THE ARCH CONSERVATIVE, Winter 2015

Ko —

ch

p. B 14 ro s

.

Winter 2015

Raising the Standard.

FREE SPEECH ON CAMPUS Why Yale Matters for the University of Georgia

by Elizabeth Ridgeway

Are you a Twittergogue?

— p. 19

CRONY CAPITALISM, p. 6 • TERROR IN PARIS, p. 12

THE EDITORS

Standing Against Terror Knowing the enemy is the first step.

F

rom November 12th to November 15th, radical Islamists perpetrated terrorist attacks in Beirut, Paris, and other cities around the globe. As the world recovers from the shock of these tragedies, we are left to reflect on an ancient myth: Pandora’s box, which contained all the evils and weaknesses that plague humankind. In myth, legend, and religious teaching, Western civilization has long depicted human nature as deeply flawed.

Today, we are grateful, and at times overconfident, that modern notions of human rights restrain powers of evil in the world. By taking this supposed social advancement for granted, we are the more deeply wounded when our safeguards fail. In the wake of the November terrorist attacks, everyday Americans carry sincere hope that the free world continues to rally around our wounded allies. We offer our thoughts and prayers to the victims of these attacks, their families, and their nations.

The perpetrators of these attacks committed hideous acts of warfare. The families of their victims ask what could possibly motivate men to leave bombs on crowded streets with the intent of indiscriminately killing as many men, women, and children as possible. They ask what cause could prompt them to hurl explosives at hostages and explode their own suicide belts even as police are completing a raid. Sadly, the Western world has seen these acts of horror far too many times in past two decades to claim ignorance of the answers to these questions.

In recent times, radical Islam has been one of the most dangerous threats to liberty across the globe. Yet before the Islamic State, the modern free world faced other threats: Communism and fascism come to mind.

Like these, radical Islam is an ideology that makes complete acquiescence a moral imperative and demands full obedience or death. Islamic extremism is gaining influence around the world as a threat to individual freedom, not only in certain countries or isolated regions.

Furthermore, Islamic extremism is also an ideology that is not recognized as dangerous, or even existent, by many people throughout the United States and beyond.

A popular religious aphorism runs, “The greatest trick the devil ever played was convincing the world that he did not exist.” This saying is relevant to issues of national security as well.

The only way to battle and overcome threats is to challenge them directly. Forces which are intent on the destruction of civilizations cannot be defeated by people who do not acknowledge their existence. Our public figures have become too afraid to take a stand on what the terrorist attacks of the past few decades represent. We

must openly acknowledge the fact that such attacks originate in a radical Islamic theology and not in vague “radical extremism”. If we want to ensure eventual victory over terrorists, we must begin by knowing the root of the problem.

Those who hesitate to attribute the Paris attacks to religious extremists are, at best, trying to avoid alienating our potential allies in the Islamic world.

Yet calling religious extremism for what it is actually distinguishes violent radicals from Muslims who do not follow their faith in the same destructive manner. Right now, those perpetuating radical terrorism constitute less than one percent of the total Muslim population around the world. We must support our moderate allies.

Our politicians must make distinctions between radical and moderate Islamic sects, not to discriminate but to properly discern the threats which face the United States. We cannot conquer the terrorists alone. Only by receiving the help of moderate Islamic allies gratefully can we hope to win the fight against what Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has called “primitive extremism.”

The West cannot defeat radical Islam on its own. Such a scenario would require an incredible investment of military resources and the technology to track the terrorists wherever they scattered.

Instead, we must rely on the moral integrity with which moderate Muslims condemn the perverse and violent practices of the extremists. If Western powers invade nations around the globe to crush this menace, another one will simply arise later to take its place. Once the extremists have lost their comfortable harbors in countries across the world, the virus of widespread terrorism will die without a sufficient host to support it.

We may have seen the beginning of the movement in the brave stand of Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, who called for a “religious revolution” to prevent the doctrines of Islam from being twisted for despotic political purposes.

The fight against radical Islam is far from over. The November attacks will undoubtedly reform Western military actions against the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq. Our citizens need to prepare for a long, drawn-out conflict.

United States leaders cannot simply respond to atrocities with short-lived moral righteousness, then return to a collective groan about the cost of war. At the very least, we must name our enemies for who they are. Anything less would be a shameful embarrassment to the memories of those who recently lost their lives.

2 / The Arch Conservative

— The Editors

WINTER 2015

COVER IMAGE COURTESY CLKR FREE VECTOR IMAGES

We must rely on the moral integrity with which moderate Muslims condemn the perverse and violent practices of the extremists.

Winter 2015 THE EDITORS

Standing Against Terror. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

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

Crony Capitalism

Connor Kitchings

Bernie’s Pricetag

Bill Davison

Elites and Campaign Finance

Free Speech and Yale

Terror in Paris

TAC Hosts Kyle Wingfield

The Great Debate

12

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

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

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

Sydney North .

CULTURE

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

Baylee Culverhouse .

Elizabeth Ridgeway. .

Michael Duckett .

A Double Standard

Jake Shumard. .

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

On Raising Minimum Wage

FEATURES

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

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

Elizabeth Ridgeway. .

Nick Geeslin. .

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

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

A Literary Holiday . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

17

HUMOR

Quiz: Are You a Twittergogue?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

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

Elizabeth Ridgeway, Connor Kitchings,

MANAGING EDITOR

Baylee Culverhouse,

IMAGES COURTESY PETER L. SVENDSEN AND STOCKMONKEYS.COM

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.

WINTER 2015

The Arch Conservative / 3

CAMPUS

their meal plans themselves — it is simpler if a parent can prepay.

In short, it is up to consumers to decide whether or not the commuter meal plan is worth the purchase price. 2015 marks only the first year of the program. In coming years, Food Services may make some improvements to an already solid idea.

We Should Keep Richt

— Nick Geeslin

A fan argues against firing the Bulldogs’ head coach.

S the arch conservative presents a cost-benefit analysis.

A version of this article ran originally on www.archconuga.com.

T

his year, Food Services created a commuter meal plan that allows for either 80 or 65 meals and 665, 255, or 300 ‘Paw Points’. Each Paw Point is the equivalent of $1 at vending machines and Food Services vendors like the Bulldog Café at Tate.

This plan is a great idea, but at what cost? Here is the net dollar benefit from purchasing the commuter meal plan (80 meals plus 665 Paw Points) versus paying for individual lunches.

Commuter Meal Plan (80 lunches + Paw Points) = $1418.60 Regular Meal plan (single semester) = $1401 Net benefit = $17.30 It seems more cost effective to buy lunch or breakfast every time a customer normally would and save money that way. On the commuter meal plan, eating breakfast only once a week over the course of the semester would not gain your money’s worth by any means.

The second commuter plan option, with 80 meals and 255 Paw Points, yields the same net benefit. Likewise, the plan featuring 65 meals and 300 Paw Points only benefits you $14.06. And that’s not even including breakfast prices, which are a whole dollar or two cheaper and a popular time for commuter meal plan customers.

It is important to note that the Paw Points are tax-free and do roll over to the next semester if you do not use all of them.

Are there other incentives to purchase the plan? It is certainly much easier to ask the cashier to swipe a student ID card when entering Bolton or ECV than to have to fumble through your wallet for cash. Furthermore, often students are not even purchasing

4 / The Arch Conservative

— Bill Davison

WINTER 2015

KILROY WAS HERE.

Commuter Meal Plan

ince joining the University of Georgia as head football coach in 2001, Mark Richt has won close to 75 percent of his games. This winning percentage, fourth among active coaches in the country, has made him a prominent figure in the Southeastern Conference.

Currently, the Bulldogs are in a position to end their 2015 campaign with at most nine or ten wins. Many teams would dream of this record, yet a number of significant losses this season have Dawg fans calling for Richt’s head.

In the past couple of years, many fans have begun to doubt Richt’s ability to win the “big game.” To Georgia fans, this jargon primarily means beating South Carolina and Florida. In the past few years, these games have proven difficult for Richt. This year, the Bulldogs lost to Alabama (38-10), Tennessee (38-31), and Florida (27-3). As a result, some fans want Richt gone.

Georgia folks should consider this decision carefully. Though Richt has had a couple “down” years, he has still managed to win more games than the majority of coaches in the history of college football. He continues to create teams which many college football analysts believe are capable of national title runs.

Furthermore, Richt’s reputation as a level-headed man of faith has drawn much support by fans who realize that college sports are about more than winning. The grueling experience of playing sports in college can build youths into men and women of formidable character. Richt has proven to be very good at this wholistic training and has produced more graduates than many other programs.

To all the Richt naysayers: There is nobody more fit to be the football coach at the University of Georgia. Richt’s character and ability to win over the long run makes him a credit to Dawgs fans everywhere.

CAMPUS

SGA

I

WATCH

n his 2005 book Mediated, Thomas de Zengotita argues that today, Americans “method act” their lives. The modern individual, constantly conscious of news cameras and sitcom laugh audiences — and increasingly retweets and Instagram frames — performs her life for the constant scrutiny of others.

She feels “compelled to craft a little narrative, starring me, an oft-repeated and inevitably embellished story-for-the-ages reporting on...personal experience of the Event”. Today, we ask whether moderns, habituated to social media networks, can have any emotion that is unadulterated by the need for public acclimation.

SGA’s latest declaration is an interesting case study. Published on Twitter on November 12th, it states the following: “The undersigned members of the University of Georgia Student Government Association have witnessed the recent events at the University of Missouri and other institutions and want to ensure [sic] the student body that SGA is taking a firm stance against racial injustice.”

A later paragraph assures students that “events of the past week at the University of Missouri serve as the prime example of what will happen when issues surrounding diversity and

WINTER 2015

inclusion are not adequately addressed...Change is coming.”

The statement is digitally “signed” by approximately 80 members of SGA, including both elected senators and appointed cabinet members.

THE ARCH CONSERVATIVE knows and respects the personal character of quite a few of these signers. We trust that this stand against racial discrimination stems from first, a recognition of recent and disgusting instances of racial discrimination on and near our campus; and second, sincere regard for members of the UGA community.

Yet several features of the statement undermine the integrity of the point it tries to make. There seems to be a veiled threat in the quotation cited above. The declaration hints that protests and class cancellations will ensue, interrupting the daily life of the community, if issues brought to the administration’s attention are not “adequately addressed.” The meaning of “adequately addressed” is left vague, allowing the group of protesters to change their demands at will.

Finally, although SGA claims to represent the student body, the prominent signatures at the bottom of the declaration restrict the sentiments in it to the signers themselves.

The extent to which this statement is a “performance” for individuals as much as a deeply-held conviction — the two are not mutually exclusive — must be called into question.

— Elizabeth Ridgeway

The Arch Conservative / 5

COLUMNS

Crony Capitalism Big business and the government collude against the middle class.

“T

he game is rigged.” Voters hear this phrase almost non-stop from the Left, whether from Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders or Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Democrats love to tell their constituents that few people have a fair shot in the United States’ economy.

For all of the criticisms that the Right and Left have for each other, this may be one instance when there is bipartisan consensus on an issue.

In recent elections, political rhetoric on both ends of the spectrum has readily assumed that there is a inequity of opportunity in our country. Although politicians across party lines agree with this assessment, Left and Right have vastly different ways of arriving at reasons for this conclusion. These differences are based on how politicians choose to perceive the United States’ economy.

Even before Marx coined the derogatory term “capitalism,” leftist thinkers have criticized the principles of free market economics. Progressives often argue that capitalism must be at fault for the problems of our economy. According to this line of thought, the rich always seem to do well while the poor and the middle class go through cycles. Wall Street gets the governmental handout and Main Street is shown the door of recession.

These denizens of the Left have a point: the fat cat businessmen that have friends in Washington do have an advantage over the average American.

This is not the fault of capitalism itself, however. Instead, this phenomenon represents a corruption of the free market. Inequality of opoprtunity is the fault of crony capitalism.

What the Left fails to acknowledge is that as the federal government grows Connor Kitchings is a junior studying political science and economics. He is Managing Editor of The Arch Conservative.

6 / The Arch Conservative

larger, fewer Americans have the ability to comply with its regulations and mandates as private individuals.

Unwieldy government bureaucracy breeds unwieldy monopolies in the business world. In 2015, federal bureaucracy has grown so large that almost no one can file their taxes without hiring companies like H&R Block.

In today’s “free” market, only corporate giants, who can afford armies of lawyers, can possibly fully understand the government’s burdensome regulations. Only the most well connected businesses that can influence legislation and regulation to gain an upper hand on their competition. The activist government that liberals crave always seems to give elites an even bigger advantage than they already have.

While crony capitalism has steadily grown to be a bigger problem over the past half-century, the Obama era has been especially tainted by the decadent relationship between big business and big government.

President Obama’s economic stimulus package of 2009 was filled with gifts for his well-connected donors and businesses with expansive lobbying arms in Washington, D.C. Solyndra is one company that has become the poster child for the government’s failure to regulate well in the economic sphere, due partially to corporate interests.

Solyndra was a California-based solar panel manufacturer that applied for a taxpayer funded loan in 2006 and finally received it in 2009 as part of the stimulus plan.

Private-sector investors had decided the company was not worth the risk, and many warned administration officials that any investment in the company would end up being lost. Yet the government pushed through the loan, and even in the face of the possible failure of the company, the Energy Department restructured Solyndra’s loan so that if the company went bankrupt, at-risk private investors — many of whom just happened to be Obama campaign bundlers — would receive their money back before the taxpayers. When Solyndra eventually declared bankruptcy in 2011, Uncle Sam was left with the loss.

Furthering crony capitalism through government policy has not been unique to Democrats, however. Long-held Republican ties with big business have allowed the “conservative” party to enact a great number of policies that have also added to the problem.

For an example, we have only to turn to the reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank this year.

The Export-Import Bank is an official export credit agency of the federal government that offers financing and insurance for companies willing to make risks by going abroad to buy or sell products. While its existence may sound like a government entity that supports free trade, it simply operates as a supplier of corporate welfare.

Two of the biggest beneficiaries of the Bank’s lending practices are General Electric and Boeing, companies that hardly need incentives or help exporting their products overseas. While conservative Republicans in the House and the Senate forced Congress to legislate the ExportImport Bank’s authority to expire over the summer, a bill reauthorizing the Bank passed the House with 127 Republican votes, an astronomical amount of support from the party that claims to be against corporate welfare.

Some Republicans may simply believe that the Bank is a pro-trade, job-creating entity. Before this summer, however, many other Republicans likely received calls from the well-connected lobbyists of the corporations that benefit from its loans and insurance.

Another eight years of growing government, under a president of either party, will not damage powerful corporations. That is why it is not hard to believe that three of the top five financial supporters of Hillary Clinton over the past fifteen years are Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, and JP Morgan Chase.

When the government is in charge of picking winners and losers in economic competition, elites protect their own. The result is government handouts and passes for the corporate giants that have their attention. b WINTER 2015

COLUMNS

Elites and Campaign Finance Contributions to political campaigns cut across party lines.

IMAGE COURTESY “NASA”

P

olitical opponents often accuse the Democrats received the most campaign income growth of 31percent between 2009 Republican Party of being control- donations from the finance sector. Yet they and 2012, compared with growth of less ling, judgmental, and rich from continue to brand the Republican Party as than 1% for the bottom 99%. Income actually shrank for the bottom 90% of earners.” shady free market dealings. Furthermore, crony capitalists.

The top 1 percent of many voters believe that American elites are not those who espouse conhurting financially, and servative beliefs must have not experienced be well-off, raising their any damage to their rechildren with silver sources under Demospoons in their mouths. cratic leadership. The If this stereotype were bottom 99 percent, howtrue, it would be fair to ever, have not yet recovconclude that conservaered their losses from the tism is an ideology of the Great Recession. While elite, for the elite. the stock market has imYet this caricature proved noticeably, the could not be a less accunational rate of employrate picture of who many ment has not. political conservatives Starting in 2008, are. Ideas of liberty, fiscal the Great Recession siresponsibility, and the phoned trillions of dolfree market appeal to citlars from retirement izens of humble means plans and investments, quite as equally as those subtracted eight milwho carry out their daily lion jobs from our labor lives in perceived priviIn an election year, contributions to both parties soar. force, and evicted thoulege. We must work to Why did Republican candidates receive sands of Americans from their homes. undermine several misconceptions about the use and place of wealth in the Republi- fewer campaign contributions than their Many optimists believe that these losses have been recovered, and for good reason: can Party, including the issue of campaign Democratic counterparts?

CNN’s Jack Cafferty highlights a pos- We have come from a lowly ten percent finance.

Even though Harry Reid would be sible cause for this deficit: “Many Repub- unemployment rate to one just over five hard-pressed to admit it, the controversy licans opposed the $700 billion bailout percent in 2015.

But who rebounded? During the recesover campaign finance goes well beyond package passed in October as well as a resthe Koch Brothers. Admittedly, there is no cue plan for the automakers,” he writes. “It sion, the rich capitalized on monetary easdenying the influence of large donors in looks like the GOP isn’t going to win ‘big ing from the Federal Reserve to further their holdings in the stock and bond marthe Republican Party on the 2012 election, business’ back anytime soon.”

Whether Republican legislators’ deci- kets from 9.2 to 20.6 trillion. Real estate tyincluding PayPal cofounder Peter Thiel, casino tycoon Sheldon Adelson, and many of sions to reject the bailout were prudent or coons increased their holdings from 6.9 to not, the situation Cafferty highlights dem- 10.8 trillion, according to the Los Angeles Mitt Romney’s original business partners.

Nevertheless, the Democratic Party onstrates a trend. Large corporations sup- Times. While the unemployment rate has has long been similarly well-funded. The port candidates favorable to their interests, since receded to normal figures, the New Washington Post reports that in 2008, the across party lines and according to the pa- York Times reports that many jobs that were lost in 2008 have been replaced by per trail of Congressional votes.

The left’s support of elites is true also at lower-paying positions.

Jake Shumard is a Governmental activity during the Great the individual level. The rich are getting sophomore studying richer under President Obama’s leader- Recession and President Obama’s tenure agricultural science ship. An article in the Economist provides resulted in increased wealth for elites. All and environmenmodels of income fluctuation since the re- in all, it is no wonder that those heavily tal systems. He is a cession of 2007 and 2008. The Paris School tied to Wall Street and its interests are have regular contributor at The Arch Conserof Economics highlights one statistic: aligned with the Democratic Party. b vative.

“The top 1% [of Americans] enjoyed real WINTER 2015

The Arch Conservative / 9

COLUMNS

Bernie’s Pricetag There’s no such thing as a free lunch.

N

ot too long ago, pundits across the political spectrum predicted 2016 would mean the coronation of Hillary Clinton as the Democratic presidential nominee. Yet as many know, a large, diverse pool of Republican candidates has stolen the show.

The Republicans have caught the country’s attention since August 6th, when Fox News hosted 17 presidential candidates split between two debates — an unprecedented plurality. The glut of policy ideas and one-line zingers from GOP candidates has taken much of the attention from Democratic hopefuls.

One Democratic candidate stands out, however. Senator Bernie Sanders (D-Vermont) has been turning heads with his policy proposals, gaining support throughout the country despite openly calling himself a socialist. His willingness to accept this label, one many Americans have distanced themselves from in the past, is surprising.

A significant number of early polls show that Sanders has consolidated more support in Iowa and New Hampshire than opponent Clinton. For the Democrats looking for an alternative to Clinton, Sanders has become the candidate to support.

Every time Bernie — his preferred moniker — gives a speech, he rattles off a list of industries that would become public responsibilities if he were elected President of the United States. Heading this roster is free college tuition and free healthcare for all.

To young, college-age voters, this sounds like a great plan: many fear paying off their college loans. This voting bloc has also taken the same approach when considering the benefits of socialized health care.

Of course a college student worried about making money after school would Bill Davison is a freshman studying international affairs.

He is a regular contributor at The Arch Conservative.

8 / The Arch Conservative

be happy to hear that someone else is going to pay for their health care. These voters must realize, though, that eventually they will have to bear the burden and pay off health bills that are not their own.

This “free” agenda would be one of the most expensive reforms in our nation’s history. A vote for these “free” programs could end up driving the United States into an even greater debt, one that we may not be able to escape.

According to the Wall Street Journal, implementing all of Bernie’s planned programs could cost upwards of $18 trillion.

Compared to the $750 billion President Obama and Congress spent in 2009 during the president’s economic stimulus program, this number seems unfathomable.

Although Sanders has not laid out his health reform plan in detail, Warren Gunnels, Sanders’ policy aide, confirms that $15 trillion would be an accurate estimate of the cost of this massive reform. Sanders also requests $1 trillion to repair failing infrastructure like roads, bridges, and airports. Another $1.2 trillion would implement his plan to ensure Social Security for those who have paid for it for the next fifty years, an idea that many believe to be the most moderate part of Sanders’ “New Deal.”

The final part of the plan would undoubtedly require a massive sum of money to include an “expansion of federal support for childcare and preschool,” according to Sanders.

He has not released a price tag for this proposed reform, which is sure to attract voters but to tax their pocketbooks as well.

According to economic analysts, including center-left analysts located in Washington D.C., these plans will be too difficult to pass in a Republican-dominated House of Representatives.

Many moderate Democrats deem Sanders’ plan too liberal. Economist Jared Bernstein of the left-leaning Center on Budget and Policies Priorities points out that “revenues would have to come from the middle class as well as the wealthy.”

This should come as no surprise. Money

must come from somewhere to pay for the spending plans Sanders has proposed.

If elected, President Bernie will be relying heavily upon the richest citizens’ money.

To do this, he will increase the capital gains tax, increase the estate tax, and raise many people’s personal income tax.

Increasing these federal taxes will target the people whom this country has relied on to create jobs and help others through personal charity. Placing a greater burden on the job creators of America will make it more difficult for business owners to bring in new employees, decreasing the number of jobs available for Americans across the country.

In addition, it is a detriment to the nation’s economy to raise taxes on somebody who is either running their own small business or working to sustain a healthy way of life for their family. These middle class folks, many of whom would feel the consequences of the tax reform in their weekly paycheck, have been the backbone of the United States for most, if not all, of our nation’s history.

The principles of free enterprise and entrepreneurship have always been foundational to our country. The federal tax code is also expansive and complicated enough already. If Sanders becomes president, it is likely that many wealthy citizens will move their money out of the United States and into foreign accounts that would be out of reach of the Internal Revenue Service.

If Sanders is truly looking for a government that with more revenue to spend, he should abandon his socialist reform ideas.

Promoting private enterprise and a simple tax system instead of vast regulatory state and a 70,000-page tax code would be the most effective plan for creating the wealth he envisions.

As Bernie stated in one of his recent campaign speeches, “one of the demands of my campaign is that we think big and not small.”

If Sanders was referring to cutting and reforming the tax code, then he would be right on the money. b

WINTER 2015

COLUMNS

On Raising Minimum Wage Democratic candidates consider a popular question.

A

Second, Clinton’s coarse demeanor and retail and fast food corporations like Wals former First Lady and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton cruises her lack of charisma — a far cry from her Mart and McDonald’s for making their into the presidential race with wide husband’s political savvy — paint her as employees work for $7.25 an hour, it is leads over her opponents, Republican can- power-hungry. Even the left-leaning Sat- important to note that their lowest-paying didates have a long road ahead of them. urday Night Live has mocked Clinton in positions are not set up like other careers.

Donald Trump and Ben Carson are cur- their sketches, although her personal ap- The tenure of a sales clerk or register monirently leading by wide margins in the polls, pearances on the show have surely raised tor is intended to be temporary, funnelling workers into management jobs or careers but the Republican ticket is crowded. For the profile of her candidacy. with other companies. months, political punThe lower wages prodits have agreed that it vide incentive for emis nearly impossible to ployees to move into guess which candidate these higher-paying will receive the nomipositions. nation at the RepubliThose who supcan National Convenport raising the federal tion next summer. minimum wage by The 2016 race five dollars or more arbrands itself as unique, gue that this increase with candidates of would protect those diverse backgrounds who are at the very jockeying for the bottom rung of the soWhite House. For the cioeconomic ladder.

Democratic Party, this Democratic presirace is not just about dential candidate filling the presidency.

Senator Bernie SandIt a chance to make ers proposes adjusting history once again. As the federal minimum the first party to elect wage to $15 per hour., an African-American Thousands of Walmart Employees would be affected by minimum wage. while Clinton champipresident, Democrats Lastly, for some Democrats, Clinton is ons the more modest $12 increase. have decided that electing a woman to the The problem this proposal raises is that White House is their next step. So the ques- too centrist. Those interested in seeing intion remains: Is Clinton the right person to creased federal regulations established for of economic incentive: Raising the minienvironmental and economic issues hesi- mum wage would remove the financial rise to that spot?

Although Clinton seems to have unwav- tate to endorse Clinton’s wavering moder- straits that often prompts employees to ering support from many Democratic vot- ate positions, causing much debate about attempt to move up the career ladder, allowing them to live comfortably at what ers and Wall Street donors, there are sever- legislative reform.

Raising federal minimum wage has the federal government defines as poverty al issues with her candidacy to become the first female president of the United States. been a recurring question for candidates level.

Liberal candidates often accuse conserFirst there are the scandals, the most recent on the 2016 presidential debate stage. On of which surrounds the private email serv- this topic, a few considerations spring to vatives of being a party that turns a cold er she used as Secretary of State and her lies mind. On the one hand, raising the mini- shoulder to the lower rungs of the socioabout the Benghazi attacks. mum wage may force companies to trim economic ladder. Yet removing natural ecojobs, decreasing national employment. On nomic incentives toward self-advancement the other, failing to raise the minimum is itself a demeaning action. The question Baylee Culverhouse is wage may put constant financial strain on Clinton and other presidential candidates a sophomore studying workers who do not have the skill sets to must thoughtfully address is whether raisEnglish and political ing minimum wage not only dismisses the move into higher-paying positions. science. She is AsWhen considering minimum wage, it is value of hard work to a thriving life but also sociate Editor at The Arch Conservative. crucial to understand that minimum wage makes us lose the very thing that makes us jobs are not meant to be careers. While American. b left-leaning politicians condemn national WINTER 2015

The Arch Conservative / 9

FEATURES

Free Speech and Yale Why an Ivy League furor matters for the University of Georgia.

by ELIZABETH RIDGEWAY

O

n October 12, 1929, the University of Georgia christened Stanford Stadium by sweeping Yale University 15—0. The Bulldogs of the South defeated a team already in decline: Yale had won 26 college championships since 1872, but only one of these after 1909. Finally, the agrarians whooped the aristocrats.

Yet the football match was only one symbol of longstanding connections between our universities.

University of Georgia founder Abraham Baldwin, whose likeness stands in front of Old College, had graduated from Yale in 1772. He chartered Franklin College as the first public land grant university in 1785, modeling the new school after his alma mater and arranging North Campus to resemble its famous counterpart in New Haven, Connecticut.

Josiah Meigs, another Yale graduate, took charge of the young university from 1801—1810. In 1920, Georgia fans adopted the Yale bulldog for football. We have watched our Ivy League cousin as a model ever since.

Yet in the past month, Yale has instead served as a cautionary tale. What started as a civil exchange of emails about Halloween costumes has erupted into activist protests, trending hashtags, and a storm of media coverage.

Just before October 31st, an email from Yale administration asked students to refrain from wearing costumes it deemed offensive to minority students.

Faculty member Erika Christakis responded in favor of freedom of speech on campus.

In an email to students of Silliman

Elizabeth Ridgeway is Editor-in-Chief of the arch conservative.

10 / The Arch Conservative

residential college Christakis writes, “Have we lost faith in young people’s capacity…to ignore or reject things that trouble you?...If you don’t like a costume someone is wearing, look away, or tell them you are offended. Talk to each other. Free speech and the ability to tolerate offence are the hallmarks of a free and open society.”

“Talk to each other. Free speech and the ability to tolerate offence are the hallmarks of a free and open society.“ —Erika Christakis

Students answered Christakis’ request for dialogue with an “open letter” that calls her email “jarring and disheartening”. The letter has since accumulated signatures from hundreds of students and alumni.

In an op-ed for the Yale Daily News, letter author Ryan Wilson accuses Christakis of “benign racism”. He writes, “When it comes to perpetuating stereotypes, bias, racism, etc. intentions don’t always matter…That’s why this conversation about free speech and appropriation is so important.”

The “conversation” did not go far, however. Since the original email exchanges, Yale student activists have raucously disrupted a William F. Buckley Program conference on free speech, cursed Professor Nicholas Christakis to his face and elicited

a groveling apology for his wife’s actions, and demanded the couple’s immediate dismissal from the university.

Yale students are disrupting their $70,000-per-year education to debate the wording of emails. Observers may plausibly mourn that free speech on campus is dead.

Yet this conclusion is only half true. At Yale, or any other college, the free speech of individuals has always been restrained by the reality of dwelling on the same campus.

If a student makes an argument for communism — or conservatism — on Monday, his neighbors will surely confront him about it Tuesday. Then, they will go to the same party Wednesday night and begin the process of dialogue over again.

The American university was not designed to support complete liberty of speech. Instead, it has transcended centuries of social change as an institution that balances individual expression with the natural impulse to dwell in community.

Our nation holds this paradox at its core. After all, the United States is a product of the Enlightenment, when philosophers like Thomas Hobbes and John Locke formally proposed that liberty is essential to human nature.

Suddenly, man no longer derived his identity from being part of a whole social organization, as citizen of a Greek polis or tenant of a feudal state. In the 17th and 18th centuries, he became a benighted individual, endowed with reason and freedom of action.

As a result, traditional communities began to fracture: As Peter Lawler, professor of government at Berry College, writes, “The downside of being autonomous is being alone.”

The American Founders organized our republic to reflect both the burden and privilege of autonomy. The Constitution WINTER 2015

FEATURES

A view of Yale’s Old Campus. establishes a civil order alongside personal liberty.

In 1791, the First Amendment established four freedoms of action: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people to peaceably assemble”.

Yet even these liberties were not absolute. Oliver Wendall Holmes articulated longstanding exceptions in the 1919 Supreme Court case Schenck v. United States.

This case established the precdent that freedom of speech does not extend to words which “create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.”

Freedom of speech allows Americans to freely criticize their government. They cannot sell military secrets, however, or commit other treason with impunity.

By legislating freedom of speech and the press, our forefathers prepared for the possibility that factions and demagogues would splinter the new republic.

In Federalist 10, James Madison warns against factions, or unified groups of citizens with interests opposed to the common good. He writes that these may be weakened “by destroying the liberty which is essential to its existence,” but that this solution is contrary to human nature.

Madison asserts, “As long as the reason of man continues fallible, and he is at liberty to exercise it, different opinions will be formed.”

Demagogues presented another danger to the young United States. Alexander Hamilton acknowledges their threat in WINTER 2015

Federalist 1. He is wary of those individuals, greedy for power, who become tyrants by “paying an obsequious court to the people” in their speech.

Yale gives apt examples of the dangers of factions and demagogues. In the past month, a handful of radical protesters have persuaded peers to interrupt their studies ­— to forego the education their predecessors fought, sometimes with blood, to obtain. Instead, groups like Next Yale pursue vague rhetorical demands which contribute to personal comfort rather than greater knowledge.

Events at Yale demonstrate that any liberty of speech has the potential to disrupt a community. Still, the American founders endeavored to form “a more perfect union” — one in which the human need for individual freedom could coincide with his impulse to live alongside others.

In 1840, Frenchman Alexis de Tocqueville observed that in America, republican structure guards against the loneliness of individual liberty: when “the classes of society are recruited and intermixed with each other, all the words of a language are mingled. Those which are unsuitable to the greater number perish; the remainder form a common store.” Even early settlers of vastly different backgrounds found shared ground in the new republic.

Households, churches, and town squares mediated relations between the individual and his fellow citizens. These places of communal gathering compelled the autonomous man to question his own prejudices, even moderate his idiosyncrasies, to live in peace with those around him.

The American university serves a similar purpose.

The University of Georgia’s original charter dates to 1785. It begins, “As it is the distinguishing happiness of free governments that civil Order should be the result of choice...and the common wishes of the People become the Laws of the Land, their public prosperity and existence very much depends upon suitably forming the minds and morals of their Citizens.”

Baldwin, Meigs, and their students founded Franklin College to balance civil order with individual virtue.

Today, we note that this charter was written when state officials withheld admission to the college based on gender and ancestry. Painful consequences of this discrimination persist today. As University of Georgia students we will — and should always — mourn and wrestle with this period of our history.

Yet our university has transcended centuries of prejudice because it was founded on a holistic vision of human nature.

North Campus, like its twin in New Haven, symbolizes how free speech contributes to human flourishing. A quadrangle of buildings enclose our academic community, from Old College to the Arch. Yet on the green, students meet on equal ground to freely exchange ideas.

At Yale, the University of Georgia, and elsewhere, freedom of speech will always conflict with the human desire to live together. The question at hand for students and citizens is how to harmonize both concerns and, in doing so, build thriving lives. b The Arch Conservative / 11

FEATURES

Terror in Paris Bombers perpetrate acts of war.

by MICHAEL DUCKETT

12 / The Arch Conservative

WINTER 2015

PHOTO COURTESY STOBLOVSKY

W

the Paris attacks, there was another shootith the recent destruc- scene of the night with 89 killed.

Also, at 9:40 p.m., a second suicide ing in France. tion in Paris, terrorism Immediately following, there was an athas struck the heart bomber attempted to murder diners at the of Western civilization once more. At ap- Comptoir Voltaire Café. Thankfully, the tempted terrorist attack in Germany and a proximately 9:20 p.m. local time on No- bomber failed and the only resulting death bomb threat on a plane bound for Boston.

While it is clear that no simple plan vember 13, the French capital was rocked was of the bomber himself.

At 9:53 p.m., a third suicide bomber det- exists to rid the world of terrorism, Westby an explosion at the Stade de France, ern governments must unite in an effort where French President François Hollande onated close to the Stade de France. to prevent these atwas enjoying a soctacks from happencer match between ing. The status quo is France and Germany. unacceptable.

A suicide bomber had Due to the recent struck. events in Europe, The suicide bombPresident Hollande er was only a distrachas declared war on tion for Interpol and ISIS and increased French police forces, French airstrikes in because five minutes Syria. Dozens of counlater, an armed assailtries are now supportant opened fire on a ing France’s military small café, Le Petit objectives.

Cambodge, in the Even the Vatican 10th arrondissement has entered the global (district) of Paris. Fifcoalition, a move that teen bystanders were will impact Catholics killed. Meanwhile, the throughout the world. massacres continued Virtually every in a coordinated efdeveloped country, fort to demoralize the The French embassy in Moscow holds a candelight vigil for victims of the attacks. including China, has spirit of the French pledged to aid in the people.

The terrifying night concluded at 12:20 fight against the Islamic State.

At 9:32 p.m. in the 11th arrondissement, Only time will tell, however, if a counfive more civilians were shot and killed, re- a.m. when the Bataclan was raided by police, resulting in the deaths of all five ter- try’s commitment during the tragedy of portedly by men in a van.

Then, nineteen people at the nearby bar rorists within the hall. In total, at least 129 another nation is sincere. Even though French police found and killed the masterBelle Equipé fell victim to the same men. were killed with more than 350 wounded.

Unlike September 11th or other terror- mind of the recent attacks, he was only a Simultaneously, at least three different gunmen stormed into the Bataclan concert ist attacks, the attack on Paris did not truly single piece in an international hierarchy.

Every country in the world has a vested inhall, taking the audience hostage and exe- have an overwhelming feeling of surprise.

ISIS and other radical Islamic groups terest in the Middle East, and few are better cuting several unarmed civilians. The hostage situation resulted in the most horrific have grown increasingly volatile over off with ISIS running amok.

Global terrorism can also be considered the past year, and the French authorities Michael Duckett is a junior studying political have received numerous national security a local issue. Recently, Georgia Governor science. threats since the attack in January on the Nathan Deal declared that our state will “Charlie Hebdo” satirical magazine. After not be accepting refugees from Syria. Even

FEATURES

PHOTOS COURTESY JEAN-MARC AYRAULT

though this may seem like a radical reaction to many readers, Georgia is not alone.

Currently, 26 state governors have refused to open their borders to refugees. Opponents of these moves cite racial or religious discrimination as the reason for refusing Syrian refugees.

This is undeniably the cause of the reaction for some. Yet in the eyes of their consitutents, governors share the responsibility of ensuring that no terrorists enter the US under the guise of refugee status. If a terrorist attack were to occur thanks to a lax policy on screening refugees, then the governor of the state involved would blamed, even though the federal government is actually responsible for vetting incoming immigrants.

Governor Deal claims that the federal government is not doing its job effectively and is lax when it comes to background checks for immigrants. Even though several states are admitting Syrian refugees, these mostly Midwestern states are still pushing for increased security checks at a national level.

As the French police know too well, no airtight security system exists that will prevent all terrorist attacks. Nevertheless, it is the duty of leaders to do their best to protect their people when confronted with a realistic threat.

Because Americans so often observe terrorist attacks being perpetrated by trained militants, we naturally think of terrorists as an outside force sent by a foreign power to

Americans often observe terrorist attacks being perpetrated by trained militants, so we naturally think of terrorists as an outside force sent by a foreign power...In the modern world, this is not the case.

WINTER 2015

wage war on our peace and prosperity.

In the modern world, this is not the case. What happened in France was a horrific event, but ISIS fighters do not pose as

President François Hollande. immediate of a risk as do domestic terrorists. After September 11th, many focused on international terrorism in terms of how Western governments would respond to the possibility of terrorists disguised as immigrants. Now, however, we need to be more worried about the radicalization of Americans already here.

Outside forces like ISIS do some of their most terrifying work through indoctrination via the internet. ISIS uses tactics to reach out to primarily young adults thru social media and group chats.

Terrorist organizations take advantage of isolated individuals, especially if they have fundamentalist views on Islam, or ties to the Middle East or fringe groups. In some cases, the victim may be encouraged not to share their newfound radical beliefs, and the radicalizer pressures their target into avoiding people who might provide a sense of moderation.

For example, a radical, violent Islamist often steers their potential convert away from peaceful Muslims. The terrorist has no use for a moderate convert, but instead needs a new believer who is willing to give their life and take another’s. Global security will rely on seeking out and preventing online recruitment.

Nonetheless, border security is still absolutely necessary to prevent trained fighters from entering peaceful countries. A country’s apparent inability to control who enters and who exits is a huge welcome sign for terrorists.

President Hollande closed France’s borders after the attacks in November, yet the terrorists involved in the Paris massacres were caught in Belgium. In an international world with over 10,000 terrorist attacks annually, security forces cannot be underprepared for threats. Otherwise, any attack could end in a disaster. Secure borders and online counterterrorism will be the two most important ways to prevent terrorist activities as we move further into the 21st century.

Plenty of opportunities exist to help guard against attacks like those which occured in Paris. Education is a key factor in identifying threats to the community, and through it anyone can understand how to assist authorities in counter-terrorism.

First, Americans must remember that not all terrorists are Muslim, but radicals of any religion or belief can turn to violence to achieve their goals.

The Department of Homeland Security provides information about the current threat levels in various areas of the globe, and asks citizens to be aware of their surroundings.

Another practical way to help prevent acts of terrorism from reaching fulfillment is to watch for abandoned packages in airports and other public venues. Every airport consumer is tired of hearing the intercom at Hartsfield-Jackson blare warnings about deserted luggage, but travelers must imagine that everyone around them has tuned out that message as well.

Terrorists want Americans to lower their guard and become complacent, but America cannot afford another September 11th tragedy.

The last step is to get involved in the community by meeting neighbors and elected officials. Most police programs offer civilian training, and neighborhood watch groups are a good private sector alternative. Preventing terrorism is a moral obligation for all American citizens.

The dangers to civilization are everpresent, and countries have never been entirely safe. It is up to a new generation of Americans to rise to the challenge and resist terrorism wherever it may strike. b

The Arch Conservative / 13

FEATURES

A Double Standard The Koch Brothers’ support of colleges has no more agenda than leftist donations.

C

harles and David Koch, although the recipients of much ire from the political left, have found unsurmounted success in the world of business after inheriting the family company from their father.

The business, which began as an oil and refinery company in Witchita, Kansas, in 1940, has since expanded to become the extremely powerful energy and supply conglomerate known today as Koch Industries.

Although the Koch brothers have received unabashed criticism from liberal media as examples of “corporate greed” and valuing profit over environmental reform and human rights, the Koch brothers have been remarkably generous with their funds.

Since 1953, the Koch family has donated millions of dollars to nonprofit organizations — organizations that encourage the arts, environmental sustainability research, economic enquiry, and education programs. The Kochs have also started many of their own nonprofits, including the Fred and Mary Koch Foundation, the

Sydney North is a sophomore studying journalism and political science.

14 / The Arch Conservative

Charles Koch Foundation, the David H. Koch Charitable Foundation, and the Koch Charitable Trust.

Moreover, the Kochs have taken the personal initiative to actively build hospitals and performing arts centers in order to “further social progress and sustainable prosperity.”

David Koch, defender of free enterprise.

The Koch brothers’ latest charitable endeavor comes in the form of funding for higher education. In 2006, the Koch brothers began donating large sums of money — totaling $1.3 million dollars — to seven universities. By 2013, the numbers have grown to donations of over $68 million to roughly 300 college campuses.

Liberals are miffed about it.

November 5, 2015, was the first ever national “UnKoch My Campus” Day of Action. Across the United States, students at

over fifty universities organized protests against the Koch brothers’ funding of higher education.

Their claim? According to the official UnKoch My Campus website, “Kochfunded schools have amassed evidence demonstrating Charles Koch’s disregard for freedom in the classroom, an arena he considers to be up for sale to the highest bidder.”

The masterminds behind this smear on the Koch brothers argue that Koch funding is lending to the “corporatization of education” and is pushing an unfair, capitalist agenda on students.

The irony in these beliefs is almost comical.

It is a common and troublesome source of irritation to conservatives that today, Americans can assume that most college campuses are restrictively left-leaning environments. Many professors and students alike favor a progressive agenda that often misrepresents and demeans conservative ideas.

Paradoxically, the liberals who claim to be open-minded and intrigued by the opportunity to learn about others’ beliefs are often the same people who feel threatened when a differing opinion is offered in debate.

The fact that progressives are willing to WINTER 2015

PHOTO COURTESY GAGE SKIDMORE

by SYDNEY NORTH

FEATURES

shut down discussion of free-market economics undermines their title in its entirety. There is nothing progressive about “moving forward” without respecting the history of Western civilization enough to attempt to understand its ideas. Dismissing the nuances of past wisdom is not progressive focus on future improvement. It is a stagnant reduction of thinking to the modern perspective.

Moreover, the argument that private funding from corporations and individuals, such as the Koch brothers, helps push an inappropriate capitalist agenda is an absurd logical fallacy in itself. The Left accuses the Koch brothers’ funding of unfairly promoting the ideas of free markets on college campuses. If this were the case, the same accusation could be made for our current system: that is, that today’s public education funded by government unfairly promotes the idea of a centrally-planned

economy.

Over 73 percent of students today attend a publicly-funded institution of higher learning. According to a study conducted by the Washington Post, 72 percent of professors at these universities self-describe as extremely liberal. The cards have been so stacked against the survival of conservative ideas at American universities that Lady Justice is having a difficult time keeping her balance.

It is blatantly obvious, through statistics, personal testimonies, and activism — such as the Twitter movement #MyLiberalCampus — that the government sponsorship of higher education has dramatically tipped students’ ideological scale to the left.

Yet many liberals seem to forget their own adherents’ funding of higher education. In 2012, controversial figure George Soros was widely praised for his $400 million investment in the American higher

education system. Soros did this with a blatantly-stated mission to “indoctrinate students and teach them to promote liberal causes.”

Despite Soros’ clear intentions, the Koch brothers have no stated goals other than promoting discovery and discussion in economics courses throughout the United States. Even more telling, the media praised Soros for his commitment to growing higher education.

This represents a clear double standard for liberal and conservative private donors.

The Koch brothers, though self-identified as classically liberal, are not disrupting the higher education system in America.

Their funding in fact promotes political equality and a diversity of ideas on campus. Equality-minded liberals are hypocrites if they protest and shut down the advances that the Koch brothers are trying to make.b

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

WINTER 2015

The Arch Conservative / 15

CULTURE

People and the Press THE ARCH CONSERVATIVE hosts journalist Kyle Wingfield.

O

n November 9th, THE ARCH CONSERVATIVE hosted journalist Kyle Wingfield on campus.

Wingfield graduated from the University of Georgia Grady College of Journalism in 2001 and has since received the John E. Drewry Award for Young Alumni Achievement. After a few years with the Associated Press in Atlanta and Montgomery, Alabama, he joined the Wall Street Journal as a foreign correspondent in Brussels. In 2009, Wingfield returned to the States as conservative political columnist for the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, where he writes on national and local politics, public education, and state economic trends, among other topics.

Wingfield’s talk, “People and the Press”, traced the recent shift of journalism away from local news coverage.

In recent decades, traditional printand-ink newspapers have visibly struggled to maintain full staff and reporting output. There is little demand for journalism covering local issues. Wingfield suggested that the responsive lack of local reporting could pose significant problems for governmental transparency in cities across the United States.

Wingfield has observed these newsroom changes firsthand. In an internet age, regional newspapers like the Atlanta Journal-Constitution and the Athens Banner-Herald are facing financial difficulties stemming from two main causes: online news aggregation services and a decreasing market for the local reporting which these papers have monopolized in the past.

The early 2000s saw news aggregation services like Google and Yahoo critically influence the journalism industry, Wingfield said. Today’s newspapers even hire

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

16 / The Arch Conservative

specialists who can increase the visibility of their articles on online search engines, which generate millions of daily hits for sites like AJC.com.

Kyle Wingfield.

Yet Google is fundamentally different from a traditional news agency. Although it generates income by selling advertising based on “content” — Newspeak jargon which Wingfield used with derision — the online service does not generate any original reporting. Search engines earn millions of dollars by simply guiding web traffic to external reporting sources. Agencies like Google act as “curators” of information rather than media creators. Meanwhile, regional newspapers absorb the significant costs of reporting, publishing, and strategizing their articles for the online platform.

The rise of search engines coincides with a fast-shrinking market for local news. Traditionally, well-written, relatively unbiased coverage of local issues gave regional newspapers an edge — perhaps their only edge — over much wealthier national papers

like the New York Times.

Today, consumers often ignore local stories in favor of national coverage. With no market for their product, regional newspapers are cutting staff or, in worse financial straits, shutting down entirely.

Wingfield observed that a century ago perhaps two or three papers would report the same state trends. Nowadays, an interested reader would be hardpressed to find more than one source, if any, reporting a specific local event or case of governmental corruption.

A lack of watchdog reporting may obscure the developments which affect citizens’ daily lives: tax policies, state of the housing market, new alternatives to public education.

Wingfield gave a memorable illustration: On October 12th, the mostviewed article on AJC.com was not an exposé of local governmental corruption or even an article reporting foreign affairs. Instead, Journal-Constitution readers clicked on the story reporting Playboy magazine’s announcement that it would no longer publish nude photographs.

In short, newspapers are not printing local news because their consumers no longer want it. This vacuum doubles the work traditionally required of news agencies. Journalists and other newspaper staff must not only write and publish, but recreate a market for their product which existed naturally before the internet.

Wingfield made no pretenses to a perfect solution, but asserted that modern journalists must be “innovators of what it means to pay for news,” and “find a way to make general circulation news a goodenough product that people pay for it.”

Across the country, thriving localized journalism signifies that Americans are not merely isolated inhabitants of cities, but members of communities. Papers like the Atlanta Journal-Consitution, and even THE ARCH CONSERVATIVE, symbolize that we as citizens continue to be interested in the well-being of our neighbors and invested in the place in which we live. b

WINTER 2015

COLUMNS CULTURE

The “Great Debate” Young Democrats and College Republicans take the stage.

T

rue to its name, the annual Great Debate between representatives of the College Republicans and the Young Democrats was exciting, controversial, and highly entertaining. The event was hosted by the liberal Georgia Political Review on November 4th and filled the UGA Chapel with intense clashes of ideology occasionally mediated by awkward, bipartisan, light-hearted humor. The selfrighteous scoffs of liberals and the energized yells of conservatives surely recruited a couple North Campus bystanders to the event: Attendees filled just about every one of the Chapel’s 240 seats. Let me present a few highlights.

Tucker Boyce, President of the Georgia Debate Union, and Robert Galerstein, Editor of the Georgia Political Review, served as moderators for the evening. Debaters included Stuart Swinea, Emma Krass, and Andrew Stoehr from Young Democrats, and Abbie Frye, Brennan Mancil, and Cody Hall from College Republicans.

Not to sound like your suburban little league coach, but everyone did a fine job for the most part. Ultimately, the Great Debate calls students to defend the platforms of organized political parties, not necessarily personal beliefs. That said, a few details of the conversation stuck with me.

The debate kicked off with a leading question about Donald Trump and his qualifications for potentially becoming our nation’s president. At least the moderators weren’t pressuring the Republicans into defending Trump for something trivial he said about an opponent’s face. Frye did a good job representing her party by noting that we should take issues at face value but yes, Trump really does differ from the GOP on many important issues.

Nick Geeslin is a sophomore studying journalism. He is a regular contributor to The Arch Conservative.

WINTER 2015

Moderators then posed a similar question about Bernie Sanders, and his selfadmitted socialist agenda, to the Young Democrats. The representative who chose to answer was thoroughly satisfied to recite Bernie Sanders’ full resume before the debate moved on to immigration.

Here, the question was pretty openended and Frye was first to answer. She started off in a rather personal manner, saying that the topic of immigration was “very near and dear to her heart” because she studied Spanish and completed a study abroad program in a Spanish-speaking country. Once she got into the GOP’s stance on the issue, she did quite well. She laid down some numbers, explained the GOP’s ideas on amnesty and upholding United States law, and dropped the cliché, “These aren’t numbers, they’re people” (Frye 2016!) Her excitement about the issue was evident and worked well. Frye finished by channeling Marco Rubio and laying out some of his realistic propositions to solve the immigration problem.

It was rather refreshing that complaints about illegal immigrants did not come up — points to Frye.

The Democrats responded in typical fashion, stating that the reason that no laws have been passed is because of Republicans’ inability to compromise. Their response also indulged in a little complaining about Paul Ryan’s recent vote against an immigration reform law, and some confident proposals that the Dems “already have [immigration] figured out”.

Guns were next up — and yep, just about everyone in the audience was shifting around or looking at their feet when they heard this question. It was the Young Democrats’ turn to answer first, and Stoehr was just as excited as everyone else when this topic came up. His answer, clearly rehearsed but straightforward, mentioned that there is “now one mass shooting per day” in America. (This statistic seemed pretty dubious to me at the time. Researching Stoehr’s claim revealed that a Reddit community in favor of more gun laws defined the qualifications for a “mass shooting”. Nevertheless, this statistic

was very surprising regardless of political affiliations.)

I did some research myself and found that shootingtracker.com, a “mass shooting tracker featured on CNN, MSNBC, and other outlets, asserts that over 20 percent of these “mass shootings” since 2013 have occurred in Chicago, despite the recent creation of stricter gun laws. Cody Hall of the College Republicans perceptively remarked on this general trend in his response. He did however, get burned somewhat by mentioning that Australians lost their rights to bear arms. This never really happened. Although Australia did tighten its gun laws in 1996, citizens can certainly still purchase firearms. In fact, they can have just about every weapon Americans can here, after obtaining a license for certain specific uses like hunting, target shooting, etc.

Criminal Justice and foreign policy were also addressed. Displaying his expertise, Mancil took care of the foreign policy portion of the debate in what I thought was the most decisive victory for either side. The criminal justice debate alerted me to every single liberal around me in the crowd (this is where the aforementioned scoffs occurred.) Krass had only to say, “Black lives. . .” and the crowd erupted as if it had been waiting for that very cue.

During Republican Hall’s response, I had to calmly shhh the women in front of me.

Apparently, they had heard all they needed to after their representative was finished talking — I received an offended mockery of my action back.

The Great Debate ended rather anticlimactically with questions from the audience. Two of the three questions were, without a doubt, very pathetic representations of obviously conservative audience members: Both limpingly inquired about Hillary Clinton’s feminism and “whiteness”. By far the highlight of the audienceguided section was a Twitter question regarding the legalization of marijuana — from a username that obviously had personal interest in the subject. I suppose you could say that the night ended with as good a laugh as it had started b The Arch Conservative / 17

CULTURE

A Literary Holiday Fireside reads for the discerning college student.

J

ason Peters, essayist and scholar, has written: “I must endeavor not to find a place good enough for me but to be good enough for the place I find myself in.”

University of Georgia students find themselves in college, a place of learning. We also dwell in the South, a place convulsed by the its own history.

This holiday season, THE ARCH CONSERVATIVE recommends worthwhile books for the places we find ourselves.

”Sometimes I think the South brings out the latent madness in people.”

— Walker Percy Walker Percy, born in 1916, spent several years of his childhood in Athens, Georgia. The Moviegoer (1961), Percy’s debut novel, is a poignant commentary on the mediocrity of daily life and modern man’s attempt to reconnect with the sublime. In New Orleans, Louisiana, protagonist Binx Bolling attempts to escape “the grip of everydayness” with beautiful cousin Kate by his side.

In the mood for something lighter? Try Percy the Satirist in Lost in the Cosmos: the Last Self-Help Book (1983).

”The liberally educated person is one who is able to resist the easy and preferred answers, not because he is obstinate but because he knows others worth of consideration.”

— Allan Bloom Allan Bloom wrote throughout the twentieth century as a professor of philosophy at Yale, Cornell, and other noted institutions of higher learning. In The Closing of the American Mind (1987), Bloom discusses illiberal intellectual trends in the American university. His polemic against rock music — eerily prescient of the iPod — is not to be missed.

Bloom also produced a modern prose translation of Plato’s Republic. This dialogue between Socrates and citizens of Athens, Greece, asks what type of person is fit to rule a city. Here we find the philosoper-kings, the importance of musical education, and more. The University of Georgia draws its motto, “Wisdom, Justice, and Moderation,” from the virtues of Plato’s ideal polis.

18 / The Arch Conservative

”From that moment, I understood the pathway from slavery to freedom...Though conscious of the difficulty of learning without a teacher, I set out with high hope, and a fixed purpose, at whatever cost of trouble, to learn how to read.”

— Frederick Douglass Frederick Douglass offers a gripping tribute to human courage in his Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, An American Slave (1845). Born into slavery, Douglass escaped at just twenty years old. His subsequent career as an abolitionist and author spanned nearly five decades.

For the college student who perseveres through finals, group projects, and other frustrations without recalling why, the Narrative offers a memorable testament to the empowerment possible through education — and the stories of those who gave their lives for it.

” ’You wouldn’t shoot a lady, would you?’ the grandmother said...The Misfit pointed the toe of his shoe into the ground and made a little hole then covered it up again.

‘I would hate to have to,’ he said.”

— Flannery O’Connor Flannery O’Connor, born in 1935, died tragically of lupus in her thirties. Her stories are filled with fierce grace for ordinary people of the South.

In “A Good Man is Hard to Find” (1955), an aging woman meets a highway traveller of gruesome reputation. Readers observe, slowly and terribly, that the Misfit cannot reconcile himself to not being a good man.

O’Connor’s longer works include short story collections, as well as Wise Blood (1952) and The Violent Bear It Away (1960).

THE ARCH CONSERVATIVE is confident that any resident of a university campus, any citizen of a Southern state, will find these authors noble entertainment this winter. We extend best wishes for joyful holidays to you and yours. b

WINTER 2015

HUMOR

Are You a Twittergogue?

SGA Hecklers United (TM) is back with a handy quiz for your local Senator or best Facebook “friend”.

You’ve heard of the Hashtag Activist, a trendy, smartphone-wielding hipster who drums up support for any number of good “causes” via status updates, retweets, Snap Stories, and more.

Now, SHU (pronounced “shoo”) brings to your attention the social media demagogue (or twittergogue for short.) This species of social media agitator delights to manipulate others’ beliefs, accumulate power and influence, and generally pad his or her own ego by posting web links to networking sites like Facebook and Twitter.

Are you a twittergogue? Answer these questions to find out.

1) I share _____ article link(s) on Facebook or Twitter per day. a. One b. Two c. Three. But only if they’re really important. d. Gotta share ‘em all.

2) I often share web links from (check all that apply): ___ Slate.com ___ Rush Limbaugh ___ Rolling Stone ___ Jezebel.com ___ Lena Dunham ___ The New York Times ___ Glenn Beck ___ USAToday.com ___ ArchConUGA.com (Kidding. Automatic win.)

3) I get into Facebook comment debates at least _____ times a day (bonus points if they involve feminist jargon.) a. Once b. Twice c. Three or four, I think? d. Heck, I’m always responding to backward bumpkins!

Congratulations! If you answered any of these questions, you’re a bonafide twittergogue. But don’t despair — ­ as always, SHU is here to point the way toward virtue.

Run, don’t walk, to your nearest natural landmark — mountain, prairie, rushing river. Stand tall and scream at the sky, “my opinions matter!”

Listen to your insignificant mew echo over the rolling hills and disappear into the sunset.

Hear that? It’s called silence, and trust a bunch of conservatives — sometimes it’s great for keeping friends.

IMAGE COURTESY CLKR FREE VECTOR IMAGES

— Your Friendly Neighborhood Hecklers

SGA Hecklers United Contact us at the following addresses, because after all your opinions matter.

SGA Hecklers United P.O. Box 1181 Athens, GA 30603 Email to archconuga@gmail.com.