Archives
April 2022
Categories
All
|
Back to Blog
MORGAN HUNT
On Monday, March 29, Boston College Republicans hosted Amherst College Professor emeritus Hadley Arkes for a Zoom lecture on Natural Law and traditional morality. Professor Arkes is a highly respected academic, a student of Leo Strauss, and the founder of the James Wilson Institute on Natural Rights and the American Founding. It was an engaging talk, in which Professor Arkes laid down the philosophical and historical foundations of Natural Law, elaborated on its implications, and took many questions from the audience The Wednesday following, BC Heights published a news piece by Victor Stefanescu about Professor Arkes’ lecture, entitled “Arkes Denounces Same-Sex Marriage, Abortion At BC Republicans Event.” This “news” article did not even attempt to report on the event in an unbiased manner. Stefanescu carefully picked and chose select quotations of Arkes in an attempt to smear not only the event, but Professor Arkes and our organization. The article focused on his opposition to homosexuality, his backing of former President Donald Trump, and his admission that he probably “offended everybody” at the event. It also falsely claims that Arkes promoted conversion therapy. The article neglected to summarize Arkes’ arguments for the Natural Law—the entire focus of the event—proving that it was written to provoke emotional sentiments in those who didn’t attend the lecture and would likely take offense with Arkes’ viewpoints. Stefanescu additionally failed to place Arkes’ quotes in the proper context of his arguments. A week and a half later, on April 11, BC Heights published an opinion piece by Scott Baker called “A Message to Prospective Students: Boston College Is Still Homophobic.” In this article, Baker references us with regard to Arkes’ talk: “On March 29, BC College Republicans hosted notorious homophobe and transphobe Hadley Arkes, who gave a lecture that promoted conversion therapy, argued that homosexuality is a choice, and compared homosexuality to drug use and prostitution. At this point, after hosting a white supremacist last year, BC College Republicans should be considered a hate group and not an officially sanctioned student organization with University funding.” There are so many things deeply wrong and pernicious about this passage. Like Stefanescu’s news article, this opinion column completely ignores the focus of Professor Arkes’ talk, which was first and foremost a defense of the Natural Law. It also slanderously misrepresents what Arkes said during the lecture. Arkes did not “promote conversion therapy” at any time. He simply referenced cases in which “therapy and conversion” had led people to no longer consider themselves homosexual. Neither did he compare homosexuality to drug use and prostitution; he brought up the latter two as analogies to make an argument about bodily autonomy and consent. In addition, Baker falsely accuses a previous guest of BC Republicans, Andrew Klavan, of being a “white supremacist.” Instead of challenging Arkes’ or Klavan’s beliefs, which he evidently doesn’t agree with, Baker uses ad hominem attacks and slanders to charge Arkes, Klavan, and our organization with spreading “homophobia,” “white supremacy,” and “hate”. We at Boston College Republicans do not tolerate such false attacks. If Scott Baker had actually gone to our event, he would’ve found Professor Arkes more than willing to respond to questions in the Q&A and engage in debate with those attending. Additionally, he would’ve found Professor Arkes and our organization to be far less “hateful”, and far more tolerant and welcoming, than he believes. Baker could have challenged the Professor’s arguments real-time in a healthy academic debate, but instead chose to slander a well respected academic and the organization which hosted him in a disrespectful and flawed opinion column. It is equally despicable that Scott Baker would write a hit piece calling the BC Administration, and the school as a whole, “homophobic.” Such a polemic displays a level of arrogance and disrespect unbecoming of a Boston College student. If one actually wanted to convince the administration to change their views on establishing an LGBTQ resource center, etc., a more civil and polite column would be significantly more effective. Ironically, I personally agree with Baker’s views on homosexuality and gay marriage. I support gay marriage and, while I believe in the Natural Law, I don’t find homosexual love and attraction to be inherently bad. I knew going into the event that I would disagree with Professor Arkes’ views on homosexuality. Yet unlike Baker, I believe in academic debate and the lively engagement of ideas with which I disagree. In fact, I decided to challenge Professor Arkes in the Q&A portion of his talk. I laid down my case for gay marriage, and he laid down his case against it. We debated the issue back and forth for five or so minutes. It was such an interesting conversation that many people talked to me about it after the event had ended. Some agreed with me on the issue, some didn’t, but most people remarked that I had brought up some good points in defense of homosexuality and gay marriage. That is how one must approach controversial issues on a college campus. It should be how all those in favor of gay marriage approach the issue at Boston College. BC Republicans’ guest speakers always hold Q&A sections where all questions and challenges are welcome. In addition, one may just find that they learn something from our guest speakers, all of whom are highly regarded in their fields. It’s also important to consider that Arkes’ views on homosexual activity, that it is immoral and should be discouraged, are not extremist beliefs well outside the acceptable range of public discourse. Just 13 years ago, both major political candidates for President did not support gay marriage. The Catholic Church, the largest church in the world, does not bless homosexual marriage. The common moral and political arguments against homosexuality and gay marriage are not motivated by bias, but instead by religious faith, a desire for sexual purity, the impulse to incentivize procreation, etc. One can disagree with those arguments, as I do, and still recognize there is nothing extreme, evil, uncommon, or unacceptable about them. The act of opposing homosexual activity and gay marriage is not “homophobic” as Baker infers. A person is homophobic when they treat someone with disdain or disrespect simply because of their homosexuality. Too often the disapproval of homosexual activity is equated with the hatred of homosexual individuals. This is logically inconsistent. It is very possible for a person to disapprove of the sexual and romantic decisions of a gay man without hating their very existence. It is even possible for a homosexual individual to oppose gay marriage on religious, moral, or political grounds. Professor Arkes remarked in his lecture that he has homosexual friends who are opposed to the legalization of such an institution. It would be very strange, and quite nasty, to call that subset of the gay community “homophobic.” Put simply, homosexuality is an issue that should be debated on a college campus. There are many reasonable people on both sides of this important debate. I’m glad Professor Arkes came to campus, mainly because of his excellent argument for the Natural Law, but also because his visit allowed this discussion to happen. Professor Hadley Arkes, on April 6th, wrote about his virtual visit to BC in The Catholic Thing, which is well worth reading. To hear the actual claims Arkes made in his talk, don’t read the false and slanderous articles in The Heights. Rather, inquire with Tom Sarrouf (at [email protected]) to get your hands on a recording of the lecture.
Back to Blog
We Have All Won the Historical Lottery2/28/2021 MORGAN HUNT
In the summer of 2017, I cycled through the fields of western Cambodia. A little over 40 years before, around 2 million native Cambodians were stripped away from these fields and killed in death camps by the Khmer Rouge. As I was cycling, I pictured parents being taken away from their children, knowing that in an hour they would be dead. I wondered how many people from each village I passed had been slaughtered by Pol Pot’s regime. It was a horrifying experience. I came back to America with one distinct conclusion: everyone living today in this country, or any other free country, has won the historical lottery. Whether one is rich or poor, white or black, male or female, everyone in this country is free to speak, interact, travel, and work without fear of going to jail or being killed. The vast majority of us have access to healthy food, a comfortable home to live in, a phone to communicate with friends and family, and a car to travel safely in. We neither fear execution from those in power, nor live in miserable poverty. Yet today, many take this all for granted. Instead of counting their many blessings, members of the public critique society with a vengeance. They say that America as a society is oppressive to everyone who isn’t a straight, white, wealthy, male. They maintain the social structures of America are comparable to that of Hitler’s Nazi Germany. According to them, our country is so terrible its independence day shouldn’t be celebrated. I would invite anyone who revels in this mindset to take a trip to the killing fields of Cambodia. I would invite them to travel to Auschwitz to see the remnants of the Holocaust, travel to rural Asia to see the atrocious living conditions people have to face daily, or read up about the Soviet gulags and the Holodomor. All in all, I would ask them to reconsider their level of appreciation for what America has given them. I would ask them whether the freedom and prosperity America’s citizens currently possess has been the norm throughout human history, or the notable exception. Perhaps then, progressive activists wouldn’t be so sanctimonious to burn buildings and yell out “no justice, no peace” in critique of a police force that is rarely discriminatory and unjust. Perhaps then, they would refrain from saying “all countries matter” on the Fourth of July in defiance of our country’s independence and exceptional founding values. Instead, they would focus on using their influence to prevent the ongoing genocide of Uighur Muslims by the Chinese Communist Party, or the near-complete subjugation of women in Saudi Arabia. An honest study of the history of human living conditions and God-given rights around the world provides us with one important conclusion: the quality of life in the 21st century in a select few countries (the US included) is by far the best in human history. Therefore, rather than critique what current society has not done for you, reflect on, and give thanks for, what it has.
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. |