Moderation may appease the masses, but it does not make a good presidential candidate
Regarding "Sen. Joe Lieberman: A moderate proposal" (Wed., Nov. 19, 2003):
If one wants to promote Lieberman, very good: Let him extol the values of his particular planks. Do not instead use mere "moderation" as a selling point. Political moderation is a nice term for a policy of mass appeasement intentionally devoid of controversy. No, a great candidate for president has strong ideas about improving this nation, ideas that are usually controversial. Lots of good policies are moderate ones, true; but a purely moderate platform is just as dogmatic as a purely reactionary or radical one. All such blanket statements obscure the political substance of the issues in favor of labels.
Additionally, Tang claims that the political middle is comprised of "people of reason and good parentage;" I argue that same demographic is merely a comfortable middle class hoping to insulate themselves from the turmoil of the real world with the soothing blanket of moderation. I would pay these fence-sitters no mind, as Milton reserves them a special place in hell. The international mess made by our current administration cannot be solved by a candidate whose message is complaisance, but by a candidate whose convictions might not be shared by all. Daniel Iglesia '04
An open letter to Massachusetts residents at Princeton, regarding gay marriage
Massachusetts residents: Tuesday's ruling on gay marriage by the Massachusetts Supreme Court marks the beginning of a 180-day journey to a historic juncture. Your state legislators must either legalize gay marriage in some form or amend the state Constitution to prohibit it. They now stand in the position to decide, more or less once and for all, whether Massachusetts will recognize gay relationships or pretend like they do not exist, whether it will reward committed couples or encourage promiscuity.
Even if you had never planned to exercise your rights as Massachusetts residents, I urge you to do so now. Write to state legislators and encourage them to legalize gay marriage. Emphasize that domestic partnerships will not do. Such arrangements undermine the institution of marriage by presenting couples with ways to formalize their relationship without the huge (and important) commitment that usually comes with marriage.
It needs to be all or nothing. Halfway is more a problem than a solution.
Justice O'Connor reminded us Monday that one of the major advantages of our Federalist system is the freedom it gives states to experiment with different policies. Seen in this way, states are laboratories where creative solutions to social problems can be tested out.
The possibility of gay marriage in Massachusetts represents an opportunity to try one such solution. I have faith that its legalization will not wreak havoc on the family. On the other hand, it just might give other states a model for strengthening their commitment to commitment. David Ginn '04
Read More
Keep academic authority in human hands
Lily Halbert-AlexanderThe Trump administration’s attacks on research and higher education as well as a blind reliance on AI chatbots are reflective of a societal backslide: a commodification of knowledge that prioritizes “efficiency” over the messy process of getting to an answer, where nuances are flattened and the truth is fungible.
The Trump administration’s attacks on research and higher education as well as a blind reliance on AI chatbots are reflective of a societal backslide: a commodification of knowledge that prioritizes “efficiency” over the messy process of getting to an answer, where nuances are flattened and the truth is fungible.
What do we owe society for a Princeton education?
Jia Cheng ShenThe social and moral responsibility that comes with receiving a degree subsidized by both private generosity and public trust is significant.
The social and moral responsibility that comes with receiving a degree subsidized by both private generosity and public trust is significant.
Notes from a so-called enemy’s classroom
Jennifer JenningsIt wasn’t revolutionary. It was homework. But it was homework that asked: how do we build schools that work for all kids? Inclusion, after all, is the “I” in DEI. That’s what we’re thinking about together. And caring about each other’s experiences and opportunities, it turns out, isn’t something you can outlaw.
It wasn’t revolutionary. It was homework. But it was homework that asked: how do we build schools that work for all kids? Inclusion, after all, is the “I” in DEI. That’s what we’re thinking about together. And caring about each other’s experiences and opportunities, it turns out, isn’t something you can outlaw.