On Apathy

intense disinterest at old nassau

Staying on the subject of awareness today I would like to talk about student activism at Princeton. This year I’ve had the dubious pleasure of spending 11 weekends at other campuses around the region. Let’s just say I’ve seen things. Horrible…things (see Tim Nunan’s excellent Nassau Weekly piece for more info). Needless to say, after almost every trip I am always ecstatic to return to my beloved Princeton. Yet although the other campuses I’ve visited sometimes leave much to be desired (either aesthetically, academically, or in terms of honoring the Geneva Convention), almost all do have one tremendous advantage over Princeton, namely a thriving student activist community. Hardly a trip goes by without my seeing the trappings of a politically connected student community at work. Protests, rallies, lectures and postering all seem to be done with a zeal I have rarely seen at Old Nassau. Obviously, none of this is scientific ( I left my zeal-meter at home). Yet that said, I feel that our campus has a serious lack of student participation, and that this merits serious consideration.

Of course, I am far from the first one to notice this sort of thing. Whether among more politically minded friends or in the context of more formal group meetings Princeton’s “enthusiasm deficit” is a palpable force. Furthermore, there are many dedicated and energetic individuals who have fought this non-participatory tide with creative and interesting ideas. On the whole, however, such students are merely exceptions that prove the rule.

What has brought us to this place? Why does Princeton have the worst intellect/activism ratio in modern academia? A few thoughts. First, culturally Princeton has always skewed more conservative. As Shirley Tilghman often remarks, we have too few kids with “green hair” on campus. Taking “green hair” as a proxy for non-conformist, it is obvious that the president’s words ring true. Although Princeton does have many distinct groups all seem bounded within a relatively narrow mainstream of thought, meaning there is less chance for the tensions that cause people to get out and make a difference. A second possibility could be the dynamics of the school year. Because Princeton teaches classes in 12 week semesters (the shortest time of any accredited institution in the US), the typical workload here is, to use a scientific term, ridonkulus. As such, the opportunity cost of protesting or canvassing for a candidate is far higher here than elsewhere. One favorite cause of cumodgony administrators everywhere is what I’ll call The Street theory of causation. In this view the fact that as our social life revolves around listening to “Don’t Stop Believing” 12 or 13 times a night students have less time for more intellectual pursuits. Such a theory hinges on a past era in which alcohol was provided liberally in other, more cerebral settings (more on that later). Perhaps the most convincing explanation, however, can be found in David Brook’s infamous Organization Kid article in which he profiles Princeton. Brook’s notes that due to the tremendous opportunities available after graduation, students often are designed “ not to buck the system, but to ride it to the top”. Why change a society that is going to hand you a 200,000 dollar I-banking job a year after you graduate? As a result, our apathy may ultimately stem from the fact that the view from here is looking pretty good.

While I doubt I’ve hit all the causes of apathy, I think I’ve shown the big ones. These are fundamental factors. Although groups may change their poster designs or vary their activities, the fact is activism faces a real uphill climb on this campus.


egads! a real life princeton activist.

Yet before you despair that your club/group/organization will never make a difference, take heart. I think that although mass protests will never break out down Alexander Street, there is a lot about Princeton that could potentially benefit activism at the individual level. The first is cold, hard cash. As Princeton has nearly 2 million dollars in endowment per undergraduate there are resources here for anyone motivated or creative enough to do incredible things. Closely related to that is reputation. Because our University is so widely respected we can play “ the card” to bring in speakers and gain audiences with people who may have otherwise ignored us. Finally, there is the internet. With the rise of youtube, facebook and decentralized communications it seems as though there may finally be a tool to get through the cloud of apathy and snap people out of their fog. Mini-feed assaults anyone? In sum, then, my advice to would be activists is to stop bemoaning a lack of student interest and consider the ways in which Princeton can empower a small group.

Additionally, there are several policy changes the University could adopt toward fostering participation in political activism and discussion. As President of the Senate Jason Sheltzer has wisely observed, one of the key reasons Whig-Clio in particular and campus politics in general have slumped in the past 4 decades is the separation of alcohol and intellect. By lobbying the university to allow (responsible) alcohol use at Whig and other such events the ancient synergy between government and inebriation could be employed to great effect. Think of an Athenian Symposium, but with fewer eight year old boys. Finally, one way the university could encourage activism is by publicizing the ways it already encourages it. Today Princeton offers many tremendous opportunities for students to get involved, including taking semesters off to participate in political campaigns and special funding programs. Making such policies more widely known would thus serve to demonstrate that being passionate about a cause is working with the system, not against it.

Ultimately, however, many will still ask themselves if campus activism is truly necessary. After all, things are pretty good, right? Perhaps. Yet today we live in a pretty messed up world; there are a plethora of causes that need our participation The war in Iraq, the genocide in Darfur, potential war with Iran, HIV/AIDS, global poverty, compassionate globalization, each represent the sort of crucial issues that will define our future. Among our 5200 classmates are the best minds and most creative thinkers in the nation; for the sake of us all, we need to find a way to put our capabilities toward making a real difference.

Finally, I would like to close by saying that in true Hillary Clinton fashion, I would like to start a discussion with this piece. I’m actually quite interested in proposals for getting people to care about things, and I think this is one of those times where working as a group would maybe work out. Have a great break, DER



(Author's Note: This work represents my work in both my Whig and College Dem capacities. Author pledges his honor that he has not violated the honor code)

Managed Warming

generic polar bear: prerequisite to any serious article on global warming

With Al Gore’s academy award, Congress’ declaration that man is “unequivocally responsible” for global warming and Richard Branson’s offer of a cash prize for sequestering carbon dioxide it would seem that this is the year of climate change awareness. Today people are increasingly becoming aware that the world is getting warmer, that this change is caused by human actions and that it will have potentially dramatic consequences. Awesome. Without action, however, awareness is nothing. So the question then, is how to stop global warming? The answer; we can’t.

Hold on, you may say; surely if enough people use solar panels, turn down their thermostats and buy Priuses (Priusi?), we can roll back climate change. Right? The unfortunate, truth, however, is that several factors preclude us from stopping the rising temperature of the earth. First off, even if emissions were capped today and held level worldwide, we would still be in for a significant worldwide temperature increase.

Additionally, the West and the rich world has found it difficult to make dramatic commitments to climate change. In the US, for example, emissions have increased even as awareness has risen, while even Europe may not be as green as they believe themselves to be. Yet the Rich world may, through dramatic and innovative policies, be able to keep their emissions relatively stable. Good candidates for this would be a binding carbon exchange system that capped emissions and then allowed parties to trade their ability to pollute. Such a system was able to reduce sulfur dioxide pollution in the US by 90%, and could perhaps someday be applied on a broader scale throughout the developed world.

That said, even if the rich world were never to pollute again, a far larger problem is looming, one that no policy, however clever, will be able to completely address.


enter china

I’m always amused by the ire the United States draws from not being a signator to the Kyoto protocol on carbon emissions. Not because I disagree with the treaty; on the contrary, I think its important that the developed nations of the worlds send a message that they are united in their concern about global climate change. Yet ultimately Kyoto and initiatives like it are just that; messages. To view the substantive future of global warming, one must consider not the West and Japan but instead China, India, and the developing world.

Having re-integrated into the global economy after decades of isolation, China et. al. are lifting millions of their people out of poverty each year. Although this phenomenon is rightly hailed as a humanitarian triumph of globalization, it is one that comes at a high environmental price. As more and more in the developing world have the resources to consume like their counterparts in the rich world, carbon emissions have soared. Each year millions more enter the global middle class, and with their new status demand the production of millions of cars, appliances, and consumer goods. Indeed, a 2004 AEI study estimated that one year of emissions growth in China exceeded by a wide margin the emissions that would be saved if Kyoto were followed to the letter for its entire 20 year commitment. The report concludes by observing that by 2040, 4/5 of all emitions will come from the developing world. As a result, even if the West were to somehow end all carbon emissions, CO2 output will triple in the next 40 years.


Needless to say, this creates a particularly thorny political dynamic. Asking the developing world to stay poor for the sake of climate change is clearly not an option. Cap and trade is fine if a society is to remain relatively stable, but it is largely untenable when a population of 3 billion literally needs to enter the modern era. Normatively speaking asking the citizens of other nations to remain destitute for the sake of a problem caused by the rich world is untenable. Yet even if the US and others were to pressure China and India to comply with emissions restrictions, there is zero chance that such recommendations would be obeyed. Although the leaders of such nations fear climate change they fear the wrath of an immiserated populace even more. Given the choice between stability and the environment, China will choose stability every time. What’s more, the trend is just getting started; it is estimated that China and India combined have well over a billion rural peasants who could one day consume resources as we do. Against this wave of humanity squabbles over Kyoto and such seem utterly laughable.

Of course, that’s not to say we shouldn’t try: through technology transfers of energy efficient designs to China and other nations the rich world could greatly mitigate the impact of this growth. Furthermore, it is possible that such transfers will occur organically due to free market forces; China is currently among the largest markets in the world for Green technology, and thus the very notion of a billion new polluters may be draw enough for significant investment and innovation. That said, the current situation is such that I believe we must begin to look beyond attempting to reverse global warming and toward attempting to move toward a new era: the age of managed warming.



prius and policy


Managed Warming is defined by awareness that a. some degree of warming is inevitable barring a geopolitical meltdown and b. the effects of warming must be weighed against the costs of not warming at all times. While the first precept has been outlined above the second provides the larger philosophical framework within which such policies would operate. Although the environment is a good, it is not an absolute good. When we make policies that restrict worldwide economic growth, we often create more misery through poverty than we prevent through a more stable earth. Furthermore, global warming’s impacts are often paradoxically positive (e.g. longer growing seasons in Canada). While I’m positive these beneficial effects are outweighed by the broader costs of global climate change, they should surely be taken into account if society is to determine how far they want to go in preventing warming.

Having established the frame in which Managed Warming operates, one may now consider what its policies would look like.

For the Rich World: Use of practical, market based solutions like carbon exchanges to reduce emissions as much as possible. Incentives in the form of tax breaks should be offered for "good behaviors" such as buying energy efficient cars or using clean energy.In addition, significant investments and subsidies in both practical and theoretical research toward creating technological solutions. Finally, a long term and comprehensive policy to move away from fossil fuels and toward solar, wind, nuclear, and other clean power sources. Finally, develop technologies like better, cheaper sea walls or new crop strains to deal with the gradual warming of the earth. In my mind, the market will solve for most of this

For the developing world: Technological transfers combined with an attempt to integrate such nations into Kyoto II or other subsequent treaties as their affluence permits. In my mind, common sense will solve for most of this.

Yet perhaps the most crucial feature of this policy comes within the nations that have not yet been discussed:


The Poor World: For the poorest nations of the world, the ones thus far bypassed by globalization, global warming is a cloud without a silver lining (see the work of Bjorn Lomborg). As such nations are particularly dependent on agriculture and subsistence farming they will be the ones most radically affected by changes in the worldwide climate. After all, while a 3 degree temperature rise may anger a cubicle worker in London, it may well lead a farmer in the Ivory Coast to ruin and starvation. Additionally, such climate change will in all likelihood accelerate the process of desertification that has left much of the poor world barely habitable. The result will be an era of mass starvation, disease, and ceaseless environmental warfare. The effects of this instability will not be localized, but instead will result in radicalism and terrorism that could spread worldwide along with millions upon millions of refugees. Unless we set up the framework now, nothing will solve for this.

As such, managed warming will hinge upon the creation of an unprecedented international aid effort. Although protecting the poor world from the effects of climate change will take a sustained and tremendous commitment, it is the only normatively and pragmatically viable option that the rich world has. As a result, if we are to successfully ride out the storm of climate change, we have no choice but to ensure that we protect the poor world from the harms caused by the rich.

Ultimately, managed warming may seem to be a cop out of sorts. I know many of you were hoping for some magical solution or policy that would be enacted if not for “political will”. Yet for better or worse global climate change is here to stay, and the challenge of our generation will be ensuring that we find policy balance in a somewhat warmer world.

My $43,000 Question

the starting point of tonight's tangent

For tonight’s post I’d like to move from away from US politics for a time and write on something closer to home. Today at the U-store, as I stared into the refrigerated case of my beloved Nantucket Nectar bottles, I went through a now very familiar internal dialogue. First, I told myself that I shouldn’t be spending 1.50 on a drink regardless of how addictive it is. Then, I compared the $1.50 to the cost of a day of Princeton classes, which comes out to (gasp) $358.33. Needless to say, as is always the case, I bought the drink.

Princeton is ridiculously expensive. Although our financial aid program is tops in the nation, its still not properly easy to pay for education here at Old Nassau. Recently, president Tilghman and co. were praised effusively for their decision to extend financial aid for upperclassmen to include eating club expenses. Certainly a step in the right direction. Set against what Princeton could have done, however, this is mere tinkering at the margins. Instead of making minor changes, it is my belief Princeton ought to have announced free tuition for all students, effective next year.

At first, this seems like a bit of wishful thinking, along the lines of calling for a monorail between Joline and the Wa (maybe next column). Yet despite the radical nature of this proposal, it actually lies well within Princeton’s current capabilities. Despite my aversion to math, I think its important to set down the rough figures behind such a plan. Today Princeton has as endowment of roughly 13 billion dollars. Over the past 10 years, this endowment has grown at an average of This endowment makes a return of 15.6 %. This means that in a typical year, PRINCO ( Princeton University Investment Company) brings in a revenue stream of 2 BILLION dollars.

Tuition, by contrast, is far less impressive. The “sticker” revenue generated by tuiton is number of undergraduates (4800) times tuition (43,000 dollars). Due to financial aid already offered, however, the actual income is closer to 80% of this. As a result, tuition annually brings in roughly 16 million dollars. In short, assuming no other sources of income than endowment and tuition, Princeton generates 1/125 of its annual income from what students actually pay. If this makes you think our tuition dollars are somewhat unnecessary, you’re not alone. In an interview with the Wall Street Journal entitled The Tiger Roars, president Tilghman is asked point blank why tuition is even necessary. When confronted, however, she evaded the question with a blandishment that half of Princeton parents “ can afford” the school anyway. Immediately after this laconic response, the interviewer and Dr. Tilghman both drop the subject and move on to other topics. That said, the notion of free tuition is one that merits more careful consideration than one line responses.


tsk tsk

By offering free tuition to all students, Princeton would overnight become the number one choice of almost every top student in America. In my mind, these students would come from two groups. The first of these would be those who choose to go elsewhere for economic reasons. Although our current aid program is generous there are still many who opt for full scholarships at other institutions rather than reduced tuition here. Making Princeton totally free would eliminate all such economic incentives. The second and larger group of students such a policy would draw, however, are those who get into Princeton and turn it down in favor of Harvard, Yale, Stanford, MIT, or other institutions. This group is particularly important because they were qualified enough to get into multiple top schools, reflecting remarkable promise and potential. Each year, 50% of admitted Regular Decision students choose to go elsewhere, with most ending up at the aforementioned schools. Yet although many clearly hold express preferences for our peer institutions, I doubt that any of the value this preference at $160,000 dollars. As a result, at least initially, Princeton would have its pick of the top students in the nation.

Of course, getting the best of everyone means that the academic, athletic, cultural and social life of campus would all be markedly improved. On these grounds alone, free tuition is probably worth the cost. That said, over time such a policy would likely pay for itself. It is difficult to imagine a scenario in which a class consisting of such “super applicants” would not contribute an extra 16 million dollars a year, and thus the cost of free tuition would in time be turned into an additional revenue stream. As such, Princeton’s better class would come at almost no cost to the institution.



Long term, of course, the other top schools would be forced to play catch up. As a result, free tuition may well begin here and extend to Cambridge, New Haven, and then throughout the nation. Ultimately, the defining feature of the Ivy League could change from elitism to tuition free education. Obviously, this means that at least some of the gains in class strength would fade overtime. Yet should Princeton’s decision leave us with a set of top schools free to all, it would have changed the fabric of our society in spectacular fashion. Our university has diligently sought a commitment to equality of opportunity in this nation and in the world; this is reflected in everything from our institutional commitment to social justice to our decision to end Early Decision admissions. By offering free tuition, however, Princeton can use 1/125 of its income to profoundly change the culture of education, dramatically advance equality of opportunity and make America a far better place. And if nothing else, 43,000 extra dollars a year would cover some 30,000 extra Nantucket Nectars for yours truly. Keep on truckin’, DER

Oh Ann...

Fun fun fun

why are the cute ones always crazy...

WTF mate

of blondes and bigotry

Brief post, but I think it merits everyone's attention. In a speech to the the Conservative Political Action Comittee this weekend, columnist-author-demonic witch Ann Coulter described presidential candidate John Edwards as a "f*ggot" (to tremendous applause). I think tommorow I'll write something longer on implications, but this is a very interesting litmus test for how the major candidates will react. McCain, for example, swiftly condemned the response, which suggests an attempt to preserve his image as a moderate. Could this be his "sista souljah" moment? Even Sean Hannity (sort of) condemned the statemetns. Needless to say, our side is up in arms. Video posted above. More later.

Authors note: This column represents my work in my official capacity with the College Democrats. I pledge my honor that I have not violated the honor code on this or most of my other posts.

Trading Up

betting on (or against) the future

As my family is invading shortly, today’s post will be rather brief. That said, I’d like to focus on one of my favorite political analysis tools: the Intrade information market. Intrade is a service that allows users to invest (or bet, depending upon your point of view) on future political events. Participants buy “shares” of candidates with the promise that if said candidate wins, they will be rewarded (for a more detailed discussion on mechanics, check this). Although the sample size of buyers is often small and although the legality of the service in the US is highly dubious, the exchange is remarkably accurate. In 2006 it correctly predicted each senate race while in 2004 it gave president Bush an 80% chance of winning at a time when most polls suggested the race was up for grabs. The reason for this enhanced accuracy over polling has everything to do with the notion of costs. While responding to a poll is cost free investing money involves a risk of actual economic harm and a chance of actual benefit. As a result, people tend to think far more carefully about betting than about responding to questionnaires. In addition, the fact that the exchange prioritizes who people expect to win over who they want to win, it allows for more accurate pictures to be demonstrated. Of course, such exchanges are not entirely a new idea, with the Iowa Electronic Markets representing a government sponsored version of this model. Yet by opening its doors to a wide and international betting public intrade has the potential to harness a much greater market in achieving its data.

While I wish I was the one to have broken the value of information markets to the world (a la Peekvid), they are already considered a crucial tool by many top policy makers. Several years ago, the Department of Homeland security actually went so far as to establish such a market and use it to predict terrorist attacks. While such an idea may have worked in practice, it was considered too morally odious to be used (plus, it sort of provided an economic incentive for terrorists to attack). That said, the notion of harnessing market wisdom is a powerful one, and thus far has been highly effective.

Now that I’ve expressed my love for the system, lets see what the market says about 2008:
For the Republicans, Giuliani is currently leading with a trade value of 31 out of 100. Put another way, the market predicts a 31% chance Giuliani will be nominated in 2008. Interestingly, however, McCain is valued not far behind at 28.2. The implication, then, is that many are dismissing recent polling and think McCain will pull through. Interesting stuff. Also intriguing is that Mitt Romney is at 16.0, suggesting that contrary to recent articles bouncing through the blogosphere a significant constituency of investors think he still has a chance. Thus, polling showing Giuliani thumping McCain while Romney languishes in the single digits are not affecting the market, suggesting those in the know aren’t close to ready to call this race.

On the Democratic side of the equation, the results initially seem less incongruous. Hillary Clinton is shown with a 46% chance of winning based on her 46/100 share price, while Obama is a distant second at 23.5. That said, such figures are noteworthy insofar as the market does NOT predict Hillary to be the 2008 nominee. If her lead were expected to hold or be stable, one would expect a price nearer to the 65 to 70 range she enjoyed in the heady pre-Obama days. At this point, while a plurality of the smart money says Hillary will win, most says it won’t. As a result, the “aura of invincibility” has yet to convince the market. Perhaps the most fascinating result, though, comes not at the top tier but rather a half step back. Curiously, Al Gore is trading above John Edwards, with probabilities of 11.9% and 9.3% respectively. This remarkable showing for Gore reflects that many believe not only that he will run, but also that he has a chance of winning. For Edwards, however, a price of 9.3 is a dismal sign at this stage of the game. The final insight of these prices, then, may well be that the top tier is not Clinton Obama Edwards but rather Clinton Obama with Gore as a potential third.


2008? gore says no, markets say perhaps

Ultimately, markets, like all tools, are imperfect. As Dave Christie correctly noted while intrade predicted each individual senate race in 2006 it failed to predict the overall power shift. Still, the often remarkable accuracy of this device ought to be given at least some consideration in making political predictions. Markets have a certain intelligence about them, as well as a sort of beautiful simplicity even the most market wary among us can appreciate. Finally, for smart politicos out to put their money where their mouth is, such services offer a lucrative (although illegal) way to turn their analytical prowess into paydirt. Could political betting be the new internet poker? My brain says no, and my heart says probably not. Keep it real, DER