THE ARCH CONSERVATIVE, Summer 2016

UN

—

IO

p.

9

NS

Summer 2016

Raising the Standard.

2016 LEGISLATIVE REVIEW The Capitol passes HB 859, HB 757, and others

by Michael Duckett

MINING APPALACHIA, p. 10 • FREE SPEECH, p. 18

THE EDITORS

On Commencement A tedious ceremony gives appropriate attention to People and Place.

I

n 2016, University of Georgia seniors graduate on Friday, May 13th. A number of smaller ceremonies precede Commencement Day: Academic departments across campus hold individual events where graduates are be-ribboned, photographed, and shooed with a cheerful handshake into the wider world. In the final weeks of April, clubs and Greek life hold Senior Nights, often requesting honorees’ “life advice” as a parting token.

Each year, a sizeable number of graduates decline to “walk” in the official commencement ceremony held in Sanford Stadium.

Typically, these students are put off by the size and duration of the festivities — in 2015, undergraduate commencement recognized 4,488 students and exceeded several hours in length. Cost is also a factor: The average graduate spends around $70 outfitting herself with compulsory black robe, mortarboard, tassel, and additional sashes.

A smaller number of graduates simply scorn the administrative platitudes and speeches by B-list dignitaries which comprise the bulk of the ceremony. There are less tedious and time-consuming ways, some assert, to take leave of our alma mater.

True, a memorable farewell to Athens can mean everything from taking in a final 40 Watt concert to ringing the Chapel Bell with friends. For millennial graduates — accustomed to crafting social media “moments” for a perpetually-recorded “personal narrative” — such intimate experiences usually hold greater meaning than a mass ceremony.

So, why does the tradition of commencement persist? Every year at the University of Georgia and hundreds of institutions across the country, thousands of graduates attend long and tedious ceremonies, happily flipping their tassels and snapping “selfies” with grinning classmates.

In some ways, Commencement Day may seem like an outdated tradition — a poor fit for today’s fast-paced society. Yet it retains significant value for present and future generations of students.

At the University of Georgia in particular, commencement allows graduates to meditate on both the people and institution which influenced their undergraduate years.

Graduation itself brings members of the university community together: According to event organizers, each year Commencement Day festivities draw around 15,000 students, parents, and faculty members to campus.

Furthermore, the ceremony’s structure symbolizes the academic hierarchy which lies at the heart of higher education. Professors and administrators deliver a series of speeches to graduates — the final remarks they will make as their formal teachers.

Ideally, their instruction in the past four years has equipped students to be lifelong learners, and commencement acknowledges

the debt professors are owed for this service. Yet the ceremony also heralds graduates’ newly-minted independence and entrance into wider society.

Another centuries-old tradition also symbolizes the community found on campus. Graduates dress alike flowing black robes: These represent not only academic achievement, but a collective agreement to uphold the honor and fraternity of the university after graduation.

Meanwhile, if the customs of commencement represent community, its location in Sanford Stadium represents the significance our campus holds for University of Georgia graduates.

For many seniors, the stadium itself holds vivid memories: In its stands, a host of football fans congregated on autumn Saturdays, cheering on the Dawgs in the triumph of victory and sharing in the sorrow of losses on the field below.

Holding commencement in the stadium is, of course, primarily to accommodate the event’s size. Yet for graduates, the stadium’s central place on Sanford Road can also represent the entirety of campus — a shared Place which, for the past four years, they have come to know well in both work and leisure.

The beauty of UGA’s sprawling, landgrant acreage is a byword on campus tours.

This truism is especially vindicated on the cusp of summer: On north campus, dogwood trees are a shower of pink and white blossoms. The fountain sparkles on Herty Field, and green foliage shades the crossing sidewalks.

Some graduates have longed to experience this environment nearly their whole lives — ever since they began watching football games as children. For others, the University of Georgia was merely the most convenient educational option in-state.

Regardless of graduates’ background, however, commencement can bring a bittersweet realization: Many of us will never again both live and work in an environment which values architectural and natural beauty so highly.

At the same time, our college years seem an oasis precisely because they are limited: The exponential personal growth we experience here — through academic challenges, new and diverse friendships, and unfamiliar responsibilities — would be unsustainable at a longer stretch.

In short, what often seems a boring ceremony perhaps serves to commemorate two fundamental components of the college experience: The People who challenged us students to grow in perspective and the Place which facilitated that learning. Commencement Day is a chance for graduates to celebrate these communal experiences and to carry their value into the future.

— Elizabeth Ridgeway, Class of 2016

2 / The Arch Conservative

SUMMER 2016

COVER IMAGE COURTESY LEVAN RAMISHVILI

Commencement Day retains significant value for present and future generations of students.

Summer 2016 THE EDITORS

Campus in Summertime. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

THE CAMPUS INFORMANT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 COLUMNS

Beyond a Two-Party Election

Samantha Nagy .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Before Olympics, Political Outcry

Nick Geeslin .

The Cost of Refusal

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Confronting Acts of Terror

FEATURES

Follow the Money

Blake Johnson.

Thomas "TJ" Collins

Cecilia Walker. .

2016 State Legislation The Coal Depression Choosing Capitalism

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

14

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Michael Duckett. .

Sydney North. .

Free Speech and the University

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Desmond Sandoval.

CULTURE

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Connor Kitchings.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

HUMOR

Selections from the 2016 State Legislature

Michael Duckett

. . . . . 19

16

A quarterly journal of opinion raising the standard at the University of Georgia.

Elizabeth Ridgeway, Connor Kitchings, Marian Young,

Sydney North,

MANAGING EDITOR

BUSINESS MANAGER ASSOCIATE EDITOR

Baylee Culverhouse,

IMAGES COURTESY GUOGUO12 AND GAGE SKIDMORE

Nick Geeslin,

PUBLIC RELATIONS Michael Duckett DESIGN LEAD Mallory Traylor

EDITOR-IN-CHIEF

archconuga.com archconuga@gmail.com TWITTER: @ArchConUGA MAIL: P.O. Box 1181 Athens, GA 30603

ON THE WEB: EMAIL:

ASSOCIATE EDITOR

ASSOCIATE EDITOR CONTRIBUTORS Tristan Bagala

Rebel Lord

Cole Calfee

Desmond Sandoval

Bill Davison

Jake Shumard

Ben Grayson

Cecilia Walker

Blake Johnson

TJ Collins

Samantha Nagy

THE COLLEGIATE NETWORK

The Arch Conservative is a member publication of the Intercollegiate Studies Institute’s Collegiate Network. Special thanks go out to Mr. Philip Chalk of The Weekly Standard for his inestimable help.

SUMMER 2016

The Arch Conservative / 3

CAMPUS

Winning G-Day

Coach Kirby Smart rallies 93,000 football fans.

Y

Fundraising for Human Rights International Justice Mission hosts event on campus.

I

ou might have seen a new hashtag floating around out there in the social media-verse: #93kDay. New head coach Kirby Smart challenged fans to show out in force the annual G-Day Spring football game, held this year on April 16th. Smart, who played for the University of Georgia in his undergraduate years, replaced former head coach Mark Richt after a disappointing season finish last fall.

Despite critics’ skepticism, Coach Smart was not disappointed.

On G-Day, excitement for a new era of Georgia football materialized: At 4 p.m. kickoff, Sanford stands were filled to the brim with around 93,000 fans.

The nation’s top-ranked quarterback coming out of high school, Jacob Eason, gave a characteristically strong showing, completing 19 of 24 passes with 244 yards and a touchdown. Fellow freshmen Isaac Nauta and Riley Ridley also played well.

On the defensive side, sophomore D’Andre Walker looks like he will be a solid replacement for NFL-hopefuls Leonard Floyd and Jordan Jenkins.

The team looks to carry the momentum into summer practice for the first game of the season against the University of North Carolina this September.

—Nick Geeslin

n their efforts to champion global human rights, International Justice Mission hosts a multitude of fundraisers and events at college campuses across the U.S. On Saturday, April 9, the University of Georgia chapter of IJM hosted a fundraiser at Herty Field on campus. The event, called “Stand for Freedom”, was organized Returning champion to raise support for IJM’s Jordan Spieth loses mission of ending global title. human trafficking and modern slavery. ugusta, Georgia The fundraiser feahosted the annual tured musical perforMasters Golf Tournamances from many local ment from April 4th artists, including David through 10th. For forA tradition unlike any other Richt, son of former mer Masters Champion University of Georgia head football coach Mark Richt.

Jordan Spieth, the 2016 tournament was an event to forget..

IJM’s fundraising goal for the entire spring semester was The three-round leader was up by three strokes going into the $1,500. The Stand for Freedom event exceeded that goal on its par three twelfth hole. Then, he hit two balls into the water and own, raising $1,630 in one night. recorded a quadruple bogey to lose the lead.

UGA’s chapter of IJM has since announced that it will be hostMeanwhile, British opponent Danny Willett logged a bogeying multiple additional fundraisers before the end of the spring free, five under par final round to win the legendary Masters semester, including several percentage nights at the Your Pie green jacket. restaurant in downtown Athens.

Had strokes gone differently, Spieth would have been the —Sydney North fourth person in Masters history to win back-to-back green jackets. Instead, Willett became the first European to win the award since the turn of the century.

—Nick Geeslin

Masters 2016

4 / The Arch Conservative

SUMMER 2016

KILROY WAS HERE.

A

CAMPUS

SGA

V

WATCH

oting for this year's Student Body Elections took place from March 28th to 30th on UGA Involvement Network.

Prior to elections, three executive tickets conducted campaigns from March 14th to 28th.

The winning Commit ticket comprised presidential candidate Houston Gaines, vice presidential candidate Jacob Fucetola, and candidate for treasurer Sehar Ali. Meanwhile, the Dare ticket featured Tifara Brown, Gaby Reyes, and Hamilton Way, and the All In ticket consisted of Shallum Atkinson, Samuel Street, and Megan Corriveau.

The Commit ticket won the executive election, accruing over sixty percent of 7,267 total votes, as reported by the Red & Black.

On April 18th, the new SGA executive board was sworn into office for the 2016-17 school year.

Houston Gaines, who served as SGA vice president in the 2015-2016 academic year, was named SGA president for the

coming year.

Fellow Commit ticket members Jacob Fucetola and Sehar Ali were sworn in to their respective positions as well. All three members of the ticket have been involved with SGA in previous years.

Perhaps the most important goal for the Commit ticket this coming year will be increasing focus on student wellbeing and fostering a productive learning environment for all students. on campus.

Sga watch also notes that the Commit ticket has been deemed by many students to be the ticket that most conserves the policy of the previous administration. Not only are its executives returning SGA officers — one of them a returning executive board member. Its policy positions also reflect commitment to the positive elements of the status quo on campus, while advocating gradual change in areas which need continued improvement.

The student watchdogs at The Arch Conservative are interested to see how they implement their proposals on campus in the coming school year.

—Baylee Culverhouse and Elizabeth Ridgeway

ISI: EXPERIENCE YOU

CAN’T AFFORD TO MISS T zz

zz zz

ake charge of your education today by joining ISI. Membership is free; what you gain is invaluable.

Attend leadership conferences on liberty and limited government

Intern at leading publications like the Weekly Standard and USA Today and top conservative organizations like the Heritage Foundation Earn grants to fund your campus activities

zz

Get involved in ISI campus chapters and student newspapers

zz

—Christopher Lacaria, Harvard alumnus

Win scholarships and fellowships—prizes up to $30,000

zz

zz

“ISI gave me an education that even Harvard couldn’t.”

Receive a subscription to the Intercollegiate Review and “The Campus Caller” Network with like-minded students, top professors, and leaders in politics, business, and journalism

PHOTO COURTESY OF THE BOSTON PUBLIC LIBRARY

“ISI is a necessity for all college students.” —Kate Brickner, Ashland University

JOIN.ISI.ORG 800-526-7022 programs@isi.org

SUMMER 2016

The Arch Conservative / 5

COLUMNS

Beyond a Two-Party Election

F

ormer Congressman Ron Paul said it best: When asked for his 2016 pick, he wished “none of the above” was an option on the presidential ballot.

As a Libertarian candidate for president in 1988 and a Republican candidate in 2008 and 2012, Paul used to be seen as the GOP’s “crazy man”. His monopoly on the title has been easily bested by Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential run, which has conservatives up-in-arms more than any candidate in recent memory.

If Trump clinches the GOP nomination, then conservatives will have to make the near-impossible decision between voting for him or electing former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton come November.

Even now, months ahead with Trump performing strongly in polls, voters fear they will have to make the decision to vote for the lesser of the two evils. Republican Senator Lindsey Graham recently said that voting for Trump or his GOP rival Ted Cruz in the primaries is equivalent to “being shot or poisoned.”

How then does an establishment Republican or conservative survive voting for Trump or Clinton in the general election?

An independent candidacy is the one possibility of positivity in this crucial election. A third-party candidate would garner a great deal of attention from the general public’s aggravation with Trump and Clinton. That candidate looks to be Gary Johnson, former Governor of New Mexico and Libertarian Party frontrunner.

Johnson surely isn’t the social conservative GOP voters are looking for — he argues for a federal legalization of marijuana and supports same-sex marriage.

Yet his fiscally conservative policies are a sharp contrast between himself and current frontrunners Trump and Clinton.

Samantha Nagy is a junior studying english. She is a new contributor to The Arch Conservative.

6 / The Arch Conservative

Johnson’s libertarianism gives him the ability to pull voters from both parties, attracting those who are unwilling to check the ballot for either of the other eventual nominees.

Furthermore, Johnson doesn’t come across as a polarizing figure like Trump

Dubiously representative. and Clinton do. Clinton is obviously and decidedly progressive, but Trump is not noticeably more conservative. Many of his policies on issues like abortion remain unclear to a divided Republican party.

Those Republicans who fear that a vote for Trump will damage the party beyond repair should consider voting for someone outside the two-party system — someone who isn’t seen as a corrupt or immoral leader. Even though Johnson and the Libertarian Party in general don’t share all of the social views held by many traditional conservatives, a vote for a trustworthy independent candidate would not be the end of the world — and would even be a boon for libertarian-leaning Republicans.

The latter are far more common than they were a few decades ago, thanks to Ron Paul and his son, Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, who have recently had success infusing libertarian beliefs into the Republican Party.

Their so-called “Liberty Movement” has suggested innovative proposals, like using

criminal justice reform and the individual’s right to privacy — non-traditional ideas in the Republican Party — to advocate for personal and economic liberties. The Pauls have both campaigned for smaller government which restores power back to the people. This appears to be the exact opposite of Trump’s campaign: The Donald overtly displays himself as a power-hungry authoritarian.

As the Pauls’ liberty-minded message spreads throughout the Republican Party, libertarianism should look less foreign to traditional conservative voters in 2016.

Though their positions on social issues typically differ from Johnson’s, many of these conservatives should have little problem backing Johnson over Trump.

Meanwhile, for former supporters of Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio — those who sit on the establishment end of the party — Johnson’s progressive social policy may be a more difficult pill to swallow.

If Trump is indeed the GOP nominee then, where do these far-right voters go?

Should they choose the lesser of two evils, or find whatever comfort possible in voting for Johnson? Alternatively, ought they to refrain from voting altogether?

If Johnson does receive these conservative votes, he may draw further attention to the Libertarian Party and build a viable third-party candidacy. American politics has run on a two-party system for most of the country’s history. Maybe 2016 is an opportune year for a third party, like the Libertarians, to disrupt the current system.

Despite what happens with this election, Americans should not feel compelled to vote for the lesser of two evils. Neither should they sit out the vote because their candidate didn’t receive a nomination.

Other candidates besides the Republican and Democratic nominees are out there. Give them a chance and do some research. There will never be a perfect candidate. Yet there is hope for finding one whose views align more closely with yours than Trump or Clinton — even in this nonsensical 2016 election season. B

SUMMER 2016

PHOTO COURTESY OF GAGE SKIDMORE

This November, America has more choices than simply Trump or Clinton.

COLUMNS

Before Olympics, Political Outcry Familiar accusations of corruption rock Brazil at an inopportune time.

B

razil is in the final months preceding their hosting of the 2016 Olympic Games. Yet Brazilian nationalism is faltering as corruption scandals from the country’s highest officials come to light at the capital.

Beginning in 2014, Dilma Rousseff, President of Brazil, and Luis “Lula” da Silva, former President of Brazil, were investigated on suspicion of bribery and fraud while serving on the Board of Directors of the country’s nationalized oil company, Petrobras. Thus far, 117 others have been formally indicted, many of whom are politicians in Rousseff ’s party.

Brazil is no stranger to political unrest: It has wrestled with widespread corruption since it gained independence from Portugal in 1822.

Military rule dominated Brazil since its inception as an independent nation, perpetuating general instability. Over the decades, various coups spawned some shortlived political successes — but none were ever sustainable. Finally, in the 1980s, the nation’s constitution was redrafted and political power was peacefully transferred to an opposing party for the first time since Brazil’s independence.

Soon after, the revitalized economy developed into the largest economy in South America. In 2010, Goldman Sachs estimated that Brazil would have the fourthlargest economy in the world by 2050. It seemed that Brazil had finally shaken its long-standing cycle of poor political leadership. Unfortunately, the recent corruption scandal reveals that the Brazilian government is sliding back in that direction.

The scandal is sizeable. In the mid2000s, multiple government officials systematically accepted bribes in exchange for awarding government-subsidized Nick Geeslin is a sophomore studying international affairs.

He is Associate Editor of The Arch Conservative.

SUMMER 2016

construction contracts to firms at inflated prices. The misconduct came to light when the accused group attempted to launder the money through a business in 2008. The business’s owner reported the act, launching an investigation.

No formal paper trail or other evidence discovered thus far can link President Rousseff to the scandal, though the blowback for her is apparent. The public knows that politicians were involved in the fraud and that Rousseff served on the board for Petrobras during the time of the scandal.

Therefore, it is no surprise that her approval ratings have dropped to the single digits in the midst of this crisis.

Before this crisis, Brazil — along with India, China, Russia, and South Africa — was considered a market on the verge of a significant economic boom. Now, that goal lies out of reach as Rousseff and her alleged cronies devote resources to fending off negative media attention rather than carrying out their economic agenda.

Today, work on the expansion of Petrobras has been halted for over a year, leaving tens of thousands unemployed. Though it is exported on a smaller scale than in Russia or Middle Eastern powers, oil is an important resource in Brazil’s mixed economy. The Petrobras scandal has caused severe stagnation in the oil industry: The sector lost “more than half its value in the last year, about $70 billion in market cap,” according to the New York Times.

On top of the slow in promising economic growth, Brazilians’ trust for their institutions is at an all time low. Not only has every president of the past 13 years allegedly been involved in corruption, but these crimes have also robbed the government of billions of dollars.

Petrobras suspects a sum of around $3 billion was stolen in the form of gifts, cash, and prostitutes. The prosecutor on the case was quoted saying that the elimination of corruption in Brazil altogether would “triple the amount [Brazil] spends on public health.”

This may be a slight exaggeration. Yet the statement still paints vividly the extent of Brazil’s political problems. Ironically,

Rousseff ran her campaign on a platform of eliminating corruption within the government. That she may have orchestrated her own failure in this mission is little surprise.

On top of the abundance of political and economic ripples caused by the Petrobras scandal, the magnitude of the political disruption it has caused leaves even optimistic Brazilians feeling stabbed in the back.

Brazilians have a saying for when a politician is arrested: “It always ends with a pizza party.” The adage illustrates not only the widespread and expected presence of political scandal, but what little effort there is to hide the lack of justice brought to politicians' corrupt actions.

In 2016, Brazil's political crisis has turned into an economic catastrophe. Meanwhile, the Olympics are fast approaching.

Providing the infrastructure and location for the Olympics requires strict organization and abundant funding. Yet in January, Brazil cut the budget for the Olympics by half a billion dollars to ease what is considered the worst recession for the country since the 1990s.

Furthermore, as the Games lurk on the horizon, insufficient infrastructure is not the only problem for Brazil. Zika virus scares light up the news, worries about water pollution dog the minds of potential travelers, and the beaches of Rio de Janiero are reportedly full of garbage.

Needless to say, Brazil today is less equipped than any country in the past few decades to solve these problems, much less take on the task of hosting an international extravaganza like the Olympics.

Apparently, nations around the world have noticed the crisis as well. According to NPR, ticket sales have only just reached 50 percent at a time when the London Olympics were nearly sold out. Brazil's National Congress and Senate have heard the public outcry and vote on whether to impeach President Rousseff late this month. Should the vote pass, the National Congress would appoint the vice president from the opposing right-wing party to the Presidency.

After this decision, the Olympic clock is ticking. b

The Arch Conservative / 7

COLUMNS

Confronting Acts of Terror Recent months have seen a rise in murderous attacks.

8 / The Arch Conservative

SUMMER 2016

PHOTO COURTESY OF MIGUEL DISCART

T

noted that the March 22nd bombings were he United States Department of of war — to achieve this expansion.

After the new territory is conquered, the deadliest terrorist attack in Belgium’s Defense defines terrorism as “the calculated use of unlawful violence however, ISIS has proceeded to stabilize history. The devastated nation went into or threat of unlawful violence to inculcate; the regions by setting up governments mourning for three days after the incident, intended to coerce or to intimidate govern- and even providing social services to and United States flags flew at half-mast.

Another recent attack took place in Syrments or societies in the pursuits of goals inhabitants. ia in early April, when ISIS that are political, religious, attacked a cement company or ideological.” and took three hundred In the past few months, workers hostage. Location acts which fit into this catemay explain what seems like gory have increasingly made inexplicable violence against international headlines. an innocuous corporation: Recent attacks have ocThe cement company’s curred in France, Germany, headquarters were located Turkey, throughout the in the same general area as Middle East, Asia, and even most of ISIS' former attacks in the United States itself. on government troops.

The conclusion is clear: Moreover, Syria seems to Global terrorism is becombe a terrorist haven, due to ing a significant threat to the the instability of its radical ways of the free world. political regimes and poor Most of these attacks infrastructure. have been traced back to In Europe, Germany recertain terrorist networks, cently arrested two men groups which attract radical with potential ties to ISIS members who will stop at who were believed to be nothing for the sake of their Belgians honor the victims of terrorist attacks in Brussels. plotting attacks. No further cause.

Not even Al Qaeda accomplished this evidence was found indicating attacks were The most well-known of these networks is, of course, the Islamic State of Iraq and goal during its years at the top of the ter- imminent, but authorities concluded that these men were stopped before they could rorist food-chain. the Levant (ISIL).

In October 2015, the Financial Times re- create another tragedy.

The Central Intelligence Agency has esToday, global intelligence agencies are timated that ISIS is compromised of 31,000 ported that ISIS made $1.5 million per day members and is still growing. Through in revenue from crude oil. The staggeringly working around the clock to monitor poISIS, radical Muslims have executed mem- well-organized group has taken acts of ter- tential terrorists and prevent disasters from bers of other cultural and religious groups, ror — as well as terrorist networking and happening. Terror attacks in recent months demonstrate that these agencies do not almaking international examples of victims recruitment — to a whole new level.

The most recent tragedy from ISIL was ways react in time. Nonetheless, they have who peacefully held different sets of beliefs an attack in Brussels, Belgium, on the saved many lives in the face of enormous than their persecutors.

ISIS is unique among fellow terrorist morning of March 22. The bombings were international threats. As a citizen of the groups because it has successfully seized perpetrated at the city airport and Maal- United States, I have to trust my security to the expertise of these authorities. land and claimed it as its own. They have beek Metro station.

As the frequency and intensity of terror deployed unmentionable methods — acts Three suicide bombers caused the explosions, two in the airport and one in attacks continues to grow, military force the station, killing 32 people and injuring must be deployed to dismantle organizaBlake Johnson is a around 300 bystanders. The bombers used tions such as ISIS and ISIL. sophomore studying The situation is dark, but not without nail bombs, which are explosives packed journalism. He is a with nails to act as shrapnel in the explo- hope. There will always be evil present in new contributor to The Arch Consersion. (Another bomb placed in the station this world, but Americans must keep faith vative. that good will always shine a light and premiraculously did not detonate.)

In the aftermath, international media vail. b

COLUMNS

The Cost of Refusal Supreme Court deals unions a political victory.

O

ver the past few years, unions have attracted a lot of national attention. With the implementation of reforms like those of Governor Scott Walker in Wisconsin and right-to-work laws across the nation, public sector unions in particular have had a streak of political losses. Recently, the Supreme Court had a chance to add to union discontent.

Because some states contract unions to serve as the sole collective bargaining representative for certain government workers, select public sector unions are entrusted with enormous amounts of power over the conditions and decisions of public employment. One responsibility given to these unions is determining how to deal with state employees who choose not to join their union. Many more historically liberal states, like Washington and New York, allow the unions to collect fees from employees who choose not to join.

Recently, lawsuits have arisen which challenge the legality of these fees, asserting that they are violations of the First Amendment’s implied guarantee of the freedom of association.

A judgement ordering the end of this source of revenue would be catastrophic for public sector unions. Thus, organized labor exhaled a collective sigh of relief due to the deadlocked 4-4 Supreme Court decision in Friedrichs v California Teachers Association on March 29.

In states that allow unions to serve as exclusive collective bargaining representatives, clauses for “agency shops” are often added to union contracts. Agency shop clauses allow employers to hire any employee they wish, but new employees who decide not to join the union are still required to pay “fair share service fees” to the union. These fees are purportedly levied

TJ Collins is a sophomore studying finance.

He is a new contributor to The Arch Conservative.

SUMMER 2016

in order to prevent a free rider problem of employees reaping the benefits of a union without joining. Thus, employees are actually forced to pay partial dues to the union they chose not to join.

Fair share fees have varying levels of cost – some reaching almost as high as union members’. In Philadelphia alone, the Philadelphia Teacher’s Federation estimates that mandatory fees are a more-than-substantial 83 percent of union payments.

Examining the founding purpose of labor unions reveals that these compulsory partial dues are unabashedly hypocritical.

Labor unions are supposed to fight for worker’s rights -­ for everyday citizens to have a voice against tight-fisted employers without the threat of losing their jobs.

Yet these obligatory payments monopolize the only legitimate system that is available for them to exercise this prerogative. The First Amendment implies the freedom of association, yet these duplicitous agency shops are essentially forcing employees to choose between keeping their jobs and keeping their First Amendment rights.

That is to say, by simply working their job and paying compulsive dues for a union they do not belong to, some employees are being forced to sacrifice their freedom. The only way they can regain the exercise of this right is by quitting their job and losing their livelihood.

Furthermore, unions can force their non-union members to support political speech with which they might disagree.

According to the Center for Responsive Politics, public sector unions contributed more than 50 million dollars to political candidates and super PACs in 2014. Regardless of the ideological predilections of the unions, fair share service fees are coercing non-members into supporting political causes to which they might object.

When workers are required to contribute to a cause or candidate he or she may oppose as a condition of maintaining a government job, a violation of the First Amendment guarantee to free speech has certainly occurred. The violation is only exacerbated with the fact that the fees may be charged to those who make the choice

not to join the contributing organization in the first place.

With such an obvious constitutional violation in the cross hairs of a conservative-leaning Supreme Court, this case had many anti-union advocates excited about the prospect of overturning these statutes.

However, the death of Justice Antonin Scalia in February brought uncertainty to the case by removing the majority justice for anti-unionist advocates. A Court with Justice Scalia would likely have guaranteed the downfall of these 40-year old, Orwellian laws. However, with an even number of justices remaining on the Court, Scalia’s tragic death caused a tie in justices’ voting and a de facto victory for labor unions.

Because the Supreme Court was deadlocked, it left the judgement of the lower court, in this case the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, standing. The ruling upheld the statute by effectively conforming to the 1977 ruling in Abood v Detroit Board of Education. In the dated case, the Michigan Court of Appeals recognized the potential violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments if these fair-share service fees were used to support “political purposes” - which they are - yet, still upheld the agency-shop clause.

The most likely response to this defeat for anti-union advocates is to counter with comparable court cases in the future.

For example, The National Right to Work Committee is litigating multiple cases in lower courts that challenge union obligations of non-members. Attempting to combat compulsory dues, the NRTWC is just one group of many fighting against the unjust laws implemented to buoy declining union power and membership.

Call it speculation, but Scalia’s successor will almost definitely have enormous influence over inevitable future cases regarding the capabilities unions possess. This deplorable façade – charging non-union employees union dues just for being hired into an agency shop – needs to be exposed for its self-serving, unjust nature. Labor unions won a major victory in this case, but it will undoubtedly not be the last battle. b

The Arch Conservative / 9

FEATURES

Follow the Money In 2016, non-traditional donors are supporting non-traditional candidates.

by CECILIA WALKER

Cecilia Walker is a regular contributor to the arch conservative.

10 / The Arch Conservative

by heavy-hitting donors, she now faces dropping nationwide poll numbers as her opponent, Senator Bernie Sanders, becomes increasingly popular.

Yet Sander’s grassroots support is a strong contrast to Hillary’s Wall Street supporters: According to the Huffington Post, he garners 75 percent of funding from small donations under $200.

In 2010, the United States Supreme Court decided Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission with a 5-4 vote which facilitated the creation of Super-PACs. Opponents have since objected that the decision increases the power of wealthy corporations to influence campaigns and corrupt government.

Once a far-off concern, the idea of

today’s “Big Money” buying its way to the White House is no longer a clear-cut case.

Both Sanders’ and Clinton’s platforms advocate campaign finance reforms.

With the unexpected absence of Justice Antonin Scalia, formerly a crucial Constitutionalist on the court, both Democratic candidates have vowed to fight to overturn the controversial Citizens United case.

Most Republicans in Congress object that dismissing the court’s ruling on economic freedom of association would be a violation of the First Amendment. Even current Republican front-runner Donald Trump holds that his own past campaign contributions to both Democratic and Republican candidates are proof of political corruption.

PHOTO COURTESY OF GAGE SKIDMORE

F

or the past year, political pundits have been flabbergasted by the 2016 presidential race.

On one side, we have a 79-year-old socialist, former Vermont mayor, and longest-serving independent in the House of Representatives running as a Democrat.

On the other, we have a billionaire New York real estate investor and former reality T.V. host.

It is not much of a riddle to spot the differences between Sanders and Trump: Clearly, their presidential candidacies are a paradox. The mystery of how they both rose to prominence in their respective parties might be the greatest shake-up of the 2016 election season, however.

A closer look at the situation reveals that non-traditional campaign donors have played a key role in catapulting Sanders and Trump to leading poll numbers.

In February 2016, voters learned that even the outsized influence of mega-donors funding political action committees (PACs) had not been enough to save Jeb Bush.

After he announced his departure from the race, MSNBC reported that Bush had spent $130 million for a mere three delegates in New Hampshire and one from Iowa. Of this total amount, $81 million went to advertising backed by Super-PACs. Meanwhile, Florida Senator Marco Rubio, the establishment’s successor to Bush’s PACs, had $34,652,654 raised before dropping out after losing his home state to Trump in March.

On the left, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton began the presidential race as the Democratic establishment’s presumed general candidate. Though backed

Sanders addresses supporters in Arizona.

SUMMER 2016

PHOTO COURTESY OF DARRON BIRGENHEIER

FEATURES

Trump greets supporters in Nevada.

These statistics beg the question – if Yet both Sanders and Trump, who cry the loudest about Big Money buying elec- big campaign spending has not been wintions, practice what they preach: Both ning elections, then what factor has made candidates are at the top of their field with Trump victorious where Bush failed?

When money does not succeed in convincsome of the lowest in PAC support.

As noted above, Sanders raises record- ing voters, what does?

According to a recent survey from breaking numbers with almost no PAC support while Trump has spent a mere $19 Quinnipiac University, the majority of votmillion and still maintains the most press coverage of any candidate.

Back in 2011, about 67 percent of AmerVoter discontent has icans believed elections went to the candidate with the most expensive campaigning, overthrown Big Money as according to the Foundation for Economic the most powerful force Education. The belief is certainly plausible, if a misconception. in the 2016 presidential It is not a stretch to observe that in the race. realm of politics, money talks. Television ads, mass mailings, and nationwide staff centers all cost tremendous amounts.

Furthermore, this funding must be acquired in a relatively short period of time, ers from both sides of the political specfrom massive donations which are usually trum feel that, to some extent, America has “lost its identity”. 64 percent of all paronly possible for large companies.

If the 2016 election has proven anything, ticipants surveyed reported wanting some however, it is that campaign funds may degree of “radical change” to occur in the correlate with, but do not cause, national United States. polling percentages – particularly within Though a far cry from the recession the GOP field. Post-Iowa caucus in Febru- years of 2007-2009, most Americans still ary, Bush had spent a whopping $17,000 feel the economy is lackluster. Additionally, per vote with only 4.8 percent return in the political polarization has given Congress polls. Meanwhile, Trump lead the polls but an even grimmer outlook with only 14 percent approval. spent only $300 per vote.

SUMMER 2016

The recent leak of the Panama Papers also confirms Americans’ distrust of large money in politics. All of these frustrations have aggregated in American voters, creating a desire for change which is so volatile and restless that citizens are increasingly willing to vote for whichever candidate dares to be different – regardless of persona or policies.

Historically, Americans have been quick to reproach the influence of big money in government. The power of discontentment in politics cannot be underrated, however.

Recently, its effects blindsided Bush and Rubio The polar opposite candidates of the race, Sanders and Trump, have capitalized on this discontent. Sanders attacks the establishment directly, proudly claiming that he is not the traditional corporate-bound politician and directly contrasting himself with Democratic Super-PAC favorite Clinton.

On the right, there is The Donald – the Anti-Sanders. While Sanders might attack the “one percent,” Trump flaunts the fact that he is the one percent. For months, the fast-talking New Yorker has done nearly everything possible to flaunt his wealth.

Ironically, he intends to appeal to Southern, blue-collar, white voters.

Sanders’ and Trump’s extreme public personae leave all other candidates standing on the sidelines, scrambling for airtime in the shadows of these two sensationalists.

Simply put, between the two outspoken populist leaders, all other Democratic and Republican contenders seem too traditional, too traditional, and too much like every other politician’s broken promises.

It is the modern reality that any viable run for the presidency now requires millions of dollars. But old-fashioned blue bloods can no longer expect Big Money to talk its way to the top of the polls.

While Americans focus on the influence of corporate contributions in elections, we neglect to see the threat of fed-up voters, willing to support any candidate who promises to flip the establishment world on its head.

Money will always be intertwined with politics. Yet money itself cannot fill out ballots. Only voters can – and will – come November. b

The Arch Conservative / 11

FEATURES

2016 State Legislation Guns, fireworks, and tractors — a citizen considers what lawmakers hath wrought.

by MICHAEL DUCKETT

Although Governor Deal vetoed HB 757, I am confident that it will resurface in future legislative sessions. This is not the last time Georgia lawmakers will craft legislation attempting to ensure religious liberty for constitutents.

HB 757

SB 269

FREE EXERCISE PROTECTION ACT

Representatives crafted HB 757 to protect businesses, churches, and private organizations from performing ceremonies or services contrary to their religious beliefs.

Critics said the bill was discriminatory, and major businesses, including the growing film industry, threatened to boycott the state if it passed — an action which could have cost Georgia thousands of jobs.

Michael Duckett is Public Relations Director at the arch conservative.

12 / The Arch Conservative

The Gold Dome, ca. 1930.

SB 269 prohibits immigration sanctuary policies by any local government. This measure forces local governments to submit certification to the state of immigration compliance before receiving state funding.

In other words, if Atlanta or any other Georgia city decide to protect illegal immigrants from federal law enforcement and becomes a "sanctuary city", that city will lose state funding — a consequence which could severly cripple the city's economy.

The legislature uses the power of the purse to maintain state authority over all

local governments.

SB 350 & SR 558

Fireworks were made legal in Georgia as of July 2015, but laws pertaining to these explosives are still being debated.

Many residents worried about safety concerns when firework sales were first allowed in Georgia. The state legislature has begun addressing those concerns through SB 350.

The bill creates a five percent excise tax for the purposes stated in SR 558.

The resolution requests that Georgia vote in the fall for a constitutional amendment allowing the proceeds from the excise tax on fireworks to be put towards trauma care, fire services, burn treatments, and local public safety purposes.

Together, the bill and resolution provide needed coverage for safety concerns arising from fireworks without alienating new businesses which produce and sell them within the state.

HB 727

Another piece of fireworks-related legislation passed this year. HB 727 makes alterations to current firework laws including redefining who can respond to fires, where and when firework shows are permitted, and who is prohibited from igniting fireworks.

Only nineteen pages long, HB 727

SUMMER 2016

IIMAGE COURTESY OF BOSTON PUBLIC LIBRARY

T

he 2016 legislative session in Georgia proved to be a crazy year — like any other.

With state elections fast approaching in May, legislators sped through the session so their campaigns could begin receiving donations and volunteers could get out on the campaign trail.

As a result, there seems to be a random assortment of bills sitting on Governor Deal’s desk waiting to be signed — legislation dealing with everything from guns to tractors.

This article focuses on select bills which passed both the state house and senate during the recent legislative session, not only on those which have become law.

For easy reference, “SB” stands for Senate Bill, “HB” for House Bill, “SR” for Senate Resolution, and “HR” for House Resolution.

FEATURES

addresses many of the fears held by constituents and possibly raises some additional questions.

In the bill, recruits are allowed to handle certain cases involving fireworks, but recruits are equated to “firefighters” with “recruits” defined as “a prospective firefighter who has not yet been certified or registered by the council as having met the requirements… to be a firefighter.” It is left to the reader to discern whether this alteration is an improvement or not.

Additionally, the bill changes the times and dates that fireworks are allowed. As pertains to who can legally set them off — legislators finally decided to include that those under the influence cannot ignite rockets.

Finally, HB 727 restricts firework launches near medical facilities, roadways, infrastructure improvements, and sewage treatment plants.

SB 263 & 270

While fireworks may be hazardous, the use of guns throughout the state continues to be controversial.

SB 263 grants cities and municipalities the ability to permit police officers to carry their weapons and badges upon retirement.

With a growing population and increasing safety concerns, the legislature wants to expand the scope of law enforcement without costing taxpayers additional resources.

Meanwhile, SB 270 builds off SB 263 so that retired law enforcement officers can carry weapons anywhere in the state, even in gun-free zones.

These two bills have been welcomed by both Democrats and Republicans since they enable trained police officers to protect Georgians even after they have left the police force (and are off government payroll.)

HB 859 CAMPUS CARRY BILL

HB 859 was one of the most hotly debated proposals of the 2016 session, both in the capitol and on college campuses across the state.

HB 859 authorizes weapons carry license holders to possess or concealed carry certain firearms in buildings or on property owned by or leased to public institutions of postsecondary education.

In other words, if someone over 21 years old has a concealed carry permit, they

SUMMER 2016

could carry a firearm weapon on all college campuses in Georgia.

Vocal Second Amendment advocates support the bill, saying that under the protections of the Constitution our right to bear arms cannot be limited anywhere within the state.

Oponnents to the bill raise many legitimate concerns, however, including the less well-known objection that the bill uses vague wording when addressing safety concerns.

In its current form, HB 859 prohibits guns in athletic facilities, dorms, and other forms of student housing to try and avoid firearms mixing with alcohol. It does not, however, prohibit firearms from facilities like on-campus daycares or preschools.

University of Georgia students ought to take the time to study this legislation carefully. The decision Governor Deal makes concerning this legislation will impact our campus community in Athens as well as fellow college students throughout the state of Georgia.

SB 308 & HB 649

SB 308 and HB 649 address the experience of families in the state.

SB 308 creates a non-profit organization to provide pregnancy counseling to mothers in need. The legislature hopes that this non-profit will be supported primarily by donations instead of taxes.

Meanwhile, HB 649 mandates that the state issue official licenses to practicing lactation specialists. The bill establishes a state board to oversee this newly-defined field and ensure that lactation specialists can be vetted and monitored by health agencies.

HB 725, HB 1070 & HB 229 CHILD ABUSE RECORDS PROTECTION ACT

By contrast, several bills deal with protecting children in abusive or dysfunctional households.

HB 725, labeled the “Child Abuse Records Protection Act,” strengthens the confidentiality of records pertaining to child abuse cases in Georgia.

For children taken out of these homes or those willingly put up for adoption, HB 1070 allows investigators the use of an adopted child’s biological records when investigating child abuse or trying to place that child with a family.

As someone who was adopted, I can see the advantages to giving certain

government agencies access to records that may otherwise have been sealed. Records are only to be used for the protection and well-being of the adopted child.

In the worst cases where a child must be removed from a home, HB 229 allows grandparents visitation rights and grants great-grandparents and siblings of parents the power to intervene when domestic issues arise. One hopes it will never come to this, but the new expansion with HB 229 would aid efforts to remove children from abusive situations.

SB 307 & HB 579

Other bills received understandably minimal media coverage. On page 19, The Arch Conservative covers on several more specimens on of this overlooked legislation.

For example, have you ever driven down a Georgia highway and wondered, Who put that multimedia sign in the middle of the road — causing you to crash? SB 307 alleviates your worries by outlawing such obscure obstructions.

HB 579 regulates the use of tractors on highways, attempting to fix a somewhat inscrutable problem: Why anyone would voluntarily drive agriculture vehicles like tractors on I-85 or Atlanta Highway is beyond me. Yet the state legislature authorized more local control over this issue through HB 579.

According to this legislation, tractors or similar vehicles can be prohibited from roads by certain measures established by local governments, unless they are being used for agricultural purposes at the time. _____ With 413 votes taken this year in the senate alone, the immense amount of work our legislators do each year is evident.

In the course of a single legislative session, hundreds of bills have to be drafted, presented, examined, and passed to keep Georgia moving forward. Furthermore, hours and hours of work may end up creating a bill which will either not make it to a vote or fail.

In the past, the state legislature has had trouble attracting public approval. For a group of politicians who do nothing according to voters, however, our Georgia legislators cover a lot of ground: As the 206th legislative session proves, lawmakers help people through their public service every day. b

The Arch Conservative / 13

FEATURES

The Coal Depression Federal environmental regulations are choking Appalachia.

C

oal mining in Appalachia began soon after the end of the Civil War, as industrialization began to sweep America. According to the National Mining Association, in 2013, a century and a half later, there were more than 80,000 Americans working in the coal mining industry nationwide. More than 50,000 of them came from the Appalachian states of Virginia, West Virginia, Kentucky, Pennsylvania, and Tennessee.

For nearly eight years now, the Obama administration has taken strides to wipe the coal industry out as soon as possible. In brief, Obama’s environmental agenda asks the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to mandate that states begin transitioning their electricity from fossil fuels to clean energy. In 2015, the EPA’s so-called “Clean Power Plan” stipulated that all 50 states must cut down carbon emissions by 32 percent by the year 2030.

In other words, the act mandated that state power plants immediately and drastically cut their use of fossil fuels. This ruling was a huge blow to the coal industry, which benefits largely from power plant consumption. When the Clean Energy Plan was implemented last year, 24 states sued President Obama and the EPA on grounds that the ruling was an illegal federal overreach.

It is worthy of note that almost all of the coal mined west of the Mississippi is owned by the federal government. 40 percent of all

Sydney North is Associate Editor at the arch conservative.

14 / The Arch Conservative

U.S. coal is produced by the Federal Coal Program, according to the Bureau of Land Management. Yet in January 2016, the Department of the Interior banned the federal coal program from mining any more coal on public land until a comprehensive review of the coal mining industry is completed.

West Virginia Miners, 1974.

Secretary of Interior Sally Jewell says that this review of the federal coal program ensures that the program “delivers a fair return to American taxpayers and takes into account its impact on climate change.”

That is politician-speak for "We’re going to make coal mining so expensive that it will be impossible for the industry to continue."

Tom Hansell narrates the decline of the coal mining industry in his documentary “After Coal.” Since 2014, 20 percent of the coal jobs in Appalachia have disappeared.

Kentucky alone has lost 53 percent of its jobs in the coal industry since 2011, and

West Virginia has lost 43 percent in the past two years.

These job loss statistics are especially harrowing when we consider the economic status of the Appalachian region in comparison to the rest of the United States.

According to Fahe, a coalition of 29 nonprofits in Appalachia that work together to fight poverty, while the nation as a whole has a poverty rate that averages 14 percent, Appalachian states have poverty rates averaging 16 percent.

Specifically, in coal mining regions of Appalachian states, poverty rates hit regional highs: A striking 25 percent of the population lives in poverty.

Meanwhile, to hear Bernie Sanders and Barack Obama tell it, coal and other fossil fuel industries are robbing you, the average American citizen, of a prosperous and healthy future. A casual observer does not have to dig too deep into Bernie Sanders’ Twitter timeline to see rant after rant about how Republicans are selling Americans out to the oil interests.

“CEOs are raking in record profits while climate change ravishes our planet and our people—all because the wealthiest industry in the history of our planet has bribed politicians into complacency,” said Sanders at a rally in December 2015.

Sanders’ energy plan, even more extreme than President Obama’s, would ban lobbying from the coal, oil, and gas industries and prohibit American companies from nearly every type of oil drilling and coal mining.

Sanders and his fellow progressives promulgate the message that the fossil fuel

SUMMER 2016

PHOTO COURTESY OF THE UNITED STAETS NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS ADMINISTRATION

by SYDNEY NORTH

FEATURES

PHOTO COURTESY OF PHILIPPE ROOS

Coal miner working in the mines. industry and the people who support it have sold out to wealthy interests.

Yet the fossil fuel industry has a long track record of providing jobs, while the green energy industry has a short history of killing them. In Appalachia and other communities built around harvesting fossil fuels, it seems that leftist politicians force fossil fuel workers out of what have proven to be stable incomes, all the while peddling relatively untested “clean” energy.

The left raises a legitimate objection to the coal mining industry by arguing that CEOs of fossil fuel companies profit disproportionately from the extraction and distribution of natural resources. But the economy of Appalachia proves that the bigger beneficiary of fossil fuel extraction are the rank-and-file workers themselves.

Contrary to leftist rhetoric, political conservatives do not rejoice in the degradation of the natural environment nor excessive executive profit.

We do, however, support the simple idea that activity in the private sector can provide Americans living in low-income and low-educated areas of the U.S., such as Appalachia, with the dignity and livelihood afforded by a wage-earning job.

Democrats believe that the federal government can help local Appalachians succeed in their life after coal by implementing more social safety nets in the region. The size of the Appalachian region alone makes this proposal nonsensical.

Appalachia spans northward from Georgia to New York and includes 13 states. In eastern Kentucky alone, 38 out of 54 counties have a “Distressed” economic status, according to the Appalachian Regional Commission, and a majority of the remaining counties are “At-Risk.”

SUMMER 2016

The federal government will likely not be able to provide enough in safety net money for Kentucky alone, much less all other coal mining regions which continue to be impacted by the EPA’s growing regulations.

Furthermore, this plan to alleviate regional poverty with increased welfare reveals the left’s assumption that Appalachians, coal miners, and Americans in general value the security of a welfare program over the personal confidence and fulfillment that comes with earning a wage.

At its core, this attitude misunderstands the American Dream, or what some might call the American temperament. Often, the progressive narrative hints that all Americans desire are high-paying jobs (somewhat paradoxically) free from the shackles of "corporate greed."

What everyday Americans really want, however, is simply to be able to provide for themselves and their families. Coal is not holding the American energy industry back single-handedly. Rather, the federal government is shackling fossil fuel workers with restrictions which ignore the industry’s profitability without providing an immediately viable alternative.

At the same time, objectors to the new EPA restrictions must concede that for a while now, the coal industry has been slowly walking itself out the door. Historically, the U.S. has produced one billion tons of coal per year, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. From 2014 to 2015, however, national coal production dropped by 100 million tons.

The industry’s decline can be attributed to many external factors, such as decreasing natural gas and oil prices, as well as a depletion of coal deposits in Appalachia.

The fact remains, however that the

federal government and energy policies of the Obama administration have artificially hastened the coal industry’s decline.

Rather than supporting the industry in some of its last days, or simply allowing it to take its natural course in the free market, the Obama administration has egged on the destruction of many coal miners’ livelihoods.

In trying to decrease U.S. carbon emissions through federal regulation, the Obama administration has punctured the livelihoods of low-income Appalachians and other industry workers across the nation.

Progression of the real-world free market has demonstrated that if the left wants clean energy, it would do better to let the private sector invest in it than try to manufacture top-down solutions by restricting private innovation and operation. Federal failures in the clean energy sector proliferate. In the past 8 years, the government has lost millions of taxpayer dollars from investments in clean energy companies like Solyndra, Abound, and Fisker Automotives.

As Sanders reminds Americans again and again, corporate CEOs thrive on profit.

His argument ironically demonstrates how, if left unregulated, the free market will benefit U.S. energy production: If, and when, there are viable options for alternative energy in the American market, consumers can be sure that CEOs will jump on the opportunity to invest in the green energy industry.

Until then, the federal government should allow fossil fuel workers to continue providing for their families in the best and most stable way available to them. b

The Arch Conservative / 15

FEATURES

Choosing Capitalism President Obama refuses to affirm the free market.

by DESMOND SANDOVAL

16 / The Arch Conservative

SUMMER 2016

PHOTO COURTESY OF CASA ROSADA: OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT OF ARGENTINA

H

istorically, the United States’ right, between capitalists and communists evaluate which one “works”. President economic and geopolitical or socialists.” Later, he continued, “I think Obama’s suggestion that “practicality," left clout has been the result of a for your generation, you should be practi- undefined, should be our prime criterion for judging the value of strong disposition toward economic policies ignores the free market. inherent and salient difOur Founders recogferences between socialnized that private property ist and capitalist ideas. rights and economic selfInstead, we must examinterest, two fundamental ine multiple factors: The components of modern results, tendencies, and capitalism, were indisachievements of each repensable to the success of spective system can help their new nation. In private us determine which of the correspondence, George theories is socially and ecWashington once pruonomically superior. dently observed that “a In his remarks in Arpeople… possessed of the gentina, President Obama spirit of commerce, who drew a false dichotomy see, and who will purbetween the free market’s sue their advantages may ability to create wealth, achieve almost anything.” goods, and innovation and But you would not society’s need to “achieve know it listening to many goals of equality and inof today’s Democrats. clusion.” His defense of One prominent example President Obama and President Macri of Argentina. the “practicality” of some is presidential candidate Bernie Sanders, a self-styled Democratic cal, and just choose from what works. You socialist-leaning policies appears to be Socialist who continues to endear himself don’t have to worry about whether it neatly rooted in the distributive economic equalto liberals across the country by ranting fits into socialist theory or capitalist theory. ity which he suggests they offer.

In fact, socialism appeals to the same huYou should just decide what works.” against U.S. capitalism.

Many have objected to the President’s man desire for consumption which drives Sanders’ rhetoric has found fertile ground in our country’s left-wing party: comments, asserting that his remarks trivi- the free market. Socialist redistribution According to a recent YouGov poll, Demo- alize the substantial differences between of wealth claims to dismiss the economic cratic voters now hold a more favorable fundamentally different economic systems, competition in a free market in favor of a downplaying the intellectual incongruities cooperative system in which everyone review of socialism than capitalism. ceives their “fair share.”

President Obama has espoused similar of capitalism and socialism.

For all of its promises, however, history Is President Obama right to suggest that rhetoric. In March 2015, while speaking at a Young Leaders of the Americas Initiative people should ignore ideological argu- has proven time and again that socialism town hall meeting in Argentina, the presi- ments and embrace whichever system they does not deliver. The idealistic rhetoric dent remarked that “so often in the past, deem to be more functional? His remarks of socialist thinkers like Marx and Engles there has been a division between left and seemed to imply that in some countries did not accurately predict the widespread socialist policies can bring more economic poverty and loss of life which resulted from Desmond Sandoval is a regular contributor to implementation of socialist policies. benefit than those of the free market. the arch conservative.

Indeed, Dr. Thomas Sowell, Senior We must recognize the two systems for what they are before we can begin to Fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover

FEATURES

PHOTO COURTESY OF DAVID SHANKBONE

An ill-advised choice.

Institution, once quipped “socialism in general has a record of failure so blatant that only an intellectual could ignore or evade it.”

The fact remains that socialist policies naturally amalgamate more power into the hands of government officials than free enterprise does. In The Road to Serfdom, Austrian economist Friedrich Hayek calls this process “the deadly blight of civilization”. The massive governmental bureaucracy required for socialist policies to be carried out puts a formidable amount of power into the hands of individuals who will certainly, if only eventually, abuse it.

In the current presidential administration and political climate, a dangerous tendency toward socialist thinking has become increasingly evident.

For example, in recent years the IRS admitted to unjustly targeting conservative groups which submitted applications for tax-exempt status, singling out any applications that contained the words “Tea Party” or “patriot” for disproportionate scrutiny.

After the story broke, Washington Post reporters Zachary Goldfarb and Karen Tumulty acknowledged the “IRS’s history as an agency that presidents have used to intimidate, harass and punish their political enemies.” Wariness of political tyranny should not belong exclusively to our eighteenth-century Founding Fathers. The IRS scandal demonstrates in a very real way the persistent penchant governmental agents have to begin misusing the power with which they’re entrusted.

Similarly, socialist policies which aim to bring about equality of wealth subject citizens to coercive government force at the SUMMER 2016

expense of individual economic or political rights. Such policies appeal to left-leaning idealists. In practice, however, they restrict the individual’s ability to choose what is best for her own happiness and lead to the slippery, dangerous slope of “government knows best.”

Opponents of capitalism often disparage the free market by arguing that it results in inequality. The father of modern capitalism himself, Adam Smith, acknowledged in his classic work The Wealth of Nations, “Wherever there is great property there is great inequality.” But economic inequity does not necessarily presuppose injustice is present. Indeed, Western philosophy has long held that justice exists where each individual receives what she has earned, with no increase or diminishment. Economic equality is a separate concept.

By this definition of justice, what does qualify as injustice is the forcible redistribution of income from those who have earned it – whether through talent, skill, or work ethic – to those who have not.

Socialism coerces this unjust distribution with the threat of government force.

At its core, socialist policies are essentially theft from some to give to others. This concept is entirely hostile to the American Dream and Jeffersonian “pursuit of happiness”. In the tradition of our Founders, the goal of government should not be to make its citizens dependent on it. Instead, government’s objective should be to empower people to succeed for themselves.

In a 2014 article, Ben Shapiro, Editor-inChief of Daily Wire, summarizes these arguments. He writes, “Socialism states that you owe me something simply because I

exist. Capitalism, by contrast, results in a sort of reality-forced altruism: I may not want to help you, I may dislike you, but if I don’t give you a product or service you want, I will starve. Voluntary exchange is more moral than forced distribution.”

Winston Churchill once observed, “Capitalism is the unequal distribution of wealth; socialism is the equal distribution of poverty.” By focusing on inequality, critics of capitalism often overlook are the unintended benefits which result when industrious individuals pursue their own self-interests in the free market.

Free enterprise systems reward innovation and efficient production where socialist economies do not. In the early 1900s Henry Ford did not manufacture his Model T out of a sense of altruistic duty to society. Rather, he was motivated by an interest for personal profit, and society is better off because of it.

Additionally, the ability of a market economy to raise a nation’s standard of living remains unparalleled. In his book The Conservative Heart, Arthur Brooks of the American Enterprise Institute observes, “It was the free enterprise system that not only attracted millions of the world’s poor to [American] shores and gave them lives of dignity, but also empowered billions more worldwide to pull themselves out of poverty.”

Brooks explains that between 1981 and 2010, the liberalization of markets helped rescue over 680 million people from poverty in China alone. At the same time, China was able to reduce its extreme poverty rate from an astonishing 84 percent to 10 percent. The miraculous achievements of capitalism in China bear witness to the ability of free market economies to improve and preserve the human lives.

At their core, the various policies promoted by socialism and capitalism have fundamentally different objectives. While the former pushes for equality of result and redistribution of wealth, the latter favors opportunity, self-reliance, and independence.

When it comes to deciding which system “works”--which maximizes individual choice, promotes a free society, and facilitates economic success – there can be only one answer.

In one sense, then, President Obama was correct. Peoples around the world should choose what has been proven to “work”: They should choose capitalism. b The Arch Conservative / 17

CULTURE

Free Speech and the University David French of National Review addresses a pressing problem.

O

ver the past half-century, a virus has been infecting universities all across the country. It is of course metaphorical, not an ordinary biological sickness. It is a virus of the mind — an ideological illness. It is the virus of political correctness — PC for short.

While universities in the 1960s were bastions of liberal activism, the universities of today have become the opposite: They are structured for liberal coddling.

In 2016, political “activism” on college campuses has become lazy and overconfident: In the warm embrace of the neverending liberal echo chamber, students and faculty experience little accountablity for their illiberal views.

In short — the college students of the 60s shouted, "We’re mad as hell and we are not going to take it anymore." Today, they whine, "I’m hurt as hell and I’m not going to listen anymore."

Liberal incubation of the PC virus on college campuses across the U.S. has increased the implementation of university-sanctioned speech codes. These regulations specify how, when, and where students and faculty can express their opinions.

Too often, however, these draconian speech codes impinge on students’ and professors’ First Amendment right to freedom of speech. In recent years, many liberty-minded lawyers have made a living suing universities and fighting these speech codes.

On March 17, The Arch Conservative hosted lawyer and National Review columnist David French for a lecture entitled “Free Speech and the University".

French’s first glimpses of the tyrannical nature of PC culture began after his undergraduate years at Lipscomb University, a

Connor Kitchings is a junior studying political science and economics. He is Managing Editor of The Arch Conservative.

18 / The Arch Conservative

small, liberal arts college in Tennessee. According to French, the Christian university was as conservative as a college could be in the early 80s. Following his graduation, French travelled to Boston to begin law school at Harvard. There, he found a different world.

French immediately realized that Harvard Law School in the 1980s was a “cauldron of political correctness.” French, a principled student dedicated to his conservative beliefs, wanted to get involved in anti-abortion advocacy on campus — a cause that was close to his heart as a Christian but just happened to be the sacred cow for his liberal school.

As a 1L, French started the only pro-life organization on campus by sending out an informative letter to students about their school’s funding mechanisms in their tuition for abortion.

The response he received was nothing short of overwhelming. While he did receive some responses of support and thanks from his fellow students, the vast majority of campus reactions were negative.

The morning after issuing the letter, French found stacks of reactionary notes in his campus mailbox. Some called him a fascist bigot. Others were wishes for his death. Not death threats, French joked — thankfully, at that time the vast majority of people infected by the PC virus were not prone to violence — but there were many carefully-worded hopes for his untimely demise.

Following semesters also exhibited this pattern: French was once literally shouted down by a Harvard Law professor because he voiced a pro-life opinion in class.

French explained that he had learned a valuable lesson from his Harvard years: That is, people who scream instead of debate probably have a very weak, untenable position.

His experience in law school also imbued him with a strong respect for the First Amendment’s protection of free speech.

This protection was selected to be part of the First Amendment for a reason: Open public discourse is an essential ingredient

for a healthy democracy. It prevents a majority crackdown on disagreeable views.

Thankfully, it allows no “Heckler’s Veto" or right to prevent another's speech.

Following graduation, French became a litigation attorney who specializes in case violations of the First Amendment.

Unsurprisingly, his work often takes him to universities, where restrictive speech codes are running rampant.

For example, in the wake of September 11th, French was approached by an undergraduate student at an unnamed campus.

The student had been suspended for decorating his dorm room door with a picture of Osama bin Laden trapped in giant red crosshairs and required by university administration to remove the image from his residence.

French took up the case and found that the statute in the speech code which the university used to defend its actions was peculiar. It read, “Acts of intolerance will not be tolerated.”

When this puzzling bit of irony was presented to a judge, university lawyers were unable to specify exactly what an “act of intolerance” was. Obviously, French won the case.

French's talk narrated several other examples, but his theme was clear: Speech codes, which were originally designed to prevent people on university campuses from using language that others find offensive, are fundamentally flawed. There is no way to know exactly what will offend someone because offense is subjective.

Objective offensiveness does not exist.

Therefore, it is impossible to regulate.

French's message ought to resonate with today's students. Freedom of speech is too important to lose. Academically, it encourages students to be more informed, and mature in civil discussion. Politically, free speech allows us to seek change peacefully and respectfully. Enshrined in the First Amendment, the right to free speech binds us together as a nation. It should not be sacrificed to the virus of political correctness. b

SUMMER 2016

HUMOR HUMOR

Legislative Review

PHOTO COURTESY OSSEOUS

By Michael Duckett

SPRING 2016

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