R: Raze the Metropolis

The three wealthiest countries in the world per capita are Qatar, Luxembourg, and Singapore. What is the one trait that these three countries share? More than 90% of their populations live in cities. Additionally, when looking at some of the worlds poorest countries— especially on the African continent— there exists a strong, direct correlation between GDP and Urbanization. Perhaps not every city creates wealth, and not every wealthy country is hyper-urban, but the data support the proposition that cities and urbanization generate a higher GDP and lead to a higher quality of life. As many in our party are well trained to do, however, must we look past merely monetary metrics? Are there other, non-quantitative ways to measure human flourishing? In cities, living costs are higher, air quality is worse, there exist higher crime rates, citizens have less property, and as we have seen this past year, disease spreads much more quickly. Given the current world population, every human being could be given five acres of land to control. Is this not a better solution?
The origin of the metropolis, while complex, is generally understood through the lens of specialization, and division of labor. As humans became more advanced— transitioning from hunter-gatherers to farmers— the labor of those cultivating the necessities of life became more efficient. In other words, as technology progressed, the work of one farmer provided necessities for not just one person, but, as of now, 155. Thus, for every farmer, there can exist 154 others who are not strictly providing the necessities for his or her own existence. This food surplus drove not only the development of the metropolis, but also the development of language, science, literature, philosophy, art, and many other disciplines that we as Federalists laud. Along with this, however, the metropolis has led to, what one might call an “urban disposition.” That is, a community of people that prefer globalism to localism, efficiency to beauty, and wealth to virtue. 
Central to this debate are several questions. First, at what point does a city become a metropolis? Are we also in favor of razing the kinds of towns that pepper the Sicilian countryside? If not, how do we distinguish between a town and a city? Also, are cities necessary for innovation? If so, are we ready to give up this innovation for the cause of virtue? At what point is a metropolis too big? Finally, is this “urban disposition” a product of the metropolis? Its flawed leaders? Or its citizens? 
I look foreword to hearing any and all speeches on the topic R: Raze the Metropolis. Join us Wednesday, April 28th, 2021 at 7:30 PM EST

R: Say Farewell to Your Arms

The issue of gun control is a perennial discussion in American politics. Each time there is a tragic mass shooting in America, some call to remove the instruments of those mass shootings, and others brand those calls as bad faith, politically opportunistic capitalizations on people’s deaths. It would seem that removing all guns from the street, or at least some of the most dangerous, would be an effective way to prevent these deaths. As an average citizen living in this country under ideal circumstances, it would seem the only reasonable use for a firearm is to hunt, or for personal defense in the home. Why then can you, with little obstacle, buy an easily concealed, high-capacity firearm that can shoot through a wall and kill someone on the other side?

  Opponents of gun control will often point to the second amendment which states, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” They will point to the many examples of totalitarian regimes methodically disarming their citizenry before exerting control. During the Russian civil war, citizens were allowed to possess a variety of small arms and bladed weapons. In the Declaration of the Rights of Working and Exploited People written in January 1918, the government lauded the importance of “arm[ing] the working people.” Shortly after the war ended, however, the Soviets required the relinquishment of all firearms, swords, bayonets, etc. Gun control continued in some form and many argue allowed for the authoritarian takeover of the Soviet Union. Guns, they argue, are the most effective defense against tyranny. The Black Panthers took a similar position, challenging gun control to gain civil rights for black Americans. Today, many Native Americans take the same position— looking with a skeptical eye at the government’s attempt to disarm them. 

Even so, the issue of gun violence in America begs our attention. In this debate, we must discuss not only measures to regulate guns but also measures to protect the mentally ill who may harm themselves with guns. These often come in the form of “red flag” laws. For those in the affirmative position, I also ask that unsupported reliance on the second amendment be avoided. In other words, I ask that speakers not address that we have a right to bear arms and instead address why we have such a right (or should). Other questions I foresee arising are, what is the purpose of guns? Even if we have the concern of tyranny, can we justify the immense loss of life that widespread gun use causes? And finally, are all guns created equal?

Regardless of your position, I look forward to hearing all speeches on the topic R: Say Farewell to Your Arms. We will debate Wednesday, April 21st, 2021 at 7:30 PM.

R: Conservatives Should be Illiberal (Alumni Debate)

Illiberalism is often viewed in a pejorative light. Alternate definitions of the word include bigoted and closed-minded. However, even when viewed in its traditional sense, the word is commonly aligned with democratic backsliding, the rise of authoritarianism, and the degradation of human rights or personal freedoms. I foresee two central questions arising out of this definition. Firstly, are these equivalencies necessary, or are they merely accidental? Secondly, should we even be advocating for those institutions that are lauded for being cornerstones of liberal democracy? As to this first question, many members of our party who are ready to advocate against democracy and for a monarchy or aristocracy are certainly not advocating for the destruction of human rights. That being said, they may necessarily be advocating for some degree of restriction to personal freedom. In regards to the second question, just last spring, our party debated whether to hold elections in the first place. Before that debate, our former Guardian Mr. Yen wondered “…how often those who reside in liberal democratic countries pause to consider the absurdity of holding elections.” He was not confident that in the masses’ ability “…not to be myopic, fickle, and irrational on election day.” This semester, our party voted to censor obscenity— an act proper to the individual-freedom-restricting tendencies of illiberalism.

 On the other hand, should conservatives really be comfortable with avidly embracing illiberalism? The rise of “illiberal democracies” in most notably Hungary have caused a lot of concern in the West. It seems that, no matter what idealistic visions of an election-free, obscenity-void, (Catholic?) monarchy we hold, in reality, the rise of illiberalism is always tied to the various degradations mentioned above. Are we comfortable embracing these real-world consequences? Then again, we are in a moment where confidence in democracy is faltering worldwide. Should conservatives fight to maintain our liberal democracy? Or should we work to make illiberalism reasonable? 

I look forward to hearing all speeches on the topic for our alumni debate R: Conservatives Should be Illiberal. Please join us on Friday, May 9th, 2021 at 7:30 PM EST.

R: Balkanize the United States

In the early 19th to the early 20th centuries, the Ottoman Empire, situated on the Balkan Peninsula, was dissolving. Due to a combination of corruption, economic challenges, and social unrest, groups of separatists began fragmenting the former empire into smaller, more ideologically and culturally homogeneous states. Some argued this was a failure of ideological pluralism. Others view it as a failure of leadership. Regardless, given our current political moment, it is worth asking if the United States is headed to a similar destination. With the divisive rhetoric of the past decade, public opinion in previously trusted institutions has been eroded. The social norms against racist political rhetoric that must be constantly maintained, have crumbled, political violence is becoming all too common, and “deep state” or QAnnon conspiracy theories are sweeping the country. In the perennially quoted federalist 10, Madison expects— even encourages— factionalism to maintain the stable balances necessary to stabilize a pluralistic society. However, this stability is predicated on the suppression of a majority faction. In today’s world, is this still possible? Are Washington’s concerns in his farewell address being made manifest?

 

Geography also plays a role. The “melting pot” philosophy of American culture seems to suggest that cultures and ideologies should not be determined by geographical boundaries. Yet, it seems like ideologies— political and cultural— are as geographically segregated as ever. Some have even gone as far as to say that the States are only nominally United. In other words, that the United States, in many relevant ways is already balkanized. Others may take a more optimistic view of pluralism’s possibility of success. Regardless, it is crucial to ask if a paradigm that even our founding fathers viewed as inherently unstable is worth defending, or if we should submit to the natural terminus of this inherent instability.

Regardless of your position, I look forward as always to hearing your thoughtful speeches on the topic. Please join us Wednesday, March 3rd, 2021 at 7:30 PM EST.  Zoom link: https://yale.zoom.us/j/96731985549

R: Don't Be a Leader

Should leadership be sought, or avoided? Should it be accepted as an honor, or accepted out of complete necessity? These are the central questions this resolution asks us. In a culture where leadership skills are considered the gold standard when applying to jobs, universities, or even pre-school, we should ask ourselves if it is productive and good to be urging the youth of our country to avidly pursue positions of leadership. In the early days of our nation, the ambition that drove people to seek public office was seen as a gravely destructive, tyrannical force with which to be reckoned. Madison discusses this at length in Federalist 10 and 51. While leaders may in fact be necessary, it would seem that those that view a call to leadership as a curse— an obligation— are more qualified to serve than those who (perhaps pathologically) seek leadership. It is said that the model leader for many in the Party weeps after his election. This reaction is indicative of the crushing weight that leadership does (or perhaps should) inflict on a person. The now cliched quote “May God forgive you for what you have done in my regard,” may yet be a model for how leadership ought to be accepted.

  Yet, as Christians, are we not all called to be leaders in our life of faith? Are we not called to be leaders of our families, the most intimate associations in political life? For those of us called to the priesthood, is that not a position of leadership? Even if we do believe this, can we really say that a vocation given by God is sought? On the other hand, many of us believe leadership (or administration) is a gift of the Holy Spirit. Should we not actively seek to use it? This is a very brief sketch of some of the questions I feel are relevant to our debate. Regardless of one’s position, I encourage speakers to inform the body of the distinction between leadership (or more properly, the desire for it), and the power lusting of a tyrant. 

As always I look forward to hearing all speeches on the topic R: Don’t Be a Leader. Please join us Wednesday, February, 24th 2021 at 7:30 PM EST.