“I think it’s important to realize how much the world has changed.”
It’s the kind of phrase that sounds bold at first, but blander the second time. But context matters. The world has changed — a backlash from nationalist populists against the unpleasant backwash of globalism has grabbed headlines by the throat. This past year, we’ve seen Britain exit the European Union, a rejection of refugees from multiple countries and resurgence of the far right in countries such as France and the Netherlands. At the epicenter, of course,was Donald Trump, the tweet-mugging, bombastic, always entertaining leader of the free world.
On March 13, Irvin McCullough of the Cornell Republicans authored a well-reasoned letter advocating for the repeal of Dodd-Frank Conflict Minerals Rule and challenging the student-led campaign urging Cornell to make conflict mineral-free purchasing decisions. His myriad assertions deserve responses. Contrary to McCullough’s claim that conflict-free initiatives have increased militia-led violence, evidence-based assessments attest to their achievement of the opposite outcome. According to reports from the Belgian research group IPIS, the implementation of Dodd-Frank’s conflict mineral regulations has coincided with most paramilitary-controlled mines becoming entirely conflict-free. A cluster of 41 civil society groups in North Kivu recently joined a total of 101 Congo-based human in unequivocally condemning the possible suspension of federally mandated conflict mineral audits, saying that the eastern Congo has U.S. government mandates to thank for increased security in the region.
Yesterday, four of my colleagues coauthored a letter raving against Dodd-Frank’s Conflict Minerals Rule, §1502, which is in President Trump’s crosshairs after a leaked Executive Order allegedly advocated its suspension. Specifically, my colleagues believe §1502 decreased militia-led violence in the Democratic Republic of Congo. It did not. They correctly judged the intent of §1502 — and I agree with the statute’s intent — but not its result. My response will explain the regulation, expose its failure, and argue against their mandate that Cornell University waste its endowment and our tuition on useless audits. My colleagues asserted that §1502 “prevents American companies from purchasing conflict minerals.” Well, that’s a very simplified picture of what the statute does.
Re: “Santorum Calls Protests Disrupting Lecture Sign of ‘Liberal Intolerance’ at Cornell,” News, Nov. 23
To the Editor:
I hope Cornell can become an institution where different points of view are celebrated, not silenced. Any university, particularly an Ivy League school, should encourage respectful debate with opposing viewpoints. Unfortunately at Wednesday’s Rick Santorum event a small, but vocal group of students inappropriately interrupted his speech claiming that his views are “offensive” to some. The Cornell Republicans did not invite Senator Santorum to campus because we expected a majority of the student body to agree with him; rather we hoped that his perspectives would be educational to students at a university which typically only provides one point of view.
I remember the first time I saw it: I was a few steps outside my townhouse, clamoring for something spontaneous to do when, as a godsend in response to my boredom, a girl I vaguely recognized invited me to join her and her friends in a trek to the forbidden lands of a new construction site on Cornell’s campus. Under the protective veil of a late Thursday night, we slipped into the bottom floor of what would soon be my home away from home: Klarman Hall. Back then, it was just stone and sawdust. Now, Klarman is the place where I do most of my work. Whether I’m lucky enough to earn my own chair or condemned to a spot on the floor, I usually find my way to somewhere in the building after my classes during the week.
Re: “Cornell Republicans Break Party Lines, Endorse Gary Johnson,” News, Sept. 2
To the Editor:
After having heard about the Cornell Republicans decision to endorse Gov. Gary Johnson for President, I felt the need to write a letter regarding this decision. First and foremost, I am appalled by the words with which the CRs used to endorse Governor Johnson, going on to claim that he is a “true conservative.” Not only is this an insult to conservatives, but also an affirmation of ignorance as to what conservatism actually is. All it takes to observe this is a brief trip to Gov. Johnson’s website to realize that this man is surely no conservative! Surely, there are some Republicans that may be at odds with the GOP on social issues among others, but to endorse the Johnson-Weld ticket and claim that it is a “truly conservative” ticket is outright deception! The kicker to all of this now is that the organization seeks to call themselves the “Cornell Conservatives.” Calling themselves this after a Johnson endorsement is an additional insult to conservatism in and of itself. If the CRs were interested in true conservatism, they would have backed Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) from the very start of the campaign. Instead, the organization decided to frantically endorse Johnson at the last minute to try and halt Trump. True conservatives are men and women built in the molds of Ronald Reagan, Barry Goldwater, Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, Robert Bork, William F. Buckley, Jr. and a variety of others. To claim that Gary Johnson is a “true conservative” is an insult to the work and lives of these remarkable symbols and hallmarks of American conservatism! If the Cornell Republicans have an issue with a Trump endorsement, then perhaps simply advising to “vote your conscience” is a better suggestion, rather than deception and falsely branding Governor Johnson.
Avid readers of the Jacobin may be able to surmise from my previous columns that I am not a member of, nor a fan of, the Cornell Republicans club. Or, more accurately given recent events, I was not a member of the Cornell Republicans club during the time when such a thing existed. That being said, I was disappointed to hear on Saturday that the New York Federation of College Republicans had voted to revoke the Cornell Republicans’ charter after their endorsement of “libertarian” presidential candidate Gary Johnson (who, it is worth noting, was a Republican for most of his career, and only chose to hoist the Libertarian banner once he dropped out of the 2012 Republican presidential primary). The NYFCR argues that it is frowned upon for a College Republicans chapter to forgo endorsing the Republican nominee, and has apparently decided it is unforgivable to give that endorsement to any other candidate, such as Mr. Johnson. In any other election cycle the NYFCR would be on stronger ground.
I am about as conservative as they come — I’m pro-life, pro-gun, pro-defense, anti-tax and spend, anti-regulation, pro-tax reform and pro-school choice. I firmly believe that the free market is the best possible route to lift up the poor and working class, and that the nation cannot continue on its reckless spending spree. And it is for this very reason that I will never, under any circumstances, vote for Donald J. Trump. Though there are many different strains of conservatism (libertarianism, populism, classical liberalism), conservatives across the board believe in a few basic principles: government is a necessary evil but should be restrained, a strong military is the best defense against tyranny and, above all, every human-being is endowed with inherent, inalienable rights. In the eyes of most conservatives, the Obama years have served as a direct assault to these ideals.
Over the weekend, Republican candidate Donald Trump was forced to deal with increasingly negative publicity pointed at his primary campaign, as more moderate and “establishment” Republicans grow increasingly concerned about Trump’s likely nomination as their presidential candidate. Trump’s campaign continues to snag at every turn: within the past week, his rally in Chicago was cancelled due to clashes between protesters and supporters inside the venue, and his campaign manager was accused of grabbing a reporter from conservative news site Brietbart so hard that he left bruises on her arm. Both the media and members of his party are accusing him, almost everyday, of being a liar, a racist and an instigator of violence. And yet, remarkably, Trump still won the majority of the delegates awarded in the March 15 primaries, including the 99 delegates Florida gave out in a winner-take-all style. It has become distressingly clear that Trump’s supporters are with him for the long haul and are not likely to be swayed by his aggressive, hostile or discriminatory statements and actions.
“I’m a huge Hillary supporter, so obviously I was slightly disappointed by the results,” Saber said. “But at the same time, I did expect Iowa to be a tight race for Sanders and Clinton because of the demographics in the state.”
