The Plight of the Moderates

Dawgs Fall In Jacksonville

The Georgia Bulldogs fell to the Florida Gators in an ugly war of attrition at this year’s World’s Largest Outdoor Cocktail Party, ultimately suffering a defeat of 28-44 against a potent Gator offense. The Bulldog defense suffered pass coverage issues and the Gators threw for well over 400 yards on the normally stout Bulldog secondary, missing such key pieces as veteran safety Richard LeCounte. The offense fared little better, as quarterback Stetson Bennett IV suffered a shoulder injury and talented freshman wideout Marcus Rosemy-Jacksaint suffered a scary ankle injury during the game. Questions remain as to the quarterback situation in Athens moving forward.

Senatorial Runoff in Georgia

As a result of neither race’s candidates obtaining 50% +1 of the necessary vote to capture one of Georgia’s two coveted Senate seats, the election is moving to a runoff. Incumbent David Perdue faces a stiff challenge from Jon Ossoff, and the incumbent Kelly Loeffler faces a challenge from Rev. Raphael Warnock. The control of the US Senate is likely to come down to these races, and both sides are gearing up for an incredible spending spree and media blitz to descend upon the Peach State as Georgia becomes the center of US electoral politics. The runoff will take place on January 5th.

Cancellation of Spring Break

The University of Georgia announced a decision to remove the scheduled dates for next academic semester’s spring break, normally scheduled for March 8-12, in favor of more sporadic one day breaks scattered throughout the semester. The motive for such moves remains unclear, and the decision was met with immediate ire from students and faculty alike, citing the need for a break during an especially stressful time given the COVID-19 pandemic.

— Boris A. Abreu

Biden and Democrats Call for Unity... Now

Democrats immediately shift tack to a message of unity.

The United States Presidential Election of 2020 has manifested unlike any other with numerous mail-in ballots continuing to arrive for counting, Georgia declaring a recount, and election fraud accusations arising all over the country, specifically in battleground states. Despite all of these speed bumps in the road to Inauguration Day, media outlets declared former Vice President Joe Biden as the projected Presidentelect of the United States on Saturday, November 7th. With this announcement, social media and mainstream media outlets began spreading the message that the projected president-elect promises to “unite” and “heal” this nation, This message’s content at first glance certainly does not appear harmful or detrimental to the country, but to some the sudden message to unify rings hollow.

Joseph R. Biden began his career in the United States Senate in 1973. Some of his more notorious career steps in bringing “unity” involve things such as the rather hostile questioning of Clarence Thomas, and offensive remarks while Vice President to Barack Obama. Biden served as Senate Judiciary Chairman from 1987-1995, where he conducted the confirmation hearing of the future Supreme Court Justice Thomas. In 1991, Judge Thomas was told by Biden that he would receive “softball” questions at the beginning of the hearing but proceedings began with a “beanball straight at [his] head” quoting a speech Thomas gave and challenging him to defend it. Turns out, when Thomas looked back at the speech during a break, Biden had conveniently neglected a quote in the following sentence that essentially dismantled the

Sydney Robertson is a graduate student studying Accounting. She is Business Manager of the The Arch Conservative. entire argument. Biden later continued to show no mercy to Judge Thomas by attacking the judge’s character with regard to the Anita Hill testimony in which she alleged sexual harassment at the hands of Judge Thomas. All of this cruel questioning by Senator Biden led Judge Thomas to remark that this uncalled for slander on his character represented a “high-tech lynching.”

Joe Biden’s most notable career role (as of yet) includes his years as Vice President from 2009-2017. Biden helped push the administration’s narrative of America’s current systemic racism. One more startling example includes when he told a group of mostly African-American attendees at a rally that then-presidential nominee Mitt Romney would “put y’all back in chains” if elected President. Clearly, Mr. Biden has not created for himself a spotless record of creating unity.

The party that espouses unity and healing has displayed some divisive and hurtful behavior not just for the last few days since their projected election victory, but for years leading up to this election. For example, Barack Obama, when running for president in 2008, referred to Midwestern blue-collar workers as those who “cling to their guns or religion or antipathy toward people who are not like them.” Divisive comments from the Obama administration only served to exacerbate rifts in our country’s culture. Then in 2014, President Obama deepened the cut through his personal reaction to a grand jury finding the officer who killed Michael Brown innocent by saying that “there are Americans who are..angry... and that it is an understandable reaction”, stoking the flames of racial tension and property-destroying riots all across the country, in reaction to allegations of police brutality. The cruelties and division have only exponentially increased in the last four years since Donald Trump became President. Hillary Clinton, in her failed presidential bid labelled Trump voters a “basket of deplorables” containing the “racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, and Islamaphobic” members of our country. More recently, former First Lady Michelle Obama contributed to this “unity” platform when she tweeted that Trump voters support “lies, hate, chaos, and division”, othering the 71 million Americans who voted for President Trump. In a final example of how the Democratic Party plans to unify the country, Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez tweeted on the question as to if anyone has been keeping a list of the “Trump sycophants” in order to hold them personally responsible for the crime of working for the Trump Administration through the Trump Accountability Project.

This message of unity from Joe Biden and his fellow Democrats does not stick with Americans who have been paying attention. It rings hollow to vote for “unity” when it means the murder of millions of pre-born babies every year. It rings hollow to vote for “unity” when it means parents must let their eight-year-old pick his gender when he feels he should be a girl rather than a boy. It rings hollow to vote for “unity” when it means churches and synagogues stay closed, while block parties for Biden receive the green light. It rings hollow to vote for “unity” when it means they like you only when you agree. It rings hollow to “unify” with people who have been vilifying Republicans for the past two decades. These things are not unity, they are demonstrative of a party of bullies. Democrats have made their message clear: bend the knee to the Party. B

The Plight of the Moderates

Looking at Libertarian and Moderate Voices in Georgia’s Senate Runoffs.

After an intense election season in which Georgia is expected to flip blue for the first time in nearly thirty years, third-party voters will play a unique role in determining how the next four years of Georgia politics will play out. The control of the Senate will be settled in the Georgia runoff races to take place in January 2021. As of now, the Republican Party holds a 51-49 majority, however after the Democrats gained one new seat and incumbent Senators David Perdue and Kelly Loeffler failed to break fifty percent of the necessary votes, the future of the Senate remains to be seen. With Biden projected to win the Presidency by a slim margin after taking Pennsylvania and Nevada and holding a majority in Georgia, it seems apparent that the new administration will waste no time implementing a storm of policies through executive action. In the eyes of many moderates, especially those outside of urban counties, a Biden administration's ambitious policy may threaten the delicate balance at the center of American politics. A blue Senate would further move America away from this balance between and pave the way for unified Democratic dominance.

So, what does the mindset of libertarian and moderate voters in Georgia look like, who may determine the future of the Senate? Many libertarians choose to vote for third-party candidates simply out of principle, though Republican and Democratic candidates are the only viable options in the modern political landscape. Some analysts look at thirdparty voters with a sense of pity, bordering on resentment. Recently, Republicans have shifted blame for Donald Trump’s

Josie Lipton is a sophomore studying Journalism and Art History. She is Associate Editor of The Arch Conservative. loss onto libertarian voters, especially in states where candidate Jo Jorgensen’s vote count exceeded the margin between Biden and Trump. In 2000, Democrats accused the Green Party of throwing the election to George W. Bush after Ralph Nader received 2.74% of the national popular vote. In this election cycle, Jo Jorgensen won only 1.2% of the popular vote, but it was enough for pundits to criticize libertarians for yet again not picking a viable candidate.

For the first time in decades, Georgia played the role of a swing state, due in part to concentration of blue voters growing around urban epicenters. AthensClarke county voted overwhelmingly blue, and now that liberal students have done their part in securing Biden’s win in Georgia, they’ve turned their attention to the Senate races. Democratic students across the University of Georgia’s campus have rallied behind Ossoff’s campaign, which has a large social media presence and goals in common with more radical liberals. Many students have begun pushing for voters who could not vote in this election but will turn eighteen by January 2021 to register, as they may play a substantial role in shifting the elections in favor of Democrats.

The intentions of voters in Georgia’s major parties are clear going into the Senate runoff races, but the motives of third-party voters and centrists remain ambiguous. A small group of conservatives informally refer to themselves as “never-Trumpers,” and voting for Donald Trump was a last resort. However, now that the Presidency is tentatively lost to the Democratic party, it is likely that many of these voters might be scrambling to restore a balance between the executive and legislative branches. Similarly, centrists who have leaned in favor of Biden this election season might choose Perdue or Loeffler for the sole reason of checking Biden and Harris’ policies. In sum, many moderates could be satisfied with a divided government, despite the frustrations this causes partisan voters.

This election cycle has been historic in a number of ways. The breakdown in voting patterns clearly shows a movement away from the traditional factors that separate voters and towards a bracket of urban and rural. The influence of politicians such as Stacey Abrams and Keisha Lance Bottoms has indubitably deepened party divisions in Georgia, driving conservatives further right and liberals further left. People who don’t fall into these categories; however, are somewhat exempt from the general “us vs. them” mindset that plagues many partisan voters. They will be the ones to swing these Senate races.

In special elections; however, where only the two candidates with the highest number of votes qualify for the runoff, moderate voters must choose either Democratic or Republican. In the November election, Libertarian candidate Shane Hazel won 2.3% of the votes, and this prevented either Ossoff or Perdue from securing a seat. In the runoff races, these 110,000 voters may turn to one of the major parties and could make all the difference between the Senate’s relationship to the president-elect. It’s time for libertarians and centrists to think not on principle, but logically about the future of our country. In many ways, it’s time for libertarians to pick a side. Even those who struggled between picking between Trump and Biden have a responsibility to look past their issues with the two major parties and close the gap. B

Blue Wave...More Like Blue Blip

Democrats struggle to make a splash in federal and state elections.

Democrats and pollsters all over the country were certain that November 3rd would be the Day of Reckoning. They were certain that their base would show up to vote en masse for Biden and all Democrats running for Senate, House, or state legislative seats across the country. Snapchat and Facebook made sure people knew how to sign up to vote, without information on any candidates, in the hopes that young voters will continue the trend of voting Democrat because of the lofty promises of free college, free healthcare, and magic gifts that could only manifest successfully in Narnia. Despite Democrats’ projected victory in the presidential race, November 3rd did not give them the stranglehold on both national and state politics as expected.

Polls predicted Democrats would finish the election with between 225-254 seats in the House and between 48-55 seats in the Senate. Despite some elections not officially called yet, these predictions will not come to fruition, much to the Democrat’s chagrin. Republicans picked up eight seats in the House, and six of the current House races featuring incumbent Democrats as yet called appear to be leaning Republican. Not all Republican seats in the House were safe; three seats flipped blue. These projected results mean Democrats will retain control of the House with 221 seats and Republicans will have 214 seats, displaying a large increase in the number of Republicanheld seats in the House, since Republicans held 197 seats as of Election Day. The Senate races also proceeded with some unpredicted results. Polls determined Republicans would likely lose

Sydney Robertson is a graduate student studying Accounting. She is Business Manager of the The Arch Conservative. control of the Senate, including some big names like Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and South Carolina’s Lindsey Graham--supposedly to be ousted from their seats--Democrats raised over $100 million for Jaime Harrison against Graham and $88 million for the McGrath campaign challenging McConnell. Both high dollar campaigns lost their races by margins exceeding 10 points. Only three seats in the Senate flipped: Republicans Martha McSally and Cory Gardner were both ousted, and Democrat Doug Jones was defeated by Tommy Tuberville in Alabama. With both of Georgia’s Senate races now going to a January runoff, it is too soon to say for sure what the Senate will look like when the 117th Congress convenes in January. If both Georgia seats stay Republican, 52 Republican senators will be seated in January, giving the GOP control of the Senate. With the polls’ dismal accuracy and Democrats seemingly always losing contested seats no matter how much money they put into them, this indicates a positive trend for American politics as a whole, particularly in the face of the polarization of recent years. American voters gave a message that despite the distaste they may have for Donald Trump: they cannot bring themselves to vote for federal lawmakers who would likely push the agenda of the progressive Left.

State legislatures also had interesting turnout, revealing much about the preference of Americans regarding local policies. 2020 did not produce results Democrats wanted in state legislatures and Americans voiced a concern that socialist, radical ideologies would infect their localities. While most do not normally consider state elections to be of great importance, this year they matter because the redrawing of congressional districts will begin in 2021 as a result of the 2020 Census numbers. For example, Republicans flipped both the House and the Senate in New Hampshire. Additionally, several battleground states have reported Democrats will not gain control of their legislatures; this is the case in the Michigan and Iowa State Houses as well as Pennsylvania and Minnesota State Senates, and many Democrats lost seats in Florida’s House. The drawing of district maps greatly increases the chance that the majority political party can dictate the arrangement of districts, drawing them to be most politically advantageous for them. Additionally, state legislatures have an important role in state-governed activities such as abortion rights, with Roe v. Wade giving states the right to dictate their own rules regarding abortion policies and procedures. As many state legislatures now hold Republican majorities, this allows state lawmakers to decide what policies most appropriately apply to their constituents and legislate in their best interest.

The lessons of November 3, 2020 are far greater than the simple need for stronger laws governing election integrity and the need to have elections called on Election Day, or as soon afterwards as possible. Americans voted for how they desire federal and state lawmaking to go. While they might not have been able to bring themselves to vote for Donald Trump, they did not want to see their cities lose their police departments, allow abortion for all nine months, and increase taxes to be redistributed through weak and ineffectual bureaucratic programs such as welfare. Minorities showed up in great numbers to vote for Donald Trump because they have no desire to fall in line with the socialists praising Hugo Chavez or DC Beltway elites. The narrative of progressivism suffered a tremendous blow on November 3rd, and unless the Democrats in DC understand that, they risk losing their hold in places of power, save perhaps Los Angeles and New York City. B

The Past Remains Quiet

A Perspective on Hunter Biden.

Hunter Biden, the son of presidentelect Joe Biden, is a lawyer and investment advisor who sits on many international investment and holding boards across the world with millions invested in business deals. Hunter graduated from Yale Law School in 1996 and joined the bank holding company MBNA America, which has contributed large sums of money to Joe Biden’s political campaigns. The younger Biden’s affairs and ties with numerous investments and business deals has landed him in heaps of trouble as the election has come to a close, with questions continuing to be raised about some of his past business dealings and ethical conduct. The deafening silence on these allegations by the same media that relentlessly pursued almost everything the Trump family did with surgical vengeance raises questions as to the standard of objective reporting.

The beginning of Hunter Biden’s obscure past starts with his position at MBNA America. Some outlets report that Hunter received at least a hundred thousand dollars a year in consulting fees from the bank holding company between 2001-2005; at the same time, his father was pushing for tougher restrictions on consumers looking to file for bankruptcy protection. It appears hypocritical that Hunter would receive a massive influx of consulting fees while his father was fighting for harder bankruptcy restrictions. Hunter Biden’s suspicious practices took place, internationally, when he served as director of BHR Partners, a Chinese private-equity firm. In December 2013, months after Rosemont Seneca’s joint venture with Bohai Capital to form BHR, Joe and Hunter Biden flew

Diana Robertson is a sophomore studying Excercise Science. She is Associate Editor of The Arch Conservative. to China, where they met with Jonathan Li, the CEO of Bohai capital to get their business license approved for BHR. His activities with BHR raise questions about the legality of his oversea ventures. Fast forward to 2016, Hunter Biden joined the board of Ukrainian natural gas company Burisma, with no relevant natural gas experience or knowledge of the language. Many suspect that Hunter exploited his father’s power by using his father’s prosecutor to pressure the company into firing Viktor Shoki, who examined Hunter’s primary role in the company.

In February 2020, the Treasury Department reportedly handed over “evidence of questionable origin” about Hunter’s business dealings in Ukraine. These problematic events came to light at the end of October when a computer repair shop worker examined a laptop and external hardware materials from Mr. Biden and then contacted the FBI. The receipt given to the worker has FBI code 272D, which indicates money laundering suspicion. All of these pieces of evidence bring to light the possibility of corruption and money laundering.

Hunter’s unseemly business investments and deals have been disregarded by the mainstream media as insignificant, however his actions raise very serious allegations that should be looked at far more closely, especially if the elder Biden is to take the highest office in the land. Joe Concha, a reporter for The Hill, recently remarked on Fox News that the Hunter Biden allegations continue to go unverified simply because no one has made any effort to verify them. He goes on to display the stark contrast between Hunter’s treatment by the media versus the three years of coverage about the alleged Russian collusion with President Trump, to which liberal media outlets dedicated massive amounts of time reporting on and investigating the story. This highlights the very real double standard of the media when the matter at hand pertains to prominent Democrats. When prominent liberal news outlets were asked about the Hunter Biden allegations, they described it as “nonsense,” “completely made up,” and “fabrications and falsehoods with very little evidence.” If the goal of news reporting is ostensibly one of objective reporting where does the factor of fair reporting add into media agendas? These allegations were furthered by Tony Bobulinksi, a former business partner of Hunter Biden, in a broadcast where he said “I’ve seen firsthand… it wasn’t just Hunter’s business, they said they were putting the Biden family name and its legacy on the line.”

The allegations dogging Hunter Biden may very well indicate evidence of criminal conduct not adequately covered by the left-wing media even though copious evidence exists to warrant even a minor probe. While the mass media discredited Trump and relentlessly attacked his family’s business dealings, regardless of the allegations’ merits, they assume that Hunter Biden’s collusion is merely a false narrative simply because it seems to portray the president-elect’s son as anything less than perfect. Reporting on possibly criminal business dealings and influence peddling should not be trumped by political preference, but rather guided by the commitment to objectivity and truthfulness, something the media these days appears to lack on both sides of the aisle. The misleading reporting from left-leaning networks causes further strife in this country in a time where there must be accurate and informative reporting across all news outlets, both left and right. B

The Impersonal Judiciary

Legal philosophy, not personal beliefs, should decide cases.

With every new Republican Supreme Court nominee comes a new wave of questions from Democrats regarding the nominee’s personal beliefs and political views. Questions centered around the nominee’s views on flashpoint issues like abortion and healthcare are now a regular staple of Democrats’ questions to the nominee alongside speeches about how future nominees should be put through a judicial litmus test regarding these issues. But adding litmus tests to judicial appointees will only make the judiciary more politicized, a far cry from what our Founding Fathers intended when establishing the judicial branch.

President-elect Joe Biden has previously voiced support for a litmus test for future appointments. When asked at a Democratic Primary Debate by moderator David Muir if he would have a litmus test for abortion for SCOTUS nominees, Biden answered:

“Yes. Look, here’s the deal. The litmus test on abortion relates to the fundamental value of the

Constitution. A woman does have a right to choose. I would, in fact, if they rule it to be unconstitutional, I will send to the

United States Congress, and it will pass, I believe, a bill that legislates Roe v. Wade adjusted by

Casey. It should — it’s a woman’s right to do that, period. And if you call that a litmus test, it’s a litmus test.” Adding such a litmus test would create a slippery slope for future belief tests to

Wood Smith is a graduate student pursuing a Masters of Agribusiness. He is a regular contributor to The Arch Conservative. be added to confirmation processes and deemphasizing the nominee’s judicial philosophy in favor of their personal life views, which should not be what qualifies or disqualifies a nominee from serving on the bench.

Unfortunately, these ideas are not limited to the Democrats in Congress. There are some on the other side of the aisle advocating for the GOP to implement their own litmus test. Missouri Senator Josh Hawley has stated that he “will vote only for those Supreme Court nominees who have explicitly acknowledged that Roe v. Wade is wrongly decided. By explicitly acknowledged, I mean on the record and before they were nominated.” This, again, is not the path to travel when deciding on which nominees to support and which to deny confirmation. Such tests begin to dance around the Religious Test Clause of the constitution, which strictly forbids the requirement of religious tests on public officers. But this has not limited some legislators from turning a nominee’s faith into a liability for their nomination chances.

One of the more recent examples of this sort of questioning of SCOTUS nominees involves the confirmation hearing of Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who was pressed by Democrats regarding her strong Catholic faith and its impacts on her possible rulings on abortion. At the confirmation hearing for Barrett’s nomination for the 7th Circuit of Appeals, California Senator Dianne Feinstein said to Barrett that “the conclusion one draws is that the dogma [of Catholicism] lives loudly within you.” The Democrats did not press Barrett on her judicial philosophy regarding a potential ruling on abortion, the legal standing of the issue and reasonings behind that opinion, instead relying on probing her religious and personal beliefs as the determining factor. While they did not overtly argue against her confirmation due to her Catholicism, the groundwork has clearly been laid for later nominees to be questioned regarding the impact of faith on their judicial decisions.

Later in her confirmation hearing for the 7th Circuit of Appeals, Barrett correctly stated that judges shouldn’t “follow their personal convictions in the decision of a case, rather than what the law requires.” This has been, and should continue to be, the role of judges in the judiciary, arbiters over the law and whether it is pertinent to an issue or not. Unfortunately in recent decades, judges have taken it upon themselves to fill in the legal gaps left by legislatures, who in turn rely upon the judicial system to pick up the slack they cause via the bills they pass, causing a vicious cycle of legislating. The late Justice Antonin Scalia voiced disagreement with legislating from the bench in his dissent from the SCOTUS decision of King v. Burwell, which ruled Obamacare as constitutional, stating “it is up to our country’s elected lawmakers, not to its unelected judges, to repair statutes that have unintended consequences or that do not work out in practice.” Scalia wrote that due to the high court’s decision, Obamacare should be renamed to “SCOTUScare” since it had done more to ensure the law’s passage than the legislators themselves. Indeed, a judge or justice should always rely on the exact wording of the law to find the answers to the issues before them, not reaching for some compromise. Such philosophy was summed up by Scalia in a speech: “the judge who always likes the results he reaches is a bad judge.” B

A Path Forward For The GOP How the GOP Can Remold Itself in a Post-Trump era By Ethan Baker

Ahesitant sigh of relief was breathed by progressives everywhere in the days following the November 3rd election. For months, the prospect of a second Trump term had loomed large; it was an unthinkable outcome, but one both thought and expected by a majority of Americans for months, perhaps even years.

Then, it didn’t happen. Instead, now Presidentelect Joe Biden vows to govern for all Americans, to turn the page on the Trump era, which he sees as an anomaly in US political history. In the highest turnout election in a century, Vice President Biden narrowly flipped several states to make President Trump the first one-term president in nearly thirty years.

Election day is a day of high emotions, a day for celebration: the winner may open a bottle of champagne to celebrate victory, while the loser may feel inclined to reach for something stiffer to process defeat. The days after an election, however, are for sober recollection, and both parties would do well to soberly look deeper into what this election has exposed about the will of the American people.

For relieved progressives, it may be tempting to proclaim Biden’s victory a full-throated rejection of Donald Trump and his agenda, of the GOP and their complicity in his nefarious machinations. Beyond the most cursory look at the Electoral College, there is little to support this narrative. The election has granted

Ethan Baker is a senior studying Classics and Applied Mathematics. He is a regular contributor to The Arch Conservative.

progressives their most fervent wish, but not much else; Mitch McConnell is likely to retain his status as Majority Leader, and the GOP quietly eroded the Democratic majority in the House. Hispanic voters seem to have taken a significant rightward step, especially in Florida, and surprisingly, even Californians rejected progressive proposals concerning affirmative action, the application of labor laws to Uber and Lyft, and rent control laws. This suggests that the progressive agenda is a hard sell, even in an overwhelmingly blue state.

In a world without COVID-19, it is hard to imagine President Trump losing this election. The notion that it took a world-changing pandemic and recession to narrowly elect Biden cannot sit well with the left, which eagerly considered measures such as abolishing the filibuster, packing the Supreme Court, and statehood for those likely to elect Democrats. Results from congressional races suggest that voters at the least are wary of the Democratic legislative agenda, and at most quietly support Republican policies from the past years. This election was not the commanding mandate for which progressive Democrats had hoped.

Moreover, a President Biden will have substantial incentive to govern as a centrist. The importance of the Senate remaining in GOP hands, assuming they can hold at least one seat in Georgia, is difficult to overstate, since it will neuter any progressive legislation deemed too extreme. As wildly implausible as it may seem, something even resembling a tenuous alliance could arise between the Biden administration and the Senate GOP depending on the longterm progressive reaction.

Though much conflict and frustration is inevitable between the two parties, Biden does at least stand to gain from a GOP majority insofar that he will have far more leverage over the progressive wing of his party than anticipated. With a divided government, America will have a better chance for unity; it will truly need a unifier, someone to bring the parties together to address the coronavirus, the recession, drug prices, and a variety of other bipartisan priorities. Biden, not the self-proclaimed democratic socialists, will lay claim to this mantle, leaving the latter in limbo. The real question is whether the hard left will elect to pursue their wishlist incrementally behind the scenes, or openly wage war against a comparatively centrist President Biden.

Despite many silver linings for Republicans, the obvious fact still remains that their incumbent president and undisputed nominee was denied a second term. This will have real, wide-ranging consequences on the country. The Biden administration will undoubtedly reverse countless executive policies from the Trump administration, and it will govern quite differently on many issues, both foreign and domestic. In the wake of Hillary Clinton’s stunning 2016 defeat, enraged Democrats aimed their fury at the new president and vowed “resistance,” allowing radical progressives to amass influence among Democrats. Republicans cannot afford to follow suit; the nature of true conservatism demands that they remain vigilant in defense of precious American values, not indiscriminately obstruct a political opponent out of spite. They must instead begin the conversation about the party’s direction for the future.

In another world, maybe a re-elected Donald Trump really is able to convince the twicebeaten Democrats to come to the table, and he oversees an American comeback for the history books. Maybe the GOP repeats the Bush years, managing to add seats in the House despite it being a midterm election with a relatively unpopular president. Maybe the Trumps cannot stop winning and Donald Trump Jr. wins

the presidency in 2024, cementing the family’s status as a modern American political dynasty. But frankly, what I find more likely in a second Trump term is gridlock, a brutal midterm election, and the Democratic party of Obama giving way to the party of AOC.

Instead, former vice president Joseph R. Biden Jr. will take the oath of office on January 20th, and he will have his chance to bring back “normalcy.” He will be cast as a transitional, oneterm president, ostensibly bridging the gap to the next generation of progressives. He will be criticized by progressives as too moderate and by conservatives as too liberal. The small advantage “generic” Democrats hold over Republicans--standing at less than 2%, according to the results--will evaporate as Republicans become the opposition party. If played wisely, the GOP will have a realistic chance not only of retaking the House in 2022, but holding the Senate as well. In 2024, they will have the opportunity to not only take a commanding majority in both houses of Congress--Democrats effectively defend 23 Senate seats (2 independent) to the GOP’s 10, many of which are in swing states-but also to win back the presidency, establishing a strongly Republican government once again.

The electoral future for conservatives is surprisingly bright, and now they will have an opportunity to remake their party into something more palatable, something that will be popular among farmers and suburban women. Now without a clear leader, the GOP has an opportunity to transform and renew itself. They will have four years to excise the unsavory aspects of Trumpian populism, to give birth to a new brand of American conservatism that both wins at the ballot box and protects what is precious in this country.

A return to the conservatism of Bush, McCain, and Romney appears impossible. Bluntly, there is no way a Republican in such a mold can hold the Trump coalition together. The Rust Belt would likely slip back decisively to Democrats, and many voters who admired President Trump’s tenacity in opposing an undoubtedly biased media would abandon ship. On the other hand, while a strong argument can be made that no changes are necessary, that Donald Trump would have won without COVID-19 and therefore should remain the GOP standard-bearer until 2024, this seems to be a poor option.

Sticking with Trump could result in Democrats retaining the popularity they enjoyed while in opposition, which could end disastrously for Republicans. Additionally and more importantly, electability cannot be the only criterion in choosing a direction; it is simply not the right direction for American conservatism, which must do more for this country than seek power. Trump opened a whole new world of electoral relevance to the GOP, and Republicans should learn from his boldness and his successes; but that doesn’t mean it has to accept and endorse his very real, serious deviations from true conservative principles. The GOP would be wise to place a renewed emphasis not only on financial prosperity--which was already a winning message--but also moral prosperity: virtue. The top of the ticket must be able to command respect and encourage citizens to themselves live better. Conservative populism must now give way to populist conservatism.

I do not pretend to have an infallible definition of conservatism; nonetheless, I propose that conservatism is more than just a broad label for whatever society considers to be the political “right” of its respective age. It originates from an encounter with Good and its component forms, and develops in individuals who believe in such an idea. Conservatism depends on the premise that there are objectively, transcendentally good, beautiful, and true things in this world that are timelessly worthy of conservation.

Gustav Mahler, an Austrian composer from the turn of the twentieth century, considered the extraordinary origins of tradition: “tradition comes not from the worship of ashes, but the preservation of fire.” We do not pine for the return of some long-lost perfect age; there never was one. We do not stubbornly resist the improvement of society; we welcome it. We stand to defend the relics of imperfect ages, wise practices and institutions which generation after generation has decided are worth saving, that they are flames worth tending. These goods transcend and often precede government, which was conceived as their guarantor. The task of government is to preserve and protect them, not to reform them. The defense of marriage, the family, and religion, for instance, is the crux of modern social conservatism.

The Declaration of Independence claims “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” as unalienable rights. These too are fire, and they are worthy of conservation. Conservatives from Reagan to Trump have appealed to the American Dream, which many now contend is dead. At its heart, the American Dream is itself the same right to “the pursuit of happiness” for which Jefferson argued; Aristotle even contends that this is the end, the very purpose of human life. He calls for the individual to pursue eudaimonia, routinely rendered “happiness,” but more accurately, “flourishing.” Importantly, ancient philosophers connected this idea not only to material prosperity, but especially to the cultivation of virtue. The path to this end does not run through government; it requires individual self-improvement. In fact, since it is an act of the individual will, government is not capable of producing such happiness for its citizens, as progressives claim. It is only able to encourage prosperity and to inspire, and that is exactly how conservatives must preserve the American Dream.

I propose that the missing piece of Trumpism is the encouragement to flourish in virtue: to give generously to those in need, to make daily sacrifice for those around us, to show respect to our ideological opponents without backing down, to live for others as if there were no government to save them. The GOP should continue to encourage financial flourishing by supporting small businesses, low taxes, and work, but it also must provide an alternative to the idea that we are “good people” because of our posts on social media or our voting patterns. That is not decency. Virtue is not a posture, but a repeated action: the virtuous citizen habitually gives to others in many ways and flourishes in the goodness of his private person. It is no coincidence that moral decay is a telltale symptom of dying empires. Trump’s defeat is proof that there is an appetite for a moral revival in an age of hedonism, and the next GOP nominee must be someone who calls Americans to live up to the goodness they have so often shown.

Many swing voters considered voting for Trump because of his policies, but chose Biden instead due to concerns over his temperament and character. These voters are looking for a fighter who will stand up to the liberal elites, speak the truth even if it may cause a fuss on Twitter, and who will work to enable individual prosperity for all Americans; they are also looking, however, for someone who is a model of virtue and can be a role model for their children. The GOP has a huge opportunity over the next four years to transform itself into the party of the working class, farmers, and suburban women. There is a torch that must survive; it is time for conservatives to take it up once more. B

A Perversion of Justice How Ahmaud Arbery’s Murder Upended Local Politics In South Georgia

By Matt Aldridge

On November 3rd, the marshland of southeast Georgia went to the polls. Located near the Florida-Georgia line along the Atlantic coast, the greater Brunswick area is one of storied history. Brunswick was one of the five original ports of entry for the American colonies, Jekyll Island is where the Federal Reserve was born, and Sea Island where the 2004 G8 Summit was held. For all of its history, Brunswick and the coastal islands that surround it have had a fairly quiet existence. Withdrawn from the larger cities such as Savannah, while still more developed than most of rural Georgia, Coastal Georgia is unique. With a population of little more than 16,000 living under the south Georgia sun, rarely does something of vast national significance happen in the bottom corner of the state. That was until last February when Ahmaud Arbery, a young, unarmed black man, was shot to death by vigilantes. The case, having been grossly mishandled by the local District Attorney, opened the question as to whether electoral accountability could check wrongdoing.

On February 23rd, Ahmaud Arbery, a Brunswick native, was on a run in the Satilla Shores neighborhood. A little over two miles into his run, Ahmaud was soon followed by Travis McMichael and his father Gregory in a pickup truck, and William “Roddie” Bryan in another car. In Satilla Shores, recent reports of theft and suspicious activity from an unidentified person or persons had put the neighborhood on notice. Ahmaud had entered the premises of a home under construction while on his run but did not damage or take anything from the

Matt Aldridge is a junior studying History and Philosophy. He is an Associate Editor of The Arch Conservative.

property. Seeing Arbery running through the neighborhood, Gregory McMichael suspected Arbery of potential wrongdoing and perhaps theft. He and his son, armed with a revolver and shotgun respectively, began to pursue Ahmaud in a truck, and William “Roddie” Bryan began to tail Arbery in his car. In the next few minutes, the McMichaels would stop their pickup truck to confront Arbery with Travis exiting the bed of the truck with his shotgun. A struggle then ensued between Travis and Ahmaud where the shotgun was fired three times, resulting in two shots hitting Ahmaud in the chest and one deeply grazing his wrist. He died shortly after from gunshot wounds with a later autopsy ruling his death to be a homicide.

Glynn County police officers who had been called shortly before the chase ensued arrived on the scene and relied on Gregory McMichael as a primary witness for what transpired. McMichael had been a former Glynn County police officer and previously worked in the District Attorney’s office as an investigator. After McMichael made a statement to the responding officers, he was not immediately arrested. The decision making process thereafter is heavily disputed. According to Glynn County Commissioner Allen Booker, the responding officers went to District Attorney Jackie Johnson requesting permission to arrest the McMichaels. According to Booker, Johnson told these officers to do nothing. Similarly, Commissioner Peter Murphy stated that the officers believed they had probable cause to make an arrest, and went to the District Attorney's office to confirm the arrest but then “were told not to make the arrest” by Johnson. The Glynn County Police Department independently stated that Johnson told them that because the McMichaels were not flight risks that no arrests were necessary at the time. Johnson denies that she or anyone in her office directed the Glynn County Police not to make an arrest. On February 23rd, the day of Arbery’s killing, the District Attorney from the Waycross Judicial Circuit, George Barnhill, issued an advisory memorandum to the Glynn County Police Department that Ahmaud’s slaying “was justifiable homicide.” He maintained later that his office did “not see grounds for an arrest,” and recommended that Glynn County police officers take no action against the McMichaels or Bryan due to Georgia’s citizen arrest laws. On February 27th, after Waycross DA Barnhill issued his advisory memorandum, Brunswick District Attorney Jackie Johnson referred the Arbery case to the Waycross Judicial District. The Georgia Attorney General's Office approved transferring the case to Barnhill in Waycross without the knowledge that Barnhill had already actively participated in the case and reached a conclusion of law regarding whether the actions of the McMichaels or Bryan were legally justified. Additionally, Barnhill’s son had recently prosecuted Arbery in an unrelated incident where Gregory McMichael was an investigator to that case. Barnhill eventually requested the Georgia Attorney General's Office to remove him from the case due to a conflict of interest but did so only after giving an advisory memorandum to the Glynn County Police. His request for recusal did not mention this advisory memorandum, the fact that he was previously involved in the case prior to he being appointed lead prosecutor, nor did it provide an explanation for why his recusal request was delayed.

The case was eventually transferred to the Atlantic Judicial Circuit during which time a video of Ahmaud’s killing went viral on social media after Bryan’s attorney released it in the interest of transparency. Within days, the Georgia Bureau of Investigation got involved, at the behest of Attorney General Chris Carr. Once involved, the McMichaels were arrested within 36 hours and charged with felony murder. Bryan was later arrested as the case progressed. The damage however, had already been done. Brunswick

District Attorney Jackie Johnson took no action to arrest the McMichaels. Waycross District Attorney George Barnhill issued a memorandum advising officers not to make an arrest. Johnson then transferred the case to Barnhill despite his prior involvement with the Glynn County Police Department. This was done with the knowledge that Gregory McMichael previously worked in Jackie Johnson's office resulting in another District Attorney that had already made up its mind about whether the killing was justified and had conflicts with one of the defendants being assigned the case. This was not justice. It was a delay and therefore denial of justice that allowed three credibly accused murderers to walk free for over two months after an unarmed black man was killed in broad daylight, propped up by poor legal reasoning.

The Arbery case was covered both by national and international media resulting in an outcry for justice. This was met by rapid community organizing in Brunswick and forced the state government to act. The McMichaels and Bryan would face trial and the due process of law would take its course. What remained unresolved however, is how the case was so clearly blundered by the Brunswick District Attorney, Jackie Johnson. At the time that national outcry began over Arbery’s slaying, Independent candidate and former Assistant District Attorney for Brunswick Keith Higgins was seeking election as District Attorney. Not representing either major party, Higgins was seeking to rely on a write in campaign to make the general election and contest Johnson, who had held the seat for over 10 years without any viable opposition. Johnson was an entrenched incumbent, COVID-19 was raging across the United States, and Higgins did not have major organizational help from the get go. Ahmaud Arbery’s killing changed everything.

Despite the challenges posed by a shelter-inplace order from Governor Kemp, public health concerns prompted by the coronavirus and regular obstacles to collecting signatures, Higgins’ campaign took off. A lifelong Republican, Higgins ran his campaign as an independent to focus on transparency, accountability, and putting the rule of law above partisan politics. “The reason I ran is I believed the DA needed to be nonpartisan and justice should be consistent and applied how the law requires — to everyone, regardless of who they know,” Higgins said. This message resonated deeply with the south Georgia community, especially after the pain brought on by Arbery’s killing. Despite challenges posed by COVID-19, Higgins’ campaign to put him on the ballot took off strong. Higgins did not always see his campaign as viable. “There was a period of time where we felt discouraged and down about it and wondered how this was going to be possible,” Higgins said. “Then God showed me how. Come May 8, I couldn’t answer the phone fast enough.” Dozens of local businesses coordinated in the greater Brunswick area to gather signatures for Higgins. To qualify for the General Election, Higgins would need at least 6,500 signatures. By the time he filed to run, he had almost 9,000.

Johnson attempted to paint Higgins as someone aligned with the radical left, out of touch with the people of south Georgia, and supportive of rioting. Higgins disavowed each of these attacks. In a brutal campaign where he was constantly attacked for not being conservative or up for the job, Higgins prevailed. On November 3rd, the voters of the Brunswick Judicial Circuit ousted Jackie Johnson. This victory shows the power of local control of government and how the people are the ultimate check on government. It also, however, shows local government pitfalls. Higgins’ campaign was likely successful because of the enormous media attention rightly given to Arbery’s killing. Had the video of Arbery’s death not gone viral, it is quite possible the Georgia Bureau of Investigation may not have gotten involved, Higgins’ campaign may not have taken off, Johnson might still be the Brunswick District Attorney next year, and Arbery’s killers might still be walking free.

Arbery’s case was a horrific one that shows how racism still deeply impacts our country and fellow Americans. In Brunswick however, it is a part of a long line of cases where police misconduct has violently infringed on life and liberty. In 2010, an unarmed white woman, Caroline Small, in what started as a slow speed pursuit over drug suspicion, ended in a barrage of bullets being fired into her windshield ending her life. Johnson became District Attorney shortly after the incident, fired the Assistant District Attorney handling the case, and presented the officers who killed Small with all of the available evidence in her office before taking the case to a Grand Jury. She allowed the officers to speak directly to the Grand Jury themselves, and would not offer an indictment to the Grand Jury unless they asked for one. In 2018, Cory Sasser, one of the officers who killed Caroline Small, started acting violently towards himself and others, apparently due to problems he had with his then estranged wife. After being arrested for threats and assault, Johnson ordered an officer not to testify against Sasser with credible evidence that he was a public safety threat. Sasser was released on his own recognizance. Within 48 hours, Sasser killed his ex-wife, her boyfriend and himself in a murder-suicide.

Both of these events, among others show a pattern of troubling misconduct from Jackie Johnson as District Attorney. Despite being widely reported on locally, Johnson faced no serious threat to her office. Today she is under investigation by the Department of Justice, the FBI, and the Georgia Bureau of Investigation, but this began only after the video of Arbery’s death went viral. These circumstances beg questions about how viable local, electoral control of government can be if the threshold for removing a terrible, ineffective, or otherwise undesired public servant is an international outcry against a racially motivated killing. While Johnson could have certainly lost her seat under other conditions, her position as an entrenched incumbent with partisan backing makes this difficult to accomplish in the normal electoral process. How then ought we to best control our public servants, and maintain a government ruled by the governed?

In Democracy in America, Alexis de Tocqueville correctly observed that there are three categories of governing errors administrative officers of the community can make while holding office. Public servants may “execute the law without energy or zeal, neglect what the law requires,” or “do what the law forbids.” Tocqueville also correctly observed that only the last error in government may result in legal action that can dispositively affect how the status of public officeholders. Jackie Johnson likely committed all three errors, explaining why multiple state and federal agencies are investigating her. The first two errors in her judgment and leadership however, put her “out of the reach of judicial interference.” The only remedy in such cases is political accountability. During the November 3rd General Election, this remedy worked. The voters removed her from office in response to her failures as District Attorney. This remedy came, however, over 10 years after she began making them. In order for communities to better effectuate the principle of democratic control, communities must be vigorously invested in their affairs. Local control is dependent on strong associational bonds tying individuals to their communities. The failure of the Arbery case and countless other cases by Johnson might realistically reflect a weak community much more than an ignorant or complicit electorate. Political accountability is ultimately a reflection of the polity. If the polity is unengaged in public affairs, those who hold public office will not take notice of the public. B