and The LastAlso: Word Th e Pr i n c e t o n P no ts i & P by u n ts TORY Will Scharf

Anscombe’s Proposed Chastity Center Point/Counterpoint: Is it necessary? HE RINCETON Letter from the Publisher T P The Importance of Perspective ORY ewis Black, whom I consider to be one of the TApril 2008 Lmost astute and hilarious comedians today, Volume XXV - Issue I once remarked on the importance of humor in political discourse. As Black sees it, one of Publisher the most fundamental differences between Joel Alicea ‘10 Americans and the terrorists we face is that we Editor-in-Chief Managing Editors have the ability to step back and laugh at very Leon Furchtgott ‘09 Brandon McGinley ’10 serious political and social problems. As Black Andrew Saraf ’11 Copy Editor puts it, the terrorists “have no sense of humor,” Robert Day ‘10 Production Manager and when a group of people get so caught up in Jonathan Giuffrida ‘10 Financial Manager their ideology that no one dares to make fun of Brendan Lyons ‘09 Operations Manager it, “[they]’re screwed.” Johnny Love ‘09 I’m not quite sure I would go as far as Black in saying that a lack of a Blog Editor Shivani Radhakrishnan ‘11 sense of humor is among the fundamental differences between Americans Editor-in-Chief and Islamic terrorists, but I certainly agree with the general premise that the Publisher Emeritus Emeritus Matthew J. Schmitz ‘08 Sherif Girgis ‘08 ability to make fun of one’s own cause as well as that of one’s opponents is essential to healthy political discourse. I would, however, add an essential Staff Writers corollary: it is equally important to have some distance from one’s own politi- Sefan McDaniel ‘08 Greg Burnham ‘10 cal movement and to avoid the intellectual paralysis of political correctness. Will Scharf ‘08 Katie Fletcher ‘10 It is vital to maintain a sense of perspective in regard to political debates. Arielle Gorin ‘08 Amy Osterman ‘10 To that end, starting with this issue, the Points & Punts section will make Brian Extein ‘08 Emma Yates ‘11 Jordan Reimer ‘08 Bobby Marsland ‘11 an effort to inject much-needed humor into campus issues while taking aim Kyle Smith ‘09 Aaron Smargon ‘11 at both the right and the left. As our loyal readers will see, we do not hesitate Emely Peña ‘09 Christine Bokman ‘11 to mock both those with whom conservatives would traditionally agree and Clint Montague ‘09 those from whose ideas they would normally demur. We are quite aware that Production Team some of the humor is irreverent, but we firmly believe that making fun of Robert Day ‘10 those things that are usually politically off-limits is essential to achieving the Cathy Tran ‘11 important goal of getting ideologues not to take themselves too seriously. Board of Trustees The Tory firmly believes in debating and reevaluating conservative ideas, Peter Heinecke ’87 Brian Tvenstrup ’95 and the cover story to this issue, a point-counterpoint on the proposed Chas- David Daniels ’89 Wickham Schmidt ’99 tity Center, speaks to this element of my proposed corollary. It is vital that we Anna Bray Duff ’92 Timothy Webster ’99 debate the major issues on campus and across the nation rather than getting Peter Hegseth ’02 bogged down in political wars of attrition over such topics as the Francisco is a journal of conservative and Nava affair and the politically correct wording that should be used to refer moderate political thought written, edited and produced to one group or another when the common diction is widely accepted. by students and delivered free of charge to all Princeton students and faculty. The Princeton Unfortunately, the Princeton campus is not the ideal place to seek per- Tory is a publication of The Princeton Tory, Inc. Opinions spective on important issues. Far too often, the student government leader- expressed herein are those of the authors and not neces- ship and the Daily Princetonian are focused on the banal and the trivial as sarily those of the editors, trustees, Princeton University, or the Princeton Tory, Inc. opposed to the urgent and the momentous. It is altogether too common to The Princeton Tory accepts letters to the editor. hear political correctness gone amok and intellectual debate stifled because Direct correspondence to: P.O. Box 1499, Princeton, NJ some issues are off-limits and conservative points of view are relegated to 08542; or by e-mail: [email protected]. Advertise- ment rates for The Princeton Tory can be found on the the gutter by liberal elites. The Tory, as well, should take care not to plunge magazine’s website at www.princetontory.com. Donations headlong into self-righteousness and blind ideology. to The Princeton Tory are fully tax-deductible. Please mail We hope that the Tory can help set a new standard in which the impor- donations to: P.O. Box 1499, Princeton, NJ 08542. The Princeton Tory is a member of the Collegiate tant issues are front-and-center and no point of view is immune from debate. Network. The Princeton Tory gives special thanks to As importantly, we hope that occasionally our readers and others will take the Intercollegiate Studies Institute, Princeton Alumni a moment to step back and poke fun at themselves, their beliefs, and those Viewpoints, and The Bachman Foundation. The Princeton Tory, Inc. is a non-profit corporation of their opponents, for it is only by maintaining a sense of perspective on registered in New Jersey. No part of this publication these issues that we achieve a substantive campus conversation. should be construed to promote any pending legislation or to support any candidate for office. No part of this Best, publication may be reproduced without express written consent of the Publisher. Joel Alicea ‘10 Copyright © 2008 The Princeton Tory

2 · Th e Pr i n c e t o n To r y Ap r i l 2008 THE PRINCETON TORY April 2008 Volume XXV Issue I www.princeton.edu/~tory

Ta b l e o f Co n t e n t s Po i n t s a n d Pu n t s 4 Staff CAMPUS Em b r y o s a n d Sc i e n c e 6 In Search of Rational Bioethics Aaron Smargon ‘11 Th e St u d e n t Bi l l o f Ri g h t s 8 Emma Yates ‘11 Th e Ya l e To r y 10 William F. Buckley Jr., 1925-2008 Matt Schmitz ‘08 POINT/COUNTERPOINT Anscombe’s Proposed Chastity Center Sherif Girgis ‘08 12 Andrew Saraf ‘11 13 NATION & WORLD

Gl o b a l Wa r m i n g 15 A Conflated Orthodoxy Shivani Radhakrishnan ‘11 and Brendan Lyons ‘09 Th e La s t Wo r d : Jo h n McCa i n 17 Where Do We Go from Here? Will Scharf ‘08

Ap r i l 2008 Th e Pr i n c e t o n To r y · 3 Po i n t s & Pu n t s Unsupervised members of the Tory drink themselves into oblivion, then opine gaily about toilet paper quotas, the “No, We Can’t!” crowd, and the guy who spoke after Antonin Scalia

he Daily Princetonian editorial board has pro- Undemocratic? Obama isn’t complaining. What is Tposed limiting the number of pages that students particularly strange about the Democrats’ complaint can print from university clusters. According to the is that they have had this same nominating system for board, “our excessive consumption of paper wastes years, yet nobody has objected. Suddenly the Dems energy and trees and comes back to students in the don’t like a system run by party bosses? form of higher tuition and manpower hours spent trying to fix the printers.” TheTory wholeheartedly Francisco Nava – Anscombe applauds the Prince’s sentiment, but we think don’t think it goes far enough. After all, the average Princ- initiations gone horribly wrong? eton student probably uses as much toilet paper in a day as he prints pages from the printing cluster. We t’s possible that the Anscombe Society is destroying think the editorial board would do better to propose Ithe image of conservatives, especially social conserva- a one-square-per-visit quota on toilet paper. As to tives, with its strong protest of the University’s distribu- whether that would apply to one-ply or two-ply toilet tion of free condoms. Many people on campus now peg Anscombe as a radical organization and lump together paper, perhaps Josh Weinstein can set up a committee all who might be sympathetic to Anscombe as insane to examine the matter. lunatics who are against contraceptives. While its heart might be in the right place, this effort to ban condoms he Daily Princetonian reported in January that will only hinder the organization’s efforts on issues that T“Wilson School Dean Anne-Marie Slaughter are seen as legitimate by a large portion of the student ‘80 […] donated $2,300 — the maximum amount body. If they want to make any sort of a difference, they allowed by law during the primary season — to should tackle those more popular issues first and save Clinton. Curiously, Slaughter also donated $1,500 to the harder battles for a later day. Obama’s campaign.” Curious? We think not. n early February, a bombshell was dropped which emocratic Senator Barack Obama has made it a Iwill forever alter this magazine’s usage of English Dpoint of his campaign to rekindle hope among vocabulary. In a guest column in the Daily Princeto- the American people. From reforming healthcare to nian, sophomore Jacob Denz informed the world that bridging the divide between Democrats and Repub- “the term ‘homosexual’ is itself offensive because the licans, Obama continues to inspire Americans with psychiatric community originally used it to patholo- high rhetoric about what we as a country can ac- gize people with same-sex attraction.” Although we, complish. Oddly enough, the senator from Illinois along with most of the literate population, saw the does not extend his optimism to the War in Iraq, word as an objective, descriptive term, the Tory, ever- and continues to serve as a source of cynicism and sensitive to the desires of campus minorities, is happy defeatism in regard to our success there. Our ques- to strike the word “homosexual” from our pages. But tion for Senator Obama and his supporters is simple: we are baffled as to what to replace it with. Particu- where’s the hope? larly among our age group the term “gay” is used pejoratively more often than “homosexual,” so that’s n addition, we’ve lately heard the Obama camp out too. What are we left with?Homophile? Iwhining about how it would be undemocratic if Bugger? Sodomite? Hillary went into the convention with fewer pledged delegates but won on the strength of superdelegates. n the subject of language, we at the Tory would It now appears, however, that based on the convo- like to collectively announce that we are (say it luted Texas and Nevada systems, Hillary got more O loud, say it proud) gay. Very, very, very gay. In any votes in those states but will receive fewer delegates. case, in the tradition of “The Vagina Monologues”

4 · Th e Pr i n c e t o n To r y Ap r i l 2008 Points and Punts

taking back the c-word and universities across the cross the pond, Dr. Rowan Williams, the Arch- nation re-appropriating “queer,” we at the Tory are Abishop of Canterbury, has brewed up a tempest in taking back “gay.” That’s right, folks: gay now means a teapot with his recent comments about the place of “happy” again. So next time you get a good grade on Islamic Sharia law in Britain. In the interest of accom- a problem set or score a date with that hot guy, girl or modating British Muslims who may feel out of touch otherwise in your econ lecture, just admit it: you’re with the Western legal system, Dr. Williams suggested gay. incorporating aspects of Islamic law into British law. Currently, he said, the law does not sufficiently recog- nize that residents of Britain may have “other affiliations ime and again - from fascism doctrine to commu- [and] other loyalties which shape and dictate how they nist ideology - governments have proven a funda- T behave in society.” Since his speech, Dr. Williams has mental point: planners creating utopian schemes behind faced sharp criticism. Even erstwhile supporter Prime closed doors cannot successfully impress upon the brow Minister Gordon Brown has strong misgivings, and of society their purely rational edifices. And yet once Labour MP Khalid Mahmood called Dr. Williams’ com- more we see this liberal impulse seize our University ments “incredibly crass and naïve.” On the other hand, administration’s top minds. We refer to, of course, the the Tory finds it rather nice to see a religious leader ac- new alcohol policy. Originally detailed in secret, with- tually advocating religion, rather than seeking to make out student input, this farce of a plan was surely devised it “relevant” and “uplifting” for those who affirmatively by souls who could not drink their way out of a brown reject it. Dean Boden, take note. paper bag. Indeed, it is evident from their proposals that they lack sufficient exposure to the drinking scene on campus to even realize the dangers of forcing drink- n Saturday, March 8, independent presidential ing practice further into secret. A society - even one so Ocandidate Ralph Nader delivered a lecture in small as a university’s - is far too complex to successfully McCosh 50. Really. He was here. At Princeton. On manipulate in any grand manner. And yet it is precisely this campus. The only student theTory could track the rationalist impulse to do so, unchecked by any refer- down who witnessed the visit explained that she ence to reality, that so wracks today’s institutions, from could not opine on his speech, as she had trekked university administration right on up to over-zealous through the rain to McCosh only to discover that federal government. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia had spoken the day before. She left dejectedly. ot to whine, but we at the Tory, being borderline But seriously, Ralph, this whole business makes us Nwinos all, feel the need to distill some more criti- positively gay (see above). TheTory whole-heartedly cism of the new alcohol policy. By discouraging open- supports, nay, encourages* your campaign. We wish ness about drinking habits, the policy encourages pri- you the best of luck in your quest for as many dis- vate consumption of alcohol to the detriment of larger enchanted Democratic votes as possible. In fact, we gatherings. Not only has this been noted to increase would like to offer you whatever support theTory can occurrences of what is defined as “high risk” drinking, render. Just give us a ring. but it creates an interesting gap between those who can * Unfortunately, due to tax restrictions the Tory cannot actually provide for themselves beverage-wise and those who “endorse” a presidential candidate. Sorry, Ralph. You’re still our bff. cannot. When large room parties splinter in more pri- vate sessions, the sources of alcohol consolidate among h, get over it. It’s eight years ago.” those who have the means of procurement. Obtaining Justice Antonin Scalia, responding to a alcohol may be no problem for Ashton FitzRandolph question“O on Bush v. Gore during his recent visit to IV, who has the ancestral bankroll to binge on Bacardi campus. any time he please; however, for those self-made men among us who as of yet lack the financial wherewithal to afford booze, it presents a serious problem. The univer- Eliot Spitzer…we’ll pass. sity claims it does not discriminate based on economic background (a claim we already knew to be false, truth be told), but this certainly is a new tenet: the poor don’t deserve to get wasted as much as the Po i n t s & Pu n t s , representing the rich do. opinions of individual writers, were compiled by the editors.

Ap r i l 2008 Th e Pr i n c e t o n To r y · 5 CAMPUS Em b r y o s a n d Sc i e n c e In Se a r c h o f Ra t i o n a l Bi o e t h i c s Aaron Smargon ‘11 have never thought of myself as a fundamentalist. sistent.” So I offered him the argument which one of his Having witnessed two successive clerical scandals in primary intellectual opponents, fellow Princeton Profes- my youth, I now harbor skepticism toward organized sor Robert George, outlines in his new book, Embryo: A Ireligion and the proverbial “holier than thou” routine. Defense of Human Life: Any self-regulating entity capable, Lack of religious inclination has hardened me into a given the right conditions, of developing on its own into secular-minded prospective science major. a mature organism of the species Homo sapiens should be Religious views, then, had no bearing on my deci- considered human. This would include (in reverse order sion to be a social conservative; I independently oppose of development) a human adolescent, child, infant, fetus, research on human embryos and abortion in a majority blastocyst, and embryo. of cases. And yet, according to geneticist and Princeton Silver was quick to dismiss this notion, countering Professor Lee Silver, this position is not possible. with, “That opinion was unchallengeable 30-40 years ago, Professor Silver, who teaches WWS 320: Human but has now been superseded by science.” He clarified by Genetics, Reproduction and Public Policy, believes that noting that today, with hybrid organisms grown in labo- any opposition to human embryonic research or destruc- ratories, we cannot as easily differentiate between species. tion is chiefly motivated by irrational, fundamentalist The definition of the human species has surely evolved religious beliefs, obsolete in this rational, modern world. with scientific knowledge. Therefore, I can understand In response to a 2008 ques- why Silver was cautious tion from EDGE magazine, about concretely defining which asked prominent a human. intellectuals what they have In spite of his ap- changed their minds about, parent objectivity and he wrote that, “[I]rrational- repeated insistence that, ity and mysticism seem to “I am not a bioethicist,” be an integral part of normal Professor Silver had a human nature, even among conclusive position of highly educated people,” how humans should from whom “…there is often be treated. He openly refusal to accept scientific opined on the matter of implications of rational ar- human individual rights, gument.” saying that “a free-living So what exactly is this organism that can feed it- “rational argument?” I sat self and was born by hu- down with Professor Silver man parents deserves hu- to investigate his views on man rights as described human bioethics and to by the United Nations’ search for a place for mine. Universal Rights.” I asked As in all discussions, it Do these cells deserve an inherent right to life? Prof. Silver says no. Silver what made him, is important initially to de- like these parents, hu- fine one’s terms. I wanted Professor Silver to give me his man, and at what point in time he became human. Much concrete definition of what it is to be a member of the to my surprise, he replied that there was no definitive mo- human species, a pivotal point from which his rational ment at which he became human and that human-species case would surely follow. But, rather than proposing his life, just as human-individual life, is continuous. Professor own hypothesis, he began by explaining that, “I try to Silver, on the one hand, could not conceivably distinguish probe ideas people have to see if they are logically con- between a human and non-human state in the develop-

6 · Th e Pr i n c e t o n To r y Ap r i l 2008 CAMPUS ment process, and yet, on the other hand, had no qualms human organisms on their own, and they produce only in determining that these heretofore-undefined humans disorganized tissue when allowed to proliferate. Instead, deserve rights. stem cells must be programmed in order to develop into Given his previous statements, it came as no shock to a human organism. While this distinction easily applies learn that Professor Silver is unconditionally pro-choice – today, I tend to agree with Professor Silver that, as tech- for the entire duration of a pregnancy. Silver’s definition nology progresses, it will become increasingly difficult to of what deserves individual human rights does support his determine if stem cells, when programmed to generate pro-choice stance, but are his abortion views completely organs and body parts, will, at the same stage, not also supported by science? be capable of developing I asked him whether, into humans. And then, as a scientist, he feels that Far from “superseding” bioethical perhaps, Professor Silver’s structure determines func- refusal to define a human tion, and thus definition. standards derisively attributed to being or organism will not He replied affirmatively. religious superstition, science may seem as so counterpro- I then inquired whether ductive to his supposedly there was any biological have indeed validated some of them. rational argument. or structural difference But, for now, I primar- between an almost-born ily concur with Professor fetus and a newborn baby. He said that there was not. George’s assertion in an October 3, 2006 edition of The This inconsistency between an ethical judgment on National Review Online that it is an “indisputable scien- abortion and the accompanying science raises several im- tific fact that each embryo is a complex, living, individual portant questions that would seem to confound Professor member of the human species.” Unlike previous genera- Silver’s attempt at “rationality.” What makes the newborn tions, today we understand that the intrinsic properties baby any different or more deserving of human rights of human life begin at and develop from the embryonic than the fetus, especially given that an almost-born fetus stage. Far from “superseding” bioethical standards de- is capable of breathing on its own? And what about babies risively attributed to religious superstition, science may born unable to breathe unassisted or born with disabilities have indeed validated some of them. rendering them incapable of self-feeding? Should they Still, I wonder, am I somehow irrational or mysti- also not be protected by human rights? Ultimately, is an cal if I find fault with Professor Silver’s views or if—God infant’s dependence on a guardian for survival that dif- forbid—I side with religion? I cannot accept that as- ferent from a fetus’ dependence on its mother’s womb for sessment. It is truly a fundamentalist accusation, which survival? If so, why punish irresponsible parents for child serves only to infuse bioethical debate with even more negligence when a baby is perfectly “free and able to feed irrationality. After my discussion with Professor Silver, I itself?” Insofar as Professor Silver has presented his “ratio- must concede that the debate over the ethics of embryos nal argument,” I find his definition of human individual- is complicated and that educated people, when presented ity logically inconsistent. the same evidence, can have reasonable, scientifically valid Despite the aforementioned contradictions, Profes- disagreements. Sometimes, however, they can also be so sor Silver does make a logical argumentative point with overwhelmed by their convictions that they look past respect to stem cell research. Like many conservatives, I even the principle of scientific falsifiability. And so my oppose embryonic stem (ES) cell research but support search for rational bioethics continues. research with induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs), that is, stem cells derived from human skin cells. Silver notes, however, that iPSCs are capable of developing into hu- man embryos, albeit with technological intervention. In fact, as was demonstrated by engineering mouse “tetra- Aaron Smargon is a freshman and ploid” embryos from mouse ES cells, any human stem prospective Molecular Biology major. cell is capable of developing into a human embryo, and His non-academic interests include thus into a mature human organism. taekwondo, reading, freedom, fighting Professor George’s counterpoint is that these stem terrorists, and ‘Merica. cells lack the intrinsic definition to develop into mature

Ap r i l 2008 Th e Pr i n c e t o n To r y · 7 CAMPUS Th e St u d e n t Bi l l o f Ri g h t s Wh y t h e USG Mu s t Ke e p It Re l e v a n t

Emma Yates ‘11 uring freshman week, the Class of 2011 was challenges as well, claiming that the SBOR seemed nar- educated on a variety of topics. From the rowly tailored toward protecting a conservative ideology. availability of extracurricular activities and the One of the more controversial aspects of the bill is its Dimportance of making informed decisions regarding provisions directing classroom discussion. According to alcohol, to issues of diversity and sexual health, my class section two, “Teachers are entitled to freedom in teaching was shown, formally and their subject as they see informally, what being fit, but not to the point a Tiger entails. Yet it The SBOR is not a merely a project of political, ideological, would seem as though of the College Republicans: it religious, or anti-religious we were educated with indoctrination, or to a mind towards the represents the official position of the exclusion of other extracurricular factors the Princeton student body and the opinions or viewpoints. of Princeton life, rather Such actions represent a than the substantive USG. violation of the principles content of a Princeton of a student’s academic student’s academic rights and responsibilities. freedom and the principles of free and open sharing of Amidst the assemblies and packets of information ideas.” Professor David Botstein, director of the Lewis- with which the university greeted the freshman class, not Sigler Institute for Integrative Genomics, expressed the a word was spoken of the Student Bill of Rights. The concerns of many of the department heads, saying, “I Student Bill of Rights (SBOR) was passed by referendum think the faculty is the faculty, and the students should on the USG Ballot on April 26th, 2006 with 51.8% of use their own good judgment. We can’t make believe the vote. The Bill seeks to “further promote an intellec- everything is a debate… A philosophical debate distracts tual environment of free inquiry and free speech without from the reason students want to learn the science.” intimidation of any given set of beliefs.” The text of the Wyatt Yankus ’09 echoed Scharf’s comments that Bill itself recognizes that, “While we have not the power some of the motivations for passing the SBOR were to declare [these principles] binding or irrevocable… instances of students being unfairly graded and criti- any act in violation would contravene the ‘fundamental cized for expressing unpopular viewpoints. Though principles of free discovery’ to which Princeton University both Yankus and Scharf declined to comment on the is Committed.” precise nature of these allegations, Scharf cited “anecdotal The idea for a Student Bill of Rights was popularized evidence.” The text of the SBOR in no way implores pro- by David Horowitz of Students for Academic Freedom, fessors to refrain from presenting their scholarly points now the David Horowitz Freedom Center. When the of view, no matter how controversial they are; Yankus rec- College Republicans drafted the Bill, they “consciously ognized the fact that there are necessarily “two academic departed” from the Horowitz model. According to Will freedoms involved” here. Scharf ’08, then press secretary of the College Republi- It would seem that all that is being asserted by the cans, this was because aspects of Horowitz’s model were SBOR is academic freedom of thought. Professors as “not well-suited” for Princeton. scholars, and fundamentally as persons, possess the Even marginal affiliation with David Horowitz, how- freedom to believe, disseminate information, and edu- ever, was enough to raise voices of dissent in spring 2006 cate their students as they will. It is only when such when the student body began discussing the issue. In “education” becomes condescending and patronizing fact, Asheesh Siddique ’07 created a new student group, that students’ freedom of thought is abridged. Profes- Free Exchange at Princeton, in order to challenge the “bill sor Botstein is surely correct that it would be difficult to of restrictions.” The College Democrats echoed these conceive of a circumstance in which an organic chemistry

8 · Th e Pr i n c e t o n To r y Ap r i l 2008 CAMPUS professor reprimand- ed or graded down his students because of the content of their beliefs. It is difficult to imagine a “gradient of belief” in undergraduate organic chemistry. However, if on an exam a student ar- The fact that a document is unenforceable does not make it irrelevant. gued against a profes- sor’s purported scientific evaluation regarding affording with the goal of publicizing the USG’s activities. Further- human embryos moral protection and was graded down more, the SBOR is not a merely a project of the College for it, then that student’s freedom of thought is necessar- Republicans: it represents the official position of the ily being infringed. Princeton student body and the USG. As Alex Lenahan Yet according to Yankus, the reception from the fac- ’07, the USG President at the time that the SBOR passed, ulty department heads was generally poor. It seemed that explained to me, with the passage of the bill, “the referen- many academic departments viewed the Bill as a viola- dum becomes the position of the Senate as a representa- tion of their freedom to teach, perhaps concurring with tive body of the undergraduates of Princeton University.” sentiments that the Bill was crafted to protect specific One very easy way of publicizing the SBOR would be viewpoints. to put a copy of it—along with other bills passed by the According to Scharf, the current status of the SBOR student body—on the USG website. Nobody in the USG is “the same as it was a day after it passed -- it is a docu- that I contacted—including President Josh Weinstein ’09 ment endorsed by a voting majority of Princeton stu- and Communications Director Andrew Malcolm ’09— dents.” As the evidence of academic malpractice was could comment on this idea. anecdotal upon formulation of the bill and remains The College Republicans and the USG have un- anecdotal today, it is impossible to attribute any decrease doubtedly tackled many new and pressing projects since in unfair grading practices to the passage of the Bill. April 2006. Though it would be unrealistic to assert The College Republicans cite anecdotal evidence that they should continually press this one issue, the ease such as the fact that students have responded with re- with which the Student Bill of Rights has been forgotten spect and thoughtful comments at controversial lectures suggests that both groups are guilty of negligence. The and have not defaced posters put up by other student responsibility for publicizing the Student Bill of Rights groups in claiming that the Bill has perhaps been success- falls both with the College Republicans, as they proposed ful in facilitating “an environment conducive to the civil the SBOR, and with the USG, as the elected representa- exchange of ideas.” tives of the student body that passed the bill. The SBOR, Such tolerance was surely a desired end in passing the originally a brilliant publicity coup for the College SBOR, yet it seems that both the College Republicans Republicans and now the official position of the USG, is and the USG have dropped the ball in publicizing and quickly sliding into irrelevance. It deserves greater defer- realizing to the largest extent possible the remainder of its ence and publicity from both organizations. more central points. Former USG President Rob Bieder- man ’08 claimed that because of the explicit recognition in the Bill that it cannot be enforced, there is nothing for the USG to do in reference to it. Further, Biederman Emma Yates is a freshman who commented that, “the responsibility falls more to the intends to pursue an independent College Republicans, as the USG doesn’t even go out of concentration in bioethics. Emma is its way to publicize every position it itself has ever taken.” from South Florida and is involved in This might have been true in the past, but it should not Anscombe, Princeton Philosophical be the case this year: the USG has recently created a Society, Princeton Pro-Life, Princeton Communications Committee with a dozen members, Bioethics Society, Aquinas, and PEF.

Ap r i l 2008 Th e Pr i n c e t o n To r y · 9 CAMPUS Th e Ya l e To r y Wi l l i a m F. Bu c k l e y Jr. 1925 - 2008 Matt Schmitz ‘08 hen Bill Buckley made a long-shot run for home. He is also, perhaps, the one man most responsi- mayor of New York City, he was asked what ble for the existence of the Princeton Tory. Before him, it he would do if he won. Buckley responded, could not have existed; after him, it was merely the local W“Demand a recount.” Those contemplating his career in outworking of an intellectual sea-change. the year of his death are faced by a host of unlikely num- The conservative philosophy that Buckley champi- bers: 55 books, 1429 episodes of his program Firing Line oned—one marked by individualism—was best dis- and some 5,600 columns. Add to that 225 obituary played in his personal life. Buckley’s leisure hours, spent essays, or 227 if you count the role he played in writing sailing, playing the harpsichord and skiing at Gstaad, the obituaries for communism abroad and collectivism at were the undeniable expressions of what David Schaen- gold ‘07 aptly described as Buckley’s “aesthetic exuberance.” His philosophy was never a merely negative opposition to communism or to the New Deal. He fought his battles against statism because he believed in the individual: in caprice, adventure, friendship, and love. It was a faith he lived. Buckley’s youthful hell- raising at Yale marked him as the first child of the sixties, a rebel before the age of rebellion. On campus he became known as an unrelent- ing critic of Yale’s administration and faculty. Within a few years of his graduation, Buckley wrote God and Man at Yale, an indictment of Yale’s bias against religion and free-market eco- nomics that became the blueprint for conserva- tive campus activism. In 2007, the need for conservative politi- cal action on Princeton’s campus has never been more acute, and it is worth returning to Buckley to remember how and why the cam- pus conservative movement came to be. Today at Princeton, most insitutions that have any real chance of challenging are controlled by it. Trustees are either appointed by the administrators they are supposed to oversee, or chosen by sham elections in which campaigning is not allowed. TheDaily Prince- tonian and the USG should be the two student organs for holding the administration account- able, but the administration has a history of bullying both groups. In the spring of 2005 Leslie Bernard- In his book God and Man at Yale, Buckley laid the foundation for Joseph’s USG was presented with a student- modern conservative criticisms of school administrations. initiated referendum that called for barring

10 · Th e Pr i n c e t o n To r y Ap r i l 2008 CAMPUS ROTC from campus because of the “don’t ask, don’t former, William and Mary’s well-run conservative paper, tell” policy. Bernard-Joseph told President Tilghman has perfected the art of grievance-mongering by decrying that there would have to be a vote on it. By 4 o’clock instances of anti-conservative bias. Its outrage over the that afternoon, Bernard-Joseph and USG Vice-President removal of a cross from the school’s chapel precipitated Jesse Creed were summoned to a closed-door meet- the resignation of the university’s president. Conserva- ing with Bob Durkee tives should realize that this where the two students, route, pioneered by Buck- cornered by a powerful Conservatives have a responsibility ley in God and Man at Yale, and persuasive admin- to liberals and conservatives alike must be broadened. So istrator, were “strongly” long as Shirley Tilghman is encouraged to quash to criticize the administration, even writing grad-school recom- the measure. To do so mendations for leaders of would have required vio- when it is not apparently in the the USG and threatening lating the USG consti- interest of conservative causes. members of the student tution and overturning paper, the Tor y is the only the will of 250 students source for journalism un- engaged in an expression of—admittedly profoundly saddled by anxiety over what the overlords think. Con- misguided—civic concern. In the end the petition was sequently, conservatives have a responsibility to liberals withdrawn by its backers. Princeton kept ROTC, and and conservatives alike to criticize the administration, it kept an administration willing to secretly bully our even when it is not apparently in the interest of conser- elected representatives while publicly claiming that they vative causes. take no stand. TheTor y has always had the privilege of being the TheDaily Princetonian provides a far weaker voice sole conservative voice on campus. Due to its unique in- for student concerns. The staff of Princeton’s campus dependence it also has the task of providing non-partisan paper faces Cass Cliatt, the famously adversarial commu- criticism of the administration. Even when conservative nications director who has brought student journalists to interests are not directly at stake—when no member tears with her accusatory emails. Administrators seek to of the Trinity is being blasphemed and the memory of influence the content of both the news and editorial sec- Milton Friedman is properly honored—the Tory has tions of the paper. A Prince reporter faces the constant a duty to speak up. In the ROTC case, the Pride Alli- risk that offended administrators will permanently refuse ance’s petition drew the strong opposition of member of to talk to him. Unlike Creed and Bernard-Joseph, Prince the Tory. Nonetheless, it should always be conservatives editors have consistently refused to challenge the admin- who speak first against strong-arm tactics such as those istration. ThePrince seems unaware of the leverage it has the administration employed. as the University’s only —administrators have Conservatives must remember that they are not only nowhere else to go. Rather than risk the disapproval of a minority that must protect its interests. They also hold administrators, the Prince has taken on the glib booster- a public trust to report to expose those things no one ism of a community bulletin. We have a small-town else does, such as McCosh’s failure to report STDs. In paper for a small-town campus. the year of his death, the movement Buckley founded Princeton’s culture of complacency is not very differ- must look beyond itself to find its purpose. ent from the one Bill Buckley encountered at Yale in the 1950s. Instead of defending the New Deal and anodyne Unitarianism, the modern powers-that-be do what they can to preserve the gains of the sexual revolution. What are conservatives to do? In the form of the Tor y, Princ- eton enjoys the probably unwelcome privilege of having an institutional Buckley, the permanent opposition and Matthew Schmitz is a senior from perennial gadfly. Conservatives wondering what they O’Neill, NE. He is the Publisher have to contribute to their fellow students and the school Emeritus of the Princeton Tory. they love can find one modern interpretation of Buck- ley’s legacy, exemplified byThe Virginia Informer. The In-

Ap r i l 2008 Th e Pr i n c e t o n To r y · 11 POINT Id e o l o g i c a l On e -Si d e d n e s s Th e LGBT Ce n t e r a n d Wo m e n ’s Ce n t e r Sherif Girgis ‘08 he LGBT Center, the Fields and support that university centers is not an embrace of victimology— Center, the Women’s Center are especially equipped to meet. which conservatives rightly denounce Tand the International Center Second, the ideological one-sidedness for its learned helplessness and blind serve prominent roles on campus. (“lopsidedness” would be generous) faith in top-down correction. This is Against the marginalization that of the LGBT and Women’s Centers rather a sober estimation of the status their constituencies might face, on issues of gender and sexuality re- quo on Princeton’s campus and a they lend institutional support and quires correction, both in fairness to suggestion of one crucial step toward secure a central presence on campus, morally traditional students and for remedying it. literally—with offices in Frist. Their the intellectual health of the univer- Thus, male and female students full-time staffs use generous funds to sity. Either of these considerations of any sexual inclination who want organize and sponsor roundtables, alone would support establishing the resources and support for living lectures, discussion groups, screen- center. Together, they require it. chastely deserve to be represented, ings, and social events at a level of Which is more likely to earn you but they are not by the LGBT or coordination among Women’s Centers. Conser- students, faculty, and vatives might argue that no administrators that no The health of this university’s groups should get special student group has the institutional attention since authority or power to intellectual milieu requires an even this only aggravates their match. They offer librar- playing-field for all reasonable sense of being apart—that ies of educational re- in an ideal world, Princeton sources, counseling, and sides of contested moral and would treat us all just as referrals. Unlike student political questions. Princetonians. Of course, in groups, they can par- an ideal world, no students ticipate in RCA training would need more assistance. and reach underclassmen by leading soft derision from Princetonian peers In the real world, some do. Even advisee study breaks in residential or even professors—coming out as if you disagree that administrative colleges. gay, or coming out as chaste? Being centers are the ideal solution, the Judging that matters of sexuality a woman, or being a virgin? If asking reality is that they are likely here to deserve special attention, the uni- these questions appears somehow stay. Since they are, and given the versity has founded two administra- unseemly, it is only because ranking ideological commitments of current tive centers focused on such issues: plights is always so. But that is the centers on every contested sexual the LGBT Center and the Women’s point: the position of the virgin or and familial question, establishing a Center. It is clear to any reasonable the student committed to chastity center representing the other side is observer that both have an ideologi- isn’t easy. Through mandatory pro- imperative. cal one-sidedness that impedes their grams like “Sex on a Saturday Night” The health of this university’s ability to help a significant number and “Sex Jeopardy” advisee study intellectual milieu requires an even of Princetonians who themselves seek breaks, as well as one-sided educa- playing-field for all reasonable sides resources. tional resources and events (see the of contested moral and political So the case for a center for tradi- events calendar of any center, or even questions. Student groups do not tilt tional sexual ethics—by that or any the events on sexuality sponsored by that playing-field, and fairly chosen other name—is rather simple. First, the Office of Religious Life), the Uni- but disproportionately liberal facul- like LGBT students and women, stu- versity confirms as normal (and per- ties do so only incidentally; one-sided dents seeking to be chaste have needs haps normative) the libertinism that administrative centers tilt it unjustly. for intellectual and social resources makes it difficult to live chastely. This There is simply no record of a single

12 · Th e Pr i n c e t o n To r y Ap r i l 2008 COUNTERPOINT administrative center ever giving a fair hearing to (much less defending or helping students live out) tradi- An s c o m b e ’s tional sexual or marital ethics. Many LGBT Center programs distort and ridicule such views (e.g., the “Reli- Ch a s t i t y Ce n t e r gious Right’s Obsession with Gay Ju s t Wh a t Ar e We Ge tt i n g In t o ? Sex” panel). Others—with the curi- ous support of an Office of Religious Andrew Saraf ‘11 Life meant to represent Catholics, pon founding National “[Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Trans- Evangelicals, Muslims, and Orthodox Review in 1955, the late, gender] Center and a center for chas- Jews—excuse and dismiss the sexual great conservative patriarch tity … should be understood as two mores of these great faith traditions UWilliam F. Buckley, Jr. famously an- sides of the same coin … By providing (as occurred at the recent “Religion nounced that his magazine would an LGBT center, the University lent Symposium: Religious Texts, Sexual “stand athwart history, yelling Stop.” institutional support to those LGBT Orientation, and Gender Identity”). He was not renouncing pragmatism; students in navigating the difficult The LGBT Center’s aggressive indeed, he accepted that one must social waters of Princeton. Similarly, promotion of libertinism—the view “make the allowances to reality that by establishing an official center for that any consensual sex is morally reality imposes [and] take advantage chastity, the University would offer permissible or good, and that all of the current when the current moves necessary institutional support” for sexual unions are on the same moral in your direction.” But he recognized, traditional students. This argument plane—alone provides a conclusive and founded a movement on, the fact has been repeated in several other reason for founding a chastity center. that it was the role, the unique role, pieces by Anscombe members, includ- Such a center would not open the of conservatives to resist the tide. As a ing Brandon McGinley’s Feb. 18 op- door for a center for every student Republican president presides over the ed on “Double standards on a divided group; it would only make consistent largest expansion of government since campus” and Alexander Hwang’s Feb. the university’s current institutional the Great Society, as the leader of the 19 response letter. assistance for sexual minorities. This Anglican Church in the birthplace of There is a fundamental problem proposal does not presuppose a rela- liberal democracy advises the adoption here. Whatever their absurdities, such tivistic relegation of chastity to one of sharia law, as the leader of that na- institutions as the African-American “lifestyle” among many equally good tion’s Tory Party kowtows shamelessly Studies program, the Women and ones. It is not a proposal to found to the Left, this lesson is all the more Gender Studies program, the Wom- many centers, one of which would be prescient. en’s Center, and the LGBT Center pro-chastity. It is a proposal to found We must thus ask whether, in are founded on “identities”—aspects a center that responds to real needs, calling for the cre- prepares students for a significant as- ation of a chastity pect of their flourishing—marriage— center, Princeton’s and corrects an unjust imbalance. It social-conservative presupposes instead, then, the value hub has gone from of marriage as it shapes our sexual standing athwart choices throughout life, as well as the history to riding its objective moral principles of fair- coattails. The pro- ness and intellectual virtue. On these posal is, put simply, values, conservatives and liberals a capitulation to alike can come together to support identity politics. In an effort to make Princeton more the February 29, hospitable to everyone. 2008 issue of The Daily Princetonian, Sherif Girgis ‘08 is a philosophy Tom Haine writes major from Dover, Del. that Princeton’s

Ap r i l 2008 Th e Pr i n c e t o n To r y · 13 COUNTERPOINT of the self that are not the product homosexuality or blackness—and to es an unequal outcome, the “victim” of conscious thought. Women and point out a genuine inconsistency— is guaranteed a subsidy. All one needs African-Americans were, of course, that while Princeton does not offi- to do is claim oppressed status, even born female and black; calling ho- cially recognize the ideology and ethics in the vaguest terms—to claim that mosexuality a “choice,” meanwhile, of chastity, it recognizes identity-based (in Mr. Haine’s words) “the prevailing has become a form of modern heresy. institutions that embrace ideological winds” are not “blowing” one’s way. The same cannot, and should not, be commitments. The two claims—chas- There is nothing appealing to said of traditional sexuality. It is, by tity as identity and chastity as ideolo- conservatives about these prospects. definition, alifestyle . But it is not, in gy—ultimately conflict, throwing the Social conservatives should cringe the Anscombe conception, a lifestyle argument into disarray and sending an at the notion of chastity as a mere based on heredity or on environ- incoherent, amorphous message to the “identity” among many; libertarians mental influence. It is the product of Princeton community. ought to be appalled by the entitle- certain values—values that Mr. Haine This argument, however, is not ment mentality and the opportunis- rightly calls “eminently reasonable” just problematic on an abstract level. tic claims to victimhood on which and that Anscombe, one would think, If it is successful, it will profoundly the proposed center is based. What hopes to make the norm at Princeton. relativize Princeton’s political dis- Anscombe’s gambit amounts to, Rather than disput- ultimately, is a “me too!” ing this fact, members of game. The politics of iden- Anscombe confuse their Social conservatives should cringe tity has created campus message by simultaneously institutions for gays, blacks playing the identity game at the notion of chastity as a and women; these institu- and arguing that the afore- mere “identity” among many; tions have begun spout- mentioned institutions are ing left-wing ideology; as ideological as a chastity libertarians ought to be appalled therefore, in the interest of center would be. While by the entitlement mentality . fairness and equality, the calling chaste students a Right deserves an institu- “sexual minorit[y],” Mr. tion as well. But fairness is Haine argues that the LGBT Center course. This result flows from both of not the real issue here. The issue is the and the chastity center would serve the argument’s contradictory ele- use of campus resources to provide “different ideological demograph- ments. If a chaste lifestyle is, indeed, bully pulpits for ideological causes; ics.” While arguing that the proposed merely an identity, then it is not the issue is the shameless use of “iden- center, like the current institutions, subject to rational debate; like other tity” and “victimhood” to promote would serve “communities with “identities,” it can neither be dispar- these causes and insulate them from histories of marginalization,” Mr. aged nor promoted on philosophical criticism; the issue is the group-based McGinley chides Princeton for the grounds. If, meanwhile, “marginal- mentality that lies at the heart of these “recognition of only certain moral ized” ideologies need support by trends. Anscombe’s commitment to viewpoints.” These arguments attempt virtue of their marginalization, then chastity may override these consid- both to make a misleading com- no ideology is better than any other; erations, and the establishment of parison—chastity as an identity like when the free market of ideas produc- a chastity center will no doubt be a tactical victory in the realm of campus Clarification politics. But if conservatives are to In the Points and Punts section of the March 2008 issue of the Tory, a follow Buckley’s dictum, if they are to paragraph discussed a proposed student group called Taft’s Tub, sponsored by honor his visionary legacy, then they Professor Paul Muldoon. The paragraph raises the possibility that the group is must recognize that some victories are exclusionary and that its formation “has occurred in the shadows.” We stress worth putting off. that there is no hard evidence to support these rumors, and that they were mentioned in the P&P section precisely because they were unsubstantiated and were merely points of interest. We ask our readers to take the rumors Andrew Saraf is a freshman from for what they’re worth and not to prejudge the student group or Professor Chevy Chase, Maryland. He is a Muldoon without clear evidence of mischief. Managing Editor of the Tory.

14 · Th e Pr i n c e t o n To r y Ap r i l 2008 NATION & WORLD Gl o b a l Wa r m i n g A Co n f l a t e d Or t h o d o x y Shivani Radhakrishnan ’11 and Brendan Lyons ‘09 lobal warming has become the catchphrase drastic as previous ones. of our generation. The Kyoto Protocol,An One of the most well-known arguments for the Inconvenient Truth, and the Intergovernmental existence of anthropogenic, or man-caused, warm- GPanel on Climate Change have all targeted the issue, ing is that, beginning with the industrial revolution, and echo the message that global warming is the in- humans have released a significant amount of carbon evitable result of human action. Surely, one infers, this dioxide (CO2) into the atmosphere. It would seem to too must be the consensus of all among the scientific follow that, as the quantity of greenhouses gases grows, community. Yet, the question remains: is it? In reality, the amount of heat trapped in the atmosphere grows there is no consistent agreement among all scientists on proportionally. According to the professors, however, the global warming issue, and in fact, many espouse a it is extremely doubtful that increased levels of CO2 skeptical view of the media’s inflammatory portrayals drive the warming that is occurring. Professor Happer of the situation. Among them are Professor Bob Austin and Profes- sor Will Happer, prominent faculty members of the Princeton Physics department. Both professors acknowledge that the earth is facing a period of increasing temperatures. However, in interviews with the Tor y, they ad- opted a skeptical view of the crux of global warming orthodoxy: the idea that man’s pollution-producing ac- tivities have triggered the observable increase in climate change. Profes- sors Happer and Austin believe that the root cause of this warmth and its relationship to human behavior is not as clear as other sources may have us believe. Professor Austin ar- gues that although a warming trend exists, he is “not convinced that it is man-caused.” Professor Will Happer is similarly unconvinced, explaining that the earth’s climate has always been changing. He ac- counts for the current situation by describing the present era as a brief interglacial period amidst a 1 mil- lion year long ice age, a phase that is marked by fluctuations in tem- perature. Such variations in tem- perature have always occurred, and this slight warming is not nearly as Al Gore in An Inconvenient Truth: The greatest acting of all time?

Ap r i l 2008 Th e Pr i n c e t o n To r y · 15 NATION & WORLD points out two major weaknesses with the conventional time,” which contradicted the notion that ozone was argument. It is true that, if one examines historical being depleted. Happer suggested replacing antiquated statistics, CO2 tends to correlate with increased tem- instruments, and Vice President Gore became upset as peratures. However, it is crucial to note that there is a he sought a different answer. This anecdote is represen- “phase lag” in the data: when a change in temperature tative of a widespread phenomenon in which political occurs, it takes an average of 100,000 years for the CO2 bias and lofty rhetoric interfere with honest scientific level to increase: increases in CO2 levels follow increas- inquiry. es in temperature, not the other way around. Happer It is highly troubling that rational, calm and analyt- concludes that, “Unless you’re willing to suspend the ical approaches are being replaced by what Happer calls belief in cause and effect, they’ve got it completely a “mishmash of a little bit of measurement here and backwards.” Evidence also indicates that most of the there and lots of ideology.” Although the anthropogen-

CO2 emission lines, which actually affect heating and ic account of global warming has achieved widespread cooling, are saturated. Hence, doubling the amount of acceptance, the debate is far from over, and indepen-

CO2 in the environment does not necessarily double dent-minded scientists continue to present challenges its effect. This, Happer says, would be viewed as a “big to the prevailing view. There may be large factions of embarrassment for people who would like you to think the scientific community happy to sound the global there is an apocalypse coming.” warming alarm and capture research funding; but is The desire to promote apocalyptic notions presents our obligation, as informed citizens, to choose science a significant impediment to scientific progress. Both and reason over amplified propaganda. professors agree that the research field is so politically charged that it hurts the crucial dialogue that needs to occur between the scientific and political communi- ties. Professor Austin argues that it is “hard to publish results that don’t agree with the present view.” Indeed, Professor Happer has personally experienced bias in Shivani Radhakrishnan is a freshman the field: he was employed as the Director of Energy from Mt. Hope, NY. She is interested Policy at the Department of Energy in the Bush Sr. in philosophy, studies the classics, and Administration, and was fired by the Clinton admin- hopes to become a polyglot. istration for his views on the depletion of the ozone Brendan Lyons is a junior Physics major layer. Happer investigated whether the UV radiation from Nutley, NJ. He is a proud member on the earth’s surface was increasing, and found all the of the Indestructible Princeton Charter records to show that “UV levels were decreasing with Club. Angry? Frustrated? Tell us what you’re thinking...

Send the Tory an e-mail at [email protected]. We’ll run your letter unaltered in the next issue.

16 · Th e Pr i n c e t o n To r y Ap r i l 2008 THE LAST WORD Jo h n McCa i n Wh e r e Do We Go f r o m He r e ? Will Scharf ‘08 fter the longest contested primary in the history the establishment of the Department of Education. of the Republican Party, we emerged with Senator So how did this happen? How did we end up where John McCain as our standard bearer. We chose, at we are? I have seen various analyses suggesting why a given Athe end of a process spanning months of deliberation, de- candidate failed or why a particular structural aspect of the bates, and electioneering, the highest-profile dissenter with- primary cycle played against another. Rudy Giuliani was in our party’s senatorial caucus; a man who has not only poorly advised, Fred Thompson entered the race too late failed to champion and was too lazy, Mitt some of the conser- Romney couldn’t con- vative movement’s nect with the voters, most fundamentally Mike Huckabee was, important issues, but well, a little too nutty has actively worked for many Republi- against the GOP on cans. Giuliani bled them; a man whose momentum in early principal endorse- low-delegate states, ment, not even six Thompson was hurt months ago, was that by the expectation of of the hated main- hardcore retail politics stream media. From in states like Iowa and free speech issues to New Hampshire, etc. immigration to ju- This sort of drive-by dicial appointments analysis could itself to tax cuts, John fill the pages of this McCain has snubbed Tor y. the Republican Party Taking a step time, after time, after back from the race, time. And yet we, the John McCain has a vision for America, but should conservatives fear it? the basic fact with Republican Party, have which we must all come now all but nominated him to serve as our spokesman and to terms is that not only did other candidates who were representative in what nobody doubts will be one of the embraced at various times as presumptive nominees or most crucially formative elections of our time. conservative favorites in the race lose but also that Senator I do not intend to attack Senator McCain in this McCain won. And yet, the question remains: what hap- column. I recognize that from the point of view of any pened? conservative, Senator McCain is a better candidate than First and foremost, it was certainly not because of his either of the two Democrats on offer. Protest votes or sheer electability. If all the GOP electorate wanted was a abstentions are simply not a viable option when American president with an ( R ) next to his name, Mayor Giuliani servicemen are in harm’s way abroad, and I have every in- should have been our man. Polls showed a ridiculously tention of voting for Senator McCain next fall in my home modified electoral map with Rudy heading the ticket. New state of Florida. I am, though, trying to seek closure on Jersey might have flopped red, New York and Pennsylvania what has been for many conservatives a very disappointing would have looked fairly purple, Florida would have been primary season. A friend of mine perhaps said it best when shored up nicely, and a good vice presidential candidate he exclaimed several weeks ago, “I almost find myself wish- would have allowed us to stay competitive in the Mid- ing that Dick Cheney had thrown his hat into the arena.” western battleground states. McCain might reach out to Cheney may have been the first sitting vice president since independent voters more than the typical Republican, but Aaron Burr to shoot a man, but at least he voted against Giuliani would have been a paradigm shift.

Ap r i l 2008 Th e Pr i n c e t o n To r y · 17 THE LAST WORD

Second, regardless of Senator McCain’s post-Florida movement, played up his pro-life stance to pander to the rhetoric classing himself as Ronald Reagan’s “foot soldier,” religious right, and generally attempted to acclimate the his success was not through any association with Reagan Republican electorate to the thought of him as the heir pre- or the brand of conservatism the Gipper represented. Fred sumptive of the party. This strategy failed, and failed miser- Thompson’s conservative policybona fide outmatches ably. McCain’s fundraising never picked up the way he had McCain’s handily. Thompson’s campaign failed to catch intended, he had to lay off staffers in July, and he was left on, though – some blame his laconic personal style, but I running a guerrilla campaign for his political survival on a think his problems ran deeper. At its essence, Thompson’s shoestring budget. campaign was backwards-looking. Thompson represented But McCain, to his credit, continued fighting. He 1990’s Republicanism in this race; he was, in some ways, refused to throw in the towel and waged the sort of cam- a more articulate Bob Dole. Republican voters were not paign that had won him public accolades in 2000 – a looking for that sort of candidate. Even South Carolin- hard-hitting, low-frills affair. He viciously cut into Mitt ian Republicans placed Romney in televised Thompson third, with debates, he played up his Mike Huckabee, who This will, at the very least, be a very war hero credentials, and finished second, almost he engaged in the sort doubling his vote tally. difficult campaign for us to win, and of knuckle-busting retail This same Mike Hucka- Senator McCain, for all of his good politics at which he excels. bee represents the brand It was in this capacity of compassionate, cushy qualities, is also a very flawed man that this year’s Republican conservatism that, it could and one with many vulnerabilities. electorate could embrace be said, arose in response him – the “Bush Jr. Mc- to the perceived coldness Cain” was nobody’s cup of of the true Reagan Republicans. tea, but the “battling McCain of old” persona is something It is also clear that Republicans were not seeking to that does have a strong appeal to the generally disenchant- repudiate the policies of the Bush Administration. A clear ed voters participating in this election. McCain had to break from Bush would have been signaled by a Giuliani swap hats to get his campaign back on track, and to do that nomination, or a stronger Huckabee candidacy. McCain he had to first suffer the humiliation of his campaign’s early was, down the line, arguably the most Bush-like of the implosion. But he recovered nicely and was able to wage Republican candidates, particularly on the big issues in the a campaign that appealed to the ranks of the fed-up – his Republican primary. Immigration was perhaps President core demographic, and one that has expanded dramatically Bush’s policy position that most alienated his conservative in the last four years. base; Senator McCain stood right with him all the way on So John McCain is our nominee, but where do we go it. from here? I would not dream of predicting the outcome Ultimately, the key to understanding McCain’s victory of a general election this early – suffice it to say that I want is in the answer to a question I have now heard asked any Senator McCain to win but have little clue as to whether I number of times at conservative commiseration sessions, will be voting on the winning side. I would however like to once it became quite clear that Senator McCain would in caution Republicans and the conservative movement more fact be our candidate. Namely, if John McCain had not generally against optimism. This will, at the very least, be a fallen, could he have risen? very difficult campaign for us to win, and Senator McCain, John McCain’s sudden resurrection in the polls was as for all of his good qualities, is also a very flawed man and much due to a well-told narrative as it was to any particular one with many vulnerabilities in what I am sure will be an policy plank he embraced or differentiations with other exceptionally dirty race. candidates that he drew. What Senator McCain was able Don’t believe the conventional wisdom that this will to do as a result of his early campaign woes was position be a very civil race. Mitt Romney’s Mormonism became an himself as a candidate of “change” in an election season early election flashpoint, as did Hillary Clinton’s wrinkled when everyone has been craving this ephemeral quality – of visage. Barack Obama’s middle name is still drawing jeers which Barack Obama apparently is master. from conservative talk radio, and the crypto-Muslim McCain’s campaign began by representing the senator rumors are not going away as they should. Rudy Giuliani’s as the embodiment of the Republican establishment. Mc- wife-dropping habit certainly hurt his campaign. “Trophy- Cain hit up Bush’s fundraising lists from 2000 and 2004. wife” slurs aimed at Jeri Thompson hurt Fred. Despite the He sent envoys to the elder statesmen of the conservative talk of ending negative politics and restoring dignity to the

18 · Th e Pr i n c e t o n To r y Ap r i l 2008 THE LAST WORD electoral process, we have seen in this election some of the the changing tides of opinion polls, McCain has a record worst personal attacks in a campaign since 1988. Mark my of embarrassing flip-flops that in this Youtube-era election words, the kick-off of the general election will see a return will come back to hurt him. His highly-publicized Confed- to the 527-politics of 2004 and enough dirt-slinging to erate Flag flip-flop in South Carolina 2000 will reappear at muddy the Pacific. And Senator McCain will not come out some point if the Democrats decide to wage a real political unscathed. war in the South. Senator McCain’s recent movement to- Senator McCain has built his career on pork-busting wards the enforcement-first side of the immigration debate and corruption-chasing – his landmark piece of campaign will also almost assuredly come up, as will his opposition to finance legislation (for which much of the conservative the Bush tax cuts, before his recent support of the same. movement, myself included, still holds a grudge against That having been said, McCain certainly has his him) defines his record in the Senate in the voting pub- strengths as well, and these are so well-documented I feel as lic’s eye. Problematically, McCain is vulnerable on ethics though going into them here would really be a waste of col- charges himself. His involvement in the Charles Keating umn inches. My concern is not that McCain will be a weak Savings and Loan scandal will be aired again, despite his candidate, because he won’t be, but rather that he has been innocence of any major offense in that case. nominated by a conservative base for personality-based McCain’s war hero status from his time as a POW in reasons, despite the fact that on many important policy Northern Vietnam, where he was tortured brutally and issues he does not line up with us. Base mobilization saved subjected to the sort of treatment few if any of us could President Bush in 2000 and 2004. Will Senator McCain be have survived, is unquestionable. McCain will, however, able to similarly fire up the GOP base, the massive GOTV come under fire for his work on the POW/MIA Affairs machine that Rove built, once the maverick narrative runs Select Committee – other Vietnam veterans accused him out of steam? It’s a question that only time can answer. of selling out on the POW/MIA issue, and the image of American servicemen rotting in North Vietnamese prisons William Scharf ‘08 is a senior in the long after the end of the Vietnam War is one that I think history department from Palm Beach, can still resonate. If this campaign turns nasty, McCain is Florida. He has held leadership positions vulnerable to this sort of Swift Boat-like attack, and there in a number of political and religious will be at least some veterans who will stand against him on groups on campus, and also served as these grounds. President of Charter Club and of the Finally, for a candidate who has long peddled himself Interclub Council. as a principled man who will not shift his positions with

YES! I want to help The Princeton Tory keep conservatism strong at Princeton. I am enclosing my tax-deductible contribution for: He l p ! __$25 __$250 __$50 __$500 We cannot continue to spread the conservative message __$75 __$1,000 without your financial support. The magazine receivesno __$100 __$______funding from the University, so we rely on you. Name: ______Class of ____ Remember, a gift of $25 or more gets you a year’s sub- Address:______scription to The Princeton Tory, and a gift of $500 or more gets you a lifetime subscription. Thank you! ______Mail to: City: ______State: _____ Zip: ______The Princeton Tory Email: ______P.O. Box 1499

Comments: ______Princeton, NJ 08542

Ap r i l 2008 Th e Pr i n c e t o n To r y · 19 Spring Break for the Democrats

Get more conservative wisdom at www.princeton.edu/~tory