Archives
April 2022
Categories
All
|
Back to Blog
THOMAS K. SARROUF, JR.
Former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich recently called for the Senate impeachment hearing to utilize the secret ballot to vote whether or not to convict former President Donald Trump on charges of “incitement to violence.” On Tuesday, Reich took to Instagram to call on Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) to implement the procedure so that the senators could “vote their consciences.” In the next sentence, he claimed that it was necessary to use a secret ballot because Trump supporters were not peaceful and Republican senators lacked integrity. Reich’s proposal is flawed on two grounds. First, his premise defeats the conclusion that a secret ballot is necessary. If Republicans lack integrity, the secret ballot will not cause them to vote to convict President Trump as Reich hopes it would. All it would do is masquerade those who didn’t vote to convict Trump, which is the opposite of what Reich wants. He wants the people who support President Trump to be held accountable, even going so far as saying that those who voted to overturn the electors in Arizona and Pennsylvania should be made to testify under oath under penalty of perjury. Reich thinks that the only reason Republicans might still back Trump is because they do not want to lose his base of ardent supporters, but Reich contradicts himself. According to him, they have no integrity, and giving them an out will not inspire some sense of constitutional zeal. Second, Reich’s proposal subverts the principles of representative government. He implies that representatives are free to vote as they please once elected, and he is right about that. It is a long-standing tradition—stemming from the times of Roman constitutionalism—that a representative who acts against the will of the people does not cease to be a representative of the people. But the safeguard against tyranny is accountability through regular elections. If a representative does something the people do not like, they vote him out of office in the next election cycle. If a secret ballot is used, that accountability is lost. It’s quite ironic—and disconcerting—that a guy like Robert Reich, who purports to care about things like transparency and accountability, is calling for a system that eliminates accountability for people in power. The second impeachment of President Trump is both important and divisive. How our representatives choose to navigate this political and cultural firestorm matters, and their constituencies have the right to judge them on the basis of how they vote for impeachment, just like any other piece of legislation. Politicians are elected on the basis of their promises; they are re-elected based on what they did for the people they represent. If we do not know how they voted on this important issue, we are left in the dark as we form judgments of our representatives. We entrust them with power; there have to be channels of accountability lest that power be corrupted, and the tendency of power to corrupt is something that Reich just doesn’t seem to understand. To that end, there should not be a secret ballot for senators voting on Trump’s impeachment.
Back to Blog
THE EXECUTIVE BOARD OF BOSTON COLLEGE REPUBLICANS
We, the Boston College Republicans, condemn in the strongest possible terms the University's decision to create and use the new COVID-19 online reporting form. The policy exacerbates the culture of fear, suspicion, and mistrust between students, which has led to a decline in mental health in our community and across the country. It is also a disturbing appropriation of ideas from the Soviet handbook, and is antithetical to principles of a free society. The reporting form is rife with problems. First and foremost, the identity of complainants may be kept anonymous. Complainants are required to submit their contact information when making a complaint, but they have the option to not be contacted as part of the process. The form states that Boston College may not continue with an investigation in that case, but that does not preclude the possibility that a student may be investigated without facing their accuser. The right of the accused to face their accuser is a nearly 2,000 year-old tradition dating back to the reign of the Roman Emperor Trajan, and even a hint at betraying such a tradition is disconcerting. Boston College has not made clear how the reporting form will be used to investigate and punish students found in violation of the Code of Conduct. How will due process be followed? What safeguards are in place to prevent abuse of the system? It is conceivable that this form might be used to exercise a personal vendetta, and the form does not state what burden of proof is required to indict a student accused of violating the Code of Conduct. We demand transparency; the process must be self-evident and clearly articulated to the student body, lest it be liable to abuse. This reporting tool mirrors the mechanisms for controlling citizens, used in the past by authoritarian, persecuting regimes. Utilized by regimes like Fidel Castro’s Cuba, Nazi Germany, and the Soviet bloc, the concept of reporting neighbors and loved ones for not following authority is not a stranger to history. Within a college campus, the utilization of these rules can have similar devastating results to the culture and atmosphere of the school. Rather than fostering a culture full of compassion and understanding, a mechanism like this fosters an atmosphere of fear, suspicion and mistrust. It also creates a culture of compliance out of fear, rather than one’s own choice to be virtuous themselves. It wholly diminishes the principles of personal responsibility and individuality, and instead begets a culture of virtue-signaling, fear mongering, and “snitching.” Simply put, this policy neglects the lessons taught in our classes and at church in favor of naked authoritarianism. Cura Personalis, or “the care for the whole person’ is at the center of Jesuit tradition. However, this policy disregards the spiritual and mental health of students for fear of physical health. For most students, the virus poses minimal physical risk. So far, 525 people aged 15-24 have died from Covid-19, out of 15,222,638 total positive cases among the entire American population. By contrast, in 2017, prior to a shutdown that did an extensive amount of damage to the population’s mental health, 6,252 people aged 18-24 took their own life. In 2020, drug overdose deaths in the United States reached record highs. Both of these mental health-related illnesses pose a significant threat to young adults, yet the policies enacted by the administration only exacerbate the stressors that lead young adults to succumb to such illnesses: stressors such as isolation, anxiety, stress, and distrust of both authority figures, as well as peers. Finally, we ask the question, “to what end is this policy being enacted?” Are the current protocols not sufficient to prevent the spread of the virus? Over the summer, as Boston College reported how they would proceed with in-person instruction for the Fall semester, students took to social media to criticize the administration’s so-called “lack of a plan” to deal with the virus. Schools who decided to bring students back to campus were criticized in the media, in academic journals, and blogs. Some colleges sent students home after the first small spike in cases; Boston College weathered the storm. Everyone was proven wrong. In the fall semester, the administration administered 118,118 tests, and recorded only 418 positive test results, a 0.353% positivity rate. By Boston College’s own metrics, the regimen of testing, contact tracing, and social distancing mandates were more than sufficient to achieve Boston College’s goal. Our campus’ plan was a smashing success, which renders any need for additional measures, particularly ill-conceived and authoritarian measures, unnecessary. The Boston College community has proven that it can be trusted to act virtuously without the need for policies reminiscent of the post-totalitarian structures of the Soviet Union. To the administration, we urge you to abandon this dangerous and quixotic policy. And to our classmates, we implore you to reject the administration’s attempt to force this new policy on us. We swore that we would follow the Eagles Care pledge, and we have. We need not succumb to a culture of mistrust and fear. This policy is only effective if we give our assent to using it; if we come together in opposition to these unjust tactics, the administration’s facilitation of deceitful, oppressive methods will be unsuccessful.
Back to Blog
MORGAN HUNT
Former UK Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher is prone to being called nicknames. Over time she’s been called “Maggie,” “Thatcher, the Milk Snatcher,” “Attila the Hen,” “That Bloody Woman,” “Maggon,” “Thatch” (aka pubic hair), and “The Iron Lady.” Her critics were unafraid to label her as a heinous witch, while her supporters fiercely worshipped her strong qualities and principled leadership. As a result, these epithets run the gamut from ugly to comical to affectionate to grand. None of them, in my opinion, give her legacy the credit it deserves, as I shall now prove. In 1959, Margaret Thatcher was first elected MP (Member of Parliament) for the British constituency of Finchley. She was an Oxford-trained chemist, who grew up in a decidedly political household (her father was the Conservative mayor of her hometown of Grantham). Her traditional Methodist up-bringing strongly influenced her politics, and she knew from a young age that conservatism was the way to create a prosperous and stable country. 16 years later, she was elected leader of the Conservative party. Four years after that, she became British Prime Minister. Her character and politics never changed from the time she was first elected to the time she became PM. Thatcher was a powerful and decisive Prime Minister because of her resolute and dependable dogma. She was a fierce enemy of consensus politics and compromise, defining the former as the “process of abandoning all beliefs, principles, values, and policies in search of which no one believes.” With Thatcher, one always knew she would respond to problems with decisiveness and vigor. The strength of her political consistency and the inflexibility of her ideology drew plaudits from even her harshest critics. Later, Prime Minister Gordon Brown wrote about the “resilience” in which she carried out her duties, adding “even those who disagreed with her never doubted the strength of her convictions.” Thatcher additionally possessed a superb ability to speak and write the English language. Each argument she made in debate was crafted to reveal a new facet of her point; every speech emphasized a new part of her political acumen. Her quotes argued for conservatism in the most concise and insightful manner. Margaret was truly notable and quotable. This fact also drew praise and respect from Thatcher’s opposition, although one can imagine they really despised her abilities for being superior to their own. Thatcher’s carefully crafted words contrast starkly with the dialect of today’s politicians, who merely recite slogans and repeat words in the hope that witless audiences will understand and believe what they’re saying. Thatcher never used dulled-down rhetoric, but that fact never affected her popularity. The Conservative Party under her leadership won three consecutive landslide victories in general elections. Thatcher’s agenda as PM was three-pronged. She was principled in her response to domestic conflict and terrorism, spearheaded British strength in foreign affairs, and continuously supported neoliberal economics while her opposition defended socialism. All three aspects of her premiership brought her significant success. The Troubles The Irish Troubles of the ‘80s provided challenges to the maintenance of a unified Britain and to the country’s objective of domestic peace. The IRA was the provisional Irish Republican Army, a Catholic Militia which wanted Irish independence from Britain but became evermore violent in their quest. They fought the Ulster Defense Association (UDA), a Protestant Loyalist Militia, which wanted Ireland to remain a part of the U.K. In 1976, a handful of IRA criminals were imprisoned for conspiring to plant a bomb against the UDA. In 1981, these prisoners decided to fast themselves to death. Their demands were that the UK government consider them political prisoners rather than criminals. Thatcher did not give in to their ultimatum. She claimed that the criminals should be treated as criminals given their crime. As the IRA prisoners began dying of hunger, she continued to hold this position as head of the UK government. Her reaction gained her many Catholic enemies in Ireland. Yet Thatcher’s firm deference to law and order exemplified that moral compromise was not a phrase present in her vocabulary. In my mind, Thatcher must be applauded for never budging an inch on the obscene demands of these prisoners. The night prior to the 1984 Conservative Party Conference in Brighton, England, the IRA struck back at Thatcher. They planted a bomb in the Brighton Hotel where her entire party was staying the night. At 3 am, it detonated. Five were killed by the blast with Thatcher barely escaping fatality (the bathroom in her hotel room was crushed by rubble). Yet Thatcher remained incredibly composed throughout the aftermath of this incident. She gave a TV interview at 7 am that morning stating that the party’s conference would go on. It did, and in her speech that night she remarked: “The fact that we are gathered here now…is a sign not only that this attack has failed, but that all attempts to destroy democracy by terrorism will fail.” Her unbridled resilience in confronting the IRA, and all other terrorists, after her life was nearly taken was remarkable. The Falklands War While Thatcher has been credited by many to have brought about the end of the Cold War, Thatcher’s biggest foreign policy success was in the Falklands; a war remembered fondly by the British, but not by most Americans. When the Argentine military invaded the Falkland Islands in 1982 (an area that both the UK and Argentina believed was rightfully theirs), the British military, under the order of Thatcher’s parliament, successfully recaptured the Falklands and defeated Argentina. The victory was devastating for Argentina but a huge boost for morale in Britain. The Falklands War re-established belief in British might and the effectiveness of Margaret Thatcher’s government. It is often suggested that Thatcher was a great wartime leader that was damned to reign in a time of worldwide military peace. The Falklands War gives a hint of what she might have been like. Neoliberal Economics Thatcher’s world fame comes from her part in ending the Cold War. I argue that Thatcher’s war with the USSR was most successful not because she brought about détente, but because Thatcher attacked Marxist socialism and Soviet communism with more vitriol than perhaps any ruler in history. She saw political freedom and economic freedom as inseparable (an idea she shared with economic advisor Milton Friedman and friend Ronald Reagan), and knew that any increase in government spending or nationalization of industries was a step closer to authoritarian government. Thatcher demolished the welfare state in her country, and with it the majority of wealth redistribution. Her goal was to create wealth, rather than redistribute it, and she did so through tax cuts and the privatization of once-public industries. Her policies brought success and positive economic change to Great Britain. Over the course of her tenure, Thatcher brought inflation down from 23% to around 2% per year, decreased public spending by 10%, decreased taxation by a similar amount, declined union membership by four million, and raised UK household incomes across all economic classes. Critics point to the increasing unemployment during her term and increasing levels of relative poverty. I respond that the former development was a natural result of her incentives to deindustrialize Britain and revitalize private sectors where Britain had a stronger global capacity. All but the industrial workers realized that this was a necessary change. The latter argument does not take into account the clear fact that all UK classes were more prosperous after Thatcher than they were before her. In her final Prime Minister’s Questions, she rightly claimed that socialists “would rather the poor were poorer provided the gap [between rich and poor] were smaller.” How right she was. A True Feminist Hero While many modern liberals see Michelle Obama and Ruth Bader Ginsburg as the greatest female political pioneers in history, it is vital to remember that the true trailblazers for women’s advancements in politics were conservative women. Margaret Thatcher was the first female leader of a Western democracy and Sandra Day O’Connor was the first female jurist to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court. It’s ridiculous that Thatcher isn’t lauded more by feminist advocates. It’s also to be expected, since modern feminism tends to disregard the achievements of women who don’t subscribe to left-leaning ideology. If Thatcher had accomplished similar things as a Labour Party Prime Minister for 11 years, she would be talked about much more frequently and positively in feminist circles here in America. What a shame that is. After Thatcher’s death in 2013, her legacy was treated tepidly in America. Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) was one of a few Senators to deliver a tribute to her posterity on the floor of the U.S. Senate. He said, “I’ve always been fond of her admonition that conservatives need to first win the argument, then we’ll win the vote.” He was, and still is, quite right. Not everyone recognized that a great woman and prime minister had passed away, however. Then-President Barack Obama did not send any top members of his administration to Thatcher’s funeral. Most tributes to her were written in haste and vaguely focused on how she brought about Soviet détente. Thatcher’s legacy deserves more attention, particularly among American conservatives. As leader of the Tories for 15 years, she showed the Western world that the facts of history and economics are conservative, and that society will be better off when we have a strong, principled, effective, and conservative leader to follow. I argue that she deserves a meaningful tribute from everyone in the land, and that she should be referred to not by flouncy monikers, but by her full name: Baroness Margaret Thatcher.
Back to Blog
Sources of Unity1/28/2021 DOUGIE NEVIERA
Much of today’s news coverage focuses on domestic political division. The current president speaks of unity as he signs divisive executive orders. That is not how to unite the country. Some political differences may be unsolvable, so they should not be considered viable solutions for American unity. However, there are fundamental aspects of, and challenges facing, American society that can unify the country because they transcend partisan politics; if they cannot unify America, nothing can. A shared history grounds attachments. A divided America should look to its remarkable past and take from it an informed sense of patriotism. Recognition should be made that even though the country has never been perfect, it is better than any alternative––which is why immigrants traveled to America throughout the country’s history. Americans should look to the nation’s founding documents and see their country’s past as a journey to reach those ideals. A love of country should be found by studying our great former leaders such as George Washington and Abraham Lincoln; their lives are pinnacles of human achievement. An appreciation for history gives meaning towards the present because it gives onlookers recognition that what is enjoyed did not come easy. Heroic military achievements have been necessary in securing the American nation. A notable success is William Tecumseh Sherman’s 1864 march to and seizure of Atlanta, which saved Lincoln’s re-election chances against an opponent who would have settled with the South. Such achievements should be celebrated. Civilizational inheritance should not be wasted, because it did not come easy. Unity can be found in that truth. On the eve of the Civil War, Secretary of State William Henry Seward advised President Lincoln to start a foreign war. Seward recognized that a common enemy can unite a people, so he sought to avoid civil war by creating a shared adversary. Today, it is undeniable that China is the greatest threat America has faced in generations. While China is a daunting challenge that America will have to confront, it can also unify the country. It is indisputable that China is evil. At home, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) utilizes draconian surveillance methods to suppress dissent as they work to erase cultures they view as a threat to their Han ethnic majority. Abroad, the Chinese finance infrastructure projects, through their Belt and Road Initiative, to gain a foothold in foreign nations––a foothold they are unlikely to give up. China has not been shy about their threats directed towards Taiwan. The CCP sends military flyovers through Taiwanese airspace as a continual reminder to Taiwan and the world of Beijing's ambitions. The Chinese military has practiced invasions of Taiwan and their threat should not be taken lightly, especially with the coming 100th anniversary of the Chinese Communist Party. Taiwan is a free and functioning democracy whose existence should be valued. Failure to stand with Taiwan will alienate America’s Japanese, Korean, and Australian allies. Appeasement of authoritarian regimes has a long history of failure; deterrents should be created accordingly. Unity should be found in America through protecting the democratic miracles in the Far East. China unleashed and lied about a virus that has killed millions. Growing evidence suggests the virus came from the Wuhan Institute of Virology, so the only remaining question is whether or not the leak of the virus was intentional. It is unlikely that an answer will ever be found, given the CCP’s suppression of information surrounding the lab, but wrongdoing is still found in China’s response to the leak. China’s network of influence inside America is ominous. From the CCP’s infiltration into academia, to one of their spies most likely having an affair with a rising American politician, China threatens America from within. America is increasingly dependent on China for basic products. It is problematic that America is reliant on its greatest adversary for pharmaceuticals such as ibuprofen and penicillin. The China threat America faces is real; however, it can be a source of unity. America must realize that there are factions of its society that are incompatible with its quest for unity. Viewing America’s past as irredeemably flawed is a nonstarter––the value of a country’s history gives meaning for its future. There must be a reason to exist. Statue toppling and revisionist histories will erode faith and exacerbate division in America. Similarly, kowtowing to China for the sake of corporate profits will create the false sense that the CCP is not our chief geostrategic rival. American thought leaders cannot callously remark that Chairman Xi “is not a dictator” if the country wishes to unify against a great challenge. Unity will not be found through a focus on hot-button political questions. Americans must search for fundamental sources of unity that transcend politics if they wish to remain strong.
Back to Blog
Is This the End?1/28/2021 THOMAS K. SARROUF, JR.
Three weeks ago, there was an attempted coup at the United States Capitol, an event which resulted in the deaths of six people, and two police officers. By itself, that is no small calamity. Put in the greater context of American history, this incident is just one in a growing trend of contests that threaten the fabric of the constitutional order. Of all the American elections, there have been four that were “interesting” or heavily disputed: 1824, 1876, 2000, and 2020. Many elections have been narrowly-decided, but these four stand out for either being decided in Congress where no single candidate had enough electoral votes to win (1824 and 1876), was decided by the Supreme Court (2000), or was at risk of being overturned (2020). Two of the last five elections have been heavily disputed, with cases being sent to the Supreme Court or potentially being decided in Congress. Let’s also consider impeachments: there have been four impeachment trials in American history; two of them have been within the last year and against the same president. Perhaps that merely tells us something about Donald Trump, who is an anomaly in American politics that should not be lumped in with the other instances. But perhaps it says something about the state of our politics more generally: things are breaking down, and our expectations of what politics should be are no longer realistic as a result. The question is “where do we go from here?” Is this the end? The Founding Fathers were brilliant statesmen. They were well-studied in political philosophy and classical history. At the Constitutional Convention in 1787, James Madison, Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and Thomas Jefferson, among others, created a document that was to stand the test of time. The Constitution represents the pinnacle of the Western political tradition. The creation of a republic allowed the Constitution to extend its power over time and space; a republic is truly the most stable form of government. Compared to a democracy, the republic was seen as the ideal model for that very reason: the Roman republic lasted between 300 to 400 years longer than the Athenian democracy. That being said, is it realistic to expect that the United States will live on in perpetuity, without any major restructuring or fundamental change? No empire, kingdom, duchy, or nation has existed forever; the German philosopher Hegel suggested that each great nation would only last for its epoch, only to fade away in the face of a rival. Is it not arrogant to believe that the American republic will be the sole exception to this rule? Speaking of Rome, their republic faced a similar pattern of destabilization before it devolved into the Roman empire. Rome fell long before Caesar. Republican Rome experienced many civil wars, public assassinations of political rivals, and control of government by rich powerful generals. Specifically in the second century BC, a number of political reformers and populists, such as Gaius and Tiberius Gracchus, as well as Lucius Appuleius Saturninus, were murdered by senators, which signaled a deep failure of the Roman republican system to overcome conflict peacefully. This trend continued in the first century BC, with servile rebellions and oligarchic and military takeovers of government, culminating in the rise of Caesar Augustus in 27 BC. Likewise in Athens, the democracy failed as tyrannoi attempted to use the democracy to win widespread public support. After the failure of the Sicilian Expedition in 413 BC, the tyrannical forces in Athens instituted the oligarchic Council of 400, which was later replaced by a more democratic rule of the “5,000”; the “5,000” was overthrown in favor of democracy after the victory against Sparta at Cyzicus, only to be replaced by the rule of Thirty Tyrants following Sparta’s victory in the Peloponnesian War. In both cases, discord, structural crisis, and unrest brought about the destabilization of the government structure, which resulted in the loss of self-rule. The Founding Fathers recognized the problems of Athenian democracy as being unstable and susceptible to tyranny; this problem was also evident in Rome, but the Founders saw the possibility of extending the powers of the Constitution over time by creating a republican government and coupling it with a deep-rooted sense of anti-populism. Even so, we have seen constitutional crises occur with increased frequency in recent years, including an attempt to disrupt a constitutional process of certifying the electoral college vote, which is tantamount to a coup attempt. We have not had political assassinations of rivals in America like in Athens or Rome, but our politics has, at some level, devolved into character assassination. We have already had our first civil war, and are on the precipice of a second one; as of this writing, 71% of Trump supporters believe the US is headed towards a second civil war; 40% of Biden supporters agree. These phenomena could be small blips on our radar that ultimately result in no significant changes to the Constitutional structure of the country; they may also result in another civil war, one that either sees a new constitution be created, or sees some amendment to the current structure. But it all begs the question, “are we seeing the end of America as we know it?” I cannot make predictions about the future, as I do not know. But in the aftermath of the failed coup attempt, Senator Ben Sasse’s (R-NE) words gave me hope. He said: “I don't think we want to tell our kids that America's best days are behind us because it's not true….There's a lot that's broken in this country but not anything that's so big that the American people can't rebuild it. That freedom and community and entrepreneurial effort and that neighborhoods can't rebuild. Nothing that's broken is so big that we can't fix it….There are some who want to burn it all down. We met some of them today. But they aren't going to win…. The constitutional system is still the greatest order for any government ever, and it's our job to steward it and protect it.” Senator Sasse is right. And his message hits a crucial point: the issue of human agency. We have to continue to steward the Constitution. Not only that, but we have the ability to do just that. The Constitution is the greatest political document in world history, but it still needs adherents and believers; otherwise, it’s merely a brilliant essay that captures the essence of man and sets out a government based on those truths. We choose to follow the Constitution because we recognize its Truth, Goodness, and Beauty. The Constitution reminds of its Truth every time it is tested. They tried to stop the electoral college vote--they failed. The South tried to secede--they failed. The Supreme Court regularly upholds the Constitution; they are not always perfect, and are sometimes way off the mark, but that is part of the American philosophy. The Constitution was a document written based on truths about the human person: we are corrupt, imperfect beings, liable to error; the Founding Fathers created the government in light of those realities. The Constitution reminds us of these things when it is put under duress, and proves that it is the perfect political document, and the gold standard of all earthly political forms. When tested, it reveals its strength, which is why we still give our assent to live under it. There are some on the Right who say that the Constitution is outdated and insufficient to deal with today’s problems. Some say that the so-called “patriots” at the “Save America” rally captured the “Spirit of 1776.” The “Spirit of ‘76” was on display at the Capitol on January 6th, but it was not from the criminals attacking the People’s House, but rather the people defending it from their violent lawlessness, and from the politicians and statesmen who stayed up late into the night doing our work in an act of defiance against anti-Americanism. Folks, we’ve made it. We hit the jackpot with the Constitution. The challenge of the American patriot is thus to maintain the Beauty and live the Truth of our inheritance. Have fun coming up with something better. And to my right-leaning comrades who do want to try, I will say the same thing that I say to the Left, who regularly spits on constitutionalism with their policy prescriptions: come and take it! |