On Princeton's right

(First, however, in the interest of full disclosure, I’m also the incoming vice president of College Republicans. As always, this column expresses my views and not necessarily the club’s. End digression.)

The reason most often given for this alleged dominance of social conservatives is that Princeton’s own Professor Robert George is a nationally recognized voice on issues like abortion and gay marriage. Just last month, The New York Times profiled him, calling him "this country’s most influential conservative Christian thinker." (That’s incidentally one of the nicer things The New York Times has ever printed about a conservative.) Even more importantly, perhaps, George leads a remarkable slate of great programs at Princeton that focus on more than just social conservatism and have wide appeal, such as the James Madison Program. But for more than any other reason, social issues take root with students because the soil is hospitable.

Simply put, right now social issues are most likely to reach directly inside Fitz-Randolph Gate. That’s why they garner the most attention. In the last two years alone, Princeton has introduced coed housing, and students have voted on a referendum that would have called upon Princeton to publicly support gay marriage.

The former illustrates the kind of daily impact these questions can have for college students. The latter was stopped, in part by a conservative campaign to encourage official neutrality on a divisive issue. Likewise, “Sex on a Saturday Night” underwent productive, open-minded changes that recognized sexual abstinence. That, too, came in response to a dialogue started by campus conservatives to affect an issue immediately at hand.

Interestingly, no one complains that global warming activists dominate campus liberalism. I’m not saying that they do — consider this a thought exercise. Like social issues, global warming is something that liberals hope to change in their own surroundings, with recycling bins, new light bulbs and dual-flush toilets. It’s the same logic, applied to different issues, that explains the preponderance of social conservative activism on campus.

Hypothetically, if the USG ballot were to feature a referendum on the capital gains tax or nationalized healthcare, then those issues might surge in student consciousness. The Fair Trade movement garnered at least some attention this fall because it was on the ballot. And if we still had a draft, then foreign policy might energize students.

Either way, those who are so inclined debate all of these issues in the halls of Corwin, Robertson and Fisher. Conservatives write their theses on constitutional issues, foreign policy and the rest. They also discuss all sorts of issues in their free time, but that oft-bemoaned student apathy hamstrings such efforts. On a Thursday night, though, the chief questions that confront students in an immediate and practical way revolve around how we choose to behave.

It should also be noted that most people don’t fit neatly into any particular subcategory of conservatism. The labels function as a starting point, not the whole of one’s political and philosophical existence. So while it’s plausible to discuss “social issues” relative to “taxes” and “foreign policy,” the actual people involved tend to defy classification into brightly lined issue buckets. I certainly do.

Regardless, the broader questions remain unanswered, the questions about whether some in Princeton’s right and center feel stifled by the strong social conservative voices on campus. In some ways, this is a column about an overestimated problem. The “big tent” of the center-right is large enough to hold the entire spectrum. It’s not some sort of zero-sum game that only one group can win; all parties of the right and center have a common interest. To the extent that social issues gain attention, it’s through the presence and perseverance of those who care deeply about them.

I think this year could well be the one where the entire center and right speak out on campus amid the backlash against liberalism in D.C. These issues have already gained traction here. The only risk is that some conservatives remain quiet and throw up their hands at the preponderance of concern for social issues at Princeton as opposed to their favorite causes. But this is actually part and parcel of that same old dead horse, student reluctance to participate in politics. Social issues have a strong existing infrastructure that builds on itself, but others can — and should — raise other issue infrastructures alongside it. There’s enough real estate to go around, and no intra-conservative deterrent to doing so.

Even though the orthodoxy of the student left can be intimidating, many conservatives are not deterred. And those moderates, conservatives and others who might feel stifled by their liberal peers need only remember that each new voice raised on a particular issue makes it easier for others who are even more intimidated to follow.

Brian Lipshutz is a sophomore from Lafayette Hill, Pa. He can be reached at lipshutz@princeton.edu.