Reactions: Red wave crashes over the United States

The 2024 elections have been called for former President Donald Trump. Four opinion writers weigh in on what this electoral shift means for Princeton—from what Princeton could do to protect undocumented students, to what it reveals about how higher education institutions communicate with the country beyond, to whether the theory we classroom readings should be given more weight in the way we think about electoral politics.

No one is safe from Trump’s anti-immigration plan, not even in Princeton

By Jorge Reyes, Contributing Opinion Writer

As we wait for Trump’s victory to be recognized, we reflect on what this election means for ourselves, our country and our university. At first glance, you might think that Trump’s hateful rhetoric toward immigrants and his plan to invoke the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to carry out mass deportations only concerns undocumented immigrants. The truth, however, is that such rhetoric is a danger to everyone living in America. If he is willing to invoke a law previously used to intern Japanese Americans during World War II and attack European immigrants during World War I, what makes us think Princetonians are safe?

Everyone at Princeton must understand that the hateful nature of such schemes knows no bounds. Princeton, as an educational institution committed to a diverse campus where everyone can express their views, must lead by example by ensuring that the new administration cannot infringe on the rights of their students, undocumented or not.

It is more important than ever that the university supports its students and protects their freedoms. Among them, the university must strengthen protections for students’ freedom of expression as Trump has made clear he is willing to deport those who exercise their constitutional right to protest the genocide in Gaza. Furthermore, providing the legal support that similar institutions provide to their undocumented students will be crucial to ensuring that they can continue their studies like everyone else. Time is running out, Princeton. We ask you to take action now before it is too late.

Jorge Reyes is a first-year opinion writer from Louisville (Loo-uh-vuhl), Kentucky, and can be reached at jr7982(at)princeton.edu.

Trump’s victory reflects America’s distrust of institutions like Princeton. We need to win back his supporters.

By Alexander Margulis, Contributing Opinion Writer

As the dust settles in the aftermath of what appears to be a landslide victory for Trump, we will hear many explanations about how his bizarre, hateful, anti-democratic campaign managed to return him to the Oval Office. Princeton affiliates should pay attention to Ezra Klein’s New York Times report on the central theme of this election: Trump’s conspiratorial coalition has consistently questioned “the fundamental value of (American) institutions.”

We must work to regain trust among Trump’s embittered voters. The size of Trump’s support – he is expected to win the popular vote for the first time – reaffirms the need for this project. Many voters see a world in which the U.S. government, media and universities — especially elite ones like Princeton — have been corrupted by Democratic influence and warped against Republican values.

It won’t be easy to change your mind. The task itself doesn’t feel fair. Those who despise Princeton and distrust the scholarly endeavor it represents will prove difficult conversationalists. In an ideal world, our university would not have to constantly justify its DEI commitments, nor its climate research. But a world in which a figure like Trump wins the popular vote is clearly not ideal.

Make the most of it ‘the Prince’ delivered straight to your inbox. Subscribe now »

Ultimately, bringing Princeton’s unofficial motto closer to the core of the undergraduate experience could prove to be our most effective counterbalance to anti-intellectualism. If this election was a referendum on whether Princeton and similar institutions are truly in the service of the “nation,” the American verdict is clear: they are not. I think America is wrong. Hopefully that also applies to you as a member of the Princeton community. Over the next four years, under a president openly hostile to the most basic tenets of higher education, in an increasingly fearful and angry country, we will have to prove this.

Alexander Margulis (he/him) is a freshman from Princeton, NJ, who is interested in studying English. He tries not to be afraid and angry. Ask him questions at amargulis(at)princeton.edu; having something to do would help him ward off the fear and anger.

The Democrats are not prioritizing the working class. Princetonians need to do that.

By Frances Brogan, assistant opinion editor

Donald Trump’s devastating victory reflects the ubiquitous appeal of a populist platform. The anti-immigrant, white nationalist rhetoric of his campaign is abhorrent and terrifying — and yet his wacky running mate’s economic populism, while often misleading, makes the case for the kind of distrust of corporations you’d expect from Bernie Sanders. In response, Princetonians should break out of the Orange Bubble and engage with the communities where Trump’s message resonates.

According to many economists, Harris’ policy proposals would be better for the American working class than Trump’s, and yet white working-class voters overwhelmingly support the thug and demagogue who is poised to retake the White House. There is a reason for this cognitive dissonance: Democrats are not embracing the progressive economic populism that could help them win back the working class, even though research shows that putting forward economically populist candidates with working-class backgrounds is an effective strategy.

The Democrats have failed to understand and understand the working class. Only two to six percent of their candidates are themselves working class. The lesson to be learned from this catastrophic election outcome is that we must resist the insularity of the Orange Bubble – or any other bubble we find ourselves in – and get to know the people around us. As we leave the academy, we must also leave its elitism behind. We have a responsibility to the communities that will likely be hit much harder by a second Trump presidency than we will be — and we cannot fulfill that responsibility if we isolate ourselves.

Frances Brogan is an assistant opinion editor and future history major from Lancaster, Pennsylvania. She can be reached at frances.brogan(at)princeton.edu.

Princetonians must reject the current political paradigm

By means of Christopher RoblesCommunity Opinion Editor

There has been a lot of talk on campus about this year’s presidential election: how to vote, who to vote for, what’s at stake. And there’s been a lot of talk about what civic engagement and service look like more broadly: the value of the public sector, the oversight of activism, and the internal workings of the university. And of course there has been a lot of talk about much more radical political theories: Marx, Fanon and Lorde, the kind of things we read here in our classes.

What happened to the liberation? Why does receiving an “I voted” sticker carry more weight in the public consciousness than the fact that the candidates being voted on proclaim neoliberalism and social stratification?

The issue does not participate in the pragmatic. As activist and academic Angela Davis recently explained in a conversation with African American studies professor Keeanga-Yamahtta Taylor, we must hold on to the ability to engage in the struggle and to hold contradictions given the framework.

Rather, Princeton’s fate is that its students have all but completely abandoned the moral imperatives that should guide their actions, limiting our understanding of social issues solely to those of politics—issues that can be solved by voting for Donald Trump , Kamala Harris, Jill Stein, or another name on Tuesday’s ballot. Why do students toil through radical and progressive political theories just to bastardize their names and separate the social and economic imperatives of these scholars from the policies of their favorite politicians?

Tuesday’s red wave hopefully reminded Princetonians that their commitment to change cannot begin and end at the ballot box. The road ahead must be determined by principles of freedom that can be imagined, learned and taught.

Christofer Robles is the community opinion editor for the ‘Prince’. He can be reached at cdrobles(at)princeton.edu.