SCOTUS as a Political Institution

On January 27, Justice Stephen Breyer, the most senior justice of the United States Supreme Court, announced his retirement from the court at the beginning of October. During the announcement, Justice Breyer held up a pocket copy of the United States Constitution and stated “People have come to accept this Constitution, and they’ve come to accept the importance of a rule of law.” Textualist interpreters would rightfully note the irony in Breyer’s statements, as he has played an active role in reshaping the constitution according to his activist interpretation to suit radical policies, rather than judging the document according to how it was written. But Breyer’s statement highlights a deeper issue: that the Supreme Court is often rooted more in the rule of politics than in the rule of law. While recent vitriolic battle over appointments has made this more apparent, the U.S. Supreme Court has been a political institution almost since its inception.

Initially deemed by Alexander Hamilton as the least dangerous of the three branches of government, the Supreme Court first emerged as a political institution through the 1801 case Marbury v. Madison. The justices faced the task of determining whether to force James Madison to deliver a commission as justice of the peace for William Marbury, one of John Adams’ midnight appointments, which Madison had refused to deliver. Chief Justice John Marshall wrote the majority opinion, ruling that the court did not have original jurisdiction in Marbury’s case, striking down a section of the 1789 Judiciary Act that expanded the jurisdiction of the court outside of constitutional stipulations. This established the power we now know as “judicial review” through which legislative and executive actions are subject to judicial scrutiny. With this establishment of this power, Marshall managed to preserve a veneer of impartiality by avoiding a seemingly partisan judgment on Marbury’s case. However, the establishment of judicial review also arguably marked the beginning of the Supreme Court’s entrance into the political arena, with justices having a de facto ability to strike down or even make laws from the bench.

56 years later, Chief Justice Roger Taney would make this sinister ability apparent in his opinion in Dred Scott v. Sandford. Even prior to the case, some hoped for the court to resolve the issue of slavery in the United States, and so included provisions in the Compromise of 1850 to ensure appeals on the matter went before the court. The key moment came when Dred Scott sued for his freedom on account of living with his master in a state where slavery was prohibited. While representing Scott, Montgomery Blair thoroughly cited the writings of the Founders that illustrated the power of the federal government to restrict slavery, and that masters who had taken slaves to free states in the past had been made to free them, proving Scott had both the law and precedente on his side.

Unfortunately for Dred Scott, Chief Justice Taney was both from a slave owning background and had tremendous animus toward the abolitionist movement. Moreover, Taney was keen to use his power of judicial review to settle the slavery problem permanently. Chief Justice Taney stated in the majority opinion that, not only did Congress not have the power to regulate slavery, but created an argument out of thin air that blacks were never intended to be and could not be United States citizens. Taney’s attempt to use the court as a political arbiter caused the already simmering tensions concerning slavery to boil over, contributing to the worsening crisis that led to the Civil War.

In the succeeding decades, the court has continued to prove itself a highly political institution, with its judgment often depending on the philosophy of the justices on the bench. This political judgment has been made readily apparent by social decisions handed down by the court, such as in Griswold v. Connecticut and Roe v. Wade. In each of these cases, the court handed down judgments not at all grounded in the rule of law, but certainly grounded in the rule of politics. As a matter of fact, legal scholar John Hart Ely once said of Roe that the case “sets itself a question the Constitution has not made the Court's business” while legal scholar Laurence Tribe concluded “the substantive judgment on which [Roe] rests is nowhere to be found.” Indeed, as the historical decisions of the court make clear, the Supreme Court has always been a consistently political institution, even if pretenses exist which declare such to be untrue.

Behavior by both the legislative and executive branches concerning the court also firmly establishes the Supreme Court as a political, rather than unprejudiced legal institution. Shortly after Chief Justice Taney’s death in 1864, Abraham Lincoln quickly saw fit to nominate Salmon Chase as his replacement, a man whose philosophy was precisely the opposite of Taney’s concerning slavery. In 1937, Franklin Roosevelt's proposed court packing scheme may have encouraged the formerly hostile court to begin accepting his New Deal legislation. While Congress has been slower to acknowledge the political nature of the court, the increasingly partisan nomination hearings, beginning with the rejection of Robert Bork in 1987, are testament that the legislative branch has also come to realize that court’s position as an additional legislative conduit.

While the Founders certainly did not plan for the Supreme Court to become another partisan engine, it nonetheless has manifested in such a way throughout the majority of its existence. Whatever the court was intended to be, it has all too often acted as a largely unaccountable oligarchy, able to overturn and establish law under the cover of judicial review and dress these questionable interpretations with colorful legal language that makes vague reference to the law. Unfortunately, whatever reform might be implemented to hold justices accountable for presumably partisan rulings would in and of itself likely amount to partisan activity. 

In 1804, amid allegations of partisanship, Associate Justice Samuel Chase was impeached with the encouragement of President Thomas Jefferson, in no small part because he perceived Chase favorable to the Federalist Party. Chase was eventually acquitted by the Senate in 1805, and no federal judge has since faced impeachment on partisan grounds since. Thus, much as it might be wished that judges who issue blatantly activist rulings could be held accountable, it is almost certain that setting such a precedent would invite a flurry of impeachments against judges who rule contrary to the perspective of the party in power. 

Ironically, in the absence of a viable formal system of accountability, the best solution would seem to be a modified version of the screening technique so often employed by Democrats who hope to appoint activist judges to the court. Yet, rather than screen justices by willingness to bend and reshape the law, textualists must instead examine candidates to ensure a consistent application of the laws by candidates as they are written, and be unafraid of rejecting judges who do not pass muster. While Democrats have generally seen fit to offer substantial resistance to originalist appointments, Republicans seem to be reluctant to do so, with Justices Ginsburg and Breyer receiving majority approvals of 96 and 87 votes respectively despite their activist leanings. If the originalist interpretation of the Constitution is to be preserved, Conservatives must take a similarly unyielding approach to judicial confirmations.

Toxic Elitism and a Defense of the Uneducated

Being born and raised in Alabama and now attending a New England liberal arts college, I stand at an interesting intersection of viewpoints between two groups that often talk of each other in American discourse, but never seem to really understand each other. These two groups are the liberal educated elites and those who have been labeled the populist uneducated Trump supporters. I do not believe it is fair to label them as simply Trump supporters, because their ideology is bigger than just Trump, but he has embodied the idea so well in the last few years that that is what they have been referred to by academics and the media.

The contention between these two groups is inflamed by the media that has enjoyed showing maps over the past few years comparing those without college degrees to those with college degrees. The media then chooses to make it a point of discussion and often a problem. While there is no issue with presenting these facts, the media chooses to focus on them to a point of obsession, trying to plant in the minds of the American people that we simply must educate the masses for four more years after highschool in order to usher in a new Democratic utopia. This appears to be the mindset of the liberal elites.

From my experience there is no greater place to learn about the educated liberal elite mindset than from inside the walls of many of this country's colleges and universities. Fundamentally, I have found, through listening to my college professors, that the stance of many academics on the psychology of what we will call Trump supporters can be summarized by the concept of politics of resentment.

Politics of resentment is the concept that every position that these so-called “uneducated” Trump supporters take on an issue is only adopted because they wish to oppose the educated elite. Their motivation, therefore, is that the Trump supporters resent the educated and their elitist attitudes towards them. An example I was given in class was that it was said that Trump supporters only support protections on gun rights because they resent the elites trying to impose restrictions. Their opposition is then presumed not from a perception of tyranny, but rather because they resent the elites because they are jealous of their status and power. In this way, the liberal elites see themselves as the concerned parent who has to take away or control something, for example a cellphone, because as the parent they know better and should be trusted to do so for the betterment of the child.

This idea attempts to ignore any other reason a Trump supporter might support gun rights, such as for hunting, protection from criminals with guns, or most importantly as a means to defend oneself against a tyrannical government. Additionally, in our now intersectional world, this concept has been tied to racism and white supremacy, with claims that Trump supporters do not support woke notions like implicit racial bias simply because they wish to rebel against the elites. I encourage those interested in the concept to simply search ‘politics of resentment’ or even ‘uneducated Trump supporters’ and look at the alarming number of support and discussion of the largely academic concept online.

To be clear, I do not see uneducated as an insult, simply as a distinction that someone has not received a college education, and would prefer a different term to be used because it is in fact extraordinarily rare to find someone who is completely uneducated in the US. Instead uneducated has come to mean those who have not received a college degree. This statement in and of itself is very concerning, considering the vast majority of those we call uneducated in America have gone through 13 years of schooling and received a highschool diploma or underwent the efforts to get a GED. Instead though, this idea of politics of resentment shows us that many of these liberal elites, whether they will admit it or not, see a college degree as a license to have an opinion. Without this distinction that requires you to attend a four year college or university, and for most pay thousands of dollars, you are not allowed to have a valid opinion as you have not been taught how to think by an accredited institution. 

The issue with this line of thinking is that the ability to think and to reason is not dependent on a college degree. Someone born to a rich family may be able to be pushed through a bachelor's degree program while someone from a poorer background may elect to enter a trade due to financial concerns, even if the individual from the poorer background has the capabilities to excel in a college setting. I would even go so far as to argue that a college education has little to no bearing on how rational one’s political opinions are. The problem with the college curriculum is that it often deals in theory and ideals and rarely in practice and application. Those who enter college are often taught idealistic philosophies that can often fall under Marxist or utopian umbrellas from professors who subscribe to the ideas of liberal elites, while those who don’t attend college are forced to see the real world and the realities that come with that. These people often do not gain the idealistic perspective of changing the world that is purveyed to many college students.

On the flip side of this contention, I can often say that many of these “uneducated” Trump supporters have a bad take on many issues, and while I often agree with them politically, I agree for different reasons. Despite this, they still clearly have reasons for which they have their opinions. These reasons may not be as nuanced as a political science student who has studied the issues extensively, but the question can still be asked: how much do we actually talk about the relevant issues in college political science classes? During my 2 ½ years as a political science major, we have never once talked about important issues in the modern American landscape, like abortion or gun control, in any serious capacity, only side references by professors which usually indicate their political leanings.

It is clear that a college education oftentimes does not give you more reasons or evidence to pull upon for the many important issues, but instead the ability to convey that information more effectively. Every class I have taken at Holy Cross under the political science umbrella has had me write at least two essays, generally more, to which I am judged on how well I can rhetorically craft an argument. From my experience, these essays have never been about the issues that politicians care about, though there may be rare exceptions. Instead, the essays focus on topics like the pros and cons of certain party systems or the different philosophies around the idea of a social contract. The bulk of what colleges teach on politics is about structure rather than the issues. This is the focus of a liberal arts education, to which those who distinguish between educated and uneducated in such a vitriolic manner judge others by. The emphasis in a liberal arts education on crafting arguments is not to rationalize one’s opinions, but rather to convince others. Those who lack this education may not be able to articulate their ideas as well, but that does not mean that they do have them. They may not be equipped to run the system as elected officials, but they are certainly equipped to vote on them competently.

A Response to the New Spring Semester Restrictions

On the morning of January 7th, President Vincent Rougeau sent an email to the Holy Cross community in which he announced multiple restrictions for the beginning of the spring semester. These restrictions include a phased return to campus, universal virtual learning for the first week of classes, and allowing professors to pick whether they will teach in-person or online for the following week. Additionally, President Rougeau banned indoor dining for an unknown period of time, prohibited the wearing of cloth masks, and reiterated both the college’s booster requirement and the ban on attendance at sporting events. Many of these rather draconian measures are only predicated upon unfounded fear, and are not based in science. 

For the entirety of last semester, President Rougeau and the COVID Core Team stated that they had “not seen evidence of cases being spread in classrooms” (Rougeau, Important: COVID-19 Rates, What You Need to Know and Do, 9/5/2021). This position was reiterated multiple times throughout the semester in numerous emails, addresses, and different communications from the administration. In fact, the administration often mentioned that in-person classes were some of the safest places to be on campus. In order to make them even more safe, the administration prohibited the wearing of neck gators and other similar facial coverings in classrooms. As a result, our classes were entirely safe, and there were basically no documented cases of COVID coming from them.

For this upcoming semester, the school has protected the student body with even more measures. They have banned certain less protective facial coverings like cloth masks, and have required students to be boosted in order to return to campus. Even though it is widely recognized that the Omicron variant is more transmissible than the Delta variant, it does not make sense that a more protected campus cannot safely have in-person classes. Are booster shots and highly protective masks not enough for our administration? Are these requirements not enough to prevent transmission in classrooms? If they are not enough to prevent transmission on January 24th, then why would they be enough to prevent cases on February 7th? If this is not sufficient to safely have in-person classes, which I am paying over $70,000 to have, then what is? Is the administration’s goal to have zero COVID cases on our campus? If so, we will be seeing online classes from the beginning of spring semester until our grandchildren graduate from Holy Cross. The administration has not done an adequate job explaining why these added measures are not enough to stop the spread of the Omicron variant on campus. 

Leading experts, government officials, and even the administration’s favorite alumnus, Dr. Anthony Fauci, have stated that “it’s safe enough to get those kids back to school”. If our administration is not even following the measures promoted by Dr. Fauci, who is widely considered to be one of the most pro-restriction public health officials in the nation, and who Holy Cross has constantly held up as the beacon of public health messaging, then who exactly are we following? The students in Worcester’s parochial and public schools have safely been able to attend classes throughout this surge, and those students do not have a requirement to be fully vaccinated or boosted, and they can wear cloth masks. If these students are able to access in-person classes, then why are the fully vaccinated and boosted students on Mount Saint James unable to access the same thing?

Another aspect of the administration’s policy that does not make sense is that they are banning some of the safest activities that could occur on our campus — in-person classes — but they are seemingly going to allow some of the riskiest activities to occur — partying. The administration is going to allow students to come to campus to take online classes. Everyone knows that most students who come to campus will attend their online classes, but they will also party. The administration may try to ban students from entering other residence halls, or they may impose capacity limits in dorm rooms, but that did not stop students last year when we were all unvaccinated, and it will not stop fully vaccinated and boosted students this semester. If the college was unable to stop students from doing these things last year, then how would they be able to stop it this year when even fewer students are concerned about catching COVID.

Additionally, the school has closed indoor dining for the near future. There is no prominent public health official in our entire government who is even considering banning indoor dining. This is not recommended by the CDC, and all restaurants in the Commonwealth are open for indoor dining at full capacity. The administration should show us the evidence that proves that indoor dining is contributing to the spread of the virus. In two weeks time, I will be able to eat at any restaurant in the City of Worcester with my friends, but I will not be able to dine inside Kimball Dining Hall. The administration is bringing back the restrictions that we had last year. They know that these restrictions negatively impacted the mental health of the student body, and despite the fact that we are a campus of fully vaccinated and boosted students, the administration is treating the situation like January 2021. It is, frankly, absurd.

Over the last few days, I have come to the conclusion that the administration and large portions of the faculty are composed of people who are unnecessarily fearful of catching COVID. This is not an attack on our wonderful faculty, who I admire and have appreciated throughout my time here at Holy Cross. Additionally, I recognize that many faculty members have pre-existing conditions that place them at greater risk to the effects of COVID, even though they are fully vaccinated and boosted. However, if masks, vaccines, and boosters work, then they should not be afraid. These measures do work, and they worked last semester. Throughout the last semester, students were very good at following the directives of their professors — even those of us who are mask-weary —  by wearing our masks in classrooms, and especially by wearing them when meeting with professors during office hours. If the administration truly believed that masks and booster shots worked, then they would not be afraid of having in-person classes for the first couple weeks of the semester.

At some point, the administration must accept that COVID is going to become an endemic disease that is not at all threatening to healthy, fully vaccinated, and boosted adults. They will also have to come to the realization that most individuals will probably catch COVID in the not-too-distant future, and they are only delaying the inevitable while worsening student mental health, the bonds of friendship, and our community’s cohesion. We cannot continue down the path of an approach that tries to stop the spread of COVID entirely. It is not possible. Many people, including the majority of the student population, have stopped caring about catching COVID, since the risk of severe disease and prolonged illness for fully vaccinated and boosted individuals is extremely low. While everyone admits that there are certain people who COVID will continue to pose a threat to — especially the immunocompromised — we cannot continue our current measures and fear-based decision making forever. At some point — and that point should be during this semester — we must understand that COVID is here to stay, and we have to drop the more unreasonable measures. 

Throughout the pandemic, Holy Cross has often claimed to be leading with science and by example. However, I can safely say that Holy Cross’ current restrictions on fully vaccinated and boosted people are not leading with science and by example, rather they are leading by fear, and we are showing to the world that we are a campus run by hypochondriacs.

In Defense of Elon Musk: A Capitalist Success Story

All of my grandparents came to the United States in the 1970’s, hoping to have a better life than the one they had been afforded in Greece. Growing up, I thought that both of my grandfathers were the epitome of the elusive “American Dream” that everyone always talks about. My grandfather on my mother’s side studied to become a doctor in Italy, but, upon arriving in the United States, had to go through the entire process of residency and fellowship all over again. He made money by working not only long day shifts, but sometimes through the nights as well, all while trying to learn English and supporting my grandmother in raising their two young children. My grandfather on my father’s side was a soccer player back in Greece, and upon moving to America, became a taxi driver and ran a hot dog cart. Both of my grandfathers weathered unforeseeable circumstances and obstacles in order to achieve their success, and I owe the life that I am able to have to their hard work. However, both of them acknowledge that although life as an immigrant is not at all easy, it is definitely helpful to live in a country like America, where the concept of the American Dream is not just a dream, but a reality. 

I am fortunate to have people I am close to that I can look at as role models for my life and who have inspired me every day to utilize the opportunities I have at my disposal to achieve my goals. However, although I typically despise famous celebrities and large-scale influencers, there is one person I always think about in addition to my grandfathers who has beaten all odds to become successful: Elon Musk. Musk is one of the richest people in the world as of 2021, and is probably the most forward-thinking, genius, and down-to-earth billionaire alive. To me, Musk is an excellent example of a true “rags to riches” entrepreneur who also has the passion and drive to change the world for the better.

Elon Musk was born in 1971 in Pretoria, South Africa. His parents divorced when he was just nine years old, and he faced a lot of awful experiences during his childhood. In grade school, he was beaten severely by bullies, having to actually make a trip to the hospital at least once. He also had a very tough relationship with his father, and ultimately decided to move away from South Africa with his mother and two siblings later on in his youth. Although Musk did have a lot of hardships early on in life, he also displayed natural entrepreneurial and innovative tendencies. For example, he developed a simple video game when he was only twelve years old and, in college, made money off the house he was living in by turning it into a part-time nightclub. Shortly after graduating from the University of Pennsylvania, Musk founded Zip2 with his brother, Kimbal. Zip2 was a company that provided city guide software to newspapers and was a revolutionary idea. During the time that it took for Zip2 to grow in popularity, Musk was essentially homeless, living out of his office and showering at the local Palo Alto YMCA. However, his patience paid him well-- $22 million, to be exact. And, soon after this feat, Musk co-founded and became CEO of PayPal.

Now, Musk has co-founded and led even more companies that have a paramount impact on the growing world of technology, including Tesla, SpaceX, Neuralink, and The Boring Company. Musk’s mission at Tesla has been to accelerate the world’s transition to sustainable energy, and with SpaceX, he seeks to develop rockets and spacecraft that can not only orbit the earth and moon, but land on other planets as well. Currently, SpaceX is developing Starship, which is the world’s first reusable system that can transport people throughout the celestial sphere. Additionally, Starlink is an upcoming project whose goal is to deliver internet to places where access has been unreliable or unavailable. Musk has been at the forefront of the movement to make humans the first multi-planet species-- something unthinkable just a mere few decades ago. However, despite all of Musk’s accomplishments and efforts to change the world as we know it (for the better), he is severely disliked by many people (especially those on the left) who just think of him as another awful billionaire taking advantage of people less fortunate than he. Why is this?

I think that a main reason people don’t like Elon Musk is that he doesn’t fit into any box. This includes political boxes as well as entrepreneurial ones. For example, the left doesn’t like him because he doesn’t pander to their candidates or fund them, including President Joe Biden. However, some conservatives also have distaste for Musk due to his influence on the stock market (think of his recent meander into the world of cryptocurrencies such as bitcoin and dogecoin). He is not a classical capitalist, but instead part of a new generation of capitalists who seek to use the market for their own, more altruistic, purposes. Musk only donates to politicians when he  wants to, and instead focuses on his inventions and ideas for making the world more energy efficient. In this vein, Musk has done tremendous good for our environment, reducing fossil fuel consumption with his inventions. He has irrefutably revolutionized electric cars with Tesla, and strong-armed the auto industry into accelerating the rollout of electric cars by seven to ten years. And, his goal is to not just help the environment and curb climate change, but to also make electric cars more affordable for all. Maybe people just dislike Elon Musk because they know he is smarter than they are. As Canadian novelist Douglas Coupland said, “Musk has a huge IQ. He is measurably, scientifically, clinically and demonstrably the smartest person in any room anywhere. He can tell you the square root of your Amex card number at a glance. He can tell you, I don’t know – the square root of zinc. He has mild Asperger’s, which prevents him from snagging on details and talking himself out of trying new things. He’s a perfect storm.” 

Musk is the embodiment of successful eccentricity. He has taken full advantage of the opportunities he has had in the United States, using his immense intellect, forethought, positivity, and creativity to try to change the world. It is often argued that the U.S. strain of capitalism is unfair, specifically to immigrants who seek to climb the social ladder and make their lives better. However, Musk proves this belief wrong. He did not come from an extremely wealthy family, but instead had to overcome obstacles without a safety net to fall back on for a significant part of his life. Additionally, as stated before, he has lived with Asperger syndrome, a disability that could have set him back if he let it. Instead, he has overcome this by becoming one of the most successful and recognized innovators in the world. Musk also has something that his rivals do not (thinking of Bezos and Zuckerberg in particular): a personality. Other CEOs say the most carefully calculated thing in every situation, which makes them uninteresting. Can you name the CEO of Jeep or Ford? I definitely can’t. But everyone knows who Elon Musk is, and that means a lot to his company, his mission, and his personal self-worth. Finally, his journey as an immigrant also proves that if one truly tries to access all the opportunities provided by the seemingly elusive “American Dream,” they too will have the chance to achieve success. 

As Musk himself said in his recent SNL debut, “To anyone I’ve offended, I just want to say: I reinvented electric cars and I’m sending people to Mars in a rocketship. Did you think I was also going to be a chill, normal dude?”

The Saga of the Kenosha Kid

On the night of August 25, 2020, three men were part of a mob that was laying waste to Kenosha, Wisconsin. Within a period of ten minutes, these three men would, in two separate confrontations, chase down a 17 year old boy and attempt to do serious violence to him. Doubtlessly, they would have, had the young man not been armed with an AR-15. At the end of those ten minutes, two of the men were dead, while the third had been seriously wounded. In a sane world, the young man with the rifle would have been considered wholly justified  for defending himself and lauded as a hero for standing to protect his community. Instead, Kyle Rittenhouse became the focal point of a political firestorm, and the jury at his trial would decide, not only his guilt or innocence, but the legitimacy of self-defense itself and the keeping of social order.

Of course, it is impossible to discuss Kyle Rittenhouse without considering the context of the situation in which he found himself fighting for his life. The death of George Floyd saw a wave of protests, and eventually riots, sweep across the country. The riots would ultimately result in around $2 billion of property damage and at least 25 people dead. The same violence and anarchy would explode in Kenosha after the shooting of Jacob Blake. Blake, who had an outstanding warrant for third-degree sexual assault, attempted to flee police after being ineffectually tasered twice. When Blake took hold of a knife and turned toward one of the officers, he was repeatedly shot. Though Blake survived, the media quickly took hold of the story as another apparent example of police brutality, encouraging the mob which descended on Kenosha. Rioters burned several buildings, including a furniture store, the Danish Brotherhood Lodge, and several houses and apartments.

Along with the rioters and looters, Kyle Rittenhouse was also in Kenosha at the time. Rittenhouse, an Illinois resident, considered Kenosha his community; he lived only twenty minutes away and has many relatives who lived in town. Having worked as a lifeguard in Kenosha and participated in local police cadet and fire programs, Kyle felt called to assist his community in the midst of a relative lack of aid from both local and state authorities. After spending the day cleaning up graffiti, Kyle offered a local business owner assistance protecting his car lots, one of which had been damaged by rioters the night before. Armed with an AR-15 and his medical supplies, Kyle took up a position at one of the car lots, venturing out at intervals to administer aid to those who were injured and put out fires. It was during this time that Rittenhouse encountered Joseph Rosenbaum.

Joseph Rosenbaum already had an extensive criminal history before he took part in the mayhem in Kenosha. He was a level 3 sex offender, considered at high risk of re-offense, after having been convicted of the rape and molestation of five boys aged 9 to 11. Upon encountering Rittenhouse and another armed civilian, Rosenbaum threatened to kill them if he caught any of them alone. He further threatened another group defending the car lot that he would cut their hearts out. Rosenbaum actively participated in the destruction in Kenosha, starting fires and causing property damage at various points.

After being separated from his companion during one of his aid sorties, Rittenhouse was ordered to a different car lot to put out a fire. As he arrived at the lot, Rosenbaum charged at Rittenhouse from behind one of the cars and threw a plastic bag at him as another rioter fired a shot into the air. Cornered, with a man who had twice previously threatened to kill him bearing down, Rittenhouse opened fire, striking Rosenbaum four times, killing him. An autopsy showed burns on Rosenbaum’s hands, meaning that he had been gripping Rittenhouse’s rifle and attempting to take it from him. After calling his friend to inform him of the shooting, Rittenhouse fled toward police lines with a group of rioters howling for his death on his heels.

As he ran, Rittenhouse was struck in the head and fell to the ground. One of his pursuers jump-kicked him, and Rittenhouse fired at him twice, missing both times. Anthony Huber then struck Rittenhouse on the back of the head with a skateboard and attempted to take his rifle. Huber had been convicted of multiple counts of domestic abuse, once putting a knife to his brother’s stomach and threatening to burn his house down. Rittenhouse fired once, striking Huber in the heart and killing him. Rittenhouse was then approached by Gaige Grosskreutz, who had one expunged felony conviction and was carrying a Glock without a valid permit. After initially holding his hands up, Grosskreutz pointed his pistol at Rittenhouse, who shot Grosskreutz in the bicep upon seeing the pistol aimed at him. Rittenhouse then headed for police lines and, after being told to leave, went home and turned himself into Antioch Police in Illinois the next day.

What should have been classified as a cut and dry case of self-defense was quickly spun by the media into the latest episode of fearmongering over the spectre of white supremacy. Media outlets falsely alleged that Rittenhouse crossed state lines with the rifle (the rifle was actually purchased by a friend and never left the state of Wisconsin), that he was a vigilante who had shot a group of protesters in cold blood, and called him a “white supremacist terrorist.” Even then-presidential candidate Joe Biden parroted this phony narrative. In the meantime, Rittenhouse was held in jail for 87 days, a month of which he spent without running water, before he finally was bailed out by friendly donors. One such donor, a police officer from Virginia, was fired in retaliation for his donation.

After over a year of slanderous media coverage, Rittenhouse finally got his day in court, charged with seven crimes. Things quickly got off to a terrible start for the prosecution, led by Thomas Binger, when their star witness, Gaige Grosskreutz, admitted under oath to pointing his pistol at Rittenhouse before he was shot. Another witness testified that the prosecution had attempted to make him change his statement. Each witness the prosecution called only seemed to bolster Rittenhouse’s case. Rittenhouse himself took the stand, testifying that his only intention was to defend himself, while acknowledging that he had used deadly force. 

The best that Binger could muster on cross-examination was an attempt to impugn Rittenhouse’s taking advantage of the Fifth Amendment prior to the trial, which earned him a severe scolding from Judge Bruce Schroeder, and a bizarre attempt by A.D.A. Binger to correlate Rittenhouse’s playing Call of Duty with the incident. In their closing arguments, the prosecution revealed the true nature of the trial: a trial against self-defense itself. Binger argued that since Rittenhouse had brought the rifle with him for defense, he was no longer entitled to defend himself. Binger’s co-counsel doubled down on this preposterous argument by calling Rittenhouse a coward for not engaging a charging pedophile with his fists. Two of the charges were dismissed, including underage possession of a deadly weapon, as Rittenhouse’s rifle fell within the limits of a Wisconsin law allowing minors to carry a rifle. After four days of deliberation, Rittenhouse was acquitted of all charges.

While justice was indeed done for Kyle Rittenhouse, it is frightening that the false narrative surrounding him carried as far as it did. A young man – by all counts an upstanding citizen – sought to protect his community from destruction inflicted by a collective of decidedly less than upstanding people. As a result, he was nearly locked away for the rest of his life after being forced to defend his life from imminent danger from multiple attackers. Had the jury decided differently, the verdict could have effectively given a license for destruction to the media-encouraged and politically supported left-wing mobs, barring citizens from defending their lives and property. 

As a final aside, to those who say that Kyle Rittenhouse should never have been on the scene in Kenosha, I could not agree more. If not for the dereliction of duty on the part of civil authorities who allowed Kenosha to burn, if not for the out of town rioters who sought to bring destruction to the city, Kyle Rittenhouse would never have entered the spotlight. But, because those circumstances did arise, Rittenhouse and his compatriots were forced to make a stand. Until authorities develop a sufficient backbone to stand against this new brand of violent disorder, and until the left firmly rejects political violence, it is likely that more individuals like Kyle Rittenhouse will be placed in similar predicaments.

Commit to Defend Taiwan

With the rise of an authoritarian and aggressive People’s Republic of China (PRC), the United States' role as a global hegemon is increasingly under threat. The greatest potential flash point of this new great power rivalry is the island nation of Taiwan, formally the Republic of China. How the US manages China’s aggression towards Taiwan is crucial, as it will not only determine the future of the US-China relationship, but may well decide the fate of the liberal world order that has prevailed since the end of World War II. Scholars and commentators have arrived at numerous answers, ranging from making a hard commitment to Taiwanese security, to increased support for Taiwan short of a full commitment, to the abandonment of the island. With the changing security environment and importance of Taiwan to US credibility and national security, altering US policy towards a commitment to the defense of the island – strategic clarity – is the best route forward.

Taiwan is essential to American security both regionally and globally. The island is at the center of the First Island Chain (a collection of islands from Japan and Taiwan through to the Philippines and Malaysia), making it difficult for the Chinese navy to operate unfettered in the Pacific Ocean. Most of China’s central-eastern seaboard does not have any deep water ports (while Taiwan’s coast does), which forces submarines to travel at the ocean’s surface until the water is deep enough beyond the First Island Chain. Taiwan also straddles major trade routes that pass through the East China Sea, allowing the island significant control over commerce. The strategic qualities of Taiwan make it of great interest to the United States, as its occupation by the PRC could pose significant security threats to the region and allow China easier access to the high seas. 

Taiwan is also important for its moral and political value. As a beacon of liberal, free enterprise democracy in East Asia, the island is a natural friend of the United States and is on the front lines of the battle against Chinese authoritarianism. The world is once again in a struggle between two opposing ideologies: a free market, liberal democratic system opposed to the Chinese model of a managed economy married to political authoritarianism. Keeping Taiwan a flourishing, independent democracy will be an important success in the eyes of the free world. The island’s tech-driven economy has also enabled it to be a leading producer of semiconductor technology. This is an asset for the United States – particularly with China competing to become the world’s preeminent technological power – and cooperation with the Taiwanese can help the American technology sector, particularly in the areas of AI and advanced computing technology. 

Currently, the United States has a policy of strategic ambiguity towards the island nation whereby the United States neither commits to defend Taiwan nor declares that it will not do so. The purpose of this is to prevent China from invading Taiwan and Taiwan from declaring independence. China, not knowing if the US will enter a conflict, will choose to avoid invasion for fear of intervention, and Taiwan, also unclear about whether the US will come to its aid, will not declare independence (which would risk war).

Strategic ambiguity, by its nature, means that it is unclear if the US will intervene in a future crisis involving Taiwan. Ambiguity only functions when China is deterred by the US military and when Taiwan feels that it would lose a war with China without US support. Today, however, when China is a peer adversary, ambiguity is worthless. China believes that it can impact the US’ decision of whether to intervene through massive military preparation: the more powerful the Chinese military, the less willing the US will be to come to Taiwan’s defense. Ambiguity only signals to the Chinese that they can influence the US’s calculus, which, by consequence, will embolden them to take risks that they otherwise would not take. Indeed, China launched the largest number of incursions into Taiwan’s Air Defense Identification Zone in October and November 2021 (196 and 159 incursions, respectively). For comparison, October and November 2021 saw a combined 68 incursions. Ambiguity also leads to the risk of miscalculation: if China thinks that it could prevent the US from entering a cross-Strait conflict by defeating Taiwan swiftly, it will be far more likely to make rash decisions about attacking the island. 

Further, even with the current policy of ambiguity, if the US does not come to Taiwan’s defense, it would be devastating for America’s credibility on the world stage. Allies in the region already expect the US to defend the island, and if it refused, it would raise serious doubts about whether the US is a reliable partner. This could spell disaster for the system of alliances and the liberal world order that the US has painstakingly built since World War II. If countries lose faith in the United States, they may choose instead to work with and appease China rather than risk punishment from the PRC because of their relationship with the US. 

The policy of strategic ambiguity must be implemented by an act of Congress creating a formal treaty between the US and Taiwan. Some have argued that a Presidential declaration or executive order would be sufficient. However, as Walter Lohman and Frank Jannuzzi assert, having the President issue an executive order declaring a commitment to the defense of Taiwan is a “dangerous half-measure” that, in terms of policy, does little to change the actual commitment to Taiwan. American honor would then be at stake, but that is not enough. Such a policy would be subject to the constant fluctuation of who occupies the Oval Office, which is no calming thought. America’s commitment to Taiwan must have the force of law behind it, for only then would the country’s support for Taiwan be truly unambiguous. 

There are indeed significant risks in taking this step, and they cannot be discounted. Any policy of strategic clarity must be preceded by an adequate buildup of American forces in the Indo-Pacific so as to make the threat credible. Recent US wargames indicated the potential for an American loss in a China-US conflict over Taiwan given the nation’s current military position – a position that would have to be rectified before a policy of strategic clarity could be pursued. This does not need to be a deployment of tens of thousands of troops —  it need only be enough to impose massive costs on a Chinese invasion effort. Long-range anti-ship missiles, a constant rotation of submarines, a strong fighter and bomber presence for targeted strikes — these would be sufficient to ensure that any invasion fleet would face steep odds while minimizing US forces’ contact with People’s Liberation Army (the Chinese military) anti-air and anti-ship defenses. US allies may be concerned about a potential American defense commitment to Taiwan, but if the US maintains a credible force in the region, that concern should be offset by reassurance.

There is concern in some quarters about a defense commitment enabling (or encouraging) Taiwan to pursue independence. While this would be true if the US made no efforts to address the concern, there are numerous other avenues that the US could take to exert pressure on the Taiwanese, both economic and diplomatic, that could deter them. The simplest policy option is for the US to make the commitment to defend Taiwan contingent upon the island not declaring independence.

The US should also combine a policy of strategic clarity with other means of support for the Taiwanese. Continued sales of arms to the island, particularly those that will inexpensively exploit Chinese weaknesses, are necessary. America should also craft tighter economic ties with the island and work to make its economy more independent of the PRC. Increased advocacy for Taiwan to the international community would also be welcome (like the invitation extended to Taiwan by US President Joe Biden to attend the upcoming Summit for Democracy), and the US should take steps to preserve the inter-state ties Taiwan has and encourage further ones. These moves will harm US-China relations, but if they come as a part of a larger rethinking of the US’s relationship with the PRC, that harm may simply be the price to pay for the preservation of both US global hegemony and that of the free, liberal world order.

A Response to The Spire: A Catholic Perspective

We would like to commend the writers of The Spire’s article “Why You Should Care About the Texas Heartbeat Act” published on December 3, 2021 for their interest in discussing abortion from a Catholic perspective. Certainly, the care they show for Catholic values and our Holy Cross identity is admirable. This is particularly shown in their deference to Catholic Social Teaching (CST): “we value the call to family and community, solidarity, the preferential option for the poor and the life and dignity of the human person.” However, they overlook the true gravity of the right to life and human dignity about which they speak. It must be understood that the right to life applies from “womb to tomb,” undergirding the preferential option for the poor, and all other CST principles. 

These seven principles of CST, born out of Pope Leo XIII’s 1891 encyclical Rerum Novarum, are: life and dignity of the human person, call to family, community and participation, rights and responsibilities, preferential option for the poor, the dignity of work and the rights of workers, solidarity, and care for God’s creation. These principles build and depend upon each other; the foundational principle is the right to life and the inherent dignity of every human person. This is why, “The preservation of life is the bounden duty of one and all (Rerum Novarum 44).” The other principles have no ground to stand on without this. Why would we care about feeding those who starve among us, if we don’t recognize their right to life? Why else would it matter if they perish? You can’t clothe, house, or feed a dead person. So then, how can we say we support a preferential option for the poor without first recognizing that those poor are valued and deserve life? The Catechism is very clear that “social justice can be obtained only in respecting the transcendent dignity of [the human person] (CCC 1929).”

The authors of the Spire article ask, “As men and women for others, should we not support those who are struggling in poverty?” The answer is yes! In fact, it is our duty. However, our call to provide a preferential option for the poor extends beyond just the mother to her unborn child as well; the unborn are the poorest among us. As Catholics, we know that “human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception (CCC 2270).” But, we don’t need to refer to the catechism for this. Basic science and common sense is enough. Take your parents for example. Are they any more human than you are because they’ve lived longer? Are your little siblings any less human? No, our humanity is not something that changes with age. So what about a child that is 2 months old? 1 month? 1 week? 1 day? 1 minute? 1 second? Is this child any less human from that second she was born to those months after? No. What about that same child, just seconds ago in the birth canal of her mother. Was she any less human then? How about a week before in her mother’s womb? Or a month ago? Or 2 months? Or 9 months? At what moment did this child go from any other being to a human person endowed with such great dignity? This child undergoes no significant change in the birth canal, other than a change in her location – less than a foot from the inside of her mother’s womb to being swaddled in her mother’s arms. What about her development? What biological change instantly grants her all those rights a human being has? There is no discreet moment except conception, when she receives a unique set of DNA from her mother and father. Indeed, this is the only problem we can see with the heartbeat laws in Texas and across this country: they define life at a heartbeat, which is just another arbitrary stage of biological development, holding no weight as to a person’s humanity. They are a step in the right direction, but we should not fool ourselves into thinking that they accurately define the beginning of human life.

If abortion isn’t the real solution, what are real solutions? Visitation House is one. This Worcester, MA organization provides a supportive home for pregnant women during their pregnancy and the first months after the birth of their child. Here, women are given the resources, respect, and love needed to care for themselves and their children. Organizations that supply food, housing, medical care, counseling, child care, and parenting support are all part of extending the preferential option for the poor to both mothers and unborn children. Let’s put our time, energy, effort, and resources into these organizations instead of organizations that murder children and claim to help. This is not to mention the lasting effects that abortion can have on the physical and mental health of women. It’s convenient to pay $500 to Planned Parenthood. It’s far more difficult to raise a child and support a mother. And yet, we must. 

We cannot neglect our duty to extend a preferential option to the poor because it’s inconvenient. Recognizing the dignity of both mother and child, we know that our Holy Cross value to be men and women for and with others does not conflict with our Catholic values that call us to respect life at all stages. Rather, we see that our Catholic faith provides us a great gift: we have more people, both mother and child, whom we can love and serve.This gift of life is born of God’s love for humanity. God’s love which is ir-rationable and irrational. In the Gospel of John, we hear how Jesus used five loaves of bread and two fish to feed 5,000 (John 6:1-14). After everyone was fed, there were still twelve baskets of bread leftover. All were satisfied and there was still an abundance. God does not ration his love, so neither should we. As we strive to imitate the ways of Christ as men and women for and with others, we can and must choose to love and nourish people of all ages, abilities, and intellects. We must choose to love both the born and the unborn – the women who are pregnant and their children.

A Response to The Spire: A Non-Catholic Perspective

Holy Cross’ mission states that the “College should lead all its members to make the best of their own talents, to work together, to be sensitive to one another, to serve others, and to seek justice within and beyond the Holy Cross community.”  As our friends at The Spire stated, we are indeed called to be men and women for and with others, and as a Christian institution, we are to value family, community, service, and life.  

Despite what the authors at The Spire said, Christians do not need to pick between supporting those in poverty and being advocates for life from the moment of conception until natural death.  As members of the Holy Cross community, we should always stand with others, and part of this is supporting women who find themselves pregnant under difficult circumstances.  This is part of our Christian mission, and we should always be sources of comfort to those who need it.  This, however, does not require us to be advocates of abortion.

First of all, simply supporting abortion in politics does nothing for those in need and definitely doesn’t make someone a man or woman for and with others.  If one truly cares for those who are less fortunate, that person would be pursuing community service that directly assists the underserved.  Volunteering for food banks, shelters, and English Language Learning (ELL) nonprofit organizations are just a few examples of how those who are passionate for service can serve those in need, and all of these do more than just adopting a pro-abortion stance on social media.

Policy-wise, there are also better alternatives for lifting those out of poverty or closing the black-white income gap than legal abortion.  After nearly 50 years of the forced legalization of abortion nationwide, there has been no concrete benefit to the poor and no concrete benefit to the prosperity of black Americans.  If abortion was such a factor in the equality and economic development of black Americans, we would have seen a closing of the wealth gap between white and black Americans since 1973, yet we have not.

Instead of resorting to promoting the deaths of children of the less fortunate and calling it a “human right,” we should pursue policy that actually allows people to pull themselves out of poverty.  Lifting regulations off of small businesses and startups, lowering taxes, funding and promoting education, and partnering with nonprofit service organizations are much more effective ways of helping those in need than advocating abortion’s legality.

Abortion is indeed a human rights issue.  However, the issue is not the banning of abortion, but rather abortion itself.  Abortion is the murder of a child who has no voice and no ability to defend him or herself.  The child is not given a voice in government, has no choice in his or her own fate, cannot arm him or herself, and cannot have his or her day in court.  

Abortion is not only a human rights issue, but also a social justice issue.  It is a social injustice that black babies are disproportionately the victims of abortion, and since Roe v Wade, 20 million black babies have been aborted.  That is 2 million more than the total black population in America in 1960 (18 million).  Black Americans make up 13.4% of the US population, yet they accounted for 36% of abortions in 2015 while white Americans accounted for 37% of abortions while being 77% of the US population.  25 black children are aborted for every 1,000 pregnancies, compared to 6.8 aborted white children for every 1,000 pregnancies.  

This is a tragedy.  Women, especially women of color, should not feel like the solution to unwanted pregnancy is abortion.  Instead of shaming young mothers, we, as Christians and as Americans, should always do what we can to support them in concrete ways so that they do not feel like their only option is to abort their child.  We need to build a society that is accepting of young mothers who find themselves pregnant under difficult circumstances.  Giving emotional, financial, and physical support is how we show love to those who are underserved – not advocating a policy that sacrifices so many innocent lives, especially black lives, and does not even perform the supposed function of pulling women of color out of poverty.  We must promote a culture of life and love – not death and despair.