THE ARCH CONSERVATIVE, Winter 2016

Raising the Standard

The Underestimated Candidate

How Donald Trump Overcame the Odds

By Connor Kitchings

The Other Boxes

By Nick Geeslin

Deeper Than Talking Points

By Christopher Lipscomb

The Chalkening

By Ben Grayson

WINTER 2016

10 She’s Conservative

THE EDITORS

By Sydney North

3 Conservatism Under Donald Trump

By The Editors

11 Hail to the Chief

By James Bartow

CAMPUS 4 The Campus Informant

FEATURES

By The Editors

12 The Underestimated Candidate

By Connor Kitchings

5 SGA Watch

By Ryan Gould

14 The Other Boxes

By Nick Geeslin

COLUMNS 6 Obamacare on Life Support

16 Deeper Than Talking Points

By Christopher Lipscomb

By Matthew Jordan

7 Strength in Unity

HUMOR

By Boris A. Abreu

18 The Chalkening

8 Purple States

By Ben Grayson

By Zachary Williams

19 Fringe Candidates

9 Meltdown in Academia

By TJ Collins

By John Doe

The Arch Conservative Editorial Board and Staff: 2016-2017 Editor-in-Chief Connor Kitchings Managing Editor Nick Geeslin Publishing Editor Sydney North Creative Director Mallory Traylor Business Manager Marian Young Associate Editor Michael Duckett 2 / The Arch Conservative

Contributors Matthew Jordan Boris A. Abreu Zachary Williams James Bartow Christopher Lipscomb Ben Grayson TJ Collins

Website archconuga.com Email archconuga@gmail.com Twitter @ArchConUGA Mail P.O. Box 1181 Athens, GA 30603

Ryan Gould Jonathan Kuzy Samantha Nagy WINTER 2016

THE EDITORS

Conservatism under Donald Trump Republican governance does not guarantee conservative governance.

PHOTO COURTESY OF GAGE SKIDMORE, COVER PHOTO COURTESY OF KEN MARSHAL

D

espite the supposed satisfaction of traditional GOP voters on the defeat of Hillary Clinton and the return of a Republican-controlled government following the 2016 election, conservatives need to take away the correct lessons from this campaign. Undoubtedly, proponents of limited government need to recognize that a lot of work is in store for our movement before it returns to the top of the ideological totem pole in the United States.

Although liberals eager to tie the conservative ideology to all of Donald Trump’s controversies may disagree, this election was not about the traditional American debate between liberalism and conservatism.

Clinton’s progressive ideology would not have feared using the awesome power of government to suppress the “enemies” of its political coalition. She supported the Obama administration’s attempts to force the Little Sisters of the Poor to violate their moral conscious, Oregon’s crusade to drive a Christian bakery out of business due to their refusal to provide a cake to a gay wedding, and the New York Attorney General’s threat to subpoena organizations that dispute climate alarmism. This kind of ideological arrogance and overreach that the country has seen repeatedly over the past eight years paved the way for the unusual alternative offered by Trump.

Though it is difficult to pin Trump’s appeal down to a single ideology, what is clear is that he primarily took advantage of populism to defeat one of the biggest federal government insiders of all time. His campaign promise to “drain the swamp” truly resonated with people sick of the status quo in Washington. He also harnessed populism to take a shot at America’s political, economic, and cultural elites. These included entities like the media, corporations, and celebrities who clearly look down on average Americans. Finally, Trump harnessed populist outrage to the greatest effect to target the long-hated norm of political correctness in America. The left was too blind to understand that lecturing people on the nature of their thoughts, speech, or actions was a terrible way of courting votes and only served to push people further into Trump’s orbit.

This election made clear that both sides of our political spectrum have a great deal of soul searching to do.

For the left, this entails a departure from identity politics as a sole ideology. No longer can the liberal wing of American political discourse cry wolf and lay false claims of racism, bigotry, and sexism at the feet of fair-minded conservatives. To attempt to force political

WINTER 2016

correctness in this way unnecessarily divides a nation, and pits man against fellow man.

For our part, the right must look inward and figure out what kind of policies and ideas we want to support as well. Despite some of Donald Trump’s vitriolic rhetoric, conservative ideology is not an ideology of hatemongers. For centuries, conservative thought has inspired western nations to success, and, with effort on the part of contemporary American conservatives, it will continue to guide and inspire our own nation in the future. We must not all jump on the “Trump Train.” As with any president, we must wish that he proves himself as an excellent leader in the Oval Office, but we must also continue to stand against any divisive and inflammatory commentary, pushing back against many of his non-conservative proposals. Conservatives must continue to promote their ideology as ideas and beliefs that benefit and serve everyone.

Nonetheless, with Republicans in control of the House of Representatives, the Senate, and the White House, conservatism has a chance to accomplish a number of things, and we have the chance to prove how well our policies can work for everyone. For the first time since its passage more than six years ago, Obamacare is finally vulnerable enough to be repealed. Thankfully, simplifying the tax code appears to be a priority for the new Republican government.

Even the most controversial of issues, immigration reform, has the possibility of finally being addressed.

We must remember, though, that this electoral victory has done nothing to force a President-elect Trump to implement conservative principles. Throughout the campaign, Trump oscillated between the ideas that popped into his head and the carefully crafted message of his campaign advisors. It is more likely than not that his ascendance to the presidency will cause Trump to pursue the former rather than the latter. The years ahead will likely be filled with many opportunities to criticize President Trump. True disciples of conservatism should not be afraid to call out President Trump when he deserves it. We certainly will not be.

Despite all of the anxiety and despair caused by the two candidates during the campaign, we feel particularly optimistic about the future of this country. Elections are exhausting activities. We are confident that by the time this new government begins its work on January 20, 2017, the American people will join us in our optimism.

— The Editors

The Arch Conservative / 3

CAMPUS

Starbucks Comes to UGA An extra coffee option before finals.

S

tarbucks has officially come to campus. On Monday November 28th, the new coffee shop opened on the third floor of the Tate Student Plaza to the delight of the many caffeine-addicted students at UGA. This development is thanks to a 2015 Food Services poll that showed the collective desire of students to see more coffee options around campus. Just in time for finals, the popular coffee will be open from 7 a.m. to 12 a.m. every day and will accept Bulldog Bucks and Paw Points. Joining the Miller Learning Center Jittery Joe’s and the Science Learning Center Caribou Coffee, the opening of Starbucks will ensure that students have quality coffee options all over campus.

— Connor Kitchings

Georgia Basketball Tips Off Frazier and Maten lead the Hoopdawgs into the new season.

T

he University of Georgia Basketball team, after taking a loss against Clemson in the season-opener, has started the season off on a good note. The team is led by Senior point guard J.J. Frazier and Junior and likely All-SEC First-Team Forward Yonte Maten. Maten has certainly been the star of the show. His season thus far is marked by a strong showing against an historically championship-caliber program in Kansas, accounting for over half of UGA’s points (30). J.J. Frazier is averaging around 14.5 points per game and is backed up at the Point Guard position by a very talented and highly recruited sophomore in Turtle Jackson. 6’8” Forward Derek Ogbeide and 6’9” Forward Mike Edwards give the Hoopdawgs some height and have both improved significantly in their offseason. The Dawgs, under fifth year head coach Mark Fox, look to overcome yet another tough schedule to qualify for the 2017 March Madness tournament. Look out for an important December 20th matchup against Georgia Tech.

— Nick Geeslin

UGA Reacts to Donald Trump Protesters gather to object to election results.

O

n Wednesday, November 9th, 2016, students at the University of Georgia gathered in front of the iconic arch to protest the PresidentElect, Donald Trump. Trump, who was elected the Tuesday prior to the protest, has been a controversial figure throughout the entire election season. Although many UGA students were offended by Trump’s surprising election victory, as proven by the “Hitler was elected too” and “F*** Trump signs,” not all Dawgs were disheartened by his win. As reported by the Red and Black, counter protestors also attended the anti-Trump rally downtown, and stated their belief that “what’s done is done and there is nothing you can do to change it.”

Furthermore, many university greats, including legendary football coach Vince Dooley and Heisman Trophy recipient Herschel Walker, have publicly voiced their support of Donald Trump throughout the general election cycle, with Walker even endorsing him in the primaries.

— Sydney North

4 / The Arch Conservative

WINTER 2016

CAMPUS

S G A WAT C H

W

hile there are many differing opinions on the results of the recent election, more students than ever turned out for early voting in Athens.

Voter turnout at The University of Georgia has historically been low. During the 2012 election, according to Tufts University National Study on Learning, Voting and Engagement, while 77.8 percent of UGA students were registered to vote, only 45 percent actually did so. Much of this voter apathy could be due to students being unable to return home to vote. For others, it could be that they are unable to make it to polling stations in Athens on Election Day. The Student Government Association sought to remedy this through the implementation of early voting centers at Tate Student Center.

The proposal to the Athens-Clarke County Board of Elections brought eight voting booths to Room 137 in Tate from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. on November 1st and 2nd.

On Tuesday September 6th, the proposal was voted on by the board and was unanimously approved. This marked the first time that there has been an on-campus polling location and with more than 2,600 early ballots cast, the SGA was confident about the positive impact that these efforts have had and plan to continue the initiative for state elections to come.

Another issue that had plagued voter turnout in Athens is a lack of voter registration amongst students.

To address this, the Student Government Association teamed with the Roosevelt Institute at UGA, as well as several other campus organizations to organize a voter registration effort. This effort was called “UGAvotes.”

In addition to voter registration, the effort worked to advertise an on-campus voting center that informs students on how to change their voting address to Clarke

WINTER 2016

County.

On-campus voting and voter registration are not the only initiatives that SGA has been working on recently.

It is not uncommon to hear students on campus complain about how UGA tends to begin classes before other schools. Well, the SGA has heard it too. On August 23rd, SGA voted to ask the University Council to push back the start date of classes for the coming semesters.

They hoped to begin with the spring semester, moving the start date of classes from Thursday, January 5th to Monday, January 9th. Overall, the main concerns being raised by the SGA were that UGA currently has a longer academic calendar than required in the University System of Georgia, and that the previous start dates have not allowed for proper transition from summer and winter experiences. Some students experienced conflicts with travel, internships, jobs, and studies abroad, which put them in a difficult position. To be clear, this isn’t just an effort by students to eliminate class time. The SGA has stated that they do not wish to interfere with the curriculum or lecture schedules of professors, but they do seek to help students with their transition back to school which will provide greater academic success.

Due to the long-term planning that changing the start of a semester requires, the University Council denied the SGA’s request for this upcoming semester. But as of September 21st, the University Council has pushed back the start of the Fall 2017 semester from Thursday, August 10th to Monday, August 14th.

While they have often directed their focus on matters that do not affect the student body as a whole, it is refreshing to see the SGA do good work on issues of importance to large numbers of students. In addition to the successes over the past two years of creating a commuter meal plan and make the Miller Learning Center’s hours twenty-four seven, the Student Government Association deserves credit for this semester’s initiatives to improve political participation on campus and to change the start dates of academic semesters.

– Ryan Gould

The Arch Conservative / 5

COLUMNS

Obamacare on Life Support Higher premiums threaten President Obama's legacy.

T

he Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, more commonly referred to as Obamacare, is expected to experience a 25 percent average increase in premium costs in 2017, thereby becoming too expensive for millions of Americans.

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) was enacted by President Obama on March 23rd, 2010 and is generally considered to be the most significant overhaul of the United States healthcare system since the introduction of Medicare and Medicaid in 1965.

Since its passage in 2010, more than 21 million Americans have gained health insurance, reducing the percentage of uninsured citizens from 22.3 percent in 2010 to 8.6 percent as of the first quarter of 2016.

These people, many of whom are members of lower income brackets, not only gained insurance coverage for healthcare expenses but also peace of mind. They felt that they no longer had to fear getting sick or needing medical help. Many thought this program would be successful, especially considering that the leading cause of bankruptcies in the U.S. is related to medical bills. Unfortunately though, the implementation of the ACA has partially caused premiums across the nation to triple, sending the bill into a death spiral.

The massive increase in premiums on individuals insured under the ACA nationwide has caused an uproar. Next year, the premiums for mid-level health plans are projected to skyrocket by a staggering 25 percent, even more astounding when compared to predeceding increases of 2 percent in 2015, and 7 percent this year. This leap will render 43 percent of Americans unable to afford their deductibles.

These over-inflated premiums are put in place by state officials as a bargaining chip to keep insurance companies in on the ACA. Many have already withdrawn regardless,

Matthew Jordan is a junior studying finance. He is a new contributor at The Arch Conservative.

6 / The Arch Conservative

reporting multi-million dollar losses in the law's wake. A 2015 report from McKinsey & Co. found that insurance companies have lost a total of $2.7 billion in part because the number of claims filed exceeded expectations. While the government has several programs to help redistribute insurance risk, not all companies have benefited, resulting in further losses. The average number of insurers participating in the marketplace in states that use HealthCare.gov will be 3.9 per state in 2017, down from 5.4 per state in 2016. Those who stick around have been promised future premium increases of up to 50 percent, backbreaking fees for the American working class.

Additionally, the cost of medical care and drugs is high and increasing. In the United States in 2014, healthcare spending was in the upward range of $3 trillion. As more sick people gain access to insurance and new treatments, their providers will be paying out more money which drives up the premiums for everyone else, including long-time, healthy customers. The ACA came with massive regulations that have played a major role in driving up healthcare costs, forcing doctors and healthcare administrators to prepare paperwork with patients footing the bill. One study, published in Health Affairs, shows that administrative costs are set to add $274 billion to healthcare costs through 2022.

So how can the next administration fix the issues with the Affordable Care Act? The answer is simple: more competition in the marketplace, not more government. In the private sector, effective means of providing health care services outside the traditional insurance model are being developed and people are paying for services with cash. For example, more hospitals, imaging centers, outpatient surgery centers, and pharmacy chains are giving discounts to patients who pay cash instead of using insurance. Such services receiving cash payments cut out the red tape and administrative costs that are responsible for the current problems with the Affordable Care Act. John Goodman, a leading healthcare policy analyst, says that there are five principles to reduce healthcare costs, bring insurers back into the

marketplace, and keep afloat the Affordable Care Act. These principles include abolishing the individual and employer ACA mandates, repealing the ACA’s anti-job provisions along with thousands of pages of additional regulations, deregulating and denationalizing the health-insurance marketplace in every state, and offering all Americans a universal tax credit, similar to the child tax credit, for health insurance premiums and deposits to Health Savings Accounts.

These fixes would allow individuals to purchase the coverage they really need and incentivize insurer competition, providing services buyers actually want while driving costs down and quality up. This could also increase enrollment if the tax credit was only given to those who purchase insurance, making it attractive to individual consumers.

The Affordable Care Act, while noble in its goals, is lacking in execution. For the longevity of this program to be a reality, lawmakers must do something or else rates will go up and Americans will begin to lose coverage.

From the results of the 2016 Presidential Election, it is clear that the Republicans, who maintained a majority in both the House and Senate, will be responsible for replacing or amending the current program. Regardless of the approach by the current government and future president, something must be done to keep the Affordable Care Act affordable. bâ€

WINTER 2016

COLUMNS

Strength in Unity American internal strife creates chaos abroad.

A

PHOTOSCOURTESY PHOTO COURTESYOFDAVID CHADKING KAINZ

house divided against itself cannot stand.”- Abraham Lincoln. Probably the most iconic one-liner in American history, the 16th President’s quip expresses the need for unity in times of crisis.

Yet at the moment, it seems that a lacking sense of unity is splitting America almost in half, and nothing has done a better job than this election cycle at furthering the phenomenon.

The vitriol between the two parties has bullied its way into everyday life, pitting friends against friends in a nasty clash of ideals and political beliefs. In the midst of all the chaos, one thing has become abundantly clear: America is polarized, something that we cannot afford to continue. The United States is a nation built on strength in unity, about banding together in the face of adversity. But as of late, it seems that infighting and squabbling over the specifics has effectively blinded the nation to important issues that have arisen abroad. The November 8th result should be of small consequence in this issue.

Americans need to unite in the face of this growing global adversity and show the world again that the United States is a nation to whose ideals and pillars others should aspire. It does not matter whether you were “With Her” or wanted to “Make America Great Again,” citizens must band together as Americans and solve the issues that plague this nation and the world.

Each morning, it seems that we are constantly bombarded with a slew of new global issues and crises that demand the attention of the world’s unrivaled hegemon. However, as of late, we are so preoccupied arguing and Boris A. Abreu is a sophomore studying political science and international affairs. He is a new contributor at The Arch Conservative.

WINTER 2016

gnashing teeth over the presidential election that we seem to have forgotten that there is a world outside of our borders, a world that is far from safe.

Russia continually pushes the tolerance of the free world with its military actions.

Aggressive moves into Ukraine ordered by the Kremlin strike fear into the hearts of a finally liberated eastern Europe. And just last month in an apparent flexing of hard power, a fleet of ten Russian warships sailed right through the English Channel, raising fears that they were sailing to Syria to continue

bombing in support of the despotic Assad regime. Forty million Russian citizens took part in a nuclear drill in early October of this year, according to the Wall Street Journal.

The increased strain between Washington and Moscow grows increasingly apparent.

During this time Americans are reduced to the ineffective act of squabbling. The Russian nuclear drill, a foreign policy nightmare, received maybe a day or two of frontline news coverage before the political mudslinging resumed. This is not the way the United States should operate. Partisan politics have divided the country so strongly that it cannot even take a moment to realize the daunting foreign policy crises that appear. There is concern about North Korean aggression, evidenced by increasingly serious nuclear tests which threaten our critical South Korean

allies in the region.

China increases its military and comercial presence in the South China Sea, pushing back the US presence there and threatening the estimated $5.3 trillion dollars in trade that passes through annually, according to the Wall Street Journal. About a fifth of that fortune is is a result of US-China commerce. These are just a few of the major foreign crises that demand the attention of the world’s greatest power. But we are not paying attention.

There will always be those who outline the importance of taking care of domestic issues first. We are Americans first, after all. This argument is certainly viable and true in this sense. However, the issue is that America has become so divided over how to take care of their domestic issues that nothing is actually going to get done about the foreign ones. These foreign crises are very much here to stay, and without the correct and timely intervention, are soon to infringe directly upon the needs and wants of the American populace. We must be unified. We must turn our attention outward and hold our politicians accountable to take necessary action. We must demand that our leadership do something about these issues, both foreign and domestic. The voice of one nation, unified, is more powerful than two sides at odds with each other struggling simply to have their voice heard. It will say something that we, the people, want action. Contact your Congressman or Congresswoman, contact Senators, contact advocacy networks, get involved with the issues that matter the most to you.

We are a strong nation but only when we work together for the common good of the American people and our allies abroad can our strength be used to the fullest effect. As Senator Marco Rubio said, “We cannot allow our fears and disappointments to lead us into silence and into inaction. Because this country that God has blessed us with, it is worth fighting for.” b

The Arch Conservative / 7

COLUMNS

Purple States A detour on the road from red to blue.

I

n the wake of the 2016 presidential election, many Americans are confused on how President-elect Donald Trump pulled off an astounding victory over Hillary Clinton. Going into the election, polls had Trump losing by incredible numbers. One CNN model had Trump at an 11 percent chance of winning just prior to the election night coverage. During the Fox News Election Coverage, Correspondent Brit Hume announced the Las Vegas odds at different periods. As the night progressed, Trump went from having a 11 percent chance of winning to having an 80 percent chance of winning, after taking Florida and North Carolina.

The main reason so many polls had Mrs. Clinton winning was because the media seemed to believe that many historically red states were moving towards becoming purple states. The main states that the media claimed to be moving towards being purple were Georgia, Arizona, and Texas. Predictions about Texas results did not include expectations that democrats were going to win the state, but it was nonetheless predicted to have a stronger showing of democratic support than in the past. While the final results of the 2016 election ended up making the results in these three states a footnote, it is important to note that there was some evidence to support the media’s claims.

Of these three states, Georgia was one of the first states to close its polls at 7 p.m., but was one of the last states to be called around 11:45 p.m. The decision by media outlets to delay the call was due to the sluggishness of vote counters in highly populated areas. Mr. Trump ended up taking Georgia’s electoral votes, winning by 5.7 percent. While 5.7 percent does not seem to be an achievement in a historically red state, John McCain only beat President Obama here by 5 percent in Zachary Williams is a junior studying political science and criminal justice. He is a new contributor at The Arch Conservative.

8 / The Arch Conservative

2008 and Mitt Romney won by 8 percent in 2012. Looking past the presidential election, Senator Johnny Isakson had a 15 point win and 10 out of the 14 congressional districts voted republican. These results strongly suggests that Georgia is still a reliably red state and that the election was relatively close because both candidates had historically high unfavorability numbers.

It is easier to argue, however, that Arizona is becoming a purple state more quickly. In the presidential election, Arizona was not able to be called until November 9th and Mr. Trump claimed this state by 4.1 percent. In their Senate election, Republican incumbent John McCain held his seat, but his margin was about 3 points lower than Senator Isakson’s. While the Republicans held most districts in Georgia, Arizona Republicans barely managed to hold a majority of the congressional seats, winning 5 of the 9 districts.

While it is still possible that Texas, Georgia, and Arizona will all become purple states in the near future, the election results proved that the attention paid to these three states as potential democrat pickups was unwarranted.

Instead of blindly looking at lean-republican states as possibly moving towards the democrats, there should have been more emphasis on the possibility of swing states moving towards the republicans. One of these states was Ohio, which seems to be a swing state every year. Every news outlet made sure to declare that “no republican has ever won the presidency without taking Ohio.” Prior to the election, many outlets projected Ohio to go republican due to the high number of industry workers and the positive opinion Ohioans had of republicans, thanks in large part to their Republican Governor John Kasich. Two other key swing states were Florida and North Carolina, neither of which had many polls pointing to a Trump victory. In order to win the presidency, it was a safe assumption that Trump had to win all three of these swing states.

The issue for Trump was that both Florida and North Carolina are normally tossups, with late-deciders traditionally deciding

each state’s results. Prior to the election, most models, such as the University of Virginia’s Crystal Ball, had Florida and North Carolina voting for Clinton. These two states are highly important because they collectively hold 44 electoral votes, which could swing the whole election.

Fortunately for Donald Trump, both states voted for him, giving him a much needed boost. After taking these three swing states, all Trump had to do to win was claim a few of the blue states, not an easy task by any stretch of the imagination. Nonetheless, Trump managed to swing the two important blue states of Michigan and Pennsylvania, both of which voted democrat in the last four elections. If state color is to be argued now, then the debate should more likely be focused on the idea of blue states turning purple rather than red ones.

The real question now is how were the polls so wrong? There are many theories circulating: many reliably Democrat voters stayed home, the Hispanic vote was lower than expected, or the polls were skewed and did not include Trump supporters. Personally, the idea that sticks out most to me is that after a year of being called a racist, xenophobic, homophobic, sexist basket of deplorables, conservatives were simply more motivated to go out and vote for Trump than liberals were for Clinton. The reason that they were not accurately counted in the polls may be due to the fact that they feared telling pollsters who they were voting for because of the backlash associated with supporting Trump.

Regardless, the only way for the country to move forward now after the election is to curb the hate on both sides of the ideological spectrum and to come together in hopes that the government can avoid gridlock and politicians can come to some agreement on the issues of importance to the American people. b

WINTER 2016

COLUMNS

Meltdown in Academia Can liberal professors handle defeat?

N

PHOTOSCOURTESY PHOTO COURTESYOFDAVID NIKOLAYHG KING

ow that Donald Trump is our President-elect, the reactions of some of our UGA professors have been anything but non-partisan. While many kept their classrooms open to differing opinions, others were not as cautious of sharing personal beliefs regarding the eminent Trump presidency. One history professor who I will call “Smith” acknowledged the election with small, indiscriminate comments like how he “held [his] daughter in [his] arms for twenty minutes as she cried.” Smith asked us “what do we tell our children?”

He did not seem to want a response that included anything aside from “disaster,” “nightmare,” or “apocalyptic.” With a Hillary Clinton campaign sticker on his laptop, Smith also compared the election to a broader concept of how history does not always progress, but sometimes slips back into the negative actions of the past. Because of the trauma suffered from the election, he said he would take that into account while grading our papers due two days after.

One week later, he had two hours of his normal office hours dedicated to helping students who felt “traumatized or threatened.” When I spoke with Smith after class, he altered his approach when speaking to me about President-elect Trump, sounding more unbiased. On November 23, over two weeks after Election Day, my class received an email from him with a link to an article that drew comparisons between Trump and Putin’s relationship to that of Mussolini and Hitler. Why should a history professor be discussing the election in such depth and so often?

Smith’s class period after the election has been awkward and uncomfortable, but nothing life changing. The second history class John Doe is an anonymous contributor at The Arch Conservative.

WINTER 2016

proved to be far more entertaining. I say entertaining to be clear to my audience that I took no offense in this poor man’s suffering, only amusement as he intended. I do not wish him any ill-will, so I will refer to him as “Bob.” Bob is a very colorful teacher who expresses himself with constant fervor, though frequently uses his enthusiasm to entertain his students. Bob thought it necessary to remind his students that November 8th

was Election Day. November 9th and 10th, as he reminded us, marked the anniversary of Kristallnacht when Nazis torched synagogues, plundered Jewish businesses, and destroyed Jewish homes and schools. Though he did not say violent Trump supporters and protesters were like Nazis, the connection was strongly and sarcastically implied. With arms waving and a full range of gestures, he then proceeded to passionately recount past U.S. elections. With regard to Donald Trump’s video, Bob compared the scandal with those of the past exclaiming that the

American public “didn’t talk about p***y” as part of a presidential election.

It is a surprise that my professor even remembers the election results since he told us “I was completely trashed on my Manhattans!” Every time Clinton drew closer to defeat, he reached for another glass of whiskey mixed with whatever he had at his disposal. He vaguely recalled looking at the election map on the television and screaming “Was that Wisconsin?!” When he flew back into Hartsfield-Jackson Airport the next day, he looked out the window at Atlanta covered in smoke from Georgia’s wildfires and said, “My God, everything in Atlanta is burning.”

At the very least, he brought the election into historical context, showing us Trump’s nationalist-populist movement is “the most European movement in American history.” Many of my conservative friends have expressed similar situations in their own classes, some professors more antagonistic than others. One conservative professor even had $40 of Trump signs stolen from his car while parked on campus. Students burned Trump yard signs and American flags by the Arch, acts that are in violation of multiple city ordinances.

Is our campus open to conservative opinions? Though my professors did nothing to encourage violence, the atmosphere here is adverse to conservatism. The university has yet to make a public statement reminding students not to burn objects on public property or encouraging professors to be supportive of differing opinions. Though I have not felt personally in danger, I have also remained relatively silent and reclusive since the election. Even now, more than a two weeks later, the Hillary campaign sticker still remains on my professor’s laptop reminding us that this year’s race and resistant to the results are not yet over. b

The Arch Conservative / 9

COLUMNS

She’s Conservative The left does not get to define feminism.

O

n November 8th, 2016, women across America waited in line at Mount Hope Cemetery in Rochester New York to place an “I VOTED” sticker on Susan B. Anthony’s gravestone. Susan B. Anthony, a pioneer and leader of the women’s rights movement, died before she was actually able to see women across America cast legal votes, but nonetheless, she herself voted, albeit illegally. Not only did many of these women that paid tribute to Susan B. Anthony vote, many of them cast their ballot for Hillary Rodham Clinton—the first American woman to win a major party’s nomination for president, and the closest female that there has ever been to the presidency.

Though, in many ways, Clinton’s accomplishment is something for women to celebrate, there is something that we must mourn as well. The Clinton campaign was run on platforms typical of a party pandering to minority voters—racial, religious, and gender alike. Though, yes, a woman running for president is a triumph signaling how far both one gender and one nation have come over the course of a century, the bully pulpit of the Democratic Party has attempted to leave women with as little political choice as they had before suffrage.

The pop-culture infused politics of the left attempts to present young women with few political options.

To point out just one example of many, Cosmopolitan creates special magazine issues during election seasons telling girls what candidate they should vote for and which candidates are acceptably “pro-woman.”

Ironically, nearly half of the candidates listed in Cosmopolitan’s pro-woman lists, are not even females. This is because, in Cosmopolitan’s worldview, being “pro-woman” does not mean being the first Indian-American woman to hold governorship, as conservative Sydney North is a junior studying political science and journalism.

She is the Publishing Editor at The Arch Conservative.

10 / The Arch Conservative

Nikki Haley of South Carolina became in 2011. Being “pro-woman” does not mean being the first African-American woman elected to serve as a representative of your state, as Republican Mia Love became in 2012 for Utah. Being “pro-woman” does not even mean being the youngest woman ever elected to congress, as another conservative, Elise Stefanik has been since 2014.

To Cosmopolitan and popular outlets like it, being “pro-woman” has very little to do with actually being pro-woman. Rather, to Cosmopolitan and a mainstream culture obsessed with non-proven liberal policy, being “pro-woman” means being pro-progressivism. It means being pro-choice regarding abortion. It means being pro-Planned Parenthood. It means being anti-bathroom laws and anti-gun, pro-Affordable Healthcare Act and pro-Keynesian economics, even when these policies are not necessarily good for women. It means believing there is a discriminatory wage gap despite economic proof that this issue is, in fact, wildly exaggerated. According to Cosmopolitan and similar media outlets, being “pro-woman” means, quite frankly, being liberal.

Feminism used in today’s context is not the feminism of the Susan B. Anthony generation. Rather, feminism today is radical leftism disguised as a martyr’s movement.

Anthony repeatedly promoted women’s independence, suggested that women take an equal role to men, and was an anti-abortion advocate. Today’s feminists instead promote policy that creates a nanny-state for women, suggests that women should be paid equally regardless of the quality or amount of work completed, and is vehemently pro-abortion.

Most disappointingly, and as aforementioned, feminism today values a woman’s vote only when the vote is an affirmation of these liberal policies. Not only is this a departure from the suffragettes hope for American women, it is the actual antithesis of those values.

But some women and organizations are challenging the left’s narrow view of what it means to be pro-woman. Karin Agness is a graduate of the University of Virginia School of Law, a Forbes contributor, a Harvard

Fellow, and was featured on a list of Twitter’s 55 most influential women. If Agness were liberal, as an educated and accomplished woman, she would certainly be hailed as a beacon of light for women everywhere to imitate. But alas, Agness does not subscribe to the left-wing identity politics as so-called feminists would hope.

In 2004, Agness created the Network of Enlightened Women (NeW), a book club intended to promote conservatism as an ideology that is equally worthy of women’s votes and political attention. Since 2004, NeW has grown to include chapters across the nation that seeks to allow young college women to “read about ideas and people often left off of college syllabi and forgotten on college campuses.” Furthermore, this year the organization started a well-received social media campaign called “#ShesConservative.” The #ShesConservative campaign brings attention to the stories of conservative women on college campuses, and the backlash and demoralizing they have faced from “feminists” on their own college campuses.

Though the NeW and the #ShesConservative campaigns are not the only organizations and movements geared at promoting conservatism to young women, they have thus far been some of the most impactful.

Hopefully, as time proceeds, organizations such as NeW can change the dialogue about females in politics so that “feminism” and “pro-woman” are not words to be owned and defined by left-leaning politics. b

WINTER 2016

COLUMNS

Hail to the Chief America must come together to support our new president.

T

he election has ended. Donald J. Trump is our new president. He is one of the least popular candidates ever to win the office, as his controversial campaign has offended many and alarmed many more. Much of his own party has turned against him at one time or another as his right-wing populist rhetoric (a political view not popular in this country for nearly a century) created a view that he is likely a racist, and that he is ignorant on foreign policy as any true politician would do well not to alienate our allies with such Americacentric remarks. The state of this country is worrisome after his victory. This is not, however, because our president happens to be Trump. Our nation is eroding at its base because people refuse to accept our new Commander-in-Chief.

Upon the onset of Trump’s eminent victory beginning around 11 pm that election night, as I looked through my Snapchat story I was shocked at my friends’ abilities to be so hateful. Understandably they were angry that their preferred candidate was losing to a man that they viewed as dangerous, but for people who so pushed their slogan “Love Trumps Hate” with its high and mighty connotations, the only meaning I could derive from their collective stories was “We Hate Trump.”

I, myself, was not particularly elated at the prospect of having Trump as our president, but now all I have is hope. Donald Trump is, whether we like it or not, our new President of the United States. The campaign trail has made him public enemy number one in the eyes of more than half of the United States population, but now he is our leader. What does this mean for us? It means that it is time to put aside our differences and stand by our president.

Social media is still abuzz with some of the most vitriolic and hateful words spoken James Bartow is a freshman studying international affairs. He is a regular contributor at The Arch Conservative.

WINTER 2016

this entire campaign, as liberals who cannot tolerate this loss have begun to take it out on those who caused Trump’s win. Constitutionally, all Americans have the right to vote for the candidate with whom they most identify, or that they believe will best represent their interests. Enough Americans voted for Donald Trump in key areas that he won, despite Clinton’s command of the popular vote. Now a common argument of Trump protesters is that the electoral college is flawed and outdated, and that the popular vote is all that should really matter. This is, however, a flawed argument as these people seem to forget that a perfect democracy cannot work, especially in a country as vast and diverse as our own.

Many massive population centers, such as cities, voted predominantly for Clinton because they are generally more liberal than rural areas. They generally require more social programs in such compact living conditions in which they come into contact with a much more diverse population of people, creating a generally more economically and socially liberal mindset. Cities like these combined with other liberal population clusters throughout the country are enough to comprise a popular majority. However, in an absolute majoritarian democracy, these voices would be the only voices heard every time. Rural populations of America rarely have views that align with urban populations, and although they may not possess the sheer force in numbers that urbanites possess, they cannot simply be disregarded because of the fact. This election has yielded a result that many cannot accept, but the electoral college has ensured that the voices of more than just our massive population clusters are heard.

So regardless of the efficacy of my arguments in favor of the legitimacy of this election, one fact is indisputable: our new president-elect is Donald J. Trump. Some people are not willing to give him a chance, yet the most important thing that they forget is that if our president fails, so do we all.

America is only truly doomed when we turn on each other for our differences in political opinion. In the excellent words of President Obama on November 9th, “everybody is sad

when their side loses an election, but the day after, we have to remember that we’re actually all on one team… We all want what’s best for this country.” Donald Trump’s approach may differ from yours, but he only wants to lead this country down what he views as the right path, just as you do.

If you do not like Trump, then support him and hope that he will begin to support policies that you do like. If you believe Trump to be incompetent, then support him in his strive to become more competent. It is easy to insult the man you wanted to lose, but it is not easy to put aside petty differences and help him become the best that he can be.

Americans have never been known to take the easy way out when there is a challenge at our doorsteps, and now there is a challenge at the foot of our White House’s doorstep.

In every new president-elect, there is a new challenge at the foot of the White House: a man who has no experience in holding such power is now being bestowed the office and residence of the most powerful man in the world. His critics argue that he has no experience that qualifies him to be president, but is there any amount of experience that could prepare one for such a responsibility?

Trump will struggle with his new power as every other president has, but whether he can adapt and become a good president who can help our nation is up to us, as the people of our nation. We must work together to make our president great, rather than disregarding him as a fool with no abilities. We must stand behind our leader, or America will truly be lost. b

The Arch Conservative / 11

FEATURES

The Underestimated Candidate How Donald Trump Overcame the Odds

I

nauguration day will likely come and go before America fully recovers from the shock of election night. In the biggest political surprise since Truman’s defeat of Thomas Dewey in 1948, billionaire real estate mogul Donald Trump defeated former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, becoming the first president in American history without either political or military experience in the process. Clearly, this election will have dramatic effects on the country’s future, but the most relevant question at this point is this: How did Donald Trump pull off perhaps the greatest upset in American political history?

While the increasingly nationalized focus of elections has affected races ranging from state legislature seats to the presidency, American elections remain primarily candidate-driven processes.

Because of his lack of familiarity with the government, Donald Trump was a relatively unique candidate for any office let alone the largest one on the globe. Of course, non-politicians have run for president before; Wendell Willkie was a Wall Street industrialist before securing the Republican nomination in 1940 and Ross Perot had an exceptional impact on the 1992 election. With some help from near universal name recognition gained from time spent as a reality television star, Mr. Trump’s unassailable outsider status presented the American people with the strongest candidate for “change” in decades.

Despite these valuable political qualities, Connor Kitchings is the Editor-in-Chief at The Arch Conservative.

12 / The Arch Conservative

Mr. Trump inspired a firestorm of resistance throughout the campaign with some of his comments and proposed policies. Before the 2016 election was even on many people’s radar, he chose to accept the position of the country’s foremost birther, contending that President Obama was not born in the United States and was thereby ineligible to be elected to the presidency. Once the 2016 race started up, he made waves at the introduction of his campaign by stating that many of the illegal immigrants coming into the country from Mexico were criminals and rapists. With some of the cornerstones of his policy platform being the construction of a wall on our southern border, a partial religious test for immigrants, and the return of some controversial interrogation techniques such as waterboarding, Mr. Trump was not afraid of controversy. No doubt, these policies are a direct cause for his high disapproval ratings from the beginning of the campaign through election day.

On the other side, Hillary Clinton entered the race as a stereotypical Washington insider. Having spent parts of the past 25 years as the First Lady, a twice-elected Senator from New York, and the most travelled Secretary of State in history, she was one of the more experienced candidates ever to run for president. In a time of economic uncertainty following the most severe economic crisis since the Great Depression and in a time of great fear in the age of terrorism, Mrs. Clinton represented a steady hand on the wheel of the nation.

In addition to her credentials, she also carried a tremendous amount of baggage during

the campaign. Having spent the past 25 years in the bright public spotlight of the beltway, Mrs. Clinton became the poster child for the corruption and elitism that many Americans associate with the nation’s capital. Recent scandals like Benghazi and her private email server did little to help her cause, sowing seeds of mistrust throughout the electorate. Moreover, the FBI and Obama Justice Department’s handling of the email scandal angered a large number of people, leading many to believe that rule of law applies less to the political elite than to the general public.

These negative attributes largely blunted the excitement about the possibility of having the first woman president.

Because both of these candidates had extraordinarily high disapproval ratings – the two highest in the history of American presidential elections in fact – the reputation and unity of the political parties had the outsized burden of lining up partisan citizens behind their respective candidates.

As has been natural throughout American history, the opposition party was very excited about the possibility of taking power again.

Facing liberal overreach in many policy areas and a dramatic cultural shift to the left, rightleaning republicans were eager to retake the White House. Following a defeat in 2012 that many saw to be a winnable race, there was a contentious debate over how a party that predominantly relies on white voters would proceed in an age of demographic change, culminating in the combative primary that began shortly after the completion of the 2014 midterms. Eventually, Donald Trump won this debate by combining an outsider’s

WINTER 2016

PHOTOS COURTESY OF GAGE SKIDMORE

By Connor Kitchings

FEATURES

appeal with a sponsorship of economic populism and a rejection of political correctness. And while there was a very vocal faction of republican-leaning voters, myself included, that were critical of Mr. Trump’s nomination, the vast majority of traditional republican voters were more than willing to line up behind their nominee.

The democrats, on the other hand, faced an interesting challenge: since 2008, democrats were decimated in every election without Barack Obama’s name on the ballot. How would the diverse coalition that elected him to the presidency twice react to an old white woman at the top of the ticket? While many establishment democrats have been waiting for the chance to elect Hillary Clinton into the White House since the turn of the century, the surprisingly strong insurgency of Bernie Sanders during the primary forecasted more divisions built in the party’s diverse coalition than many campaign operatives were willing to see.

In addition to the candidates and the parties, the election had some independent factors that shaped the final results.

First and foremost was the state of the economy. Despite being in the middle of the lengthiest period of private sector job growth in our nation’s history, many Americans felt that the economy was stuck in the mud. Gallup determined that Americans were pessimistic about the economy during the election week, clarifying the negative rating on their economic confidence index.

Considering this, Pew Research Center’s finding that 84 percent of registered voters found the economy to be very important to their voting decision did not bode well for Mrs. Clinton.

Next, historical trends in presidential

WINTER 2016

elections had democrats chasing history.

Only once since the ratification of the 22nd Amendment limiting a president to two terms has one party been able to win the White House three consecutive terms. The one time it did happen, Bush’s victory in 1988, the incumbent president was incredibly popular and the confidence in the economy far surpassed that of this year.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly depending on which democrat you talk to, the FBI’s investigation into Mrs. Clinton’s emails created unprecedented uncertainty over the election. While Director James Comey held a press conference in July to publically criticize the former Secretary of State’s handling of confidential information, he also used the platform to announce that the FBI would not be recommending that any charges be pressed over the issue. This seemed to close the matter, as Mrs. Clinton used this declaration to continue campaigning under the assumption that the FBI had cleared her of any wrongdoing. The issue came roaring back ten days before the election, however, when Director Comey sent a letter to Congress, informing them that the investigation had resumed following the discovery of some new emails on the computer of Mrs. Clinton’s Deputy Chief of Staff’s husband, Anthony Wiener. Comey updated his letter 48 hours before election day to say that the new emails had not changed the FBI’s recommendation, but the revival of the issue certainly damaged Mrs. Clinton in the final moments of the campaign.

These different elements came together to create one of the most divisive, controversial presidential campaigns in American history.

The complexity of this election has allowed for a lot of misinformation to be spread over

the nature of the results. Some democrats are arguing that the heartland of America showed their true colors by voting for a racist and a sexist. Others believe that republican voter suppression tactics, like voter identification laws, prevented Clinton voters from participating in the electoral process. Some republicans believe that these results vindicate their attacks on identity politics. Others believe that democrats have become the representatives of a regional party, with these results signifying the start of a permanent republican majority. They are all wrong.

What is remarkable in situations such as this, where a variety of factors come together to create a surprising outcome, is how quickly people toss aside the simplest of explanations.

After eight long years of liberal governance, right-leaning voters were not going to let something as trivial as an unlikable candidate prevent them from voting to demonstrate their frustration. Traditional democrat voters, on the other hand, had grown somewhat complacent. After eight years of like-minded governance, it is very easy to forget what it feels like to lose. The importance of winning elections seems to dissipate more and more the longer a party is in office. Indeed, the general media consensus that Hillary Clinton was going to win in a landslide did little to energize the democrats’ voting base.

In the end, republican voters showed up.

Democrat voters did not. It really is as simple as that. It was not any vast rightwing conspiracy that kept those voters at home. It was the natural political hurdle that makes it very, very difficult to win the White House three times in a row: self-righteousness. It would be important for republicans to remember this when they hope to win the presidency again in eight years. b

The Arch Conservative / 13

FEATURES

The Other Boxes

A Result of Ballot Measures in Georgia

By Nick Geeslin

Amendment One The first and certainly most hotly debated amendment to the state constitution appeared as a yes or no question presented on the ballot as follows: "Shall the Constitution of Georgia be amended to allow the state to intervene in chronically failing public schools in order to improve student performance?”

With a vote that went about 60 percent against and 40 percent for, the multitude of Nick Geeslin is the Managing Editor at The Arch Conservative.

14 / The Arch Conservative

campaigns against Amendment One seemed to have swayed Georgia voters to comfortably reject this controversial amendment.

To summarize Amendment One to the State Constitution is a lengthy but worthwhile endeavor: it would have allowed the state to assume the “supervision, management, and operation of public elementary and secondary schools” which were determined to be ‘failing’ three years in a row according to a measure “based on student achievement, achievement gap closure, and student growth.”

Qualified schools would stay under state control until the completion of three consecutive years of a passing grade or a maximum of ten years under state control. In the case of a state takeover, the Governor would select a Superintendent who, after being confirmed by the Senate, would “serve at the pleasure of the Governor.” The Superintendent would be authorized to carry out a number of tasks, among them: managing a qualifying school, applying a qualifying school to become a charter school, and/or the closure of a qualifying school and reassigning of its students to surrounding schools “as an intervention of last resort.”

There was a reason that this amendment was so hotly debated, and it is not one that stemmed from a mere political divide as many issues presented for a vote do. In fact, the idea that a bill that would have significantly expanded state (over local) power was drawn up, passed, and signed by Nathan Deal and his majority Republican legislature is in itself a bit of a paradox.

In the end, voters decided to take a pass on handing the responsibility of failing

schools off to a more centralized, less locallycontrolled, and perhaps equally-ineffective state entity in order to entrust, yet again, the arguably ineffective efforts of local school boards in turning around the schools which have been failing the youth of Georgia and perpetuating inequities of opportunity. Perhaps the vote will offer a much needed time extension for local school boards to step up their efforts–a wake-up call of sorts. After all, as Governor Deal notes in a video campaigning for the amendment, “the status quo isn’t working” for education in Georgia. Hopefully the vote will foster a more informed and involved electorate in terms of education reform in Georgia and in the United States.

Amendment Two The second proposed amendment to Georgia’s constitution appeared as a yes or no question phrased as follows: “Shall the Constitution of Georgia be amended to allow additional penalties for criminal cases in which a person is adjudged guilty of keeping a place of prostitution, pimping, pandering, pandering by compulsion, solicitation of sodomy, masturbation for hire, trafficking of persons for sexual servitude, or sexual exploitation of children and to allow assessments on adult entertainment establishments to fund the Safe Harbor for Sexually Exploited Children Fund to pay for care and rehabilitative and social services for individuals in this state who have been or may be sexually exploited?”

Amendment Two to the state constitution, according to the Associated Press, passed with an easy and expected 83 percent of the vote.

WINTER 2016

PHOTO COURTESY OF WYOFILE

T

hough the tallies next to the names ‘Clinton’ and ‘Trump’ proved to be the main motivator for eligible citizens making their way to voting stations this year, the 2016 Georgia ballot offered a couple more opportunities for voters to become involved in the political process in the form of ‘down ballot’ voting on four proposed amendments to the Georgia state constitution.

Whereas many people vote according to party for most House and Senate races or seats as well as city, state and county positions, the various ballot measures require a more careful approach and are usually less predictable than presidential and congressional elections. Perhaps this year, though, offered a rare exception to the norm. Without further ado, what follows is a summary of the four amendments proposed by the state legislature that appeared on the ballot this November and what the Georgia electorate decided on each.

FEATURES

Approved in the Georgia State Senate with a vote of 53-3, there is really no trick with this one. It enacts an additional fine on convicted sex traffickers and an annual revenue fee on adult entertainment businesses such as strip clubs. The revenue will cover the costs of “care and rehabilitative and social services” of victims of sexual crimes by way of the Safe Harbor for Sexually Exploited Children Fund. This bill is also known as “Rachel’s Law,” referring to the name of a victim of sexual trafficking who testified to the Georgia General Assembly just last year.

The only opposition was to the fee imposed on adult entertainment businesses like strip clubs whose owners argue that the industry has no part in sex trafficking and should not be indirectly punished for the crime.

Amendment Three The third amendment was presented to voters as a yes or no question phrased on the ballot as: “Shall the Constitution of Georgia be amended so as to abolish the existing Judicial Qualifications Commission; require the General Assembly to create and provide by general law for the composition, manner of appointment, and governance of a new Judicial Qualifications Commission, with such commission having the power to discipline, remove, and cause involuntary retirement of judges; require the Judicial Qualifications Commission to have procedures that provide for due process of law and review by the Supreme Court of its advisory opinions; and allow the Judicial Qualifications Commission to be open to the public in some manner?”

In an unfortunate result, the third and certainly most overlooked change to Georgia’s constitution passed by a twelve digit margin, with 62 percent of voters electing to authorize the Governor to control an oversight and accountability facet of of the judicial branch with only the consent of the legislature to consider.

Written into the state constitution in 1972, the Judicial Qualifications Committee (JQC) is tasked with carrying out “investigations and hearings with respect to complaints of ethical misconduct by Georgia judges” according to the JQC website. In other words, the Commission is a sort of police force for judges in the state. As a hypothetical example, if a complaint was filed against a judge for being under the influence while on duty, the Commission would investigate the case and subsequently decide on a punishment or even removal from position.

The proposed amendment, however, has

WINTER 2016

to do with the appointing process of the JQC, which currently has seven members selected in the following manner: three by the State Bar of Georgia, two by the Georgia Supreme Court, and two (who must be non-lawyer “citizens”) by the Governor. Essentially, voting yes on Amendment Three will give the General Assembly the broad power of appointing and removing the entirety of the Judicial Qualifications Commission.

The Amendment does, however, mandate that the Georgia Supreme Court okay any such decision. As uninteresting as the third amendment may sound, it is one that has not received its due amount of public attention and concern.

Legitimate individual and organizational opposition, though, was rightfully plenty despite being in vain. In his AJC article, Jay Bookman cautioned that the amendment “would inject the heavy hand of politics into a process in which politics should play no role.” Republican Senator Josh McKoon from the 29th District said that, should the amendment pass, the state is “heading for a crisis.”

The State Bar of Georgia and Georgians for Judicial Integrity have also taken a stance against the amendment, citing, among other reasons, the JQC’s effectiveness (which renders the amendment unnecessary) and the need for a judicial body such as the JQC to be independent of politics. Not at all difficult ideals to stand behind, but those that were too narrowly and ineffectively advertised.

Amendment Four The fourth and final amendment closed out the statewide ballot measures, asking: “Shall the Constitution of Georgia be amended so as to provide that the proceeds of excise taxes on the sale of fireworks or consumer fireworks be dedicated to the funding of trauma care, firefighter equipping and training, and local public safety purposes?”

The final tweak to the basis of Georgia Law this year passed with a sure and overwhelming 81 percent of the vote.

After legalizing fireworks in the state just last year, the Senate has taken note of the possibility of an increase in firework-related injuries in Georgia and found a good opportunity to use some of the tax revenue gained from firework sales to help with safety purposes as outlined above. The only significant detail that can be added to the ballot wording is that the funds, obtained solely from excise taxes on fireworks, will be allocated as follows: 55 percent to the Georgia Trauma Care Network Commission, 40 percent to the

Georgia Firefighter Standards and Training Council “to be exclusively used for the implementation of a grant program to improve the equipping and training of firefighters,” and the remaining 5 percent to be used by local governments “solely for public safety purposes consisting of the operation of 9-1-1 systems.”

For non-Georgia voters , many other states proposed amendments of their own as well. Three states–Arkansas, North Dakota, and Florida, all passed medicinal marijuana legalization laws while five–Maine, Nevada, Massachusetts, Arizona, and California, voted on whether to legalize marijuana entirely.

According to Ballotpedia, the number of US citizens who live in a state with marijuana legalized for recreational use has quadrupled with Arizona being the only state to reject the ballot measure. Four states voted to increase the state minimum wage. Colorado, Maine, and Arizona passed a gradual increase of the minimum wage to $12 an hour by 2020.

Washington, on the other hand, voted to increase it to $13.50 by the same process.

Other hot topics included gun control measures and health care legislation. California and Nevada, for example, made background checks part of a necessary legal procedure for those in the market for a gun. Also notable was that 80 percent of Colorado voters okayed the creation of ‘ColoradoCare,’ a state-specific healthcare system.

As important as the checkmarks next to the names Clinton and Trump, it can be argued, are the less flashy changes to each state’s constitution. It is the closest aspect of the US governmental system to a direct democracy and, therefore, the most important mode of participation per individual for the democracy. Voters have outright control over the implication of these specific laws. The federal system has done its part. What was left for the voters was to educate themselves on the issues, because as Thomas Jefferson aptly professed, “Whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government.” And so we have our next batch of constitutional changes. b All quotes stylized in italics are taken directly from the Bills as proposed by the Georgia General Assembly and signed by Governor Nathan Deal.

The Arch Conservative / 15

FEATURES

Deeper Than Talking Points Has the Nature of the Presidential Debate Devolved?

I

t does not take the insight of a political pundit to recognize that the 2016 presidential debates did not go well for Donald Trump. Clearly, Trump struggled, especially in the first two debates. Yet despite Trump’s weak performance in the early contests, the claim that Hillary Clinton was the clear winner of the debates simply cannot be justified. Sure, Hillary generally fared better than Trump throughout the course of the three debates. Trump, however, was no pushover, and he managed to fight back with growing confidence and ability as the debates progressed.

Regardless of the positive aspects of his debate performance though, Trump was never able to clearly outdo his rival for the full hour and a half. Of course, he did beat her on the occasional issue, but even then, that success did not last long. The combination of strong polling data in Clinton’s favor running right up to Election Day and Trump’s lack of an outstanding debate performance seemed to indicate an easy Clinton victory in the election. Nonetheless, Trump succeeded in pulling off an overwhelming Electoral College victory, despite losing the popular vote by more than two million votes.

This result raises many questions about the qualities of the current presidential debate system following Trump’s unforeseen victory. Debates have presumably affected over a century of American politics. In the case of presidential politics, debates have Christopher Lipscomb is a new contributor at The Arch Conservative.

16 / The Arch Conservative

been known to alter the outcome of the election, specifically with the famous KennedyNixon debates of 1960. By the end of the third debate this year, there was little reason for anyone with an understanding of the history of politics to believe that Trump’s debate performance would do anything but hurt him come Election Day. And yet, as we speak, the business mogul continues to appoint and assemble his White House staff. Thus it would seem that the American people ought to reconsider not only the effectiveness of polling, but also of the relevance of debates.

The First Debate For weeks leading into the first debate, there was much speculation about whether Trump would behave like the major party nominee he had become, to ‘drop the act’ in a sense, or whether he would continue to play the buffoon as he had done so well during the Republican Primary debates. Accordingly, it was reported that Hillary was going through debate prep with both possibilities in mind, though she undoubtedly hoped the same Trump she saw in the primaries would reappear.

The Trump that ultimately took the stage was somewhere in between. He was notably much tamer in his performance, however he still fell short of the calm stability that has traditionally defined presidential nominees.

And, needless to say, Donald J. Trump is no such traditional presidential candidate. So, although his performance lacked a defining outburst as was the case during the Republican debates in the spring, he was still the same childish candidate, taking pleasure in

interrupting and pointing out statements which he felt were “wrong.”

On a broader scale, Trump’s performance was rather one-dimensional: connect Hillary to any and all Obama administration policies and emphasize her responsibility for those that could be construed as failing.

This approach was disappointing in its result, as ultimately it only made Trump seem even more out of touch with reality. And unfortunately for Trump, his efforts to portray Hillary as the ultimate Washington insider had an even deeper consequence than simply making him seem out of touch: it gave her opportunities to tout her experience in government, which gives her an advantage of over forty years to zero against the selfproclaimed billionaire.

The matter that Hillary seemed to take the most umbrage with was Trump’s tax returns, which she claimed he would not release because he had something to hide, possibly that he is not as rich as he claims to be. Even if that were the case, at least Trump does not pretend to be less well-off simply to pander to lower and middle-class voters, unlike Clinton, who in reality is far richer than she lets on. Additionally, although some of Trump’s business practices have raised questions over the years, at least he is honest about how he accumulated his wealth.

The Clintons have spent the vast majority of their adult lives in some form of public service, and yet they have somehow struck it rich in the fifteen years since they left the White House; the Clintons’ wealth has been accumulated so shadily that the only thing that can be said for certain regarding it is that

WINTER 2016

PHOTO COURTESY OF GAGE SKIDMORE

By Christopher Lipscomb

FEATURES

they have clearly violated Harry Truman’s rule: “An honest public servant can’t become rich in politics.” More visibly, by broaching the topic of Trump’s lack of transparency with his tax returns, Hillary opened herself up for an even more resounding attack: the 33,000 emails that were deleted.

Ultimately, there was no clear winner in the first debate. Trump might have been considered the winner, even if only for being far less incendiary than his performance during the primaries led the public to expect. Claims for a Trump victory are further aided by the fact that he was able to hold his ground well against Hillary Clinton, herself a veteran of political battles, despite the fact that he is a novice in the political arena. At the same time, Hillary could have been declared winner due to her adherence to a singular message, even if her message was one of taking America back in time to what appears to be some horrendous mixture of the Carter and Obama administrations.

The Second Debate When a tape featuring the voice of Donald Trump talking about women in a less than chivalrous way, to say the least, surfaced in the media only days before the debate, it became painfully obvious what was going to be the central aspect of the second debate.

That expectation very quickly became reality, as Hillary and the moderators very quickly focused in on what Trump said ten years ago.

All things considered, the PresidentElect’s comments in that video are entirely inexcusable. At the same time, he is at the end of the day only a human, and humans have been known to make mistakes and say things that ought not to have been said from time to time. The notion that his comments should disqualify him from being eligible for the Presidency, while the alleged criminal actions of Hillary Clinton have no impact on her qualifications, is simply preposterous; the media unveiled a dark stain on Trump’s character, but to use this as evidence for Trump being unfit for the Oval Office while ignoring full-fledged FBI investigations for misconduct that could have resulted in the leaking of key classified information is the mark of a truly misguided media.

Unfortunately, because of the abundance of attention that was placed on the video and the resultant allegations regarding Trump’s treatment of women, the candidates struggled to have a substantial debate on the issues, as doing so would require them to first get past the video and Trump’s views of

WINTER 2016

women, which Hillary and the left-leaning moderators wanted to focus on for as long as possible for the obvious reason that it would hurt Trump and help Hillary.

Trump’s decade-old quotes were not the only thing hindering the debate. At times, it was hard to figure out just who Trump was supposed to debate: Hillary, or the moderators Cooper and Raddatz.

Ultimately, the second debate devolved into such a decentralized mess that it is impractical to declare a winner. Trump was able to survive, barely. However, the worst of the damage for Trump occurred before he and Hillary ever took the stage. If anything, the debate might have even benefitted Trump, who left with even more of a basis for his claims that the media had it out for him.

The Third Debate By the time the third debate rolled around, it had become painfully obvious that the odds of either candidate holding back were minimal at best. The gloves were off, so to speak.

Once more, they did not disappoint. A bright side to the attack-heavy debate was that the candidates were able to actually discuss policies and stay mostly focused on associated issues.

The heavy focus on policy made the debate comparatively boring at times, and it seemed to drag on for far longer than the ninety minutes it actually was. Moderator Chris Wallace did a commendable job keeping the candidates in check. Unlike the moderators of the previous two debates, he offered Trump a fair chance, and that was obvious throughout the debate as Trump was able to actually make the case for his candidacy and his policies, as well as having a fair chance to defend those policies from interjections by Hillary.

In the end, the third debate was by far the most effective in the sense that it was the most traditional, policy-centered debate, if such a thing could have existed in the 2016 election cycle.

Are Debates Still Relevant?

Overall, this election indicates that the debates are far less important than they once were and are arguably on the path to outright insignificance.

If presidential debates still mattered in the same way that they once did, it is highly probable that the U.S. would have a different President-Elect. If they still mattered in the way that they did even fifteen or twenty years ago, Trump’s inconsistent performance

throughout the debates would have been far more harmful than the election’s outcomes indicate they were.

That being said, even if the actual backand-forth of the debate was more beneficial to Clinton, the very atmosphere surrounding the debates was beneficial to Trump. In the first two debates, the moderators were simply incapable of hiding their anti-Trump attitudes. Through such behavior, the moderators unwittingly advanced Trump’s narrative that the media, along with the rest of mainstream society would stop at nothing to block him from the White House.

Today, the debates are made largely impotent by the realities of social media and a never-ending news cycle. Once upon a time, the debates provided a forum for both candidates to take the stage together and not only talk about the issues, but to be visible.

Being able to act the part on television has been just as important as the actual act of debating since Kennedy and Nixon debated on television for the first time in 1960. Today’s endless outlets, though, allow for candidates to present their case at their leisure; and so the televised presidential debate has devolved largely to glorified category of reality television. Put this way, it seems at least ironic that Trump, the former reality television star, could not distinctly outperform Clinton, the career politician.

Therefore, it is plain to see that the debates do not matter anymore, at least not in the traditional sense. Today, the debates serve more as a reality check for the candidates. Today’s debates provide an opportunity for the candidates to demonstrate to the American people that they can articulate and defend their policies with poise.

All in all, the debates are less significant or significant in a different way than they once were. From the traditionalist lens, the three presidential debates of 2016 likely had little to no impact on the outcome of the election. Going forward, it will be interesting to see whether presidential debates gain in any new significance or continue to wither into oblivion. b

The Arch Conservative / 17

HUMOR

The Chalkening Even children can trigger leftists now.

2

016–The year of memes, movements, and one hell of a Presidential election.

In the politically correct, or "PC," climate that surrounds us today, people are often extremely offended by the slightest things. Students claim to be "triggered" by actions and occurrences that most people would not normally find offensive at all– things like halloween costumes, free political speech, and chalk. Yes, chalk. Students across the country have started to fear the terror that has arisen from “The Chalkening.”

Students at universities across the United States are claiming to have been “attacked”, and say they are feeling “unsafe” after proTrump messages were written with chalk on campus sidewalks. One student even claims to have “legitimately feared for [his] life.” That’s right. The politically correct, safe space society present today has actually led to people fussing all over one of your favorite childhood activities: drawing with pastels that your dad could easily wash off of the driveway on a Saturday afternoon.

The Chalkening refers to a protest that has been occurring on college campuses all over the United States. It has been acknowledged

by Donald Trump’s Social Media Director Dan Scavino, where students write phrases such as “#Trump,” “Build that Wall,” and “Trump 2016.” The movement started at Georgia’s own Emory University, where students woke up one morning expecting to walk to class like they would on any other Georgia spring day when they noticed pro-Trump messages written on staircases, columns, and sidewalks of university property. Phrases that should have everyone and their mother fearing their lives such as “Trump2016,” “Vote Trump,” and simply “Trump.” Words that should definitely have citizens shaking in fear, right?

The movement soon spread like wildfire Ben Grayson is a sophomore studying marketing. He is a regular contributor at The Arch Conservative.

18 / The Arch Conservative

to universities all over the country. Conservative students–with chalk as their weapon and the sidewalk as their battlefield, America’s institutions of higher learning–exercised their first amendment right to free political expression through the Chalkening. Yet, despite claiming to be open minded and stand for the free exchange of ideas, the left found a reason to complain about it.

Not all of America’s teenagers and young adults are triggered by this form of expression–organizations such as The National Chair of Students for Trump and social media groups like Old Row have embraced The Chalkening. These groups have encouraged their members to go “chalking” and Old Row has even made a contest out of this by offering prizes ranging from gift cards to merchandise to be received by the best submissions of Trump related chalk art on college campuses.

There have even been Chalkenings here at The University of Georgia. While antiTrump students have not made as much of a fuss over it compared to other places of higher education, students still feel entitled to their constitutional rights of free speech, just as they should.

So why did this Chalkening become a phenomenon?

Perhaps it is the young republicans attempt at reaching other young voters. Maybe it is the political right demonstrating that they are fed up with the PC culture. Or maybe, it is just fun. No matter what the opinion is – pro-chalk or anti-chalk – it can be agreed upon that this protest has grabbed national media attention, especially through social media sites, and has been fueled by this generation’s young republican voters who are desperately ready for change in this country. At the end of the day, when evaluating the backlash and outcomes of the protest, we must ask ourselves an important question: was anyone physically harmed by this peaceful protest? No. Protests from past years have ranged from sit-ins to picket signs to hunger strikes, and chalk should be no less acceptable.

Now that Donald J. Trump has won the election and will become the 45th president

of The United States, will this country and her college campuses start seeing other similar movements and protests showing support for this miracle of a victory. Chalking incidents could increase in the aftermath of this win, with young republicans still wishing to find a medium to express their excitement for this country’s President-Elect. Perhaps the defeated left will search for fresh, creative ways to show their disapproval for the Republican Party and its President-Elect. Or, perhaps, they will finally decide to embrace free speech on campus, and encourage peaceful dissent. Perhaps they will recognize it as a protest far more peaceful than the riots, flag burnings, dragging people into the streets to beat them, and other violent demonstrations that have been occurring. Citizens upset by the results of the election have been rioting, looting. Students have been skipping class and showing hatred and animosity towards Trump supporters in person and on social media. Is it not hypocritical to call Trump supporters bigots while you are shaming somebody for their political beliefs? Maybe protestors can take away something from the Chalkenings. Maybe they can use it to reflect on their post-election actions, and perhaps even look to it as an example of how to protest or express political opinion in a peaceful manner.

This election has been everything but ordinary, and Chalkening has been no exception. Rather, it serves as a prime example of how unorthodox, fresh, and surprising this election has been and perhaps how the next four years will be. b

WINTER 2016

HUMOR

Fringe Candidates Did the best man lie beyond the two major parties?

W

PHOTO COURTESY OF NICK V

ith astounding disapproval ratings of 58 and 54 percent respectively, Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton were two of the most unpopular candidates for president in American history. Clearly, millions of people voted as a way to show disapproval towards the candidate they disliked, rather than voting for the one they liked. While this strategy is understandable given the circumstances, it was not the only option. Over 1,910 American’s announced their candidacy for the leader of the free world prior to election day. If ever there were a year to vote third party, this was unquestionably it.

While former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson appeared to be the popular third option, there was no reason to settle. Needless to say, I wouldn’t have forgotten the name of the epicenter of the Syrian refugee crisis if I were running for president. Luckily for the American voters, there was another alternative.

Jim Hedges, 78-year old presidential candidate representing the “Prohibition Party”, was a valid prospect that did not receive enough attention. He was a unique choice, being the only person from the Prohibition Party ever to be elected into office. He is the former Tax Assessor for Thompson Township in Pennsylvania. In addition to his political career, Hedges served in the United States Marine Corps . . . Band for two decades as a tuba player. He is truly a man who loves America. His running mate, Bill Bayes, is a business owner in the manufacturing sector from Mississippi. The team of Hedges and Bayes was the team for America, and here’s why.

As one would expect from the party name, TJ Collins is a junior studying economics.

He is a regular contributor at The Arch Conservative.

WINTER 2016

Jim Hedges ran on a platform devoted to restoring alcohol prohibition. There is no way to “drink responsibly” in his eyes. "To drink 'responsibly' is to drink Adam's Ale: water. Virtually all drinkers of alcohol think they are drinking 'responsibly,' regardless of their level of consumption. That's PR fluff designed to neutralize the issue and maintain alcohol pushers' profits.”

Along with stance on alcohol prohibition, he strongly opposes allowing the use of any medical drug, including tobacco. Bear with the old man and entertain this idea. Objectively speaking, this is an outstanding idea.

It is not like tobacco has been an important product throughout American history. Nicotine withdrawal must just be more PR fluff from those greedy tobacco companies. No one would miss it if it were gone tomorrow.

Another plank of his platform, he was very passionate about was education. He noted on his campaign website that “America only a few years ago had the world’s highest percentage of college-educated citizens.

It has now slipped to 11th place.” That is a disappointing statistic to hear; fortunately, he has a plan to return America to its former glory (if only there were a catchy slogan for this kind of sentiment). Free college tuition, nation-wide, for all qualifying citizens! Those are words everyone can get behind – actions are another story. He had not stated whether or not taxes would have been raised in pursuit of free tuition, but Mr. Hedges always has a tactic to keep us Americans happy. Your money will be safe, don’t fret.

If you are not already completely sold on his political genius, he offers leadership desperately needed in this country. This guy is a stud. Even though he is working to outlaw many of them, vices are a natural part of life. So what are his? "I'm a scofflaw. I never use a seatbelt, I do my own home repairs without bothering to get building permits, I eat too much chocolate, I use foul language when I'm among friends.

Oh yeah, and when my granddaughter was little, I taught her how to swear in foreign languages, so she could say whatever she wanted to in school without offending the teacher.” How in the world was this man not on the debate stage with Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton? Well, he got my vote. Could you imagine how fun and unpredictable our foreign affairs would be if Jim was the next POTUS? And yes, we are in fact on a first-name basis.

For some reason, it was generally accepted that the only two options in 2016 were an arrogant, pompous clown and a corrupt, untrustworthy crook. All the while, we the People had another choice. We did not have to elect a candidate that people only wanted because of hate for the other. If we had elected Jim Hedges, our country would not be falling to shambles. We would not have been made fun of by the rest of the world any longer. b

The Arch Conservative / 19

COLLEGE IS ALREADY EXPENSIVE ENOUGH That’s why college students are invited to sign up for free digital access to The Weekly Standard magazine at weeklystandard.com/free — no credit card needed!

America’s Foremost Political Magazine