Hamilton College hosted a debate between the College Democrats and Republicans on Oct. 29. The debate was moderated by Visiting Assistant Professor of Government Morgan Marietta, who informed the audience and participants that his selection as moderator was based on his "equal disregard for both parties."
The Republican speakers were Liz Farrington '10, Thomas Cheeseman '12 and Tim Minella '09. Participating in the debate on the Democratic side were Kye Lippold '10, Will Leubsdorf '10 and Rachel Horowitz '09. The debate focused on three main topics: national security, the economy and the Supreme Court. There were several moments of contention throughout the debate. Particularly heated subjects included the United States' position on Iran and the current state of the economy.
Regarding the war on Iraq, the Republican side expressed the opinion that we have made monumental progress in the past year alone and that America has a chance for change. Change, which they feel, can be achieved not by "running away," but by winning. Republican speaker Tim Minella expressed that there are two key conditions that must be met in Iraq before withdrawal: that Iraq must not become a safe haven for terrorists and that it be able to defend itself. Rachel Horowitz of the Democratic side expressed her view that America's presence has had a "destabilizing effect on the Middle East, especially Afghanistan." She continued on to say that Iraq was never a safe haven for terrorists and that the Prime Minister of Iraq himself has endorsed a withdrawal of the United States.
The Republicans, by contrast, expressed the importance of a continued presence in Iraq. Both sides agreed that an increased presence is necessary in Afghanistan. A challenge arose for both parties when Professor Marietta asked what would happen if Iraq became unstable after the withdrawal of a United States military presence. Both groups struggled to answer this question.
When the debate turned to relations with Iran, the discussion became increasingly tense. While the Republican side said that sanctions are the only way to deal with Iran's increased nuclear development, the Democrats feel that direct face-to-face talks with Iran are the best solution. The Republicans expressed disbelief that Barack Obama would be competent to negotiate with Iran, and the Democrats said that imposing sanctions on Iran while endorsing nuclear development in India makes the United States look like a bully. Both parties were animated while discussing this subject and it consumed a large part of the debate time.
The Democratic view on the economy is that the main cause of the current problem was deregulation, and that the major solution is an investment in the middle class. This implies more tax cuts for the middle class, which the Democrats believe would encourage the creation of small businesses. The Republican speaker, Thomas Cheeseman, felt that it would be a mistake on the part of the United States to decrease tax cuts for the rich. In his opinion, if the rich were to receive tax breaks they would be encouraged to invest in the economy. Cheeseman implied that this was the best option for delivering the economy from the current crisis. At this point in the debate, the moderator could barely keep up with the eagerness of the parties to respond to and challenge one another.
Additional topics addressed were the Patriot Act, gun control, gay marriage, and the role of the Supreme Court as a judicial branch. At the end of the debate, the discussion was opened to the audience. Attendees posed questions on Iraq, the semantics of "the war on terror," Iran and the movement of American business overseas.
The political diversity of the audience was demonstrated during the question and answer section. Members of the audience asked questions that reflected bias for both parties. Overall, the debate illuminated interesting concerns about the future of our country and the differences in the policies of both presidential candidates.
-- by Nora Grenfell '12
The Republican speakers were Liz Farrington '10, Thomas Cheeseman '12 and Tim Minella '09. Participating in the debate on the Democratic side were Kye Lippold '10, Will Leubsdorf '10 and Rachel Horowitz '09. The debate focused on three main topics: national security, the economy and the Supreme Court. There were several moments of contention throughout the debate. Particularly heated subjects included the United States' position on Iran and the current state of the economy.
Regarding the war on Iraq, the Republican side expressed the opinion that we have made monumental progress in the past year alone and that America has a chance for change. Change, which they feel, can be achieved not by "running away," but by winning. Republican speaker Tim Minella expressed that there are two key conditions that must be met in Iraq before withdrawal: that Iraq must not become a safe haven for terrorists and that it be able to defend itself. Rachel Horowitz of the Democratic side expressed her view that America's presence has had a "destabilizing effect on the Middle East, especially Afghanistan." She continued on to say that Iraq was never a safe haven for terrorists and that the Prime Minister of Iraq himself has endorsed a withdrawal of the United States.
The Republicans, by contrast, expressed the importance of a continued presence in Iraq. Both sides agreed that an increased presence is necessary in Afghanistan. A challenge arose for both parties when Professor Marietta asked what would happen if Iraq became unstable after the withdrawal of a United States military presence. Both groups struggled to answer this question.
When the debate turned to relations with Iran, the discussion became increasingly tense. While the Republican side said that sanctions are the only way to deal with Iran's increased nuclear development, the Democrats feel that direct face-to-face talks with Iran are the best solution. The Republicans expressed disbelief that Barack Obama would be competent to negotiate with Iran, and the Democrats said that imposing sanctions on Iran while endorsing nuclear development in India makes the United States look like a bully. Both parties were animated while discussing this subject and it consumed a large part of the debate time.
The Democratic view on the economy is that the main cause of the current problem was deregulation, and that the major solution is an investment in the middle class. This implies more tax cuts for the middle class, which the Democrats believe would encourage the creation of small businesses. The Republican speaker, Thomas Cheeseman, felt that it would be a mistake on the part of the United States to decrease tax cuts for the rich. In his opinion, if the rich were to receive tax breaks they would be encouraged to invest in the economy. Cheeseman implied that this was the best option for delivering the economy from the current crisis. At this point in the debate, the moderator could barely keep up with the eagerness of the parties to respond to and challenge one another.
Additional topics addressed were the Patriot Act, gun control, gay marriage, and the role of the Supreme Court as a judicial branch. At the end of the debate, the discussion was opened to the audience. Attendees posed questions on Iraq, the semantics of "the war on terror," Iran and the movement of American business overseas.
The political diversity of the audience was demonstrated during the question and answer section. Members of the audience asked questions that reflected bias for both parties. Overall, the debate illuminated interesting concerns about the future of our country and the differences in the policies of both presidential candidates.
-- by Nora Grenfell '12
