The Princeton Tory 34.3

T H E

P R I N C E T O N

TORY

O N

P R O G R E S S

Dear Reader, In all likelihood, you’re not in fact a current

current) American system by Claire McCarriher, Nick

undergraduate of Princeton University. (For those of

Sileo, Newby Parton (congratulations again on the

you who are, or are regular subscribers, you know the

Pyne Prize!) and Jacob Brown respectively. And

drill.) You might be back from your first few years in

while Zach Bampton and Matt Igoe are significantly

the workforce, or perhaps you’ve been out of the

less taken with America’s current state, in Zach’s

workforce for a couple of years. Regardless, we’re

case, or America, in Matt’s case – they’re both

happy to see you back at Old Nassau for another

looking for ways to attain the ends that most of us

reunions weekend! Hope you have a wonderful time.

believe are common to all of us.

To quickly catch you up, alum, the Tory

It’s that point that I’d really like to emphasize to

underwent a complete overhaul in terms of both

you, reader, before you embark through this

design, audience, and content. We felt that the Tory

wonderful set of articles. It’s well-known that the left

needed to better fill a niche at Princeton that wasn’t

and the Democratic party believe its counterparts on

going filled – instead of just being a conservative

the right to be distinctly “regressive.” But look –

magazine for conservatives, we felt we could become

we’re aiming for the same goals. It might be

a magazine that presents conservatism in a positive

presented differently, and our ways of attaining

light on campus, for students on campus – the people

these goals might be drastically different from many

we believe most need to hear what we’re presenting.

of yours, but we really, ultimately want the same

Diversity of ideas, after all. The rest of the magazine’s

things. Freedom, equality, eradication of hunger,

changes followed suit.

mistreatment, anger, etc.

This particular issue pursues this new goal specifically with regard to the idea of progress.

Before I read the issue, I expected there to be a

At least through this lens, “progress” seems like a bit of a misnomer because it suggests some sort of movement toward a goal, rather than the goal

lot of criticism of progress as a concept – it’s too

itself. And I think we often get too caught up in this –

ethereal, it differs depending on your premises, etc. –

our goals, ultimately are at least pretty similar, if not

essentially what Will Nolan’s brilliant deconstruction

the same.

that closes out this issue claims. Unexpectedly, with

Enjoy reunions! And congratulations, Newby,

the possible exception of Mikhael and Jon’s

Mikhael, Jon, Elly, James, Paul, and all the other

commencement letter to the outgoing senior class to

seniors who’ve been involved with the Tory over the

aim for truth, not the “right side of history,” the rest of

years. I wish you all the best.

the articles focus distinctly on the same normative ends I hear so often spoken of in my classes and in my conversations with my left-leaning peers. Feminist

Best,

equality, poverty reduction, personal security in one’s own body, tolerance for others’ viewpoints, and promotion of scientific exploits are all promoted through the current (or at least the principles of the

Christian Schmidt ‘20 Publisher

i | The Princeton Tory | 2018

T H E

P R I N C E T O N

TORY 01

Mikhael Smits and Jon Feld

04

Jacob Brown

05

Claire McCarriher

07

Newby Parton

09

Nicholas Sileo

11

Zach Bampton

12

Matthew Igoe

14

Will Nolan

ii | The Princeton Tory | 2018

Christian Schmidt '20

Joaquim Brooks '20

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

Nicholas Wooldridge '21

Will Crawford '20

Hassan Ahmad '21

Chris Ren '19

Sonya Isenberg '20

Elly Brown '18 Will Nolan '19 John Waya '20 Jacob Brown '20 Nicholas Sileo '20 Daniel Bracho '21

Newby Parton '18 Mikhael Smits '18 Jon Feld '18 Matthew Igoe '20 Zach Bampton '20 Claire McCarriher '21

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

iii | The Princeton Tory | 2018

Mikhael Smits and Jon Feld

The fall edition of the Tory opened with a letter to incoming freshmen. We thought it appropriate to finish the year with the same, albeit for outgoing seniors. As we move into the next phases of our lives, our decisions take on increasing gravity. We are responsible for ourselves, for our families, for our places of worship, and for our places of work. We develop not only our sense of self, but also our reputation. We should, of course, be purposive in this process; we are the product of our actions and our intentions. But how do we measure success? As freshmen, we read Susan Wolf’s “Meaning in Life and Why it Matters,” in which we found neither paths to meaning in life nor explanations for why it matters. Rather than vainly seek to answer such a question, we wish to rule out one possible answer: that actions should be guided by how they position us in history.

To be sure, giving undue moral weight or agency to history is far from the only mistake one can make in seeking reasons for action.

The plague of drawing conclusions without an interest in truth-seeking afflicts both left and right. On the left, many revel in virtue signaling. They take public stances on the assumption they will be popular. Such thinking is animated by a concern for one’s perception in the eyes of others. Separately, the left’s turn to identity politics at once prizes “my truth” over the truth and also elevates minority voices purely on account of their underrepresentation. Both of these instincts devalue truth-seeking, and debase any notion of falsifiable claims based on empirical proof. On the right, many supporters of President Trump adopted rhetoric warning others to “get on board” or get left behind. Even more common is conservatives “just playing devil’s advocate” or taking stances simply on account of the manner in which those views will “trigger” the other side. This view takes its most pernicious form in a conservatism that celebrates “triggering libs,” “melting snowflakes,” or “making leftist heads explode” as first-order goals. That a decision or belief upsets those with whom we disagree does not itself lend merit to the action.

But what of history? History here means either an appeal to the past or to the present as a past for future generations to judge.

However, the term history itself derives from the Greek for “inquiry” (historía). With this purpose in mind, ancient writers ranging from Herodotus to Thucydides compiled historical knowledge in an attempt to better understand the factors that shaped the world as they knew it. It is peculiar that in today’s world, then, there is the broader idea that one can fall on the “right” or “wrong” side of such inquiries. Take, for instance, David Graham’s 2015 critique of the Obama Administration in The Atlantic. In it, he claimed that Obama’s discussion of “right” and “wrong” sides of history “suggest a tortured, idealistic, and ultimately untenable vision of what history is and how it works.” Jay Nordlinger dubs the notion of history having sides “bunk.” Any thorough inspection of historical events would dictate that the strict dichotomy between “right” and “wrong” is as poor a descriptor of history’s murky waters as it is a dangerous prescription for our own times. To assume one is on the right side is to coddle oneself. To accuse others of being on the wrong side is to wield history as a cudgel.

So why do the sides of history so captivate people? This rhetoric of historical right and wrong is a product of the last century.

We found no reference earlier than one by Henry Pereira Mendes in 1903, in which he describes a man named Nachbi, who “was destined to make a name, though not on the right side of history.” It is fitting that such calls for historical validation suggest an intrinsically ahistorical way of thinking about the past. Calling on others to take one side of history traditionally meant being vindicated by history for taking minority stances. Too often today, we use it to mean being on the wrong side of making history. That is, we are afraid of missing out, judged for having been the last to get it right. As Jonah Goldberg once characterized it, this is the fatalistic supposition that “You’re going to lose eventually, so why don’t you give up now?”

It is obvious we ought not take unpopular stances for its own sake. However, taking unpopular stances is a measure of how we will fare despite history’s judgment. If you’re reading this article, odds are you value ideas outside the campus mainstream, whatever your views. Further, you live in an America drastically unlike that of the antebellum period, in which many Americans openly supported slavery. A great many would give their lives to defend it. More assisted. More still were passively complicit. Yet we all believe we would have opposed it. But are we fundamentally unlike the citizens of 1860s America? We don’t think so. Human nature has not changed in 150 short years. Our nature remains capable of every evil they committed. Those who sanitized the heinous practice as a “peculiar domestic institution” were human. Their moment in history may be different, but their essence is ours, exactly like yours: alike in dignity, made in God’s image, equally free.

1 | The Princeton Tory | 2018

Judging is easy. Each of us likes to think, “had I been there, I would have stood up and fought back.” Yet who among us can confidently say that, at risk of life, public standing, or economic interests, we would have been the brave minority speaking truth to power? We tell ourselves, we would have questioned, we would have fought back, we would have suffered for others. Professor Robert George condemns such wishful thinking. He writes that “only the tiniest fraction of them, or of any of us, would have spoken up against slavery or lifted a finger to free the slaves.” It’s easy to adopt positions once history has run its course. It’s easy to weigh in on current issues when we know our audience will applaud, join our ranks, or at least tolerate the view. But have we demonstrated a firmness of character, a clarity of conscience sufficient to believe we would be ready, should the moment demand it, to be ostracized, arrested, harmed, or even killed? At the least, I hope we would today give the right answers to history’s most important questions.

But that’s not the full measure. It remains the case that we live in an imperfect world, one which continues to offer moments of moral crisis and demand decisive action.

think it to be so. People often speak of the truth as being

So the question is: in some small way, when a minor

between the extremes of various positions, “somewhere in

moment demanded it, when did each of us last take a

the middle.” As David Hazony often remarks, “the truth is

stand? When did we pay a price for our minority position?

wherever it is, not between where we’d like it to be.”

When have we stood, alone? Does our past support the

Though we have a great deal to learn from history, we turn

certainty we have that, when the moment calls, we will

to history not for transcendent or median truth, but for an

answer?

account of how things were and were seen. Even then,

At the same time, there may often be wisdom in the

contrary to popular wisdom, hindsight is not 20-20. History

way things were once done. The Mishnaic text Ethics of the

is murky. Events are controversial when they happen,

Fathers explicitly defends the past, and venerates tradition.

misinterpreted thereafter, and liable to occur again. The

It begins with a chronology of the law’s transmission and

clouds of uncertainty that long obfuscated ancient history

concludes: “make a safety fence around the Torah.” The

have not simply cleared as centuries wear on. We lose as

instructions in the subsequent chapters belong to a

much to the past as we glean from it. Were hindsight

particular sage, a father, if you will. Though we may

sufficiently clear, we would have no need for the tweed-

disagree with our forebears, their views deserve a proper

clad historians of Corwin and Dickinson Halls, ourselves

hearing. History thus simultaneously contains both great

included.

failures and accumulated wisdom. G.K. Chesterton wrote of

To be “on the right side” of history is to be arrogant.

the “paradox” of improving on the past: “There exists in

The truth does not necessarily reside with the majority, the

such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the

minority, or between the two. It rests not with the way

sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road.

things were once done, or with the judgement of future

The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and

generations. The truth is where it is, irrespective of where

says, ‘I don’t see the use of this; let us clear it away.’ To

we go. That future generations might smile on our actions

which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to

only confirms their longevity or temporal popularity, not

answer: ‘If you don’t see the use of it, I certainly won’t let

their independent truth. To speak of the right side of

you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can

history is to assume an outcome, whether it be the triumph

come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may

or the failure of an economic, political, moral, or religious

allow you to destroy it.’” Only respect for the present

system. Recent political results, sound investment

circumstances allows us to consign them to history.

prospectuses, and our studies at Princeton teach us that

Though history offers guidance, it does not tell us right from wrong. What is true cares little for whether we

past performance is no guarantee of future outcomes. The future is a blank slate.

2 | The Princeton Tory | 2018

In National Review’s mission statement, William F. Buckley famously wrote that “a conservative is someone who stands athwart history, yelling ‘Stop.’” Buckley was wrong. He has agency over more than just his voice as he positions himself relative to history. We ought not worry about how the future will perceive us, or whether we comply with the past. As we file through FitzRandolph Gate, it is our fervent hope that truth guides us as we shape history, not the reverse.

Yours, Jonathan Feld, Mikhael Smits

Mikhael Smits and Jon Feld are seniors from Newtown, Massachusetts and Bala Cynwyd, Pennsylvania. Mikhael is majoring in Politics and Jon is majoring in History. They can be reached at msmits@princeton.edu and jgf2@princeton.edu.

3 | The Princeton Tory | 2018

Jacob Brown What makes America great? It seems that lots of people like to allude to the concept of American greatness without explicitly mentioning what actually makes America great. I have decided to clarify the matter by creating the first-ever description, to my knowledge, of why America is still great in the year 2018. This description is by no means complete, but the goal is to provide some reasons why all Americans should remain optimistic about the future.

The first reason deals with a basic humanitarian principle: people care about each other. While the virtue of caring about one's neighbors is rarely brought up in contemporary political discourse, the fact is that Americans are among the kindest and most generous people on Earth. The United States has one of the highest rates of charitable donations in the developed world, and Americans devote substantial portions of their time and energy to charitable and religious projects. More importantly, however, Americans believe in the human dignity of every individual. It goes without saying that these values have not been universally upheld at all times and all places, yet Americans care about the weak and the vulnerable in a way that people in many other countries do not. Where else would disabled people always be given priority over the able-bodied in transportation, regardless of the inconvenience it causes to others? Or what other country would expend tens of millions of dollars just to help a handful of individuals escape the horrors of captivity during the Iranian revolution? America's Good Samaritan laws are among the most generous in the world - that shows the value we place on good intentions and helping people in need.

If America’s good character was not enough to bolster your spirits, we can still relish in the fact that America is still an economic powerhouse – and that the average American is better off than ever before. We often like to talk about the "hollowing-out" of America's middle class and the enormous decrease in gainful employment that has disaffected huge swaths of society in recent years. The fact is that the average family's purchasing power is higher than ever, unemployment is at a near-record low, and economic fundamentals are strong. The United States is still at the forefront of scientific research and innovation worldwide, with the highest research output and most successful and innovative companies on Earth. There is a reason why the best and brightest from around the world still want to come to the United States, despite growing negative attitudes about immigration: America is still a land of enormous opportunity, and it is likely to remain that way for the foreseeable future.

America’s success story is not just for Americans to enjoy. Western civilization as we know it today has its intellectual roots in America's founding ideals. Resting on the innovations and failures of Classical empires, as well as the thinkers of Renaissance Europe, America's concepts of liberty and equality among all citizens form the foundation of most modern liberal democracies. Other countries took note of the success of America's fledging constitutional form of government, and took this system as a model for their own fight against tyranny and the subsequent construction of republics and constitutional monarchies. This is most notable in the intellectual underpinnings of the French Revolution, but practically every country that eventually became a democracy took on elements of the great American constitutional experiment. Even Britain, which had its own quasi-democratic system before 1776, eventually signed on to the UN declaration of human rights - a document whose fundamental assertion that all people are created equal is rooted in the Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights. We owe the relative peace and prosperity of much of the world today to the ideas of the Founders - and for that we should be very thankful.

That does not mean that things will always be perfect. Though things may seem less than ideal today, America always improves in the long run despite temporary setbacks. Abraham Lincoln once said that the "arc of history bends towards progress" - and even though we have major problems that may seem interminable, we should take consolation that generations of Americans felt exactly the same way during the Slavery Era, the Civil War, the Great Depression, and World War II. And look where we are now! The average person now lives better than ever, institutional racism is confined to the margins of society, and American constitutional ideals still live strong in the hearts and minds of the public. When examined from this perspective, things really do not seem so bad - and while we should never be complacent and always fight for improvement, there is truly nothing to lose by being optimistic about the future.

Jacob Brown is a sophomore from Toronto, Ontario majoring in Electrical Engineering. He can be reached at jacob.brown@princeton.edu.

4 | The Princeton Tory | 2018

Can a supporter of the pro-life movement be a feminist?

Claire McCarriher

Walking down the street, a little girl spots a horde of

first heartbeat), the fact of the matter is, had I been

people marching towards her. The band is playing upbeat

aborted, I would not be here. If Mark Twain’s mother had

music. The middle-school children in the front are holding a

aborted him, then he would not have been born. Similarly,

huge banner. The chanting is so loud that the little girl is

if other mother’s had executed their right to choose then,

convinced that she hears singing. Beautiful, melodious

we might never have heard Mozart’s symphony No. 40 or

singing. As the marchers get closer, however, the mom

looked deeply into the eyes of Mona Lisa. Some of the

covers her daughter’s eyes. The girl cannot understand why

most famous liberals of their time might not have been

her mom will not let her see the signs. She covers the girl’s

born. Susan B. Anthony. Rosa Parks. Martin Luther King.

ears. She can’t hear the chants, “Abortion is murder,” and

Abortion is at worst a murder, and at best a tragedy.

“Planned Parenthood covers up statutory rape.” She can’t

Now, let’s go back to the question of rights. Feminists

look at the signs which depict brutal scenes of babies being

argue that a woman has the right to decide what to do

injected and aborted. These pro-life advocates seem to

with her own body. And she does. Pro-life activists do not

advocate something else entirely: violence.

argue that a woman should have fewer rights. Rather, they

Yes, there are radical pro-life protesters. But there are also radical pro-choice advocates. And radical women’s rights activists.

argue that even the smallest person should have a right to life.

Constitutionally, the mother’s right to choose is

None of these people are particularly open to new

protected by the Fourteenth Amendment which states,

behavior or listening to the opinions of others, which is how

“nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or

the term liberal is defined. Liberalism in its most broad

property, without due process of law.” This right of life,

sense seeks to provide freedom and equality for all. It

liberty, and property, however, is predicated on the fact

promotes equal opportunity, works to prevent institutional

that in pursuing these freedoms one may not infringe on

bias, and encourages individuals, who have been silenced

the rights of others. This is supported by other aspects of

or oppressed, to speak up. It is for this very reason that, in

the Constitution, too, including the First Amendment,

core tenets, liberalism can accommodate both feminism

which, of course, protects individual freedoms of speech,

and the pro-life movement. Feminism is about human

assembly, petition, religion, and the press. It protects the

equality. It’s about women being regarded in the same way

right of an individual to assemble but only under the

as men. Coincidentally, the abortion question is a matter of

stipulation that it is peaceful (so as to not infringe on the

human equality too. Pro-life ideals are progressive in that

rights of others). Because this is a condition of the basis

they support the recognition of rights for more humans. And

for women’s right to choose, we can conclude that the

so, if we can agree that the unborn child is, in fact, a human,

woman does not have this right to choose because it

then we must also agree that it is entitled to certain unalienable rights. But a key problem people have here is that they cannot decide what constitutes life. Is it when the child is conceived? Or when we can hear his/her tiny heartbeat? Or when the baby takes its first breath?

A critical point that district attorney of Dallas Henry Wade pointed to in the famous abortion case Roe v. Wade was that if the baby is, in fact, alive, then we should not favor the mother’s rights over the child’s. I’d argue, however, that even if the baby is not medically alive, we should sill protect its right to potential for life. Consider this: the embryo (given that there are no complications) will inevitably turn into a baby. Anything that is done to prevent this has directly prevented a human from coming into this world. So, although we may not be able to decide on what constitutes as life (whether it be conception, first breath, or

5 | The Princeton Tory | 2018

infringes on her baby’s rights. Unless, we are willing to say that the mother’s rights are more important than the baby’s rights (in direct contradiction to the feminist ideal of equality), we must uphold the rights of both individuals to the best of our ability. This relies on the assumption that the baby has rights. Even though we may not agree that the baby is alive in order to have rights, the baby has a potential for life which constitutes these rights. Although a woman does have the right to do what she wants with her body when it is just her, this does not give her the right to take away someone else’s potential for life.

As a society, many believe that decisions which promote a woman’s right to choose are progressive, but I’d argue that these policy initiatives are the exact opposite because they prevent us from addressing the real issues surrounding sex and abortion—such as rape culture, drug use, and poverty. Pro-life activist Christina Bennett said, “Here’s the abortion band-aid we use in America, it doesn’t un-rape a woman, it doesn’t change a system where she’s very oppressed. It does nothing except for give her another wound.” Abortion hurts women too.

So be a feminist. Advocate for a change in stigma surrounding how men treat women. Make sure that all pregnant women have access to resources. But also, offer these same courtesies to all women, all people—even those who have not been born.

Claire McCarriher is a freshman from Pasadena, Maryland.

She can be reached at clairenm@princeton.edu.

6 | The Princeton Tory | 2018

Shortly after Donald Trump was elected President, a

Where I grew up, Future Farmers of America was

friend ranted to me about how terrible half of the nation’s

one of the most popular student groups. We had 4-H bowl

voters must be. I started to explain Mr. Trump’s appeal —

instead of quiz bowl. We were white, and we were poor.

and why my father, like the 63 million Americans who voted

We were a disadvantaged population facing

as he did that year, is not, in fact, a bad person. But my

discrimination in higher education, rather than affirmative

friend immediately cut me off, telling me she did not want to

action. Plenty of us were smart enough to go to the Ivy

hear me justify the ideology of Republican voters.

League, but before I matriculated to Princeton, no one

Her attitude, I believe, is the greatest failure of empathy among students at Princeton University and perhaps the citizenry as a whole. Animosity toward the

from our county — not one soul — had gone to an Ivy League college in decades.

Discrimination is discrimination, and it’s nearly

political other is not, of course, specific to the University

always a moral failure. It's harm is greatest when directed

community, nor is it a one-way street. But here the

toward students who are already marginalized, be they

phenomenon is acute and al-most exclusively targets

students raised in poverty, Appala-chians who will be the

conservatives. Worse, it results directly from admissions

first in their families to attend college, or both. The

practices that ac-tively discriminate against applicants from

academy has left behind an entire generation of poor

rural and conservative backgrounds.

rural students like those from my hometown, not through

The anti-conservative, anti-rural bias in college admissions is well-documented. Participation in rural extracurriculars, like 4-H clubs or the Future Farmers of

a simple failure to correct for their disadvantage, but through an active campaign to compound it.

The students who find themselves shut out of elite

America, substantially reduces a stu-dent’s prospects of

colleges are, without a doubt, the principal losers of this

admissions at elite colleges — and students who were

admissions bias. But I am convinced that all students, the

leaders or won awards in such groups fair even worse,

University as an institution, and America are also worse off

according to Princeton sociologists Thomas Espenshade

for it. For one, students who come from liberal bubbles

and Alex-andria Radford. Their study of 245,000 applicants

and remain in one — that is, the vast majority of the

to elite schools found that poor whites were the most-

student body — are denied exposure to differing political

disadvantaged group in college admissions, and by a large

views. As a result, they are unequipped to understand and

margin. Compared to lower-class white applicants, poor

complexly imagine the political views of half of our

Asian, Hispanic and black applicants were seven, eight, and

country’s people, and they are certainly unequipped to

ten times more likely to be admitted to competitive private

advance those citizens’ interests.

universities.

Princeton as an institution suffers, too. We now pay a literal price for our discrimination in the form of the endowment tax, included in the GOP tax bill to punish wealthy universities for their political favoritism. But we’ve always paid a price. One-half of America’s leaders are conserva-tives, so we give up ties to future leaders when we close our doors to conservative America.

Most of all, though, our bias harms the country.

Our failure to engage with our political opponents spills into the real world. In the best of times, a lack of bipartisanship creates gridlock and grinds progress to a halt. In worse times, like the present, it breeds hatred and political turmoil.

Empathy is a precondition for progress. In politics, it should be our central value. We cannot create a better

7 | The Princeton Tory | 2018

America until we understand the hopes and dreams of our fellow Americans. To that end, I admire that the Democratic party has positioned itself as the party of empathy. It favored marriage equality when Republicans opposed it, and its record with racial and religious minorities has been substantially better than that of the Republican party in recent decades. There’s a reason that Re-publican candidates consistently fail to capture even 10 percent of the African-American vote.

But there’s also a reason that Republican candidates consistently sweep rural America. The Demo-cratic party, for all the empathy it espouses, has left working-class whites behind and shown little interest in alleviating the systemic poverty they face. We may wonder who has the greater failure of empathy: the conservative who ignores the interests of minorities, or the liberal who ignores the interests of rural America and its sympathizers. The conservative has written off 37 percent of Americans (those who belong to racial or ethnic minorities), while the liberal has written off 46 percent (those who voted for President Trump). Both are inexcusable. One is, by my math, nine percent worse — a difference of 29 million people.

My friend saw Mr. Trump’s victory as an affront to empathy, diversity, and progress. That was exactly how I saw her portrait of his supporters. Progress in America starts with dialogue, and dia-logue can start here. Princeton University must make a conscious effort to replace its bias against the children of conservative and rural America with admissions policies that give them equal op-portunity.

Newby Parton is a senior from McMinnville, Tennessee majoring in the Woodrow Wilson School. He can be reached at newby@princeton.edu.

8 | The Princeton Tory | 2018

A conservative case for progress

Nicholas Sileo

In the 1955 inaugural mission statement of the

the future and lecture their grandchildren “back in my day…

National Review, Bill Buckley described the newfound

well, back in my day things were actually exactly the same,

magazine as “stand[ing] athwart history, yelling Stop at a

come to think of it.”

time when no one is inclined to do so, or to have much

In some respect, both of these people have a point. In

patience with those who so urge it.” The editors of the

certain cases, it seems as if we have been on a downward

magazine, being true to their own objectives, have ensured

trend. The traditional family isn’t as strong as it has been in

that this mission statement remains untouched today. Not a

the past, the deficit is skyrocketing, even under GOP

punctuation mark out of place, not a conviction (A-G)

leadership, and many feel more polarized today despite

altered, nor even an updated “benign old wrecker of the

being more connected than before. Also, change isn’t

ordered society” to take the place of Oliver Wendell Holmes.

always good and much of the time can cause more suffering

The mission is preserved—and for good reason. Today, as

than it alleviates. Try keeping your glasses or key card in a

much as it did in ‘55 or any time before or after, the values of

new spot every night and let me know how that works out

life, liberty, and property are superior to an oppressive state,

for you—that is, if you can still recognize me with blurry

just as champagne is superior to ditchwater. Nevertheless,

vision and happen to catch me before I close the door

many folks appear to misunderstand what exactly this

behind me.

That being said, this idea of clinging to the past or

lowercase “c” conservatism is about.

In today’s political culture you run the risk of falling

seeking to recreate it is ultimately doomed to fail. As

“on the wrong side of history,” if you stand against any

Princeton’s own F. Scott Fitzgerald taught us, no matter how

objective of this half-decade’s five-year plan. The logic goes

hard you try or how much you want to, “you can’t repeat the

that, since the first caveman stumbled out into the world,

past.” (Note: While bootlegging liquor can’t let you repeat

we’ve been on a slow evolutionary march to the left. If that

the past, it can help build a political dynasty [See

Neanderthal knew that one day all the mammoth hides her

“Kennedy”].) If the goal of a conservative is merely to try and

earned hunting would be redistributed by the state, I don’t

set back the clock, then we really are on the wrong side of

know if he’d even bother. This idea, however, not unlike

history by definition. Society will continue on no matter what

many other proposals from across the aisle, doesn’t actually

(given that the next couple of elections go well), and all

make much sense. Apart from God, no one has any idea how

efforts to beat back time so far have failed.

history will turn out. For all of our earthly wisdom, we live in a world where the weatherman still can’t quite predict if next Tuesday will be cloudy or not and where The New York Times still can’t call an election before the votes have actually been tallied. To know that someone else is on the “wrong” side of history you have to know what the “right” side is first—and that’s a much trickier task. That being said, in my hometown of Annapolis, I know you need to get a license to be a fortune teller, so maybe government bureaucrats can predict the future after all.

Unfortunately, some conservatives buy into the narrative that they are fighting for the losing team. On the flip side, they see society in an inevitable state of decline.

Society grows more indulgent, less hardworking, and moves further from God with each generation. In this framework, even though we’re destined to lose, we have to keep up the good fight, nonetheless. Another brand of this quasidefeatism rejects change for the sake of change alone. Their ultimate dream is to sit out on front porch one day far into

9 | The Princeton Tory | 2018

Admittedly as someone who has been accused of “looking backwards,” I am a little hesitant to write these words—not because I don’t stand by them but because they are so easily misunderstood. The common accusation levied against conservatives today is that they are trying to recreate a bygone era, borrowing from the past at the cost of the present and detriment to the future. Although one of our communal faults may be a certain stiffness on some matters, I know from experience that our mission isn’t to halt progress. In fact, I honestly believe that our best hope for progress is American conservatism. No, really. No joke— Scout’s Honor.

Just take a look at the record. Want to lift people out of poverty? The free market has created more wealth and opportunities than any bureaucrat could ever dream to.

Want a safer and more secure world? The strength of the American military and assertive foreign policy keeps more people safe, both in our country and around the world, than any UN force has. Want to grant people more freedom? Small government and low taxes do more to increase personal liberty than any nanny state could. Want to ensure that the next generation is given the opportunity to flourish? The traditional American family along with strong communities and churches provide more for the next generation than any federal education program is able to. Want progress? Well nothing has created more progress than the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the traditions of the United States.

Conservatism isn’t about clinging to the past; it’s about staying true to the traditions and practices that have allowed us to get so far. In a book about Princeton published in 1893 that I am lucky to have come across, the author describes Old Nassau as “proud of her past” and “is not anxious to part from it. She finds in it the greatest inspiration for the present and the brightest promise for the future. For Princeton is a college with a future.” The same, too, can be said of America. For our civilization is blessed with an incredibly firm foundation, and we should seek to build upon it to reach new heights. Although it is true that we should not halt construction out of fear of what may come next, we certainly shouldn’t take a jackhammer to the core of the building and start accusing anyone trying to stop us of being “on the wrong side of history.”

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

10 | The Princeton Tory | 2018

WINNING THE BATTLE, LOSING THE WAR Zach Bampton The 2016 general election proved successful for the GOP, but for a conflicted moment in the conservative movement. On one hand, Donald Trump won the White House and promises, but on the other, fails to abide by the moral and ideological standards which in the past, many conservatives have asked of their leaders. There were, in my view, legitimate political calculations to support voting for Trump. If you voted to fill a vacancy on the Supreme Court, you made the right call. Justice Gorsuch will undoubtedly serve as a bulwark for the Pro-Life movement. If you wanted tax reform, then you succeeded. Yet, I worry these wins are short term gains for the conservative movement, and in the end, may be pyrrhic victories. Aligning with Trump is a Faustian bargain, a trade of moral legitimacy for political clout. Donald Trump has become the dirty mouthpiece of the conservative movement. His disregard for facts and tradition enables a culture of relativism where propaganda reigns. Mainstream conservatism has regressed under Trump’s influence to something incoherent, because those who dissent have not made themselves heard. Nothing short of a full-throated rejection by party leadership can wipe away his legacy. It will require political courage, and each day the task will become a little harder.

It all starts with the man himself. Others have spent gallons of ink on Trump’s lack of personal virtues and disdainful conduct, whether it be his bullying language, earnest ignorance, or huckster’s exaggeration. I won’t re-litigate these superficial issues here. But beneath this veneer lurks corruption. The Stormy swirling Washington threatens to reveal an alleged affair with a porn star after his child was born and which Trump covered up and lied about. Republicans rightly attempted to skewer President Clinton for similar conduct, but where is the outrage now? Or perhaps the truth is that affairs don’t matter, but the fact that the President has routinely obscured the truth from the American people should matter a great deal. Whether about his tax returns and the bogus reason for withholding them, the mathematically impossible claim that illegal immigrants swung the popular vote for Clinton, or the Birther lie, Trump peddles conspiracy with a blatant disregard for fact. We have become inoculated to lies and half-truths, and the daily parade of horribles desensitizes us to this absurdity. As President, he has accelerated the decline of political discourse in this country.

Conservatives in Congress have stood by in stony silence or with glee. Some might distinguish who Trump is from what Trump does and find the latter useful, but when who he is comes to define his supporters, the question becomes: who is using whom?

In Trump’s reality show presidency, his standard enables the worst political currents to dominate conservative politics and media. His attendants, defenders, and press secretaries, no longer able to sow distrust in government, attack our trust in media itself.

Claims of “Fake News” attempt to cover even trivial falsehoods, like Trump’s claim that his first inauguration crowd was bigger than President Obama’s. An obvious photo comparison between 2016 and 2008 proved this isn’t the case. Surely there is biased media coverage in this country, but we shouldn’t forget that much of mainstream media is well-researched, fact-checked, and honest. It is the backbone of an informed political society. The war against the media, which ousted advisor Steve Bannon called “the opposition party,” weakens public involvement in politics: people don’t know who to trust anymore. This legitimizes right-wing radio charlatans like Alex Jones, who privileges anger over facts. On the fridge, these individuals may exist as uncomfortable consequences of free speech. But Trump has sought their endorsements and elevated them. This is bad for our country. Consistency doesn’t matter anymore; truth is exploited for political gain, sometimes at the cost of cherished institutions. That the FBI, one of the most institutionally conservative parts of the Executive Branch, should be undermined by a Republican administration is tragically ironic. As many have noted, one of the casualties in this administration is professionalism itself: the logic pursued against the Mueller investigation denies the ability to allow duty to transcend politics. This may very well be true, just not for the FBI. History will judge harshly those who, in the face of this insanity, say nothing against Trump. There are a few brave conservatives who have spoken out, like Sen. Ben Sasse or David French, but too many remain silent. Congressional leadership has failed to hold the President accountable. It is no accident Trump’s most vocal critics are retiring senators and establishment writers tenured the National Review; in short, those without anything to lose.

While Trump will eventually pass from the national stage, his legacy threatens to live on in the Republican party. If uncontested, it may become the norm instead of an anomaly. Trump’s repulsive politics may turn away many from conservatism. Where they will go is uncertain. For the conservative movement to survive, it must honestly contend with what it has done and what it has failed to do.

Without conservatism, American politics and discourse will be unbalanced: a situation undesirable regardless of your political persuasion, whether you be Liberal or Conservative.

Zach Bampton is a sophomore from Midlothian, Virginia majoring in Politics. He can be reached at zbampton@princeton.edu.

11 | The Princeton Tory | 2018

ENDING THE AMERICAN EXPERIMENT Matthew Igoe Progress, both social and scientific, is, in the present

requires a lamp by which to guide its steps in becoming

day, construed as the moral directive. Simple divergence

more loving, more equitable, and more magnanimous.

from a previous standard is seen as an improvement

Might I suggest that Christianity provides this light?

inasmuch as it maximizes pleasure and increases the

Christianity has provided a foundation for the flourishing of

agency of the individual person. G.K. Chesterton writes,

western culture and our most basic conceptions of the

“As enunciated today, ‘progress’ is simply a comparative of

dignity of the human person.

which we have not settled the superlative.” What is it we

Furthermore, off all Christian institutions, I can point to no

are moving toward, and what are we missing if our

other church more stable, and thus, most perfect for

progress cannot be measured against an immoveable

defining the social order and interpreting and

standard to which we aspire?

communicating the truth, than the Roman Catholic Church.

It seems the main culprit for this poor definition of

Rome ought to be the arbiter in moments of distress; Her

progress is a post-Enlightenment phenomenon—

doctrine and dogma, pure and undefiled, should serve as

scientism. Scientism asserts that we can know only what is

the lens through which nations analyze their legislation

sense-perceptible and repeatable. This method of inquiry

and chart their trajectories. She nurtured the rise of

cannot, however, lead us to uncover the most basic

Western culture, from her emerged legions of artists,

assumptions undergirding it—science matters only if the

writers, scientists, and philosophers. The animated corpse

world is knowable and human reason is sufficient to probe

of liberalism is losing its vivacity; Europe and America have

its mysteries. Science, as a discipline, grew out of a

seen a wave of demagoguery that is no doubt a poor

humanistic tradition that did not see science as providing

antidote to the sense of rootlessness, purposelessness,

all of life’s answers, but as a tool to discover the handiwork

and hopelessness that mark the experience of the modern

of a loving creator who deemed His creatures “good.”

man. Instead of exercising faith in the Triune God, hope in

Science lacks the means to explain our very motivations to

His Providence and corresponding with the dynamism of

assess in the first place the workings of the material world

His love, we have placed our hope in men who have

—cell biology cannot quell the ache of a restless human

nothing to offer us. Trump and other leaders are symptoms

heart, and cosmology cannot satisfy the longing of one

of a sick society looking for secular Messiahs to deliver it

who searches for meaning in a supposedly empty universe

from the tumult of contemporary existence unmoored by

that sprang, with no first cause, into being.

the loss of absolute truth. America, founded on an

Thus, if we adopt this worldview, we find ourselves

unsteady, elitist pluralism born of bloodshed and the

to be ideological orphans—without the guideposts of

horrors of the French Revolution, cannot last much longer

essential moral principles and a coherent metaphysics, we

—Babylon is falling! Racial strife is alive and well;

have no standard by which to measure the course of our

corporations exercise inordinate political influence and a

actions. In this vacuum, any number of horrors is justifiable.

fraction of the population controls the majority of its

Though we can say with certainty that science is, while useful, an artificial construct, by likewise asserting that mankind and its nature is, also, a mere consequence of random occurrences, as Marx and Foucault would claim, we run the risk of devaluing our neighbor to the point where his or her death, for the obtaining of certain ends, is desirable, justifiable, and guiltless. No better example of the consequences of the loss of a fixed ontology of the

"TRUMP AND OTHER LEADERS ARE SYMPTOMS OF A SICK SOCIETY LOOKING FOR SECULAR MESSIAHS TO DELIVER IT FROM

human person exists than in the godless regimes that

THE TUMULT OF CONTEMPORARY

plagued Europe in the 20th century. In fact, one could

EXISTENCE UNMOORED BY THE

draw a straight-line right from the Reformation, through the Enlightenment and Individualism to the devastation of

LOSS OF ABSOLUTE TRUTH."

World War I that launched the world into its darkest and bloodiest century. Still, this is not my project. Society

12 | The Princeton Tory | 2018

wealth; children are shot to pieces in their schools, to the point where juveniles can no longer rely on the protection of their civic leaders; discourse has all but ceased, and Washington is a cesspool of private interests and egodriven agendas.

America is not going to transform overnight. We must change. We need God. We need His Church. Though a Catholic society, spiritually beholden to the Roman Pontiff, is the ideal, we must begin to manifest this ideal as nearly as we can in our daily lives, for the likelihood of such a social order becoming realized is slim. Intentional communities bound by faith, hope, and love will be the leaven that tarries the end of America. It’s time to have the courage to give up, and realize that the American experiment is combusting before our eyes.

Matthew Igoe is a sophomore from Buffalo, New York majoring in Religion. He can be reached at migoe@princeton.edu.

AMERICA IS NOT GOING TO CHANGE OVERNIGHT. WE NEED GOD. WE NEED HIS CHURCH.

13 | The Princeton Tory | 2018

PROGRESS IN PRACTICE

Looking backwards to move forward

Will Nolan At the beginning of the fall 2017 semester, students returning to campus were greeted with posters for a Humanities Council colloquium entitled “Is There Progress in the Humanities?” The question, with relevance for anyone currently pursuing study in the humanities, uses a term which is as difficult to define as it is ubiquitous in common parlance. The advertisement at the beginning of last academic semester, however, offers a helpful clue to what we generally mean when using the term: very often, “progress” is shorthand for successes in the scientific realm. According to this generally accepted framework, science proceeds in a linear fashion, each age successively building upon the previous so as to subsume and outmode former theories. In this model, a new theory merely updates former theories with a new and improved one. A different approach to understanding progress is put forward by Thomas Kuhn in his classic work The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. In his view, progress in the sciences does not stem from a steady accumulation of theories, but rather “paradigm shifts” from one view to another drastically different one. In order to properly assess the desirability of progress, we would do well to be reminded of his view, recalling the past to understand the future.

In all areas of intellectual inquiry, history is peppered with incorrect ideas that, for a time, carried great weight. We now believe that Ptolemy was wrong and Copernicus was right. We believe this despite the fact that for 1500 years the opposite opinion was orthodoxy. Similarly, our best biology for an even longer period of time came from the work of Aristotle, writing in the fourth century BC. One of his commitments was to spontaneous generation, the idea that some species, including eels and flies, are generated from inanimate matter like mud and raw meat.

On the face of it, these examples of past scientific belief seem especially arcane and outdated. However, several important considerations mitigate the extent to which we should laugh at our predecessors. First, they did not possess the convenience of having the scientific method on hand. Thus, their conclusions—often very good ones—were arrived at in spite of this lack, and not because of it.

Second, it is nonsensical to foist blame upon a thinker who got something wrong in the past but did not have the privilege of hindsight. Hence, if an incorrect idea had currency for centuries, it is not the thinker himself who ought to be blamed but those who perpetuated it subsequently.

Finally, how wrong were these thinkers? The examples were chosen specifically for their obvious absurdity to the modern eye, but how possible is it that we too hold beliefs that will later be shown to be patently incorrect? In The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Thomas Kuhn proposes that we need to reexamine the way we perceive the history of science. Each time there is a marked change in the way that the collective body of scientists view the world, he argues, there has been a scientific revolution bringing about a “paradigm shift.” The result of this process is the abandonment of positions previously thought to be authoritative and the acceptance of new explanatory mechanisms. The new paradigm will do some serious reworking of the inherited body of knowledge, mining the old one for helpful tools while throwing out all that is no longer necessary.

Kuhn argues against the view that these momentous instances in the history of science be “viewed not as revolutions but as additions to scientific knowledge.” For example, Newton’s response to Galileo cannot be strictly understood as an improvement of the latter, but rather should be seen as a shift in the way of approaching natural science. For example, Kuhn explains, Newton wrote that Galileo had discovered that the constant force of gravity produces a motion proportional to the square of time.

In fact, Galileo’s kinematic theorem does take that form when embedded in the matrix of Newton’s own dynamical concepts. But Galileo said nothing of the sort. His discussion of falling bodies rarely alludes to forces, much less to a uniform gravitational force that causes bodies to fall.

Thus, the way that Galileo understood his inquiry differed vastly from that of Newton. However, Newton was able to adapt the appropriate parts of Galileo for his own theories, rebranding them to fit his own perspective. This case, Kuhn believes, is not exceptional, but is rather the norm in the development of scientific inquiry. A paradigm shift re-appropriates old tools for novel uses.

If this understanding of the transformation of knowledge in the sciences is correct, then it bears heavily on how we ought to think about scientific progress. Progress from one paradigm to another is not marked by steady growth from the foundations up.

Instead of a vertical model of development, there is a horizontal shift from one generally accepted viewpoint to another.

This conclusion has two important consequences. First, real progress only happens within a given paradigm. Thus, while it is incorrect to say without qualification that Newton’s physics builds upon Aristotelian ideas, it is perfectly reasonable to say that Newton’s own physical system was perfected in the centuries following his breakthroughs. As Kuhn puts it, “a scientific community is an immensely efficient instrument for solving the problems or puzzles that its paradigms define. Furthermore, the result of solving

14 | The Princeton Tory | 2018

those problems must inevitably be progress.” It is important

happens under the supervision of such a relevant authority,

to note, however, that this kind of progress happens under

then we can begin to adequately understand the kind of

the purview of a tradition of the same kind as geocentricism

progress we ought to embrace in all fields, not just science.

and ancient Aristotelian biology were during the Middle

Progress in the humanities, then, may very well be possible.

Ages. Thus, if any areas in contemporary science fall prey to

As real scientific progress will occur only within the bounds

subsequent scorn for outmodedness, our current

of a given paradigm, so, too, humanistic progress will occur

“progress” will be seen in the same light as spontaneous

only by attention to an inherited tradition. Under this

generation is now.

authority, so long as it is a good one, we can achieve new

Second, it requires much more care to discern what

goals and the greater perfection of a discipline. In the

kind of progress is made amidst the shift from one scientific

words of Bishop Robert Barron, the laws of a tradition “are

paradigm to another. For one thing, “There are losses as

the banks that ensure that the river is actually going

well as gains in scientific revolutions,” Kuhn writes, which is

somewhere.”

difficult for us to remember because “scientists tend to be peculiarly blind to the former.” In addition, those on the winning side of a paradigm shift think that “the outcome of revolution must be progress, and they are in an excellent position to make certain that future members of their

Will Nolan is a junior from Williamstown, Massachusetts

community will see past history in the same way.” It is

majoring in Philosophy. He can be reached at

unclear if this way of seeing history is actually the most

wnolan@princeton.edu.

accurate. Kuhn offers a classic example that calls into question the interpretation favored by scientific orthodoxy: I do not doubt, for example, that Newton’s mechanics improves on Aristotle’s and that Einstein’s improves on Newton’s as instruments for puzzle-solving.

But I can see in their succession no coherent direction of ontological development. On the contrary, in some important respects, though by no means all, Einstein’s general theory of relativity is closer to Aristotle’s than either of them is to Newton’s.

The three paradigms are not related linearly, but instead are characterized by different lenses each with a unique set of tools for problem-solving. And “progress,” it seems, is an inadequate denotation for this process.

Instead, progress is the kind of growth that happens when the ideas of one given paradigm are gradually filled out. By acknowledging that the only true kind of progress

“PROGRESS FROM ONE PARADIGM TO ANOTHER IS NOT MARKED BY STEADY GROWTH FROM THE FOUNDATIONS UP.”

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

15 | The Princeton Tory | 2018

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