Holy Cross Hysteria

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Problem With Christian Socialism

As I have progressed through my year at Holy Cross, I could not help but notice the deep intermingling of socialism and Catholicism. I came to Holy Cross with the expectation of receiving a traditional Catholic education, one based in the Christian values of free will, selflessness, and fairness. Unfortunately, that is not quite the message I have received. As the younger generations in this country continue to accept socialism at an ever-increasing rate, this is a problem that I feel compelled to address. I do not find it necessary here to make economic or philosophical justifications for socialism, which would be better suited to an article unto itself. I also find those justifications of socialism far less dangerous than the Christian justification. Socialism based in Christian faith is far more concerning, for economics and politics can be compromised upon, but for many, religion is not up for discussion. Beyond that, socialism is anathema to Christianity, and to fuse the two is a corruption of the very foundation of the faith.

Socialism, on its surface, appears to be perfectly acceptable in the Faith. Christ teaches us to help those in need and to care not for worldly riches. Socialism seems to be compatible with these, for it is predicated upon giving to the less fortunate at the expense of those who value their worldly riches. That conclusion, however, is far too simplistic. I do not doubt that supporters of Christian Socialism only want the best for our country’s people and want to live out the teachings of Christ to the fullest. But it is for that reason that I find it necessary to make my counter-argument.

““Beyond that, socialism is anathema to Christianity, and to fuse the two is a corruption of the very foundation of the faith.”
”

A core teaching of most Christian denominations, and one especially prevalent in the Catholic and Orthodox churches, is that of free will. Free will is the ultimate manifestation of humanity, for it is what differentiates us from all other creatures. Socialism, however, is no friend to free will. It sounds kind and generous to create policy that gives to those in need, but charity by force is as bad as no charity at all. We cannot fool ourselves into thinking that just because a slight majority in Congress votes to impose higher taxes and to redistribute the revenue, that it is a free and collective act of goodwill and charity. Ask yourself what would happen if you decided you did not want to pay higher taxes. The end result would likely be your relocation to a jail cell. That is because taxation, far from benevolent charity, is basically theft. Taxes are certainly necessary in the provision of essential public goods, or goods that are able to be used equally by the entire public, but that is not what socialism provides. Socialism takes by force the earned money of some and puts it into the hands of others. Whether or not they need it is irrelevant to the case I am making here. The point is that Jesus implored us to freely give our wealth to those who need it, not to force others to give up their wealth. He also teaches that those who cherish their wealth too much on earth will pay after death, and the poor will inherit the kingdom of heaven. So if it is a matter of fairness, the greedy will receive their punishment.

““Fairness is for the government to leave the private sector so that everyone has the opportunity to provide for himself and his family.”
”

Another key element of Christianity is the teaching of selflessness. One would think that socialism encourages selflessness, for the wealthy are forced to give up what they have earned. But on the contrary, socialism encourages the worst form of selfishness. Socialism relies on the idea that it is everyone's right to possess a base level of wealth. Again, on its surface that may sound appealing, but there is a dark element to such a theory. Entitlement, far from breeding altruism, breeds selfishness and greed. Socialism encourages us to consider that we have a right to the goods of others, whether or not we have put in the work to deserve them. That, rather than being Christian, is sinful. That is not to say that people should be left to suffer. But those programs should be available only on the basis of absolute need. If one is disabled or loses a job, then help should be provided. Beyond the government, private charity provides superior help and services to those who need it. In fact, it is the increasing government intervention in everyone's lives in the form of higher taxes and regulations that stymies private charity. As taxes increase and it becomes more difficult to do business, less money is available for the private individual to use on charity. Contrary to popular belief, the wealthy are incredible providers of charity. Organizations like the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation do not sprout from socialist countries, and for good reason.

Finally, a Christian view of fairness is evident throughout Biblical teaching. Whether it be the poor receiving the kingdom of heaven, the evil feeling the wrath of God, or generous forgiveness, fairness is pervasive in Christian teaching. Socialism seems fair in its redistribution of excess, but it is not so simple. It is not fair to steal from the fruits of someone’s labor only to give to those who have not worked to receive it. Stealing is a sin, whether it is voted for by the majority or not. Fairness is for the government to leave the private sector so that everyone has the opportunity to provide for himself and his family.

I argue that capitalism, not socialism, provides the best quality of life for humanity. Over the past century, billions of people have been lifted from abject poverty through capitalism. Technology, of course, has greatly helped in increasing the living standards throughout the world, but that technology exists primarily because of capitalism. People develop new products because there is a financial incentive for their creation. If the expectation was that the government would take the vast majority of one’s profits, the incentive to create new products falls away. The technology that has helped the lives of millions, from medical advances to the computer, all have their success based in capitalism. Capitalism takes advantage of humanity’s innate greed, an inherent negative and obvious sin, and turns it into a positive. Everyone benefits from the production and success of a product: the employees receive higher wages, the customer makes his life better, and the producer receives the profit. Capitalism without any restrictions is certainly dangerous, but capitalism with anything but the utmost necessary restriction hurts the development of goods that make all of our lives better. How is this Christian? Because capitalism is based on voluntary interactions between individuals without coercion, it is the ultimate manifestation of free will. It encourages selflessness, for one has to work to receive. It is fair, because one receives the benefits of his work and theft is not rationalized as generosity. And finally, it unchains the gates so that private charity, the best way to provide necessary goods and services to those in need, can run free. Socialism encourages us to worship the government as the provider of life, but in reality, that quality rests with God alone.

American Exceptionalism: The Nation's Binds

The Hague, America, a unique country on the world stage, is truly a gift to humanity. The world as it stands today exists only because of the awesome power of the United States and its diverse people. American Exceptionalism – the aggregate of values and traditions that makes the American identity – undergirds America’s social structure and binds the nation together, enabling the United States’ strength. American identity is heavily influenced by classical Western identity, and thus the two can not be completely separated.  The Judeo-Christian values of individualism, equality, and charity underpin American strength and generosity and solidify the country’s character. Formidable constitutional protections – unprecedented prior to America’s founding – sustain the freedom that personifies the United States’ international image. A firm historical record of overcoming adversity and championing freedom provides a distinctive legitimacy. However, in the 21st century, there is an increasing percentage of Americans who see the U.S. in a negative light, shunning past achievements and viewing the U.S. as fundamentally flawed. A loss of faith in American exceptionalism risks the collapse of the democratic world order.  

Judeo-Christian values have, from the very start, fashioned the basis of American behavior. The Pilgrims came to America seeking the freedom to practice their faith, and many subsequent colonial settlements followed suit; be they Rhode Island as a home for disparate religious groups or William Penn’s Quaker Pennsylvania, Judeo-Christian faith was the heart of what would become America. Likewise, the Founding Fathers recognized the indelible importance of faith in society. George Washington stated: "Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports.” Alexander Hamilton also saw value in faith and God: “The sacred rights of mankind... are written... by the hand of the Divinity itself, and can never be erased or obscured by mortal power.” Finally, even Adams spoke of their importance: “And what were these general Principles [on which America was founded]? I answer, the general Principles of Christianity, in which all those Sects were United: And the general Principles of English and American Liberty, in which all those young Men United, and which had United all Parties in America, in Majorities Sufficient to assert and maintain her Independence.”

Since its founding, America has remained a nation rooted in Judeo-Christian values. These principles contribute to the American identity and exceptionalism in their outgrowths. Every moral system sprouts from a foundation of deeply held beliefs, and the clear Judeo-Christian origins of America’s, and indeed the West’s, moral precepts guide the liberal democratic order.

Central to Judeo-Christian teaching is the idea of free will. Free will is alike to the very American concept of individualism, which makes possible the foundation of our economic prowess: capitalism. The American capitalistic, free market society has the individual at its core, without which it would collapse onto itself. The most successful economy on the face of the planet, worth about $19.4 trillion, America is the hitherto unchallenged economic superpower. Placing after minuscule nations and oil rich gulf states the U.S. ranks 19th in terms of GDP per capita at $59,500, and that is in a nation of around 330 million. None of this would be possible in any economic system without the  individual at the center and a reasonable expectation of receiving rewards for labor. Of course this is not solely unique to the United States, but it is an originally Western phenomenon that has been brought to its highest point in America. In Europe, the individual is not such a priority, since the government plays an outsize role in its citizens’ lives. The nature of American history – the frontiersman attitude – lends itself to the continued prominence of individualism in the American identity.  

The Western and American vision of equality has its foundation in the Biblical truth that humanity is created in the image of God. While it might not sound remarkable to the modern mind, it is assuredly profound. If every man, woman, and child is created in the image of God, then the only logical conclusion is that there is a universal and equal dignity present. It is this line of thinking that helped lead to the abolition of slavery and mass suffrage, which was first realized in the Western world. With religion being such an important factor in the nation’s founding, it is no surprise that the message of equality has become so integral to America’s national character.

American exceptionalism is exhibited most profoundly in the generosity of the American people – a generosity that remains unequaled. Charity, a core tenet of Christianity and most Abrahamic faiths, is as much a part of America’s ethos as the ideals of individualism and equality. In 2015, the United States gave roughly $31 billion in foreign developmental and humanitarian aid, more than any other nation. While that is indicative of the support of government generosity, the individual charity of Americans is far more extraordinary. U.S. charitable giving, by private charities and individuals, topped $400 billion in 2017, more than any other nation, and an increase of 5.2% from 2016. That individual generosity is truly unique to America, and there is indeed something deeply admirable when people give to a greater cause, not by government spending, but through their own free will.

Arguably the most remarkable aspect of America is the strength and level of veneration of the Constitution. The most sacred right protected by the Constitution is the freedom of speech. No other nation has the breadth of protected speech as the United States, and the courts have consistently upheld the wide definition of freedom of speech. In the seminole case of Schenck v. United States of 1917, the Supreme Court established limits to free speech, which it defined as anything that poses a “clear and present danger” to cause illegal harm. This case set the standard for what types of speech government can and cannot regulate, and established a wide interpretation of free speech.  The case of Brandenburg v. Ohio, which extended the realm of free speech to include support of violence assuming that it does not incite violence or a violation of law, further strengthened free speech protections. Owing to the specificity of the case, the ability to prosecute speech was curtailed even further. The only manner in which the boundaries of speech can be reinforced is if they are made clear and precise, and Brandenburg v. Ohio helps to secure that. Finally, the case of R.A.V v. St. Paul in 1992 secured protection of a kind of speech that is most under assault today: ‘hate speech.’ While what many consider to be ‘hate speech’ is indeed disgusting and abhorrent, it is nonetheless worthy of protection. The obscurity of ‘hate speech’ is a problem unto itself, for there is no way to adequately define what it is, and thus making it a powerful tool to silence opponents. Compared to Europe, the region morally and philosophically closest to the U.S., America is leagues ahead.  In October 2018, the European Court of Human Rights upheld a verdict from Austria that convicted a woman for insulting Islam. Ruling that speech denigrating another faith is able to be prosecuted, the floodgates of suppression opened. This is troubling enough, but unfortunately it is one case in a litany of free speech violations. Cases like this is what makes America exceptional: the government is forced to be the least invasive of people’s lives, regardless of how unsavory the action.

Held equally as dear as the freedom of speech is the right to bear arms. A free people are only able to ensure their freedom with the ultimate check on government power and tyranny. Citizens without coercive power are subjects; with coercive power are an independent people. One of only three existing constitutions securing the right to bear arms, the U.S. Constitution is already unusual, but it is also the only constitution to do so without any specified restrictions. The unique protections of weapon ownership in the U.S. again point towards the exceptional makeup of the nation – a nation in which people are guaranteed a base freedom unsurpassed worldwide as well as the ability to defend it. Key court cases such as District of Columbia v. Heller, which struck down a ban on handguns and excessive restrictions, reinforce the already strong constitutional apparatus. American exceptionalism is truly embodied in the commitment to constitutional rights, the core of all free societies.

Any identity is framed not only by its enduring values, but also by the progressive advancement of history. United States history is the best evidence for the exceptional nature of the American people, providing a legitimacy all on its own. From the abolition of slavery to the advancement of suffrage rights, American history is steeped in success. It is also not just a self-serving history, but a history abounded with positive outreach. U.S. humanitarian interventions provide a particularly salient example of the outward looking posture of the nation. Somalia in 1992 was of no particular importance to America, and there was certainly no reason to send soldiers to die. Despite this, the U.S. sent troops to the country in Operation Restore Hope to mitigate the damage of the civil war that befell Somalia upon the collapse of its central government. While other nations eventually joined, the operation was spearheaded by the U.S. A willingness to sacrifice for a disparate people in a far-flung land for the purpose of preventing violence is nothing short of magnanimous. Similarly, the United States intervened in the Balkans in 1995 to halt the mass genocide during the Yugoslav wars. With the war continuing to rage in the area and the failure of the United Nations to stop the violence, the U.S. led a very risky, and what would prove to be a successful yet costly, intervention. Again, the American resolve and ability to defend the vulnerable is peerless.

Of course, the U.S. also has an enduring reputation as the defender of the free world, and it is a reputation well-deserved. As the only nation capable of withstanding the demands of protecting freedom, the U.S. has been fully committed to the advancement of democracy. The most salient example is of course the Second World War, but a more recent example better exemplifies American exceptionalism. The Korean War of 1950-1953 was the first post-WWII intervention of the United States with the goal of defending sovereignty. Following the North Korean invasion and subsequent route of the South Korean Army to the Pusan Perimeter, the U.S. and its UN allies sent hundreds of thousands of troops to ensure the freedom of the South Korean people from communism. With 2.5 million total dead, including nearly 40,000 dead American troops by the end of the conflict, the United States paid a heavy price to protect the independence of a nation on the other side of the globe. The Vietnam and First Gulf War, which were relatively similar to the Korean War in their goals of protecting sovereignty, prove that the United States has maintained its commitment to freedom despite the passage of time and horrendous loss of life. Being prepared to give the ultimate sacrifice is the epitome of nobility and selflessness.

While not posing much of a threat to American lives, U.S. relief to those suffering from disasters is indicative of the exceptional nature of America. Any major relief effort can cost vast sums of money and require massive logistical support. Following the 2010 earthquake in Haiti that resulted in upwards of 300,000 deaths, the U.S. led the international relief effort. Deploying well over 20,000 troops, the U.S. military led the way in bringing supplies, shelter, and care to the people of Haiti. The strength and size of the U.S. response and the public support for it once again bring to the forefront American generosity for the needy.

Being a nation that is not defined by race, faith, or any other arbitrary divide, the common belief in American exceptionalism is the thread that binds the nation together. In the 21st century, however, there are increasing numbers of Americans whose belief in American excellency is failing. About 92% of Republicans in 2017 were recorded as being very/extremely proud to be American, compared to only 67% of Democrats according to Gallup. Many Americans feel, especially after the election of Donald Trump to the presidency, vulnerable and afraid. Minorities with a history of discrimination see their advancements in jeopardy. In addition, there is a common view that America does not have a historically evident strong moral foundation, but rather a history of oppression. Whether it be slavery, Jim Crow, or the Chinese Exclusion Act, oppression is seen as being the salient issue in the United States. While writing off these fears would be wholly counterproductive, it is essential to intelligently break down and refute them. Donald Trump is quite far from being a bigot. He certainly lacks a filter, but there is little that he says that can be deemed overtly racist. Much in American society has been excessively racialized and put in the context of individual identity, which pushes people to the extremes. The term “racist” has been vastly overused, which is harmful both to those who are falsely accused of it and to those who legitimately suffer from it, as it wrongly lessens their plight. As for an American history of oppression, it is important to note that the U.S. was one of the first nations to abolish slavery, fight its largest war over it, and enshrine its prohibition in the Constitution. America could not have eliminated it from the start, despite support from many of the Founding Fathers for doing so, for there would be no America if slavery was crushed in 1789. The South never would have joined the Union and it is very likely that they would have held onto slavery much longer had the Union not formed. In the face of oppression throughout history, American justice and resolve have won out, freeing the repressed and expanding liberty. No nation in circumstances like the United States’ has been able to reform in such radical and successful ways.

Exceptionalism of American identity is the primary aspect that brings every American citizen together. Regardless of individual identity, there is the common view of a uniquely American ingenuity, resilience, and justice that unites the nation’s disparate peoples. If that identity is lost, there is not much left to hold together a nation as vast and diverse as the United States. America thrives off of its rich history and achievements, and the unity behind that history is absolutely essential to a future of success and greatness.

Bibliography

Adams, J. (1813, June 28). John Adams to Thomas Jefferson, 28 June 1813. Retrieved June 22, 2018, from National Archives website: https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/03-06-02-0208

Brandenburg v. Ohio. (1969, June 9). Retrieved November 7, 2018, from Findlaw website: https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/395/444.html

Cecchine, G., Morgan, F., Wermuth, M. et. al. (2013). The U.S. Military Response to the 2010 Haiti Earthquake. Retrieved November 7, 2018, from RAND Corporation website: https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR304.html

Charitable Giving Statistics. (2018). Retrieved November 7, 2018, from National Philanthropic Trust website: https://www.nptrust.org/philanthropic-resources/charitable-giving-statistics/

Country Comparison: GDP - Per Capita (PPP). (2018). Retrieved November 7, 2018, from Central Intelligence Agency website: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2004rank.html

Daalder, I. H. (1998, December 1). Decision to Intervene: How the War in Bosnia Ended. Retrieved November 7, 2018, from Brookings website: https://www.brookings.edu/ articles/decision-to-intervene-how-the-war-in-bosnia-ended/

District of Columbia et. al. v. Heller. (2008, June 26). Retrieved November 7, 2018, from Cornell Law School website: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html

GDP (current US$). (2018). Retrieved November 7, 2018, from The World Bank website: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.CD?locations=US

Hamilton, A. (n.d.). Forbes Quotes. Retrieved June 22, 2018, from Forbes website: https://www.forbes.com/quotes/257/

Jones, J. M. (2017, April 3). Sharply Fewer Democrats Say They Are Proud to Be Americans. Retrieved April 25, 2018, from Gallup website: http://news.gallup.com/poll/207614/sharply-fewer-democrats-say-proud-americans.aspx

Klarevas, L. J. (2000). Trends: The United States Peace Operation in Somalia. Retrieved November 7, 2018, from JSTOR website: https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/3078741.pdf?refreqid=excelsior%3Aa277f3accd770cfa8d01c099501db08a

Millet, A. R. (2018, June 18). Korean War. Retrieved November 7, 2018, from Encyclopedia Britannica website: https://www.britannica.com/event/Korean-War

Myers, J. (2016, August 19). Foreign aid: These countries are the most generous. Retrieved November 7, 2018, from World Economic Forum website: https://www.weforum.org/ agenda/2016/08/foreign-aid-these-countries-are-the-most-generous/

Pancevski, B. (2018, October 26). Europe Court Upholds Ruling Against Woman Who Insulted Islam. Retrieved November 7, 2018, from The Wall Street Journal website: https://www.wsj.com/articles/europe-court-upholds-ruling-against-women-who-insulted-islam-1540580231

R.A.V. v. St. Paul. (1992, June 22). Retrieved November 7, 2018, from Find Law website: https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/505/377.html

Roger Williams, Rhode Island, and Birthplace of Religious Freedom. (2018). Retrieved April 25, 2018, from George Washington Institute for Religious Freedom website: http://www.gwirf.org/roger-williams-rhode-island-birthplace-of-religious-freedom/

Schenck v. United States. (1919, March 3). Retrieved November 7, 2018, from Cornell Law School website: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/249/47

Washington, G. (1796). Washington’s Farewell Address 1796. Retrieved November 7, 2018, from Yale Law School website: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/washing.asp

Weiss, B. (2017, November 5). Only 3 countries in the world protect the right to bear arms in their constitutions. Retrieved November 7, 2018, from Business Insider website: https://www.businessinsider.com/2nd-amendment-countries-constitutional-right-bear-arms-2017-10

Be Careful What You Fight For

Imagine opening up the Podcast app on your iPhone while preparing for your morning commute, expecting to find your regularly scheduled Ben Shapiro Show or Barstool News program. Instead, you find a show with cover art boasting two scantily clad twenty-something women. Curiosity getting the better of your judgment, you tap the phone to investigate what possible topic such a provocative image could be advertising, only to be greeted with the auto-tuned voice of two women asking “Do you call him daddy? Do I call her daddy? Call her Daddy,” in as seductive a way as possible.

Disconcerted, but with your intellectual curiosity piqued, you keep listening.  To your horror, it soon becomes clear that the show is a weekly synopsis of its two female hosts’ lives of blackout drinking, smoking copious amounts of weed, and dozens of drunken hookups. Now, keep in mind: last semester, “Call Her Daddy” was the second most popular podcast on Apple Podcasts in the U.S. Adults everywhere seem to crave each week’s episodes on increasingly riskier topics, each with evermore explicit personal detail provided by the hosts. With titles like “SEXT ME SO I KNOW IT’S REAL,” “Sliding into the DMs – It’s Time to Get Laid Boys,” and “If you’re a 5 or 6, Die for that Dick,” the hosts leave no topic off limits. This is not simply a Cosmopolitan write-in Q & A session. No, these topics come from the women’s personal lives and their first-hand encounters on the streets of New York City.

When I first listened to the podcast, I was very much taken aback (as were the men in the recording studio, as noted by the hosts in their first episode). Aspects of our culture like this one speak to the dangers of the changes our society has undergone over the last fifty years. In light of recent events on the Hill last semester, I find such a podcast even more troubling.  Imagine if two football players from one of the big-ten schools started a podcast where they talked about all the sexual conquests, substance abuse, and wild behavior they partook in over the previous week. There would be such an outcry of public protest that the noise would be deafening. Herein lies the fundamental issue with our society: a false sense of equality. Surely we can all agree that the behavior of the stereotypical jock who sleeps with countless partners on a weekly, or even nightly, basis is one we need to banish from our culture.  As a society and campus community, we should despise such behavior and work to end the veneration of “studs” or “Brads and Chads.” One just needs to read the ever-growing number of stories shared on the “Sexual Assault on the Hill” Instagram to realize the profound effect this athlete hookup culture has on the women who bravely share their experiences and understand its insidious threat to our campus community.

There seems to be a double standard for men and women in the post-sexual liberation era. While we condemn men who constantly hook up and brag to their friends, we encourage women to be sexually active and oversexualize every aspect of their being. Media platforms such as “Call Her Daddy” are proof enough. Those two women reveal their sexual conquests in extremely detailed accounts as they participate in a standing competition of who can sleep with more men each week. It all happens on the everlasting medium of the Internet, over and over, for the entertainment of the masses. Yet in this #MeToo Era, if the genders were reversed, the actions of the hosts would be seen as appalling - if not criminal.

The problem at its root is the definition our society uses for equality. We use people’s past actions to judge our standard of equality today instead of striving for a better, equitable world. Men have, historically, been able to act promiscuously and treat women in whatever way they please. So women, starting in the 1960s, wanted the same freedom and liberation to act just as men did - to, in their mind, act “equally.” Yet this is not true equality, for equality is inherently good and of a lofty nature aimed at bettering the world. If women felt they were unequally treated and wanted a better, fairer, more equal society, then how could repeating the actions they themselves termed unseemly give anyone a sense of equality? Look to post-Civil War America for an example. Booker T. Washington and W.E.B. Du Bois did not argue that blacks would achieve equality by being given the legal right to own whites. Such an idea would be ludicrous! Instead, they encouraged people to strive to sculpt a better, more just, more moral, more equal society. By leaving the evil in the past and encouraging all people, oppressor and oppressed, to use methods that help cultivate a sense of humanity, equality, and shared relationships, they sought to craft a truly equal society. Years later, we have ignored that formula by encouraging people to instead use each other as mere sexual instruments.

The modern culture we have created regarding sexuality is not equal, nor is it fair, nor does it advance a better community now or for future generations. If we want to create a truly just, fair, and equal world, one free from sexual abuses and the degradation and belittlement of the human person, we must work to check inappropriate sexual behavior for everyone. For oppression is regression, and the consequences of the sexual liberation movement have oppressed the growth of the human person and his dignity in society. We have been enslaved by our vices instead of liberated.  We need to create a society more focused on caring for and uplifting the dignity of the human person in all aspects of daily life. Then, and only then, will we enjoy true equality.

Election Season 2018: Wrapping Up the Midterms

With the 2018 Midterm elections behind us and most of the races called, we can now officially say that the elections went about as well as they feasibly could have for Republicans. As of Wednesday of election week, the Democrats have gained twenty-seven seats in the house, taking the majority, but only barely, guaranteeing themselves a majority by only two seats. There are still twenty-three Congressional races that have yet to be called as of this article’s writing, but a majority of those races are likely to go the way of Republican candidates. Meanwhile, in the Senate, the Republicans have managed to pick up two additional seats, with three races still not called. This has clearly put an end to the predictions of the massive ‘blue wave’ that would occur as a referendum on the President, which is a crushing blow to those on the political left and a cause for celebration for those on the political right.

This election turned out to be a very important victory for Trump and the Republican Party, as they managed to eek out several wins in close races, such as the Senate race in Texas, in tightly contested states. With close races like these going the Republicans’ way, it manages to give a decent sense of the direction in which the country is leaning in the current political climate. With Trump and his party winning some of these close races while also strengthening their red strongholds throughout the nation, Trump is sitting pretty moving into the second half of his first term as president. He managed to get his voter base energized and ready to go to the polls on Election Day, win key races, and solidify the Republican Party as being under his lead.

One of the biggest stories of the election is the change made from the Republican Party to fully become President Donald Trump’s party. President Trump’s popularity was a massive factor in many of the Republican wins in this election cycle. While most midterm elections, especially those taking place in a President’s first term in office, are generally considered to be a referendum on the President, the results did not tell the same story as most members of the political left were telling. With Trump likely conceding only a single-digit lead in the House for the Democrats, he took a much smaller loss than Obama did during his first midterm elections, when he and the Democratic Party lost sixty-three seats in Congress. With President Trump’s approval rating steadily rising in the period of time leading up to the midterms, the results are a good omen for Republicans in terms of reelection hopes in Trump’s 2020 presidential campaign.

Lastly, another big change that has become more apparent during this election cycle is the growth of the radical movement on the left. With candidates such as Democratic Socialist Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez winning in her New York congressional race, a new age of far-left liberalism has come to the forefront of American politics. Whether or not this ideology will hold and continue to get stronger is not yet clear, but it does show that the left in particular will not just have difficulties deciding the party leadership, but may also have a large amount of inter-party struggle as the Democrats deal with these newcomers who are even more radical. If this continues to be a trend, the Republicans may continue to gain more and more control as time goes on, as a majority of people, even on the left, are against many of the ideas that candidates such as Ocasio-Cortez bring forth. This will be another driving force behind Republican voter enthusiasm in the future, and will potentially give the Republican Party an even bigger advantage moving forward.

The midterm elections this year can serve as a relatively accurate compass to predict the direction in which future elections will go, particularly those in 2020. With the Democrats only picking up a small majority in the House and with the Republicans picking up seats in the Senate, the Republicans, barring a massive controversy surrounding the Trump administration that leads to impeachable offenses, should come out even stronger in the 2020 cycle. Granted, this is based on the assumption that the economy will continue to be strong during the remainder of Trump’s term in office and that he can continue to rile up his voter base, but more likely than not, these factors will remain the same. Given these factors, it is incredibly likely that the Republicans manage to take all three major branches of government (the House, the Senate, and the Presidency) again in the 2020 election cycle, just as they did previously in 2016.

So what does this mean overall? Well, this midterm election cycle turned out to be a big victory for President Trump and Republicans, not for just the next two years but for future election cycles as well. Although they lost the majority in the house, Republicans took many fewer losses in House seats and even picked up seats in the Senate. With Trump and his party winning quite a few close races while also strengthening their red strongholds throughout the nation, Trump managed to get his voter base energized and ready to go to the polls on Election Day, win key races, and solidify the Republican Party as being under his lead. With more radical candidates and seat holders on the left coming into prominence, Republicans should be able to get more voter turnout in future elections. With the Democrats only picking up a small majority in the House and with the Republicans picking up seats in the Senate, the Republicans should come out even stronger in the 2020 cycle.

Fooling Ourselves: A Dragon in Disguise

What is the greatest threat that the United States faces in the 21st century? It is not terrorism, Russia or Iran, nor climate change. The most prominent menace that the US must confront is China. With an appalling human rights record, predatory foreign policy, and a sincere penchant for theft, China is the new Soviet Union – but far worse. Of course, this statement is by no means an indictment of the Chinese people. The people of China, rather, who are incredibly industrious and kind, are held captive by the regime. Traditional Chinese culture, one of the greatest cultures in world history, is under assault by the Communists in Beijing. The problems with China lie not with its people, but with its tyrannical government.

Since the establishment of relations with China by the Nixon Administration in 1972 and the beginning of economic reforms in 1979, the US has assumed that China would liberalize. The thought process was as follows: inject capitalism into China, give the Chinese people a taste of prosperity, and the regime would be forced to become evermore liberal. That prediction could not be further from the results. China has evolved into an increasingly authoritarian surveillance state, with such Orwellian tactics as a proposed (and soon-to-be-implemented) social credit system. The system will rank the populace on its behavior and apply restrictions, such as limiting travel or obstructing access to quality schools, to citizens with lower scores (Ma, 2018). This system is only possible because of the advanced technology and economy that China has acquired since the end of its isolation. Whether it be its membership in the WTO (supported by the US), its replacement of Taiwan on the UN Security Council, or profitable economic relationships, the West has played right into the hands of the Chinese Communist Party. Henceforth, I will outline each of the areas that contribute to China’s designation as America’s most dangerous adversary.

Some say that imitation is the most sincere form of flattery, and if that is the case, then the US should certainly be honored. China is able to attain US technology through numerous methods, from hacking to government coercion. As a former CIA and NSA director, Michael Hayden stated: “I understand the Chinese espionage effort against the West; as an intelligence professional, I stand back in awe at the breadth, depth, sophistication and persistence of the Chinese espionage campaign against the West” (Talent, 2015). In October 2018, the US charged 10 individuals with connections to Chinese intelligence and government for attempting to hack US aviation firms to obtain valuable intellectual property (IP) regarding aircraft technologies (Viswanatha, 2018). Also in October 2018, the US arrested a Chinese spy charged with trying to steal IP from General Electric, a major US company with defense ties (Viswanatha, 2018). The incessant hacking of US government databases gives China valuable information that can be used to undermine national security. In 2015, the Chinese hacked into the US government’s Office of Personnel Management and stole millions of US government employees’ sensitive information (Nakashima, 2015). Despite seeming trivial, the information contained on this database is invaluable for countering espionage operations and can put US personnel at risk. This behavior is absolutely unacceptable, and must be addressed, for the Chinese show no signs of backing down.

But hacking is not the only way by which the Chinese steal US IP. For companies operating on Chinese soil, the risks are far greater. Authorities routinely enter the headquarters of companies in China and forcibly obtain computer files, passwords, and key technological information that the company holds. In December 2017, DuPont, a US-based chemical company, had its Shanghai headquarters raided by Chinese authorities after the US company accused its Chinese affiliate of stealing its chemical technology. The authorities took sensitive documents and harassed DuPont employees. The point? Stealing chemical technology worth billions of dollars (Li, 2018). A final example – one that starkly illustrates the intent of the Chinese – is the 2018 hacking and theft of sensitive information from a US Navy contractor regarding missile technology (BBC, 2018). This sort of behavior is not only illegal, but is very dangerous for the US. Intellectual property is the core value of many US companies, and the Chinese severely undermine the US economy to the tune of $225-$600 billion per year through theft (Pham, 2018). The military repercussions are also concerning. The US military is the most powerful in the world: not just because of its training, but because it has the most advanced technology available. That technological dominance is not insurmountable, particularly when the adversary steals it, and to lose that dominance is to lose the post-1945 world order.

Outside of economics, the Chinese are also hell-bent on regional and world domination. In the 2017 National Security Strategy released by the US government, China, along with Russia, Iran, and North Korea, was designated a “revisionist power” (National Security Strategy, 2017). It is high time the Chinese Communist regime has been called what it is: aggressive and expansionist. Why should they be classified as such? Simply put: since the early 2000s, the Chinese have been the bane of the Asia-Pacific region. The Chinese have moved into the South China Sea, constructing numerous artificial islands in accordance with their “9 dash line” policy, and have subsequently armed the islands (Economy, 2018). This is concerning not just for the territorial contests it creates (as many of the countries in the South China Sea claim the territory occupied by China), but because about $5.3 trillion dollars of trade pass through the region annually (Fisher, 2016). Countries like the Philippines have attempted to combat China’s expansion in the region by filing suit in an international court at The Hague, alleging that China had violated its territorial integrity and broken international law (Fisher, 2016). The court supported the Philippines, but China refused to listen. This is not a surprise, but it is important because it indicates China’s aggressive violations of international law. The Chinese have also repeatedly harassed the Japanese-held Senkaku Islands in the Sea of Japan (Gale, 2017; Talent, 2015). Since Japan is a key US ally with a mutual defense pact, a threat to Japan is a threat to the United States. But for a more direct hazard to the US, one need look no further than the harassment of US vessels in international waters or aircraft in international skies. In early October 2018, a People’s Liberation Navy ship intentionally traveled within 45 meters of the USS Decatur in the South China Sea (Lumbold, 2018). That may sound far, but to a ship that is around 150 meters in length, 45 meters is perilously close. Similarly, the Chinese have been increasingly harrying US aircraft both in Asia and Africa with lasers meant to harm the pilots’ eyes and disorient them (McKirdy, 2018). These are just a mere selection of Beijing’s threatening tactics. These actions are not just reckless; they pose a significant threat to American lives.

In foreign policy, China is a vicious dragon in disguise. It engages in predatory economic policy by offering substantial loans to developing nations in Africa and Asia, with the knowledge that these nations will become beholden to China. It is a sort of dramatic irony on a massive scale. A particularly egregious example is that of Sri Lanka (Abi-Habib, 2018). After having taken billions in loans from China to fund a new port, the nation realized its blunder. With Sri Lanka unable to pay back the loans, China got exactly what it wanted: the very port Sri Lanka thought it was building for itself. To pay off the loans, Sri Lanka signed the port over for 99 years to the Chinese, who could very well utilize it to extend their naval reach into the Indian Ocean, challenging regional stability and India’s local hegemony. Conquest by economics is just another way China has been pursuing its expansionist goals.

Nothing, however, can come close to the disgusting human rights abuses of the Chinese government. At the forefront of their barbarism is the mass internment of the Uighur ethnic minority by the millions in what amounts to modern concentration camps. Upwards of one million Uighurs are held in camps that are known to pursue torture and mistreatment, with reports of deaths within or shortly after release from the camps (Taylor, 2018). Why is China committing such a horrific crime? Because the Uighurs are Muslim, and to the Communist Party, any faith is anathema to the atheistic state’s stability. The discrimination is not just against Islam, for recently the government has been destroying Christian churches and holy objects at an ever-increasing rate (Rubio, 2018). Nothing is beyond the pale, nothing outside the Party’s bloody grasp. This is nothing new, for the Chinese have been attacking religious and spiritual groups for decades. Falun Gong, for example, a completely peaceful meditative practice, was first persecuted in the late 1990s. A minimum of 3,000 have been killed (although it is likely much, much higher), tens of thousands imprisoned and tortured, and allegations of organ harvesting, while not conclusively proven, are certainly not without evidence (Xu, 2018). I encourage readers to do further research regarding the persecution of Falun Gong, for it is a horrendous human rights disaster. This is not to mention the mass detention of journalists, forced confessions, and strange disappearance of prominent critics that occur on a regular basis. The world has been in an uproar, rightfully so, over the killing of Jamal Khashoggi, but that same brutality occurs in China on a much larger scale. The world has to come to terms with the fact that the image of civilized society that China builds is nothing but a facade. For those concerned about human rights and the dignity of humanity, China should be near the top of the list.

Recognizing China for what it is – a brutal dictatorship that threatens the world order of freedom that we hold so dear – is essential. More than a nuclear North Korea, a rogue regime in Tehran, or a resurgent Russia, China poses the greatest danger to the free world. No other nation has the economic wherewithal, military prowess, and sheer force of will to depose the US as the preeminent superpower than China. If history is any guide, tolerating or appeasing a despotic regime leads to nothing but needless suffering. The model of Taiwan, a great democratic success story, proves the viability and benefits of democracy in the region. One can only hope that the future will bring about a free and democratic China that treats its people with dignity and respect.

Bibliography

Abi-Habib, M. How China Got Sri Lanka to Cough Up a Port. June 25, 2018, New York Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/25/world/asia/china-sri-lanka-port.html

Chinese hackers steal data from US Navy contractor - reports. June 9, 2018, BBC: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-44421785

Economy, C. E., Kurlantzick, J., Blackwill, D. R. Territorial Disputes in the South China Sea. November 2, 2019, Council on Foreign Relations: https://www.cfr.org/interactives/global-conflict-tracker#!/conflict/territorial-disputes-in-the-south-china-sea

Fisher, M. The South China Sea: Explaining The Dispute. July 14, 2016, The New York Times:https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/15/world/asia/

Gale, A. Japan Is Building Missile Bases to Confront Rising Threat From China. December 20, 2017, The Wall Street Journal: https://www.wsj.com/articles/japan-is-building-missile-bases-to-confront-rising-threat-from-china-1513765804?mod=article_inline

Li, S. China Expands Its Cybersecurity Rulebook, Heightening Foreign Corporate Concerns. October 5, 2018, The Wall Street Journal: https://www.wsj.com/articles/china-expands-its-cybersecurity-rulebook-heightening-foreign-corporate-concerns-1538741732

Lumbold, G., Page, J. Pentagon Says Chinese Ship Harassed a U.S. Vessel. October 1, 2018, The Wall Street Journal: https://www.wsj.com/articles/mattis-trip-to-china-canceled-1538373418

Ma, A. China has started ranking citizens with a creepy 'social credit' system — here's what you can do wrong, and the embarrassing, demeaning ways they can punish you. 29 October, 2019, Business Insider: https://www.businessinsider.com/china-social-credit-system-punishments-and-rewards-explained-2018-4

McKirdy, E. Suspected Chinese lasers target US aircraft over the Pacific, US military source says. June 22, 2018, CNN: https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/22/politics/pacific-ocean-us-military-jets-lasers-intl/index.html

National Security Strategy of the United States of America. December 2017, WhiteHouse.gov: https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/NSS-Final-12-18-2017-0905.pdf

Nakashima, E. Chinese hack of federal personnel files included security-clearance database. June 12, 2015, Washington Post: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/chinese-hack-of-government-network-compromises-security-clearance-files/2015/06/12/9f91f146-1135-11e5-9726-49d6fa26a8c6_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.28637892b1df

Pham, S. How much has the US lost from China's IP theft? March 23, 2018, CNN Money: http://money.cnn.com/2018/03/23/technology/china-us-trump-tariffs-ip-theft/index.html

Rubio, M., Smith, C. China Grows More Repressive. October 9, 2018, The Wall Street Journal: https://www.wsj.com/articles/china-grows-more-repressive-1539125565

Talent, J. U.S. National Security and Rising China. August 11, 2015, The Heritage Foundation:https://www.heritage.org/defense/report/us-national-security-and-rising-china   

Taylor, R. China Supersizes Internment Camps in Xinjiang Despite International Criticism. November 1, 2018, The Wall Street Journal: https://www.wsj.com/articles/chinese-internment-camps-in-xinjiang-swell-1541052650

Viswanatha, A., Volz, D. U.S. Charges Chinese Agents in Hacking Scheme, More Cases Expected. October 31, 2018, The Wall Street Journal: https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-charges-chinese-agents-in-hacking-scheme-more-cases-expected-1540942095

Viswanatha, A. U.S. Detains Alleged Chinese Spy It Says Tried to Steal GE Trade Secrets. October 10, 2018, The Wall Street Journal: https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-detains-alleged-chinese-spy-it-says-tried-to-steal-ge-trade-secrets-1539204258

Xu, X. V., Xiao, B. Falun Gong: Two decades after a deadly ban in China, adherents still face pressure in Australia. April 21, 2018, ABC: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-04-21/what-is-the-falun-gong-movement-and-does-china-harvest-organs/9679690

The Political Consequences of Justice Kavanaugh's Confirmation

It has been a little over a month since the beginning of the Brett Kavanaugh confirmation process, and the fiasco is finally over. The 50-48 vote in favor of his confirmation on the Senate floor on Saturday, October 6th, brought him into the Supreme Court’s fold. This confirmation process has further accentuated the sharp divide between the political Right and the Left, given that the sexual assault allegations levied upon Judge Brett Kavanaugh were the main focus of the process: not from a sense of moral right and wrong, but from a political standpoint. Whether the allegation was true or false, Democrats, and particularly Senator Dianne Feinstein, clearly used the allegation of sexual assault made by Dr. Christine Blasey Ford as a political ploy. Their intent was to delay the floor vote on confirming Kavanaugh or to destroy his nomination before even making it there. At the same time, Senate Republicans claimed that the Democrats were pushing false claims against Kavanaugh. They stated that the Democrats, rather, were willing to take advantage of Dr. Ford in order to obtain a political advantage. Senate Republicans also attempted to push Kavanaugh’s confirmation to a vote before an official FBI investigation could take place into the sexual assault allegations, but were only stopped by Senator Jeff Flake, a pivotal vote in the confirmation. Flake stated that he was uneasy about voting for Kavanaugh before an FBI investigation could better ascertain whether the accusations were justified. Senator Flake’s move was a last-ditch effort to achieve some sort of unity between the members of both parties, but unfortunately, it failed; the ensuing FBI investigation became a major source of contention between the two sides, particularly in regards to its time restriction and scale. Regardless, the investigation seemingly found nothing that would potentially disqualify Kavanaugh from being placed on the Supreme Court. He was confirmed in the Senate almost completely on party lines. Only one Democratic Senator, Joe Manchin of West Virginia, went against the rest of his party and voted in favor of Kavanaugh.

While the confirmation of Justice Kavanaugh certainly has a conservative impact on American politics as a whole in the coming decades, it is uncertain what effects his confirmation will have on the upcoming midterm elections – especially congressional elections – in November. While the house was certainly expected to flip to Democratic control, the confirmation of Kavanaugh actually raises more questions about the upcoming elections than answers. Could Kavanaugh’s confirmation, another promise Donald Trump made on the 2016 campaign trail, be enough to energize the Republican base to vote with hearts reaffirmed by his kept promises? Or could this be what the Democrats needed, riling up their voting base’s anger at a Republican Party which they perceive does whatever it takes to keep hold of political power? It’s difficult to tell, however, whether the defeat in the Kavanaugh confirmation fight will raise or lower enthusiasm for Democratic voters in this election cycle. According to a Gallup Poll taken on September 27th, both parties’ voters are expressing a the highest enthusiasm for voting since 1994, with Democrats at 61 percent enthusiasm and Republicans at 58 percent. The most important figure, however, may not even have anything to do with the Democrats. The latest Rasmussen Reports Presidential Tracking Poll has just been released, showing President Donald Trump at a 51-percent approval rating among likely voters a day before the confirmation vote for Judge Brett Kavanaugh. Odds are, that number will rise among conservative voters even further now that the Supreme Court has a solidified conservative majority. With a majority of Republicans aligning themselves with the President, it’s quite likely that with Trump’s increased approval rating, Republicans across the board may receive a bit of a bump in votes in their respective races.

At the same time, the Democrats have developed a tumultuous discord among their own party, with many Democrats adamantly opposed to appointing Nancy Pelosi, the current Minority Leader of the United States House of Representatives, as Speaker of the House.

Many Democratic nominees are being judged by voters with regard to their stances on Nancy Pelosi, which may very well lead to some lost votes from Democratic voters in close races during the midterms. This focus, combined with the red-state/red-district Democrats who voted against Kavanaugh in the confirmation vote, will make these toss-up races more interesting, because it may give a slight edge to Republicans running against Democrats in those districts.

However, the Republicans aren’t necessarily going to escape the Kavanaugh confirmation unscathed. Many voters on the Left will consider the confirmation of Kavanaugh as a violent push-through of an immoral man into the most important court in the land. This could ramp up the animosity that the Democrats already hold towards the Republicans, whipping them up into a frenzy that could cause some Republicans trouble in the polls in November. However, with President Trump’s approval rating as high as it is among those likely to vote, it may be difficult for the potential Democratic wave to take back as many seats in the house as they plan.

In all, the most likely case is that the Republicans will still lose control of Congress, albeit by many fewer seats than most expect, and they will keep a hold over the Senate, which is less contested, in this election cycle. Although many are expecting the Democrats to make huge gains in this cycle, there are simply too many factors in favor of the Republicans to completely write them off as losing double-digit seats in the upcoming elections. While many still hate the President and his political party, enough of the American people still stand behind him and the promises he has kept to his supporters. They could feasibly carry a few more Republicans to wins than most voters might think. The confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh, arguably the most important of President Trump’s promises, will certainly help Republicans to increase their approval ratings; these will, in turn, help with their election chances. Whichever way the elections in November go, the impact of Kavanaugh’s confirmation will certainly have a strong presence in politics for years to come. 

The Sexual Revolution: What Went Wrong

It seems that we are starting to subtly backpedal on many of the leaps towards progress we have made in recent history (particularly the 20th century) because we realize what we once thought was progress is actually destructive. The Sexual Revolution, in particular, stands out as a prime example of a reach for respect and equality that, in many aspects, took those virtues away. Many components of the Sexual Revolution have led to some of the most challenging problems people, and specifically young adults, face.

First, one of the most visible effects of the Sexual Revolution is the widespread acceptance and prescription of “The Pill.” While the benefits and risks are widely debated, the medical community has accepted the birth control pill as Gospel. They use it as a band-aid solution for additional issues young women deal with while simultaneously promoting it as the most legitimate form of contraception (second only to the IUD). If so many women are on the pill, what is the problem? For one, many women begin taking birth control hormones as teenagers; according to one study done by Reuters, approximately “eighteen percent of teenage women ages 13 to 18 filled prescriptions for oral contraceptives in 2009.” The first time a doctor recommended hormonal birth control to me, I was twelve. Young women are hardly developed before they begin to take regular doses of hormones, which many of them will take for years on end. We do not even like to drink hormones in our milk, so why does it make any sense to put regular doses of hormones into our bodies for years without blinking? For many, the answer is fear.

Second, that fear of pregnancy and loss of respect for motherhood can also be accredited to the Sexual Revolution. While unplanned pregnancy was one of the great fears that led to the development of birth control and, in part, the Sexual Revolution, the irony of it all is that women are more afraid of an unplanned pregnancy than ever. The Women’s Movement that coincided with the Sexual Revolution put women in the workplace, which is monumental and ought to be appreciated. But the culture of working women led to many people looking down on motherhood as less than a career - as if women are not living up to their potential or succeeding if they become mothers. Young women are so afraid to have children because there is glory in a career, but shame in early motherhood.

Third, another destructive component of the Sexual Revolution is the liberal view of sexual relationships that led to modern day “hookup culture.” The increasingly lax view of sex has perpetuated it in the form of casual one-night stands. Attempting to eliminate emotions from sex has caused feelings around it, committed relationships, and interactions with the opposite sex to warp. Emotions only become more confusing and misunderstandings more likely to happen, especially if snapchat usernames are exchanged. As a result, kids are growing up with sexual pressure coming at them from all sides. Part of hookup culture is the expectations that society and we, ourselves, place on our peers and friends. Women are expected to have sex, but not too much sex. Men compete with their peers to be seen as sexually, and therefore, generally, competent. As a result, we are all boxed into some kind of shame, while our sexual actions and abilities are examined as some sort of measure of our value as people. This is why millenials do not have a clear idea of true feminine and masculine virtues. These virtues have been twisted into things that become toxic: in hookup culture, we are all just using each other.

Fourth, an offshoot of hookup culture is one of the most well-known effects of the Sexual Revolution: the increasing occurrence of sexually-transmitted diseases. It is estimated that one in four college students will contract an STD during their time at school. I mean, yikes. So gross. Nothing more to say about that one.

Fifth, there is less respect for religion, the sanctity of marriage, committed relationships, the unborn, and women. Things that we once saw as sacred are now seen as disposable, for they do not align with the way people want to have sex. Just like everything else in a culture of instant gratification, we want pleasure like our fast food (immediately! yesterday!), or if we are particularly patient, our Amazon Prime shipping (two days is tolerable, same-day is preferred). When we treat sex and love in this way, we cheapen it, we make it less valuable. We dilute the greatness of marriage when we try to imitate it, only resulting in a knock-off. When we women try to “have sex like men” we are just exhausting and hurting ourselves to even the score, just to say we are “equal.”

Sixth, a sub-effect of viewing people as disposable is a normalization of abortion, and therefore, an increase in abortion. According to the World Health Organization, approximately  40 to 50 million people are aborted each year; 125,000 people are aborted each day. This is the world’s greatest poverty; we run a 125,000 person deficit each day worldwide. The selfishness on part of our culture, large institutions with larger lobbying budgets, and the media prey on terrified women in difficult situations.

Seventh, and last, is another sub-effect of the objectification of people as a means to an end: rape culture. When we start to treat each other as disposable and worthless, we step into dangerous territory. People are complex, multi-dimensional, and full of value and potential for greatness. When we look at anyone and simply see an opportunity to fulfill our sexual desires, it is a massive oversight of the value another person carries. When we see other people as objects, our culture loses its humanity.

So, what are we to do? We should backpedal on destructive activities and change what we can to create a healthier view of sex in society. For example, the medical community should be encouraged to explore holistic medical treatment for ailments young women face. Natural Family Planning should be more accessible to all people and recognized as the credible pregnancy prevention and health tracking method it is. We need to start talking about sex and sexuality in a way that does not pose sex and morality as mutually exclusive. We must reframe sexual education so that it can be informative and not posed as a battle between abstinence and “Godless” sexual teaching. We have to start appreciating mothers for what they are: heroes who shape human beings through hard work and endless effort. We must start respecting each other, regardless of sexual rumors and reputations on college campuses. And, most importantly, we must make a conscious effort to view people as full of worth rather than just sexual potential.

These are big problems that require big changes, but if respect grows, so can solutions. Perhaps the “modern woman” will not have to use people to feel equal to men, and men will not use people to feel manly.