We are thankful that The Eagle has let us write a defense of our magazine, The American Journal. We have, at this writing, little intimation of what the College Republicans will say about it - what exactly, that is, we are to "defend" it against - but we would bet comfortably that they won't dismiss its significance. That the CRs decided to opine on our magazine suggests it at least merits some comment. Did we say we were thankful? We're doubly so.
We'll hazard a guess at how the CR loyalists are reacting to this issue: "How can you impute philosophical wobbliness, indeed liberalism, to the CRs? How can you deny their vibrancy, their participatory enthusiasm?" First, we would ask that you read our editorial and former CR Treasurer Scott Rosen's essay. And then we would ask: How can you not? What did you miss? Their aversion to contested elections? Their alacrity to campaign for former liberals like Maryland Rep. Connie Morella? (They may resent the term R(h)ino, or 'Republican in name only,' but their carrying water for R(h)inos is a matter of record). Were we wrong about the CR events lacking substance? Scott Rosen points out that "most CR programming revolved around silly sporting events with the College Democrats, women's coffees, brunches, bar nights, holiday parties, movies, involvement in inane Greek and SC programming (like Homecoming) and even ice-skating." Not true?
The CR leadership often defends its endorsement of liberal candidates, its active funding of inane social events and its relentless pandering to liberal or apolitical students with the need for an inclusive "Big Tent" party. We at TAJ have no problem with campus recruitment, but we draw the line when the drive for inclusiveness means the exclusion of conservative viewpoints from intra-party discussion. When the first issue of TAJ was released in fall 2003, a group of protesters representing every leftist cause under the sun came to the CR meeting to protest the magazine with which the club was supposedly associated. In the face of this protest - which included people shouting, "When do we get to the homophobia?" and a girl dressed as a prostitute to make some weird political point - the CRs completely caved.
Bob Nardo did a decent job of moderating the dispute that night, but in the proceeding days the club's leaders made their position very clear: they did not support many of the views expressed in TAJ, and they wanted absolutely nothing to do with it. Where was the "Big Tent" when it came to expressing conservatism on campus? What happened to inclusion? As Scott Rosen noted in his TAJ piece, "the conservatives in the CRs were pushed to the periphery" after moderates and non-political leaders came to power.
The lack of conservatism among the CRs is most obvious when one considers the smaller campus groups that have formed in the last year or so. TAJ is the obvious example, but we are not the only group of conservatives upset about the lack of representation. Bob Nardo's Students for Academic Freedom has compiled data about left-wing bias in classrooms. AU Students for Life has mobilized campus support substantial enough to convince other students that "pro-choice" isn't the only choice AU students can make about the abortion issue. Additionally, the College Libertarians have evolved as the only campus group that understands free-market economics, a concept that the CRs demonstrated their ignorance of at the infamous CR-CD-CL debate last year. Finally, the Committee on the Present Danger has brought numerous pro-war speakers to counter the pacifist orthodoxy on campus.
All of the above groups performed functions that seem perfect for a CR club. With its greater resources and national connections, the CRs could have mobilized people on the pro-life side, funded conservative speakers and inquired about bias in classrooms, all with more effectiveness than the smaller groups individually. The CRs chose not to. Is it a coincidence that all of these small conservative groups were created around the same time that the CRs invited in moderates and transformed themselves into a social club first and a political group second?
Most of the editors at TAJ will soon graduate, and our stint at AU will be over. We can only hope that the new CR executives do not take conservatives for granted and do not waste time on pointless social events. The point of the last TAJ issue was to reform the CRs, not merely to chastise them. We hope that we can make some difference.
Over the past two years we have been protested, defamed and pilloried from more than one side. But we were not ignored. All told, it's been a good run.
Bradley Vasoli is a senior in the School of Public Affiairs and Editor in Chief of The American Journal. Jason Richwine is a senior in the School of Public Affairs and Senior Editor of The American Journal.
