The World’s Greatest Illusionist

Many may not appreciate Kellyanne Conway’s rhetoric, but there should be no doubt that she is the greatest illusionist since Harry Houdini. Her ability to justify what many people consider Donald Trump’s most deplorable actions has resulted in more popularity for him. Furthermore, Conway’s ability to redirect the media, as well as her perceived missteps, seem to aid the administration more than hurt it.

Conway successfully ran a campaign for one of the least electable candidates in history. During the election cycle, Trump spouted bigoted language more often than any other candidate, yet Conway was able to mitigate damage by communicating with the American people via the media. In fact, she appeared on cable television more frequently than any campaign manager in U.S. history.

In addition, though Trump was among the least qualified candidates, Conway used her years of political experience to facilitate his campaign’s penetration of what many thought were Democratic strongholds. She is also the first female campaign manager of a winning presidential race in history. She added a much-needed dose of femininity to the Trump campaign’s misogynistic image and helped increase his appeal among conservative women.

Conway also has a certain ability to skirt around direct questions and leave listeners bewildered. She is particularly adept at shifting commentators’ focus from the personalities of members of the Trump administration to the issues at hand. Once she begins talking about tangible issues, Conway seems to sneak in references to the atrocious mistakes supposedly committed by the previous administration. When that appears to be a dead end, she seamlessly switches back to talking about how hard Trump is working. Conway also succeeds in portraying negative coverage of her as sexist, especially when questions seem too disparaging. Though interviewers call for her to ‘answer the question,’ she can effortlessly avoid doing so. Despite criticism, she continues to make public appearances.  

Even Conway’s missteps seem to be intelligently calculated. When she infamously referred to White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer’s verifiably false information as ‘alternative facts,’ she clogged the news cycle, effectively drawing negative media attention away from Trump. Her reference to alternative facts was far less egregious than President Trump’s or Spicer’s unsubstantiated claims of mass voter fraud and inauguration attendance numbers, but with just two words she was able to avert the media’s attention from their lies. I suspect what some people may consider one of Conway’s greatest missteps was actually a calculated effort to help the administration.

Conway demonstrated this same evil genius of sorts when she mentioned the non-existent “Bowling Green Massacre” at about the same time that Trump was under fire for his unpopular and unconstitutional travel ban. It seems implausible that someone with political experience dating back 20 years would accidentally refer to an event that didn’t occur. It is much more likely that she intentionally redirected the media in order to draw attention away from Trump.  

Whether one thinks Kellyanne Conway is an evil genius or just plain evil, it is hard to ignore her effectiveness at making President Trump look better than he otherwise would. Economic algorithms suggest that Conway's popularity and exposure made her financial value to the campaign several times more than her $2 million salary. Future campaign managers can learn a thing or two from her.

Fire Watch

For a time, Thomas Merton was of the world. He was funny, brilliant, passionate, faithless, contemporary in his thinking, fluent in French, athletic, shallow, drank too much, smoked too much, dabbled in communism, loved jazz, and loved women. He unexpectedly converted to Catholicism in 1938 while attending Columbia University for his master’s degree, then inexplicably and quietly left the world behind forever when he joined the cloistered Abbey of Our Lady of Gethsemani  in Kentucky at age 26 in 1941. Merton left New York  a different man.

He wanted to gather up his disjointed existence and weave it into something less chaotic, more coherent, and more meaningful. He no longer wanted to live with “the abyss that walked around in front of [his] feet … ” He chose a life of deprivation and silence, entirely consecrating his life to God in order to settle his restless heart. It was, for him, a quiet rebuke to the modern world with its constant noise and distraction, emptiness, fake rebellion, and self-satisfied conceit.

Life in the monastery in the farmlands of Kentucky was the polar opposite of his bohemian lifestyle in New York. Merton now lived on the edge of civilization. He had only two sets of garments, slept on straw for a mattress and a pallet for a bed frame, ate bland food, shaved once a week, lived with 70 to 80 other monks (which swelled to more than 270 after World War II). He prayed every four hours, worked outside even in the winter, did hard manual labor, studied philosophy and theology, and did not speak to anyone except “spiritual directors” or the “superiors” in charge of the monastery. It was a difficult life with a myriad of deprivations. Merton took vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience, and lived in silence as demanded by the austerity of his order. And he wrote. He wrote movingly, candidly, and beautifully about the spiritual life for the world to read and appreciate.

Merton became one of the most widely read spiritual writers of the 20th century. His first book, The Seven Storey Mountain published in 1948, was an autobiography of sorts. It was the story of his early life in France, England, and then America and his conversion to Catholicism.  He did not flinch from writing about the broken parts of his life before his conversion. It was engaging, humorous, eloquent, venturesome, moving, and spiritually insightful. He pointed to something lost in the culture. It was a runaway bestseller, selling millions of copies over the years. It has been translated into at least 20 languages. He went on to write more than 70 books, along with countless essays, journals, letters, and reviews.

Many readers believe his most beautiful and deeply personal writing came from the journals he wrote leading up to his ordination to the priesthood. Some of his journals over this five-year period were compiled for his book The Sign of Jonas, published in 1953. The final chapter was titled “Epilogue: Fire Watch, July 4, 1952” and discussed his role as a temporary watchman in the monastery. He walked the levels of it that summer night, while everyone was asleep, to ensure there were no fires – one could engulf the building in minutes – from the many candles used, or a defective furnace, a faulty fuse box, or an electrical glitch. He described his solemn, silent journey – the sights, the people, the sounds, the history of the place, and even the smells – from the bottom of the monastery all the way up to the bell tower.

For Merton, it was not just a physical journey but a spiritual one as well, from descent to ascent to the mountaintop. His insights were haunting and poetic. To be a watchman was to be the monastery’s early warning system to alert the community to danger. To be a watchman also meant to be an intermediary, an advocate, perched on the rooftop between heaven and earth, leaning outward in order to best communicate with God. It was a powerful image and meditation on the monastic life. This experience, as you can read in the journal, brought him to a deeper relationship with God and a better understanding of his vocation and his place within his community.

One cannot read “Fire Watch” without being inspired by the poetry and imagery of Merton’s language: “Will You open a door upon the great forest and set my feet upon a ladder under the moon, and take me out among the stars?” But to see his work in that context alone is a disservice to the breadth and range of his talent and teaching.

The writing of Thomas Merton was and is relevant because he asked his readers, in “Fire Watch” and elsewhere, to be alert, to pay attention to the small details, to contemplate God even in the persistent darkness, and to not fail to recognize the potential for ordinary human experiences to be theophanies or signs of grace, “life within life and of wisdom within wisdom.”

Trump's First Month

Promising to return power to the people, Donald Trump ran, and was elected, on a platform that emphasized his commitment to keeping his campaign promises. After just one month in office, he has already addressed a number of issues raised during his campaign, although he still has a long way to go before he can be considered a presidential success.

Since Inauguration Day, the economy has experienced an upswing, as Trump promised it would. By the end of January, the more optimistic business climate for some employers resulting from Trump’s taking office had helped to create 227,000 jobs –  52,000 more than expected that month. The Dow Jones Industrial Average also soared above 20,000 points for the first time ever. Its average daily closing has been on an upward trend, from around 18,300 points, since Election Day. The NASDAQ is also up significantly in the last month.

In addition, Trump has met and negotiated with executives from major corporations, such as Carrier and Boeing, about keeping operations in the United States. Though these companies will ultimately decide whether to keep operations in the U.S., or in some cases bring them back, based on their profit margins, it is worth noting that Trump is at least going beyond his predecessors by speaking with companies in his attempt to bolster the economy. If he succeeds in the long run, he will have proved he has the business intelligence that his supporters so proudly tout.

In the realm of social issues, Trump has not fared nearly as well. With the lowest approval rating of any new president to date (40 percent in the Gallup Poll), he faces constant opposition, as well as daily protests outside the White House. Of the several executive orders Trump has already signed, his opponents seem to have reacted most strongly to his travel ban on people from several Muslim nations, which was quickly halted by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Though Trump is writing a revised, or possibly an altogether new, executive order on travel from such countries, it is not likely that he will recover much support from opposition forces with it.

In reaction to his calls to defund Planned Parenthood and his stance on the environment, on LGBTQ+ rights, and so on, Trump also faced an enormous women’s march on Washington, with similar marches occurring simultaneously around the country.

Trump has also been locked in a battle of epic proportions with the mainstream media, while facing intense criticism from congressional Democrats and even some members of his own party. Republican Senator John McCain even commented that Trump’s threats to the press are early signs of dictatorship. Trump’s pick for the Supreme Court, Neil Gorsuch, has apparently shamed the president (in private, to a senator) for his attack on federal appellate judges following the halting of the travel ban. Additionally, with the resignation of Michael Flynn and the frequent trouble surrounding Sean Spicer and Kellyanne Conway, President Trump has encountered obstacles in his own administration, which he probably did not expect.  

Despite his low poll numbers, war with the media, and opposition on several fronts, however, Trump still has the ability to turn his presidency into something productive for the American people. He has already experienced a degree of economic success, and with plans to tackle tax cuts and health care reforms in the coming months, he is well on his way on some issues. Only time will tell whether he fulfills his campaign promises.

Mike Dubke

Graduates of Hamilton College boast a number of impressive accolades. Perhaps one of our most notable alumni, at least in recent years, is Mike Dubke, class of ’92, who has been tapped as President Trump’s new communications director. Dubke is poised to take over the position from Sean Spicer, who has been serving as both press secretary and communications director for the White House.

Dubke, a native of Hamburg, NY, graduated from Hamilton with a degree in government. While here, he was involved in the College Republicans, The Spectator, and WHCL, and played on the men’s rugby team. Ted Eismeier, a retired Hamilton government professor, says Dubke was “one of [his] favorite students.” Later, as an alumnus, he was “always very supportive” of Eismeier’s Semester in Washington groups.  

After leaving the Hill, Dubke served as the executive director for the Ripon Society, a Republican public policy organization in Washington, and for the Ripon Educational Fund. Under his leadership, the Ripon Society re-emerged as a vigorous actor in national politics. Dubke also co-founded Americans for Job Security, a pro-business advocacy group, and served as its president from 1995 to 2008. Together with his co-founder, David Carney, who served as political director for President George H. W. Bush, Dubke grew the organization across 45 states.

Dubke’s career reached further heights when he founded Crossroads Media in 2001. Crossroads bills itself as “the premier Republican media services firm, specializing in advertising strategy and placement for political candidates, issue advocacy organizations and trade associations.” Notable clients include the Republican National Committee, the National Republican Congressional Committee, the National Republican Senatorial Committee, Rudy Giuliani, Rick Perry, Michele Bachmann, the New York Stock Exchange, Westinghouse, and Walmart, among many others. In addition to serving as a partner at Crossroads Media, Dubke co-founded the Black Rock Group, a strategic communications and public affairs firm based in Alexandria, VA.

Those who know Dubke suggest that he’ll work well opposite Sean Spicer, who is known for his combative attitude. “Mike is a relentlessly positive person, kind of a happy warrior,” said Brian Jones of Black Rock Group. “Mike is not interested in being a public face. He's interested in rolling up his sleeves, trying to figure out how to make sure the messages that the White House wants to get out are getting out through the right channels. Knowing Sean for a long time and having worked with Mike for quite a long time, I think they will complement each other. They have different skill sets.”

Although he is a Republican insider, Dubke’s appointment has generally met with messages of approval from the right. Having played an active role in politics since his college days, and armed with his extensive background in political communications, Dubke will, without a doubt, be a valuable member of the Trump team. As Trump continues to wage war with the media, he desperately needs a skilled captain like Dubke to guide his administration’s communications through the tumultuous waters.

When asked about his new appointment, Dubke told Enquiry: “I can say that I am excited and honored to be working in the White House. I'll be taking my Hamilton cane to the West Wing in case relations with the media get out of hand.” This Hamiltonian, for one, looks forward to seeing that cane in action.

Treatment of Conservatives at Hamilton College

There seems to be a sentiment among left-leaning students and faculty on our campus that harassing conservative students is not only acceptable, but actually should be done. These same students and faculty, however, refuse to acknowledge that political harassment and discrimination are taking place at Hamilton. Many of my peers who attended Kim Strassel’s lecture on January 25 were made uncomfortable by my introduction, especially my – as one student put it – “baldface lie” that conservatives are harassed for their views at Hamilton.

I most certainly was not lying. I was referring to real people and real events that occurred on our campus. As a public face of conservatism at Hamilton, perhaps it’s time I share my own thoughts and experiences with the community.

At the beginning of the fall semester, the harassment went as far as trying to suppress my – and the other Enquiry writers’ – free speech by ripping up or stealing copies of our publication. It doesn’t bother me at all if people don’t agree with what we write , but destroying our work and property in an attempt to suppress our free speech is disgusting. Though we often don’t agree with the ideas and sentiments expressed in other campus publications, we would never stoop to vandalize them.

Shortly thereafter, I began receiving anonymous notes in my campus mailbox demanding that I stop publishing “offensive and inappropriate” pieces. Unfortunately, this is nothing new. Nearly all of our previous editors have received similar – and in some cases far more threatening – messages just because they are conservative or libertarian and have published various pieces reflecting such views. Enquiry accepts all article submissions as long as they are well written and well constructed. If you don’t like what we publish, send us something yourself.

I thought this was the worst my experiences were going to get. I was able to shake off the messages and our staff, though deeply bothered by such reprehensible behavior, continued to publish. But nothing could prepare us for what would occur leading up to, and following, Election Day.

In the days before November 8, my fellow Republicans and I were met with a barrage of animosity. Though many of us made it perfectly clear that Donald Trump was not our candidate of choice, professors, classmates, teammates, and even friends still singled us out for our continued support of the Republican Party.

In what world is it OK to harass someone for doing his or her civic duty? For voting for the candidate that we believed would best represent our views, our interests, and our country? Here’s a news flash for some of you: some of us even voted for Hillary Clinton. But you wouldn’t have a clue about that, because you just assumed we’re all racist, homophobic Trump supporters.

Even if you think that destroying a publication in the name of sensitivity, sending threatening messages, or putting people down on account of their political leanings doesn’t count as harassment, you cannot deny that the physical and verbal intimidation I experienced on Election Day does.

On November 8, a number of instances occurred in which I was called a racist, bigot, and homophobe (which, for the record, could not be further from the truth). Once on that day, a male Hamilton student followed me – shouting insults – all the way along Martin’s Way. Isn’t this exactly the same behavior that the left is trying to protect marginalized communities from? And by the way, conservatives are definitely a marginalized group on this campus.

Then, just when I thought things had finally calmed down, Inauguration Day rolled around and Republicans were once again the objects of torment by “liberals.” I even received a particularly unprofessional, if not malicious, email from one Professor Katharine Kuharic in the Art Department – whom I have never met– in response to a message I sent notifying the Hamilton community about a public invitation to watch the inauguration at the AHI. Though my message contained no political opinion or indication that the event was meant to celebrate Trump’s inauguration, Professor Kuharic deemed it appropriate to forward me an all-faculty email concerning the Women’s March, appending the message: “you may want to discuss as the US inaugurates an illegitimate Russian puppet intent on destroying the constitutional rights to free speech, press, religious practice and birthright citizenship.”

Worst of all, our college’s administration did next to nothing when asked to address the political harassment on campus. I did not hear a single word from anyone other than the campus investigator who took my deposition on Election Day, and though I spoke with President Wippman after the Inauguration Day incident, it’s clear to me that the administration would rather downplay any incidents than address them head-on. Imagine that, instead of me, all these things had happened to a student of color, or a student who identifies as being LGBTQ+. There would be a bias incident report and group counseling available to the entire student body.

I am certainly not the only conservative student who has experienced harassment on this campus. Others have been shamed out of classes, or ridiculed by professors and students alike. Some seem to have had their grades lowered because of their political leanings. How can the administration continue to deny that conservatives are made to feel ridiculed and excluded on campus? Or, at the very least, how can they deny that conservatives are treated worse than their peers?

In Defense of School Choice

The United States ranks third globally in expenditures on public education as a percent of gross domestic product (GDP). Furthermore, in 2012, the United States’s spending on elementary and secondary education was $11,700 per student, 31 percent higher than the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development’s average of $9,000. In 2012, American students ranked average: 28th in science, 36th in mathematics, and 24th in reading. Eighteen countries outranked the U.S. in all three subjects. This data suggests that increased education spending is not enough to improve our public schools. 

Over the past few decades, debate has continued over how to fix America’s underperforming public education system. The proposed solution of “school choice” has recently gained momentum, as more and more states implement such options in various forms. School choice gives students more educational opportunities, including access to charter schools, voucher programs, and private school scholarships. 

Many people worry that school choice will divert dollars away from vulnerable school districts, causing students to suffer. While schools need a certain level of spending to cover necessary costs from teachers’ salaries to utilities, many districts have enough funding to cover these resources and could improve their performance without increasing expenditures. One indicator of this possibility is that private school students tend to outperform public school students, despite having budgets 34 percent lower than taxpayer-funded schools.

Opponents of school choice also worry that these policies burden already-struggling school districts. People fear that higher-achieving students will flee failing school districts, resulting in a further loss of funding and resources for these troubled schools.

However, 29 out of 30 major studies on this topic found that school choice improved struggling schools as well as outcomes for students (just one study found no significant effects). Schools most affected by competition tend to perform slightly better after the implementation of school choice, meaning that both students who change schools and students who stay in struggling districts benefit. 

Another common argument against school choice is the belief that it leaves disadvantaged students behind. But to the contrary: Most students participating in school choice programs come from low-income communities. Additionally, a study by the Brookings Institution and Harvard University found that private school voucher programs made African-American students 24 percent more likely to enroll in college. 

The one downside of school choice, as I see it, is that not all students have the means of transportation to attend “choice schools.” Choice programs have been very successful at involving disadvantaged students in many of America’s cities, where a variety of schools are close to students and public transportation to them is available. But school choice has helped even rural communities. At least 33 states already have free public online education, which provides a form of school choice to students who may not be able to attend other schools due to transportation barriers. Furthermore, online education has a significantly lower overhead cost, saving school districts money without compromising the quality of education. 

Though it would be unwise to slash public school funding, a myriad of studies show that despite increases in spending, American public schools in general continue to struggle. To combat these challenges, it is time that Americans reevaluate the effectiveness of education spending and invest more in alternative options, such as school choice. While opponents fear that school choice hurts disadvantaged students and struggling districts, the data suggests otherwise. School choice could be much of what America needs to improve its struggling schools.