R: America Needs a Cincinnatus

Faced with a global pandemic, we have the opportunity to reflect on whether America's political system possesses the means to adequately respond to crisis. In situations of rapidly-changing information, high uncertainty, and urgent need for action, we may prefer to temporarily concentrate power and decision-making authority in the hands of a few capable leaders. In the time that it would take for a representative legislature to draft, discuss, and implement a crisis response plan, an authoritarian ruler could take initiative more quickly and boldly.

The Roman Republic understood the benefits of centralized power in times of crisis. When invaders or rebels threatened Rome's security, the Senate could choose to appoint a temporary dictator in hopes of restoring peace and order. Cincinnatus was one such example, a man who twice was named dictator and twice gave up his power in a matter of days, after successfully averting the crisis at hand. The central question for this debate is the following: should the Constitution of the United States of America imitate the Roman Republic, and allow Congress to appoint a dictator in times of crisis? 

Even if we prefer living in a democracy over a dictatorship under normal circumstances, we should investigate whether it is possible to get the best of both worlds. Is it asking too much to simultaneously desire the transparency and accountability of a democracy, while asking a dictator to rule by decree in times of crisis? If we were to appoint a dictator less virtuous than Cincinnatus, by what mechanism would we ensure that he or she relinquishes power after putting the crisis to bed?

R: Restart the Space Race

In the 1966-1969 television series Star Trek, Captain James T. Kirk introduces every episode with the words, "Space: the final frontier. These are the voyages of the starship Enterprise. Its five-year mission: to explore strange new worlds, to seek out new life and new civilizations, to boldly go where no man has gone before!" These iconic lines show how profoundly space exploration captured the American imagination at a time when Manifest Destiny and memories of the Western frontier were still prominent in America's psyche. Throughout the 1960s, the United States duelled the Soviet Union in the Space Race, a Cold War battle of scientific and military prowess. In the 21st century, however, space exploration has become an afterthought in domestic politics, leaving behind a legacy of the Apollo program, International Space Station, and Space Shuttle as mere curiosities for America's schoolchildren to look upon in distant wonder.

As America has discarded its fascination with space, China's increasingly ambitious space program has kindled nationalistic zeal among its people. Now, for the first time in decades, America has a potential rival for dominance in space. Should the US make its space program a national priority again, as President Kennedy did? Should the federal government increase funding towards space-related scientific research and military projects, even at the expense of budget items like education or infrastructure? How vigorously should the US and allied countries police research institutions for potential Chinese espionage? Some would argue that America should direct its efforts and attention towards issues that are closer-to-home, like a failing education system, crumbling transportation infrastructure, and national health crisis. Others might worry that a new Space Race could revive a modernist view of humanity as nature's conqueror rather than its steward.

Join us this Wednesday, February 19 at 7:30 PM in the Saybrook Lyceum Room, as the Federalist Party debates R: Restart the Space Race.

R: Settle

Conservatives recognize that strong and stable families are fundamental to a rightly-ordered society. Traditional family structures and forms of marriage have tended to place greater emphasis on pragmatism than sentiment. In East and South Asia, where extended families have been the basic social unit for millenia, elders traditionally arranged marriages to ensure mutual benefit to both the bride and the groom's families. In Western Europe, where household formation norms have privileged the nuclear family over the extended family since at least 1000 AD, pragmatic concerns still dominated romantic ones until the modern era. Although newlywed couples in Western Europe could marry freely and form new households upon marriage, as opposed to being subsumed into existing extended families, their social independence also required financial independence. Men could not marry if they lacked the property and means to earn a living, and this norm was so strong that in some parts of Western Europe (mostly in Germany), it was codified into law. At the same time, arranged marriage was prevalent among the Western European aristocracy. Despite what Hollywood tells us, for most of our ancestors, marriage was not primarily a matter of romance but of transaction.

 

Yet at the same time, we must interrogate whether we can ennoble and refine the traditional practice of marriage. Can romance bring a couple into a more perfect union than pragmatism? Does genuine attraction help a relationship stand the test of time? Why are we so inspired by stories of star-crossed lovers and romantic conquest, in which the power of love leads heroes and heroines to bravery, sacrifice, and persistence in the face of despair? Should we not seek to cultivate in marriage that heroism which only true love can motivate? More practically, when considering one's responsibilities towards the next generation, should one not seek a spouse who will be the best mother or father that a child could ever ask for?

Join us this Wednesday, February 12 at 7:30 PM in the Saybrook Lyceum Room, as the Federalist Party debates R: Settle.

R: Beauty is Objective

Beauty elicits a reaction like no other in the heart of man. Yearning and satisfaction simultaneously arise from somewhere deep within one's being, and time itself seems to vanish into the background of consciousness as the soul grasps at transcendence and primal truth. Simply put, there can be no Good Life without experiencing beauty.

 

Therefore, as we investigate and pursue the Good Life, we must pause and consider the objectivity of beauty. Objective beauty would seem to imply that some things are inherently more or less beautiful than others, prior to the response it produces in us. Two concert-goers can legitimately argue over whether a particular performance of Bach's St. Matthew Passion is more beautiful than another, without the debate being a pointless disagreement over preferences.

 

Does beauty exist outside our experience of it? While we may appeal to reason and revelation as a source of authority in matters of truth and morality, it is perhaps more difficult to do so in matters of beauty. Objective beauty could imply that some religious buildings are inherently more beautiful than others, prior to any sense of awe and wonder that they produce in worshippers. If beauty is objective, how can we convince others of a thing's true beauty, if observers struggle to appreciate it upon first or second glance?

 

On the other hand, non-objective beauty seems to call into question whether the human soul universally carries an imprint of the divine. Beethoven famously said, "music is a higher revelation than all wisdom and philosophy." If art and beauty convey truth in the same manner as revelation, then a subjective view of beauty may prevent us from reconciling differences between rival views of truth. On the other hand, if beauty is merely a means to truth, as revelation and reason are, then perhaps there is more room for variation from person to person.

 

Join us this Wednessday, February 5 at 7:30 PM in the Saybrook Lyceum Room, as the Federalist Party debates R: Beauty is Objective.

R: Snitch

Most of us are probably familiar with the saying "snitches get stitches", a threat of retribution that bullies and rule-breakers direct towards victims or bystanders. Although we may be most familiar with this saying in its schoolyard context, it also has implications for law enforcement, cybersecurity, institutional abuse, and whistleblowing. From providing important trial witnesses to protecting internet privacy to promoting the "Me Too" movement to safeguarding ethics in corporate America, snitching often keeps the most powerful accountable for their deeds.

Nevertheless, we must question whether there are situations where snitching is inadvisable. From China's Cultural Revolution to East Germany to Libya under Gaddafi, we can find examples of societies where snitching may have gone too far. When a society is no longer a community of neighbors but rather a network of informants, fear and distrust reign in the place of love and kindness. What do we owe our families and friends, and in light of that, how far should we go to protect them? In the context of whistleblowing, should we effect change through quiet action within a broken system, or should we appeal to the outside for assistance, even if it is illegal to do so?  To what extant can a government monitor its citizens (i.e. conduct digital snitching)?

Join us this Wednesday, January 29th at 7:30 PM in the Saybrook Lyceum Room, as the Federalist Party debates R: Snitch.