A License to Kill

There has been a growing movement pushing for the legalization and societal acceptance of assisted suicide that does not restrict itself to national boundaries. This phenomenon of euthanasia based on consent degrades human dignity by making life’s value wholly subjective. There is no logical limit to assisted suicide when it is allowed, as has been seen in practice in several countries. There is only one answer to this sinister threat that is tearing apart our respect for human existence, to radically value and defend all human life unconditionally.

The most prominent example of this growing culture of death can be seen in Canada. In 2015, the Canadian Supreme Court overturned legal precedent by declaring that there exists a human right to assisted suicide in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Following this ruling, physician-assisted suicide was legalized for patients (or victims) with terminal diagnoses through the Medical Assistance in Dying program (MAiD). Soon after, this law was expanded to include all Canadians with a “grievous and irremediable medical condition.” The next step in this logical progression has occurred but is temporarily delayed due to popular outcry. Originally intended for 2023 but coming into effect next year, it will make mentally ill people with no other medical conditions be assisted in committing suicide, essentially creating suicide on demand.

This torrent of laws legitimizing and allowing euthanasia in Canada has destroyed, harmed, and threatened the lives of many Canadians. Every day twenty-seven Canadians commit suicide with the approval and support of a physician. One example of the effect of these new laws is the case of Alan Nichols. Nichols was placed on suicide watch at his local hospital by concerned relatives, but while in the hospital he was assisted by physicians in his own suicide by citing “hearing loss” after refusing to wear his cochlear implant. Randy Obenauer, a seventy-four-year-old man, apparently would cry while cleaning his catheter. After his friends tried to obtain assistance for him, authorities asked if he was interested in the MAiD program instead. Several veterans seeking assistance from the Canadian Veteran Affairs program were offered MAiD as an alternative to psychological and medical help. Canadian society has become unfortunately very comfortable with suicide, but it does not end with Canada.

Many countries in Europe have legalized assisted suicide. Germany has gone the farthest, with a 2020 German Supreme Court case establishing that every autonomous individual had the right to suicide and governmental assistance in that suicide. Otherwise, in Germany’s view, the fundamental human right to choose would be deprived from its citizenry. In the United States, eleven states allow physician-assisted suicide. Oregon has been the pioneering state in this regard, recently making it legal even for out-of-state residents to obtain suicide services. The Massachusetts legislature currently has a bill legalizing assisted suicide that Governor Maura Healey seems inclined to sign if passed. As grim as this story is, many will question why the state should force someone to live, especially those who are terminally ill.

Many people support the legalization of euthanasia for those who are terminally ill, with recent polling at 72% in favor in the United States. But this justification for suicide is flawed and damaging to human dignity. The value of human life is not dependent on a medical diagnosis. Someone who is diagnosed with a terminal illness is not somehow less deserving of rights than someone who is healthy. The objective delineation between the terminally ill and the healthy is in the end arbitrary, as the human condition is ultimately terminal. Rather, the reason many sympathize with the terminally ill is the pain, both emotionally and physically, caused by such a devastating medical condition.

Extreme pain, emotionally and physically, can make life seem undesirable and too much of a burden for those afflicted with it. It becomes a struggle to do even the most basic tasks, and the chronic suffering can wear people down. Even the strongest amongst us would struggle with conditions such as depression or cancer. But once again, pain does not diminish the value of human life. Just because one loses the will to live, does not mean that living is unimportant. To prove this, I must ask an uncomfortable question that too many reading this are unfortunately familiar with. If your friend, who was in great suffering, came to you and confessed they were suicidal or actively intended to commit suicide, what would you do? Most people would try to comfort and support their friend in every way they can and do their best to ensure their friend gets help. Almost nobody would attempt to assist their friend in this horrible act. Some may consider that friend unable to consent properly due to their mental anguish, but how is their anguish significantly different from that experienced by the terminally ill? A lack of hope and belief in life is what drives people to this dark path, and we should do everything we can to prevent them from falling down it.

Regardless of religious belief or lack thereof, we all know deep inside that life is a gift to be preserved. We know this in the same way that we know the rays of a dawning sun are beautiful and the sounds of a bird singing are musical. It has become easy to forget this simple fact while living in the modern world. We can seem so small and insignificant when compared to the billions of humans that cover this planet. Our identity is often devalued to just our GPA and what we contribute to GDP. Our lives can seem to become just hours of unremitting work and endless scrolling through social media. But life continues, and we must continue to live it as long as we are allowed to. There is a battle to be fought for human life without exception in the halls of power, behind podiums, and on television. But first, it has to be fought within each of ourselves and our relationship with others. Our current crisis of euthanasia is only enabled by a society that has grown callous to the amazing mystery and beauty of human existence. We must remember and believe in this universal truth, that life is worth living.

Letter From the Editors, November 2022

Dear Reader,

Thank you for picking up the newest edition of The Fenwick Review!  This semester has so far been filled with controversy as uproar across campus erupted over social media posts from our publication’s Instagram account.  While we never apologize for raising questions of political and cultural relevance, it is never our aim to make others feel unwelcome or unsafe on campus.  Rather, we aim to provoke free and open dialogue concerning such issues, often challenging the popular narrative, and it is within our right and responsibility to do so.

In lieu of the controversy surrounding the Review’s social media posts, a theme has emerged for this edition: dialogue.  This theme was not pre-planned, but happened to be a connecting thread of all our pieces that manifests both our publication’s mission and the Holy Cross mission.  With this dialogue comes a responsibility to respect one another enough to set aside pre-judgments and recognize that all of us have souls that are valued by our Creator — souls He wishes to be saved. 

Therefore, we invite Crusaders of all kinds to engage with our articles, whether you agree with them or not, and encourage you all to have peaceful and respectful conversations with your friends, families, and colleagues concerning the issues we raise in this edition of The Fenwick Review.

God bless,

Evan Poellinger & Anthony Cash, Co-Editors-in-Chief

The Hypocrisy of Affirmative Action

On Halloween day, President Rougeau sent an email to the employees, Jesuits, and students of the College of the Holy Cross with the subject header, Today’s Supreme Court Hearings on Affirmative Action. In it, he discussed his administration’s reaction to the two ongoing Supreme Court cases challenging affirmative action: Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina and Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard University. President Rougeau stated that in August the college had joined fifty-six other Catholic institutions of higher education to sign an amicus brief in support of affirmative action. He defended affirmative action, saying that the importance it puts on race fulfills the desire for diversity at colleges and universities. However, President Rougeau and higher education as a whole are mistaken for their faith in race-based admissions. Affirmative action is not only discriminatory, but also only provides a thin façade of the diversity that universities desire.

The discriminatory nature of affirmative action becomes clear when considering its effects Asian Americans. Asian American applicants have to score much higher on the national standardized tests than students of other ethnicities. In the Supreme Court case Student for Fair Admissions Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard College, evidence was presented suggesting that without the existence of a race-based admissions regime, Asian American enrollment at Harvard could increase by fifty percent. But this discrimination is not new; the United States has a long and checkered past with Asian Americans. The Chinese Exclusion Act was the first immigration ban based on race in the United States. Following the Spanish-American War, the Philippines was conquered, with its population being described by government officials as uncivilized and unclean. During the Second World War, Japanese Americans were forced into internment camps by the FDR administration. As seen in the historical record, affirmative action is merely another instance of violations of the equal protection guaranteed to Asian Americans by the Fourteenth Amendment. This is a cost many administrators and bureaucrats are willing to make Asian Americans pay.

Many academics, including President Rougeau, who are supportive of race-based admissions argue that this program is necessary for increasing diversity at universities. To be fair to these proponents, there is much to value about diversity. It allows for greater tolerance and understanding across the nation, as citizens of varied beliefs and worldviews connect and discuss for a better tomorrow. Growing from interacting with peers who are different from oneself is a valuable experience. These dynamics lead to a competition of ideas in which the most robust stand, strengthening our nation. But diversity for diversity’s sake, especially racially-focused diversity, is severely flawed and limiting.

Centering attention on race as a measure for diversity is foolish and fruitless. Professor Roland G. Fryer Jr of the Economics Department at Harvard wrote an op-ed in the Washington Post that scathingly describes the limitation of racial college admissions: “Seventy-one percent of Harvard’s Black and Hispanic students come from wealthy backgrounds.” He continues to explain that despite African immigrants and their children only consisting of ten percent of the Black population in the US, they make up forty-one percent of Black students in the Ivy League. This evidence shows the arbitrary nature of these racial definitions crafted by government bureaucrats decades ago. The fact that Chinese, Koreans, Japanese, Indians, and many others are grouped together as “Asians” according to the federal government is nonsensical, even ignoring the myriad of ethnic identities underneath national identities in Asia. Perhaps even more egregious, those Americans who originate or are descended from countries in the geographical regions of North Africa and the Middle East are all considered “White” by the government, despite the gulf in the histories and treatment of those immigrants and ones from the continent of Europe. True diversity, the diversity that is valuable to higher education and the formation of well-rounded citizens, cannot be derived from the artificial divisions of people into ethnic groups.

The only diversity that matters is a diversity of thought. Diversity of race, upbringing, and class are only important to the quality of a university’s education inasmuch as they influence the thought of an individual. The progressive march of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion offices across campuses that exist under the regime of affirmative action has not encouraged a broadening of thought that leads to a fruitful exchange of ideas. Rather, a plague of cancel culture has swept across the colleges and universities of the United States, and onto the rest of the Western world. The National Association of Scholars counted two hundred fifty-five academic cancellations. Even liberal publications have acknowledged this issue, with The Guardian reporting that sixty-one percent of English students in 2022 wanted to “ensure that all students are protected from discrimination rather than allow unlimited free speech”, a steep increase from thirty-seven percent in 2016. Academia’s obsession with race has led to a perversion of its understanding of diversity, harming itself and society as a whole.

Ultimately, affirmative action is a discriminatory race program that violates the Fourteenth Amendment and harms universities. Contrary to what is stated in the opinion of President Rougeau and the amicus brief signed by the College of the Holy Cross, affirmative action is fundamentally flawed and dangerous to the continuation of the liberal arts tradition. The arbitrariness with which it divides the student body is not only unjust but poisonous to the goals of Catholic higher education. A serious reconsideration of values and policies is necessary regarding affirmative action at Holy Cross and campuses across the nation.  As Governor Ron DeSantis said, “The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.”

A Catholic's Duty

I am Catholic. I grew up in an Irish Catholic family in an Irish Catholic town. I am strong in my faith and am grateful for the meaning that it gives my life and the lives of those around me. My Catholic faith builds a foundation which allows me to love others and God, to seek opportunities to become a better person, and to help others find their own paths to salvation.

In recent times I have found myself vacillating between the opinions of parties regarding many questions in politics, social issues, and individual freedoms and obligations. The confusion that often stems from what I know to be true as is told in the Bible and in church teachings, as is told by the opinions of fellow lay people, and as has been made clear to me through intuition, experience, and reflection. 

Most issues in our world have become so polarized that any remark of opinion leads to the alienation of individuals involved, and so those left who seek opportunities to express their views either do so for attention, feelings of power, or money. Of course, there are some dedicated people who state their opinions as a virtue of ability; they believe that their involvement in political discourse is altruistically derived and isn’t only bred from their satisfaction in getting their opponents “rekt” or “owned”.

Much of modern American politics has become nothing more than boastful gossip, judgment unto others taken from the lofty soapbox of infinite information which we now hold in our hands. Even at Holy Cross, resentment has been bred from arrogant judgments; I have personally witnessed such vehement hatred coming from those who associate with both parties that I am hesitant to write an article about politics for this column, as it may turn my peers against me. But as Christ said “Do not judge, so that you may not be judged,” we too must seek objectivity in our actions and opinions lest we stray from His will. “For with the judgment you make you will be judged, and the measure you give will be the measure you get.  Why do you see the speck in your neighbor’s eye, but do not notice the log in your own eye?” (Matthew 7:1-7:3)

How does this apply? you may ask. How can politics function without proper judgment and trial? While it’s true that only through thorough reasoning and debate can we develop sound, objective, and principled arguments, that’s not to say that what’s acceptable in political debate is appropriate elsewhere. Freedom of speech doesn’t protect us from others’ freedom to regard us, so don’t think that it’s your freedom of speech being challenged when grandma asks you to stop talking about it and enjoy your thanksgiving dinner (even if your uncle across the able is so disillusioned in your eyes that it hurts to shut up).

The same goes for social media platforms. Corporations don’t care about what you have to say or whether it is misaligned with their values and beliefs. They’re in it for the money, and so companies will silence whomever they believe to be contrary with the majority of users so as to make them “feel better,” more entitled and more complacent in their little online lives, and thus loyal to their provider.

A problem facing our world today is that we don’t have an appropriate forum on which to project our views. Behind a screen, users don’t have the same social penalty that they do when interacting with others in person. This coupled with the ease of access to information that supports their views (and, subsequently, the ease to disregard information which challenges them) polarizes users in virtual echo chambers, littered with misinformation and hate.

And so in the reflection of our justified judgmentalism, how do we find ourselves in the throes of a system where healthy debate becomes slander, where arrogance and entitlement becomes virtue? I have neither the wisdom nor word count to solve these issues in this article, yet I hope that you as the reader consider the consequences of the means by which you use slander, provocation, or casting of judgment onto those with whom you disagree in the name of righteousness, especially involving individuals who are vulnerable.

Returning to our Catholic and Jesuit identity, it is our duty as Christ’s disciples to uphold our covenant, and above all as we know which is the Greatest Commandment: “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind,” and that which is equally important: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” (Mark 12:29-31)

And as it was made clear that “to love one’s neighbor as oneself,’... is much more important than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices,” (Mark 12:33) we must understand that no defense of an issue of political matter is higher an offering to God than our expression of love for and with others. As Catholics, we are called to love each other before we express how we think that another’s actions are immoral. Because in doing so we are not acting according to God’s will to love our neighbor, and it makes it kind of difficult to love someone if they’re attacking your beliefs and values right off the bat, no matter the other person’s intentions.

So then as a Catholic, I believe that no teaching in our catechism should be an excuse for us to not love our neighbor as ourselves. Just as we no longer hold ourselves obligated to ancient ceremonial law, we should understand that the priority of Christ’s coming was to provide us each with an opportunity to find salvation through the love we have for each other and for God. We must use our gift of love as an instrument of unity and understanding before we can use it to enlighten others. As the world deals with its bleak issues of suffering, war, and hatred, we as Catholics must hold ourselves to be the peacemakers, loving and accepting each other for who we are despite all else.

A Testimony of the Extraordinary

“What earlier generations held as sacred, remains sacred and great for us too, and it cannot be all of a sudden entirely forbidden or even considered harmful.  It behooves all of us to preserve the riches which have developed in the Church’s faith and prayer, and to give them their proper place.” - Pope Benedict XVI 

On February 17th, 2022, I experienced my first Traditional Latin Mass (TLM), sometimes called the extraordinary form. This was not on any special feast day nor was it a majestic Sunday high Mass, it was a simple Thursday low Mass at 6 pm at The Shrine and Parish of the Holy Innocents in New York City. 

I opened the doors of the church and was hit with the intense smell of incense as I proceeded into the dimly lit church. I was immediately struck with the sensation that this was something different, profound, and holy. I performed a deep bow towards the altar and immediately noticed how crowded the church was, full with people from all backgrounds and of all ages. 

The priest came before the altar and began reciting the preparatory prayer at the foot of the altar; I had no idea the Mass had started. All I could hear was the faint whispers of the priest amidst the otherwise silent church, the perfect space for meditative and contemplative prayer. I kept my eyes fixated on the priest and the altar, watching every movement. As the Mass continued I was totally lost for I had no missal or guide to help me through the Mass, but this ultimately mattered little. Comprehension of the readings, though incredibly important, was only secondary to what was of primary importance. What was primarily important was the adoration of our Lord; the recognition that I am a created being and God is the creator who is omnipotent, omniscient, and all good and glorious. 

When it came time for the consecration, I knelt in awe staring at the consecrated host, whispering “my lord, my God” as I had heard was the custom at the TLM. When it was time to go up to the communion rail I knelt and received on the tongue for the first time, another profound act of adoration that I did not know until now. After the reading of the last gospel, the Mass had ended and all I could feel was this spirit of awe at what I had witnessed. For the first time in my life I felt the total theocentricity of the liturgy, I felt in awe at the sacrifice I had just witnessed, and I felt compelled to return to this Mass. 

Two Sundays later, I ventured back to Holy Innocents to experience my first high Mass, this time equipped with a daily missal, comprehension was no longer a concern. The experience was even more divine, from the beautiful Gregorian chant to the use of incense. I knew I needed to find a parish near me that offered the Traditional Mass. A short Google search led me to discover St. Mary’s parish in Norwalk CT, about a 40 minute drive from my house. Over the summer, when my Sunday mornings finally freed up, I drove down to St. Mary’s to present myself at their majestic 10 am solemn high Mass. After a few weeks I felt I had achieved a peaceful stability in my spiritual life thanks to the spiritual nourishment of the TLM. I even began to attend weekday low Masses when I could. 

There is no more glorious way to start Sunday morning than hearing the cantor sing “asperges me (thou shalt sprinkle me)” to which the choir joins in chanting “Domine, hyssopo et mundabor; lavabis me et super nivem dealbabor… (with hyssop, O Lord, and I shall be cleansed; Thou shalt wash me, and I shall be made whiter than snow)” as the priest, adorning his cope, sprinkles holy water on you and the other congregants. The TLM acquires its significance because it is ancient, distinct, and awe-inspiring. Its divine simplicity is unlike anything else we encounter in the world because the Mass is not entirely of this world; it is the meeting of heaven and earth.  

The use of the Latin language in the liturgy, to borrow a term from Dr. Peter Kwasniewski, creates a “sonic iconostasis.” This reminds everyone that we have entered into a sacred space, a space set apart for God. The TLM is an invitation to more seriously encounter the sacred and to step out of the world for a moment and into the love of God. 

At the TLM there is no mistake for why you are there. You are not there just to sing hymns, socialize after Mass, or even to learn a biblical lesson, although these are all desirable and admirable. You are there to witness the unbloodied sacrifice of our Lord at Calvary. Nothing on earth is more important than that sacrifice, nothing on earth will ever be more important than that sacrifice.

As I mentioned earlier, the TLM concludes with the Last Gospel, John 1:1-14: “In the beginning was the word…and the word became flesh.” It has been noted that the recitation of John’s prologue beautifully harmonizes the two parts of the Mass: the Mass of the Catechumens, in which we encounter Christ through the words of scripture, and the Mass of the Faithful, where we encounter Christ in the flesh via the Eucharist. I am forever grateful for the TLM for fueling my spiritual journey as a Catholic by bringing me closer to the sacrifice of Christ, our King, our Redeemer, and our Savior. Ite, missa est (go forth, it has been sent).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Fenwick Review's 2022 Election Day Predictions

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

Arizona: 

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

Pennsylvania:  

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

Wisconsin: 

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

Nevada: 

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

Georgia: 

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

Florida:

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

Ohio:

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

Colorado:

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

New Hampshire:

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

Utah:

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

Governor’s Races

Oregon:

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

Pennsylvania: 

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

Georgia:

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

Florida:

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

Texas:

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

Arizona:

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

Nevada:

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

New York:

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

Wisconsin

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

House Predictions:

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

Virginia’s 7th 

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

New York’s 17th 

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

New Hampshire’s 1st 

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

Maine’s 2nd

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

Michigan’s 7th

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

Rhode Island’s 2nd

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

Alaska’s At Large

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

Texas’ 34th

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

Oregon’s 5th

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

Connecticut’s 5th

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

Letter from the Editors, October 2022

Dear Reader,

Thank you for picking up this issue of The Fenwick Review!  As the 2022-2023 school year begins, so too has the machinery of politics restarted in earnest. With the 2022 midterm elections fast approaching, critical issues of border security, inflation, and political overreach by the Department of Justice are at the forefront of public debate and discussion.

It is fitting, therefore, that this latest issue of The Fenwick Review is chock full of formidable pieces about these pertinent issues. Whether you want to consider the latest news about the immigration hypocrisy from the residents of Martha's Vineyard, hear about Holy Cross' newfound virtue-signaling enterprise, or learn the gritty details about the sordid history of the FBI as a political instrument, The Fenwick Review has an article to slake your political interests (or at least take your mind off that urgent, multi-page paper).

Always with its finger on the pulse of the culture, The Fenwick Review also features an examination of American religious disaffiliation, along with a continuation of our recently-inaugurated “The Review Reviews” section with an eloquent appraisal of the Yakuza video game series.

We acknowledge that this magazine's reputation precedes it. Some love it, some loathe it. Some read it in public, while others hide their readership in the privacy of their rooms. Some laugh out loud, while others gnash their teeth. Whatever emotion drives you to pick up a copy, we are always grateful for your continued readership.

We at The Fenwick Review pray that you may have a successful and enriching semester, and we look forward to continuing our mission of upholding and presenting that which is true and beautiful.

Sincerely,

Evan Poellinger & Anthony Cash, Co-Editors-in-Chief