Letting That Sink In: Elon Musk and Free Speech on Social Media

On October 26, 2022, SpaceX and Tesla CEO Elon Musk walked into Twitter headquarters in San Francisco carrying a sink basin, posting a video of his dramatic entrance with the caption. “Let that sink in!” One day and one particularly egregious dad-joke later, Musk officially became the owner of Twitter. Before the day was over, CEO Parag Agrawal, CFO Ned Segal, and policy chief Vejaya Gadde were all sent packing, and on October 31, Musk dissolved Twitter’s board of directors, making him Twitter’s only director. While heads are already exploding on the left side of the aisle over Musk’s takeover and terminations, a good house cleaning at Twitter may be precisely the change that the right has needed with regard to social media.

Social media has generally been notorious for censorship, but Twitter stands near the peak of ideological restrictiveness. Prominent conservative accounts have been either temporarily suspended or permanently banned from the site for transgressing Twitter’s nebulous and often biased conduct policy. Notable accounts banned include Jordan B. Peterson, Project Veritas founder and journalist James O’Keefe, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, and, most infamously, President Donald Trump. More egregious still, Twitter censored key stories pertaining to the authenticity of Hunter Biden’s infamous laptop and the questionable efficacy of the COVID-19 vaccine and lockdown measures.

Lest anyone come to the conclusion that the bans were not driven by an ideological impetus, Twitter staff ranging from executives to low-level workers have openly expressed a dramatically left-wing worldview. In 2010, future Twitter CEO Parag Agrawal brazenly tweeted “If they are not gonna make a distinction between Muslims and extremists, then why should I distinguish between white people and racists.” Former Twitter CEO and co-founder Jack Dorsey established in an interview that conservative employees at Twitter often did not feel comfortable expressing their opinions publicly in the office. With a CEO devoted to identity politics and an echo chamber environment favorable only to left-wing ideas, is it any wonder that the Twitterati became the principal arm of leftist ideological enforcement on social media?

It is increasingly apparent that left-wing stranglehold on the social media landscape is a threat to freedom of expression and presents the prospect of interfering with the American system of government itself. On October 31, the Department of Homeland Security was forced to release a cache of documents revealing an elaborate scheme by the agency to expand its control over social media platforms. Among DHS’ priorities were finding ways to restrict and eliminate what the department termed “misinformation,” which has come to be defined as a catch-all for any sort of opinion or disinformation which conflicts with the mainstream narrative. DHS took a particularly strong stance on alleged misinformation pertaining to the pandemic, withdrawal from Afghanistan, “racial justice,” and the 2020 election, and, during the latter event, used its reach to flag numerous posts it found to be problematic in order to demand their removal. The leaks present a bleak picture of social media’s future, a future in which the government is empowered by partisan companies to dictate what is acceptable within online discourse.

Musk’s acquisition of Twitter presents the possibility of a fresh start for social media as a medium. While Musk does have a prior track record of supporting Democratic candidates, he is a businessman first and foremost, and a platform with a reputation for censorship makes for bad business. In addition, Musk has not been shy about expressing his support for freedom of speech, going so far as to call himself a “free speech absolutist.” Accordingly, it is safe to expect that Musk will throw his support behind the downtrodden and maligned right-wing voices on Twitter and begin the process of dissolving Twitter’s excessive restrictions.

Of course, Musk faces an uphill battle should he choose to undertake this endeavor. Shortly after Musk’s acquisition of Twitter, the notoriously partisan and censorship-friendly Anti-Defamation League first sought to coerce Musk into working with them in order to find new ways of curtailing free speech on Twitter. When this failed to materialize, the ADL went on the offensive against Musk, demanding that advertisers boycott the website and castigated Musk for what they perceived to be a failure of leadership.

Still, all is not lost. On November 10, two prominent Twitter executives left the company over differences with Musk. One of those executives was Yoel Roth, the senior director of trust and safety, who was heavily in favor of incorporating additional restrictions on the platform and has a history of left-wing partisanship, even going so far as to refer to Trump supporters as “Nazis.” With Roth gone, it would seem that Twitter has lost one of its most vociferous speech arbiters. While Twitter has not yet emerged as a bastion of free expression, under Musk’s unorthodox leadership, it seems the worst of the site’s censorship rats are fleeing the ship.

The Fenwick Review's 2022 Election Day Predictions

Our final prediction for the control of the Senate will be with the Republicans having the majority, holding 52 seats to the Democrats’ 48 seats. We predict Pennsylvania, Nevada, and Georgia will flip for the Republicans and rate them as tilt Republican, Wisconsin is lean Republican, and North Carolina is likely Republican. We predict Arizona and New Hampshire will remain Democratic, rating them respectively as tilt and lean Democratic. We will now go over the majority of the battleground states and why we expect the result we’ve predicted. 

Arizona: 

Though Republican gubernatorial candidate Kari Lake is pulling ahead in her race, we do not expect her senatorial counterpart Blake Masters to ride her coattails into victory. Senator Mark Kelly has a strong fundraising advantage with a solid resume stacked with experience coupled with his moderately toned rhetoric. We predict that although the election will be a nail-biter, with polling within the margin of error, Senator Kelly will narrowly pull off a victory.  

Pennsylvania:  

Incumbent Senator Pat Toomey (R) is retiring after 2 terms, and his seat is being sought by Democratic Lieutenant Governor John Fetterman and Republican celebrity doctor Mehmet Oz. Oz has been gaining a lot of ground in recent polling, and coupled with Fetterman’s disastrous debate performance, extreme leftism, and his flip-flopping between positions, we expect the race to tilt toward Oz’s favor.  Furthermore, the Governor’s race being favored for Democrats does not spell doom for Oz, as a recent article from The Hill indicates around 10% of Shapiro voters plan to vote for Oz.

Wisconsin: 

Republican Ron Johnson, who was expected to lose against Lieutenant Governor Mandela Barnes, is now up five points in recent polling. This comeback has been due to the fact that Johnson has been hammering Barnes for supporting the Kenosha riots that happened in 2020, along with heavy disapproval of President Biden in the state. With such a substantial lead, we expect that Ron Johnson will keep his seat in the Senate. 

Nevada: 

Republican Adam Laxalt is running an incredible campaign against incumbent Senator Catherine Cortez-Masto. The Hill finds he is up by 5 points in a state that President Biden won by 2.5 points just two short years ago. In fact, it is so bad that Cortez-Masto is still running introduction ads in her own state as the incumbent. So, a combination of Laxalt being able to pin Cortez Masto down on domestic issues, as well as strong national tides against the Biden administration, we expect Laxalt to win a small yet consequential victory.  

Georgia: 

Governor Brian Kemp’s strong run against Stacey Abrams, leading on average by 7 points, is expected to drag Herschel Walker to victory in his race against Senator Raphael Warnock. Despite his baggage, Herschel Walker has taken advantage of the current political climate, with significant dissatisfaction with President Biden and the Democratic agenda in the state, leading us to believe that he has a strong chance at capturing the seat for the Republican Party.

Florida:

In Florida, Senator Marco Rubio is running against Representative Val Demings, averaging a lead of 7 points. We predict that Rubio will retain his seat, given Florida’s strong tilt towards Republican candidates in recent years along with the party’s heavy voter registration initiative in the state that has significantly expanded the party’s base there.  

Ohio:

In Ohio, Republican candidate  JD Vance is running against Democratic Representative Tim Ryan. Vance is predicted to take this Senate seat as he leads by about three points in recent polling. However, we expect the final results to produce a larger margin of victory given President Trump’s significant margin just 2 years ago along with the state’s strong tilt toward the GOP.

Colorado:

In Colorado, Republican Joe O’Dea is facing incumbent Democrat Michael Bennet. We predicted that Senator Bennett will retain his seat, currently holding about a ten-point lead over O’Dea in polling. This along with the state’s strong Democratic tilt, having voted for President Biden by 14 points, is expected to prove insurmountable for Joe O’Dea to tackle. 

New Hampshire:

In New Hampshire, Democratic Senator Maggie Hassan is running for reelection against Republican Don Bolduc. We predict that Bolduc will not be able to clench that seat, as his weak fundraising and conservative stances have proven challenging to take on the one-term incumbent. Bolduc, who emerged from the party’s primary with President Trump’s endorsement, has alienated independent and swing voters, helping Senator Hassan solidify her base as a moderate and stable candidate. 

Utah:

In Utah Senator Mike Lee is running against independent candidate Evan McMullin. It is highly unlikely that McMullin will take the seat due to the fact that in his last election Senator Lee won nearly 70% of the vote. McMullion is currently being backed by the Democrats in this race but it won’t really matter. The only real big news of this race is the fact that Mitt Romney hasn’t endorsed Mike Lee. But again since Lee won by such a big margin, and Utah is such a red state, Mike Lee will almost definitely remain in the Senate

Governor’s Races

Oregon:

In Oregon we expect Republican Christine Drazan to beat out Democrat Tina Kotek and Independent Betsy Johnson. In the latest polling Drazen is up at around 42%, with Kotek trailing at 39%, and Johnson at around 17%. Since Johnson is running as a moderate candidate and Kotek is running as a progressive Democrat, we expect a splitting of the traditionally Democratic vote. Combined with concerns of rising crime and drug overdoses around cities like Portland, and again an overall positive ground for Republicans, we predict that Drazan will be able to eke out a win in this race

Pennsylvania: 

In Pennsylvania, we expect Democrat Josh Shapiro to beat Republican Doug Mastriano. The latest polling has the candidates within the margin of error between each other. But due to Mastriano’s hyper-Trumpian campaign, even being present at the January 6th Insurrection, and with Shapiro’s moderate positions along with establishment support, we expect Shapiro to pull out a win in this race.  

Georgia:

In Georgia we expect Republican Governor Brian Kemp to beat Democrat Stacy Abrams in his reelection. He is up on average by about 8 points. Brian Kemp is running a very strong race against Stacey Abrams and has been able to resist the more Trumpian aspects of election denial while also making a strong case against an increasingly divisive Stacey Abrams. Due to his strong campaign, we expect him to easily retain his governorship.

Florida:

In Florida we expect Governor Ron DeSantis to beat Charlie Crist in his reelection campaign. He is on average up by 11 points which is a significant shift from 2018 when he won his governor’s race by only 30,000 votes. Desantis also enjoys one of the largest war chests ever compiled, amounting to nearly $100 million raised. So while this victory may not be the biggest shock, it is still very important and a potential signal towards his plans in 2024.

Texas:

In Texas, Governor Greg Abbot is predicted to beat Democrat Robert “Beto” O’Rourke. Governor Abbott leads by an average of 10 points in polls according to Real Clear Politics. O’Rourke, like his fellow Democrat Stacey Abrams, has been positioned as a radical figure in national politics. Though his campaign for Senate in 2018 was very successful for a Democrat, O’Rourke trounced state politics in favor of the national stage. His positions have alienated parents and conservative Southerners alike, and coupled with Governor Abbott’s steady candidacy, we expect the Governor to retain his seat. 

Arizona:

In Arizona, Republican Kari Lake is expected to beat Democrat Katie Hobbs. In the latest polling, Lake is leading by around three to five points in state polls. Her on-television persona and easy-to-approach personality have brought her immense popularity on social media. Combined with the fact that Hobbs is suffering from an especially harsh environment for Democrats and the ongoing border crisis, we expect that Kari Lake will become the next governor of the Grand Canyon state. 

Nevada:

In Nevada, Incumbent Democratic Governor Steve Sisolak is running against Clark County Sheriff Joe Lombardo. In the current polls, Lombardo has led by one point. But the more recent polls have him taking between a three and four-point lead over Sisolak. Because of the likely success of his counterpart Adam Laxalt in the concurrent Senate race, we predict that Lombardo will be able to eke out a victory against Sisolak.

New York:

Currently, New York has proven to be a disaster-in-waiting for state Democrats, as they are currently rushing to pour millions of dollars into media buys to prop up incumbent Democratic governor Kathy Hochul as she faces Republican Congressman Lee Zeldin. Zeldin has caught up in recent polling, with one poll even edging out Hochul by one point. However, given New York’s very strong Democratic lean and New York City’s usual turnout rate, we expect Hochul to very narrowly retain her seat. 

Wisconsin

Incumbent Democratic Governor Tony Evers faces Republican businessman Tim Michels. Wisconsin has long been a battleground state, swaying their votes between Democratic and Republican presidential candidates. However, Evers has faced heavy criticism from state residents over rising crime and homelessness, especially from the Kenosha riots. Michels has caught up and led in polling, and we expect him to trounce the incumbent governor. 

House Predictions:

We predict a Republican majority will emerge in the House of Representatives, with the GOP netting at least 15 seats in the elections. A GOP House majority has been a forgone conclusion, but the extent of their victory is still a matter of debate.  FiveThirtyEight currently has the GOP’s chances of gaining a majority in an 85-in-100 chance, while Real Clear Politics suggests Republicans will pick up anywhere from 15 to 50 seats.

Virginia’s 7th 

Incumbent Congresswoman Abigail Spanberger (D) is facing Prince William County Supervisor Yesli Vega in one of the most competitive battleground districts in the country. The representative won her reelection bid last year by a mere 8,000 votes. With Governor Glenn Youngkin taking the district by 10 percentage points and Virginians disapproving of the Biden administration in staggering numbers, we expect Vega to eke out a narrow win in this district with a rating of ‘Tilt R.’

New York’s 17th 

Representative Sean Patrick Maloney entered the race for this newly redesigned district after incumbent Congressman Mondaire Jones decided to run in New York’s 10th district. Maloney faces Republican Assemblyman Mike Lawler. Maloney’s unpopularity in his district along with recent polling showing Lawler ahead by an average of 5 points show a probable pickup for the GOP, unseating Maloney who also serves as the House Democratic Caucus’ chief campaign director. We rate this race as ‘Likely R.’

New Hampshire’s 1st 

Incumbent Congressman Chris Pappas faces Republican Karoline Leavitt for the highly contested district, with the district having changed party control more times on average than others around the country. Pappas and Leavitt, supported by millions of dollars in outside spending, are in a dead heat in polling, with Pappas leading by less than 2 points. The concurrent Senate race however may prove helpful to Pappas as Senator Hassan could pull Pappas across the finish line in the Granite State. Therefore, The Fenwick Review rates this race as ‘Tilt D.’

Maine’s 2nd

Incumbent Democrat Jared Golden faces former Republican Congressman Bruce Poliquin, whom Golden unseated 4 years ago. The race is noteworthy for its use of ranked-choice voting, which has brought it great media attention. Though President Trump did win the district with 53%, the state’s strong Democratic tilt and the fundraising lag Poliquin suffers from, we predict the seat will be narrowly retained by Golden, with a rating of ‘Tilt D.’ 

Michigan’s 7th

Incumbent Democrat Elissa Slotkin faces Republican Tom Barrett in a district President Trump carried by almost 2 points. The race has been dubbed the most expensive race in the country, having spent an aggregate $27 million. We predict a GOP pickup here, given the recent momentum Barrett has seized from President Biden’s high disapproval rate and heavy outside spending from the NRCC and RNC. The Fenwick Review rates this race as ‘Tilt R.’

Rhode Island’s 2nd

Former Cranston Mayor Allan Fung (R) and Rhode Island Treasurer Seth Magaziner (D) are battling to replace retiring Rep. James Langevin (D) in a district President Biden won handedly.  Mayor Fung’s popularity in Rhode Island’s 2nd largest city, his moderate and pro-abortion Republican image in the likeness of Gov. Charlie Baker (R-MA) who endorsed him, and a strong Republican environment make this race super competitive.  By account of this district’s Democrat leanings and a strong Republican candidate and environment, The Fenwick Review rates this race as a ‘Toss-up.’

Alaska’s At Large

Rep. Mary Peltola (D-AK) won a special election earlier this year against former Gov. Sarah Palin, a Tea Party candidate, and Nick Begich, a moderate Republican.  The split in Republican votes favored Peltola, who is benefitted by a mutual endorsement of Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), and the use of ranked-choice voting also favored her, as many moderate Begich supporters favored Peltola over conservative Palin as their second choice when Begich was eliminated in the first round.  Increased turnout in this Republican-leaning state as well as a more favorable environment for Republicans in November may give Republicans a chance to retake this seat, but with the use of ranked-choice voting and the split moderate Republican vote, The Fenwick Review rates this as ‘Leans D.’

Texas’ 34th

Rep. Mayra Flores (R-TX) became the first Mexican-born Congresswoman earlier this year in a special election to replace Rep. Filemon Vela (D-TX) in a blue-leaning district that has swung toward the GOP in recent years.  This seat was redistricted to be even bluer, while the neighboring 15th District was redistricted to be redder, causing 15th District incumbent Rep. Vicente Gonzalez — who won his 2020 race only narrowly under the old lines — to run in Flores’s district.  While Flores started as an underdog in the D+9 district, the Republican trends in South Texas and her strength as a candidate may overcome the new lines and the fact she’s running against a more established incumbent.  Because of the mixture of factors, The Fenwick Review rates this race as a ‘Toss-up.’

Oregon’s 5th

Earlier this year, moderate Rep. Kurt Schrader (D-OR) lost re-nomination to progressive Jaime McLeod-Skinner.  This, combined with a strong Republican environment, an unusually competitive gubernatorial race, and a solid GOP candidate in Lori Chavez-DeRemer, has led this blue-hued purple district drawn specifically by the Oregonian legislature to shore up Democratic representation to be one of the easier pickups for the GOP.  The Fenwick Review rates this race as ‘Leans R.’

Connecticut’s 5th

Rep. Jahana Hayes (D) is facing a surprisingly tough reelection bid against state Senator George Logan (R).  Logan, a Black pro-abortion moderate, has generated steam in this Republican-favored environment against the progressive Democrat Hayes, capitalizing on the high crime and inflation message on which many Republicans in blue areas are campaigning.  Logan, like Senate hopeful Mehmet Oz in Pennsylvania, has advocated balance in Congress, stating he would oppose any legislation that would interfere with abortion law in Connecticut.  With the state and the district’s Democratic lean and relatively strong incumbent, The Fenwick Review rates this race as ‘Tilt D.’

Schuler Access Initiative Insanity

On the morning of September 14, 2022, President Rougeau announced that the College of the Holy Cross will be partnering with the Schuler Education Foundation through its Schuler Access Initiative. This Foundation states that it is “committed to investing in access for undocumented and Pell-eligible students.” I do not have a problem with private organizations and entities providing financial assistance to college students. However, I do have a problem with organizations and entities providing financial assistance to undocumented immigrants, as this creates incentives for illegal immigration and results in an inevitable influx of immigrants. Recent news has demonstrated that the United States cannot handle immigrants as easily as some may think, with governors such as Texas governor Greg Abbot authorizing initiatives for immigrants to be bussed to different democrat-controlled portions of the country, including DC, New York City, and even Martha’s Vineyard. These ventures have proved to Democrats in those areas that the struggles of handling any number of migrants, legal or not, is a difficult task.

Now, before I start, I would like to get the correct wording out of the way. The politics of immigration is wrought in the media and debate stages with the divide between undocumented and illegal immigrants. Here, I will choose to denote those immigrants who have entered the country illegally as unauthorized because that term is arguably the most correct. Undocumented implies there is some sort of mistake and that these immigrants simply do not have documentation, ignoring the violation of the law in the process. Illegal cannot be used because illegal describes an action and not a person. Despite this, the term illegal immigration is still correct because the immigrants did illegally immigrate. The issue of rhetoric in this particular section of American life has become a litmus test for where you stand, instead of trying to properly describe the situation. That is why I will be using the terms unauthorized immigrant and illegally immigrated in this article.

The main issue that arises from policies like what Holy Cross is pursuing is that it creates incentives for illegal immigration in an already stressed system. The College should provide financial aid for those in need, but to explicitly target unauthorized immigrants creates a dangerous message; not only will we not send you back to your country of origin, but that we will also give you and your family opportunities that some Americans do not even have access to. 

I would like to make it very clear that I do not believe that Holy Cross is single handedly causing a migrant crisis. I would instead like to point out how Holy Cross’ decision to join the trend of virtue signaling on the issue of immigration does little to help immigrants and does more to hurt Americans who have to deal with the influx along the border. Holy Cross alone does not hold enough power to incentivize illegal immigration, but through advertising together with other colleges across the country, it creates a dangerous narrative. Illegal immigration is fueled by two factors: How bad are the conditions in my home country? And how likely am I going to be able to cross and settle into this new country? Colleges creating this narrative that Americans are looking for unauthorized immigrants to educate cultivates a sense that not only are they welcome here, but they are wanted, which is even more dangerous as it actively invites them.

So, the question must be asked then, is illegal immigration even bad? Some may point to the fact that unauthorized immigrants work jobs that normal Americans would not, doing construction or farm labor, often for less than minimum wage. This view is inherently selfish, as it implies that those not born in the US and come here illegally do not deserve the same standard of living as Americans. Others may point to the economic benefits they may bring, such as creating more areas of commerce, providing taxes in some cases, and doing jobs some Americans will not, but the real issue arises when an unexpected influx of migrants flood local services. Similar to how stay-at-home orders were issued in the pandemic in order to slow the spread and ease the burden on healthcare workers and facilities, a flood of immigrants can stress the areas that these migrants pass through and settle in. A small stream is sustainable, which is built into the system with legal immigration. However, a sudden influx caused by a change in policy and an optimistic outlook of migrants crossing the border results in an inevitable disaster that border states like Texas and New Mexico will have to deal with which states further from the southern border will not.

The college’s announcement is especially strange considering that states like Massachusetts do not bear the brunt of a wave of migrants flooding over the border. By incentivizing illegal immigration, Holy Cross is actively stressing border areas while claiming moral superiority without facing the consequences. This kind of posturing is not indicative of the Jesuit value of “serving the greater good” as the college claims, as it actively promotes a crisis that it will not have to deal with, all the while it claims to be helping the community by advertising that it is providing education to unauthorized immigrants.

Texas, to prove the damaging effect that an influx of immigrants can have on cities and towns, has resorted to bussing immigrants from Texas to places like DC and Martha’s Vineyard. This policy was deemed necessary because of the increase in illegal immigration under the Biden administration due to illegal immigration friendly rhetoric and policy. The main point of evidence for Biden’s weak stance on illegal immigration is his revocation of the Trump era ‘Remain in Mexico’ policy that made migrants seeking asylum stay in Mexico while they await trial in the US. Under Biden’s tenure, southern border encounters have jumped from 1,473,691 in 2021 to 1,997,769 in 2022 according to the US Custom and Border Protection’s website.

Because of the unauthorized immigrants bussed to DC, the mayor, Democrat Muriel Bowser, declared a public emergency, acknowledging the effect an influx of migrants can have on an area’s resources. With this, she also acknowledged that the federal response has been lacking in terms of handling traffic on the border. Washington, DC, has long considered itself a sanctuary city, declaring that unauthorized immigrants are welcome and are free from the hands of immigration enforcement there. It is difficult not to point out the irony that a city so welcoming of unauthorized immigrants declares a state of emergency for when they arrive.

Now, it must be acknowledged that many of the unauthorized immigrants that would be taking advantage of the Schuler Access Initiative most likely were brought here as children and grew up in the United States, and while they might not have citizenship in the United States, they are citizens somewhere, and should therefore be treated like international students. In turn, they should still receive the same amount of need-based aid that others at Holy Cross are afforded. The problem comes when the college directly allocates and advertises funds for unauthorized immigrants. The people deserve the aid, but the way in which Holy Cross and the Schuler Foundation is going about it only serves to virtue single rather than truly help the issue.

An emphasis of President Rougeau’s announcement was that is aligns with the college’s Jesuit values, yet this move only stands to prove to the community its Jesuit values, advertising it as the Jesuit thing to do, when, if something is the Jesuit thing to do, it would need no declaration of being so, as it would be recognized on its individual merits. By advertising that the college, among others, are giving out aid to unauthorized immigrants, it only stands to worsen the migrant crisis, however slight the effects might be. If Holy Cross would like to do its part to ease the migrant crisis, then it should instead look for students abroad in Central and South America to sponsor. Instead, the college would rather boast about its Jesuit values, while 2,000 miles away, other states are forced to deal with their decisions.

Contextualizing the Conservative Movement

The past several months have been nothing short of amusing for those of us on the right side of the aisle.   With each passing day, the fragmentation afflicting the Democrat party becomes more apparent, the sheer absurdity of their policy proposals becomes more impossible to ignore, and the apparent race to the left in which most remaining presidential candidates appear to be engaged amplifies the case for their un-electability.  The Democrat party and progressive movement more broadly are suffering from severe disintegration, and with it, a growing ineffectiveness of their ambitions, uncertainty of their values, and crisis of their identity.  As gratifying as the self-destructive ‘let’s decriminalize illegal border crossings’ and ‘partial birth abortion is a human right’ talk has become, conservatives ought not lose sight of their own movement and the frictions it faces.

Our movement faces one key contention that has yet to be fully reconciled and carries along with it significant implications for our future.  This dispute can best be recapitulated by last spring’s quarrel between Sohrab Ahmari of the New York Post and David French, senior writer at the National Review.

In his conspicuously titled May 2019 First Things piece “Against David French-ism,” Sohrab Ahmari, op-ed editor of the New York Post, tirades against what he calls “David French-ism,” or the “earnest and insistently polite quality” that he finds “unsuitable to the depth of the present crisis facing religious conservatives.”  Prompted into writing the piece by an online advertisement for a “children’s drag queen reading hour” at a public library in Sacramento, Ahamri contends that figures like French have resorted to excessive politeness and disproportionate civility when engaging in cultural and political battles – a strategy that has left the conservative movement weakened, frail, and subordinate to the ever-growing cultural prowess of the progressive left.  Ahmari argues that such “politeness” is wholly insufficient in combatting the bully-like tactics of the modern left and in achieving his own ultimate political objective, which is to “fight the culture war with the aim of defeating the enemy and enjoying the spoils in the form of a public square re-ordered to the common good and ultimately the Highest Good.”  ‘David French-ism’ purportedly prioritizes individual autonomy above all else, which Ahmari claims has led to a self-exacerbating cycle of powerlessness for conservatives.  French’s so-called inclinations towards “sentimentalization” and his “idle wish that all men become moral” amount to what Ahmari describes as “an almost supernatural faith in something called ‘culture’—deemed to be neutral and apolitical and impervious to policy—to solve everything.”

Unrestricted faith in individual autonomy – something Ahmari implies to be a byproduct of French’s classical liberalism – will inevitably lead to libertinism, in which cultural values are gradually “depoliticized” and become engrained in the social fabric that is already dominated by progressive ideas.  Ahmari goes as far as to imply that government intervention might be necessary to prevent the spread of this “depoliticized politics” and the demise of conservative values.  “Progressives,” he concludes,

understand that culture war means discrediting their opponents and weakening or destroying their institutions. Conservatives should approach the culture war with a similar realism. Civility and decency are secondary values. They regulate compliance with an established order and orthodoxy. We should seek to use these values to enforce our order and our orthodoxy, not pretend that they could ever be neutral. To recognize that enmity is real is its own kind of moral duty.

French punched back the following day with an adamant defense of his brand of conservatism and classical liberal values: the “two main components” of his worldview, he writes, are “zealous defense of the classical-liberal order” and “zealous advocacy of fundamentally Christian and Burkean conservative principles.”  Conservatives’ defense of such values should “be conducted in accordance with scriptural admonitions to love your enemies, to bless those who persecute you,” and being “kind to everyone,” regardless of how hostile or otherwise antagonistic our adversaries may be.  French maintains that “America will always be a nation of competing worldviews and competing, deeply held values” and defends “neutral spaces” as essential for American life.  “There is no political ‘emergency,’” he concludes, “that justifies abandoning classical liberalism, and there will never be a temporal emergency that justifies rejecting the eternal truth.”

This quarrel is representative of a growing intellectual gap that seems to be taking shape on the right, and presents a crucial set of questions we cannot simply set aside – even in spite of the minor rifts it has afflicted onto our movement.  While both Ahmari and French present insightful, well-considered, and valuable ideas and approaches, the best solution lies, as with much else this world, somewhere in the middle.

French’s political objective is, plain and simple, the correct one.  Should we ever opt to forsake our classical liberal tradition in favor of a centralized, quasi-theocratic government that aims to “weaken” and “destroy” any institutions and ideas that conservatives don’t like, we would be annihilating the very premises Ahmari defends and the very foundations upon which the conservative movement rests.  If conservatives aren’t fighting tooth and nail for a pluralistic society that treasures liberty and cherishes each and every man’s right to speak freely, no matter how egregious their ideas might be, we may as well not be fighting for anything at all.

Moreover, “civility and decency” should never become “secondary values,” and Ahmari’s suggestion that they ought to be overtly contradicts his self-described objective of reaching the religiously affiliated “Highest Good.”  As French correctly observes, our political opponents are our fellow citizens.   We can’t preserve Christian values and bolster Christianity’s role in society by discarding fundamental Christian behavior; a God-centered culture cannot be cultivated through godless character and un-Christlike conduct.

What French fails to understand, however, is that the American moral consensus that once permitted truly “neutral” cultural zones has been utterly obliterated.  It has collapsed on its head, and its remnants are, day by day, being eradicated in similar fashion.  We no longer live in an America that recognizes the value of a pluralistic society concerned with the virtues of classical liberalism.  That America has been discreetly but forcefully replaced by a progressive cultural tyranny that does, in fact, set out to “weaken” and “destroy” conservative ideas, institutions, and individuals.  The ‘French-ian’ conception of America simply no longer exists, and it is naïve and counterproductive to pretend that we are operating within the same cultural framework as in decades past.

The American people no longer share the unity of purpose and commonality of vision they once did, which has bred the divisive, relativistic, and purposeless culture in which we are currently trapped.  As John Adams famously wrote, the Constitution of the United States “was made only for a moral and religious people.  It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”  An August 2019 Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll found that values such as patriotism, religion, and belief in God – which were once prized as the most important ideals by the vast majority of Americans – have become not only secondary, but also growing sources of division.  The United States, broadly speaking, is no longer a nation of “moral and religious people.”  The ‘French-ian’ tactics of persistent politeness and anti-confrontational conduct were perfectly fitting for most of our nation’s history, to be sure, and up until recent years, they were the only truly acceptable ways of engaging in political dialogue.  But the progressive left has fundamentally changed the terms of our debates; they have aggressively and uncompromisingly imposed their own cultural will onto the American social fabric with an unforeseen intensity.  The left has already broken the rules.  Coerciveness has already come into play.

One need not look further than Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation process to comprehend just how far the progressive movement is willing to go to, as Ahmari accurately notes, to “destroy” anything or anyone that stands in its path.  Cruelty and callousness cannot be responded to with an unwillingness to be combative and confrontational.  Kindness, though always valuable, cannot suffice alone.  Radical progressivism cannot be adequately fought with tameness and complicit agreeability, and if these are our only sources of ammunition, our failure is already imminent.

French is correct in his assessment that culture is the only proper medium through which conservatives should fight back against the ever-tightening clutches of progressivism, but in order to engage in the culture war, we have no choice but to acknowledge that a culture war exists – something French seems unable or unwilling to do.  Nothing is “neutral” anymore, and if we intend to restore some sense of cultural neutrality and reestablish a faith in pluralism, we cannot merely stand on the sidelines preaching the virtues of “decency” while we idly watch our country and our values being violently dismantled and decimated.

Luckily for the conservative movement, no one in politics is better suited to take on the challenges we currently face than President Trump.  The President is a perfect avatar of a brand of conservatism that is in-your-face yet far from repressive, bold yet not imprudent, and unafraid yet not unrestrained.  He stands his ground, never backs down, and refuses to be silenced or intimidated by incessant (and typically outlandish) attacks from Democrats and those in the media.  In fact, the President’s election can (and should) be understood as a direct consequence of the failures that the ‘French-ian’ approach has yielded over the last two decades.

No two politicians embody the tenets of ‘French-ism’ more impeccably than Senators John McCain and Mitt Romney.  With unblemished characters, untarnished personal histories, calm and composed campaigns, and well-mannered demeanors, no one in good faith could question either man’s integrity, fitness for office, or ability to lead our nation.  A case could be made, in fact, that McCain and Romney represented two of the most honorable and morally upright men in American politics.  Nonetheless, Democrats jumped at the chance to disparage McCain as an unfit, war-mongering bigot and Romney as a vicious racist and sexist who sought to objectify women and, in the words of former Vice President Joe Biden, put African Americans “back in chains.”  Each candidate held steadily true to the creed of ‘French-ism.’  Rather than hitting back and holding their own in Trumpian fashion, they continued their campaigns with their attacks uncontested, their demeanors unruffled, and unsurprisingly, their presidential bids unsuccessful.  When we concede our cause to figures like John McCain and Mitt Romney in the current political environment – their respectability of character notwithstanding – we lose, and we lose soundly.

In the age of woke progressivism and search-and-destroy political techniques, ‘David French-ism’ is a recipe for failure, and in November 2016, the American people finally had enough.  Ahmari writes the following of Trump’s election: “With a kind of animal instinct, Trump understood what was missing from mainstream (more or less French-ian) conservatism. His instinct has been to shift the cultural and political mix, ever so slightly, away from autonomy-above-all toward order, continuity, and social cohesion.”  In short, President Trump has become necessary because the left does not play fair, and no one else in politics possesses the sheer audacity to withstand the influx of unsubstantiated cries of ‘racism’ and the orthodoxy of contemporary left-wing politics.  As Thomas D. Klingenstein wrote in a May 2019 Claremont Review piece, President Trump’s “unequivocal defense of America’s way of life is nothing less than extraordinary.”  “Even on the Right,” he continues, “he is virtually alone in making the arguments.”  Conservatives are blessed to have someone in office who fights for our cause without timidity, without remorse, and without backing down.

Conservatives must not be complacent and we must never waver.  Though we should never lose sight of civility and graciousness when we interact with our political foes, proper engagement in the culture wars requires some semblance of a backbone and some willingness to stand up for what we know to be the most superior vision for America and all of its citizens.  All of this is achievable without discounting civility, relying on government coercion, or adopting the left’s bad-faith strategies for ourselves.  We are better than that, and we owe it to our movement, to our country, and to our fellow citizens to approach this important episode in our nation’s history with fearlessness and fortitude, but in a way that doesn’t nullify the values we preach and hold dear.

We must not underestimate the power of words or undervalue our capacity to change hearts and change minds.  The art of persuasion and the free exchange of ideas are cornerstones of American democracy, and even in these politically turbulent times, they ought not be forsaken.  Winning our neighbors over to our point of view is not within the threshold of the federal government.  Rather, that charge lies with each and every one of us.  That charge is our duty as human beings, as Americans, and even on this campus as Crusaders.  That charge, in fact, is the very foundation of this publication, and it is my hope that we continue to advocate for our ideas and our worldview in a way that is combative but caring, fierce but friendly, and daring but diplomatic.   The truth is on our side.  Let’s do right by it.

Choosing Truth Over Facts: Joe Biden Is Not Barack Obama

Please note: Portions of this article were inadvertently cut off in the print edition. This is the full and correct version of the article.

Democrats love Barack Obama. They enthusiastically voted him into office twice, he has a high approval rating amongst Democratic voters, and he has appeared in countless videos and interviews over the years. Because of this, pundits and newscasters think that Joe Biden, Obama’s VP, has a strong chance of securing the Democratic nomination for the 2020 election. Biden knows this and uses Obama’s popularity to increase his own appeal. But Biden’s strategy, as smart as it may seem, may not be the best. If Biden’s opponents can criticize Obama, they can dethrone Biden. Perhaps more importantly, Biden is not Obama, and sheer nostalgia can only go so far.

Obama’s legacy first came under attack during night two of the July Democratic Debates. Candidates like Bill de Blasio and Kirsten Gillibrand — both supporters for a single-payer healthcare system — criticized Obamacare for its high deductibles and the profit it provides for insurance companies. Biden spoke up saying, “My response is, Obamacare is working. The way to build this, and get to it immediately, is to build on Obamacare.”

This was not the only attack on the Obama administration. Another major attack involved immigration. Candidates such as Julián Castro and Cory Booker fight for the idea that crossing the border illegally should be a civil violation not a criminal offense. De Blasio and Booker took this time to question Biden on whether or not he supported the mass deportations during the Obama presidency. In response, he did not outwardly defend the deportations, but he bluntly stated his opposition to decriminalize border crossings: “If you cross the border illegally, you should be able to be sent back. It’s a crime.”

Trump, on the other hand, is able to use this to his advantage, and he has already begun to do so. “The Democrats spent more time attacking Barack Obama than they did attacking me, practically,” he said. “That wasn’t pretty.” Criticizing one of the most popular politicians of the party not only hurts the perception of the party but also helps the opposing party. Candidates think this is the way to take down Biden and therefore help their own campaigns. He continues to top polls, have high approval ratings amongst black voters, and be their biggest competition. Biden, however, continues to use the Obama administration as an advantage. He is focusing on all the positive aspects of it while also framing the negative aspects as “things to build upon” rather than broken, incorrect policies that need to be replaced. 

While doing this, he also attacks Trump and his administration: “I hope the next debate we can talk about our answers to fix the things Trump has broken, not how Barack Obama made all of these mistakes.” By focusing on trying to build on Obama’s ideas rather than replace them, he can win the support of the Democrats who hate Trump and love Obama.

But, just because Biden is more than happy to reference his ties to Obama, it does not mean Obama does the same. Obama has yet to endorse Biden, and before Biden even entered the race, it is reported that Obama privately told him, “You don’t have to do this, Joe.” Since he cannot use an endorsement from Obama to his advantage, he uses these attacks as a means to defend and protect the legacy he was a part of as well. 

One critical weakness of attempting to use Obama is that Biden simply is not Obama. One major reason Obama was able to rally support is he appears as a strong candidate. Republicans and Democrats alike agree that he is a good speaker, a solid debater, and knows how to appear likable and intelligent. He was under fifty when he took office, and Democrats loved his youthful, enthusiastic nature.

Biden, on the other hand, has been viewed as tired, old, and confused. He is seventy-six years old, and his age shows throughout debates and speeches. During each Democratic Debate, especially in June, he appeared very tired by the end. When Kamala Harris attacked Biden during the first debate, he, for a moment, attacked her confidently but almost immediately looked weak. He stopped mid-point to say his time was up, even though other candidates had no problem going over their allowed time.

To make matters worse, Biden continues to make mistakes in public appearances. Each day in the news, there appears to be a new Biden gaffe. For example, Biden was hyping up a crowd in Iowa explaining how, “We choose unity over division; we choose science over fiction.” With enthusiasm, he continued, “We choose truth over facts!” The crowd continued to cheer, but this was clearly a mistake, since facts should support truth. A little later, he opened up for questions and was asked who his favorite historical figure is, excluding U.S. Presidents, and his first answer was Thomas Jefferson, the third President of the United States. Adding on to these, Biden accidentally said, “We have this notion that somehow if you’re poor, you cannot do it. Poor kids are just as bright, just as talented, as white kids.” Realizing what he had said, he quickly added, “Wealthy kids, black kids, Asian kids, no I really mean it, but think how we think about it.” If Trump said something like this, the media would quickly say it is a statement reflecting inner racism. But since it is Biden, the left is hiding it and avoids commenting on it. Others include at the end of the July Democratic Debate him saying “go to Joe 30330” instead of “text Joe to 30330,” during a speech he mentioned that he was VP during the Parkland Shooting from 2018, and asked “what’s not to love about Vermont” while visiting New Hampshire.

Obama did not make mistakes such as these during his own campaign. He thrived on public appearances and inspired Democrats through strong speeches. Attempting to use Obama worked in the beginning, but people are starting to look past his association. He is not Obama, and he is going against Trump: a candidate who has been a strong President with a hard work ethic, the physical stamina to be president, and his clear intention with everything he says. If Biden is selected as the nominee, Trump’s lively nature, strong debating skills, and clever campaign strategies will all overcome him.

The 2020 Election, if Joe Biden wins the nomination, is simply him against Trump – not Obama and Biden against Trump. Using the former President can help his case, but it cannot win him the election. Biden’s weaknesses continue to come through, proving he is lacking the strengths that got Obama elected. President Donald Trump will use his own strengths at the expense of Biden’s weaknesses and serve another four years, much to the dismay of Democrats and the thrill of Republicans.

A Secular Case Against Abortion

There are few issues in modern politics as divisive and misconstrued as abortion. Both sides of the issue consistently use absurd and dangerous arguments, denouncing each other as ‘baby killers’ or for ‘wanting to oppress women.’ Regardless of the incredible damage this rhetoric does to the integrity of the body politic, which is already suffering from serious political divisions, there is little convincing about being castigated by your opponent as turning a blind eye to murder or promoting bigotry. The overwhelming majority of both sides of the argument have good intentions, and they should be treated as such.

In this article I intend to outline, in a civil and descriptive manner, the secular case against abortion. It is secular not because religious arguments are invalid, but because religious views are not widely shared among the people of this country, and because of the predisposition towards the view that religious morality should have no place in determining American law. The validity (or lack thereof) of these criticisms is not within the purview of this article. It is important to understand that a secular argument against abortion is not simply an attempt to veil an underlying religious motivation. The secular argument is fully capable of standing alone, without any semblance of religious support. 

Certain misunderstandings about the pro-life position must be rectified before any serious arguments can begin. First, being pro-life has no relation to a desire to dismantle women’s rights. In fact, women actually outnumber men in proclaiming a pro-life stance, at 51% to 46% (“Pro-Choice” or “Pro-Life”). Being pro-life is about protecting the right the unborn child has to life, the right that is by far the most important. Without a right to life, there is little reason to promote rights of any sort. By the same token, the gender of those passing pro-life legislation is irrelevant. Because the desire is to protect humanity’s most important right, a legislator being a man or a woman has no bearing on the validity or morality of the legislation. It is worth noting, that the oft-criticized Alabama pro-life bill of May 2019, passed by the all-male Alabama Senate, was signed into law by the female governor of Alabama, Kay Ivey. Another common misunderstanding is the prevalence of rape-related abortion. Rape as a cause for abortion accounts for under 1% (about 0.5%) of all abortions, a minute number. The case of rape is often used as the main example of why abortion rights are needed, an argument which, rightfully so, garners much sympathy. But because under 1% of abortions occur because of rape, it is not a valid reason to advocate the mass-availability of abortion. There can be cases made for why abortion should be available to rape victims, but those should be made separately from the main abortion debate. On a similar topic, being pro-life does not mean that abortion should be illegal if the mother’s life is in danger. To the contrary, the mother’s right to life supersedes that of the child, and if there is no effective way to save both mother and child, the mother must come first. Finally, there is no constitutional right to an abortion. The landmark case of Roe v. Wade superficially established some sort of right to abortion, but there is no basis for such a right in the U.S. Constitution. The U.S. Constitution is easily accessible, and it contains nothing regarding or applicable to abortion rights, and the Founding Fathers would never have supported such rights. Roe v. Wade claimed that abortion restrictions infringed upon a woman’s right to privacy, but that is unreasonable. The law restricts people’s rights to privacy in innumerable cases. One does not have the right to privacy when they are restricted from insider trading or theft. Aside from this, the right to privacy does not supersede the right to life of the child, and thus the privacy argument becomes null and void. Roe v. Wade is a fundamentally flawed case, and lacks defensible legal foundations. Of course, it is currently the ‘law of the land,’ but that does not make it right and proper. 

With these misunderstandings aside, the central contentions of the secular case against abortion can be fleshed out. First it is important to understand where life begins. To do that, human life has to be defined. It could be defined by consciousness, but then the act of killing a person in a severe coma, vegetative state, under anesthesia, or when blacked out (all of which entail a lack of consciousness) would not be murder (which it is classified as under the law), so that definition is out of the question. It could be defined as the moment the fetus exits the birth canal, but a few inches of tissue should not distinguish life from a lack thereof. A baby is capable of surviving before natural birth, as in the case of a cesarean section or an early birth for example. Under certain circumstances, the fetus could grow and develop without the mother at all, so birth itself can not be an indicator of life. It could also be defined as the time at which a human can live independent of another human. The issue here is that infants, toddlers, and children up to their teenage years are incapable of living without parental care, yet children are considered living and their lives have equal worth as adults.

The only effective definition, that can not be undermined by any other circumstance is that life begins at the point of conception. It is at conception that a totally unique and new sequence of DNA is created, with the meeting of the father’s sperm and mother’s egg. It is that DNA that fundamentally makes a human different from a fish, an apple, or any other organism. And it is from that point of conception that the fetus is able to develop into an adult human being. Thus, conception is the only definition of life that is both universal and can stand up to a rigorous criticism. If life begins at conception, then abortion cannot be morally acceptable, for abortion at any point is the snuffing out of a human life.

To head off any potential naysayers, it is worth positing another thought. If, for whatever reason, one can not accept the definition of life as beginning at the point of conception, then there is another, more philosophical avenue to consider. If life is yet to be defined, and there is no concrete point at which it begins, then one could still not morally justify abortion. Take an analogy (the source of which slips my mind): You were driving down the road at night, and you saw something run out onto the road, yet you were unsure if it was an animal or a child. You have time to swerve off the road, possibly totaling your car, but you know that you will be unharmed. Would you choose to hit whatever it is or swerve? In this analogy, the thing running out on the street is ‘life’ and the car is the pursuit or non-pursuit of abortion. Of course the moral choice is to swerve the vehicle. 

With life defined, it is worth briefly outlining the stages of a baby’s development in the womb. Within the first four weeks of pregnancy, the baby will already have a minuscule organ which is the beginnings of the heart, capable of beating up to 65 times per minute. By the end of the first month, the likeness of the baby’s face will be visible. By the second month, the baby’s appendages will begin to grow, and the development of the nervous system will be well on its way. By the sixth week, the heart beat can be monitored. In the third month, the baby’s appendages complete their formation, and the baby can control the movements of the mouth. The main organ systems are also well into development. In the fourth month, the baby can, in a limited fashion, control its arms and legs, and its nervous system is beginning to function. By the fifth month, the baby starts to grow hair, and the mother can often feel its movements. In the sixth month, the baby can respond to certain stimuli, and can experience hiccups. Upon reaching 23 weeks, the baby can usually survive with proper medical care and incubation. In the seventh month, the baby is capable of hearing and can feel pain. In the eighth month, the baby will be nearly fully developed. And by the ninth month, the baby is fully developed and is ready to be born naturally. 

With the critical background information filled out, it is essential to understand the actual procedures by which an abortion is carried out. In the first 7 to 9 weeks, the most common form of abortion in the US is a medical abortion, usually through the utilization of mifepristone and misoprostol (or a very similar pairing). Mifepristone is used to eliminate the lining of the uterus, which halts the continuation of the pregnancy. At that point, misoprostol is taken, which initiates contractions, expelling the fetal remains from the body. The fetus is then disposed of, without any of the proper care given to a deceased human. Also used within the first trimester is the process of Manual Vacuum Aspiration, which is the process of inserting a small syringe-like tube into the uterus and then sucking out the fetus.

When the euphemisms are disregarded, and the actual process if understood, it is quite gruesome. The vacuum pressure rips apart and sucks out the developing baby from the womb similar to how a home vacuum sucks up the dust on the floor. Suction curettage, which is performed between six and 16 weeks of pregnancy, is a similar procedure. In this case, the uterus is expanded with medical instruments and a tube is inserted, which then can either suck out the fetus like in the aspiration procedure or will scrape out the tissue. The end result is the same. After 16 weeks, a procedure known as ‘dilation and evacuation’ is used. This procedure is also very similar to the previous two, except the fetus is now much larger. Sometimes the fetus is injected with a concoction of medication to ensure that it is dead. The procedure ends in the same way as aspiration and suction curettage. Finally, after 21 weeks, the ‘dilation and extraction’ procedure is used.

This procedure bears little resemblance to the others. The uterus is expanded so as to allow doctors to have access to the now well-developed fetus. Then surgical tools like forceps are used to pull out the body parts, including the arms and legs, through the uterus. It should be noted that these are torn from the body of the fetus. Then, a tube is inserted into the fetus’s skull, and the brain is sucked out, at which point the skull caves in upon itself. When that occurs, the remnants of the fetus are extracted from the uterus. It goes almost without saying that this is a horrendous and gore-filled  process. The remains are then disposed of. Abortion is an incredibly barbaric procedure, and despite the emotional pains that its description may cause, it is critical to explain that barbarity so as to comprehend why it is so awful.

Abortion is not the only path that is available to people who want to avoid having a child. Adoption accomplishes the same goal, and does so much more humanely. Adoption provides a win-win situation, with the unwilling or unable parents foregoing the responsibility of a child and the child experiencing the greatest right of them all: life. Of course adoption is not as easy as having an abortion, but the ease of the process should not be the primary concern over the preservation of the child’s life. No child’s life is reducible to the supposed ease, or potential lack thereof, of the parent’s life. In most cases, it was the parent’s choice to have the child, and when there is a clear choice involved, it is important to understand that there are consequences for one’s actions. The disdain for those consequences does not justify an abortion. 

With over 50 million abortions having occurred since the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, the case against abortion becomes more and more important every year. That is 50 million lives snuffed out, 50 million unique and valuable individuals who could have contributed so much to society. And this is what the secular case against abortion is founded upon: the inalienable right of every individual to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It does not bode well for a  society when the most vulnerable are denied their most fundamental right. Those who have been aborted are forever lost, but every day to come provides the possibility for lives to be saved. We must come together as a country, as a principled and righteous people, to preserve the lives of future generations.

Trump's Reelection Strategy? Staying Quiet.

“Wait a second, did the President actually say that?” 

Ever since the 2016 election of Donald Trump, it seems like every single American has either heard that phrase or said it themselves. From his infamous Twitter account to his controversial statements and policies to the Mueller Investigation, it's no secret that ‘The Donald’ loves to be the center of attention. And that is exactly his problem. President Trump’s obsession with being the top story in newspapers across the country everyday will without a doubt be his Achilles’ heel when the 2020 Election arrives.

Trump’s actions over the last few months have embodied this obsession. July 14th saw the president attack ‘The Squad,’ a group of four congresswomen who have been known for their progressive politics and for their criticisms of the president. ‘The Squad’ is comprised of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of NY, Rashida Tlaib of MI, Ilhan Omar of MN, and Ayanna Pressley of MA. In the tweet, Trump suggested that they ought to “go back” to the “totally broken and crime infested places from which they came.” Not only was the tweet downright unnecessary and despicable, but it’s also factually wrong. Three of the four congresswomen targeted were born in the United States, with Omar being the only exception, as she was born in Somalia. Still, she is a legal citizen of the United States and should not be ridiculed by the president for simply not being born in the United States. Trump gained absolutely nothing from this tweet, and it is absolutely childish of the President of the United States to attack four duly elected congresswoman for simply disagreeing with his politics. 

It is perfectly acceptable to not agree with The Squad’s politics. Heck, a lot of people in America, including myself, don’t agree with them. However, when you start to attack them based on something other than their politics, that is when you know the line has been crossed.

Another example of Trump unable to keep himself in check was seen with the suicide of financier and convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, who was recently arrested on July 6 on federal charges for sex trafficking. It is no secret that Epstein had contact with many famous people including former President Bill Clinton, Prince Andrew of England, and President Trump himself. When news broke of Epstein’s suicide, Trump posted a pair of tweets accusing former President Bill Clinton and former Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton of being involved in Epstein’s suicide. One of the tweets retweeted by Trump claimed that documents were unsealed that revealed that top Democrats, including Bill Clinton, took trips to Epstein's private island in the Virgin Islands.

There are many things wrong with this retweet by the president. One is the blatant hypocrisy of Trump, as he also had connections with Epstein, and was even recorded on video partying with Epstein in 1992 at his Mar-a-Lago estate. What’s also hypocritical is the fact that Trump’s Secretary of Labor Alexander Acosta was forced to resign when his handling of Epstein’s 2008 plea deal came to light, in which Epstein dodged federal sex abuse charges by pleading guilty to state charges, which resulted in a 13 month sentence and requirement to register as a sex offender.

The fact that the President of the United States is retweeting this wild conspiracy theory blaming a former president for committing murder is not only appalling and wrong, but it also brings shame to the Oval Office. Trump must have forgotten that he also had ties with Epstein, as he would have been better off remaining silent this time.

Other controversial statements by the president include saying that any Jewish person who votes for a Democrat shows “a total lack of knowledge or great disloyalty” and even talking about buying Greenland. Talk about a crazy summer for Donald Trump.

Despite these controversial statements, Trump can still win the 2020 election. As a matter of fact, President Trump has done a lot of positive things while in office: tax reform, nominating two justices to the Supreme Court, and recognizing Jerusalem as Israel's capital seem to be his most popular policies. The reality of the situation is that while a lot of people like these actions by President Trump, they are always shadowed by the president’s loud and abrasive personality. In response to this, he must have a different approach once 2020 comes around: stay under the radar and let the Democrats battle each other for the nomination. 

While this will certainly be a challenge for the president, it is the smartest thing for him to do if he wants to remain in office. While supporters of the president like the fact that Trump is vocal about his beliefs on Twitter, others just want the chaos to stop. To stop this chaos, I highly suggest that someone in the Trump Administration snatch his phone and delete Twitter ASAP.       

The 2020 presidential election will certainly be one of the most important elections in recent history. This election also poses many questions, the most important of which will be whether or not the president can stay out of the spotlight and let the tides of Washington settle for a little while. This will without a doubt be the difference of him winning reelection or him packing up his bags and saying goodbye to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

Holy Cross Hysteria

On Vanderbilt University’s campus in November 2015, a bag of fecal matter was discovered on the porch of the University’s Black Cultural Center.  As might be expected, the incident garnered widespread attention on campus, and outrage immediately ensued. The discovery of the bagged feces came the day after a group of black students staged a public protest against alleged racism on campus.  Naturally, the optics of an incident like this are less than ideal; the placement of feces on the doorstep of a University’s Black Cultural Center only a day after a major protest might have certain implications and play into particular narratives.  Vanderbilt’s black student organization didn’t hesitate to denounce the incident as a “deplorable” act of hate: without delay, the group condemned the episode on its Facebook page, contacted police, and informed campus administrators of what it saw to be a “vile” act “of hurt.”  Within hours of the student group’s allegations, however, law enforcement officials revealed that the bag was left on the porch not as an act of racism or bias, but by a blind student who had just picked up after her service dog and hoped someone at the Center would properly dispose of the bag on her behalf.

In recent weeks and months, the Holy Cross community has been practically bombarded with allegations, assumptions, and assertions that echo the false cries of bias and racism from Vanderbilt’s campus several years ago.  Students and other members of the campus community have received a plethora of frantic emails, walked past constantly expanding arrays of condemnatory posters and signs, and attended narrative-driven on-campus events that paint Holy Cross as a nasty community festered with hate, plagued by intolerance, and beleaguered with bigotry.

““...The administration should practice what it preaches and aim to seek the truth rather than to impose a narrative.”
”

The Holy Cross administration’s tendency to leap to particular conclusions about rumors and allegations on campus has become entirely predictable.  Rather than withholding judgment about reported incidents until additional facts are available and investigations are completed, the school chooses to immediately default to the “hate crime” label.  This pattern has led to immeasurable harm within the Holy Cross community: the administration’s habitual rush-to-judgment approach when handling ambiguous incidents has cultivated an atmosphere of hypersensitivity on campus.  How can Holy Cross in good faith call for students to “be patient with ambiguity and uncertainty,” as it does in its mission statement, when the school itself refuses to be?  Instead of force-feeding students with unsubstantiated narratives of racism, sexism, homophobia, and bigotry every time vague incidents are reported, the administration should practice what it preaches and aim to seek the truth rather than to impose a narrative.

Like the occurrence at Vanderbilt in 2015, many of the incidents to which the Holy Cross administration has responded appear nefarious on a surface level.  When students are informed of torn-down black history signs and missing rainbow flags, it’s not entirely unreasonable to assume that such acts are bias-motivated or otherwise wicked in intent.  But the automatic presumption that these acts are ‘hate crimes’ is preposterous and unfair. On more than one occasion during my rather short time at Holy Cross, students have drunkenly torn down signs in residence halls.  Is it that far-fetched to think that the removal of the “Black Herstory” board in February could have been the result of drunken recklessness rather than an instance of “bias-motivated vandalism” and an “act of intolerance”?  Is it that far-fetched to think that the disappearance of a rainbow flag last November could have been caused by the wind? According to Holy Cross, apparently. In both of these instances, the administration explicitly noted that investigations had not been completed.  In the case of the rainbow flag, students were informed that school officials “do not know the motivation for the flag’s removal,” yet they still didn’t hesitate to label the incident as “deeply troubling.”

Of course, it’s not infeasible that some of these incidents have been bias-motivated.  And in cases where bias is proven and verified, such incidents should be condemned in the strongest possible terms.  But the constant presumption of bias in cases where no such bias is evident makes the Holy Cross administration look reactive, hypersensitive, and possibly motivated by a victimhood narrative.  As Professor David Schaefer of Political Science wrote in a previous issue of The Fenwick Review in response to the appearance of a swastika on campus, “Judging from my long acquaintance with Holy Cross students, I would guess that the swastika was far more likely a stupid prank provoked by the College's ever-increasing barrage of ‘multicultural’ indoctrination than a reflection of Nazi sentiment.”  In a sense, the College’s ultra-reactive responses to incidents like the torn-down black history sign, the missing rainbow flag, and other allegations with zero evidence are comical. How can one make such jarring assumptions based on such little information? How can the administration justifiably cancel a day of classes and force a summit on “campus culture” when over 100 hours of security footage and more than 40 interviews produced not even an iota of evidence for the supposed “hate crime” the summit was intended to address?  How does jumping to unsubstantiated conclusions and advancing uncorroborated narratives of hate in any way benefit students or the greater campus community?

Several national incidents have invoked this same sense of false outrage in the first two months of 2019 alone.  The alleged bias-motivated attack against actor Jussie Smollett, which several prominent politicians did not hesitate to label as “an attempted modern day lynching” and a “racist, homophobic attack,” turned out to be part of a not-so-elaborate hoax staged for the advancement of Smollett’s own career.  Ironically, it wasn’t until after the alleged Jussie Smollett attack was revealed as a hoax that Democrat presidential candidate Senator Kamala Harris said she wasn’t “going to comment until I know the outcome of the investigation” and Senator Cory Booker, another 2020 candidate, vowed to “withhold until all the information actually comes out from on-the-record sources.”  If the “outcome of the investigation” and “all the information” are important, why weren’t they when each senator immediately decried the attack as a “modern day lynching”? Likewise, students from Covington Catholic High School were instantly characterized as racist and bigoted based on a few seconds of video footage depicting a confrontation with a Native American elder, until it was revealed based on extended footage that the elder was provoking the students, not the other way around.  What do incidents such as these say about the state of the culture? Perhaps more importantly, what can we learn from them?

We live in a reactive society.  Whether our nation’s current level of hypersensitivity is rooted in animosity towards the President, towards people of faith, towards ‘straight white men,’ or towards anything or anyone else, people tend to jump to conclusions based on what they want to believe.  In reality, narratives of racism don’t hold any water when evidence for such racism ceases to exist.  America in 2019 is a pretty great place to exist: very few are truly victims, and all people – including women and minorities – have more opportunities now than at any other time in history.  Likewise, whether we like to admit so or not, Holy Cross is an extremely inclusive and welcoming campus.  Everyone who is fortunate enough to attend this school is far from being victimized, regardless of what the powers at be might want us to think.
Ultimately, everyone on campus would be better off if the administration were to take a step back, examine all available information, and let any investigations run their course before sending campus-wide emails decrying unclear incidents as “hate crimes” the second they’re reported.  Do we want to be a campus based on narrative or a campus based on fact? Do we want to assume the worst in one another or the best in one another? Do we want to be a campus that jumps to conclusions or a campus that strives to reach the truth? I can only hope we aim for the latter.  Our campus, our community, and our culture will be better for it.

““Ultimately, everyone on campus would be better off if the administration were to take a step back, examine all available information, and let any investigations run their course before sending campus-wide emails decrying unclear incidents as ‘hate crimes’ the second they’re reported.” 
”