I recently interviewed Professor Stephen Macedo, a Professor of Politics at Princeton University. Professor Macedo studies human values, sexuality, immigration, globalization, and more. His bio reads:
“Stephen Macedo is the Laurance S. Rockefeller Professor of Politics at the University Center for Human Values at Princeton University. His books include Liberal Virtues: Citizenship, Virtue, and Community in Liberal Constitutionalism (1990); Diversity and Distrust: Civic Education in a Multicultural Democracy (2000); the co-authored, Democracy at Risk: How Political Choices Undermine Citizen Participation, and What We Can Do About It (Brookings 2006); Just Married: Same-Sex Couples, Monogamy, and the Future of Marriage (2015); the co-authored casebook Gay Rights and the Constitution (2016); as well as 17 other edited or co-edited books. His current book project concerns the pressures on social justice exerted by various forms of globalization, especially immigration.
He is past director of the University Center for Human Values (2001-2009), and the founding director of Princeton’s Program in Law and Public Affairs (1999-2001). He previously taught at Harvard University and Syracuse University. He was inducted into the American Academy of Arts and Sciences in 2013, has been vice president of the American Political Science Association, and is President of the American Society for Political and Legal Philosophy.” (bio and photo from Princeton University Directory)
Could you talk about how you personally got involved in the fields of religion, sexuality, civic education, and public policy? What interests you about these topics and/or their intersectionalities?
That's quite a broad topic. As an undergraduate, I was interested in public policy and justice, focusing on both empirical and moral dimensions. In my PhD dissertation, I explored civic virtue and liberalism, which became the basis for a book. I also worked on issues like marriage equality, essentially moving from one interesting topic to another.
What were your motivations for writing “Just Married: Same-Sex Couples, Monogamy, and the Future of Marriage?"
Being a gay man, my identity has influenced my perspective. But, my motivations also stemmed from a concern over the broader issue of justice. The book was finished shortly before the Supreme Court decision and has since been relevant. The book defends same-sex marriage, which is the straightforward part. It also defends marriage as a civil institution defined by law, as opposed to just a contractual arrangement. I also defend monogamy, which limits marriage to one spouse at a time, a controversial topic. However, historically, monogamy has promoted greater equality, and that's how I defend it. That's a rough overview of the book.
I read that you are currently writing a book on justice and migration–can you please discuss this project if possible?
Actually, I'm not working on this at the very moment. I'll come back to it later, but I've just finished a book on the COVID pandemic as a lens into democratic dysfunction. We're currently finalizing the page proofs. The book is critical of some blue-state strategies, arguing that there was intolerance of dissent and insufficient consideration of the costs of policies aimed at suppressing the virus. There isn't much evidence that lockdowns, school closures, and other costly measures were particularly effective. Florida, which reopened schools in fall 2020, seems to have fared as well as California, where schools remained closed through much of the 2020-2021 school year. That's the subject of this book.
At some point, I'll return to the immigration issue, which I know you're interested in. My approach there has been to defend the idea that concerns about high immigration are not entirely baseless. There's a tendency among some progressive academics to assume too quickly that those in favor of immigration controls or restrictions are motivated by racism. While that can be true, historically, there have been downsides to very high levels of immigration, and I aim to take those concerns seriously.
I also examine issues like the current Central American migration crisis, considering whether those migrating fit the refugee definitions under international law. I focus on current controversies and dilemmas. There's no doubt that relatively free immigration benefits poor people globally, though not necessarily the poorest, but those who can move. It leads to aggregate gains in global and national wealth. However, there can be downsides for working-class people, and such downsides have occurred at various points in American history. I argue that these concerns should be taken seriously.
Do you focus on a specific region in this book?
It focuses on the United States mainly, but not entirely.
What are your goals for how you hope to see your research develop, specifically within the next few months?
As I mentioned, we're finishing the corrected page proofs of the COVID book. My co-author, Frances Lee, and I expect copies to be out by late January 2025. We'll also be writing some shorter pieces related to the book. After that, I'll likely return to the migration book and focus on that. So, that's essentially my plan for the next few months.
Are you noticing any overlap in themes between these two books, even though they're on different topics?
Honestly, no. I guess the overlap is that in both cases, I consider myself a progressive academic. Like most academics, I tend to lean more progressive, though I try not to be partisan about it. I'm confident there can be groupthink due to the predominance of progressives in academia, so I try to challenge that. Both books, in a way, push back against this.
What advice do you have for those interested in fields similar to your areas of interest?
My advice would be to think independently and avoid groupthink. However, don't be rude or contrarian just for the sake of it. Listen to arguments and build friendships with people who have different viewpoints. There's a lot to learn from those we disagree with, and the truth isn't confined to one side of the partisan divide. I believe that's important. There's some caricaturing of students as dogmatic, but that hasn't been my experience with Princeton students. I encourage them to be independent-minded and to learn from those with differing perspectives.
Do you have blogs, podcasts, or books that you recommend students explore?
I don't have any particular recommendations, but I will mention a popular historian I've been reading and really enjoy. She passed away a couple of decades ago but won two Pulitzer Prizes. I think she's both a superb writer and very informative, so I often read her work at bedtime. Her name is Barbara Tuchman, and I find her writing a pleasure to read. She won a Pulitzer for The Guns of August, about the start of World War I and how European countries stumbled into it—not by accident, but due to pre-planning that became impossible to stop.
She won another Pulitzer for a book with a less expected title, Stilwell and the American Experience in China. It covers a general involved in China for decades during the 20th century, providing a fascinating account of China from the Manchu dynasty to the rise of the Communist Party. Another of her books, The March of Folly, examines poorly conceived government policies in the face of obvious problems, from the Trojan horse to the Vietnam War. I highly recommend Barbara Tuchman’s work.
As for podcasts, I don’t have any standout recommendations, but I enjoy a variety, from Ezra Klein to Winston Marshall. Marshall, a former British rock singer, offers contrarian views that are smart and thought-provoking. I also find COVID-related podcasts like The Illusion of Consensus, hosted by Jay Bhattacharya from Stanford, to be quite informative. There are definitely many good podcasts out there.
Is there anything else you wanted to add?
Yes, you’ve asked very good questions. There are so many interesting and important issues out there, including the ones we've mentioned. That being said, another area I'm interested in, and plan to work on at some point, is related to COVID. Specifically, I’m interested in the concerns about misinformation and disinformation online, and the question of what role governments should play in policing it. I'm particularly worried about the growing confidence among progressives in trusting governments to police misinformation and disinformation. I don't believe governments are any better than they used to be at determining the truth. While misinformation is indeed a problem, we shouldn't be too quick to trust government censors. This shift in opinion is concerning and worth examining further. That's another important topic I'll mention, but there's a lot of fascinating work being done, beyond just the election of course.