Page 1

Raising the Standard

The Shapiro Effect

When Facts Meet Feelings on College Campuses By J. Thomas Perdue





3 In the Interest of Truth

08 A Korean Peninsula Adrift

14 The Shapiro Effect

By The Editors

By Boris A. Abreu

09 A New Referee on the Court

CAMPUS 4 The Campus Informant By The Editors

By Matt Collins

By Boris A. Abreu

16 The Progressive's Playground By Nick Geeslin

By Peyton Sketch

10 The Fed Decoded

5 SGA Watch

By J. Thomas Perdue

11 Georgia Legislative Review 2017

18 A Brisk Departure By Matthew Jordan

20 Private Market, Public Benefits By Sydney North

By Michael Duckett

COLUMNS 6 There is No One Solution By James Bartow

7 A Domestic Cold War By Christopher Lipscomb

12 Craft Brewing Success By Ian LaCroix


CULTURE 22 The Power of

Conservative Principles By Ross Dubberly

13 Anti-Laptop Teachers Union By Nick Geeslin

The Arch Conservative Editorial Board and Staff: 2016-2017 Editor-in-Chief Nick Geeslin

Associate Editor Michael Duckett


Managing Editor Sydney North

Assistant Editors Boris A. Abreu Ross Dubberly


Publishing Editor Matthew Jordan Creative Director Mallory Traylor Business Manager TJ Collins Marketing Coordinator Sarah Montgomery

2 / The Arch Conservative

Contributors J. Thomas Perdue James Bartow Christopher Lipscomb

Twitter @ArchConUGA Mail P.O. Box 1181 Athens, GA 30603

Peyton Sketch Ian LaCroix Matt Collins



In the Interest of Truth The Arch Conservative Remains Unapologetically Conservative


ith the passing of another couple of months in the Trump Administration expectedly comes a multitude of separate narratives, leaks, rumors, and policies that test not only the politicians in power, but the diligence and integrity with which we here at The Arch Conservative pursue our goal of contributing to the political discourse on campus. Rest assured, readers, that your beloved publication, a haven for the motivated collegiate philosophers of the right, has approached every narrative, every policy, and every happening this year with a watchful eye, albeit a hopeful one. We remain dedicated to raising the standard of conservatism, to make novel predictions, to opine on the good and the bad, to act hawkish when the situation calls for it and calmly when it does not. So dedicated are we, the Editorial Board of The Arch Conservative, that we have included an additional four pages and two articles in this, the eighteenth edition of The Arch Conservative in print. Of course, no measure of quality is compromised. As ever, our handpicked pool of authors represent our core beliefs, laid out by our most esteemed founders. These core beliefs are referenced below, as it is important to remain fastened to our original purpose at the publication’s creation:


– That there exists an enduring moral order. That a healthy respect for traditional beliefs is prudent, as they represent the accumulated wisdom of history. – That free markets enable human flourishing, contribute to the general welfare, and safeguard liberty. – That individual rights are imperative and, unacceptably, not available to millions around the world. That free nations are obligated to oppose, by force of arms when justified, the designs of tyrants. – That, ultimately, the great experiences of life are outside the realm of politics, and cannot be manufactured by government. These tenets are not overlooked in any one of the pieces published in this issue. In fact, all the pieces contained in the magazine expound on the above principles. James Bartow, Chris Lipscomb, Boris A. Abreu, and Matt Jordan give voice both to explanations and novel ideas at foreign policy and happenings from the Korean peninsula


to the Middle East and even to the United Kingdom. Meanwhile, Michael Duckett keeps things local with a review of Georgia’s most recent legislative session, Nick Geeslin offers advice on navigating the “Progressive’s Playground” that is University, and Sydney North shares much needed insight into just what direction is best for environmental change (hint: the EPA plays a small role). To conclude, Ross Dubberly offers a look into the sobering and rich history of conservatism via a review of George Nash’s book The Conservative Intellectual Movement in America Since 1945. Our motto: Raising the Standard, “reflects the goals of the publication: to unify the right and contribute to the political discourse on campus.” And so, we have succeeded to an impressive degree in “unifying the right” by recruiting such new contributors as Ian LaCroix, J. Thomas Perdue, Matt Collins, and Peyton Sketch, all of whom make their print edition debuts in this issue. Ian discusses an interesting Georgia State Bill, Matt describes the integral role of the Federal Reserve, and Peyton opines on the ‘Bathroom Bill’ fiasco. Finally, in a rare and impressive feat, J. Thomas’s first print piece serves as the Summer 2017 edition’s cover story. In “The Shapiro Effect,” Perdue eulogizes the work and Ben Shapiro and his role in politics and brilliantly ties his cultural impact on college campuses into a similar sentiment felt by conservatives here at the University of Georgia. In addition, multiple article postings per week, the beginning of a ‘Staff Favorites’ page, and the creation and subsequent success of The Arch Conservative’s Weekly Podcast have all furthered the conservative voice on campus to a more significant degree. Furthermore, we have contributed to the discourse on campus with our hosting of Forbes contributor, founder of the Network of Enlightened Women (NeW), and attorney Karin Agness Lips on campus to speak about the flawed perspectives of modern feminism. Through all the chaos of the Trump Administration’s first 100 days, The Arch Conservative remains and will continue to remain unapologetically conservative. That is to say, no politician, no policy, no political act escapes our mind without undergoing a rigorous and unbiased sifting through a truly conservative lens. We hope that you find this issue to be level-headed, enlightening, and above all an escape from the noise that so saturates the modern political discourse. — The Editors

The Arch Conservative / 3


Indoor Practice Facility Newest Addition to the UGA Skyline


t’s hard to venture to the south side of UGA’s campus without noticing Stegman Coliseum. However, after an influx of private funding, amassing to the amount of $30.2 million, it’s hard not to notice a new structure, UGA’s new indoor practice facility. The indoor facility will support 21 varsity teams and more than 600 student-athletes at the University of Georgia. Coach Smart said it is “one of the most beautiful in the country” and that “it speaks volumes to our commitment to athletics but also to football.” Coach Smart and UGA President Jere Morehead both noted that this newest recruiting class is special and Coach Smart firmly believes this new facility played a role. — Matt Jordan

Start Date Altered for 2017 Fall Semester Long-Awaited Change Finally Set


or as long as current UGA students can remember, fall classes have traditionally begun on Thursday. However, a committee of the UGA University Council voted to recommend the Fall 2017 start date to be pushed back to Monday, August 14th, 2017. As of September 2016, the academic calendar was modified to accommodate this change, much to the relief of many professors and students alike. It has long been noted that UGA’s early start date interfered with students interning during the summer, with many students being forced to miss the first days of instruction to complete their internship work. This new start date will allow students to complete their internships in full and allow for a smoother move-in period over the weekend for incoming freshmen and returning students. It remains to be seen whether there will be a modified start date for the Spring 2018 semester (it was proposed but has not been acted on), but if our new start date receives positive feedback from students as well as instructors, we may expect a later date for the spring as well. — Boris A. Abreu

The Arch Conservative Hosts Karin Agness Lips Controversy Ensues


nsolence and vitriol followed the setup of a Facebook page for a guest lecture that ludicrously attempted to relate two entirely juxtapositional words: “feminism” and “conservatism.” Of course, The Arch Conservative administrators remained respectful and continued to advertise the event without prejudice, encouraging those dissenters to attend in an effort to contribute to the diversity in ideology at the event. In this way, and in many others, the event was a massive success. There were more students in attendance than there were seats (of which there were 44) in the Miller Learning Center lecture room as well as zero Chick-fil-a chicken nuggets left by the end of the event as well. For a summary of the talk, a discussion of the heckling that went on during the Q & A section, as well as a general discourse about the merits of conservative feminism, see The Arch Conservative‘s Weekly Podcast in the episode “A Discussion of Conservative Feminism & TAC's Spring Lecture” with guest contributor and attendee Jake Carnes, Sarah Montgomery, and myself. — Nick Geeslin

4 / The Arch Conservative





GA’s Student Government Association has been busy as of late, but comparatively less so in the legislative sense. While the organization works tirelessly to ensure a better campus for all Bulldogs, there comes a time to choose new blood and new ideas for the next academic year. While the first half of the spring semester was focused on the previous officeholders finishing out their legislative session, the half of the semester that follows spring break was all about the campaign for next year. Originally comprised of three executive tickets, Ignite, Rise, and Redvolution, the field was narrowed down to two when Redvolution was docked by the Elections Committee for failing to file for representation on the ballot within the allotted time, prompting a response by Ignite (which filed an appeal to the UGA Supreme Court). After the appeal was filed, the UGA Supreme Court struck down the decision by the Elections Committee and disqualified Redvolution from running entirely. After that, Redvolution had to appeal to the SGA Senate, which upheld the Supreme Court’s ruling and the campaign was killed before it even started. Amidst the controversy of the disqualification of Redvolution, the two remaining campaigns soldiered on, encouraging voters to vote for their platforms. Rise (comprised of Ripken Gorman, Brooke Carter, and Ammishaddai Grand-Jean) and Ignite (comprised of Kal Golde, Cameron Keen, and Roya Naghepour) both ran stellar campaigns, with fantastic marketing and Public Relations efforts, to their credit. But the campaigns lacked details. As with most elections, the campaigns offered vague ideas and offered little details as to how they would go about implementing their policies if elected to office, and many of their policies echoed each other’s. This is something The Arch Conservative’s Editor-inChief Nick Geeslin and regular contributor Ian LaCroix


noted in their coverage of the debate between the two tickets, stating that: “Overall, the tickets brought forth good ideas to improve the University and its community. A major flaw [however] in the two tickets is prevalent in the details of their ideas.” They were also “mildly disappointed in the debate’s lack of… debate.” To the credit of the tickets, it is hard to come up with viable and detail-oriented plans on the spot, but the echoing of rhetoric across two competing tickets and the lack of details is non-constructive and unhelpful to a student voter. However, despite the controversy that befell the campaign season, the tickets both worked incredibly hard and encouraged students to get out and vote. This was evident in the final voter turnout, where the campaigns combined racked up 7,760 votes, the largest turnout in UGA SGA history. Ignite ultimately won the vote, racking up 4,390 to Rise’s 3,259. This is equivalent to roughly one-fifth of the UGA student body voting, a number that we can only hope will go up as more students get involved in UGA politics. Sworn in on April 5th, the new executives of UGA SGA stepped into their roles, with Mr. Cameron Keen becoming the new president, Ms. Roya Naghepour the vice president, and Mr. Kal Golde the treasurer. These three students undoubtedly have a daunting task ahead of them, hopefully building upon the policies set in motion by the previous administration. We here at The Arch Conservative wish the new executives all the best, despite all the controversies that may have plagued the campaign season. The past has passed, and we should all look towards the future of our esteemed school and have faith that our new executives will lead this institution down the right path. We sincerely hope that Ignite really can “ignite” UGA’s campus and make it a more enjoyable environment wherein students of all ideologies and backgrounds may feel safe, learn, work on, discuss, and debate the things which matter most to them in an environment conducive to the highest standard of learning. We here at The Arch Conservative will continue to watch the activities of this new SGA executive board and wish upon them success in their endeavors to improve the university. – Boris A. Abreu

The Arch Conservative / 5


There is No One Solution


s an international affairs major, I have learned many different theories and perspectives on the 'correct' way to carry out U.S. foreign policy. Not often, however, have I heard academics cover the new perspective expressed by a Syrian refugee in a CNN interview. In the interview, Kassem Eid praises President Trump for his Tomahawk missile strikes on the Syrian government’s air base from which the gas attack was likely launched. Though the purpose of his interview was to praise our president for his actions, which he believed to have sent a strong message to the Assad regime, his overall tone and message gave me a new perspective that I (and likely many others) believe should receive as much rumination as the idea deserves. He asserted that Trump’s travel ban on Syria is not as devastating as many Americans believe, as the majority of Syrians would rather see their homeland made safe than live as refugees in a foreign land like the United States. Coming from a Syrian, this opinion can be given more valence. Despite your thoughts on the opinion, the sentiment Mr. Eid brings to question is our tendency as Americans to assume that we can understand the situations of others by applying our own logic and cultural values to situations where those like Mr. Eid endure circumstances that we cannot possibly fathom. Too often do we view complex situations around the world with an uninformed, James Bartow is a freshman studying international affairs. He is a regular contributor to The Arch Conservative.

6 / The Arch Conservative

overemotional, and often fleeting lens, and such presumption has become rampant in our foreign policy in attempts to satisfy oversensitive constituencies. American politicians on the right and left are equally guilty, make no mistake. How dare we presume to believe that we can empathize with Syrians who have been displaced from their homes due to brutal fighting in a war-torn country ruled by an

ironfisted, tyrannical, and desperate Baathist dictator? How dare we believe ourselves to understand what it is like to see friends and relatives foaming at the the mouth, slowly suffocating to death? The fact is that Americans, though we may try, cannot begin to imagine the horrors afflicting the Syrian people. The American people’s assumption that our values can be transposed globally, across all cultures and political situations, is a dangerous one. This applies not only to Syria, but to all such tragic scenarios. The average American has an inherent ignorance of foreign cultural values and, as a result of this, as well as of human nature, we endeavor to

understand current events notwithstanding our lack of comparable experience. A common mistake in many societies is to believe that there is such a thing as moral absolutes, which can govern all peoples under their universal righteousness. When the people of a particular society which happens to be very powerful decide that their moral code should reign supreme, it can cause strife in other areas of the world as ideologies clash. Should we protect the sanctity of human life? Absolutely. But in our attempt to to provide aid, we, on occasion, press our fingers much too firmly on the scale. In the case of this Kassem Eid, he broached up a common-sense idea that is likely not given the weight that it deserves: the Syrian people would rather go home to a peaceful country and rebuild than move to the United States. Such a widespread truth sounds so logical, so common-sense when said out loud; yet too many fail to hear it. Now, while this does not excuse the travel ban, it does indicate a severe miscalculation and misinterpretation on the part of the American people with regard to the Syrian people’s situation and views. We cannot, as Americans, presume to understand the plight of a Syrian refugee, or a starving child in Africa, or an Indian woman forced to have an abortion simply because her child is not male. Opinions must be better informed, especially if we are to even attempt to understand our fellow humans in other situations rather than thinking of how we would feel in their situation. Consider this next time before you advocate for a cause about which you know little. b 



A Novel Take on U.S. Foreign Policy


A Domestic Cold War Desperate Claims of Intervention Saturate the Political Scene


t is no secret that relations between the United States and Russia have deteriorated during Vladimir Putin’s tenure as the Russian President; however, until the 2016 election, the notion that we are living in a new era of a quasi-cold war would have been dismissed as largely incredulous. The facts of the last several months clearly indicate that the Cold War mentality has returned from a thirty-year hiatus.


The Election In the weeks leading up to the election, charges began to emerge that members of the Trump campaign had been in contact with Russians close to Vladimir Putin. Additionally, it is widely believed that the leaks of emails from the Democratic National Committee leading up to the Democratic Convention originated from hackers associated with Russian intelligence services. The Clinton campaign, along with much of the press, was quick to employ this narrative as a way to discredit Trump ignored the fact that the leaked emails revealed that Clinton ally and then DNC-chair Debbie Wasserman-Schultz had worked to undermine the Sanders campaign. Amongst all of the talk of Russians, it was revealed by the New York Times that Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort had ties to the Russian-backed former Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych, and had received over $12 million in payment from his Party of Regions. This resulted in Manafort’s resignation from the campaign and subsequent replacement by Kellyanne Conway. Ultimately, Clinton lost the election, and soon after, Democrats began alleging that Russian interference in the election ensured Trump’s victory, rather than placing the Christopher Lipscomb is a freshman studying international affairs. He is a regular contributor to The Arch Conservative.


blame with Clinton’s poorly run campaign. Her campaign focused on the fact that she was a woman, thus her policies were largely unknown, outside of the fact that they would look very much like Obama’s. The Democrats went so far as to claim that voting machines had been hacked, and that not all Clinton votes had been counted because of hacking in battleground states. Ironically, when the votes were recounted, it became apparent that votes had indeed gone uncounted, many of which had been cast for Donald Trump.

The Cabinet Battlefront Stifled in their efforts to discredit Trump’s victory, Democrats began to target his cabinet nominees. The most notable of such attacks were leveled at Rex Tillerson when Trump nominated him to be Secretary of State. As chairman and CEO of ExxonMobil, Tillerson had worked with the Russian government to negotiate deals on several occasions. Because of this, Democrats claimed that Tillerson would be too beholden to Russia to effectively challenge them diplomatically on the world stage. Tillerson was ultimately confirmed, but only after stating that he did believe Russia had meddled in the election in some way. The Democrats’ fears have since been proven baseless. Tillerson has thus far proven a strong Secretary of State, having

now travelled to Moscow and met with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov as well as Putin, and had very frank discussions with them regarding U.S.-Russian relations. Another quick target of the Democrats was now-Attorney General Jeff Sessions. When Trump nominated Sessions to serve as Attorney General, Democrats began digging for anything they could stick to him in order to drag Sessions down, presumably hoping to find a less conservative candidate to follow Obama’s appointees. When the tried-andtrue Democratic tactic of claiming racism failed, they claimed that Sessions was complicit in Russian meddling, simply because he had met with the Russian Ambassador to the U.S. on two occasions in the months leading up to the election. Fortunately, these flailing arguments came up short when it was pointed out that it was not unreasonable for Sessions, a member of the Senate Armed Forces Committee, to have met with the Russian Ambassador in that capacity, and that his conversations with Krislyak were among twenty-five that he had with foreign ambassadors in 2016. Sessions further eased tensions by recusing himself from any investigations that might be conducted by the Justice Department involving Russia and the election. The Saga Continues Nearly six months have passed since the election, and yet the Russian conundrum persists. Each day seems to bring some new revelation of someone associated with Trump meeting with someone associated with Putin. The U.S. intelligence community has concluded that Russia did indeed meddle in the election, though the extent is unknown. Both the House and the Senate have begun investigating the matter, and the FBI has confirmed that it is also investigating. At this point, one can only hope that these investigations will be brought to a swift conclusion rather than being drug out for political purposes, so that the Trump administration can eventually focus more on governing. b

The Arch Conservative / 7


A Korean Peninsula Adrift


f you asked any policy expert right now what the top national security priority is, many would answer North Korea. It seems like every day Kim Jong-un and his yes-men make a new threat to “annihilate [insert country here] with swift and deadly force if they are provoked.” At this point, to take these threats seriously seems almost laughable to the public. Any person capable of using a search engine can find countless “memes” on North Korea poking fun at them. However, policy and security experts have increased concern, and for good reason too. North Korea has stepped up its weapons program, making strides that the global community thought was nigh impossible in a such a short span. Rhetoric aside, this is cause for concern, and warrants action on both military and foreign policy fronts. Thankfully, the Trump administration has taken the Obama-era policy and pushed it a little further. To neorealists like myself, the application of military power and the United States’ ability to project it anywhere in the world is a vital asset in showing ruffians that we are not afraid, a welcome change from the mere slaps on the wrist the previous administration gave the “Dear Leader.” Real power (from a realist standpoint) is all about material strength; either you can drop it on your foot, or drop it on a city. And it seems clear that President Trump wants to flex this power. One could argue that by provoking North Korea, the United States is playing a very dangerous game. Personally, I disagree. Decision making is based on rationality, and whether you like it or not, Kim Jong-un must Boris A. Abreu is a sophomore studying political science and international affairs. He is Assistant Editor to The Arch Conservative.

8 / The Arch Conservative

be rational at some level. Theoretically, if the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) attacked any bordering nation, the full force of the world would come to bear on them, thereby making a gratuitous attack irrational. However, by slapping them on the wrist with sanctions, as the previous officeholders did, America showed that it wasn’t really serious about addressing these aggressive changes in North Korean nuclear and missile technology. Not so with the Trump administration. In a recent visit to Seoul, South Korea,

Secretary of State Tillerson said the following about North Korea: “We’re exploring a new range of diplomatic, security, and economic measures. All options are on the table.” He also stated that “the policy of strategic patience has ended.” President Trump has done some things in recent weeks that may be interpreted as warnings to North Korea. First, he ordered a strike on a Syrian air base as retaliation against the Syrian government’s use of chemical weapons on their own people. 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles sends a pretty strong message about messing with the US and the innocent people of the world. Gone are the days of crossing the “red line;” if you even so much as toe it, the U.S. is unafraid to hit you back twice as hard. Second, as of the writing of this article, the United States has dropped a MOAB on a cave system serving as a hideout for ISIS. A MOAB is a 21,600-pound bomb that is

the closest thing to a nuclear device we’ve got. Indeed, there is good reason the MOAB has earned the nickname the ‘Mother Of All Bombs.’ These three actions can be interpreted as warnings to the world that the Obama-era of indecisiveness is gone; it is time for punches. This is a change that many can get behind. It is time that we do something about a nation which has recklessly disregarded the norms of the world and deliberately provoked us because they know we will do nothing. In dealing with North Korea by far the most astute thing that President Trump has done with is his targeting of China. Long one of Pyongyang’s allies, China has always been mum on North Korea, signing symbolic sanctions, yet never enforcing them. However, President Trump met with Chinese President Xi Jinping April 7th, and shortly thereafter, the Chinese warned that if the DPRK went through with an ICBM test or nuclear device, there would be a response of “unprecedented ferocity.” This is a dramatic departure from previous rhetoric. Beijing has even gone so far as to threaten a cut to oil shipments to the rogue State. While it will undoubtedly take some time for change to truly come about, it offers encouragement that this President wants good relations with China and seeks to collaborate with them to end the North Korean threat. Do I call for outright war? Absolutely not; it would be foolish to go to war right now, as the last thing we need is another crisis. What I do appreciate, however, is that the Trump administration is willing to push the boundaries of policy regarding North Korea. Only time will tell if these will work, but all I can say right now is that I am encouraged by the change in rhetoric coming out of the White House. b



Behavior Regarding North Korea Increases Potential for Violence


A New Referee on the Court NCAA Interjects Itself into Discussion on the ‘Bathroom Bill’


ecently, between claims of “fake news” and updates on rising tensions in Syria, the North Carolina State General Assembly has made its way back into the blinding light of liberal media since its regular session convened on January 11th of this year. North Carolina made headlines after passage of House Bill Two (HB2), commonly referred to as the “Bathroom Bill,” last year. The law requires people to use the public restrooms and changing facilities which correspond to the gender assigned to them at birth, regardless of their sexual orientation or gender identity. HB2 also allows public institutions to provide single occupancy restrooms for those who do not feel comfortable in restrooms designated to the gender on their birth certificate. The Bathroom Bill caused leftist outbursts of rage and deeply offended LGBTQ organizations nationwide. Five days after its passage, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) began a lawsuit in federal court over the Bathroom Bill violating individual rights under the 14th amendment. The fallout of the passage of the Bathroom bill caused pandemonium that spread far past the operations of the court as many businesses and public figures showed backlash towards the young House bill. Liberals felt that the goal of the bill was to humiliate and criminalize LGBTQ members—specifically transgender people who do not agree with their gender assigned at birth. Less than two weeks after the bill’s passage into law, PayPal boycotted North Carolina by withdrawing a business operation which would have brought 400 jobs and a $36 million facility to Charlotte. Three days later, Bruce Springsteen canceled his North Carolina concert, using his popularity to push his own public agenda. Despite the intense backlash surrounding the Bathroom Bill, North Carolina Senate Peyton Sketch is a sophomore studying political science and sociology. She is a first time contributor to The Arch Conservative.


leader Paul Berger defended the law by explaining that the role of legislators is to represent their constituents’ opinions. In this case, the vast majority of constituents agreed with the bill. Parties in opposition believe the law infringes on individuals’ rights to choose their restroom facility based on their personal gender identity. Businesses coalesced in resistance to the goals of the Bathroom Bill to provide safe restroom areas to all people by hitting North Carolina citizens where it hurt most . . . sports. The NBA led the crusade of opposition when it outsourced its annual All-Star game and related events due to “the climate created by HB2” hindering the NBA from “successfully [hosting] the All-Star game festivities in Charlotte.” The National College Athletic Association (NCAA) was not far behind in delivering perhaps the most detrimental blow to sports fans. The NCAA became the General Assembly’s toughest adversary when it threatened to move all seven championship games elsewhere. Without question, the NCAA’s boycott agitated North Carolinians—who take college sports very seriously—and coaxed many middle-of-theroad constituents to oppose HB2. With an increasing volume of resistance to the bill, legislators like Paul Berger remained under fire to make changes in order to calm down the fervor. At the top of the list for the General Assembly this session was to devise a plan to repeal and replace the Bathroom Bill with a law that aligns with the Republican Party’s goal of providing safe, public bathrooms and changing facilities without offending liberal constituants. All the while, the NCAA refused to concede its position to completely boycott the state while HB2 remained in place. Regarding the issue surrounding the Bathroom Bill, North Carolina is at the mercy of the NCAA as it exercises its public power to promote its political agenda instead of its own private business. On March 30th of this year, state congress passed HB142—the bill which replaced the original Bathroom Bill, HB2. The replacement bill withdraws the power of the government agencies to regulate the use of multiple occupancy restrooms and

changing facilities, giving this discretion back to private businesses. The NCAA was successful in drastically influencing the actions of the legislature, and it continues to attract support as it partners with other liberal-minded businesses across the state. Following the introduction of the new Bathroom Bill, which is in no small part intended to calm the waters around the subject matter (for the time being at least), the NCAA reluctantly lifted its boycott on the state, but not without making yet another statement to warn government officials of its tight reins on the issue. The NCAA commented on the boycott reversal by saying that the state has “minimally achieved a situation where we believe NCAA championships may be conducted in a non-discriminatory environment.” The organization seems to imply that their goal is far from met with regards to the bill and alludes to a rocky road in the future before both parties are content. The political war over the constitutionality of the new Bathroom Bill is one that does not seem to be drawing much closer to an end despite a wane in news coverage. Big-business tantrums such as the NCAA’s are drastically polarizing the reality of North Carolina’s political culture and, as large companies interject their political agenda in the conservative South, the only effect achieved is a greater unrest. North Carolina conservatives must remain steadfast in promoting right-minded, commonsense laws amidst more liberal societal changes. In a society that so easily and fluently accepts social change of every type, the burden lies on lawmakers’ shoulders to conform our government to these societal adaptations. Creating logical laws to accommodate our society is necessary to protect individual rights of every citizen—including those who embrace tradition and those who press for change. b

The Arch Conservative / 9


The Fed Decoded Monetary Policy Dictates the Market, yet Eludes the Public’s Understanding

Matt Collins is a sophomore studying economics and Spanish. He is a regular contributor to The Arch Conservative.

10 / The Arch Conservative

hoped it would have; interest rates remain near zero but consumers and businesses have not been able to get loans at these low rates. Due to the lack of confidence, financial institutions have in potential borrowers after the 2008 crisis, commercial banks are not issuing loans. This phenomenon is what economists call a “credit crunch.” From 2008 to 2014, loans issued by banks fell 26 percent while

bank reserves held by the Fed increased by 26 percent. In effect, The Fed gave money to banks (by buying government bonds) but the banks, instead of loaning it out, gave it right back to the Fed in the form of cash reserves. As the economy improves, the Fed aims to raise interest rates to prevent high inflation and stabilize the economy. However, after pumping so much money into the economy through buying government bonds, the Fed fears the removal of all this money from circulation. This predicament has persuaded the Fed to enact a never before used policy, IOER (Interest on Excess Reserves). The IOER is the rate at which the Fed pays banks when they deposit more than the minimal requirement

into the Federal Reserve. If the Fed raises this rate banks can raise their own interest rates creating a ripple effect across all financial institutions. This IOER policy has come under increasing scrutiny from Congress. They argue that high IOER rates only incentivize banks to leave reserves in the Fed and not loan out money. Citing IOER policy as a reason why the Federal Reserve needs more supervision, some members of Congress have called for more legislative regulation over the Fed and operations. Further politicizing the Fed, however, would have massively negative side effects. It is possible for the economy to expand too much too quickly. Such a phenomenon occurs when inflation outpaces growth and the Fed must take steps to counter this, which often includes raising interest rates and decreasing the money supply. Both of these actions are against the interests of many big business and lobbying groups but are needed for the long term health of the economy. In this respect, the Fed can end up looking like the villain when in fact the measures made by the FOMC are for the good of the country as a whole. There are many misconceptions about the Federal Reserve circulating throughout our society. They corrupt the public’s view of an institution that serves as the great stabilizer for our economy. In reality, the Fed acts as the primary guardrail that keeps us from repeating the great economic panics of the 19th and early 20th centuries. b PHOTO COURTESY OF KEN LUND


he Federal Reserve is seemingly always in the news with talk of Janet Yellen, Chairwoman of the Federal Reserve, and the rest of the Federal Open Market Committee, or FOMC, (the decision making body of the Fed) raising interest rates. But most Americans don’t know how the Fed alters interest rates and what results from these changes. Congress created the Federal Reserve in the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 with the principal goals of regulating the money supply and stabilizing inflation and thereby the economy. The act was prefaced by a century of wild swings in economic fortunes and thousands of bank failures across the country. Until recently, to achieve these goals, the Fed had altered interest rates and bought and sold government bonds. After the collapse of the financial sector in 2008, the Fed bought $3.8 trillion in government debt (bonds) to increase the money supply in an attempt to stimulate the economy. They believed that an upswing in consumer spending and investment would result from more money in circulation. Many so-called experts and economists alike feared that such an increase in the money supply would cause inflation to skyrocket and put us further into recession, but that has not been the case. In fact, this is the only year since the recession that inflation has approached the target rate of 2%. However, the increase in the money supply has not had the impact Fed officials



Georgia Legislative Review 2017 Legislators’ Favorites


arch 30, 2017, also known as Sine Die, marked the end of Georgia’s 2017 legislative session and the halfway point for legislators’ terms in office. Every state representative and senator fought for specific bills they wished would end up on the governor’s desk. Here is a small sample of some of the legislators’ favorite proposed bills from 2017. RRep. Chuck Efstration (R-Dacula) passed a much needed bill, HB 221, that protects the elderly and disabled from abuse. HB 221 gives law enforcement and lawyers the ability to stop and prosecute relatives and caretakers from stealing elderly Georgians’ savings. In the past, few laws protected older Georgians who entrusted their savings to a family member or friend by ceding their power of attorney. Often the power of attorney is signed to a family member because of memory loss or disabilities, but all too often those caretakers stole from the elderly with little to no threat of legal recourse. Efstration received praise for HB 221 from senior citizens, caregivers, and Director of the GBI Vernon Keenan. The bill passed both the State Senate and the State House unanimously. Concerning tax reform, Rep. Clay Cox (R-Lilburn) said, “I was happy to support HB 329 creating a flat income tax of 5.4 percent, lowering taxes for millions of Georgians and simplifying our code.” Cox sees complex taxes as a burden on Georgians. He thought the move to a single tax bracket and the elimination of the existing six brackets should help Georgians project how much income tax they will pay and avoid the tedious process of calculating taxes. Rep. Jay Powell (R-Camilla) sponsored HB 329 originally, but Cox gladly supported the bill. Provisions will be made for lower income families so they will be able to retain a higher percentage of their income Michael Duckett is a senior studying history and political science. He is Associate Editor to The Arch Conservative.


for necessities. Rep. Scott Hilton (R-Peachtree Corners) championed HB 343 that removes the phrase “mentally retarded” from Georgia code. Those with intellectual disabilities and their families greatly appreciated this effort on Hilton’s part and the unanimous vote by the Georgia Senate and House to revise the language in our laws. Hilton initially felt unsure about the impact HB 343 would have, but after the bill’s passage, he met many families who showed gratitude for the simple, positive alteration in legal phrasing. Sometimes even the simplest of laws can have a profound effect. Sen. Renee Unterman (R-Sugar Hill and Suwanee) favored HB 249 which helped to address the “opioid epidemic” here in Georgia. The bill primarily focuses on making Naloxone, “a prescription-only opioid antagonist,” available to first responders and drug treatment programs. The original sponsor, Rep. Kevin Tanner (R-Dawsonville), submitted the bill giving hospitals and health care facilities access to Naloxone. Unterman said, “funding solutions should be explored by our counties and municipalities to ensure Naloxone is available to first responders and can be replenished after the kit passes an expiration date or is used in the field.” HB 249 accompanies increased funding for medical examiners across the state and more involvement from the Georgia Department of Health. Rep. Joyce Chandler (R-Grayson), a champion for students and parents alike, said her favorite piece of legislation was “HB 32, which was moved into a gutted Senate bill, SB 154, but which never made it to the House floor.” Attempting to protect students from predators, “HB 32 and SB 154 would have strengthened the law regarding sexual offenses against students by including all school employees who have supervisory or disciplinary authority over students.” Chandler noted “Under current law, only teachers and administrators who have supervisory or disciplinary authority over students can be prosecuted for sexual offenses against students. In the last few years, there have been several cases of parapros and a school

secretary who were charged with sexual assault against students but could not be prosecuted. Also, school counselors, media specialists, resource officers, and others cannot be charged under the present law. Both the Georgia Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals have stated in recent decisions that the legislature is remiss in not "fixing" this loophole in the law. While this bill should have passed, but instead got caught in the politics of the last few days of session, it will be carried over into our next session and will, hopefully, be passed in 2018.” Now for my favorite, HB 1, also known as the Georgia Space Flight Act. Sponsored by Rep. Jason Spencer (R-Woodbine) and a favorite of Rep. Brad Raffensperger (R-Johns Creek), HB 1 aimed “to provide for the facilitation of space flight activities in this state.” Woodbine is the heart of Camden County, Georgia, a southeast county almost at the Florida-Georgia line. Spencer passed the legislation so that Camden County can host a commercial spaceport in the near future, making Georgia competitive with other places like Scotland, Wales, and Florida, which are competing to control the commercial spaceflight and satellite markets. With the rise of groups like Elon Musk’s SpaceX, spaceflight will be the future of transportation, innovation, tourism, and militarization. I am thrilled to see the Georgia legislature making space programs a priority. The bills that did not pass this year will probably be seen again in 2018. Georgia legislators move the state forward, implementing new laws and improving current ones. Sadly though, the media and the public tend to ignore bipartisan bills and the hard work behind them, only focusing on controversial subjects. In this respect, the state legislature is very much under appreciated, doing work ‘under the radar’ of the public eye. The work on new and existing bills proceeds in the hope that a few of the best bills end up on the governor’s desk. In the meantime, hardworking committees will continue to meet, and politicians will continue to politick, all in preparation for the 2018 legislative session. b

The Arch Conservative / 11


Craft Brewing Success


ver a century ago, Georgia Governor Hoke Smith signed a statewide bill that prohibited all alcoholic beverages. The temperance movement gripped the country, and the age of prohibition had begun. While the state of Georgia has come a long way since the end of Prohibition, many archaic alcohol laws that have roots in this era still exist. The state of Georgia operates using a three-tier alcohol system that requires brewers and distillers to sell to wholesalers/distributors first who in turn sell to the people. Alcohol reform in the south (especially in Georgia) has been particularly slow due to religious values in addition to the wealthy and politically connected Georgia wholesalers who use an exuberant amount of money and resources to lobby the state. With that being said, in recent years there has been a push to give more rights to microbreweries and distilleries in order to end this decades-long skirmish. In 2015, Senate Bill 63 was passed, and it seemed as if it would be the bill that would turn things around. The bill enabled brewers and distillers to sell tickets for tours where the customers would receive a certain amount of alcohol at the end of the tour. Most importantly, the bill allowed brewers to sell tickets at varying prices to account for the price of the specific type of beer they would receive. The optimism shared by the brewers was quickly deflated when the bill was amended in September making it illegal for brewers to sell ticket packages at varying prices based off the price of the specific beer given to the customer. This amendment was once again the product of the Georgia wholesalers lobbying hard to keep older legislation in place. Ian LaCroix is a freshman studying political science. He is a regular contributor to The Arch Conservative.

12 / The Arch Conservative

The battle between the two parties continued until a senate bill inspired hope in the beginning of this year. Senate Bill 85 was dropped in the senate hopper on January 26th, 2017, and, after passing both the Georgia Senate and the Georgia House, is currently sitting on Governor Nathan Deal’s desk. Sen. Rick Jeffares (R), the sponsor of the bill and Senate Regulated

Industries and Utilities chairman, believes SB 85 will be instrumental in ending years of conflict between brewers and Georgia beer wholesalers. The purpose of the bill, which will go into effect on September 1st of this year if signed by Deal, will be to enable Georgia brewers and distillers to sell a limited amount of alcohol directly to customers instead of being required to sell to wholesalers who in turn distribute to the customers. For brewers, that limited amount is defined as 3,000 barrels a year (A barrel is defined as 31 gallons in this section) of malt beverage for consumption on or off the premises of the brewery. However, the bill sets a limit on the amount of malt beverage that an individual can take off the premises to 288 ounces per day. While the media has mainly reported on the brewery section of this bill, the bill also gives additional selling rights to Georgia

distillers, including fruit-growers who intend to ferment their fruits. It is important to point out that the three-tier system still exists for both brewers and distillers to the extent that the brewery/distillery can only sell the limited amount that the bill grants. As stated before, for brewers, that limit is 3,000 barrels (a total of 93,000 gallons). However, distilleries are only allowed to sell 500 barrels per year (a barrel is defined in this section as 53 gallons). Customers can enjoy this distilled alcohol on and off the premises of the distillery, given that the alcohol taken off the premises does not exceed 2,250 milliliters per customer per day. Despite the limitations for both brewers and distillers, this bill is a step in the right direction towards more lenient brewing and distilling laws. In fact, many breweries/distilleries are overjoyed by this legislation and have plans to expand their operations. Specifically, Wild Heaven Brewery in Atlanta is making an investment of over $5 million on a second brewery along Atlanta’s beltline trail. This new brewery will without a doubt be a major catalyst to boost the economy of both Atlanta and the state of Georgia. While there is still more that the state of Georgia can do in regards to more lenient brewing/distilling laws, Senate Bill 85 is a great step forward and certainly a victory for the craft brewing community and the Georgia economy. If the bill is signed, the state of Georgia is sure to see a rise in the number of microbreweries, brewpubs, and distilleries as well as the expansion of pre existing establishments. Hopefully, the bill will place an emphasis on the importance of small business by fostering a unique entrepreneurial spirit, which seems to be leaving our country. b



Brewery Bill Inspires Hope Among the Craft Brewing Community


Anti-Laptop Teachers Union The Left’s Agenda Will Be Neither Ignored, Compromised, nor Fact-Checked



ver feel bad for the people who simply find themselves incapable of existing outside of the world of social media, those who are perpetually swayed by bogus echo-chambers fueled on ego and linear thought? Well . . . you should. In fact, I’m no statistician, but if you are reading this article I’d wager that your chances in assisting the human race in any meaningful way stand tenfold whatever person prefers texting or scrolling through Facebook to looking ahead on the sidewalk. Again, I’m no cruncher of numbers, so take my claims with a grain of salt. In fact, I am a student, much like you, no doubt (except for you, Mom and Dad. Thanks for being top-tier ArchCon consumers for the past three years). Being a student is quite different from having a job, as all should know. The biggest difference is that one must pay for the privilege. Naturally then, one must attempt to make the most with available money and to use every tool at one’s disposal to achieve success (within the realm of what is legal, of course). We have the ability to type, the ability to record lectures, the ability to fact check our professors on the spot, and the ability to access a free database that boasts more tenure than even the most pompous of PhDs and the most distinguished of Doctors. These little miracles of the modern age give those of us who face an increasingly tough, half-welcoming market a tad bit of an advantage. It truly is a blessing. It is a blessing, at least, until those self-righteous faculty replace the barrier, effectively winding back the clock to a time when the United States gave enough Nick Geeslin is a junior studying international affairs. He is Editorin-Chief to The Arch Conservative.


money to Styx to put them on a top 40 chart, with the facade of improving the student’s experience. The Anti-Laptop teachers Union is one whose roots seek haven in EduPAC, a secret subsidiary of the Democratic Party that intends to indoctrinate students to the Left. EduPAC supports the salaries of Left-leaning teachers who attempt with alarming success to brainwash students into believing their ideology. House Minority Leader Nancy

Pelosi, a longtime politician, is no doubt at the head of the movement, though she denies it time and again. It is all too obvious, however, when the teachers who ban laptops also tend to silence positive remarks about conservative policy. Perhaps it’s not too big a deal. At least not until you take some time to consider: Did you know that, with in-state tuition, you pay at least $390 per credit hour per academic year? Perhaps this should be the statistic that that horrible union of AntiLaptop teachers should first consider when they write up their syllabi. Sure, there are those statistics out there that claim that students who use laptops for note-taking do 15 percent worse and that it even distracts those people around them who choose to take notes by hand. But is it not the responsibility

of the student to achieve good marks in the classroom? Since when, I must ask, did my education depend on an entity with whom I have had no previous relation? Since when did someone’s inability to take their eyes off of BuzzFeed become the impetus for Dr. Allknowing to bar my use of a laptop? To require a fifth grader to use neatly labeled dividers in a Social Studies binder has worth. After all, perhaps that child lives in a house of disorder, and has discovered that his or her key to success in life is by way of an Adrian Monk-like sense of organization. To require an adult to be beholden to the preferences of another’s learning style, however, is entirely unnecessary. I have utter respect for those professors who allow laptops knowing full well that some of their students will spend the class on Facebook instead. For these students there are a pool of possibilities: 1) Their genius renders lectures useless as well as the pursuit of a degree (unlikely); 2) They will suffer (either by way of an all-nighter for a B or concession to a mere passing grade); 3) They will learn the material on their own in the way of the 21st century (and likely learn more about the topic than if only attending lecture); or 4) They will be unable to call upon their previous mentors for a positive professional recommendation. For those who cannot stand for a student to divert his or her attention anywhere other than at the front of the classroom, I suppose there is no other option. Ironically, it is the work of Nancy Pelosi in addition to the Democratic mantra that the ends always justify the means that will eventually turn fickle-minded students toward the correct way of thinking about politics: a critical way of thinking. Only then will we see an increase in conservative college grads. b 

The Arch Conservative / 13


The Shapiro Effect When Facts Meet Feelings on College Campuses


nce bastions of free thought, speech, and creativity, America’s universities have become safe spaces for authoritarian, leftist thinkers and ideologies. From the University of Missouri’s Dr. Melissa Click threatening violence against a journalism student to UC Berkeley’s full-scale riot in protest of Milo Yiannopoulos, it seems that the collegiate extension of the left vs. right culture war is now decisively one-sided. Conservative speakers are often shouted down and disrupted, if they are allowed a platform at all. While the University of Georgia has stayed relatively free of similar incidents that garner national attention, it still reeks of a certain sentiment that is all too familiar in the contemporary collegiate environment that prefers every type of diversity save diversity of ideology. In early April, two examples of this intolerant sentiment occurred at UGA. The Arch Conservative hosted a talk titled “Opportunity Feminism” featuring the founder of Network of Enlightened Women, Karin Agness Lips. Lips asserted that the principles of individual liberties and limited government, emphasized in the conservative platform, are better suited to the enfranchisement of women than the liberal platform that she feels has hijacked modern feminism. She then opened the floor for questions, and while some were fair and respectful, others were vitriolic and often nonsensical. One J. Thomas Perdue is a regular contributor to The Arch Conservative.

14 / The Arch Conservative

student told Lips that she was unqualified to speak on feminism because she had failed to mention genital-mutilation or domestic violence. Lips responded that her talk was more about the economic advancement and that she gave separate talks about those subjects. Another student accused her of only being concerned with the advancement of white women, despite Lips not specifying race at any point and speaking about American women as a whole. Lips did her best to give fair responses to many unfair questions, but the Q&A section of the event frequently descended into shouting and nonproductive rabble. In a similar display in April, Jewish students at UGA, including members of the primarily Jewish sorority Sigma Delta Tau, hosted “Israelfest,” a celebration of Jewish heritage at the Tate Student Center that included falafel and a live camel. The attitude was indeed celebratory on a picturesque Friday afternoon. Then, however, the protesters arrived. A formidable group of students, some associated with Students for Justice in Palestine, showed up to agitate and shout down what had begun as an entirely apolitical event. Most of the demonstrators refused to answer any questions when approached by students trying to get an understanding of what to report about the protest. These megaphoneheavy tactics have become quite common around universities in the United States, and while the protestors’ speech is protected, one might wonder what might have occurred had Ben Shapiro been there on either occasion. Ben Shapiro is a 33 year old political

commentator based in Los Angeles whose campus talks have become popular among college-aged conservatives. He is an orthodox Jew, as evidenced by his yarmulke, which he wears in almost all his public appearances. His education, it is worthwhile to note, is extensive and impressive. Shapiro graduated high school at 16, is an alum of UCLA, and has a law degree from Harvard. Despite his many accomplishments, which include publishing seven books and being a nationally syndicated columnist as well as hosting “the most popular conservative podcast,” his greatest achievement may well be his ability to expose the true colors of leftism in academia. Moreover, he does this by quite simply professing the truth while remaining calm and factual during question and answer sessions and confrontations with students, pundits, professors, and the like. “Facts don’t care about your feelings” is a quote often associated with Shapiro, which concisely summarizes his lectures at various universities. Shapiro’s talks usually involve his explanation of some current hot-button topics, such as socialism, feminism, Black Lives Matter, safe-spaces, micro-aggressions, and what the left gets wrong about them, whether intentionally or inadvertently. After lectures, Shapiro anticipatorily takes questions from the audience, and students are typically not shy about attempting to levy verbal slandering in the name of social justice. The true spectacle comes when Shapiro is confronted by the more radical types, with whom he is consistently able to calmly and factually rebut. Oftentimes, Shapiro reaches a respectful understanding



By J. Thomas Perdue


with said questioners given their genuine interest in learning something from his expertise (as opposed to lecturing him on social justice). He is sharp, confident, and well-spoken throughout. In fact, he will often call for the left-leaning audience members to ask questions first, stating that they are “always more fun.” This is exactly what separates Shapiro from many others who run the college campus circuit. He is not an intentional provocateur like Yiannopoulos, and he does not engage his audiences with stand-up comedy routines as does Steven Crowder (not to diminish either of their services to contributing creatively to the combat against the left); rather, he simply states his beliefs and backs them up with irrefutable facts. Moreover, Shapiro comes to campus not in attempt to further some narrative, but rather to enlighten students on a very legitimate worldview. Unsurprisingly, this does not comport well with college leftists whose modern repertoire consists only of agitation and the heckler’s veto. In fact, they cannot stand it. Last year, Shapiro was banned from giving a talk at DePaul University. "Given the experiences and security concerns that some other schools have had with Ben Shapiro speaking on their campuses,” said Bob Janis, Vice President of facilities operations at the private Chicago institution,“DePaul cannot agree to allow him to speak on our campus at this time.” One might ask to which security concerns Janis refers. Perhaps a New Left activist might pull the fire alarm, or a large group of Social Justice Warriors will chant “Shame!” at Shapiro and his listeners. These disruptions are common and are even supported and perpetuated on some campuses by less enlightened professors, as was the case at Marquette University in Milwaukee


where staff bought tickets in order to take seats from supporters. It should be noted that Marquette supposedly supports a “vigorous yet respectful debate” of ideas on campus. So much for intellectual diversity. The left’s intolerance in dealing with Mr. Shapiro illustrates just how little credibility and backbone the standard bearers of the New Left have, if any at all. Attempts to refute him in a public forum should be encouraged, as Shapiro and his hosting organizations consistently do. However, the attempts made by professors and student groups to take away his platform are truly shameful and anti-intellectual. In fact, the attempts are entirely antithetical to the simple existence of the university by its very definition to offer a marketplace of ideas or ‘diversity’ of opinions from which its students may benefit. Shapiro has never encouraged violence or discrimination of any kind, but simply telling hecklers and detractors alike that “[their] truth is not THE truth,” as he puts it, is enough to send them into a frenzy. The fact that university staff and students actually have the power to prevent Shapiro from speaking is all the more shameful and disappointing. Quite possibly the most infamous incident demonstrating the left’s intolerance came during Shapiro’s appearance on the Headline News (HLN) show “Dr. Drew.” Shapiro and other panelists were discussing Caitlyn Jenner winning the Arthur Ashe Courage Award at the 2016 ESPYs. When he refused to call Jenner or another panelist, transgender reporter Zoey Tur, by their preferred pronouns, Tur threatened Shapiro with physical violence. Tur grabbed him by the shoulder (Tur is much larger than the 5’9” Shapiro) and said, “You cut that out now, or you’ll go home in an ambulance,” a

statement which Shapiro felt was “mildly inappropriate.” (Note: Tur, who became famous as “Chopper Bob” for overflight coverage of the O.J. Simpson Bronco chase and the postO.J. verdict Los Angeles riots, is the biological father of Katy Tur, the NBC reporter who was chosen to cover the Trump campaign for the network). It is important here to note that Shapiro in no way meant anything of malice to these people. For confirmation, see the video. Shapiro’s ironic understatement of the New Left’s actions on campus as “mildly inappropriate” illustrates his skillful handling of this increasingly alarming phenomenon, which is becoming an actual threat to the First Amendment on campus. On being threatened by Tur, Shapiro stated, “Just because the left has designated someone a member of the victim class does not mean that that person gets to infringe the rights of others. Until the left learns that, their aggression will not stop.” Unfortunately, it seems that the aggression will not stop any time soon. Shapiro’s most recent campus talk, given at the University of Florida, was also met with protest. While this one stayed fairly civil, the trend of radical left college students being unwilling to hear anything that deviates from their narrow worldview continues. Some would rather see a platform taken away completely than attempt to refute it with a sober counterargument or accept that not everyone buys into their premises. Shapiro summarizes this ongoing conflict saying, “Freedom of speech and thought matters, especially when it is speech and thought with which we disagree. The moment the majority decides to destroy people for engaging in thought it dislikes, thought crime becomes a reality.” b

The Arch Conservative / 15


The Progressive's Playground

Thoughts on and Tips for Combating an Editorialized Education By Nick Geeslin

Nick Geeslin is Editor-in-Chief to The Arch Conservative.

16 / The Arch Conservative

that 49 percent. When the majority feel it permissible to expand this burden, however, swelling ensues. The most brilliant counter to mob rule, however, is enlightenment through education. Regrettably though, formal education in the United States is becoming too inauspicious an institution to truly provoke enough thought to combat this dangerous notion. This notion, that government is the medium through which all of society’s problems must be solved, is one that has spelled, and still does spell, doom for any nation. The ignorance of this always-evident truth with which so many graduate from college is in contradiction to the objective of an education (and the ultimate reason for declaring education a right in many countries): to endow the populous with the ability to succeed in life and—as an extension of success in life— move them toward a greater understanding of nuances in the world and its history and institutions. Were the implications of such topics being thoroughly taught, included in syllabi, and consequently realized by students, there would be more graduates of a moderate or conservative viewpoint than currently exist. Alas, much of the discussion on campuses today tends to stay within the narrow confines of what the government has yet to do, rather than analyzing the history and implications of the “progress” it has already made. Furthermore, to opine from a conservative standpoint often yields only backlash instead of much-deserved discussion and consideration. For example, one need not look further

than an advertisement for The Arch Conservative’s annual event, in which we promoted Karin Agness Lips’s lecture on the merits of conservative feminism. A response to the advertisement read, in part, as follows: “Conservative ideals (by nature of holding onto historical expectations of gender) limit the freedom in choices women can make in their lives and the positions of power they can fill. This is no more obvious than how our presidential election turned out.” The poster’s objective was, in effect, this: To shut out a vast group of conservative women, to discredit a movement based on the election of one man (one, I might add, whom truly thoughtful conservatives were and are extremely wary of to say the least), and even to discount the right of a woman to address feminism simply because said woman is a “well-off ” and “white” (as another disgruntled audience member suggested at the event), are tragic indicators of what modern feminism has become. And as we saw, all that those on the Left need is a mention of these two entirely paradoxical words: “feminism” and “conservative,” in order to unleash their frustration with the world. No questions need be asked, no consideration need be given to the qualifications of the speaker nor of her accomplishments. No, only a dense display of emotion is required to give reason to these hecklers on the Left. All that is required is a mention of conservatism and feminism to put a definitive end to the discussion. Such is the brilliance of the Left, that




he political environment in which we currently reside is truly rather tragic. When one cannot utter a conservative principle without enduring a self-righteous lecture on morality, there is a serious socio-cultural issue at hand. Upon further consideration, it is apparent the educational institutions of the country are of no help either. College graduates tending to identify as “liberals” are in an increasing majority, according to a PEW Research study by Rob Suls titled “Educational Divide in vote preferences . . .” The change runs averse to the ever-increasing demand for generalizable skills out of college, especially as the job market is morphed by globalization and automation (see The Arch Conservative Weekly Podcast’s inaugural episode for more on the issue). Ultimately, the university system seems to be failing at endowing students with the ability to think critically in regard to the political realm. Truthfully, and unfortunately in some ways as well, "A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine" so says Thomas Jefferson. With certain Leftist intelligentsia assuming that they can engineer society, inevitably by way of expanding the government, the support of the electorate is the only thing standing in their way. And, as government swells, so too does the burden on individual liberty bore by society, most often felt by


they can drive intelligent and thoughtful students to such illiberal tendencies fueled by the movement’s utter delusion. To echo something that Karin Agness Lips mentioned during her lecture, see “The Life of Julia” from former President Barack Obama’s 2012 campaign, wherein “Julia’s” success and happiness in life is defined entirely by her relationship with the government and neither by her individual choices nor by her personal relationships or growth. This is not at all to say that there are not plenty of changes to be made within the government to allow opportunities for all to flourish, but rather that not every change should be one that concentrates power in the hands of the political elite (always at the expense of personal liberty). At any rate, rather than droning on and continuing to lament the drawbacks of a twoparty system in the modern age of self-indulgence and perverse ideas about the purpose of and place for government, I would like to offer advice on ways that one may educate oneself on both sides of an issue. Because it is only then, through self-initiated education, that a person may begin to appreciate the depth of the issues at hand. First, indulge in outside reading. Truly, there is not a single piece of advice that could be of more use than to educate yourself in addition to those readings given in your college syllabi and in your generally uninformative


news reading. Too often do these two sources give one carefully calculated and selected information. Though outside reading can one broaden one's knowledge, vocabulary, and mind. Second, diversify your sources. Watch YouTube videos of Thomas Sowell, Friedrich Hayek, or Milton Friedman debating Keynesian economists. Discover Podcasts from the likes of the always objective and perceptive editors of National Review (a model for The Arch Conservative’s Weekly Podcast, no doubt). Download a text-to-speech app or extension that allows you to breeze through transcripts of William F. Buckley’s essays and speeches. Third, find a conservative acquaintance and, rather than apprehending his or her ideas, come to an understanding of their motivations. In other words, do not dismiss people because they have an ideological bend that you impulsively find repugnant. Challenge each other by listening to one another’s articulations. From personal experience as well as common logic, the broadening of your base of knowledge that will inevitably follow such action will prove invariably priceless. To that last point, if Bernie Sanders could legitimately argue the issues without erroneously (and without significant enough data) conflating capitalism with racism and oppression, he might have been taken more seriously. Then again, his platform may not have been so appealing when placed against

a legitimate test of time, history, and logic. This advice transcends all ideologies, backgrounds, and political preferences and would serve to reward anyone in compliance with the knowledge, skills, and understanding that many, including myself for a time, lack. I choose to end my article with neither condescension nor attacks on the intentions of any activist, but rather with a plea to those who sit on both sides of the aisle who perhaps lack solidity—either in their own beliefs or in their confidence—to discover the best arguments on the other side. Without such knowledge, true political discourse will be forever unachievable. But understand also, dear reader, that the side of the aisle with which my respected colleagues and I most identify boasts more merit and greater intellectual tradition than any person whose heart skips a beat at the word “conservative” would ever care to admit. And thus, I encourage all to look into its scholars, authors, historians, writers, columnists, economists, and thinkers. For all opinions are not of equal footing. When I hear of someone on the Left claim to have read one of Bill Buckley’s essays, I am imbued with a sense of elation, as I assume that I will be able to respectfully discuss the complex issues of the modern world. And complex they are indeed. After all, if there were a simple answer, there would have been a consensus long ago. The way toward the remedies of society, as ever, will result from discussing rather than an excluding ideas. b

The Arch Conservative / 17


A Brisk Departure

Is Brexit the Next Step in a Shift Towards Nationalist Isolationism? By Matthew Jordan

Matthew Jordan is Publishing Editor to The Arch Conservative.

18 / The Arch Conservative

way to maintain peace between the member countries, but also to promote economic prosperity, free trade, and the free movement of people. The vote for a Brexit, a name arising from a slang conglomeration of “British Exit,” was a vote against the European Union. Once viewed as a vehicle for economic growth of Europe, it has now turned into an expensive, interfering bureaucracy. The decision to leave the EU came about for a number of reasons which have been cited by politicians including Prime Minister Theresa May and even far right candidate Marine Le Pen in France, who has voiced her opposition to the EU as she has run her campaign for the French presidency. The main reason was that business in the UK was tired of being bound by EU policy forcing them to pay billions of pounds for membership and seeing little return. Chancellor Philip Hammond, the politician in charge of Her Majesty’s Treasury, was quoted saying that Britain “will not be bound by the EU’s Common External Tariff or participate in the Common Commercial Policy.” In their most simple versions, the Common External Tariff is a tariff on goods entering countries from outside the EU, and the Common Commercial Policy states that business practices will be uniform across EU members and that the EU will negotiate agreements on behalf of all countries. Another issue was the free movement of people, an idea that has been around since the EU’s inception. Originally, it was meant to facilitate the free movement of workers and freedom of establishment. However, this has evolved into EU citizenship enjoyed automatically by every legal

resident of a member state. In her first major speech on Brexit, Theresa May made clear that the UK wants to control immigration, an ideology that does not coincide with the policy of the EU. This is not the first time the UK has fought the free movement of people; David Cameron previously sought limits on EU immigrants, but the EU would not budge. The issue of sovereignty and the ability to make their own decisions is what ultimately led to the referendum passing. Its effects remain to be seen. On March 29th, 2017, Theresa May officially triggered Article 50, the official process a country must go through to leave the European Union. The process takes two years, meaning that the UK is scheduled to formally leave on Friday, March 29th, 2019. For the next two years, while this process is underway, EU laws are to be followed in the UK. The country will continue to abide by EU treaties, but will not take part in any decision-making. Financial Impact of Brexit David Cameron, Chancellor George Osborne, the head of Her Majesty’s Treasury, and other senior officials predicted that post-Brexit there would be an immediate economic crisis in the UK and a recession with a large increase in unemployment. The immediate aftermath of the Brexit vote meant a 15 percent devaluation of the pound in reference to the dollar. Unemployment, though, has fallen to an 11 year low of 4.8 percent and quarterly growth in the UK is estimated to be around 1.8 percent, second only to Germany. Gross domestic product




ver the last seven decades the gradual increase in trade and capital driven by technological innovation culminated in the widespread use of the term: globalism. Some, like Amartya Sen, a Nobel Prize winning economist known for his contributions to the idea of welfare economics, see it as a good thing. In his piece, “The American Prospect,” Sen offers two conflicting perspectives on the idea of globalism. He explains that some view globalization as a gift from western civilization to the world, a gift resulting in a massive increase in living standards. On the other hand, opponents of globalization see it as a continuation of Western imperialism; the idea of contemporary capitalism, driven and led by greed where there are established rules of trade and business relations that do not serve the interests of the poor. This Western idea of globalization is in no way novel, existing wherever ideas and knowledge were spread through travel, trade, migration, and cultural diaspora. So why is it that, after millennia of globalization, countries have been shifting away from this world view and have taken a more country specific approach? Obviously, we see it in the United States under the current administration. Even more significantly, perhaps, the decision of the United Kingdom to leave the European Union represents a major blow to globalization. The EU, established after World War II, has served not only as a


increased by .7 percent after a strong performance by the manufacturing industry. Also, the UK’s Office for Budget Responsibility, an independent overseer, recently revised its growth forecast from 1.4 percent up to two percent. This is still not the best representation of the future of the UK post-Brexit considering that the UK is technically still in the European Union. However, the lengthy process of leaving the EU has highlighted the main issue of the post-Brexit trade deal. The complications of negotiating a post-Brexit trade agreement come from the fact that the such a deal between the UK and the EU needs unanimous approval of more than 30 national and regional parliaments across Europe. The UK is currently part of the EU customs union, a union where countries agree not to impose tariffs on each other’s goods and share a common tariff on imported goods. This will become null and void if the UK indeed does exit the EU. As a member of the European Union, the UK was required to follow the trade deals and business practices established by the entire bloc, another impetus in their departure. What this means for the UK is that they must now negotiate their own trade deals and, more specifically, they must establish a deal with the EU. In practice, it is possible for a country to be outside of the EU but still have access to the market, an example being Norway. However, as a stipulation of this agreement, Norway must adopt the free movement of people and must comply with EU legislation, both issues the UK had with being a member country. So what are the possible outcomes of the UK negotiating leaving the EU?

the EU. A hard Brexit would involve the UK refusing to compromise on the free movement of people in order to maintain access to the EU single market while at the other end, a soft Brexit might mimic Norway, which is a member of the single market but must accept the free movement of people. Given the reasoning behind the referendum passing, many are skeptical of the two parties reaching a deal at all. EU officials have said that they will not give in easily and that the UK cannot pick and choose the elements of the EU it wants to keep. In theory, it could elect not to adopt the free movement of people but endure rescinded access to the single market as a result. This, in turn, would increase the cost of business. Canada has access to the market but is not a part of it, another possible alternative for the UK. Achieving this deal however could take many years; seven in the case of Canada. If no deal is reached at all, it would not necessarily be a loss in the mind of PM Theresa May. She believes that no deal is better than a bad deal. If no deal is reached, the UK would have to follow World Trade Organization rules. Under WTO guidelines, tariffs on exported goods would increase, but PM May is intent on pursuing a free trade deal to significantly lower the costs of leaving the EU. She reasons that the UK could make up for any trade loss by negotiating their tariffs with other countries and lower barriers elsewhere. These bilateral trade deals, similar to the ones that President Trump is pushing for the United States, take time and the UK would be unable to begin negotiations until 2019, significantly lowering their bargaining power.

Soft Brexit versus a Hard Brexit These terms have been used as the focus of debates following the UK’s exodus from

What’s Next for the European Union? In the United States, the Trump administration is abandoning the ideas of multilateral


trade deals and globalization in regards to the idea of renegotiating the North American Free Trade agreement and withdrawing from the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Now in the United Kingdom after the Brexit vote, they are aiming to negotiate their own trade deals to have the freedom to make their own decisions regarding how business is conducted in their country. In addition to actions that have already been taken, Marine Le Pen advocates for a Brexit-like referendum in France. If she were to both win the election taking place later this year and succeed in the referendum, the second and third biggest economies in the EU would be gone. The Brexit vote instilled a sense of fear some, bringing up the possibility that its exit could prompt the unraveling of the EU. Many European leaders believe that the only mode of action is to generate support through economic and security benefits. In a show of support for the European Union, all 27 national leaders signed a declaration on the 60th anniversary of the EU in Rome on March 25th of this year which concluded: “We have united for the better. Europe is our common future.” However, this idea of unity is under pressure due to the shift in politics of EU member countries. Later this year, many elections will take place where populist parties opposed to the European union and in favor of referendums on membership of the euro, the EU, or both, are likely to do well. The future of the European Union is up in the air right now and will be until elections are held later this year. The declaration that was signed in Rome to unite members of the EU is a positive step towards maintaining this union but the effects of Brexit could be felt regardless of the result, placing the future of globalization more firmly on the shifting sands of national ideology. b

The Arch Conservative / 19


Private Market, Public Benefits Industrial Regulations Are Also Environmental Burdens By Sydney North

Sydney North is Managing Editor to The Arch Conservative.

20 / The Arch Conservative

substances are declining as we expected,” and explained that “the Montreal Protocol has led to that decline.” Even the conservative British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher expressed great support for the regulatory protocol. Speaking on behalf of Great Britain in a 1990 speech to the Ozone Layer Conference, Thatcher stated, “The Montreal Protocol was an historic achievement. It provided the first real evidence that the world will have to cooperate in order to tackle the major environmental issues.” In fact, surprising to many, two of the most ardent supporters of the heavily regulatory Montreal Protocol were Conservative British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and Republican President Ronald Reagan. Thatcher, a trained chemist, and Reagan, a pro-business conservative hero of sorts, both staunchly supported the treaty’s restriction on CFCs. Not content to simply express his approval of the United States’ 1988 ratification of the amendment by articulating his belief that “the protocol marks an important milestone for the future quality of the global environment and for the health and wellbeing of the people of the world,” Reagan also pushed other countries to follow suit in signing the treaty. In an April 1988 address, Reagan stated: Our immediate challenge, having come this far, is to promote prompt ratification by every signatory nation. I believe the Montreal protocol, negotiated under the auspices of the United Nations Environment Programme, is an extremely important environmental agreement. It provides for internationally coordinated

control of ozone-depleting substances in order to protect a vital global resource. It requires countries that are parties to reduce production and consumption of major ozone-depleting chemicals by 50 percent by 1999. It creates incentives for new technologies chemical producers are already working to develop and market safer substitutes, and establishes an ongoing process for review of new scientific data and of technical and economic developments. It seems odd that the free-market loving Reagan, an icon of the American right, would so publicly and so enthusiastically put his support behind a measure so regulatory and so geared to artificially manufacture innovation through government urging. In many ways, it is the antithesis of what one would expect from a man so highly regarded in the conservative sphere. However, when looking closely at the Montreal Protocol, and more widely at the history of international environmental treaties, there are more surprising players behind the scenes than even Reagan and Thatcher. It is a basic tenant of economic conservatism that the private market can do a better, more efficient job of solving the world’s problems than can the heavy hand of government interference. The technologically advanced society of 2017 is living, breathing, interconnected proof of this theory. We see the basic improvements that private industry has had on society every day—increasingly inexpensive mobile phones, smart televisions, and WiFi for example. These things all come from clearly privatized industries. However, oft ignored is the large role that




he Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, more commonly known as the Montreal Protocol, is an international treaty that was signed into law in 1987. The purpose of the treaty was to reduce ozone depletion over Antarctica by phasing out the use and production of substances—primarily chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and halons—to 80 percent of their 1986 levels by 1994, and 50 percent of their 1994 levels by 1999. The protocol, which is an addition to the Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer, has been widely considered one of the most successful regulatory actions taken in favor of the environment to date. After the ratification of the protocol by every single country in the world, the first protocol ever to have universal ratification, the Montreal Protocol supposedly proved its effectiveness by quickly and significantly lowering the amount of ozone depleting chemicals in production, and allowing the ozone to begin regeneration. The protocol has been so widely hailed as a success that even today, thirty years later, journalists, scientists, policy makers, and civilians alike continue singing its praises. In 2012, Mario Molina of the New York Times wrote that the protocol is “a planet saving treaty” and “a climate success story to build on.” Paul Newman, a senior atmospheric scientist at NASA, said of the Montreal Protocol to Live Science in 2011, “Ozone depleting


private industry has played in the success of public agency as well. In October 2016, 140 countries, including the U.S., resolved to adopt a resolution to the Montreal Protocol entitled the “Kigali Amendment.” In April 2017, Mali became the first nation to officially ratify the amendment, and others will soon follow suit. The amendment would do to hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), a stable chemical used in refrigerant that replaced CFCs after their phase-out, what the Montreal Protocol initially did to CFCs: reduce their production and use by at least 80 percent over the next 30 years. Some of the biggest supporters of this amendment? Chemical companies like Honeywell and DuPont. For years, Honeywell, DuPont, and other chemical manufacturers have been innovating chemicals and creating more sustainable substances to use in coolants and refrigerants. However, the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) burdensome process for new chemical approval under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) often make the process of a company’s introduction of a modern, greener product to be a strenuous task. Under TSCA Section V, companies must submit new chemicals that meet certain manufacturing and commercial standards to review by the EPA. After lengthy examination of the chemical, if it meets the EPA’s criteria, the chemical will be placed on an inventory list of products that are acceptable for consumer use. Even under bipartisan supported updates to TSCA in 2016 under the Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act (LCSA), the review process for new chemicals from the EPA is, as is to be expected from any bureaucratic agency, exasperatingly slow, and the results are often backed by poor, non-peer reviewed science. By requiring a phase-out of other materials through international protocol, however, the EPA may be forced to speed up their review process for new chemicals, which now must be used in order to replace the newly banned substances. Companies like DuPont, Honeywell, and others do not necessarily see international treaties, such as the Montreal Protocol and Kigali Amendment, as an opportunity to push out competition, since they themselves are producers of the substances the protocols attempt to phase out. Rather, companies producing the chemicals that are necessary to our everyday life as postmodern Americans can use the protocols as a gateway to introduce their new products to a market with a high demand for green goods.


Perhaps a similar situation occurred during the passage of the Montreal Protocol in 1987. Perhaps companies had already created new products for use in replacement of CFCs, products that were difficult to introduce to the market because of burdensome regulations. And, perhaps, that is part of the reason that conservatives, like Reagan, were willing and able to support protocols that would help introduce new products into the market. It is true, what NASA scientist Paul Newman said to Live Science: ozone depleting substances are declining, and global warming chemicals are following them swiftly out the door. But it is entirely plausible that this is because of innovations in the private market, not because of international treaties with no mandating power. It is important to note that producers of chemicals and manufactured substances have a fiscal stake in creating green products. Operating within an increasingly hypersensitive and environmentally aware society, chemical companies can only survive as long as they can innovate. But, to continue innovation that benefits industry, environment, and human health alike, the U.S. and the EPA must loosen regulations and expedite the process for new products to be introduced into the marketplace. It should not take years of lobbying and multiple phase-out protocols to get new products on inventory lists and make them available for consumer use. The notions spouted by the left that federal bureaucracy is our only chance at saving the environment is fallacious. Private industry has created many new “environmentally friendly” products—replacement chemicals, electric cars, renewable energies, etc. Bureaucracy has created none. Furthermore, private industry has just as much opportunity, if not more, to create international cooperation on environmental health issues than federal government. If the federal government leaves economic borders open, as it has done in the past and as is now, unfortunately, unpopular with the far-left and Trumpian-right, demand from American consumers to buy from companies that promote environmentally sound production, both domestically and abroad, can encourage companies overseas to adhere to the same strict environmental standards to which producers in the U.S. adhere. If American consumers want to see environmentally sustainable manufacturing practices reach across borders, then utilizing their purchasing power provided by a laissez-faire

marketplace is the best way to accomplish this goal. Ultimately, under a free-market system, manufacturers will only provide what consumers will buy. If American consumers cease to buy products that they do not believe meets their “environmental conscience” as a society, then producers, in order to stay afloat, will also cease to produce the products. In turn, this will create a competitive marketplace for green products—a marketplace vastly more eco-friendly and efficient than the overpriced, uncompetitive one available now, thanks to under-innovation facilitated by over-regulation in industry. One’s personal beliefs on the issue of global warming and climate change should not matter when evaluating the effects of burdensome EPA parameters. Whether you are a proponent or opponent of the controversial science behind climate change, the benefits of the free-market in any area of manufacturing and production, including the green-sector, apply. If the free market has been successful in providing innovation in every other sector of post-industrial society, it is baffling to hinder its beneficial effects on the green industry. The EPA and U.S. regulatory laws must be reformed to allow for greater flexibility in creating environmentally sustainable products. Conceivably, the profits that industries would save through lessened environmental compliance mandates as well as the time and effort saved simply pushing products through approval by the EPA could be reinvested into research for newer, more innovative materials. Perhaps by minimizing the federal burden placed on industry, we could increase the power of consumer preference and live in an economically free society where the good will of the people, not protocols, are the only necessity for protecting the environment. b

The Arch Conservative / 21


The Power of Conservative Principles A Review of George Nash's Timeless Masterpiece


n intellectual movement in a narrow sense [conservatism] certainly was, yet one whose objective was not simply to understand the world but to change it, restore it, preserve it.” It was this task that ignited an intellectual movement—a movement which Dr. George H. Nash has recounted in his timeless masterpiece, The Conservative Intellectual Movement in America Since 1945 . Dr. Nash is a widely acclaimed scholar, lecturer, writer, and student of the conservative movement whose lucubration led him to first publish this magnum opus in 1976. His goal—which he achieved masterfully—was to tell the story of how and why the American Right went from seemingly disparate and fissiparous factions in the early days following World War II to the potent, formidable force by which Americans came to know it in the 1980s. Dr. Nash first imparts to the reader the magnitude of the divide among the formerly rudderless Right in the early days following 1945. And it is indispensible for one to grasp the chasm between the factions in order that one may truly appreciate the Right’s subsequent unification and metamorphosis into a respectable movement. Three factions comprised “the Right” in those early days: “classical liberalism” or libertarianism, “traditionalism,” and “anti-Communism.” Libertarianism or “classical liberalism” Ross Dubberly is Assistant Editor to The Arch Conservative.

22 / The Arch Conservative

operated within the confines of the great liberal tradition espoused by John Locke, Adam Smith, and John Stuart Mill, among others. It was this faction that claimed unrivaled minds such as F.A. Hayek, Ludwig von Mises, Milton Friedman, and the so-called Austrian School of economics. At the other end of the spectrum of the Right lay the “traditionalists” or “new conservatives,” chief among whom was the redoubtable Russell Kirk. The desideratum of the traditionalists was the restoration of the political pursuits of virtue and ethics, which was, so they believed, emblematic of the “Great Tradition.” Moreover, they lionized Edmund Burke—at times ad nauseam—which itself invited animadversions from some on their own side. And finally, there was the ferocious “antiCommunism” faction, which proudly touted such matchless minds as James Burnham and Whittaker Chambers. This faction was particularly unique, for it strongly magnetized disaffected ex-radicals. Indeed, it was not uncommon at all to find apostates of the Communist religion among this faction of conservatives. Professor Nash illuminates the obvious fact that the Right had no dearth of great minds. And yet, he points out, the ideological propensities of these minds seemed to be in an incorrigible decline. Nevertheless, conservatism made a fascinating comeback. And while the book gives the Right’s recovery the fair and analytical recount that any scholarly work should, even the commendable impartiality of professor Nash fails to dilute the sheer wonder that this remarkable

rebound evokes. But conservative intellectualism was hardly even a movement in the early days of the post-World War II era. It was more of an eclectic, multifaceted group of brilliant thinkers who lacked any intellectual platform or any real sense of discernable direction other than disdain for the excesses that characterized the statists’ status quo. The Right had a considerable amount of principle at this time, but lacked a real purpose. However, it didn’t take long for this to change. The quasi-movement came to recognize that its own disorganization, infighting, and tiny platform would ultimately have dreadful consequences. Indeed, it became a common understanding among conservative intellectuals that if their desire to change the course of the country remained a mere velleity, it would mean more than just the death of an ideology. And thus, as professor Nash shows the reader, the various factions began to organize their own thinkers into respectable organizations, journals, and academic societies. The Mont Pelerin Society; the Foundation for Economic Liberty; intellectual journals like Russell Kirk’s Modern Age, the Freeman, and, of course, William F. Buckley’s National Review were all the result of the new Right, a quasi-intellectual movement, understanding the reality that dissemination of their ideas would first be required for revival. If there is one theme that runs throughout professor Nash’s book it is this: that the conservative intellectual movement was not



By Ross Dubberly


an end in itself. Their goals were quite the contrary, in fact. Abstract arguments about liberty, constitutionalism, the “Great Tradition,” and so on were indeed important. But if principle was important, political power was paramount. For without the political power to implement ideas, academic debates were just that—academic. This realization, it seems, was the Great Awakening of the Right. And no one understood the Right’s precariousness better than Frank S. Meyer. Meyer recognized that traditionalism and libertarianism, standing on their own, would not withstand the statists’ deviousness. Thus, Professor Nash explains: He insisted that conservatives must absorb the best of both branches of the divided conservative mainstream. This was the true heritage of the West—‘reason operating within tradition’ (p. 176). Consequently, he and others pushed for a new amalgamation between the factions of freedom and traditionalism, which came to be termed fusionism. And though Meyer hated the term, it was an idea that quickly took root amongst many of the Right’s intellectuals. While it was indeed Meyer who was fusionism’s progenitor, it was William F. Buckley Jr. and his National Review that best embodied it. Indeed National Review became the megaphone through which conservatives—whether traditionalist, antiCommunist, or libertarian—came to voice their ideas. The conservative intellectual push, while still saddled with much to accomplish, was becoming a formidable intellectual movement that could no longer be insouciantly dismissed by the liberal establishment. Although conservatism was rising in


esteem, again, it is clear from professor Nash’s book that the respect of the New York Times and university academics was not the goal of the intellectuals of the new American Right: Its goal was not conventional power and prestige but the implementation of ideas for the simple reason, as we have already seen, that they wanted the civilized world to survive. But some, such as Whittaker Chambers, were not overly optimistic at this prospect. In 1954, Chambers wrote to William F. Buckley Jr.: No, I no longer believe that political solutions are possible for us. . . . The enemy—he is ourselves. That is why it is idle to talk about preventing the wreck of Western civilization. It is already a wreck from within (p. 127). Readers cannot help but notice that this was written in 1954—quite early in the postwar conservative intellectual movement. And while certainly not shared by all conservatives, or even a majority, such gloom and lachrymose nostalgia within its ranks begs an inquiry into how the Right managed to survive at all, given the fact that conservatives lacked a political candidate until Goldwater in 1964, and victory eluded them until Reagan in 1980. Perhaps this can be explained, in part, by a quotation from Buckley in the midst of a wave of calls for appeasement, recognition, and coexistence with the Soviet Union: “. . . Better the chance of being dead, than the certainty of being Red. And if we die? We die.” One cannot help but think that Buckley, as well as many other conservatives, felt similarly about the fight for the preservation of Western civilization on America’s own soil—better to ferociously fight and lose the

ideological war than not to fight it at all. Maybe Chambers was correct—perhaps the Left had already won and any efforts at resistance were futile. But even so, the Right kept its spirits high if for no other reason than for its cognizance of the fact that its ideas and principles were timeless. And while the modern, liberal age may have rejected them, this was to say nothing about the rightness and truth of the principles themselves. Therefore, with the stakes so high, the cause of the conservative demanded nothing less than a fight à outrance. It was this belief that carried the movement through the radical ’60s, tumultuous ’70s, and into the triumphant ’80s, making for decades of rich history in the process. And herein lies The Conservative Intellectual Movement’s magnificence. It tells the story of the conservative intellectual movement, albeit from a scholar’s perspective, and highlights the purpose and principles that kept most conservatives vibrant, notwithstanding the magnitude and seemingly hopeless nature of their task. Moreover, the story professor Nash tells in this conservative classic is one that clearly illuminates a movement replete with a sense of duty; a duty to receive the torch of civilization— a torch stained with the fingerprints of timeless thinkers, matchless sages, and courageous leaders—with honor, reverence, and resolve, regardless of portents of its future. And while Ronald Reagan would not utter them until many years later during his Second Inaugural Address, his words capture the burden that the conservative intellectual movement assumed, and assumed with zeal, decades before in order that the torch’s flame may continue to rage: “If not us, who? And if not now, when?” b

The Arch Conservative / 23

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

America’s Foremost Political Magazine

The Arch Conservative, Summer 2017  

Enlightening insight and astute opinions combine with aesthetic appeal to produce this, the Summer 2017 edition of The Arch Conservative in...

The Arch Conservative, Summer 2017  

Enlightening insight and astute opinions combine with aesthetic appeal to produce this, the Summer 2017 edition of The Arch Conservative in...