Virtual Event: "How to Have Better Arguments"

Exchanging arguments – offering each other reasons to believe a particular claim or to act in a certain way – is how we think together. All too often however our arguments turn into quarrels and what should be a constructive exercise breaks down into acrimony and accusation. In the worst cases the ties of community are strained to breaking point. This talk identifies some of the most common ways in which arguments can go wrong and offers some techniques we can use to make them go better.

All are welcome to join the Federalist Party at 8 pm ET, Friday October 2, for a discussion with Dr. Peter Wicks of the Elm Institute on "How to Have Better Arguments".

R: Idealism is Counterproductive

The term "idealist" evokes images of courageous folk who are so committed to their beliefs and ambitions that seemingly nothing can convince them to settle for less. We may be tempted to view idealism as romantic, perhaps even noble. Pragmatism, in contrast, seems to leave a cold, bitter impression on our hearts. To what extent should we make the world conform to our ideals? How should we go about effecting desired changes? When can we be content to settle for something that is less than perfect?

 

To a pragmatist, idealism can often appear to be self-defeating. Not only do utopian projects like hippie co-ops and democracy-spreading disintegrate easily, but so too do more modest programs like the Temperance movement. Is it possible that idealism's defining characteristic, a zealous striving towards a more perfect world, is its own undoing? Perhaps idealism leaves too little room for considering unintended consequences, limitations on attainable knowledge, and the corruption of human nature. As James Madison famously wrote in Federalist 51, "If men were angels, no government would be necessary." Practical considerations must have a place in any plan of action. Would it be more prudent to pursue incremental change, even on pressing matters, if a more measured approach allows us to adjust course depending on how people respond to change?

 

We might think of the Puritans as idealists, crossing an ocean to establish a community consistent with their convictions. But the term "idealist" might apply equally to the Ivy-League alumnus who turns down lucrative offers in favor of a much lower-paying job in a more altruistic field. What do these two examples of idealism have in common? How do they demonstrate the ways in which idealism is or is not counterproductive? Regardless of whether we are idealists or pragmatists, how do we live out all aspects of our lives in accordance with our convictions?

 

Join us this Wednesday, September 23 at 8 pm ET over Zoom, as the Federalist Party debates R: Idealism is Counterproductive.

R: Immigrants Should Americanize

Inside the Statue of Liberty's pedestal, there is a bronze plaque inscribed with the poem A New Colossus, of which the famous second stanza reads:

 

"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she

With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,

Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,

The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.

Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,

I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

 

As romanticized in these lines, America is a land of immigrants, Yet, not all immigrants to this country have found themselves welcome. In particular, nativists have directed their criticisms against immigrant groups seen as resistant to assimilation. Examples include the Know Nothings' anti-Catholic sentiments, the "Yellow Peril" narrative, and contemporary concerns surrounding Latin American immigrants.

 

This week's debate, the Federalist Party considers whether Americans ought to demand that immigrants embrace their new home's customs, languages, and world view. After all, national identity encompasses one's most deeply held values, memories, and sentiments. Can we really expect immigrants to simply exchange one set of core beliefs for another? Further, America is not a textbook nation-state, in which citizens have shared historical experiences spanning centuries and common cultural practices steeped in countless generations of tradition. What degree of assimilation should Americans demand from immigrants, if we wish to ensure that the act of migration is beneficial to all parties affected? What are the mechanisms through which "Americanization" should occur, if at all?

 

Join us this Wednesday, September 16 at 8 pm ET over Zoom, as the Federalist Party debates R: Immigrants Should Americanize.

R: Kinship Supersedes Friendship

The bonds of kinship and friendship are two of the strongest that one can experience. Should our families command greater devotion from us than our closest friends?

 

Kinship ties obligate family members to love and care for one another. The institution of the family relies on these reciprocal duties between family members to thrive. A person is encouraged to act kindly and sacrificially towards his kin because he knows that they would do the same for him. These acts of kindness and sacrifice have a profoundly human element to them, for they show us what it means to love. How wonderful it would be if the family could be an unassailable bastion of genuine love in a world where superficial politeness is so often a facade for self-interest!

 

And yet, our friends are those with whom we willingly associate because of shared first principles. Though not always our literal kin, they are nevertheless kindred souls that can delight us and move us to admiration as much as our own families (if not more). One might think of the legendarily strong friendship between Alexander the Great and Hephaestion; when a captive mistook Hephaestion for Alexander, Alexander replied, "You are not mistaken, for this man is Alexander too." Are we really to indiscriminately prioritize blood ties over those who share our deepest values and ambitions?

 

Join us this Wednesday, September 9 at 8 pm ET over Zoom, as the Federalist Party debates R: Kinship Supersedes Friendship.

R: These are the Shortest, Gladdest Years of Life (Senior Debate)

"After a good while the eagles must have seen the point they were making for, even from their great height, for they began to go down circling round in great spirals. They did this for a long while, and at last the hobbit opened his eyes again. The earth was much nearer, and below them were trees that looked like oaks and elms, and wide grass lands, and a river running through it all. But cropping out of the ground, right in the path of the stream which looped itself about it, was a great rock, almost a hill of stone, like a last outpost of the distant mountains, or a huge piece cast miles into the plain by some giant among giants.

Quickly now to the top of this rock the eagles swooped one by one and set down their passengers.

'Farewell!' they cried, 'wherever you fare, till your eyries receive you at the journey’s end!' That is the polite thing to say among eagles.

'May the wind under your wings bear you where the sun sails and the moon walks,' answered Gandalf, who knew the correct reply."

-- The Hobbit, or There and Back Again, by J.R.R. Tolkien