Reintroducing individualism to populist politics

On Thursday, Oct. 4, as a part of the “She Roars” conference at Princeton University, Politics professor Keith Whittington emphasized the importance of maintaining a culture that upholds the principle of free speech.

Specifically, Whittington said that the exchange and critique of ideas, both controversial and agreeable, begins on University campuses. “Campus, in some way, is a microcosm of what we’re experiencing in American society,” he said. And he is right. From Columbia’s 1985 stance against the South African apartheid regime to NYU’s recent protests against the growing student debt crisis, the transformative capacities of universities cannot be understated.

Whittington verbalized a disconcerting trend that has plagued political and cultural discourse since the 2016 presidential election: The rise of American populism has incited a flame that has slowly burned away at civil discourse and argumentation.

While universities have typically represented progressive ideals, they have recently adopted regressive tendencies. Fundamental progressive principles focusing on social reform and the cultivation of new ideas have too often been replaced by the suppression of ideas by de-platforming speakers and discouraging aberrance, both of which are definitive of regressive cultures.

The identity-based political movement has intensified lately, largely in response to the Trump administration. People are more commonly judged by their socioeconomic status, race, or religion than by the merit of their ideas.

Consequently, when groups are put before people, those people shift toward the party or ideology that is more receptive to nonconforming thoughts.

In a similar vein, Dave Rubin, a political commentator, has expressed feelings of abandonment from the political left and gradual shifts rightward in accordance with the party’s increasing affinity for the suppression of nuanced disagreements from demographics traditionally associated as inherently and entirely leftist. In other words, Rubin has been ostracized for entertaining quasi-conservative stances while also being gay and pro-marijuana legalization.

Free speech, dissenting opinion, and open discourse are being silenced, most noticeably in the de-platforming of conservative and controversial speakers on college campuses, where ideas are meant to be challenged and traditions reconstructed.

On March 5, 2017, at Queens University in Canada, a lecture presented by Jordan Peterson incited death threats, rioting, and shattered windows at the University’s historic Grant Hall. Rioters chanted that attendees to the speech should be locked in as they burned the hall to the ground. Rather than formally opposing Peterson’s controversial stances, dissenters turned towards gratuitous violence.

Queens University’s hostile enmity toward Peterson was not a unique or isolated incident. The current zeitgeist across modern college campuses has mimicked the populist methods made infamous over the course of the Trump campaign. Relatedly, former CIA director John Brennan was heckled off stage at the University of Pennsylvania in 2016 only minutes after beginning his presentation while conservative political commentator Ben Shapiro and TV host Janet Mock were disinvited from California State University — Los Angeles and Brown University, respectively.

I would not be as apprehensive were this trend isolated to a select few college campuses. However, as Whittington said, universities have served as a microcosm representative of the general American public.

This shift in liberal culture, which presumes a group’s intrinsic authority over another group or individual, antithetically opens the door for militant groups and violent radicals. Suddenly, movements like Antifa and neo-Nazism are endowed with a false sense of righteousness, with newfound justifications nurtured by principles of groupthink.

Get the best of ‘the Prince’ delivered straight to your inbox. Subscribe now »

No doubt, group movements can have a positive impact in promoting necessary institutional reform. But transgressions can also arise when groups value superficial group identity and conformity more than individuality and diversity of thought. Formal two-sided debate is less common in the face of aggressive ad hominem attacks on individuals who offer unique positions on issues.

The return to truly progressive roots and an emphasis on the distinctive individual must begin at universities and then leak into greater society. This change is dependent on a shift away from a value system that places groupthink over individuality and content of character.

I would like to again be able to stand as an ideological intermediary. I would like to have the freedom to flesh out ideas without political disagreement degrading into a form of moral resentment.

In the process of banding together to uphold democratic principles of free speech and civil reform during uncertain times, the uniqueness of experience and thought of the individuals who belong to particular racial, ethnic, or ideological groups cannot be foregone in favor of blind devotion.

Hunter Sieben is a sophomore from Ottawa Hills, Ohio. He can be reached at hsieben@princeton.edu.

In a previous version of this article, a quote was misattributed to Professor Rouse. Professor Whittington made the comment. The ‘Prince’ regrets the error.