THE ARCH CONSERVATIVE, Summer 2014

— SG Pg A C s. OV 2, ER 5, AG 14 E ,1 9 Summer 2014

Raising the Standard.

REPEAL & REPLACE Winning strategies from the GOP’s health wonks

by Brennan L. Mancil & John Henry Thompson

Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal

FOUR PAGES OF SENATE INFO INSIDE, p. 10

THE EDITORS

The ‘Debate Society’ SGA’s long climb back to credibility.

W

hen student Harold Mulherin ran for the positions of president, vice president and treasurer of student government in 1979, he preferred a different title: “The One-Man Abolitionist.” Mulherin ran on a single promise: To abolish SGA, which he felt was little more than a “debate society.”

The student body agreed, and Mulherin won in a run-off. After he was sworn into his three offices, his sole act as executivemonarch was to bring before the senate a resolution disbanding SGA. The SGA office was shuttered by April. The institution would not be brought back until 1987.

“It was ironic because SGA said it spoke for the students, and my episode showed that the members were mistaken,” Mulherin, who is currently a UGA finance professor, reminisced in 2007.

The same mistaken attitude prevails in student government today, although decades of flat-lined voter turnout and the lingering ghost of 1979 lead to once-yearly expressions of concern and soul-searching from prospective officeholders.

This year, the winning executive ticket, Drew-Jim-Brittany, won with the support of 4.2 percent of the student body, as expressed by the 1,459 votes cast in its favor.

The most votes garnered by any senate candidate was 192 to Senator-Elect Greg Sullivan of Franklin College. Senator-Elect Chloe Weigel of the School of Environment and Design was elected with two votes. Senator-Elect Allison McWhorter Anderson of the Odum School was elected with a total of one vote (her own, or a Good Samaritan’s? — We may never know). No candidate ran for senate from the College of Education, the College of Engineering, the Warnell School, the Graduate School and the Pharmacy School.

With a record like that, SGA should be concerned about its mandate. But for the grace of the Board of Regents, which requires all USG institutions to have some sort of student government, our SGA has no mandate.

When faced with these realities, SGA’s 2 / The Arch Conservative

defenders counter with an interesting inversion: Yes, while 95 percent of students do not care enough to vote in SGA elections, it is the fault of the students, not the government. Those ingrates.

This is the logic of a sovereign faced with riotous subjects. It assumes, first, that it is the students’ job to care about student government for better or for worse. Indifference on the part of students, then, is either irrational or an abdication of civic duty.

We take the contrary view that it is rational and right for students to ignore a student government that is both ineffectual and grandiose, just as it is rational and right

SGA said it spoke for the students, and my episode showed that the members were mistaken.

—Harold Mulherin, 1979 SGA President for the citizens of, say, Burkina Faso to ignore its unrepresentative regime.

The reason for SGA’s ignominy lies in its own actions. We do not know what senate meetings were like in 1979, but they cannot be much different from the “debate society” that meets today.

Case in point: In 2010, a group of SGA senators introduced a resolution that, had it passed, would have declared SGA’s support for the state of Israel. One of the bill’s sponsors, Anush Vinod, said the resolution was meant to demonstrate the importance of SGA. “We felt that this would push the organization forward, and we felt that this would get people talking and thinking about what SGA does,” Vinod said.

Case in point: In 2012, a group of SGA senators introduced a resolution that, had it passed, would have urged UGA administrators to kick the fast food chain Chick-Fil-A off campus because its elderly founder believes marriage is an exclusive

institution between one man and one woman. According to the resolution, this was tantamount to “spiritual violence” against gay individuals.

Case in point: In 2013, SGA passed a resolution concerning “marginalized groups” after an anonymous crazy posted nasty comments on the Facebook pages of the Black Affairs Council and LGBT Resource Center. The resolution’s original wording claimed that UGA culture — the culture of SGA’s constituents, no doubt abetted by publications such as The Arch Conservative — “encourages [hate speech] to occur.”

And SGA politicians wonder why students do not take them seriously.

The climb back to credibility will be long and steep for student government, but it can be done.

The incoming administration must commit to a constrained vision of SGA’s powers; it must match this commitment with modest rhetoric and modest proposals. The senate should not flack for Israel (Muppet news flash: Israel doesn’t need SGA’s support); it should not descend into psychobabble to push around nonagenarian restaurateurs; and it should not accuse its constituents, against all evidence, of swimming around in the deep end of a hateful culture.

Instead, SGA members should seek to be professional and efficient. They should go out of their way to speak with their constituents — all of them, not just the loud partisans. A modicum of interaction will yield a thousand complaints and uncontroversial suggestions about how SGA can improve campus. We wager that none of them will concern Chick-Fil-A. If SGA can prove itself competent with the small things, the administration may be willing to entrust it with large things.

Voter turnout for student government elections may never surpass that of the average third-world country. SGA needs to resign itself to that reality. But it doesn’t have to be a debate society.

—The Editors SUMMER 2014

Summer 2014 THE EDITORS

The ‘Debate Society’. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2

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

Putin Gets His Way

Seth Daniels .

Contraception and Conscience

Tristan Bagala.

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

FEATURES

Wide Open Senate Race Follow the Money

CULTURE

Yik Yak, Yuck!

. . . . . . . . . . 10

Tucker Boyce & Connor Kitchings

Davis Parker .

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

Elizabeth Ridgeway.

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

Reform Done Right

Brennan Mancil & John Henry Thompson .

Review: Things That Matter

14

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

Ryan Slauer

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

HUMOR

A Wild Night at the Obama Lounge

. . . . . . . . . 16

Colin Daniels

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

Document Leak: “Touch UGA” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

16

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

M. Blake Seitz,

EDITOR-IN-CHIEF

John Henry Thompson, Elizabeth Ridgeway,

COVER PHOTO COURTESY GAGE SKIDMORE

Davis Parker, WEB DESIGN David Sawyer

MANAGER

PUBLISHER

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

ON THE WEB: EMAIL:

ASSOCIATE EDITOR BUSINESS Meredith Pittman

GRAPHIC DESIGN Moira Fennell

CONTRIBUTORS Tristan Bagala

Pranay Udutha

Tucker Boyce Colin Daniels Seth Daniels

Chris Donaldson

Cole McFerren

Russell Dye

Nick McFerren

Houston Gaines

Pfeiffer Middleton

Sophie Giberga

Ryan Slauer

Connor Kitchings Rebel Lord Brennan L. Mancil

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 2014

The Arch Conservative / 3

CAMPUS

New senators need a helping hand.

W

ith fewer than 30 percent of SGA senators running and winning reelection this year, the executive branch needs to increase its assistance to inexperienced senators.

This has been tried in the past with the Director of Legislative Affairs. However, with only one person in this role, his abilities were stretched too thin among all the senators he was responsible for teaching. The executive branch, through an expanded Director of Legislative Affairs Office (not just one person, but a team) could provide a structured transition of senators into their new roles.

Until now, most senators have been given a title but few, if any, concrete jobs. Those who receive University Council seats will gain responsibilities and will attend meetings, through which they can get ideas to improve the student experience. Veteran senators will have their previous projects, as well as all the ideas presented at Senate meetings they attended this past year.

While freshmen senators may have a different perspective on their college career so far, they may not know how to take their experiences and turn them into policy recommendations. They also may not know how to navigate UGA’s labyrinthine administrative framework. A mentorship or partnership program in senate could help alleviate some of this confusion — senators are more likely to do their work if they have someone to guide them and hold them accountable.

— Pranay Udutha

Say Yes to the Dress Code A revealing “Georgia Feminists” blog post.

O

ne of the latest blog posts from the “Georgia Feminists,” the group advocating a Women’s Center on campus, declares war on the “War on Spandex.”

Author Missy Develvis haphazardly attacks new policies in middle schools prohibiting girls from wearing yoga pants or leggings to class because they are too “distracting” to the adolescent boys in their classes. Apparently, instituting a dress code in

4 / The Arch Conservative

About That $2,200 of Yours SGA Hecklers United checks in.

M

ere months after the creation of SGA Hecklers United (“For Immediate Release!,” Spring 2014), support is already flowing in from all over the state.

Requests for membership have been so overwhelming that SHU (pronounced “Shoo”) has exhausted its initial run of promotional literature, commemerative buttons and honorary rosettes.

The SHU Alumni Chapter sends its regards, as do the half-dozen SHU Youth Leagues run by the University’s prospective fee payers.

The fee problem is more pressing than ever. This year, students will pay over $2,200 apiece in mandatory student fees, an oppressive and regressive sum. We are sorry to report that the outgoing SGA executive did not relent in its drive to push through a fee hike. The attempted hike was, of course, a blatant departure from SGA’s traditionally-understood responsibility to protect UGA students from financial burden.

We will hold the incoming executive members, Drew, Jim and Brittany, to the No Fee Hike standard students expect from their elected representatives. You can be sure SGA Hecklers United is on the front lines of the battle for mandatory fee relief.

— The Chairman SGA Hecklers United

SUMMER 2014

KILROY WAS HERE.

Get SGA Moving

middle schools that ban leggings and yoga pants is perpetuating “rape culture.”

That’s a giant leap if ever I’ve seen one. Prohibitions on overly promiscuous clothing have always been part of middle school dress codes. Removing girls from class for short skirts and lowcut tops is not unheard of — nor is removing boys from class for sagging their pants to show their underwear. Yet suddenly removing girls from class for spandex is the work of the patriarchy? The author seems to imply that school administrators are creepy old men objectifying minors — at the very least that they are complicit in the brainwashing of our youth. The more likely explanation is more benign. Dress codes aren’t intended as discriminatory or arbitrary. They set a standard for what is and is not appropriate dress for school and, later, professional environments. That is a great lesson for middle schoolers to learn — particularly girls who wish to build a career for themselves.

In addition to the astronomical leaps made throughout the post, the author fails to make a real and convincing point. She simultaneously blames boys for their lack of self-control and attacks schools for reducing boys to mere animals.

Such shallow invective has become emblematic of the increasingly politicized Women’s Center push. The biggest issue with the Women’s Center “movement” is not that it is redundant and an inefficient use of University funds, though it is. The issue is the assumption that if you are not a supporter, you are against women.

And as a woman who is against the creation of a Women’s Center, I resent that assumption.

— Sophie Giberga

CAMPUS

SGA

S

WATCH

PHOTOS COURTESY DREW-JIM-BRITTANY AND BRIDGE UGA

pring is a beautiful time of year, imbued as it is with sunlight, rebirth and SGA elections. Before we get to the campaign, SGA Watch would like to thank the outgoing executive.

Embark served its constituents honorably, doggedly protecting their interests and never failing to speak out on their behalf. Granted, those constituents bore no resemblance to the student body as a whole. And true, those interests consisted of the progressive outrage du jour. And yes, the speaking out consisted of interjecting campus-left platitudes into meaningless debates. Regardless, they gave us funny material and will be dearly missed.

This semester’s campaign season was a relatively lowkey affair, with only two tickets, neither of which chose to advocate radical changes. Controversy was difficult to spot, though The Arch Conservative did report on allegations of favoritism by the Elections Committee. The one debate of the campaign was notable only for its overcaffeinated moderator and identical answers.

The eventual victors, Drew-Jim-Brittany, ran an excellent campaign. Their easily identifiable logo dominated social media, T-shirts and Greek housing banners. DJB strove to balance their image, focusing on substantive reform while retaining respect among campus leaders. The ticket wasn’t readily classifiable as either an insider or outsider team. Jim Thompson may be the quintessential campus insider, and the entire ticket has previous SGA involvement, but DJB made several nods toward changing business as usual. For one, they eschewed the frivolity inherent in a faux-inspirational campaign name. Furthermore, they focused on competence and detail, releasing a platform that combined conspicuously uncontroversial substance with problem-solving: Senate reform, expanded access to study abroad and other educational opportunities and budget transparency are a few core issues in the document. Nothing too groundbreaking, but here at SGA Watch it’s comforting to see a ticket that understands the limits of its rather puny power. Drew Jacoby

DJB: Hail the victorious.

SUMMER 2014

possesses a reassuring grasp of the scope of SGA’s impact on campus and what can be done on SGA’s end to improve our university. SGA Watch continues to harbor deep skepticism for SGA, its mandate and its relevance (see this edition’s editorial).

But we’re cautiously hopeful for the new leadership.

Meanwhile, Bridge UGA ran a campaign notable mainly for its inability to compete with DJB. Bridge (note the straightfrom-central-casting campaign name) was as ineffectual as DJB was visible. As the official ticket of Doing Big Things, Bridge proposed adding two graduation requirements, including one for a facilitated “diversity and leadership workshop.” Bridge seemed tepidly committed to the “tolerant but unwelcoming” view of campus championed by Embark, and proposed a remedy, added requirements, that would have increased costs and busywork for both students and the University. Bridge, ironically, was an outsider ticket that seemed to hew closely to the established SGA model, i.e., employing the senate as a playground of center-left advocacy and résumé padding. The first sentence of its platform, “Our campaign focuses on inclusivity,” sets the tone.

The erstwhile Bridge candidates are all respected campus leaders and good folks. However, Bridge’s blindness to its own ideological bias (à la Ezra Klein) was striking: The ticket saw itself as a non-partisan bunch sticking to the straight and narrow yet their campaign combined center-left foibles with an utter lack of establishment support, to negative effect. It is no surprise they started and ended the race a severe underdog.

Turnout in the election was again predictably meager. DJB won with less than 1,500 votes. Not by 1,500 votes. With 1,500 votes. Until SGA reassesses its mission and embraces humility and quiet efficiency over progressive agitation, this dreary trend will persist. It is our hope that DJB understands this.

Readers will be pleased to know that The Arch Conservative and SGA Watch are having an impact. SGA exec candidates have been held to account by a campus voice that speaks for the vast majority of the student body. One ticket even assured us that, if elected, they would eschew student fee hikes.

We’ve helped to burst the insular bubble of high self-regard that surrounds SGA. They had better get used to it.

—John Henry Thompson

Bridge UGA: An admirable attempt.

The Arch Conservative / 5

COLUMNS

Putin Gets His Way What now?

W

hen Russia annexed the Crimean peninsula amid public unrest and a transitioning government in Ukraine, the U.S. responded with a tsk and a wag of the finger. Condemnation of the invasion and false election was proclaimed by President Barack Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry, but more loudly broadcast was the United States’s weakness in the international arena and its unwillingness to do anything to rub Russia the wrong way.

The administration’s initial sanctions targeted about 20 individuals in the inner circles of the Russian and Crimean governments.

These unlucky few were devastated: They can no longer visit the United States — doubtful though it is they want to visit — and can no longer access the American bank accounts they never had. President Vladimir Putin and his cronies responded first with laughter, then by imposing similar sanctions of their own against House Speaker John Boehner and Senators John McCain and Harry Reid.

Meaningful action against the Kremlin has been difficult considering Russia’s dominance of the European energy market. Europe depends heavily on Russian natural gas, so Russia has only to threaten to cut off the gas if the E.U. or U.S. goes too far with its sanctions. Military action has also been taken off the table according the Seth Daniels is a junior studying political science. He is a regular contributor at The Arch Conservative.

6 / The Arch Conservative

President Obama’s own public statements.

While few condone igniting a third world war over Crimea, it is still unwise to tell the guy marching troops through Europe that you are afraid to do the same.

It seems there is little that can be done about Russia’s more recent flagrant aggres-

Tsk. sion. Western Europe’s green energy production cannot hope to fill the gap of its natural gas use. Shutting the pipes between Russia and Europe would be catastrophic for everyone, triggering both an energy and economic crisis throughout Europe.

If there was some way the U.S. could lessen Europe’s energy dependence, we could make a stronger stand against Russian aggression. But of course, to do that we should have invested in the necessary infrastructure years ago. The current administration has been unwilling to OK an oil pipeline from Alberta to Nebraska, much less a liquid natural gas (LNG) pipeline across the Atlantic. And of course, the EPA has been killing coal for years.

Other possible courses of action include efforts to mitigate Russian influence internationally. This crisis stemmed from a conflict of interest in Ukraine between citizens and elected officials that are pro-E.U.

versus those that are pro-Russia. That debate could have been avoided if Ukraine had been accepted into the North American Treaty Alliance (NATO), which it has vainly lobbied for membership despite meeting the requirements. Georgia, which defended itself against Russia in the 2008 Russo-Georgian war, likewise has sought NATO membership since the dissolution of the USSR, but was similarly denied.

Welcoming Ukraine into the treaty organization could deter further interference from Russia, but obligates the U.S. and other NATO allies to fight alongside Ukraine in the event of a declared war. With Russian troops currently amassing near the Ukrainian border, some as close as 50 miles from Kiev, that defense pact may not be a bluff we’re willing to make. Still, starting the process of membership for Ukraine may be enough to deter further aggression.

There is also the matter of Russian influence in the United Nations, where it is one of five permanent members of the Security Council. The council is charged with pursuing world peace, ostensibly to prevent atrocities like the Holocaust or Japanese invasion of Manchuria.

But today’s threats against peace aren’t coming from Germany and Japan. To paraphrase Mitt Romney’s 2012 statement, the biggest bully on the block today is Russia.

Between Russia’s 2008 invasion of Georgia, its support and defense of Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad and his vast stockpile of chemical weapons, and its recent annexation of Crimea and massing of troops near the Ukrainian border, clearly world peace is not at the top of Russia’s agenda.

Should Russian revaunchism continue, we must not hold sacred the remnants of a Faustian deal struck 70 years ago to overcome the crises of that time. There are new crises today, and Russia seems to be implicated in them all. If the United States wants to remain a strong force in the international arena, we cannot balk when an opponent makes a grab for power. n SUMMER 2014

COLUMNS

Contraception and Conscience Leave the nuns alone.

M

artin Luther, John Paul II, John Calvin and now the Little Sisters of the Poor, who stand before a federal court of appeals in the case Little Sisters of the Poor v. Sebelius, hold something else in common other than a belief in Jesus Christ: They all strongly condemned the use of artificial forms of contraception.

Almost every recorded Christian denomination, from the early Christians in Rome until the 1930s, has decried artificial contraceptive methods as contrary to God’s plan. When the Anglican Church defected in 1930, most major denominations followed suit — with the notable exception of the Roman Catholic Church.

Why hasn’t the Catholic Church chosen to “get with the times”? Why are the Little Sisters of the Poor willing to cease ministering health care to the poor before providing a few simple pills? The answer lies in 2,000 years of stout, unwavering theology that still provides religious fulfillment to many Catholics around the world.

To discuss Catholic teaching regarding contraceptives, one must first tackle the more momentous issue of what sex means in Catholicism.

According to Catholic theology, sex is among the most beautiful things God has given us on this Earth. In the confines of marriage, it is an act that gives humans a glimpse of God’s love for us all. It is a total gift of self between spouses and is the wedding vow made flesh. It is also, since the beginning of time, an act that serves a twofold function as unitive and procreative.

Thus, to separate either of those functions from the act demeans it and destroys the value of the gift; it transplants the act from the realm of cooperation with the Will of God — which is procreation and the total gift of self to spouse — into the Tristan Bagala is a freshman studying international affairs. He is a regular contributor to The Arch Conservative.

SUMMER 2014

realm of selfish pleasure, which bends with the winds of desire. Contraceptives, by nature, separate sex from both its spiritual and biological purpose; thus, the Catholic Church maintains her position against them.

To the Little Sisters of the Poor and the many Catholic dioceses around the country that stand against the recent HHS contraceptive mandate, providing contraceptive coverage violates a deeply-held religious principle.

These Catholic organizations are not attempting to bar women from purchasing contraceptives, nor are they trying to outlaw contraception. They are simply “staying out of the bedroom” in their private capacity, allowing others to purchase it for themselves if they so choose. Yet the government is telling them that they must provide “coverage” that is contrary to a religious creed 1,700 years its senior. The government, in this instance, is the aggressor.

Not the Church.

The stance of the Church is not only under attack from HHS, but also from entities beyond the borders of the West. The Catholic Church is unable to partner with many non-profit organizations in the developing world because these groups distribute contraceptives.

Rarely is any alternative to the method of attacking AIDS and other STDs discussed with any seriousness, but the data suggest that the health strategy currently in vogue (Step One: Proliferate prophylactics; Step Two: Hope for the best) does not create positive change.

For example, Zimbabwe has one of the highest condom use rates in Africa, yet following current trends, 30 percent of the country’s workforce will be lost to AIDS related deaths by 2020.

For the success of the antithesis one can point to Uganda, a country rarely cited in the discourse of non-profit giants like UNAIDS. In the 1980s, the Ugandan government took the counter-cultural position of pressing for abstinence and monogamous sexual relationships first, rather than allowing the country to be open season for exposure

to contemporary Western sexual mores.

Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni said, “We are being told that only a thin piece of rubber stands between us and the death of our Continent … they (condoms) cannot become the main means of stemming the tide of AIDS.” The government created an ad campaign based on the principles of “ABC” — the A and B were for Abstinence and monogamy (“Be Faithful”) with C standing for Condoms, if necessary. The focus was largely on the A and B, as abstinence rates rose dramatically during the campaign, along with great progress in curbing the country’s AIDS epidemic.

In 2009, a liberal Harvard anthropologist even wrote an editorial for The Washington Post titled “Condoms, HIV-AIDS and Africa — The Pope Was Right,” citing Uganda and other successes of an abstinence over contraceptive approach.

Thus, despite being outside of the realm of mainstream public discourse, dissent from the sexual revolution is spreading outside of the Catholic Church.

To the deeply-rooted, traditional Catholic, a life without contraceptives is not a call to archaic moralism — it is a call to see past one’s own desire for the sake of another. It is a staunch answer of “no” to the ideals of the sexual revolution and a rebuttal that true liberation exists when we are not slaves to our own sexual passions.

This is a calling the Little Sisters of the Poor seek to live out for themselves, without government intervention in the free services they provide to the poor. If one asked a Little Sister why she is a Catholic nun, I don’t believe contraception doctrine would be her answer.

Instead, she would talk about the beauty that she sees in serving the poor or the fulfillment she receives in Jesus Christ. When pressed on this particular issue, she could also talk about how a life without contraceptives is a beautiful part of her Christian walk. Just as when she serves the poor and her Christ, she seeks nothing other than to fulfill her vows and do right by her God. n

The Arch Conservative / 7

FEATURES

Wide Open

Senate Race GOP candidates race for the primary.

by TUCKER BOYCE &

CONNOR KITCHINGS

With the retirement of U.S. Senator Saxby Chambliss, the Republican primary field is open to a mix of current congressmen, private sector outsiders and other wellknown names jockeying for the position.

The race has already received national attention as a critical battle in the GOP’s effort to retake the Senate in the midterm elections. The primary on May 20 will decide which Republican will take on the allbut-official Democratic candidate Michelle Nunn in the general election.

Shifting demographics and public opinion raise the possibility that Georgia may elect a Democratic senator for the first time since 2005, when Senator Zell Miller retired. These demographic changes, along with a healthy amount of funding from the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, have led some analysts to change projections for the race from “Leaning Republican” to “Toss-up.” This includes the Cook Political Report, an agency that specializes in classifying races. Data cruncher Nate Silver of fivethirtyeight.com says the GOP has a 70 percent chance of holding the seat. Nunn is uninspiring (some would say boring — and they’d be justified) and a predictably technocratic liberal. Nonetheless, polls show a competitive race with any of the GOP candidates.

Five Republicans are in the hunt for a primary win, though there is no clear frontrunner due to a lack of consistent polling and mixed results from straw polls and state-wide polling data. Three current Congressmen, Jack Kingston from the 1st Tucker Boyce is a freshman studying international business and management.

Connor Kitchings is a freshman studying political science and economics.

10 / The Arch Conservative

District, Paul Broun from the 10th and Phil Gingrey from the 11th, are vying for the “true conservative” mantle and defending their records in Congress from attack.

Two outsiders with high name recognition, former Georgia Secretary of State Karen Handel and businessman David Perdue (of the Perdue family), are running as outsiders willing to change the establishment ways of Washington.

Mr. Perdue, Rep. Kingston and Rep. Broun lead in the most recent polls, but specifics have been spotty. Roughly 30 percent of voters remain undecided, and their support will be critical to decide who will face Ms. Nunn in November.

Debates held thus far have led to clashes over the voting records of Kingston, Broun and Gingrey centering around their involvement (some say complicity) in allowing wasteful spending. Handel and Perdue both tout their experience working in the private and non-profit sectors, arguing that an outsider from Georgia can start fresh in D.C. On this election cycle’s pressing issues, the candidates largely speak with one voice.

All five stress the importance of repealing the Affordable Care Act (though their knowledge of and commitment to replacing the law has been suspect in some cases), cutting government spending and revising the tax structure.

The highly conservative nature of the slate of candidates is most striking when these similarites are examined: All support adopting a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution and passing comprehensive reform of the uncompetitive federal tax code.

The candidates differ most distinctly on specific state-related proposals, although those have taken a back seat to national issues popular with primary voters. As unfortunate as this focus on rhetorical

posturing may be, it is the situation conservatives find themselves in.

As the primary approaches, we will most likely see two main narrative shifts.

First, the field will begin to narrow, as will each candidates’ line of attack against the remaining challengers. Which candidate will survive the heat is an unanswerable question which will have much to do with the amount of funding available to inundate voters with TV and radio spots just before May 20.

Second, there will be all-important polling to determine each candidates’ chances against Michelle Nunn. Concern has risen since last year as polling data show an increasingly close race in the general election.

Because the primary campaign has been a race to the right, unifying the Georgia GOP will be crucial to victory in the general election battle.

Right now, Republican primary voters have a variety of choices — choices that will ultimately be the difference between a Republican win or loss in November. We provide brief profiles of each candidate so you can enter the polling booth with confidence next month.

Jack Kingston Elected to the Georgia General Assembly in 1984, Representative Jack Kingston is the longest serving politician in the primary. He served in the General Assembly for eight years before resigning to run for Congress in Georgia’s 1st District in 1992.

At the time, conservative Democrats in the South were transitioning party affiliation, and Kingston was among the first conservative Republicans elected to Congress from Georgia. Instead of taking a spot on the national stage, Kingston has preferred to keep his sights on the issues SUMMER 2014

FEATURES

of his district, returning from Washington each week in order to stay connected with his constituents. This strong connection to his constituency has allowed Kingston to be the leading campaign fundraiser in the primary.

“We’ve got to change the Senate and put pro-business Senators in there. I have a business background, I have a voting record that shows I’m very strong on private job creation...”

Jack Kingston

On the issues, Jack Kingston is a staunch fiscal and social conservative. He — along with Gingrey and Broun — has signed the Taxpayer Protection Pledge which promises to oppose tax increases, and also cosponsored legislation that would add a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution to rein in the $17 trillion national debt. Kingston has co-sponsored legislation to guarantee that no taxpayer money can fund abortion.

Kingston has repeatedly supported and co-sponsored legislation that amends or repeals the Affordable Care Act and supports enacting conservative health care reforms such as expanded health savings accounts and medical liability reform.

Kingston’s stance on immigration reform doesn’t embrace amnesty for illegal immigrants in America. Instead, he advocates upgrades to the current visa program as well as increased border security.

Kingston has taken flack from more outspoken conservatives in the race. Although

his record is as conservative as they come, his more soft-spoken, conciliatory approach opens him up to such attacks.

Kingston currently serves on the House Committee on Appropriations and the conservative Republican Study Committee.

Phil Gingrey

Representative Phil Gingrey has served as the representative of Georgia’s 11th District since 2003.

Before serving in Congress, Phil Gingrey practiced medicine for over 25 years: After graduating from Georgia Tech and attending medical school at the Medical College of Georgia, Gingrey moved his family to Marietta and opened an OB/ GYN practice. In his first foray into politics in 1993, Gingrey was elected to the Marietta School Board, serving as chairman for three out of four years. From 1999 until his election to the House of Representatives in 2002, he served in the Georgia State Senate.

Most Recent Polls =Landmark/Rosetta

30

=11Alive

=The Polling Company

20

GRAPHIC BY MOIRA FENNELL

10

Perdue SUMMER 2014

Kingston

Gingrey

Broun

Handel

Undecided The Arch Conservative / 11

FEATURES

On the issues, Gingrey is known for his social conservatism, but he has a very strong record on fiscal conservatism as well.

Like Kingston, he has co-sponsored legislation that would permanently restrict

“I feel very strongly that the Senate needs some strong individuals who won’t sacrifice their principles… [who] will work for the common good, and who have the temperament and the knowledge and the personality to represent this great state of Georgia.”

Obamacare. Gingrey’s campaign emphasizes that his medical practice experience lends him credibility on the health reform issue, although he hasn’t outlined a reform plan along the lines of Georgia Representative Tom Price’s Empowering Patients First Act (H.R. 3200).

Gingrey supports adding a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution.

He has co-sponsored a bill to institute FairTax, a national consumption tax that has taken criticism from left and right.

Gingrey currently serves on the House Committee on Energy and Commerce and the House Committee on House Administration.

David Perdue

federal funding of abortion; he has also cosponsored bills that would prohibit abortion occurring after 20 weeks’ gestation.

On immigration reform, Gingrey disavows amnesty and believes that all immigrants should learn to speak English.

He has co-sponsored numerous bills to either significantly amend or repeal

Perdue is largely credited with the revival of the Reebok sneaker brand and the expansion of Dollar General, which increased its presence from 5,900 to 8,500 stores under his leadership. Since leaving Dollar General in 2007, Perdue has returned to Georgia to pursue his newest goal. In 2010, he was appointed to his first public office, board member of the Georgia Ports Authority.

Amount Raised by Candidate As of 12/31/2013 www.opensecrets.org

ston

ng JackKi

erdue DavidP

12 / The Arch Conservative

grey

PhilGin

=$500,000

un

o PaulBr

“America is at a crossroads… career politicians created the current crisis and we cannot trust them to fix it.”

David Perdue

David Perdue, cousin of former Republican Governor Sonny Perdue, has spent his career in the private sector. The former Reebok and Dollar General CEO is using his background in business to his advantage by distancing himself from his opponents, each of whom has political experience.

Phil Gingrey

A Georgia Tech alumnus, Perdue is the current trustee and treasurer of the Georgia Tech Foundation. He is also a member of the Board of Directors for five corporations and is co-founders of Perdue Partners, an Atlanta-based global trading firm.

David Perdue’s campaign focuses on Washington’s finances and wrongheaded policies toward job creation and growth.

ndel

a KarenH

He lays these failures at the feet of “career politicans” in an effort to differentiate himself. Perdue’s outsider image has been echoed in campaign ads depicting his opponents as infants running amok in the nation’s capitol.

Perdue believes in comprehensive tax reform to promote economic growth and has spoken in support of the private sector as the best vehicle for revitalizing American enterprise. He supports the repeal of Obamacare and immigration reform that emphasizes border security.

Should Perdue win the election in November, he will be the first Georgian since 1980 to win a Senate seat with no previous electoral experience.

Paul Broun

Representative Paul Broun is a name that many people around the country, and especially in Georgia, have heard before. Broun has served in Congress for seven years.

After graduating from the University of Georgia and the Medical College of Georgia, Broun spent 40 years serving as a family and emergency physician. Moreover, Broun was commissioned as a medical officer in the Navy and continues to serve in the U.S. Navy Reserves.

Broun is no stranger to campaigns, as he ran unsuccessfully for a U.S. House seat in 1990 and 1992 and a U.S. Senate seat in 1996 before finally winning a spot in the House n n leNu in 2007. Broun currently serves on Michel SUMMER 2014

FEATURES

the House Committee on Homeland Security and the Committee on Science and Technology.

A strict conservative, Paul Broun has received endorsements from the party’s populist wing, including Citizens United and Ron Paul. Broun has co-sponsored legislation that would fully repeal Obamacare and supports conservative alternatives such as expanded health savings accounts and 100 percent tax deductibility for health care expenditures.

Broun has has co-sponsored a bill that would add a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution. He is also a co-sponsor to the JOBS Act, which would, among other things, eliminate the corporate and capital gains taxes in an attempt to jump-start capital investment.

“The Constitution I uphold and defend is the one I carry in my pocket all the time, the U.S. Constitution. I don’t know what Constitution that other members of Congress uphold, but it’s not this one.”

County Board of Commissioners in 2003, Handel earned statewide recognition for taking a $100 million deficit and turning it into a surplus without any tax increases.

In 2007, she was elected as the first Republican Secretary of State in Georgia’s history, but resigned her position two years later to run for governor. She would eventually lose the primary nomination to incumbant Governor Nathan Deal by roughly 2,500 votes.

After leaving public office, Handel was appointed senior vice president of public policy at Susan G. Komen, a non-profit dedicated to fighting breast cancer. During her tenure at Komen, Handel became embroiled in controversy after she announced the organization’s intention to cease funding Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest provider of abortions. In the face of backlash from Planned Parenthood and allied groups, Komen reversed its decision.

Handel resigned not long after. She has since written a book about her experiences called Planned Bullyhood.

Karen Handel believes that the federal government has exceeded its authority over citizens’ lives. She is a fierce advocate of decentralization of power in order to give citizens more input into how they are governed. Promoting American energy development has been a centerpiece of her platform. Handel backs a full repeal of

“The GOP needs a strong contender like Karen Handel.

She is the conservative candidate who can win this race and hold this seat for the GOP. ” Sarah Palin endorsement of Karen Handel Obamacare and supports Price’s H.R. 3200 as an alternative. Price’s plan would reform medical malpractice law, allow health insurance to be sold over state lines and expand health savings accounts.

Like many other candidates, Handel has voiced support for a Balanced Budget Amendment and supports scaling back government spending. To this end, she advocates cutting 1 cent from every $5 spent for the next 5 years. To make taxes simpler, Handel supports the FairTax. On immigration, she believes that America must secure its border and not provide amnesty.

If Georgians decide that none of the congressmen deserve a promotion, then Handel may be a comfortable pick. n

Paul Broun

GRAPHICS BY MOIRA FENNELL

Broun, a pro-life advocate, has supported bills that restrict abortion, such as prohibiting federal funding for abortion and prohibiting elective abortion based on sex or race.

Many question Broun’s electability in a race with against Nunn, who is uncontroversial by comparison. Broun counters these charges, claiming that Georgian voters thirst for a bold defense of the Constitution, not a milquetoast imitation of the left.

The people of Georgia may not always expect what Rep. Broun will say next, but they will always know where his convictions lie.

Landmark/ Rosetta Poll 3/23-24/2014 — sample 600

Broun (15%) Handel (10%) Undecided (24%) Perdue (21%) Kingston (15%) Gingrey (13%)

Karen Handel Karen Handel has been a major figure in Georgia politics for more than a decade.

First elected as chairman of the Fulton SUMMER 2014

The Arch Conservative / 13

FEATURES

Follow the Money Into the murky unknown of student fees.

by DAVIS PARKER

I

will admit I’m disappointed by the narrowness of this piece. A few weeks ago, as I began thinking about the allocation of student fees, I became determined to excavate and examine every penny paid by UGA students last year, a figure worth well over $50 million.

Yet as I began my search for the numbers, I was ping-ponged back-and-forth from one administrative office to the next: The Office of the President directed me to Student Affairs, which directed me to Business Services, which directed me to the Bursar’s Office which sent me back to the Office of Student Affairs.

No one, it seems, knew the whereabouts of more than $50 million in student fees. Startling though it was, I found the ubiquitous lack of information to be emblematic of bureaucracy at every level.

As progressed stalled, I decided to call off the chase and sink my teeth into a smaller, albeit juicier, piece of the financial pie: The student activity fee. For those unfamiliar with the mandatory fees UGA charges students each semester, the student activities fee is a $78 charge that “provides free or reduced price admission to programs provided by the Department of Student Activities such as concerts, lectures, movies and participation in intramural and other academically related student clubs and organizations.”

The yearly revenue of the student activities fee is between $5 and $5.5 million, and of that amount 61 Davis Parker is Associate Editor of The Arch Conservative.

14 / The Arch Conservative

Disapproval. percent is allocated to the salaries and benefits of administrative staff in the Tate Student Center, Memorial Hall and a host of other departments.

The remaining 39 percent goes toward programming, a catchall term that includes student events, organizations and activities. After a batch of other deductions and payments, the All-Campus Allocation Committee is left with $1,721,321 to disperse among student organizations.

The All-Campus Allocation Committee is comprised of the SGA Treasurer, five senators and five regular UGA students.

This committee is the final arbiter on the allocation of nearly $2 million in fees.

Last year, it allocated money to 45

different organizations ranging from the debate team to Volunteer UGA. Many of these organizations provide daily services to the UGA student body. Programs like the Collegiate Readership Program, Club Sports, WUOG 90.5 FM and the Redcoat band all receive between $50,000 and $125,000 in funding.

Similarly, there is a smorgasbord of smaller, more diverse organizations that receive between $5,000 and $50,000 in funding.

This group includes the Black Theatrical Ensemble, the Pamoja Dance Company, Outdoor Trips and Clinics (GORP), the AsianAmerican Student Association and many other organizations.

The two most intriguing parts of the All-Campus Allocation budget are the portions allocated to the University Union and “small clubs.”

The University Union is an organization comprised of seven different divisions: Cinematic Arts, Committee for Black Cultural Programming, Dawgs After Dark, Entertainment, Homecoming, Ideas & Issues and Promotions. Union can best be described as the white whale of All-Campus Allocation. Between its seven divisions, it received $651,832 during the 2013-14 school year; its most expensive program, Dawgs After Dark, received an astronomical $290,000, over twice the amount of money allocated to the second-most expensive program. While these programs provide value to the UGA community, it seems inequitable when one organization captures over one-third of allocated fees.

Similar to University Union in its intrigue is the $10,000 destined for Small Clubs Allocation. Registered through the SUMMER 2014

FEATURES

Center for Student Organizations, these groups, which number over 500, satisfy the niche interests of UGA students and enrich our campus with passion and purpose.

They are the lifeblood of UGA’s extracurricular identity. Examples of small clubs include The Accidentals, UGA’s premier all-male A Cappella ensemble, the Lunchbox Garden Project, a grassroots initiative that seeks to encourage food literacy among elementary-age students, and UGA MathCounts, an organization that tutors and arranges math tournaments for middle school students.

Despite their terrific work, small clubs are dreadfully underserved by the AllCampus Allocation Committee, receiving barely one-half of one percent of the total budget. To make matters worse, these funds are incredibly hard to secure — many organizations do not bother applying.

To be considered worthy of funding, small clubs must apply through the Small Clubs Allocation process, an opaque undertaking that includes a written application and 10- to 15-minute presentation in front of the Small Clubs Allocation Committee.

Unsurprisingly, as the committee is an arm of student government, these meetings are chronically behind schedule, poorly organized, full of redundant questions and staffed by noticeably-underprepared

committee members. The committee has even been known to get applicants’ names wrong in rejection emails, adding further insult to injury.

Yet what seems to be the most frustrating aspect of the process is the committee’s interpretation and implementation of guidelines governing the allocations, such as the stipulation that funds cannot be used to purchase food. Off the cuff, this regulation may seem valuable and fair — who wants their fees going towards someone else’s pizza party? — but in practice it is burdensome to small organizations. The aforementioned Lunchbox Garden Project, for example, is ineligible for funds because it would use some of the money to buy vegetable seeds and ingredients for cooking lessons.

This regulatory frivolity is more the rule than the exception, and it vexes applicants and board members alike. “I’m frustrated with what seems like the arbitrary allocation of small clubs money,” said a board member who wished to remain anonymous. “A group might ask for $800 to attend a conference, but we give them $500.

Not because we can’t afford it, but the committee felt like only two students needed to go. It is a circus that can be confusing and irritating for all parties involved.”

So what can small clubs do to circumvent the administrative albatross that is the

Small Clubs Allocation Committee and go straight to All-Campus? As fortune would have it, all organizations must go through two years of Small Clubs Allocation in order to be eligible for All-Campus funding.

It should not come as a shock that many organizations choose to forego this process altogether and seek funding through Kickstarter campaigns, grant applications and private fundraising initiatives.

The unwieldy Small Clubs Allocation process thus serves as a barrier to entry for fledgling clubs who need funding to serve students’ interests. It supports bigger, less efficient organizations like University Union at the expense of smaller clubs that may be better run and have greater potential.

At a university where students pay over $2,200 in fees every school year, it is a shame that only $0.30 of that money goes toward the enrichment of student experiences through small clubs, while nearly 30 times that amount is allocated to selectively-attended events like Dawgs After Dark.

Hopefully, campus leaders will take a step back to reexamine and reorganize processes like All-Campus and Small-Clubs Allocations in order to better serve student interests, foster community involvement and promote opportunity for all student organizations. n

Join the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy.

Write for

The ARCH

Raising the Standard

CONSERVATIVE Contact M. Blake Seitz, Editor-in-Chief, at

archconuga@gmail.com

SUMMER 2014

The Arch Conservative / 15

FEATURES

Reform Done Right Conservative alternatives to a health care nightmare.

by BRENNAN MANCIL & JOHN HENRY THOMPSON

H

ouse Republicans have voted 37 times to fully repeal the Affordable Care Act, popularly known as Obamacare. Until the balance of power in Washington changes, this strategy will not succeed. Nonetheless, the law must be opposed.

The Affordable Care Act is based on a set of conjectures and policy mechanisms that will continue to fail the American consumer. Premium hikes will continue as the left’s focus on expanded coverage ignores rising costs; according to the Congressional Budge Office, premiums on the individual market will cost an additional $2,100 per family per year as a result. Roughly 4.7 million individuals have been booted out of their old insurance plan, exposing the president’s duplicitous defense of the law.

The law’s most zealous defenders rally around its dramatic expansion of Medicaid coverage, but even that is a fig leaf. Avik Roy of the Manhattan Institute has written extensively about the health outcomes of Medicaid recipients, and the results are clear: Medicaid fails poor Americans. Measurable health outcomes with and without the program are indistinguishable. Expanding Medicaid merely traps the poor in a decrepit system without addressing structural health care delivery problems.

How to address these structural problems? That is the question facing policymakers. First, it must be established that the health care system before Obamacare was far from a free market. Yuval Levin of the Ethics and Public Policy Center and Ramesh Ponnuru of the American Enterprise Institute write that the pre-ACA system “consisted chiefly of massive and inefficient entitlements that threaten to Brennan Mancil is a freshman studying political science and international affairs.

John Henry Thompson is Manager of The Arch Conservative.

16 / The Arch Conservative

bankrupt the nation; the lopsided tax treatment of employer-provided coverage that creates incentives for waste and overspending; and an underdeveloped individual market struggling to fill the gaps.” Simply repealing Obamacare to go back to this system should be a non-starter for supporters of the market. With $750 billion spent on Medicare and Medicaid in 2012, and another $200 billion in tax expenditures (primarily tax exclusion of employer-provided health insurance), the government has had a significant role in health care since World War II. The debate over that involvement, its efficacy and its future, is far from over.

Conservatives have an edge in health care policy because they understand that the market for health care, while complex, is still subject to the market forces at work in any economy. Treating it in any other way does not make the system more consumer friendly but rather prevents the best economic outcomes. Information asymmetries can exist, but conservatives trust the consumer, here the patient, more than central planners. Those seeking health care have a better grasp of their needs than HHS employees in Washington.

Furthermore, the left has for decades been focused on the wrong health care battle. In their pursuit of expanded coverage, they have become blind to the importance of health care quality and costs. As Medicaid shows, expanding coverage is not the same as improving health outcomes. Skyrocketing health care costs, for their part, threaten the economy and the financial standing of millions of Americans.

The conservative approach to health care reform is patient-centered, comprised less of policy machinery at HHS and more of individual choice. Pursuing reform that empowers consumers, lowers costs and treats health care as a product in a marketplace will inevitably expand coverage.

That’s where conservative alternatives

come in. A survey of conservative health policy proposals reveals the fundamentals of a limited-government approach.

Levin and Ponnuru propose the creation of a tax credit that would allow households to purchase catastrophic insurance coverage with the potential to add supplementary insurance. These credits would create competition between private insurance providers, driving down the cost of catastrophic coverage. Catastrophic coverage, in turn, would mitigate the costs of major health crises that can bankrupt poor consumers. Recipients would be able to buy coverage in the private market up to the amount of the credit.

Other conservative analysts focus on reforming existing government policies.

James Capretta of the Ethics and Public Policy Center and Robert Moffit of the Heritage Foundation, writing in the journal National Affairs, acknowledge that the GOP must have a plan ready if an opportunity arises to reform entitlements. The “cost explosion” of the employer-provided health insurance tax exclusion and Medicaid’s focus on quantity over quality demand reform. They propose a cost-cutting overhaul of Medicaid’s payment structure and advocate transforming Medicare into a premium-support system with a standard federal contribution for beneficiaries to choose from a list of programs.

Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal, who formerly served as the youngest-ever secretary of the state’s Department of Health & Hospitals, recently released his plan through America Next, the policy advocacy shop he chairs. The Freedom and Empowerment Plan centers around three principles: Lowering costs, protecting society’s most vulnerable members and increasing portability and choice for consumers.

Lowering costs is by far the most salient issue of reform. In 2010, the ACA was sold to middle-class Americans with the SUMMER 2014

FEATURES

promise that it would “bend the cost curve down.” The opposite has occurred. To address this issue, Jindal’s plan would first replace the employer-provided health insurance tax exclusion, which fuels waste by giving employers an incentive to oversupply health benefits (which are not taxed) in lieu of cash wages (which are). The exclusion would be replaced with a standard deduction for all forms of health insurance, creating parity between the individual and employer insurance marketplaces. This tax deduction would be refundable to the full amount of the deduction, giving recipients incentive to shop for good deals — the difference between the amount they spend on care and the deduction amount will still be applied to lower their tax burden.

As an added measure, consumers will be given access to Consumer Reports-style rating systems to help make price-competitive decisions. This measure alone could save up to $105 billion annually.

An additional cost-dampening measure is the proposed expansion of Health Savings Accounts, which couple high-deductible, low premium health plans with a taxfree savings account for medical spending.

These accounts would be supplemented with employer-provided “wellness incentives” for healthy behavior, a preventative care model that has reduced health care costs for companies like Safeway Inc. The proposed deduction would only benefit individuals with tax liabilities, so Jindal’s plan proposes other measures to help poor and otherwise vulnerable individuals. Notably, a $100 billion block grant program will be made available to the states so they can subsidize the health insurance purchases of poor residents.

Jindal acknowledges the problem of preexisting conditions, but points out that it is not nearly as widespread as the Obama administration advertises. Rather than tackle the problem with a federal high-risk pool, as Obamacare has sought to do without success, his solution is to create an additional “incentive pool” of money for states to find the best means to cover those with pre-existing conditions.

The plan proposes reforms to Medicare and Medicaid, the unwieldy federal programs that provide coverage to the elderly and indigent. During the Clinton administration, Jindal directed a bipartisan commission on Medicare reform that recommended the program transition to a premium-support model, which would SUMMER 2014

give the elderly access to a wide variety of plans. Recipients would be given the opportunity to sign up for plans in the private market, further increasing choice and competition. The Freedom and Empowerment Plan revives this proposal. The CBO estimated such a reform would reduce Medicare spending by $15 billion per year while also reducing out-of-pocket spending by seniors. As for Medicaid, the plan proposes to replace the 1:1 federal matching of funds to reduce overspending by the states. Funding would transition to a “global grant system” which would provide a fixed amount of money to states with no strings attached. This system would give states the flexibility to find better means of improving health outcomes for the poor.

In addition to its wonky preoccupation with federalist solutions and incentives, Jindal’s plan includes an ethical dimension.

For instance, it includes a permanent ban on federal funding for abortions to replace the Hyde Amendment rider. Additionally, the plan would institute conscience protections for medical providers and businesses to preempt bureaucratic abuses like the HHS contraceptive mandate.

Jindal has compiled an excellent ACA alternative, rooted squarely in the common-sense world of economic incentives.

Another detailed plan is the Patient Choice, Affordability, Responsibility and Empowerment Act (CARE Act) sponsored

by Senators Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) and Richard Burr (RN.C.). Many of their ideas are similar to Jindal’s including a health tax break, highrisk pools for patients with chronic conditions, Medicaid reform and tort reform.

A few key differences set the CARE Act apart from alternatives. It does not propose eliminating the employer-provided tax exclusion. Rather, their plan caps the exclusion at 65 percent of employers’ costs. In the individual marketplace, a tiered system measuring income relative to the federal poverty level would be created to give staggered tax credits to individuals and families. As age increases, the credit grows.

Poor individuals would be eligible to receive the refundable tax credit, but the plan would make a reformed Medicaid option available as well. States would receive a capped allotment of Medicaid dollars to ensure the system’s sustainability. This money would be earmarked to follow individual patients (much like a voucher) rather than being doled out in a lump sum

The conservative approach to health care reform is patientcentered, comprised less of policy machinery at HHS and more of individual choice. to states. This change would be facilitated by the creation of Health Opportunity Accounts, a variation of HSAs that would be made available to Medicaid recipients.

Some critics on the right have criticized the CARE Act as Obamacare-lite, but their criticism is misplaced. While there are similarities, the CARE Act embraces the conservative view of health care reform articulated by Levin: “We empower the dispersed social knowledge of market actors to try out different approaches and find what works — allowing sellers to try different forms of the insurance product, allowing consumers to choose among them, and arriving that way at something like an effective balance between quality and price.”

The CARE Act posits that the individual mandate’s central planning is unnecessary if insurance is made more flexible (insurers can produce products more tailored to consumer preferences), cheaper (through subsidies) and tied to health status (guaranteeing premium stability in the case of illness). Reihan Salam of the R Street Institute analyzed the CARE Act and found it would be an improvement over the preACA system, but Thomas Miller of AEI cautions that its overbroad vision “remains tactical rather than strategic.”

Clearly, common threads bind the several reforms we have mentioned. Greater emphasis on autonomy will enable states to govern in a way congruent with their unique circumstances and political cultures. Medicaid and Medicare reforms are accepted as necessary, with premiumsupport the solution of choice. Finally, the plans seek to grant consumers the ability to make decisions regarding their own health rather than limiting their options.

These alternatives provide the groundwork necessary to make substantive improvements. Conservatives must advocate a principled and pragmatic approach to health care. They are well suited to do so. n

The Arch Conservative / 17

Yik Yak, Yuck With anonymity comes vulgarity.

I

n the Himalayas, yaks weep at the folly of humanity. Don’t call PETA, though.

Everest may be cold, but it is nothing compared to the icy tundra of online anonymity.

I speak of the popular social media application Yik Yak, which displays posts created within a five-mile radius of the user’s location. Users then up- and down-vote posts to curate the app’s feed. Initially created to spread word of local parties, so far Yik Yak has gone below and beyond its intended purpose. Any help it offers thirsty college students has quickly been obscured obscenities — not to mention a spate of cyberbullying incidents.

Why the descent? How did a seemingly innocuous app spiral into a forum for personal grievances and private fantasies, no matter how lewd or hurtful? In the words of Yik Yak’s creators: “No profiles, no passwords, it’s all anonymous.”

Anonymity has varied results. Tamer posts from near campus sneer at rivals (“In Atlanta, Tech was using [Yik Yak] to set up study sessions”) and complain bitterly (“If you get to Cane’s and you don’t know what you’re ordering already I hate you”). Then there is the abundance of more R-rated content which will not be reprinted here.

More troubling than Yik Yak’s college users are the junior and senior high students who have exploited Yik Yak to exchange personal gossip. As reported by Nick Elizabeth Ridgeway is a sophomore studying Latin, Greek and Classical Culture. She is Publisher of The Arch Conservative.

16 / The Arch Conservative

Valencia of CNN, some of these younger users have gone so far as to taunt a victim of rape on the app’s public feed and to plant false bomb threats, prompting school lockdowns. Yik Yak founders Brooks Buffington and Tyler Droll are working to prevent minors’ access to Yik Yak by geolocating and blocking secondary schools. Nevertheless, such tinkering will merely polish — not remove — the app’s fatal flaw.

Yik Yak veers into dangerous transhumanism, distorting communication by disregarding natural limitations. Transhumanism attempts to enhance the human condition with technology intended to make us better, smarter, faster, stronger — a sophisticated cyborg vision. Essentially, the app grants superpowers: Users have the

There are good reasons why people don’t go around telling each other their intimate thoughts.

—Audrey Rouget, Metropolitan ability to read the thoughts of those around them without any immediate record that they have viewed the posts or made a few comments themselves.

Buffington and Droll exalt this anonymity as freeing: “Your popularity, race, gender, sexuality, and looks don’t mean anything on Yik Yak … The only thing you are judged on is the content that you have created, nothing else.” There is a reason why we had to create software to give us this invisibility, however. In our yearning for intimate communication without personal interaction, Yik Yak has unearthed the Balrog that is complete frankness.

Please understand — to the extent that Yik Yak actually advances the principle that we should know our neighbors by their character, not by their ethnic background or social class, it is useful. However, the mechanism of the app does not promote this good so much as it enhances our ability to speak without consequence.

The knowledge that we will not be held

personally responsible for our words and actions is dangerously enticing to the baser elements of human nature. History has proved this many a time in rulers whose absolute power tempted them to profligacy and injustice: Saul, Nero, Henry VIII. As character Audrey Rouget notes plaintively in Whit Stillman’s classic film Metropolitan, “There are good reasons why people don’t go around telling each other their most intimate thoughts … People see the harm that excessive candor can do.”

In short, Yik Yak’s developers made a false statement. On Yik Yak, you are not “judged by the content you create” — because no one knows it’s you. Your relationships, your studies, your hobbies and your job are not linked to the personal sneer you posted or the illicit quip you just voted up.

Is anonymity always detrimental? Certainly not. Anonymity can indeed “level the playing field” if accompanied by an appropriate form of expression. With its 200-character limit, Yik Yak’s posting apparatus does not provide that. Instead, the app’s design panders to our love of ease.

Long-form writing elevates human communication, forcing us to express thoughts clearly and with nuance. The process is difficult, however — much easier and faster to jot down a quick thought on anything or anyone, post it, then continue with our lives. Writing more than that is a slow process which gives us time to consider whether our thoughts actually merit expression.

Hiding behind the unnatural anonymity of an iPhone app will not strengthen any community. Though it cloaks itself in lofty language, by disregarding natural boundaries of private thought and personal responsibility Yik Yak plays to its audiences’ worst qualities. When abused, the app cheapens one of the most complex, necessary and potentially beautiful elements of the human experience: communication. It is the face-to-face conversations and meetups that social media platforms can facilitate which will elevate the soul.

I’ll let the app have the last word. A recent (joking) Yak illumines the flimsiness of its biggest selling point: “To all Yik Yak users: All past geolocation data, posts, and user IDs’ have been obtained by the Federal Bureau of Investigations and are pending review. All future data will be monitored.”

Complete anonymity, as ever, is impossible to attain — just like words without consequences. n SUMMER 2014

PHOTO COURTESY OF YIK YAK.

CULTURE

CULTURE

Things That Matter Krauthammer entertains and enlightens.

W

The Doctor is in.

hat matters? A Tale of Two Cities, downtown Athens on a beautiful afternoon, long runs, a leather chair with an Old Fashioned and a fireplace, dusty tomes and good food with good people.

What matters? Probing questions: Should we experiment with human embryos? Why the rise of the antihero in entertainment?

These things occupy my leisure — they are my luxuries. Luxuries aren’t natural, in a Hobbesian sense. They are made possible by politics and they must yield to politics, but they will always be more meaningful than politics. Politics is just a means to an end. It is an intermediate good.

Such is the takeaway from Dr. Charles Krauthammer’s book, Things That Matter.

Earlier in life, Krauthammer originally intended to write about everything but politics, but ultimately decided it just wasn’t Ryan Slauer is a premed senior studying economics an Latin. He is a regular contributor to The Arch Conservative.

SUMMER 2014

possible. Everything lives and dies by it.

“You can have the most advanced and efflorescent of cultures. Get your politics wrong, however, and everything stands to be swept away. This is not ancient history.

This is Germany 1933.”

It can also prevent the resurgence of a formerly efflorescent culture. This is the German Democratic Republic.

Things That Matter is a collection of articles and essays both cultural and political.

It is an entertaining and enlightening read; only from Krauthammer can one learn about robots playing chess, the finer uses of the F-word, border collies, the Hayden Planetarium, the ethics of stem cell research, foreign policy schools in the U.S. and (a personal favorite) “Bush Derangement Syndrome.”

“Bush Derangement Syndrome: The acute onset of paranoia in otherwise normal people in reaction to the policies, the presidency — nay — the very existence of George W. Bush.” Though Dr. Krauthammer hasn’t diagnosed a psychiatric syndrome since his diagnosis of “Secondary Mania” in 1978 (he is a former psychiatrist), I think we can forgive him his rustiness and recognize that BDS is epidemic.

He hit the nail on the head with his Central Axiom of Partisan Politics: Conservatives think liberals are stupid and liberals think conservatives are evil. Liberals, says Krauthammer, have a naïve approach to human nature: “Liberals believe that human nature is fundamentally good. The fact that this is contradicted by, oh, 4,000 years of human history simply tells them how urgent is the need for their next seven-point program for the social reform of everything.”

Thus the liberal New York Times runs the headline: “Crime Keeps On Falling, but Prisons Keep on Filling.” Krauthammer retorts: “But? How about this wild theory: If you lock up the criminals, crime declines.”

Stupid.

And liberals are convinced that conservatives are mean and soulless. The Times again, commenting on bioethicist Leon Kass, reported that Dr. Kass was

neoconservative, but was thoughtful and dignified. “But? Neoconservative but thoughtful and dignified. A sighting: Rare, oxymoronic, newsworthy.” We wicked conservatives.

Krauthammer’s wit is matched by his erudition. He writes about space and technology, foreign policy, political theory, architecture, bioethics, Zionism and more.

He includes five academic essays in the book, written for groups like the President’s Council on Bioethics and the Manhattan Institute.

Nothing, however, can match his insight — his ability to take material that many would find mundane and to find in it metaphysical truth. Thus in discussing the Drake Equation — a tool for estimating the number of advanced civilizations in our galaxy —, Krauthammer reflects on the darker side of human nature. Why haven’t we discovered intelligent life? “Carl Sagan (among others) thought that the answer is to be found, tragically, in the final variable [of the Drake Equation]: the high probability that advanced civilizations destroyed themselves.” Intelligence is a blessing and a curse, “a capacity so godlike, so protean that it must be contained and disciplined.

That is the work of politics.”

This article — “Are We Alone In the Universe?” — is a microcosm for his book.

Politics is just a means to an end. It is an intermediate good.

The work of politics can restrain humanity’s destructive powers, encapsulated by the faculty that is uniquely human, reason.

“There could be no greater irony: For all the sublimity of art, physics, music, mathematics and other manifestations of human genius, everything depends on the mundane, frustrating, often debased vocation known as politics.”

Things That Matter is insightful and beautifully written. What matters? Politics matters, but “what really matters, what moves the spirit, what elevates the mind, what fires the imagination, what makes us fully human are all of these endeavors, disciplines, confusions and amusements that lie outside politics.” n

The Arch Conservative / 17

HUMOR

A Wild Night at the Obama Lounge Notes from the Food & Spirits Critic.

by COLIN DANIELS

W

ith the American people panning President Barack Obama’s job performance in the approval ratings, he and his key advisors have decided to “pivot” in a new direction by opening a swanky Georgetown cocktail bar, the Obama Lounge.

Early reviews from critics at The New Yorker and the Post have lavished the establishment with praise, which was my first warning.

Skeptical, The Arch Conservative deputized me Food & Spirits Critic to investigate the lounge and see if the rumors are true. Below, observations from a strange evening at the Obama Lounge.

The proprietor, President Obama (he insisted I call him “Barry”), was a jack of all trades, mixing drinks, bussing tables and even providing entertainment — a weird mixture of stand up comedy, impressions of world leaders (he does a great Putin) and singing past speeches to the tune of Rebecca Black’s “Friday.” Joe Biden got up on stage and repeated his favorite gaffes. He really brought down the house.

After saddling up to the bar, I flipped through the menu. None of the bar food sounded appealing (the specials were “Meanwich” and “Stinkburger”), so I steered well clear. Booze it would be.

I started by ordering one of the cocktails, the “Obamacare.” The

bartender promised me it would be done quickly, but then he kept delaying it. When he finally got around to making the drink, he pulled out a stepladder to reach the top-shelf liquors — I could tell this night was going to hit me right in the wallet. Bizarrely, as Barry served me the drink, he took away the drinks of three other patrons and charged them for not having a drink, a “bar trick” he called the “presidential party foul.”

As the night wore on, Barry could tell I wasn’t having a good time. He offered to buy me and Speaker Boehner (already roaring drunk, and smoking like a chimney) drinks on the house, so we ordered a pair of “Pen and Phones.” Barry came back with two vodka tonics from the well. When I asked about it, he laughingly said that, while we made the order, he made the “executive order.”

I hoped to redeem my visit to the Obama Lounge by ordering the signature drink, the “National Debt Bomb.” I watched as Barry mixed triple sec, light rum, vodka and sour mix in a fish bowl, then filled it to the brim with cola. Over my protestation that the drink was unsustainable, he dropped in a shot of tequila, making a huge mess all over the bar. He served it to himself and left the bar.

I should have guessed he would leave the mess for a Republican to clean up.

(The Obama Lounge: One of five stars.)

The Arch Conservative Y O E LR ER I H K AS W

recently caught wind of a political campaign running for SGA executive in 2015, “Touch UGA.” At this early stage, Touch UGA has not disclosed its candidates, and campaign documents leaked to us don’t give away any hints. This could be the work of just about any SGA member.

HUMOR

KS DRAFT DEBATE CLOSING REMAR

From the moment I walked into

my first human geography class

freshman

. I’ve always been fundamentally transform campus student body, and I believe this the unbridled potential of UGA’s

year, I knew I was destined to blown away by

m the chains and

only we could free our campus fro

potential can become reality if

ths ago, as my

ted social mores. Almost 4 mon

bondage of tradition and antiqua

a of commandeering

e ringing the chapel bell, the ide

fellow running mates and I wer

tion sprung into our minds. It was

the Student Government Associa

only a matter

ouch

T because of our born. We chose the name Touch was A UG ch Tou ore bef s day of ) (logo? and be touched by them. unyielding desire to touch others cerate form—an agenda designed to evis Much has been made of our plat

. To better break as that flow through our campus the intolerable thoughts and ide g freshman try, we plan on forcing all incomin students of their pervasive bigo transform the y pledge. Similarly, we hope to to take a legally binding diversit in one of our three own autonomous college housed women’s studies major into its rf color, we see ’t just see green as a great sca planned women’s centers. We don e UGA carbon ar Plan includes a roadmap to mak it as a lifestyle, and our Five-Ye m $3 to $100 by hope to raise the Green Fee fro this free by 2020. Furthermore, we let's keep ps, we s for upper-income students. under wra increasing mandatory student fee U ’t get SH n e new hav a I c ool, sch ary ent elem an at se After my 2 weeks volunteering

on our ca e. hav ts at UGA ilege that many sheltered studen perspective on the incredible priv ned to the ld poverty, my eyes have been ope Coming face-to-face with real wor rs g hegemonic power wielded by the Gridiron Society, Nathan Deal, the Koch Brothe n o wr nue to tear down the A needs an SGA that is unafraid ve and out-of-state super PACs. UG curious from the common man, woman, and gender walls of oppression and free the fight! me, and let us take up arms and dominion of the bourgeois. So join

mmie. Love Too overtly co hough! the attitude, t

t

lis k c e Ch

To

rials mate r e n -op n Ba photo : r y o u f B ves s Scar Vote ote ter v s ip h n t the o: Cour the dirt o y