Maura's Malaise

Maura Healey took office in January 2023 with a nearly $2 billion state surplus and a legislature entirely controlled by her own party, the most favorable hand any politician could ever ask for. She won that office by casting herself a natural heir to Charlie Baker's reputation of fiscal discipline and competent management. Nonetheless, four years later, and running for a second term against Republican nominee Mike Minogue, Healey has rapidly spoiled that inheritance. Her record as governor is one where she will talk about affordability while the state grows less affordable, and claim fiscal seriousness by begging the legislature for more money, all while failing to hold the legislature accountable. 

The State of Massachusetts is the only state with a "right-to-shelter" law, and Healey's administration was blindsided by the Biden administration's failure to regulate border crossings, causing a shelter surge. Annual costs exploded from roughly $200 million to a program now approaching $1 billion a year [1]. Rather than budget honestly for the crisis, Healey's administration repeatedly lowballed the legislature, only to come back mid-year  for bailouts. By mid 2025 the state was spending $3,496 a week to shelter a single family, which is more than the roughly $2,015 a week the median Massachusetts household earns. This governor, who ran on affordability, was in effect spending more per week on one sheltered family than a typical working family takes home. The working class family that elevated Healy to the governorship was now the same working family being left behind as the state began to spend more, and grow increasingly unaffordable. 

The Springfield courthouse deal [2] shows the same pattern of mismanagement, when in July of 2026, the state's Division of Capital Asset Management awarded a $600 million construction contract that eventually converts into a lease, costing taxpayers nearly $2 billion over 40 years. This makes the Springfield courthouse one of the most expensive courthouses built in America to date. Additionally, typical bidding regulations— where the lowest and most competent bidder usually gets the contract— were sidestepped and the contract was instead awarded to a team that included a firm co-owned by the husband of U.S. Representative Ayanna Pressley (D), plus a state official who briefly held a personal stake in the winning bid before quietly stepping away under pressure. Those losing bidders sued, calling the process "irrevocably tainted." A fiscal watchdog group, MassFiscal Alliance, demanded Healey pause the deal and release the records. She refused both, insisting she "wasn't involved" and saw no conflict of interest. That is not the answer that a governor exercising oversight of her own government should be issuing to the people of the Commonwealth. 

In November 2024, 66 [3] percent of Massachusetts voters approved Question 1, authorizing the state auditor to examine a legislature that had exempted itself from public records and open meeting laws for over a century. Healey claims she voted for it. Since then, House and Senate leaders have stonewalled every request for records by gutting the audit's scope in a House bill, and forced the auditor to sue her own government's leadership just to get a hearing. Through all of it, Healey has done essentially nothing: she has not publicly pressed legislative leaders to comply, has not said whether she would veto a watered-down audit bill, and, by her rival's account, she went a year and a half without even returning the auditor's calls. 72 percent of the Commonwealth voted for this, and the Democratic supermajority legislature is failing to address the concerns of their constituents, and the governor is failing her duty to enforce the law. 

The Republican nominee, however, is Mike Minogue. Minogue is a West Point graduate, Gulf War veteran, and the former chief executive who spent nearly two decades running Abiomed, a successful, Massachusetts-based, medical company. His campaign has centered around the affordability and leadership crisis that the Commonwealth is currently facing. The Commonwealth is also no stranger to electing Republican governors in a majority Democrat-run state. Since 1990, Massachusetts has had five Republican governors, and only two Democrats. Healy’s campaign, though, presumably hoping to ride off the anti-Trump sentiment, has pointed out that Minogue has been a donor to the Trump Campaign in previous years. This then begs the question for the average voter in the Commonwealth: What is more important to your community? Is it the affordability crisis that is dividing communities and preventing the promise of social mobility, or is it politics? That question will be answered in November. 

End Notes

[1] Gross, Samantha J. “Amid Migrant Influx, Cost of Running Mass. Emergency Shelter System Surpasses $1 Billion.” The Boston Globe, 30 July 2024, www.bostonglobe.com. 

[2] “Massachusetts AG Moves to Dismiss Lawsuit over $2B Springfield Courthouse Project.” WWLP 22News, 2026, https://www.wwlp.com/news/local-news/hampden-county/massachusetts-ag-moves-to-dismiss-lawsuit-over-2b-springfield-courthouse-project/.

[3] Massachusetts Secretary of the Commonwealth. “Massachusetts Statewide Ballot Measures: 1919-Present.” Mass.gov, https://www.sec.state.ma.us/divisions/elections/research-and-statistics/balmresults.htm. Accessed 1 Oct. 2026.

Newman the Oratorian

On July 31, 2025, Pope Leo XIV named S. John Henry Cardinal Newman a Doctor of the Church and co-patron of Catholic education, along with S. Thomas Aquinas. A former Anglican minister, he became a hallmark of the Oxford Movement. This movement, through the publishing of tracts (small pamphlets used for religious instruction), the movement sought to recover Catholic elements of the Church of England. The movement manifested itself across global Anglicanism. Anglican ministers began to shape their liturgies to mirror the traditional Catholic Mass. This included many outward signs such as vestments, missals, and high altars. Yet, Newman, while in Rome, fully understood that it was the spiritual depth of interiority, combined with an authentic development of doctrine, that was the true deposit of the Christian faith. He had begun distinguishing these ideas during his final years as an Anglican. After converting in 1845, he founded the Birmingham Oratory in 1848, part of the Congregation of St. Philip Neri. 

So, why the oratory? In the sixteenth century, St. Philip Neri developed a center of informal spiritual development, combined with vocal prayer and hymnody, at the Roman church of San Girolamo della Carità. During his time in Rome, from 1846 to 1847, Newman was ordained to the priesthood and given permission to establish the Birmingham Oratory by Pope Pius IX. The Birmingham Oratory describes the apostolate of an Oratorian as “that of the threefold ministry given to the Apostles: prayer in common, the administration of the sacraments, and the daily Word of God. The virtues especially cultivated by an Oratorian are charity, submission of the individual’s will to the collective mind of the community, and loving to be unknown” [1]. In other words, Oratorians strive to lead a simple priesthood with informal bonds of charity. They seek humility, sound doctrine, and a strong discipline to the sacraments. 

Efficacious homiletics are evident in the life of Cardinal Newman as an Anglican. His eventual conversion to Catholicism was marked by his motto as a cardinal, cor ad cor loquitur, meaning “heart seeks to heart.” His Anglican sermons, preached at or before his time at Oxford, are beautiful and edifying, yet they have a clear academic and theological tone. After becoming Catholic, Newman’s homilies shift towards a more direct emphasis on the state of one’s soul. His sermons took on an extremely salvific focus during his period at the Birmingham Oratory. Newman writes in his collection Discourses to Mixed Congregations, “Now, one of the defects which man incurred on the fall was ignorance, or spiritual blindness; and one of the gifts received on his restoration is a perception of things spiritual; so that, before he is brought under the grace of Christ, he can but inquire, reason, argue, and conclude, about religious truth; but afterwards he sees it” [2].

Newman sought to not propagate Catholicism by diminishing it, or by attempting to turn it into a Christ-themed implementation of new age spirituality. Rather, he dove into the richness and traditions of the timeless apostolicity of Catholicism. Meditations and Devotions was compiled by Newman to foster a deep interior life for his readers, including novenas and meditations of various riches of dogma, such as the Immaculate Conception, Our Lord’s life, and the life of St. Philip Neri. Newman wrote in his Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, "A doctrine develops, but it must remain the same type of thing... [It is an] authentic preservation of type of what came before."  Take the Immaculate Conception, dogmatized by Pope Pius IX in 1854 in the document Ineffabilis Deus. The freedom of Our Lady from original sin is apostolic and patristic; it can be seen in the writings of Justin Martyr, [3] among other Church fathers, and is tacit in the Synoptic Gospels. Newman’s theory is also a devotion to an internal development of doctrine, and the acknowledgement that his once-held view of a lifeless and static Anglican understanding of doctrine was false. The transition of the development of Newman’s understanding of the human fall, to the role of the Annunciation, towards the Immaculate Conception, is a true personal development. It is reflected in Meditations and Devotions when Newman writes, “we do not say that she did not owe her salvation to the death of her Son. Just the contrary, we say that she, of all mere children of Adam, is in the truest sense the fruit and the purchase of His Passion” [4]. This is what St. Philip Neri wanted for the priests of his Oratories and what the practice of an Oratory is: to approach doctrine, not by dilution, but through a renewal that is a transition from reason to personal sanctity. 

End Notes

[1] "Vocations," The Birmingham Oratory, last modified October 16, 2019, https://birminghamoratory.org.uk/vocations/.

[2]  John Henry Newman, "Discourse 9: Illuminating Grace," in Discourses Addressed to Mixed Congregations (London: Longman, Brown, Green, and Longmans, 1849).

[3] Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho 100, in The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, vol. 1 of The Ante-Nicene Fathers, ed. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing, 1885).

[4] John Henry Newman, "Memorandum on the Immaculate Conception”

Babouba, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

Repeal the 17th Amendment

In The Republic, Socrates proposed the notion of a tripartite soul: that the soul has a rational, a spirited, and an appetitive component which, properly regulated, provides for balance in one’s life. The city too features this division: the rational class, the spirited class, and the appetitive body. As a republican government, the U.S. has lost its spirited class. The Senate, our most thumotic organ of civil government, no longer functions as the Founders envisioned. The 17th Amendment rang the death knell to the representation of states, and subsequently to federalism itself.

The Senate’s mode of election was meant to provide a check on democracy. Article I of the Constitution provided that the legislatures of each state would choose two senators, and the governor would temporarily fill vacancies during recesses [1]. As such, each senator was directly accountable to his state, safeguarded by the structure itself. The Senate would then provide direct representation to the states, as states, with the interests particular to those governments. In the national legislature, the people would have direct representatives through the House of Representatives—a more responsive body by its mode of election—but the Senate would balance out the sea of interests to derive state policies. Together, the two would marry responsiveness to prudence.

A democratic fervor during the early 20th century undid this compromise. Prominent populists, then progressives, attacked the institution as corrupt, geriatric, and undemocratic. There were certainly problems: senate elections often deadlocked the legislatures, high-profile instances of corruption, and the civil war undermined belief in state autonomy. This became such an issue that President Wilson, when running for office, campaigned on the direct election of senators, proposing that the problems of the republic would always be settled through more direct representation [2]. However, this injection of democracy undermined the central virtues of our republican system.

The two problems progressives campaigned on are worthy of discussion, the third was more so a sentiment. Legislative deadlocks used to be more common (seventy-one between 1885 to 1912) [3], but for good reason: our system is meant for effective, not instant, government. Additionally,  the deadlocks would not have been so severe had Congress not demanded priority through part of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 [4]. It is better to have a proper representative than one who works against your interests. Imagine a parallel circumstance: it is roughly analogous to if a higher power ordained that the U.S. Congress could not pass another bill until the government balanced the budget, or sorted out the abortion issue, or enacted universal healthcare. Certainly each of these issues are worthy of our attention, but that is Congress’ discretion—we would be right to fear the faults of an expedient solution. In effect, this is what the Civil Rights Act of 1866 did to the states. Similar to the 17th Amendment, the national government abridged the respect due to the states in a dual federalist system. The Senate, rightly, gets to choose which senators to recognize, but how the states come about that should be at their discretion as local representatives.

Likewise, instances of corruption poisoned the well. In an era of populism and fervor for the everyman, the generally older, wealthier, and educated statesmen of this body fell under suspicion. It did not take much to bring the whole body, and their electors, into question. Montana Senator Clark resigned in 1899 for having bribed the state legislator [5], and Illinois Senator Lorimer was expelled in 1912 after news broke of his own bribery campaign [6]. But even this problem was exaggerated; between 1789 and 1909, of the 1,180 senators elected, only seven were denied their seats [7]. Yet, even these instances demonstrate that the system worked: the senate was preserved and those who attempted to subvert their state’s representation were ousted. But public pressure mounted, and in 1912, it took only 11 months to ratify the 17th Amendment.

However, the cure proved more potent than the sickness. State representation perished, and the Court tries to preserve its corpse on ice. As a result, we have an overreaching federal government, an activist judicial body, difficult nominations, and a citizenry who cannot care for their local politics.

 Ultimately, the ratification of the 17th Amendment subverted the 10th, reducing the reservation of state power to a mere tautology; “all is retained which has not been surrendered.” [8] The U.S. Congress gained an unchecked influence contrary to the states’ plenary power: the complete legislative authority states have over themselves unless stated otherwise by the Constitution. Under this new compact, a multitude of issues arose over the national firearms policy, the drinking age, the commerce clause, labor laws, etc. Congress became a government, not of enumerated powers, but of justifiable power. Once the Senate was no longer beholden to the direct will of their states, they lost subservience to its interests—especially of deferring to subsidiarity. As Justice Thomas would later highlight, “when the people of Georgia pick their representatives in Congress, they are acting as the people of Georgia, not as the corporate agents for the undifferentiated people of the Nation as a whole.” [9] It is no wonder we arrived at an unduly hawkish Senate, a national policy of hammers on local nails, and an unreasonably high drinking age. Without the express direction of their legislatures, the Senate becomes lost: discerning national, populist appeal instead of the prudent, long-term interests of their constituents

The judicial branch, then, for more than one hundred years, has been attempting to reenergize the corpse of state sovereignty. What authority the amendments originally gave, the Courts have been trying to grant back to the states, including  restricting Congress’ use of the Commerce Clause [U.S. v. Lopez (1995); U.S. v. Morrison (2000)]; preserving state purview of labor laws and manufacturing [Hammer v. Dagenhart (1918)]; preventing the commandeering of state resources for federal purposes [N.Y. v. U.S. (1992); Printz v. U.S. (1997)]; and undoubtedly, many more landmark cases. These are concerns the political process our government was designed for; they were never meant to be left to the decision of nine lawyers. Yet, it becomes apparent why judicial nominations are now so controversial: they matter more [10].

Our Founders architected a system built on checks and balances, which was safeguarded by the structure of its branches. Now, for more than a century, we have operated without those safeguards, and without proper state representation. Federalism is the key. Without federalism, this whole system limps about, swaying left and right, attempting to keep steady without the support of its familiar walls. With the hindsight of more than a century’s time, Senator Root’s critique is all the more prescient:

The proposed amendment is simply to enable the people of each State to escape from the performance of the duty of electing a Legislature that can be trusted. Are we prepared to abandon the performance of that duty? Are we to assume that our State Legislatures must necessarily and for all time be unfit to represent the people of the State? If so, what becomes of the government of the State? Is that, with all its multitude of important duties, to be left unfit? If any State Legislature cannot now be trusted, the true reform would seem to be in the direction of selecting the Legislature.

For all such reasons, I propose we repeal the 17th Amendment.

End Notes

[1] U.S. Constitution, art. 1, sec. 3; “The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof….the Executive thereof may make temporary appointments…”

[2] “First Words: Woodrow Wilson, March 4, 1913 | Miller Center.” December 27, 2016. https://millercenter.org/issues-policy/governance/first-words-woodrow-wilson-march-4-1913.

[3] Ralph A. Rossum, Federalism, the Supreme Court, and the Seventeenth Amendment: The Irony of Constitutional Democracy (Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2001), 191.

[4] Ralph A. Rossum, Federalism, the Supreme Court, and the Seventeenth Amendment: The Irony of Constitutional Democracy (Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2001), 185.

[5] United States Congress, “CLARK, William Andrews,” accessed September 26, 2026, https://bioguide.congress.gov/search/bio/c000454.

[6] United States Congress, “LORIMER, William,” accessed September 26, 2026, https://bioguide.congress.gov/search/bio/L000444.

[7] Ralph A. Rossum, Federalism, the Supreme Court, and the Seventeenth Amendment: The Irony of Constitutional Democracy (Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2001), 185.

[8] Justia Law. “United States v. Darby, 312 U.S. 100 (1941).” Accessed September 23, 2026. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/312/100/.

[9] Justia Law. “U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779 (1995).” Accessed September 23, 2026. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/514/779/.

[10] “Changes in Supreme Court Appointments—Fewer Justices, Longer Terms, More Contentious Confirmations.” Brookings, n.d. Accessed September 25, 2026. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/changes-in-supreme-court-appointments-fewer-justices-longer-terms-more-contentious-confirmations/.

Image Courtesy of Puck Magazine, “the Making of a US Senator” 1905.

On the Christian Pursuit

As kingfishers catch fire, dragonflies draw flame;

As tumbled over rim in roundy wells

Stones ring; like each tucked string tells, each hung bell's

Bow swung finds tongue to fling out broad its name;

Each mortal thing does one thing and the same:

Deals out that being indoors each one dwells;

Selves — goes itself; myself it speaks and spells,

Crying Whát I dó is me: for that I came.

I say móre: the just man justices;

Keeps grace: thát keeps all his goings graces;

Acts in God's eye what in God's eye he is —

Chríst — for Christ plays in ten thousand places,

Lovely in limbs, and lovely in eyes not his

To the Father through the features of men's faces. 

—Gerard Manley Hopkins

To sink oneself under the cover of mortal sin is to hide oneself from God[1] and to approach nothingness. If evil is the absence of being and God is, by His aseity, being itself, then mortal sin not only sunders us from God but, in doing so, from our own personal being. Our being approaches perfection, rather, when it loses itself in the Divine. To follow vice is to be absorbed into nothingness, to follow Christ is to be absorbed into everything. While everything was made for the glory of God,[2] everything was equally made to proclaim “Whát I dó is me: for that I came.” Everything is to glorify God in its own way. That is, in approaching pure being, just as “ignited and glowing iron becomes the greatest likeness of fire, stripped of its early and personal form,”[3] we lose our likeness in the fire of Divine Love; yet also in this self-denial the very haecness[4]—the personal purpose for which each thing was made—is distilled and purified. In this way, the self-denial of the ascetics is no more than purification of what is alien to the interior self. As Thomas Merton put it, “the monk in hiding himself from the world becomes not less than himself, not less of a person, but more of a person, more truly and perfectly himself: for his personality and individuality are perfected in their true order, the spiritual, interior order.”[5] In conforming ourselves to the divine will, we free ourselves from alien purposes and desires: we fulfill the individual purpose for which we were created. 

Hereafter, the question of spiritual and interior perfection becomes one of conforming oneself to the divine will. Change of life, or at least the rhythm of life, is frequently a necessity towards this end. Merton, again, in talking of the time shortly after his conversion to Catholicism (I have taken the liberty to use a rather extensive quotation as it is simply impossible to over-quote Merton) says,

It never occurred to me that if I continued to live as I had lived before, I would be simply incapable of avoiding mortal sin. For before my Baptism I had lived for myself alone. I had lived for the satisfaction of my own desires and ambitions, for pleasure and comfort and reputation and success. Baptism had brought with it the obligation to reduce all my natural appetites to subordination to God's will: "For the wisdom of the flesh is an enemy to God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither can it be. And they who are in the flesh, cannot please God ... and if you live according to the flesh, you shall die: but if by the Spirit you mortify the deeds of the flesh, you shall live. For whosoever are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God." Spiritu ambulate, et desideria carnis non perficietis.[6]

Of greater significance in this quote is his “obligation” to subordinate his appetites to God’s will. It is an obligation, not an ability. Catholics have a responsibility to direct everything, including all of our natural appetites, to God’s will (as expressed in the Jesuit maxim ad maiorem Dei gloriam). We have to live, not in accordance with our natural appetites, but in suspicion of them—to raise them towards a higher purpose than their mere fulfillment.

It is important to note, of course, that the manner in which we make this change of life is individual in the same way that our vocation is. Some, like Thomas Merton or Gerard Manley Hopkins, will become priests and pray the Divine hours every day. Others will pray daily devotions such as the Angelus or the Rosary (such as those in the daily rosary group in the SSPP on campus). Others may engage wholly in ejaculatory prayer;—the only truly important thing about this is that it is consistent and that it centers one's eyes always on God.

End Notes

[1] Summa Theologica I., Q.14, A.10, Reply Obj.4

[2] Is 43:7

[3] De Diligendo Deo, Caput X. by Saint Bernard of Clairvoux: “ferrum ignitum et candens, igni simillimum fit, pristina propriaque forma exutum.” Original translation.

[4] Hopkins would use the word “inscape” here (which is not to equate them absolutely but only to highlight the theological tradition that Hopkins was working within).

[5] The Seven Storey Mountain, page 362 of the Fiftieth-Anniversary Edition

[6] Ibid. page 252

Photo by Tony Woods, Wikimedia

The Case for Conditional Aid

In 2025, President Trump cancelled $5 billion in foreign aid and international organization funding [1]. This has led to a funding crisis across the humanitarian sphere, leaving many African countries to their own devices without a phased transition [2]. After losing half their food aid, Malawi has seen an increase in human trafficking and sexual violence due to a lack of stability [3]. In Somalia, only 600,000, out of 6.5 million people facing food insecurity, are receiving assistance [4]. But nations are only just beginning to feel the consequences, as these cuts are projected to lead to millions of deaths by 2030 [5]. The reduction of foreign aid has revealed the dangerously low state capacity of African nations and the reliance these countries have on foreign aid, while indicating that these states have not developed the capacity to sustain basic services independently [6]. Without strong institutions, African states cannot absorb this shock alone, making the question of how to build sustainable state capacity urgent.

On one extreme, Jeffrey Herbst argues that war will actually improve African state capacity, citing European development trends [7]. Herbst’s historical observations and assertion that African states suffer from weak capacity are credible [8].However, Herbst underestimates how the African Union’s border norms foreclose conquest as a state-building tool, making his prescription unfeasible [9]. But he is not entirely wrong. I propose to use conditional aid to replicate the selection mechanism by rewarding states that invest in tax systems, public administration, and service delivery while withholding funds from those that do not. One example of conditional aid is the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) model.

Unlike traditional humanitarian aid, the MCC model incentivizes reform by rewarding positive performance, reducing dependency, and encouraging sound policies [10]. There have been various successes in Africa using the MCC model. Cote d’Ivoire’s state capacity, for example, significantly increased through policy reforms that allowed the country to qualify for the MCC, as well as the institutional investments made during its compact [11]. Despite originally failing 15 of the 20 indicators, the government undertook reforms to better meet the criteria, and, in 2017, successfully secured a $536.7 million compact [12]. Since then, the nation has increased their state capacity, as shown by a 6% average annual GDP increase [13]. Cote d’Ivoire’s trajectory demonstrates that the reform pressures that lead to MCC eligibility can be as beneficial as the funding itself.

A key part of state capacity is the ability to manage long-term goals. In Cote d’Ivoire, the Abidjan Transport Project rehabilitated roads; facilitating more commerce and trade. The project ensured long-term success by  investing in the systems used to fund and manage the national road network. To sustain these improvements, the state partnered with universities to establish a master’s program in infrastructure management, where graduates would have a secured job maintaining these roads. Cote d’Ivoire also invested in its human capital by building 40 lower-secondary schools, as well as 2 teacher training campuses to ensure the schools are adequately staffed [14]. This example demonstrates that conditioned aid addresses not only the current issue but also how to sustain it. 

Critics might argue that, unlike war, which was the “great stimulus to state-building” in Europe, aid does not pose a “major threat” to the state’s existence [15]. Conditioned aid from donors like the International Monetary Fund (IMF) cannot replicate existential danger [16]. The current international system, in his view, preserves "permanently weak states” that survive in a “crippled form” only because of international aid m[17]. In essence, aid is the dialysis for a terminally ill patient, and the citizens of developed nations are paying for it . However, the theoretical “solution” of letting states fail to force development is a humanitarian disaster. The 2025 USAID cuts have already had consequences, like those in Malawi and Somalia, and will only get worse [18]. Returning to Herbst’s historical norm of war is unacceptable in the modern era, as the human and economic costs would be higher than they were in pre-modern Europe. While institutions like the IMF are shown to impair state-building, the MCC model is different because it is a voluntary, performance-based partnership. The MCC only selects countries that have demonstrated the political will to govern effectively, ensuring that aid strengthens a state’s existing stability instead of undermining its authority. 

Still, Herbst argues that the absence of war in Africa has resulted in “no development of nationalism,” leaving states as weak “quasi-states” [19]. On the contrary, Africans often are proud to be members of their nations, even when those nations are weak [20]. When given the option to change their citizenship to another, more stable nation, residents of Niger and Burkina Faso overwhelmingly refused to do so [21]. This suggests there are alternative paths to cohesion.

Why did war turn weak city-states into strong empires? Because it creates an urgent, unavoidable threat. States are forced to develop or fail. The 2025 aid cuts showed that many current African states will fail if we let them. The solution is not the elimination of aid or a return to the wars of days past. Instead, smarter, conditioned aid that replicates the selection pressures of war can develop capacity without the human costs of war. It is imperative that we work proactively to promote the international security and economic stability that will continue to allow our country to thrive. Giving aid to whoever asks (or does not ask) for it is futile, but if efforts are concentrated on those who are willing to put in the work, we can contribute to a more stable international community.

End Notes

[1] The White House. 2025. “Historic Pocket Rescission Package Eliminates Woke, Weaponized, and Wasteful Spending.” The White House.

[2] Da Silva, Andrea Ferreira. 2026. Impact of two decades of humanitarian and development assistance and the projected mortality consequences of current defunding to 2030: retrospective evaluation and forecasting analysis. The Lancet Global Health 2026. 1.

[3] Better World Campaign. 2025. “The Impact of Foreign Aid Cuts.” Better World Campaign.

[4] World Food Program. 2026. “Somalia.” World Food Program.

[5] Da Silva, Andrea Ferreira. 2026. Impact of two decades of humanitarian and development assistance and the projected mortality consequences of current defunding to 2030: retrospective evaluation and forecasting analysis. The Lancet Global Health 2026. 2.

[6] Burnside, Craig, and David Dollar. 2000. Aid, Policies, and Growth. The American Economic Review 90(4): 848.; Da Silva, Andrea Ferreira. 2026. Impact of two decades of humanitarian and development assistance and the projected mortality consequences of current defunding to 2030: retrospective evaluation and forecasting analysis. The Lancet Global Health 2026. 3; Mene, Wamkele. 2020. “The african continental free trade area (afcfta): boosting intra-africa trade.” Georgetown Journal of International Law. 51(4):751.; Ndlovu, Dominee B. 2022. Readiness for the AfCFTA by Member States’ Domestic Tax Policies. Afronomics Law 164:3.

[7] Herbst, Jeffrey. 1990. War and the State in Africa. International Security 14(4):119.

[8] Herbst, Jeffrey. 1990. War and the State in Africa. International Security 14(4):119-125, 132.; Newman, David. 2003. On borders and power: A theoretical framework. Journal of Borderlands Studies 18(1):14.

[9] African Union. 2024. "The African Continental Free Trade Area." African Union.

[10] Millennium Challenge Corporation. 2026. “About MCC.” Millennium Challenge Corporation.; Davies, Joanne E. 2018.  “Does the Millennium Challenge Corporation Reinforce Capitalist Power Structures or Empower Citizens?” Third World Quarterly 39(4): 610.

[11] World Bank. 2026. “GDP Increase (current US$) Cote d'Ivoire.” World Bank.

[12] Davies, Joanne E. 2018.  “Does the Millennium Challenge Corporation Reinforce Capitalist Power Structures or Empower Citizens?” Third World Quarterly 39(4): 612-14.

[13] World Bank. 2026. “GDP Increase (current US$) Cote d'Ivoire.” World Bank.

[14] Millennium Challenge Corporation. 2026. “Côte d’Ivoire.” Millennium Challenge Corporation.

[15] Herbst, Jeffrey. 1990. War and the State in Africa. International Security 14(4):117.

[16] Herbst, Jeffrey. 1990. War and the State in Africa. International Security 14(4):133.

[17] Herbst, Jeffrey. 1990. War and the State in Africa. International Security 14(4):137.

[18] Better World Campaign. 2025. “The Impact of Foreign Aid Cuts.” Better World Campaign.; World Food Program. 2026.; Da Silva, Andrea Ferreira. 2026. Impact of two decades of humanitarian and development assistance and the projected mortality consequences of current defunding to 2030: retrospective evaluation and forecasting analysis. The Lancet Global Health 2026. 0:1

[19] Herbst, Jeffrey. 1990. War and the State in Africa. International Security 14(4):118.; Trautsch, Jasper M. 2019. Civic Nationalisms in Global Perspective. Routledge Studies in Modern History. London and New York 6.; Thies, Cameron G. 2007. “The Political Economy of State Building in Sub-Saharan Africa.” The Journal of Politics 69(3):717.

[20] Bhandari, Abhit, and Lisa Mueller. 2019. “Nation-state of nation-family? Nationalism in marginalised African societies.” Journal of Modern African Societies 57(2):299.

[21] Bhandari, Abhit, and Lisa Mueller. 2019. “Nation-state of nation-family? Nationalism in marginalised African societies.” Journal of Modern African Societies 57(2):306.

Image Courtesy of USA Rice Federation

Blessed Fulton Sheen

      On September 24th, Cardinal Tagle held Archbishop Fulton Sheen’s beatification mass at the Dome of America’s Center in St. Louis, among 50,000 faithful from around the world. Many young Catholics have recently become familiar with the Archbishop through clips of his sermons on the internet, but this event marked the continuation of a twenty year campaign to recognize one of God’s greatest stars.

Blessed Fulton Sheen was  born on May 8th, 1895, in El Paso, Illinois, Sheen was raised in a devout, working-class Irish-American family. In 1919, he was ordained into the priesthood and went on to earn degrees from The Catholic University of America, the Belgian Catholic University of Leuven, and Rome’s Pontifical University of St. Thomas Aquinas. A towering mind, Father Sheen earned the Cardinal Mercier Prize for International Philosophy in 1923. He taught at Catholic University until around 1951, when he ascended to the title of Auxiliary Bishop for the Archdiocese of New York. Then in 1966 he gained the Bishopric of Rochester, New York. Around his 75th birthday , he was given the Archdiocese of Newport, Wales, to focus on his writings.

Though his formal roles in the Church are very impressive, Father Sheen would become best known for his media personality. In 1930, Father Sheen began his “Catholic Hour” Sunday broadcasts, reaching 4 million average radio listeners. In the 1950’s, he would become a household name through the show Life is Worth Living. Father Sheen competed with personalities like “Mr. Television” and Frank Sinatra for a primetime slot, winning out with nothing but a chalkboard and, often off-the-cuff, moral lectures. In its first year, the show earned Father Sheen an Emmy for ‘Most Outstanding Personality’, which was followed by two more Emmy-nominations. By 1957, Father Sheen drew in 30 million weekly— mostly non-Catholic— viewers, and he donated all of the profits to charity.

Life is Worth Living, and later The Fulton Sheen Program, is where most of us became familiar with the late Archbishop. In recent years, his lectures have gained a new life through social media. Some of these lectures featured things like arguments against moral relativism, the idea of taking up your cross, a dramatic reading of Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar in the context of the USSR, or other convicting arguments which have captivated the minds of Americans for generations.

His beatification is a great victory for the American Catholic Church, one which we may take a filial joy in. Generations of Americans will venerate the Archbishop as his piety continues to intercede for this nation, perhaps among the 249 other great Americans set to be featured in the National Garden of American Heroes [1].

Thanks be to God, and Blessed Fulton Sheen pray for us!

End Notes

[1] Molloy, Caroline. "Ven. Fulton Sheen among Many Catholic Figures to Be Featured in National Garden of American Heroes." Catholic Conference of Oklahoma. February 26, 2025. https://okcatholic.org/ven-fulton-sheen-among-many-catholic-figures-to-be-featured-in-national-garden-of-american-heroes/. [1, 2]

“Politics & Religion I: The American Problem”

“Sir, my concern is not whether God is on our side; my greatest concern is to be on God’s side, for God is always right.” ~ Abraham Lincoln

“I am the Chosen One.” ~ Donald J. Trump

Long before the 2024 presidential election, the Republican Party, for better or worse, earned the moniker, “the Party of Faith” for its strong affiliation with Christianity and its adoption of certain Christian moral teachings [1]. Conversely, the Democratic Party has been labeled “the Party of Secularity” for its emphasis on inclusivity and adoption of Christian social justice [2] [3]. This has caused many Americans (and perhaps even the whole world) to ask: how does Christian thought relate to American politics? 

Every religiously inclined person has the right to be politically active. The Supreme Court has repeatedly guaranteed religious institutions and their members the constitutional right of advocating for or against any legal position contrary to their faith [4]. Ideally, the job of the politician, particularly if he is religious, is to safe-guard rather than weaponise these positions. Politicians typically do whatever will advance their political careers, whether that preserves or harms the inviolable position that Christian thought has in this nation. This renders Christian thought unintelligible in contemporary political dialogue.

It would be foolhardy to say that the United States was not founded as an inherently Christian nation, whose laws are influenced by Judeo-Christian thought [5]. This is self-evident by the emblem of our Declaration of Independence, which acknowledges the Laws of Nature and the inalienable rights of Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness as endowed with by our Creator [6]. Our Founding Fathers understood this in terms of Judeo-Christianity and embedded the acceptance of a natural moral law in the nation’s social fabric. It was their committed belief that this was necessary for the proper formation of the American citizen and for the full realization of the American Dream [7]. 

The inalienable rights of mankind are not exclusionary to the Jew or Christian: they are the rights of all people. Those religiously disaffiliated and of different religions are full members of the American citizenry. By its inherent nature, Christianity does not force itself upon anyone. In this respect and in recognising that the government must be a secular institution to serve the needs of all, the Founders affirmed the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights, which guarantees there to be no established religion and the free exercise of all [8]. 

Christianity is not a monolith. Because of our country's unique history and its original settlers, Protestant Christianity is the dominant sect. Protestantism consists of various Christian denominations that have varying scriptural interpretations. With this interpretational multitude can and does come numerous religious justifications for any political decision. Catholicism, a Christian minority in America, relies on the Church’s innate hierarchical structure for guidance. Because of this unified governing authority, American Protestants were once frightened that American Catholics would request and accept political instructions given by the bishops [9]. 

Despite these historical, internal divides, the overall decline in Christianity nationwide and the rise in both the religiously disaffiliated and other religions has led to a conglomeration of traditionalist Christians on the Republican side and of progressive Christians on the Democrat side [10].

The Republican Party has wrapped itself in the messianic-mystique of Christianity and has taken up the clarion-call of Christian morality. Christian morality, because it is socially conservative by nature, cannot help but be controversial in an increasingly secular age. Since the rise of the Moral Majority in the Reagan Era, contemporary conservative policies of limited government, free markets, and peace through strength have found themselves increasingly linked with the Christian identity of the Party [11] [12]. Two forms of conservative thought are identifiably radical: Christian nationalism and Catholic integralism. Much is heard of Christian nationalism and its dominant strand of white Christian nationalism. It uses scriptural interpretations to weaponize personal fears and prejudices and therefore justify the exclusion and discrimination of others based on their ethnicity and religion [13]. What matters here is what sect of Christianity you belong in and if you meet the necessary tribal identifiers. 

Until recently, not much was heard of Catholic Integralism. It accepts the teaching that the Catholic Faith is the only true Faith and that the political authority of the State is ordered to the common good of human life [14]. However, Integralists misinterpret and distort the Catholic Church’s promotion of religious liberties by encouraging a Church-State union that promotes the dominance of Catholic Christianity [15]. Integralism has the potential of pitting the Faith in violent opposition against other denominations and religions. 

On the other hand, the Democratic Party has ostensibly taken up the banner of Christian social justice. If it sounds contradictory for a secular, left-wing party to embrace any form Christian teachings, it is not. In fact, Christian social justice can easily be viewed outside of its divine message to be a type of radical secular social movement. The Progressive Movement heavily aligns the American liberal views of strengthening democracy, protecting freedoms, and advancing societal equity with Christianity [16] [17]. The greater expansion of LGBTQ+ and women's reproductive rights are framed in the context of reforming the negative identity portrayed by mainstream Christianity. The claim is made that the current restrictions on these rights hold no biblical or spiritual grounds and are, subsequently, social impositions [18]. Theology of Liberation goes a step further by realigning Christianity with socialist and communist doctrines: the world is placed in terms of a class struggle, where the workers must engage and win in a violent struggle against the owners and their allies [19]. What is interesting, though, is that there exist Democratic voting blocks that are socially conservative yet politically left-leaning. A prime example is the African-American community. Despite being a major Democrat voting block for reasons of race and the Party’s promise of bringing them economic and social prosperity, many African-Americans hold highly conservative views on Christian morality [20]. 
These are rough categorizations; but they capture, more or less, the trend of partisan extremism. I say all this as a conservative who supports certain Republican policies. But I am also a Christian—a Roman Catholic—who is not pleased with the distortion of Christianity for political purposes. A person’s Faith is meant to be the linchpin of their way of life. But when politicians narrow in on certain Christian positions that vaguely align with their agenda, they implicitly make Christianity contingent to their political affiliation. Not only does this make Christianity appear partisan, but it also aids in creating a false image of Christianity to both believers and non-believers, irrespective of their political affiliation. This can either extremise, or serve as a driving force for religious disaffiliation. How can the everyday American look at politics and religion as anything but a dismal mess?

End Notes:

[1] Campbell, David E. 2020. “The Perils of Politicized Religion.” Dædalus, the Journal of the American Academy of Arts & Sciences 149, no. 3 (Summer): pg. 87-104.

[2] Ibid. 

[3] Ross, Lee D., Yphtach Lelkes, and Alexandra G. Russell. “How Christians Reconcile Their Personal Political Views and the Teachings of Their Faith: Projection as a Means of Dissonance Reduction.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 109, no. 10 (2012): 3616–3622. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1117557109

[4] Walz v. Tax Comm'n of City of New York, 397 U.S. 664 (1970)

[5] The Roman Catholic Bishops of the United States, “‘The Christian in Action’: Statement by Catholic Bishops Attacking Secularism as an Evil,” New York Times, November 20, 1948, 63. https://www.nytimes.com/1948/11/21/archives/no-pockets-in-a-shroud-by-horace-mccoy-167-pp-paper-covers-new-york.html.

[6] The Declaration of Independence: A Transcription, National Archives, U.S. National Archives and Records Administration, July 4, 1776, https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/declaration-transcript.

[7] An Ordinance for the Government of the Territory of the United States North‑West of the River Ohio, National Archives, U.S. National Archives and Records Administration, July 13, 1787, https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/northwest-ordinance.

[8] The Bill of Rights: A Transcription, National Archives, U.S. National Archives and Records Administration, December 15, 1791, https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/bill-of-rights-transcript.

[9] National Public Reporter. “Transcript: JFK’s Speech on His Religion.” NPR, September 12, 1960. https://www.npr.org/2007/12/05/16920600/transcript-jfks-speech-on-his-religion.

[10] Becka A. Alper et al., “Who Are ‘Spiritual but Not Religious’ Americans?”, Pew Research Center, December 7, 2023, https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2023/12/07/who-are-spiritual-but-not-religious-americans/

[11] Johnson, James M. “7 Core Principles of Conservatism.” U.S. Congressman Mike Johnson, 2018. https://mikejohnson.house.gov/7-core-principles-of-conservatism/.

[12] Applebome, Peter. 2007. “Jerry Falwell, Moral Majority Founder, Dies at 73.” The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/16/obituaries/16falwell.html.

[13] Maxwell, Angie, and Todd G. Shields. 2019. The Long Southern Strategy: How Chasing White Voters in the South Changed American Politics. N.p.: Oxford University Press.

[14] Second Vatican Council, Lumen Gentium (Dogmatic Constitution on the Church), promulgated November 21, 1964, Vatican, no. 14, https://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html

[15] Waldstein O.Cist, Edmund. “What Is Integralism Today?” Church Life Journal, October 31, 2018. https://churchlifejournal.nd.edu/articles/what-is-integralism-today/.

[16] Dias, Elizabeth. 2021. “In Biden's Catholic Faith, an Ascendant Liberal Christianity (Published 2021).” The New York Times, January 23, 2021. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/23/us/biden-catholic-christian.html.

[17] 2024 Democratic Party Platform, Democratic National Committee, July 2025, https://democrats.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/2024-Democratic-Party-Platform.pdf

[18] Bethel Congregational United Church of Christ. “What Is Progressive Christianity?” Bethel UCC, 2026. https://www.bethelbeaverton.org/progressive-christianity.

[19] The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. “Instructions on Certain Aspects of the ‘Theology of Liberation’” Vatican, August 6, 1984. https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19840806_theology-liberation_en.html
[20] Shelton, Jason E. “The Black Church and the 2024 Presidential Election.” Brookings, February 15, 2024. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-black-church-and-the-2024-presidential-election/.

On Nick Fuentes and the Republican “Civil War”

Alt-right podcaster Nick Fuentes , host of his eponymous show America First is the leader of the “Groyper” movement, which consists largely of young, white, Christian men who believe that they have been wronged by the world, by the government, by women, by ethnic minorities, by Jewish people, and by many others. 

In a recent conversation I had with a well-meaning friend, I learned just how far the rot of Nick Fuentes’ ideology has penetrated young men. Holocaust denial, a tenet of the Groyper worldview, has become so commonplace, especially among young men, that it is now somewhat normal to believe that less than 300,000 Jews were murdered during the Holocaust. And to be clear, claiming that 270,000 Jews were murdered, as opposed to the 6 million number that has been agreed upon by historians, scholars, and survivors, is to deny the sheer atrocity of the Holocaust and what it did to the Jewish people. There were approximately 9.5 million Jews living in Europe before World War II [1].  After the war, that number was less than 3.8 million [2]. If only 270,000 Jews died in the Holocaust, where did the rest of the over 5 million of them go? 

The 6 million figure is supported by extensive evidence, including: Nazi documentation, testimonies and records from the Nuremberg and Eichmann trials, research from the World Holocaust Remembrance Center, camp records, mass grave discoveries, and analyses of pre-war populations, emigration data, and post-war survivor counts. Fuentes himself recently admitted on Piers Morgan’s show that he believes the commonly accepted figure, stating when asked, “I’m thinking, maybe 7 million. What’s the number, 7, 6 million? Something like that.” He later added, “It could even be higher. It’s at least 6 million. It could be 100 times that.” While that may be what he believes, in the same 2-hour interview, Fuentes proceeded to describe holocaust education as “propaganda” and a “political narrative” used to target Christianity. It is impossible to deny that that kind of rhetoric, the kind that actively pits Jews against Christians, leads to widespread Holocaust denial, even if Fuentes himself doesn’t actively deny it. 

And that is the problem with the rhetoric of Nick Fuentes. It is impossible to ascertain what he actually believes, but by nature of his being willing to say anything to get clicks, he is recruiting predominantly young, white, Christian men into a movement that is either predicated on Fuentes lying to his audience or his actually being unabashedly hateful and ignorant. Either way, it is my opinion that we don’t owe Nick Fuentes or those like him the grace of discerning whether or not each individual thing they say is a farce or not. It is far too easy for people to hide behind the guise of comedy in order to say things that they wouldn’t have the gall to say otherwise, and Fuentes is not automatically washed of his sins because he laughs after he says something harmful. 

Fuentes can say in a moment of personal clarity on Piers Morgan’s show, “He [A reporter at The Free Press] is right about the two personas, and I think that everybody understands this on some level. On my show I make jokes and I use rhetoric and I’m hyperbolic, because for a long time I had an audience that was small on these like dissident platforms.” But then proceeds to say that he stands by his statement that, “I want white kids, and I don’t want my white kids bringing home black people to marry. It’s racial for me. And call me racist, ‘oh very Christan of you’, I don’t give a fuck.” Someone who is willing to admit to being a racist on live TV certainly has audacity, but that audacity does not make him worth listening to.

For someone who claims that his Catholic faith is central to his life, Fuentes is quick to announce that he thinks only a “liberal ideologue” would believe that human beings are part of a brotherhood by nature of our being created in the image of God with the purpose of serving Him and knowing Him better. Instead, on Piers Morgan’s show, Fuentes said, “And I’m not a liberal ideologue that says that over time and with enough education we’re all going to see this great brotherhood where we’re colorblind and everybody’s the same.” And of course, he is technically correct that every person is unique, created to be who they are and no one else. However, from the book of Genesis we Christians get perhaps one of the most quoted lines of all time, where it is revealed that, “God created mankind in his image; in the image of God, he created them; male and female he created them” (Genesis 1:27). All of mankind is created in the image of God, and in the eyes of God everyone shares the same dignity, the same immortal soul, and the same relation to the divine. In The Epistle of Paul, the Apostle to the Colossians, Saint Paul says, “[b]ut now you must put them all away: anger, fury, malice, slander, and obscene language out of your mouths” (Colossians 3:8). As professed Christians, we are directed not to expend energy being hateful and divisive, but rather we are called to put that all aside and step into the light where Christ is all and in all. Stating that, “Jews are running society, women need to shut the fuck up, blacks need to be imprisoned for the most part, and we would live in paradise! It’s that simple,” seems to violate that commandment. To be clear, I am not in the business of revealing private sins or attempting to say that I know what is in someone’s heart. All I know is what I can see, and as a Christian I must rebuke those that misuse the Word or The Lord’s message. 

When asked about why he wouldn’t debate Fuentes, the late, conservative podcaster and organizer, Charlie Kirk, said, “I personally do not give a platform to bad faith actors… They can keep on yelling at how successful we are and our big events and well over a thousand employees, but there’s a lot of jealousy out there. We build, they complain. We succeed, we win, they blame the Jews.” And that is almost a perfect summation of how Fuentes and his devotees see the world. Everything is a conspiracy, nothing can be trusted, and many of the world’s problems can be attributed to a group whom Fuentes refers to as “perfidious Jews.” The issue with conspiracy theories is that they live in the dark. That is what Kirk was referring to when he called Fuentes a “bad faith” actor. Fuentes’s theories thrive on the absence of information because that absence is a feature, not a bug. Without any clear facts, conspiracy theorists, like Fuentes, can claim that crucial details are being systematically hidden by layers and layers of agencies and individuals, like the CIA, MI6, or very commonly, Mossad. It is an easy way to never be proven wrong, because Fuentes can always revert to Cartesian doubt, claiming that every layer of any given system or government has been corrupted by “the conspiracy” and we will therefore never know that he was right all along because that information is purposefully hidden from us. All major Conservative victories are subject to this unending scrutiny from Fuentes and company, including Kirk's own Turning Point USA. which has been extremely influential in the marked rise of conservatism among young Americans, yet continues to draw ire from commentators like Candace Owens and Fuentes.

During his speech at TPUSA’s 2025 AmericaFest in Arizona, conservative political commentator, and Daily Wire co-founder, Ben Shapiro made pointed attacks against many figures on the right, including Tucker Carlson, Candace Owens, and Fuentes himself. Shapiro opened his speech by saying, “The conservative movement is also in danger from charlatans who claim to speak in the name of principle, but actually traffic in conspiracism and dishonesty, who offer nothing but bile and despair, who seek to undermine fundamental principles of conservatism by championing enervation and grievance.” As Shapiro pointed out, many major voices on the right are all too afraid to call out and disavow the rhetoric of people like Nick Fuentes out of a misguided notion that disallowing anyone from the movement amounts to cancel culture and censorship. There is a clear difference between the cancel culture that was promulgated by the left for multiple decades, and drawing a calculated moral line of who is “on our side” and who is not. As Shapiro went on to say, “Politics is about principle, and if you are willing to sacrifice basic truth and simple principle in favor of emotional solidarity, you have betrayed your fundamental duty to the American people.” Someone who says regularly on their show, as Fuentes does, that, “Hitler was awesome. Hitler was right”, does not share the principles that are the backbone of conservatism. Showing emotional solidarity with such a person betrays a deeper moral obligation – one that supersedes the desire to keep the coalition together. The coalition cannot survive if it rots from the inside out. As Shapiro put it, “We must also be honest about what people say and do, regardless of what that means coalitionally.” 

The question of whether voices in the conservative movement are a net good is a question of if they are conducting themselves with integrity and how they treat those who share their space. When the radicals are at the gates, and those radicals take the shape of hatred filled race mongers, it is the mark of a failing coalition to let them in. To be a conservative means having respect for both natural truth and biblical norms, and putting aside grievance politics in favor of moral decency. If we must accept the rhetoric of people like Nick Fuentes as part of the movement in order to win, then this is a movement that has abandoned its principles and no longer deserves to win or call itself conservative. 

End Notes:

[1] United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. 2023. “Documenting Numbers of Victims of the Holocaust and Nazi Persecution.” Holocaust Encyclopedia. United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. September 26, 2023. https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/documenting-numbers-of-victims-of-the-holocaust-and-nazi-persecution.

[2]  United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. 2019. “Remaining Jewish Population of Europe in 1945.” Holocaust Encyclopedia. 2019. https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/remaining-jewish-population-of-europe-in-1945.