Campus politics: The case of the missing moderates

To those who suggest that Princeton has a lethargic political atmosphere, I heartily disagree. Every day my inbox is flooded with PCAT, PPN, PIPAC, PCP or some other group's obviously political message. But the involvement of these groups goes far beyond electronic protest. Especially in recent weeks, it seems that every time I walk to class I pass some type of protest, counter-protest or assorted hoopla about one political issue or another. All the participants are obviously passionate about their causes, and some have gone to great lengths to convince others to be equally active. However, my problem with the Princeton political community is not with a lack of political activism on campus, but instead that seemingly all activism on campus is associated with one extreme viewpoint or the other. While some radicalization on college campuses is natural, it seems that no moderates have been willing to step forward and call for taking a balanced position on any issue. I call on Princeton moderates to speak up about the danger of extreme viewpoints, no matter which issue is under debate and to be more outspoken in the Princeton political community. Without a moderate viewpoint, a discourse between two extremes ultimately leads only to bickering and not to any type of consensus on political issues.

The main problem with Princeton's political atmosphere is not the existence of radical groups, but that there is a lack of moderate alternatives. In the national scene, moderates dominate most elections because of the compromises they are forced to make, and therefore radical groups can be relegated to the fringes of the political limelight. However, in Princeton there is no way to determine which viewpoint is "right" through voting, and no need to compromise to win over a constituency. Even though political leaders are often viewed as "selling out" by compromising to get votes, it ultimately leads to a more centrist position in the end. At Princeton there are no voters, only viewpoints. Since there is only dialogue and no accountability, there is no reason to listen to the opposition. The emergence of very opinionated groups is therefore natural, because students with stronger convictions are more often willing to spend the time required to publicize their views. So the two phenomena add up to an incentive to be radical, and no reason at all to try to compromise. As a result, politics at Princeton has broken down into a shouting match. With two extreme positions and nobody in between, constructivism is replaced by accusations and compromises is replaced by protest.

A perfect example of radicalization on the Princeton campus is the post-Sept. 11 battle of the Princeton Peace Network and the Princeton Committee Against Terrorism. These two groups were founded in the emotional hotbed following the terrorist attacks, and gave students an easy way to voice their objections or support for the "War on Terror." However, one side was uniformly pro-peace and the other side was decidedly pro-war, and neither side really advocated any balance to the United States response. The two sides were so diametrically opposed to each other, subtle attacks on each other contained in e-mails quickly escalated to open warfare on each other's positions, and culminated in a campaign of mudslinging. Although so much of the rhetoric was so ripe with bias and falsities that few informed students would believe it, my worry is that people who are not so familiar with these types of issues might be swayed to believe lies.

More recently, there has been a lot of activity about the conflict in the Middle East, and the issue has likewise separated into blatantly "Pro-Israel" and "Pro-Palestinian" causes. Each side seems totally oblivious to the situation of the other, and again no constructive dialogue is likely to result.

A further problem is that although there are moderate students on campus, they have no practical way to voice their views. Anyone attending an Israel-Palestine rally holding a "Let's Compromise" sign would be immediately ridiculed by both sides of the debate. The polarization of political issues at Princeton causes an atmosphere that is often long on emotion and short on facts, and hurts the legitimacy of both positions.

In the end, it is up to moderates to reclaim their voice in Princeton's political discussions. Although there might not be a way to "protest" for balance and compromise, there is a way to subtly influence these groups towards the center. Moderates must voice their opinion in Princeton's media outlets, and take a stand against extremism in all forms. Encourage others to find alternative sources of information, and always be skeptical in believing any outlandish claims made by a political organization. Perhaps the best way to reason through these issues is to imagine yourself belonging one side of an issue and then the other, and decide on a stance which is fair no matter which side you were on. Although Princeton's political discussion largely comes to a close with the end of the school year, the opportunity to become more informed about politics does not. Hopefully, Princetonians can use the summer to take a step back from radical Princeton politics and immerse themselves in both sides of the issue. It is important to remember that until there is a vocal group of moderates on campus, much of the loudest voices will come from groups which have very biased political agendas. Only armed with third-party knowledge and a deep understanding of both sides can students sift through the rhetoric and make truly informed judgments about today's political issues. David Sillers is from Potomac, Md. He can be reached at dsillers@princeton.edu.