The Arch Conservative - Fall 2019

D

I

NG

AR

RA

SI

T HE S TA

ND

Isakson's Absence Who will fill the void?

By McKenzie Sams

Conservative Climate Solutions

By Carson Brown

The End of American Imperialism?

By Sarah Scherer

ARCHCONUGA.COM

The Kids Aren't Alright

By J.Thomas Perdue

FALL 2019

CAMPUS

COLUMNS

COLUMNS

4 The Campus Informant

6 Isakson's Absence

19 A Hidden Poverty

5 Campus Conservatives

7 Women in The GOP

20 Stats Complicate Gun Control

8 The Fight for Hong Kong

21 On Flag Burning

9 Does Georgia Need

22 Abandonment Abroad

By Ian LaCroix

Congregate

By Sarah Scherer

By McKenzie Sams

By Jeter Long

By Boris Abreu

FEATURES 10 Stacey Snubs The Senate

By Christopher Lipscomb

12 Bolton: The End of The

World As We Know It?

By Sarah Scherer

a Green Rush?

By Josie Lipton

16 Conservative Climate Solutions

By J. Thomas Perdue

By Diana Robertson

By J.Thomas Perdue

By Boris Abreu

23 The Sins of Our Fathers

By Ian LaCroix

By Carson Brown

17 Brexit: A Modern Day Parable

14 The Kids Aren't Alright

By Ethan Baker

By Hunter Burnett

18 Green is The New Red

THE EDITORS 3 The Standard Continues

By Ian LaCroix

By Wood Smith

The Arch Conservative Editorial Board and Staff: 2019-2020 Editor-in-Chief Ian LaCroix

Editor at Large J.Thomas Perdue

Website archconuga.com

Executive Editor Sarah Scherer

Associate Editor Christopher Lipscomb

Email archconuga@gmail.com

Publishing Editor Boris A. Abreu

Business Manager Sydney Robertson

Twitter @archconuga

Campus News Editor Jeter Long

Contributors Josie Lipton Carson Brown Wood Smith Hunter Burnett Ethan Baker Diana Robertson

Mail P.O. Box 1181 Athens, GA 30603

Online Editor McKenzie Sams Graphic Designer Sarah Scherer

2 / The Arch Conservative

FALL 2019

THE THE EDITORS EDITORS i

Editor's Corner The standard continues

A

s another semester begins and The Arch Conservative falls into new leadership, it once again becomes important for us to reiterate our values and our commitment to balancing the rhetoric on campus. The University of Georgia, like most institutes of higher learning, is an institution whose students and faculty lean toward the doctrines of liberalism. However, it is not, as some of our conservative peers would have you believe, a place where conservatives' beliefs are persecuted at every turn, or where students are indoctrinated into liberalism in a nefarious manner. That said, institutes of higher learning lean left, and it is up to conservative students to tip the scales.

The Arch Conservative was founded in 2013 to offer students a counter perspective to the belief that the consensus of UGA is liberalism, and to challenge students to think outside their comfort zone and embrace diversity of thought. To quote our inaugural editorial: “We are 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.”

Six years later, we remain unequivocally and unapologetically committed to providing to the student body with a conservative voice against that same unexamined consensus. We remain committed to publishing a wide array of topics and ideologies because ultimately the result will benefit campus.

We will not shy away from healthy debate and we will not hesitate to call the existing rhetoric on campus into question.

Furthermore, we will not hesitate to call our own conservative peers beliefs into question, for not doing so would be as great an injustice as not calling our liberal peers beliefs into question.

As we embark on another year at The University of Georgia, we look forward to providing the student body with a wide array of conservative content: our usually scheduled quarterly magazine, our podcast headed up by J. Thomas Perdue titled: “Radio Free Athens,” articles posted to our website and social media, and conservative speakers and panels. In our Fall 2019 issue of The Arch Conservative in print, you will find a thoughtful collection of topics from, in my opinion, some of the most well-spoken students on campus. In addition to the usual motley crew of editors, you will find the work of several new contributors joining the ranks of The Arch Conservative team.

In this edition, you will find topics including a tribute to U.S. Senator Johnny Isakson, conservative solutions to climate change, the use of children as political pawns in many of our contemporary debates, the situation in Hong Kong, the policy implications of the legalization of marijuana in Georgia, the homeless problem in Athens, and much more. We look forward to another great year at The Arch Conservative and remain committed to the values and purpose ingrained into this publication at its inception. We will always strive to challenge the student body as we continue our goal of Raising the Standard here at The University of Georgia.

-Ian LaCroix Editor-in-Chief

FALL 2019

The Arch Conservative / 3

CAMPUS

Dawgs Defeat The Irish

the campus

informant

O

n September 21st, the Georgia Bulldogs football team defeated the Notre Dame Fighting Irish 23-17 between the hedges. The game was Georgia’s third all-time win versus the Irish. The number three Bulldogs, favored by two touchdowns, actually trailed the seventh-ranked Irish at halftime, but pulled ahead thanks to two second-half takeaways, and great performances from team stars Jake Fromm, D’Andre Swift, and Rodrigo Blankenship. A win over a strong top-ten team helps Georgia’s chances at an eventual College Football Playoff berth, but perhaps just as significantly, the win was witnessed by the largest crowd in Sanford Stadium’s ninety-year history. Over 93,000 fans watched it live, and it was the highest-rated game of the season so far.

— J.Thomas Perdue

UGA Law Hosts First Amendment Clinic

O

n September 23rd, The University of Georgia School of Law announced that it will be starting a First Amendment legal clinic funded by a generous $900,000 grant from the Stanton Foundation. The Stanton Foundation was founded by the longtime owner of CBS, Frank Stanton and is committed to, among other things, supporting the First Amendment and fostering a more informed citizenry. According to UGA School of Law Dean Peter B. “Bo” Rutledge, “The law school community is excited about this partnership, which will not only support the First Amendment, but also give our law students the chance to protect the rights of individuals and to raise civic awareness in communities throughout the Southeast as they learn how to navigate cases and assist clients so they will be effective lawyers after graduation.” Rutledge and the law school have expressed immense gratitude for the Stanton Foundation’s generous grant and has begun a nationwide search to find a director of the clinic. This clinic will without a doubt be a valuable resource for individuals in the state and throughout the southeast seeking legal advice and representation on cases arising out of the First Amendment.

— Ian LaCroix

Corruption Leads to Tragedy

O

n June 20th of this year, a UGA employee by the name of Lasina Evans took her life in the Tate Student Center parking deck. What appeared at first to be an isolated incident quickly gave way to a narrative of at least a decade of embezzlement, fraud, and lack of oversight. Lasina Evans, who had been working in UGA’s Greek Life Office, diverted around $1.3 million of University funds and made inappropriate withdrawals from 2009 until the month of her death. An investigation into the matter determined that Evans was operating under “complete lack of oversight” by UGA Greek Life administration, which allowed for “an environment that allowed for the misappropriation of funds without being detected for an extended period” according to an internal memo and The Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

Although the investigation revealed that Evans was acting alone, the director and assistant director of UGA Greek Life have since resigned as a result of the incident. UGA police are currently working to determine if any money is able to be recovered, and they expect no charges to be filed as a result of the matter. Following this nefarious act of fraud, campus organizations are sure to apply oversight reforms that prevent another act like this from happening again.

— Ian LaCroix

4 / The Arch Conservative

FALL 2019

CAMPUS

CAMPUS CONSERVATIVES CONGREGATE Which student organization fits your style?

A

conservative student arriving at the University of Georgia may wonder if the best way to choose a conservative organization is to roll the dice. To the undiscerning eye, UGA offers a handful of conservative or right-leaning organizations that compete for membership. After speaking with leaders of College Republicans, Turning Point USA, and Young Americans for Liberty, it became apparent to me that each organization has unique opportunities to offer the politically inclined student.

College Republicans

Ethan Pender, Chairman of the College Republicans, met me at the Tate Center with a friendly demeanor and a smart, collared shirt. He has served in his position for two years, and it showed when he spoke precisely about the purpose of College Republicans on campus: “Our purpose is to educate the UGA community on the values of the Republican Party, elect Republicans, and train future Republican leaders.”

When asked about the upcoming Presidential race, Pender expressed determination to “put a dent” in the election, helping Donald Trump gain traction in Athens.

However, Pender insisted his approach to politics isn’t personal, nor is his organization’s. He refuses to see the country’s steep partisan divide as a battle between “good guys and bad guys,” but rather a matter of conflicting values.

He referred to the diversification of the GOP, especially among younger crowds, as a sign of the changes to come. Specifically, Pender sees “communities of color, women,” and other groups Democrats “think they have a lock on” drifting rightward.

He suggested that one of College Republicans’ goals is to get people comfortable speaking about their political views. Rather than perceiving the Republican Party as an exclusive entity with an inflexible agenda, Pender takes an inclusive approach: Sarah Scherer is a senior studying International Affairs.

She is Executive Editor of The Arch Conservative.

FALL 2019

“Something I want to be clear about is we’re a big tent party. If you identify as Republican, and you want to be in our party, that’s fine.”

Pender says that, as the collegiate wing of the Republican Party, the College Republicans support Donald Trump. In reference to the mass enthusiasm behind the President, Pender identified the Democrats as the party of ivory towers and the coastal elites. He believes Democrats have been “doing things out of lock-step with what heartland Americans want.”

What kind of student is a College Republican? Pender says the organization is for those who want to be “plugged in” professionally. The organization connects students to internships and offers numerous opportunities to get involved directly in the political process. Rest assured, College Republicans is “not all business all the time” with date nights and events like “The Great Debate,” hosted with the Young Democrats.

Turning Point

Founder and former President of Turning Point UGA, Erin Cooke, spends most of her time on the road. As State Director for Turning Point USA, she travels to different Georgia colleges to help develop the Turning Point chapters there. In her words, Turning Point’s goal is “to counteract the typical classroom narrative.” Cooke described capitalism and the U.S. Constitution as being “under attack” in the classroom.

One of Turning Point’s primary goals according to Cooke is to create dialogue, and to start conversations that wouldn’t otherwise be had. Knowing that Turning Point’s marketing approach has created controversy, I had to ask if this strategy is conducive to the organization’s goals.

“Everyone has their headphones in at Tate,” Cooke observed. “You have to grab their attention somehow!” She described how Turning Point’s technique “markets to the culture.” Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk came up with a plan for his chapters to re-market the concept of “choice.” As Cooke explains it, “We’ll try to counteract the typical idea like, ‘I’m prochoice, pick your gun!’”

Cooke is aware of the criticism Turning Point receives, but she is clear that this does not detract from Turning Point’s overarching goal: “Even when they’re trash talking

us, at least they’re talking.”

Who should attend Turning Point meetings? Cooke insists “literally anyone” is welcome at Turning Point meetings. She invites people with opposing views as a matter of principle: “When we stop talking to each other is when we lose as a nation altogether, and that’s what we see happening right now.”

Young Americans for Liberty

Liam Monast, President of Young Americans for Liberty, stated off the bat that his organization is a “bastion for out-of-thebox political ideas.” Young Americans for Liberty officially promotes libertarianism, yet Monast says the organization often finds common ground with the two major political parties.

According to Monast, Young Americans for Liberty’s ideas can safely be placed on the right, but he observes that “every party is going left, [and] some are in a good way.”

Monast claims that while the Republican Party has moved left, creating more overlap with libertarians, libertarians have held the same principles all along.

Monast admits that Young Americans for Liberty is not all about activism and outreach: “I would love to change people’s minds, but people walking down the street at Tate don’t want you to!”

Monast describes Young Americans for Liberty members as resilient to taking offense at each other’s statements. Referencing popular comedian Dave Chapelle and his controversial Netflix special Sticks and Stones, Monast said, “if you get offended, just remember, you clicked on my face.”

Young Americans for Liberty members operate under this understanding at meetings where “alternative thinking” is praised.

“The way that we talk about [political] issues fosters enough mutual respect initially, that people give others the benefit of the doubt.”

Why join Young Americans for Liberty?

“Come to YAL, so you can hear stuff you haven’t heard before,” Monast says.

Editor's Note: Young Americans for Freedom, an active organization as of Spring 2019, did not respond to our interview request.

5 / The Arch Conservative

COLUMNS

Isakson's Absence The Senator’s departure opens the door for candidates from both parties

O

n August 28th, Senator Johnny Isakson (R-GA) announced he will step down from his seat at the end of the year. Isakson, who is the only Georgian to be elected to the State House, State Senate, and U.S. House and Senate, is stepping down due to increasing health risks from Parkinson’s disease, with which he was diagnosed in 2015.

Senator Isakson released a statement expressing his disappointment in stepping down during a Senate term, “It goes against every fiber of my being to leave in the middle of my Senate term, but I know it is the right thing to do on behalf of my state.”

Isakson’s decision puts Republicans in a tight position ahead of the 2020 election cycle, as Georgia has become a battleground state targeted by Democrats during presidential elections. Now, with Isakson’s looming departure from the Senate chambers, the chance of Democrats taking both Senate seats in Georgia could have substantial implications for both state and national politics.

Governor Kemp is going to have to find a replacement Georgians are willing to support for both the remainder of Isakson’s term and ahead of the 2020 elections. This decision is arguably the most daunting obstacle for the Kemp administration’s first term. Moreover, the replacement will need to be someone who can withstand a hard-fought Senate race in 2020, where Democrats are going to try everything in their power to gain control of the state. Kemp announced he will be taking applications from anyone qualified by the Georgia Constitution to be in McKenzie Sams is a junior studying Accounting. She is Online Editor of The Arch Conservative.

6 / The Arch Conservative

consideration for Isakson’s seat. Kemp may choose to elect someone from his 2018 gubernatorial ticket such as Attorney General Chris Carr, Lieutenant Governor Geoff Duncan, and Representative Doug Collins.

On the other side of the aisle, Democrats who have been on the fence about running for Senate may reconsider. Stacey

Abrams, the vociferous Democrat who claimed to have been robbed of the 2018 gubernatorial election, may be open to the potential of taking the political stage at a national level with a Senate run. Other dark horse candidates to be on the lookout for include UGA Law School graduates Stacey Evans (who lost the Democratic nomination to challenge Kemp in 2018) and former acting U.S. Attorney General Sally Yates.

Before Isakson’s retirement, his colleague, Senator David Perdue, was the only Senate seat open for re-election in Georgia. Perdue’s seat will be hard to challenge as Perdue attracts Trump voters in his own political agenda and will likely gain an endorsement from the President.

In addition, Perdue is related to current Secretary of Agriculture Sonny Perdue, who also served as Georgia’s 81st Governor and is apart of one of the most wellknown families in the state. Perdue has no clear predominant challenger as hopeful Democrats have remained relatively quiet

in jump-starting their campaigns. Former Columbus Mayor Teresa Tomlinson has started her campaign to oust Perdue, along with Sara Riggs Amico who lost the Lieutenant Governor’s race to Geoff Duncan in 2018. Both women believe they can win key rural areas of Georgia, all while maintaining a progressive platform. Jon Ossoff, who lost the 2017 special election to Karen Handel in Georgia’s Sixth District, has also thrown his hat into the ring and plans to challenge Perdue in 2020.

Georgia has begun to lean less red compared to other Southern states. President Trump only won Georgia by 5 percent in 2016, compared to the 7.8 percent margin of victory Romney pulled off in 2012. In fact, Georgia was one of the last states to be called for President Trump in 2016. Republicans are going to have to work much harder to maintain a solid conservative message in order to motivate more rural voters to continue to vote in the upcoming elections. Kemp managed to win the gubernatorial election by a mere 1.39 percent compared to 7.86 percent margin of victory Governor Nathan Deal won by in 2014. Of course, the 2018 governor’s race for Georgia was indeed unusual in many ways. The race captured national attention in what most would consider a negative fashion. Both Kemp and Abrams were both polarizing candidates, with Kemp running on a similar platform President Trump used to win his election and Abrams embracing the progressive agenda.

Regardless, the data shows Georgia is becoming increasingly purple as time goes on. Republicans cannot afford to lose Georgia to Democrats if they want a chance at winning the Presidency again in 2020. With Isakson’s seat now up for grabs alongside Perdue’s, Democrats now have a chance to swing more moderate voters to vote Democrats for not just one, but two Senate seats for Georgia.

FALL 2019

COLUMNS

Women in The GOP Increasing diversity in the Republican Party

O

ne of only 13 Republican female lawmakers in the United States House of Representatives, Congresswoman Susan Brooks from Indiana, announced her retirement early this past summer. Since then she has launched a stark initiative to encourage more Republican women to run for office while serving as the Recruitment Chief for the Republican National Congressional Committee. After the 2018 elections, which marked the House flip to a democratic majority, as well as the retirement of Congresswoman Ileana Ros Lehtinen from Florida and the defeat of Congresswoman Mia Love of Utah, the Republican party is amid not only a shortage of female representatives but especially those of racial minorities. With the fast-approaching 2020 elections, all 435 House seats and 34 Senate seats are up for re-election. With that, the question comes, "What does the future look like for women in the Republican party?"

Of those 435 seats up for re-election, three of the most-valuable elections will be Georgia's 6th, New York's 14th, and California's 39th Congressional Districts.

But what do all of these seats have in common? They are all being contested by Republican women of color. Nicole Rodden is one of McBath's many competitors who has garnered public attention recently for being a first-generation American, born to Greek and Hondorian parents. Rodden was born in Manhattan, New York and moved to Georgia with her parents while a teenager. She later attended the United States Merchant Marine Academy and then served seven years with the United States Navy Reserves while earning the title of Lieutenant. Georgia's 6th District, currently held by McBath, was formerly the seat of both former United State's Secretary of Health and Human Services, Jeter Long is a junior studying Journalism.

He is Campus News Editor of The Arch Conservative.

FALL 2019

Tom Price, and former Georgia Secretary of State, Karen Handel. She [Handel] narrowly won the seat against the documentary-filmmaker Jon Ossoff in the most expensive House race in United States history. Rodden is contesting the seat with a traditionally conservative platform that focuses on issues like promoting small business while diminishing the regulations of government-implemented red tape, protecting our military by ensuring that, "Georgia's current military installations expand and do not fall subject to Base Realignment and Closure" per her website platform, as well as combating the opioid epidemic that Georgia is facing. Fundamentally speaking her goal is to defend the Constitution, protect life, and reduce the size of government.

Unlike Georgia's 6th, New York's 14th District has not been held by a Republican Representative since Congresswoman Susan Molinari won the 1990 election, but then was redistricted to New York's 13th District in 1993. Since then, three Democrats have held the seat. Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney held the seat from 19932013 until she was redistricted to New York's 12th District and then John Crowley who held the seat until 2019 when he was defeated by a political newcomer, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who is the incumbent and the youngest member of the United States House of Representatives.

Since the announcement of her candidacy, Scherie Murray, the Republican Jamaicanborn immigrant received national attention for her upfront opposition of OcasioCortez. When Murray was 9-years old, her family immigrated to Queens, New York, where she became a naturalized citizen at 18 and attended Brooklyn College where she obtained a Journalism degree. She accredits her time within the City University of New York institution as the inception of her conservative ideology when she began to study politics and found that her views aligned with the Republican party.

As a resident of the 14th District, Murray found the most significant issues in the District are those regarding jobs, infrastructure, and education--which serve as three of the main points in her campaign

platform. Contesting against Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez will not be an easy task for Murray given that Ocasio-Cortez won the seat by a nearly 79 percent margin against the incumbent John Crowley. If Murray wins the republican primary, the New York's 14th district race will prove to be a test of whose policies appeal to the constituent basis since both candidates equally represent the demographics.

Similarly to New York 14th race, California's 39th Congressional District is currently occupied by a first-term Congressional member, Gil Cisneros and contested by a naturalized American immigrant. Young Kim, who was Congressman Cisneros’ opposition in 2018, is a Korean-American who was the first Korean-American to serve in the California State Assembly. Unlike Rodden and Murray, Kim is a long-time veteran to public service after working as a staff member in Congressman Ed Royce's congressional office for over 20 years and then running for the State Assembly herself.

After winning in 2014 against incumbent Sharon Quirk-Silva, she was then defeated by Quirk-Silva in the 2016 rematch.

Kim then announced her 2018 candidacy for the vacant 39th District seat and narrowly lost against Cisneros 51.6-48.4 percent. With a platform consisting of increasing funding for education, specifically within the STEM field, creating jobs and improving the stability of the economy, Kim has received praise for her record of opposing higher taxes by the O.C. Register while working to make California more affordable for its residents. If elected, she will be the first Korean-American woman to serve within the United States Congress.

Regardless of the 2020 election outcome, the efforts by Congresswoman Brooks and the Republican Congressional Committee will systematically change the face of the Republican Party.

The Arch Conservative / 7

COLUMNS

The Fight For Hong Kong Citizens take a stand against China's overreach

F

or the better part of the last five months, the people of Hong Kong have been taking to the streets in protest, sometimes peaceful and at times violent, to seek the removal of a bill from Hong Kong’s legislative body. Rather aptly named the Fugitive Offenders Amendment, it would reform the legal system to allow offenders to be extradited back to the Chinese mainland to face trial in its murky justice system. Almost immediately, it was met with harsh pushback from Hong Kongers, who fear an erosion of their proudly autonomous tradition.

Hong Kong is a unique case because technically, it “belongs” to China, as it was handed over by the British to the Chinese in 1997. However, contrary to being just another province or region within the larger state, Hong Kong has its own culture, currency, and political system. Moreso, Hong Kong has a de-facto constitution, enshrined under the “one country, two systems” practice that makes Hong Kong unique. Contained within this constitution-- the Basic Law, are ideals not afforded to normal Chinese citizens, such as freedom of speech, free press, and the right to protest-- similar to our freedoms.

As such, Hong Kongers are very proud of their legal tradition and take offense to efforts to remove it, as evidenced by the ongoing protests.

One of the core problems lies in Beijing. Under the previously noted system, Beijing has allowed Hong Kong to be largely autonomous, and one of the key tenets of the Basic Law is that Hong Kong has the right to develop its own democracy. Beijing has promised not to interfere-until recently, as Chinese officials have interpreted the “one country, two systems” deal to mean that the Basic Law states Boris A. Abreu is a graduate student pursuing a Master of International Policy. He is Publishing Editor of The Arch Conservative.

8 / The Arch Conservative

that Beijing has jurisdiction over Hong Kong. While the executive of Hong Kong, Carrie Lam, is the leader, she is in fact appointed

by Beijing. This may lend credence to the above claim.

However, the ideals that Hong Kongers are proud of are not something that they feel they have to give up for Beijing’s sake.

Understandably, if President Xi and Chief Executive Lam cave to the full slate of the protestor’s demands, it will weaken his position with his other claims. On the reverse, if he takes harsh action against these protestors, it will draw wide international condemnation and could damage Chinese reputations abroad. One cannot help but think back to the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 and the horrific response-except in this age of information transmission, the Chinese cannot scrub away the evidence so easily. Indeed, Beijing has claimed it has no stake in the outcome, only that the rule of law pervade, but there is no denying that this situation is causing many a headache within the Party.

Of course, a counter argument against the protestors is the claims of incessant violence and terroristic intent among the protestors. Indeed, there have been less-than-pleasing protestors wantonly destroying property and taking away from the legitimacy of the movement, though mostly, the protestors have been peaceful and kept the unsavory parts away from the core of the movement. As with many protest movements however, the nastier bits tend to get the most coverage, and China has used this as justification for some questionable police actions against the protestors.

The protestors have laid out a list of five key demands: for Chief Executive Lam to step down, for an inquiry into police brutality, for those who have been arrested to be released, for greater democratic freedoms, and for the bill to be formally

withdrawn. The protestors have scored a marked victory on the final demand, as Mrs. Lam has stated that the bill was to be officially tabled once the legislature had returned from summer recess.

From our point of view, the people of Hong Kong are struggling beneath the yoke of an oppressive regime that is trying to stifle their freedoms--a perspective shaped by the American ideals that are known by many, yet treasured by few.

There is something to be said about the pervasiveness of American ideals; we take these for granted each and every day.

Unfortunately, we can be jaded to the fact that others around the world do not enjoy the same expansive freedoms that we do-and we would do well to support those who fight for their own freedoms against authoritarian regimes.

There is a reason that the people of Hong Kong are singing the national anthem of the United States, waving our stars and stripes in conjunction with their own.

They see America as an ally, a beacon of hope, but much more than that, they see America as an idea. They see the struggle for freedom against the British, they see the hard-won rights and liberties, shaped by years of turmoil and hardship, but they also see the success of our American experiment, and hope to see our support for them be vocal and clear--and it is long overdue that we give them the credit that they deserve.

FALL 2019

COLUMNS

Does Georgia Need a Green Rush?

Examining the effects of marijuana legalization

A

s states begin to relax restrictions on cannabis, it seems inevitable that Georgia will eventually opt in favor of legalizing recreational marijuana. Even cautious state governments like Georgia’s are moving toward repealing laws banning marijuana by adding more diseases to the domain of conditions protected by legal use.

As a Pacific Northwest native, I’ve seen firsthand the effects of the marijuana industry on communities like my family’s hometown in a poorer suburb outside of Seattle.

Washington state legalized the production, sale, and consumption of recreational marijuana in 2012. The economic impact is undeniably remarkable; mature markets such as Washington’s have over 30,000 jobs per state in the cannabis industry. This influx of new jobs, along with huge amounts of tax revenue, led many voters to support legalizing marijuana, if not necessarily condoning use of the drug itself. In Georgia, a majority of voters now favor legalizing.

A poll commissioned by Atlanta’s 11Alive News in May 2018 showed that 55% of voters support legal recreational marijuana.

Although state economies benefit greatly from the addition of this new industry, the implications on communities should be considered as well. Georgia hasn’t gone green yet, but using data from Washington we can predict possible results, good or bad, that legalization could have locally.

Georgia and Washington are both on the rise in terms of industry and population. Despite its relatively larger population, however, citizens of Georgia experience more poverty and lower average income than Washington residents. Those living below the poverty line in Georgia could benefit from the creation of new jobs in areas with higher unemployment rates Josie Lipton is a freshman studying Art History and Journalism. She is a first-time contributor to The Arch Conservative.

FALL 2019

or from tax support from marijuana sales.

In 2018 alone, Washington collected over $319 million in tax revenue from cannabis sales. The statewide demand for cannabis may drive governments to tax it heavily, with Washington charging 37% sales tax on top of about 10% existing local tax.

Relying on sin taxes as a way to increase government income is hazardous, but the idea of millions of dollars pouring into the state piggy bank could be incredibly tempting for Georgians, given that state healthcare isn’t completely funded and educators are overdue for a raise. Furthermore, in America as a whole, jobs in the field of legal cannabis are expected to have the highest amount of growth, with a three-year projection by the Bureau of Labor Statistics expecting a 110% increase in demand by 2020. In Georgia, the promise of new jobs and loads of tax revenue may be too appealing for both voters and state officials to resist.

Unfortunately, the marijuana industry isn’t simply a one-faced coin. All the economic perks that come with legalizing are accompanied by a set of mixed social implications. Potential harmful effects of marijuana use, like detrimental effects on brain chemistry or uncertainty around addiction, are still debated. Regulations on advertising in Washington state are strong; similar to guidelines for liquor or cigarettes, no enticing imagery or persuasive marketing is allowed. In spite of these protections, though, studies show that dispensaries are more often found in low-income areas, with a July 2017 analysis

by Marijuana Business Daily showing that “40% of [recreational] shops in Seattle and Denver…are located in parts of [the] city where average earnings fall in the bottom 25th percentile.” The reasons for this are varied--Washington retailers report that landlords were reluctant to rent to them at the law’s rollout--but drug-related stigma may play a role in driving dispensaries disproportionately towards low-income areas.

Regardless, the positive feedback loop created by inadvertently exposing individuals in lower-income areas, and thus, running the risk of normalizing consumption,

cannot be ignored.

A Journal of Preventive Medicine study of young adults in Los Angeles County, California, found that living near dispensaries with storefront signs had a four-to six‐ fold larger effect on the number of times used per day. The imbalance between retail dispensaries in affluent neighborhoods compared to lower-income areas may help cultivate a sense of accessibility that encourages teens and young adults to use. In most cases, those lobbying for the legalization of marijuana--the middle and upper classes--are not the ones consuming the bulk of it. The burden of the repercussions of using marijuana falls back onto those in the lowest income brackets, and the Seattle elite continues to reap many of the rewards of legalization without experiencing its drawbacks.

Although states on the west coast are generally far more liberal than those in the south, as demographic patterns shift, so do voting trends. Several conservative counties in Washington have issued prohibitions on marijuana businesses. If Georgia were to make the change itself, I believe we’d see a similar spread of low-income neighborhoods shouldering a disproportionate number of retail dispensaries, inadvertently driving up consumption in low-income areas. Even though a portion of tax revenue in Washington is devoted to educational programs, state health surveys show that 26% of Washington 12th graders have used marijuana in the past month compared to Georgia’s 13.2%. Counties in Georgia that have a higher mean age or income could choose to outlaw marijuana completely, but still may feel the economic boost of legalization without being exposed to the grittier parts themselves.

Given other states’ results, the burden may fall most heavily on low-income counties or communities, which already are more likely to use cigarettes and alcohol than their affluent counterparts. Are the economic benefits really worth it? Most libertarian voters will say yes, but it seems unjust to add another ingredient to the already damaging mix that encumbers low-income communities.

The Arch Conservative / 9

FEATURES

Stacey Snubs The Senate Her sights are set higher than Georgia

By Christopher Lipscomb

S

ince losing to Brian Kemp in the 2018 gubernatorial election, Stacey Abrams has ruled out running for the Senate in spite of the fact that she has the statewide profile to make a competitive run. Now that Senator Johnny Isakson has announced his retirement at the end of the year, Georgia will have two Senate elections in 2020. If electoral history teaches anything, it is that senate seats are likely to flip without an incumbent seeking reelection. If the pundits are correct, and Georgia is turning purple, Isakson’s retirement creates a prime opportunity for Democrats to reverse fifteen years of Republicans holding both of Georgia’s Senate delegation—an opportunity which may not present itself again for years to come.

Now that they have a chance to challenge Georgia’s Senate seats in the same year, the Democrats who were so restless only a year ago are now silent. Admittedly, there is a small crowd of Democrats vying for Perdue’s seat—Sarah Riggs Amico, who had a respectable showing in the 2018 lieutenant gubernatorial race with forty-eight percent of the vote, and Jon Ossoff, who very nearly flipped the Sixth District in 2017. Seven declared Democratic candidates ensure a showdown amongst themselves, while Perdue, as if unopposed, can put on his jean jacket and run all over the state making his case.

Rather than marshaling their resources and making a concerted effort for Isakson’s Christopher Lipscomb is Associate Editor of The Arch Conservative.

10 / The Arch Conservative

open seat, the Democrats have blundered their way into a losing situation by placing all of their eggs in one basket, focusing on knocking out Perdue and giving zero attention to Isakson’s seat.

That being said, the Democrats could still flip Isakson’s seat. Governor Kemp will appoint someone to fill Isakson’s seat until November 2020, when there will be an election to determine who fills the seat until the regularly scheduled election in 2022. However, the odds that Georgia Democrats will take advantage of the once-in-a-generation opportunity of two Senate elections in one year are incredibly low. There is only one Democrat with the statewide profile to have a reasonable chance of winning election to the Senate in 2020, and she is refusing to make a run.

But why would she make a run for the Senate? The past several months, Abrams has demonstrated that she has no respect for the United States Senate—she feels that it is not a sufficient platform for her—and she has no true interest in representing Georgians. Despite all of her talk, at the end of the day, the only thing she cares about is advancing her own interests, and keeping herself ready and relevant for the next big step in her career.

Abrams’ Georgia political roots run deep. As a high schooler, she worked as a typist on a congressional campaign and was eventually hired to serve as a speechwriter on that campaign. While at Spelman College, she worked in Atlanta mayor Maynard Jackson’s office and took part in a 1992 protest against the old

Georgia state flag, and was involved in burning one on the steps of the Georgia Capitol. After graduating from Yale Law School, Abrams was appointed Deputy City Attorney for the City of Atlanta in 2002. Abrams entered the Georgia House of Representatives in 2007, and by 2011 was the minority leader—the first African American woman in Georgia history to hold that position.

In 2017, Abrams announced her candidacy for the Democratic nomination to be Governor of Georgia, igniting the “Battle of the Staceys” between her and fellow state representative Stacey Evans, and on August 25, 2017, she resigned from the General Assembly to focus her efforts around campaigning. Around this time, Abrams began to exhibit what has come to be her greatest fundamental issue: hubris.

In November 2017—still six months out from winning the Democratic gubernatorial primary—Abrams did an interview with Cosmopolitan and talked about her life’s goals, which the magazine succinctly summed up: “If all goes as planned, the earliest Stacey Abrams would run for president is in 2028. Not 2020—that’s too soon. Not 2024—the Democrat who vanquishes President Trump in 2020 will be up for re-election. No, the first opportunity is 2028. That’s her year.” Sure, she went on to discuss policy, but the big headline was that Abrams would eventually run for president. Not only would she run, she would win after having served eight years as Governor of Georgia. Quite a bold assertion for someone who had never

FALL 2019

FEATURES

won a race outside of DeKalb County, and still had to win her party’s nomination for governor. Clearly, these were not the aspirations of someone who was most concerned about Georgians.

Eventually, May 22, 2018 came and Abrams won the primary in a blowout, seventy-six percent to Evans’ twentythree percent, giving Abrams the sort of coronation she no doubt felt she deserved.

Not only did she shatter her Democratic opposition, but she got a head start on the general election. As then-Lieutenant Governor Casey Cagle held off his Republican challengers long enough that it went to a run-off between him and Brian Kemp, Abrams had a full two months to run all over Georgia and make her case. The ensuing fight between Kemp and Abrams was close. So close, in fact, that nearly every polling outfit deemed it a toss-up only a week prior to election day. When election day rolled around, Kemp squeaked by, winning by roughly 50,000 votes and giving Abrams a new rallying cry: “Voter suppression!”

And thus began the current act of Stacey Abrams’ political life. Long gone are the days when Minority Leader Abrams would reach across the aisle and make a deal with Governor Deal, as she did so often as a state representative. Since compromise no longer benefits her, why would she bother to do it?

Abrams and her camp went into overdrive, citing voter suppression and alleging what amounted to outright fraud and corruption on Kemp’s part, without providing any evidence to back her claims.

Rather than encouraging her supporters to rally behind the newly-elected governor and help keep Georgia moving forward, Abrams opted to follow the new Democratic playbook and sow divisiveness across the state, simply to keep herself relevant for future elections. Nearly a year has passed since Kemp was elected, and Abrams still has not conceded the race— not because her refusal to do so has any positive impact for Georgia, but because

FALL 2019

it keeps her politically relevant, all while paying lip service to the legitimate interests and concerns of Georgians.

Keeping her show in Georgia was not good enough for Abrams—instead, she has chosen to take it across the nation, pledging to wage war against “voter suppression” wherever she finds it, though the odds of her finding any examples of voter suppression that are not beneficial to Democrats are slim to none. In February 2019 Abrams gained a national voice, becoming the first African American woman to give the response to the State of the Union Address after having been invited to do so by Chuck Schumer. At the same time, Schumer and national Democrats were courting Abrams, hoping to convince her to make a run for the Senate against David Perdue.

Any public servant worth their salt will take any opportunity to serve what they feel to be the best interests of those they represent, especially when asked to make an effort to do so. And there are very few better ways to serve the public, both at the state and national levels, than by serving in the world’s greatest deliberative body: the United States Senate. And yet, with Chuck Schumer and Senate Democrats begging her to run for the Senate, Stacey Abrams chose not to, stating that “the fights to be waged require a deep commitment to the job, and I do not see the U.S. Senate as the best role for me in this battle for our nation’s future.” She views voter suppression as such a rampant issue that she has established Fair Fight, which aims to take on voter suppression not only in Georgia, but across the country, going so far as to liken today’s elections to those held in the days of Jim Crow.

If what Abrams says is true, and modern elections are being held under a modern-day Jim Crow, then which entity in the United States is more suited to combat it than the United States Senate?

Was it not the United States Congress that followed through on the sacrifices of the Union Army and legislated an end to

slavery, extended citizenship to all who are born in America, and said that all have the right to vote in 1865? Was it not the United States Congress which extended equal protection to the rights of all Americans in 1964, and acted to protect all Americans’ right to vote in 1965, thereby defeating Jim Crow? Clearly Congress is well prepared to protect the rights of all Americans, and if there is any place to do it, one would be hard-pressed to find a better place to do so than the United States Congress, particularly its upper chamber.

At the end of the day, none of that really matters to Abrams, because she does not really care about Georgians. If she did, she would have spent more time campaigning in Georgia, rather than fundraising in San Francisco. If she did, she would have conceded nearly a year ago, instead of taking her outrage show on the road, insisting that the election was stolen from her and refusing to recognize that someone who is not Stacey Abrams is the legitimate Governor of Georgia. If she did, she would not be so overt in her ambitions, leaving no doubt that serving the great state of Georgia and its people is nothing but a stepping stone to higher offices and greater power in her eyes. If she did really care about Georgia, she would jump at the unique opportunity presented by two Senate seats being open in the same year, and would make an effort to bring her vision to the United States Senate, where she could endeavor to make her vision a reality not only for Georgians, but for all Americans. But she will not do that. She will not do that because she is a charlatan whose only concern is amassing power and prestige for herself. She will not do that because she does not truly care about the issues facing Georgians. She will not do that because the United States Senate and the opportunity to represent Georgians is entirely beneath Stacey Abrams.

The Arch Conservative / 11

FEATURES

The End of The World As We Know It? Does Bolton's departure signal a shift in foreign policy status quo?

By Sarah Scherer

O

ften in a prophetic and sentimental tone, President Ronald Reagan would quote Christ. In His sermon transcribed in Matthew, Chapter 5, Christ tells his listeners: “You are the light of the world. A city that is set on a hill cannot be hidden.” As Reagan put it, America was that “shining city upon a hill.” The guiding light of liberalism for the world: political liberty, free markets, and a Christian conviction that was beginning to wane in Europe. The shining light Christ spoke of may have been slightly different, but the message was conveyed: the United States lead the world by divine right. Reagan called it our “rendezvous with destiny.” Indeed, United States foreign policy, over the last century, has been pursued with such vigor and confidence as if on the wings of fate itself.

It all began with an attempt by Woodrow Wilson to prevent another world war.

In his “14 Points,” he devised the idea of an international organization to keep the peace through diplomatic means; this was to be the League of Nations. Throughout his presidency, Wilson took personal control over foreign policy - something that was unprecedented at the time. He ended the era of American isolationism in favor of engagement and diplomacy. While the vision Wilson put in motion signified the beginning of our foreign policy status quo, events that followed turned noble vision into utopian ideology, which we will refer Sarah Scherer is Executive Editor of The Arch Conservative.

12 / The Arch Conservative

to as “American imperialism.”

Such events include World War II, the Cold War, and 9/11, which rallied new support for American imperialism in the twenty-first century. World War II, the destruction of Europe, and a humanitarian atrocity unlike the world had ever seen, pushed out the persistent remnants of isolationism. Maybe Wilson had it right.

The Cold War brought about “spheres of influence” - the way power-broking happened in a time of two world superpowers.

Reagan’s foreign policy mission, to contain communism, was met with enthusiasm and praise from most of the American public. His ideal of liberalism had an unmistakable enemy, and the dissolution of that enemy marked the beginning of the end for American imperialism. But it wasn’t quite over yet.

In 2002, President George W. Bush spoke of an “axis of evil” made up of Iran, Iraq, and North Korea. In that same year, Under Secretary of State John Bolton gave a speech titled “Beyond the Axis of Evil,” and added an additional three nations to the list: Cuba, Libya, and Syria. President Obama mimicked Bush’s “Freedom Agenda” when, in a speech to Ghana’s parliament, he said: “We must support a strong and sustainable democratic government… history offers a clear verdict: governments that respect the will of their own people, that govern by consent and not coercion, are more prosperous, they are more stable, and more successful than governments that do not…” In the postwar era, American imperialism has remained the

mainstream foreign policy prescription regardless of party. For one hundred years, the United States has engaged in foreign policy from atop the hill.

During the 2016 election, Donald Trump referenced failed foreign policy initiatives that left power vacuums in the Middle East. Voters who had hoped President Trump would forge new paths in foreign policy, beginning with reducing our presence in the Middle East, were thoroughly disappointed when John Bolton was appointed National Security Advisor in 2018. Bolton had served less major roles in the three prior Republican administrations, but heavily favored Bush’s decision to invade Iraq in 2003. To the chagrin of international theorists and large swaths of the American public, Bolton confirmed he stood behind the invasion as recently as 2018. According to Bolton, our only mistake was not leaving sooner after the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, and saying, “Here's a copy of the Federalist Papers. Good luck."

The American political imperialism that Bolton wholeheartedly supported wreaked havoc on the Middle East. With authoritarian, yet stable, regimes gone, and new democratic test-states failed, many wonder, “what was the point?” While the Berlin Wall signified the West’s decisive triumph over communism, the United States’ crusade against terrorism looks more like a game of whack-a-mole: Al Nusra, Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, ISIS, the Taliban, Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, Muammar al-Gaddafi, Bashar al-Assad

FALL 2019

FEATURES

- it is this never-ending creation of new enemies that has the American public both tired and skeptical.

Does Bolton’s departure mean this foreign policy status quo will be put to rest? That depends on the President and who he chooses to replace Bolton as National Security Advisor.

One thing is for certain - carrying the flag of American imperialism, Bolton could not reconcile his views with the President’s. Bolton nearly derailed Trump’s first historic meeting with Kim Jong-un, saying publicly that North Korea ought to follow the “Libya model.” Within a decade of agreeing to give up Libya’s weapons of mass destruction, Gaddafi was deposed by NATO. It is likely Bolton shared the view of Trump’s critics, that the President’s meetings and planned meetings with powerful leaders and groups such as Kim Jong-un, Vladimir Putin, and most recently the Taliban, are legitimizing their claim to power.

Likewise, critics claim these actions have caused the United States to lose respect among its traditional allies.

What these critics, including Bolton, neglect to recognize are the entirely new challenges the United States faces as a global hegemon. Long gone are the days of the Soviet Union and the Western sphere of influence, and by no means can the

FALL 2019

United States hope to expand its influence across the world. We simply do not have the military resources to do so, nor the willingness of sovereign nations to participate. A never-ending presence in the Middle East and more than 70 countries around the world represents a constant drain on these resources. This expenditure is important when compared to Russia or China’s relative military growth. American imperialism ultimately makes our military weaker and more vulnerable as time goes on.

The President’s recognition of our adversaries as legitimate powers, and because of this, his willingness to come to the table does not signal weakness. Rather, it is a recognition of the limits of power.

Without a doubt, the United States still remains squarely at an advantage in these

negotiations, allowing our country to get “the better end of the deal.” One might pose the question: What else is there to do? Invade North Korea? Place troops on the Russian border? Start a war? As it turns out, no one is willing to invade North Korea. Likewise, Americans aren’t willing to go to war with Russia. What other option might the President’s critics suggest other than sticking out our noses at other world leaders by ignoring the fact that they exist, much less have power?

Bolton’s departure, coupled with the American public’s cheers and the foreign policy establishment’s tears, signals that a change in the tide is coming. If not now, American imperialism will eventually meet its fate, perhaps involuntarily. Hopefully, before then, we can achieve a policy of détente with our adversaries.

The Arch Conservative / 13

FEATURES

The Kids Aren't Alright

Using children as political pawns is morally dishonest and creepy

By J.Thomas Perdue

I

spent last summer in Washington D.C., as an equal parts tourist and press intern at the now-defunct Weekly Standard. After brunch one Sunday afternoon, I found myself at The White House, as one does, and realized I had stumbled across a fairly sizable protest. I decided to forge through it, right through its sweaty, deodorant-free center, and see what I could see. The gathering was against family separation policies, and protestors signaled this cause by wearing white. A few people cosplayed as their favorite liberal political figures, as well. I had the pleasure of crossing paths with a Ruth Bader Ginsberg-wannabe, who went along banging on business and restaurant windows and accosting the under-engaged because “We’re voting for our lives!”

This experience confirmed something I had long suspected about American politics: that it is slowly transforming into little more than passionate LARPing. The noticeable difference between this particular White House protest and the Renaissance festival over in Fairburn is that the former had celebrity involvement and widespread media coverage. That said, nobody was hurt or irreparably disturbed by any of that silliness. What struck me as inappropriate were all the children present. That manic, flailing RBG? She was dragging along a kid who couldn’t have been older than ten. In fact, a sizable portion of the so-called activists were children.

J.Thomas Perdue is Editor at Large of The Arch Conservative.

14 / The Arch Conservative

I understand that the protestors were trying to make a point about child detainment at the border (What if they were our kids?), but a political protest is hardly an appropriate setting for children; not in the sense that they might see or hear something inappropriate or unsafe, but because they are not there of their own free will.

When I say “children” I mean below the voting age, but some were below the reading age.

The involvement of children in politics is strange on its own, but considering the increasingly dumbed-down political rhetoric of our time, it makes some sense.

Democrats and liberals, in particular, seem to think their policies appeal to a younger age, as illustrated by calls to lower the voting age to sixteen--or lower. It is reasonable that positions like advocating free college and student loan forgiveness will appeal to someone who has not yet attended college. It is also true that younger age groups respond more positively to leftist concepts like socialism. But the issue of getting more children, and younger children, involved in politics is not to be viewed solely on a policy-by-policy basis.

Its purpose is also, perhaps primarily, to elicit emotional responses and feign moral authority.

The issue is not just the idea of appealing to children for their potential votes, it’s the deliberate elevation of children as political authorities. Aside from the aforementioned “protestors”, there are also child activists like Greta Thunberg, a Swedish teenager who took up climate

change as her cause, and travels the world to lecture its populace. In her case, it is difficult to offer criticism for several reasons. One could point out that the blunt and simple content of her lectures is, well, childlike. They do not offer sufficient thought on a complex issue, but frankly, this would fail to separate her from most of her adult counterparts. Another difficulty is the trivial matter of her being a wide-eyed child who happens to suffer from a neurological condition. Necessary criticism of arguments with little substantive meaning and no expertise begins to look more like bullying. Thunberg’s supporters realize that this, and the inherent innocence of children, shields them from valid critiques. And no, I haven’t forgotten about that viral “Mini AOC” girl. That was a creepy exhibition of irresponsible parenting, though it was not nearly as internationally popular.

Using children as political props is a symptom of a much broader tendency of political culture that has persisted for decades. In 1977, President Jimmy Carter gave a speech in which he dubbed the energy crisis the “moral equivalent of war.” Perhaps Carter’s usage of this term—which was coined in a 1906 poem by philosopher William James—may have been appropriate in the context of the crisis, maybe not. However, it illustrates a mindset that seems to appear more and more frequently these days. War in the sense that James, and indeed Carter, conjures implies mobilization; that is, a nation’s citizens need to drop what they

FALL 2019

FEATURES

are doing and help the war effort. The war, or whatever its moral equivalent is, must become the new center of attention, and the highest goal.

MEOW also usually implies heavier reliance on the state, which is partially why it is a more attractive practice among liberals than conservatives. Today, we hear talk of twelve years left to live (or eleven… ten?!), an honest-to-God doomsday clock due to climate change, which Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez called “our World War II.” There is also democracy, that catch-all term long-extracted from its definition and context within the American system, and used to describe anything good about America. How many times have we heard actions such as criticizing “fake news,” or even the legitimate election of a president painted as “threats to our democracy?”

Ripping on Jim Acosta does not threaten democracy to any comparable degree to that which Imperial Japan and communist Russia threatened it.

Equating otherwise divisive, if not outright special-interest, issues to threats to the survival of the nation, the wellbeing of our children, or war—a practice understood to be inherently important and requiring the attention of the nation as a whole—is in essence an emotional appeal. Never mind that World War II and climate change have virtually nothing at all to do with one another, what comes to mind when thinking of, say, a carbon tax or the passing of stricter regulations on car exhaust and flatulent cattle is not nearly as rousing as the imagery of Normandy or Iwo Jima.

The phrase “moral equivalent of war” is not always issued verbatim, but its offshoots—and more importantly, its

FALL 2019

essence—have appeared in American politics for decades. In a 2018 “G-File” article, Jonah Goldberg points out Woodrow Wilson’s “war socialism,” FDR’s embrace of martial organization to fight the Great Depression, the War on Poverty, and so forth to illustrate this. These are examples of the left-wing persuasion, but the right is guilty of it as well. Those who tell us that Trump is the only viable option to combat liberal modulation, that a vote for him is the only way to preserve the Republic, and that his most jarring faults must be brushed aside because he is the only thing standing between us and a socialist takeover are engaging in MEOWist rhetoric.

Establishing a moral equivalent between war and a given issue accomplishes at least two things: it places the issue at the highest importance and grants moral, emotional authority to its supporters.

The aforementioned emphasis on imagery and emotion for the sake of authority and moral alarm brings us back to the children. Kids obviously lack the political agency that adults have, so if mom wants to cosplay as Justice Ginsberg and drag you through the National Mall on a childleash, there’s not much you can do about it. However, children are also emotional creatures, irrationally so. And when politicians tell their parents that we have twelve years to live or that our democracy is under attack, it is likely that the resulting fear will rub off on their kids. And thus, we have nationally covered protests populated with children. Our children appear at risk, and when our they are threatened, we prepare for war--in one way or another.

Their sad faces and crayon-drawn signs serve to project the emotional advantage to the media. It’s a cheap and unfortunate

tactic that seeks to fill the gaps where moral authority would otherwise fit.

The existence of an enduring moral order is one of the key tenets of American conservatism and was one of the original values prescribed in this magazine’s first editorial. Morality is important in politics, and it is vital for a society to be moral. We’re great because we’re good, or something like that. The use of children as political pawns is a substitute for moral authority, which was not otherwise won in an argument or exhibition of views.

The merits of sloganeering become more evident with each election cycle, especially that which appeals to highly emotive, unintelligent people. There is a market for that in children.

We love and value children because, to use the popular cliché, they are the future.

It is good that they want to get involved in politics. Lord knows our country could use more educated voters. However, it is not realistic that they will make mature, informed decisions. I went around telling people I was a libertarian in high school.

Imagine if I had been able to vote. I kid, but I also do not want these sentiments to be misconstrued as a condemnation of the children, themselves. Children are innocent, but they are not typically smart; and they certainly do not know or understand enough to have a say in national policy.

If this sounds mind-numbingly obvious, that’s because it is. This is a condemnation of parents and other adults who see opportunity in innocence. Politics can bring out the worst in us, and we should tread carefully when children are involved, but we absolutely cannot let the adults who hide behind them get away with such a cheap, cynical maneuver.

The Arch Conservative / 15

COLUMNS

Conservative Climate Solutions Why conservatives should join the conversation

D

ue to an outright denial of the science of climate change by many conservatives, climate policy continues to be bogged down by outlandish progressive proposals like the Green New Deal. Continuing to deny the science of climate change is not a viable solution, but neither are most of the proposals offered by progressive Democrats. Dr. David Gattie, a professor at the University of Georgia’s College of Engineering, is working on finding conservative solutions to climate change. His problem with the Green New Deal is it is an isolationist policy that does not address the core problem with climate. The core issue is not U.S. emissions, which have fallen 12% between 2005 and 2017, and are expected to be 14-18% below the 2005 level by the year 2025; it is developing countries who are continuing to ramp up energy production, thus increasing their carbon emissions. The U.S. has a responsibility as a world leader to help developing countries come up with solutions for producing clean energy. We cannot blame developing countries for burning coal or petroleum when they have no alternative. The U.S has been a keystone in the world economy for one reason: innovation. The U.S. has consistently led the way into the future through ground-breaking technological achievements. We must do the same for our energy industry.

There are multiple obstacles to achieving this plan, or even beginning to have a serious conversation about implementation. The biggest concern is the politics. Is the Republican Party willing to step up?

Are progressives willing to compromise and work with the energy industries to create solutions? There are multiple Republicans in Congress and many more in state governments that are already getting into the conversation. Francis Rooney, a Carson Brown is a sophomore studying History. He is a regular contributor to The Arch Conservative.

16 / The Arch Conservative

Republican Congressman from Florida, has argued for aggressive action on climate change, including implementing some form of carbon tax. Unsurprisingly, this has not gained any traction from his Republican colleagues because of the party’s aversion to tax increases. Rooney’s notion that a carbon tax would be an effective method to promote clean energy may be incorrect, but his willingness to jump into the discussion is appreciated. As more lawmakers like him begin to publicly accept the science of climate change, more solutions will be brought to the table.

The fastest option to solving the climate problem will not be the best option.

In fact, the fastest option might prove detrimental to the world economy. The Green New Deal, attempting to achieve one-hundred percent renewable energy, is not a helpful solution. Firstly, it ignores the global issue, only limiting U.S. production.

It likewise ignores the unique challenges and advantages different regions of the U.S. face with regard to renewable energy.

A diverse array of energy production including nuclear power, wind, and solar energy is the best way to ensure that the U.S. maintains its thriving economy, while simultaneously working to solve the global issue of climate change.

How do policymakers develop climate change solutions as an issue conservatives can buy into? First, people must know the facts about climate change. Innaction will have serious consequences: ecological and geographical problems will continue to grow, and people will become displaced as a result of the changing world. However, the apocalyptic urgency some interest groups convey is not accurate. Next on the agenda is letting our elected officials know this is a policy conservative voters care about. We need to embrace investments in energy infrastructure in this country, and develop technology that can be shared across the globe. One of the biggest knocks against conservatives is our concern for fiscal responsibility. In this instance, that concern can help us to find solutions to climate change through

corporate innovation rather than government regulation. As global leaders on energy production, the U.S. must find solutions that will make clean energy cheaper and more accessible for countries to produce and use. Without continued investment and innovation, there are only two choices for the climate issue: do nothing, or implement regulations. Neither of which will help the U.S. in the long run.

The Republican Party used to be the leaders of environmental protection.

Teddy Roosevelt established the National Parks Service, and Richard Nixon implemented the Environmental Protection Agency. Somewhere along the way, conservatives decided to neglect the need to sustain the earth in favor of allowing companies to go unchecked. That must stop now, and our party can help solve this issue, but it takes individuals to speak up and hold each other accountable for the way we use energy. We identify as conservatives because we believe in the foundations of small government. We argue that the government should be limited to a few necessary public responsibilities, including national security, taxes, and public infrastructure. Our energy policy will be the best it can be when we incorporate as many businesses and as much technological advancements as we can. Our government should rely on private businesses and experts on this issue to determine how to best protect the environment, and our national interests. However, this will only happen if we, as conservatives, create room for this discussion. This includes being willing to speak our minds about the truth about climate change, as well as opening ourselves to the conversation across the aisle. Doing so will help us as a country reach the best, most sensible climate policy possible.

FALL 2019

COLUMNS

A Modern Day Parable The European Union presents a threat to national soverignty

O

n June 23, 2016, the majority of the citizens of the United Kingdom decided their country was better off leaving the European Union in a nationwide referendum. Over three years later, the United Kingdom remains in the European Union. The failure of the UK to leave the EU reflects something more than just the mere incompetence of British politicians to enact the democratic will of their people. It highlights the inability of a government to be keen to the interests of its own people when it has handcuffed itself to a governing international organization. The Brexit vote, along with the election of Donald Trump, showed that citizens of a country are not willing to sacrifice their right to sovereign rule indefinitely. However, the failure to execute Brexit by the British government stands as a stark warning against sacrificing political individualism.

First, it is important to note that British conservatism, at least since the end of World War II, has been less oriented around individuals than conservatism in America. In fact, Margeret Thatcher’s tenure as Prime Minister is all the more impressive considering her radical individualism compared to her own party’s politically communitarian ideology. For example, the extensive welfare system in the UK never faced the reform that it did in America. As a result, individuals today are faced with higher tax rates to pay for various social programs in the UK. The willingness to sacrifice political individualism for the sake of political communitarianism has dangerous potential. One that can inevitably lead to a situation that Britain is faced with today.

The origins of the European Union began with the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC). The Treaty of Paris Hunter Burnett is a senior studying Social Studies Education and History. He is a regular contributor to The Arch Conservative.

FALL 2019

established the ECSC in 1952 and eliminated trade barriers on certain products between the countries that signed it. However, the Treaty of Paris also established extranational governing bodies to oversee its execution. This structure was the foundation of later agreements and treaties eventually resulting in the European Union of today.

The reality is that the EU is not simply an agreement between countries to remove trade barriers among themselves.

The EU is a governing body that passes legislation to promote “cohesion and solidarity among EU countries.” The EU has been gradually assuming more power for years like in 2008 when they determined how member countries must treat illegal immigrants. The role that immigration played in the ultimate “leave” vote demonstrated how sick the British citizens were of the EU and their desire to reclaim sovereign rule, particularly over their borders.

However, over three years after the original “leave” vote, the UK is still a member of the EU. It would be easy to blame politicians as the reason that Brexit still has not happened but there are real concerns about what would happen were the UK to leave the EU without a deal in place. For instance, the EU is the UK’s largest trading partner with 46% of all UK exports and 54% of all UK imports being with the EU. Those numbers are nothing to scoff at. There are real concerns about the economic impact of a no-deal Brexit.

Similarly, the border between Northern

Ireland (part of the UK) and the Republic of Ireland would be the only land border between the UK and the EU. A hard border with checkpoints and inspections would become a reality if the UK left the EU without a deal. It is troubling to consider what such a border would do to the Good Friday Agreement, a key aspect that brought the violence in Northern Ireland to an end.

These concerns highlight the reliance that the UK has on the EU. The reliance on the EU for a trade partner is the result of the EU’s free trade policy. The ability to have an open border with the Republic of Ireland is a consequence of the EU’s free flow of workers. Because these were beneficial for the UK, there was no reason to hesitate in taking advantage of them. The hesitation should have occurred decades earlier when the UK initially agreed to submit to a governing body that could legislate. Instead, the British people joyfully accepted the positives of the EU and turned a blind eye to the potential negatives until they became a reality. By the time the British realized they didn’t want the negatives, they were already overly reliant on the EU. Brexit is ultimately the story of the consequence of abandoning political individualism in favor of a communitarian ideology. It should make conservatives hypervigilant about any international governing body no matter what it promises. Contrarily, when politicians stand up to international organizations, like Nikki Haley at the UN, it ought to be celebrated.

The Arch Conservative / 17

COLUMNS

Green is The New Red Radical environmental policies control citizens, not emissions

A

s Hurricane Dorian moved in on the Bahamas, CNN held a seven-hour town hall with ten of the most promising Democratic presidential candidates to discuss the issue of climate change and their solutions to fix it. The town hall received little news coverage, but there was no shortage of radical proposals posited by the candidates.

With policies ranging from banning plastic straws to changing federal dietary guidelines and even a gas vehicle buyback program, the CNN town hall reinforced the fact that Democratic candidates’ environmental policies are an excuse to expand government rather than saving the environment. One must look no further for more proof than the Green New Deal, championed by many of the candidates at the town hall and which Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s Chief of Staff Saikat Chakrabarti admitted “wasn’t originally a climate thing at all” but rather “a how-do-you-change-the-entireeconomy thing.” The truth in his comment becomes more and more apparent deeper into the document.

The text of the Green New Deal (GND) reads more as an economic bill than a climate change solution. When one of Wood Smith is a senior studying Agribusiness. He is a first-time contributor to The Arch Conservative.

18 / The Arch Conservative

the major points of the GND is creating “millions of good, high-wage jobs and ensure prosperity and economic security for all people of the United States,” it becomes clear the environmental aspect of the GND is merely a sheen to cover its more ulterior motive to tighten government’s grip on the economy. The GND promises “a job with a family-sustaining wage, adequate family and medical leave, paid vacations, and retirement security to all people of the United States,” which has no visible way of combating climate change but a very real impact upon the economy.

Probably one of the overlooked aspects of the GND is the “upgrading [of] all existing buildings in the United States” in a more environmentally friendly manner. While it can be agreed that most Americans would be in favor of more environmentally friendly buildings, the cost and invasion of retrofitting every building in the U.S. would be jarring to say the least. This would mean everything from the tallest skyscraper in New York City to the country diner in Cody, Wyoming would have to be gutted and refit, causing a disruption of business and possible relocation.

Another goal of the GND is “ensuring a commercial environment where every businessperson is free from unfair competition and domination by domestic and international monopolies.” Nowhere in this goal is any mention of the climate or anything climate related, instead it is a wholly economic goal. Politicians throughout the years have made such promises, the current president making similar promises during his first campaign run, so this is nothing new. But the placement of this in the middle of an environmental bill is odd and one must wonder if it is meant to be overlooked.

Curiously, the GND laments about the same economic talking points as democratic candidates have for the past decade; that wages have stagnated since the 1970s and that the top 1% of earners reap the rewards of others. The GND claims that such issues are “related crises” with respect to climate change, but are they? A buyback of gasoline-powered vehicles wouldn’t undo the wage stagnation of workers or the gender wage gap, nor would getting rid of “farting cows.” The solution to such issues has no bearing on the climate and should be in its own economic bill instead of an environmental one.

Throughout the GND are proposals that would have an impact on the economy with very little, if any, environmental impact. If the true goal of the GND was to stop climate change before it’s too late, why would there be so many unrelated economic policies and goals? The true goal of the GND, even according to Chakrabarti, is to reshape the economy as its supports see fit, all while under the guise of “environmental protection”, something which some conservative pundits have been quick to point out.

Conservatives don’t oppose the Green New Deal simply because they don’t care about the environment, but rather that they disagree with the more governmentgrowth prone policies laid out in the bill. Throughout the years and even in presidential campaigns, conservatives have proposed their solutions to the issue and how to move toward those goals without limiting individual freedom or economic well-being. Earlier this year, Republicans in Congress formed the Roosevelt Conservation Caucus, which will focus on environmental issues, and announced a GOP “Green Real Deal” which proposes using free market innovation as a tool to fight climate change instead of government regulation. The issue of climate change cannot remain a largely partisan if progress is to be made in the years to come. Perhaps people on both sides of the aisle are willing to work together and move forward to a more eco-friendly future.

FALL 2019

COLUMNS

A Hidden Poverty The homeless face a struggle the government cannot remedy

A

s new students move into their dorms, eager to find a home in Athens, they will soon notice the presence of many who are less fortunate. While classes of students come and go, the problem of homelessness conspicuously persists.

Homelessness is sadly a familiar phenomenon to Athens residents and visitors alike. According to US Census Bureau data, 34.4% of Athens-Clarke County residents—opposed to 11.8% nationally—are living in poverty, and there is a significant homeless population living only minutes from the classroom. Most of us have seen these people and felt sympathy for them, but what can we do as college students to combat such a daunting problem?

Since our modern society tends to think of homelessness as a political issue, we should mention the main strategies employed in the past. Traditionally, limited government has been a core tenet of conservatism, encouraging private contributions, and government action a tool of progressivism, prescribing public contributions. Recently however, it seems both progressives and even many conservatives have come to tolerate a government growing beyond the bounds of yesterday’s ideological comfort, resulting in a tepid deference to government among the people at large, and thus deference to public “charity.”

Putting aside the oft-disputed efficiency of charity via government, this approach removes our sense of personal responsibility for the poor. It allows us to dismiss the homeless as a problem for politicians, a problem to be tackled in November. The modern political status quo which makes the personal political has caused many to view the vote as our primary tool to effect change in our communities. As if they Ethan Baker is a junior studying Classics and Statistics. He is a firsttime contributor to The Arch Conservative.

FALL 2019

were the only indicator of our willingness or ability to improve the world around us, our political beliefs are now seen as the measure of our compassion. Participation in the political process is certainly commendable, but surely the Founding Fathers never intended politics to be the sole method of supporting our neighbors.

In his book The Screwtape Letters, C.S. Lewis reminds us that compassion towards people immediately around us is more tangible, more real than vague compassion towards an abstract and unknown group. A well-meaning attempt to “solve” the issue through government action is to misunderstand the problem, as homelessness is not merely an abstract thing to be abolished; it is a collection of real individuals’ suffering, people with intrinsic worth that desperately needs affirmation.

A government is incapable of fulfilling such a personal need, and is thus inherently insufficient. Homelessness is not a problem in need of fixing; the homeless are people in need of loving.

Madelyn, a recent UGA graduate, spent last year as a missionary in Denver with Christ in the City, which works to build relationships with the local homeless population. Regarding how we can best help these people, she asks us to first consider why they are on the street in the first place: “What would you do if you lost your home? Most of us have family members and friends we could turn to in crisis. Typically our friends fell into homelessness because they did not feel they had anyone they could trust to ask for help.

There is a deeper poverty of loneliness that must be addressed.”

As college students, we may not always have spare money to give, but one of the most important things we can give is human interaction. These attempts should not involve putting yourself in danger— Madelyn was trained to interact with the homeless safely. These people have been through incredible hardship, and can react in unexpected ways to unexpected love.

That said, we can help by simply making direct eye contact, smiling, asking their name and introducing ourselves, and letting them know we are thinking about them. Rather than giving cash, consider

making small care-packages: a zip-loc bag with food, socks, toiletries, and a letter message of encouragement. While addressing material needs, this approach also shows genuine, human concern for their well-being.

Our responsibility to take care of the homeless goes far beyond the ballot box—no matter what you believe about government’s role in providing welfare.

By averting our eyes, by pretending not to see, we contribute to a culture that turns a blind eye to the homeless, to human dignity. Many people on the streets go weeks without hearing their own names, without any validation of their value as human beings. We often see the familiar faces on the sidewalks downtown, why not affirm their human identities and greet them by name?

As a culture, we focus so intently on the problem of material poverty that we ignore a sort of poverty that is far worse, a poverty of dignity. It is no wonder why so many give up on trying to find housing, why so many struggle with substance abuse, when we lack the courage to look them in the eye. Material poverty is worrisome, but loving those experiencing it is a prerequisite to its elimination.

It is difficult to imagine that someone we know and love could end up on the streets, but it can, and does, happen—what would you do if you walked past a loved one on the street? A social experiment by the Make Them Visible Foundation suggests that unfortunately, probably nothing: when dressed to appear homeless, people did not even notice their own family members. This is not a problem that can wait for the next election, nor one that an election can solve. This is a problem each of us must fight today.

All of us are guilty of turning away at some point—but to suggest we raise the standard and adopt the simple ways we can make a real difference. Each of us can tangibly combat homelessness every day, far more than we realize. We must reject the mindset that government—and not the people it represents—is responsible for loving our neighbors, and embrace the mindset that treasures the intrinsic value of human life.

The Arch Conservative / 19

COLUMNS

Stats Complicate Gun Control The polarizing issue requires a look at the data

I

n 2012, the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School shook the country through the atrocious evil done to the most innocent lives: children. The horrific events raised the question across the country: Do we need stricter legislation on gun policies and firearm regulations? Implicitly asked was to what extent, will policymakers need to go to diminish the effects of gun violence.

According to the Center for Disease Control, there were 38,658 firearm deaths within the United States over the course of 2016. Of those deaths, 22,938 were suicides and 14,415 were homicides. These data present a challenge to gun control advocates. The most popular gun control proposals championed by leading Democrats are to promote gun buyback programs, and to raise the gun-buying age from 18 to 21 years old.

As the number of firearm suicides is substantially higher than the number of homicides committed with firearms, these kinds of policies seek to solve the wrong problems. How are lawmakers to devise a gun control policy that will aid in preventing firearm suicides while not limiting citizens’ rights to own a firearm?

The Federal Bureau of Investigation, indicates that the number of homicide victims in 2017 from rifle weapons was 403, while knife deaths were 1,591, and blunt object deaths (hammers, clubs, etc.) were 467. When comparing the different weapons used in the homicide statistics, Diana Robertson is a freshman studying Exercise and Sports Science. She is a firsttime contributor to The Arch Conservative.

20 / The Arch Conservative

it shows the number of homicide deaths by a knife were considerably more than a death by rifle. However, in the eyes of gun control proponents, these government statistics are merely insignificant numbers not worthy of consideration in the debate on gun reform. In the most recent Democratic debate, Beto O’Rourke declared, “Hell, yes, we’re going to take your AR-15, your AK-47,” when talking about his mandatory weapon buyback policy. Beto’s comment on this issue causes consternation among gun owners and highlights the

popularity among more active Democrats to ban assault weapons and guns.

After the Dayton, Ohio and El Paso, Texas shootings, the House of Representatives and the Senate took up a proposal for “red-flag legislation,” which will give police officers the right to temporarily confiscate weapons from those seen as a risk of being violent by a federal judge. This proposal of legislation has been received reasonably well by figures on both sides of the political spectrum. President Trump highlighted his receptiveness to this reform in one of his speeches that he made back in August. "We must make sure that those judged to pose a grave risk to public safety do not have access to firearms and that if they do, those firearms can be taken

through rapid due process, that is why I have called for red flag laws, also known as extreme risk protection orders.” Trump remarked. Senator John Thune of South Dakota commented about the efficacy of the bill, and he is “confident Congress will be able to find common ground on the so-called red flag issue.”

In the Second Amendment4, it is explicitly stated, “a well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” In the U.S. Supreme Court case of District of Columbia v. Miller, the Court ruled, based on the history of the Second Amendment, a ban on firearms is a direct violation of the individual right to bear arms. The Second Amendment prevents the government from infringing upon citizen gun rights.

The major criticism with gun control does not solely lie with guns. As evidenced by various statistics, there were many gun deaths by suicide, therefore some of the underlying factors of suicide should be analyzed and evaluated to discover ways that could assist with suicide prevention efforts. Some underlying factors of gun violence can include home situations, mental disorders, depression, insomnia, and many other dreadful factors that can lead to an increased suicide rate. Conservatives can find common ground in the gun debate by instilling more rigorous background checks and proper training before gaining ownership of the firearm through more universal background checks and the redflag legislation.

FALL 2019

COLUMNS

On Flag Burning We need more Rick Mondays and fewer “no-brainers”

O

n the morning of June 15, the president tweeted, “All in for Senator Steve Daines as he proposes an Amendment for a strong BAN on burning our American Flag. A no brainer!” [sic] referring to a constitutional amendment introduced by Senators Steve Daines (RMT) and Kevin Cramer (R-ND). President Trump has been consistent on this topic, tweeting as far back as late 2016 his desire to see consequences for flag-desecrators that might include “loss of citizenship or year in jail,” [sic].

As if on cue, Turning Point USA’s cocoordinator Candace Owens echoed these sentiments the next day via Twitter, “If I were president, the punishment for burning the U.S. flag would be the renunciation of citizenship. No jail time, no fine—one year to liquidate your assets and get the hell out of our country.

In exchange, we’d extend citizenship to a hardworking LEGAL immigrant.”

Before continuing, it is necessary to clarify that the general position of The Arch Conservative is anti-flag burning. Not necessary to our regular readers and supporters, because that would be an insult to their intelligence, but to anyone who might interpret my derision of Trump and Turning Point as unpatriotic. To that crowd, I implore you to stop going for this bait.

Trump likes to dangle the lure of nationalist sentiment and dress it as patriotism or American exceptionalism, and it’s fair to say he does so with success. Some of his supporters’ favorite images to share are the ones of Trump hugging the American flag. Trump adopts a comforted, relieved smile, as if asking with puppy-dog eyes, “Why do Democrats hate the American flag?” This manufactured image of the J.Thomas Perdue is a senior studying Journalism. He is Editor at Large of The Arch Conservative.

FALL 2019

noble, almost childlike defender of the flag reckons to cast Trump as innocent, contrasting with his stated goal of doing something very unpatriotic.

Anyone who’s half-slept through a constitutional law class knows that flagburning is protected speech under the First Amendment. Ever-deft in debate and thoroughly-schooled in the nuances of the Constitution, Owens defended her comment when challenged on this point. She brought up the limitations within the First Amendment. Americans cannot shout “fire!” in a movie theater, nor can they yell racial epithets “without consequence.”

Except… we are absolutely legally allowed to hurl racial slurs, and comparing the theater exception to flag-burning is like comparing… well, actually I can’t think of a more ludicrous comparison than that.

It’s important to note her phrasing, i.e., “consequences.” While it’s true that being a loud racist typically has negative social consequences (sort of like flag-burning), the conversation involves what is and what should be legal or illegal.

In order to make flag-burning illegal, it would have to be placed in an unprotected category akin to shouting “fire!” The government can restrict speech in terms of the times, places, or methods (you might not be able to burn a flag, say in the waiting area of your dentist’s office). However, the content of speech on public property is not to be infringed upon, so long as it doesn’t break another law like fraud, child pornography, etc. Since flag-burning doesn’t violate those laws and considering the context of the rhetoric, it appears that the supporters of banning flag-burning aim to create a new category that encompasses the flag and other American symbols.

Action like this, however, would be far more unpatriotic than burning the flag.

The intention of burning an American flag is clear. It’s not to physically hurt anybody, it’s to protest—and all Americans have the right to protest. However despicable flag burning may be, the consequences of eroding free speech is far more dangerous.

This inevitably leads to the question: How do those of us who find flag-burning despicable, but eschew authoritarian encroachment against free speech deal with flag-burners?

Dealing with flag-burners depends on context. For example, if you’re, say, taking in a music festival and the group of kids across from you has worked up enough courage to make a political statement against Orange Man, a simple eye roll will suffice as a response. However, if someone decides to light up the flag in the vicinity of your SEC tailgate or at your local civic center’s t-ball fundraiser, you might be within the realm of social acceptability to dunk them in the nearest port-a-john.

I picture a flag-burner today as trying to evoke a sentiment that no longer exists.

That is, a petulant young adult trying to channel the rebelliousness of the past. And while violence is not never the answer, especially if it involves a port-a-john, if you’re looking for an example of class and composure in the face of something otherwise infuriating, look no further than American hero Rick Monday.

It was the bottom of the fourth at Dodger Stadium, April 25, 1976—not three months before America’s bicentennial. Rick Monday, at that time playing center field, spied two protesters who ran onto the field and attempted to burn the American flag. Most center fielders might wait for security to deal with the trespassers, but Monday knew that would give them enough time to light up the flag. So, he calmly jogged over, snatched up the flag, and took it to the Dodgers’ dugout in front of a raucous and gracious crowd. The flag was preserved, and no one was hurt, save the protestors’ pride.

Flag-burning was speech that Rick Monday didn’t like, but he handled it with dignity. He didn’t whine about it to the press and he damn sure didn’t try to get the laws changed. We can’t save every flag, but we will preserve our constitutional rights, whether they’re threatened by the radical left or by mindless ultra-nationalism.

The Arch Conservative / 21

COLUMNS _

Abandonment Abroad Why Trump's abandonment of the Kurds should alarm

O

n October 7th, the Trump Administration made a shocking announcement to move U.S. forces stationed in northern Syria out of the way of an anticipated Turkish offensive into the area. The announcement sparked a furor across both sides of the aisle, drew rapid condemnation from the public, and raised alarm in the United States foreign policy and defense establishment.

Several Trump allies defended the action, with Senator Rand Paul making the typical argument of “endless wars” needing to be brought to a close. The President himself claims he is not picking a side on the issue, however in this case actions speak louder than words. By moving U.S. troops out of the way of a Turkish incursion into Syria, Trump has granted Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan free reign to finally attack the Kurds who live in the region. As one of the popular punching bags of the region, the Kurds have been fighting off the Turkish Army in the region as part of their struggle to be granted an independent state for decades.

Historically, the U.S. has backed the Kurds Boris A. Abreu is a graduate student pursuing a Master of International Policy. He is Publishing Editor of The Arch Conservative.

22 / The Arch Conservative

in their fight against illiberal regimes, and this complete abandonment of a people who have no defenses (they were removed at the behest of the U.S.) and have historically been targeted places us in an extremely bad light. Small wonder that even Defense Secretary Esper--who answers directly to the President-- tweeted out his disagreement with the decision, though that tweet has since been deleted. One wonders if yet another Defense Secretary is on the way out over Syria policy, a la Mattis.

By removing the last line of defense for the Kurds, our American operators, we have placed ourselves in the worst of situations. The Turks have been making incursions and attacking Kurds for some time now under the guise of “rooting out terrorists.” There is rationale behind the terrorist argument, as the Kurdish Worker’s Party (PKK) has been responsible for terrorist attacks. This, however, represents but a subset within a subset of the 50 million-strong Kurdish nation.

If the Turks commit war crimes, we will not be without blame. Abandoning our Kurdish allies at a crucial time like this signals weakness, a lack of conviction in the White House, and a lack of faith in our allies.

The significance of this move cannot be overstated when pondering a conservative foreign policy view of the world.

More hawkish policy figures tend to favor aggressive action and presence, coupled with intense American nationalism. The idea of abandoning allies should strike conservatives of all stripes as cause for extreme concern. Leaving our allies out to dry in the face of hostile states does not signal smart foreign policy. It signals weak resolve and the ability to be bulldozed by

strongmen. A pillar of the international order is the concept of reputation. While the United States constructed and continues to maintain a large portion of this order, we have made a colossal mess of it in recent years. Incurring these invisible costs will hurt us for years to come, and force hard-working American diplomats to answer to angry allies--if they speak to us at all.

It is certainly possible that Trump was right to conduct his policy in such a way-but any foreign policy practitioner worth their salt knows the damage being done behind the scenes. This inane move will damage our reputation even further, as such bumbling policy measures only serve to further hurt our credibility abroad.

What will our Israeli allies think of us if they see us abandoning the Kurds in their fight? The question going through their heads could only be “Are we next?” This careless and callous move only serves to further undermine our credibility and standing with other states. As with the concept of trust, a strong, disciplined reputation is hard to gain, easy to lose, and almost impossible to get back. Shredding it here, in the midst of bombs and rockets, signals to our allies a total lack of care for the geopolitical realities of the world.

One can only hope that future conservative policymakers will understand the dangers of reckless decision-making, especially as it concerns our allies, and fully grasp the ramifications on the international stage of such brash decisions. What the President is doing can hardly be called conservative in the foreign policy sense, but of course, due to guilt by association, the conservative foreign policy establishment will take a hit. It is up to the pragmatics and the principled to stand up to this tearing down of our proud tradition, held up by men like Secretaries Baker and Kissinger, and countless other giants of the conservative foreign policy tradition. If we crack now, there will be but pieces to pick up in the end, and the United States may not have allies who are able to help pick them back up.

FALL 2019

COLUMNS

The Sins of Our Fathers Should founding fathers like Jefferson be dismissed for their role in slavery?

T

homas Jefferson’s oxymoronic tendencies have perplexed historians for decades. For instance, Jefferson penned the phrase, “All men are created equal,” yet he owned hundreds of slaves. He was a stark defender of religious liberty and a lifelong admirer of Judeo-Christian values, yet he did not believe in the divinity of Jesus. He has been both commended and chastised for his contributions to the forming of our nation. The case of Thomas Jefferson presents an archetypal question for historians: should we admire Jefferson for his contributions despite the role he played in American slavery?

Among Jefferson’s most important contribution to our country is his work in authoring the Declaration of Independence. The Declaration’s most famous line is almost beyond dispute: “All men are created equal.” This line is also a cause of much debate and controversy because the man who wrote it also owned a large number of slaves.

Moreover, the freedom of AfricanAmerican slaves was not mentioned in the document and it is clear that this proposition of natural rights did not extend to them. This begs the following question: Where did Thomas Jefferson stand on slavery? Jefferson believed that “the abolition of domestic slavery is the great object of desire in those colonies where it was unhappily introduced in their infant state.”

Jefferson knew that slavery was a horrid institution, but he also knew that if he pushed for the emancipation of slaves too heavily, then he would be treated as a radical, rendering him ineffective.

While this in no way justifies Jefferson’s actions, it does offer a simple explanation to an issue that has puzzled historians for decades. In fact, Jefferson actually had a Ian LaCroix is a senior studying Political Science with a certificate in Legal Studies. He is Editor-in-Chief of The Arch Conservative.

FALL 2019

private plan for the gradual emancipation of slaves, and even worked to ban the international slave trade in Virginia and in the United States at large upon his becoming president. With that being said, Jefferson still believed that blacks were inferior to whites and that there was no possible way for the two to live together peacefully after emancipation. He believed in educating the children of slaves and sending them off to colonize a foreign land.

Jefferson’s negative view on the institution of slavery and his view of blacks, in general, demonstrates how Jefferson consistently contradicts himself. This, naturally, brings up the question: If Jefferson disliked slavery, then why did he not free his own slaves upon his death? The answer is uncovered upon examining Jefferson’s financial situation at the time of his death. Jefferson had acquired a significant amount of debt on his estate throughout his life. Owing to this predicament, Jefferson was not economically in a position to free his slaves. His family believed that selling his slaves would be the best solution to pay off that debt. While certainly not a justification for Jefferson’s actions, this detail offers an explanation.

Thomas Jefferson’s case was typical among the founders and demonstrates the obvious: While our founding fathers were brilliant thinkers and courageous individuals, they were not perfect. They lived in a time with different political and social

norms as well as a completely different definition of equality. This fluctuation or development of values like equality are akin to fashion or art. Such ideas are constantly evolving, making their definitions prone to correction or addition. The definition of equality did not extend to gay marriage ten years ago, for example, and who knows to whom the definition will extend ten years from now.

The question arises: Should our founding fathers, despite their brilliant work, be ignored and dismissed as nothing more than racists? Absolutely not. Our founding fathers were beyond their years in intellect and truly brave individuals. They were obviously flawed, but I challenge you to find someone in history that is not.

The case of Thomas Jefferson shows that human flaws do not preclude a prolific life of genius. While Jefferson and other founders supported institutions that we find abhorrent today, it is not entirely fair to hold figures of the past to the same ethical and social standard of today. Men like Jefferson should not be dismissed for engaging in practices that were widely accepted in their day. While we should criticize and learn from their mistakes, we should not dismiss them entirely or discredit the legitimacy of our founding on the grounds of individuals’ immoral behavior. However flawed they may be, the founders are responsible for creating a system of government that has risen to the top as one of the most prosperous and powerful countries in the world. While we should reflect on the sins of our past, we should not let judgment cloud our minds from the greatness that our country has inspired.

The Arch Conservative / 23