A Response to "Enough is Enough"

January 3, 2024

To the Editors of the Fenwick Review:

I must respectfully but forcefully express my dissent from Thomas Gangemi’s argument in the October issue of the FR that the U.S. should end its aid to Ukraine “in the name of peace.” Contrary to Mr. Gangemi, the American people have a great stake in preventing Vladimir Putin’s attempted conquest of Ukraine, just as the U.S. and its Western allies had in stopping Adolf Hitler’s militarization of the Rhineland and seizure of Austria and Czechoslovakia in the 1930’s. The immediate result of British appeasement of Hitler’s demands at the 1938 Munich conference, justified by prime minister Neville Chamberlain’s infamous boast that the agreement had brought “peace in our time,” was Hitler’s invasion of Poland, initiating what Chamberlain’s successor Winston Churchill called “the unnecessary war,” World War II, which brought about the deaths of tens of millions in Europe alone, including the Holocaust and the devastation of much of Europe. (Indirectly, it also instigated the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, resulting in millions more deaths.)

Contrary to Mr. Gangemi, it makes no difference whether the cruel dictator Putin justifies his aggression by some ideology other than “atheist-communism” (in his case, pure imperialistic nationalism). (Nor have I any notion of what Gangemi means by saying that the U.S. has itself been engaged in such a project itself “for decades.”) Not only the Nazi precedent, but any study of world history, will demonstrate that trying to slake imperialistic aggressors’ appetite for conquest by abject surrender only increases their desire for more. And contrary to Gangemi, not only is Ukraine not a “corrupt country” on a scale in any way comparable to Putin’s Russia, the scare-quotes he uses to refer to Putin’s “unjust” assault – apparently because Ukraine somehow provoked the dictator by seeking membership in NATO, a defensive alliance – are entirely unjustified. Every day Russia continues to launch missile attacks on civilian populations throughout Ukraine, in violation of all the laws of war, the teachings of Christianity and Judaism, and the principles of elementary humanity. 

Also contrary to Mr. Gangemi, nobody justifies American assistance to Ukraine on the ground that “Russia and her people” are “inherently evil.” In fact, Putin’s war is widely unpopular among the Russian people themselves, especially those who have lost family members in the battle to enhance the despot’s quest for glory. The people of Ukraine are fighting simply to preserve their independence and their democracy against subjugation to one of the world’s most brutal tyrannies. To compare Ukraine’s heroic leader Zelensky to Putin on the unsubstantiated ground that “no actor in this affair is completely blameless” violates the most elementary principles of morality and truth – in direct contradiction to the Christian teachings that Gangemi professes to follow. 

Though Thomas Gangemi is an excellent student (as I know from having had the good fortune to teach him last year), he would greatly benefit, as would all of today’s students, from a more thorough, unbiased study of political, diplomatic, and military history. 

Sincerely,

David Lewis Schaefer

Professor Emeritus of Political Science

and Faculty Adviser Emeritus 

to the Fenwick Review

“In This House We Believe…”

One of my favorite moments of my Public Policy course comes on day one of the social welfare policy unit. I begin by skewering a bumper sticker popular among some conservatives: “Work harder! Millions on welfare depend on you.” I demonstrate to my students how reductive and deceptive this is by walking them through many different policies and programs that make up the American welfare state and showing them how much money is spent on each. They learn that the share of the federal budget spent on aid to working-age, able-bodied adults who aren’t working is in fact quite small. 

People on the political left aren’t immune to the temptation to reduce nuance and complexity to facile slogans. We’ve all seen the yard sign: “In this house we believe…” What follows is a list of progressive bromides. One line always stands out to me: “Science is real.”

It’s hard to know what this means. Before the Covid-19 pandemic, I took the phrase as a reference to climate change. Progressives are deeply concerned about the warming planet and advocate for a robust policy response; there are too many Americans who still do not believe in anthropogenic global warming, and most of these unbelievers are on the political right. Post-pandemic, one might read “science is real” to mean something like “the Covid vaccine is safe and effective, and you should take it.”

But the claim on the sign is far broader than either of these interpretations. It seems to suggest that our political community can be neatly divided into two camps: one which believes in and follows “science,” and another which rejects it. This is not an accurate description of reality. Most progressives are not loyal adherents to science, just as most conservatives are not anti-science zealots. 

Consider Nicholas Kristof’s commendable observation in a recent New York Times op-ed that too many progressives refuse to reckon with social science showing the clear benefits of two-parent households. Among the facts Kristof cites: “Families headed by single mothers are five times as likely to live in poverty as married-couple families.” Yet Kristof reports that, shockingly, just 3 in 10 college-educated progressives agree that “children are better off if they have married parents.” Among college-educated conservatives, more than 9 in 10 agreed with the statement [1].

In other instances, progressives’ use of data, of facts, of “the science,” is incomplete and thus rather misleading. The issue of police killings has been at the heart of progressive calls for racial justice since the killing of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, in 2014. Progressives are correct to point out that Black Americans are killed by police at a disproportionate rate. However, as data from The Washington Post show, police killings of unarmed individuals are quite uncommon. Since the Post began tracking them eight years ago, there have been roughly 1,000 fatal police shootings per year. In fewer than 10 percent of these cases, the victim was unarmed. Approximately 20 unarmed Black Americans are fatally shot by police each year [2]. These numbers are obviously still too high. But they are at odds with the claims of some progressives, who have asserted that police kill unarmed Black men far more frequently. For example, during a 2022 judicial confirmation hearing, Senator John Kennedy noted that district court nominee Nusrat Choudhury had incorrectly claimed, “The killing of unarmed Black men by police happens every day in America” [3]. Choudhury’s misstatement jibes with survey results indicating that it is common for progressives to significantly overestimate the number of unarmed Black men killed by police [4].

During the Covid pandemic, progressives often instructed everyone to “follow the science.” One of the policies pursued under this banner was the prolonged closure of schools. Certainly, there was science that pointed toward closing schools, especially during the early stage of the pandemic when little was known about the virus. But there was also plenty of evidence suggesting that prolonged isolation and remote learning for children was likely to have myriad negative effects on child development. That’s why in the summer of 2020—well before the vaccine was available—the American Academy of Pediatrics argued for reopening schools on a more aggressive schedule than the CDC was recommending [5]. Scientists were disagreeing with other scientists. How is one supposed to “follow the science” when there is real science on both sides of an issue? Here, the progressive recourse to science was not particularly helpful. As is often the case, there was no scientifically-prescribed answer to the difficult question at hand.

I recently came across a different version of the “In this house” yard sign. It reads, “In this house we believe that simplistic platitudes, trite tautologies, and semantically overloaded aphorisms are poor substitutes for respectful and rational discussion about complex issues.” I must admit that, for a split second, I thought about putting it on my front lawn. 

Endnotes

[1] Nicholas Kristof, “The One Privilege Liberals Ignore,” The New York Times, September 13, 2023. Opinion | The One Privilege Liberals Ignore - The New York Times (nytimes.com)

[2] Police Shootings Database, “Fatal Force,” The Washington Post, last updated September 23, 2023. Police shootings database 2015-2023: Search by race, age, department - Washington Post

[3] Jason L. Riley, “Was a Judicial Nominee Prejudiced in Her ‘Role as an Advocate’?,” The Wall Street Journal, May 3, 2022. Was a Judicial Nominee Prejudiced in Her ‘Role as an Advocate’? - WSJ

[4] Zach Goldberg, “Perceptions Are Not Reality: What Americans Get Wrong About Police Violence,” Manhattan Institute, August 10, 2023. Perceptions Are Not Reality: What Americans Get Wrong About Police Violence | Manhattan Institute

[5]  Dana Goldstein, “Why a Pediatric Group Is Pushing to Reopen Schools This Fall,” The New York Times, June 30, 2020. Why A.A.P. Guidelines Are Pushing for Schools to Reopen This Fall - The New York Times (nytimes.com)

SCOTUS’s New Heavyhitters

The two newest members of the Supreme Court of the United States — Justice Amy Coney Barrett and Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson — have been turning heads over their intense questions in oral argument and the recent departures from the judicial right and judicial left, respectively.  The two new justices have been  predominant during the latest session of oral arguments, striking to the core of their ideological opponents’ arguments.  Furthermore, both Barrett and Jackson have departed from the traditional judicial right and left in recent cases, showing an independence from their respective ideological camps.

Justices Barrett and Jackson engaged in noteworthy lines of questioning in Biden v. Nebraska (2023). Both challenged the petitioners’ and respondents’ arguments both on Missouri’s standing and interests in MOHELA and the merits of the separation of powers case on President Biden’s student loan forgiveness programs.  Both Barrett and Jackson seemed cautious in Missouri’s standing in the case, questioning to what extent MOHELA is tied financially with the Missouri government.  On the merits of the case, Justice Barrett seemed more supportive of the separation of powers questions, while Justice Jackson suggested that separation of powers requires the Court to not decide political questions without a party coming to them with standing.

Another recent case that attracted attention to both justices is the relatively minor case Bittner v. United States (2022), where Justice Jackson joined Republican-appointed Justices Roberts, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh in the majority holding that if a person breaks the law by failing to report offshore accounts, the number of violations are the number of erroneous reports.  Justice Barrett wrote the dissenting opinion joined by Justices Thomas, Sotomayor, and Kagan, arguing that the number of violations are the number of accounts the individual fails to report correctly.  In this case, Bittner’s fines were $50,000 with the majority’s decision, but the fines would be $2.72 million had the Court sided with the Government.  

This case was noted in the press as an unusual 5-4 breakdown, but it is more notable for the insight it can give into Justice Jackson’s judicial philosophy.  As reported by slate.com, Jackson joining Gorsuch’s majority opinion in its entirety may show a libertarianism in Justice Jackson’s judicial values that could predict how she will rule on future cases.  

Oral arguments in other cases have shown how brilliant both these women are.  Recent hot-button cases Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina (2022) and 303 Creative v. Elenis (2022) showcase the brilliance of both Justice Barrett and Justice Jackson through their questions in oral arguments.

In Students for Fair Admissions, Justice Jackson’s main concern with the petitioners’ argument is the effect of admissions committees taking everything into consideration except race, where an applicant’s race is so vital to their experience that he writes about it and the committee cannot take that story into consideration.  However, in response to Justice Barrett’s question, the petitioners argued that such an essay would be able to be taken into consideration since it’s about the student’s experiences, not simply a checkbox for race alone deciding his admission.  Justice Barrett was also concerned with the implications on religion and religious’ institutions’ interest in boosting the admissions of their own adherents in their universities.

303 Creative is notable for its possible extension of the narrow Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission (2018) ruling.  The big implication of this case is how a ruling in petitioner Lorie Smith’s favor would affect discrimination laws across the country.  All justices, but Justice Jackson in particular, challenged the petitioners on what constitutes a “public accommodation” subject to the antidiscrimination law and what acts display a “message” subject to First Amendment protection.  She focused specifically on a hypothetical where a photographer refuses to take 1950s themed pictures of a black family with Santa Claus because the message he wants to send is an authentic 1950s theme that excludes black families.

While Justice Barrett challenged the petitioners on the scope of the decision, she focused on how Smith’s refusal to make gay wedding websites was not because of the identity of the customers but because of her refusal to make any website displaying a message contrary to her religious beliefs.  For instance, petitioners argued that Smith would refuse to make a marriage website for a heterosexual couple that were divorced and that she provides services for LGBT clients, such as creating business websites and designing logos.  This, in the petitioners’ view, shows that Smith is not discriminating against gay people, but rather refuses to design anything that would show support to a cause inconsistent with her religious beliefs.

Only time will tell how influential Justice Barrett and Justice Jackson will be on the Court, but if early signs are indicative of the future, Barrett and Jackson may replace former Justices Antonin Scalia and Stephen Breyer as the brilliant leaders of their respective judicial camps.  Or, perhaps these justices will surprise pundits and politicians and work against the grain, revolutionizing the Court for generations to come.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Fenwick Review's 2022 Election Day Predictions

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

Arizona: 

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

Pennsylvania:  

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

Wisconsin: 

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

Nevada: 

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

Georgia: 

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

Florida:

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

Ohio:

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

Colorado:

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

New Hampshire:

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

Utah:

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

Governor’s Races

Oregon:

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

Pennsylvania: 

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

Georgia:

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

Florida:

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

Texas:

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

Arizona:

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

Nevada:

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

New York:

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

Wisconsin

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

House Predictions:

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

Virginia’s 7th 

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

New York’s 17th 

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

New Hampshire’s 1st 

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

Maine’s 2nd

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

Michigan’s 7th

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

Rhode Island’s 2nd

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

Alaska’s At Large

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

Texas’ 34th

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

Oregon’s 5th

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

Connecticut’s 5th

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

Schuler Access Initiative Insanity

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Contextualizing the Conservative Movement

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Choosing Truth Over Facts: Joe Biden Is Not Barack Obama

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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