September 2016 by The Fenwick Review

The Independent Journal of Opinion at the College of the Holy Cross September 2016

Volume XXIV, Issue I

Quod Verum Pulchrum sites.google.com/a/g.holycross.edu/the-fenwick-review

To the Benefactors:

Mission Statement

We must reserve the space to offer a heartfelt thank you to our benefactors, without whom The Fenwick Review would not exist. We extend our profound gratitude to The Collegiate Network and the generous individual and alumni donors to The Fenwick Review, for their ongoing enthusiasm and support of our mission. Mr. Guy C. Bosetti Dr. Thomas Craig Mr. Robert W. Graham III Mr. Robert R. Henzler Mr. J. O’Neill Duffy Mr. Kevin O’Scannlain Mr. Sean F. Sullivan Jr. Dr. and Mrs. Paul Braunstein Mr. and Mrs. Richard Fisher Mr. and Mrs. Thomas W. Greene Mr. William Horan Mr. Robert J. Leary ‘49 Fr. Paul Scalia Mr. and Mrs. Michael Dailey Mr. and Mrs. Daniel Gorman Mr. Paul M. Guyet Mr. Joseph Kilmartin Mr. Francis Marshall ‘48 Dr. Ronald Safko

As the College of the Holy Cross’s independent journal of opinion, The Fenwick Review strives to promote intellectual freedom and progress on campus. The staff of The Fenwick Review takes pride in defending traditional Catholic principles and conservative ideas, and does its best to articulate thoughtful alternatives to the dominant campus ethos. Our staff values Holy Cross very much, and desires to help make it the best it can be by strengthening and renewing the College’s Catholic identity, as well as working with the College to encourage constructive dialogue and an open forum to foster new ideas. Disclaimers This journal is published by students of the College of the Holy Cross and is produced two or three times per semester. The College of the Holy Cross is not responsible for its content. Articles do not necessarily reflect the opnion of the editorial board. Donation Policy The Fenwick Review is funded through a generous grant from the Collegiate Network as well as individual donations. The Fenwick Review is an organization incorporated under the laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. We welcome any donation you might be able to give to support our cause! To do so, please write a check to The Fenwick Review and mail to: Claude Hanley and Brooke Tranten P.O. Box 4A 1 College Street Worcester, MA 01610

Freedom is a fragile thing and is never more than one generation away from extinction. It is not ours by inheritance; it must be fought for and defeneded constantly by each generation, for it comes only once to a people. Those who have known freedom, and then lost it, have never known it again. --Ronald Reagan

Table of Contents Opinion

The Breakdown of Order and How to Fix it......7 Brooke Tranten ‘17 Crying to the Depths.....................................8 Claude Hanley ‘18 If You Give a Man a Fish ....................................10 Audrey Holmes ‘19 A Different Option...........................................11 Bill Christ ‘18 How Trump Defines Contemporary Rhetoric.........12 Austin Barselau ‘18 Considering the Founding Fathers Before Voting..14 Robert Roberge ‘18

The Fenwick Review 2016-2017 Staff Co-Editors in Chief Brooke Tranten ‘17 Claude Hanley ‘18 Layout Editor Audrey Holmes ‘19 Staff Writers Bill Christ ‘18 Robert Roberge ’18 Austin Barselau ‘18 Cover Art: Stefi Raymond ‘18 Faculty Advisor Professor David Lewis Schaefer Political Science

Letter from the Editors Dear Readers, Thank you for picking up a copy of the Fenwick Review. Twenty-five years ago, Paul Scalia, now a priest of the Roman Catholic Church, founded The Fenwick Review to articulate traditional Catholic principles and sensible conservative politics. In the years since, our predecessors have served Holy Cross by defending its Catholic identity, and by giving themselves wholeheartedly to her academic life. They believed that their ideas could help guide the College to become what it ought be, a beacon of the Truth in a suffering and angry world. In the current climate, when Catholic orthodoxy seems hateful fundamentalism, that task seems hopeless. It is, however, one we take up joyfully, out of love for the College and the men and women who comprise it. In this year of blood and politics, our College, our nation, and our world grow ever further apart. We have closed ourselves to one another, and to the organic communities of which we are all parts. Last March, in the annual Rodino lecture, Professor Jim Kee envisioned a College that could counter the growing disunity. Holy Cross must be a liminal space between the Church and the Academy, where the best of each can inform and ground the other. In tribute to his vision, we decided that our first issue would focus on thresholds, or limina, and the communities that exist across them. This has, quite by accident, turned out far better than we had hoped. Ms. Raymond announces our theme with the beautiful rendering of a doorway on the front cover. Ms. Tranten directly considers the horrific violence of the past summer through her research on Christopher Dawson, and outlines the dangers of marginalizing or refusing to engage with the spiritual. Ms. Holmes offers an enlightened look at the principle of effective altruism, and provides a rationale for a communal life tailored to the capability of the individual. Mr. Hanley takes up the concept of solidarity and examines its relationship to the notion of Truth and the role of the university. Our final three contributors shift the focus to national politics. Mr. Christ and Mr. Roberge offer their thoughts on third-party candidates. Beginning with the words of the Founding Fathers, Mr. Roberge argues that it is the duty of the citizen to vote for the candidate he or she finds appealing, instead of constraining themselves to “the lesser of two evils.” Mr. Christ draws attention to the Constitution Party, its platform, and its roots in the founding documents of the United States. Finally, Mr. Barselau turns his usual insight to an analysis of political bombast, and discusses how Mr. Trump has changed the style of American political rhetoric. The ideas expressed in these essays will not perfectly align with the political and religious views of the rest of the community. As ever, we set them before you in the hopes that they will stimulate discussion, and even perhaps convince. We ask only that you respect the spirit of inquiry and charity in which they were written, and respond in a similar manner. We extend our gratitude, as always, to our donors, to our advisor, Professor David Schaeffer of the Political Science Department; to our layout editor, Ms. Holmes, whose dedication and competence more than make up for at least one editor’s shortfalls; and, finally, to our staff, without whose efforts this journal would doubtless be very thin indeed. Veritatem Petite, Brooke E. Tranten Claude S. Hanley

The Breakdown of Order and How to Fix it Brooke Tranten ‘17 Co- Editor In Chief This past summer was my last summer as a Holy execution of police officers in Dallas by a US ArmyCross student and the second summer I spent on the Hill trained sniper. By mid-July, I was thoroughly convinced doing research. I focused in particular on Christopher that law and order was breaking down in the United Dawson’s Order intellectual movement, journal, States. Black Lives Matter protestors achieved nothing and book series. Dawson and his fellows pieced and alienated all in their increasingly destructive and together this movement after the Great War, because disruptive protests. There was no time was mourning, they believed Western civilization to be chronically no time to think, just anger and violence on all sides. ill. Europe was in decline, they thought, because the Nobody addressed the problems that needed to be spiritual unity of Catholicism that had previously united addressed, and so provided solutions that will make no the Continent had been torn asunder. Modernity could difference. Gun control will not save us. not fill the void, as the bodies of millions fallen on the Global events offered no respite either, in the Somme and Verdun had proven. However, modernity form of ISIS-related terrorism, though Brexit was a provided two solutions. It either denied the existence bright spot toward the end of June. ISIS represents of the spiritual altogether, or over-exaggeration of the Global events offered no re- the acknowledged the spiritual but spiritual, the complete divorce of regulated it to a private sphere spite either, in the form of the spiritual from reality. This is completely separate from not a neat parallel with Dawson, reality. Dawson provided no set ISIS-related terrorism, though mostly because Dawson could solution or political program to have dreamt of such a Brexit was a bright spot to- never this dilemma, nor did he intend monstrosity as ISIS. The list to. I am inclined to agree with ward the end of June is overwhelming; bombings in him, however, and I wish to offer Baghdad, Istanbul, Bangladesh, some comments based on the Kabul and Quetta; other attacks horrific events of this recentlyin Bavaria, Nice, and Charleroi, concluded summer as to how these two perversions of and Normandy; the Syrian Civil War and its appalling the spiritual order haunt us today. images of bloodied and mangled children. If such Christopher Dawson, a tweed-clad, generally bloodshed is not an indication of the very real presence measured and deliberate scholar, is not given to of supernatural evil in our world, then I do not know hyperbole in his work, but his Christianity and the New what is. Anglican vicars have now been advised by Age gave me pause. It was urgent, almost a call to their bishops not to wear clerics in public and Germany arms. The West was crumbling and only a wholesale is on lockdown, but still refuses to reconsider their return to the balanced Catholic conception of spiritual ludicrous immigration policies. Why does do these order could save it, but that return needed to happen things keep happening to us in the West? Christopher now. No serious critic of Dawson would classify him Dawson would say it is because we have lost out sense as an alarmist. Was he mistaken? Look around. This of the spiritual. We cannot understand ISIS, because summer was the most appallingly bloody few months I we refuse to understand their theology, no matter how have experienced so far in my lifetime, and God-willing illegitimate or extremist it is compared to mainstream it will be the last. The worst mass-shooting in United Islam. States history, perpetuated by a madman inspired by I have listed off the horrors of this summer almost ISIS, at a gay nightclub full of innocent people. St. as a litany, and that was partially intentional. It is better Paul, Minnesota, a beautiful and friendly city, erupted for us to remember them, so we do not pretend that into chaos the week after I visited after the shooting everything is fine. No, everything is not fine. Nor are of Philando Castile, followed up by the systematic the solutions to these problems further violence and ill6

September 2016 The Fenwick Review

considered civil disobedience. These people think with the supernatural in mind, indeed, they want to force their understanding of the spiritual order on the West and Middle East through unspeakable acts of violence. Many of these perpetrators were recent or first-generation immigrants. Is it so unreasonable to ask that Germany or France at least rethink their immigration policies? These attacks will stop only when Europe’s, and America’s, secular political class, along with the rest of their people, acknowledge the role religion and religious ideas play in them. I am in no way attempting to equate followers of Islam or Islamic theology with ISIS or terrorism. We, in the West, have committed the Dawson’s other mortal sin of modernity by pretending that the spiritual order does not exist. By treating religion, particularly Christianity, as a quaint if antiquated lifestyle choice that will probably die off within the next century, the West had cheated itself and has now begun to cannibalize itself, as it were. Christopher Dawson was right; the West is sick because it does not know how to deal with the spiritual order in everyday life. We have pretended that it does not exist since the beginning of the last century and have just started to reap the consequences. Anger is not always a bad thing, but it is when it destroys rather than motivates us to be and do better. What we have experienced this past summer is, frankly, demonic. The elderly priest Father Jacques Hamel experienced the demonic for himself during a sleepy Daily Mass in Normandy on July 26, 2016, and cried “Go away, Satan!” before his throat was slit in the Presence of the Blessed Sacrament. We can only save ourselves by remembering Father Hamel’s words and reasserting the spiritual order that our civilization was built upon.

Father Jacques Hamel

Crying to the Depths Claude Hanley ‘18 Co Editor-in-Chief Orlando. Dallas. Nice. The list runs on. This is humanity in the 21st Century. Something sunders individuals from one another. But acts of extreme violence are the beginning, not the end. There exists a more ordinary form of social fragmentation. The moral, religious, and political consensus that once united societies has tumbled. Nothing rises in its place. In the public square, there is no concord, only mortal enmity. Nothing proves this phenomenon better than the state of politics across the West: unreconstructed socialism at the helm of the British Left; France’s resurgent Front National; Donald Trump. The ideological chasm constantly widens, and tears communities apart in the process. Little wonder, then, that publications across the political and religious spectrum -- from the New York Times to First Things -- have called for a renewed commitment to solidarity. It is a call Holy Cross would do well to heed. But how can we do so? John Paul II defined solidarity as “a firm and persevering determination to commit oneself to the common good; that is to say, to the good of all and of each.” In other words, solidarity compels us to better our common life. Common life stems from common identity. Therefore, understanding what makes Holy Cross itself is a prerequisite to the work of solidarity. Intellectually, the college is an undergraduate institution “dedicated to the teaching of universal knowledge,” in John Henry Newman’s phrase. Religiously, it is an explicitly Catholic community, whose intellectual labors are inseparable from the truth of its ancient faith. Holy Cross stands atop the pillars of faith and reason. The common good we work towards must rest on these supports, and not the latest cultural innovations. In the same vein, faith and reason require concrete commitment, for if one gives way, the institution will collapse. The remainder of this essay will examine the

second concept, reason, and its relationship to the mission of the College. “The teaching of universal knowledge”depends on the notion of absolute truth. This is not a uniquely Catholic formulation; the truth of a logical statement does not vary with religious creed. Each of the disciplines studied here aims at and can attain the truth. Otherwise, they could not be taught. We willingly concede this point in matters of scientific study. The skeptic, of course, may walk into the nearest crowded room and claim that man is not a mammal; he would find himself deafened by condemnation. But let him deny the Incarnation, and the Crusader’s zeal will vanish. The explanation is simple, but troubling: in religion, philosophy, and ethics, we defend the truth we know only timidly, if at all. Class discussions descend into records of “interesting points,” rarely followed up or challenged. We degrade the faith-formed conscience, until it seems only an individual interpretation of experience, with no more claim to truth than any other. The St. Joseph Chapel becomes “A Place of Prayer for All People,” and obscures the God whose name is written in its stones. At bottom, these trends reflect a mystic relativism which denies the human being’s power to comprehend the Truth. People perceive their own truths, but no system may claim the absolute. Were this attitude merely disconsonant with Holy Cross’s Catholicism, I would not despair; Anemic Catholicism may soon be all we can hope for. But the degradation of truth menaces the College’s academic identity, as well. On some level, I state the obvious; a college cannot teach universal knowledge if its members do not believe universal knowledge exists. Less obviously, though, the belief in only relative truth renders the celebrated methods of education impotent. Take dialogue: while both sides believe Truth can be obtained, dialogue underpins much of the work of the

College. However, if Truth is impenetrable, dialogue reduces rapidly to irreconcilable faith-claims. Differing viewpoints are merely matters of perception, shaped by individual experience. Neither is any truer than the opposite; both are refractions of the same unknowable Ultimate. Two people disagree about abortion because one holds that life begins at conception, while the other holds that it begins at birth. Person X and Person Y have different beliefs, that’s all. This fact is as obvious as it is vacuous. But if “reality” abides in individual perceptions ununified by Truth, what more can we say? Mere conversation cannot change perception; it can serve no end at all. If nothing is universal, we cannot engage the world beyond ourselves. There is no reason to speak if we do not believe

we can convince, and we cannot convince if truth is individualized. The methods, the essence, and the purpose of a university are constituted by Truth, as an existing transcendental, universal to all people. It opens minds otherwise closed to one another. In doing so, it makes real community possible. There can be no common life if we do not believe in truth. Commitment to solidarity, then, begins in commitment to the idea that we can actually know. It grows in the passionate intensity of belief. It thrives in our attempts to convert, convince, and bear witness to what we know is true. The College exists more in words than in anything else -- and this is the way it ends, not with a bang but with a silence.

Faith and reason require concrete commitment, for if one gives way, the institution will collapse.

September 2016 The Fenwick Review

A Different Option

If You Give a Man a Fish Bill Christ ‘18 Staff Writer

Audrey Holmes ‘19 Layout Editor A sardonic view of society has tended to dominate modern philosophical thought. English philosopher Thomas Hobbes believed that, human beings, in order to satiate their discomforts, act primarily for their own well-being. This results in what Hobbes called the “state of war”, in which a person’s life is “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.” (Leviathan 1 13) Machiavelli held a similar belief, stating in his work The Prince, “… in times of adversity, when the state is in need of its citizens, there are few to be found.” Both Hobbes and Machiavelli had a remedy for these beliefs. In Leviathan, Hobbes goes on to say that we can overcome this chaotic state of war through mutually beneficial agreements with other people. In The Prince, Machiavelli states that a person matures intellectually by participating in the activities of the state. In general, both of these philosophers saw a need to put aside self-interest and work collectively toward the betterment of society. To some, this may seem too idealistic, bordering on socialistic. In principle, this seems like a formidable idea – a person selflessly thinks on behalf of others, compromising his own self-interests for those of the state. However, in action, it seems nearly impossible. How can a person live a happy life if he is always giving up what he has? There seems to be no practicality to being altruistic. This feeds into a more focused view of altruism, called effective altruism. Effective altruism is when the heart and the head work together to make practical and selfless decisions. The goal of effective altruism is to lead both a comfortable and productive life. In short, effective altruism seeks to do the most good, in the most efficient way possible. This may seem slightly counter intuitive to some. Any form of good should be efficient, right? This is not always so. In the TED talk with philosopher and ethicist Peter Singer, called “The Why and How of Effective Altruism”, Singer explains how it is important to balance emotions with practicality. Often times when making charitable decisions, people think passionately,

instead of practically. Singer gives a perfect example of this phenomenon. In his talk, he states that it costs $40,000 to train a guide dog for a blind person. It costs about $20 to $50 to cure a person of blindness in a developing country if the person has trachoma. That means that the cost of one guide dog could cure anywhere from 800 to 2,000 people of blindness in a developing country. This phenomenon is seen again with the Make-a-Wish Foundation. According to an article in The Boston Review, it costs about $7,500 on average to fulfill a dying child’s wish. While reading about the wish being granted is heartwarming, it is slightly impractical. A malaria net costs about $2.50 a piece, and it is the most effective preventative measure against the spread of the disease. The disease kills over 1 million people annually, most of the victims being under five years of age. Every day in the Democratic Republic of the Congo alone, 500 people die of malaria, the vast majority being children and pregnant women. If the average cost of one “wish” being granted went toward malaria nets, it would protect about 3,000 lives. These examples all point toward the practicality that should be exercised when donating to charities. Some might see effective altruism as being cold and calculating, with no true empathy involved. But imagine if a building with 500 people in it burned down every day. Now imagine if one person had the power to kick open the door, and all 500 people would be saved. Buying malaria nets is the same concept, just a different application. Philosophers such as Hobbes and Machiavelli both seemed to agree that altruistic measures exceed the moral capacities of human beings. However, when effective altruism is exercised, this is not the case. When effective altruism is practiced, society is improved and it makes for a more ethical personal lifestyle. Effective altruism does not simply strive for the lofty goal of doing good. It seeks to do good in the best way possible.

September 2016 The Fenwick Review

If you are anything like some Republican voters in if not more. Unlike Castle, questions concerning the the 2016 election, you probably see enormous flaws in authenticity of his values and his positions surround both Donald Trump and Hilary Clinton. When comparing Trump. Republicans are wary of him failing to be a true these two candidates, voters are trying to decide between conservative since he has switched stances on significant the lesser of two evils based on what the candidate had party positions, in addition to his hostile and divisive said or endorsed over their lifetime. Thankfully, there is rhetoric. On the Democratic side, uncertainty clouds a candidate who has consistently promised to limit the Clinton’s relationship with corporations and Wall Street scope of an ever-encroaching government to its role as well as her foreign policy votes in the mid-2000s. specified by the Framers of 1787: Darrell Castle. Furthermore, scandals have plagued her political career. Nominated by the Constitution In a year of hostile to politicians Party this past cycle, Castle has perceived to be governmental promised to use the original intent of insiders, Clinton gains no benefit the Framers as the guiding principle there. Despite his history of of his administration. Rather than Constitutional conservatism, “discovering” the missing words of Castle too has his flaws. Castle the Framers in order to create new favors an American divorce from rights and policies, Castle maintains the United Nations and NATO, that American politicians should which could fundamentally adhere strictly to the document as alter the political landscape and it was initially written. This means security of the world. The nonthe government would cease to interventionist foreign policy persist as the cradle-to-grave nanny of the Castle campaign could state that has become common wreak havoc worldwide as the throughout liberal America. Third party candidate Darrell Castle America would be reluctant to Castle and the Constitution Party would eliminate act and support her allies. Additionally, he has proposed federal involvement in matters not pertaining to them the voiding of international trade treaties which could and reserve legislative responsibility to the local and undermine the economic vitality of America and create a state governments. Following the Tenth Amendment, global economic crisis. American isolationism is a lofty Castle has advocated the abolition of the Department of idea that no president can undertake in the twenty-first Education in favor of more involvement from the state century. and local governments concerning education. Although a Castle and Conservative Party win is The policies of the Constitution Party are guided by highly unlikely, he can create a movement rededicating Castle, a man who has maintained a strong track record themselves to following the fundamental political of defending America’s fundamental political freedoms. doctrine of America that has guided us for 226 years. By proclaiming the original intent of the Constitution Consider a fresh idea this November and think of a as a trademark of their campaign’s platform, Castle has different party led by a candidate committed to adhering dedicated himself to the mission of his party. For the to principle greater than himself. Compared to the blatant candidates of the two main parties, both constituencies disregard for the Constitutional committed during the are uncertain whether or not they can trust their Obama years, a president valuing the original intent party’s nominee. This is an important task for the next would an appreciated change we all hope to see. president, as the Court will have at least one seat to fill

How Trump Defines Contemporary Rhetoric : This article was reproduced from Mr. Barselau’s website. To read more about his thoughts on politics and current events, please visit Grist for the Mull @ https:// gristforthemull.wordpress.com Austin Barselau ‘18

In an age of constant political messaging and higher ratings—has paid him tremendous dividends. blustery political advertisements, multiple nights of His popularity, kept ever so strong by his TV-ready convention drama, bombastic personas and outrageous personality, is predicated on his ability to lure the policy stances- political rhetoric is becoming ever cameras and generate headlines. This feeds into the more sensational and negative, and less substantive, second important point of rhetoric: sensational, mostly positive, and constructive. The emergence of Donald fear-inducing negative sentiment, appeals to voters. It’s Trump as the Republican nominee is only deepening also good for ratings. Emotion scares voters, rallying these developments. Not only is Trump mastering the them around a candidate and spurring future action. changing landscape of political persuasion, he seems to Negativity has been Trump’s greatest calling card. have done a pretty good job at surpassing expectations. Emotion as an Effective Persuasive Tool Traditionally, political rhetoric Pathos, one of Aristotle’s has been used for three purposes: The first aim of rhetoric three modes of persuasion, is also to inform, to persuade, and to is to provide information known as an appeal to emotion. popularize. The devices, images, and Rhetoric can be categorized by about the candidate to a motifs a candidate chooses to dwell its emotional connotation, also on say much about how they are known as valence, which can be targeted audience. approaching these three rhetorical either positive or negative. And points. while the most memorable lines in The first aim of rhetoric is to modern political history may be the provide information about the ones that underscored optimism or candidate to a targeted audience. Politicians, by exuded warmth—think FDR’s admonition about fear, choosing certain symbols and images, develop a JFK’s vision for a moon landing, Reagan’s “city on a carefully constructed narrative about themselves, and hill”—negative statements also have their effect. They more importantly about their political opponents. The often play to our basic sentiments by arousing anxiety, second purpose is persuasion. Politicians are avatars fear, and indignation. It shows the darker and perhaps for an eclectic assemblage of different interests and more dangerous side of political rhetoric. priorities; the party they represent maintains a certain The effectiveness of emotional language in vision for where they want to direct the country. As a electrifying voters can also be found in the realm of result, political oratory is inherently future-oriented. psychology. Researchers have found that the brain As Aristotle described in Rhetoric, political rhetoric is programmed to respond to rhetoric dripping with “advises about things to come.” It is about shifting passion and sensation. “The political brain is an the trajectory of discourse to more favorable solutions emotional brain,” writes political psychologist Drew down the road. Finally, and most importantly, political Westen in his hugely informative The Political Brain. “It rhetoric fits like lock and key with the age of media. is not a dispassionate calculating machine, objectively Political communications are often focused on searching for the right facts, figures, and policies to delivering the news cycle and controlling the media make a reasoned decision.” Emotional arousal is an narrative. Naturally, the media’s preference for drama important tool voters use to assess the effectiveness of and entertainment will lead political players to prioritize a candidate. emotional content in lieu of calm, fact-based language. Messaging Through Tweeting Trump’s experience in reality television— Another result of the growing selection of media manipulating the media and knowing how to generate outlets is the loss of direct contact politicians have

Trump’s tweets are a textbook example of effective rhetoric. Trump Will Not Be Persuasive Enough to Win While Trump might have mastered the art of political rhetoric for the twenty-first century, I do not think he will be effective enough in convincing enough voters for him to win in November. Many of Trump’s greatest rhetorical strengths- emotionally laden language, direct messaging, a deep understanding of the incentives of the media industry- are also his biggest weaknesses. Many have criticized Trump for his excessive invocation of fear as antithetical to the American tradition. His message is often described as a brutal hellscape, one of hyperbolic exaggerations and wildly incorrect appraisals of the state of the country. Trump’s familiarity with the media could also be his downfall. Does he adequately understand that running the country is not akin to reality TV? And finally, does anyone think the Commander-in-Chief should be tweeting his policies to the public? Trump is not a serious candidate. But give credit where it is due. He has shown us how to effectively use a different rhetorical tack to surprising results.

with the electorate. Whereas polls were once able to project their message directly to listeners or viewers, now a candidate’s message is filtered through a layer of pundits, analysts, and strategists. Television broadcasts now bookend political speeches with commentary and analysis of the speech. Usually, a table of “experts” will throw in their reactions of the speech and spar amongst each other. By the time of the commercial break, the original message of the political speech is swamped in the televised atmosphere of critical reception and reaction. Nowadays, campaigns are finding harder and harder to get their message directly to voters. Trump seems to understand this dynamic. He is able to circumvent the refractory nature of the ubiquitous punditocracy by taking his message, albeit fewer than 140 characters, directly to voters’ computer screens. Ever wary of the “dishonorable media,” Trump can ignore the traditional formalities of political presentation- the press conferences, the carefully staged speeches, the interviews- and market directly to the voter. If good business is finding ways to remove the middleman, Trump is a rhetorical executive officer on the highest level. Concise, direct, and without unnecessary frills,

Considering the Founding Fathers Before Voting

Robert Roberge ‘18 Staff Writer

A few weeks ago, I got a text message from a offering his vote that he is not making a present or a childhood friend who had since moved to Arizona. compliment to please an individual – or at least that he We used to be close friends, but since he moved our ought not so to do; but that he is executing one of the communication mainly consists of the occasional text most solemn trusts in human society for which he is message. His text was simple and straight to the point, accountable to God and his country.” “Hey so Trump or Hillary?” Before I had a chance to Possibly even more directly applicable, Noah respond, he followed up by claiming he did not like Webster, in a letter from 1823, describes the betrayal either but that one of the two was the lesser of two that one is committing by casting a vote for someone evils. I replied with my opinions on the candidates they believe to be immoral, “In selecting men for office, and implored him to explore third party or write-in let principle be your guide. Regard not the particular sect options if he truly hated both major or denomination of the candidate But I understand that there candidates. His response is the – look to his character. ...When a reason I am writing this article. He are many people out there citizen gives his [vote] to a man of said he would much rather have immorality he abuses his who see neither Trump nor known a third party candidate win, but trust; he sacrifices not only his own believed such a candidate could Clinton as someone who interest, but that of his neighbor, he not win, and so he would rather they would want in the betrays the interest of his country.” vote for someone he hates in order Our Founding Fathers clearly White House, and that is to cancel out a vote for someone valued voting very highly and he hates more. My friend is not a perfectly normal mindset wanted our citizens to only vote alone. I believe that if the Founding for candidates whom they judge to to have. Fathers knew how pervasive of be worthy of the office. a sentiment this was in today’s So, if you’re sitting there society they would be appalled and reading this and rethinking your would implore us to reexamine our voting rationale, but are unsure of motivations when casting our vote. the other options available to you, Before I go any further, I let me offer some assistance. I want want to clarify that this is not an article demanding the to preface by saying every eligible voter should vote, end of the two party system. Barring a major unforeseen even if it is a write-in for a family member or friend event between now and Election Day, I will be casting that you trust the most, please go out and vote. There my vote for one of the two major candidates. But I are many state and local elections to also consider. As understand that there are many people out there who see of this writing, there are four candidates nominated neither Trump nor Clinton as someone who they would by their parties who are on the ballot in enough states want in the White House, and that is a perfectly normal to theoretically win the presidency: Democrat Hillary mindset to have. It is when a voter spitefully casts a Clinton, Republican Donald Trump, Libertarian Gary ballot for someone they would not be comfortable Johnson and Green Jill Stein. If you have not heard of with being president just to negate someone else’s vote Gov. Gary Johnson of New Mexico or Dr. Jill Stein the where I feel I must attempt to provide an alternative state of Massachusetts, you are not alone. The current voting philosophy. polling average, according to RealClearPolitics.com, Voting was something the Founding Fathers has Johnson at 8.6% nationally with Stein at 3.1% took very seriously. Samuel Adams, writing for Gazette nationally, with individual polls spiking as high as 13 in 1781, describes his rationale for the importance of and 6 percent, respectively, and many voters completely voting: unaware that either is seeking office. In any election “Let each citizen remember at the moment he is year, but especially in one such as 2016 where so many 14

September 2016 The Fenwick Review

voters are dissatisfied with both major candidates, I think it is a travesty that these two viable candidates are being largely ignored by the mainstream media. If you are unfamiliar with their experience and platforms, please familiarize yourself and, if you find one worthy of the office, consider a vote for either of them if you are dissatisfied with Clinton and Trump. I promise you,

like I told my friend, it is not a wasted vote. Voting for someone you do not think should be president is a far worse choice than voting for an appropriate candidate who may not happen to win, and I firmly believe the Founding Fathers would agree with such a sentiment.

The Fenwick Review is proudly sponsored by: