The Princeton Tory 34.1

T H E

A

P R I N C E T O N

TORY

JOURNAL

OF

CONSERVATIVE

W H A T

I S

PER SPECT IVES

ON

AND

MODERATE

R I G H T ?

CONSER VAT ISM

THOUGHT

PUBLISHER'S NOTE Dear Reader, When I send out emails to the Tory staff, I

Following it are John and Nick's pieces

typically start them with "Hello Tories!" or

about what political society should look

"Dear Tories." Paul's last publisher's note (he

like from a conservative perspective.

was the publisher for the last two

Joseph, Jacob, and Andre follow with their

semesters) also started this way.

understanding of how we should act in society as conservatives. And Nate finishes off the issue with a phenomenal piece

This letter does not.

about how we ought to advance For this issue (and every subsequent one),

conservative causes.

the Princeton Tory is no longer going to be for the people who write it. I envision it as a

All these pieces are about conservatism,

publication from Princeton for

but, importantly, none of them agree what

Princetonians. The new conception of the

conservatism is. Sure, there are threads of

magazine - newly minted, newly managed,

consistency that run through all the

new distribution - is deliberately designed

articles, but each advances a different

to appeal to the rest of campus outside the

understanding of "conservative" causes. In

conservative bubble. We think that the Tory,

other words - conservatism is diverse,

as Princeton's right-wing publication, has an

multifaceted, and hardly what we could

academic responsibility to provide the most

call a "monolithic" movement.

reasonable, most appealing version of rightwing ideology to all Princetonians. It's our

What I'm saying is that there is no one

job to try and convince you of what we

answer to the question "What is right?" Or,

believe, not just stand on our soapbox and

as Joseph notes cannily in his piece, if

proclaim that we believe it already. But

there is an answer, it's one we'll only find

we're not going to try and force you to agree

through robust, intellectual conversation.

with us (or toss it under your door). Pick up a Tory, and if you're feeling inclined, please Best,

give it a chance.

And yes, while design is important, it is the content that counts. This "inaugural" issue, if you will, was created along those lines. This issue is about conservatism. An intro to it. It

Christian Schmidt '20

opens with Jessica Li's wonderful opinion

Publisher

piece about a conservative stance on gun control.

i | The Princeton Tory | March 2018

T H E

P R I N C E T O N

TORY VOLUME XXXIV

--

ISSUE 1

02

LETTER TO THE EDITOR

05

CONSERVATISM AND AGENCY

08 13 16

Jessica Li

John Waya

YOU, ME, AND THE GOP Nicholas G. Sileo

THE REIGN OF RELATIVISM Joseph Stephens

SPEAKING UP Jacob Brown

21

WHAT IS TOLERANCE?

25

A HEART AND A MIND

André Mendoza

Nate Gadiano

ii | The Princeton Tory | March 2018

PUBLISHER Christian Schmidt '20

EDITOR - IN - CHIEF Joaquim Brooks '20

MANAGING EDITORS Jack Whelan '18 Michael Smilek '20 Stephen Phillips '20 Billy Wade '21

COPY EDITOR Nicholas Wooldridge '21

TREASURER Will Crawford '20

EVENTS MANAGER Sarah Malik '20

DISTRIBUTION MANAGER Chris Ren '19

PHOTOGRAPHY & DESIGN Sonya Isenberg '20

STAFF WRITERS Elly Brown '18 Will Nolan '19 Riley Heath '20 John Waya* '20 Meghan Slattery '20 Jacob Brown '20 Nicholas Sileo '20 Daniel Bracho '20

CONTRIBUTING WRITERS André Mendoza '20 Nate Gadiano '20 Joseph Stephens* '19 Jessica Li '18

BOARD OF TRUSTEES Anna Bray Duff '92 Peter Hegseth '03 Peter Heinecke '87 Ira Leeds '06 Brian Tvenstrup '95 Timothy Webster '99

iii | The Princeton Tory | March 2018

LETTER TO THE EDITOR Jessica Li

The recent tragedy at Stoneman Marjory Douglas High School has sparked a renewed national push for gun safety. Regrettably, pundits and politicians on both sides are all too quick to transform the conversation into yet another partisan showdown, grossly conflating proposals like universal background checks and mental health evaluations with the Second Amendment’s nullification. But behind the inflammatory rhetoric, the dialogue on firearm safety should be, in fact, one of appreciable common ground for people across the political spectrum, especially for conservative gunowners. Indeed, firearm safety lies at the cornerstone of the myriad values we enshrine – our family, faith, and the freedom of our country. As a gunowner, I know that millions of gunowners echo my sentiment: we too have the moral obligation and the unique power to join the table where change begins. We too must speak up, shape, and endorse bills that ensure firearms don’t fall into the wrong hands and that weapons solely designed for mass destruction will never be pointed at another innocent child.

Undoubtedly, firearms are an inalienable element of American culture and heritage. Two years ago, I took a trip with my boyfriend and his family to White Tank Mountains, Arizona where I learned to fire a gun for the first time. As I hastily stuffed the protection plugs in each ear, my boyfriend’s stepfather, Dennis, lifted his trunk door, unveiling the eclectic collection of over a dozen firearms he had gathered since a teenager. From the pile, he handed me the least lethal and most precious, a 0.22-caliber antique rifle that his father had gifted him when he was a fourteen-year-old roaming the outskirts of a rural Ohio town. He then, at the feet of the majestic mountains, peppered me with chronicles of hunting, bonding, and once deterring an unwelcomed intruder from his tree farm during his younger years in the Southwest. It is here too that my boyfriend, a former member of Young Marines, recounted training with scores of other high school students aspiring to become the marksmen of our military. When training was done, they camped, forged lasting friendships, and volunteered to pick up shells for veterans taking up riflery for recreation.

Then the nerve-wracking moments dawned as Dennis asked me to get in position. With my boyfriend repeating instructions every other second, I practiced sweeping the hammer and lowering the safety two dozen times, all the time with no ammunition loaded. When Dennis finally cocked a single bullet in the chamber, his grip clinched my fingers lest I drop the gun while pulling the trigger. I eventually shed a bit of my concerningly amateurish habits – I ceased pointing the barrel vertically, braced the holder, and remained still for the recoil. Yet all the while their eyes never left me; even as my boyfriend and Dennis took up their arms, at the sound of a pulled hammer from my palm, they would lower their aim, walk behind me, and intensely scrutinize my every move.

2 | The Princeton Tory | March 2018

I needed no more than the unwavering

them into irreparable tragedies. As men are

shadows of these two men who chose to stand

more likely to be gunowners, their firearm-

by my side as I fired each bullet to appreciate

induced fatality rates far surpass that of

that their commitment to gun safety is as

women. Removed from attention-grabbing

strong and steadfast as their fondness for a

national headlines, the tragedy of quick,

good shoot.

never-anticipated deaths by firearms have violently unraveled the fabric of families

Dennis and my boyfriend cherish their

everywhere. Last year, I was shocked to hear

freedom to bear arms granted by the Second

through a friend from the Chinese Bible

Amendment. They also embrace their choice

Church of Maryland that Hong Chen, a

to carry responsibly and ensure that others do

wonderful, friendly acquaintance who lived in

the same. Indeed, this mindset of equal

an affluent neighborhood of McClean, Virginia,

devotion to self-defense and self-restraint is

had put a bullet through his wife and son

embodied by millions of gun owners across

before ending his own life. While editing

America, in cities and countries, among

personal statements last fall for aspiring

liberals and conservatives. As a student

college students, I came across a heart-

journalist, I have spoken to Kimberly Corban,

wrenching story of Lily, a 16-year-old who

who came to be a second amendment

watched her father point a hard, cold barrel to

advocate as a victim of sexual assault. When I

his forehand, pounding the floor as she

inquired about her beliefs, she stated without

begged for him to stay. Fortunately, when her

any hesitation that not everyone should have

brother appeared from the garage and sprung

firearm. Later, through my summer with

to action, Lily wrangled the revolver from her

Anchor House in inner city Trenton, my social

father’s fist with all her might – the sanctity

worker and I witnessed the personal costs of

and integrity of her family

firearm proliferation – semiautomatics smuggled across the Delaware River found their way to gangs and felons, smothering the lives of infants and teens, and pregnant mothers in ceaseless street violence. Gun safety is always on their minds, the mothers and fathers who cannot take survival for granted.

Indeed, for conservatives, the wholeness and welfare of our family are values second to none. To those ends, the presence of an

are values she can never forego. A responsible

affectionate, dependable husband and father

gun owner has the ethical duty to protect

is indispensable. Sadly, the silent contagion of

those who is a danger to themselves,

gun-related suicides has claimed the lives of

particularly their family members, from

far too many men between ages 40 and 60, a

operating a firearm. This begins with

statistic that amounts to the leading category

supporting mandatory mental health

of adult firearm deaths every year. Trying

evaluations.

episodes that take gruesome mental tolls are inevitable in life, but it is firearms that turn

As conservatives, we also cherish our faiths and will not shy away from protecting the

3 | The Princeton Tory | March 2018

very institutions that foster our character and

moments can impede rationality, and the

virtue. Frighteningly, in recent years, churches,

ubiquity of semiautomatics makes an

more so than schools, have become ripe

impulsive, tragic act way too easy. Similarly,

targets for those wishing to do harm. In 2017,

the growing proliferation of armor-piercing

174 gun-related incidents took place in houses

shells have endangered the lives of police

of worship, with the Sutherland Springs First

officers on active duty. Our military and law

Baptist Church massacre toping the profile.

enforcement officers swear their loyalty and

The perpetrator in San Antonio harbored no

duty to us. Our inaction as they succumbed to

hostile sentiments towards God, yet did not

preventable perils is in no way a proper “thank

hesitate to open fire on the congregation that

you.”

often took him with open arms. As with the 173 other instances of firearm violence in

When news came from Parkland on Feb 14th, I,

churches and the 100 bomb-threats hurled at

Dennis, my boyfriend, and the clear majority of

synagogues that year, gun violence has shaken

gun owners were as outraged as everyone else

and shattered faith communities in

that an AR-15 was handed out to a deranged

unthinkable ways. These attacks have

madman unchecked. Nikolas Cruz is not an

threatened our mission of upholding and

isolated incident. As gunowners, we are in no

extending the principles of morality, purity,

better position to demand change, starting

and communion. When I led a prayer the

with registering our firearms, participating in

Sunday after the 2015 Charleston Massacre, an

background checks, curtailing the sale of

unspeakable fear and grief floated about the

assault weapons, and reminding our advocacy

chamber replete with church-goers frazzled

organizations like the NRA the values we really

with uncertainty: are we next? Prayers

stand for. It is incumbent upon us to restore

empowered us then; they will always

the place of firearms in American culture as a

empower us going forward. They should also

symbol of self-strengthening and freedom, not

channel us the will to act, to nip the buds—

one of assured destruction.

the very weapon that arms malice—before they fester into another bloodbath, another egregious crime against the children of God. Jessica Li is a senior from Plainsboro, New Finally, the current conversation of gun safety

Jersey majoring in Chemistry. She can be

serves as a resounding reminder that freedom

reached at yiyil@princeton.edu.

is not free. Our nation, one erected upon the cornerstones of constitutional right and the rule of law, owes thanks to our men and women in arms and our law enforcement officers who are tirelessly defending our life and liberty. Yet, recent neglect for firearm safety among politicians have painfully exacerbated their burdens. One in five who commits suicide by a firearm is a veteran. As a granddaughter of a WWII veteran, I know too well that the traumatic memories of brutality will never be wholly purged. These harrowing

4 | The Princeton Tory | March 2018

CONSERVATISM AND AGENCY John Waya*

Dear Citizen, In this letter, I consider the possibility that, these days, 'to be conservative' means simply to be in support of America's remarkable and unique political theory.

In Federalist 10, James Madison claims that, "the Federal Constitution forms a happy combination…; the great and aggregate interests [are] referred to the National, the local and particular to the State Legislatures." Here, Madison evokes the idea that America exists in a form of dual-federalism with political power divided between the federal and state governments. The Constitution enumerates a few matters about which the national government can deliberate, but the rest are left to the states, who may decide for themselves the best political solutions to their individual concerns. Further, within the states, counties and towns can have slightly differing policy concerns. To provide an example, let us say a town in New Jersey creates a 9PM curfew for minors in an attempt to curb teen delinquency. If New Jersey were to implement this curfew as a state-wide policy, how would the younger freshmen of Princeton University make late-night study trips to the library? If the United States were to nationalize this New Jersey law, there would be certain times of the year in which Californian teens would find themselves restricted to their homes right after the sun went down.

Dual-federalism allows for diversity of policy, yes, but it is not some doctrine which decries any form of centralization. If states had radically different laws on drug policy, for example, a citizen might attempt to escape imprisonment for dealing crack cocaine and Quaaludes by setting up shop in the neighboring state. The America Madison envisioned strikes a nice balance between utter anarchy and complete centralism. This is to say that the nation can celebrate its regional diversity with unique policy solutions yet be unified enough to share a national spirit. This political arrangement, I contend, allows for and promotes citizens' political agency: politically active citizens are rewarded for this political fervor of theirs with the ability to make modest policy changes from a position of power. To provide an example, a conservative in New Jersey might find marijuana to be detrimental to her fellow New Jerseyans and consequently run for office on a platform that promises to fight the War on Drugs. A liberal in New Jersey might see the ability of legal recreational marijuana to boost his state's economy, prompting him to run for office on a platform that promises legalization. And since legalization of marijuana (although marijuana possession is still a federal crime) is an issue that has been left to the states, these citizens could try to prompt statewide policy change. This happened in 2017 in New Jersey, when Kim Guadagno and Phil Murphy ran for the Office of the Governor. Phil Murphy, the Democrat, won the election and intends to* legalize recreational marijuana in New Jersey, but politically

5 | The Princeton Tory | March 2018

active citizens opposed to this proposed

not been unanimously decided for the

plan did have the opportunity to vote

whole union, courtesy largely of the

against it and attempt to change their

Supreme Court. For decades now, Congress

state's policy in that manner.

has passed national laws (which the Supreme Court has upheld) that made national policy decisions on issues which the Constitution would leave in the jurisdiction of the individual states. The Court in Roe v. Wade deemed it egregious to the Constitution for a state to ban abortions. In Obergefell v. Hodges, it forbade states from passing legislation denying homosexual unions. The Constitution never once mentions abortion or homosexual unions, but does this mean that the federal government should deliberate on these issues searching for a

The fact of the matter is, they just didn't. In

mediocre nationwide policy? No! The Tenth

New Jersey's 2017 gubernatorial election,

Amendment to the Constitution gives us a

there was only 30-something percent voter

pretty clear answer to that question: "The

turnout; to contrast, 65 percent of NJ came

powers not delegated to the United States

out to the 2016 Presidential elections.*

by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to

Taxes are always a hotly debated issue in

the States, are reserved to the States

New Jersey - a state whose property and

respectively, or to the people."

income taxes are notoriously high compared to the rest of the nation - but

Today, public officials at even the highest

other than that, the largest issue for the

levels of individual states have almost no

2017 gubernatorial race was indeed

say in terms of great social issues. They

whether or not to legalize recreational

cannot make great policy changes about

marijuana. Although these two issues are

abortion, marriage, or other hot-button

capable of greatly affecting New Jerseyans,

social issues. This inability to act at the

I imagine what the race would have looked

lower levels of government can rear its ugly

like if the candidates could have run

head in reduced poll numbers; if certain

platforms on other issues that have of late

emotional issues are set in stone as

been nationally decided: what if abortion,

national policy, certain voters who care

gay marriage, and certain gun control

mostly about these issues have

regulations were still on the bargaining

little incentive to come out and vote. The

table? I posit that the electoral races on the

predicament of the politically active

lower echelons of the United States

American is one of helplessness, where

government would be much more robust if

citizens of sincere intentions and

all of these now-nationalized issues had

impassioned hearts can do relatively little

6 | The Princeton Tory | March 2018

to change their government. Our current state of centralization and judicial activism

OUR CURRENT STATE OF

relegates citizens to spectators of Supreme

CENTRALIZATION AND

Court deliberations and in effect damages

JUDICIAL ACTIVISM

the participatory political culture on which

RELEGATES CITIZENS TO

America so characteristically relies. I ask,

SPECTATORS OF SUPREME

who supports the political agency of

COURT DELIBERATIONS

civically-minded Americans now?

AND IN EFFECT DAMAGES THE PARTICIPATORY

I would say it is the conservatives. Right-

POLITICAL CULTURE ON

wing ideologues are known as the purveyors of states’ rights, the originalists of

WHICH AMERICA SO

the Court who do not find it good practice

CHARACTERISTICALLY

to impose their own political views on the

RELIES. I ASK, WHO

nation, the members Congress who do not

SUPPORTS THE POLITICAL

vote in favor of inappropriately sweeping

AGENCY OF CIVICALLY-

national policies. To support the right of

MINDED AMERICANS NOW?

the states to come up with their own political solutions to great modern issues is to abide by the founding premises of this great Republic. And if the right of states to create unique solutions to political issues is linked with conservatism, does being ‘conservative’ just mean liking America’s founding theory? If it does, I hope that we conservatives may try to convince others that belief in dual-federalism – and not centralization or total anarchy – is not a matter of party politics but one of nationality. Then, in spreading this theory of James Madison and general knowledge of our Constitution, Americans of all belief systems might see the beauty of our political design and become inspired to enact real, meaningful change.

.*http://www.nj.com/marijuana/2018/02/top_senate_de mocrats_may_need_to_twist_some_arms_t.html .

John Waya is a pseudonym. If you would like to contact him, he can be reached at

*http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2017/11/how_man y_of_us_turned_out_to_vote_on_election_day.html

tory@princeton.edu.

7 | The Princeton Tory | March 2018

YOU, ME, AND THE GOP Nicholas G. Sileo

Before heading off to Princeton, many of

to step foot on the Titanic any time soon.

my liberal friends back home jokingly

In fact, upon reflecting on my own

predicted that I was soon going to undergo

political leanings thus far, I would venture

a political identity crisis once I came up

to say that since starting Princeton I have

here for school. I would find myself

only moved further in the right direction.

surrounded by liberal peers, liberal

Many of my peers and professors have

professors, in a liberal town and would

illuminated the importance of

quickly realize that my backwards

conservative social policy, my economics

conservative beliefs were offensive, mean-

courses have reaffirmed my faith in the

spirited, and representative of just about

free market, and nothing works better to

every negative type of "-ism" that is out

remind you of where you stand like

there. Faced with all this overwhelming

hearing some outlandish claims from

sentiment, I would undeniably do the

across the aisle (see "discussion groups

"right" thing and join the left. After all, who

and therapy sessions to cope with the

would want to be on the wrong side of

stress of a free and fair election,"

history?

"divesting from something you were never invested in," "letting the North Koreans

Thankfully, Princeton is not the place of

have nukes because trying to stop them

indoctrination imagined in a dark-humored

would be imperialist," and "getting upset

joke like the one above (see "Harvard"). My

because a professor used offensive

time here so far has been full of thoughtful

language in a class about offensive

debate and discussion. I have been

language"… *** As tempting as it is for me

introduced to new ideas, had many of my

to become a bleeding heart, no personal

core beliefs challenged, and even got the

liberal political identity crisis has

chance to participate in a minor public

occurred. For the time being, at least, I

political feud, culminating with a trip to Fox

remain-as any decent, law-abiding, and at

News. Honestly, when it comes to political

least somewhat informed American driver

discourse here on campus, I would even go

should be-on the right side of the road.

so far to say that we have it pretty good, all things considered (see "Berkley",

If my liberal friends have taught me

"Middlebury", "That School in New Haven").

anything, however, it is that even if I think the world is humming along perfectly

Yet, while I have had the abundant

fine, someone soon is going to tell me

opportunity to reflect and refine my own

how awful everything is and then accuse

views, I cannot say that I have been

me of being either implicit in it or a

persuaded to jump ship-nor am I planning

perpetrator of it. Enter the 2016 election

8 | The Princeton Tory | March 2018

turned Republican, who has spent much of *** Note to reader: this list has been shortened for the sake of brevity; for an expanded list, please see the pages of "The Princeton Progressive" or their sister publication "The Daily Princetonian."

his career in TV and movies, barging in to the Republican primaries and unseating the establishment candidate for the presidency, all while promising to "Make America Great Again"? (Not even to mention the fact that he was divorced and later remarried.) Now I can't speak for

and the conservative identity crisis. I used to think that an identity crisis had to be an internal affair, where something had to shake my world to make me reevaluate my role in it. Mark this down as one of the issues where I have switched sides.

Last year following the successful election of President Trump, many of my friends on the right side of the aisle told me that now was the time for "true" conservatism. If we wanted to really show the nation what it meant to be a conservative, we had to stand up to Trump with his "dangerous" rhetoric and "populist" tendencies. Most importantly, we had to stop Trump and Co. from hijacking the party of Lincoln.

Personally, I am not aware of who set the historical precedent for a democraticallyelected hijacking-maybe it's because I decided to study economics instead of history; maybe it's because there's no such thing as a democratic hijacking; who's to say really?

the Gipper, but I'd venture to say he would be disappointed in us for putting our faith in such a man.

So as the Democrats mounted their #resistance, so too did the Republicans put up their sanctimonious defiance of Trump.

For months at a time, the normally thought-provoking and hard-hitting National Review became a continuous stream of ardent never-Trumper rhetoric almost indifferentiable from the Facebook posts of my well-meaning, but ill-thinking, liberal friends. Senators whom I respected suddenly voted against bills that were seemingly conservative but must not have been since they received Trump's support.

There were talks of impeachment, of having the GOP step in and replace Trump, and of conspiracy and rumors circulating around the administration. Hating Trump was in vogue (it was also in Time, and People, and Newsweek, and the Economist, and the New York Times, and the Washington Post, and just about any

Anyhow, one thing was made clear and one thing alone: if we were to be true conservatives, we had a moral obligation to stop Trump, or we would be letting our heroes like Ronald Reagan down. Can you even begin to imagine what Reagan would

other paper or magazine you can think of).

Nowhere was this "bravery" more apparent than in the hallowed halls of Ivy League conservatism. I watched as College Republicans at Harvard, Yale, and even our very own Princeton, rebuked Trump and

have thought about a former Democrat

9 | The Princeton Tory | March 2018

his "evil" ways. A parade of speakers from

it all and shout the same meaningless

across the spectrum started filing in to

platitudes of "stronger together" and "not

campus: giving students the nice

my president" to win over the hearts and‌

opportunity to decide if they wanted to

well, mostly just the hearts, of my peers.

hear someone bash Trump from the left or if they wanted to hear it from a rightward

From all of this, however, a funny thing

perspective. Diversity of thought indeed.

happened: while barely changing any of

Speeches, opposition statements, and a

my political opinions, I had found myself in

variety of other academic arguments

a political identity crisis. All my life I had

against Trump became the bread and

considered myself a conservative. I voted

butter of student groups-left and right

for the first time in the 2016 Maryland

alike. As a former officer of the Princeton

Republican primary for Ted Cruz, I

College Republicans put it "with the rise of

remember cheering on Mitt Romney back

Trump, who's not particularly the normal

in 8th grade, voting for John McCain in a

conservative or Republican, it's important

straw poll in Mrs. Calendar's 4th Grade

that College Republicans take frequent

class at Cape St. Claire Elementary, and I

positions on issues of the day so that we

even have a very faint memory of getting in

can maintain the traditional conservative

a shouting match on the bus ride home

and Republican values we cherish."

from kindergarten as my friend and I took turns trying to be louder than one another

I can hardly blame my colleagues for

as he yelled "Kerry," and I retorted "Bush"

jumping on the bandwagon either. For a

(in hindsight, that might have been one of

while (and arguably still today), being an

the more meaningful political debates that

anti-Trump conservative at a place like

I have had so far). When I cast my ballot for

Princeton seemed like a pretty great deal.

Trump in the General Election I did not see

You got to appear principled, excuse

that vote as any different. While I disagreed

yourself of any association with Trump or

with a few policy points and some rhetoric,

the millions of "deplorables" that voted for

at the core of his campaign, I saw the same

him, and, best of all, you got to hop on

things that I had admired in previous

quite possibly the biggest trend of 2017

candidates: deregulation, strong national

and join in with the rest of the school in

defense, law and order, patriotism, and a

the mass condemnation of our duly-

can-do independent spirit.

elected President. To be frank, it will probably be another half-century before

Apparently, however, supporting these

College Republicans are given the

things no longer made me a "true"

opportunity to join the cool, smug, and

conservative. I was told time and time

self-righteous in-crowd like this again. If I

again that I had given up my principles,

were a bit more concerned with climbing

that I was foolish or stupid for supporting

the social ladder, perhaps, I would take

Trump, and that I was contributing to the

advantage of it myself. It certainly would

demise of our Republic or the world at-

have just made life easier to go along with

large. Now I have grown fairly used to

10Â | The Princeton Tory | March 2018

hearing these sorts of things from the left,

the Mexico City Policy and passed into law

but this was something new coming from

a bill allow states to defund Planned

many people on the right, whom I

Parenthood, appointed the stellar

genuinely respected. Admittedly, for a

conservative Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme

while, my faith in Trump was a little

Court along with a record number of other

shaken. Maybe he was not going to govern

judges, ok'd construction on the Keystone

as a real conservative would. Perhaps I

and Dakota Access pipelines, left the Paris

really had been duped and he would be

Climate Accords, signed one of the nation's

the demise of our party and our country.

largest tax cuts, cut 22 regulations for every

With so many voices telling me that I was

new regulation implemented, and created

not being a "true" conservative, it almost

2.5 million jobs with rising wages,

started to sound convincing. In fact, a

unemployment near record lows, and an

friend of mine was so shaken by these

economy that is running at an all-time

accusations and claims that Trump would

high. This is not even to mention the revival

usher in a nuclear Armageddon that he

of patriotism, respect for our American

ended up casting his ballot for Gary "Can't

heroes like Billy Graham, and

Invade Syria If You Can't Find It On the

reinstatement of the American spirit

Map" Johnson.

ushered in by this administration. To borrow a quote, "it's morning in America again."

"IT’S BEEN A LITTLE OVER A YEAR NOW SINCE PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS BEEN IN OFFICE, SO LET’S SET THE RECORD STRAIGHT."

2017 has been a momentous year for the conservative movement in the United States. For all the doubts, fears, disapprovals, and holier than thou attitude directed towards our President, he has done nothing but prove his commitment to the conservative cause and to the nation's best interests. Or, as he put it at

However, it's been a little over a year now

this year's CPAC, "Remember when I first

since President Trump has been in Office,

started running? Because I wasn't a

so let's set the record straight. As our

politician, fortunately, but do you

honorable Vice President Mike Pence was

remember I started running and people

proudly proclaimed, over the past year we

said, are you sure he's a conservative? I

have: strengthened our military and

think I proved I'm a conservative."

national defense, nearly defeated ISIS, stood firm against North Korean

All the guardians of "true" conservatism

aggression, recognized Jerusalem as the

could learn a thing or two from this

capital of Israel, restored respect for our

administration. While so many, especially

law enforcement, cut illegal crossing at our

here at Princeton, have chosen to turn

southern border by nearly half, reinstated

their noses up high and look down at our

11 | The Princeton Tory | March 2018

President for his supposedly faux-support of our traditional values, he and those he has selected to work with him have been doing more for the conservative cause than

"2017 HAS BEEN A MOMENTOUS YEAR FOR THE

any pseudo-intellectual stand against him

CONSERVATIVE MOVEMENT

ever will. For as much as the never-

IN THE UNITED STATES. FOR

Trumpers would like to tell you different,

ALL THE DOUBTS, FEARS,

conservatism is not only alive and well-it is

DISAPPROVALS, AND

thriving. Conservatism is about loving our

HOLIER THAN THOU

nation, supporting our troops, and respecting our police. Conservatism is about God, family, and country-and in that order. Conservatism is about giving

ATTITUDE DIRECTED TOWARDS OUR PRESIDENT, HE HAS DONE NOTHING BUT

deference to the heroes of our shared

PROVE HIS COMMITMENT TO

history and carrying on the legacy for

THE CONSERVATIVE CAUSE

which they fought and bled. Conservatism

AND TO THE NATION’S BEST

is about working hard, being decent, and

INTERESTS."

caring for your fellow man because it's the right thing to do. It's about small government, free markets, low taxes, a strong military, law and order, individual responsibility, freedom, baseball, and mom's apple pie. I don't have to tell you what a conservatism is about, because in your heart you already know (and the fact of the matter is, Trump is the one making it happen).

The big takeaway from this all: next time a "true" conservative tells you how unprincipled and uniformed you are for supporting Trump, remind him that it's out in the real world where things are actually getting done. While they may fret and worry themselves to sleep thinking about the future of the GOP, you and I already know the way of our party's future because we're the ones fighting for it. And, to all of you who tacitly support our President but are afraid to speak up, in the words of Donald J. Trump: "you got to show your spirit."

Nicholas Sileo is a sophomore from Annapolis, Maryland. He can be reached at nsileo@princeton.edu.

12Â | The Princeton Tory | March 2018

THE REIGN OF RELATIVISM Joseph Stephens*

When it comes to scientific questions, no one doubts that there exists an accurate answer. It is this very certainty of an answer that guides and motivates the intensity of such inquiry. Research and experimentation are undertaken to find a correct conclusion in the theoretical domain and to produce solutions to real world problems in the practical domain. In mathematics as well, analysis is undertaken to demonstrate proofs and accurately outline the limitations and expanse of our current knowledge. On a Princeton calculus midterm, the correct solution to a Taylor series will be duly awarded and the myriads of false answers subtracted from the potential high score. In these realms, it is taken for granted that there is a true answer.

Each scientific discipline has in common a numerical element. We can measure the force of an electron or count the number of sides of a geometric solid in topology. The truth of these different pieces of knowledge seems based upon accurately identifying a quantitative value. Perhaps it is because of the ability to pinpoint an analytically or empirically measurable figure that we presume truth and a falsehood to exist in these domains.

When it comes to questions outside of broadly scientific pursuits, it is often considered to be more suspect that a completely accurate and uncontestable answer is attainable. In the oftquoted words of Scottish philosopher David Hume, we cannot confuse "is" with "ought." While it is not unanimously agreed what he meant by this distinction, it is often taken to mean that there is an unassailable chasm between "fact" and "value." Values are merely opinion or sentiment and fact is that which we can measure and know. According to such a differentiation, any value is arbitrary by virtue of existing in the purely subjective realm of human belief. This commonly accepted dichotomy leads almost inevitably to the pervasive conviction of many, if not most, today: the relativity of morals.

Alastair Macintyre offers one counterargument to this Humean distinction. He argues that according to a long pre-Kantian understanding of morality (including Hume himself), morality is known by comprehension of the human person. The metaphysics of man precedes ethics and hence a proper understanding of human nature yields a proper understanding of morality. For example, the empirical proposition "the policeman wants to back up traffic at the intersection" maps directly onto a directive of how he "ought" to accomplish this goal. There is no mystical leap from a truth in the real world to an arbitrary moral claim. Instead, inasmuch as the policeman desires, needs, and wants certain actions that can be assessed as promoting something as good (likely not the case in the given example), then he "ought" to do those things. And it is important to note that "good" in this instance certainly need not be interpreted as sneaking in a moral concept, for it is intimately bound up with the strictly empirical world. In short, "a good human action" is

13Â | The Princeton Tory | March 2018

simply one that will realize human desires,

better" and "this life is more fulfilling" are

needs, and aspirations.

statements no less true than "two cups is one pint." Just because quantities are more

Other thinkers carry arguments like

accessible to the gadgets of our devising

Macintyre's further, suggesting that goods

does not mean that no assessment of truth

in apparently distinct spheres can equally

can be applied to the qualitative areas of

be assessed objectively. In his collection of

human existence.

essays, The Art of the Commonplace, Wendell Berry worries that so much

Not only need qualitative concerns not be

discussion of improvement and progress in

entirely arbitrary, but, in fact, they inhabit

modern society places emphasis on

the same ontological plane as measurable

quantitative gain. Food is cheaper. More

facts. It will surely be the case that some

goods are available faster. People live

things such as "happiness" and "holiness"

longer. Each of these hallmarks of progress

will never be able to be exhaustively

relies on a quantitative metric of the good.

accounted for from our limited

He suggests that such a lens can lose sight

perspective, but this certainly does not

of the qualitative aspects of human life.

entail that truth in relation to these

Have such marked developments made

categories is a myth. Instead, it means that

our lives better? Are we now, because of

the way of expressing truth in these

material prosperity, a happier and more

domains will take a different form.

contented people? Berry espouses the unpopular view that such luxury and

Moral relativism is the claim that any

standard of living do not compensate for

imperative about how one ought to live is

what we have abrogated spiritually,

just as good as any other, including two

socially, and emotionally. Families have

which are antithetical to each other.

been splintered, communities have been

Beyond the obvious critique that such a

destroyed, while average job opportunities

position itself instantiates, without rational

have become increasingly unfulfilling and

defense, a new single imperative to trump

alienating.

all others, moral relativism likewise has only incoherence to offer for advice to the

According to this line of thinking, there is

practical man. It is worth quoting from

truth in the qualitative realm just as much

Pope Saint John Paul II's penetrating 1998

in the quantitative. If you are feeling

encyclical Fides et Ratio:

sad, then you should follow Aquinas's recommendation to have a good cry and

Rather than make use of the human

take a warm bath. It is no use pretending

capacity to know the truth, modern

that you aren't sad, because that would be

philosophy has preferred to accentuate the

untrue. While it is certainly praiseworthy

ways in which this capacity is limited and

that truth is sought in the scientific realm,

conditioned. This has given rise to different

we should not assert truth to be limited to

forms of agnosticism and relativism which

that form of inquiry. "This food tastes

have led philosophical research to lose itsÂ

14Â | The Princeton Tory | March 2018

way in the shifting sands of widespread

Reason against polygamy was no longer

skepticism. Recent times have seen the rise

on the books in our country. All the while,

to prominence of various doctrines which

however, the inconsistency only

tend to devalue even the truths which had

compounds as efforts to fight rape and

been judged certain. A legitimate plurality

sexual assault become ever more

of positions has yielded to an

substantial. If the pornographer entrapping

undifferentiated pluralism, based upon the

desperate women is to be condoned, why

assumption that all positions are equally

not grant the pedophile asylum as well?

valid, which is one of today's most widespread symptoms of the lack of

These calls are not attempting to avoid

confidence in truth.

sounding alarmist. Barring the question of whether philosophical systems are causal

"THE ASSUMPTION THAT ALL POSITIONS ARE EQUALLY VALID IS ONE OF TODAY'S MOST WIDESPREAD SYMPTOMS OF THE LACK OF CONFIDENCE IN TRUTH."

of cultural phenomena, they are at least helpfully descriptive. As a viewpoint, relativism eliminates all truth. Nothing can withstand its onslaught. If all opinions about morality are equal in arbitrariness, then all are equal in pointlessness. An individual opinion cannot combat falsehood.

We are now experiencing first hand all

Fellow Princetonians and any other young

around the outcomes of this pernicious

people, who have progressed from the

way of thinking. If there is no truth about

unlikely to the simply miraculous in

morality, then cheating on an exam is only

reading thus far: battle against the loss of

something to be concerned about if I am

truth. In relativism, there exists no struggle

caught. Nursing homes are an easier

for real meaning. There exists no good.

solution than caring for aging parents.

There exists no true. There exists only the

Toxic food can be grown and sold so long

vast expanse of meaningless possibility.

as the FDA is paid off.

There exists the monotony of never being

Such relativizing of morals is particularly

wrong. There exists seeking which has no

clear in the area of sexuality. Without an

goal. Work to prevent this tragedy, or else

objective standard of what one "ought" to

embody its tragic flaw.

do, opinions of increasing deviancy are acceptable. Premarital sex, at least culturally looked down upon just two generations ago, is now awarded near

Joseph Stephens is a pseudonym. If you'd

universal approbation. Given the way

like to contact him, he can be reached at

mainstream discussion more and more

tory@princeton.edu.

accepts polyamory, one would almost think that the 1890 ruling in Davis v.

15 | The Princeton Tory | March 2018

SPEAKING UP

How the precise use of language is our best defense against oppression

Jacob Brown without really understanding their underlying meaning and wider What does it mean to be oppressed? To

psychological significance. For the most

some, it means enslavement or unjust

part, this is not their fault: as the left would

imprisonment. To others, it implies subtle

say it, such language is endemic to a

acts that promote a racist or narrow-

systematically oppressive society, and

minded worldview. And for many people,

though I disagree with the exact diagnosis, I

oppression is a politically-charged term that

do agree that the problem rests in

serves no other purpose than to crush

changing social norms. Many people have

dissent. Clearly, words have different

grown up in environments in which words

meanings to different people, but this

serve not to persuade or to clarify, but to

article will not serve as yet another lament

demonstrate one's unwavering allegiance to

over the state of free speech on campus or a

a particular social cause. This is a terrifying

melancholic polemic on the decline of the

thought since when the building blocks of

English language. Rather, it will examine

communication become a weapon of war,

how politically motivated (but often

there is no choice but to fight; to remain

unintentional) changes in the use of

silent is to surrender.

language on both the right and the left have compromised individuals' abilities to

If this sounds at all familiar, it is because it

properly express their opinions, thoughts,

comes from a familiar source: George

and desires. I will argue that these dogmatic

Orwell, author of the dystopian classic 1984

allegiances to ideologies of language are

and creator of "Newspeak", a language

crippling the ability of our society to engage

designed for the sole purpose of limiting

in free and informed debate as both the

the communication of ideas unfavorable to

Founding Fathers and the great thinkers of

"the Party". In his seminal 1946 essay Politics

the classical liberal tradition envisioned it.

in the English Language, Orwell describes how easily the English language can be

Let's start by talking about two terms that

corrupted by deceitful political speech, and

are commonly used in modern political

describes how many phrases have

parlance: oppressed, and its close cousin,

completely changed meaning through the

racist. It is not uncommon to hear many on

will of political leaders and the masses that

the left talk about societal issues as a

follow them. Orwell calls the use of such

product of systemic oppression, and to call

euphemistic terms "phraseology." As an

people who perform certain verbal slights

example, he noted how politicians might

(micro-aggressions) racist, when other terms

call for a "rectification of frontiers" of

would probably do a better job of

"transfer(s) of population," which sound

describing the situation and persuading the

superficially mundane, but which actually

accused that they should think more

put a kind face on the forcible removal of

carefully. Many people use these terms

an unwelcome group. While we still live

16 | The Princeton Tory | March 2018

in a world where gentle-sounding terms

aggregate effect of people doing this

are used to describe violent action (think

regularly over time decreases the relative

Operation Iraqi Freedom), we have now

weight of the word, preventing situations

entered a time where the opposite has

that would have previously fallen under its

occurred. Words which once instilled a

accepted definition from being accurately

truly powerful emotional resonance in

described. To illustrate this, we take the

most people (and thus were used

example of Anna. Anna lives in a household

sparingly) are now being applied to

in which she is subject to domestic abuse

mundane situations in order to exaggerate

on a regular basis. Her husband beats her

their significance. The use of such words

at night and threatens to kill her if she tells

has become more and more common, to

anyone what he is doing. But if expecting

the point where their meaning has

women to wear high heels at work

become blunted. As I will explain, many

(however ridiculous this may be) is one

people no longer possess the ability to

definition of oppressive, Anna's best

describe the truly significant situations to

possible word for describing her terrible

which these words originally referred, ones

situation to others suffers from a severe

where there is severe infringement on the

definitional blurring. Because of this, it may

safety, security, or liberty of

be that even if she finally musters the

individuals. Using words in this fashion

courage to speak out, some people who

creates a false equivalency between the

are desensitized to the word oppression would dismiss Anna's plight as trivial - even if the actions of her husband were clearly

"MANY PEOPLE HAVE GROWN UP IN ENVIRONMENTS IN WHICH WORDS SERVE NOT TO PERSUADE OR TO CLARIFY, BUT TO DEMONSTRATE ONE’S UNWAVERING ALLEGIANCE TO A PARTICULAR SOCIAL CAUSE. WHEN THE BUILDING BLOCKS OF COMMUNICATION BECOME WEAPONS OF WAR, THERE IS NO CHOICE BUT TO FIGHT; TO REMAIN SILENT IS TO SURRENDER."

immoral.

In fact, those who regularly invoke the language of systematic oppression would not have an effective way of communicating Anna's situation. Why would people believe the "boy who cried wolf?" Rarely-used but "heavy" words like oppressive are necessary to instill the visceral emotional repulsion that situations like Anna's require, and if words like these begin to disappear or become overused, then people have fewer effective ways to communicate with others.

These situations are not just thought

trivial (but supposedly egregious) sins of

experiments - they occur in real life,

individuals and the truly awful situations to

too. We only need to look to November of

which these words are meant to refer. The

2017 to find an excellent example of what

17 | The Princeton Tory | March 2018

happens when weighty words are used

rude. Now it is called white supremacist,

inappropriately. The story begins with

transphobic, and in the words of these

Lindsay Sheppard, a teaching assistant at

professors, "violating human rights." And

Wilfred Laurier University, who decided to

not only are those calling people by the

show a debate about a controversial issue

"wrong pronoun" subject to this, but those

in an undergraduate seminar about using

who try to describe that person's views to

gendered pronouns, and was subsequently

others in an unbiased manner are too. This

reprimanded by the university for doing so.

raises an important question: if we can call

This, in turn, led to a media firestorm about

someone as harmless as Lindsay Sheppard

how language is being co-opted to suit

a white supremacist, how are we able to

ideological purposes. This debate, which

recognize what real white supremacy looks

was organized by a public broadcaster,

like? In a society where words no longer

presented a panel discussion about

possess their intended meaning, we have

whether a proposed federal law that would

no way of accurately making the

supposedly force people to call individuals

distinction between actions that some

by their "preferred pronoun" was an

might find undesirable, and the truly-awful

infringement on free speech principles. The

actions of white supremacists that most

panel included Jordan Peterson - a

everyone would find disgusting.

University of Toronto Professor famous for not calling transgender individuals by their

It is not difficult to imagine a society in

"preferred pronouns." Sheppard - a self-

which using weighty words has become

described leftist and vegetarian who

nothing more than virtue signaling, and

disagrees with Peterson's views - was

where words with concrete definitions are

subject to a complaint from a student in

a thing of the past. I would argue that this

her class, reprimanded by the university,

is the stepping stone to doublespeak -

and subsequently brought into a

using a phrase opposite to its intended

discussion with faculty members that saw

meaning, like calling the secret police

them implicitly accuse her of "white

department the "Ministry of Love" - that

supremacy" and "transphobia", despite her

Orwell's 1984 warns us will lead us to

holding none of those views.

totalitarian regimes and egregious (and real) violations of human rights. This is a future in which societies are unable to recognize the horrifying events happening around them simply because they have no way of accurately communicating its inhumane and utterly revolting nature to others - and it is one that we must seek to avoid.

In a previous era, calling a person by an

As might be expected, such a change in

unwanted name would have been called

the use of language has caused a backlash

18 | The Princeton Tory | March 2018

on the right side of the political spectrum.

essential role in the creation and

And why wouldn't it? Conservative students

maintenance of successful Western

and pundits, who are generally in the

Democracies. As any author of the

minority on college campuses, have been

Constitution might have told you, free

subject to torrents of verbal abuse and

speech does not exist just for individual

have often been outright banned from

freedom's sake, but as a tool to ensure all

holding events or publishing articles that

members of society have the potential to

portray "politically-incorrect" viewpoints.

express their views in a free and informed debate, which in turn leads to a more-

According to a survey by YouGov, "very

representative and better-functioning

liberal" students are 14 points more likely

democracy. While this speech may often

than "very conservative" students to feel

be controversial or provocative - which is

comfortable expressing their opinions in

expected in an ideologically-diverse society

the classroom, and more than twice as

that encourages its citizens to hold non-

many "liberal" students as "conservative"

conformist views - this is not the sole

students believe that guest speakers

purpose of free speech, and this side-effect

should be disinvited from campus in

should not be conflated with its primary

certain circumstances. The lack of comfort

goal.

in expressing certain political viewpoints is an endemic problem in American culture

Unfortunately, some on the right have

today, and when one side believes that the

done exactly this: instead of promoting free

deck is stacked against them (which it is),

speech for the purpose of encouraging

people take to doing what any good

debate that improves our democracy,

citizen in a democracy should do: protest.

many right-leaning movements have

But when the words necessary to articulate

instead taken to free speech as a way to

the opposing argument are denied to

simply provoke the other side. This is

certain groups, then who should be

shown in the "free speech" rallies held by

surprised when people become

the likes of Richard Spencer who do not

increasingly frustrated?

contribute much in the way of substantive or ethical right-wing ideas, but instead use

However, rather than helping to rectify the

free speech as a pretext to insult and

issue, the actions of many on the right have

demean their left-wing opponents. While

made the situation even worse. "Free

these types of rallies never draw more than

speech" is the rallying cry for many on this

a few hundred people, they are enormously

side of the political spectrum, and while

blown out of proportion by the media,

many people who would identify as right-

which makes leftists begin to equate free

leaning wholeheartedly promote free

speech with the purposefully-provocative

speech within its generally-accepted

speech that violates the spirit of intelligent

definition, there are others who take this to

debate envisioned by the Founders. This

the extreme, abusing the term and

cycle then repeats itself, and rightists

preventing free speech from referring to its

continue to use free speech only as aÂ

19Â | The Princeton Tory | March 2018

method to provoke leftists rather than contribute good ideas to the public

"FREE SPEECH IS AS

discourse, while the Left stifles speech that goes against their ideology and prevents

MUCH ABOUT THE

well-meaning rightists from being able to

QUANTITY OF WORDS

express their views. This is extraordinarily

AS THEIR QUALITY."

dangerous, and if American society continues on this path, there is no telling what will happen to this most basic and essential freedom that serves as the core of

Nowadays, these two expressions seem

a properly-functioning democracy..

trite, even quaint - and so it is hard to remember that they were once widely

So what can be done? Though it may seem

used in newspapers and journals. The same

a daunting task to change the universally-

might one day be said about the words

accepted meaning of a word, the fact is

racist and oppressive. I suggest using them

that every person's choice of words count.

sparingly, and if you observe others using

As Orwell himself writes:

them inappropriately, (politely) call them out and explain why using these terms

"Silly words and expressions have often

may harm the very people they are

disappeared, not through any evolutionary

intended to help. This decision not to use

process but owing to the conscious action

the socially-acceptable euphemism stands

of a minority. Two recent examples were

out, and may inspire others to follow. As

explore every avenue and leave no stone

the old expression goes, tell it like it is -

unturned , which were killed by the jeers of

and if the word does not seem right, don't

a few journalists."

use it! Free speech is as much about the quantity of words as their quality, and ensuring that public discourse remains civil and informed will help maintain the quality of our political debates for years to come.

Jacob Brown is a sophomore from York, Ontario majoring in Electrical Engineering.

He can be reached at jacob.brown@princeton.edu.

20Â | The Princeton Tory | March 2018

WHAT IS TOLERANCE? André Mendoza

people and ideas. But there are more than one kind of person or idea. There are good people and bad people, correct ideas and

Central to the political strife that

incorrect ideas. Certainly, we should

characterizes our country today are key

embrace and accept good people and

words such as 'rights', 'choice', 'diversity',

their correct ideas; this at least is a good

and 'sexism'. These words, intensely

tolerance. But what about the bad people

philosophical, are hurled like grenades on

and incorrect ideas? Should we embrace or

prime-time television in support of this or

accept them? Endure them? Tolerate them

that position without a single twitch of gray

at all?

matter. Clearly, we have difficulty

separating rhetoric from truth. Any fruitful

First, reconsider why tolerance was ever a

politics ought to look past rhetoric,

good idea. Fundamental to our democracy

beginning from clear definitions and

is the right to freedom of belief, speech,

necessary distinctions. Here we consider

and expression. History has shown that

tolerance, weighing its various flavors, good

governments which reject these rights

and bad, and from there suggest a path to

often breed violence and revolution.

future conversation.

Tolerance, however, holds back violence

and encourages political stability.

Where else to begin but its Latin root? The

Furthermore, tolerance on a personal level

English word comes from tolerare, meaning

encourages open conversation and allows

to suffer, to endure, to put up with, to bear;

the trading of ideas, which is good for

thus, we tolerate pain, or our roommate's

everyone.

questionable hygiene. It conveys a definite

tone of distaste. More recently, the word

Second, reconsider the purpose of freedom

has taken also positive connotation,

of speech. Some ideas are correct and

meaning more to accept, or embrace; in

others incorrect; incorrect ideas, like

this sense we dream of a tolerant society,

racism, harm not only the people thinking

and it is this sense which is most often used

them, but the whole society. Correct ideas,

in the political arena.

like freedom of speech, analogously help everyone. Whether the people with the

In addition to these two senses, we can

correct or incorrect ideas are the majority,

tolerate many kinds of things. Most relevant

freedom of speech allows the minority to

to politics are people and ideas. We can

keep the good ideas alive and debate the

tolerate our roommate's conspiracy

bad ideas; diversity of opinion for diversity's

theories, but we can also tolerate our

sake creates a nation always at war with

roommate. Therefore, we are left with at

itself; diversity of opinion moderated by

least four possible uses of the word: we can

freedom of speech begets a unified nation

endure people and ideas, and embrace

and stable society.

21 | The Princeton Tory | March 2018

With these considerations in mind, we

saying something crazy and me smiling

propose the following criteria: tolerance is

and saying, 'that's nice'." There is

good when it is directed towards the good

something very vicious and condescending

of our fellow citizen and the preservation of

about this kind of tolerance; it embraces

freedom of speech; tolerance is bad when

and endures exactly the wrong things.

it does not seek the good of our fellow

Suppose a friend were to say he believed

citizen and compromises freedom of

Benjamin Franklin was the third president.

speech.

Without question you would correct him!

That is, you embrace a person but reject an idea. It would be a cruel prank to smile and nod in the face of so blatant an error. But

"DIVERSITY OF OPINION FOR DIVERSITY’S SAKE CREATES A NATION ALWAYS AT WAR WITH ITSELF; DIVERSITY OF OPINION MODERATED BY FREEDOM OF SPEECH BEGETS A UNIFIED NATION AND STABLE

this kind of error is harmless compared to the kind of beliefs relevant today, which regard matters of morality.

It is not my intention to issue an opinion on these matters, but only discuss objectively the kind of problem our nation faces.

Depending on who you ask, these United States might be the host of governmentsponsored infanticide, or of a horrendous and bigoted persecution of LGBT persons, or of a corrupt government run by a

SOCIETY."

reptilian alien race. Clearly, someone has crazy ideas, but more importantly crazy ideas with immense consequences. The

Therefore, by this criteria, we should

kind of tolerance defined by Mr. Jillette

endure incorrect ideas in the sense that we

would have us smile and nod at the crazy

uphold a person's right to express the bad

people, but inwardly endure a fellow

idea, but actually refuse to tolerate the

citizen; it embraces a bad idea endures

idea insofar as the idea threatens the good

even a friend. This kind of tolerance is

of our nation, and even the person

actually condescending because it refuses

believing it. In the case of the bad person,

genuine dialogue with a sarcastic smile; it

such as an unhygienic roommate or

is what the English journalist G.K.

corrupt politician, we ought to embrace

Chesterton called "the virtue of the man

them insofar as they are human and thus

without convictions."

inherently worthy of human respect.

I rather think Princeton is an intolerant Popular magician Penn Jillette of Penn &

community. Not a week has gone by since

Teller offered a more vivid definition than

freshman fall without my participating in

mine when he said: "Tolerance is you

some intense discussion about such issues

22 | The Princeton Tory | March 2018

as religion, marriage and sexuality, or

half of good tolerance; the other half

whether triangular brownies taste better

requires that persons of opposing views

than square ones; these discussions make a

embrace each other. The abortion debate

Princeton education more than about

is very well regulated with respect to

classes. Princetonians do not tolerate

embracing persons, notwithstanding

stupid ideas that affect the rest of us.

occasional claims that pro-life activists care too little for pregnant mothers and

Of course, Princeton is also a wonderfully

children after they are born, and pro-

tolerant community. Not once here have I

choice advocates too little for children

been called a bigot for giving expression to

before they are born. But for the most part,

my faith and philosophy; never have I met

the public discussion focuses on the

another student entirely unwilling to listen

central problem, the status and rights of

to an opposing view, even views they find

the fetus.

repulsive; here a professor who believes killing babies isn't always wrong works

The case of pronoun preferences, however,

alongside a leading conservative

proves far more complex. Suppose George

intellectual who assigns an essay entitled,

and Catherine are best friends. Suppose

"Killing Babies Isn't Always Wrong," as

George, born male, asks Catherine to use

required reading in class. This is virtuous

the pronouns she/hers/her. Neither

tolerance.

Catherine nor George denies that at least George has the idea that George is female

Admittedly, this analysis of toleration is

or feminine. Suppose Catherine denies this

simplistic, not at all groundbreaking, nor

idea, that is, she believes that George is in

even very interesting; it does, however,

fact male, regardless of what George may

have the potential to move difficult

think. According to Catherine, to use

conversation beyond a game of rhetoric

George's preferred pronouns is to

and into fundamental disagreements. We

externally profess belief in something

give two examples of the usefulness of this

Catherine does not believe, that George is a

analysis, not intending to push forth but

female. From Catherine's perspective, to

only to point out how a clear definition can

use George's preferred pronouns is to nod

guide tough discussions.

her head, smile, and say, "That's nice" to an idea she believes harmful to her friend in a

The abortion debate is an example of

deep way; it is condescending to George.

tolerance properly regulating public

On the other hand, suppose Catherine

discussion. Both pro-life and pro-choice

does as we reasoned before in the case of

activists argue that the ideas of the other

good tolerance, embracing the person

side harm women, children, and families.

George, remaining George's friend, while

The debate is largely a battle of ideas, as it

rejecting the idea of George's sexual

should be; we recognize that the real issue

identity. The problem of the pronoun

is whether or not a fetus is a person or has

question is that the distinction between

the rights of a person. But this is only theÂ

person and idea becomes confused,

23Â | The Princeton Tory | March 2018

because for George, George's person is not separable from George's identity. For George, it is impossible to embrace George without embracing George's pronouns; for Catherine, embracing George's identity consists exactly in denying George's idea, expressed through pronouns. Though most of the debate around the pronoun question regards issues like of rights of speech, the real question regards the identity of a human person, whether identity is something we create or discover.

"THE REAL QUESTION REGARDS THE IDENTITY OF A HUMAN PERSON, WHETHER IDENTITY IS SOMETHING WE CREATE OR DISCOVER."

We began with a Latin etymology and ended with a question in philosophical anthropology. In this way clear and slow thinking has the ability to reduce the world's great problems to their root questions, and it is virtuous tolerance which facilitates this thinking. This thinking, clearly both a personal and public good, is threatened by a clearly illogical understanding of tolerance, but easily remedied by open conversation.

André Mendoza is a sophomore from Prospect, Kentucky. He can be reached at andrem@princeton.edu.

24 | The Princeton Tory | March 2018

A HEART AND A MIND

Approaches to Pro-Life Rhetoric

Nathaniel Gadiano

How often have conservatives found themselves in discussions-one might even call them debates-on hot topics of today's politics, with friends or fellow classmates w ith whom they disagree, and found that they get nowhere in the conversation. At times, perhaps, it can seem that these disagreements with liberals are utterly intractable. It may even seem that the only thing these debates do is further dig an ever-widening trench between liberals and conservatives.

We disagree. We debate. But to what avail?

In this short article, I would like to offer some reflections on approaches to everyday pro-life rhetoric. What I hope to do here is offer some practical advice to people in the pro-life movement-and to pro-choicers for that matter-for approaching discussions on the issues of life.

This article is not meant to provide a defense of the pro-life position, nor do I seek to argue against the pro-choice position here. All that it is meant to do is provide practical advice for those engaging in pro-life debates and discussions.

Before we continue, it is important to consider why we debate. Do we argue to "win" a debate (whatever that means)? Do we debate to embarrass our opponent? Do we debate only to dismantle another's argument and show them to be "wrong?" No. Pro-life advocates ought to debate so that both interlocutors can come to the truth and know what is the good to be done. If they debate for any of the other reasons, they may very easily lose sight of the bigger picture, and in so doing, turn what could have otherwise been a fruitful conversation into a sophistical and pride-pleasing game. It is important to always have the love of truth in mind when discussing these important issues "about which reasonable people of goodwill disagree" (to put it in a way Professor Robert P. George might).

Be open to the arguments and beliefs of your interlocutor. As we are in the truth-seeking business, we must always be willing to change our stance if we are convinced that we were previously wrong. Of course, you should only change your mind if you have good reason to do so; but, nevertheless, it is helpful to approach debates with an open-minded attitude. Even if you do not ultimately change your stance on, say, whether you are "pro-life" or "pro-choice," you may find that aspects of your beliefs were misguided or ill-informed. Changing your mind, provided that it is done after rigorous thought and for proper reasons, should be an opportunity to rejoice: clarity is a great friend of truth. Along these lines, when you know yourself to be wrong, be quick to admit it. It helps only your pride if you unnecessarily persist in obstinacy.

With an open mind, be charitable to your interlocutor, both to her arguments and to her as a person. Again, as the goal of any debate is to come to the truth-as best we can-and, in doing so,

25 | The Princeton Tory | March 2018

to help one another know what is the good

know what the other person thinks and,

to be done, we ought always to approach

rather, have open ears ready to listen. In

others with love and compassion. When it

short, when it comes to issues of life, is not

comes to the arguments themselves, it is

enough to argue with a person; we must

important to really try to understand the

do so with love, always keeping in mind

other's arguments. Do not make straw-men

their good and not merely the "winning" of

and do not uncharitably misinterpret what

an argument.

someone is saying.

Besides this, I think that it is not only important to worry about the substance of

"PRO-LIFE ADVOCATES OUGHT TO DEBATE SO THAT BOTH

the argument or even the manner in which you argue; it is also important to consider when and where you argue. There are times for debate, and there are times when

INTERLOCUTORS CAN

it can wait. It is important to practice

COME TO THE TRUTH

prudence when considering whether to

AND KNOW WHAT IS THE GOOD TO BE DONE."

confront an argument or not. Of course, there is not one good answer to the question of when and where to argue, but I will offer one brief suggestion. It is best to debate in settings and at times when you can engage in an actual conversion. No,

To this end, trying to put oneself in the

while drunk on the Street is usually not the

shoes of the other is often helpful. To the

best time and place to debate people.

best of their ability, one ought to seek to

Needlessly being argumentative all the

understand why someone thinks what they

times does no great good and may

do. Really listen to what each person has

needlessly cause discord. Of course, one

to say. Not everyone who is pro-choice has

ought not to affirm things with which she

the exact same beliefs, nor do they all have

does not agree, but there are times when

the same motivations. As such, it is

remaining silent is perhaps most prudent.

important to address the specific points

There is a time and a place for everything.

that the respective person argues, the exact concerns that they raise. This

In the words of the Bard, you ought to

can only be done if you resist

"have more than thou showest, speak less

the temptation to assume you already

than thou knowest" (Shakespeare, King Lear, Act I, Scene 4).

"SEEK CONSENSUS

When it comes to the substantive aspect of

FIRST; AND ONLY THEN

pro-life arguments, it is important to

PROCEED TO DEBATE”

realize that people bring to any given debate a whole host of prior beliefs and

26 | The Princeton Tory | March 2018

judgments. Because arguments build off of

article on a similar topic, see a previous

each other, it may be necessary to

Tory article entitled "Metaphysical

backtrack and find where your two

Economics and the Sources of Our

divergent views first fissure. In other words,

Disagreement" by Professor Robert Koons).

the current issue about which two people may disagree may be the result of an

An example may be helpful to illustrate

upstream dispute. Imagine a flowing river

this point. Imagine a scenario in which two

that parts at a point, with two resulting

people are debating whether abortion

streams flowing further and further apart.

should be legal. Although the interlocutors

If, at the initial split, two people go

have jumped into a debate at a specific

separate ways, they will never ultimately

point, their arguments do not exist in a

flow down the same stream unless they

vacuum. They will bring with them a host

both go back to the split and determine

of other arguments and presuppositions.

which way to go. It is similar when it comes

The topic at hand relies on numerous other

to arguments. Although you may be

arguments: the role of law in society, the

debating one issue, there will ultimately be

morality of abortion, the purpose and

no downstream consensus unless there is

extent of liberty, the proper power of

agreement on the upstream debates.

government-the list could go on, and each of these bring with them a host of other supporting arguments. The point is that unless the people agree are the preliminary arguments, they will not come a consensus on the topic at hand. Find the common ground first, then build from there.

And so, the next time you have a discussion-a debate, perhaps-with a friend or colleague, I hope that you approach it with an open mind, a loving heart, and an analytic attitude. Seek to understand the person, with whom you are talking. Seek to put yourself in their shoes. Seek to find the root of the disagreement. And, with love for

Thus, it is helpful to first find common

all, hatred towards none, fight for life; but

ground and build from there. Otherwise,

do so with both the heart and the mind.

your breath may be wasted on futile arguments. If two people are working from radically differing upstream beliefs, the downstream debate will be of no good.

Nate Gadiano is sophomore from Reston,

Therefore, seek consensus first; and only

Virginia. He can be reached at

then proceed to debate. (For an interesting

ngadiano@princeton.edu.

27 | The Princeton Tory | March 2018

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