By Patrick Sullivan, Staff Writer
On Tuesday, April 12, the Eisenhower Institute, the Public Policy Student Council, and the Public Policy House presented the annual campus policy debate. The event provides various clubs on campus a platform to voice their views on contemporary topics ranging from voting rights to the Russian War in Ukraine.
Introductory remarks were provided by Lauren Cole ‘19, the program manager for the Eisenhower Institute’s Washington D.C. office. The debate was moderated by Dr. Ae sil Woo, Assistant Professor of Political Science. Professor Woo studies how dictators manage the trade-off between reducing opposition threats and minimizing policy loss.
Opening Statements
The multi-club policy debate consisted of Young Americans for Freedom represented by Andrew Breschard ’22 and John Riccardi ’24, College Republicans represented by Ziv Carmi ’22 and Carl DeMarco ’25, Young Americans for Liberty represented by Clayton Brosend ’24, College Democrats represented by Emily Dalgleish ’22 and Carter Hanson ’23, and the Coalition of the American Left represented by Sam Martin ’24 and Quinn Giles ’25. The policy debate began by each club giving their opening statements.
The Young Americans for Freedom spoke in their opening remarks about the important issues included in the debate questions but also the issues missing from the panel such as rising inflation, economic policy, ideological indoctrination in education, abortion, and free speech.
The College Republicans opened with examination of the question of what it means to be a republican. Carl DeMarco explained that to be a Republican means to believe in the constitution, federalism, free market, and in “America and its history, despite its checkered past.”
The Young Americans for Liberty began by explaining that their group was there “not to join in this battle, not to add to the noise, not even to sell a laundry list of policies” but rather to highlight the similarities, not difference, of the other group’s policy considerations. Clayton Brosend concluded by noting that “the principles of non-violence, free association, and voluntary action are the only ones compatible with human flourishing.”
The College Democrats started their opening remarks by establishing that they are the party of freedom: freedom to vote, freedom from insurrections, freedom from police brutality, freedom to love whoever, among others freedoms. Beyond the rhetoric of freedom, they emphasized “investing in the American community,” citing recent Democratic action in Congress. They finished their opening statement by criticizing the Republican party for obstructing progress.
The Coalition of the American Left spoke about their recent establishment as a student organization on campus. Similar to the College Democrats platform, they believe in the right to choose, the right to marry whoever, protecting civil rights, and social programming. The group concluded with their wish for the oppressed to be heard by those in power.
Russia’s Invasion of Ukraine
The first question to the panel concerned whether the United State’s policy response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine was adequate and what more should be done, if anything. The groups each had 75 seconds to respond to the question and 45 seconds for a rebuttal.
The Young Americans for Freedom remarked that “the war in the Ukraine does not directly threaten the United States enough to warrant a stronger response.” Riccardi pointed out that Ukraine is not a NATO country and that “the American public is unwilling to fight this war.” Increasing American involvement, such as a no fly zone or deploying troops, “will only escalate the war into a nuclear conflict.”
The College Republicans opened with their belief in a stronger foreign policy modeling President Reagan’s “peace through strength.” Ziv Carmi argued that “sanctions did not serve to deter [Russian President Vladimir] Putin from invading nor will it deter him now.” Carmi called for a stronger foreign policy, energy independence, and more aid to Ukraine.
The Young Americans for Liberty began their response by noting that “preventing war is America’s interests.” Brosend explained that it is not the United State’s responsibility to protect non-treaty bound countries such as Ukraine. He then mentioned the Ukrainian refugee crisis and how the United States should focus on humanitarian support “before we get involved in a conflict.” Brosend further pushed for the “removal of sanctions which hurt people more than they do governments.”
The College Democrats’ response to the question was that “sanctions were a step in the right direction” as they signal to the Russian government and its people that “this war is not costless to them.” Hanson argued that sanctions should be expanded in targeting Russian energy. The invasion of Ukraine “has exposed, once again, our extreme reliance on and addiction to fossil fuels,” he added. “This addiction has weakened our strategic position by preventing our European allies from completely isolating Russia from Western markets.” Hanson concluded by pointing out that this energy crisis can be an opportunity to transition to a green economy.
The Coalition of the American Left began by stating “this war is between Putin and the existence of a sovereign country, Ukraine.” Giles agreed with the importance of the refugee crisis but “also we have to recognize that the response of countries to this war is very different than the response there has been to other conflicts, especially Syria and the Syrian refugee crisis.” Giles explained sanctions to be a “horrible measure” but that it remains the best option available, with the least amount of casualties, in stopping Russian imperialism.
Impact of UN and NATO on Political Climate
The second question focused on whether international organizations, such as the UN and NATO, are beneficial in the current political climate. Further, the moderator asked whether they are well-positioned to handle international turmoil and, if not, what can be done to improve their ability to aid in times of strife.
The Young Americans for Freedom explained the effectiveness of NATO in “providing a collective defense for all of its allies” as well as promoting democracy in its criteria for membership. On the United Nations, Riccardi criticized it for granting leadership to genocidal regimes that have not respected human rights.
The College Republicans proclaimed the United Nations to be a failed organization. Carmi cited as reasoning the many resolutions failing in the UN Security Council because of Russia and China’s veto power. He also took aim at the UN Human Rights Council which has numerous countries with dictatorships and human rights abuses. Carmi concluded by saying that “the UN is a joke, it is a farce, and it should be abolished.”
The Young Americans for Liberty explained that NATO does not exist to solve world conflicts but rather to protect allies. Brosend described NATO as being “an organization that exists to keep creating new enemies,” thus serving as a reason to purchase more weapons.
The College Democrats emphasized the necessity of having international institutions. Without NATO, “there would be nothing stopping Russia from invading the Baltics, or Poland,” explained Dalgleish. Although Russia may have an outsized role in the UN, it provides a diplomatic forum which can help to “facilitate communication between countries.” Dalgleish concluded by stating that “the America first opposition to NATO is rooted in a dangerous nationalist mindset but it also fails to recognize that an alliance that maintains global peace is in the best interest of the United States.”
The Coalition of the American Left acknowledged their stance to be complicated. Martin explained that they support anti-colonialism and the protection of human rights which NATO, to some extent, engages in. On the other hand, Martin explained NATO’s responsibility for warfare and bombings that have harmed numerous civilians.
The United States and China
Next, the moderator asked the panel if the United States was entering a new cold war with China and what steps should be taken to mitigate the situation.
The Young Americans for Freedom responded that the United States “is not in a cold war with China” and “that it should not be.” Despite this, Breschard labeled China a “communist dictatorship” that should be held accountable. He explained that the United States should attempt to expel China from the UN Human Rights Council, divert trade away to allies, and to not tolerate aggression against Taiwan.
The College Republicans first established the distinction between the Chinese government and its people. Carmi stated his belief that the United States is already in a cold war with China and that in many ways they are already winning, such as with the Belt and Road Initiative, intellectual theft, and industrial espionage. He called for an establishment of an East Asian NATO, strengthened relations with Taiwan, and divestment from China.
The Young Americans for Liberty stated that “our goal should be to avoid war and international conflict.” Brosend explained that the direction of relations has resulted from the rhetoric from the United States against China, especially placing blame on them for COVID-19.
The College Democrats began by explaining the challenge in approaching relations with China. Major issues that require multilateral engagement, such as climate change, require cooperation. Hanson noted, however, the “serious human rights concerns” within China, such as in Xinjiang province and Hong Kong. Hanson finished by pushing for a redoubled effort in helping Taiwan.
The Coalition of the American Left also distinguished between the Chinese government and its people. Giles affirmed that relations have worsened from rhetoric. Giles pushed for the United States to protect the sovereignty of Taiwan. He explained how economic interdependence can be a pathway to peace and added that China’s Belt and Road Initiative remains similar to past forms of economic imperialism by the United States.
Senate and Supreme Court Nominee Confirmation Process
The fourth question asked to the panel was whether the Senate should be the sole body in overseeing the confirmation process for Supreme Court nominees.
The Young Americans for Freedom started by reciting the U.S. Constitution’s text on the Supreme Court nominee process. Riccardi made clear that any attempt to change the process or the Supreme Court itself, such as in court-packing schemes, to be a power grab by Democrats.
The College Republican began their answer by going over the track record of the Supreme Court nominee process. DeMarco explained that only 37 of all judges nominated for SCOTUS have been denied; 15 of which did not receive the votes necessary and the rest retracted their nominations. “So to say that the system is broken doesn’t make any sense,” remarked Demarco. He also pointed to bipartisan support for the most recent nominee, Ketanji Brown Jackson.
The Young Americans for Liberty response began by also mentioning Ketanji Brown Jackson. Brosend was glad that the Supreme Court would be adding someone who is “more oriented toward defending people’s rights.” Brosend then took aim at partisan bickering in the process and whether “the government should have a say in these things to begin with.”
The College Democrats attempted to dispel notions of the Supreme Court being apolitical citing the politicization of Merrick Garland’s nominee process prior to the 2016 election. Hanson also made sure to dispel rumors that the Supreme Court would be “packed” by the Democrats. He described the “right-wing takeover” of SCOTUS and that the only way to reverse this would be to vote in more Democratic presidents and senators.
The Coalition of the American Left also began by talking about Kentanji Brown Jackson and her historic ascension to the Supreme Court. Martin explained that the SCOTUS nominee process has always been political: the president’s party lobs “softball, basic” questions to the nominee whereas the opposition party asks difficult and at times, unrelated, questions. Martin also questioned the court as being too powerful and the need to rework justice.
Voting Rights
The fifth question focused on voting rights and campaign statutes—specifically, whether they need reforming and what changes need to be made.
The Young Americans for Freedom agreed that voting needs reform, but with more voter identification laws. Breschard explained how there is “no evidence” that people cannot obtain a valid ID for voting but that it also should be made easier to obtain it. Further, he stated that non-citizens should not be able to vote as it “wrongfully dilutes American citizens in their own elections.” Additionally, Breschard proposed eliminating partisan ballot harvesting, mail-in voting, and ballot drop boxes. He concluded by noting this to be a state, not federal, role.
The College Republicans attempted to find the middle ground. DeMarco described the four amendments and other voting acts that have protected the right to vote. He also explained that “the federal government can’t do anything else” and “that it is up to the states.” Demarco then cited a Monmouth poll from June 2021 which showed 80% of Americans believed in requiring identification for voting.
The Young Americans for Liberty began by explaining that there is “largely no evidence” of voter fraud and are isolated incidents at most. Brosend cited the Heritage Foundation’s national database which showed that there have been only 1,353 instances of voter fraud since 1982. Brosend also explained the duopoly to be just as much a problem as voting and campaigns.
The College Democrats described “equitable access to voting as the cornerstone of democracy.” Dalgleish voiced her hope that “all states allow no-excuse mail in ballots, same-day voter registration, and expand the early voting option.” As a response to Trump’s claim of a stolen election, “Republicans in 19 states have passed 34 laws that make it harder for people to vote.” Dalgleish concluded by saying that “securing voting rights is the primary tool that we have to return us to a civic society in which political debate does not determine the republican process.”
The Coalition of the American Left explained how the U.S. has denied people the right to vote, especially people of color and the poor. Giles pushed for prisoners to be able to vote during and after their prison sentence. Giles explained how their group hopes to revolutionize voting, campaign finance, and make it easier to run for office.
Gun Violence
The final question asked by the moderator was what can be done to reduce gun violence.
The Young Americans for Freedom set up their remarks by stating that “the right to bear arms is inherent in American values and the American way of life and should not be infringed by the government.” Breschard explained how violent crime remains the problem rather than guns. He called for funding the police, enforcing the laws, holding and prosecuting perpetrators, clamping down on illegal guns, and having trained personnel in schools. Breschard expressed his belief that innocent lives can be saved by guns. He cited the United Kingdom, which has severe restrictions on guns, where burglaries are much more common and more likely to turn violent.
The College Republicans began by noting a Pew poll which showed a consensus of people favoring background checks on private gun sales and gun shows. DeMarco then cited two other statistics which showed more than 10% of gun deaths being from suicides rather than homicides and that most gun deaths are from pistols. He emphasized making mental health a priority by helping those with mental health problems in order to decrease gun violence.
The Young Americans for Liberty highlighted what Brosend sees as a “contradiction of terms” between “the right to bear arms; standing up to the government” and “funding the police.” He explained a nuanced stance as being the right to bear arms being for everyone, especially those historically oppressed and disenfranchised. Brosend questioned whether people should rely on the police as being the “sole protector of our safety” given their historical track record.
The College Democrats first stated that “people should have the right to own a gun but they should also have the right to not get murdered in their grocery store.” Dalgleish noted the instances of gun violence in the past couple weeks and explained how Americans have become desensitized to gun violence. She pushed for background checks, closing the Charleston loophole and extreme risk laws. Dalgleish also explained how the police often contribute to gun violence rather than preventing it.
The Coalition of the American Left also spoke about the mental health crisis. Martin called for investigating sociological factors, such as poverty, impacting suicide in the United States. She called for mental health background checks and for more regulations on gun storage.
Student Loans
Due to time constraints, the panel was only able to field one question from the audience. The question asked about the student loan crisis and the government’s role in fixing it.
The Young Americans for Freedom described student loan debt as not being the problem but rather institutions jacking up prices. Breschard concluded by noting the diminishing value of college degrees and that “it’s the 21st century, you can do a lot without a college degree.”
The College Republicans explained how although it is unfair for students to have immense loans, it is also unfair for taxpayers to have to pay for it all. Carmi proposed that “all interest accrued is forgiven,” that “those who have debt pay off their original principle,” and that “the government works towards securing lower interest rates” for those who want to have access to higher education.
The Young Americans for Liberty also spoke about the rising price of tuition. Brosend affirmed that “the price of tuition is going up because they are guaranteed a steady stream of funds,” describing schools as being “run like businesses.” Brosend pushed for private loans instead.
The College Democrats first noted that tuition has increased far beyond inflation, relative to the price increases of other things. Dalgleish called for canceling all student loan debt “which has a grasp on generations,” which result from predatory loans.
The Coalition of the American Left began with a personal story from Martin. She spoke about coming from a relatively lower income family to Gettysburg College and being able to leave with relatively little debt thanks to grants. She called for canceling student loan debts and universal higher education: “people from my income bracket deserve the same shot that I was given by Gettysburg College.”
Concluding Statements
The panel ended with each group giving a concluding statement.
The Coalition of the American Left concluded by stating their hope for a system of government with true freedom of universal healthcare and education as well as removing economic barriers to create a universal and free society.
The College Democrats, in their concluding statement, pointed to the omission of the issue of climate. Hanson spoke about the existential threat of climate with the increasing frequency and severity of natural disasters. Dalgleish pushed the audience to engage in political action by “registering to vote because our futures depend on it.”
The Young Americans for Liberty described the “multitude of different approaches towards what becomes the same end.” Brosend explained further that “people like you and I are forced to incrementally surrender our autonomy, our earnings, and our rights to the ever-expanding power of the state.” He hopes that the audience “will come away from this discussion better equipped to scrutinize policy proposals and recognize a given plan’s ultimate impact.”
The College Republicans began their concluding remarks by emphasizing thought and reason, differing perspectives, and coming to one’s own conclusions. DeMarco finished by quoting Edmund Burke: “the individual is foolish, but the species is wise.”
The Young Americans for Freedom closed by asserting that “the United States cannot make itself vulnerable to foreign threats by taking too passive a role in global conflicts.” Domestically, Riccardi explained how the constitution has preserved the rights of people and created a stable society. He closed by saying that “it would be foolish to sacrifice the safeguards that are in place in favor of a more active government when active government has been consistently the greatest threat to the rights of the individual.”
