The Arch Conservative - Winter 2020

D

I

NG

AR

RA

SI

T HE S TA

ND

KEEPING AMERICA THE SAME Stalling on campaign promises, Trump takes a gamble in 2020

By Sarah Scherer

Reconsidering SPLOST

By Hunter Burnett

Medicare-for-all Won't Work

The Afghanistan Papers

By Lee Collier

By Samuel Adams

ARCHCONUGA.COM

WINTER 2020

THE EDITORS

COLUMNS

COLUMNS

3 Editor's Corner

5 A Call for Understanding

17 Politicians Don't Get Christianity

By Oliver Bunner

By Jacob Sparks

6 This is Not The End

18 Witch Hunt

By Ian LaCroix

CAMPUS

By Christopher Lipscomb

By Christopher Lipscomb

By Multiple

7 The Race for 2020

19 The Development of Fake News

By McKenzie Sams

By Ross Schumacher

FEATURES

8 The Afghanistan Papers

20 Good Riddance to Beto

By Samuel Adams

By J. Thomas Perdue

9 Keeping America The Same

21 Chicago Teachers Strike

By Sarah Scherer

By Diana Robertson

16 Reconsidering SPLOST

22 DASKA Deliberation

4 The Campus Informant

10 The Crisis of a Generation

By Ian LaCroix

12 Going Nuclear

By Boris A. Abreu

14 Medicare-for-all Won't Work

By Hunter Burnett

By Lee Collier

By Andrew Yount

23 Rousseau’s Republic

By Ian LaCroix

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

Business Manager Sydney Robertson

Website archconuga.com

Executive Editor Sarah Scherer

Contributors Oliver Bunner Samuel Adams Lee Collier Hunter Burnett Jacob Sparks Ross Schumacher J. Thomas Perdue Diana Robertson Andrew Yount

Email archconuga@gmail.com

Publishing Editor Boris A. Abreu Online Editor McKenzie Sams Associate Editor Christopher Lipscomb

Twitter @archconuga Mail P.O. Box 1181 Athens, GA 30603

Graphic Designer Sarah Scherer

2 / The Arch Conservative

WINTER 2020

THE EDITORS i

Editor's Corner If Not to Change, To Expand One's Worldview

W

elcome back! As we head into another year and thus another semester at The University of Georgia, we at The Arch Conservative look forward to another great semester of providing the student body with a robust body of conservative discourse. As the new semester begins, we are admonished to reflect on the purpose of the publication and our role in contributing to the rhetoric on campus.

As always, we remain unapologetically devoted to our core principles that were formed at our publication’s inception: “That there exists an enduring moral order. That a healthy respect for traditional beliefs is prudent, as they represent the accumulated wisdom of history. That free markets enable human flourishing, contribute to the general welfare and safeguard liberty. That individual rights are imperative and, unacceptably, not available to millions around the world. That free nations are obligated to oppose, by force of arms when justified, the designs of tyrants.

That ultimately the great experiences in life are outside the realm of politics, and cannot be manufactured by government.”

As matters of policy and demarche, contributors to The Arch Conservative will interpret these conclusions differently; they may reject one or more of them entirely. Our goal has always been to play host to a wide variety of opinions from right and left, because the resulting debate will benefit campus. While in the age of deep partisanship and polarization it’s increasingly difficult to convince

WINTER 2020

someone to change their views, the goal of The Arch Conservative is not solely to change, but rather to expand the worldview of our peers by offering them principled conservative discourse that they may be missing out on in the classroom or in popular media. We are the only publication of our kind at the University of Georgia, thus we feel that it is our role, even our duty, to provide the student body with conservative content to supplement other studentrun outlets.

In this issue of The Arch Conservative in print, you’ll find yet another magazine reflective of our commitment to our core principles. Along with our usual motley crew of editors, you’ll find many first-time contributors who are eager to share their takes on campus, state, and national news. Included in this issue are discussions of the President’s impeachment, the Afghanistan Papers, the allures of socialism to today’s youth, nuclear energy, a critique of “Medicare-for-all,” 2020 election analyses, and much more. We look forward to another great year at The Arch Conservative!

Happy Reading!

-Ian LaCroix Editor-in-Chief

The Arch Conservative / 3

CAMPUS

THE CAMPUS INFORMANT INFORMANT BULLDAWG PRIDE BACKFIRES

O

n January 1st, the Georgia Bulldawgs faced off against the Baylor Bears at the 2020 Allstate Sugar Bowl hosted by the Mercedes-Benz Superdome in New Orleans, Louisiana. Despite the relatively large number of Georgia players that sat out of the game, Georgia emerged victoriously with a final score of 26 points to Baylor’s 14 points.

Despite the stellar performance of the Dawgs defense, many have shared their disappointment with Georgia’s lack of dominance on the field. That said, this kind of performance can be predicted (almost expected) for a team that narrowly missed out on a playoff spot and thus has to engage in a “consolation” game of sorts, even if it is a prestigious bowl game.

Despite the Dawgs’ victory, in a post-game conference, Georgia coach Kirby Smart issued a warning: "To be honest with you, the future is only bright if those guys continue to work because there's a disease that creeps in at Georgia where kids believe they're better than they are and they read their own press clippings.” Overconfidence has certainly been an issue that has continuously plagued Georgia, usually in the form of off-season rankings positioning the Dawgs particularly high for having not played a single game. However, with the looming threat of multiple key players choosing not to play in the 2020 season, perhaps a spark will be set that encourages the 2020 team to prove their worth instead of resting on their laurels.

R

— Ian LaCroix

LINNENTOWN CONTROVERSY

ecently, UGA has been embroiled in controversy over the 1960s decision to use eminent domain and the federal government’s urban renewal efforts to buy the area known as Linnentown and turn it into dorms. While I certainly understand the frustration of someone whose property is bought through eminent domain, the characterization of this specific event as “white supremacy” or “terrorism” is grasping at straws. According to The Linnentown Recognition and Redress, 176 black families and 122 white families had land bought via eminent domain, proving that this wasn’t a race-based issue. The issue was, rather, that there was land that a public university needed, and the government won out. A recent Red & Black article described the scene when a white county commissioner attended a Linnentown rally and voiced his support for the intent of a resolution that would reconcile Linnentown "damages." However, his pushback against language that proclaimed UGA a "terrorist organization" caused shouting and insults such as, “You are white, you don’t get an opinion.” Just after Martin Luther King Jr. Day, the irony is not lost.

— Samuel Adams

ATHENAPOCALYPSE

U

pon UGA students’ recent return to campus, they were confronted with perhaps the most unfortunate of failures of the vast web of UGA electronic login and class systems. The venerable service Athena, allows for students to sign-up for courses, drop them if necessary, and most importantly, find out the location of our many courses. In a cruel occurrence, Athena chose the first day of classes to crash, leaving many students in limbo as to when and where their courses were located. In a campus as large as ours, it was quickly apparent that this lack of information caused many students to be late or simply go to the wrong classrooms. Though the blackout was quickly resolved by EITS, it reminds UGA students of just how fickle our system can be.

— Boris A. Abreu

4 / The Arch Conservative

WINTER 2020

COLUMNS

A Call for Understanding A human approach to the transgender issues dialogue is needed

O

n November 19, an Illinois school district announced that they would be implementing a new bathroom policy addressing which bathroom transgender individuals should use: the bathroom of their biological sex, or the bathroom of their perceived identity? The Illinois school district landed firmly in the latter category: "Students shall be treated and supported in a manner consistent with their gender identity, which shall include students having access to restrooms and locker rooms that correspond to their gender identity.”

In response to this announcement, a female student being interviewed conveyed her discomfort: "As I am a swimmer, I do change multiple times naked in front of the other students in the locker room. I understand that the board has an obligation to all students but I was hoping they would go about this in a different way that would also accommodate students such as myself."

After the interview went viral, one Twitter user (@RationalDis) who supports the new policy proclaimed: “When we desegregated bathrooms some white girls also held back tears because a black women [sic] might see them naked too.” The tweet went viral, garnering over 140 thousand likes. According to this individual, allowing biological men to enter women’s bathrooms is the same thing as desegregation, and opposing it makes you just as evil as a racist.

This example serves as an accurate microcosm for the disagreements between both sides and the tone of the debate surrounding transgenderism in this country.

The left, which can be represented as the school district in this story, wishes to abolish (or at least severely weaken) the very Oliver Bunner is a sophomore studying Electrical Engineering at Georgia Tech. A former UGA student, he is a regular contributor to The Arch Conservative.

WINTER 2020

concept of biological and binary sex by creating policies that make the differences between the sexes trivial. If it is possible to enter any bathroom regardless of genitalia or chromosomal differences, then what is the purpose of even having separate bathrooms for males and females?

The right, which can be seen through the perspective of the uncomfortable female student, at the very least wishes to

keep biological men from entering women's bathrooms in order to keep vulnerable women safe. The right also wishes to firmly re-establish acknowledgment of binary sexual realities and differences within our culture.

The viral tweet in response to the interview shows the quality of debate at which these important issues are discussed. Instead of professionally addressing the problems felt by both transgender individuals and by women feeling uncomfortable in a hyper-vulnerable location like a bathroom, we get to enjoy the left calling the right vicious, segregationist bigots and nothing gets anywhere.

So, what can be done to ease the tension? First of all, the right must acknowledge the real suffering felt by transgender individuals. They have a suicide attempt rate many magnitudes higher than the rest of the population, according to the Williams Institute. It may be tempting to mock the absurdity of the bathroom issue and other transgender activism, but their suffering is quite real and should be treated with a high level of maturity at all times if we are going to succeed in helping

transgender individuals while affirming biological truths.

The left, on the other hand, needs to accept the reality that gender identity disorder is, in fact, a disorder, and not a matter of societal acceptance. A community of a couple of million Americans does not become that depressed and suicidal primarily by being bullied; there are underlying psychological issues at hand.

Lastly, our policymakers must not disregard the needs of women, who make up over 50% of the population, simply to appease a vocal minority such as the transgender community. Broadly, politicians must remember to deal with this issue within the bounds of reality. For example, suggesting the complete reconstruction of the English language by removing gendered pronouns is not a serious policy proposal.

It’s impossible to achieve this drastic change, and even if it was, it is not capable of truly mending the pain felt by transgender individuals. To fix issues within the physical world, acknowledging the reality of the situation is imperative. This means our culture and our politicians must accept that there are two genders and that incorrectly believing to be a member of the other is a mental disorder. Only when the problem is acknowledged as such can we begin to search for true solutions to gender identity disorder. If or when this happens, I pray the suffering felt by the transgender community is lessened.

The Arch Conservative / 5

COLUMNS

This is Not The End Failure to heed lessons of the past in the Age of Terror could mean consequences

S

ix years after declaring himself Caliph of the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi’s reign of terror came crashing to an end in a raid deep inside Syria. American special operators launched from Iraq and flew into Syria, entering a compound where they found Baghdadi. Following a short pursuit, he detonated a suicide vest, killing himself and several of his children, bringing his reign of terror to a cowardly and ignominious end.

The raid is remarkable in its execution alone—launched from Iraq, flying fully across Syria into an area with a heavy al Qaeda presence, eliminating Baghdadi, and making it back to Iraq, all without suffering any American casualties. All the more remarkable is the role of the Kurds— our reliable allies throughout the fight, who we had abandoned only weeks before, leaving them to the mercy of Turkey, Syria, Iran, and ISIS. Despite their recent abandonment, the Kurds were instrumental in the raid, and were acknowledged as such by the president and military commanders, who recognized that the raid would not have been possible without intelligence provided by the Kurds.

Now, with Baghdadi dead and U.S. forces leaving Syria, we are falling into the same trap we have fallen into time and again. In leaving Syria and the Kurds high and dry, we have effectively abandoned all hope of a favorable outcome in the longfought Syrian Civil War. In any number of possible outcomes, none are good for the United States.

The best-case scenario is that the withdrawal of American forces and their support for the Kurdish fighters will allow Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to reclaim what territory remains that he has Christopher Lipscomb is a senior studying Intl.

Affairs and Political Science. He is Associate Editor of The Arch Conservative.

6 / The Arch Conservative

not already taken back, and reestablish his regime at the dominant power in Syria as if the civil war had never happened. This is not a bad policy if your sole concern is ensuring ISIS is unable to reclaim territory, but a travesty for the millions of Syrians who have suffered and died through nearly nine years of civil war. An even worse fate and one which is just as likely given recent events is that rather than returning to some sense of normalcy and order, Syria once again descends into chaos and violence, becoming the definitive battlefield for the geopolitical games that for which it has been a central piece for years already. With Turkey battling the Kurds inside Syria’s borders and Iran and Russia, who have quietly supported Assad since the earliest days of the civil war, have become increasingly emboldened by the United States’ abandonment of the Kurds, making this outcome seem far more likely than the return of peace, law, and order.

And what of ISIS? Baghdadi’s death is certainly a major blow to the group—he was, after all, not only its military and political leader but its founder and spiritual leader. ISIS has already announced a new leader, and although it will take some time for this new leadership to establish itself, we have certainly not heard the last of ISIS. Take the example of al Qaeda: When Usama bin Laden was killed in 2011, it was widely thought that al Qaeda would crumble in short order without its founding father. Nearly a decade later, however, al Qaeda still exists and roams the world much as they did the day before bin Laden’s death. Granted, they have not been as prominent as they were in the first decade of the millennium, but the reason for their relative silence is more than simply the death of bin Laden who, like Baghdadi, was quickly replaced at the top. Al Qaeda has remained relatively silent since bin Laden’s death because his killing was part of a well-executed campaign spanning two administrations that decimated al Qaeda’s ranks at all levels in Afghanistan and Pakistan. The other reason for al Qaeda’s relative silence in recent years is the same reason for the silence of nearly every other terrorist group in the region—they have

all been vastly overshadowed by ISIS. Eventually, ISIS will return, and the United States will once again have to venture into Iraq and Syria. The death of Baghdadi is certainly a victory, but a fleeting one at most. Despite what many would like to think, there has not been a Waterloo moment against ISIS, and there never will be one. Napoleon was defeated at Waterloo because he had a large conventional army, which the British were able to annihilate with an even larger conventional army; he was forced to accept defeat because his army had effectively ceased to exist as a fighting force by the end of the day. Such a day of reckoning is impossible in fighting ISIS, or any other terrorist group. The enemies we now face do not have large conventional armies, but rather large unconventional ones, which will never take the field in their entirety as Napoleon did at Waterloo.

Thus it will be impossible to defeat them in one single engagement. Anyone who thinks they can be, need only to look at the Taliban and al Qaeda who, after nearly twenty years of war, remain potent forces, despite having suffered devastating defeats over the course of America’s involvement in Afghanistan.

Going forward, the United States has a great opportunity that has been created by the death of Baghdadi. If we truly want to defeat ISIS decisively, as President Trump has sworn since the campaign, the U.S. should ratchet up the pressure, and continue to take the fight to them, just as we did when we took out Baghdadi. We should make it painfully clear to ISIS and its supporters that not only are we not going anywhere but that when we find their fighters and leaders, darkened helicopters full of hard men are going to swoop in to ruin their night. But if we continue to ease the pressure, we will find that this is not the end. If we allow ISIS’ members to continue to recover from the devastating losses they have endured in recent years and allow the new leadership to get firmly established, they will come roaring back with a vengeance. After all, they have done it before.

WINTER 2020

COLUMNS

The Race for 2020 Democratic division threatens electoral prospects

T

he race for the Democratic bid for the 2020 Presidential election has been nothing short of entertaining.

The Democratic Party has provided us with a variety of candidates, each with their own personality and frightening view of what America should become in the next decade.

What started out as 22 candidates running on issues such as Medicare-ForAll, immigration, and “solutions” to our Second Amendment has dwindled to 18 candidates, with a majority breathing their last breath in the upcoming debate. However, of the candidates remaining and with the latest poll in Iowa, a crucial state for securing a presidential bid, it seems as if only Joe Biden, Elizabeth Warren, and Pete Buttigieg have captured enough national attention to be the real contenders moving forward.

Former Vice President Joe Biden announced his campaign on April 25th, 2019 in a video outlining his vision for America while attacking President Trump and his administration. Vice President Biden is an interesting candidate due to his inevitable support from his former boss, President Obama, and his ability to attract an independent voter not quite satisfied with the decorum President Trump consistently shows in office and on the international stage. The latest Iowa Caucus poll has Biden polling around 18 percent with respondents noting his recent poor debate performances hindering him from more support. Biden has McKenzie Sams is a junior studying Accounting. She is Online Editor of The Arch Conservative.

WINTER 2020

become increasingly more supportive of embracing far-left policies while remaining confident enough to attract moderate voters. Biden’s downfall, however, lies in his inability to separate himself as a legitimate candidate as he consistently relies on his time in the Obama Administration to boost his numbers and his popularity with voters.

Running on progressive policies and capturing the minds of millennials, Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts has separated herself from a crowded field of

power-hungry candidates as an obvious front-runner. Her popularity has soared in recent years, beginning with President Trump’s infamous nicknaming gimmick in which he dubbed her “Pocahontas,” mainly for her admission scheme into Harvard as a professor. Since then, Warren has become one of President Trump’s strongest- and loudest- critics heading into 2020, making her one of the far-left's favorite candidates who can help right the wrongs capitalism has brought upon this country by instilling a progressive, socialist utopia in America. However, Warren has slipped in the polls nationwide, signaling voters are not embracing Warren’s mathematically flawed plans.

Warren has made enough noise in the primaries to rally considerable support for her presidential bid, but she will have to find a middle ground amidst far-left voters and moderate Democrats who are not

ready to board the millennial-driven train to progressive paradise.

Perhaps one of 2020's most unlikely candidates, Mayor Pete Buttigieg has increasingly risen in polls conducted by most major news outlets. Mayor Buttigieg represents the LGBTQ+ community as the country’s first openly gay candidate running for president. Buttigieg remains a dark-horse candidate for now but is on the rise, perhaps a result of his more realistic views on issues a majority of Democratic candidates are willing to place an “economic bandaid” on in hopes of healing a broken bone.

One such issue, canceling 1.6 trillion dollars in student debt, resulted in Buttigieg receiving criticism from members of his party after announcing he did not want to cancel student debt outright.

Instead, his $500 billion dollar plan called for “free public college for households with a yearly income under $100,000 and injecting 120 million dollars into the federal Pell Grant.”

While Buttigieg remains a far-left leaning candidate, his ability to accept reality may help him garner the attention of voters nationwide heading into December’s Democratic debate and February’s Iowa Caucus.

If the Democrats truly want a chance at the Oval Office in 2020, they will have to mobilize behind a candidate willing to take a stance against progressive policies in order to appeal to JFK Democrats and Independents. However, the polls are consistently revealing the future of the Democratic Party is moving in the opposite direction, as illustrated by the high polling numbers for Joe Biden, Elizabeth Warren, and Pete Buttigieg. But the most pressing question Democrats face in the coming months is which of these three can beat President Trump and return the Executive Branch to the Democratic Party.

The Arch Conservative / 7

COLUMNS

The Afghanistan Papers Where they make a desert, they call it peace

T

he graveyard of empires, Afghanistan: a country many of us are familiar with, yet one that none of us really knew until President Bush announced Operation Enduring Freedom to overthrow the Taliban, arrest Osama bin Laden, and build a government made in our own image. Up until about 2003, things seemed to be going well for us and our international allies.

The Taliban government was ousted, and there seemed to be a real desire amongst the Afghan people for a positive change away from the horrors of war lived over the past 30 years. But along the way, things began to fall apart and the Afghani people began to lose interest in our offer.

This decline has been caused by innumerable failures, but I will speak about three issues in particular that are most important and most ignored by bureaucrats from every administration since Bush.

These are the faith and culture of the people of Afghanistan, the economics of nation building, and security and justice as legitimacy to a people. Throughout this article I will be citing and referring back to the “Afghanistan Papers” released recently by The Washington Post. Some of these have names attached and others are anonymous reports.

Firstly, we come to the culture of Afghanistan, as well as the culture of governance, and how this has shaped the functioning of governments in the nation.

Many in the Western world have an image of the Middle East as a place where bribes and corruption are part and parcel of life, and the people have little or no problem with this. A challenge to this comes from an interview with an unnamed Afghan official where he talks at length about corruption in the post-invasion government Samuel Adams is a junior studying Global Logistics Management.

He is a first-time contributor to The Arch Conservative.

8 / The Arch Conservative

and how it has led people in insecure villages to take their support away from the government and give it back to the Taliban. After all, why should they bring their problems to government bureaucrats who will wring money out of them when the Taliban won’t? While the Taliban doesn’t provide services to the people, “at least they aren’t as corrupt” is a sentiment that many Afghans seem to have. Gender equity is another cultural aspect in which America invested an immense amount of resources, with basically nothing to show.

According to an unnamed USAID official, our focus on gender equity in Afghanistan actually made things more difficult because the Afghans had no interest in our views, and our intervention in the matter “caused revolts…tried to jump a society in 10 years what took us100.”

The economics of the situation covers a wide range of topics, but we will focus on agriculture and production in Afghanistan. A dogmatic adherence to the ideals of free trade capitalism led U.S. bureaucrats to attempt to dictate to people how their economy should function, despite the fact that the free market model has no basis in reality for the people of Afghanistan. An unnamed Afghan official remarked how people on the ground were ignored. This is exemplified by the fact that the International Monetary Fund (IMF) demanded free trade from Afghanistan while the country has nothing to export. Beyond this, we spent an immense amount of money building schools that the Afghans had no use for. When interviewed, a U.S. military advisor remarked, “We were building schools next to empty schools… they (the Afghans) said they wanted their kids herding goats, and they thought the schools didn’t serve any purpose,”. What are schools and universities supposed to do for a nation that relies on subsistence farming?

Lastly is the issue of “security as legitimacy,” a concept many understand in theory but abhor in practice. “The Taliban didn’t need the support of the people.

They just took [power] through coercion

and fear,” said a USAID contractor. This remark highlights the asinine notion that the U.S. can build a modern democratic welfare state overnight and the people will magically support it. Instead of taking things slowly and enforcing the rule of law at the local level, we tried to force a corrupt and ineffective central government to enforce the law.

Mohammad Ashraf Nasiri remarked that “the distance between the government and the mosque should be decreased” an abhorrent idea to traditional American thought because of the separation of church and state. Something like this is what Afghanistan could’ve used, and something that would have worked far better than our policy of building empty schools. Governor Halim Fidai said that laws must be relevant to the people, and the best way to do this was through Sharia law which could be used against the Taliban. To the liberal West, penalties imposed by Sharia seem harsh, but if the Afghanis view such punishments as legitimate, shouldn’t their government rightfully use them?

The university educated bureaucrats and officers of the U.S. failed both their country and the people of Afghanistan. Instead of cooperating with locals and taking heed of their knowledge about their own country, we relied upon idealistic officials who thought this was their chance to play God with the unlimited checkbook of the U.S. All of us as voters have something to learn from the war in Afghanistan, and those who seek to work in the halls of power especially need to learn something from this cautionary tale.

WINTER 2020

COLUMNS

Keeping America The Same At the end of his first term, President Trump should reflect on 2016

A

s the modern “red scare” gained bogus development after bogus development ad nauseum earlier this year, I couldn’t help my sense of amusement as the hordes of media moguls and federal agents led Americans through an aimless and absurd narrative. Lo and behold, the Russia probe was nonsense. The Mueller report stated, “[the investigation] did not find that the Trump campaign, or anyone associated with it, conspired or coordinated with the Russian government… to assist the Trump campaign.” Most Americans think otherwise, and who can blame them? That’s what a three year, 24-hour propaganda reel on most major news networks will do.

Clearly, I was too quick to be amused.

The Donald seemed to coast to the front of the 2016 Republican primary, attracting thousands of people to his rallies, despite media negativity. Some saw Trump as a marketing genius, a “4D chess” player who didn’t care what they were saying, so long as his name was plastered on newspapers, magazines, and on the lips of cable news anchors. After four years of being dragged over the coals by liberals and “bygone era” neocons, the criticism seems to have gotten to a man who built his brand on likeability.

It’s hard to imagine now. Trump? Likable? But recall his iconic “Trump towers” in every major U.S. city, watch an interview or two from the nineties, and you’ll see a man who was once admired as an American icon. A success story. A man who was humble, even, about his success. Disregard the post-facto outrage about his so-called “mean-spiritedness” on The Apprentice by humorless dolts. The fact is, Trump has shifted from beloved icon to the subject of never-ending controversy in three short years. The effect? The Trump presidency is Keeping America The Same, and I can’t Sarah Scherer is a senior studying International Affairs. She is Executive Editor of The Arch Conservative. ..................... @sarahscherer WINTER 2020

say I’m surprised. If I had idiot, clown, irresponsible, dangerous, traitor, and liar ringing in my ears for a day, let alone years, I’d probably break, too.

Where shall I begin? “Build The Wall,” the slogan second only to “MAGA,” has remained just that – a slogan. This is a victory for the Democrats, who have succeeded in blocking funds for the border wall, even from the Pentagon. It will be interesting to see whether Trump re-promises the wall in 2020, but his lack of progress thus far will not inspire confidence in voters.

On foreign policy, I couldn’t say I was disappointed. That is, up until yesterday when Trump “declared war” on Iran via Twitter. I fail to see any reason for sending young Americans to fight yet another aimless war other than prejudice against the “backwards” brown people who don’t want a Western-style puppet government hoisted upon them. Or maybe it’s our utter disdain for those “terrorists” like Qasem Soleimani, that guy we just assassinated, who waged a 3-year long, successful military campaign against ISIS from 2014 to 2017. He was described by Dr. Afshon Ostovar of the Naval Postgraduate School as the “linchpin” in bringing together Shia and Kurdish forces to fight ISIS in an Oxford University Press article. Really, what is the aim?

One day, we’ll stop fighting our proxy war in the Middle East for no purpose but to flex our muscles at Putin, who is neither communist nor whose pipeline blueprints concern U.S. security. There are some communists who are a concern, though, and we ought to be preparing for that inevitable war with the People’s Republic. And I don’t mean trade war.

Speaking of trade, Trump recently accomplished replacing NAFTA with the United States Mexico Canada Agreement (USMCA). The agreement requires that 75 percent of materials that make up a car, for example, be sourced from North America.

This is in comparison to NAFTA’s 62.5 percent requirement. USMCA also requires that the workers producing these cars are paid a minimum wage of $16.00 per hour.

As was true for NAFTA, failure to meet these terms would result in a 2.5 percent import tariff. Time will tell whether this “new NAFTA” rejuvenates the Rest Belt, boosting U.S. industry and Trump’s polling numbers.

Among Republicans, there are the ‘pleasantly surprised’ and the ‘fed-up.’

Those who are happy right now probably didn’t vote for Trump in 2016, or simply voted against Hillary. Ben Shapiro comes to mind, who resigned from Breitbart in 2016 because of their open support of candidate Trump. In a late 2018 editorial for Fox News, Shapiro had already changed his tune, calling Trump’s foreign policy “fantastic,” and praising the President’s ability to draw us closer to allies and “throw a scare” into our enemies.

On the converse, Trump’s biggest proponents from 2016 are either uninspired or downright furious. Ann Coulter is a good example, who in 2016 said of Trump in an interview with The Guardian, “Finally, we have a candidate who cares about Americans and not just the donor class.” Disappointed by his lack of followthrough on Mexican immigration and the wall, Coulter didn’t hold back criticism on The Daily Caller’s podcast, saying, “Trump will just have been a joke presidency who scammed the American people, amused the populists for a while, but he’ll have no legacy whatsoever.”

In recent days came Trump’s decision to not retaliate against Iran’s missile attacks.

Many expected a war to start, as “World War 3” and military draft memes flooded the Internet. This unexpected decision in light of his aggressive tweets make the Trump presidency as much of a “wild card” in 2020 as it was in 2016.

Trump’s failure to deliver populist promises like the border wall may affect his reelection odds. The effects of his trade policy, as well as an end to negotiations with China, have yet to be seen. On the campaign trail, Trump would do well to speak to voters outside “the swamp,” remembering the populist constituency that enthusiastically elected him in 2016.

The Arch Conservative / 9

FEATURES

The Crisis of a Generation Socialism's allure to today's youth

By Ian LaCroix

“The worst form of inequality is to make unequal things equal.” - Aristotle

T

he Nirvana Fallacy assumes that there is a perfect solution to a particular problem. It creates a false dichotomy by presenting an option that is clearly advantageous, yet also completely implausible. Under this fallacy, people can attack virtually anything on the grounds of its imperfection. Seeing as though we live in a largely imperfect world, the Nirvana Fallacy has been pervasive in rhetoric for millennia.

In its present context, the Nirvana Fallacy has been egregiously used among young Americans as a means to attack capitalism and promote socialism as an alternative economic and political system.

The terms “capitalism” and “socialism” are both defined in multiple ways. For the sake of this discussion, let’s assume that capitalism is an economic system where the means of production are owned and controlled by private citizens and socialism is an economic system where the means of production are owned and controlled by the government. Today, young Americans increasingly view capitalism as a failed system and advocate for socialism as the remedy. This generational shift can be largely credited to today’s youth taking capitalism for granted, both because they have not learned of its benefits and Ian LaCroix is Editor-in-Chief of The Arch Conservative.

10 / The Arch Conservative

because they refuse to look past the negative aspects inherent in a capitalist system.

Within the past hundred years, capitalism has brought billions of people out of poverty, fostered previously unimaginable innovation and creativity, and raised standards of living to unprecedented heights.

While there may be inequality in this system, it is the best system at raising the lot of common people. Capitalism is not a perfect system, but the question must be asked as to whether a truly perfect system can even be achieved.

Among the most significant issue that critics of capitalism point to as justification for its overhaul is the inequality inherent in the system. Many point to companies like Amazon, Facebook, and Google, as well as individuals like Jeff Bezos and Warren Buffet, as prime examples of a capitalist system run amuck. While it may be true that these companies and people currently hold a significant proportion of the country's wealth, it is the view of capitalist that eventually the market will return to equilibrium through fair competition.

An adequate body of anti-trust laws is needed to ensure that fair competition is able to keep the market on track. Still, the innovation unleashed by these big tech companies is something to be revered, and certainly not something that could be manufactured by government.

Twentieth century economist Joseph Schumpeter explains the importance of innovators in a capitalist system and applies the same logic to his work on the booms and busts in a free-market system.

Historian Jerry Muller perfectly summarizes the work of Schumpeter on the return to economic equilibrium after an entrepreneurial-monopoly by stating: “Spectacular profits accrue to the innovator, who at first has a monopoly because of the novelty of his invention. Eventually, others imitate his innovation, competition erodes the initial large gains, and the result is a decline in profit and a return to the normal, static ‘circular flow’ of economic life.”

To supplement this return to equilibrium are anti-trust laws to ensure that the market is able to function properly through fair competition. Under these circumstances, class stratification should not reach unacceptable levels. That said, the question must be asked as to whether moderate class stratification is even a bad thing. In the words of Thomas Jefferson: “To take from one because it is thought that his own productivity has acquired too much, in order to give to others who have not exercised equal industry and skill is to violate the first principle of association: the guarantee to everyone of a free exercise of his hard work and the profits acquired by it.” In sum, a socialist system that aims to make unequal people equal is a surefire way to disincentivize productivity and innovation.

The inequity of wages in a capitalist system is another argument made by the left. It is the socialist view that wages and prices should be set by the government in order to plan the state economy with the intention of reducing wage inequality and

WINTER 2020

FEATURES

preventing recession. While wage inequality and the occasional recession may be inherent in a capitalist system, government control of wages and prices would almost certainly make things worse. Contrary to the work of Marx and Engels, wages and prices should be determined by the natural laws of supply and demand in the market, not arbitrary labor.

Some firms simply provide no economic value to a state; to provide them with government subsidies in order to maintain “equality” would be a grave mistake to the productivity and prosperity of the populace.

Furthermore, critics of capitalism claim that the system leaves the populace vulnerable to recession due to the uncontrollable whims of the market.

While it is the consensus of even the most hardline conservatives like Milton Friedman that “we are all Keynesians now” and an adequate degree of government capital injection is necessary to combat recessions, it is important to understand that these policies walk a fine line between Keynesian government spending and government control of industry. Booms and busts in the market are natural and normal in a capitalist system. While a socialist system may have the intended goal of leveling out these booms and busts, the unfortunate result would be less wealth to go around.

A critique of socialism would be incomplete without mentioning the work of Friedrick Hayek in his magnum opus: The Road to Serfdom. In this book, Hayek argues that as western societies move away from reliance on the free market towards state planning, individual freedom is sacrificed as a result. Hayek warned of the dangers of tyranny that results from government control over the economy, claiming that the inevitable result of a socialist

WINTER 2020

system was a totalitarian government that oppressed individuals into “serfdom.”

While the goal of socialism and state planning is creating equality, it does so through restraint and servitude, eventually stripping the population of all individual liberties. Hayek argues that the abandonment of Smithian individualism leads to loss of freedom, the emergence of tyranny, and eventually totalitarianism. While Hayek’s argument may seem like a reductio ad absurdum when viewed through a present lense, one must remember the time when he was writing: a period consumed with governments turning towards socialism and suppressing individual liberty. That said, even when thinking of his work in the present context, it is undeniable that many socialist countries have continuously attacked free speech through censorship. Restrictions on free speech are among the most egregious attacks on individual liberty.

It is abundantly clear that today’s youth (at no fault of their own) have not been adequately taught on the intellectual foundations of capitalism and free-market economics. The work of Adam Smith, Voltaire, Edmund Burke, Hayek, et al is seldom taught in the classroom. In fact, even Marx knew of its benefits, stating in his infamous manifesto: “The Bourgeoisie has created more massive and more colossal productive forces than have all preceding generations together. It has accomplished wonders far surpassing Egyptian pyramids, Roman aqueducts, and gothic cathedrals.” Without knowledge of capitalism’s intellectual foundation, today’s youth critique the system on its face and see only its flaws as justification for its removal.

This failure to fully grasp the benefits of a free-market system leads those to egregiously use the Nirvana Fallacy to suggest a seemingly perfect alternative system: Socialism.

The Arch Conservative / 11

FEATURES

Going Nuclear

Why the United States needs to reinvest in nuclear power

By Boris A. Abreu

R

enewable energy is a fantastic technology that will continue to take the lion’s share of the hottest energy news; the sheer social pull of wind turbines and solar panels is a fantastic way to attract attention. But the fact of the matter is, renewables are not the silver bullet everyone wants them to be. Do not take this for attack, alternative sources like biogas, solar, and wind power are going to become instrumental for the future of our nation. We should not, however, resort to harebrained proposals like the “Green New Deal” to radically change our power infrastructure.

While short-term, ill-advised campaigns and movements can create a sense of urgency and are great political buzzwords, they are merely kicking the can down the road. To borrow the popular phrase: “We want to leave a planet for our grandchildren.” Alas, these proposals often run into the most inconvenient of truths, the moderator of all: reality. There is simply no feasible way to rip apart an infrastructure that is so deeply ingrained within our society and one we rely upon so heavily. Any change, as with all policy, should be implemented slowly and be checked regularly.

Of course, it is only fair of the media to popularize the concept of renewable energy as the saving grace of our society; when those who would raise concerns and objections appear, they are oft derided as Boris A. Abreu is Publishing Editor of The Arch Conservative.

12 / The Arch Conservative

“hating our planet” and “not caring for the future,” and are maligned by a mob of internet warriors. However, the reality is that these people are trying to think pragmatically about the implementation of future energy politics. Our discussion of trying to head off the devastating effects of climate change must be pragmatic and realistic, not resorting to grandiose propositions and campaigns designed to make people feel good about themselves. Simply saying “we are going to die unless you do X, Y, and Z” gets nowhere and rather annoys the people you are trying to change. The prospect of constructing and maintaining any entirely new energy infrastructure without trying to address the existing issues does a disservice to the existing issues that plague us. We cannot simply build overtop of our network. Let us be realistic about our prospects for the future of our children and for the American economic machine. It needs power, plain and simple, and trying to rely on a fickle source when battery technology simply has not caught up is reckless and leaves us vulnerable to a loss of economic productivity and physical security. When considering that some drivers on the road don’t know what to do when a set of traffic lights go out (it functions like a four-way stop,) one can only imagine how a total loss of power in a major city or region of the United States would negatively impact our lives.

Into this comes the thorny issue of the splitting of the atom, arguably one of the greatest scientific achievements ever, the question of nuclear power. Already, one

can imagine people getting their hackles up and preparing to litter my comments section with poorly-reasoned, emotional judgements about the nuclear industry’s history. Granted, the media lives by the old adage “if it leads, it bleeds.” And normal nuclear power is simply not as sexy to the media as the miniscule history of accidents. The disaster at Chernobyl is the most popular one to parrot in the face of pro-nuclear advocates. The haunting images of the abandoned city of Pripyat, the nearly post-apocalyptic hellscape the Soviet machine had to clean up, these will be seared into the memories of those who have studied it and saw it on the news, firsthand.

There is no escaping the past, of that we can be certain. There is nothing saying, however, that we cannot learn from it and look toward the future of power in our country. The globe appears to be at a turning point for energy politics, and if we do not assert our primacy in key sectors, then we deserve to lose the race for global superiority in energy generation technology.

A failure to try to innovate and invent at a pace that is able to compete with illiberal powers such as Russia and the Chinese state will place us at a severe disadvantage in the coming decades and will shape great-power dynamics in the foreseeable future. A world order driven by the Chinese interest as opposed to the American model of democracy and diplomacy is not one that any citizen of a democratic nation needs.

However, there is a reason that nuclear

WINTER 2020

FEATURES

energy cannot simply be thrown by the wayside for the future, and indeed giving up our nuclear expertise will place us into a critical national security bind. One of the key sticking points that must arise is the concern of “base load.” In order to power our society, there must be a continuous supply of energy that flows from plants to the grid. It is not viable to simply replace coal-fired plants with hundreds of thousands of acres of wind turbines and trumpet the carbon-dioxide reduction as a victory for the climate. Simply put, it is not feasible to rip out the base infrastructure in favor of something that is fickle. The wind does not always blow, the sun does not always shine, and the batteries that power these will not work forever. There has to be something that is there, running all the time, to power our grid in the instance that these new energy sources are not producing enough. We must maintain an infrastructure to power the country when there is not enough available for everyone.

Nuclear energy provides the American people with an incredibly efficient source of power generation, while statistically being the safest source of energy generation per terrawatt hour (tWh) of energy produced. While this may run contradictory to what anti-nuclear advocates believe, the facts speak for themselves. Plants rarely, if ever, fail, and isolated incidents like Chernobyl and Fukushima-Daiichi should not be regarded as the norm, but rather, extreme outliers. Nuclear plants have failsafe after failsafe built into their mainframes, and extremely heavily fortified against security risks. It’s said that a container dome at the Alvin T. Vogtle Plant in Waynesboro, Georgia, is built to withstand the impact of a commercial airliner at “some speed.” As the saying goes, they do not let just any Harry, Dick, and Joe, into the plant. These are highly trained operators and skilled workers, not simply rough and tumble burly man types maintaining the plant. It all works as part of a concert whose end product powers millions of homes with a fraction of the space that a comparable wind or solar farm would take.

WINTER 2020

Of course, it is almost a given that there will be pushback against any proposed policy changes, and especially around those that involve such a polarizing topic.

It would not be America proper if we did not find a way to argue over almost everything under the sun. There will always be costs of trying to find new solutions to problems. It is in our nature, however, to not give up when faced with such a quandary as the future of our energy infrastructure and how it is tied to our planet’s future. For all the criticism that activists such as Greta Thunberg and Xiye Bastida garner, they do have a point that undergirds their rhetoric, no matter how disagreeable we may be with them. Our planet needs a change in the energy infrastructure, generation, and maintenance capacity in order to ensure a future for the next generation of leaders and scholars.

There is little sense in debating whether or not humans have had a tangible impact on the climate of the globe, lest one wants to engage with bull-headed partisan talking heads on how climate change is a hoax. Climate change is very real and will become a grave national security threat in the future--if it already is not one. Encouraging investment in nuclear energy, paired with a surge in renewable capacity, may well be one of the ways to head off the complex national security challenges that will face the American people in the future.

To expound upon the point above, the United States has the capacity to invest in new nuclear technologies, through a combination of public funding, private partnerships, and the sheer ability of current governmental power to influence the future of America’s energy sector is something that cannot be overstated. While of course, at some level, there is indeed such a thing as too much government involvement, a surge in nuclear technological investment without the help of the federal government is a plan doomed to failure.

Currently, our government plays a tiny role in keeping the American nuclear industry alive, and failing to capitalize on the ability to project our nuclear primacy abroad, a vacuum that powers like Russia

and China are happy to enter and bind small, developing nations to their models and systems. Allowing this slippage in the quest to improve nuclear technology will leave us playing catch up in a time where the global order is in flux.

Furthermore, it is not as if we do not have the technological capacity to invest, we have grand amounts of capital and infrastructure to research and construct new types of reactors, such as spent-fuel ones (which run off of already used nuclear fuel, prolonging its life), reactors powered by thorium, and the evergreen molten salt reactor. Without diving into the specifics, these new types of reactors are more efficient and safer than ever before, and could power millions upon millions of homes. Furthermore, the construction of these reactors, maintenance, and the plants that they will need to use may create thousands, possibly tens of thousands of jobs in the R&D sectors, and the active maintenance of these systems.

It is the overarching belief that a future national security strategy that revolves around energy infrastructure will be critically flawed without containing some mechanism for increased investment and research into nuclear technologies.

Allowing ourselves to fall asleep at the wheel hurts our political capital here and abroad and leaves us vulnerable to having an energy grid that is inefficient, unreliable, and out-of-touch with the rest of the developed world and our geopolitical competitors. Ensuring American nuclear primacy is a challenge that our policymakers and governmental officials must tackle head on, and not continue to kick the can down the road, lest the road end and we are hopelessly behind. It will not be a popular choice, for sure, but with time and persistence, it is the belief that the American people will slowly come to realize that a future for their children and their children’s children is one where nuclear energy undergirds the grid in place of coal fired plants. Nuclear is not something we should be afraid of anymore, but rather embrace as one of the myriad of potential solutions to solving our climate future.

The Arch Conservative / 13

FEATURES

Empty Promises, Collateral Consequences Why Medicare-for-all won't work

By Lee Collier

M

edicare and other federal-sponsored healthcare programs have dominated political debates for years, drawing ideologies from both sides of the aisle to dish it out over where to draw the line when it comes to the government’s control over the healthcare insurance industry. On November 1st, 2019, Democratic frontrunner, Elizabeth Warren, introduced a twenty-page explanation backing one of her biggest promises to the public with Medicare-for-all.

Medicare-for-all is exactly what it sounds like, it would provide comprehensive health insurance to every US citizen without the requirement of premiums, co-payments, deductibles, or any other out-of-pocket expense people must pay for healthcare that their insurance does not cover. Warren swears this plan would not require any extra tax on the middle class, and would rely on comprehensive tax reform on corporations and the very wealthy. While this sounds like a great deal, it is not that simple and it is the consequences that would come with this plan that are not being talked about enough.

In no way is this a critique of Medicare in and of itself, but only a critique of Warren’s plan for Medicare-for-all. Since there are twenty pages of explanation on funding and implementations, the focus will be on the main points.

Lee Collier is a senior studying Risk Management and Insurance.

14 / The Arch Conservative

First step in the plan: eliminate private health insurance. No longer will people be able to obtain their insurance through their employers (which 170 million Americans currently do) because no longer will health insurance companies be allowed to offer health insurance, a rather important part of their business model. In fact, most supporters of Medicare-for-all do not even know that they would have to give up their current health insurance for a plan sponsored by the federal government, which undoubtedly will be of lesser quality for a majority of Americans. Economists predict around two million jobs will be lost if private healthcare is eliminated. In a Washington Post article titled, “The Health 202: Medicare-for-all would virtually erase the massive health insurance industry”, Paige Cunningham interviewed Warren about the issue of lost jobs. Warren acknowledged this and responded, saying, “So, I agree, I think this is part of the cost issue and should be part of a cost plan.” In other words, two million people could lose their jobs, but it is a sacrifice she is willing to make.

Speaking of cost, the cost of Warren’s Medicare-for-all plan is supposed to be around $52 trillion over the next decade.

Once you deduct how much the federal government and states currently spend on Medicare and Medicaid, that leaves about $30 trillion left to finance in new federal spending. However, Warren claims that number will be around $20.5 trillion due to improved tax reform and more efficient tax collection. This is a vague promise to

account for $9.5 trillion, especially when it includes the continued use of "bundled payments," a healthcare payment method that has already failed to reduce costs since being implemented in 2013. Warren plans on paying for this enormous price by doing multiple things: The first is doubling the wealth tax on billionaires to make it 6 percent, which would raise roughly $3 trillion. However, that could be much less due to billionaires choosing to go relocate overseas where European countries are eager to take them in with a lot of tax incentives.

Warren also threatens foreign price controls on US drug manufacturers to force them to lower prices or risk patentconfiscation or a hefty tax increase on profits. Essentially, this would provide no incentive for US drug manufacturers to innovate and provide more effective medicine. People talk about how other countries have more available healthcare, but nobody talks about how the US has the best healthcare, which is due to innovation in the healthcare industry. Warren’s plan on threatening to confiscate medical patents from manufacturing entities is a big if and there is no doubt the legal battles will rage for years to come.

Warren also plans to raise the corporate tax rate back to 35 percent from 21 percent and extend it to income earned worldwide. At this point, she is practically begging companies to relocate operations to foreign soil. This would undoubtedly affect the middle class because companies will start slashing budgets to pay for this

WINTER 2020

FEATURES

new tax increase which means wages could decrease. The plan might not tax the middle class immediately, but it might start eating into their income. She claims companies can afford to take a hit due to them not having to pay employee health insurance anymore and using that money to pay the federal government instead.

This, however, could backfire if companies choose to decrease health insurance offered before the time comes to switch to Medicare-for-All in an effort to reduce their payment to the government. This would not only leave employees with worse health insurance, but it would not allow Warren to accumulate all the tax dollars she needs from corporations to hit her goal.

Warren plans on cutting defense spending for overseas contingency operations as well, which she claims would save around $800 billion. In a growingly hostile foreign presence begins to form overseas, it will be very hard to convince Congress to suddenly slash spending in key areas around the world. Especially when cyber threats from Russia and China are becoming a #1 concern with national security.

Warren says this plan will restore healthcare competition because everyone will have good insurance so providers will have to compete to provide the best healthcare and reduce wait times. Increasing healthcare competition is going to be very hard because this plan is going to prove fatal to the healthcare industry.

For one, what is the point of competing when the government controls your prices and reimbursements anyways? The plan promises current health care providers they will be compensated on their services at an average of 110% of current Medicare rates. Sadly, most hospitals and health care clinics barely break even already, relying on private insurance payments to stay afloat. Increasing the Medicare reimbursement by 10% will not save many hospitals

WINTER 2020

and healthcare practices from going out of business, especially when the cost of healthcare is only going up. Doctors will suddenly start having to make a lot less, and when they do, what incentive will there be to go through 8-10 years of college and debt to become a doctor?

Recently, the Heritage Foundation has released a study that shows most working Americans, under a Medicare-for-all plan, would end up having to pay more in tax hikes than they would save from not having to pay for healthcare. Nearly two-thirds of US households would end up with less disposable income. It is worth noting that the study assumed that healthcare providers would be reimbursed at the same rate that they have always been, which Warren’s plan throws out the window, so that that number could be worse than anticipated. The study also does not account for behavioral responses to the inevitable tax hikes, such as people working less, or simply preferring unemployment.

If you are asking yourself how this could all be possible if Warren did win the election, you are not alone, because other democratic nominees like Biden and Buttigieg also disagree with Warren’s plan. Representatives from Biden’s campaign have claimed that Warren is lying about the middle class not being affected, saying Medicare-for-all is like “paying for a unicorn with a unicorn.” Buttigieg has taken a stance in saying that ending private insurance should not be in the discussion at all, noting the toll it will take on the US economy. Even Bernie Sanders, who also has a Medicare-for-all plan that increases middle class taxes, has said that Warren’s plan would, “have a very negative impact on creating jobs.” Since Warren has announced her plan, her campaign started to suffer as Warren has fallen behind Bernie Sanders in national polling for the first time since early September according to RealClearPolitics’s average across

four polls. The poll states that Warren’s chase after Biden’s numbers have taken a hit as she sits at 18.5 points compared to Biden’s 29.8 points. The poll also mentions how Warren has now lost a comfortable lead in Iowa and is losing traction in New Hampshire.

This has not been the first time the idea of Medicare-for-all has been introduced (and it won’t be the last). In 2011, Peter Shumlin was elected governor of Vermont after running a campaign built around a single-payer healthcare plan. He claimed that introducing the plan would save employees and employers $200 million within the first year, even after being taxed to fund it. By the end of 2014, state officials had to admit to the public that the plan would require an 11.5% payroll tax increase and a 9.5% income tax increase.

Unsurprisingly, the citizens of Vermont were quick to reject the plan. Colorado proposed their own version of Medicarefor-All in 2016, which Sanders backed.

However, voters rejected the proposal with a 79% opposition.

Without a doubt, Medicare will always be a hot topic in the political climate.

It’s hard to deny the good Medicare has done by providing insurance to millions of underinsured Americans. However, Medicare-for-all under Elizabeth Warren is a plan built on broad assumptions and empty promises. While collateral consequences and funding methods will never be agreed upon when it comes to Medicare and how far its arms should wrap around the healthcare industry, it is important that this discussion stays in the limelight. Americans need to be aware of what they are voting for, and while the idea that everyone deserves healthcare is not morally unjust, it is important to be practical in a growing political climate of impracticality.

The Arch Conservative / 15

COLUMNS

Reconsidering SPLOST A proposal for future proposals

T

he citizens of Athens-Clarke County voted to continue the Special Purpose Local Option Sales Tax (SPLOST) by a wide margin in a countywide referendum on November 5. The SPLOST 2020 package was approved by almost a 3-1 margin with 74.6 percent of voters voting in favor of its continuation albeit a meager 12.4 percent of registered voters actually participated. However, questions abound about the SPLOST process: What exactly is SPLOST? Who gets to decide what projects are in the SPLOST package? Why is it an all-or-nothing vote? Is there a better way? Voters should be asking themselves these questions.

The Special Purpose Local Options Sales Tax is an optional 1 percent sales tax increase across Athens-Clarke County, specifically designated for particular projects within the community.

For example, the creation of some of the bike lanes in Athens was funded by previous SPLOST packages. Because it is a sales tax increase, SPLOST does not affect property taxes but increases the cost of buying goods. The existing sales tax in Athens-Clarke County is 7 percent, with SPLOST increasing that to 8 percent. As a result, the consumer pays $1.08 for a $1 coffee instead of the original $1.07. While an extra penny may seem insignificant for a cup of coffee, the impact is greater for more expensive purchases-- a $10,000 car ends up costing an extra $100 due to SPLOST. Who gets to decide where the extra money goes? In theory, the voters of Athens-Clarke County decided when they Hunter Burnett is a senior studying Social Studies Education and History. He is a regular contributor to The Arch Conservative.

16 / The Arch Conservative

voted overwhelmingly to pass the SPLOST 2020 package. However, it is crucial to consider how the package was determined before it was up for a vote. This year’s SPLOST package was determined by a twenty-two member citizen advisory committee which was picked by the mayor and county commission, not elected. While the majority of the projects within the pack-

age were voted on by the committee, the mayor and commission ultimately had the final say over what projects are included.

This raises the question: Why is it an all or nothing vote? The vote on November 5 was either yes or no for the whole package. Voters could not vote on the individual projects within the package. This is problematic because there were 37 total projects within the package, with projected costs ranging from $378,000 to $77.9 million. The reality that Athens-Clarke County residents could not say yes to sidewalk and sign improvements in Bogart without simultaneously agreeing to spend $34 million on a new arena for the Classic Center is preposterous. However, SPLOST is the only way the government can fund projects like sidewalk and sign improvements without raising property taxes.

Is there a better way? In short, yes. Citizens could simply vote on specific projects

as needs arise within their community.

The mayor and commission should be limited to one project proposal that they can put up for a vote. If a voter wants to pay for sidewalk and sign improvements but not a new arena then they should have that ability. This would not only increase the power of the voter, but it would also discourage government overspending and force elected officials to prioritize needs. Expensive projects like the Classic Center Arena ($34 million), a new Courthouse ($77.9 million), and more low-income housing ($44.5 million) could face more in-depth analysis because they would be the only project voters would have to research. As a result, the project’s true necessity or wastefulness would be determined by better-informed voters. In turn, elected officials would be forced to prioritize the needs of the county, as frivolous spending would be voted down and only true needs would pass.

One caveat is that this change would result in more frequent voting because each individual project would have to be proposed and thus voted on at different times. However, this can be mitigated by a more technologically savvy approach to voting. Citizens could vote online rather than having to go to the ballot box every time a new project is proposed. This would likely increase voter participation, which is particularly important considering only 12.4 percent of registered voters in Athens-Clarke County participated in the SPLOST 2020 election.

While the SPLOST 2020 package passed with ease, it is imperative to consider the SPLOST process for the future.

If conservatives claim to believe in politics occurring at the most local level possible, then they must be active in shaping how local politics are done, and forcing SPLOST projects to be proposed and voted on individually would be an important first step in this process.

WINTER 2020

COLUMNS

Politicians Don't Get Christianity How both parties misrepresent Christian beliefs for selfish gain

G

iven the predominantly Christian religious landscape of the United States, politicians have been trying for centuries to capture the Christian vote by appealing to Christian values and beliefs. However, the minute these politicians deviate from simply self-identifying with a sect of Christian belief, they do nothing but demonstrate their appalling lack of knowledge about Christianity.

Take Pete Buttigeg for example, who identifies as Episcopalian. In September 2019, the Democratic hopeful appeared in an interview on the radio program The Breakfast Club to offer his opinion on a myriad of political issues. In that interview, he attempted to defend abortion from a Christian worldview: “[Christianity] holds everyone in line with this one kind of piece of doctrine about abortion… which is obviously a tough issue for a lot of people… Then again, there’s a lot of parts of the Bible that talk about how life begins with breath, and so even that is something that we can interpret differently.”

The problem with Buttigeg’s comments is that the “parts of the Bible that talk about how life begins with breath” simply do not exist, apart from attempts to read something into Scripture which its authors weren’t addressing in the first place.

What does exist, however, is the record of early Christianity, which univocally condemns abortion as a grave moral evil and something inadmissible for Christians. For example, the Didache (an early document recording the teachings of the twelve apostles) explicitly states, “You shall not murder a child by abortion, nor kill a child at birth.” Despite Buttigieg's constant references to his strong Christian faith, he is able to demonstrate in a few sentences Jacob Sparks is a senior studying Religion and Mathematics. He is a first-time contributor to The Arch Conservative.

WINTER 2020

his lack of understanding of the Bible and Christian belief.

Or, if you prefer a Republican example, take President Donald Trump, who identifies as Presbyterian. When asked at The Family Leadership Summit in Iowa whether he had ever asked God for forgiveness, he responded, “I’m not sure I have. I just go on and try to do a better job.

I think if I do something wrong I just try and make it right. I don’t bring God into that picture. When we go to church and when I drink my little wine… and when I have my little cracker I guess that’s a form of asking for forgiveness.”

Trump’s answer seems shocking when one considers that the Bible states “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,” and “All have turned aside, together they have gone wrong; no one does good, not even one,” thus declaring the rather explicit need of all humanity for divine forgiveness and redemption (Romans 3:23, 3:12). Trump’s view that God is not in the picture of his mistakes, and that he is able to rectify them himself, is deeply un-Christian.

The examples could go on and on, but I will let these two suffice for now. Rather than dwelling on how politicians misunderstand Christianity, it is perhaps better to ask why they misunderstand it. This will require a brief explanation of the core of Christian theology.

The basic narrative of Christianity is this: Jesus of Nazareth came into the world to set right everything that had gone wrong, first of which is the brokenness of the world due to sin and death. He healed people of their illnesses. He encouraged those who are broken. By doing these things, he communicated the life of God to humanity. When humanity could not bear the perfection of God in light of their sin and darkness, they condemned God to death, tortured him, and nailed him to a cross. But since light drives out darkness, and life conquers death, Jesus arose from the dead on the third day, victorious over the powers of sin and death. Jesus grants this same victory to all who follow his

teachings and believe in him. This is the story of the Christian faith.

This narrative does not fit well into any political campaign or message. To be a Christian in a literal sense means to be an imitator of Christ. That is to say, being a Christian means to be crucified. Telling people they must suffer in imitation of a first century Jew was not a popular message in the first century, and it is not a popular message today either. It does not fit into the simple political narratives of, “My side is right, your side is wrong, and we will defeat you.” It rather requires being a humble servant of others and, when necessary, being willing to speak the truth to a world that does not want to hear it. By necessity, political campaigns tell people what they want to hear in order to gain popular support. The Apostle Paul, when writing a letter to a first century church in Corinth, noted how the message of the cross was not popular: “For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written, ‘I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the cleverness of the clever I will thwart.’ Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe.

For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.” (1 Corinthians 1:18-25) To be faithful to Christianity means to be faithful to foolishness, weaknesses, suffering, and crucifixion. Until politicians are willing to do this, there will not be a truly Christian political candidate.

The Arch Conservative / 17

COLUMNS

Witch Hunt Impeachment has devolved into a mere political game of "chicken" “The Crazed, Do Nothing Democrats are turning impeachment into a routine partisan weapon. That is very bad for our Country, and not what the Founders had in mind!!!!!” – President Donald Trump

P

resident Trump’s dealings with Ukraine do not look good, regardless of what actually transpired. Whether he was genuinely concerned about battling corruption in the Ukrainian government or was hoping to kick off an investigation which would harm Joe Biden’s candidacy, so flagrantly withholding aid looks incredibly bad for both the president and his administration.

There is no denying aid was withheld, but context remains elusive. The president’s involvement in the matter effectively brings him into the trenches, getting him dirty and involved in the fighting, when he should be focused primarily on directing the big picture rather than getting so intimately involved in one area. And the fact that his closest advisors allowed him to get so deeply involved in a matter that should have been handled by State Department personnel at Foggy Bottom and in Kiev, raises questions as to whether the president is truly surrounding himself with the best people, as he likes to claim.

But the Democrats, in their push to impeach, are proving just as problematic Christopher Lipscomb is a senior studying Intl. Affairs and Political Science. He is Associate Editor of The Arch Conservative.

18 / The Arch Conservative

as the president. Historically, impeachment has been a potent tool in Congress’ arsenal—the nuclear option as far as checks and balances are concerned--for this very reason, impeachment has very seldom been seriously invoked, much less acted upon. Impeachment is so rare that only four presidents have had to legitimately face so much as the specter of impeachment prior to Trump. Only two presidents, Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton, have been through the entire process and had the House vote to impeach—both were subsequently acquitted by the Senate. Congress adopted articles of impeachment against Richard Nixon, but he resigned from office before the House could actually vote to impeach. And lost to history is the would-be impeachment of James Buchanan: on the eve of the Civil War, a committee was formed to explore impeachment, however, it was decided there were insufficient grounds to go forward with impeachment. The fact that it has been so seldom used shows that in the past, Congress has understood impeachment for what it is—the most powerful, and damning, weapon in the arsenal of checks and balances, a sort of “break glass in case of emergency” option one should hope to avoid having to use at all costs.

With memories of the Revolution and its causes fresh in their minds, the Framers were deliberately vague about what warranted impeachment—the Constitution simply states that a president can be impeached for “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”

This has left the onus on Congress, whose historical grounds for impeachment have been exceeding or abusing the powers of the office, behavior incompatible with the function and purpose of the office, and the misuse of office for an improper purpose or for personal gain. The historical precedent sets a clear basis and high bar for impeachment, however its vaguely defined triggers in the Constitution leave it open for partisan gamesmanship in the event that congressional leaders lack the strength of character to remain rigorous

in their regard for the Constitution. As Gerald Ford observed when he was House Minority Leader, “An impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history.”

Thus we find ourselves at the present impeachment inquiry. Is it rooted in scandal? Absolutely. But do the facts point to blatant treason, bribery, or various other high crimes and misdemeanors?

At this point they do not. And given the process House Democrats are following in this inquiry of theirs, it is unlikely an impeachable offense will ever be definitively proven. But that does not matter, because Democrats do not care about making a valid and bipartisan case for impeachment. All they want to do is see the president removed from office, or, failing to achieve that—failure being likely, given that Republicans hold a majority in the Senate—see him so damaged that he could not possibly win a second term in office.

At times, the President can be overzealous in his use of the term, "witch hunt," applying it to even legitimate oversight of his administration. But in the case of the impeachment inquiry, the characterization is entirely appropriate. Democrats have been attempting to impeach this president since his first months in office. When that did not stick, the Mueller investigation—a legitimate investigation into legitimate concerns—became their next best hope.

When that, too, failed to conclusively prove wrongdoing on the part of President Trump, House Democrats started fishing, and the president ultimately served up the Ukraine debacle to them on a golden platter. Sure, Ukraine looks bad for the president, and it may in time prove to be legitimate wrongdoing. But that is not what the present inquiry is about. At the end of the day, it is all about 2020; Democrats are hellbent on defeating Trump, using whatever means necessary, and in the grand scheme of things, the current impeachment inquiry is pure made-forTV election-year politics, and is, if not in substance than in method, a witch hunt.

WINTER 2020

COLUMNS

The Development of Fake News Lessons for today from the story of Richard Jewell

C

lint Eastwood’s Richard Jewell is more than an examination of the 1996 Centennial Olympic Park bombing, a terrorist attack that killed one and injured more than one hundred. It is a review of the vicious news culture our country has sunk even further into since the bombing and its subsequent investigations. It is an examination of fake news as a concept, and its effects.

In the film, we meet Olympic Security Guard Richard Jewell (Paul Walter Hauser), a “wannabe cop” who, true to real life, had been a campus security guard at Piedmont College and a Habersham County Sheriff ’s Deputy. When Eric Rudolph called in a bomb threat from a local payphone, Jewell was the first to find the bomb and alert the authorities. Had he not taken the suspicious package as seriously as he did, the casualties would have been far greater.

After becoming an overnight celebrity and hero to many, Jewell is brought in for interviews on CNN and the Today Show and offered a book deal. The FBI is conducting their investigation of the bombing, and as is and was protocol, investigate Jewell as a possible suspect.

This is presented as a legitimate process throughout the film. Jewell, in the film and real-life, never faults the FBI for investigating him. He knows he fits their profile as a lone bomber: one who set the bomb. He would then, wanting attention as the hero, find it and protect people.

The issue becomes the leaking of this investigation to the media. In the film, Kathy Scruggs (Olivia Wilde), the Atlanta Journal-Constitution reporter meets FBI agent Tom Shaw (Jon Hamm) in a dive bar where they flirt and discuss the case of Richard Jewell. On the premise of a sexual Ross Schumacher is a Masters student in Political Science. He is a first-time contributor to The Arch Conservative. ..................... @ross_schu WINTER 2020

relationship, Agent Shaw reveals the FBI is investigating Jewell. The next day, Scruggs rushes to her office and co-writer Ron Martz (David Shae), where they write the now-infamous article naming Jewell as the prime suspect.

The characterization of Shaw and Scruggs are treated as equally terrible antagonists throughout the film. Shaw was present at the bombing and feels a sense of guilt that it happened under his watch. As the film progresses, this guilt becomes anger. He becomes aggressive and dishonest towards Jewell, attempting to trick him several times to give a statement without his lawyer present. It seems that he’s now under pressure not only to find the bomber but to try everything to prove that the culprit is Jewell. This reflects poorly not only upon Shaw but on the character of the FBI as a whole. Though, today we have seen it is not the paragon of justice many of us were told it was. See people like James Comey and Peter Strzok, who allowed their own biases to influence their investigations and testimony against President Trump, much like Shaw.

Kathy Scruggs is characterized as a terribly ambitious woman. Initially, this is to her credit, however, it ultimately proves to be her major flaw. She is abrasive and flirtatious, falling into a stereotype of female reporters the film has been heavily criticized for by, ironically, the Atlanta-Journal Constitution, among other publications.

Scruggs represents the aggressive media, and Wilde’s acting fits it to a tee.

Richard Jewell is a testament to the vicious culture of modern news media.

The rush to put things to print, verified or not, is simply irresponsible. Nightcrawler (2014) showed this from the perspective of the reporter, as Jake Gyllenhaal’s character became more and more unhinged and heartless as he chased after car wrecks and murders for a good story. Nightcrawler did not require any political knowledge to contextualize. It was released when you could still criticize the media as a concept without making a political statement. It shows the unsavory practices more directly and received little criticism for that portrayal. Unlike Richard Jewell, which

must be contextualized with the political climate it was released in.

This has been called the “Era of Fake News” and this film is the perfect story to explain what that concept truly means.

Fake news is not tabloids and bad websites. Fake news is when the American people are being lied to, either through irresponsibility, or the malintent of the media. Richard Jewell did not become known as “a suspect in the bombing” when the news came out that he was being investigated-- he became known as “the suspected bomber” for the next eight weeks.

Today President Trump dominates the news cycle in a way few politicians ever have. Every action is critiqued, regardless of how inconsequential, and almost immediately forgotten. Except people are watching, and falling into groupthink that confirms their biases. Government bureaus have become arbiters of fate, doing investigations that benefit their opinions, much like Agent Shaw, who became so aggressive to Richard Jewell that he started believing his own lies. He is never shown to relent and admit that he was wrong, and his last words in the film are to Jewell’s attorney: “I am convinced your client is guilty”. What began as an honest investigation, done according to protocol, became a personal vendetta. The analogy can be seen clearly: with the FBI investigation into the Trump campaign, the Mueller Report, and even the current investigations into Ukraine and impeachment.

The media, and the government, wronged Richard Jewell, and everyone knew it. But the media's persistence made an already bad situation so much worse. At least, if only in the movie, Kathy Scruggs is shown to be remorseful in the end. If only our current media could show the same conscience.

The Arch Conservative / 19

COLUMNS

Good Riddance to Beto The skater, rocker, and cringe-lord in retrospect

P

arty primaries are interesting little things. They can bring out the best and the worst in candidates, who scramble to distinguish themselves within the often narrow confines of a party’s platform. As America’s major parties become more and more polarized, they beget less and less wiggle room for compromise and moderation. The opposition party’s primary race is bound to produce a few unsavory candidates, and if we anticipated a bidding war of hyperbole and hackery, the Democratic primary has not disappointed.

The average voter likely knew what to expect, rhetoric and tactic-wise, from the predicted frontrunners. Joe Biden has been in the public eye since at least the 1980s and served as vice president for two terms, Bernie Sanders is not far removed from an almost-successful primary campaign that captured the hearts of would-be Sandinistas on campuses everywhere, and Senators Warren, Harris (RIP), and Booker have distinguished themselves recently as the vanguard of the anti-Trump side of Congress.

Naturally, the other guys had some catching up to do. Pete Buttigieg has run a surprisingly competent campaign to this point for a newcomer and smallishtown mayor, but sadly, he remains one of the few pleasant surprises. America only briefly got to know Eric “Nuke Gun Owners” Swalwell before his departure.

We had a short-but-passionate affair with Marianne Williamson and her spiritual brand of politics, Tulsi Gabbard flirted with relevance by brutalizing Kamala Harris on the debate stage, and Andrew Yang continues to hang in there by being absolutely adorable and thus exempt from difficult questions.

Such a diverse collection of zany J.Thomas Perdue is an alumnus of Grady College of Journalism.

He is former Editorin-Chief of The Arch Conservative.

20 / The Arch Conservative

characters may have made Beto O’Rourke, straight, white, and uninteresting as he is, feel the need to compensate in some way.

At first glance, it was easy to sympathize with the man who, almost overnight, saw his observers turn from adoring to sharply critical. As the Democratic challenger to Ted Cruz’s Senate seat in Texas, Beto was the darling of the suburban left.

His Kennedy-esque looks, background in punk rock, skateboarding aptitude, and table-jumping antics were enough to make up for his Kennedy-esque driving record, but not enough to swing a traditionally Republican Senate seat. All was not lost for O’Rourke, however, as his campaign captured enough attention to catapult him to national relevance—a similar phenomenon that canonized Georgia’s own Stacey Abrams after her gubernatorial defeat.

The guy who almost beat Ted Cruz set out to disprove General Patton’s maxim that Americans will not tolerate a loser.

Beto’s realization upon declaring his candidacy that he was not in Texas anymore must have come as something of a shock. In the wild west of the 2020 Democratic primary race, he quickly realized that not being Ted Cruz only carries so much weight in an arena with a selfprofessed socialist and Barack Obama’s wingman. It was clear that Beto needed a new edge to put him back into things. (He was born for this, after all.)

So what is a Beto O’Rourke—so straight, so white, and so lost in the peloton of opportunists—to do? No match for the experience of Biden, the following of Sanders, or the charisma of… well McGovern, he attempted to transform himself into the uncoordinated, instinctive, knee-jerk megaphone of progressivism.

Perhaps among his greatest hits was his affirmation that “Hell yes, we’re going to take your AR-15!” The lack of reverence for or knowledge about the Second Amendment among like-minded progressives is not worth noting, but Beto’s assault on the Constitution did not stop there. The revoking of tax-exempt status for churches, a position that drew acute

criticism from Pete Buttigieg as it would have most severely hurt churches in poorer and minority communities.

O’Rourke did not attempt to construct a coherent policy platform that was significantly unique from his Democratic peers, other than expressing his desire to use federal forces to obstruct rights and speech.

What he did try to create was an image: that of Generation X’s firebrand—channeling his post-punk band bad boy streak to make it loud and clear that he was not playing by their rules. Beto wanted to be the guy willing to go there, even if it meant saying bad words. The madman.

Along with the “Hell yes” slogan came “This is f----- up. This is f----- up. This is f----- up. This is f----- up. This is f----up. This is f----- up,” two phrases of true insight into America’s gun problem later to be emblazoned on campaign t-shirts.

The campaign’s efforts to mold Beto into an outsider by placing him as far to the left as possible, in short, failed. The people who Beto hoped to form into a constituency, and indeed most of America, is long past its age of Tipper Gore-ist pearl-clutching, so it’s probable that—in the words of Jane’s Addiction—nothing’s shocking.

The implications of Beto’s tactics ending in failure could be looked at a number of ways. Relief, maybe, is apparent following the thorough rejection of his passionate unseriousness. However, it is equally apparent that the reasons for rejecting Beto among the left and right only scarcely overlap.

Conservatives spoke out against O’Rourke because he’s a malignant loon.

But did progressives really dispense with his candidacy because it was too far left, or because it was insincerely far left? It is doubtful that many political compasses would place him leftward of, say, Bernie Sanders. Maybe there is a desire, somewhere out there, for a moderate Democrat, but Beto made sure he did not fit that bill—and we’re all better off because of it.

WINTER 2020

COLUMNS

Chicago Teachers Strike The ineffectiveness of labor unions in America

T

he first successful strike took place in Philadelphia, post-Revolutionary War, in 1791 where carpenters advocated for a ten-hour day. Strikes and labor unions became more prominent during the Industrial Revolution. Notable labor unions of the time were the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW), American Federation of Labor (AFL) and the Congress of Industrial Organizations (CIO), later formed into the AFL-CIO. Some infamous strikes include Homestead Steel Mill Strike of 1892 and the Pullman Strike of 1894 where workers called for ample wages, curtailed hours, and bearable working conditions. On October 17th, 2019, public school teachers in Chicago, Illinois went on strike for a historic 11-days as a part of the Chicago Teachers’ Union (CTU) to fight for a higher wage increase. The events of the teachers union strike puts the effectiveness of labor unions into question because of the economic consequences, their effect on the job market, and lack of individualistic thought.

The first problem from the events of the teachers union strike is the increased taxes for Chicago taxpayers, in order to meet the demands of the teachers. The CTU negotiated an agreement with Mayor Lori Lightfoot for an increase in teacher wages.

Lightfoot proposed a five-year contract with a more than fifteen percent increase in the teacher salary over the course of the contract term. The financial consequences of the contract are that Chicagoans could see nearly a $235 increase in their tax bill, Diana Robertson is a freshman majoring in Exercise and Sports Science. She is a regular contributor to The Arch Conservative. .................... @dianarobertson_ WINTER 2020

an increase of $13 on their property taxes, doubling in restaurant tax from 0.25% to 0.50%. In total, the proposed contract from the Chicago Teachers' Union could cost Chicago taxpayers upwards of $1.1 billion. Mayor Lightfoot responded to the sequence of events, saying, “We put everything we could, responsibly, on the table, in an attempt to get a deal done. But we have no deal to announce today, and for that, I am terribly disappointed.” Additionally, the demand for increased wages

will increase the rate of inflation across the board. The consequences of higher inflation are a higher costs for goods and services for the Chicago taxpayer.

The second problem from the events of the teachers union strike is their effect on the job market when they contend for higher wages for their union members.

When wages increase above the median market value, this can lead to unemployment rates increasing drastically. Employers may have to lay-off employees because of the new wage standards. The increase in wages could generate fewer job openings for public sector workers due to the average worker pay increasing. Public-sector companies may resort to outsourcing to other countries with a lower minimum wage standard which may lead to higher unemployment rates. The higher wages could hurt many public-sector corporations if they are not able to increase or

reduce their expenses to maintain the high wage standard and lead to bankruptcy or financial liquidation. The determinant for the wage should be contended by the free market because the amount of productive work and workers needed should be determined by businesses themselves and not the federal government. The rate of supply and demand conditions of local markets would allow corporations to turn over profits and consumers to have lower prices.

The third problem from the events of the teachers union strike is their ineffectiveness at promoting individualism and self-growth. Labor unions make decisions based on the good of the whole group, in the process of “collective bargaining.” Unions operate on a “group mindset” which abandons individualistic ideals as a whole. The benefit of individualism in the workplace are encouraging an environment where opposites can work together and allows all employees to feel valued and work together towards common goals. The homogeneity of unions does not allow workers to assert their individualism or individual ideas. For example, when the CTU compromised on the five-year contract with Mayor Lightfoot, some of the teachers may have felt jipped or undermined by the compromise, however could not dispute the deal due to the collective bargaining for the good of the union.

The Chicago Teacher Union Strike evidenced various discrepancies with the operations of labor unions as a whole. The compromise with more than 15% increase in Chicago teacher wages created significantly higher taxes for Chicago taxpayers which leads to higher prices of goods and services due to inflation. The increase in wages can lead to fewer job openings, more lay-offs, and higher unemployment rates. The collective bargaining of unions can suppress individualistic thought because unions rule on the majority vote.

The Arch Conservative / 21

COLUMNS

DASKA Deliberation Complex Russia bill is bound to present challenges

F

or decades, the U.S. and Russia have been diplomatic allies. However, relations have been strained as of late.

With Russia’s involvement in Syria and Afghanistan, joint military operations in Venezuela, and the annexation of Crimea in 2014, the U.S. has been cautious. As recently as December of 2019, Russia sent two bombers to Venezuela, capable of carrying nuclear payloads. This is all cause for concern.

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee began taking steps to combat these dubious actions, and in February 2019, a bill was proposed by Republican Senator Lindsey Graham. The bill, entitled, “Defending American Security Against Kremlin Aggression,” (DASKA) is described by Senator Bob Menendez as “an expression of the Senate’s views of how to protect U.S. national security against Russia.” Though the main thrust of the bill is focused on Russia, there are other ramifications that the bill has. First, it strengthens America’s dedication to NATO, requiring a two-thirds majority vote in the Senate to leave. Secondly, it would create an Office of Cyberspace in the Department of State, which would strengthen cyber-security both at home and abroad, creating new criminal violations and consequences for a wide range of cyberattacks from inside the U.S. or anywhere else in the world.

However, these sanctions are viewed as mere add-ons to the main purpose of the bill, which is to keep Russia in check in all of its international dealings. Chiefly,

Andrew Yount is a freshman majoring in Russian and International Affairs. He is a first-time contributor to The Arch Conservative. ..................... @andrewyount4 22 / The Arch Conservative

DASKA would sanction Russian banks that support the undermining of democratic institutions. It would also sanction Russian investment in liquified natural

gas (LNG) projects outside of the Russian mainland. Possibly the most far-reaching of these sanctions would be the ones placed on Russian oligarchs and political figures, effectively disabling them from facilitating illicit or corrupt activities that would benefit Putin or his regime. Other sanctions include restrictions on Russia’s shipbuilding endeavors to retain freedom of navigation in the Kerch Strait, among other places.

Other provisions of the bill include an investigation into Putin’s net worth and assets, a report on the assassination of Russian separatist Boris Nemtsov, as well as an investigation into whether Russia constitutes a state sponsor of terrorism.

Though the bill passed the foreign relations committee of the Senate by a vote of 17-5, there are still some major concerns, chiefly brought forth by Mary Taylor, the Chief Secretary of the Bureau of Legislative Affairs. She points out that the bill may be unnecessary, that we lack sufficient waivers or other legislative devices to carry out sanctions, and that there is an overly broad scope of the activities that are sanctionable. She also believes that the sanctions are logistically implausible.

Taylor also fears that DASKA would likely

roil U.S. and global markets, causing significant damage to civilian American, European, and other global economic interests.

However beneficial most of the improvements proposed by the bill may be, these concerns are legitimate and many of Trump’s advisors have suggested not passing the bill if given the opportunity, unless it undergoes much needed changes. Proponents of this bill claim that it would provide a central directive of operations that would streamline our objectives concerning Russia.

While this is true, it remains to be passed by the Senate, the House of Representatives, and signed by the President before these claims can be tested.

Besides these concerns, many of the terms outlined in the bill are nebulous and difficult to define. One such term of the bill dictates that sanctions should be put on political figures, oligarchs, and family members that would be catalysts for corrupt activities, directly or indirectly, on behalf of Vladimir Putin. it would be hard to execute this sanction particularly without interfering too far into the private sector. DASKA, as it stands now, is too complicated and intricate, attempting to accomplish too much in one fell swoop.

A better solution is to split the proposed actions into separate bills. Having a single bill that has ramifications for our relationship with NATO, the Department of State, and with Russia is too audacious of a task. Splitting the objectives up into two or three bills will not only simplify the sanctions and give us time to work out the nuances, but also give us time to accomplish the non-Russian objectives with due diligence,. Splitting up the bills also allows us to work through the legitimate concerns of each. In summation, DASKA is problematic in its practical implementation, not in its purpose.

WINTER 2020

COLUMNS

Rousseau’s Republic Social contract theory's influence on American rule of law

A

mong the most important cornerstones in a liberal democratic system is a commitment to the rule of law, a principle under which all persons, institutions, and entities are equally beholden to laws that are publicly promulgated, equally enforced, independently adjudicated, and consistent with international human rights principles. The importance of this principle rests in the idea that no one is above the law, that legislators have incentive to create just and fair laws because they are equally beholden to the laws that they create. While the Magna Carta has consistently been credited as the first formal codification of the rule of law, many political theorists overlook the importance of Enlightenment philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s work on the general will in relation to the American legislative process - and thus the American ideal of the rule of law. While the philosophical foundation of our country is most akin to the work of John Locke, many overlook Rousseau’s contribution to the intellectual foundations of American politics, freedom, and the rule of law.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s work in The Social Contract represents among the greatest contributions to western political thought. In this work, Rousseau defines freedom as the ability to define your own moral personality or “obedience to the law one has prescribed for oneself.”

Throughout The Social Contract, Rousseau works to apply this definition to the social level to ensure a just mechanism for a legitimate sovereign to create laws.

Rousseau proposes the use of a concept known as “double generality” as a means to extract the general will from the will of all, in order to avoid corruptive individual interests. Under double generality, “the Ian LaCroix is a senior studying Political Science. He is Editorin-Chief of The Arch Conservative.

WINTER 2020

object of the law should be general, as the will dictating it.” Generality of the will requires that all citizens as sovereigns enact the same law, and generality of the object requires that the law must apply to everyone in precisely the same way. Under Rousseau’s theory, the general will is the sovereign. Applying Rousseau’s definition of freedom, we are free because we are subject to the laws that we prescribe to ourselves. Rousseau believes that this mechanism is the perfect machine for creating just laws and a legitimate sovereign.

The criterion for just legislation described above protects the rights of citizens because any legislation enacted must affect every person in precisely the same way. In this case, no one can design legislation that invades the rights of any person or group. Legislation is created through extracting the general will from the will of all through double generality, so if legislation invades anyone’s rights, it invades everyone’s rights. Since each person enacting law knows that the law enacted will apply equally to him, the person will only enact laws that he would be willing to apply to himself.

Double generality ensures that the general will (rather than the individual will) is always dominate in legislation because in turning the individual away from what is particular (any specific private interest), the process focuses the citizen only on what is general and what is in the public interest. Individuals are, therefore, despite their particular interests, constrained to will generally. Persons who would otherwise legislate out of self-interest are converted into persons who will for others what they would will for themselves.

Rousseau believes that institutions conforming to his criteria of justice would actualize freedom because people would be the authors of the legislation to which they are subject, this conforms to Rousseau’s original definition of individual freedom: “obedience to the law one has prescribed for oneself.” Using the general will, we can extend Rousseau’s definition of individual

freedom to the social level. The general will is the sovereign, so all of us are only obedient to the laws that we prescribe ourselves. In this case, we are collectively free and social freedom is achieved.

In applying Rousseau's early pioneering of the general will and the rule of law to modern liberal democracies such as the United States, it is not difficult to see the application of his principle to the American legislative and judicial processes.

Moreover, the principles defined by Rousseau, while they may seem like common sense, are hardly enjoyed by the rest of the world. Additionally, the importance of the rule of law in a liberal democracy is scantly taught in the classroom and is often taken for granted by citizens of liberal democracies.

The principles under the rule of law and Rousseau’s general will are arguably the most important mechanism to the creation of just legislation in a legitimate sovereign and are thus arguably the best way of ensuring social freedom. The principles of the rule of law, as well as the work of Rousseau, should be familiar to all U.S. citizens and liberal democracies abroad.

Only then will we ensure that these principles continue to thrive for centuries to come.

The Arch Conservative / 23