R: Marry Rich

As Federalists, we agree that families form the bedrock of righty-ordered society. We agree that the fundamental purpose of families is to raise and nurture children. For their foundational position in our society, and for the sake of the children they nurture, we better hope that families are stable. Whether we like it or not, economic stability is highly correlated with better outcomes for children and marriages in the west. An analysis conducted by University of California Irvine based economist, Greg Duncan found that, at every stage of development, “A life of poverty is statistically associated with higher rates of activities detrimental to individuals and to society, such as crime, violence, underemployment, unemployment, and isolation from the larger community.” He goes on to say that, “The costs of poverty are borne not only by the children reared in such circumstances but by society at large” (Duncan 16). Given that marriage’s primary end is the rearing and educating of children, should financial circumstance be a serious consideration for potential couples? Should we be actively looking for a spouse that comes from wealth? Shakespeare, Tolstoy and… Disney, tell us that love between two people does, and indeed should, transcend all social and economic barriers, but does sentimentalizing marriage to the extent that we disregard all pragmatic realities that must be considered put us at risk of disadvantaging ourselves, our offspring, and our society?

  Then again, mere statistics of a broken culture may not tell the whole story. Perhaps we don’t need wealth. Perhaps all we need is faith, a true commitment to raising children well, and love for our spouse. Historically in the west, some of the most tightly-knit, multigenerational family structures have existed in the lower classes of society. While we cannot naively wax nostalgic about the glory of the medieval agrarian family, we can agree that the family is in crisis like never before seen in the west. Most would argue that decline is not due to a lack of gold digging. To the contrary, the disintegration of class barriers in marriage seems to be positively correlated with this decline of the family. To that end, does a complete emphasis on marriage as a means of social mobility risk cheapening it into a simple transaction. After all, the model for all families, the Holy Family, did not have wealth or notoriety. Is this not some indication that wealth in families, if not destructive, is at least unnecessary? Or does the economically driven society in which we live mandate that we seriously consider the wealth of our spouse before entering into the lifelong journey of marriage?

As always I look forward to hearing everyone’s speech on this Valentine’s Day resolution. Join us Wednesday at 8:00 PM when we debate R: Marry Rich. https://yale.zoom.us/j/93954451646

R: Missionaries are Colonizers

St. San Junipero Serra was a great man. He converted and saved hundreds of Native Americans in what is now California and fought against the encroachment of European forces on Native American land. He went so far as to walk, despite a horribly injured leg, to Mexico City and advocate on behalf of Native Americans to the Archbishop. He was a missionary— completely distinct and separate from the European colonizers and the horrors they ushered into the North American continent. Or was he? Historically in the west, missionaries and colonizers seem to travel together. This begs the question: Are they one and the same? The so-called “Indian Boarding Schools” of the late 19th and early 20th centuries left a lasting scar among indigenous peoples in the United States. Some even may argue that the species of mission work practiced by St. San Junipero Serra both contributed to the destructive stereotype that indigenous people in North America needed to be “civilized,” and caused the erasure of indigenous culture in the Americas. None of this is to mention the mission work and colonization that existed in African countries, Asian countries, South American countries, and the Caribbean. Many have even criticized the mission trips of today as forms of self-aggrandizement that put more emphasis on the positive experience of the missionary than the spiritual health of those being evangelized. 

In considering this, I expect it will be helpful to think about the endeavor of missionaries both in the ideal, and in how that work is practiced historically. Often times, missionaries enter foreign civilizations with love and admiration for both the people, and cultural commonalities. Is this evidence that true mission work and the violence that historically has accompanied it are distinct? On the other hand, because historically missionaries and colonizers have been virtually inseparable, might it suggest that they are practically tantamount? If so, should they be? In other words, is the project of missionary work inherently colonial? No matter one’s side, I urge the body to address how we should view the many sorry historical instances of well-intentioned efforts devolving into violence and genocide. 

As always, I look forward to hearing everyone’s speeches on the topic R: Missionaries Are Colonizers. Please join us this Wednesday, February 10th, 2021. Zoom link: https://yale.zoom.us/j/92829614591

R: Censor Obscenity

There are some things that no person, willingly or otherwise, should ever see. Or are there? Whether it be images, text, or ideas, we as a culture have perennially struggled to draw lines between that which should be freely available, and that which should be, to varying degrees, restricted from public consumption. Most would agree that children ought to be protected from “mature content” but this begs the question, are there things that are simply too toxic for our culture to tolerate? Most countries have chosen to draw this line somewhere. Many prohibit the consumption of videos depicting acts of violence, speech that threatens or incites violence, and other grossly aberrant materials, but do they go far enough? With the advent of the internet, lewd scenes in moves, vile comments on social media, and dangerous conspiracy theories have not only been increasingly normalized, but are practically unavoidable among both youth and adults. None of this is to mention the explosion of pornography hidden behind weak age gates. Is it not our obligation to protect people from obscenity they do not wish to see? Or perhaps even our responsibility to broadly prohibit the consumption of these materials?

For those members of the body whose instinctive answer is “yes,” we must ask, where should, or indeed must, the line be drawn? And more importantly, by whom? In the past, we have seen extreme examples of racism and bigotry being furthered under the guise of censoring obscenity. The Hays Code instituted from 1934 to 1968 explicitly forbade depictions of interracial relations. If the government is to draw the lines of censorship, need we be afraid that this power could again be weaponized? On college campuses around the country, this debate is already raging. Some have even said that anything could conceivably be classified as obscenity and banned. Is what many in the body would consider common sense censorship unleashing an uncontainable force? Is this all evidence that among fallen men, perhaps we are forced to rely upon individual prudential judgment? I invite all to embrace some or all of these questions both in the ideal and pragmatically. As always, I am looking forward to hearing everybody’s speeches on the topic. 

Please join us for R: Censor Obscenity this Wednesday, February 3rd, 2021. Zoom Link: https://yale.zoom.us/j/96163680509

R: Order Requires Liberty

I am very excited that we are able to host this inauguration week debate in spite of classes not being in session. I am also pleased that the Zoom platform has allowed us to invite our esteemed alumni to take part in this debate in addition to our usual alumni debate. Please join us for R: Order Requires Liberty.

This special debate is taking place in the midst of formative events for our nation and world. The protests and violence of this summer’s push against police brutality and last week’s unthinkable raid on our nation’s capitol, all occurring during the coronavirus pandemic, beg us to contrast order and liberty. The actions of protesters or rioters, which were born of the copious liberty we are afforded as Americans are seemingly at odds with The Trump administration’s “law and order” philosophy. Given this, it was tempting for the body to debate which of these two we value more, but this tacitly presupposes that order and liberty need be seen as diametric opposites. Many would say that this presupposition runs counter to the American project, and stifles all who strive to achieve a mean between tyranny and anarchy. Most would agree that liberty requires some order, but some may say that liberty always threatens order. Perhaps our country’s consistent political violence proves that any attempt to fully reconcile these two apparent opposites is unstable. On the other hand, some argue that true stability is only achieved when order and liberty complement each other.

I expect that many speakers will do well to define their terms when tackling this resolution. I encourage the body to embrace questions such as, what is order? Is order without liberty really order at all? And, must true order be properly ordered? I expect there may be some disagreement about whether order has ever existed in this country, or whether we simply hopscotch from one act of political violence to the next. Then again, others may agree with Thomas Jefferson when he says, “…a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical….Even this evil is productive of good. It prevents the degeneracy of government and nourishes a general attention to the public affairs.” In short, true, lasting order requires liberty.

I certainly look forward to hearing speeches on the topic R: Order Requires Liberty on Saturday, January 16, 2021, at 7:30 pm EST. I have attached several resources that I found helpful when thinking about the topic

R: Go Home

At some point in our time at Yale, we will all have to answer the question, "what next?"  Our friends in ROTC will serve in the military and some students will attend graduate school, but otherwise, most will move to a major city (probably New York) in order to chase career ambitions or seek high-paying jobs. Even if one didn't attend Yale with the express purpose of joining the "elite", a Yale degree nevertheless presents opportunities that are hard to turn down. Someone who chooses not to return home after graduation need not be selfish: one can be drawn elsewhere out of the desire to support one's family financially, or to make a difference in law, politics, business, or the media. Furthermore, in some cases it is impossible to pursue one's choice of career at home. How would a North Dakotan interested in aerospace engineering be able to go home after graduation?

 

Nevertheless, "brain drain" from left-behind communities is a potential cause for concern. Developing countries have long complained that wealthier countries suck away their best talent, depriving them of the individuals who are most likely to change their homes for the better. Now, Rust Belt residents are making similar arguments, describing a vicious cycle in which economic stagnation leads to brain drain, which leads to the erosion of local communities and substance abuse, which in turn leads to more economic failure and brain drain. At the same time, empirical research on brain drain indicates that its impact may actually be negligible, because the same circumstances that compel migrants to leave also prevent them from making much of a difference if they were to remain at home. But would it be hypocritical for those who value localism not to return home and support the communities in which they were raised?

 

Please join us on Wednesday, November 18 at 8 pm ET, as the Federalist Party debates R: Go Home.