“Political parties created democracy and…modern democracy is unthinkable save in terms of parties.” -- E.E. Schattschneid

            Many readers will recognize this as an allusion to President Tilghman’s somewhat controversial statement that Princeton needs more students with green hair, a remark oft-quoted since 2001 with good reason.  More than an aesthetically-pleasing contrast to the norm, green hair is a metaphor for the independent thinker, the creative intellectual unafraid to express controversial opinions and ideas.

            This is not to say that everyone should run to Walmart and throw bleach-and-dye parties, of course, or to say that anyone should. If the entire student body has green hair, the color green loses its individualism and becomes a symbol of homogeneity and, worse yet, conformity. That is the great paradox of the “call for green-haired people,” and reminds us that we should take this plea figuratively, as a call for a greater diversity of opinion, independence of thought, and willingness to express deeply-held beliefs even when those beliefs go against the norm.

            For those familiar with America’s most Kerry-supportive cities like New York or Providence, asking about the green-haired student’s political orientation seems rhetorical. But if we are talking about encouraging a diversity of opinions and stimulating intellectual conversations about controversial beliefs, then the model green-haired student could be liberal or conservative, or maybe something completely different. If we are going to encourage political debate on campus and around the country, we should not exclude any voice from the conversation.

            But the terms ‘liberal’ and ‘conservative’ have changed so much over time that it is worth pausing to reflect on them. According to Princeton Politics professor Robert George, “to be a conservative you must be an old-fashioned liberal, and to be an old-fashioned liberal makes you, by today's definition, a conservative.” Given that Professor George’s book The Clash of Orthodoxies is supposed to “shock liberals out of an unwarranted complacency and provide powerful ammunition for embattled defenders of traditional morality” according to the C.S. Lewis Society, it is worth pausing to tease out these political terms.

            On economic issues, we clearly see how Classical Liberalism has transformed into modern-day conservative perspectives on capitalism. In the 1700s the Scotsman Adam Smith advocated the idea of laissez-faire, meaning “let it act.” Laissez-faire economics lets the capitalist economy function with minimal government intervention. Today’s economic liberals, on the other hand, believe certain conditions must exist for successful markets. Two examples of liberal goals are that monopolies should be regulated to stimulate competition and we should use taxes to fund welfare.

            But on most social issues, liberals may trace their roots in Classical Liberalism, which purports that people ought to freely pursue their own ends. Modern social conservativism comes from two camps: True Believer and Communitarian. The first, the True Believer philosophy, contends that people should be required to act in accordance with God’s commandments. The Communitarian view, on the other hand, purports that some sort of conformity should exist in society, and people should be required to conform to some set of morals.

            In this light we can better understand further applications of both ideologies. New York Times columnist and professor Paul Krugman, who has been called “America’s last liberal,” told me that in his view the archetypical liberal “wants some expansion of social insurance programs, especially health insurance. Is willing to see modest increase in taxes, especially on high incomes,” and the conservative “wants to shrink but not eliminate social insurance programs, hold down taxes on high incomes,” for example.

            Now it’s time to face facts: President Bush won four more years in the White House, won against someone he portrayed as a “a pro-abortion, tax-raising, weak-on-defense liberal who is out of step with increasingly conservative values in middle America,” according to the Associated Press. What are these “increasingly conservative values,” we wonder? Let’s take a look at the Bush-Cheney ’04 Conservative Values Team website and find out where he believes America’s values should lie on social issues such as abortion, gay marriage, judge appointments, religious freedom, and the Arab-Israeli conflict.

            According to the Bush-Cheney team, their conservative values foster a “culture of life”-- President Bush is, after all, “the most pro-life president in history” according to his own campaign website. Conservative values furthermore dictate that marriage is the union between one man and one woman. Judges who are conservatives furthermore “follow the letter of the law” and do not legislate, which is Bush’s ideal for judges. President Bush also has a conservative investment in securing religious freedom, re-affirming “In God We Trust” as the national motto. He strongly supports Israel, as evidenced by a tight bond with Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. On the whole, we see in conservatives’ arguments the effort to preserve pre-established norms and traditions in all facets of public life.

            Many Liberals, of course, will chuckle at above synopsis of controversial efforts. If we take the liberal view that people should be free to pursue their own ends, then women should be free to have abortions and gays should be free to marry. Yet other arguments labeled “liberal” take a more pro-active, less laissez-faire approach. Pro-choice means that women have the active choice in deciding whether or not to have an abortion, and pro-life efforts force women who are raped or whose contraception fails to go through arduous unwanted pregnancies. Allowing gay marriage gives people of the same sex who love each other the same opportunity that heterosexuals have for legally recognized marriages, and banning it takes that right away. We can look at both of these views from the “harm principle” perspective and say that as long as an action doesn’t harm anyone else it should be legal, but somehow “liberal” arguments do not seem as passive as basic philosophical tenants portray them.

The Conservative Moral Values Team faces challenges on other matters besides abortion and gay marriage, though individual values and upbringing will determine how any particular liberal views certain issues. For example, some say that judges who “follow the letter of the law” will obviously uphold ambiguous or outdated laws such as New Jersey’s prohibition of men knitting during fishing season (see www.Dumblaws.com). Some would argue that the rampant use of the phrases “Under God” and “In God we trust” excludes atheists from common American institutions like the Pledge of Allegiance. Finally, in supporting Israel some people feel strongly about simultaneously supporting Palestine and ensuring that Israelis and Palestinians each have peaceful territories to call their own. All of these sentiments we call “liberal” because they oppose the conservative beliefs, but they are really just a cross-section of the liberal population, and represent a broad effort against the status quo.

            Obviously on Nov. 2 John Kerry, whom Michael Moore called “the No. 1 liberal in the Senate, and a substantial contingent of Congressmen lost vital spots in the White House, but does that mean that liberals’ morals are inferior to those of conservatives?  President Bush claims to support “strong moral values,” but “strong” and “conservative” don’t necessarily mean “universal.” What about the virtue of helping people? If America is founded on “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” why shouldn’t people choose their own pathways to happiness? These are just a few of the liberal oppositions that will persist despite a sense of a conservative majority in the White House.

            The point is not that we should all agree. Liberals think their ideology is correct and conservatives think their ideology is correct, and being steadfast in one’s beliefs is a good thing. Rather, despite the results of the 2004 Presidential Election we should continue to have the amazing conversations generated around the Frist televisions when election fever was rampant. In a country divided on party lines, it is vital that we maintain a high level of dialogue, not only for ourselves but for the sake of democracy. As political scientist E.E. Schattschneid put it, “Political parties created democracy and…modern democracy is unthinkable save in terms of parties.”  In the chaos of final exams we must not forget that some of the greatest sources of knowledge at Princeton are the students themselves.  Now is the time to talk to someone with a dramatically different worldview. Isolated, people of different political affiliations often blindly follow their ideologies, but understanding an opposing view can greatly enhance one’s appreciation for one’s own beliefs, as well as respect for the opposition. The Kerry / Bush saga is over, but the liberal / conservative debate will persist, so let’s make the most of it while we all tread the same Gothic courtyards.