Letter to the Editor: Response to “A spineless party in and outside the college”

This article is a response to a Jan 22. letter written by Noah R. Groves titled, “A spineless party in and outside the college,” where Groves criticizes the Middlebury College Democrats (MCD) for co-hosting an event with the Middlebury College Republicans (MCR). Groves’s letter merits a response not only because of the inherent value of political dialogue, but because some clarifications may mitigate the palpable frustration he feels.

Right off the bat, Groves laments what he describes as the normalization of conservatism by MCD, which he regards as tantamount to an endorsement of Trump’s Republican Party. Here itself, Groves’s argument starts to fall apart. Firstly, the suggestion that MCD has the power to “normalize” conservatism grossly overstates the organization’s abilities. Conservatism is not a fringe political ideology lurking in the periphery and looking to make its way into the mainstream. It is here, has been here for a long time, and isn’t going away anytime soon.  

Secondly, the author conflates conservatism with MAGA Republicanism: the latter is one version of the former, and they’re certainly not interchangeable. Not to mention that there is no longer a consensus on what the MAGA movement is even about. Is it best represented by Nick Fuentes and his army of antisemitic Groypers? By Ben Shapiro and his support for “peace through strength on foreign policy; traditional values in social policy; free markets on economics”? Or perhaps by the retired elementary school teacher I met at a Conflict Transformation event in January 2025, who felt her country was changing beyond recognition and just wanted things to slow down? Your guess is as good as mine.

Thirdly, Groves’s position on MCD engaging with their Republican counterparts is mired in conceptual misunderstandings. An invitation to have a conversation does not translate into automatic agreement, and the only thing it says about the leadership of both organizations is that they are committed to upholding the liberal value of dialogue and reducing the scourge of affective polarization. 

Lastly, Groves oversimplifies and misdiagnoses the causes of the Democratic Party’s loss in the 2024 election. There are many things that hurt the Harris campaign, and providing an exhaustive list of what went wrong would merit its own article. Suffice to say that “pulling towards the center” (if that is even a fair description of what Harris did) pales in comparison to the gaslighting of the public on the state of Biden’s cognitive faculties, the haphazard endorsement of Harris’s candidacy, and the ignorance of James Carville’s aphorism on what really matters during an election (“it’s the economy, stupid”).

To conclude, I sympathize with Groves’s sentiment that “liberal” values are being undermined; it is regrettable, however, that in criticizing MCD for collaborating with their Republican counterparts, he seems to be eschewing the very values he purports to defend. As a senior at Middlebury, I am proud of the progress we’ve made in becoming more hospitable to diverse viewpoints over the years. To the extent that the bipartisan programming initiated by MCD and MCR serves that cause, I sincerely hope it continues and flourishes.