THE ARCH CONSERVATIVE, Fall 2015

Q& A — :B p. ob 16 In gl is

Fall 2015

Raising the Standard.

words in court

by Connor Kitchings

Against Chipotle, p. 7 • End of Discussion, p. 17

The editors

Confronting Transience Tradition serves a useful purpose.

2 / The Arch Conservative

Fall 2015

Photo Courtesy David torvicia, Cover photo courtesy Matt H. Wade

W

elcome, Reader, to the Fall 2015 edition of THE ARCH is relatively brief.

In such situations, tradition serves an eminently practical CONSERVATIVE. We are pleased to present our first magazine of the academic year. In these pages, you will purpose.

Unlike other entities, collegiate organizations cannot survive on find thoughtful commentary on the status of liberty and tradition the quest for profit. As Adam Smith argues in The Wealth of Naon campus and beyond. tions, financial gain is a great, Our journalists discuss a and not entirely unworthy, range of topics, from local motivator. In the corporate events and the Student Govsector, the creation of wealth ernment Association to presiensures that the division of dential candidates and foreign labor remains effective over policy. Whether you come as time: The employees of a pina skeptic or an ardent lover of factory will work together beliberty, we trust you will discause they want their wages. cover thought-provoking conAnother economist weighs tent within these covers. in here, however: In The Road As THE ARCH CONSERto Serfdom, Friedrich Hayek VATIVE enters its third year writes that “the ultimate ends of publishing, we find that we of reasonable beings are never are confronting the perennial economic.” Even the quest difficulty facing campus orgafor wealth, when rightly purnizations: the reality of transued, is aimed at preserving sience in collegiate life. the things which really matter Every autumn, the Univerin life: leisure with family and sity of Georgia greets a new Between the Hedges. friends, intellectual inquiry, freshman class. Four years charitable work, and even relilater, these students graduate, and leave Athens for new vistas. College undergraduates encounter gious contemplation. In these pursuits, we cultivate our souls, grow a strange paradox: Our tenure on campus is relatively short com- in relationships with one another, and turn our gaze beyond the mundane concerns of life. pared to the significant intellectual growth we experience here.

Ultimately, it is a proper respect for these ends — what Russell In other words, our time at the University of Georgia is meaningful, but brief. THE ARCH CONSERVATIVE itself bid a bitter- Kirk famously calls the Permanent Things — that enables collegiate organizations to have a meaningful impact on campus. sweet farewell to several founding staffers last spring.

Tradition, then, serves a useful purpose by efficiently integratSo, we ask ourselves the question: How does an organization whose membership is constantly changing maintain a viable pres- ing these Permanent Things with daily life. Whether casual or formal, simple rituals call attention to camaraderie and common ence on campus and in the local community?

We are humbly grateful that our publication has made a measur- ideals. Traditions are often the mark of a flourishing community.

The magazine you are holding continues a few customs unique able impact for liberty at this university. How can we ensure that THE ARCH CONSERVATIVE remains a worthwhile resource for to THE ARCH CONSERVATIVE: You will find that Kilroy Was Here again, we are still keeping an eye on SGA, and as usual our future UGA students?

Like any private or corporate entity, we are engaging the prob- humor section delivers wit with a dash of wisdom.

In this we are simply following our Alma Mater, however. As lem of vision. On the one hand, our magazine grasps at a lofty purpose: to provide a forum for civil and articulate discussion of ideas. autumn arrives, the University of Georgia is especially conscious of On the other, it is difficult to remember such an abstract notion in one tradition which binds us together as a campus: football season, the day-to-day trenches of publishing deadlines, schoolwork, and with chilly games, tailgates on Myers Quad, and the shared thrill of cheering the Dawgs to victory. software glitches.

In the fevered rush of student life, tradition stands as a vivid UGA itself faces this concern daily and on a much larger scale.

President Morehead must constantly evaluate how our school can reminder of why we are at the college in the first place: We seek best maintain a campus culture that fosters excellence and com- education in community with one another.

— The Editors munity, even when the interaction between institution and student

Fall 2015 The Editors

Confronting Transience with Tradition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

THE CAMPUS INFORMANT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 columns

Forecasting Canada 2015

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

Tristan Bagala

Chipotle’s Rhetorical Hypocrisy

Cecilia Walker. .

Thor Halvorssen, Conservative Activist Jeb Bush Visits Campus

Michael Duckett.

features

Looking to Syria

A Loss of Words

Nick Geeslin. .

9

. . . . . . . . . . 8

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

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

William Davison

“Look at This Face!”

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

Sydney North

Connor Kitchings.

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

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

Culture

Q&A: Bob Inglis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Review: End of Discussion Netflix and Community

Humor

TRUMP, the Tar-Baby

Sydney North .

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

Elizabeth Ridgeway. .

Rebel Lord. .

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

19

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

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

Elizabeth Ridgeway, Connor Kitchings,

Managing editor

Baylee Culverhouse,

Photo Courtesy Michael vadon

Marian Young,

Editor-In-Chief

Associate editor

Business Manager

archconuga.com archconuga@gmail.com twitter: @ArchConUGA Mail: P.O. Box 1181 Athens, GA 30603

on the web: EMAIL:

contributors

Michael Duckett

Jake Shumard

Tristan Bagala

Nick Geeslin

Austin Summers

Cole Calfee

Rebel Lord

Cecilia Walker

William Davison

Sydney North

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.

fall 2015

The Arch Conservative / 3

CAMPUS

Planned Parenthood Advocacy UGA hosts new activist organization.

P

lanned Parenthood recently gained national media attention when a series of videos from the Center for Medical Progress revealed that the organization sells body parts from aborted fetuses to tissue supply companies for medical research.

In response to national backlash against the abortion provider, UGA students recently founded a campus chapter of Planned Parenthood: Generation Action. UGA Planned Parenthood: Generation Action joined Facebook on September 11, 2015, with familiar pink graphics that read “#StandwithPP” and “I Stand with Planned Parenthood.” The group aims to “work with UGA’s Sexual Health Advocacy Group to advocate for sexual health and reproductive justice.”

In 2014, THE ARCH CONSERVATIVE investigated the Sexual Health Advocacy Group’s uniCorrell Hall opens versity-sponsored field for student use. trip to Atlanta, where they visited Inserecefore a large crowd tion adult sex shop and on September 21, a Planned Parenthood the Terry College of branch in the downtown Business held a dedicaarea. tion ceremony for CorTHE ARCH CONrell Hall, showpiece of SERVATIVE recently the Business Learning obtained an official Community complex. statement from Dr. DaThe large brick buildvid Lee, Vice President ing, constructed at the for Research, that the intersection of LumpUniversity of Georgia kin and Baxter streets, does not currently or inresembles the nearby tend to conduct research Miller Learning Center “with human fetal tissue in architectural style.

Correll Hall. from any source.”

When completed, the Both investigations entire complex will be a may be found at ArchConUGA.com. beautiful addition the University’s campus.

Official university bulletins report that the hall is named for — Elizabeth Ridgeway A.D. “Pete” Correll, a Terry alumnus and chairman emeritus of Georgia-Pacific, as well as his wife and fellow UGA graduate Ada Lee Correll. The facility, which cost $35 million and was amazingly funded entirely by private donations, will serve as the home for Staff thanks the Intercollegiate Studies Institute.

Terry College’s graduate programs.

Correll comprises around 74,000 square feet. Within its walls, n July THE ARCH CONSERVATIVE received the Collegiate Terry students will find a “business innovation lab”, classrooms Network’s award for “Best Layout and Design in 2014-2015”. equipped for team and collaborative projects, and a graduate com- Managing editor Connor Kitchings and contributor Nicholas Geemons. Its construction took nearly two years and represents Phase slin collected the distinction at the Collegiate Network’s annual I of the Business Learning Community initiative. conference in Bryn Mawr, PA, headlined this year by PayPal coSeptember 21 also signaled the beginning of construction for founder and former student journalist Peter Thiel.

Amos Hall, the building headlining Phase II of the project. DirecTHE ARCH CONSERVATIVE extends its sincere thanks to tors estimate its completion in 2017. Amos Hall will contain ap- Philip Chalk of The Weekly Standard for our layout template and proximately 140,000 square feet of auditoriums, classrooms, con- his invaluable design assistance via the Intercollegiate Studies ference rooms, and offices for faculty and staff.

Institute.

Terry’s New Facilities

B

TAC Recieves Award

— Connor Kitchings

4 / The Arch Conservative

— The Editors

Fall 2015

Kilroy was here.

I

campus

sga

A

watch

cross the country, politicians and local leaders have seen the value of addressing social issues which unite, rather than divide, the communities they serve. This semester, the Student Government Association has followed the trend by facilitating several events which raise awareness for student safety. The Executive Board has also addressed the parking situation on campus.

This semester, SGA created a new cabinet position, Director of Student Affairs. A press bulletin reports that the office seeks to connect students to the campus resources available in “multicultural and diversity affairs, academic affairs, and auxiliary services.” SGA’s recent “Open Dialogue” events complement this mission, covering topics like “Police Relations” and “Southern Culture: Heritage or Hate?” Ultimately, these initiatives provide an outlet for educating campus culture through dialogue rather than policy mandates or ineffective declarations of opinion.

In late August, SGA also sponsored the second annual “Walk

a Mile in Her Shoes” event, a march to protest sexual assault on college campuses. Over 300 participants wore heeled women’s shoes to walk from The Arch on North Campus to Myers Quad, demonstrating their vehement support for the prevention of gender violence. Former SGA senator Madison Turner first brought the event to campus in 2014, after the White House released statistics claiming that one in five women will experience some sort of sexual assault in their lifetimes. In 2015, the march continues to raise awareness about this important issue on campus.

Finally, if you have noticed the new sign in front of the Tate Student Center Parking Deck, you can thank SGA. After witnessing the stampede of cars that flooded the deck every Tuesday and Wednesday nights for organizational meetings, SGA decided to request the construction of a “Full”/”Spaces Available” sign which would help ease traffic congestion during peak hours.

SGA Watch will continue to report on the activities of the Executive Board and Co. in the coming year. We have been impressed by their public initiatives thus far, and look forward to evaluating future decisions.

—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

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

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

fall 2015

The Arch Conservative / 5

Columns

Forecasting Canada 2015 The Conservative Party is poised for victory.

C

anada elects its parliament and prime minister through a Westminster system, similar to the U.S. House of Representatives. Although Canada has five major parties, four are left-leaning, which gives the Conservative Party a large advantage. While the other four parties fight for the majority of liberal Canadians, a large minority of conservatives can frequently work the system to their benefit and win a disproportionately large amount of seats.

THE Parties Prime Ministers in Canada have only ever come from two parties: the Conservative Party (and its historical predecessors) and the Liberal Party. The Conservative Party, in power since 2006, currently has a majority government. The Liberals have been the only viable alternative to the Conservatives since the founding of the Canadian Confederation in 1867.

Recently, however, the Liberal Party has been outflanked on the left by the socialist New Democratic Party (NDP), whose history of small successes at the provincial level eventually established it as a national contender. The Green Party of Canada has also had a small number of wins, typically holding between one and two seats in Canada’s 338-member Parliament. Lastly, the Bloc Québecois represents the interests of francophone nationalists in Québec.

THE Issues The Conservatives, under sitting Prime Minister Stephen Harper, have run their campaign on national security and the economy. Thus far, Harper has successfully painted the opposition leaders as soft on crime and terrorism. The Conservative Party has remained hawkish on ISIS and strongly against Russian aggression. Meanwhile, other parties propose dramatically Tristan Bagala is a junior studying international affairs. He is a regular contributor to The Arch Conservative.

6 / The Arch Conservative

more isolationist roles for Canada.

Harper’s focus on national security when taking in Syrian refugees has come off as cold-hearted and inconsistent with Canadian values, however. Opposition leaders have been calling for an almost unmitigated opening of Canadian borders to all asylum seekers.

With a large slide in oil prices and heavy reliance on exports, the Canadian economy has also dipped into recession in the past few weeks. Canada is the only G-7 country in recession, and sitting Prime Minister Harper now has a difficult position to defend. A nearly $2 billion budget surplus over the past year has been the only economic positive for Conservatives.

The two major opposition parties offer drastically different plans on how to address the economy’s woes. The Liberals propose a return to budget deficits to fund massive increases in spending on infrastructure and other government services.

They plan to mitigate their deficits through large tax increases on the wealthiest 1% of Canadians.

The NDP, on the other hand, is running on a decidedly more centrist economic plan than the party traditionally employs.

The party has controlled only two provincial governments in its history, both of which have been marked with massive tax increases and budget deficits. Thus, many Canadians fear turning national coffers over to the NDP. In response to these criticisms, the NDP has promised to not increase personal income taxes and maintain some current austerity measures to keep a balanced budget. They do plan on large expansions of social services, like fixed-price childcare centers, with funding coming from a corporate tax hike.

Another issue has gained traction in the final weeks of the campaign: The Canadian Supreme Court has ruled that new citizens can wear the niqab, the female Muslim headdress, during citizenship ceremonies.

According to polls conducted after the Supreme Court’s ruling, over 90% of the Quebecois and over three-fourths of Canadians as a whole oppose allowing new citizens to wear a niqab during their citizenship

ceremony.

Opposition comes from two main camps. Some believe that wearing the headdress is anti-assimilatory. Others assert that the niqab signifies the subjugation of women, which is against Canada’s strong tradition of gender equality.

Both the Conservatives and the Bloc Québecois have positioned themselves against the niqab at citizenship ceremonies.

The Prime Minister had what was arguably his strongest moment of the campaign in the French-language debate when he told the leader of the NDP that he “would never tell his young daughter that she must cover herself because she is a woman. Never.”

Conversely, both the NDP and Liberals argue that Canada must accept multiculturalism and allow women to wear whatever they want during these ceremonies.

This position appears to be largely out of step with the average Canadian voter.

THE Candidates Although there are five parties, only three have a reasonable chance of electing their candidate as Prime Minister: the Conservatives, the NDP, and the Liberals.

The Green Party will offer support to the largest party that is not the Conservatives, while the Bloc Québecois will support the party that offers the “best deal for Québec.”

The Conservatives offer the sitting Prime Minister, Stephen Harper. Liberal candidate Justin Trudeau, son of popular Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau, has nevertheless had trouble inspiring the Canadian voting population; Both the NDP and the Conservatives have attacked his youth and inexperience. The NDP leader, Tom Mulcair, has spent most of the campaign attempting to convince Canadians not to be afraid of an NDP electoral victory. Although many Canadians agree with his hardline socialist views, the party’s history of running up huge deficits at the provincial level scares would-be partisans.

All in all, the left’s inability to coalesce around a single candidate has placed Conservatives in a good position for victory.

Election results may confirm this prediction a few days after this magazine hits this stands. b Fall 2015

Columns

Chipotle’s Rhetorical Hypocrisy The franchise bites the industry that feeds them.

E

Photo Courtesy michael saechang

very day, hundreds of hungry, intelligent college students flock to the cramped parking lot of Chipotle Mexican Grill on Broad and Alps. These patrons consider Chipotle a healthy and natural alternative to fast-food restaurants. Friends have often invited me for a quick meal in its minimalistic gray décor, as throngs of chacos and beanies shell out eight dollars for a burrito branded “sustainable” and “GMO free.” Yet, time and again, I decline to be part of this millennial herd.

In 2013, Chipotle became an overnight sensation when they released a commercial called “The Scarecrow.” The tear-jerking animation portrays a dystopian future for U.S. agriculture: Factories fabricate pork and beef like clothes on an assembly line. After the short film’s marketing success, Chipotle continued to denigrate the agricultural industry by spending over one million dollars to produce the satirical Hulu mini-series “Farmed & Dangerous.”

A similar battle cry to the commercial, the series portrays agriculture as an industrial machine which secretly feeds petroleum to cows.

But who really has something to hide?

I spent my childhood in the heart of rural Georgia, with stretches of rolling fields dotted with beef cattle. I observed firsthand that local farmers put food on the nation’s tables as well as their own. The only things separating my family’s farms from the outside world were three lines of barbed wire — no farm “factories” in sight.

Indeed, I would be hard pressed to find these industrial farms in most of America.

According to the United States Department of Agriculture, approximately 97 percent of America’s farms are family farms — not corporate agricultural machines.

Politico reports that less than two percent Cecilia Walker is a freshman studying political science. She is a regular contributor to The Arch Conservative.

Fall 2015

of Americans actually involved with farming, however. Therefore, Chipotle can freely disregard the predominance of family farming in America. They have chosen to turn the ignorance of the majority into a profitable smear of the minority.

Chipotle claims to be transparent for consumers. Instead, it is rather ambigu-

“Locally” sourced? ous what actually makes the the grill’s food sources better than other chain restaurants.

For instance, Chipotle boasts that they serve “local” food. What you won’t find in their commercials is their official qualification that the term “local” applies to anything grown within a 350-mile radius of a restaurant. For an Athens-area Chipotle, “local” lettuce or tomatoes could come from Tupelo, Mississippi, or Mt. Vernon, Kentucky, or even Ferrum, Virginia.

Additionally, Nation’s Restaurant News reports that Chipotle’s touted conditions for “responsibly raised” meat are not achievable for many of their suppliers. Therefore, the restaurant has often used “conventional beef ” in their products, despite spending millions each year to rhetorically disparage the American agricultural industry.

Chipotle often relies on food sourced from traditional agriculture. Yet through Scarecrow-like advertising, the restaurant continues not only to bash their own suppliers but to also charge you — the customer — a higher price for efficiently-produced

meats.

When I decline to eat at Chipotle, I receive confused looks from my peers. Yet I haven’t been the only one fed up with Chipotle’s hipster hypocrisy. After Chipotle began another marketing campaign for launching its “G-M-Over it” menu last April, a California resident, Colleen Gallagher, filed a class action lawsuit this September alleging that the food chain “violated the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act because its food labeling is false and misleading, and deceived diners into paying more for their food.” As publicized as they made their anti-GMO campaign, thus far Chipotle’s menu has never been free of GMO products. Genetically modified soybeans make up a majority of the feed for Chipotle’s meat and dairy animals, and their beverages are made with genetically modified corn syrup.

The nonprofit Center for Consumer Freedom also recently launched a campaign countering Chipotle by creating a parody website, ChubbyChipotle.com. The group placed a full page advertisement in the New York Post which reads, “Eat two ‘all natural’ Chipotle burritos a week and you could gain 40 pounds in a year.”

I respect my friends for craving ethically-produced food: that is, nourishment that contributes to greater causes than just their empty stomachs. I have nothing against Chipotle for targeting their restaurant to my environmentally-conscious generation.

Where or how their ingredients are grown is their choice as a private business.

But, as the daughter of one of the 2.1 million American farmers, I am resentful that in the process they cut away at the already declining number of future food producers. In order to truly be as sustainable as the restaurant claims, we should be supporting agriculturists in their profession, not punishing farm families for following the labor-intensive career that few are willing to do. My fellow UGA students actually want the healthy and organic food Chipotle misleads you to believe they sell.

But they will not find it at this billion-dollar corporate chain. b

The Arch Conservative / 7

Columns

Concerning Thor Halvorssen Profile of a conservative activist.

I

n his seminal work The Road to Serfdom, Nobel Prize-winning economist Friedrich Hayek brilliantly describes the value of individuals: “It is true that the virtues which are less esteemed and practiced now — independence, self-reliance, and the willingness to bear risks, the readiness to back one’s own conviction against a majority, and the willingness to voluntary cooperation with one’s neighbors — are essentially those on which the working of an individualist society rest.” Americans are lucky enough to live in an “individualist society” — that is, a classically liberal society, where citizens can employ capital as they deem best and enjoy a free flow of ideas.

There are, of course, governments around the world which choose to restrict the rights central to individual flourishing and pursuit of happiness. In these difficult situations, courageous men and women still organize resistance against such despotic overreach.

These leaders are usually extraordinary individuals in their own right, armed with the “individualist virtues” Hayek describes above. Thor Halvorssen Mendoza of Venezuela is one such figure. In 2005, he founded an advocacy group known as the Human Rights Foundation. Yet his resume stretches far beyond this one accomplishment. He is great not simply for his lineage, but for the successes he has achieved through independence, self-reliance, and “the willingness to bear risks.”

Thor Halvorssen descends from Simon Bolivar, the general who liberated many South American countries from Spanish imperialism. Bolivar began his campaign by freeing Venezuela in 1810 and continued fighting for this cause until his death twenty years later. In the 1940s, Nick Geeslin is a sophomore studying journalism. He is a regular contributor to The Arch Conservative.

8 / The Arch Conservative

Halvorssen’s grandfather was the effective consul for a Norwegian king who personally confronted the Nazis in order to save a Norwegian merchant fleet. Tragically, Halvorssen’s mother was murdered at a peaceful protest for the Venezuelan recall referendum of 2004.

Halvorssen’s father, Thor Halvorssen Hellum, served as an agent for a governmental anti-narcotic committee in Venezuela. During an investigation into drug kingpin Pablo Escobar’s money-laundering methods, Halvorssen was arrested, beaten, and held in prison without any charges for 74 days. Meanwhile, the media began publishing groundless articles accusing him of corruption and ruining his public image and trustworthiness. Halvorssen, Jr. comes from a long line of political activists.

Yet Halvorssen’s personal accomplishments live up to his proud heritage in their own right. The Human Rights Foundation’s mission is “centered on the twin concepts of freedom of self-determination and freedom from tyranny.” This mission statement sounds like something a well-spoken, selfrighteous celebrity looking to pad his ego might say — until you hear what work this nonprofit does.

The Human Rights Foundation lobbies for the release of political prisoners and brings attention to human rights abuses around the world. For example, in 2011, Ramzan Kadyrov, dictator of Chechnya, invited American celebrities Kevin Costner, Hilary Swank, and Shakira to his 35th birthday party. Kadyrov had been accused of many human rights violations: More than one witness has testified to the existence of a 300-name “Murder List”.

When word about Kadyrov’s annual bash reached HRF, the organization quickly sent letters to these celebrities urging them not to support such a dictator. Costner and Shakira eventually rejected Kadyrov’s offer, but Swank decided to attend the party. She allegedly received half a million dollars from Kadyrov for her decision.

After the HRF publicly exposed the “gift” Swank accepted from Kadyrov, she fired her manager and most of her

managerial staff and claimed she would donate the money to “various charitable organizations,” according to The Guardian.

HRF has also acted to disrupt North Korea’s restricted public access to information by sponsoring balloon drops of information, broadcasting via radio, and the smuggling of 10,000 copies of The Interview across the Chinese and South Korean borders.

These efforts are not the end of Halvorssen’s fight for human rights, however. In the early 2000s, he served as CEO for the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education. He also founded the Oslo Freedom Forum and the Children’s Peace Movement. These organizations conduct annual meetings to discuss human rights issues and potential solutions and protect the individual right of free speech for students.

Additionally, Halvorssen has produced six films. Among them, Freedom’s Fury names Lucy Liu and Quentin Tarantino as executive producers. Most of Halvorssen’s film projects are documentary-style and concern human rights issues.

Halvorssen has also appeared on media ranging from National Public Radio and The Wall Street Journal to Time magazine and BBC News. He recently delivered a TEDx talk at the University of Pennsylvania, his alma mater, where he earned several degrees in political science and history magna cum laude.

I was fortunate enough to hear Halvorssen speak in person this summer at a Collegiate Network conference in Pennsylvania.

Unlike many celebrities who speak to college students, Halvorssen did not tout the most impressive parts of his resume.

Instead, he described how, as an undergraduate at the University of Pennsylvania, ran a liberty-minded newspaper, The Red and Blue, that drew attention to the restriction of liberty on campus.

This early foray into journalism foreshadowed Halvorssen’s later extraordinary career. A champion of human rights and individual freedoms AND a conservative?

This guy has it figured out. b

FALL 2015

Columns

Jeb! Bush Visits Athens UGA host its first presidential candidate this cycle.

O

n Saturday, September 19th, former Florida governor Jeb Bush visited campus shortly before UGA faced off against South Carolina. Packing Herty Field to capacity, he attracted a massive crowd of students and potential supporters to the event. Not only were many Jeb fans in attendance, but major media outlets like CNN and NBC were following the presidential candidate during his time on campus.

Spectators arrived as early as an hour prior to the event, and the crowd continued to swell even after the candidate’s arrival.

Bush slowly made his way through the mass of people, greeting practically every voter and briefly posing for hundreds of selfies.

Several different types of people attended the event: Jeb fans, skeptics, and accidental arrivals. The fans were armed with cameras, t-shirts, and stickers; two men even had full-sized American flags to display their support.

The skeptics were not as passionate, but many prepared questions to ask Bush in hopes that his answer would help distinguish him from other candidates. The last group, the accidental arrivals, wandered into the crowd without knowing he was coming, leading some to ask who the popular Republican candidate was.

After nearly half an hour, the presidential candidate managed to make it through the crowds to the microphone. By preaching an optimistic platform and forging

Michael Duckett is a junior studying political science. He is a regular contributor to The Arch Conservative.

Fall 2015

alliances with fellow Republicans, Bush believes he can bring hope back to America, especially for those who “are one paycheck away from disaster” or “worried about their child getting a quality education.”

He seemed to appeal directly to students’ fears about a devastated job market by promising a 4.4 percent growth in the

Tailgating with Jeb. economy if he were to become president.

This growth would give students the opportunity to get jobs, purchase homes, and live somewhat more comfortable lives.

He only talked for a few minutes, because he “really like[s] taking selfies.”

Bush received an important endorsement that day from Georgia Lieutenant Governor Casey Cagle, who introduced him on the stage.

“He was one of the really first pioneers as it relates to being a reformer,” Cagle mentioned in a short interview with THE ARCH CONSERVATIVE. Defending his early endorsement of Bush, Cagle said that the candidate “stands for everything that the party needs to be espousing throughout the country.”

Recognizing the importance of public education to college students, Cagle mentioned that Bush “raised the bar in such a significant way” among public educational

institutions. In addition, the lieutenant governor was impressed that Bush “built extreme reserves and invested strategically for the state” during his terms as governor of Florida, resulting in what Cagle called “remarkable” gains.

After the speech, Bush predicted that the Dawgs would not only win against the Gamecocks, but against all other teams in the SEC East — a comment that appealed to those in the crowd donning their red and black.

Drowned in a sea of selfie-taking college students, Bush walked through the heart of campus from Herty Field to Baldwin Street, where a pickup truck whisked him away to the game.

This specific game was important to Bush’s campaign because both Georgia and South Carolina voters would be on campus. South Carolina has the earliest primary of any other Southern state (February 20th), making it a key battleground state for Republican primary candidates.

In recognition of the SEC Primary (the large grouping of southern states holding their primaries together) on March 1st, UGA students supporting Bush had altered his campaign emblem to make it resemble the SEC promotional stickers. Herty Field was plastered in Jeb decorations, thanks to efforts led by the UGA College Republicans and the Georgia Law Republicans.

By the end of the rally, Governor Bush was evidently beginning to wilt in the Georgia heat; however, seeing so many supporters surely bolstered his confidence as he goes into the tough months ahead.

The UGA College Republicans and Georgia Law Republicans did an excellent job in planning the event and preparing for the significant task of hosting a presidential candidate at UGA. Other presidential campaigns may consider Jeb’s lead in visiting UGA. Time will tell which ones actually venture into Bulldawg country. b

The Arch Conservative / 9

Features

Looking to Syria Considering the United States’ role in a refugee crisis. by william Davison

10 / The Arch Conservative

Fall 2015

Photo Courtesy Uk department for international development

I

n 2011, several Syrian teenagers were According to several reports in 2013, the rebel groups and the Assad regime have arrested for writing revolutionary regime has targeted both civilians and reb- displaced over 11 million people in Syria. slogans on publicly visible walls in els with chemical weapons in the past few Seven million of these have moved to safer the southwestern city of Dar’a. The Syrian years. These weapons include substances locations within the country.

The other roughly four million have left government threw these revolutionaries that are either fatal to humans or can seinto jail and reportedly tortured them. A verely injure the inner organs and skin of Syria and are now entering neighboring nations as refugees. The neighboring counfew protesters took to the streets after hear- an exposed individual. tries most affected ing of these teenby this recent inagers’ mistreatflux of refugees ment. Little did are Lebanon, Joranyone know that dan and Turkey, what we now call though several the “Arab Spring” others have had had begun. a smaller, yet still Soon aftersignificant, inwards, many more flux of refugee Syrians joined the immigrants. demonstrations The world has against President now turned to the Bashar al-Assad.

Europe and the The government United States to began to refer to have some kind of these people as response for the rebels and viomillions of Syrian lent extremists, refugees looking though the confor safety. Reflict was complicently, President cated by religious Obama stated that factors.

Many the United States of the protestRefugee relief organizations provide food vouchers. will be willing to ers were Sunni Reportedly, the Assad regime has at- take in “at least” 10,000 Syrian refugees.

Muslims who have traditionally directly opposed the Alawites, the sect of Islam to tacked its citizens with these chemical Several members of Congress, including weapons via bombs and dropped shells. Democratic Senator Amy Klobuchar (Dwhich Assad belongs.

Soon after the demonstrations began to This blatant violation of human rights has Minnesota) have pushed for the President grow in numbers, the Assad regime began provoked the West and its allies in the Mid- to accept even more.

In response, many have argued that the to suppress the rebels through force. This dle East to consider action.

Many looked to the United States to do United States should focus on the nation’s was the basis for what we now know as the something about Assad’s mass execution of already complex immigration issues before Syrian civil war. allowing tens of thousands of additional Since 2011, the Assad regime has Syrian nationals. Nothing was done.

Fast forward to 2015. There are now people into the country. It is reasonable had little control over the Syrian people. over 200,000 people dead as a direct re- to believe that the country may be unpreWilliam “Bill” Davison is a freshman studying sult of this civil war. Many more have left pared to facilitate 10,000 refugees when we international affairs. their homes to protect themselves and their already have problems with 11 million unfamilies. Indiscriminate attacks by both documented immigrants.

Features

Potential security threats are another reason the United States may not accept large numbers of Syrian refugees. Some countries have already dealt with this issue: A self-identified “refugee” was recently arrested in a refugee camp in Stuttgart, Germany after authorities realized he was actually a recruiter for the Islamic State.

An unwieldy influx of people, especially from the regions which also house terrorist organizations like Hezbollah, Hamas, and al-Qaeda, could begin to facilitate what these Islamic extremists desire: the promotion of devastating terrorist attacks against the West. A few undercover recruiters, disguised as ostensible refugees, could root themselves in the United States and begin to develop contacts throughout the country. This possibility is unacceptable.

Instead of distancing the refugees from their home country by bringing them halfway across the world, the United States should instead fund refugee relief organizations in the West’s Middle Eastern allies, such as Jordan, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia, which are in closer proximity to Syria.

Funding from the United States would

Fall 2015

help to reinforce and expand the viable programs for refugees that already exist in these countries.

Syria’s neighbor nations currently face millions of refugees, with more emigrants fleeing Syria every day. For the United States to be most effective in this situation, it should ensure that its allies in the Middle East have enough money and resources to temporarily care for as many Syrian refugees seeking shelter as they can.

Ultimately, though, the most beneficial action the United States can take to help the millions of refugees in Syria is to force a sensible and decisive end to the conflict.

In addition to the millions of refugee that it has created, the civil conflict in Syria has also encouraged more instability in the region and allowed terrorist organizations to conquer a land area the size of Belgium.

Furthermore, the rise of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) is quickly gaining more and more control of parts of northern Iraq and eastern Syria, despite the actions of Western leaders. It will no doubt pose a significant threat to our nation if not checked.

For example, several westerners, including American journalists James Foley and Steven Sotloff, have been kidnapped and killed by ISIL. The United States cannot ignore brutality committed against its own citizens.

If the United States does not intervene soon, ISIL will continue to take full advantage of the chaos in Syria and the vacuum in Iraq. The inaction of the United States now eerily resembles the inaction of the United states before September 11, 2001.

Nothing was done about terrorist organizations until al-Qaeda had reached New York and killed thousands of Americans.

Unless direct action is taken against ISIL in Syria, the United States is vulnerable to the consequences of allowing another zealous and barbaric multinational organization to flourish.

In order for millions of refugees to be able to return home, the massive burden to be lifted off of Jordan, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia, and the terroristic threat emanating from the region to be diminished, order must be restored in Syria. The United States is the only agent to facilitate this process. b

The Arch Conservative / 11

Features

Look at this Face Women can be marginally thankful for Trump.

T

he Left-labeled “War on Women” has taken an unexpected turn in the 2016 election cycle.

Over the years, progressives have made it their unofficial business to incorrectly depict conservatism and the political Right as inherently misogynistic.

With such false notions about the GOP’s platform on women floating around, it is no wonder that the electoral field has been shaken up by the rise of presidential contender Carly Fiorina.

An underdog from the beginning, Fiorina has quietly but quickly climbed her way up not only the Republican ladder, but the entire political machine. After her stellar performance at the “Happy Hour” Republican debate on August 6, Fiorina became the most-searched 2016 presidential candidate on Google and found herself on the list of top ten Republican contenders. She has become a force with which to be reckoned.

Fiorina is not the only unprecedented character in the GOP race, though. Donald Trump has also made a splash in the large pool of candidates through his esoteric disregard for political correctness.

He has done little more in the realm of gender issues than add fuel to the fire that the GOP “hates women.” Among other remarks, Trump crassly retweeted a post calling Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly a “bimbo” and insinuated that Kelly actually owed Sydney North is a sophomore studying journalism and political science.

12 / The Arch Conservative

him an apology after he insulted her skill in moderating the first debate. Yet Trump bafflingly experienced the same phenomena of Google searches and poll rises as

Fiorina.

Fiorina, minus the pundit praise.

Trump is wildly exciting to many conservatives. Of course, his appeal does not stem from his political stances, which often leave us to beg the question, “Are you sure you are running in the right party?”

Instead, Trump has gained support based on his incendiary and uncensored speech.

Perhaps this is why he thought nothing of arbitrarily mocking Fiorina and her supporters based on her physical appearance.

“Look at that face!” Trump stated in a Rolling Stone interview published on September 9. “Would anyone vote for that?

Can you imagine that, the face of our next president.”

Later, Trump attempted to tiptoe back by saying that he was not, in fact, referring

to Fiorina’s looks, but was commenting on her leadership ability.

Trump’s “explanation”, doubtful at best, is likely just a cheap way of trying to clean up a mess without actually apologizing. But no matter what Trump actually means or claims to mean from his comments, the consensus from many voters and most women is that Trump has an unparalleled disregard not only for females in serious leadership roles, but worse, for females in general.

Trump’s insensitive comments may seriously injure the Republican Party, a party already battling gross misconceptions about its views on women. But the key word here is may. Thanks to candidates like Carly Fiorina, amongst others, the damage will be minimal.

After Trump’s comments on her appearance, Fiorina took to the airwaves not to bash Trump, but to grow her support base. On September 14, Fiorina’s campaign launched a promo that has affectionately been dubbed “the best of the 2016 campaign” by CNN. The video, with sound bites from a Fiorina speech, opens up with Fiorina’s voice saying to a room full of women, “Ladies!

Look at this face! And look at all of your faces — the face of leadership.”

At first, the commercial seems like your average political promotion — one candidate using a quote from another candidate against them in a negative approach that soon descends into mud-slinging.

But instead, Fiorina has brilliantly turned what might have become an all-out brawl with Trump into a chance to boldly Fall 2015

Photos courtesy gage skidmore

by Sydney North

Features

empower women. She specifically addresses conservative women and brings positivity to a political race that has been plagued with controversy. Impressively, Fiorina turned a personal attack into an attack on the opposing political party.

“Ladies, a note to the Democratic Party. We are not a special interest group, we are the majority of the nation,” Fiorina says in the most profound statement of the speech. Her statement seems to punch at the Left’s shortlist of “acceptable” issues for women voters, like “reproductive justice”.

Fiorina broadens the political discourse surrounding women voters, and this is the beauty of her candidacy. Whether you support her or not, conservatives of both genders should be excited to have an intelligent, self-made woman on their side.

Furthermore, Fiorina strongly believes, like the vast majority of the Republican Party, that individuals have the right and responsibility to vote on whatever issues are most important to them — issues that, especially for women, span past the realms of free birth control and abortions.

Lately, it seems as though liberals are fighting for women’s right to choose in every aspect of life except her political party affiliation.

Women are tired of being put into a box.

Conservative women particularly battle the assumption that the Right is primarily, and misogynistically concerned with their reproductive systems. The progressive narrative does not reflect what real conservative women realize: The Republican Party offers women opportunities to assert themselves in sectors of political, business, academic, economic, and social life.

Now, this is not to say that reproductive concerns are an inappropriate priority. It is the your prerogative as a citizen to vote for whatever issue is most important to you. If that happens to be within the category of reproductive rights, then thankfully you are in a country that allows women the liberty to vote on those issues.

Unacceptably, however, the Left consistently assumes that women who seek to empower individuals through free enterprise are somehow less feminist or fall 2015

independent than those who care about legalizing late-term abortion.

Rhetorical assumptions like this dilute American politics, make us more polarized as a nation, and put a subsequent end to productive policy discussion. And, quite

The Donald. frankly, stereotyping women in this way goes against every grain of even liberal feminist culture.

In the second GOP debate on September 16, Fiorina responded to Trump’s insult and his subsequent attempt to rescind it.

She calmly stated that “women heard loud and clear what Mr. Trump had to say.”

The progressive narrative about the GOP — like Trump’s misogynism — is loud. Nevertheless, thanks to the efforts of Carly Fiorina and many of her fellow conservatives, the public will hear with even greater clarity that women do belong in the conservative party.

Fiorina has yet to cower away from any of Trump’s vicious remarks. If her Reagan Library debate performance is any indication of how she plans to carry herself in the future, it is unlikely that she ever will.

At the debate Fiorina was pressed by CNN debate moderator Jake Tapper about Trump’s erratic temperament. Would she “feel comfortable with Donald Trump’s finger on the nuclear code?” Fiorina’s golden response drew one of the largest applauses of the night while simultaneously summarizing one of the core beliefs of the Republican Party.

Fiorina answered Tapper, “One of the

benefits of the presidential campaign is that the character and capability, judgment and temperament of every single one of us is revealed over time and under pressure.”

She said of Trump’s trustworthiness, “That is not for me to answer; it is for the voters of this country to answer.

And I have a lot of faith in the common sense and the good judgment of the voters of the United States of America.”

Fiorina’s response demonstrates a deep reverence for a value dear to all Republicans: that is, the importance and competency of the individual.

Like Fiorina eloquently states, the American people are more than adept at making rational decisions on their own, without the interference of politicians.

This includes American women. Women who choose, after years of education, experience, and contemplation, to adhere to conservatism are no less sensible or autonomous than women who choose the opposite ideology.

In a strange, roundabout way, the GOP should be excited about some of Trump’s more controversial comments. They have given us the chance to conduct a discussion on the role of females in the Republican Party. And, as a party, Republicans should be even more excited to boast politicians like Fiorina who can coherently counter the Left’s falsified “War on Women.”

This article is not intended as an endorsement of Carly Fiorina or any other candidate, but rather as an endorsement of more robust dialogue regarding females in politics.

Intelligent women can be and often are conservative — liberal Americans need to understand this. Conservative women have been and will continue to be an important part of the political landscape for a long time to come.

If you truly believe in female empowerment and equality, then you should also believe in a woman’s choice to make an educated decision about what political party with which she wishes to affiliate.

Conservatives are excited about the role of women in their party. Now is the time for everyone else to get excited about it too. b The Arch Conservative / 13

Features

A Loss of Words The Supreme Court creates troubling precedents.

by Connor kitchings

A

s a general rule, the Supreme interstate health insurance exchange run by Court decides to release what the federal government, which would offer it considers its most signifi- insurance to the people in those states. The cant decisions at the very end of its term, plaintiffs in the case charged that the fedwhich runs from October through June. In recent years, the Court has released decisions dealing with campaign finance, voting rights, and religious liberty in the final days of June.

This year, the Supreme Court decision striking down state statutes defining marriage as between a man and woman and legalizing gay marriage nationwide was released on the final Friday of June.

It received by far the most attention of the term.

Although less notice was paid to the two decisions immediately precedChief Justice Roberts and President Obama. ing and following the gay marriage case, these cases will arguably have a more substantial effect eral government could not require them to purchase health insurance coverage, as reon legal precedent in the years to come.

An attentive political observer may rec- quired under the individual mandate of the ognize King v. Burwell, another case con- Affordable Care Act, as the tax credits they cerning Obamacare. At issue was a statute needed to purchase the insurance were not in the Affordable Care Act which stipulates available in their state, which didn’t set up that certain tax credits and financial sup- an exchange.

The statute in question clearly employs port for purchasing health coverage are available to citizens who purchased insur- the phrase “established by the state”, while ance from “an exchange established by the the administration interpreted the law to include the federal government as well. state.”

Following the decision of 27 states to not Under a standard reading of the statute, it establish their own exchanges, the Obama seemed that the plaintiffs had a strong aradministration decided to set up an gument against the administration.

Before the hearing, it seemed possible Connor Kitchings is Managing Editor of the that the Supreme Court would strike down arch conservative. the administration’s interpretation of the statute, terminating a significant feature of 14 / The Arch Conservative

Obamacare. Alas, it was not to be.

Chief Justice John Roberts, writing a decision that would uphold a significant feature of Obamacare for the second time in four years, accepted the administration’s interpretation of the law. The Chief Justice, writing for a 6-3 majority, acknowledged that those challenging the administration had “strong” reasoning, and their interpretation was “the most natural reading of the pertinent statutory phrase.”

Nevertheless, he and the five affirming justices decided that the phrase “established by the state” couldn’t possibly be interpreted strictly because it would “likely create the very ‘death spirals’ that Congress designed the Act to avoid.”

By this mechanism, the Chief Justice deliberately translated the statutory phrase “established by the state” into “established by the state or the federal government.” Although the law says the former, with the help of the Supreme Court, it now means the latter.

In this way, Roberts has allowed the administration to continue pursuing the goals of the ACA while acknowledging that the law was not technically written to allow this.

The precedent that this creates is a sea of legal paradoxes. Under this logic, it is now the job of the judiciary to correct the errors that legislators make when they are writing laws. No longer is it the job of the courts to mediate disputes over interpretations of laws, supporting whichever party Fall 2015

Features

has the stronger argument under the letter of the law. The courts must now somehow decide between interpreting laws based the intentions of the authors or the actual text of certain statutes should the law be written in way that conflicts with those goals.

This philosophy transforms the judiciary into the partner of the legislature, working towards the desired policy goals of laws, away from its original purpose as a separate branch of government in charge of interpreting the laws passed by Congress and enforced by the executive branch.

Another significant case, Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, received an even smaller amount of news coverage this summer. Nonetheless, it will undoubtedly set a haunting precedent going forward.

In 2000, a public referendum was put on the ballot in Arizona suggesting that the voters remove the ability of state legislatures to draw congressional districts and cede this power to an independent “redistricting commission.”

This idea presents a problem, however: The Constitution states that the “Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof.” As a matter of legal interpretation, this case was leaning heavily in favor of the state legislature. Again though, it was not to be.

The justices who affirmed these decisions refused to review a case based on law and precendent rather than personal bias.

On a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution does not impart legislatures with exclusive control over the drawing of congressional districts and that citizens do in fact have the power to shift this power to an independent commission by ballot initiative.

Writing for the majority, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg writes that “the animating principle of our Constitution [is] that fall 2015

the people themselves are the originating source of all the powers of government.”

According to this line of reasoning, a popular referendum could strip any power assigned to the state government and assign it to some other body.

Justice Ginsberg.

Here, the Court’s decision does not merely flout a strictly literal reading of an unambiguous clause in the Constitution.

Justice Ginsberg’s argument is a demonstrably fallacious line of legal reasoning.

Consider the fact that the 17th Amendment was required to wrest the election of senators away from state legislatures, a point that the dissenting opinion makes exceptionally clear in its blistering attack on the majority opinion.

To understand why the majority of the justices on the Supreme Court would flout the literal reading of the constitution, context is key. To a great many liberals, many of the political woes in this country, i.e. polarization and gridlock, can be attributed to partisan redistricting, or gerrymandering.

In response to this view, support for state legislatures to transfer their redistricting powers to independent commissions has been growing rapidly in recent years. It is no stretch of the imagination to conclude that Justice Ginsburg and the other four justices supporting the decision believe this as well.

Sadly, these justices seem to have allowed their personal preferences over an issue to cloud their legal judgment over a case. In what other way could the Court have interpreted “by the Legislature” to mean “by the People” with a straight face?

These two decisions raise a great number

of questions about the role of the judiciary in our current system of government.

Thanks to these two decisions by the Supreme Court, words no longer mean what they seem to indicate. “Established by the state” now means “established by the state and federal government” and “in each State by the Legislature” now means “in each State by the Legislature, unless the People decide something else.”

These two decisions provide a stunning demonstration of judicial activism.

The justices who affirmed these decisions refused to review a case based on law and precedent rather than personal bias. They allowed the possible outcome of the decision on the policy and their personal preferences for certain policies to affect the way they interpreted these laws.

It is possible these cases result in a better form of public policy. Perhaps the country is improved by these decisions. Perhaps not.

In the realm of the legal philosophy, though, judicial review works in a very specific way: If a court interprets a written law and the ramifications of that interpretation do not follow what the legislature wanted, then it is the legislature’s responsibility to rewrite the law to correct the flaw. The burden does not rest with the judiciary.

One of my favorite political idioms comes from John Adams, who wrote that “America is a nation of laws, not of men.”

Language, not human whim, is the bedrock of the law: The particular words which comprise a prohibition give it legal authority. A word is definitive and forever; it cannot turn on its head based on the will of a majority, the thoughts of nine judges, or when it was written or read.

Men and women are malleable and naturally change their interpretations of life based on learning and experience. Laws should not be fluid like this. If law is flexible, then it cannot be applied to all citizens equally — a principle which is essential to liberty.

Lady Justice is blind for a reason. It is not just because she should not see who the plaintiffs and defendants are. It is also because she should not care what the results of administering justice through the courts would be.

In a perfect world, the positives and negatives resulting from a legal decision is the concern of legislatures, not judges. Justice in and of itself should be a judge’s only concern. b The Arch Conservative / 15

Culture

Q&A:

Free Enterprise and Climate Change Bob Inglis discusses the intersection of liberty and responsibility.

Bob Inglis is a former congressman from South Carolina. After losing his reelection bid in 2010, he founded the Energy and Enterprise Initiative, an educational organization which advocates for conservative climate change policies. He sat down with The Arch Conservative’s Elizabeth Ridgeway, Connor Kitchings and Marian Young to discuss climate change and conservatism.

climate are actually relatively affordable. taC: What is your reaction to the Obama administration’s recent reinterpretation of the Clean Water Act? BI: The Clean Power Plan, which is President Obama’s approach to deal with climate change through the Clean Air Act, is precisely the worst way to deal with climate change. I’d have to sit and think about a worse way. It’s largely a regulatory system THE ARCH CONSERthat makes America a double VATIVE: At first, you were loser. a climate change denier.

So essentially we [estabWas there a defining molish] a price and carbon tax ment that caused you to in America, and industries change your mind? pick up and move to a Bob inglis: Yeah, place that doesn’t similarly there were three steps for regulate carbon dioxide. me.

They move from Georgia to One was my son coming China, for example. When to me in 2004 when I was they get there, they are going running for Congress again to emit more CO2 than they and he was voting for the are emitting here. Not only first time. He said “I’m votInglis meets with the Editors. did you lose employment in ing for you, Dad, but you’ve America, Mr. President, but got to clean up your act now you’ve increased global emissions. on the environment.” Most people would think that was sort of a You’ve got to find a way to get China in on this deal. We can’t typical activist kind of threat, but I know it wasn’t a threat; I knew do this alone, but we can lead in such a way that we make it in my son just wanted me to address this challenge. other peoples’ interest to join us.

Step two was going to Antarctica and seeing the evidence [for What we’re proposing is the United States act very boldly and climate change] in their ice drillings. say, “Listen, here’s the deal- we are a large economy and we want Step three was something of a spiritual awakening in Austrato price carbon dioxide in a very transparent way. If you enter lia. I saw coral bleaching and a climate scientist who I could tell our country and come into Savannah with flat steel from China, shared my worldview. He was worshipping God in the creation, you are going to pay a carbon tax on entry based on the carbon but not worshipping the creation. There’s quite a difference. content of that steel.”

A terrible question in climate change is “Do you believe?” Well, Then they challenge it in the World Trade Organization, and no, I don’t believe in climate change. It’s just data. It’s not worthy we win the case because of precedents in the chemical industry, of belief. My faith informs my reaction to the data, but it’s not where you can tax based on the content of the stuff coming [into worthy of belief. the country.]

What we should say is “What does the data indicate? Does it If we win such a case, then China, within 24 hours — because indicate risk, and should we move against that risk? And are there they have an amazing way of reaching consensus — would figure reasonable steps we can take to follow the prudential principles?” out that “we are paying upon entry into Savannah a tax that could And the answer is yes. we could have collected in Beijing.” So 24 hours later, because TAC: If you were talking to a voter who told you that that of this bold move by the United States, China is doing the same they do not “believe” in climate change, what would you thing [to decrease carbon emissions.] say to them?

The United States is big enough to force China to do this, BI: I think that I would ask, “How sure are you?” but we’ve got to win in the WTO. And if we do, it’s just a use of I’m pretty sure that my house isn’t going to burn down tonight, market power. We are not going to allow the non-recognition of but I’m not calling my insurance agent to cancel the policy if it is negative externalities. b relatively affordable. Some of the things that we can do about the

16 / The Arch Conservative

Fall 2015

Columns Culture

Review: End of Discussion We are beginning an important conversation.

I

n their recently published book, End of Discussion: How the Left’s Outrage Industry Shuts Down Debate, Manipulates Voters, and Makes America Less Free (and Fun), Mary Katherine Ham and Guy Benson tackle a tough issue that few people seem willing to talk about: how political correctness and fabricated anger are being used to silence productive debate and dissenting views.

Ham, a proud University of Georgia graduate, has risen to notoriety as an editor-at-large at Hot Air, contributing editor at TownHall.com, and as a frequent Fox News contributor. Alongside hosting his own radio show and making regular appearances on Fox News, Benson is also a TownHall.com contributor. Both of these guys are insanely talented — er, I mean, “this guy and gal,” just so we are politically correct.

If you take the time to read the book (which I highly suggest you do), you will realize why this hard-hitting issue of political correctness doesn’t often come up in conversation. The mere existence of this book falls under the category of what Ham and Benson would classify as “offensive things that conservatives shouldn’t bring up.”

In their satirical yet serious examination of what they call the “outrage industry,” Ham and Benson successfully articulate the dangers of being too politically correct and expose, through a number of figures, political allegories, snarky footnotes, and hilarious pop culture references, the full measure of hypocrisy that the liberal left has been known to display.

Now, don’t get excited yet, my fellow conservatives — we aren’t off the hook either. Though the conservative right has an infinitely smaller “outrage industry” Sydney North is a sophomore studying political science and journalism. She is a new contributor to The Arch Conservative.

FAll 2015

than the left, we’ve dirtied our hands in the muck of fake indignation too. The issue of false anger and gross exaggeration, it seems, does not discriminate based on party lines. It is well worth noting, as Ham and Benson do, that sometimes “outrage” is nothing more than a natural emotion and protective response to being attacked by an opponent. Key word: sometimes.

However, the book hints that the issue often lies in the great need for talking points. As Ham and Benson assert multiple times, liberals use the “outrage circus” not only to demean conservative opinions, but also to atone for their own lack of new ideas. For a party that prides itself on being extremely progressive, a lack of inventiveness seems to have incited a war raged against conservatives in order to prevent them from rightly reclaiming the title of the “party of the future.”

According to Ham and Benson, “liberals profess tolerance but often have no occasion to practice it in real life, as conservatives do.” This, noted throughout the book, is due to the fact that liberals have made a game — or, rather, a career — out of feigning hurt feelings and misconstruing comments made by conservatives.

Nevertheless, the book extends into far more issues than those of speech censorship, even discussing some of the more serious repercussions that limiting language can have, such as heavy career implications and extreme falsity when it comes to voter information. As Ham and Benson reiterate throughout the book, our society’s obsessive awareness of politically incorrect vocabulary has made it increasingly difficult to interact with others, even in everyday conversation. According to them, “everything’s a thing,” and no one is exempt from the scrutiny that comes with unfortunate political gaffes. Benson and Ham provide multiple examples of good reputations being unfairly tarnished by the outrage industry.

Furthermore, an even more disturbing backlash of the outrage industry is the aforementioned falsity of voter information. Benson and Ham argue that high ranking conservatives, afraid of being

labeled homophobic, sexist, greedy, or worst of all — “the dreaded R-word”, racist — have conceded to let the Left win their vicious game of outrage. This fear of mislabeling has led conservative politicians to cower away from any remarks or points of view that could be considered remotely inflammatory.

In turn, discussion between the political elite has subsequently been turned from healthy debate into automatic conservative defeat. When conservatives argue their ideas, liberals often label them as inherently evil creatures with intentions to oppress. Yet, when conservatives don’t stand up for their beliefs, they relinquish any chance of victory on their own terms.

Conservatives lose either way. It is a government shutdown of the worst kind.

Unfortunately for the sake of our democracy that we so dearly treasure, this book makes clear that our overly aggressive attention to language and our keen awareness of dog whistles (that is, — for those of you who are “uninitiated” — “coded messages that are intended for a narrow, discrete, audience”) is causing the deterioration of our political institutions by fracturing free debate and therefore hindering deeper understanding of one another.

Ham and Benson do a fantastic job in this book of saying some of the things that conservatives always want to say, but, alas– have never had the actual courage to say.

In today’s political sphere with the unofficial censoring of lingo, it’s dubious whether or not the first amendment guarantee of free speech is still available to those on both sides of the political aisle. As conservatives, we strongly believe that it should be; however, conservatives only represent a portion of the major political discussion, and we don’t always get to have things our way.

Hopefully, with a little help from Ham and Benson (alongside some rigorous efforts to better understand our rival ideologists), we can work to expand the quickly shrinking list of terms and phrases that are deemed politically acceptable. b

The Arch Conservative / 17

culture

More Fascinating than Real Life In a Netflix age, human relationships are crumbling.

I

n his modern classic How to Read a Book, Mortimer Adler argues that reading is an inherently active pursuit. If reading is the act of receiving information, he writes, then it cannot be inert: “Catching the ball is just as much an activity as pitching or hitting it.”

Adler contrasts reading with other forms of media consumption that may be utterly passive: The television viewer “inserts a packaged opinion into his mind, somewhat like inserting a cassette into a cassette player.” He can then “replay” this information whenever convenient.

Adler’s metaphor, though obscure in the age of music streaming, clearly portrays a monumental shift in the media toward which we gravitate as a society.

Until the widespread adoption of personal television sets following World War II, the entertainment consumed in the West — literature, music, theater, and oratory — engaged our active faculties in the same way Adler describes reading.

Television exercises our minds and muscles less than almost any other traditional form of entertainment. In his Poetics, Aristotle argues that tragic and comic dramas force viewers to question how they perceive themselves by exaggerating human virtues and flaws. Television programming, in which the characters are not bodily present, does not demand such immediate intellectual evaluation from the spectator.

Elizabeth Ridgeway is a senior studying Latin, Greek, and classical culture. She is Editor-in-Chief of The Arch Conservative.

18 / The Arch Conservative

Yet if watching TV has always been a passive activity, until recent years it was at least a communal one.

We used to watch together.

Now, Netflix has rendered the experience of watching television more solitary than ever by brining programming to cell phones, personal computers, and other devices oriented for a single viewer.

In the not-so-distant past, anyone who wished to watch Star Trek or The Mary Tyler Moore Show had to go to a common area of his or her house. The household television set often stood in a common family room, facing enough seating for parents, siblings, and a few friends to join. TV viewers were ushered into a social experience, forced to acknowledge human relationships and respond to others’ emotions.

Today, if I want to relax with a few episodes of The Office, I don’t have to leave the privacy of my bedroom. The only people I am in company with are the figures moving on the screen — “talking heads”, in a popular witticism.

This shift from shared experience to solitude pervades modern culture. Increasingly, the common observer — not just a doctor or therapist — can discern

the loneliness caused by this gradual alienation. In The Quest for Community, Robert Nisbet speaks for several recent generations when he writes of “the disenchanted, lonely figure…struggling for identification with race or class or group, incessantly striving to answer the question, ‘Who am I, What am I?’” Television creates a convincing illusion, however, that it can be a substitute for real friendship, or even mere personal interaction.

Lucy Maud Montgomery, respected children’s author, offers some pertinent words here. One of her heroines isn’t bored on a solitary walk through the woods: “Though alone she never found it lonely; her imagination peopled her path with merry companions, and with these she carried on a gay, pretended conversation that was wittier and more fascinating than conversations are apt to be in real life...In a ‘make believe’ assembly of choice spirits everybody says just the thing you want her to say and so gives you the chance to say just what you want her to say.”

Television makes the witty, pretended conversation vividly present, without even the labor of imagining it. To add to the allure, the participants are more glamorous, their surroundings more interesting, and any awkward silences are conveniently edited out.

The only regrettable fact is that, unlike a real exchange, there is no opening for a viewer to join. When I watch movies or shows on my laptop, I must sit before my screen, watching as relationships develop and human minds meet just beyond my reach. The people I see have no regard for my emotions or well-being, though as each show season progresses I come to have immense concern for theirs. b

FALL 2015

Humor

TRUMP, the Tar-Baby Uncle Remus proves a sage for our time.

I

Photo Courtesy midxi

f something looks like a lion but kicks and brays like a donkey, it is most definitely the latter. In Aesop’s fable, the donkey who wore the pelt of a lion deceived a few individuals with its disguise.

Recently, though, we have learned it may even fool the entire GOP base.

Truly, The Donald is a donkey in a (lion’s) suit. The ancient Greek slave hit the nail right on the toupee-wearing head.

The donkey and the lion provide an apt metaphor for the 2016 presidential race, but it is high time we consider the wisdom of a more local prophet-sage. I speak, of course, of Uncle Remus.

Those who have rolled down Georgia’s highway 441, will no doubt have zero recollection whatsoever of a small city between Madison and Milledgeville: Eatonton, residence of our home-grown storyteller Uncle Remus. Tucked away in the beautiful speed trap of Putnam County, Eatonton boasts Western civilization’s greatest attraction: the Uncle Remus Museum, which bears the moniker of the South’s wisest of relatives with pride.

Most Americans have heard at least a few of the tales and yarns spun by the old man. The knowledge we may glean from Uncle Remus is incalculable. As Southerners, we owe him more than we could hope to repay. From the lessons of the treacherous briar patch to the story of Miss Cow, the “Aesop of Eatonton” used the lives of woodland creatures to explain the world around us and show us how to live in harmony.

Perhaps the most famous of his furry characters was Brer Rabbit, who has several didactic adventures in Uncle Remus’ corpus.

With great shame I must admit that during my time in college I fell away from

Richard Russell “Rebel” Lord is a senior studying political science. He is a regular contributor to The Arch Conservative.

Fall 2015

the teachings of earth’s last and greatest fictional prophet. Recently, however, I returned to the fold.

It was mid-September of this very year when Remus called out to me in a dream.

He told me the lovable story of the Tar Baby that I had heard many times before in my

Eatonton, Georgia. youth. He spoke of Brer Rabbit’s journey and the deceptively silent Tar Baby lying by the side of the road. “How does the story end?” I muttered.

“Wait and see,” whispered Uncle Remus mysteriously. “You better run along now, POLI 4900 starts in an hour!”

I thanked him for the vision and rushed to my class. That afternoon, I began to read the news. It was then that Remus called out to me again.

“Boy, you better mind the Tar Baby,” he scolded. Confused, I looked down at my

laptop and saw the man whom I had hoped would Make American Great Again.

DONALD TRUMP was staring at me from the front page of Drudge Report. The headlines and text had disappeared, there was only TRUMP. Looking up, I recalled the words of caution Uncle Remus had given me. My eyes returned to the screen, but the scene I gazed at was a lucid nightmare.

There they were, trapped. The GOP hopefuls had been waylaid on a road leading to Iowa, rows of corn on either side.

Jeb(!), Carly, Marco, Rand, Doc Carson, Teddy…the whole gang was trapped, their limbs caught in the TRUMP tar: a dark gooey mass covering its red “hair” with a trucker cap.’

I watched in horror as the Trump Baby suckered the Presidential hopefuls, fooling them into sinking their clenched fists deeper into the crass amalgamation.

“China!” it bellowed. “Immigrants!” it sneered. In vain they answered its jibes.

Some escaped their doom only to strike once more at the TRUMP Baby.

The folly of their struggle had not yet become apparent to these poor souls. The more the presidential candidates flailed and the more they struggled, the greater their peril became. The TRUMP tar monstrosity grew, absorbing the popularity and poll numbers of its victims.

I could take no more. I slammed my MacBook shut. I shook my fists in rage, refusing to acknowledge the truth the Uncle Remus had shown me. I stared blankly into my ceiling for hours trying to find some shred of hope. I pondered what I had observed.

Finally, I replayed the story of Brer Rabbit which I had received in the dream. I thought of the end of the story, and Remus’ parting words the previous night.

I realized there was still hope. This vision had not yet come to pass. Perhaps, although tempted to face down the Trump Baby, the GOP would “wait and see” concerning Trump. After the tar (and donkey) qualities were revealed beneath his bravado, surely the nation would “run along” — far, far away from the sticky trap. b

The Arch Conservative / 19