The Princeton Tory 35.1

T H E

A

P R I N C E T O N

TORY

JOURNAL

OF

CONSERVATIVE

T I P P I N G THE

ROAD

BACK

VOLUME

XXXV

AND

MODERATE

THOUGHT

P O I N T FROM

--

THE

ISSUE

1

EDGE

PUBLISHER'S NOTE Dear Tories, As the presidential cycle jostles in its sleep at the

gendered interactions. Finally, Akhil Rajasekar

weekly announcements of Democratic hopefuls, the

identifies the push for D.C. statehood as an example

Tory happily underwent its own annual transition of

of political expediency supplanting respect for the

power. We are happy to introduce the 35th Managing

institutions of the American polity.

board of Tory. For those of you who do not know me,

Our new design editor, Grace Koh, has also

my name is Joaquim Brooks, and I am junior from

opened up a new avenue for the Tory - namely

Washington D.C. I am quite pleased to succeed my

cartoons replete with a paradigm that could rival

friend, outgoing publisher Christian Schmidt, and

that of The New Yorker’s.

introduce my own successor, Jeff Zymeri, our new

Thank you for reading, Princeton, and most

Editor-in-Chief. This year promises many great things

importantly, for engaging with these ideas. I am

for the Tory, I’m happy to present them to you now.

always happy to discuss, and always feel free to

First off, we are pleased to see the news team

approach a Tory to do so!

continue to cover current events on Campus that are overlooked by our competitors, illuminating larger

Joaquim Brooks '20

trends salient to Princeton students. We have chosen

Publisher

to reprint in this issue our coverage of the slated white supremacist rally and how right-of-center professors responded to it. More generally, however, you can find news coverage on our refurbished website and revitalized social media accounts.

Notice also the improved quality of our opinion pieces, which I think speak for themselves. Our theme this time around is one concerned with tipping points, and the cultural and political crossroads where we find ourselves. Kateryn McReynolds makes the argument for the immediacy and importance of the discussion that has arisen surrounding infanticide, an issue adjacent to and interconnected with abortion.

The disturbing justifications that have arisen in the last month for both of these practices require us, personally and nationally, to identify when innocent life begins and to demand its protection. Jacob Brown calls for the introduction of a third-party candidate to end the widespread frustration with the current radicalization and polarization. We shall see if the nation will gladly welcome greater political competition of ideas. Will Nolan proposes we reframe the discussion about feminism in way that doesn’t trap us in unhealthy anthropology, crucial in the face of mounting dissatisfaction with the norm for

i | The Princeton Tory | 2019

T H E

P R I N C E T O N

TORY VOLUMEÂ XXXV

01

02

04

06

08

--

ISSUE

1

WHY HAROLD SCHULTZ SHOULD RUN FOR PRES: IT'S NOT BECAUSE HE'LL WIN Jacob Brown

PRINCETON PROFESSORS CONDEMN WHITE SUPREMACIST RALLY Hannah Baynesan

THE CASE AGAINST D.C. STATEHOOD Akhil Rajasekar

THE TIPPING POINT: WHEN DOES ABORTION APPROACH INFANTICIDE? Kateryn McReynolds

THE COST OF LIFE Will Nolan

ii | The Princeton Tory | 2019

PUBLISHER Joaquim Brooks '20

EDITOR - IN - CHIEF Jeff Zymeri '20

SENIOR OPINION EDITOR Akhil Rajasekar '21

OPINION EDITORS Max Parsons '20 Stephen Phillips '20 Nick Wooldridge '21

NEWS EDITORS Anne Marie Wright '20 Hannah Baynesan '22

COPY EDITORS Robert Doar '22 Thomas Morris '20

DESIGN EDITORS Grace Koh '20 Sonya Isenberg '20

FINANCIAL MANAGER Will Crawford '20

EVENTS MANAGER Nick Sileo '20

DISTRIBUTION MANAGER Jeb Banavige '20

STAFF WRITERS Will Nolan '19 Jacob Brown '20

CONTRIBUTING WRITER Kateryn McReynolds '20

BOARD OF TRUSTEES Anna Bray Duff '92 Peter Heinecke '87 Ira Leeds '06 Brian Tvenstrup '95 Timothy Webster '99 James Haynes '18

iii | The Princeton Tory | 2019

HOWARD SCHULTZ:

WHY HE SHOULD RUN FOR PRESIDENT

Jacob Brown

Opinion

American political parties are stuck in a rut. The Democrats’ “Green New Deal” is close to becoming accepted orthodoxy.

Republicans have convinced themselves that lowering taxes and increasing spending will eliminate the United States’ nearly $20trillion debt. Every day brings a new slate of radical policy being adopted by the party faithful, shortly followed by members of Congress and presidential candidates. Extremism is the norm, and voters are disillusioned. Voter turnout in the previous presidential election was a dismal 55.5 % of eligible voters. Compare that to countries like the United Kingdom, where turnout was 68.7%, or France, whose previous presidential election netted a 77.8% turnout. American voters clearly believe that their votes do not make a difference and their perspectives are not represented represented in the existing political parties. What to do?

Enter Howard Schultz. A middle-of-the-road-pragmatist, Schultz promises a socially-liberal fiscally-conservative agenda that appeals to voters tired of the Trump reality show, but fearful of the Democrats’ identity politics and lefter-than-left economic ideas. He is a charismatic speaker, a capable self-made business leader, and an outsider free of political baggage. What is not to like?

Actually, quite a lot. But that is not the subject of this article. Schultz’s contribution to the presidential race is not his policy ideas, but his mere presence. For the first time since Ross Perot’s 1996 presidential campaign, America has a viable third party candidate who will change the ideological framework of the campaign and its candidates, even though his chances of winning are slim. A Howard Schultz campaign will force Republicans and Democrats to break out of the two-party system that has entrenched political polarization and constricted over the past three decades, pushing them to adopt platforms that appeal to a novel constituency: the political center.

To understand why this is, we first need to understand how the current system arrived at its current state. It is a fact of that the mathematics of the current system used to elect the president – a popular vote grouped by state – heavily favors the formation of two (and only two) political parties. But the Electoral College was also not designed to be heavily partisan: it was assumed that if American politics was to become factional, it would happen in the House, which was directly elected and thus more susceptible to public opinion. However, as the Electoral College system shifted to the “popular vote,” it became apparent that the presidential elections were just as partisan as Congressional elections. As the concentration of power has increased in the executive branch, this trend has accelerated, with Congress often delegating powers to the president in matters that are constitutionally vested in Congress.

As American politics became more and more focused on the president, it also encouraged the parties to act as presidential cheerleaders even during non-election years, sowing a rigid party system that forces congressional representatives to act as though they are fighting to win the Electoral College. Since the so-called “swing states” do not consist of more than are 5% of voters who are truly independent, the parties’ strategy began to focus almost purely on “getting out the vote” – that is, encouraging already Democratic or Republican-leaning individuals to go vote, which forces the party to appeal to only its existing (partisan) voter base.

This problem has been further exacerbated by gerrymandering, which renders around 80% of House districts uncompetitive. The election that the representatives worry about is not the one on election day, which they are near-guaranteed to win, but the primary race, where extremely partisan voters will often throw out a candidate that seeks moderation or compromise. Thus the House of Representatives is full of politicians who represent not the majority of people in their home district, but a very small slice of extremely polarized voters. These radical politicians cheer the leader of their respective party, permitting him or her to create legislation that their own party will unilaterally support – if it is not done by executive order first. It should be no wonder then that the only thing that Democrats and Republicans can agree upon nowadays is the need to preserve the two-party status quo, resulting in numerous election regulations at both the state and federal levels that make life difficult for upstart parties. Put all this together and you a have a recipe for democratic distrust and decline.

Schultz’s entry into the presidential race promises to change all this. His centrist ideas will force both the Republican and Democrat candidates to fight for the middle-of-the road of voters sick of extreme policies that would vote for Schultz. It may also force Democratic primary voters to reconsider their choice of candidate – if they pick a suitably radical candidate, then many voters may opt for Schultz, re-electing President Trump and denying the party the presidency. This is explained by the Median Voter Theorem, a game theoretical concept that posits that a candidate’s best strategy is to appeal to the “median” voter – that is, the voter whose political preferences sit squarely between the left and the right. What constitutes the political center varies by jurisdiction and is not consistent throughout the country, but Schultz’s has purposefully chosen his political positions to be fairly aligned with those voters in swing states. Democrats and Republicans must take note.

1 | The Princeton Tory | 2019

The presidential candidates’ need to appeal to centrist voters will also force congressional representatives to become more moderate. Even though Schultz will not be running candidates in congressional districts, his mere presence in the presidential race will necessitate that the political parties adapt their policy platforms, which will require their congressional delegations to vote more in line with the median voter. Political parties may also feel pressured to disown their most radical members in order to avoid alienating centrist voters, denying them access to the campaign machine and financial resources needed to win. In addition, Schultz’s presence on the ballot will invite new voters to the polls that may have previous spurned overly-polarized political parties, giving centrist candidates from both parties an opportunity to capitalize on a surge of new voters.

How do we know this will work? We see it in other countries with multiple parties in their congress or parliament. For example, the Canadian system (which has three parties possessing at least 10% of seats) is relatively moderate – there are no members of the mainstream Liberal Party calling for a Green New Deal, and no members of the Conservative Party asking for a complete shutdown of immigration from non-European countries. The fringe extremes common in America’s Democratic and Republican parties are instead located in small parties that win relatively few seats and have never become part of a governing coalition. In particular, the Liberal Party of Canada plays a unique role in discouraging polarization – as the party in “the center,” it can shift between both the right and the left, trying to appeal to the median voter. The party is currently in a center-left phase, which has led to a sub-10% approval rating for the quasi-socialist NDP. The Conservative Party has also broadened its appeal to both centrist and right-wing voters. But 20 years ago, the median voter was more right-wing – and so was the Liberal Party, which focused on cutting taxes and reducing regulation the last time it was in power. In a multi-party system, political candidates are incentivized to reach for the center, ensuring that radical voices are left on the sidelines.

A centrist party (or even a series of centrist candidates) has the potential to reshape federal politics. Centrist candidates reduce polarization, pulling the parties towards the policy preferences of the median voter. They also provide fresh ideas that are sorely lacking in a turgid two-party system. It may seem like a pipe dream, but if other countries can do it, so too can the United States.

Jacob Brown is a junior from Toronto, Ontario.

2 | The Princeton Tory | 2019

U. PROFESSORS: Hannah Baynesan

CONDEMN SCHEDULED WHITE SUPREMACIST RALLY, DISCUSS WHAT CONSTITUTES VALUABLE SPEECH News

In response to a white supremacist rally planned for 12 p.m. on Saturday, Jan. 12, 2019, right-of-center University professors condemned white supremacy more broadly and asserted that ideas propagated by the movement were not only contrary to their own values but important to be countered.

In the days leading up to Saturday, the white supremacist organization—namely, the New Jersey European Heritage Association (NJEHA)—created advertisements for the rally and posted them on campus. It was not the first time the organization had pursued such action, with flyers being found on various spots on campus in the fall of 2017.

Ultimately, the white supremacist rally was called off, with the NJEHA explaining that they had “punk’d” the Princeton community.

Nevertheless, the cancellation did not stop counter-protests from taking place that Saturday.

The situation at large also led to much discussion about how the University community ought to deal with these ideas.

Despite the fact that he was aware of signals that the rally might be cancelled, McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence Robert P. George thought it important to go ahead and issue a statement condemning white supremacist ideology to fellows of the James Madison Program, which he directs.

While George wrote that he does not wish to “police students’ opinions or tell them what to think,” he made clear that the white supremacist rally was contrary to his own values, as well as the values of the James Madison Program at large.

“I suspect that, like me, you judge racist beliefs to be reprehensible and disgusting,” explained George. “The fact that you are Undergraduate Fellows of an academic program devoted to enhancing our understanding and deepening our appreciation of American ideals and institutions suggests that you believe, as I do, that ‘all men are created equal’—that every member of the human family— irrespective of race, ethnicity, or anything else—is the bearer of profound, inherent, and equal dignity.”

It is because of these beliefs that George “oppose[s] white supremacy and [is] revolted by the thought of white supremacists coming to Princeton to broadcast their prejudice and hate.”

George recognized that students and other members of the University community will invariably respond to the white supremacist rally in different ways. Some will want to participate in rallies and counter-protests while others will deny white supremacists the attention and hold prayer vigils and rallies that are out of view. Some may even ignore the white supremacists entirely.

After all, as George explained in an interview with the Tory, the white supremacist rally was merely aiming to display their fringe ideas and provoke. George also made it clear that though there are many ways to respond, violence ought not to be one of them.

The issuing of the statement itself was the way George chose to act. He did not think it appropriate to engage with the white supremacist organization directly.

“If anybody wants to do business in the proper currency of intellectual discourse—give reasons, make arguments, produce evidence—then I’m happy to talk with them, whether it’s about race or any other hot-button issue of our time,” George explained. “But the white supremacist group that was coming to campus was very clear that they don’t do business in discussion or debate, and it’s clear that they don’t do business in the sense of intellectual discourse, so I didn’t see any reason to engage with them.”

Other right-of-center professors, such as William Nelson Cromwell Professor of Politics Keith Whittington, agreed with George that the ideas expressed by white supremacists are not valuable ideas worthy of debate.

3 | The Princeton Tory | 2019

“You don’t want to legitimate white supremacy by ‘debating’ it, and you also want to be cautious about giving them more attention than they otherwise would have,” explained Whittington. “There is a distinction here with ideas that are intellectually serious [and ideas that are] not, and it’s a political task to educate the public about it.”

Whittington explained that even though they are not intellectually serious, white supremacist ideas cyclically reoccur. Since this is the case, “you can’t stick your head in the sand and ignore [such ideas],” explained Whittington, adding that it is necessary to grapple with them.

Whittington also thought it important to situate white supremacy in the larger political context.

“All big political movements seem to have [extremes], and each have fringe elements that may seem attractive,” explained Whittington. “The Republican Party cleary has a visible problem with an element of society that has become very vocal and associated with them, and there is an obligation to separate themselves from that.”

In this way, Whittington made it clear that the party is not intrinsically associated with this extreme movement but that the current context does necessitate condemning it.

Professor of Politics and International Affairs John B. Londregan, who is also right-of-center, also strongly condemned the white supremacist rally and agreed with George and Whittington on many a point.

Londregan’s most important takeaway from the situation concerned the path forward.

He explained that students and other members of the University community ought to carefully evaluate this experience they’ve had with white supremacy.

The path forward, explained Londregan, is also to discuss how and why white supremacists might want to bring their ideas to campus and what can be done to better counter them in the future.

Hannah Baynesan is a freshman from Belleville, MI.

4 | The Princeton Tory | 2019

THE CASE AGAINST D.C. STATEHOOD Akhil Rajasekar

Opinion

In the latest episode of let’s-reshape-institutions-that-

Congress even today don’t live in D.C. and commute from

make-us-lose, Democrats have turned on the “insufficiently

their home states). The District was meant to be the home

democratic” Senate. But the new brand of complaint among

of the federal government, and it was assumed, given the

Democrats has now evolved into an argument for District of

District’s bad terrain and small size, that the only people

Columbia statehood. The argument runs like this: D.C. has a

there would have some connection to the federal

population of about 700,000 people. The entire state of

government. But beyond all this, the call for D.C.

Wyoming has about 600,000. The comparison is intended

statehood would run into another severe challenge: the

to illustrate the supposed injustice that D.C. residents have

District of Columbia was originally founded on land ceded

no vote in Congress. Of course, what goes unsaid is that if

to the federal government by Virginia and Maryland

D.C. is granted statehood, and thus two senators, there is no

(Virginia was given back its share in 1846). The

doubt as to which party would benefit.

implication is simple: Maryland gave the federal

Both the official and unofficial considerations are a part

government its land to create a neutral federal district; if it

of a see-through Democratic effort to manipulate

were to cease to be one, that land would belong to

institutions in their favor. The reason D.C. should never be a

Maryland. The District’s land belongs to one of two

state is the same reason that the capital moved to D.C. in

entities: the federal government or the state of Maryland.

the first place: so that the federal government would not be

Even attempting to fashion a third option would lead to a

under the undue control or influence of a “host” state. The

constitutional challenge under Article IV, a particular

Founders moved from Philadelphia in part because they

reading of which forbids the creation of a new state from

wanted the federal government to bear no unfair allegiance

the land of another.

to the state that housed them. They did not want a state to

Democrats miss all this and instead fixate on

be able to make decisions affecting their workplace or other

statehood for a federal district that was never supposed to

aspects of their lives that could be calculated to achieve a

resemble a state in any way — not in government, not in

influence on them. They wanted their everyday needs of

jurisdiction, and certainly not in electoral behavior. This is

utilities, roads, traffic, and safety to be independent of any

not to diminish the reality of the thousands of D.C.

state for two reasons: first, so that a state couldn’t blackmail

residents who have lived in D.C. for generations with few

the federal government into something by interfering with

actual ties to other states. The appropriate response to

those essential resources, and second, so that the federal

this, however, is a compromise that does not involve

government wouldn’t feel as though it owed the host state

reverting to the problematic condition of subjecting the

anything for providing those resources. So, in order to

federal government to state influence. Those who live in

preserve its impartiality and independence from the states,

D.C., have no meaningful state ties, and strongly wish to

and ensure that it was immune to underhand tactics, the

vote in state or federal elections are free to move where

government made its home in a district that would be under

they please, including to the neighboring states of

the exclusive authority of the federal government. The

Maryland and Virginia. They cannot, however, demand

federal government would be on its own property, take care

that a well-established system be redesigned in

of itself, and maintain its independence from state

opposition to its fundamental purpose simply to

governments. The exclusive control that the federal

accommodate their convenience.

government was given over D.C. helped ensure that only it

Washington, D.C., is, and must always remain, an

could control its home and that it would be subject to no

exclusively federal jurisdiction, answerable to none but

state action. After all, one sovereign cannot live in the home

the federal government, and under the control or

of another.

influence of no state. Those who would like to reap the

Another argument against D.C. statehood is one of

representational benefits of living in and being citizens of

citizenship. The District of Columbia was never meant to be

a state are welcome to move to one. The inconvenience of

a place where people lived out their lives. It was a place for

having to do so, while recognized and appreciated, does

representatives from various states to reside and

not warrant resurrecting old problems long solved.

congregate for temporary blocks of time, after which they would retire and move back home (many members of

Akhil Rajasekar is a sophomore from Bethel Park, PA.

5 | The Princeton Tory | 2019

THE TIPPING POINT: Kateryn McReynolds

WHEN DOES ABORTION APPROACH INFANTICIDE? Opinion

On Jan. 22, Governor Andrew Cuomo of New York

explains that the safest procedure in such life-threatening

signed the Reproductive Health Act (RHA), legalizing the

situations has always been early delivery by either

administration of late-term abortions — that is, abortions

cesarean section or induced labor. At this point in the

after twenty-four weeks of gestation — and amending past

developmental cycle, the baby is also considered viable

legislation to remove any upper limits on the age at which a

and has an excellent chance of surviving ex utero.

fetus can be aborted. At twenty-four weeks, the fetus has

The next point of consideration is that of the

developed taste buds and recognizable facial features, and

woman’s health. A thorough reading of the RHA, in the

is about the length of an ear of corn from head to toe.

context of the law it repeals, easily betrays the ambiguity

According to most recent Gallup polls, a majority of those

of its language. Consider, for example, the statute’s use of

who consider themselves to be “pro-choice” believe that

“health,” a term that lends itself to ad hoc construction by

abortions past this point of development should be illegal.

any “health practitioner,” without any legal protection

An overwhelming majority of Americans agree.

against likely abuses. “Health” has always been the most

Legislation like that of New York’s, now also being

malleable term in abortion law ever since the Supreme

considered in Vermont, New Mexico, and Virginia, raise

Court’s ruling in Doe v. Bolton (companion case to Roe v.

major concerns for those on both sides of the abortion

Wade), which leaves the particulars of its definition to the

issue. By virtually repealing the upper bound set at 24-

physician: “Medical judgement [of the necessity of an

weeks, and lacking protections for born-alive infants, New

abortion] may be exercised in the light of all factors—

York has effectively expanded abortion into the realm of

physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the

infanticide. Since its enactment, several senators have made

woman’s age—relevant to the well-being of the patient.

this known. Supporters of the RHA have pushed back

All these factors may relate to health.”

against this idea, arguing that the law is not without its

The new law grants the power of practice and of

limits, pointing to clauses which legalize abortions during

executive judgement of the necessity of an abortion to a

the third trimester “in the absence of fetal viability” or when

single medical professional who need not even be a

“the abortion is necessary to protect the patient’s life or

practicing physician. With such a broad definition of

health.”

health and no statutory bounds on discretion, it is

There are a great number of considerations here, but I

disturbingly apparent how far such a radical allowance

have chosen three which I believe to be key - namely, the

may go. The statute makes it virtually impossible to

supposed medical necessity of abortion in protecting a

construct a legal case against, say, the abortion of a

woman’s life, the law’s broad expansion of the term “health”

perfectly viable baby in its seventh month of gestation for

to include nearly any possible interest or stake, and finally,

the financial security of a family, or because doctors have

the ethical and moral implications of the legalization of late-

discovered that the child has Down’s Syndrome. This is

term abortions.

simply a gross injustice and a crime against the most

First, if the law was only amended in pursuit of the goal of protecting the woman’s life, there would be no need for

innocent and vulnerable of human life.

Bodily autonomy has long been a pro-choice

the RHA; New York law already allowed abortions at any

consideration in this matter. At its core, it teaches that a

stage of pregnancy to save a woman’s life. Furthermore, a

woman should have the right to end her pregnancy

late-term abortion is also almost never necessary to end a

because it occurs in her body. However, the current

life-threatening pregnancy, because it would put the

legislation, which allows abortion past the point of

woman in even more danger. The dilation of the cervix

viability, renders that assertion wholly inadequate. The

necessary for abortion takes anywhere from 24 to 72 hours

RHA surpasses its own asserted goals of bodily autonomy

before the actual procedure, an impossible wait-time within

and forces us to accept the cold, hard truth about

the critical period of operation in a life-threatening

abortion: the ending of an innocent human life. Many

circumstance. Dr. Anthony Levatino, a longtime OB-GYN and

reasons are often cited in support of abortion rights —

faculty member at the Albany Medical Center confirms this

financial, familial, and personal considerations among

in an interview with Live Action reporter Lila Rose. He

6 | The Princeton Tory | 2019

them. Difficult though it may be to bring a child into the world under such circumstances, innocent human life is not now, nor can it ever be, contingent on another’s will. If we cease to see the dignity and humanity of a baby in the third trimester—especially when it is deemed unwanted or inconvenient—how can we continue to assert our standing as a society of compassion, or even one of justice?

Professor Robert George, in a Facebook post last month, posted a photo which, with a warning, was marked “sensitive material” and could only be voluntarily unveiled. I obliged. “I usually refrain from posting shocking photographs,” he wrote, “but sometimes, as with photographs of the corpses of Holocaust victims, it is necessary to actually see with our own eyes what we’re talking about. Here is what we're talking about when we're talking about late-term abortions.” The lives at stake are innocent, and they are human. It is our responsibility as a society of morality and justice to uphold the value of all innocent human life. Mothers and children deserve to be protected and cherished; abortion is never the only option, and I hope the day is near when it is never an option.

Kateryn McReynolds is a junior from Long Beach, CA.

"The Tipping Point" Grace Koh '20

7 | The Princeton Tory | 2019

THE COST OF LIFE Will Nolan

Opinion

There are two contemporary conversations about

There are two main reasons we ought to question such

feminism. One, simply put, deals with the question of

a picture. Firstly, money is no more than an instrumental

whether or not men and women are essentially the same or

good. Because it is a pure abstraction representing things

have inherent differences between them. The other asks

that we actually value for themselves, money cannot be an

how we are to ensure that men and women have a fair

end on its own. St. Thomas Aquinas followed Aristotle in

chance to realize their interests and aspirations, particularly

arguing that the miser is misled about the purpose of

in the economic sphere. The first is probably the more

money. He states in his Summa Theologiae; “Now it is

interesting, but I write here on the second question. In a

evident that man’s happiness cannot consist in natural

sense, however, I may fail even this second duty, as I hope to

wealth. For wealth of this kind is sought for the sake of

question the presuppositions behind the way this topic is

something else, [namely] as a support of human nature:

typically approached. Whatever you think about equality of

consequently it cannot be man’s last end.” “Human nature”

outcome or equality of opportunity, each enlists similar ideas

here can be understood in the broadest sense as

about the kinds of human action that are worthwhile and

encapsulating all the desires and aspirations of a given

profitable. I will argue here that it is our very emphasis on

person. In his view, money is not the content of human

economic success and what it facilitates that leads to the

happiness because it is always the weigh station to some

debate about inequality. In order to move beyond the

actual human good, but not the good itself. On this analysis

intractability of such a debate, I posit, will demand a

money, as abstraction, is a good only inasmuch as it is used

reprioritization of the way we classify human goods.

for a concrete good things. But considered in itself apart

Like many artifices of human ingenuity, money on its own serves no material purpose. Its purchasing power

from such concreteness, it is useless.

Secondly, worthwhile human activity is not coextensive

comes not from anything intrinsic to the physical makeup of

with those activities that merit economic compensation. We

a Ben Franklin or an English two-pence, but rather its value is

know such a viewpoint to be false in the general sense, but

imbued by the tacit agreement of society. We collectively

ulterior concerns can cause to underplay and diminish this

agree to endow currency with the ability to represent things

central truth. Consider, for example, the merits of robbing a

we value. Adam Smith has the idea that “labour was the first

bank or of doing the dishes after a meal. Each task may take

price—the original purchase” in order to cement the

the same amount of time, require a similar amount of

concrete origin of money. Goods too, seem to stand at the

physical effort, yet one yields $500,000 in cash and one is

basis of what is now purely abstraction. For example, cash

absolutely uncompensated. But no one on this basis

can now stand in to represent, even if unconsciously, the

concludes that robbing the bank is a better course of action.

value that we associate with our four-bedroom house or else

Instead, we analyze various actions by also comparing their

the number of hours we worked over the course of a week. In

relative convenience, fruitfulness, practicality, time-

other words, we value certain material things for their utility

commitment, realizability, alignment with our strengths,

to us and labor hours for the effort and time they cost us, a

justifications, and morality.

valuation to which money simply sticks a price. Innovations

In 1948 his book, Leisure as the Basis of Culture, Josef

such as credit cards, bitcoin, and platforms such as Paypal

Pieper argues that the contemporary economic system has

and Venmo have only made more evident the preexisting

blinded our ability to see value in certain kinds of activities.

abstractness of money. While a silver dollar is more visceral

Because economic gain has become such a powerful

than a mere exchange of numbers over the Internet, each

motivator, it has eclipsed our ability to discern those goods

serves the same function. It is in virtue of what money

which do not merit economic compensation. As a result,

represents, and not on account of itself, that we accord

play, worship, and most of all leisure are relegated beyond

money value.

the domain of productive human enterprise. It is important

In order to make room for what is a much more

to note that for Pieper, leisure is not to be understood as

developed interpretation of a commodious and fair

laziness, but rather as intentional immersion into culture and

economic system, it is necessary first to dispel the myth that

conversation. As he expresses the danger of our times, “the

money is somehow the absolute basis of human fulfillment.

world of work beings to become – threatens to become –

8 | The Princeton Tory | 2019

our only world, to the exclusion of all else. The demands of

shop for the right education (not cheap but also not so

the working world grow ever more total, grasping ever

difficult).” Or, finally, “Anything that cannot be weighted,

more completely the whole of human existence.” One

measured, or counted does not exist.” The corporate

cannot help to discern the prescience of his argument

economy of today, Berry contends, is not conducive to

written as Google and other tech giants boast of offering

flourishing for anyone.

their employees access to onsite gyms and dining options.

The headline of a recent BBC article reads “Gender Pay

With food and exercise supplied, all our basic necessities

Gap Grows at Hundreds of Big Firms.” The article goes on

are met. What else does one need?

to explain that across a number of sectors, the wage gap

Since the workplace itself may be part of the problem,

averages 8.35%, meaning that for every $100 made by a

assessing gender equality in the economic domain remains

man, a woman takes in less than $92. The article reminded

a subsidiarity concern. If critics such as Pieper are on the

me of a long piece in The Atlantic I read a couple of years

right track, then our obsession with work is the more

ago entitled “Why Is Silicon Valley So Awful to Women?”

essential disease. The concept of the Protestant work ethic

That article offered a careful study of the difficulties facing

as articulated by Max Weber in the early twentieth century

women in the tech industry—particularly as they fall prey to

is one possible explanation for American commitment to

the misogynistic behavior of men. In each case, and

efficiency in the workplace. According to his view laid out

innumerable others, the focus is on the inequality present

in The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, Weber

in the workplace. On the standard of economic earnings or

argues that the Protestant work ethic developed from

respect from the opposite sex, such inequality is present.

believers’ self-understanding of Calvinist theology. Since

But two considerations, one associated with the thrust of

Calvin taught that the elect are saved by faith alone, a

each of the two disparate arguments, prevents me from

believer had no direct way to prove his salvation. In order

being able to be in full concord with the normal interpretive

to demonstrate it, therefore, the believer attempts to exhibit

conclusion that we ought to expend tireless effort in order

characteristics of the elect—such as frugality and

to equalize the playing field.

disciplined labor—in order to confirm election. Weber

In the first case, I question the standard that leads us

contends that the result of this theological motivation for

to consider economic value the preeminent good. A man or

the dedicated application of the individual believer

woman who spends time or energy or capacity on reading

contributes to the overall growth of modern capitalist

books, enjoying nature, or cultivating close relationships

societies. Even if this exact theory fails to encompass the

with children, parents, and spouse chooses activities of

full impetus for contemporary obsession with work, it draws

invaluable intrinsic merit. Barring for a moment the

an important link between such labor and its monetary

question of basic economic subsistence, more money is

reward.

not always better. In the second case, I think The Atlantic

On a first examination, then, to fight for the further

article and similar pieces, serve to reveal a symptom of our

involvement of more people in the current economic

current work-a-day culture as opposed to a totally

system is to fight for something that compromises the

unrelated phenomenon whose elimination heralds a

ability of such individuals to enjoy the full range of human

perfected system. Berry has much to say about this topic as

activities. In essence, full subscription to the work-a-day

well, “there is also the nakedness in advertising, in the

culture, to steal a term from Pieper, is to deny openness to a

worst kinds of fashionable or commercial art. This is the

whole range of activities we typically take to contribute to a

nakedness of free-market sexuality, the nakedness that is

well-lived life. As Wendell Berry puts this idea, “I am more

possible only in a society in which price is the only index of

and more impressed by the generality of the assumption

worth.” In other words, the very limitations introduced by

that human lives are properly to be invented by an

our exclusively economic outlook have themselves created

academic-corporate-government elite and then either sold

the conditions for an endemic objectification of women in

to their passive and choiceless recipients or doled out to

business. In each case, the solution is not a simple

them in the manner of welfare.” The rhetoric is of course

equalizing of figures, but instead requires a deeper

bombastic, but he resists the basic presuppositions we take

examination of the methods we have allowed to dominate

for granted about the way that the system inevitably must

us.

work. He satirizes the prevalence of economic totality and

The beginning of a solution to inequality in the

determinism: “if you wish to be among the beautiful, then

workplace, then, is a re-imagination of the workplace itself.

you must buy the right fashions (there are no cheap

So long as we believe that “anything that cannot be

fashions) and the right automobile (not cheap either). If you

weighted, measured, or counted does not exist” we

want to be counted as one of the intelligent, then you must

enchain ourselves to a system essentially and not

9 | The Princeton Tory | 2019

accidentally exploitative of humans. The human goods

about the dominance of one sex over the other. Instead

articulated by Pieper become subjugated to the limited

they are about both sexes being dominated by a

categories we do admit: capital, efficiency, productivity,

dehumanizing false anthropology, saliently present in our

utility, and the rest. In this system, there are no winners.

current economic system.

The millionaire CEO has no time for his family and less for God. Anything we might call “intangible” becomes nonexistent, with the result that deep human aspiration is first compromised and then destroyed.

Will Nolan is a senior from Williamstown, MA.

Even accepting such a viewpoint, however, a prominent nagging question remains. If people are to support themselves, to have the basic necessities, how are they to act in a system which does not deal with them fairly? More precisely, how can highfalutin language about human values compensate for women and many men who cannot support their family’s essential needs? First, this dire result of the economic system applies to both many men and many women. If one group is more subject to this injurious situation than the other, an effective solution will still solve the problem for both. In his 1931 encyclical Quadrigesimo Anno, Pope Pius XI offers a succinct counter to those who diminish the necessity of this basic need, “in the first place, the worker must be paid a wage sufficient to support him and his family.” He explains some of the reasoning: “for man's productive effort cannot yield its fruits unless a truly social and organic body exists, unless a social and juridical order watches over the exercise of work, unless the various occupations, being interdependent, cooperate with and mutually complete one another, and, what is still more important, unless mind, material things, and work combine and form as it were a single whole.” In other words, the sophisticated nature of human activity requires that the employer take into account many more considerations than simply compensating the atomic individual for labor. He goes even further, stating that, “social justice demands that changes be introduced as soon as possible whereby such a wage will be assured to every adult workingman.”

Thus, I argue five things. First, money is not a universal good. Second, our current economic system, and we by extension, think that it is. Third, such a condition compromises a plethora of human goods. Fourth, that men and women would do well to recognize the capitalist economy’s limitations. Finally, that, despite the limitations of what our economy currently has on offer, both men and women require a society willing to support their basic needs. In the end I didn’t really write about feminism. And I believe that to be the case because the issues dealt with here, often couched in feminist terms, are not ultimately

10 | The Princeton Tory | 2019

I NTERESTED IN WRITING FOR AN AWARD-WINNING, NATIONALLY RECOGNIZED, POLITICAL PUBLICATION?

JOI N THE TORY! WE ARE LOOKING FOR WRITERS, DESIGNERS, AND ASPIRING BUSINESS MANAGERS TO JOIN OUR TEAM.

EMAI L IF YOU ARE INTERESTED, SEND AN EMAIL TO TORY@PRINCETON.EDU

The Princeton Tory is a journal of conservative and moderate political thought written, edited and produced by Princeton University students and delivered free of charge to all Princeton students and faculty. Issues can be found at www.princetontory.com. The Princeton Tory is a publication of The Princeton Tory, Inc. Opinions expressed herein are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the editors, trustees, Princeton University or The Princeton Tory, Inc. The Princeton Tory accepts letters to the editor. Direct correspondence to: P.O. Box 1499, Princeton, NJ 08542; or by e-mail: tory@princeton.edu. Advertisement rates for The Princeton Tory can be found on the magazine’s website at www.princetontory.com. Donations to The Princeton Tory are fully tax-deductible.

Please mail donations to: P.O. Box 1499, Princeton, NJ 08542. The Princeton Tory is a member of the Collegiate Network. The Princeton Tory, Inc. is a non-profit corporation registered in New Jersey. No part of this publication should be construed to promote any pending legislation or to support any candidate for office. No part of this publication may be reproduced without express written consent of the Publisher.

Copyright © 2018 The Princeton Tory

PRINCETON'S PREMIER MAGAZINE OF CONSERVATIVE THOUGHT.

CONTACT

US

TORY@PRINCETON.EDU AND VISIT OUR WEBSITE WWW.PRINCETONTORY.COM

DONATIONS GRATEFULLY ACCEPTED. CHECKS AND INQUIRIES ADDRESSED TO: THE PRINCETON TORY PO BOX 1499 PRINCETON, NJ 08542

THE PRINCETON TORY IS A 501(C)(3) ORGANIZATION