 to 2010 based on lyrical and audio content. The council’s team leader and A.I. expert John Serra explains, "We found evidence of a progressive homogenization of the musical discourse. In particular, we obtained numerical indicators that the diversity of transitions between note combinations–roughly speaking: chords plus melodies–has consistently diminished in the last 50 years.” Perhaps most importantly, this study found that the timbre, or overall quality of sound as distinct from pitch or intensity, has diminished. This is likely due to the higher average volume at which music is now recorded. Physics dictates that a sound cannot
be made louder than the volume at which it was recorded without reducing its quality, but the competition to grab the attentions of passive radio-heads trumps quality any day of the week, in some producers’ minds. The way that companies produce and manage music has evolved over the years as well, and this aspect demands analysis. In the 60s and 70s, record companies operated in much riskier fashion. They would regularly sign new and promising acts to contracts and, as per the free market, the good acts sold well and the bad ones never made it. It was a high-risk tactic, and would be evermore so today with increased production costs. Over time, the larger labels have decided to stray from this towards a far safer, albeit much less honest strategy: they simply flood the airwaves. They totally saturate radio stations and public places and eventually, the mere exposure effect begins to take place. The mere exposure effect is a psychological phenomenon that causes people to prefer things simply because they are familiar. This is what makes repetitiveness so effective in pop songs. It’s brainwashing, and it lulls the listening public into a comfortable, albeit uninspired cycle of hearing, in essence due to homogenization, the same song over and over for years and years. Another explanation for the decline of pop music is its mode of purchase. Decades ago, people trekked to the store to buy records. Now, everything can be done in seconds with a smart phone. While this evolution is not, in and of itself, bad, it has reduced our attention spans. If someone buys a vinyl record, chances are, they’re apt to play
FALL 2017
PHOTOS COURTESY OF LORIE SHAULL
By J. Thomas Perdue
FEATURES
the whole thing more than once, becoming able to analyze and appreciate the nuances of each song. Phone downloads are prodded by hearing samples of songs, thus the climax of the song must arrive earlier in order to capture the fleeting attention of the listener. This too has contributed to the industry’s sonic homogenization. The shockwaves of this effect can be felt in several arenas of our culture, especially politics. Homogenization coupled with a dip in quality eerily mirrors the political parties of modern America. Watching Hillary Clinton debate Bernie Sanders in the primaries is as much a reflection of the homogenization of politics as a University of Georgia Student Government debate. Just as producers reside safely within the uninspired confines of pop music, candidates are quite aware of their limits. They will always take the “safe” route, and use repetitive tactics to which they believe people will respond. They will always use the “racist” label for anybody opposing the welfare state, because it is the worst label they can find, with or without substantial evidence. They will always draw complicated policy, like resistance to affirmative action, and unjustly simplify it to just racism. Broad, lazy, uninspired, and ultimately meaningless campaign slogans like “I’m with Her” (usually “Her” was capitalized, perhaps to advertise Clinton’s god-like status) surely result from short attention spans. This slogan tells us nothing other than the fact that Hillary Clinton is a woman. Propagating identity politics is no new strategy from the Left, and its success has become much more widespread given our limited attention span. We have become easy prey for cable news segments and short
FALL 2017
Facebook videos that exhibit quick sound bites that confirm our biases and elicit emotion. We want the answers to be as simple and as easy as possible, so we do not bother taking time to research those answers. It is easy for a voter to be with “Her” lest that voter be labeled a sexist. It is just as easy for the Left to hit Donald Trump with every “-ist” label they can find, because simplicity is much easier for Americans to digest than looking into Trump’s real character and qualities, not to mention what he actually does and plans to do as president. It is easy to think that the whole system sucks, so let’s just give it to Bernie (the undisputed master of the demagogic sound bite). Unfortunately, America needs something much more complicated than a system reboot. It needs problem solving, and problem solving is hard. It takes time. When it comes to using the pop music strategy of homogenization and aggressive repetition in politics, Donald Trump is no angel either. “Make America Great Again” is just as lazy and almost as meaningless as “I’m with Her.” The not-so-profound message of “there are problems and I want to fix the problems and I remember when there were not so many problems” is simply packaged into a bite-sized nationalist sentence. The comical nicknames given to primary opponents, the reactionary lambasting of “cuckservative” never-Trumpers and the general use of anti-establishment populism were all tactful exploitations of a short attention span. However, this is what makes Trump a better candidate than Mitt Romney. People do not want to hear about diminishing the 47 separate unemployment benefit programs run by nine federal agencies or why we should cut the corporate income tax
from 35 percent to 25 percent. People want to #LockHerUp! This trend does not bode well for American politics. On the bright side, just as there is still solid, creative music out there, there are good politics as well. One could reasonably say that the right has responded better to the current political marketplace, especially on college campuses. A few political figures have adopted popular personas and gained fame from instances of rebellion, much like the punk rockers of old. Take Jordan Peterson for example, who gained fame for the controversy he caused at the University of Toronto for his refusal to use the potentially infinite numbers of gender pronouns in his sociology courses. The videos of Peterson being shouted down by U of T students while trying to make rational arguments gained fame, and have turned many young minds on to his brilliant lectures on sociology, as well as other topics like postmodernism and religion. Ben Shapiro has similar success from his ironic fan-made “thug life” videos (a persona he only reluctantly embraces) in which he artfully retorts leftist arguments on television and in campus lectures. His podcast, The Ben Shapiro Show, has recently become one of the most popular political shows in the country. Perhaps pundits of the same cloth as Shapiro and Peterson can work to inspire the next generation of creative and open-minded thought leaders. The 2016 election proved that there is a sizable anti-establishment sentiment in the U.S., but so far that has not been channelled into much meaningful legislation. An optimistic merging of these two and a rejection of pop-politics may yet be on the horizon. b
The Arch Conservative / 19
FEATURES
What Happened? Well, Ya Lost...
Since what is arguably the greatest upset in modern American political history, senior Democratic party leader Hillary Clinton is still scornfully baffled at her defeat, now spending her days signing overpriced copies of her diary of political diatribe, naively entitled, “What Happened.”
H
uman nature, in situations that we consider to be unjust or emotionally displeasing, compels us to assign blame for our conditions, even when our failures can be traced back to our own faults. Ever since American men and women took back our nation on November 9, 2016, Hillary Clinton has demonstrated a remarkable capacity for distributing blame for her loss. She has unapologetically blamed her loss on a long list of people, places, and things including, but not limited to: Bernie Sanders, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Donna Brazile, former Vice President Joe Biden, James Comey, Vladimir Putin, former President Barack Obama, former U.S. Congressman Anthony Weiner, The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and even The New York Times. Clinton’s long list of aggressors makes her a worthy model for Hasbro Games’ collectors’ edition of Clue. “Was it Debbie Wasserman Schultz in the Library with the bleach and the cellphones?” “Was it Donna Brazile in the kitchen with the CNN debate questions?” After attacking well over a dozen individuals and organizations, Clinton Andrew Logan Lawrence is a regular contributor to The Arch Conservative.
20 / The Arch Conservative
has more recently directed her frustration for the loss in November toward the Electoral College, a constitutional mandate that is outlined in Article 1, Section II, Clause III, of the United States Constitution. For those who may be confused as to how Mrs. Clinton single-handedly engendered her own failure, allow me to indulge you with a brief synopsis of why the dreams of a scorned woman were never brought to fruition: 1. Clinton was strategically weak. She neglected key battleground states during the final months of the campaign (i.e. Michigan and Wisconsin). Indeed, it was this very neglect that delivered the initial blows to the “Blue Wall” that Donald Trump so effortlessly dismantled on election night. 2. She explicitly and excessively used contemptuous words like “deplorable” to describe those that didn’t align themselves with her platform. For a woman campaigning for the highest office in the land, one would think that Mrs. Clinton would exhibit more respect for the right to think freely. 3. The American people simply could not trust her. Under Mrs. Clinton’s authority as Secretary of State, there were several instances where the State Department refuted the notion that Hillary was working on a private server, or that her inbox contained emails linked to Benghazi. On more than one occasion, Mrs. Clinton claimed that she possessed no classified information on her private email server. She later changed her tone regarding the matter, admitting during a 2015 United Nations news conference that she did indeed make negligent use of
her email privileges. She claimed, however, that she combined the two servers merely for matters of convenience. The American people later discovered that Secretary Clinton set up the insecure server in order to raise money for The Clinton Foundation, a questionable “charitable” organization that Clinton seemingly used to pool monetary campaign resources and to fund her daughter Chelsea’s lavish wedding. By establishing her privately held “charity,” and making use of the private server, Secretary Clinton was exempt from Freedom of Information Act requests, which would have exposed her unethical behavior while Secretary of State. All of this was made possible with the help of her aides, Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills. 4. Mrs. Clinton’s hypocrisy was mindnumbing. How could the individual responsible for the deaths of four brave Americans in Benghazi possibly claim that Donald Trump posed an imminent threat to the safety of this country? Under Secretary Clinton’s watch, the State Department repeatedly refused to grant Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens, USFS Officer Sean Smith, and CIA Contractors Tyrone S. Woods and Glen Doherty the additional security that they so ardently requested. Due to Clinton’s neglect in granting these individuals’ requests, they are now dead. Moreover, following the attack, the American public was shocked to discover that Clinton outwardly blamed the heinous murders on backlash from “an online video” rather than radical Islamic terror. Nevertheless, Clinton continues to make the same mistakes that cost her and the Democrats the 2016 election, and will continue to
FALL 2017
PHOTO COURTESY OF GAGE SKIDMORE
By Andrew Logan Lawrence
FEATURES
cost the Democratic Party in the long haul. In her book, which at this point requires no introduction, Hillary writes that the women who did not vote for her in 2016 are now living with the consequences of their actions Moreover, she goes on to note that she will not forgive them for the grave, reckless mistake of not choosing her to serve as President. How can a woman whose “charitable” foundation and campaign raised millions of dollars in Saudi Arabia–a country which, to this day, continues to oppress women–possibly brand herself as an activist for women? At one point during the election, she claimed that “women who accuse men of sexual assault deserve to be believed.” Ironically, the Hillary Clinton that portrayed herself as a champion for women during the election is the same Hillary that publicly shamed Paula Jones, Juanita Broaddrick, and Monica Lewinsky–women who accused her husband of sexual misconduct. The Hillary Clinton that strove to “break the glass ceiling” is the very same Hillary that was recorded laughing at 12-year old Kathy Shelton, a victim of rape, in a 1975 case where Clinton defended the alleged rapist. Looking at the repertoire of the Federal
Bureau of Investigation, the American public is flabbergasted that former Director James Comey offered immunity deals to individuals connected with the Clinton Campaign as well as The Clinton Foundation, with what looks to have been no goal of building a legitimate case or prosecuting guilty parties. In essence, Comey provided the suspicious parties, with which Clinton worked, protections from future prosecution. Do we not mind that James Comey drafted Clinton’s memorandum of exoneration weeks before seventeen witnesses and Clinton were ever questioned by the Senate Intelligence Committee? Ironically, that very same exoneration memo contained the same verbiage used by former President Barack Obama and The Washington Post; both of whom affirmed Clinton’s innocence before the investigation was ever concluded. Both then President Barack Obama and The Washington Post fervently claimed that Secretary Clinton did not “maliciously intend to expose classified information.” Why have we not extensively investigated James Comey, the former head of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, who we now know drafted an exoneration memo for Clinton
before said investigation was complete? When, in federal criminal investigations, did the destruction of critical evidence like laptops and cell phones cease to warrant further investigation, or even a second glance for that matter? The time is now for Attorney General Jeff Sessions to open a federal criminal investigation into Hillary Clinton and The Clinton Foundation. We must empanel a grand jury, void the violated immunity deals issued to her band of cronies by James Comey, and see that justice is served. The American people have yet to see the degree to which Hillary Clinton fabricated information and coldly calculated her triage of tricks. Until the current Administration rids itself of Obama-era holdovers, the Deep State will continue to leak information, and the cycle of corruption in the “swamp” that President Trump so passionately aspired to drain will continue to follow the precedent set forth by the Clintons. And while we thought that after her belated concession speech, Hillary would retire to her luxurious Manhattan home, utterly disappearing from public life, you can now find her at your nearest Costco–signing books between the frozen pizzas and bleach. b
ISI: EXPERIENCE YOU
CAN’T AFFORD TO MISS T zz
zz zz
ake charge of your education today by joining ISI. Membership is free; what you gain is invaluable. Attend leadership conferences on liberty and limited government
Intern at leading publications like the Weekly Standard and USA Today and top conservative organizations like the Heritage Foundation Earn grants to fund your campus activities
zz
Get involved in ISI campus chapters and student newspapers
zz
—Christopher Lacaria, Harvard alumnus
Win scholarships and fellowships—prizes up to $30,000
zz
zz
“ISI gave me an education that even Harvard couldn’t.”
Receive a subscription to the Intercollegiate Review and “The Campus Caller” Network with like-minded students, top professors, and leaders in politics, business, and journalism
“ISI is a necessity for all college students.” —Kate Brickner, Ashland University
JOIN.ISI.ORG 800-526-7022 programs@isi.org
FALL 2017
The Arch Conservative / 21
HUMOR
The Rise of the Hip Right A New Movement in Counter-Culture Who’s that fellow listening to Radiohead, working in their home garden, wearing a—wait … is that a … a GOP shirt?
E
xcited for a weekend with a friend on the Appalachian Trail, you are on your merry way up the winding Blue Ridge Parkway when you spot an early 2000s Volkswagen Cabriolet struggling its way up the steep incline. You reach a straight in the road. The vast Tennessee valley to your right, splashed every shade of the autumnal color spectrum, captures your awe yet again. You are content, but it seems the vehicle ahead is quite a bit below the speed limit. No big deal, it is a rather large incline after all. The smoke emanating from the both the cabin and the exhaust of the vehicle as well as the multicolored dancing bears on the bumper, though, indicate that they might not be speeding up anytime soon. Attempting to reach your destination in order to watch the sunset, you decide this to be the opportunity to pass the old jalopy. Your engine’s whir increases in pitch as you begin to pass with relative ease, preparing to offer a nod or wave as you pass so as not to seem rude to your Appalachian compatriots. The VW’s top is down, allowing the interesting array of looped percussion, layered on top of one another and barely given direction by the lead singer’s whimsical voice, to vibrate the air in your cabin. Your friend recognizes the artist’s sound and guesses that it’s Animal Collective. A quick Spotify search confirms. It’s “FloriDada,” a newer release. “Makes sense,” she exclaims to your nonverbal agreement. With your final glance through the windshield, you take a quick look at the couple piloting the worn-out piece of German engineering. To your surprise, one of them sports a Young Americans for Freedom baseball Nick Geeslin is a senior studying international affairs. He is Editor–in–Chief at The Arch Conservative.
22 / The Arch Conservative
cap. Well that’s odd, you think to yourself. I thought YAF was a conservative organization, is it not? Upon a successful passing, you ask your co-pilot to give it a search. “Ok Google …,” the passenger proceeds. The phone promptly returns with a bit from the organization’s website: “Young Americans for Freedom today promotes to youth the principles of limited government, individual freedom, free enterprise, a strong national defense, and traditional values, as outlined in the Sharon Statement.” Hmmm … Your eyes meet in mutual surprise. This, my friends, is the beginning of the Hip Right. Here’s a question for you: What is the greatest threat to the Left today? While you may not yet know and those on the Left who do know may not admit to it directly, the answer is indubitably the Hip-Right: Conservatism’s Sexiest New Movement. The Hip Right represents more than just some ironic hypothetical movement; it represents, rather, those who peruse Pitchfork for their next surf-rock obsession, those who buy local and do their grocery shopping outdoors, and those whose morning routine isn’t complete until their jeans are rolled up enough to reveal a quirky pair of mismatched socks. Culture is indeed upstream from politics, and once the counseling sessions—incurred by some misinterpretation of a Radiohead lyric—are completed, the Hip Right’s cultural influence will have already infiltrated the grimy banks of Washington D.C. And then, the game is lost. The Left’s contentment with their influence on culture is understandable. Their complacency, however, will only catalyze capitulation to the fast-growing Hip Right. It is only a matter of time until a similar demographic to counter-culture movements-past such as the 60s hippies form again. But what establishment is there to resist today? You guessed it, the culture war waged for years by the self-righteous Hollywood Left. Imagine a day when the Republican Speaker of the House not only recognizes the dab but can also subtly implant a Migos line into a proposal for a free-market health care system. Consider the threat to the Left that a
presidential candidate who sports a Wu-Tang symbol on their phone case to compliment the American flag on their lapel. My goodness, if Mitch McConnell’s specs had rims as thick as Rodrigo Blankenship’s, Elizabeth Warren and Chuck Schumer’s voting records would read more conservative than John McCain’s in his most hawkish of voting years. We can sit around and talk about “principles” all we want. You just finished reading 21 pages of measured and well-researched articulation of principles, though. At times, the right just refuses to realize that arguing with facts and figures simply won’t cut it. The Left’s demagogues will always infiltrate the scene and manipulate the discourse to their advantage. Hell, demagoguery on the right is inevitable when Mr. Think Tank gets up and spouts off the intricacies of the exact corporate tax rate cut that will be best for the country. When it comes down to motivating the revolutionaries of society–a faction of Western culture that will always exist–, it’s ultimately about bucking the curve. It’s about giving a middle finger to the Man. The Left loses when they see past (as in lose their minds about), for example, guessing that Donald Trump is maybe not a racist. Johnny Rotten of the Sex Pistols, a man wellversed (to say the least) in middle fingers to the Man, did just that. In a display of perceptive counter-cultural genius, he also voiced support for Brexit. The right has been lacking in any real grasp on modern culture of late, but the Hip Right grows vast. All the while, the Left ironically takes the classic place of ‘the Man’ in the most important nexus to any revolutionary: ‘The Man’ vs. You. The Hip Right is more than that conservative artist you’ll meet at the flea market this Saturday. It represents, more broadly, the greatest known threat to the cultural identity of the Left as it stands today. Remain on your guard, Katy Perry. Stay frosty, Clooney. Sleep with one eye open, Senator Sanders. For, as we speak, the Hip Right awakens. And this time, it’s not to the tunes of yesteryear. b
FALL 2017
COLUMNS HUMOR
The Karaoke Cam Must Die Join the Resistance! Georgia's football experience is one of the best in the country, but one juvenile feature threatens to ruin it all ...
S
aturdays in the fall bring out the best in our campus. Students cease to be art students, engineers, and heartthrob magazine editors, transitioning instead to impassioned Bulldogs. The tailgate scene, the pregame pageantry, and, of course, the Georgia Bulldogs contribute to the emotional experience we all share. For this Bulldog, the emotional peak of a football Saturday is found in the rituals immediately preceding the game. In the upper deck, southwest corner, the trumpet soloist plays the opening notes to the Battle Hymn. Once the band joins the soloist atop the upper deck, Larry Munson’s narration inspires nostalgia and swiftly sobers and grabs the attentions of the 92,756 in attendance. I am not ashamed to admit that this sequence often brings me to tears. Calling the Dawgs before the opening kickoff, lighting up the stadium in the fourth quarter, and Ozzy Osbourne’s distinctly menacing voice in “War Pigs” that follows are all masterfully executed by the coordinators of the Sanford Stadium experience. They should be proud. Unfortunately, there is a newer tradition that is entirely antithetical to the Georgia football experience. It completely saps fans of any trace investment in the game and the school spirit that had been building up since J. Thomas Perdue is a junior studying journalism. He is Associate Editor at The Arch Conservative.
FALL 2017
“Baba O’Reilly.” I’m referring, of course, to the sickening American sports ritual known as the karaoke cam. It is as if a board of deep-state cronies sat around and pondered, “How do we totally kill the coolest football environment in the country?” The answer is unfortunately simple: poison Sanford Stadium's speaker system for the whole of four minutes with the
PO D C A S TS AVAIL AB L E ON IT U N E S AN D G OOG L E
corniest, most overplayed songs in musical history while the cameraman fires at will into the stands. The camera will typically fall on a group of sorority girls or some drunk dads, and God forbid they find somebody’s kid who thinks they can dance. Here is a scenario: Georgia is on a potential go-ahead drive in the second half. I mean, we’re wearing them out, Chubb’s getting eight yards a pop and we enter the red zone. Here, the opposing team calls a timeout to regroup ... Karaoke time! This time, it’s “House Party” by Sam Hunt. Keep in mind, this takes place after the fans and players have spent hours being treated to the stylings of
the Redcoat Band and their carefully composed, emotional, situation-driven medleys. The timeout is now over, yet everybody is still singing the song. After all, they know all the words, how could they resist? This ‘tradition’ creates a detrimental effect on the stadium’s atmosphere and even on the football team. How is Jim Chaney’s 4-D chess system of play calling supposed to operate with every Tri-Delt singing a Walmart country song over no music? UGA does not need a karaoke cam. Hypotheticals aside, it’s just a bad look, and the worst of it is the ‘air guitar’ solo cam. As a Georgia fan, if you want to make a fool out of yourself, at least do it productively. Over-served at a tailgate and in need of a trashcan? Forgivable. Head-butt an Auburn fan for looking at you crossways? Go for it. But please don’t let me catch you stumbling over yourself trying to imitate Neal Schon during “Don’t Stop BeP L AY lievin’.” Be an obnoxious Georgia fan, but have some self-respect, and have some respect for your university and its football pedigree. For the rest of this season, Georgia fans, take a stand with me. Join the resistance. #ResistKaraokeCam b
The Arch Conservative / 23
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