The Easter Sunday Bombings in Sri Lanka

April 21, 2020 marked one year since the Easter Bombings by suicidal Islamic terrorists in Sri Lanka’s major cities of Batticaloa, Negombo, and its capital Colombo left over two hundred and fifty men, women, and children in attendance at the Catholic churches of St. Anthony’s Shrine and St. Sebastian’s, the evangelical Zion Church, and three hotels dead (Crux). The death toll included Christians, Muslims, Hindus, and Buddhists. Most of the deceased were Roman Catholic. During the homily of this year’s Easter Sunday, one free of violence though under the shadow of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Archbishop of Colombo, Cardinal Malcom Ranjith, compassionately and shrewdly named the perpetrators, nine members of the ISIS admiring Islamic preacher Zahran Hashim’s National Thowheed Jamaath (NTJ), as “misguided youths." In short, he expressed his belief that the terrorist group involved did not represent the principles of the nation’s Islamic minority. Setting an example to the greater Sri Lankan society, one shaped by terrible ethnic-religious conflict, Cardinal Ranjith extended a much-needed olive branch. The lingering ethnic and religious tensions between the Tamil and Sinhalese ethnicities and memories of the Sri Lankan Civil War as recently as a decade earlier in 2009 had created the atmosphere conducive to a disillusioned few turning to extremism.        

During the late-twentieth and early twenty-first centuries of the modern era, Muslims experienced extreme violence and various degrees of harassment from both the Tamil and the Sinhalese. Most excruciatingly, during the civil war lasting from the early 1980s to 2009 between the separatist Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) and the Sinhalese Sri Lankan government, the LTTE  murdered two hundred and sixty-two Muslims and forced approximately seventy-five thousand to emigrate from Sri Lanka’s northern regions in two attacks on mosques. Years later, the government itself failed to act, a tacit form of approval, against the vandalization of mosques and destruction of property by Buddhist terrorists during the early 2010s. Most recently, on that bloody 2019 Easter Sunday, such negligence of minority security was similarly repeated by the malfeasant Sri Lankan intelligence services and political leaders of the highest authority who received alerts from India and the United States of potential attacks upon churches on Easter. Neither acted against nor even warned the Church of these threats due to the atmosphere of mutual mistrust among members of the bureaucracy, one ultimately favoring the Sinhalese-Buddhist majority.     

Consequently, the sense of helplessness among some Muslims led to a search for a means to assert themselves against domination. An acquaintance of one of the bombers from the town of Mawanella remarked “We all felt the same rage” at the trend of humiliating treatment and the sense of helplessness. He implied that the primary difference between the bomber and himself was that the bomber had expressed his resentment “emotionally” with violence. Another shared his belief that “The feeling of injustice” had been a motivation. Zahran and his terrorist society, paired with the conspiratorial transnational allure of connections with the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIS), in their eyes an effective scourge against non-Muslim powers and a source of religious and national unity, offered a promising outlet for the enraged to spend their anger through self-destruction. After the attacks, the late-Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi claimed responsibility for the Easter Bombings. However, Zahran’s group appears to have been inspired rather than directed by ISIS, albeit with one of its members in direct contact with ISIS in India to receive training.                           

Today’s Sri Lankan population of twenty-one million people is majority Sinhalese Buddhist (70%) with Tamil Hindu (12%), Muslim (10%), and Christian (7%, majority Roman Catholic) minorities. A major question in Western media immediately following the horrific events revolved around the question of why had Sri Lanka’s small Christian minority been targeted in the nation’s first manifestation of international Jihadi terrorism. Christians too experience their own share of persecution and pressure especially against evangelizing by the Buddhist majority in power as a result of Christians' lingering historical association with their privileged position under Portuguese and British colonial governance in the past. On the other hand, Christians had participated on both sides of the civil war. Additionally, Christians and Muslims did not share a major history of violence in Sri Lanka before the bombings. Perhaps, the motivation for the terror of Zahran’s NTJ was a foreign import by means of the internet of ISIS’s anti-Christian and anti-Western vitriol. For example, before the beheading of twenty-one Coptic Christians in 2015, the masked leader of the murderers praised the utility of fostering a “majesty of terror” over Western diplomats, allegedly the modern day crusaders of the spirit of Roman Christianity. ISIS believes Christians are historically one of Islam’s major enemies. It is very plausible that the online radicalization of a small segment of Sri Lankan Muslims led to a conclusion that the source of their treatment, religious and political, lay in the Christian churches.

In Consideration of Monarchy

At present, the institution of monarchy is largely seen as a relic of a bygone era, limited to figurehead status within modern parliamentary states like the United Kingdom, or to totalitarian states such as Saudi Arabia. Yet, for thousands of years, monarchy was considered to be the premier form of government, an institution that was universal to almost every nation and culture. Though democracy focused political thinking tempts us to view the concept of monarchy as outdated, a closer examination reveals that monarchy carries a variety of benefits, many of which have become increasingly appealing with the rise of COVID-19.

Some of the most prominent advantages of monarchy lie in the unitary nature of the institution. The first and foremost of these advantages is the consistent nature of monarchy. With benefit of choice that accompanies a democracy comes uncertainty. While parties in a democratic system generally fall within the continuum of ideas that are acceptable to a society, the openness of the democratic system can facilitate the rise and spread of radical ideas due to the influence of demagogues. While monarchs are not immune to radical ideas, as Henry VIII potently demonstrates, there is a lower likelihood that they could be swayed in the same way demagogues sway the populace. As a singular governing entity without attachment to a party that would otherwise shape decision-making, the monarch has less connection to ideological factions, save for the philosophical precepts that govern the state. Such a lack of partisanship would ease political divisions that have recently grown sharply in western democracies, as citizens would no longer be battling each other for their respective parties to take the reins of power.

Furthermore, the monarch’s singular power gives it unparalleled agency compared to other forms of government. While they can be helpful in fostering deliberation and preventing rash decision-making, divided legislatures can prove significant obstacles that may delay or even prevent the creation of statutes that would be pertinent to the time. It is often the case that partisanship is to blame for legislative stagnation. Stagnation becomes particularly problematic in times of crisis, such as the refusal by senate Democrats in April to pass an aid package for small businesses unless they received funding for their interests as well. In the case of an absolute monarchy, the monarch has no such legislative constraints, and is free to make law according to the needs of the country. In cases of a constitutional monarchy, such as the Principality of Liechtenstein, monarchs still possess the necessary executive power to streamline the legislative process. While the Landtag is the country’s primary legislative body, the Prince still possesses the ability to veto legislation and to dismiss and appoint the prime minister.

Such concentrated power inevitably draws fears of tyranny in the minds of those with a more liberal attitude toward government. Like all members of governing institutions, monarchs are people, and are naturally prone to be flawed. Indeed, there have been various kings and queens who have acted as terrible tyrants. The name Henry VIII is prominently engraved in the minds of Catholics as an example of one of the worst oppressors of the church in history. Yet, various republics have engaged in similar levels of oppression towards the Catholic Church, most infamously Republican Spain during the Red Terror and Mexico under Plutarco Calles in the 1920s. Furthermore, democracy has also produced its fair share of infamous tyrants. It was the National Convention that facilitated Maximilien Robespierre’s rise to power, and it was the republican German Reichstag that passed the Enabling Act, allowing Chancellor Adolf Hitler to assume emergency powers. In addition, notable monarchs have gone out of their way to oppose tyranny historically. In Romania in 1944, Michael I, who had been reduced to a figurehead, took back his power in a coup and overthrew the Nazi-sympathizing dictator Ion Antonescu. As history demonstrates, tyranny is not inherent to monarchy any more than it is to democracies and republics.

As a matter of fact, monarchy has unique structures that serve to diminish the possibility of a tyranny rising. The most prominent of these is the hereditary succession that is an integral part of the monarchy. Unlike elected institutions, the identity of the future ruler is known years, if not decades ahead of their ascent to the throne. This period of time allows for the heir apparent to undergo rigorous training for when the day arrives for them to take the throne. Aside from honing their governing skills, the training that accompanies hereditary succession shapes the future monarch’s will to coincide with that of the state.

The issue of power is especially important when considering the present pandemic. A cursory examination of many U.S. states reveals that something has gone horrendously wrong. Elected officials have taken unprecedented steps to expand their power, with a poster child in the form of Governor Gretchen Whitmer (D-MI). Aside from restricting travel between residences, Whitmer has imposed such inane regulations as restrictions on selling seeds and paint. While it could be argued that this is a glimpse at what the concentrated power of a monarch would look like, there are several key points that distinguish between the two. Foremost of these is that the governors are elected officials. It is often stated that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. I would instead venture that it is the desire for power that corrupts. This is one of the first tastes of true power that many of our elected officials are experiencing, and they desire to expand their powers accordingly. By contrast, an official endowed with strong power and instructed from birth on how to use it would likely be less inclined to test its limits, as that person would not have anything more to gain.

It may also be argued that tyranny depends less on the type of government, but on the overall philosophy of the government. The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is one of the most repressive states in the world, while Liechtenstein is an extremely libertarian one. Both states have monarchs with great powers, but each governs their state according to its philosophy rather than according to its method of government. The same is true in the United States, where Republican and Democrat governors have taken differing lockdown measures that parallel their ideological values. In other words, it is philosophy that truly makes a tyrannical government, rather than the system.

To clarify some remaining questions, I do not necessarily wish for the installation of a monarch in the United States. Also, though I consider myself a monarchist, I am not using this article to advocate for a broad return to monarchy. Rather, I hope the points I have illustrated give pause for thought. It is clear that something has gone wrong with our system of government, and the Coronavirus has only served to accentuate the issues in the system. Perhaps this pandemic should give us pause for thought in regard to government, that democracy is not necessarily the purest form of government, and that other systems of government have their own merits. To address the future, it helps to reflect on the past.

Caution to Democracy: Dealing with Limited Freedom During a Pandemic

“Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” These are listed as three of our unalienable rights in the Declaration of Independence that are to be protected by our government. Life during the COVID-19 pandemic, however, has left people with an overwhelming sense of helplessness, restriction, and despair. Our freedom, a central facet of American democracy, feels like it has been taken away from us with stay at home orders, requirements to wear masks, and the lack of normalcy we’re experiencing. The circumstances make us feel as if we’re living in a communist society rather than our cherished democracy.

The American people are experiencing increased frustration with their limited freedom. Protests are breaking out, and it seems as if distrust in the government is at an all-time high. In any government, a certain amount of freedom is given up in order to ensure the overall protection of its people, but being confined to our homes was certainly unprecedented. Many Americans are clinging to their rights now, and seem more fearful of compromised liberty than they are of a virus that jeopardizes the health of themselves and their loved ones. 

Are current restrictions on daily life truly reflective of a loss of liberty, though? Is it not the responsibility of our elected officials to govern in accordance with what’s in our best interest? Would they upset their constituents so deeply without good reason? Would a government that has championed a firm belief in individual liberty since its founding place that in jeopardy just for the sake of it?

Our freedoms are not being limited by an authoritarian regime on a power trip; rather, for the sake of our country and its people, we are being called to put aside our pride to “promote the general Welfare” of our beloved nation. Submission to the laws that protect us do not compromise our freedom––they ensure it. For example, the law prohibits us from assaulting someone. This law limits our freedom by prohibiting certain actions. Despite this, we accept it as necessary for our safety and respect the government’s right to enforce it. Just as laws prohibiting assault do not diminish our freedom, neither do temporary stay at home orders.  

COVID-19 may be making us feel repressed, but we must be cognizant of our nation’s overwhelmingly strong sense of democracy. The transparency with which our current administration has been dealing with the matter evidences the benefits we experience over nations like China. The Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) initial condemnation of Dr. Li Wenliang after his foresight of the virus reflects a regime that values its image over the general well-being and protection of its people. Our commitment to democracy through free speech and the ability to criticize our government’s policies reinforces our strength. We still have our freedom, even though we may not be able to express it as liberally as we would like to at the moment.

The U.S. government is trying to preserve our freedom as best it can, whereas China has been able to manipulate the situation to extract more private information out of its people. As a way to combat the spread of the virus, tracking apps have been developed that, when installed on one’s phone, can monitor who someone’s come into contact with (even in passing), and notify them if they may have been exposed to the virus. People throughout China have been required to install these apps and are assigned different levels of restrictions based on their risk level. So not only does the government have access to their locations, but some individuals’ movements will be restricted over others. The CCP can easily abuse this system to silence perceived threats from the public––an action that would not be surprising coming from their authoritarian regime. The United States is working on similar technology that is expected to come out soon, but participation is likely to be voluntary. Though the technology would certainly be useful in silencing the virus, our democracy is firm enough to recognize when one’s right to privacy has been totally breached. This is a privilege that those in communist countries do not have the benefit of experiencing.

Though still holding onto our freedoms, the pandemic cannot help but give us some insight into what life in a socialist state entails. We have seldom faced food shortages and limited resources, but now, the items we took for granted are missing from their place on the shelves, and going to the grocery store resembles a battle more than it does a shopping trip. Shoppers line up before stores even open in an effort to purchase the items their families need. Leisure has left the equation. Necessities as basic as toilet paper and paper towels are sold in limited quantities to each shopper. Hospitals are struggling with the resources they have, desperate for face masks and even medicine in general. This may not be abnormal in a socialist country like Venezuela, but it is certainly not what one expects in a democracy like the United States.

The dissatisfaction and uncomfortable way of living that Americans refuse to get used to is perhaps emblematic of the inevitable failure a socialist leader would face in the U.S. The prospect of socialism has been making a revival in the U.S. in the past few years, especially by the presence of the populist Bernie Sanders in his two  consecutive attempts at securing the Democratic presidential nomination. Americans value freedom and prosperity, and either of these being compromised would result in even more extreme displeasure if it were the result of permanently intended legislation. The implications of socialism would not fare well in a strong democracy such as the United States. 

COVID-19 has placed Americans under unforeseen restrictions that have often felt like an infringement on our freedom. And though we are temporarily unable to move as liberally as we once did, we must stay resilient by practicing social distancing if we wish to experience our freedom in its full form soon. We are fortunate to be under the leadership of a democratic state that acts in a way that seeks to ensure our individual liberty and takes any limits on it with the utmost seriousness. It is now that we must come together as a nation by staying apart.

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.