The following is a guest contribution and reflects the author’s views alone. For information on how to submit a piece to the Opinion section, click here.
In a recent Opinion piece, Contributing Opinion Writer Vitalia Spatola takes on one of the more important questions Princeton students face: Whom should I date? I wholeheartedly agree your potential boyfriend’s or girlfriend’s values are of the utmost importance in making that decision. However, Spatola endorses a type of thinking harmful both to our romantic and non-romantic relationships, with deep consequences for civil discourse more broadly.
Spatola says that “Your partner’s political choices say something about their values.” Though this principle may be true to some extent, we should not be so quick to judge a potential partner or friend’s values solely based on their political stances. Sometimes what seem to be differences in core values turn out to be debatable differences in how those values are implemented.
Consider Spatola’s sweeping assertion that “To staunchly support President Donald Trump, for example, is to support all the damage he has done.” I am not a supporter of the president. However, many good people of admirable character are (having grown up in the South, I have met them).
For example, Spatola laments the president’s attempt to “take away affordable healthcare,” presumably because she cares about the health of poor Americans. A staunch supporter of the president’s moves may not hate poor Americans, but rather believe the existing healthcare system is ill-equipped to efficiently help them. What Spatola then takes to be a difference in values may turn out to be a debatable question of judgment: whether the old and new policies are effective at helping the poor.
Recently, I had a conversation with a friend in which I (admittedly uncharitably) scoffed at New York City Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdami’s proposal to open city-run grocery stores. My friend responded, “Oh no! Affordable healthy food for poor people!” I was taken aback because I realized she mistook a disagreement on policy judgment (whether this is the best policy to care for the poor) as a disagreement on values (whether we ought to care for the poor). Because we are friends, we were able to clear up the misunderstanding, understand one another’s viewpoints more clearly, and avoid vilifying the other’s character.
Spatola rightly acknowledges the invaluable nature of civil discourse with those with whom we disagree, but only in an “academic setting.” Spatola writes that “applying this framework to our personal relationships can jeopardize our values.” While she acknowledges that civility among politically unaligned friends is valuable, she also says that this must only go so far. Notice the baked-in assumption: We should foster deep relationships only with our political allies, the individuals with values “good enough” for us. That dangerous belief is at the root of much of the poisonous polarization plaguing our nation: “People on the other side are bad. They don’t share my values.”
Take abortion, a polemical issue that often leads to bitter disagreements. No abortion opponent I’ve talked to hates women, just as no abortion-rights supporter I’ve talked to hates babies. The difference most often lies in a debatable question of truth: Do fetuses have equivalent moral worth to babies and all other members of the human species?
Again, I agree that we should not have close personal relationships with people whose values are wicked; after all, they say you are the average of the five people you spend the most time with. I also think we have every right not to enter a romantic relationship for any reason: maybe they don’t share our interests, our sense of humor, vision of marriage, or values. My disagreement is with Spatola’s claim that we can and should use politics as a proxy measure for others’ core values.
Our political opponents are often very good people. Conversing with one in real life (not on X, formerly Twitter) will go a long way towards proving that. We should strive for more than just “common courtesy” for everyone to “feel safe” in the discussion. We should hold space for the possibility that the human being sitting across from us may be one of good values and would bring immense joy and growth into our lives as a close friend or partner.
If you’re a liberal, try being friends with a conservative, and if you’re a conservative, try being friends with a liberal. It’s fun! You might learn something, and you may even choose to go on a date with them. I have dated people both more conservative and more liberal than me, and it was never a problem because our core values sufficiently aligned. In fact, the experience helped me learn more about policy questions and also about the best way to practically apply our shared values.
People on the other side of the aisle share values with us more often than we may think. But we won’t know whether they do unless we actually talk to them. We will never learn the answer if we “swipe left” at first sight on those who disagree with us without hearing them out. If, as Spatola thinks we ought, we build “a just and inclusive community around [ourselves]” (which, for those who “vote blue,” she takes to mean other progressives), we may miss the company of friends and more-than-friends who, though they disagree with us on policy, are admirable people worth learning from.
Roberto Lachner ’26 is an economics major from Ponte Vedra Beach, Fla. He may be reached at roberto.lachner[at]princeton.edu.
Please send any corrections to corrections[at]dailyprincetonian.com.
Read More
Vote Colón Roosevelt ’27 for president: your guide to the winter 2025 USG ballot
Daily Princetonian Editorial BoardThe Daily Princetonian Editorial Board weighs in on the USG candidates up and down the ballot, including endorsing Quentin Colón Roosevelt ’27 for president. In his platform and responses to our questions, Colón Roosevelt focused on relevant issues and pathways through which USG can exercise power — both in ways that address inefficiencies and leverage existing structures and in ways that expand the current role of undergraduate student representation.
The Daily Princetonian Editorial Board weighs in on the USG candidates up and down the ballot, including endorsing Quentin Colón Roosevelt ’27 for president. In his platform and responses to our questions, Colón Roosevelt focused on relevant issues and pathways through which USG can exercise power — both in ways that address inefficiencies and leverage existing structures and in ways that expand the current role of undergraduate student representation.
The Daily Princetonian Editorial Board should not endorse USG candidates
Jia Cheng ShenWhile the idea of endorsing candidates has merit, the nature of the endorsement process is flawed, opaque, lacks external accountability, and projects the confidence of an institutional voice while having unclear standards.
While the idea of endorsing candidates has merit, the nature of the endorsement process is flawed, opaque, lacks external accountability, and projects the confidence of an institutional voice while having unclear standards.
Vote ‘yes’ on Referendum No. 1: Princeton should not own a fossil fuel company
Charlie Yale and Isaac BarsoumA vote for Referendum No. 1 is a vote for sustainability, in every sense of the word. And cutting ties with PetroTiger is a win-win-win for climate action, students, and the University.
A vote for Referendum No. 1 is a vote for sustainability, in every sense of the word. And cutting ties with PetroTiger is a win-win-win for climate action, students, and the University.