The Statesman, September 2014

SEPTEMBER 2014

What does a flag mean to you?

CLARITATE DEXTRA Vol. 2 No. 1

Welcome to the Class of 2018!

COVER STORY controversial symbols ..................... 6

FOREIGN AFFAIRS the Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict ......... 10

JUSTICE criminal justice system ................... 5 gun control ....................................... 18

PENN to the incoming class ...................... 4

REPUBLICAN PARTY GOP agenda ..................................... 14

2 - The Statesman, September 2014

Dear Reader, A

September 2014

s we enter our second year as a publication and begin our second volume, we are enthusiastic about the progress of the conservative movement at the University of Pennsylvania. In the past year, The Statesman published four issues, a pamphlet, hosted an insightful speaker event with Philadelphia political trailblazer Sam Katz, and participated in two vigorous public debates. Even more encouraging, we have seen a paradigm shift within the conservative movement at Penn and indeed the campus towards more open and public discussion, bringing a fresh and enlightened perspective to the stale liberal culture at Penn and creating a more welcoming political atmosphere on campus.

This year will be a time of change and progress for our organization as we continue our endeavor to provide a concerted conservative voice on campus that will strengthen discourse and civic awareness.

Over the past two semesters, we have gained valuable experiences that will translate into stronger, morepointed analyses and coverage. We are proud to continue our partnership with our friends and advocates at the Intercollegiate Studies Institute. With support of ISI and cognizant of our mission, The Statesman is honored to coordinate the ISI Statesman Society, which will host a series of lectures with prominent guests who will further intellectual diversity on campus.

This issue features several columns and commentaries that explore a myriad of different topics and perspectives. Editor-in-Chief Nicholas A. Zarra and Assistant Editor-in-Chief Joe Kiernan provide advice for the incoming Class of 2018 on Penn’s conservative and political life. Aidan McConnell and Dillon Weber explore the intricacies of the criminal justice system from both a philosophical and pragmatic framework. Members of the staff debate the merits of an often-ignored but imperative conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh in the Caucasus region. We look forward to a productive and engaging year for The Statesman and are excited to have you join us on this journey.

As always, we are indebted to our numerous supporters and readers.

Sincerely,

Editor-in-Chief Nicholas A. Zarra C/W’16 Assistant Editor-in-Chief Joeseph J. Kiernan C’17

Design and Layout Donald Sonn C’16

Content Dillon Weber SEAS’16 Ben Fogel C’17 Grayson Sessa W’17

Finance and Fundraising Aidan McConnell C’16 Praneeth Tripuraneni C’17 Liz Sanchez C’17

Relations Justin Wong C’16 Nayeli Riano C’17 Liz Sanchez C’17 Technology Alexander George SEAS’17

The Statesman is a student-run publication at the University of Pennsylvania. Our opinions are of our writers, and do not represent those of the University or of our donors. All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or part without written permission is strictly prohibited. For inquiries, requests, and submissions, reach us at: statesmanofpenn@gmail.com The Statesman, September 2014 - 3

PENN

To the Class of 2018:

C

ongratulations on your acceptance to the University of Pennsylvania and becoming part of a legacy that began long before the emergence of this great nation. It is a profound testament to your abilities and hard work that you are now part of the most competitive class in Penn’s history.

Politics is a basic part of mankind’s nature. Aristotle wrote “among all men, then, there is a natural impulse towards this kind of [political] association.” For the modern citizen, there are arduous questions for which we must seek answers on how the individual should relate to larger institutions and how to solve the compelling issues of the day. Without a doubt, you, the reader, hold an abundance of opinions and a uniq ue value structure.

For those of you who consider yourself right-of-center - however you may define this position - this university may be a slight culture shock. Of course, Penn does not have the activist reputation of our peers at Columbia or Berkeley. Nor does Penn suffer for open calls to replace “academic freedom” with “aca4 - The Statesman, September 2014

demic justice” as seen at Harvard in the past year. However, Penn’s conservative community is nascent and leftist ideologies - ranging from the respectable to the radical - dominate campus discussion. Penn has not had a historically steady rallying point for conservatives, like Yale’s Conservative Party or Harvard’s Harvey Mansfield. On a campus where 59.2% of students self-identify as Democrat while only 13.5% self-identify as Republican (per the most recent The Daily Pennsylvanian poll), it can seem intimidating and discouraging to be vocally conservative.

Nevertheless, for the right-ofcenter individual, whether libertarian, neo-conservative, traditional conservative, or technocratic conservative, this is an exhilarating time to be on campus and to delve into political life. Within the past year, the institutions composing conservative life have expanded greatly. The College Republicans, led by President Anthony Cruz (C’15), hosted an impressive array of speaker events last semester including an intimate dinner meeting with Reagan advisor William Flynn Martin and a larger lecture with former Representative Mike Oxley who

created major financial reform legislation in 2002. For this upcoming semester, the CRs intend to provide campaign opportunities for Penn students in light of the approaching Midterm Elections and have already scheduled an event with Congressman Jon Runyan of New Jersey.

Should open debate interest you more, The Penn Political Union is a parliamentary-style debating forum that “strives to improve discourse on Penn’s campus through political debates, legislative research, and policy consideration.” Within this organization, the Conservative Caucus “represents the values of tradition, individual responsibility, and economic freedom in the Penn Political Union” and is open to all those who consider themselves conservative or right-ofcenter. Finally, The Statesman intends to continue what it began last year by providing opportunities to express and explore one’s opinions via the publication, a speaker series, conference opportunities, and an open and inclusive community.

Now, not all will want to become active within defined institutions or to take leadership roles. It is completely fine to become involved casually or to be more reserved in your political views. However, you should never feel uncomfortable expressing your opinion on campus and we here within Penn’s conservative community are here to provide support and help. For, as the founder of our university once said, “if everyone is thinking alike, then no one is thinking.”

Editor-in-Chief Nicholas Zarra Assistant Editor-in-Chief Joseph Kiernan

JUSTICE

TOO MANY CRIMINALS

T

he Republican Party has long sought to establish itself as the party that is “tough on crime.” Pressing for mandatory minimum sentences for drug crimes has always been a way for aspiring politicians to establish their conservative chops. However, nearly 30 years after passage of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act, it is clear mandatory minimum sentencing has been an overall failure as a policy to both deter drug crime or to reduce crime overall.

Instead, mandatory minimum sentencing laws have caused the size of prison populations in the United States to balloon far past any other nation’s—creating a huge financial burden for state and federal governments. Furthermore, it seems to many that such mandatory sentencing laws may actually hurt the cause they are supposed to help.

According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics center, three year recidivism rates for drug offenders saw a jump from 35% in 1983 before passage of the Anti-drug Abuse Act to 47% in 1994 after the law had been in effect for several years. Sending petty criminals to jail for minor drug offences introduces these criminals to major drug gangs present in the correctional systems. In a sense, the prisons work as factories that take in low-key, small time criminals and drug users and churn them out a few years later as hardened thugs to

By Dillan Weber

wreak havoc on communities, likely bottom-of-the-totem pole criminals landing them back in prison within a can and are easily be replaced by new few years. recruits, expanding the reach and number of criminals.

Let the punishment fit the crime One-size fits all solutions don’t help Conservatives have always been strong advocates of applying Drug crimes have the potential “common sense” to policy, to seriously harm our communities, lawmaking, and government. Where tearing apart the social fabric that is the common sense in treating each allows for stability in raising families criminal case the same? Common and safety for all citizens. However, sense dictates that different blanket policies have not proven circumstances in different cases must effective. Drug use is not declining, warrant different punishments. Tying (according to the NIH it’s been the hands of prosecutors and judges increasing since at least 2002) and by placing constraints on sentencing drug crimes are becoming increasingly will never produce the best possible more visible. Conservatives decry results. Judges will still be free to ridiculous “no-tolerance” rules in severely punish the worst drug schools on issues like gun rights offenders, while also allowing for the (remember the pop-tart shaped application of common sense. gun story?), and yet then balk when One of the arguments for the same logic is applied to other minimum sentencing is that it can take offenses. It is time for the United drug dealers and other criminals off States to abandon a failed policy the streets immediately, potentially adapted to provide a perception of keeping communities intact. being “tough on crime” and work However, high level drug operations towards establishing policies that will are not run by local drug dealers. lead to smart sentencing for drug Major players in the illegal drug crimes. industry would be guilty of crimes In short, mandatory minimum well beyond those which are affected drug sentencing laws are a burden by mandatory minimum sentencing to taxpayers and a burden on our laws, thus these policies really target communities. They have failed to the local dealers and users. However, stem a flood of drug crimes and are taking low-level drug dealers off the possibly only exacerbating a problem street continually will not dramatically they are intended to fix. It is time for affect large level operations. Such them to go.

The Statesman, September 2014 - 5

COVER STORY

6 - The Statesman, September 2014

GLAS

SS SYMBOLS

From Yugoslavia to Japan, the loss and discovery of significance

By Aidan McConnell

The earth is littered with lost meaning.

Take a trip to the countryside of the former Yugoslavian Republic and you will encounter a multitude of mysterious oddities rising from the fields: warped, angular, imposing, a series of futurist monuments break the natural continuity of the region.

Erected during the rule of Tito, the strange concrete structures, likened to spaceships, glaciers, or dinosaur skeletons, persist to this day in various stages of neglect and decay.

As adventurous sightseers to these alien constructions might realize, the monuments are the 20th century’s Easter Island heads, occupying a physical form void of any memory or knowledge capable of assigning a purpose to their existence. Surely they are symbols whose identity has been forfeited to time, circumstance, and the ceaseless beat of changing morals and lifestyles; tragically, the best a curious passerby can muster for the innovative designs, twists and structural oddities hinting at the longThe Statesman, September 2014 - 7

lost ambitions of some architect or the shattered conception of a former state is a sense of mystery over what, and who, motivated such symbolic expression on a massive scale.

Each generation deals with its own struggles to protect inherited symbols and make sense of new representations. The futurists of Communist Yugoslavia fought and lost this very battle as whatever inspired them disintegrated in the midst of economic and political turmoil. A fallen system, a change in beliefs and outlook, was allowed to completely override the contributions of once-powerful predecessors.

The denizens of the 21st century, especially those living in a rapidly changing United States, face the same dilemma: is it worthwhile to preserve the history and essence of our remaining symbols, loaded as they are with positive and negative meanings, or is it best to shear such concepts of their antiquated origins when confronted by dominant modern perceptions?

This debate is not as esoteric as one might believe. This past March, the University of Pennsylvania became the site of a confrontation over the presence of the Japanese Nisshoki, or Rising Sun Flag, as part of a stained glass display in the Arts, Research and Culture House (ARCH) facility. Students offended by the symbol’s close association with Japan’s horribly scarring imperialist past argued for removing the symbol from sight entirely or for creating an accompanying sign detailing the Japanese atrocities committed during the first half of the 20th century. The rationale behind these considerations was the perception that the Nisshoki 8 - The Statesman, September 2014

on Penn’s campus was an explicit representation of Imperial Japan, as the symbol was only utilized after the Pacific nation began its expansion abroad.

and national symbol.

It is easy to see that in modern society, the issue with removing the Nisshoki or contextualizing it as an Imperial symbol is not that it is cultural

the symbol is ... utilized only as something to disparage or, worse, a tool to deliberately offend and provoke.

Except that the well-known blood-red sun with stark, expanding rays has a much broader history than the more recent chaos of East Asia leading up to World War II. The Rising Sun, as we know it today, is a design dating back to the Edo period of Japan, a time well before the country expressed an interest in controlling a global empire. The symbol, originally believed by the Japanese to represent good luck, was a favorite of the daimyo (feudal lords) who maintained control of various territories prior to the Meiji Restoration. With a hint of irony, the Chinese may have contributed to the emergent popularity of the Nisshoki in Japanese culture; when Japan sent envoys to Imperial China between the 7th and 9th centuries, no other Chinese diplomatic contact existed farther east. Thus, Japan’s name — a derivation of the phrase “the sun’s origin” — may have been scrawled in the meticulous records of Chinese officials long before Japanese leaders appropriated the sun as a regional

and that moral justifications are not important, it is that such actions only succeed at providing a cursory perspective of a symbol with a host of historical and ongoing meanings.

The result of this incomplete history lesson is sad: the symbol is rendered incapable of being anything other than the taboo embodiment of anger and conflict born out from the 1890s to the 1940s, utilized only as something to disparage or, worse, a tool to deliberately offend and provoke. Individuals not familiar with East Asian history — a good portion of us at Penn — will only learn that the Rising Sun is bad for human interaction, a symbol of the vitriol it inspires rather than a testament to once-promising cultural ambitions gone awry in the most hellish of ways.

Such subordination of the narrative of the Nisshoki to the sentiments of modernity — the need to redress and scour the earth of wrongdoing — represents an unequivocal loss of the very meaning that helps the world to understand not just rage, or racism,

or killing, but the nature of historical mistakes and human transgressions that produce atrocious actions.

It would be a folly to conclude, then, that attempting to tolerate controversial symbols for the sake of understanding and inquiry equates to ideological adherence or an automatic absorption of immoral influences.

Penn’s Rising Sun, installed by the Christian Association that formerly owned the ARCH building, was built in 1928 to reflect the multiculturalism of missionary work and has never implied that the University affiliates with Japanese Imperialism. Likewise, one need not display a swastika banner and hurl racial invectives to understand and acknowledge that a symbol often perceived as evil incarnate in the Western world is nevertheless maintained in an assortment of pictographic forms among at least nine modern cultures as a representation of life and the origin of the universe. The

same mentality can be expanded As we continue to wrestle with the to the promotion or proliferation significance of symbolism, weighing of symbols. It is not necessary the representations that mark to produce new iconography or modern society, it is worth noting the emergence of one sociological explanation for those strange Yugoslavian monuments in the depopulated countryside. The theory goes that the futurist structures, most likely built to commemorate the heroism of soldiers who fought in World War II, instead became so associated with the repression of the Tito regime that they warped into despised monstrosities, growing ever divisive as Yugoslavia collapsed.

Eventually, the terror and strain of civil war combined with antagonistic manifestations of stained symbolism sentiments to encourage the complete — whether through art, books, abandonment of the monuments — clothing, or popular items — to allow a decision that not only attempted for an agenda-free presence of the to erase recent bad memories but same representations where they may verifiably destroyed the recollection already exist, such as a stained glass of those who had risen through arrangement of the Rising Sun on a similar circumstances in the not too window pane the size of a notebook. distant past.

It is not necessary to produce new iconography or manifestations of stained symbolism

The Statesman, September 2014 - 9

FOREIGN AFFAIRS

We might only recall

the shaky ceasefire that took place nineteen years ago as the result of an interethnic dispute between two countries in the former Soviet Union. The Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict has remained to most of the outside world a little known-- or completely unknown--conflict that does not deserve serious attention when compared to other international conflicts. This completely erred point of view fails to see that the situation is much more hostile and unpredictable than we might think. The clash is one of territorial integrity and national identity hindered by extreme cultural differences between the two sides. Two of our writers’ contrasting opinions on the conflict serve as a perfect demonstration of why heightened sensitivity over the matter is necessary.

Whose claim reigns supreme in Nagorno-Karabakh?

10 - The Statesman, September 2014

Artsakh: An Ancient Armenian Homeland

I

recently visited the frozen conflict zone known internationally as Nagorno Karabakh and by Armenians as Artsakh. I met with both the Armenian Minister of Defense and the parliament of Independent Artsakh. I witnessed firsthand the unresolved conflict over whether this territory should be a province of Armenia, Azerbaijan, or an altogether independent republic.

In order to resolve this dispute, Armenians, Azerbaijanis, and the international community must recognize two key truths. First, the Armenian military holds total control in Artsakh. Armenian officers patrol the the streets of Shushi and Stepanakert, and Armenian tanks defend the border with Azerbaijan. Second, the Armenian ethnic claim to Artsakh is ancient.

The Armenian military completely occupies Artsakh, and the Russian government has promised to support Armenia should Azerbaijan try to reclaim the territory. Thus, Armenia is unlikely to make great compromises with Azerbaijan for two reasons (and by compromises, we refer here to peace deals in which Azerbaijan gains any control or influence over the region). First, the relatively secure Armenian military presence in Artsakh provides a productive outlet for the energies of Armenia's youth as well as a consistent morale boost for Armenian civilians. The young men in Armenia perform two

By Julia Hintlian

years of obligatory military service, and many of these officers are sent to Artsakh. This is not only a point of pride for the general population, but it is also an effective way to employ and control young men who might otherwise be out of work and causing trouble. Second, as long

The duration of ethnic Armenian control over Artsakh also strengthens the perceived Armenian ethnic claim to this region. Armenian kingships and vassal princes have controlled the region almost continuously since 189 B.C. (and some scholars argue

this province should be recognized internationally as an independent Armenian state as Russia maintains an influence, Armenia is unlikely to open peace talks with either Azerbaijan or its close ally Turkey because these countries have strong ties to the West. Some experts have suggested that Armenia might be willing to compromise with Azerbaijan in order to gain access to the Turkish border and thus increase import/ export capabilities.

However, until Turkey recognizes the 1915 Armenian Genocide, the Armenian government will likely maintain control over Artsakh as a higher priority than improved relations with Turkey. This is especially true because, after 2,000+ years of insecure borders and the loss of over half of traditional Armenian lands in the Genocide, Armenians are extremely sensitive to land control. Ancient pride compels them to hold border protection as a higher priority even than economic comfort.

v

Armenians have actually resided in the area since 500-800 B.C.).

Azerbaijanis only gained significant influence in Artsakh during the Stalin era precisely because Stalin knew that this was a region occupied

by Armenians and he wanted to encourage interdependence between Soviet states. With the dissolution of the Soviet Union, Armenia reclaimed this territory in the Artsakh War. While there were certainly Azerbaijani refugees as a cause of this dispute, it seems important to note, in the face of international support for the Azerbaijani claim to the region, that this was conflict fought between two equally engaged nations.

The Artsakh War was neither a genocide nor a forced death march of Azerbaijani citizens, and the unfortunate reality is that there are always refugees in times of war.

Additionally, resettling the region with Azerbaijanis and disturbing The Statesman, September 2014 - 11

the current occupants would be a painful reminder of this still relatively recent conflict, and would most likely incite great tension and perhaps even animosity.

It is fundamentally important to recognize the Armenian ethnic and cultural claim to Artsakh. However, ideally, this province should be recognized internationally as an independent Armenian state. Artsakh should cease to be considered part of either Azerbaijan or modern sovereign Armenia for three reasons. First and foremost, the inhabitants of the region have voted in favor of independence and their wishes should be respected above international, historical, or military politics. They have a right to protect the land where their children live and where their parents died. Second, there have been no Azerbaijani citizens living in this

A

region for more than twenty years, so Azerbaijani control or resettlement would be very artificial, imposed, impractical, and is actually quite unrealistic. Azerbaijani interest in Artsakh is thus purely and cruelly political and economic. Azerbaijan wants to disrupt life in the region by inserting an oil pipeline through the countryside. However, everyone currently living in Artsakh speaks Armenian, uses Armenian currency, and is of Armenian descent, and so these people have little interest in and would probably benefit minimally from the achievement of Azerbaijani political and economic goals. Third, Armenia has always been divided into kingdoms. During the time of the ancient Armenian Empire, there were fifteen Armenian kingdoms and under Byzantine and Ottoman surveillance, both Eastern and Western Armenian

kingdoms existed. Thus, based on past Armenian precedence and a kingdom system that proved it could stand the test of time, Artsakh Armenians can reasonably claim a next generation state separate from sovereign Armenia.

Armenians are one of the most ancient, tough, and proud ethnic groups ever to walk the earth. They have proven their resilience in the face of genocide and in the presence of some of the greatest empires ever to exist: the Roman Empire, The Arabian Caliphate, the Sasanian Empire, The Safavid Empire, Turkic Kingships, the Ottoman Empire, the Russian Empire, and even the Soviet Union. Today’s Artsakh Armenians should not forget their stubborn roots and they should never surrender their claims to an independent and free homeland.

Azerbaijan’s rightful claim

s tensions are heightened in the Middle East and Eastern Europe, the world looks on questioning how the current dilemma emerged and what a solution might look like. However, in between the two regions, the Caucasus region presents a unique challenge where traditional presumptions of proWestern Christian nations and antiWestern Islamic nations are shaken.

This peculiarity manifests in the current struggle over NagornoKarabakh between Russianaligned Armenia, Western-aligned Azerbaijan, and the quizzical, upstart Nagorno-Karabakh Republic. A 12 - The Statesman, September 2014

By Nick Zarra

product of long-standing ethnic tensions between Azeris and ethnic Armenians as well as the general chaos after the fall of the Soviet Union, Nagorno-Karabakh has been forgotten by the Western press.

However, this militarized zone bears strong resemblance to both the 38th parallel in Korea and the West Bank between Israel and the Palestinian people.

The paradox of NagornoKarabakh relies on ethnic-historical ties that have ultimately become a cycle of claims. Those believing that Nagorno-Karabakh belongs to Armenia point towards the

ethnically Armenian majority current in the Nagorno-Karabakh.

The Azerbaijani supporter is quick to remember the conflicts initiated by ethnic Armenians in Nagorno-Karabakh and the Armenian government that left 14% of Azerbaijani territory occupied, including NagornoKarabakh, and up to 600,000 Azeris forced into refugee status. This tit-for-tat exchange of claims and counterclaims continues on to the movement of ethnic Azeris forced away from the region by the Soviet Union and of ethnic Armenians forced away from the region by the The Statesman

Tsar. Finally, this paradox of claims obscures itself with the rule of the Albanian Caucasians in the mid-first millennia and the conquest of the region by the Armenian Kingdom in 180 BC before finally ending at an unknown indigenous people of which history bears no certain remembrance. With this in mind, it is quite difficult to assert definitive historical ownership—should we accept that as the standard—, due to such equally flawed claims.

Similarly tenuous are the claims based on the international law of territory and sovereignty.

Here the two concepts contradict: the current Nagorno-Karabakh Republic (NKR) attempts to assert its own sovereignty by pointing to referenda passed in 1991 by a 99-1 margin. Unfortunately, this claim relies on the legal right to secede, —which was never ascertained,— and a representative electorate, which unfortunately did not include the Azerbaijani voice who either were already forced to flee from the conflict of the late 80s and early 90s or boycotted the election. Azerbaijan claims possession of NagornoKarabakh based upon international recognition of boundaries devised by the Soviet Union that continued to Azerbaijan’s independence from the Soviets. Similarly unfortunate, this claim relies upon the decision of a central planner in Moscow to decide frontier geometry.

If the past does not provide an adequate solution, perhaps looking towards the future will. NagornoKarabakh has been in a precarious position surrounded by friendly Armenia to one side, a spurned Azerbaijan on another, and Iran to The Statesman

This tit-for-tat exchange of claims continues on to ... an unknown indigenous people of which history bears no certain remembrance the south. This situation has stymied economic growth and harmed the standard of living; the best estimate of NKR’s real GDP per capita is a little over 2,000 USD. This is far less than Armenia’s estimated 7,400 USD and Azerbaijan’s 16,000 USD. Azerbaijan accounts for just over 72% of production for the Caucases; Nagorno-Karabakh accounts for .3%. With this in mind, there is a clear developmental gap that Nagorno-Karabakh must overcome in order to become a functional player in the region and to ensure a certain standard of living for its inhabitants and inhabitants of other Armenian-occupied Azerbaijani territories.

It is difficult to conclude that Azerbaijan should receive full control of the region, even if the current population is a filteredgroup of antagonists. However, it is foolish to ignore the claims of

v

Azerbaijan on Nagorno-Karabakh and it might be even more foolish to forget the economic importance that Azerbaijan holds to the region.

Azerbaijan must be a lead player in developing Nagorno-Karabakh due to their ability to assist (one only needs to look at the development in Baku to understand the abundance of capital in the region), their general positive track-record against extremist groups, and their historical claims. Should Azerbaijan be eschewed in this region of the world, it is clear that Armenia will not be able to provide the same economic resources to promote development and Nagorno-Karabakh will face continued instability. With an expansionary Russia less than 500 kilometers away and the always disconcerting Iran directly to the south, this could be an opportunity for further destabilization of the Caucuses.

The Statesman, September 2014 - 13

REPUBLICAN PARTY

O

n November 4, 2014, Pennsylvanians will face a choice in the Commonwealth’s gubernatorial election, deciding between two Toms: the incumbent Republican, Tom Corbett, and the challenging Democrat, Tom Wolf. Like voters in the Keystone State this fall, millions of Americans will face similar choices in midterm elections across the country. Pollsters and talking heads have drowned the national airwaves with prognostications of electoral performance, while legions of eager politicos have already leapfrogged to 2016. November 4 is significant not only because Pennsylvania may be picking a new governor or because the Republicans may seize control of the U.S. Senate. Rather, it may represent the first steps towards saving American conservatism from a demographically-destined descent into ignominy. The party of Lincoln has a tangible opportunity to recast itself, but it must have the will to forge a bold new identity for a new century.

14 - The Statesman, September 2014

In Defense of

An Appeal for a N

By Joe K

The narrative of the midterm elections has been dictated by the ongoing “GOP Civil War” between “the establishment Republicans” and renegade Tea Party factions.

Challenges were made to Thad Cochran, a veritable Mississippi institution, from State Senator Chris McDaniel, and to the Senate Majority Leader, Mitch McConnell, from a Bluegrass State Tea Partier, Matt Bevin. After hard-won primary slogs, the incumbents parried their assaults from the right as many of their colleagues have over the past few months. It would seem that “the establishment” has recovered its strength. However, this masks serious internal weaknesses. The Tea

Party still exists, spewing discontent in the direction of the party leadership and eschewing any notion of cooperation with the Democrats on any issue. Tea Partier McDaniel used Cochran’s penchant for nonpartisanship as a weapon against the reliably conservative senator in an unsuccessful challenge to the sitting senator. A morose Eric Cantor is sulking from his shocking defeat, an unprecedented dethroning of an up-and-coming figure in the GOP who many had tagged as a future candidate for speaker. Demographics don’t lie. The nation is more diverse, more socially progressive, and more distrustful of government.

It would seem that this message is The Statesman

f Moderation

New GOP Agenda

Kiernan

beginning to be heard by Republican candidates. Fiercely anti-immigration Tom Tancredo was eliminated by Bob Beauprez in the Colorado Republican gubernatorial primary on June 24, 2014 giving an inkling of hope for conservatives that Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper may be unseated this fall. However, “the establishment” isn’t guiltless. It has enhanced the congressional deadlock and is viewed as a pawn of corporate interests, by both the Democrats and by a fair number of Republicans.

Recrafting its public image will be a challenge. It is time for the Republican Party to take a long look in the mirror and ask what kind of political party it wants to be.

The Statesman

The Party doth protest too much The ongoing GOP insurgency is weakening the Party and it is the Party that is mainly to blame. The leadership is terrified of losing primacy to the grassroots Right or to the rising tide of libertarianism. They point to the President for blame, attributing his leftist tendencies for the genesis of the Tea Party movement. However, the GOP is just as culpable as the Left for engendering dissention amongst the conservative ranks. People’s faith in government has been shaken and an intense anti-Washington sentiment is in vogue across broad swathes of the nation. Congress’s approval ratings are far below the President’s,

and intransigence has only reinforced the perception of a useless, bickering, and self-interested legislature. The political theater ranged from the ludicrous to the shameful as budgets went unpassed, programs went unfunded, and federal workers went on furlough. The Democrats share responsibility for the inaction, but it will be up to the Republican Party to self-strengthen. Bipartisan issues: veteran’s affairs, infrastructure, and free trade agreements have been stalled and many are casualties of committee. Playing partisan politics makes great television, but makes reckless government too.

The Republican Party has never been the party of ‘no-government’ except perhaps among some during the Goldwater wilderness years. For many, it’s been the party of efficient government, valuing self-reliance and playing to American strengths. The Republican Party has been shedding moderates and center-rightists at a breakneck pace since the 1980s.

Senator Olympia Snowe of Maine, a The Statesman, September 2014 - 15

centrist Republican, cited partisanship and ideological extremism as factors in her retirement. Today, one can count the moderates in the party on one hand: Susan Collins, John McCain, Lisa Murkowski, and a few others. The Democrats have done the same, but that can work to the GOP’s advantage. If they can muster the will, the Republicans can absorb the moderate center, the Independents, and the disaffected Democrats into a winning coalition. Meanwhile, Tea Partiers accuse the modern GOP as slipping from the exemplar Reagan years, alleging that it’s shifted left.

The GOP has shifted though- shifted to the right. The reason that Reagan was able to push through legislation was largely in part to his ability to negotiate with Democratic Speaker Tip O’Neill who led the congressional opposition. Without cooperation and détente between the branches, little would have been achieved.

The reason why Reagan was even elected was due to the defection of Reagan Democrats, convinced that a Republican presidency was both conceivable and desirable, away from the Democratic ticket and towards the Republican ticket. Now, a certain degree of rapprochement with more moderate Democrats will be necessary to govern effectively. Furthermore, accommodating a sensible, centerright platform will convince voters of the party’s seriousness and will highlight weaknesses on the Left, such as support for bloated, crippling entitlements and misguided, wasteful policies. Cleaving away more conservatively-inclined Democrats from the party whips will grant the establishment a degree of consensus, building a cross-aisle alliance that 16 - The Statesman, September 2014

v

If the Republicans do not commit to entertaining the moderate vote, they will be shut out of the White House for the foreseeable future.

intends to govern, rather than revolt. more interested in the national welfare than in the next campaign.

Republicans need to pick their Senator Pat Toomey’s (R-PA) quixotic gun control bill was lauded battles by many for his cooperation with Obamacare. Obamacare. Obamacare. Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) while It was the anthem of the Republican louder voices condemned the bill congressional campaigns this year. for even negotiating on the issue.

However, this merry tune has fallen The GOP has shot itself in the silent across much of the country foot in terms of courting the prosince the Affordable Care Act has science electorate. Republicans are picked up steam. Republicans have now characterized as opponents of a plethora of excellent policy issues progress and innovation, tied more to peddle and use as ammunition: to religious texts than scholarly continued government deficits, articles. The traditional researchfaltering American international defense-business alliance has been strength, out-of-control public shattered by refusing to budge on sector unions, an aging energy these issues and shunning innovation infrastructure, an enormously obese that could dramatically stimulate and inscrutable tax code, an education the economy while simultaneously system needing reform rather than reducing government health care money. But, using political capital on expenditures and building a cuttingpartisan jibes exhausts the public’s edge military. Sensible middle-class patience, ruins the party’s image as and upper-middle-class voters often a serious lawmaker, and prohibits cannot bring themselves to vote for meaningful cooperation with Blue a party that will not entertain notions Dog Democrats. of climate change.

Not all Republicans need to Rebuilding confidence in the governing ability of the Party means change their tune, but the Party that the Republicans will have to must allow for diversity of opinion commit to work with the President and cannot allow the mainstream to on some issues. Sometimes breaking be hijacked by the far-right. If Mr. ranks creates a better image of McDaniel’s comments scared enough legislators above petty politics and Democrats to prop up Thad Cochran, The Statesman

then it only proves that the radicals are alienating moderate, mainstream American voters. And they’re alienating them right into DNC Chairwoman Debbie WassermanSchultz’s hands. Rhetoric perceived as misogynistic reinforces the Democratic spin machine’s message of a “War on Women” which only gains credence with the blunders of GOP hopefuls Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock. The Party should sidestep and excommunicate its more inflammatory demagogues and embrace a more diverse voter base. According to the Roper Center, in 2012 Obama won women by 11 points, Hispanics by 44 points, and Asians by 47 points. Romney snagged the Independent vote by 5 points, but still failed to seal the deal. Demographic shifts will only strengthen the Democratic coalition for 2016. Republicans need to act now to extinguish the dangerous flames of extremism and court a more mixed electorate.

It’s time for a center-right revolution

In light of the Party’s infighting, Republicans need to seriously ask themselves if they ever want to win another presidential election. More than that, dancing to the right has endangered Republican chances in key battleground states. New England Republicans are almost extinct, portions of the south are trending purple, and the West is bluer than ever.

Tugging the party line has become political suicide for moderates in liberal states. Conservative talk show hosts and Tea Partiers chip away at incumbents, providing more rightwing alternatives that cannot viably The Statesman

compete with Democratic opponents.

Party mavericks such as Arlen Specter (Pennsylvania), George Voinovich (Ohio), and Mel Martinez (Florida) are gone due to shifting GOP ideologies, retirement, or attrition from the right. Gerrymandered districts may provide sanctuaries for more purist conservatives, but the countrywide Electoral College shows no geographical mercy and viable moderate candidates for the presidency seem to be in short supply.

The national consensus is shifting leftward, and if the Republicans do not commit to entertaining the moderate vote, they will be shut out of the White House for the foreseeable future.

To craft a successful political movement, the Republicans will need to forge a new coalition. Creating an alliance between defense hawks, science, business, and middle-class interests could be a winning ticket.

Innovation is good for the economy and improves quality of life. Rather than feeding bloated entitlements, the GOP can look towards pushing rapid scientific advancement to reduce costs.

Research and military supremacy go hand-in-hand, and every investment in tactical technology trickles down into the hands of engineers and scientists. Today’s innovative project is tomorrow’s export. Fostering small business and startup development, reinvesting in infrastructure, committing to reforming education rather than merely pumping more money into a broken system, and pledging to balance the budget in a sustainable manner are all issues that can appeal to the American people without alienating key segments on hot button social issues.

Demonstrating that the GOP plans to spend responsibly, invest in the future of the country, and empower the electorate could very well attract the swing center voters and keep the Party core content. Ignoring climate change is pointless and prohibits Republicans from getting ahead on the issue. According to Gallup, almost 74% of the nation are concerned about climate change.

Rather than peddling a perceived ‘anti-environment’ message, the Party can pledge to solve issues by working with American business in lieu of demonizing it. American business and American workers can save the environment, and the economy, with common sense solutions.

It is simple to hone a new Republican strategy on paper; actually achieving a modern paradigm for America’s party of the right is a far taller order. To truly create a new political force that responds to reality will require reconstructing the GOP image as much as strong policymaking will, if not more.

Republicans need to demonstrate to moderates, to Millennials, and to minorities that voting Republican can be a definite choice. Republicans also need to realize that breaking down the Democratic Party’s stranglehold on the national conversation will require depriving the Left of its fiery talking points, often devoid of content but easily spun into deadly-effective campaign material. Starve the beast.

Reconstituting the GOP will be a long, painful process, but it will mean that it can do more than lob irritating attacks at the Democrats, and it can do more than win the strongholds but lose the swing states come 2016.

It can win.

The Statesman, September 2014 - 17

JUSTICE

MORE ... is not always better Making gun control a federal issue is terrible policy

B

rought to the feet of the federal government by policy entrepreneurs and recent disastrous events such as the Newtown school shooting, gun control is a complex and slippery issue to entrust to policymakers on the national scale.

One of the few modern hot-button topics explicitly addressed in the U.S. Constitution, the regulation of arms invariably involves the individual states in the commercial provisioning, distribution, sale, and use of firearms, as per an often-cited "well-regulated militia." Regardless of attempts to

18 - The Statesman, September 2014

By Aidan McConnell debate the intent behind the Second Amendment--an exercise in politics more than policy--the Founding Fathers' attention to individual gun rights and the relationship between state and national governments ultimately created an atmosphere in which the federal apparatus is justifiably unable to execute effective gun control legislation.

For example, take the number of firearms estimated to exist in the United States: in 2012, Congressional Research estimated that there were approximately 310 million guns available domestically. Additionally, it

was discovered that a complete ban on all "assault rifles," including the confiscation of all variant firearms owned by U.S. citizens, would only remove a maximum of three million guns from the total pool. Considering that the FBI found in 2011 that more than twice as many murders were committed by hands, fists, and feet (728) than by rifles (323), even as dramatic a step as a nationally mandated search and seizure, complete with clear violations of personal rights, would only have a statistically negligible impact on the national murder rate. There isn't even

a guarantee that a focus on large magazine weapons will prevent mass shootings; in 2009, a teenager killed 16 people and injured 9 others with a 9mm Beretta semi-automatic pistol in Germany, one of the world's strictest countries regarding individual ownership. Critically, such a horrific toll belies the fact that the 9mm Beretta used to commit the crime only contained a restricted 10-round magazine, the same regulation proposed by President Obama in January 2013.

Another factor to keep in mind is that unlike more centralized Western nations, the United States already contains a host of various gun control measures intended to impact different states according to sufficient needs. Texas' general recognition of personal safety in relation to even fully automatic rifles stems in part from the first school massacre to gain national attention, the 1966 University of Texas "Clock Tower Shooting," in which the poorly equipped Austin police force was assisted by students and residents with high-powered rifles against a trained sniper. Officers present at the shooting credit the efforts of well-armed civilians with dissuading the shooter from targeting more potential victims, thus confirming a statewide preference for selfprotection. On the other hand, California has found that weighty measures such as a written test to obtain a Handgun Safety Certificate are more in line with safety realities on the state level, since prior commercial sales conducted without customer information were implicated in crime sprees and played a role in the 1992

the United States already v contains a host of various gun control measures intended to impact different states according to sufficient needs Los Angeles Riots. It is evident that a nationally-structured series of gun policies, already burdened by the potential for civil rights dilemmas, bureaucratic inefficiencies, and sheer monetary costs, would also poorly fit the development of state legislation intended to account for regional disparities in gun distribution and use.

Finally, there's always the issue of federal oversight in states and localities struggling with gun violence; Chicago, and to a broader extent Illinois, fits this category. The former hub of the Prohibition-era booze operation is now troubled by a trade in illegal firearms, largely due to exceedingly strict sales regulations that don't seem to line up with the realities of gang warfare. Federal recommendations for a national gun registry or the elimination of certain models from commercial stock are completely moot when it comes to black market actions, let alone navigating the contributing difference in gun laws between an excessively regulated Chicago and the less-interventionist suburbs. In this case, only local and state-mediated laws - perhaps legislation returning Chicago to more reasonable levels

of legal sales - can eliminate the lucrative nature of informal gun distribution to criminals.

These combined factors represent the biggest problem with presenting gun control as a federal issue. "More gun control" is not a salient call to action simply because the United States has already instituted a wide variety of complex regulations via individual state legislation. A better consideration, for the sake of public policy discourse, would be for more "efficient" control, or possibly a "targeted" approach, limited only to certain areas with specific requirements - qualifications that are utterly elusive to a national governing body. This regional approach also promotes the fact that in many cases, it actually is good statesmanship to reduce or eliminate certain counterintuitive gun control provisions. Illinois is a promising example: in April 2014 the Chicago Police Department announced that the city experienced its lowest murder rate since 1958 for the first quarter.

This revelation followed the Illinois State Legislature's 2013 decision to finally allow for concealed carry permits - an accomplishment only a state could achieve.

The Statesman, September 2014 - 19

- Dillon Weber Content Director

champion the beacon for Penn conservatism we would like to personally thank the following people and institutions for making this issue of The Statesman possible:

Mary DeChristopher Dr. Barbara Nielsen Sara Weber Matt Wolfe Michael Cibik Joe & Jamie Kiernan Mr. & Mrs. James E. Maurey Alicia & Kevin McConnell John & Clare McConnell Matt and Michele Weber Rob Wonderling