By Sophie Lange, Staff Writer
The Annual Gettysburg College Public Policy Debate took place at 7 p.m. on Oct. 10 in Mara Auditorium.
Five political clubs on campus were represented by two members each. In the order in which they were introduced, Felix Alfaro ’25 and Quinn Gillies ’25 represented the Young Democratic Socialists of America; Carter Hanson ’23 and Dallas Hardee ’23 represented the College Democrats; Clayton Brosend ’24 and Michael Klatt ’25 represented Young Americans for Liberty; Carl DeMarco ’25 and Alex Rosado ’24 represented the College Republicans, and Andrew Breschard ’22 and John “Rico” Riccardi ’24 represented the Young Americans for Freedom.
Executive Director of the Eisenhower Institute Tracie Potts was introduced as the moderator. Potts explained the guidelines, which included rules against ad hominem attacks, organizations mentioning other groups that were not present, and talking about topics that were not asked about in questions.
The open statements began with the Young Americans for Freedom with Andrew Breschard delivering the statement.
He said that “Young Americans for Freedom stands for the principles of free enterprise, traditional values, a strong national defense, and limited government. You’ll find that many of the answers we give tonight will align with these principles. Hopefully [we] can shed some light on the conservative perspective on the important issues we are discussing…”
Next, the College Republicans gave their opening statement, delivered by Carl DeMarco.
DeMarco said, “Our nation finds itself at a crossroads today with issues that cross party lines, and our nation is under attack from both the far right and the radical left as our international enemies grow stronger every day…the Republican Party…asks the American people to…embrace the road to ordered liberty which protects every American’s rights…The Republican Party is the party of limited government,…individualism, free speech, and a strict but fair interpretation of the Constitution…Morality, prudence, and caution are the pillars to our beliefs and govern each policy decision we make. Republicans understand that the collective wisdom of our forefathers is the key to understanding where we go from here.”
The Young Americans for Liberty’s opening statement was delivered by Clayton Brosend.
“I’d like to invite everyone to reflect briefly on a single word: polarization,” he said. “This is a term so deeply ingrained in our lives [that] it seems to have become a new law of politics. That we’re separated into distinct extremes without overlap without overlap…We seek to nuance this conversation. Our assertion is that the alarming problem defining the day is less so one of a widening gap between the left and right tribes; the true problem is the willingness of everyone—regardless of their good intentions—to conclude that authoritarianism is the only plausible mean to get there…this authoritarian convergence…leads conservatives to abandon their commitment to markets and trade, [and] progressives to abandon theirs to civil liberties, and in the process, it leaves all of us in a society that’s less trusting, less prosperous, and less free. In occupying a space at this table, my colleague and I…plan to call out policies that seek to use coercion and force to accomplish an end. In each issue, we seek remedies that uphold the principles of pluralism, nonviolence, and consent.”
The College Democrats spoke next, breaking both of the rules laid out previously in a tongue-in-cheek manner.
Carter Hanson began, “The debate rules bar us from attacking other participants and mentioning topics that the moderators haven’t selected. So to satisfy the first rule, I will not name the club that invited a homophobic speaker to campus this week. To satisfy the second rule, I define environmental policy, which is one of the debate topics, to include any topic related to the general political environment. If the college can define hate speech to host Anderson, then I can define environmental policy however I wish…I’m just exercising freedom of speech.”
Hanson went on to further discuss the Anderson lecture: “A club brought to campus Ryan Anderson, someone who has compared gay surrogacy to rape and argued for criminalizing not just gay marriage but also all same-sex relationships. They brought him here to provoke outrage, and they brought him here to start a fight about a settled common sense issue because the far right has absolutely nothing. No ideas, no solutions, no hope. All they have is hate…They turn people into specters: trans people, gay people, immigrants, women, the impoverished, liberals; because for them, everyone is either a Christian or a communist.”
Dallas Hardee continued with the remainder of the opening statement: “Neither abortions nor LGBTQ rights are debate topics tonight because many people are afraid of what debates on those issues would look like. But we have to talk about abortion…A fundamental, Constitutional right has been stripped from half the population. The Supreme Court has overturned the essential right of women to control their bodies. Republicans finally have what they want: more suffering, more chaos, and more pulled teeth; and it’s [through] the lives of thousands of victims of rape and incest who are the costs of gaining more power that Republicans have revealed yet again their true colors. Democrats are the party of individual liberty, equality, justice, and hope. We are the party of confronting climate change, codifying Roe, Medicare for All, Black Lives Matter, and Trans Rights.”
Hardee ended the opening statement by reminding students of their civic duty to vote.
The final group to speak was the Young Democratic Socialists of America. Felix Alfaro began the statement: “We believe in everything that [the College Democrats] said; we just feel like it goes further than that…We reject an economic order based on private profit, alienated labor, [and] gross inequalities of wealth and power, and we share a vision of a humane social order based on popular control of resources and production, economic planning, and equitable distribution. Building a majority movement that will make democratic socialism a reality requires that we acknowledge the class structure of American society and that this class structure means that there’s a basic conflict of interest between those that hold the major economic power and the rest of the population.”
Following opening statements, Potts restated the rules, and the Young Americans for Freedom were given a rebuttal because of the indirect call-out.
In the rebuttal, Riccardi said, “That was extremely unprofessional and I think everybody here recognizes which side of the aisle all the abuse is coming from. For the past few weeks, we’ve been attacked with the most upsetting and vile language that just shouldn’t be on the campus when people are here for higher education, and some people have proven that they’re incapable of that.”
The topics discussed during the rest of the debate included economic policy, immigration, drug policy, and foreign policy regarding North Korea and the war in Ukraine as well as two questions submitted by audience members, involving rising gas prices and the 2020 election.
In their closing statement, the College Democrats mentioned that they were the only group on campus that registered people to vote. Riccardi of the Young Americans for Freedom reminded audience members of the fact that they were not allowed to register people to vote as a 501(c)(3) organization. This is also true of the Young Americans for Liberty.
Regarding his choice of language in the opening statement, Hanson of the College Democrats responded by saying that they “need to address when groups on campus are threatening parts of our community. LGBTQ+ people on campus are directly harmed by this kind of rhetoric, and we need to at least acknowledge it and also confront it. The language was proportional to the harm they have done.”
When asked after the debate about the climate of the political debate, Riccardi said that he believes it is “really indicative of the culture that exists on college campuses among the left…of intimidation. They’re afraid of conservative ideas…[because of] how they may appeal to people.”
Klatt of the Young Americans for Liberty stated that “the rules weren’t followed from the beginning and it quickly turned hostile, but then things made a turn back…I thought that everybody really brought out their best fight.”
Alfaro and Gillies of the Young Democratic Socialists of America spoke about how they felt very ill-prepared for the debate. Alfaro stated that they “were only let know about this debate [on] Tuesday and with that being said, we didn’t feel like we were adequately able to prepare for this debate while everyone else was already in the loop.”
Alfaro continued, “The debate went well…although personally not a fan of this cordiality [in this] political climate.”
Rosado of the College Republicans said, “The debate overall was a very productive and informative discussion…Even though you’re not going to agree with everything that is said, at least you get to hear the different opinions and the diversity of them as well, so it’s just great to have a more inclusive environment in that regard as well. [I] just didn’t really like the opening statement by the College Democrats; it had a lot of emotionally-charged language…especially [toward] the people who were devoted to their respective causes. That’s not really representative of what we do and who we are.”
Overall, the general consensus among the debaters was that the discussion was productive, but some of the language could be improved to increase the civility of conversations.
Editor’s Note: A previous version of this article misrepresented Young Americans for Liberty’s perspective on political polarization. (-K. Oglesby)
