The Princeton Tory 34.2

T H E

A

P R I N C E T O N

TORY

JOURNAL

OF

CONSERVATIVE

C R A F T I N G THE

RIGHT

A

WRITES

V O L U M E

AND

MODERATE

G O O D ABOUT

X X X I V

- -

THE

I S S U E

THOUGHT

S O C I E T Y RIGHT

2

RIGHTS

PUBLISHER'S NOTE Dear Reader, Look! It’s another issue of your favorite journal of conservative and moderate (?) thought!

we should be seeking to secure. Caroline Ortiz and Jacob Brown follow up with articles about,

This is Issue #2 of the “new Tory” – the one that

respectively, what happens when our rights conflict

doesn’t come under your door, has a newfangled

with each other and how some rights shouldn’t

modern design, and is gilded with photos that look

actually be considered rights. Tom Koenig and

like stock photos but, surprise, aren’t. As I noted last

Shanon Fitzgerald indirectly counter Daniel Bracho’s

issue, this “new Tory” is also focusing on a different

assertion about the role of government when it

audience – Princetonians, not Tory writers. This issue,

comes to securing rights. Finally, Billy makes a

while more traditionally Tory than our inaugural one,

remarkably government-less claim about how

continues in that newfangled “tradition.”

society should react to pornography, and I wrap up

We’re defying labels over here at the Tory.

the issue with a hard stance about how the

Right?

government, based on certain claims, should have

Rights — what this issue of the Tory is about.

no ability to restrict any of our rights.

When Joaquim, the Editor-in-Chief, and I were

As I emphasized in the last issue, conservatives

originally coming up with the topic (we come up with

differ, and we’re hardly a cohesive movement. A

a general framing topic to focus the writers and create

“conservative” stance can land anywhere on a

a general cohesion for each issue), we intended this

spectrum, and this issue does a really good job

issue to be about liberty, not rights. Perhaps

showing that. Here at the Tory, all we can attach

predictably, though, when you direct conservatives of

ourselves to is a pursuit of truth, but we can’t ever

multiple different persuasions to write about liberty,

vehemently assert we’re right, or Right, or that we

they instead write, rightfully, about rights.

have a right. All we can do is pursue upright goals,

Rights, or the lack thereof, are always the basis for liberty. How you structure your governments and laws

and try to set society right. And write, I suppose.

Enjoy the issue.

relies on theories of rights, and has resultant effects on liberty. In other words, underlying every

Yours,

conversation about liberty lies a conversation about what liberties people have. In other words, rights.

The Tory doesn’t have any single take on this issue. John Waya opens the issue with an article

Christian Schmidt '20

about how we can secure our rights, and which rights

Publisher

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

i | The Princeton Tory | 2018

T H E

P R I N C E T O N

TORY VOLUME XXXIV

01 03 05 08 09

--

ISSUE 2

TOWARD THE REPUBLICAN IDEAL John Waya

THE RHETORIC OF RIGHTS Caroline Ortiz

WHY IDENTITY POLITICS DON'T WORK Jacob Brown

BIG GOVERNMENT Daniel Bracho

TOWARD A MORAL CHINA POLICY Tom Koenig and Shanon Fitzgerald

11

PORN IS DANGEROUS

13

MONEY, SEX, POWER

Billy Wade

Christian Schmidt

ii | The Princeton Tory | 2018

PUBLISHER

Christian Schmidt '20

EDITOR - IN - CHIEF Joaquim Brooks '20

MANAGING EDITORS Jack Whelan '19 Michael Smilek '20 Stephen Phillips '20 Billy Wade '21

COPY EDITOR Nicholas Wooldridge '21

TREASURER Will Crawford '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 Jacob Brown '20 Nicholas Sileo '20 Daniel Bracho '21

CONTRIBUTING WRITERS

Tom Koenig '20 Shanon Fitzgerald '20 Caroline Ortiz '21

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 | 2018

John Waya We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Men bear certain unalienable rights which come from his inherent human dignity; given that all men are equal in that they are rational beings, we see that it is unjust and inhumane to deny the life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness of any other such intellectual being. While the Declaration does say that rights come from the Creator, the fundamental rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are not exclusive to believers; non-believers, though they ignore or refute God’s presence, very clearly ‘receive His gifts’ and have the same inherent human dignity as everyone else. All people, regardless of creed, deserve their unobstructed rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness because their shared rationality and dignity binds them together in the human experience and thus proves that no man is entitled to oppress his similarly intellectual equal. These rights are natural and universal.

However, men do not always acknowledge the God-given rights of others. As such, good, virtuous men have attempted to ameliorate this problem by instituting governments dedicated to securing these rights. Governments – or ordered bodies of men – have the strength and numbers to protect their citizens and promote the common good, and they do so by discouraging and punishing immoral acts by men against their fellow man. With this great strength, however, comes the possibility of misuse.

Governments do not always act to promote the good of man but to oppress other men and take what is theirs for their own. The Americans recognized the tyrannical British monarchy as such a malevolent government, and they deemed revolt the proper next step in dealing with the Crown. The Americans recognized that they bore certain God-given rights, that they were entitled to form a government in order to secure these rights, and that the British monarchy had trampled upon such rights for far too long. Because men are free, they can form government to secure their freedoms: Because men form governments to secure their rights, a government that does not secure these fundamental rights can and must be destroyed.

Men form governments to secure their fundamental rights, as it is written in the Declaration. However, given that the less-thanideal treatment of rights led to the American Revolution, we see that man is quite particular about how government deals with his natural fundamental rights! If we are to know how the government should deal with our God-given rights, we must understand that which secure even means. Samuel Johnson’s Dictionary of the English Language, 1785, is one source that might shed some light on this phrase in the Declaration: “To SECURE. 1.To make certain; To put out of hazard; To ascertain.

2. To protect; to make safe.

3. To insure.”

By the American account, government is to put out of hazard, to protect, to insure itself from infringing upon man’s pre-existing rights. Government, then, is the guard – and not the giver – of rights. In fact, since government is merely a collective of men, the notion of deriving rights from them is false; I do not have the right of Life because the government decided I could fit into the scheme of things here in America but because I was born a human as a being equal in rationality to my neighbors. No group of people – no matter how large, focused, or persistent – could simply will me into existence. While government can choose which rights to protect, it cannot rewrite the laws of the universe.

For government to claim to create rights, then, is for it to take on a role it neither has nor deserves. In fact, government can easily turn for the worse when it decides which fundamental rights belong to whom. If the right to life of Americans came from the Founding Fathers, then the Founding Fathers could have decided how long this life could be, where the life could take place, and what groups of people are allowed to live. They could theoretically kill any political opposition, for if they assigned the right to life, they could legally take it away. Then, these autocratic Founding Fathers would have little incentive to keep each other alive instead of taking all the right-assigning power for themselves; why should Alexander Hamilton not kill James Madison such that he himself may avoid becoming subject to the whims of Madison?

Fortunately, America lacks an executive autocrat who believes he can ordain who possesses which fundamental rights.

Unfortunately, many Americans falsely believe that this power rests with the Judiciary. If the Supreme Court rules in favor of campaign financing, the use of condoms, or privacy broadly-defined, then surely these must be natural, fundamental rights, right? Rights which

1 | The Princeton Tory | 2018

the people deserve and should not be forced to live without! Yet if the rights at stake were fundamental rights (such as the right to life or liberty), then becoming a spectator to the Court and begging it to ‘grant’ these rights would ascribe to nine equally rational humans a power which they lack – one that ignores human equality and falsely places them far above the rest. However, as is the case with the right to use condoms, Americans have confused a relatively small policy issue with a fundamental right that is necessary for human existence and undeniable because of its essential importance to our being.

I do not wish to say that rights are unimportant or negligible. Yet some Americans have shifted their focus so much toward the procurement of rights that they have lost sense of what man truly needs to live on this earth. To recall the Declaration, we would not be able to live as humans without the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Fortunately, our government protects those

greater citizens than the non-violent potato on my kitchen

rights. Given that, do we absolutely need the right to, say,

counter! Although rights are important, a march toward

have free health care? Affordable universal healthcare is an

the republican ideal of communal perfection and

honorable goal toward which we might work as citizens

happiness requires something more than a fight to

and policy-makers, and to claim that it is a right would not

determine which rights the government ought to protect.

create a terrible society, but it is not a fundamental right

Rather, it requires a sort of moral perfectionism which seeks

that we need in order to exist as human. Thus, the general

to purify the individual such that the common good may

trend at hand is that a portion of America exists in a spoiled,

benefit, and it needs the government to teach citizens that

rights-greedy state, one which stems from a backwardly-

they can honor their natural rights best by using them to

oriented fixation on rights rather than the common good.

help others. If individuals learn duties rather than rights,

To clarify, the Declaration of Independence stipulated that

they will less readily complain about which rights they do

our Creator gave us the rights we have. But He also gave us

not feel they have and instead try to fulfill their duties to

responsibilities, duties, and obligations to live lives of virtue

help their fellow man.

This is not an argument to abolish rights but a

and restraint.

But what is the good toward which we must work?

clarification of both their source and their orientation. To

And what are the duties that come with our rights? Well,

ameliorate the confusion of the source of rights, Americans

when a government works to achieve the common good

today must view – as the Founders did – their fundamental

rather than hunting down accessory individual rights such

rights not as derived from government but as naturally

as privacy, it orients itself such that its actions benefit the

woven out of their equality as rational beings. Doing so will

society as a whole rather than individuals alone; this is

prove said rights as irrevocable, and it links us to our

achieved by the collective action of a polity striving toward

equals. As for the orientation of said rights, Americans must

the republican ideal. If the republican ideal is collective

stop confusing accessory rights with fundamental rights

fulfillment, then acting toward ensuring every individual

which allow them to exist as a human, and they must use

right imaginable focuses too much on the individual and

the rights which they do have to help others and be

not enough on collective prosper. Rights, I contend, are oft

community-oriented citizens. Then, America can make true

necessary tools which allow us to work for the common

progress.

good. However, respecting rights alone cannot conduct us to the republican ideal. For example, if I respect others’ right to life, I will not kill the first person at whom I grow angry. Yet a country which refrains from murder is

John Waya is a pseudonym. If you would like to contact

mediocre – albeit pretty safe. There will be no true

him, he can be reached at tory@princeton.edu.

progress; the citizens honor each other’s rights – and respectfully so – but do nothing at all to render themselves

2 | The Princeton Tory | 2018

Caroline Ortiz Abortion implicates the struggle between two

essay about abortion, and I was surprised that the line got

competing rights—the right of women to choose

picked up and frequently quoted. I’ve seen it in both pro-

motherhood and the right of an unborn child to life. Gianna

life and pro-choice contexts, so it appears to be something

Jessen, a pro-life activist, commented on this tug-of-war in

both sides agree on. I wrote, ‘No one wants an abortion as

a poignant way while considering her experience. Her

she wants an ice cream cone or a Porsche. She wants an

mother received a saline abortion on April 6, 1977, but the

abortion as an animal, caught in a trap, wants to gnaw off

fetus—Gianna—survived the procedure. Severely disabled

its own leg.’” There are many possible reasons that women

with cerebral palsy, she was adopted by a woman who

seek abortions but no one can deny that abortion is at best

helped her achieve more than doctors predicted. Jessen

a last-ditch escape method. It is never a desired method for

has given numerous speeches on abortion, in which she

the empowerment of women.

has stated that, "[her] life was being snuffed out in the

The statistics surrounding post-abortive women are

name of women’s rights.” Cries for the right to choose and

complicated and not complete by any reasonable

the right to life have marked this controversial issue since

standards. Nevertheless, they give tangible evidence to

long before 1973. Despite this polarizing rhetoric, I believe

support the sentiment captured in Mathewes-Green’s

that pro-life and pro-choice advocates have more in

phrase that gained great traction across party lines. The

common than we would immediately think.

Elliot Institute for Social Science Research found that 50%

If the fetus is indeed a person with dignity and a right

of post-abortive women report some symptoms of PTSD.

to life, then abortion cannot in most instances be justified

Their research also found that abortion increases a

or allowed in a free, democratic society. If the fetus is not a

woman’s risk of suicide (as compared to that of the general

person, then it can be discarded if the woman so chooses.

population). Others have similarly found that women who

If this latter is the case, then it is an intrusion of the

have had an abortion tend to suffer higher rates of mental

government to force a woman to bear what is not a person

health issues. While I do not claim that the prevalence of

with a right to life. With this in mind, we should all carefully

mental health issues after abortion makes the act morally

reflect on which we believe. The difference between pro-

wrong (after all, women can suffer from post-partum

life and pro-choice advocates is what they view as the

depression and childbirth is not morally wrong), these

solution to this problem of unplanned pregnancies. Those

statistics puncture the argument that abortion is liberating

who are pro-choice believe that if the government does not

and empowering to women. As evidenced by the

allow abortion in light of this reality, then they are forcing

popularity of Mathewes-Green’s quote, pro-choice

women to bear unwanted children. However, the

proponents realize this as well—so why do pro-choice

government is not compelling women to bear children they

advocates argue that women should have the right to

do not want—rather, the natural consequence of having a

choose this fate? These statistics indicate that abortion

healthy reproductive system is compelling women to bear

complicates a women’s life, rather than solving and erasing

these unwanted children. The government cannot save

the problems her unplanned pregnancy created.

women from the natural functioning of their reproductive

The rhetoric for both parties has gradually become

systems without fail. Birth control fails sometimes.

more alike in their focus on sympathy for the women faced

Sometimes, men and women fail to use birth control. Thus,

with the momentous decision of how to handle an

abortion is like a Band aid placed over a bullet hole; it is not

unplanned pregnancy. Often, pro-choice proponents

the solution to the deeper, more complex problem that

defend their stance with an emphasis on the woman’s right

unwanted pregnancies exist (and happen rather often).

to choose motherhood and her right to bodily autonomy.

Yet, if one looks past this sharp divide, there is in fact

They sincerely want to help women by protecting these

common ground that both pro-life and pro-choice

two rights, achieved through Planned Parenthood and

advocates can stand on—that is, the right of women to

access to abortion. Those who work in abortion clinics and

receive support and care during an unplanned pregnancy.

actively campaign for the right to abortion do not in any

In a National Review article, journalist Frederica Mathewes-

way want to kill babies. These men and women sincerely

Green wrote, “Many years ago I wrote something in an

believe that they are helping women by giving them access

3 | The Princeton Tory | 2018

If you would like to donate to the crisis pregnancy center in our area, Choice One, their venmo name is @Choice-One. For information on their resources, mission or other ways to donate, visit their website: https://www.choiceonepartners.org/.

Caroline Ortiz is a freshman from Gaithersburg, Maryland .If you'd like to contact her, she can be reached at to abortion. Recently, the pro-life movement has shifted its

ceortiz@princeton.edu

emphasis from the fetus to the woman as well—imbuing the march with a new streak of feminism. It is striking and important that pro-lifers march with such a similar rhetoric, one that seeks to protect women and empower them.

Let this bring our focus to the common ground—that women in this situation do have a right to the support and resources that would enable them to carry the child for nine months. Women deserve to have information concerning the adoption process available to them.

Women deserve to have information about and access to crisis pregnancy centers. Women deserve a culture that compel them to see children and a career as mutually exclusive. Women deserve a society that encourages men to stay and actively raise their own children, instead of saddling a vulnerable, pregnant woman with all the responsibility alone. These are all aims that I believe prochoice and pro-life people both want to accomplish. If we see past the rhetoric of competing rights, then perhaps progress can be made on these scores.

We have created a culture in which women feel at war with what their very own bodies naturally produce. This internal tension is complex and agonizing to women who are unsure if they want to be mothers, if they can provide for children, if they will be supported, if they have the emotional and physical strength to bear a child for nine months and then offer him or her up for adoption. The hardship and uncertainty that an unplanned pregnancy can cause should not be underestimated. Admittedly, this hardship is at times overlooked by well-intentioned prolifers, who proclaim their desire to save the babies at all costs. Both parties should work together towards the common goal to show compassion to the mothers in our community through effective action and ample resources.

At Princeton, we are called upon to work “in the nation’s service” and we can all start by taking care of the vulnerable women in our midst.

4 | The Princeton Tory | 2018

Jacob Brown

The events of the past few years have shown that

which excludes others who do not possess this trait. We

identity politics is not an effective tool for governance. It is

will soon see that this “exclusionary principle” is not so

easy to see why: American politics is as fractured and

clear-cut in the real world, but in the eyes of most people

polarized as ever, with politicians of all stripes appearing to

who practice identity politics, it makes sense to

double-down on identity politics. However, there has been

categorize people into certain narrowly-defined groups in

little in-depth discussion about the practical reasons why

order to easily determine whether they are worthy of

using identity politics in electoral campaigns and political

preferential treatment.

administrations is a ruinous and self-defeating way to

In certain polities, practicing identity politics may

govern a polity. This essay will purposefully gloss over

win votes, but it is a poor substitute for the kind of policy-

ethical argument identity politics in order to avoid the kind

based governance necessary to effectively run a

of acrimonious debate about rights, responsibilities, and

government. In fact, one of the most significant issues

race that would inevitably arise. Instead, this essay will

with the practice of identity politics is one of definition

explain why identity politics does not work on a practical

and categorization. In an election campaign, it is easy to

level, and how it ultimately leads to worse outcomes for the

promise that certain identity groups will benefit from

groups that purport to benefit from it.

increased state support – but when it comes to

One of the dangers of talking about such a sensitive

implementing policy and determining which people

topic is that public reaction to it is often fierce, particularly

belong to which group, implementing an identity politics

because identity characteristics are innately intertwined

agenda is almost impossible. The most significant issue is

with a person’s sense of him/herself. With the awareness

one of definition: if the boundaries of an identity group

that this piece could very well be read as a series of “dog

are unclear, then who decides whether a person can be a

whistle” statements, I have tried my best to avoid talking

part of that group and receive preferential treatment?

about contemporary issues and their pertinent identity

Race is an excellent example of this – for one, “race”, in

groups, although in the interest of clarity it is sometimes

the traditional sense of skin-color-based ethnicity, is

necessary to present specific examples. In particular, I have

almost entirely a social construct and is poorly supported

tried my best to avoid making judgements approving or

by objective genetic evidence. Moreover, even if there

disapproving of the existence of certain identity groups,

was a “scientific” way of determining race, many

although sometimes making a judgement is inevitable.

supposedly race-based identity groups are based on non-

Talking about the harmful role of identity politics is not

race-based affinity traits, such as whether one feels that

easy, but it is necessary – and by doing so, it will help

one is a victim of racism based on their skin color. In

improve our public discourse, reduce political polarization,

order for a government to properly deliver preferential

and improve the caustic political debates that have enveloped American society.

Before we proceed, it is necessary to provide a concrete definition of identity politics. Identity politics appears in several forms, but the basic principle is that elected officials’ governing philosophy revolves around allocating state resources according to certain “identity” characteristics rather than with the aim of achieving specific policy goals. An identity politics strategy generally focusses on the needs or desires of certain identity groups to the exclusion of others. These characteristics can be anything from race, to gender, to country-of-birth – and since identity can consist of practically anything, the only widelyapplicable definition of an identity group is a collection of people with a mutually agreed-upon identity characteristic

5 | The Princeton Tory | 2018

treatment to certain identity groups, it would have to come

core of how a person sees himself in the world, and also

up with ways to clearly define these groups in the name of

affect a person’s ability to “get ahead in life” based on

consistency, which would probably conflict with many

factors that they cannot control. It is because of this that

group members’ definition of that identity trait. Add to this

many people feel obliged to support their tribe (and their

the complication of degrees of identity characteristics

respective candidate) even if they do not really care for

(what proportion of your ancestors would have to be Blue

identity politics and its accessory self-categorization.

for you to be?), and it becomes clear that governments

In short, what identity politics does is create groups of

would not be able to implement an identity politics agenda

identity rather than interest – or rather, it forces people to

with any degree of objective consistency.

align their interests with their identity to avoid in-group

This brings us to the second significant issue: the

pressure and the loss of individual agency resulting from

unwillingness of individuals to categorize themselves. The

an unfavorable distribution of resources. Competing

most obvious example of this is gender: many people

interest groups are inevitable (and in fact necessary) in a

prefer to identify along a gender “spectrum” that often

vibrant democracy, but sorting people into groups based

defies categorization. There is also a small subset of people

on identity rather than economic or social factors has a

who call themselves “gender-fluid” (their gender is not

uniquely debilitating effect on political discourse. Identity

fixed), which by definition means that they would be not be

politics severely degrades the quality of political debate,

categorizable under any sort of strict legal definition. And it

because instead of focusing on the kind of policies that

is not just gender: people can change other identity

might appeal to different identity groups and serve as a

characteristics over time as well. Since many people would

unifying cause, identity politics divides the population into

prefer to keep their identity choice to themselves and not

neat little groups based on factors which a person has little

be categorized into groups that supposedly represent their

control over - groups which can easily be won in elections

interests, governments cannot ensure individual freedom

based on curried favors. The most obvious example of this

of agency while practicing an identity politics agenda. It is

is the division of the American electorate into race-based

no wonder then that the governments most interested in

groups that are assumed to have homogenous interests,

the sort of hierarchical categorization necessary for identity

which often prevents people in these groups from

politics are also the most authoritarian ones – and it should

expressing their own preferences. It also fosters a culture of

serve as a warning that attempting to practice identity

resentment toward other identity groups when their

politics on a societal scale is a road to repression and ruin.

preferred candidates are not holding power. The long-term

The practice of identity politics has another auxiliary

effects of such political polarization are frightening, so it

effect: it encourages tribal politics which pit one interest

remains to be seen whether elections can again be fought

group directly against another. This is a necessary

about policy rather than identity.

consequence of electoral campaigns resulting from identity politics, in which candidates promise certain identity groups increased state resources at the (indirect) expense of other groups. If one candidate’s focus is on increasing benefits to one group, there is a pretty good chance that the opposing candidate will offer increased benefits to another group in order to gain their favor. What this does is create an identity-group tribal war, in which candidates are not fighting so much over polices as the loyalty (or voter turnout) of certain identity groups. Polls have repeatedly shown that most Americans do not want their candidates to enflame ethnic or religious tensions, but when candidates start touting identity-based policies – even if it is only meant to persuade a small minority of voters – it usually leads to a larger self-assortment of people into tribes, particularly when it involves an identity characteristic that is steeped in historical mistreatment such as a person’s race or sexual orientation, identityrelated policies are different than economic policy in that they touch the very

6 | The Princeton Tory | 2018

But identity politics does more than simply divide the

and the right can do better. Instead of focusing on divisive

population into competing camps. It also encourages

policies that pit one group against another, politicians can

resentment between fellow citizens in a way that

focus on distributing state resources to solve that affect

“traditional” policy-based platforms cannot. This arises

everyone - or at least a significant group of people among

from the common fallacy of many identity politics-touting

different identity groups. We often forget that one of the most

politicians that increased benefits to one identity group will

powerful motivating forces of the West’s democratic politics

not result in decreased welfare for other identity groups.

is patriotism and national unity, and it is a pretty good bet that

This is utterly false. The distribution of state resources is

most people would rather be friendly with their neighbors

unlike free trade in that it is a zero-sum game: the

than hostile to them. Disengaging from identity politics may

government only has so much money to spend per year,

take effort from politicians of all political stripes, but it will

and so an increased allocation of resources to one group

lead to better long-term outcomes. It may even help win

will inevitably result in a decreased availability of resources

elections.

for another in a world of constant government revenue.

Understandably, this causes resentment to arise between the groups that receive the increased benefits and those who do not. Any unfavorable redistribution of resources,

Jacob Brown is a sophomore from Toronto, Ontario majoring

regardless of whether they are based on identity group, will

in Electrical Engineering. He can be reached at

cause people to be upset, but the fact that resources are

jacob.brown@princeton.edu.

directed to or from one particular identity group amplifies an individual’s response, since there are many others “just like them” that share their concerns and could potentially become a powerful voting bloc in future elections. This fosters a culture of resentment in which the identity groups out of power become resentful of those who are currently in power – and when the government changes after an election, the previously out-of-power group feels a need to indulge their newfound power by lavishing their client identity groups with state benefits, or perhaps even by exacting some sort of financial revenge. This creates a feedback cycle in which candidates representing identity groups feel obliged to give as many benefits to their constituents as possible, which encourages the opposing group to do the same for their identity groups when they are in power, which in turn starts the cycle all over again.

This is not sustainable. In short, what identity politics does is create a toxic environment which pits one identity group against another in a zero-sum competition for state benefits that pushes each leader to exploit the opposing group to benefit their own while in power.

We often forget that American politics does not have to be this way. Nothing was ever perfect, but there was a time (such as the era directly preceding World War II) when most Americans voted based on policy preferences rather than identity. As a result (or perhaps a cause) of this shift in the electoral politics dynamic, we have seen a succession of poor policy choices at all levels of government, ranging from race-based (as opposed to wealth-based) affirmative action, to immigration policies that prioritize certain groups of people over others in order to increase the size of certain identity group voting blocs. Both the left

7 | The Princeton Tory | 2018

Do you want and like a big government? What about a government who promises fast solutions to alleviate poverty and promote equality?

At the very least, the government is generally considered as an entity that protects the individual and their rights.

To some, it may seem like a government with increased power and higher presence in society would lead to a situation where rights are protected to a greater extent. Idealism like this has its place but is not always pragmatic or realistic. This is because what if the government that claims to be promoting the general welfare, does the opposite? What if the government ends up removing and limiting your rights?

In Venezuela, this is not a surprise but a quotidian experience. The government, under the banner of socialism and progression, claims that it is protecting the rights of all through a collectivized system of equality and development. The Hugo Chavez (continued by Nicolás Maduro) regime, has taken control of almost every part of society and governmental, delegitimizing and incarcerating anyone and any institution that does not submit to their rule. They persecute opposition politicians like Leopoldo Lopez, who is now imprisoned. Persecute government officials who disagree with the current state of things such as Luisa Ortega Diaz – the former General Prosecutor of Venezuela and is now in exile. They arrest, and even murder, ordinary citizens for protesting the lack of human rights, lack of basic goods, restriction on freedom of speech, crime, and other humanitarian issues.

The current government of Venezuela rose to power in 1999 claiming that it would bring a new economic model for the social benefit of the country. It purported to help the poor and improve welfare benefits and make the government a “savior” for the nation.

Although the country was doing well and was a model for Latin America for most of the 20th century, many lifestyles changed after the fall of oil prices in the 1980s, so politicians resorted to extremes. Soon, government was considered the final and best solution to the nations issues; government was the savior that would rescue the Venezuelan people.

However, the contrary occurred. The Venezuelan government, or in reality, the dictatorship, has consolidated power, taken away the rights of its people and as a result has reduced the ability for its people to survive. For the sake of “progression” and “national order,” the government has eliminated electoral rights, controlling the electoral institutions entirely. It has removed the right of assembly, persecuting and murdering those who go out to the streets to demand governmental change and democratic transition. It has removed the right of free speech, closing the oldest television network in the country, RCTV, simply because it spoke against the government. The government has even been able to purchase all other television networks through front men and consequently has control of all information dissemination. The government has restricted the right of free travel, where it has deliberately allowed airlines to abandon their services in Venezuela, isolating the nation day-by-day, similar to Cuba. The government has even removed the right of choice. Venezuelans do not have the option to choose which products they wish to purchase as goods and services are highly regulated. One can only purchase the product they desire at exorbitant prices in the black market, or the product simply cannot be found. There has been a complete removal of basic human rights, with restriction to basic goods such as milk, butter, water, goodsourced proteins, cooking oil, toilet paper, and even bread. Venezuelans have had to line up for hours under the sun in hopes of receiving something from the supermarket, and millions have already resorted to eating out of the trash. Venezuela used to have the highest purchasing power in Latin America and was praised for having great health care. Yet, this, too, has changed, as their purchasing power has dropped and a crisis formed because of a lack of medicine, as well as an exodus of doctors, and lack of supplies at hospitals.

By the Venezuelan government controlling every pillar of the country, they have restricted the rights of all. Venezuela is an example of a humanitarian crisis and collapse of society due entirely to the tyranny of big government. Full governmental control has led to death, hunger, and misery. For those who don't believe this or find it unacceptable to call this socialism or an example of big government gone wrong, go see it for yourself.

Now, do you still want big government?

Daniel Bracho is a freshman from Caracas, Venezuela.

If you'd like to contact him, he can be reached at dbracho@princeton.edu.

8 | The Princeton Tory | 2018

Tom Koenig & Shanon Fitzgerald

The rise of China presents the United States with its

However, following the “loss” of China to communism

greatest geopolitical challenge since the end of the Cold

in 1949 and the Korean War (initiated by communist

War. Indeed, in the thirty years since the near collapse of the

aggression) in 1950, the justifications for U.S.-Vietnam

People’s Republic after the Tiananmen Square Massacre,

policy changed. Indeed, anti-communism replaced anti-

China has achieved extraordinary GDP growth, stamped out

Sovietism as the United States’ grand strategic ordering

democratic dissent within its borders, and successfully

principle. As a result, U.S. aid to (non-French) anti-North

increased its influence in the South China Sea and

Vietnamese forces increased, persisting even after the

elsewhere. New efforts like the One Belt One Road Initiative,

French began to withdraw. Following the ultimate French

a massive international development and infrastructure

defeat at Dien Bien Phu, the United States began directly

program, make clear the lofty aims of Chinese Grand

aiding the South Vietnamese against the North Vietnamese

Strategy in the 21st Century. How should the United States

communists—a harbinger of many later U.S. escalations in

respond to such ambitions? We suggest adopting a sober

Vietnam. So, while U.S. policy was always anti-North

attitude toward this rising power to avoid the classic

Vietnamese on its face, the justification for (and the

Western pitfall of assuming that ‘they’ will inevitably become

implementation of) the policy underwent a profound

like ‘us.’ We argue that current U.S. policy toward China,

transformation. What began as empowering the French to

grounded in economic interests rather than concern for

counter Soviet influence was replaced by the much broader

human rights, lacks a justifiable moral foundation. To

mandate of resisting communism in all forms. In Vietnam,

understand our current China policy and its flaws, however,

the United States went from supporting French anti-

we must first understand its Cold War origins. And to do that,

communist colonialists to directly assisting South

we would be wise to trace the shifting motivations behind

Vietnamese forces.

another major foreign policy decision: the United States’

Flawed as the execution of America’s Vietnam War was, and however misguided its underlying strategic premises

involvement in Vietnam.

After World War II, the United States’ primary strategic

were, the fact remains that there was a profound moral core

objective was to support “friendly governments in Western

to the Vietnam War. The Soviet Union and communism were

Europe that could stand as bulwarks against Russian

deemed immoral systems that threatened human freedom.

expansion.” So, in 1945, the United States begrudgingly

As such, the policy prescription was that both the USSR and

decided to aid French colonial efforts in South Vietnam to

its ideological comrades had to be resisted.

oppose North Vietnamese communists. It is important to

Like the rationale behind the Vietnam War, the

note that the U.S. did not offer this anti-North Vietnamese aid

strategic logic behind the United States’ China policy has

for the sake of the South Vietnamese. Rather, in accordance

shifted in important ways over time. The Nixon

with George Kennan’s strongpoint defense strategy, the

administration’s 1972 rapprochement with China, later

United States offered this aid to a) resist the Soviet Union

finalized by the Carter Administration’s 1979 policy of

and b) support the French government as it faced a

normalization, was motivated by a very specific shared

significant, Soviet-supported domestic communist

threat: the Soviet Union. Indeed, despite disparate political

movement.

systems, values, and ideas about human rights, the Americans and Chinese were drawn together by their common anti-Soviet interest. Today, however, with the common threat of the Soviet Union long gone, we must ask the question: Has there been a sufficient, new justification for the United States’ China policies?

When the Soviet Union fell, the common defense imperative for engaging with China disappeared—the U.S. could no longer claim that, “The enemy of my enemy must be my friend.” Nevertheless, Sino-American relations have intensified in the long run. In fact, the Reagan, Bush I, and

9 | The Princeton Tory | 2018

Clinton administrations argued that deepening ties, especially through trade, would catalyze Chinese domestic political reform. This belief in eventual Chinese liberalization through stronger US ties became the new moral justification for American China policy.

This belief, however, has been disproven by the march of history. Today, China’s repressive, one-party government is entrenched as ever, and its economy and power projection capabilities continue to improve. With Xi Jinping now officially in power for life, it is safe to say that the forces for liberalizing reforms in China are not on the rise—nor should we think that they will be in the foreseeable future. As such, the moral justifications for current U.S. policy no longer hold. The only remaining justification, then, for treating China like a responsible status quo power—in spite of its repressive domestic political system—is the standard, Ricardo-esque argument that free trade provides mutual economic benefit to all parties. The mutual gains from free trade, however, are purely monetary—the moral externality of supporting the Chinese regime is not ‘priced in’ to standard free trade analyses. This leaves the question: is there sufficient moral justification for the United States’ current relationship with China?

Even in its various iterations, Vietnam policy was always driven by a simple moral tenet: that communism, Soviet or otherwise, was wrong. Today, however, we no longer adequately consider morality and human rights in the formation of our China policy. To remedy this, the United States should remember the moral lessons of the Vietnam War. Indeed, we ought to oppose immoral systems of government. As Vietnam demonstrated, however, standing up against immoral governments must be done thoughtfully. Might the U.S. somehow fashion a China policy that acknowledges both sides of this responsibility?

That is, can it oppose an authoritarian government—and not kowtow to the CCP on account of significant economic interests—in a way that does not unduly endanger human lives and material interests? This may not be a matter of “can,” but “must.”

Tom Koenig and Shanon Fitzgerald are sophomores from Oreland, Pennsylvania and Fishers, Indiana. Tom is majoring in Politics and Shanon is majoring in religion.

They can be reached at tkoenig@princeton.edu and shanonjf@princeton.edu.

10 | The Princeton Tory | 2018

Billy Wade

The two most seductive powers on earth are the power to create and the power to destroy. What if you could combine those, market it, and sell it to millions around the world? It has been done. It’s called pornography. Porn taunts its users with images of the powers of procreation while at the same time destroying their capacity to find lasting pleasure in their own lives. It has such an effect on the human mind that states like Utah, Kansas and Florida have declared it a public health risk. Unfortunately, in the United States, pornography is already accepted within our culture and is arguably protected by the first amendment, thus it would likely not be prudential for the government to ban porn outright. However, there are many things that the government, public institutions and our local communities should and must do to mitigate the destructive effects of pornography.

Before discussion about the harmful effects of pornography, it is important to keep in mind how prevalent it is. Over 2.5 billion emails a day and 35% of all internet downloads are pornographic; 34% of internet users have experienced unwanted exposure to porn from pop-up ads, misdirected links or emails; 20% of men and 13% of women admit to viewing porn at work; 40 million Americans regularly visit porn sites; there are over 116,000 searches for “child pornography” every day; porn has been shown to be the most addictive online activity over gambling, gaming, surfing and social media. Pornographic activity is moving from the fringe to the mainstream, but precisely what effects does it have on the individual and society?

In his book The Brain that Changes Itself, Norman Doidge explains how when an individual watches porn, increased levels of dopamine is released causing neuroplastic changes including the creation of new brain maps for sexual excitement. This leads the brain to prefer the new brain map to the “natural” one. Thus, after time and repetitive viewing of porn, the brain is only pleased by new, erotic, and many times fantastical versions of sex. German neuroscientists Simone Kuhn and Jurgen Galinat scanned the brains of 64 healthy males and asked subjects about their current and past usage of pornography for an article called “The Brain on Porn” in the psychology journal JAMA Psychiatry. They found that the reward center of the brain (the striatum) was smaller in those who had watched porn. Essentially, porn had reduced the individual’s capacity for general pleasure, not only sexual pleasure. Regular viewersof porn report having less fulfilling sex lives and more unhealthy relationships because their partners can’t supply for them the same rousing sensations they experience watching porn. As the writer Naomi Wolf says in her book Vagina, “today’s naked women are just bad porn.”

In the midst of a post-Weinstein, anti-sexual harassment movement happening across the country, it is important to note that porn has been scientifically proven to lead users to view others with less relationship value and more as sexual objects. It is thus entirely possible—indeed, probable—that porn has been a catalyst for sexual harassment in America.

While difficult to quantify the connection between porn and sexual harassment, the porn industry is inherently tied to sex trafficking. A recent report describes pornography as being “integral to prostitution” and that of 854 interviewees, over half admit to being coerced into making porn while enslaved in sex trafficking. The trauma sustained by those coerced into the pornography industry is well documented, having repercussions that last a lifetime. Some may argue that those in porn videos gave their consent and thus, whatever happens, has been agreed too, but this is not always the case. Fight the New Drug, an anti-porn organization, points out that “Pimps and sex traffickers often use porn to initiate their victims into their new life of sexual slavery , and then they force their victims to participate in making new porn.”

Porn is detrimental to both the individual and our society. Therefore, the question arises, what should be done, by whom, to check the expansion and use of porn?

Many libertarians argue that any use of government in exacting social change inevitably results in a loss of civil liberty. As Jonah Goldberg says in his book Liberal Fascism, “If there is ever a fascist takeover in America, it will come not in the form of storm troopers kicking down doors but with lawyers and social workers saying: ‘I'm from the government and I'm here to help.’” While Goldberg is correct that we should be wary of the government's role in social change, governments are charged with defending from those things that harm society. Government may not be the most effective tool, but the it still has a vital role to play in the war against porn on account of the latter’s widespread effect This role includes being vigilant about what types of advertisements or stores they allow into their communities. For instance, sex shops and pornographic images on billboards lead to a normalization of porn fortifying the public health hazard and. Local governments should also be proactive by spreading information about the detrimental effects of pornography on users and society at large. City newsletters, anti-porn advertisements, or many other mediums could serve this purpose well Our public institutions also need to take this problem seriously. For example, institutions like the American Medical

Porn is a drug. A terrible, evil life-sucker that corrupts the mind and sours the soul. Local governments and public institutions should do everything possible to check the expansion of porn and make sure that people are informed about its malignant effects. We must educate ourselves and others if we are to fight this new drug before it destroys even more relationships and families. Declare war on porn; fight for real love.

Association should do more to take the issue of pornography head-on by educating the public on porn’s adverse effects.

Other public institutions should also join the fight, because the war against porn must be multilateral. Luckily, there seems to be a general waking up to the dangers of porn in

Billy Wade is a freshman from Southlake, Texas. If you'd like to contact him, he can be reached at wjwade@princeton.edu.

public institutions as there has been increased funding for studies and other projects with the goal of understanding the effect of porn on the individual and society.

Effecting change in our government or public institutions is a grueling and time intensive task, so what can we do now within our own homes and communities?

As with any drug, education and awareness are key in porn’s eradication. Individuals should understand the long-lasting negative effects of pornography on both themselves and those around them. Porn should not be a taboo topic in religious congregations, social clubs or families but instead talked about with a serious but non-judgmental tone. Those who have or are participating in the regular use of porn should not be looked down upon. Instead, they should be met with real, and not digital, love. Pornography is a tool that attempts to fulfill the natural human desire for connection with others. If porn users are ostracized, then they will return to what they know provides them (fleeting) pleasure and a vicious cycle commences.

To those who feel trapped by the enticing nature of porn, I sympathize with you. It is easy to fall prey to porn, and incredibly hard to escape. But if we understand what drives the use of porn, then it becomes possible to escape its seemingly un-yielding grasp. The consumption of porn is often a mechanism to fill an unmet need. Porn can be the relief for the lonely; a mirage of human connection. Porn can be used to fit in; a need for acceptance. Porn can be a portrayal of fantasy; a need for validation. Porn can be viewed out of pure curiosity; a need for answers. Porn can be used for pleasure; a substitute for joy. All of these ends are legitimate pursuits, which porn is unable to fulfill. Instead, seek help to meet those needs in ways that do not negatively affect you or those around you. There is always hope for those who wish to break free.

12 | The Princeton Tory | 2018

Christian Schmidt The same logic and sentiment that applies active

Princeton, if not in America generally, falls into the second

consent so vigorously in the sphere of sexual relationships

category - consent that is regularly advocated for as

needs to be carried further - into our governmental systems

necessary, generally accepted, but not so accepted that

and everywhere else as well.

there’s no longer any need to emphasize the consent

Princeton University's students and faculty put a

aspect. Finally, there exists a third category - situations that

legitimate and important focus on the subject of sexual

claim to require consent, but in fact don’t. It is into the

consent – specifically, clear and enthusiastic consent. This,

third of these categories that consent to one’s government

to put it lightly, has been a problem at Princeton - this

falls. While our government has the trappings of consent

year’s most publicized offense regarded Professor Sergio

via representative democracy, it fails to fulfill the basic

Verdú’s sexual harassment of one of his students that put

actual criteria required for active consent.

him in alleged violation of some provisions of Title IX.

Imagine it like this. A man is in a tight spot, hanging

Verdu’s actions, despite not leading to his dismissal from

from a dangling rope over a deep chasm. Sure, he has

Princeton, were broadly panned by alumni, faculty, and

options. He could continue holding on, preserving the

current students. As the letter from sixteen electrical

rudiments of his well-being, or let go and fall a thousand

engineering department faculty to the Daily Princetonian

feet, to his death. Simply because he chooses to preserve

read, Princeton should have “no tolerance for [Verdu’s

himself by choosing to continue holding on does not mean

behavior] and condemn it in the strongest possible terms.”

that he has actively consented to be in the situation. In

In other words, at Princeton, there is no tolerance for

other words, a situation that imparts restrictive

sexual misconduct. Sexual harassment, assault, and rape

consequences no matter what decision is made invalidates

are all unambiguously wrong, even though there is

the legitimacy of that decision as an example of active

diversity of opinion over what actually constitutes

consent.

harassment, assault, or rape. That dispute, for the purposes

In our modern government, representative though it

of the following argument, will be set aside. For the

may be, we are offered two decisions. In the event that we

purposes of the argument, we will focus on the idea that

make the logical decision to have a government and

we should indeed have a zero tolerance policy when it

believe having a government to be crucial to our societal

comes to sexual misconduct. If you do not believe this to

well-being (analogous to our rope-hanging man valuing

be the case – you might instead believe that there are

his life), we are offered one of two options. Either we can

cases where sexual misconduct is understandable, or

refuse to participate, thus resulting in the lack of any

unavoidable, or, perhaps brought upon oneself (and you’d

legitimate channels by which to have our political will

be wrong) – this article isn’t for you. It’s for people who do

acknowledged (letting go of the rope and removing

believe that we should have a zero tolerance policy when it

ourselves from the situation entirely), or we can participate

comes to sexual misconduct – the general population of

in a system that affords us a chance to voice our opinion

Princetonians as I understand it to be.

once every two years, and then in an incredibly restricted

Sexual misconduct is only problematic because it

sense (continuing to hold on for dear life). We can

lacks consent. In other words, sexual misconduct would no

participate in a system that claims legitimacy, but

longer be sexual misconduct if consent were present. This

simultaneously disenfranchises up to half the electorate for

isn’t necessarily to say that any sexual act is good if

two years at a time. (Yes, this is just majority rule, which is

consent is present - whether or not it is moral varies from

just another form of tacit consent.) To add insult to injury,

worldview to worldview - but the common basis is consent.

when someone does happen to fall into the enfranchised

Situations relating to consent fall into one of three

half who have a chance of seeing successful

categories. Firstly, there are situations that are commonly

representation, the likelihood that any of their individual

accepted as needing consent, and oftentimes not viewed

policy interests will be represented is basically null. But will

as a form of consent. Financial transactions, which are

all of us still be potentially subjected to the military draft, a

nearly inviolate in American society, and rarely questioned,

coercive device “legitimized” by the word of only thirty-

fall into this category. Sexual situations, at least at

nine founding fathers from 1789? How about eminent

13 | The Princeton Tory | 2018

had been, there would be no cause for a movement highlighting the unassailable importance of active consent in sexual relationships. Prior to this rather recent movement – just look at the cult favorite movie The Breakfast Club’s excusal of various sexual misdeeds – we were habituated to using tacit consent as a justification for sexual behavior we now believe to be unforgivable. domain – the government’s “rightful” seizure of our

Woman wears a rather risqué outfit? It’s her fault she got

property enshrined in the fifth amendment? Will all of us

raped.

still be potentially subjected to imprisonment via laws we only “agreed to” through electing representatives that may or may not actually make policy in concordance with the

Woman fails to speak up and actively dissent? She didn’t even get raped – this was fair play.

Woman actively consents at the beginning of a sexual

opinions of their constituents depending on their whim?

encounter but then retracts her consent midway?

The answer to all of these questions is yes – we are

Illegitimate – initial consent is all you needed – the would-

subjected to a state in which “consenting to one’s

be assailant is yet again off the hook.

government” is merely choosing the lesser of two evils.

None of these claims were especially far-fetched,

This, as I mentioned earlier, is hardly an example of active

even just ten years ago. Each had their proponents, even as

consent.

they do now. In other words, at least as a society, we were

Some might think this doesn’t matter – a certain lack

habituated to a system of non-consent within the sphere of

of active consent to certain provisions of government is

sexual relationships. Finally, happily, we’re finally moving

necessary to preserve the stability of civil society. I admit

away from this toxic atmosphere driven by the dominance

that this opinion exists, and has a certain claim to

of tacit consent as a legitimate measure of whether or not a

legitimacy as long as active consent is reduced to a

woman (or man) has agreed to a sexual interaction.

secondary, tertiary, or non-existent priority by a society.

Consent is sexy now. This is a wonderful thing.

I hope that so far I’ve been able to provide legitimate

Sadly, active consent is currently disregarded as

evidence that our society is not currently configured

crucial to our ideas of governance. This isn’t just a shame; I

favorably such that people may actively consent, even if I

argue that it’s on an order of awful at least as bad as the

haven’t yet shown that active consent should be prioritized

habituation to sexual non-consent that plagued us for

within our society.

much of Western history.

It is, however, not just government that exhibits the

Americans, among citizens of other developed

opportunity for active consent. Perhaps you see where this

nations of the world, still lack the ability to actively consent

is going – active consent (or, “enthusiastic consent,” as we

to, for example, the military draft, or taxation, or eminent

colloquially call it, though it’s effectively the same thing), is

domain, or matrices of imprisonment, or even the death

essential to sexual relationships. The definition we’re using

penalty. With effective impunity, their government can[1]

for active consent is as follows – it’s a situation that

not only seize their freedom, property, and money, but can

involves AC unlike decision made outside a situation that

even take their life, all without a single indication of active

imposes unreasonably restrictive consequences no matter

consent. This, frankly, is criminal. And we can no longer

what the decision is (in philosophical circles, this is just

tolerate this, no matter how much it might shake up the

known as duress). If someone enthusiastically consents to

power structures that supposedly are acting in our best

have sex, they cannot be under duress, or threatened by

interests.

consequences that make having sex the preferable, but still revolting choice. Should a coercive agent still have sex with the person under duress, their “consent” to the preferable choice would not exempt that coercive agent from having raped the victim.

This definition of active consent, as I noted earlier, is at the very least, a societal fact at this University, and not broadly disputed beyond it (though this isn’t true for the nuances of what constitute “unreasonably restrictive consequences”). This wasn’t always true, however – if it

14 | The Princeton Tory | 2018

We have stopped tolerating non-consent in the sexual sphere, despite the fact that it’s shaken the power dynamic of a patriarchal aspect of society in a huge way.

Harvey Weinstein? Al Franken? Sergio Verdú? At the cost to our film industry, a foundational voice in the Democratic party, and a top-tier professional’s ability to educate, we have thrown off our habituation to sexual non-consent, because it’s worth it.

We must throw off our habituation to governmental non-consent as well. People are regularly pushed out of their homes, disadvantaged by unjust taxes, killed in execution chambers, sent to war, secretly surveilled. It’s not just something that potentially happens, it’s something that does happen. There are, arguably, advantages to the death penalty, the surveillance state, eminent domain, and the draft, and nobody really opposes the idea of taxes. Much like sex, none of these things are inherently bad. These things become corrupted when stripped of active, enthusiastic consent. If we seek to reap the benefits of any of these governmental, cultural, or personal institutions, we must universally re-incorporate active consent into our daily vocabulary even if the powers that be would prefer otherwise.

If you believe active consent is necessary in sexual relationships, I strongly urge you to consider its necessity when it comes to government. And if you’ve found any of the arguments I’ve outlined above persuasive… don’t just sit still. It’s not the victim’s fault that we’re stuck in this situation, but sadly it is going to be our job to do something about it. Let’s stand up for what’s right. Let’s let neither the rapists nor tyrants of the world be allowed to have their way with us.

Christian Schmidt is a sophomore from Tucson, Arizona majoring in Politics. He can be reached at ces3@princeton.edu.

15 | The Princeton Tory | 2018

CONTACT

US