Survey says: 7 out of 10 Princetonians prefer more of same

Progressivism at Princeton is dead. I don't mean progressivism of the wingnut stripe — Old Nassau has no shortage of that. Just this last Sunday, a gaggle of townies, tourists from Rutgers, faculty and staffers, grad students and the odd undergraduate gathered outside the FitzRandolph gate to denounce Israel for building a wall to keep suicide bombers out. Last Wednesday, Students for Progressive Education and Action cosponsored a presentation on "anarcho-primitivism," the "destruction of civilization," and "the green anarchist vision of a postindustrial, post-capitalist world." Wingnuts at Princeton outnumber the squirrels. But sane, non-nutty, goal-oriented progressivism is hard to find. Progressivism that stems from knowledge that the world has deep problems and is tempered by a willingness to fix them is nearly nonexistent.

The 'Prince' carried progressivism's obituary on the front page this Monday. Sixty-one percent of American college students endorse President Bush. They're progressives. Say what you will about the merits of the Bush doctrine, it is beyond dispute that it challenges the prevailing orthodoxy. It is novel. It is brash. It is unabashedly progressive. And 72 percent of Princeton students are against it. They're not progressives, for progressivism among Princeton students is dead.

Conceivably, Princeton students might disapprove of the Bush presidency for reasons beyond his progressive foreign policy. The Dionysian student may well disapprove of President Bush's seemingly hypocritical stance on drug policy. Seniors approaching the marketplace could fear that a Bush-inspired economic downturn (if one persists, which is doubtful) will cost them a shot at a job. And social liberals will doubtlessly disapprove of his stances on gay marriage or abortion. But in spite of such populations, collegians nationwide approve of President Bush.

Why do Princetonians disapprove? It's certainly not a consequence of the President's economic policy. We've little reason to worry about it. If any group of students is insulated from the vicissitudes of the economic climate, it's us, with our ever-present I-banking recruiters, frequent job-fairs, and full-time Career Services staffers. If the Bush economic policies were indeed injurious (a much-disputed question), non-Princeton undergraduates will feel them long before we would. But twice as many of those non-Princetonians support Bush. Widespread liberal-social-policy stances don't explain the difference, either — they're no more ubiquitous at Princeton than they are elsewhere.

The lackluster approval of President Bush at Princeton and his widespread approval at other colleges do not stem from quibbles over domestic policy. No. Rather, Princetonians are uncomfortable with Bush's progressive foreign policy. Progressive collegians elsewhere are enraptured by it.

President Bush is an visionary, an idealist, a progressive. We Princetonians are anything but. I'm hardly the first to hurl that epithet: In early 2001, David Brooks blasted Princeton undergraduates for being entirely too comfortable with the status quo. More complacent than is healthy. Far too respectful of authority. We still are.

President Bush is the first president in years to advocate anything approaching a novel foreign policy. College students rewarded progressive approach with a 61 percent approval rating, seven percent higher than the nation as a whole. The 28 percent Princeton figure represents widespread disapproval. We have pretenses of progressivism, to be sure. But only then the progressives don't rock the boat. Giving to Oxfam is fine. Campaigning for a free Tibet is fine. But the wholesale housecleaning of the Bush administration is too much for us.

Last week, the President presented his grand vision for the Middle East in a speech before the National Endowment for Democracy. Most notably, he repudiated "sixty years of Western nations excusing and accommodating the lack of freedom in the Middle East." He confirmed that the Iraq war signaled termination of the longstanding U.S. policy of supporting regional strongmen in the hopes that security could be purchased if we tolerated brutality. The wave of terror attacks that peaked three Septembers ago punctuated the inefficacy of that strategy; in a progressive stroke, it has now been formally dumped overboard. Wherever dictatorships breed hate and terror, the United States will drive reform and foster democracy.

The Bush foreign policy dispenses with the status quo of propping up dictators. It has even dispensed with the some of dictators themselves. In so doing, it shakes up every filthy, festering, freedom-bereft hellhole in the world. The hellholes' leaders are furious at this prodding. Their people — especially in Iran — are ripe for revolution. Is the international community coming to their aid? No. The "international community" is wringing its hands at the United States' astonishing lack of respect for the status quo; for its disrespect for the sovereignty of murderous strongmen; for its refusal to accept brutality, despotism, and terrorism as inevitabilities. Regrettably, 72 percent of my fellow undergraduates are wringing their hands along with them.

Joseph Barillari is a computer science major from North Canton, Ohio.