Mitt Romney: A Profile in Courage

Written by President John F. Kennedy in 1956, Profiles in Courage details the careers of several United States senators who acted courageously and did what they felt was right despite the significant criticism and losses in popularity they faced because of their actions. In the book, President Kennedy describes courage as “that most admirable of human virtues” or “Grace under pressure, as Ernest Hemingway defined it.”

One senator who is highlighted in the book is Senator Edmund G. Ross (R-KS). During the impeachment of President Andrew Johnson, it was clear that the Radical Republicans who controlled both the House of Representatives and the Senate had no intention of giving President Johnson a fair trial. When it came time to vote, Ross joined six other Republican senators who broke from their party and voted to acquit President Johnson. However, being the last of the seven Republicans to vote, it was Ross’s decision that eventually acquitted the president.

Despite claims of bribery, it was Ross’s genuine belief that “if a president could be forced out of office by insufficient evidence that was based on partisan disagreement, the presidency would then be under the control of whatever congressional faction held sway.” As a result of his decision, Ross, like the other six Republican senators, lost his bid for reelection, eventually returning to Kansas where his family dealt with poverty and ostracism from the community.

Over 152 years later and in the midst of another impeachment vote, it was another senator who displayed a similar act of courage. This senator was Mitt Romney (R-UT). When President Donald Trump was impeached as a result of allegations that he sought help from Ukrainian officials to influence the 2020 election, Senator Romney was put in a tough position. Being the Republican Party’s nominee for president in 2012 and with President Trump’s acquittal all but certain, many people assumed that Romney would naturally go with the flow of his party and vote to acquit the president. However, when it came time to vote on the first article of impeachment, abuse of power, Senator Romney shocked everyone by voting in favor of conviction, arguing that “corrupting an election to keep oneself in office is perhaps the most abusive and destructive violation of one’s oath of office that I can imagine.” With that vote, Senator Romney’s place in history was forever sealed, as he became the only senator ever to vote for the impeachment of a president from his own party.

As a result of his vote, Romney was immediately hit with criticism. Right after his speech defending his vote, ‘#RecallRomney’ was trending on Twitter. At an airport, a stranger yelled at him and told him that he “ought to be ashamed!” The president, not one to shy away from attacking those who disagree with him, called Romney “a pompous ass.” Romney even faced disagreement from his own family, as Ronna McDaniel, who is chair of the Republican National Committee and Romney’s niece, said that “this is not the first time I have disagreed with Mitt, and I imagine it will not be the last.”

Despite all the criticism he has faced, Senator Romney deserves to be recognized and applauded for his political courage. Senator Romney could have easily taken the easy path, avoided criticism and simply voted in line with his party. However, Senator Romney made the difficult but right decision to vote based on his own conscience and belief, not merely because he is of the same party as the president.

You can not expect an elected official to vote like a robot and have blind obedience to authority. The reason why voters vote to send a person to Congress is that they trust that one person’s judgment to make difficult decisions. This was especially stressed by President Kennedy in Profiles in Courage, as he wrote that a true democracy puts its faith in people who “will not simply elect men who will represent their views ably and faithfully, but also elect men who will exercise their conscientious judgment” and that the people “will not condemn those whose devotion to principle leads them to unpopular courses, but will reward courage, respect honor and ultimately recognize right.”

This idea of having a conscientious judgment was also touched upon by Edmund Burke, who believed that elected representatives must act as they believe is right, regardless of the preferences of their constituents and that “Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion.”

While many are also quick to accuse Senator Romney of voting against President Trump out of pure hatred, it is important to examine his rationale for voting the way he did. And when one does this, they will see that this is merely an irrelevant claim. From the outset of the trial, Senator Romney took an impartial look at the evidence, and in the end, felt that the evidence pointed to the president’s guilt of abusing his power. As a matter of fact, if Senator Romney’s motive for voting against the president was indeed pure hatred, he would have voted to convict on the second count as well. After reviewing the evidence on count two, he felt that it was not sufficient enough to convict the president.

It’s also important to note that not only does Senator Romney vote with President Trump 78 percent of the time according to FiveThirtyEight, but also that Senator Romney and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell have agreed on 93 percent of the votes in the 116th Congress. Based on this, labeling Senator Romney a RINO (Republican In Name Only) clearly ignores the senator’s voting history.

In today’s society that is filled with extreme partisanship, it is very hard to be politically courageous. However, Senator Mitt Romney shows us that we can be courageous if we want. Indeed, Senator Romney’s courageous decision is a refreshing moment in the Halls of Congress. It provides inspiration to those who want to be courageous but fear the outcomes of their decisions. More importantly, it teaches us that the most important thing one can do is to follow through with what one believes is right. I think we can appreciate Senator Romney’s commitment to his decision when he said that, “with my vote, I will tell my children and their children that I did my duty to the best of my ability.”

Brexit, France and Germany: What Future for Conservative Political Parties?

For the majority of you that do not know me, I have spent all of my life living between France, Germany and the United States.  As a political science major at HC and a daily reader of political news, the effect of public opinion and demographic shifts on electoral agendas has always fascinated me.  

Recently, two events occurred which exemplify a phenomenon that has slowly moved political majorities in large western economies: Brexit and the election of Thomas Kemmerich.  Kemmerich, a FDP (neoliberal) Minister-President of East German State Thuringia won parliamentary votes of the CDU (Christian Democrats) and far right (some call them Neo-Nazi, Alternative für Deutschland Party -AfD), causing a major political turmoil within Germany’s political class and ultimately leading to Kemmerich’s resignation.

While these events are seemingly disconnected, they characterize internal ideological conflicts mainstream political parties have been facing in the last 40 years and offer different strategic choices these parties have made to capture votes of an increasingly fractured and radicalized voter base.

In this short piece, I will share my understanding of how and why European political parties have lost significant chunks of their electoral base to far-right political parties and have adjusted their electoral strategies to survive, tacitly agreeing with their anti-immigration, populist agenda, collaborating with these factions or slowly facing the risk of disappearing.

Since the fall of the Berlin wall and collapse of the Soviet Union, mainstream European political parties have offered the following similar choices to voters:  a social democratic state on the left in which market capitalism is embraced but softened by generous social benefits, and, on the right, a freer, more laissez-faire form of market economy in which the government operates as a regulator but still allows for a generous safety net. Regarding immigration issues, the left has tended to embrace borders that are more open while the right has favored a slightly more conservative, nationalist stand. 

In Europe’s major western economies, political parties have divided the electoral cake and agreed on three ideas: social democracy, the free movement of goods and people and the construction of a supra national political organization, the European Union. They built their agenda, electoral pitch and policies around these fundamental pillars. Over time, however, several factors, which correlated to these policies, have hollowed-out their electoral base. De-industrialization, unemployment and immigration, have slowly pushed voters to retreat, abstain, or join the ranks of more extreme or alternative political movements whose messages focus on national identity and protectionist economic policies, but also “green” agendas.

The UK, France and Germany have all witnessed this shift at different times and in different forms. During that shift, far-right political movements remained at the fringe of mainstream political discourse, oftentimes demonized and excluded of any alliances or coalitions.

To survive this electoral shift, however, mainstream parties, especially those on the right, are increasingly tempted to poach on the hunting grounds of the far right.  In certain circumstances, Brexit and Thüringen, as recent prime examples, have openly benefited from their votes. Observers are wondering what the future of center-right parties will become and if far-right political ideas and parties will increasingly be accepted and perhaps even become necessary allies in coalition building.

Until recently, it would have been unthinkable for mainstream traditional center-right parties to benefit from passive or active support of far-right political support; The memory of the 1930s dictatorships in Spain, Germany, and Italy often acted as a scarecrow to any party suggesting a policy that left-wing opponents could be characterized as xenophobic, racist or fascist.  

Political Scientist Eric Kauffman brilliantly describes this in his book “White Shift,” showing how mainstream political parties refused to address the ideological demands of a growing chunk of the population frustrated by immigration (but not only), thus leading to the growth of so-called populist parties catering to these demands.

In this context, Germany, France and the UK, while completely different battlegrounds, are interesting examples to consider as right-wing movements shape the political agenda.

In France, nationalist anti-immigration party Front National (now renamed Rassemblement National), had been hoovering around 10-15% of votes until its founder, Jean-Marie Le Pen, made it to the second round of presidential elections in 2002. Since 2011, his daughter Marine has taken the party’s leadership, softened its image and has repeatedly gained second or third place in national elections, even earning 33.9 % of the vote in the recent 2017 elections in which Emmanuel Macron took everyone by surprise by running on an independent, centrist platform. Marine Le Pen’s popularity rises with concerns over immigration and has drained supporters from the traditional center-right parties (as well as the former Communist party interestingly), leaving observers to wonder how the center right’s electoral strategy will evolve to compensate for the loss of popular support.

Germany, due to its federal organization and electoral system offers a different picture. Its post-war constitution and political system were designed to prevent the ruse of extremist parties, favoring a strong, two-party system, much more similar/very similar to the one found in the United States but with a frequent occurrence of coalition governments.  While new parties have emerged, such as the neoliberal FDP or the Greens, the biggest political challenge to the two-party system was brought upon by Chancellor Angela Merkel’s decision to welcome over 1 million refugees, mostly stemming from Muslim countries.  This unilateral decision by the Chancellor led to the shattering entry into national parliament of the AfD in 2017.

The United Kingdom went through a different situation altogether. In a way, political decisions leading to Brexit – the 2016 referendum – were strategic yet hazardous moves by the Cameron government which none of its major European ideological relatives would have considered. The referendum clearly pandered to the anxieties of the right-wing populist Eurosceptic UKIP supporters and led to the surprising Brexit outcome, which materialized February 1, 2020 after nearly 4 years of negotiation.  

Going forward, in the hope that Europe and the global economy recovers quickly from the Covid-19 pandemic, the renewed spike in refugee arrivals at Europe’s gates brought on by Turkey’s aggressive diplomacy might strengthen the fear-narrative peddled by right wing parties and further weaken center-right parties unable or unwilling to cater to that voter-demographic.

With this in mind, the role of Germany and the Franco-German relationship will be key in the development of the European agenda in the coming months. French president Macron had already offered his vision for a more integrated and independent Europe in a famous speech held in Aachen, Germany in 2019. As expected, the fiscally conservative German political class received the speech with lukewarm enthusiasm.

Upcoming national elections in member and non-EU member countries could very well be the platform in which the questions tied to national identity and immigration might be discussed openly and might just be the opportunity for mainstream political parties to reclaim their electorate from the less experienced and oftentimes irresponsible right-wing political groupings and agitators.

Letter from the Editors: February 2020

Dear Reader,

Thanks for picking up the first edition of The Fenwick Review of the new decade and of the spring semester! 

We are in the midst of a pivotal time both on our campus and in our nation.  As the College prepares to implement a new Freedom of Expression policy and the United States gears up for November’s presidential election, much about our future remains uncertain and we remain dangerously divided.

As we embark on this new semester, this new election cycle, and this new decade, we hope we can strive for common understanding and mutual respect, regardless of what might happen in the coming months.  This issue features commentary on the presidential primaries, the March for Life, the death of Qasem Soleimani, and more.  Though none of us at the Review claim to have all the answers or know what lies ahead, we hope the analyses in the coming pages of this magazine will, at the very least, provide some valuable insights.

We wish all of our readers the very best this semester!

Seamus Brennan ’20 & Jack Rosenwinkel ’21

Co-Editors-in-Chief

Trigger Warning

There are a few different reasons why you may be reading The Fenwick Review. Perhaps the largest group of loyal readers comes from the very staff itself. Following them might come those who despise Holy Cross’s “Journal of Opinion” with every fiber of their beings (that isn’t already being used to hate a different “politically unjust cause”). Then there is the camp of the silent supporters, flipping through the copy they picked up with the morning sun streaming through the windows of Kimball Dining Hall. Or perhaps you are a member of the faculty or staff attempting to stay hip on campus culture because you heard about the anonymous Instagram account slandering nearly every paragraph, line, and period written in these pages. In any case, in the true Catholic spirit, all are welcome here.

It’s no secret that our campus has two major papers that represent the two major camps of political thought. The Fenwick Review ranges from center-right to far-right ideals while The Spire tends to range from moderate to far-left. The reality of today, however, is that college campuses are moving more and more to the left, demanding more progressive reforms to the old ways of doing things. For instance, soon to be gone are the days of solely “men’s” or “women’s” restrooms, replaced more and more by gender neutral restrooms. Personal pronouns are commonly proclaimed while safe spaces and trigger warnings are announced before anything that could possibly make anyone uncomfortable, whatever that may be. Serious questions of identity are openly discussed on a broader stage.

I won’t comment about these changes themselves. Rather, if I’m a woman and I want to use a women’s restroom, the women’s restroom is where I will go. If I don’t need to use the safe space, I won’t. If I am not currently questioning my identity, sexual or otherwise, I simply will not lean on the sources put in place to help me arrive at such an answer. Those who are doing any of these things are free to continue about their lives, actions, questioning, and demanding of more. Just as that girl over there is allowed to hang her “Don’t Tread on Me” flag, that boy over there is equally allowed to hang his LGBT+ flag. For lack of a better, more academically pleasing-to-the-ears way of putting it: I really don’t care what you do. Let’s even underline “really.”

But here’s the thing: with campuses moving more and more to the left, those who don’t follow suit – whether it be through demonstrations, climate strikes, PRIDE marches – are increasingly ostracized. Does that mean you don’t believe women should have equal rights? Do you seriously not believe in climate change? What, you’re going to claim that we should all love one another but you won’t support your brothers and sisters of the LGBT+ community? Generally, those on the left and especially Millennials and Gen Z-ers are constantly on the defense, sometimes firing off before any sort of real offense has been made. Out in the world, I am a firm Moderate. On the grounds of the modern college campus, clothe me in red and get me an elephant because it appears that I am a diehard conservative.

Just because I am not marching through the streets of every major world city at Women’s Marches, does not mean that I believe women are less than men. Just because I go to Catholic Mass on Sunday, it does not mean that I believe myself to be superior or “holier” than you, nor do I find myself claiming that you are a sinner or non-believer. Even though I am not stopping my day’s work to go march for the climate, never have I once thought that climate change is not a very real and scientifically supported phenomenon. I have my beliefs and you, my friend, have yours. Can you suggest that I bring my reusable cup to Cool Beans? Sure thing, I’m not offended. Can I suggest that we spend less time in lecture discussing potential discomfort in preparation for entrance into a world where such discussions are rarely had and extreme precautions are rarely taken?

Being at such a small school, many of us know more about one another than we would ever wish to know. Why I know that so-and-so has two Black Labs and a Labradoodle is beyond me. With that said, some things are fine to keep to ourselves. If you’re an atheist, cool. You do not need to put it in your Instagram bio. If you believe that your faith is the only legitimate form, you have the right to believe that as well as the right to keep that to yourself. If you feel empowered by attending Women’s Marches, go on, but don’t judge other women who aren’t there. Like my nana always says, God gave us two ears and one mouth so we can listen twice as much as we can speak.

What, you may ask, has sparked this sort of reflection? As we are preparing to make housing selections for the next academic year, one of my good friends and I planned to live with another one of our friends and a girl we have never met. It seemed like it was going to be an okay fit… until I received a message asking me if I wrote for The Fenwick Review. This girl with whom I have never had a single conversation no longer wanted to live with me based solely off the fact that I have written previous articles published in this journal. Surely, this journal has published some “hot takes” and controversial essays, but it almost always refrains from publishing “anonymous” articles. Journalism doesn’t have room for anonymity. If you’re going to say something, you better have the you-know-what to back it up.

I don’t agree with some of the things published by some of the very staff members that I call my friends. It’s called a difference in opinion and it’s commonly seen in the real world. We have come to college to broaden our horizons and see things from a different point of view. Sure, Machiavelli can tell me how a prince should rule - and I don’t have to agree with it, but his point of view is going to help me  better understand the world buzzing around me. Stepping outside our comfort zones can be challenging. When my “Natural Sciences” common requirement required me to put a dead Praying Mantis on a pin needle and present it to my professor, you better bet that bug – sorry, that insect of the Mantodea order – was regally speared with that needle.

Moral of the story: step down a bit. Rather than being inherently offended by someone else’s belief, take a moment and educate yourself. Ask them why they believe that. We are in college to ultimately go forth and set the world on fire. (No, Holy Cross did not pay me to throw in the St. Ignatius quote). Your whole life will be full of encounters with other people who come from different backgrounds and belief systems than you, and when you encounter something that makes you uncomfortable, you will have to learn how to get over it. If we asked everyone for copies of their resume before speaking with them, chances are that we would almost always see something that deters us. Maybe you’ll share an office with someone you can’t stand… but unlike the paid staff of Holy Cross, your boss isn’t going to take time out of their day to ask you how you feel and why you feel that way. One part of someone doesn’t make up their entire story. Step down from the defense and take a deep breath.

Oh, and one more thing: you have the power to choose the information you consume. If you are reading this essay with the preconceived notion that it will be total blasphemy and you will then spend the next few hours lamenting over your hatred for a school journal, it’s time for you to pick up a fifth class. Or an extracurricular. Or go exercise. You’d be shocked how your productivity increases when you spend less time complaining and being offended.

Trump: Champion of the Pro-Life Movement

I attended the 47th annual March for Life in Washington, D.C. on Friday, January 24, 2020. It had been a last-minute decision, and one of the biggest reasons I ultimately attended was the announcement that, for the first time in the history of the March, the President of the United States would speak in person. No president had done this before: not even Ronald Reagan, a man with the reputation of being a political hero for the pro-life movement. President Donald Trump made a historic appearance at the March where he delivered an equally historic speech, enshrining his legacy as the champion of the Religious Right and of the pro-life movement - a legacy that does not appeal to America’s religious with empty rhetoric for political points. But rather, he proceeds with true devotion to the cause and  action to back his words. His speech, a speech for the ages, confirms exactly this.

Trump’s speech can be divided into two main themes: practical politics and transcendent motivation. The practical component of the speech was Trump’s describing of his political achievements regarding the pro-life movement, and what lies ahead for the movement as he fights to end the butchering of unborn children. Within his first week in office, Trump reinstated and expanded the Mexico City policy, which bans the funding of abortion oversees, and as he described, “issued a landmark pro-life rule to govern the use of Title X taxpayer funding.” Trump notified Congress that he “would veto any legislation that weakens pro-life policies or that encourages the destruction of human life,” a promise which he has firmly held.

When Trump visited the United Nations last September, he made clear that “global bureaucrats have no business attacking the sovereignty of nations that protect innocent life.” When it comes to religious liberty, Trump has been an avid defender, working to stop the abuse of “doctors, nurses, teachers, and groups like the Little Sisters of the Poor.”. Perhaps most importantly, Trump has confirmed 187 federal justices, including Supreme Court Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, who remain loyal to the original meaning of founding documents instead of trying to manipulate them for their own ends. Perhaps most imminently, the Trump administration has dedicated itself to “protecting pro-life students' right to free speech on college campuses,” with the penalty of withholding federal taxpayer dollars, a financial penalty that most colleges are not willing to pay. 

Trump affirmed quite accurately that the “far-left is actively working to erase our God-given rights, shut down faith-based charities, ban religious believers from the public square, and silence Americans who believe in the sanctity of life.” The left-wing news media and the ever-present swamp, as he described in his remarks, are coming after Trump because he is fighting for the right to life “for those who have no voice.” Nearly every Democrat “supports taxpayer-funded abortion, all the way up until the moment of birth.” Senate Democrats, as he stated at the event, have “even blocked legislation that would give medical care to babies who survive attempted abortions.” The President, meanwhile, has won many victories for the pro-life movement, and will continue should he be reelected this November (to that end the crowd, including myself, shouted “Four more years!”).

While the practical politics mentioned above are surely important, the most glorious and inspiring part of Trump’s speech was his declaration of the transcendent motivation of the pro-life cause. Early on in his speech, Trump quoted the Bible in affirming that “each person is ‘wonderfully made.’”  He acknowledged that all of the people there “understand an eternal truth: Every child is a precious and sacred gift from God.” He calls on us to “protect, cherish, and defend the dignity and sanctity of every human life.” He continued: “When we see the image of a baby in the womb, we glimpse the majesty of God's creation.” Here, Trump spoke of the soul of the baby, which he or she has from the moment of conception, and called out Democrats’ apparent desire to destroy life rather than to protect it. Perhaps this is why many liberals are insistent on blocking that image of the baby in the womb to deciding mothers, as the Planned Parenthood associates try to force her to kill her child so that they can meet their quotas. At times, one can see Trump’s inner dad come out: “When we hold a newborn in our arms, we know the endless love that each child brings to a family.” He continues: “When we watch a child grow, we see the splendor that radiates from each human soul. One life changes the world.” These are the words of a Christian: perhaps a flawed one in many respects, but one who is gradually and genuinely coming closer to the Truth, far closer than the Democrats who oppose him. Trump affirmed that every “life brings love into this world,” that every “child brings joy to the family,” that every “person is worth protecting,” and above all that “every human soul is divine, and every human life –- born and unborn –- is made in the holy image of Almighty God.” This line is a genuine appeal to the Transcendent God that many liberals want banished from the public square. Liberals want men to affirm human rights, but without acknowledging that any rights come solely from man being made in the image and likeness of God. Our founders understood this; every Christian knows this deep in his soul; and Trump fights for this. “Together, we will defend this truth all across our magnificent land,” he continued.

Other parts of the speech acknowledged politicians who have fought for the pro-life cause along with him, and the anniversary of woman’s suffrage and the great things that many women have done for the pro-life movement, but the main focus of the speech remained centered on the practical policies and the transcendent ideals that guide values that have been lost in our current political atmosphere.  Regrettably, ideals that have been pushed around and neglected in the name of “tolerance.” In reality, these ideals fight the tolerance of evil and legalized murder, and most importantly, they are ideals that come from God, the Transcendent God from which all human rights proceed.

A Checkered Record: Four Decades of Iranian Violence

Shortly after midnight, on January 3, 2020, a United States Air Force MQ-9 Reaper drone unleashed a barrage of Hellfire missiles at a convoy leaving the Baghdad International Airport. The convoy was obliterated, along with the commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps’ Quds Force, Qasem Soleimani. Soleimani had the infamous distinction of bearing direct responsibility for over 600 American deaths during the Iraq War, along with thousands more who were wounded by proxy forces under his command.

Soleimani’s death generated hysterical responses, both from members of the Iranian government, and from the American left. In the Senate, Democrats refused to support a measure approving the strike. Others, such as Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), referred to the strike as an unprovoked “act of war” against Iran. The media portrayal of American relations with Iran couldn’t be further from the truth. Since its inception in 1979, the Islamic Republic of Iran has waged a four decade war against America and her allies, both openly and through proxy forces. At various points in time, it has been necessary for the United States to utilize force to deter further Iranian violence. The strike against Soleimani represents only the latest retaliatory measure in this long and bloody conflict.

After seizing power from the relatively progressive Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, the mullahs wasted no time in declaring America to be their greatest enemy. Their hatred of the U.S. came to a head on November 4, 1979, as Iranian students stormed the American embassy in Tehran and seized fifty two hostages in retaliation for the U.S. providing cancer treatment for the ailing Shah. During their captivity, the hostages were subjected to beatings, theft, and psychological abuse. Tantamount to a declaration of war, the Hostage Crisis represented Iran’s first salvo in its forty year offensive against the U.S.

In 1982, the U.S. and several other nations intervened in the Lebanese Civil War to act as a peacekeeping force. In October 1983, two truck bombs were detonated against the American and French military barracks in Beirut, killing 241 American and 58 French personnel. The attack was carried out by a pair of Shia suicide bombers who were strongly suspected of involvement with Hezbollah and Iran. In 2004, a monument was erected in Tehran to commemorate the two bombers as “martyrs.” A mere five years later, on April 14, 1988, the American frigate Samuel B. Roberts struck a mine in the Persian Gulf, injuring several sailors and severely damaging the ship. Serial numbers on unexploded mines proximal to the incident area were traced back to the Iranian mine laying vessel Iran Ajr. After nearly ten years of unanswered Iranian aggression, America would finally retaliate.

On April 18, 1988, the United States launched Operation Praying Mantis. Over the course of the operation, American forces sank or damaged half of Iran’s navy and destroyed two oil platforms. After the U.S. pulled back its forces, Iran opted not to pursue further action. In one fell swoop, the United States had effectively neutralized Iran’s naval capabilities, while escaping any meaningful retaliation from the Iranian regime. 

In the decades after Praying Mantis, the Iranian regime resorted to more subversive measures in its conflict with the U.S. Chief among these was the use of Shia proxy groups during the Iraq War. Among those facilitating the attacks by these proxy groups was General Soleimani. Over the next few years, Iran’s activities grew increasingly bold, as it began clawing its way toward a nuclear arsenal, and taking 10 American sailors into captivity at gunpoint met with little response. If anything, like a misbehaving child, Iran was incentivized to continue its aggression as a result of a lack of tangible corrective action. That lack of enforcement abruptly changed with the push of a button on January 3.

The past four decades of American relations with Iran have provided some important lessons. Short of a regime change or a full-blown war, Iran will continue its aggression. However, it is also clear that forceful retaliation for overt acts of war on the part of Iran are extremely effective at lessening Iranian attacks, and may help prevent additional American casualties. In the wake of Praying Mantis, Iran was forced to count its losses and put an end to its mining operations. So too will the Soleimani strike serve as a warning to those in the regime who would seek to harm American assets. Until the day when the Islamic Theocracy finally crumbles under the growing protests of its citizens, those involved in America’s foreign policy would be wise to pay heed to the past. If they are to limit Iran’s attempts to assert its dominance in the Middle East, it is a necessity for military strategists to be prepared to utilize America’s offensive might if the opportunity demands it.

Is Bernie Being Burned Yet Again?

Senator Bernie Sanders (D-VT) gained much attention in 2016 when he almost clinched the Democratic nomination. Although he lost to Hillary Clinton, he is now vying for the nomination again in the 2020 election. He has always been one to attract the media and voters, especially those of younger demographics, with his enthusiasm, progressive policies, and ever-growing base of support. But in January, a fight between him and his fellow Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) took the spotlight. This fight, however, has done more than exposing political differences or even providing entertainment factors - it has revealed the sad state of the Democratic National Convention (DNC) and elite leaders of the Democratic Party, who are showing themselves to pick favorites rather than letting the primary process play out naturally -- much like they did in 2016. Between the DNC, CNN, and other media, Bernie Sanders is, yet again, being targeted this election cycle.

Early on in the cycle, it became well known that Sanders and Warren agreed not to attack each other this election. But this pact seems to have disappeared after a Politico report showed that Sanders volunteers received a script for talking to voters in which they were told to put down Warren. It included comments such as “people who support her are highly-educated, more affluent people who are going to show up and vote Democratic no matter what,” and then goes on to say, “she's bringing no new bases into the Democratic Party.” These criticisms drew much attention to both Sanders and Warren, the latter of which who said she was “disappointed.” At first, the Sanders campaign tried to downplay the script by saying it was not as accurate as reported. However, they then changed the script and told officials not to distribute the older one, which had also included attacks on Democratic candidates Buttigieg and Biden. But instead of moving on, a full-on fight erupted between Sanders and Warren, and their nonaggression pact seemed to vanish.

Warren then accused Sanders of saying a woman could not be president. He denied the claim, but at the January Democratic Debate, CNN moderator Abby Phillip talked about this supposed remark and she ended her question to Sanders by asking, “Why did you say that?” He explained how he, in fact, did not say it and did not want to waste time even talking about it, since that is what Trump and perhaps some in the media want. He then went on to say, “Anybody [who] knows me knows that it's incomprehensible that I would think that a woman cannot be president of the United States. Go to YouTube today. There's a video of me 30 years ago talking about how a woman could become president of the United States. In 2015, I deferred, in fact, to Senator Warren. It was a movement to draft Senator Warren to run for president. And you know what, I stayed back. Senator Warren decided not to run, and I then did run afterwards." After giving a well-thought out response, Phillip asked him to confirm he did not say a woman could not be president. After he denied the allegation, she turned to Warren and asked, “Senator Warren, what did you think when Senator Sanders told you a woman could not win the election?”

The word choice in CNN’s question reflects a deep bias against Sanders. Sanders was not asked whether or not he said what Warren had claimed and what he thought when he heard Warren made this claim. Rather, he was asked why he said it. Even after he denied making the comment, Warren was asked what she thought when he asked it. For an official debate, this rhetoric from a professional journalist is absolutely ridiculous. Moderators are not supposed to cater questions to specific candidates nor take a clear side in a disagreement. 

In 2012, during a Presidential Debate between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney, CNN’s Candy Crowley similarly took a side during an exchange about the Benghazi scandal. Rather than doing her job of asking questions and making sure the candidates simply followed the rules, Crowley defended Obama over Romney’s accusations. Romney explained the situation afterwards: "So, she obviously thought it was her job to play a more active role in the debate than was agreed upon by the two candidates, and I thought her jumping into the interaction I was having with the president was also a mistake on her part and one I would have preferred to carry out between the two of us, because I was prepared to go after him for misrepresenting to the American people that -- the nature of the attack." It is not the job of the moderator of a debate to take a stand; it is their job to give the candidates the opportunity to be questioned on their views and actions, to have a platform for their policies, and, for entertainment purposes, to possibly incite some fights. However, it is never appropriate for them to take a clear stance in these heated exchanges— something CNN clearly did with Obama in 2012 and has now done with Warren. CNN automatically believing Warren is a sad example of Sanders once again being shafted because he is not the favorite candidate of the DNC and major Democrats. 

Although there were unfair questions during the debate that brought up the fight, the exchange between Warren and Sanders afterwards is what grabbed the attention of the media and voters most. Sanders put his hand out to shake Warren’s, but she rejected it and just immediately started speaking:

"I think you called me a liar on national TV.”

"What?" Sanders said surprisingly.

She repeated herself, "I think you called me a liar on national TV.”

"You know, let's not do it right now. If you want to have that discussion, we'll have that discussion," Sanders responded.

"Anytime,” she said.

"You called me a liar," Sanders, seemingly frustrated, continued. "You told me -- all right, let's not do it now."

Clearly an uncomfortable exchange, it has sparked much speculation. One explanation could be that this was completely planned by Warren - she knew and wanted the exchange to be released in order to put down Sanders and to be viewed as a strong woman standing up to a man. Another explanation could be it was not planned and simply was released to cause more drama between the campaigns - more to talk about for the media, and more entertainment for viewers. Regardless, the question still remains: which of the two candidates should be believed?

Given the past histories of both candidates, it would make more sense to believe Sanders. He has continually fought for women’s rights, eventually supported Hillary Clinton in 2016, and has made statements in the past saying a woman could be president. Logically, it is hard to believe a woman could not be president — Clinton received more popular votes than Trump, there are over 100 women in the House of Representatives, and there is a female Speaker of the House. On the other hand, Warren has been known to fabricate stories in the past. From claiming to be of Native American heritage to lying about being fired from a job for being pregnant, she has continually used lies to further her career. In this case, her campaign had been attacked so she felt she had to counter. Since simply saying she was disappointed by the negative comments of his volunteers did not help her campaign, she took it a step further by making a major accusation with no supporting evidence. This vicious attack against her fellow senator and friend shows she will do anything to attract attention and support. 

Through all of this, another major question remains: why is Sanders treated this way? In 2016, Sanders was angry feeling the DNC played favorites. Although Sanders did not perform as well as Clinton with black, female, Democratic, and older voters, a major reason for his loss was the fact that many  superdelegates pledged their vote to Clinton before the caucuses and primaries even began. The DNC, publicly claiming to be neutral during the 2016 primaries, exchanged emails insulting Sanders. Almost 20,000 emails were leaked and posted, demonstrating that certain top Committee officials were not acting as unbiased as they claimed. These emails revealed that the DNC purposely scheduled few debates and purposely scheduled them for the weekend so not many people would watch. They also called his campaign a mess, and commented that he did not “have his act together.” In a February 2019 CNN town hall, Sanders spoke out, saying, "In 2016, I think I will not shock anybody to suggest that the DNC was not quite even handed. I think we have come a long way since then, and I fully expect to be treated quite as well as anybody else." 

Although Sanders expressed hope for the DNC, Chairman Tom Perez’s appointments to the Rules Committee which oversees the DNC convention in Milwaukee this July, are not sitting well with the Sanders campaign. Former Congressman Barney Frank (D-MA) will co-chair the Rules Committee, whom the Sanders campaign tried to remove from the committee in 2016 claiming he was an “aggressive attack surrogate for the Clinton campaign.” John Podesta, Hillary Clinton’s former campaign chairman, who previously stated in a leaked email that he was, “not opposed [to] grinding Sanders to a pulp,” will have a seat on that committee as well. Although superdelegates have different rules for 2020, these appointments could play a major role on whether or not Sanders gets the nomination.

There are also many theories circulating about the Iowa caucuses. Normally the top candidates are able to use the caucuses as a case for their electability, but due to the technical difficulties this year, Sanders is unable to use his electoral results to his advantage. Could this be another means of the Democrats attempting to rig the election? People have theorized House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) held onto the impeachment papers to hurt Sanders leading up to the caucuses, since the favorite of the Democratic elites seems to be Biden. There could have just been technical difficulties in the Iowa caucuses and other intentions in the House about impeachment. Regardless, both are situations that have tried to hurt Sanders, but he is continuing to campaign strongly in hopes of securing the nomination.

In order to win a Primary Election, candidates must become more extreme in their policiesr, in this case, to the left. But now, the Democratic Party as a whole already appears to be going further left as reflected by the election of the freshman “ Squad” of Congresswomen, the increased support for socialism, and the desire to greatly increase taxes. They need to entice voters more than their fellow candidates with bold plans (like free college) and hope to attract more extreme voters who will be more passionate and therefore help rally support. However, by doing so, a candidate can doom themselves in a general election. The point of the general is not only get the support of one’s party but to also appeal to moderates and those on the other side. Because of this, they have to gravitate more to the center — something some candidates, like Sanders, struggle to do. 

The biggest concern for Democrats in 2020 is defeating Donald Trump. Beating an incumbent is difficult on its own— it is even tougher when the economy is booming, impeachment is bringing the Republican Party together, and distrust amongst the Democratic Party is splitting them apart. On one hand, Sanders does have strong support from young people, and although they are typically less likely to vote, Sanders may be able to rally enough of their support because of his socialist policies and their hatred of Trump to drive them to the polls on Election Day. There are serious disadvantages to a Biden nomination, such as his lack of skill in debates, his son Hunter’s associations with Ukraine, and his overall lack of enthusiasm (hence, “Sleepy Joe”). Any of these could lead him to struggle getting voters out on Election Day.

On the other hand, however, a Sanders nomination could mean a new direction for the Democratic Party that older Democrats, who are much more likely to vote than young ones, may not be ready to embrace (and, arguably, should not). Because of this, Sanders, a Democratic Socialist, will struggle to get voters he needs: moderate Republicans, Independents, and moderate Democrats. They will either vote for Trump, who they view as the lesser of two evils, or they may not feel driven to vote at all. Regardless, that choice should be up to voters not the DNC and media.

Despite all these attempts to smear him and his campaign, Sanders continues to rise in the polls. It is important that voters are more aware of candidates than just what the news and the leaders of their party are telling them. Perhaps he is doing well because he is good at fundraising and has a strong social media presence? Maybe people are seeing how weak of a candidate Warren is and shifting their support to Sanders? Superdelegates’ power is lessening in 2020 and leftover anger from 2016 may affect voters. But, whatever the reason may be, Sanders has a strong effect on people, and it will be interesting to see if he will be able to rally enough support to get the nomination.

I end this by saying that by no means am I endorsing Bernie Sanders nor do I think he would make a good president. He is a Democratic Socialist with far-left policies that would not work in this country and would never be passed by Congress. He would enact heavy taxes (no, not just on the rich like he often claims) and greatly hurt the middle class. The media, rather than playing favorites, should be exposing how extreme his views are so people can better understand what his policies truly entail to see if they support him rather than taking cheap shots at trying to paint him as a sexist during a CNN debate, attacking him for an endorsement from podcaster Joe Rogan, or failed presidential candidate Hillary Clinton publicly insulting him. Sanders is, however, exactly the type of far left candidate Trump wants in order to scare the American people of what he would try to do as president (which is quite concerning that Americans are supportive of his policies). Despite all of this, I do sympathize with Sanders. It is unfortunate to see the Democrats, just like in 2016, attempting to manipulate the system in order to have the favorite of the leaders of the party win rather than the favorite of the people who belong in it. But we shall soon see who comes out on top as the Democratic nominee.

Cancel Culture: An Angelistic Fallacy

Cancel Culture has become sort of a buzzword and, admittedly, has become quite a cliché. Many intellectuals, celebrities, and other various Twitter blue-checkmark accounts on both the right and the left have denounced this phenomenon, though many do still deny the existence of, or in some cases even support Cancel Culture. Articles espousing such ideas have been published in the New York Times and other mainstream publications. Either way, the discussion has become stale, yet the occurrences do not seem to fade away. Just recently, the Left has tried to cancel both Ricky Gervais and Vince Vaughan for a comedy routine and a handshake, respectively. As people’s livelihoods and good reputations are at stake, this is not a discussion that should be fading away. To remedy this staling, I would like to introduce a new lens through which to view Cancel Culture, inspired by Catholic thought, yet applicable to secular consideration as well – that of the angelistic fallacy.

Mortimer Adler, a philosopher and public intellectual of the 20th century, coined the term ‘angelistic fallacy’ to encompass the range of issues that arise if we equate human beings and angels. According to him, “an angleistic fallacy consists in attributing to man attributes or powers that belong only to purely spiritual substances – to minds without bodies and not associated with bodies that are somehow their own.” While derived from a Catholic understanding of angels as pure intellect – a religion in which it is held that such beings truly exist – religion of any kind is not required to apply this concept. You need not believe that a being of pure intellect actually exists to consider the implications for such a being if it did.

A being of pure intellect is not hindered in its understanding like we, as corporeal beings, are. We apprehend through our senses and thus know things imperfectly, no matter how much study we apply to any one thing. However, a being of pure intellect, as it comes to know something (though the process by which such a being would come to know something is another story and would not fit into an article of this size) knows that thing perfectly – it is not limited in its knowledge by materiality.

This epistemological fact provides us with a difference in ethics between the two types of beings: corporeal and incorporeal. We humans, as corporeal beings, always act with an imperfect understanding of our actions and their repercussions, though that understanding can be more or less informed. For instance, a Catholic who is well read in Catholic Morality can still succumb to temptation and fall into sin as they lack full knowledge of the gravity and consequent repercussions of their offense. Intellectually, he may be able to say why it is morally reprehensible and perhaps make an educated claim concerning the degree of it severity, yet he lacks the full grasp of its true gravity and its true repercussions - knowledge he will always lack. However, because we always lack full knowledge of our actions, human fault invites forgiveness. Forgiveness is an acknowledgement of human weakness, of our inability to fully understand our actions.

Incorporeal beings of pure intellect know their actions and their respective repercussions perfectly. Because of this perfect knowledge, there are no unforeseen repercussions, no consequences that being did not fully intend to reap. For this reason, such beings cannot be forgiven. They have no weakness in understanding and forgiveness cannot apply. Again referencing Catholic theology, Lucifer had perfect knowledge of his actions and their impact before the fall, and due to this perfect knowledge, God will not forgive him for his sins.

I know this has been kind of abstract, and you would rightly ask how this applies to Cancel Culture. Perhaps you’ve even forgot this article is ultimately about Cancel Culture.

Cancel Culture does not permit forgiveness. It finds a fault and seeks permanent blacklisting, ostracization, of another. It is not the goal of Cancel Culture to reconcile the canceled with society at large. Think back to the incident with Kevin Hart over a year ago, where he was forced to abdicate his position as host of the Oscars over a few off-color, “homophobic” tweets – tweets that were years old. This episode not only reveals the bloodthirsty desires of the cancel mob to ruin careers and reputations, but also the permanence and totality they ascribe to relatively incidental factors. So the tweets were offensive, but they were also almost a decade old and held no bearing on the current day (not until the cancel mob drudged them up and forced them back into the popular discourse, that is). The truth is, Kevin Hart’s career was not built upon the content of those tweets, nor did it reflect ideals even somewhat similar; there is nothing he has done which would tell us he holds similar views today. Yet, as it goes with Cancel Culture – a sin can never be forgiven.

More recently, the cancel mob has found a new target: Joe Rogan. What did Joe Rogan do? He endorsed Bernie Sanders. In his podcast, he revealed, “I think I’ll probably vote for Bernie… He’s been insanely consistent his entire life…And that in and of itself is a very powerful structure to operate from.” This looks just like any other celebrity political endorsement – a routine occurrence. Look again, my dear reader, because Joe Rogan is a bigot! Not shy of a politically incorrect joke, or controversial guests on his podcast, and perhaps more egregious to the left, reasonable and well-informed right-wing guests (see Ben Shapiro, Stephen Crowder, etc.), Rogan is not the typical outspoken lefty propped by conventional media. But, to call him a bigot is an utter fallacy. Nonetheless, the accusation has been levied, notably by prominent canceller, journalist Carlos Maza, who tweeted, “Bernie’s campaign cutting a campaign ad with Joe Rogan f***ing sucks. Rogan is an incredibly influential bigot and Democrats should be marginalizing him.” 

Such a tweet makes clear the goal of Cancel Culture – to “marginalize” those who go against the mainstream, leftist mob. To marginalize them no matter the severity of the crime, the relevance of the crime, nor the actual character and values of the cancelee. It is important to note that both these examples of “bigotry,” and a large portion of the “bigotry” in cancel scandals, are examples of humor, not genuinely held political and social views, yet in most cases (though notably excluding Joe Rogan and the Sanders Campaign) the "perpetrator" apologizes. However, apologies do not sate the mob as there is no room for forgiveness. The minor is made major, the insignificant is made significant, and the easily rectifiable is made unforgivable.

If Cancel Culture acts as though humans should not, and even cannot, be forgiven for their actions, then it must assume that humans have perfect knowledge of their actions. If it assumes that humans have perfect knowledge of their actions, then it must assume that humans are beings of pure intellect. It must assume we are incorporeal. It must assume that we are angels. Or if we have offended the cancel mob – fallen angels. This denies part of our very human substance - materiality.. In a world where abortion is supported after a child is born, it is no surprise to see popular leftist culture, once again, deny the humanity, and the intrinsic dignity that comes with such a substance, of others.

Now, this is not to suppose that all the bad actions of an individual can and should be whisked away with merely an apology. Murder, rape, theft, and a host of other serious crimes cannot be rectified by a mere apology. Duly, the perpetrators of these crimes serve jail time as an extension of justice in retribution for their offense. However, still the criminal justice system presupposes that a person can make recompense for their crime, or at least begin to in the limited time we have in our lives. Cancel Culture wants a complete termination, with no hope for redemption. So, yes, serious crimes must face retributive justice, but the actions of many of these celebrities are not serious crimes. They are off-color jokes, or offensive tweets, generally years old. An apology tweet is more than sufficient as penance for their “crimes.”  The punishment fits the crime.

However, this entire article, I’ve been throwing the cancel mob a bone, presupposing that their gripes with these various celebrities are legitimate. Often times, the infraction in question does not even necessitate an apology. Should Joe Rogan apologize for taking a fairly common, legal, political action? Should Bernie Sanders’s campaign apologize for accepting a political endorsement? Should any host of comedians apologize for  their jokes that twitter-happy people deem offensive?  I hope you'll find the answers to these questions to be quite obvious.