Ron Paul offers his answer in his latest book The Revolution: A Manifesto. Debuting this past April, it became an instant best seller, ranking number one on the New York Times Bestseller’s list as well as on Amazon. The relatively brief book has been described by Barry Goldwater, Jr. as “the real truth about Liberty. This book takes a wrecking ball to the political establishment…It’s The Conscience of a Conservative for the twenty-first century.” The contents include a brief preface, seven chapters, and a reading list of books that have influenced the Congressman over the years.

The first chapter opens with what Congressman Paul considers the “false choices of American politics.” He feels that American voters are frustrated and left with no choose between voting for a Democratic candidate or a Republican candidate, both of whom have strayed away from their traditional roots. Paul cites examples of such illustrating how the Republican Party has become a party for big government while the Democratic Party is being branded as the “do nothing party” based on the lack of accomplishments in Congress. What Congressman Paul desires is a party based on freedom and individual rights, an idea he attributes to the late Republican Senator Robert A. Taft of Ohio, who defined liberty as “the [ability] of the individual to think his own thoughts and live his own life.” While championing the freedom and liberties of the individual, Paul also advocates for limited government, constitutionalism, and a non-interventionist foreign policy. Having gained momentum during his campaigning, Paul was told that his ideas and the message he was spreading was considered a “revolution.” He merely sees this as the peaceful continuation of the message the Founding Fathers created at the beginning of the country.

In chapters two through seven, Paul expands on his message of a non-interventionist foreign policy, constitutionalism, civil liberties and personal freedom, as well as explaining his approach to the economy and money by way of libertarianism. He has often been labeled as an “isolationist” based on his views of foreign policy, yet he has declared he is for free trade, diplomacy, and the freedom to travel. While I tend to agree with most of Ron Paul’s political ideology, I consider the notion of a non-interventionist foreign policy is not the best of options for the United States in an age of globalism. Though he cites that it was the wish of the Founding Fathers to keep out of international affairs and even quotes Thomas Jefferson who called for “peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none.” However, it was also Thomas Jefferson who declared war on the nations that supported the Barbary Pirates who raided American merchant ships. While free trade, diplomacy, and the freedom to travel may be espoused by America, it is not a universal concept excepted by all nations. It is clear that if America is to prosper in an age where state sanctioned terrorism, cyber crime, counterfeiting, and money-laundering occurs while nothing is to be done, then it damages the very policy we try to implement.

While Ron Paul addresses his concerns mostly to George W. Bush’s successor, I doubt he will follow Congressman Paul’s advice. His treatise is meant for the people, the same people who are sovereign and are the ones who give the government the power and authority to rule. If there is an appropriate line to quote from the book it would be the last paragraph: “One is not a fated existence, for nowhere is our destiny etched in stone. In the final analysis, the last line of defense in support of freedom and the Constitution consists of the people themselves. If the people want to be free, if they want to lift themselves out from underneath a state apparatus that threatens their liberties, squanders their resources on a needless wars, destroys the value of the dollar, and spews forth endless propaganda about how indispensable it is and how lost we would all be without it, there is no force that can stop them. If freedom is what we want, it is ours for the taking, Let the revolution begin.”

Related posts:

1. Following After the City of God: An Interview with Dr. Edward McLean
2. CPAC and the Future of the Republican Party

As mentioned, there does exist at Wabash a thriving spiritual community. A strong fellowship of Christian believers flourishes and grows, a fellowship that strives to have impact on the campus through dialog, events, and guest speakers; cookouts, service ministries, and Bible studies; and general representation of Christ. Amazingly, in the last four years or so the number of devoted attendees of the weekly Wabash Christian Men worship meeting has increased from about four to fifty or sixty. And even outside of this group, another fellowship, the newly formed Amped, meets weekly as a study and ministry geared especially toward athletes. Christians are indeed trying to be impactful.

Catholicism, too, is well-represented here at Wabash. While many Catholics are also a part of the campus Christian groups, weekly Mass is held at the Chapel and Catholic men can enjoy the hospitality and fellowship of the Newman Center. Muslims, as well, hold regular worship services in the mosque in the basement of Martindale Hall and enjoy an especial fellowship among one another. Each of these groups is active on campus and full of great Wabash men.

This mysterious “Wabash Man” often can be described with the defining characteristics of intense passion and devotion. College students can put such a great deal of pride into the successes and reputations of their passions, the life investments made can be quite astounding. Fraternity brothers defend and promote their house at every opportunity and with all gusto (think Homecoming week; which, freshmen pledges, you shall see). Physics or math or English gurus pour hours upon hours of devoted study into their work, just as swimmers and runners dedicate every morning and evening to train for their weekend races. For that which defines them, men will devote their lives.

This defines Wabash.

But from my one year experience thus far in this land of scarlet and white and passion, I have seen only fragments of such intense devotion dedicated toward spiritual beliefs. Outside of the fellowships mentioned, and yes, even perhaps within them, many men who identify themselves as “religious” or “spiritual” are hardly as radically committed as the storied Cavemen on the football team or the Conservative Union’s political junkies, if committed at all. The faith exercise needed to stay fit spiritually brings sweat and soreness, and similar to the exercise necessary to staying fit physically, it is easily put off and forgotten about. But such is the plague of religious motivation: it often amounts to no motivation at all. And this I have seen across the entire spectrum of Wabash’s religious movements.

The extent of the religious impact, then, sometimes seems minimal. Spirituality often comes up in dinner discussions or evening chats over cigars, an indication that people do think about the matter, but outside of worship services and these casual conversations noticeable spiritual dedication is not often publicly recognizable. At weekend parties it appears to be all but forgotten, and especially by those professing to be spiritually concerned. When the gig starts bopping, thought and discussion of spiritual matters men quickly and naturally trade in for tingling numbness and thumping rave beats. Crude talk displaces praise, and the charge of Philippians 4:8-9 is all but forgotten. To be accurate, here I can speak only on account for fellow Christians, as I am unfamiliar with the moral values held by other religions. But so it goes. The life of lip-service-only commitment is never more tempting than at college, the temptation to which I must confess my own all-too-often fall.

As college men at Wabash we enjoy a unique freedom to do virtually whatever we want, very nearly restriction-free. And naturally we are not extraordinarily fond of giving up that freedom to others’ control, especially if those others dare to hold us from doing all the things we want to do. Historically nobody has ever really enjoyed being held from doing what they want; any person will rebel whenever possible from the forces against them.

Conviction and passion stand alone as the primary motivators for behavior otherwise. For instance: nobody would ever obey a command to attend and endure four years of grueling work every morning at six o’clock unless inspired by some incredible passion, say, for Wabash football, and a conviction to trust and obey the authority, say, the coaching staff. But people are not quick to willingly surrender their mornings, let alone their hearts. The willful surrender to total control, however, is what sold-out religion demands. It then is no wonder why completely sold-out religion is somewhat less than popular among college students. I have seen that even at Wabash with its many religious opportunities- Christian, Catholic, Muslim and otherwise – this unnatural yet essential willful surrender is no less unpopular.

Fortunately, this is not the only side to spirituality at Wabash. Christian living at Wabash is hard, but it isn’t unattainable. Though the area church services and Wednesday night worship should not be the lone place of Christianity in the week, they are an important aspect of godly living. Here Christians are brought together to hold each other up and grow as friends. The necessary accountability groups are made up of men introduced through these weekly meetings, and friends from WCM do enjoy many good times throughout the weeks. Lasting friendships arise out of this brotherhood, and here men help other men grow stronger in the Christian life.

These opportunities are by no account unique to the Christian groups. The majority of the men deeply involved with any of the religious groups are so involved because of that same passion so common at Wabash. The leadership of the different fellowships do devote themselves fully to the promotion and defense of their beliefs. They do invest the same dedicated effort toward their fellowships as the athletes do toward their teams and the book whizzes toward do toward their books. To be sure, there are many Wabash men serious about living out their faiths whom you will find in nearly every campus organization.

If you are concerned about using your college years to grow in your faith, look for these men and get to know them. It’s possible you might find their passion and enthusiasm inspiring the same in you, and that’s no bad way to start the year.

Despite this last hopefulness, I fear that for some freshmen this may sound like a rather bleak, if not uninviting, perspective on the faith they may once have thought so lively at Wabash. If this is you, I am sorry. But bleakness gives way to light, even here. In spite of this perhaps disillusioning prognosis, there exists also a hopeful prescription: faith works.

Faith may work, but unfortunately long-distances relationships don’t always. In college those guys so privileged to have girlfriends must invest huge amounts of time and energy into their relationships. In order to maintain the relationship amongst an all-male population, nightly phone calls, weekend visits, e-mails, etc., are a must. Boyfriends that see this time sacrifice as a gnawing obligation are likely to come to eventually dread the nightly call, knowing that from eight to eleven-thirty every night they have to put up with that same high-pitched, rambling nonsense. Even still, a few others call because they somehow truly enjoy spending time talking with the babe; they actually look forward to each new conversation. The first sort of relationship lasts only as long as the guy can either put up with the time sacrifice or hide his false flattery, while the other relationship likely blossoms into something lasting and fruitful. The friends of anyone involved in a bitter relationship with his girlfriend can easily see how fruitless such a “relationship” is, and they likely will not be interested in meeting or getting to know any of his supposed love interests. In the same token, when someone happy in love brings his girlfriend on campus to show her off to all his friends, they take note of such a happy relationship and mirror what they see. They crave that lasting happiness, and might secretly be quite jealous.

Such is the way with faith. Some believers act out of duty or obligation, while others worship out of a genuine response, inspired by the love they find through their faith. As they mature in their beliefs they grow to love that which they believe in, and it becomes their desire and passion. Lasting faith is not that which is grudging commitment to some annoying obligation, but that which is the fruit of love-labor. This is the only kind of faith that inspires the same in others; the other hasn’t a chance. When people see through falsely flattering words they turn away in disgust. In contrast, the sincerity of the genuinely believing man can be a brightly burning flame that stirs in the depths of the people around him.

Those depths, however, can be both very dark and very deep. If this pile of sticks, Wabash, really is to see spiritual revival raging wild through its halls this type of faith, working through impassioned action, must truly begin to stand out among the religious believers. Is it easy? Hardly, and we are imperfect humans. But still, all it takes is a flicker…

Related posts:

1. Meet Dr. Wilcox: An Interview with the New Religion Professor
2. Don’t Forget Your Faith: Student Religious Organizations on Campus
3. Keeping the Faith: Religious Opportunities at Wabash

Without having to acknowledge it, I am sure you are aware of the disappearing men’s room. Back in 1832 when our restroom was still new, all-men’s bathrooms were commonplace. However, through the course of time, a changing society coupled with the absence of women’s restrooms changed this once average notion. Across the nation many men’s rooms were converted for female use alongside the completion of new women’s restrooms. For those who are wondering let me clarify: This is/was not a bad thing. Women were in dire need of restrooms and those built helped to bridge the gap. But now, many years after this gap has been filled, what has happened to the men’s rooms? Why are there so few left?

I will be honest and admit that I cannot fully answer that question. We could debate the subject all day, but debating about the past will not change it. In the meantime we can discuss a few difficulties of the remaining men’s rooms—ours included, and then touch on what truly sets us apart from other restrooms.

The first plight lies in the inescapably clichéd questions of which all students must answer.

“What is it like using the restroom without women? Don’t you miss them? How do you stand only having… men in your restroom? Doesn’t using an all-male bathroom make you sexist?”

I have to wonder if my responses, like other students, are as clichéd as the questions themselves.

“Using the bathroom without women feels perfectly normal. Yes, I miss them, but you don’t even notice it. And no, *sigh* using an all-male bathroom does not make me sexist.”

The next plight goes with the last: People on the outside who cannot get past the sign at the door. It’s not like our signs declare , “WABASH: NO GIRLS ALLOWED!” Yes, it is frustrating when people won’t look past the door sign, but what can we do about it? If those who only look at the door sign will not make the attempt to get past the restroom’s (obvious) first impressions, then what good will it do to try and change their minds? But for those that will listen, how can we change theirs? The answer lies in telling them what truly sets us apart from other restrooms.

The ‘Student Says’ portion of the newest Princeton Review states this quite effectively: Wabash ranks third for both ‘Most Accessible Professors’ and ‘Best Athletic Facilities’, as well as fourth for ‘Best Classroom Experience’ and eleventh for ‘School Runs Like Butter’. These rankings look past the door signs to the wonderful community that lies inside. This—the community—is what truly sets us apart. Think about it: Only two other schools in the nation have better accessible professors. Two other schools! Our community—not our sign—truly set us apart.

Critics can say what they want, but Wabash ranks highly without being co-ed. Adding women for the sole purpose of making us look better on paper comes at the expense of the nine-hundred men who chose this school as is and the integrity of a liberal arts college…for men. Public talks of going co-ed may not be alive, but private discussions never die. It is my hope that those here at the college come not with the aspirations to change its all male nature, but to embrace, celebrate, and promote it.

Fellow Wallys, the fact that our restroom is of a ‘dying breed’ does not entitle us to roll over and die (conform) as well. As time goes on the pressure to conform will only increase—the grass on the other side growing greener by the year. But as the last of this breed, we are in essence its defenders. And as its defenders, it is our duty to stand strong in the face of adversity and prove to them: Wabash. Always. Fights!

Related posts:

1. Co-ed Never: Reflections on the Core of Wabash Traditions
2. Where Friendship May Flourish
3. How Many Women Should Teach at Wabash?

“Every American has a right to disagree with the President of the United States, and express publicly that disagreement,” he conceded, then added a caveat: “But the President of the United States has a right to communicate directly with the people who elected him, and the people of this country have a right to make up their own minds and form their own opinions about a presidential address without having the President’s words and thoughts characterized through the prejudices of hostile critics before they can even be digested.”

Agnew left unclear where exactly in the Constitution he found the latter two rights, or what exactly his government intended to do to protect them. But the speech was more about politics than policy. He was tapping into something fundamental in the conservative base of the Nixon administration: the idea that they, though they were large in numbers, were the victims of the country’s elites — that they, “the Great Silent Majority,” were being disrespected by a rowdy minority in the establishment, “an effete corps of impudent snobs who characterize themselves as intellectuals,” as Agnew deemed them.

And his message was effective. Agnew, the hitherto moderate governor of Maryland chosen by Nixon to attract Democrats to the ticket, became a champion of the conservative wing of the Republican Party. Following Nixon’s reelection in 1972, Republican polls showed him miles ahead of California Governor Ronald Reagan in the race for 1976. At least in part due to his principal message that conservatives were being victimized by an unfair intellectual elite, he became the conservative heir apparent.

And therein lies something of a contradiction.

Conservatives have always derided the various “cultures of victimization” on the left, and rightfully so. When a group of people comes to believe that they are being victimized — and comes to define that victimization as an inextricable part of their own identity — the tendency is to focus their attention on complaining about the victimizers, not furthering their own interests. They feel that they will not achieve great things on their own because they cannot achieve great things on their own. And given that the victimizers are more often than not large, indefinable groups of people, they cannot entirely remove the limitations to their success. So the cry of the victimized usually becomes a cry for sympathy and help: “I am a victim. I cannot achieve success in life because some people are out to get me. You should feel guilty about that. I demand you give me stuff.”

Agnew’s message was not much dissimilar from this, and his appeal among conservatives shows that the right is just as capable of formulating a culture of victimization as the left. There is some difference, of course, between the cries of victimization on the left and the ones that sometimes come from conservatives: The cries from the left usually come in the form of minorities believing they are persecuted by the majority. Conservatives are usually majorities believing they are persecuted by a minority. That dynamic makes playing the victim card a bit less appealing (it is almost certainly less likely to gain you sympathy), and that dynamic holds true almost everywhere — except on the college campus, where outspoken conservatives often are the minority.

Which brings us to Wabash. If you are a freshman reading this, then congratulations: You have made an excellent choice in schools. If you are a conservative freshman, then you are in good company. The student body of this school is likely a bit more conservative than most. You may well be in the majority. If you an outspoken conservative, that will not be the case. Wabash has its share of passionate partisans, and more of them are liberal than conservative. If you are among those on this campus who are willing to stand up and argue for their beliefs in a public way, you will likely be outnumbered. The vast majority of your professors will disagree with you. A good number of your peers will as well. You may think them irritating. You many think them impudent snobs. But you should never think yourself a victim.

In order to avoid becoming Wabash College’s own Spiro Agnew, you may want to consider the following advice:

First, understand that your professors are not out to get you. They may be out to get your ideas, but most of them are incredibly fair (though often tough) when it comes time to grade. There may be a strange exception or two, but by and large, the professors at Wabash are very professional men and women who want to help you learn.

One of the first professors I had as a freshman was Dr. Stephen Morillo, a man who is for many — especially The Phoenix cartoonist — the very embodiment of the “liberal professor.” I was introduced to his ideas in the first week of September, when we had placed hundreds of crosses on the college mall to represent all of the young lives lost to abortion. Dr. Morillo sent out an all-campus email sarcastically thanking us for the display, saying he assumed the crosses memorialized the victims of Bush’s wars, Hurricane Katrina, abuse in U.S. prison camps and various other evil conservative things that were in the news in 2006. This prompted an “I don’t really want to start an email war, but…” email from Dr. Webb, which in turn prompted a miniature email war.

So I wasn’t much looking forward to spending my first semester at Wabash with Dr. Morillo. But, as it turns out, I was subjected to only the occasion liberal aside in History 101, and Dr. Morillo’s passion for the subject far outweighed whatever disagreements he had with his students. In fact, he embraced disagreement. For our first paper assignment, he asked us to write something that either added to what he had taught in class or disputed it. If we disagreed with his conclusions, he encouraged us to use evidence from our primary source text to oppose him. If he disagreed with your conclusions, he would tear into you paper (as he did to mine), but if you used your evidence well and made a compelling enough case, he would give you a decent grade (A-). Disagreement is essential to academic argument, and most of your professors will understand that and embrace your differences accordingly.

Enjoy the fight. Many of your professors will attempt to tear down your every assumption about the world. This need not be a bad thing. It will make you frustrated at times, but it will also make you stronger.

I came to Wabash a conservative Christian. After two years, I am now a conservative Christian who understands quite a bit more why he believes what he believes. You will be challenged in your assumptions about everything from the existence of God, to the founding principles of the United States, to the role the United States plays in the world, to economics, to what is good and what is evil, to whether good and evil exist at all. Don’t complain when professors challenge you. Use it as an opportunity to consider their arguments and your own. You cannot make a truly effective case for why you are right unless you understand why others are wrong.

Also, understand that the victim card will probably not work for you. Unless your ancestors were held in slavery or denied fundamental human rights because they were conservative, few are going to feel too sorry for you when you whine about not feeling comfortable in the classroom. There is a proportion problem when conservatives start complaining about their miserable lot in life — because so many others have had such a worse lot. While the argument can be made that much of the alleged victimization of modern minorities is imagined, there can be no doubt that widespread and brutal victimization against them existed in the sometimes too recent past. It would be stupid and classless to attempt to compare their suffering to whatever problems conservatives may have.

Last semester, there was a forum held for various minority students to express their grievances, and for the Wabash community to come together to listen and think of solutions. The Wabash Conservative Union was invited to express our complaints and speak alongside the minorities — two of whom had the experience of finding a racial threat carved into the door of their dorm in College Hall. Our Editor-in-Chief, Sean Clerget, very wisely declined the invitation because he knew that to elevate our minor problems to that level would be insulting. So try to keep things in perspective, and recognize that you really don’t have it too bad.

And finally, learn to laugh. Liberal professors are funny! Many of them have strange obsessions with race, class, and gender, and they can manage to find examples of their obsessions in almost anything. Any instance of some white object hitting some colored object (such as a game of pool) becomes a sinister example of racism. Any cylindrical object (such as a gun) becomes a phallus representing male domination. Any cylindrical object that also happens to be black (such as a greased flagpole) becomes a representation of some old sexually-charged racial stereotype.

After two years at Wabash, I have yet to learn how to respond to such arguments. So I have simply learned to laugh, and I do it often. In the end, levity may well be the best way for conservatives to avoid a culture of victimization.

The ability to brush off his opponents with a laugh was never one of Spiro Agnew’s strongest suits. His style was to complain. Conservatives are fortunate that he was ultimately forced to resign in disgrace, and eyes turned to Ronald Reagan, who mastered the art of levity and captured the “can-do” spirit as opposed to the “woe is me” mantra — because when conservatives adopt a culture of victimization, they are in danger of losing much more than classroom arguments and national elections.

There was perhaps one solution to the media problem as outlined by Spiro Agnew. It consisted of regulating speech in the media, and forcing broadcasters to give time to both sides of a political debate. It was supported — at least on the level of radio broadcasting — by the Nixon administration. It was called the “Fairness Doctrine,” and today it is almost universally condemned by the right.

When conservatives fall into a culture of victimization, they are in danger of losing their most fundamental principles.

Related posts:

1. Less is More: Wabash Culture and the Conservative Movement
2. A Matter of Culture
3. Living Tradition: Father Patrick Henry Reardon on Culture

A USA Today article this past June told the sad story of a Cincinnati suburban couple, forced to alter a small part of their routine because of rising gas prices. In order to save money they had to commute into the city for work together! In one car! The article lamented that Americans were being forced to change their driving habits. The implication: carpooling clearly signals a disaster for the American lifestyle.

This story is just one example of the media’s, and the country’s, attitudes towards rising gas prices. This summer, stories like this appeared daily in the papers, hourly on cable news, and they are still showing up in the media now. The troubling thing about this media frenzy is the tone of the reporting. Why lament the changes the suburban couple made? Why not praise them? America has been spoiled by cheap gas for a long time. Keep in mind that even with these recent price increases the United States still has one of the lowest average prices in the world. According to the U.S. Department of Energy, on July 28, 2008, the U.S. average was $4.21. The average in France was $8.60, in Italy $8.88, and in the UK $8.79.

The changes made by the couple in Cincinnati are the type of changes that Americans everywhere can make in order to reduce their gasoline consumption and save themselves some money. Although the United States government should take a fresh look at its energy policies and make some much needed changes where it can, the whole solution cannot come from government policy alone. Changes should also come from individuals. Prices have gone down in recent weeks, arguably because of a decrease in demand. That couple, by driving to work together, helped bring gas prices down. Americans should realize how individual actions can make a difference and play a significant role in solving the country’s energy problems.

High gas prices are only part of the larger energy problems: America’s dependence on foreign oil and the impact of its consumption on the environment. The problem is economic, but it is also a vital national security issue and an environmental concern. America sends $700 billion overseas every year to import oil, which is a massive transfer of this country’s wealth to foreign governments, many of whom are not friendly to us. Some of these unfriendly nations have the power to cut off oil imports to the U.S., which would devastate the economy, and endanger American sovereignty. Environmentally, it is vital to put an end to what is often called America’s “oil addiction.” The U.S. has 30% of the world’s vehicles but produces half of the world’s vehicle greenhouse gas emissions per year. These are two serious problems that require strong leadership and resolve.

As to that, the energy crisis has become a major campaign issue in the 2008 Presidential election, leading to gimmicks and pandering, as happens all too often in politics. Back in May, Senator Hillary Clinton promoted the idea of a gas tax holiday during the Democratic primary contest right here in Indiana. The idea consists of suspending the gas tax for a certain period of time, therefore lowering the price of gasoline. Presumptive Republican nominee Senator John McCain also supported this idea at the time. Only Senator Barack Obama stood strong against what was clearly a political ploy – not sound policy. He should be commended for that. The gas tax holiday would only have temporarily saved Americans 18 cents a gallon and would have taken away revenue used to support our transportation infrastructure.

While he was right on the gas tax holiday, Senator Obama’s entire energy plan has several major problems. Just recently he ran an ad calling for a windfall profit tax (WPT) on oil companies and stating that he would use the revenue to give rebates of $500 to individuals and $1,000 to families to help relieve the burden of rising gas prices. Implementation of this policy would be a disaster. The WPT was tried before, in the 1980s, with dangerous results. According to a 2006 Congressional Research Service (a non-partisan congressional think tank) report, “The WPT had the effect of reducing the domestic supply of crude oil below what the supply would have been without the tax. This increased the demand for imported oil and made the United States more dependent on foreign oil.” The WPT reduced domestic oil production between “3 and 6 percent, and increased oil imports from between 8 and 16 percent.” Making the United States more dependent on foreign oil at a time when we import 70% of our oil and send $700 billion dollars overseas a year is simply irresponsible and dangerous. A little extra money might sound appealing to many Americans, especially if it is coming from the profits of the often demonized oil companies. However, not only do the costs mentioned outweigh the minor short term benefits, the WPT may also cause an increase in gas prices making that extra $1,000 completely irrelevant.

Fortunately, Senator McCain has backed off on the gas tax holiday idea and has started to take a more comprehensive approach to the energy crisis. He has pledged to invest in alternative energy sources, and has promised to create incentives for private companies to develop new technologies, including a monetary award for “the development of a battery package that has the size, capacity, cost and power to leapfrog the commercially available plug-in hybrids or electric cars. Additionally, Senator McCain supports lifting the ban on offshore drilling in the United States, which Senator Obama opposes. Senator Obama said on June 20th in Jacksonville, Florida, that he does not believe offshore drilling will save Americans any money in the short term, nor does he consider it a worthwhile endeavor because it will take ten years to produce the oil. He is right about how long it will take, which is why drilling should begin immediately. Senator Obama’s position is very shortsighted. The ban should be lifted even if it won’t lower gas prices a cent, because as domestic oil production increases, the need for imported oil decreases.

Some Federal government estimates say that around 95 billion barrels of oil exist on U.S. land at the outer continental shelf. Various other estimates have been floated, but many of these areas have not been explored by the oil companies with new sophisticated technology because there is no incentive to spend money looking if there is a ban on drilling. Last year several huge oil reserves were discovered off the coast of Brazil. One of them is believed to hold around eight billion barrels, which experts believe will make them a major exporter in coming years. With estimates as high as 95 billion barrels, lifting the ban would create a huge incentive for oil companies to increase exploration off American shores.

In order to explore the environmental impact of offshore oil drilling, the U.S. should look to the states where drilling is already happening. For instance, Louisiana uses 3,200 drilling platforms that produce 25% of the country’s domestic oil. Yet in over 50 years of oil production, its coast line has not experienced even one major oil spill. The oil spills of the past that seem to be the cause for so much concern among environmentalists have come from the transportation of oil, not offshore oil drilling. Whether the ban on offshore drilling is lifted or not, the U.S. will still transport a massive amount of oil. Also, the rigs that did not produce major oil spills in the 50s, 60s, and 70s were using the technology of that time. Today’s technology is much more advanced, and so offshore drilling is done even safer than in the past. Therefore, the danger of an oil spill from offshore drilling is not a major threat.

Yes demand needs to be reduced, and yes alternative energy sources need developing, and these issues must be addressed, but reducing dependence on foreign oil is vital to our national security, and offshore drilling helps to do that. Safe drilling is happening off the coast of many states, and any new drilling will likely be even safer. The idea is also very popular: 69% of Americans, according to a July CNN/research opinion poll favor offshore drilling. Senator Obama has recently quoted T. Boone Pickens, who is a former oil man and is currently investing in wind energy and other renewable energy sources, as saying that the U.S. can’t drill its way out of this problem. Of course it can’t, and Senator McCain agrees, but drilling can be a part of the solution.

America needs to approach this problem from every angle. Any of these options alone, investing in alternatives, creating business incentives or offshore drilling, will not do enough. There is no reason they should be mutually exclusive; these many issues can be addressed through a comprehensive plan, which must be approached with long term vision. Often the American people cannot foresee the consequences of certain policies, which is one of the reasons they elect representatives to look at the long term issues for them. Senator Obama and Senator McCain both need to realize that the energy policies the next administration supports will take time to have real impact. There are no effective short term solutions to this problem. Short term solutions usually make things more difficult in the long run, causing serious problems to be handed down to the next generation. The candidates need to accept the fact that their policies may not have major impact until they are out of office. They may not even get credit for some of their accomplishments in office, but isn’t the country’s welfare more important than personal credit? It’s time for a comprehensive energy package, and I hope that no matter who wins both Senator Obama and Senator McCain will work hard to make America energy independent.

Related posts:

1. My “Audacity of Hope”
2. Much Ado About Nothing: the Conservatism of John McCain
3. The Essence of Wabash: Crisis, The Liberal Arts, and the Cultivation of Understanding

While the Illinois Senator has less than four years under his belt in the U.S. Senate, he has already accomplished something that very few thought he could do: beat the Clinton machine in a primary. Now he has his sights set on beating John McCain in order to be the next President of the United States.

While his résumé in that regard sounds very impressive, I have reason to be worried about this obsessive movement. Earlier this year, a fellow Democratic Congressman expressed exactly what worries me about this man who wants to be President. Elijah Cummings (D-Maryland), said “This is not a campaign for President of the United States. This is a campaign to change the world.” That sounds just a tad overboard to me. I think that’s where Obama concerns me most. It is necessary to solve the problems here in the United States before trying to “change the world.”

This is not to say that everything he does concerns me. His popularity, liberalness, and ambition are all understandable to an extent – this is an election, you know. However, it is the scale of all of these things that concern me.

Being popular is not bad, but Obama is, in effect, running a campaign for President of the world – and I have a problem with that. His recent trip to Europe and the Middle East and the ensuing media frenzy (which back-fired on John McCain) ended up being a rally for followers worldwide, including nearly 200,000 people in Germany. I think we need to have allies, but I would also like to elect a President that is going to focus on the United States and not worry if Germans love him or not. He also used language at that rally that brought about images of a global community as he called himself a “citizen of the world.” I don’t know about you, but I pledge my allegiance to God and my country first and foremost, and the rest of the world further down that list. Being a good ambassador and gathering good will among nations should come after the election – not before – if he is as good at compromise as he says he is.

Please don’t get me wrong here. I appreciate some of what Obama has done. He has run (so far) a fairly clean campaign that has been full of energy and enthusiasm. I can’t criticize the man for doing that. However, I feel that I can criticize this man who wants to be President for presenting himself as something he’s not. And that’s where I disagree with his appeal to moderates.

As much as he likes to talk about being a moderate, he is far from it. According to the National Journal, he had the “most liberal” voting record in Congress in 2007. This is not my idea of a moderate politician who is able to work “across the aisle.” Obama seems to speak of “change” as a Washington outsider, but is really just another typical politician. He is no moderate and won’t be if elected.

Another worry to me personally when considering Barack Obama (and the state of the conservative movement as a whole) is his ability to attract young Evangelical Christian voters. This means one of two things: they don’t care about their religious beliefs when it comes to politics, or they don’t really listen to what Obama believes. And I think the latter is quite possibly the more likely one. All they hear is “change”, “yes we can”, and “hope,” and they immediately turn and follow like sheep. This is even more concerning to me than John McCain’s lack of solid conservative credentials. Sure, Obama has a plan, but can most of his followers clamoring for change give details about them?

Here is the point: Do I think change needs to come? Why, certainly. Do I think we need to have hope in America? Of course. Should America buy into the “hope” and “change” that Obama brings? On that one, I’m not so sure. The American people should look long and hard at what kind of change Obama brings to the table, before following him blindly through shifting positions and hollow words.

Whoever wins this election is going to have a lot to deal with anyway, but maybe I have the “audacity of hope” that the candidate who wins has experience made of more than just popularity.

Related posts:

1. Much Ado About Nothing: the Conservatism of John McCain
2. A Glimmer of Hope: Taking the Last Stand to Really Fix Healthcare
3. Off Shore Drilling: A Long Term Solution for America’s Energy Crisis

Perhaps nothing is more central in the Republican Party platform than our opposition to abortion. McCain has a solid anti-abortion record, going back to he beginnings of his political career in the 1980s. Though he characterizes himself as pro-life, it is difficult for some conservatives to seem him that way given his past support for embryonic stem cell research. But as science has progressed, one has to wonder whether the debate over stem cells is a debate of a bygone era. And perhaps what is more important on the abortion issue is McCain’s long-standing pledge to appoint conservative justices to the Supreme Court, whom he says will be “in the mold of Justices Roberts and Alito.”

Another area that has given some conservatives heartache is the issue of McCain and economics. John McCain has admitted that he is not well versed in economics. He has never been a darling of supply-siders, but his calls for less spending are admirable, to say the least, and his plan to lower the corporate tax rate has won praise from many economic conservatives. McCain says that the reason he voted against the 2001 Bush tax cuts was because they didn’t include spending limits. McCain likes to say that had the country adopted his line of thinking in 2001, we would currently have spending under more control and could cut tax even further.

Two of the most difficult problems that conservatives have had with McCain over the last several years are policies on global warming and immigration. There are still many conservatives who are unsure that carbon emissions are the contributing factor to global warming. John McCain, on the other hand, has been to the polar ice cap, thinks that global warming is a problem, and believes that even if global warming turns out to not be true, at least his environmental policies will create a cleaner planet for our children and grandchildren. And even though many conservatives still distrust McCain on immigration, the Senator has shifted his stance, recognizing that before any sort of comprehensive immigration reform can be passed, the borders must first be secured.

These are just a few of the issues that have caused some conservatives to be slow to support John McCain. In an election year tilted against Republicans, picking a nominee who could excite moderates and conservatives was difficult. In early 2007, as the primary season was in its infancy, my roommate and I argued, sometimes heatedly, about who should be the nominee. I was an economic conservative who didn’t understand nor have much sympathy for the religious right. My roommate was a devout Christian who didn’t understand or have much sympathy for business conservatives. After several intense arguments over a period of months, my roommate and I, both of us strong supporters of the Iraq War, though representative of two of the very differing parts of the Republican Party, came to the realization that the best candidate would be John McCain. If he could unite us, we thought, could he not unite the Republican Party as well?

Only time will tell whether or not McCain is conservative enough to motivate conservatives to vote for him and moderate enough to attract independent votes. The facts are clear though. McCain is against abortion, supports tax and spending cuts, and has pledged to appoint strict constructionist judges to the federal bench. John McCain is not a liberal; he is a conservative, albeit a moderate one. It seems to me that all the fuss about his conservatism is just that – much ado about nothing.

Related posts:

1. Race, Conservatism, and the GOP: An Interview with Joseph C. Phillips
2. Intellectual Conservatism on Campus: Has Campus Conservatism Lost its Way?
3. Advancing Conservatism: An Interview with Kate Obenshain

The idea that human nature is universal might seem simple to you, and it is. All true ideas are simple because anyone can grasp them. However, believe it or not, you are about to enter a world that treats the idea of a universal human nature as simple-minded foolishness. The really sad thing is that your professors will not try to complicate this idea. To complicate an idea, you have to first take it seriously. Rather than argue about this idea, most of your professors will simply ignore it. You see, the idea of a universal human nature is contrary to everything most professors, at least in the humanities, believe. And that makes it one of the most radical ideas you can hold as a student.

The central dogma of higher education goes by many names, but its basic thrust is as easy to grasp as it is hard to miss. Whether it is called multiculturalism, social constructionism, or left-leaning liberalism, the bottom line is that higher education in America these days promotes cultural relativism. Colleges do not advertise this fact for obvious reasons, but look closely at what they say in their promotional literature. Colleges talk about broadening your perspective, expanding your horizons, and offering you new experiences, but they do not talk about teaching you how to make moral judgments, how to distinguish the beautiful from the ugly, and how to seek the truth. That is because secular, liberal arts colleges and public universities do not believe that you should make moral judgments, contemplate the beautiful, or acknowledge universal truths. And they don’t believe these things because they do not believe there is something called human nature.

The College you have chosen to attend is no worse, and probably a little bit better, than most colleges when it comes to multiculturalism, but it is always wise to be prepared when you go to school. What you most need to know is that the “higher” in higher education no longer refers to the high culture of the greatest works of Western civilization. In fact, higher education has been trying to dismantle this culture for decades. Higher education today is all about lowering the great books and great ideas of the past to the same basic level. Rather than ask you to climb the great heights of the classics, professors these days will ask you to tear them down. Rather than ask you to test your intellectual strength by pitting yourself against the greatest thinkers of the past, professors will teach you the intellectual equivalent of etiquette and manners. You will learn how to talk without embarrassing yourself in polite, educated company. You will learn what to say, not how to think.

Education used to hold students to the highest standards of Western culture, but now it gives students bits and pieces of many cultures. Nonetheless, multiculturalism is not a plot devised by left-leaning liberals to dumb down America, although it often seems like that. Instead, multiculturalism follows inexorably from the rejection of a universal human nature. If there is no single human nature, then there is no single standard for human excellence either. Indeed, there is no single standard for anything, from rationality to morality. When rationality and morality are reduced to social constructions, the best we can do is learn how societies construct things, rather than why certain constructions endure the test of time. Learning becomes a matter of uncovering the social and historical context behind every book and every idea. Rather than ask what a text has to teach us, we now have to dig deep in order to ask what the text is trying to hide. And the answer to that question is presupposed from the start: what is foundational to all social constructions just happens to turn out to be what is so self-congratulatory about modern education. All books and ideas are trying to hide their prejudices about race, gender, and class. Learning is about identifying with the experiences of the victims of social injustice—experiences that will be held up for you as absolutely different from your own.

Multiculturalism might seem like a harmless game of cultural tourism mixed with a little detective work, with the crime (sexism and racism) always being the same, but it is actually much more serious than that. Liberal professors assume that you, the student, come to their classes believing in universal truths, and they think that it is their job to get you to leave such baggage behind. Since professors these days do not believe in human nature, they think that the most important thing they can do is to teach you that all values are relative. And they do this by trying to convince you that you do not understand other cultures because you are trapped in your own.

Here is how the game is played. They will first try to convince you that you are a racist, a sexist, and an enemy of social justice. Then they will argue that the victims of racism, sexism, and cultural elitism have a privileged view of these issues. It is as if the victim of the crime were to be given the first, last and only word in a trial, with no cross examination and no other witnesses called. Your job as a student in the multicultural classroom is to grant unquestioned authority to those who come from underprivileged or marginalized backgrounds. You have to do this because, you will learn, because Western culture has exploited every other culture, and your experiences are so shaped by Western culture that you cannot question those who criticize you. And thus you will become a good cultural leftist (which is the shape liberalism takes in the academy), or, if you are not convinced by these arguments, you will learn how to fake it for the sake of getting a good grade.

All of this is profoundly anti-Christian, which is why Christian students are typically the most radical questioners of higher education. Because Christians believe in a universal human nature, they also believe that we can make universal truth claims about human nature. But does that mean that every statement about human nature is true. Of course not! A central part of education is learning how to argue by testing your own ideas about human nature against the ideas found in great books and the ideas espoused by your teachers and fellow students. Christians believe, for example, that because we are created in the image of God, every single person is of infinite worth, but Christians also believe that humans are fallen creatures in need of grace and forgiveness. Christians are thus able to appreciate both the majesty and the misery of human actions. That is a powerful framework for questioning what you read and hear. What Christians do not believe is that every culture has its own truths and that the only way to learn about another culture is to refrain from seeking the universal truth.

To return to the central truth of Christianity, Christians believe that God experienced the totality of the human condition by becoming incarnate in Jesus Christ. That is, God did not need to become incarnate in each one of us in order to understand every one of us. Each one of us can experience a personal relationship with Jesus because Jesus was completely one of us. If cultural relativism is true, then Christianity is doomed, because God became incarnate in a very specific person at a particular time and place. From the perspective of multiculturalism, God could not have understood what it means to be human by becoming a Jewish carpenter from Nazareth. It follows that if God did understand man by becoming a man, then multiculturalism is a lie.

Applying this truth to the world of higher education, we can say that every human life is, in principle, sufficient for the discovery of every truth. You don’t need new experiences to become educated; you just need deeper ways of understanding your own experience. As a human being who is in the midst of passing into adulthood, nothing human is alien to you. You need to learn how to think more carefully, imagine more fully, and judge more humanely, but you do not need to learn that your beliefs are wrong because they are limited by your experiences and that the only way to broaden those beliefs is to immerse yourself in radically new experiences. What is true in any book you read or any idea you consider is true because it is true for everyone, and its truth is available to you because you already have the rudiments of what it means to be human.

Christianity inspired and informed the highest achievements of Western culture in order to challenge people to think about the eternal things, like heaven and hell, God, grace, forgiveness, and death. A college education should immerse you in the highest achievements of Western culture in order to give you the tools to enrich your experiences and refine you moral judgments. Education in this sense is about coming to know yourself, not because you construct your own reality but because your nature is the same as everyone else’s. When a multiculturalist professor tells you that all truth is relative, ask him how he knows that, and when he tells you that Western culture is wicked and wrong, ask him what cultural criteria he is using to make that comparison. Better yet, do not ask your professors these questions, because multiculturalism is killing higher education as sure as the Romans killed Jesus. Share your questions with your friends, find a professor friendly to your faith, and keep higher education in your prayers.

Related posts:

1. Finding Christ in College
2. Is Christ Manly? A New Christian Movement Seeks to Restore Manliness to Scripture

1. Study! – For God’s sake, study, study, study, and study some more. Starting your freshman year with 100-level courses, you’ll find that Wabash makes you work hard to earn a good GPA. It all starts with your freshman year. Some professors will give you a little leeway for a little bit because you’re a freshman – you’re still getting yourself acclimated to the rigors of Wabash College. However, if you don’t crack open a book, whatever leeway your professor gives you won’t do you the least amount of good. I can’t tell you how much time you should study – I don’t know you (yet). The best advice that I can give you is that you should study the material until you feel that you can brilliantly expound upon it in a blue book (because you’ll need too). If you’ve pledged a fraternity, you’re going to have to study a great deal during your mandatory study table hours, so my words are merely reinforcing one of the great strengths of Greek life. However, if you’re an independent (like I was and am), you’ll need to develop the self-discipline to study in your dorm or make the trek over to the Lilly Library. If you can master the art of studying, your time at Wabash will be infinitely easier and more enjoyable.

2. Get Involved – You are going to hear it time and time again during your first few months, and it’s imperative that you do it. Though we’re a small college, there’s no shortage of extracurricular activities. We have a radio station (WNDY), a newspaper (The Bachelor), a service-oriented fraternity (Alpha Phi Omega), intramurals, many political and religious organizations of various stripes, and many other clubs that simply defy categorization (i.e. the Brew Society). Even though you are a freshman, it is possible to be deeply involved in your organizations. If you’re enthusiastic, all the better. Speaking from personal experience, I had articles of mine published in almost every issue of The Phoenix last year, and at the start of the second semester I was named the Copy Editor for the publication. Many of the officers of the College Republicans and Democrats, the Progressive Student Movement, and Wabash Christian Men were freshmen last year. While you are not going to be the head of the organization (unless you start it), you can still potentially hold some ego-stroking title that will look good on a résumé in a couple years. Also, your extracurriculars are where you are going to meet some of your best friends. While your fraternity/pledge brothers or housing roommates are great people and you’ll (more likely than not) like them, getting involved with organizations allows you to meet a number of people who you probably wouldn’t know otherwise. Some of the best friends that I made last year were those I met in my various organizations. Also – let’s face it – Crawfordsville’s not exactly the most exciting city in the nation. Working on articles for publications or preparing for upcoming weeks is a great way to kill boredom at Wabash (and believe me, there’ll occasionally be the need for that at Wabash). All in all, get involved. What do you have to lose?

3. Revel in the Traditions – Wabash, while not an ancient institution, is still an old school. We were established when Crawfordsville was a frontier town on the fringes of American civilization. Over the course of our 175 years, various traditions have taken root in the Wabash community. Some of them are majestic and regal (Alma Mater Sing). Others are mildly eccentric (don’t walk under the Arch). Others yet are simply bizarre (Chapel Sing) and perhaps borderline illegal (Pan-Hell – you’ll see what I mean when that rolls around). Wabash is home to the oldest football rivalry this side of the Alleghenies. Be sure that you get your ticket when the time comes – it’s definitely one of the highlights of life at Wabash! Also, every freshman should do Chapel Sing. Greeks are required by their houses to do so, but Independents make the choice themselves. Chapel Sing is quite odd. You sing our infamously long fight song (“Old Wabash”) nonstop for 45 minutes while getting hazed in sundry ways by the Sphinx Club. It’s different, perhaps unpleasant, but it provides you with great memories that you’ll be laughing at for years to come. Also, the most obvious characteristic of our college – we’re all-male – is a tradition that’s lasted for 175 years, and I pray that it’ll continue for the remainder of this institution’s history. We’re different – you can say that we add some diversity into a predominantly uniform educational world – and you should celebrate it, not challenge it or complain about it. All-male education has its benefits, and it’s imperative that it continues on our campus. Wabash is a traditional place with some great and unique traditions. Your time at Wabash will be much better if you revel in them rather than ignore or rebel against them.

4. Know the Song – I’ve been told that “Old Wabash” is the longest college fight song in the nation. Whether or not that’s true or not I do not know, but it certainly feels like it. You sing two relatively long stanzas, the refrain twice, and the chorus twice. Learning “Old Wabash” certainly takes more effort to know than do the fight songs of the University of Wisconsin or Indiana University. All the same, learn it. We sing the chorus multiple times during our football games. After every basketball game – win or lose – the song rings out boisterously on Chadwick Court. Also, every Thursday morning, the Chapel Talks are finished with a rousing rendition of “Old Wabash.” You’re going to encounter that song so often enough that you might as well learn it! Indeed, the odd ducks on campus are those who don’t know it. “Old Wabash” – just learn it!

5. Attend the Chapel Talks – Every Thursday morning at the Pioneer Chapel, we have something called “Chapel Talks.” For 30 minutes or so, a Wabash professor, alumnus, or administrator gives a talk on a topic related to Wabash or to life in general. While sometimes the talks are less than inspiring, other times the speaker knocks the ball out of the park with his talk. If you go to Chapel, you’ll learn about the history of our college and our traditions. You’ll appreciate this college so much more by making the short trip to the Chapel on Thursday mornings. If you choose the Greek life, you’ll be required by your house to attend the talks during your pledgeship. However, I’d encourage you to attend as many as you can after your pledgeship is over. I would also encourage Independents to attend as well. We’re not required to do anything or go anywhere – that’s the great beauty of the Independent life – but that doesn’t mean that you shouldn’t participate in one of the bare-bone basic traditions at Wabash. So attend Chapel Talks – it’ll be well worth your while, since you’ll come to love and appreciate our community even more.

6. Know Your Professors – I have friends who attend large state universities, and they regale me with tales of 500 student classes, TA’s you can’t understand, and professors they never see outside of the lecture hall. That’s not the case here at Wabash. Since we’re a small school, you get to be very much acquainted with your professors. They’ll know you intimately enough to joke with you and playfully harass you. There’s a closeness between the faculty and the student body that can only exist at a small college. Take advantage of it. While many professors do have set office hours for you to visit them, at Wabash those schedules are fairly flexible. Most professors have an open door policy and are more than happy to assist you in any way possible. Be it class problems or career advice or simply chatting, Wabash professors are by and large delighted to entertain your presence in their offices. Visit them when needed. While you should remember that they need to get some work done, don’t be afraid to walk through their doors. Some of the best experiences I had my freshman year were simply talking with professors in their offices. While the professors are neither gods nor infallible, you should try to obtain as much knowledge from them as possible – especially during your freshman year, since you’re still trying to find your way through college.

7. Ask Questions – You’re a freshman. Your experiences with Wabash until now probably have been limited to the Admissions Visit Days, scholarship weekends, and the various literature and postcards with which the Admissions Office has deluged your home. The first month or so of life at Wabash may seem strange and confusing at first. Don’t worry. If you have any questions, ask someone. Sophomores, juniors, seniors, and faculty know that you’re new to Wabash, so they’ll be more than happy to assist you in anyway possible. People at Wabash care about you – we like to see our freshman retention rates remaining high. So if you have any questions or concerns, simply ask.

8. Abide by the Gentleman’s Rule – “The student is expected to conduct himself at all times, both on and off the campus, as a gentleman and a responsible citizen.” The College has one and only one rule – the Gentleman’s Rule. Now, that rule can be interpreted and enforced in sundry different ways, but there’s still only one rule. Here’s a quick and easy translation of that rule that might make it easier to understand and abide by it: “Don’t be an idiot.” We can debate over what an idiot is, but I’d apply the Golden Rule in my decision process if I were you. Also, look at the Gentleman’s Rule as a means of liberty. Think of it this way – unless you do something that’s completely beyond the pale, the Deans are not going to be looking over your shoulder to see if you broke some minute rule printed in a handbook. So enjoy the Gentleman’s Rule – and abide by it.

Looking back at my freshman year, I can say that I’m happy with how my first year at Wabash turned out and set me up for a good sophomore year. The advice I’ve given in this article simply reflects things that I believe aided my transition into life at Wabash and my relative success here. My advice may not work for everyone. As you find your place at Wabash, I’m sure you’ll discover things that I didn’t mention that probably should have been in this article, and you might find that my advice didn’t help you in the least bit. All the same, these are just some nuggets of wisdom for you to digest. Welcome to Wabash, and I hope that you’ll be successful in all your endeavors here. Wabash Always Fights!

Related posts:

1. To Be a Wabash Man: Five Words of Wisdom for the Class of 2014
2. A Song of Chapel Sing: On Freshman Homecoming 2011
3. On Being a Freshman at Wabash College