It's a party - RSVP required - The Princetonian

Let’s throw it back to our Founding Fathers. In his farewell address, George Washington admonished against the rise of political parties.

He got it right. Parties serve as a distraction, drawback and danger to constructive dialogue, and he tried to warn us with an uncanny prescience. John Adams would likewise warn against a “division of the republic” with the introduction of a two-party system in a letter to Jonathan Jackson. But we did not listen. We implemented the same two-party structure that our Founding Fathers foresaw and cautioned against, but it has evolved from a simple dichotomy between two political parties into an ideological war that extends beyond Democrats and Republicans, or liberals and conservatives.

Ultimately this has led to inbred divisions and political polarization, not only on the national stage, but on our own campus as well. These dichotomies conspicuously manifest between groups such as Princeton Democrats and College Republicans, Whig and Clio, “The Princeton Progressive” and “The Princeton Tory,” Princeton Committee on Palestine and Tigers for Israel. Even more organizations, such as Model UN, debate and Students United for a Responsible Global Environment, supplement the divisive nature of the aforementioned groups.

The inclusive yet exclusionary nature of our political culture was made apparent to me at the last Whig-Clio Senate debate on police brutality. Retrospectively, I realized that some of the most politically active and interested, even zealous, students on campus used this as a platform to develop and articulate already-established views. I couldn’t help but notice that the attendees belonged to either to Whig or to Clio, and as indecisive as some were at the start of the debate, everyone ended up on one side or the other by the end. These are the future Princeton-grad politicians, lawmakers and lobbyists, yet they had already ceded to the impossibility of cross-party compromise.

The political groups on campus perpetuate the notion of a warped two-party system, since participants in the system generally have to be on one side or the other. There is no room for third parties, just as in the United States political field. There is no room for the curious case of the “socially liberal, fiscally conservative.” There is no room for the far-left or far-right. There is no room for the non-politics, history, economics or Woodrow Wilson School majors. This not only serves to polarize people on both sides, but to alienate those who do not conform to this dichotomous structure.

And there is no room for the politically disinterested yet aware —those who remain cognizant of political news but simply aren’t as invested in political affairs as many others on campus. These individuals may not side with one particular party or side, or they may not care enough to commit to one side’s philosophy. Or perhaps they simply don’t have fully formulated political views. After all, according to a survey conducted by “Reason” magazine on 2000 Millennials (aged 18 to 29), our generation’s views are totally incoherent and constantly evolving.

As foreshadowed by John Adams, we are now witnessing the division of a campus and student body. So many students have grown disillusioned with the political atmosphere today that they are choosing to dissociate themselves from politics on campus (and nationally). As pointed out in “Salon” magazine, “Millennials have lived most of their lives withina historically toxic partisanclimate —for many, it’s the only kind of politicsthey’ve ever known. Without acompelling reason to expect this tochange any time soon, young people areopting todisengagefrompolitics entirely.”

While this is representative of a national trend, it is imperative that we look introspectively to realize how much our political culture has and can continue to hurt dialogue on campus. This political hyper-inclusivity not only bars a certain group of people from participating, but it prevents any sort of consensus from being reached and obstructs positive change on campus that does not solely look to the opinions vocalized by a few.

I am guilty of being a partisan, politically active student who loves being in the middle of rigorous debate, and I am grateful and amazed by the extent of political and social activism on campus. Nevertheless, we can do better to introduce a greater diversity of opinion and background into campus politics in an effort to engender more constructive, less divisive dialogue.

Sarah Sakha is a freshman from Scottsdale, Ariz. She can be reached at ssakha@princeton.edu.