Conservatives Conserve

Most people will probably agree that the politicization of the environment is unfortunate. The Left now holds a near-monopoly on environmentalism and is often at the forefront of national and international efforts to conserve the environment. They rightly attack the Right for excusing legislative inaction on the issue with appeals to anthropocentric arguments (the view that only the human species—for example, its economic prosperity—counts). The contemporary Right ignores the existence of intergenerational obligations and similarly neglects long-term obligations to nature. They have convinced themselves that fluctuating numbers on a screen can replace the planet’s objective and finite beauty, arguing that the momentary generation of wealth and employment explains away any mismanagement of the soil we all share. It is the progressives, those who wish to do away with many long-held conventions and bring about a new world, who wish to serve as stewards of the environment. In terms of nature, the self-described conservatives are conserving nothing.

Rather than serve the interests of the American plutocracy, conservatives should actually lead in the preservation of this country’s national heritage. Given its shift toward stronger anti-immigration policies in recent years, the Republican party has once again demonstrated political ineptitude and greed. In terms of its political self-interest, it should be ripe for greener policies because they can be used along with anti-immigration rhetoric. But corporate interests tend to favor both more immigration and cuts in regulations, so Republicans have rejected the opportunity to add pro-environment policies to their agenda, opting to keep appeasing their donors through America’s natural defilement. The party could easily have argued that lax immigration policies burden the environment. Immigrants do overwhelmingly move to urban cores, leading to more urban sprawl, oil consumption, and strain on infrastructure. An opponent from the Left would cite studies which indicate that immigrant populations place a smaller strain on the environment than native populations. But there is an easy, common-sense counter-argument the Right could make: immigrants will not live like immigrants forever. Like all people, they will reproduce and create a new generation of American citizens, which will strive toward their native-born counterparts’ greater prosperity. In addition, there is no question that first-generation immigrants themselves wish to attain the comfortable living standards of the average American. Although these notions may prove extremely controversial among today’s environmentalists, they might stimulate a malleable conservative base to care more about the soil we stand on. There is more to conserve than the wallets of usurers.

 The Left is correct in its view that the living standards of the average American are environmentally harmful and decadent. The only socially unifying concept left in this country is seems to be that everyone loves to consume and, more often than not, consume beyond their means. The once-conservative value of thrift is no more. (Ironically, this is another value that progressives have brought into their socio-political culture.) If they do not want to adopt environmentalist policies as a result of their position on immigration, then Republicans could make the case that the conservative values of self-restraint and love of family should lead to a cultural shift that benefits the environment. They should advocate less reliance on large corporations and emphasize the importance of communitarianism and setting down roots. “Hard” or uncompromising individualism must cease to exist if American consumerism is to be defeated. And consumerism ought to be defeated, since it is antithetical to serious environmental efforts. Conservatives who truly wish to conserve must restrain themselves from consuming the products of the factory farm, or the cheap plastic trinkets imported on gas-guzzling ships. Moreover, they must understand the relationship between the soil they stand on and their duty to future generations.

 Today’s American professional class is rootless: it moves restlessly and selfishly around the country in an attempt to maximize its income without apparent regard to the communities it exploits. Its members seem to view themselves solely in overarching, global terms. Republican party leaders should urge the professional-class people in their base to settle down and become part of a tangible community. Only then will they feel a responsibility to maintain the breathtaking landscapes of North America for their descendants. Whatever their politics, American environmentalists and conservationists are the people who most truly love  their country.

The Experience of a Religious Person at Hamilton College

Religion. The mention of it can bring a dinner to an awkward silence or inspire fiery quarrels that result in the participants flipping the table. Yet religion also inspires people to do good. It inspires sacrifice, charity, and art that awes the mind and enthralls the soul. Yet in this secular age, many people take it for granted. They ignore religion in all its forms, finding it backward, antiquated, uncomfortable, or some combination of these. Some even find religion downright evil. And these sentiments are heard frequently at Hamilton College. 

Let me clarify a few things before discussing religion. First, writing for Enquiry does not make me racist, homophobic, Islamophobic, xenophobic, transphobic, and/or fascist. The toxicity of today’s political climate forces me to say this. And if you do take offense, or are uncomfortable with me writing for Enquiry, please feel free to chat with me, as I always encourage a good and productive conversation about politics. Second, this is a commentary on student life at Hamilton, not academic life. Third, my intention is not to be overbearing or moralistic. I try every day to be the best Christian I can be, but it is a struggle. I have my own vices and faults to deal with. I am a sinner. And I want you, the reader, to read this article knowing that. 

I write as a Roman Catholic. However, I have friends who are non-Catholic Christians, and others who are Jewish, Muslim, and Buddhist. I often engage in discussions with them to understand their religious views. All religions are beautiful, and I admire people of faith no matter what God or gods they worship and what practices they follow. Interfaith dialogue and unity thrive among religious students at Hamilton. Where the discussion becomes difficult is among non-religious students. I do not care if someone is an atheist, agnostic, deist, or non-religious in any other way. And many express themselves in a respectful manner. But a sizable number of non-religious students openly mock and despise religion, in cruel and jabbing ways. 

I am not here to drag any reader into unnecessary drama. Nor is it my intent to denounce anyone as a bigot, even though there are students who seem to be. I have heard religion mocked on an almost daily basis. Students have mocked the Catholic Church in front of my face. They have assumed that Catholic students are repressive, bigoted, and have backward views on sexual intercourse and gender. I am often told this personally by students who in many cases are not aware that I am Catholic. The fact that these closed-minded students feel they can say such things to people whose religion they don’t even know about is wrong, cruel, and offensive. Other Christians on campus have reported similar experiences. And I do not know of a single Christian student, whether Catholic, Protestant, or Orthodox, who is backward and bigoted. None of us are closed-minded. We are accepting of everyone regardless of their identity and have no intention of forcing a life of celibacy on the world. Jewish and Muslim students, and students of other faiths, experience problems too. They tell me that people constantly question how “Jewish” or “Muslim” they are. 

To be a religious student, no matter what your faith, is in my experience to be a subject of mockery and ridicule from many others. Again, I want to stress that this is not true of all non-religious students on campus. Some of my closest friends are loving and open-minded non-religious students who respect my faith and the faiths of others. But the problem of intolerance against religious students is pervasive at Hamilton, and something which nearly every religious student seems to have experienced firsthand. One might claim that I am exaggerating because I haven’t cited specific instances of intolerance, or because they haven’t heard this is an issue. I am not exaggerating. If I felt like this was a nothing-burger, I wouldn’t have written about it. I don’t get into specific stories, and didn’t interview people for this article, because I am simply describing a general climate on campus. If I had wanted to include personal experiences, I would have, and there would be so many that this article would be dozens of pages long. If you think this isn’t an issue, talk with a religious student about it. I believe that in your discussions with your religious friends and peers, they will tell you about times when they were treated with intolerance against religion or against their faiths. 

I will continue to pray that such students see the error of their ways. And when one of them makes a disparaging comment against religion or religious students, call them out and correct them. But do it with gentleness and kindness. Religious students and those who oppose anti-religious hostility cannot change minds if we act with anger and arrogance. And while you call people out and correct them, know that like everyone, you are a sinner too, just as I myself have been guilty of messed-up actions. I hope that with the example set by religious students, students who voice hostility toward religion will embark on the path of love and tolerance.

The Battle for the Senate

The presidential election is getting a lot of buzz lately, and rightfully so, since this election will determine our country’s prospects for the next four years and beyond. But despite all the attention surrounding the presidency, there are many competitive Senate races that will decide who controls the Senate. As we have seen during the current 116th Congress, holding a Senate majority is an incredibly powerful position for either party to be in. Currently, the Senate has 53 Republicans and 47 Democrats, so the Democrats have the often-tough challenge of needing to gain at least three seats. In addition, they will almost certainly lose Doug Jones’s seat in Alabama, which they were lucky to win in a 2017 special election.

At the start of this election cycle, many pundits saw the Senate as massively difficult for the Democrats. It has largely been assumed that they will keep their majority in the House of Representatives, but the Senate map looked much harder. It seemed unlikely that Democrats would be able to pick up seats in South Carolina, Iowa, Montana, Kansas, or Georgia, considering that Trump won all of these states in 2016, and because in four of them, they will have to beat a Republican incumbent. 

Despite the clear difficulties the Democrats face, however, the news in the last few months regarding the Senate has been especially positive for them. Races that were considered long shots, such as Montana, South Carolina, and Iowa, now look more like tossups. In fact, FiveThirtyEight’s election forecast now has the Democrats favored to win the Senate, with its highest-probability projection predicting they will win 51 seats. Recent polling suggests they are likely to gain seats in Maine, Arizona, and Colorado while also protecting Gary Peters’s seat in Michigan. This trend suggests that a “blue wave” may be coming, which could give the Democrats control of the House, Senate, and presidency. Given the recent changes in Senate projections, I believe it is worth looking into the reasons why they are making Senate races competitive across the board.

While many factors have contributed to the recent surge in their Senate chances, I believe fundraising and enthusiasm play the largest roles. Democratic Senate challengers are raising money to an extent never seen before, which has forced the GOP to go on the defensive. Challenger Jaime Harrison in South Carolina raised a whopping $57 million in the third financial quarter, a colossal amount for a Senate race in a state which President Trump won with about 55 percent of the vote. In the North Carolina race, challenger Cal Cunningham raised $28.3 million in the third quarter, nearly quadrupling his $7.4 million in the previous quarter. In Iowa, a state Trump won with 51 percent of the vote (beating Hillary Clinton by almost 10 points),  Democratic challenger Theresa Greenfield raised $28.7 million in the third quarter. 

It is worth considering that great fundraising does not always mean enthusiasm for a candidate. For example, Michael Bloomberg spent about $1 billion this year in his run for the Democratic presidential nomination, yet failed to win strong support. But the fundraising that is elevating the campaigns of Democratic Senate challengers appears to result more from genuine enthusiasm among voters. This is highlighted by the fact that the majority of donations to these candidates are small-dollar rather than corporate or corporate-related. For example, Cunningham’s campaign reported that more than 40,000 North Carolinians had contributed in the past three months, with 96 percent of the donations under $100. Similarly, in Iowa, Greenfield’s campaign reported that 95 percent of third-quarter contributions were $100 or less. 

These contributions highlight a genuine enthusiasm for Democratic candidates from voters, as even working-class families in large numbers are willing to give money in hopes of achieving a Senate majority. While some may argue that out-of-state contributions do not reflect enthusiasm from voters within the state, they certainly reflect an overall support for Democrats, also seen in Joe Biden’s substantial polling lead over Trump. In fact, the Biden campaign raised a record $383 million in the month of September, which shows that Democratic voters have been willing to support a Democratic agenda with their money. While the battle for the Senate initially looked difficult for the Democrats, they have plenty of reasons to be optimistic heading into this election. 

Democracy and Crisis Response

This summer was an eventful one in the laboratories of democracy. With the unrest that continues to flare up in cities and the COVID-19 pandemic, we have had passenger’s views of a governmental train wreck. A sense of mortality, and of the harsh reality of radically disruptive change and chaos, tend to be elusive to us as Americans, to varying degrees depending on such factors as class and our degree of engagement with mainstream culture. But it is always good to be shaken from your slumber, no matter how unpleasant the experience. Now is the time to be real about our political systems and their functionality.

For the past four years or so, we have all been subjected to a lot of talk about “democracy in crisis.” Most of this talk from mainstream, academic, and institutional voices has boiled down to what might be called “securocratic” pearl-clutching about an apparent general decline of institutional authority and privilege. If we want to see things more clearly, we ought to get concrete.

An odd situation arose over the summer when district attorneys in Portland and Seattle pledged to not prosecute any protesters arrested for nonviolent and nondestructive offenses. In those cities, hundreds of people were released without bail, in the midst of violence and unrest which had been paralyzing these cities for weeks. These decisions came with rationalizations about the courts being months behind schedule due to the pandemic. But it seems clear that political pressure from the community and the ideological views of these officials were much of the reason. It is also likely that hundreds of rioters, who were arrested for clashing with police, blocking highways and intersections, and accosting pedestrians and motorists, were released -- which continued to make these cities unsafe and put law enforcement resources under even more duress. 

Without getting too far into the political weeds, what does this mean? That elected city governments, partly due to their ideological and political priorities, undermined an essential, life-preserving function of government. Intersections and highways must be clear and safe. Police should be available, and able, to respond to emergencies and conduct investigations. Pedestrians and motorists should be able to go about their city safely without being accosted by a mob. The police could not provide an effective deterrent against, or punishment for, behavior which has resulted in loss of life and serious injury in cities all across the country. Faced with an explosion of criminality and disorder, elected officials looked at the situation and decided it was best to let the rabid dogs run loose. It is hard to say what the calculation was. Was this an attempt to buy votes by allowing agitated, until-recently quarantined constituents a sort of catharsis carnival? Was it an attempt to curry the favor of an organized, predatory mob? The implications are the same either way: politics before public safety.

As we have seen this year, one possible outcome in a democracy is that those in power may opt not to use, or even to cripple, society’s mechanisms for responding to an ongoing crisis because that is considered the politically advantageous or ideologically“right” thing to do. The term “anarcho-tyranny” – referring generally to a condition wherein the government infringes upon the rights of citizens while failing to put down violence and chaos – has been thrown around to describe the situation across the country. It is a compelling concept, but likely premature and not entirely accurate.  It seems more accurate to say that the relationship between public opinion, or accountability to the public, and good government may be weaker than we would like to assume. That voters understand what good and bad situations look like, that they recognize a major mistake or failure by government, and that they know which political forces or officials to blame, all seem like questionable assumptions in an age of exploding complexity and an exploding volume of contradictory media. We should think seriously about the troubling possibility that the democratic process can cannibalize government by allowing, for example, many voters’ perceived sympathy for violence to override even the most basic public safety obligations when that seems politically advantageous to elected officials. The sense that greater crises lie just ahead is widespread. And this intuition seems to come without any of the self-aggrandizing or opportunism that should arouse our suspicion.