Raising the Standard
Executive Order Extravaganza
The Paradox of Executive Power in a ‘Conservative’ Presidency By Nick Geeslin
Climate Change By Ross Dubberly
A Farewell to Globalism By Matthew Jordan
The Wall By James Bartow
SPRING 2017
10 Scott Pruitt and the EPA
THE EDITORS
By Sydney North
3 The Persistence of Conservatism By The Editors
11 Chaos in Washington By Michael Duckett
CAMPUS 4 The Campus Informant
FEATURES
By The Editors
12 Climate Change By Ross Dubberly
5 SGA Watch
By Nick Geeslin
14 Executive Order Extravaganza By Nick Geeslin
COLUMNS 6 Peace versus Chaos
16 A Farewell to Globalism By Matthew Jordan
By Boris A. Abreu
7 The Wall
HUMOR
By James Bartow
8 The Future of the War on Terror
18 Clipped Wings By Nick Geeslin
By Christopher Lipscomb
19 California Under Bernie
9 A Healthy Choice
By TJ Collins
By Connor Kitchings
The Arch Conservative Editorial Board and Staff: 2016-2017 Editor-in-Chief Nick Geeslin
Associate Editor
Managing Editor Sydney North
Assistant Editors
Publishing Editor Matthew Jordan
Ross Dubberly
Creative Director Mallory Traylor
James Bartow
Business Manager TJ Collins Marketing Coordinator Sarah Montgomery 2 / The Arch Conservative
Michael Duckett
Boris A. Abreu
Contributors
Christopher Lipscomb
Website archconuga.com Email archconuga@gmail.com Twitter @ArchConUGA Mail P.O. Box 1181 Athens, GA 30603
Connor Kitchings Marie Walker Ben Grayson SPRING 2017
THE EDITORS
The Persistence of Conservatism The Arch Conservative Remains Vigilant
T
he 45th President of the United States wishes to significantly increase border control and to begin implementing tariffs. Such was to be expected from the man who, if there was any doubt beforehand, is clearly sticking to his campaign promises. These protectionist executive orders and rhetoric as well as his more typically left-leaning economic ideas have shocked us here at The Arch Conservative since their inception. They were, however, expected. What was less expected is the manner through which he implements his policy goals. They have been implemented in the least conservative way imaginable, via executive orders overseen only by a select political elite, an elite that Trump clearly made progress running against. Such actions, among their various violations, utterly abandon the respect for tradition, limited government, and separation of powers. They lead the true conservative almost to nausea.
COVER PHOTO COURTESY OF THE WHITE HOUSE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Now, though, people seem to be contradicting their conservative beliefs in light of a self-proclaimed “conservative” president. The divide in the Republican party is unprecedented. This divide between those who see voting for a certain party as part of their overall image and those who vote based on their true beliefs, is based on identity and pandering rhetoric rather than logic or a triumph of conservative ideology. An ideology that has for the past 250 years championed the hearts and minds of many an informed voter and politician depressingly seems to have been commandeered and taken advantage of by a group of imposters. Perhaps the divide will fade after the man in the Oval Office departs. If it does not, perhaps it is about time for the right to redefine itself. Amidst a wave of identity politics associated solely with the Democrats in the past, many of us at The Arch Conservative hope for a resurgence of conservative ideals by way of a distinction between protectionism and conservatism both by our Republican Congress and, more optimistically, by the president and his slew of advisors and confidants. Conservatism is not about blocking certain peoples from entrance into a country. We must strive not to confuse this point. It is, rather, a much more rational and powerful liberty that conservatism promotes. It promotes the ability to analyze the situation and deal with it rationally, without the pervasive fear of being labeled ‘insensitive.’
SPRING 2017
Such are the themes of articles in this issue of The Arch Conservative. James Bartow, Sydney North, Connor Kitchings, and Chris Lipscomb speak about The Wall, Tom Price, Scott Pruitt and the EPA, and the future of the War on Terror respectively; Boris Abreu shares his thoughts on recent protests, and Michael Duckett gives an account of the inauguration. In this quarter’s featured articles, Assistant Editor Ross Dubberly explains the hyperbolized issue of climate change, Nick Geeslin investigates the underlying dangers of Trump’s “Executive Order Extravaganza,” and Matt Jordan covers the U.S.’s departure from the TPP. To finish the issue on a lighthearted note, as we always intend, Nick Geeslin asks the People what they thought about the Falcons’ Super Bowl disappointment and TJ Collins theorizes on a California under the rule of Bernie Sanders. In keeping with the continued growth of The Arch Conservative, the editorial staff has acquired three new positions and, naturally in doing so, three very qualified and motivated individuals. Sarah Montgomery has become responsible for the social media accounts of The Arch Conservative as its first Marketing Coordinator and Boris A. Abreu and Ross Dubberly have both taken Assistant Editor positions with the The Arch Conservative. In other staff changes, Nick Geeslin has assumed the position of Editor-in-Chief, Matt Jordan has become Publishing Editor, Sydney North has moved from Publishing Editor to Managing Editor, TJ Collins is our new Business Manager, Mallory Traylor still heads the Graphic Design portion of The Arch Conservative as the Graphic Design Coordinator, and Michael Duckett remains Associate Editor. There is always and still plenty toward which to look forward with the existence of comfortable conservative majorities in both the U.S. House and Senate. Upcoming in The Arch Conservative’s online coverage our readers can expect to see insightful articles about further executive orders, the repealing and replacement of the Affordable Care Act, and more. We look forward to covering the good and assure our readers that we will not hesitate to unearth and opine on the bad, despite where it may originate. The Arch Conservative remains vigilant.
— The Editors
The Arch Conservative / 3
CAMPUS
Protests on Campus Election Woes Take the Streets
O
ver the past month and a half, the nation has been wracked by a series of protests against President Trump and his slew of executive orders. UGA has been no exception. From the peaceful Day of Inclusion protests on Inauguration Day to the Anti-Trump march that took place on February 17th, the Bulldog community has been well-versed in the art of the protest. Only time will tell if more protests will occur, but given Trump’s track record with controversial action, one could venture a guess as to the future on the protesting scene. — Boris A. Abreu
Update on Amos Hall Terry's Continued Pursuit of Excellence
D
riving down Lumpkin Street it is hard not to notice the recent construction taking place across from the Bolton Dining Commons. The University of Georgia, and more specifically the Terry College of Business, is currently in phase two of its Business Learning Community. Amos Hall, the largest building in this three phase project is set to open in July of this year. Amos Hall, the centerpiece of phase two will add 140,000 gross square feet of classrooms, learning spaces, offices, and will feature a full service Au Bon Pain, which ranks consistently as one of the healthiest fast food chains in the United States. Some of the features that will also be in Amos Hall will be the Casey Commons which will provide an open space for students to meet as well as a music business lab and finance lab for those students. The investments into the Terry College of Business will continue to increase its prestige as one of the best business schools in the nation. — Matt Jordan
Coach Kirby Smart Strikes Gold Raw Talent Is on Its Way to Athens
T
he University of Georgia football team received the necessary boost after this most recent recruiting class, or so Kirby Smart seems to think. Coach Smart said that he “wanted to attack the offensive line, attack the front, improve the depth in the secondary, and just throughout the team.” Coach Smart has exceeded his goals and landed the No. 3 recruiting class in the nation only behind Urban Meyer’s Ohio State and his former team Alabama. Although Coach Smart’s first season at the helm of the University of Georgia football team fell below the expectations of many, he proved that he’s the man for the job by landing some of the most highly sought-after recruits in the nation. As members of the Bulldog Nation, this should give us hope for the future and get us ready for Saturdays in Athens. — Matt Jordan
4 / The Arch Conservative
SPRING 2017
CAMPUS
S G A WAT C H
T
he University of Georgia’s always-diligent Student Government Association has been decently busy thus far this semester. In the very beginning of the semester they have taken applications for the election of numerous positions and encouraged students to nominate their favorite teachers to receive awards for their hard work. Those initiatives, however, are passed and Houston Gaines and his SGA have since moved onto a number of broader actions. First on The Arch Conservative’s covering of the Student Government’s initiatives is the SGA’s “Listening Tour.” Outside of the ever-present hunt for resume boosting opportunities within the SGA, the tour has the purpose of hearing from different organizations on campus on how to best represent the UGA community both to the University itself as well as to higher organizations such as Athens-Clarke County and even the State Capitol in Atlanta, to which SGA members paid a visit earlier this year. Next on the list is the “Small Club Allocations Fund.” The Fund is a $10,000 budget set aside for small allocations to smaller student organizations. Applications for a portion of the fund can be found through SGA’s social media accounts.
SPRING 2017
Lastly, the SGA made efforts to expand student input in the organization with a clever addition to the University of Georgia Phone App. Partnering with EITS, SGA created “Ask SGA!” so that students “can send questions, comments, or concerns about anything ranging from parking to dining directly from the UGA app. Just click the Ask SGA icon, fill out the form, and an SGA representative will respond to your question!” In other news, the SGA has continuously been busy promoting the common sense ‘Medical Amnesty’ Law put in place last year (with the support of the Student Government). The law rightfully grants amnesty to both the caller and the person in need of medical assistance in the case that authorities are called for a drug-related health issue. The Arch Conservative will continue to keep a close watch on the University of Georgia Student Government Association and their daily doings. For now, it seems that the UGA students elected to represent and legislate for the tens of thousands of students in the University system are doing a fine job. Their efforts to reach out to the students are valiant and, as the quality of the average University of Georgia student slowly increases, so too does the quality of each member and thereby the whole of the Student Government Association. In the future, The Arch Conservative hopes that the UGA SGA will continue these methods of outreach and generally beneficial initiatives.
– Nick Geeslin
The Arch Conservative / 5
COLUMNS
Peace versus Chaos
I
n keeping track of the affairs of the United States over the past few months (though avoidance of U.S. politics and its aftereffects is certainly understandable), you will have undoubtedly seen the massive civil unrest that has occurred with the inauguration of Donald J. Trump. After perhaps the most vitriolic and bruising campaign in recent memory, President Trump won in a massive upset over the former Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, securing 306 electoral votes to her 232 despite losing the popular vote by nearly three million. Understandably, for those who do not understand the Electoral College and its intimate workings, one might feel cheated by the system and prefer to take immediate action to express displeasure for both the system and the president. In most cases, this takes the form of a public protest that aims to raise awareness about a particular message or cause that the protestors support. However, as we have seen, sometimes riots break out within the protests, wherein physical violence occurs, people get injured, and property gets destroyed. In these happenings, here lies the problem. To clarify, there is absolutely no issue with a peaceful protest, even if you do not agree with the messages being spread. It is guaranteed in the First Amendment that it is the “right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” Examples of recent peaceful protests include the Women’s March on Washington and its many sister marches across the U.S. and even the world. Even though one may not agree with the things that the women were protesting and marching for, one still must admire and respect these marches for remaining Boris A. Abreu is a sophomore studying political science and international affairs. He is an Assistant Editor at The Arch Conservative.
6 / The Arch Conservative
peaceful. Furthermore, one could also look at the recent March For Life assemblages across the U.S. These two large protests, while protesting their grievances at the opposite ends of the issue, were some of the largest and most well-documented events of our time. These protests encourage thought on the topic, promote further research into the issues, and could inspire more and more people to consider their options of joining a peaceful march like these in the future. However, in spite of all the peacefulness that these protests bring, there are still some
darker occurrences that have marred the relatively peaceful process of the new administration’s transition. For example, during the inauguration process, just blocks from where President Trump was being sworn in, rioters were smashing signs and windows and physically assaulting Trump supporters in town to see a little bit of history. Rioters smashed the windows of a local McDonald’s and a local Starbucks and even went as far as to set trash cans and a rented limousine on fire in their quest for “anarchy.” Furthermore, just weeks ago, noted firebrand author and Breitbart contributor Milo Yiannopoulos was slated to speak at UC Berkeley, but was forced to leave due to rioters smashing windows and setting blazes in an attempt to get at Yiannopoulos. This escalation of violence forced Milo Yiannopoulos to leave out of concern for his own well-being. Even the president took notice
and threatened to pull federal funding for the school over the incident. Both of these events have resulted in federal investigations and, in some cases, indictments for felony rioting for those involved in the protests in Washington D.C. The big question is, why would you attack people and objects that have done absolutely nothing to warrant such an unprovoked response? Attacking local businesses, assaulting innocent bystanders, and destroying and defacing public property is not protesting. It is wanton destruction and completely unnecessary. I have the utmost respect for all the peaceful protestors who have demonstrated over the past couple of months. They fight peacefully for a cause they believe in and do so in a manner that should invite respect and consideration regardless of one’s feelings or stances on an issue. However, rioting is a much different story. What could one possibly hope to accomplish by destroying things? Sure, there is the sensationalist media that will give you coverage while you toss a trash can or destroy a car, but there is no real message being spread. They delegitimize their own cause by destroying the very things which they can use to get ahead. No self-respecting American citizen will take them seriously. I can neither give out nor respect the time of day to a group that actively goes about destroying and rampaging in the name of “anarchy.” These riots have shown us the darker side of American politics, the group that is willing to deface and destroy things because they did not get the result they wanted. This sets a dangerous precedent that says it is okay to destroy things simply because you do not agree with something: in this case, the presidential election. The takeaway from all this is that we do not need to be destructive. Change comes from the will of the people united into one, peaceful voice. b
SPRING 2017
PHOTO COURTESY OF JAMES MCNELLIS
Protests Plagued by Riots
COLUMNS
The Wall Thoughts on the Efficacy of Trump’s Controversial Divide
O
PHOTOSCOURTESY PHOTO COURTESYOFDAVID JIM MATTIS KING
n the campaign trail, Donald Trump made many grandiose promises to his potential voters. The most pervasive promise throughout all his campaign speeches was that he would build a wall and make the Mexican government pay for it. It became a trademark of his campaign and even an integral piece of pop culture, making its way into countless “Saturday Night Live” sketches and also every corner of the internet. Trump’s campaign yielded him a momentous and shocking victory, yet few kept promises. It would be politically unwise, however, not to follow through with at least some of his more prominent campaign positions. We have seen this already with his executive orders for the travel ban and for the construction of the Wall. The Trump Wall, which would extend across nearly the entire U.S.-Mexican Border, is what Trump likely expects to become his long-lasting legacy for which he will be lauded for decades to come. But is it really a good idea? President Trump promised to make Mexico pay for the Wall’s construction during his campaign, yet for Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto (whose poll numbers are already in the gutter) to agree to such a payment would be political suicide. On top of the fact that Peña would be submitting to the will of one American man over that of millions of Mexicans, Mexico’s Congress of the Union holds the same power as the U.S. Congress in that it handles federal money and would decide whether or not to fund the Wall. Even in acknowledgement of this obvious obstacle, it would be a wise political move on the part of Nieto to James Bartow is a freshman studying international affairs. He is a regular contributor at The Arch Conservative.
SPRING 2017
stand in steadfast and robust defiance of our former real-estate mogul turned president. In short, the chances of Mexico paying for the Wall are as low as Hillary Clinton’s chances of suddenly securing a presidential victory. With Mexico’s lack of financial intercession in mind, we must recognize that the Wall will cost our taxpayers $21.6 billion, according to Reuters. This is a massive sum for such a project and we should only spend this much if we are sure that the Wall will
have its intended effect. A major issue is that we do not know that it will work. ‘Coyotes’ (people smugglers) and drug smugglers will find a way across the border anyway simply because it will always be profitable to do so. Some coyotes have expressed that they even look forward to the Trump Wall’s construction, as it will increase demand for their services, allowing them to increase their prices and therefore increase profits. Then, even after the Trump Wall’s completion, they will find new, more innovative ways to get across the border and can increase their prices even more. In the end, people will continue to cross the border despite Trump’s efforts. As for drug dealers, yes, the cost of inputs will
increase, but the blow to their profits will be marginal, as they will find other ways to transport drugs across the border. The United States is one of the world’s top markets for drug dealers, so a wall will do little to quash the flow of illicit drugs into our country. True Republicans always advocate for responsible spending and/or spending cuts, and Trump’s populism is poised to become quite expensive. With views that seldom seem to align with his fellow party members’ positions, Trump has deviated greatly from the standard fiscal conservatism that we have come to expect from the GOP. The Wall is among the first of many, expensive federal infrastructure projects that have been proposed. Should the projects be undertaken, the federal budget will soon be hemorrhaging funds and plunging our national debt even deeper into the already vast chasm. Can we afford a project such as the Wall, in which there is considerable doubt as to its efficacy, which cannot be dispelled until its completion? Money doesn't grow on trees, it comes from taxpayers. With Trump’s nebulous and vague new tax plan, federal tax revenue is likely to shrink considerably. Congress likely will not be able to afford this new project easily and will be forced to divert funds from other projects or programs. The Trump Wall is an expensive project that will be undertaken on very weak grounds. Though this project is already in motion, it is important to know the facts. If this Wall is raised, perhaps it would serve its intended purpose and stunt the flow of illegal immigrants and quell the drug flow into our country. This may, indeed, be Trump’s greatest legacy marker. It is too early to tell, but the facts do not favor the Wall’s creation. b
The Arch Conservative / 7
COLUMNS
The Future of the War on Terror Mattis Ramps up the Fight in the Middle East
A Decidely Quick Start In the early evening of January 20, 2017, Mattis was sworn in as Secretary of Defense. Around this time, news sources reported numerous air attacks targeting terrorist camps in Syria and Libya, killing around 180 ISIS and al-Qaeda fighters. These strikes sparked Christopher Lipscomb is a freshman studying international affairs. He is a regular contributor at The Arch Conservative.
8 / The Arch Conservative
renewed momentum in the War on Terror that Mattis has since taken and moved forward with. Following his confirmation, Mattis went right to work, conducting a series of strikes in Yemen, killing five al-Qaeda operatives. Such willingness to apply force immediately after entering office further indicates the serious commitment of the Trump administration to battling terrorism at every opportunity.
The Raid On the night of January 29, a combined force of Navy SEALs conducted a raid into Yemen in order to disrupt a terrorist cell and gather intelligence. Those familiar with the raid said that Mattis was instrumental in convincing Trump to order the raid, arguing both that the potential gains were worth the risks and that the Obama administration would never have signed off on the operation, regardless of what potential benefits might have been reaped. Ultimately, Trump approved the raid, which was conducted on the night of January 29, with some success: 14 al Qaeda fighters were killed, and the site reportedly provided invaluable intelligence. The raid, with its successes and failures, highlighted the new administration’s willingness to take the fight to our enemies. Very few presidents are willing to pick up a special operation that was planned largely by the
outgoing administration and then proceed to execute the mission, and fewer still would be willing to do so within their first two weeks in office. This illustrates not only how serious Trump is about combating terror, but also the amount of sway that Mattis is going to have. Immigration On January 27, Trump issued an executive order blocking entrance into the United States to people from Iraq, Syria, Iran, Sudan, Libya, and Yemen for a period of 90 days. This action was quick to draw immense criticism and protest from the left, with the order inaccurately being denounced as a “Muslim ban.” Both Washington State and Minnesota have challenged the executive order, leading to it being halted nationwide by a restraining order. The case landed on the docket of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and it was little surprise when the judges ruled in favor of the states. Trump maintains that the administration has no intention of appealing the decision at this time, however the White House has said that all options for dealing with the ruling are being considered, including further executive action on immigration. In times that are as dangerous as any in recent years, with terrorist threats evolving constantly, Donald Trump and James Mattis have already shown what will be the new face of the War on Terror for at least the next four years. The Trump administration has displayed in its first few weeks in office that it is willing to hit the terrorists wherever they are, and that there is no risk too great and no challenge insurmountable in taking the fight directly to the terrorists who wish to see their terror exported to the streets of America. b
SPRING 2017
PHOTO COURTESY OF NIKOLAYHG
I
n recent years, Syria has become a haven for terrorist groups that have severely destabilized the Middle East. In attempting to deal with these groups, Obama poured foreign aid into the Middle East, though this has proven largely ineffective. However, the nomination of James Mattis as Secretary of Defense and the actions taken by the new administration thus far show that a new day is dawning, and that the U.S. will no longer hold back in the fight against terrorism. Though not as well-known as they once were, every president had his celebrity generals. Generals Grant and Eisenhower went on to become presidents themselves. A General's field experience has often proved invaluable in advisory to the U.S. Executive Branch. On December 1, 2016, then PresidentElect Donald Trump announced that he would nominate retired General James Mattis to serve as Secretary of Defense. Praise for Mattis was swift and largely bipartisan, though some took issue with how recently he retired. In testifying before Congress, Mattis alleviated many fears and was confirmed by a vote of 98 to one. Mattis, known as the “Warrior Monk,” spent 41 years in the Marine Corps, rising to the highest levels of military leadership. Having never married, Mattis once stood duty for a young Major one Christmas so that he could spend Christmas with his family.
COLUMNS
A Healthy Choice Georgian Representative Tom Price Accepts Trump's Nomination
A
PHOTOSCOURTESY PHOTO COURTESYOFDAVID GAGEKING SKIDMORE
s we know, President Donald Trump has begun working toward achieving the slew of promises he made to the American people during his campaign that began over eighteen months ago. Perhaps the single biggest promise that the president made was the full repeal of a law that infuriated conservatives with its passage six years ago: Obamacare. Controversial since its inception, Obamacare has been a rallying cry for Republicans in each of the elections since its passage, helping to facilitate Republican victories in three out of the four. Following some comments that he made during the campaign about Trump’s opinion on government healthcare policy, there were some questions concerning the seriousness of his pledges to repeal and replace the outgoing president’s signature domestic policy achievement. Fortunately, those doubts were quieted following the president’s nomination of Georgia Representative Tom Price to lead the Department of Health and Human Services. Representative Price is the ideal selection for a president wishing to repeal and replace Obamacare with a marketoriented, patient-centered alternative. An orthopedic surgeon by trade, Price has intimate knowledge of America’s healthcare system, from the basic interactions between doctor and patient to the complex bureaucracy that is the Department of Health and Human Services. Following his residency at Emory University, he spent twenty years in private practice and also served as the Medical Director of the Orthopedic Clinic at Grady Memorial Hospital in Atlanta. Price’s political career began when he was elected to the Georgia State Senate in 1996, Connor Kitchings is a senior studying political science and economics. He is Editor Emeritus at The Arch Conservative.
SPRING 2017
where he quickly gained a reputation as a policy wonk. He was highly respected by his colleagues, which culminated in his election as the first Republican Majority Leader in Georgia history. Following Johnny Isakson’s decision to run for Senate in 2004, Price threw his hat into the ring for Georgia’s Sixth Congressional District. After winning a competitive primary, he went on to win the general election unopposed.
During his last 12 years in Congress, Price has been very active in devising conservative policy. Before becoming the Chairman of the House Budget Committee in 2014, he previously served as Chairman of the Republican Policy Committee and the Chairman of the Republican Study Committee. Relevant to his duties under President Trump, Price was one of a select group of Republicans who have consistently offered proactive alternatives to Obamacare. The congressman has introduced a replacement plan for Obamacare in every congress going back to 2009, before the law’s passage. His plan includes provisions to offer tax credits for health insurance based on age, expand
health-savings accounts, and scrap the staterun exchanges, while keeping the popular tenets that prevent health care providers from discriminating against patients with preexisting conditions. This dedication to conservative principles and intimate knowledge of the nation’s budget and healthcare system is a winning combination in a potential Secretary of Health and Human Services under President Trump. Perhaps this is why Democrats seem so unilaterally against Representative Price’s nomination. Since President Trump put Price’s name forward for his HHS Secretary, Democrats have thrown everything they have against him. They have attacked his proposed budgets when he was Chairman of the House Budget Committee for reforming entitlements necessary to get the deficit under control. They have attacked his social conservatism. They have even attacked his character, going so far as to accuse Representative Price of corruption. The Democrats' unmisteakably favorite attack on Price has been for his stock portfolio. Even though Price contends that a broker manages his stocks and that he does not have direct control of these assets, Democrats have accused him of intentionally profiting from owning stock in companies that his legislation would have regulated. Despite the fact that Price disclosed his ownership of these stocks in an ethical and legal way, and that some Democrats in Congress are currently doing the exact same thing, Democrats are not letting this issue go. The next few weeks will determine whether Democrats’ attacks on Representative Price have been successful. Nonetheless, what remains unquestionable is what an excellent Secretary of Health and Human Services that Tom Price would make. b — Connor Kitchings interned for Congressman Tom Price during the Summer of 2016.
The Arch Conservative / 9
COLUMNS
Scott Pruitt and the EPA A Reasonable Choice for Reasonable Reform
O
n December 2, 1970, President Richard Nixon signed into law the creation of the Environmental Protection Agency. On February 5, 2017, House Republicans proposed a bill to to kill it. Initially created as an agency to regulate and execute the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, and Federal Environmental Pesticide Control Act, the EPA has grown massive in size, regulating dozens of industries, enacting numerous burdensome and overbroad laws, and costing the U.S. economy nearly $353 billion per fiscal year. Moreover, the EPA has often found itself in a hotbed of corruption charges. Under Gina McCarthy, Obama's EPA Administrator, the EPA was accused of paying workers who were no longer working for the agency, operating as a “rogue law enforcement agency,” according to Congressman Darrell Issa, a California Republican, and illegally paying companies to generate false social media enthusiasm for regulations that the EPA tried to institute. Despite these provable accusations, the EPA has not only continued to survive, but has continued to grow. While the EPA arguably serves a necessary purpose in protecting our natural resources, including air and water, as is the case with most bureaucracies, it has grown out of control in size, scope, and power. The EPA has served us well in protecting our climate and natural resources. One need not believe in science or global warming to, at the least, understand that dumping polluted dredgings into fresh water and breathing in completely unregulated car pollutants are, in total, bad for the human race. However, one also need not be a climate denier to understand that the absurdity of many EPA acts are equally harmful to Americans. For one Sydney North is a junior studying journalism and political science. She is the Managing Editor at The Arch Conservative.
10 / The Arch Conservative
example, the recent Waters of the United States Act (WOTUS), which has deemed more than 90 percent of landlocked Iowa a “Water of the United States,” has charged farmers and other individuals absurd amounts of money, in some cases reaching up to $75,000, for the creation of puddles. In order to maintain environmental quality for future generations of Americans, the EPA should not be thrown away entirely, as President Trump oft threatened he would do on the campaign trail, and as the House Republicans are now trying to accomplish. What remains certain, however, is that the EPA and its horrendously overreaching power need to be dramatically reduced. Contrary to what some media outlets, like the Huffington Post and Slate, amongst many others, would have readers believe, Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt is the man for the job. Pruitt, President Trump’s nominee for EPA Administrator, has been handily criticized for both his supposed ties to the fossil fuel industry, as well as his 14 lawsuits against the EPA during his stint as attorney general. Though the accusations of his alliance with the fossil fuel industry are not completely unfounded, Scott Pruitt has the potential to be an excellent EPA Administrator. Though some find it odd that Scott Pruitt—the man who has repeatedly sued the Environmental Protection Agency during his stint as Oklahoma's attorney general—has been tapped to head the EPA; this does not necessarily equate to a conflict of interest in serving the office. Repeatedly, Scott Pruitt has expressed his belief that the EPA plays an important role in protecting the environment on the federal level, albeit in a much more limited role than it has played in the past few decades. Responding to questioning from democrats on the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, Pruitt stressed his belief that “The EPA has emergency order authority” to act on issues pertinent to individuals’ health, such as in instances of direct water contamination, and that “the EPA should step into these situations in a meaningful way.” During his confirmation hearing, Pruitt also broke rank with
his nominator, President Trump, in agreeing with questioner Senator Ed Markey of Massachusetts that “climate change is not a hoax.” Moreover, Pruitt also expressly agreed with Senator Cory Booker that one of the EPA’s primary responsibilities is to ensure environmental justice at the federal level. If the left gives Scott Pruitt a truly fair chance, Scott Pruitt has the potential to be a mediator between conservatives and liberals on the growingly important debate surrounding environmental policy. Pruitt’s track record is exceptionally conservative—he has explicitly supported energy independence through the construction of new pipelines across North America, has promoted Oklahoma agriculture by opposing federal overreach by the EPA affecting farmers and farmland, and has attempted to bring some power back to the state and local level through his lawsuits against the EPA Conversely, as indicated by his thoughtful answers during his January 2017 confirmation hearing, Pruitt, like the American left, believes in the federal EPA as a necessity to ensure that all Americans, both in the present and future generations, have access to clean water and basic natural resources and disputes the radical idea presented by President Trump that climate change is simply a “hoax by the Chinese.” As the first conservative EPA Administrator nominee since President Bill Clinton, once confirmed, Pruitt has the ability and temperament to please both sides of the aisle through pragmatic policy making at the EPA. That is, however, pending that Democrats are willing to give him a fair chance at the job. b
SPRING 2017
COLUMNS
Chaos in Washington A First-Hand Account of the Inauguration
PHOTO COURTESY OF THE NATIONAL MUSEUM OF THE U.S. NAVY
O
n January 20, 2017, Donald J. Trump became president of the United States of America. I say that first in case anyone has any question or doubt as to who our president is. Regardless of party or political leanings, creed or religion, straight, gay, or any other type of American, if you are a citizen of the U.S., then Donald Trump is your president. Standing there at the inauguration, I saw an America that many will never have the privilege of witnessing. Waking up at 5:30 a.m. to ride the Metro into Washington D.C., I observed protesters and supporters riding together towards downtown with little dialogue between the two factions. How could it be that these two groups say nothing to each other for over an hour, and then yell profanities less than a mile away from their final Metro stop? I was called things I dare not repeat simply because I, along with about half of the rest of the country, supported our president. The only truly non-partisan people in Washington D.C. on Inauguration Day were the street vendors who, indifferent to politics, sold merchandise with the president's face plastered across it. There really is no greater testament to apolitical American capitalism. Over the last three centuries, the United States has elected forty-five presidents, ranging from British patriots to slave owners and now to a billionaire business tycoon with as little restraint as Bill O’Reilly or Rev. Al Sharpton. The 2016 election proved more divisive than elections in recent memory, but it definitely was not the most upsetting in our history. During his inauguration, Trump welcomed political opponents, military members, preachers, and Supreme Court Michael Duckett is a senior studying history and political science. He is an Associate Editor at The Arch Conservative.
SPRING 2017
Justices to come together on the Capitol’s steps and usher in an era of conservative governance, but a governance very unlike that of Reagan or Bush. With the Mormon Tabernacle Choir singing "America the Beautiful" and Jackie Evancho performing the National Anthem, Trump took the oath of office on that dreary February morning in order to officially become our president. As I stood there in the mud on the National Mall by the port o potties, the artillery guns fired their 21-gun
salute. From my perspective, this long-held tradition resembled a bomb’s explosion because the port o potties hid the guns from view. After the ceremony concluded, we went to a reception with Congressman Woodall (GA-7) in his office building which stood across the street. We walked for nearly two hours before we were allowed to enter the building. The crowds swelled and inundated to the streets especially with several of the closest metro stations closed for security reasons. Although the organizers planned for the crowds before the ceremony, they failed to take into account the mass departure afterwards. From inside the congressional building, a group of us watched the news reporting mass confrontations between protesters and the police. Congressman Woodall addressed us as we ate the complimentary sandwiches, thanking us for coming, encouraging us to hope about the next four years, and reminding us of the job we Republicans have to gain
the country's trust. That evening, the balls and parades went on and people all across the District of Columbia celebrated the new presidency, but the celebrations would not last for long. The following day, I saw hundreds of people flooding into downtown as we were leaving, most of them in protest of Trump. In my mind, I wondered what good protesting does when protestors do not engage in other forms of civic involvement? Unlike the thousands of politicians, lobbyists, aides, or servicemen and women, protestors do not change minds, they block streets and create divisions. Clinton and Obama urged for the country to unite, but even they could not control their own supporters. Trump steamed ahead with his agenda and, much to the protestors' dismay, only hardened his stances on issues in spite of their criticisms. Being at the inauguration impacted me more than I anticipated. Watching thousands of Americans come together in support of our president surpasses ideological beliefs or party affiliations. The experience is unrivaled in terms of patriotism and hope for our nation. Presidents in the past persevered through national division, whether it was Lincoln's election that sparked the Civil War or Herbert Hoover's election and the following Great Depression. The United States of America are just that, united. We Americans know well the cost of secession and the fortitude of our blood-bought bonds. Do not squander the sacrifices made to preserve our Republic. Stop the threats of leaving the union, and instead of protesting, campaign for a stronger, safer, more loving America of the future. One of our Democratic presidents who gave his life in the service of our country stated it best: "Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty." ~John F. Kennedy. b
The Arch Conservative / 11
FEATURES
Climate Change Another Hysteria of the Left
T
here is a fervent and hysterical religiosity today surrounding the issue of “climate change.” Americans are constantly bombarded with doomsday scenarios from the media, Hollywood, academia, and bureaucratic agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency. Indeed, the examples of hysterical, baseless, and wildly absurd claims regarding climate change could fill volumes. One of the West’s most profound thinkers, Leonardo DiCaprio, in a speech at the United Nations in 2014, implored the delegates to evade the coming apocalypse: “If we do not act together, we will surely perish.” In Barack Obama’s address to the Coast Guard in May 2015, he claimed “Climate change constitutes . . . an immediate risk to our national security . . . And so we need to act—and we need to act now.” In the Democratic Party’s second presidential debate in 2015, Bernie Sanders mindlessly stated, “In fact, climate change is directly related to the growth of terrorism.” Such delirious claims might be ignored were it not for the scientific façade the intellectual community provides. The public is told 97 percent of scientists agree that climate change is real; that the debate is over; that dissent comes solely from the nefarious fossil-fuel industry; and to surrender as much liberty as possible so that the self-anointed masterminds of the Left may save the globe and humanity. As impetuous and hysterical as this may Ross Dubberly is an Assistant Editor at The Arch Conservative.
12 / The Arch Conservative
seem to those who think clearly and critically, it must be kept in mind that hysteria is the sine qua non of Leftism. There is always some impending catastrophe, some great cosmic injustice for which the Left gins up hysteria in order to unite the masses, empower the State, and socially engineer society. The hysteria surrounding climate change is no exception. It is of no significance to the Left that the consequences of pursuing this environmental fool’s errand will be calamitous. The fact that individual liberty, truth, the authority of science, and the Western economy as we know it all stand to be bulldozed by “doing something” about climate change does not trouble the Left in the slightest. For when you are on a mission to save the world, such minor trivialities are hardly unsettling. There are many exaggerations and distortions regarding the climate’s ostensible warming, but few perversions of truth rival that of the “97 percent consensus.” This “statistic” is wielded as a weapon to claim that those who do not believe climate change requires a governmental takeover of the energy sector are “anti-science,” “climate deniers,” or are corrupted with funds from the fossil-fuel industry. In reality however, John Cook’s paper in the journal Environmental Research Letters—which is one of the major sources from which the 97 percent “consensus” claim derives—has several causes for concern. One major problem with the survey is that the question the authors asked was simply whether humans have caused some global warming, which is hardly the major point of debate between alarmists and skeptics.
Whether or not the climate is changing is largely irrelevant; the real question is whether or not the government can resolve it. In addition, some of the scientists that responded to the survey were some of the most prominent global-warming skeptics in the world, but nonetheless had their papers misclassified and twisted to fit the authors’ preconceived notions about man-made climate change. For example, when asked by Popular Technology about the categorization of his paper, Craig Ipso said, “It would be incorrect to claim that our paper was an endorsement of CO2-induced global warming” (qtd. in Taylor, Forbes). Moreover, this “statistic” in no way tells us about the magnitude of climate change—whether it is mild, manageable, or catastrophic—and does not, per se, consider the upside of using fossil fuels. In other words, the 97 percent statistic only describes scientific opinion regarding a side effect of fossil-fuel use, namely increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. But it in no way describes the benefits of using fossil fuels and in no way describes the costs of pursuing an alternative to them. Indeed, this pseudo-statistic often obfuscates the fact that opinions regarding climate change run the gamut on many fronts. This would be news, however, to those that only hear the alarmists on the Left claiming the virtual absence of dissent from the consensus by any scientist with even a scintilla of integrity. Furthermore, it is always amusing to hear that the “debate” on climate change is over because, like other Leftists’ certainties, there
SPRING 2017
PHOTOS COURTESY OF U.S. GEOLOGIAL SURVEY
By Ross Dubberly
FEATURES
never is a debate. The masterminds of the Left believe that global warming is caused by human activity, and hence further expansion of the Leviathan’s tentacles into every nook and cranny of the economy is the de facto moral position. The fact that increased carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere have resulted in an increased “greening” of Earth (Zhu, Nature); that Antarctic sea ice reached a new record maximum in 2014 (Ramsayer, NASA); that many areas saw record snowfall in 2014, according to Rutgers Global Snow Lab; and that the reason for the higher-than-expected temperatures of 2015 and 2016 was in large part due to major influence from El Niño (Wall Street Journal) is of no consequence to the Left. Moreover, disagreement with them, in their minds, is not the product of a different assessment of the facts, drawing of different conclusions, or even a simple differing of means to a common end; rather it is the symptom of a moral and intellectual flaw. Therefore, scientists and laymen that break from the herd are not to be battled on the ground of ideas or respectively engaged, but rather they must be delegitimized as professionals, dehumanized as persons, and pilloried for all to bear witness. Even fellow Leftists may be subject to excommunication for original thoughts. For example, in 2014 Professor Caleb Rossiter of American University, a self-avowed progressive, was fired from the Institute for Policy Studies for daring to claim global warming was “unproved science.” The messengers of facts and opinions that challenge the Left’s perception of the world are not worthy of debate, even if their opponents’ expertise is undeniable. Many of the West’s brightest and most thoughtful scientists, scholars, and public officials are denied equal moral footing with the paragons of virtue on the Left and are simply dismissed as “climate deniers.” It is important for one to understand that the term “denier” not only applies to those who doubt the globe is warming, but even those who acknowledge that fact and simply differ from the “consensus” in that they either doubt governmental regulations can reverse it, or believe the costs of attempting to do so are simply too enormous to seriously consider. Richard Lindzen, for example, a retired atmospheric physicist from MIT, was once regarded as one of the top climate scientists in the West until he decried the climate
SPRING 2017
dogma and all of its implications as misguided at best. Similarly, former American Physical Society member, Ivar Giaver, a physicist and Nobel laureate, has also denounced the religiosity surrounding climate change. While a leading scientific supporter of Barack Obama in 2008, it was shortly thereafter that Professor Giaver became unsettled by the president’s position on global warming. He and 100 other scientists eventually wrote the president a letter reading: “We maintain that the case for alarm regarding climate change is grossly overstated.” Lindzen, Giaver, and the thousands of other climate heretics like them are less concerned with the prospect of a warming globe than with the mass hysteria that surrounds it. They recognize that even if masterminds could cool the climate, it would require such radical regulation of the energy sector— which would undeniably permeate into all other aspects of the Western economy—that the costs incurred in the process would be utterly catastrophic. Industries that provide goods and services we take for granted in the modern age—energy companies, the auto industry, farming, and construction to name a few—would be forced to incur massive costs to comply with new regulations, in addition to existing ones, forcing many out of business. And for the companies fortunate enough to withstand such colossal expenses, the prices of their products would be astronomical. As in the Third World, cars, electricity, air conditioning, etcetera would be luxuries for the uberwealthy rather than the normal goods that they are today for most Americans. And this is to say nothing of the unconscionable degree to which concomitant unemployment would exacerbate economic woes. With such immense costs, in terms of both economics and standard of living, the benefits of reversing man-made, global warming would have to be tremendous to make the effort worthwhile. That is to say, if the payoff for reversing climate change is not greater than the costs incurred to do so, then the effort is not only inefficient, but harmful. And, it appears, even in best-case scenarios, the payoff for combating climate change is paltry at best. Indeed, a simple cost-benefit analysis proves to be a death sentence for the grandiose plans of the selfanointed on the Left. The Paris Climate Agreement that was signed by the leaders of 178 countries in 2016, for example, was held up as an “incredible
achievement” by the Obama administration and many Western academics and media outlets. However, as Danish professor Bjørn Lomborg points out, even if the Agreement’s carbon cuts were achieved for the rest of the 21st century, using the UN’s very own climate prediction model, global temperatures would drop by only 0.3 degrees—the equivalent of postponing warming by less than four years. Meanwhile, the Agreement would cost 1-2 trillion dollars each year, amounting to at least one hundred trillion dollars, the equivalent of the entire United States Gross Domestic Products (GDP) for fiveand-a-half years, to lower temperatures by three tenths of a degree. Is destroying the American and Western European economies for three tenths of a degree rational? Of course not, but the Left rarely concerns itself with what is rational, logical, or true. These concepts are only relevant insofar as they serve the Left’s agenda. And that agenda is always, one way or another, to grow the size and scope of the State. To the Left, a big State is “progressive,” and philanthropic, no matter what the pages of history may tell us. Thus the hysteria over the climate. The idea of man-made climate change is simply too great an opportunity to expand the federal government’s reach to allow truth or differing opinions to stand in the way. Generally, those on the Left do not ask what is, reasonable, realistic, or wise; they ask what promotes “social justice,” what advances egalitarianism, and how to more quickly “immanentize the eschaton,” to use Eric Voegelin’s phrase. This is why Leftism is so frightening. It is an ideology that advocates—if not directly, certainly effectively— an all-powerful, ubiquitous, iron-fisted State; firmly believes in the moral superiority of its acolytes; does not tether itself to facts, truth, or reality; requires no self-reflection from its disciples; and never accounts for the costs of its ultimate ends. Unbeknownst to the Left, you cannot create heaven on Earth, but in pursuit of that vision—as the twentieth century alone so harshly reminds us—you can certainly create hell on Earth. And that is exactly what the utopians of the Left will do if they are given free rein to religiously pursue the reversal of “man-made climate change.” A State that provides salvation to mankind always does so at the expense of man. b
The Arch Conservative / 13
FEATURES
Executive Order Extravaganza
The Paradox of Executive Power in a ‘Conservative’ Presidency
E
xecutive orders are nothing new; the debate on executive power has existed in the United States since before its founding. In fact, excessive power in the executive was the main reason for the separation of America from a repressive monarchical regime. Naturally, the founding fathers were apprehensive to the idea of an excess of power residing with the elite and so they crafted a nation based on documents such as the Declaration of Independence and the Articles of Confederation. So dire was their fear of an empowered executive that the Articles gave virtually no power at all to the central government. To mend this problematic hiccup in the fine print of the newly-formed nation, the Constitution broadly and nonspecifically granted “executive Power” to the president. In essence, the president can execute any constitutional order so long as it does not pertain to an area or duty expressly given to either of the other two branches. As basic examples, the president has neither the authority over the country’s budget nor over assessing constitutionality. So Trump’s ability to issue executive orders is legal and few would dispute the fact. The issues lie in the process of their issuance, however, rather than in their quantity or even in their content. Of course, content has certainly been questionable of late, but a more traditional process of issuance would likely have fixed any outlying issues. Nick Geeslin is the Editor-in-Chief at The Arch Conservative.
14 / The Arch Conservative
The most controversial of Trump’s line of executive orders issued in his first month of office was the so-called ‘Immigration Ban.’ Though not a ban on Muslims, as many tabloid-type leftist publications immediately dubbed it, the action is rightfully receiving an abundance of backlash. What is most concerning about the order is not its content, but rather the process by which it was overseen and implemented. According to outlets such as CNN, the New York Times, and National Review, there were a plethora of qualified and experienced individuals in high office that had no part in the executive order’s wording, intent, or planning. Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly and his team of analysts at the Department of Homeland Security, for example, were discussing the executive order for about an hour when CNN aired President Trump’s signing it. The White House reportedly jumped the traditional process of consulting the National Security Council and relevant departments. In fact, even Secretary of Defense James Mattis, who is an oasis of knowledge, experience, and reason within the Trump Administration, was not aware of the order’s language until hours before its signing. Executive Power is given in the Constitution for a reason. Even Thomas Jefferson, the most ardent of advocates for personal liberty in America and also thereby a detractor of any increase in federal power, used his fair share of executive orders during his Presidency. The convenience of executive orders is unsurpassed and, with the correct advisory, their legitimacy is hardly put into question.
This completely changed with Franklin Delano Roosevelt, however. Coming into the Oval Office with a mass of momentum, FDR signed executive orders at will, implementing government funded programs left and right and legislating from the executive office on everything from gun rights to immigration. In 1942, FDR issued Executive Order 9066, which authorized the controversial creation of Japanese Internment Camps. And so begins the comparison between the mighty FDR and the controversial President Donald Trump. FDR had an entirely different idea for the Presidency, as do Trump and those most often in his ear. Considering their superfluous ‘protections of national security,’ increased use of the power of the executive, and frequent challenges from other facets of the government, Trump and FDR are strikingly similar upon closer investigation. One significant aspect that differentiates the two though, is timing. FDR inherited the Great Depression and won office claiming he would do something about it, whereas Trump inherited an economic upswing. Unemployment rates soared to over thrice the level they were even during the Great Recession of 2008, the economy was stumped, and the conservative President Hoover only made matters worse with his selective government intervention. Roosevelt assumed office promising a desperate America quick recovery. Naturally, regardless of one’s thoughts on FDR’s arguably irresponsible explosion of federal spending (that has since only become more prominent and less responsible), he leaned toward the
SPRING 2017
PHOTO COURTESY OF KARL-LUDWIG POGGEMANN
By Nick Geeslin
FEATURES
swiftness and solidity of the executive order. In fact, he rolled out an unprecedented and still unmatched 3,500+ executive orders in his twelve years as president. Trump, however, faces no such crisis. Therefore no such unilateral, hardly advised displays of executive power should be necessary, let alone prioritized. FDR toed a dangerous line during his presidency and we should be thankful that the following commanders-in-chief replicated only hints of his behavior in office, for the expansion of executive power can and has unnaturally resulted in many degrees of violations of the personal liberties conservatism so righteously adores. For this reason, a limitation of federal power is at the core of the conservative agenda. Trump and his team, however, seem to be relishing in his acts. By “ignoring or bypassing collective decision-making agencies,” according to historian James MacGregor Burns, FDR consistently made most of the high-level decisions during his lengthy presidential stint. Though many of his decisions were in the interest of the American public, they were still shameful abuses of executive power. Chief among FDR’s abuses was his appointment of six like-minded justices to the Supreme Court, more than any other president outside of the Supreme Court’s creator, George Washington (a much more trustworthy figure). If Israel is ailing in the Middle East and their destruction is dependent on U.S. military support, an executive action is in order. If there is some pressing domestic epidemic, the president should be able to roll out an executive order without much friction. But when the opinion of one man is only able to filter through his core supporters and strategists, the likes of the chaos resulting from the “Immigration Ban” (at least) are imminent. So what happens when Trump faces an immediate crisis? To draw on a piece of history to illustrate the point, let us consider the Cuban Missile Crisis. John F. Kennedy might have started WWIII if he did not consult his Cabinet and heard and considered the dissenting opinions of the aggressive Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara and the more diplomatic Secretary of State, Dean Rusk. Without JFK’s openness, and utilization, and trust of information from the intelligence community he would not have known that he even could have had time to consult his Cabinet for as long as he did. Imagining Trump in a similar situation with his recent disregard for consultation is disturbing to say the least.
SPRING 2017
Many curious pundits point to Steve Bannon as the ‘wizard behind the curtain’ here. The assertion is entirely believable given Bannon’s plethora of proclaimed stances and ideas about the government in the past. To add fuel to the fire, Kellyanne Conway, who has by all means been a loose cannon of late, recently suggested that she was surprised journalists who degrade Trump were not already fired. Her comments were merely a soundbite in a large-scale crusade against the media by Trump’s closest cronies. If neither Bannon nor Trump are at the head of the ‘find how much we can bend a Republican Congress’ game, then it must be a gas that someone is sending through the air ducts in the White House. In short, the integrity of those closest to him seems to be lacking and I hope and expect—for whatever expectations are worth in regard to this administration—that a member of his Cabinet or members of Congress will threaten to use the leverage against the executive that is constitutionally bestowed upon them should these unilateral trends continue. After all, conservatism is not about blocking certain peoples from entrance into a country, and those on both sides of the spectrum must strive not to confuse this point. It is, rather, a much more rational and powerful liberty that conservatism promotes. It promotes the ability to analyze the situation and deal with it rationally, without fear of being labeled insensitive. In the case the most prominent debate of late, there are two things that are right: the continued opening of our border to all who are worthy as determined by any process deemed acceptable by all branches of government, and the protection of the people who have already undergone a process some time in their familial lineage. Republicans must compensate for the left’s often disturbing inability to acknowledge the real dangers that potentially lie within prospective citizens, preferring instead rather to shame conservative politicians for creating a policy that they deem relates to race, but we must also realize that the government is hard at work rooting out terrorism of all sorts and all nationalities via the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and its sister Intelligence Agencies. Do not think for a second that those who have recently immigrated are not on the top of the FBI’s priority list. The FBI has more power and even more legitimacy (though it has been known to abuse it from time to time) in this regard
than any immigration ban or deportation decree. Furthermore, the Intelligence Community acts in relative silence and respect for accepted legal processes. In practice, operating behind closed doors accomplishes the government’s attempted goal of thwarting terrorism. In theory, Trump’s initiatives will do the same. In practice, I suspect that, at a time when ISIS loses more territory every day and increasingly struggles to fund its training programs and purchase weaponry, Islamic terrorism will receive a boost that might render much of the good work of the last decade useless. These are the valuable opinions that exist within the government, within the executive branch of the government, and even within the pool of officials nominated specifically by the president himself. They should be taken advantage of on a daily basis as they have been for centuries. There is no doubt that a portion of Trump’s supporters feel equally as confident as they did November 8th, but a growing fraction of conservatives have ended their speculation about whether we would see a transition in attitude with Trump’s assumption of the Presidency. Instead, they have exchanged it for concern. As Jonah Goldberg notes in his article for National Review, it seems “the Trump we saw during the campaign is the Trump we got.” Whether his misguided ambition will fade as his and his team’s experience increases, we can only suppose. b
The Arch Conservative / 15
FEATURES
A Farewell to Globalism The New Standard for U.S. Trade Deals By Matthew Jordan
The End of the TPP Throughout his campaign, Donald Trump often criticized former President Obama’s signature trade deal, calling it “horrible.” However, there was even criticism from the left saying that this deal was costing the U.S. jobs and that it was increasingly causing competition between the participating countries’ labor forces. For decades, direct investment into foreign countries has been a common practice amongst companies as a means to enter foreign markets. However, Matthew Jordan is the Publishing Editor at The Arch Conservative.
16 / The Arch Conservative
this developed into companies hiring foreign manufacturers to build their products at a much cheaper cost than that of domestic production. AT&T was one of the first to do this back in 1985 when they offshored production of residential telephones to Singapore. So how does the TPP further a business activity that has been around for decades? With the idea of free trade and further economic development on the line in this deal, companies would potentially have even more access to cheap labor which would continue the trend of companies offshoring labor for cheaper alternatives. Bernie Sanders seemed to believe the same trend would continue in a statement saying, “these treaties have forced American workers to compete against desperate and low-wage labor around the world. The result has been massive job losses in the United States and the shutting down of tens of thousands of factories.” Another aspect of the deal that caught heat from both sides of the aisle was its 'investor-state' dispute settlement provision. In its most basic sense, this gave corporations the power to sue governments outside traditional legal channels and before a tribunal, which had the capability to undermine national sovereignty. These criticisms went right in line with Trump’s idea of an “America First” policy. One of Trump’s campaign promises that struck a chord with the electorate was that he was going to re-negotiate trade deals to reform them in the best interest of American citizens, including those that had to watch their manufacturing job be shipped overseas for cheaper options. Three days after Trump’s inauguration, he
upended the deal. In doing so, Trump sent a message to the rest of the world, demonstrating that he was not going to maintain the Republican idea that expanding global trade was good for everyone, and that the United States should be in the driver’s seat of international commerce. President Trump’s decision to eliminate the TPP went against the efforts of presidents dating back to the Cold War, a move that aligned him more with a more leftist ideology. At a meeting with union leaders, Trump told them that, “we’re going to stop the ridiculous trade deals that have taken everybody out of our country and taken companies out of our country, and it’s going to be reversed,” a statement that drew applause from the crowd. Possible Lasting Effects of the Withdrawal Michael B. Froman, the trade representative who negotiated the pact for Obama, said in an interview that, “there’s no doubt this action will be seen as a huge, huge win for China.” He went on to say that “For the Trump administration, after all this talk about being tough on China, for their first action to basically hand the keys to China and say we’re withdrawing from our leadership position in this region is geo-strategically damaging.” The agreement, which is said to be the largest such regional trade accord, aimed to establish rules for resolving trade disputes and protecting intellectual property, which is said to be the biggest single hurdle for most companies to overcome when considering entrance into the massive Chinese market. Trump believes that multilateral trade
SPRING 2017
PHOTO COURTESY OF THE NATIONAL MUSEUM OF THE U.S. NAVY
I
n February of 2016, 12 countries that border the Pacific Ocean and account for 40 percent of the world’s economic output signed an agreement that aimed to deepen economic ties between the participating nations. The way this trade agreement looked to do so was through the slashing of tariffs and the fostering of trade to boost economic growth with the ultimate goal being the creation of a new market similar to that of the European Union. This deal, often referred to as President Obama’s signature trade deal, sought to bolster America’s position in the Asia-Pacific region, a region dominated by the Chinese economy. This deal was seen as quite the achievement by supporters of the deal due to the fact that the member countries believed in very different approaches to topics such as environmental protection, workers’ rights, and the regulatory environment in each country.
FEATURES
deals, like the European Union and the TPP, are a thing of the past and that bilateral trade agreements are the best option. Trump’s idea of trade agreements was quick to come under criticism from people who believe that globalization is still and always will be the cause of economic growth. Patrick Skinner, the director of special projects at the Soufan Group, said that “TPP was already dead, but the way [Trump] officially made sure of that then says we’re going to do these bilateral deals- countless bilateral things- that’s bad enough for trade because globalization just doesn’t work that way, it hasn’t for a long time.” However, support for abandoning the deal was not hard to find. Michael Stumo, the CEO of the Coalition for a Prosperous America, worked to defeat the deal, which he categorized as a “job killer” that would “increase our deficit” if passed. Even Bernie Sanders, who was in agreement with Trump on the TPP throughout their campaigns, said that “the trans-pacific partnership is a disastrous trade agreement designed to protect the interests of the largest multi-national corporations at the expense of workers, consumers, the environment and the foundations of American Democracy.”
could make to U.S. infrastructure building, as well as the strengthening of defense alliance between Japan and the U.S., an idea that was reassured by Defense Secretary Mattis after his visit to Japan. President Trump’s main focus is simple and respectable: the creation of jobs and economic growth in the United States. After seeing thousands and thousands of jobs moving offshore, companies moving their operations to tax havens, and the current trade deficit with which the U.S. operates, he believes that the renegotiation of trade deals will have a significant impact on the issues that many companies face. President Trump is reversing the ideology held by presidents since World War II that globalization is the key to future economic growth. While President Trump has shown clear disdain for multilateral agreements, he has clearly reaffirmed to our current trading partners that trade is not off the table as long as it equally benefits the U.S. and the country in question. This approach, although not necessarily new, is one that draws substantial attention. Whether or not he is successful with this idea remains to be seen, but after meeting with Prime Minister Abe this week and discussing the future of trade relations, Trump has shown that he is committed to following through on yet another promise he made on the campaign trail. b
PHOTO COURTESY OF THE U.S. EMBASSY TOKYO
The Shift from Multilateral to Bilateral Dealings Joshua Meltzer, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, notes that “The U.S. is no stranger to bilateral agreements, whether on trade or other sectors of foreign policy, but those agreements are limiting.” Meltzer’s main criticism of Trump’s idea of bilateral
trade agreements is that they do not fully consider the dynamics of how the global economy works in terms of global supply chains. However, these bilateral negotiations provide the U.S. with maximum leverage, an idea that Meltzer agrees with. This leverage comes from two sources: The first is that the United States has 75 trading partners, combining for $1.6 trillion worth of exports, and the second is that the U.S. imported around $2.4 trillion worth of goods. With the notable size of the U.S. consumer market, countries that rely on the U.S. as a trading partner will be more open to the new stance on trade because, for some countries, their economy may depend on it. Many critics say that Japan suffered because of this decision, yet President Trump and Prime Minister Shinzo Abe met earlier this month and are already discussing a bilateral trade deal. In a joint statement, both leaders said that they would work on framework for a deal that would deepen trade and investment relations as well as promote economic growth in the Asia-Pacific region. President Trump came out and said that “we will seek a trading relationship that is free, fair, and reciprocal, benefiting both of our countries.” The leaders agreed to establish a new framework for economic dialogue, helmed by Japanese Deputy Prime Minister Taro Aso and U.S. Vice President Mike Pence to discuss cooperation in areas of mutual economic benefit. Prime Minister Abe said that he is “quite optimistic that good results will be seen in the dialogue,” citing high-speed railway technology as an example of potential contributions Japan
SPRING 2017
The Arch Conservative / 17
HUMOR
Clipped Wings Finding Humor in the Horrible Loss
1. How Hillary would have felt after seeing the popular vote results and then the electoral college results. 2. Every other year of Atlanta sports. 3. Losing a game of FIFA to your roommate in penalties . . . three days in a row. 4. Jeb Bush going from leading the primaries (please clap) to watching Trump get nominated. 5. When Hillary supporters went to bed expecting a victory and awoke to the opposite. 6. Picking something off the menu at Cali n’ Titos, ordering it, and then realizing that you didn’t bring cash. 7. When you bite into your seemingly scorching hot pocket to find the inside is still frozen. Nick Geeslin is a junior studying international affairs. He is the Editorin-Chief at The Arch Conservative.
18 / The Arch Conservative
8. Being a UGA Football fan born after 1980. 9. Spotting the bus upon which you were waiting in the freezing cold and seeing the sign turn to “Out of Service” 10. Thinking you packed everything for class then realizing your headphones are at home. 11. Getting Chick-fil-a only to find a poor excuse for a piece of chicken on your sandwich. 12. Signing up for Obamacare and finding that you’ve been waitlisted. 13. When your Bagel Bites are ready and
you sit down to eat them only to find your dog was way ahead of you. 14. Getting someone’s number only to receive a text that they are in a relationship. 15. Watching Athens’ road construction complete only to see workers start on the other side of the road. 16. Going to Chipotle only to find out that they are out of guacamole. 17. Treating yourself to McDonald's only to find the ice cream machine is broken. 18. Pulling up to a Chick-fil-a on a Sunday. 19. Feeling as deflated as Tom Brady’s footballs. 20. How Alabama fans felt when they paid off their bets. 21. Thinking you jumped on the EastWest bus, when actually it was Family
Housing. If there is a silver lining in this most horrendous of happenings, it is that the Falcons made it to the Super Bowl and looked absolutely brilliant outside of the last quarter. Moreover, Dan Quinn without a doubt has his Falcons in a spectacular place in years to come. Kyle Shanahan is on his way out, but the Falcons defense that held Tom Brady and the dubious Patriots to only three points in 30 minutes of play is young. Extremely young. Deion Jones, a rookie drafted in the second round out of LSU, stepped up and earned a starting spot and recorded over a hundred tackles, four interceptions, and two defensive touchdowns in his rookie season as well as a key forced fumble in the Super Bowl. Keanu Neal was all he was worked up to be and the Falcons defense can only get better in the coming years. On top of the defense, Matt Ryan likely awaits a flashy contract extension and Julio Jones and his coworkers in the receiving corps have a few years left with the Birds at least. As of a couple weeks ago, the Falcons signed former USC Head Coach and Alabama Offensive Coordinator to the squad as OC. Sarkisian has had his share of controversy, but is known for his captaining of high-powered offenses similar to the one that Kyle Shanahan constructed last year. If I am correct in assuming we do not have another Bobby Petrino on our hands–and I sincerely pray that this is not the case, for we might as well say goodbye to the Falcons this moment– then there is hope. And let us not forget that, here in Athens, we do still have the Dawgs. Perhaps it could be their year. One thing we learned from Sunday as well as the entire year that preceded it is now dogma: Who in the hell knows? b
SPRING 2017
PHOTO COURTESY OF JAMES EMERY
I
t hurts. It hurts more than it normally does. More than being an Atlanta sports fan ever has. It is like waking up after a sober night with a hangover. Like a Hillary supporter going to sleep trusting all the odds only to wake up finding their world destroyed. As a sort of cathartic release for those who, like many of us here at The Arch Conservative, simply still cannot believe the horror of an event that shall go down as the most tangible realization of almost humorous inability of Atlanta sports teams to sustain greatness, we asked you via Facebook to come up with analogies for how you felt after the loss. What follows are 21 of those analogies for the Falcons’ self-destruction in Houston. How I/Atlanta felt after suffering the most disappointing loss in Super Bowl history is like:
HUMOR
California Under Bernie You Thought Marijuana Legalization Was the Last Step
I
PHOTO COURTESY OF GAGE SKIDMORE
f you asked 100 people where our country would be in a few years, they all would undoubtedly have completely different guesses. You would probably encounter a few pessimists as well who think Trump will be the cause of the death of the human race. But I can tell you exactly what’s in store for this great nation in the coming years; and it’s not World War III. The real fun will be internally, not internationally. The date is January 1, 2020. Remember Bernie Sanders? The socialist and Democratic Party’s runner-up in last year’s primaries suffered what was a surprisingly close and somewhat rigged defeat. After his defeat, Bernie didn’t just end his political career. Bernie took initiative and decided to move to California, the poster-child for his form of politics. With all of the hipsters and the left-minded environment that overwhelm California, Bernie quickly regained support in his community. He went on to win the gubernatorial position in California with ease. Bernie quickly created a communalist economy, quite different from the rest of the country. Even with everyone rallying behind their new leader, the racism and bigotry persisted in the American ‘one percent,’ a category in which he lumped all those who lived above the poverty line. This truly perturbed Governor Sanders. He couldn’t understand how to rid his new home state of all the evil. After realizing that all hate and intolerance can be alleviated through daily ‘relaxation breaks’ or ‘smoke sessions’ as Californian TJ Collins is a junior studying economics. He is the Business Manager at The Arch Conservative.
SPRING 2017
social vernacular would call them, Sanders fought hard for compulsory marijuana smoking laws in the state of California. Some called it, quite simply, “the greatest ‘highdea’ there had ever been.” A few months into 2018, California passed a law requiring residents of the state to participate in at least one ‘relaxation break’ a day, with the purpose of consuming marijuana.
For the first six months, California was the place to live. Everyone was constantly friendly, the crime rate plummeted, and faith in our political system was at an all time high. Things could not be going better on the west coast. It took about a year for the more longterm effects to finally kick in. Due to a number of complaints about insensitive language, the ‘relaxation breaks’ went from daily to hourly. Apathy for anything other than “living in the moment” was universal. The Californian people were completely
oblivious to the effect the legislation would have in the near future. Without anyone even noticing (likely because they were making their way through the Grateful Dead Discology recently released into the public domain), the unemployment rate reached a staggering 30 percent. Residents seemed to realize the catastrophe only when they carelessly took their routine stroll over to the Taco Bell on the corner to find that it was closed due to a lack of employees. Shops closed everywhere and Bernie, on his heels thanks to the state’s recent strife, expectedly blamed it all on ‘the man.’ The state was in debt millions due to the unemployment benefits and, because their compulsory weed laws were in violation of Federal Law, the U.S. Government was less than accommodating when California needed a bailout. It didn’t take long for the state government to be overthrown. The U.S. Government forced the entire population to move so they could restructure the state. After a year of reconstruction, the national government opened up New Cali to the public. New Cali is now a vacation destination only. There are no homes; only hotels, amusement parks, and beautiful beaches. The proceeds from the entire state go to government and maintaining the state. Now back to present day. Next time you regret not going out to vote for Bernie Sanders, just remember what possibly could have been for this entire nation. Devastation. b
The Arch Conservative / 19
COLLEGE IS ALREADY EXPENSIVE ENOUGH That’s why college students are invited to sign up for free digital access to The Weekly Standard magazine at weeklystandard.com/free — no credit card needed!
America’s Foremost Political Magazine