Political theory that addresses morality's role in politics most often emphasizes the need for political actors who are moral compromisers. Politicians have a responsibility to serve the people, and they will sometimes be faced with a dilemma: either stick to their personal morals or violate those morals because the political office requires it; many political theorists insist that these politicians should do the latter. These theorists value consensus as a fundamental cornerstone of democracy, and they associate a willingness to sacrifice one's personal morality for the greater good with a democratic ideology and mindset. They typically dismiss the potentially positive influence that moral absolutists, especially ones who are able to build public support and therefore power behind their causes, might have on a democracy. This thesis challenges theorists to consider potential democratic benefits of oppositional moral absolutists who ground their arguments in democratic rhetoric and principles. It pushes these theorists, then, to consider both how oppositional moral absolutists and how confrontation and conflict might serve democratic interests and society. The Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) movement of the 1960s is used as the central case study to make this argument.Honors (Bachelor's)Political ScienceUniversity of Michiganhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/162565/1/nihaas.pd
