Ripped jeans are a closet staple because, even though they’re brand new, they look like they have history, and this distressed look is attractive. Surprisingly, the same principle can be applied to the recently founded Emory Whig. The Whig, a student-run conservative publication, mimics an old conservative aesthetic to incite backlash and feed its founders’ egos.
On Nov. 20, the nascent Emory Whig published its first set of controversial articles. These included Whig Editor-in-Chief Robert Schmad’s (23C) entertaining rant against premarital sex and another writer’s confession that this summer’s Black Lives Matter protests turned him toward conservatism. On Dec. 4, a few others were published, including an appeal to free speech following pro-Trump chalkings being erased at Emory’s Oxford campus and a helpful guide to disagreeing with people. Read them if you’d like, but you won’t find many ideas there that you wouldn’t see on Fox News or online discussion boards. As former Wheel Managing Editor Isaiah Sirois (19C) noted, the authors are mere “provocateurs” who use “hyperbole for hyperbole’s sake.”
While the articles’ content provokes outrage, the Whig’s website design manufactures gravitas. Where most websites today seek a modern look, every text on their site is in the Baskerville font ripped straight from the 1750s. At the top of the page, an eagle bears a scroll declaring “Leading a Horse to Water,” implying that the Emory community is a thirsty horse in need of their guidance. Below the site’s title is its founding date written in Latin numerals; a casual viewer might not know that the publication is only a few weeks old.
This obfuscation is no accident. Conservatism is an ideology broadly seeking to preserve the past and resist change. Consequently, its younger adherents find themselves defending a past they have never lived. When that past is an unjust one, this minor dilemma becomes a potentially treacherous endeavor. The 1950s nuclear family ideal that Schmad defended in a recent article, for example, is built on sexism in a society that actively oppresses minorities.
Faced with a conflict between an adoration for the past and the moral failure inherent therein, it becomes easier for the young conservative to invent a more defensible history. I suppose this is why the Whig borrows their name from an extinct political party and espouses an aesthetic that screams age and maturity. They quote George Washington and cite centuries-old political analyses while bemoaning the sexual revolution of the 1960s. But, unlike older conservatives fighting to preserve the societal norms they grew up with, young conservatives can never understand the world they lionize. Schmad was born decades after the sexual revolution and can only guess what life was like before it.
The young conservatives’ motivation for historical invention is simple: they seek to use that aesthetic to feed their ego. Annoyed by their peers’ monolithic progressivism, young conservatives seek to define themselves by the past and prove themselves better than everyone by virtue of their conservatism. The past’s gravitas enamors them, convincing them that espousing conservatism will make them somehow better than liberals. The controversy they invite is far from a deterrent; in fact, it’s part of the goal. Greater public anger means that more people are thinking and talking about their ideas, which fuels their rank egotism.
Maybe this is why the Whig’s site seems like an imitation of an old newspaper. Maybe this is why Schmad, like many esoteric online memes, bizarrely quotes serial killer Ted Kaczynski. Maybe this is why, as Siriois argues, the Whig seems intent on provoking the Emory community and drawing attention to themselves instead of fulfilling their mission of bringing free speech to Emory.
Emory does not have a strong tradition of conservative thought, at least publicly. The College Republicans disbanded and reformed a few years ago after poor leadership caused the club’s downfall. I haven’t found any mention of a past Emory publication at all similar to the Whig. Consequently, the Whig’s editors must advertise faux prestige and authority for their conservatism.
From Instagram comments to annoyed responses on their site to Wheel articles, the Whig has received plenty of backlash for their articles. Not only did the founders expect this backlash, they probably counted on it. The only way for them to feel that the Whig has failed is for everyone to ignore it. So, after this article, I don’t intend on thinking much about the Whig, and neither should anyone else.
Martin Shane Li (22Ox) is from Rockville, Maryland.
Martin Li (he/him) (22Ox) is from Rockville, Maryland, majoring in philosophy, and neuroscience and behavioral biology. Outside the Wheel, he is involved in the Oxford Chess club and Leftist Coalition.
Martin,
I am disappointed by your work here, especially given your major in philosophy (which should be the discipline most open to ideas). I can only imagine the powers that be deciding you must be the one to castigate The Whig.
You seem to miss the point of the publication: The Wheel has taken direct efforts to ensure that Conservatives, Republicans, or even moderates and Libertarians cannot have their voices heard. I imagine you have at least some knowledge of these tactics. Look at your opinion page. When was the last time anything truly right-of-center got published? If the Wheel were committed to free exchange of ideas, you would expect to see at least a noticable minority of articles promoting alternate views. That would seem to be the purpose of an opinion page. Instead, the echelon at the top of The Wheel has decided its mission is instead to push just one side. Instead of earlier times, where debate articles were encouraged, it seems the current leadership has no interest in good-faith political discourse. The Whig must exist because The Wheel is failing to do its job on its own.
Republican ideas aren’t fringe or bigotry. They certainly aren’t outdated. You must know this Martin. As a philosophy major yourself, I expect you would agree that it ought to be possible to learn something from our ancestors, who were not perfect people but are remembered as great for the good things they did in their lives. Conservative ideas do tend to be somewhat traditionalist, but that isn’t a bad thing.
Speaking from experience, The Whig is accomplishing its goal (I think we are in agreement on this one). I notice that I am able to discuss ideas with others more, and find the points where we agree and those where we don’t. I think that’s ultimately better than slandering one side and ascribing egotistical motives, don’t you think Martin? Or, I suppose we can go back to calling for the silencing of debate, but that’s up to you, Martin.
Claiming that the nuclear family oppresses minorities is absurd. Mass incarceration and generational poverty, two of the greatest challenges facing African Americans, are in part fueled by youths growing up with broken families/absent fathers. Black children who grow up with 2 parents see much better average outcomes than those who don’t, your claim to the contrary is outright regressive.
I find it strange that you would make such an odd and unsupported argument while simultaneously accusing your rival publication of practicing irresponsible sensationalism. Do better.
You misunderstand, the whig is an OANN to the wheel’s MSNBC… they are just not on the same playing field. And I couldn’t come up with a written publication metaphor because, well…crazy conservatives don’t really read.
Yeah, what’s up with them? They’re using a fluffed up Nazi symbol, the Parteladler, NOT the Reichsadler as their banner. That alone speaks volumes. I’m an alumna, writer, and political activist. I came across their FB ad and am deeply concerned. I never wrote for the paper in my years at Emory, but followed closely. This cannot stand.
The Emory Whig symbol has nothing to do with a Reichsadler or a Parteiadler. Why are you trying to link the conservative paper at Emory to literal Nazism? What are your motives? hmmm