R: Tar and Feather

“Let the one among you who is without sin cast the first stone." These words Christ spoke to the adulterer should be ringing in the ears of the body when they hear this resolution. Perhaps the stakes in today’s world are not quite as high as being stoned to death, but the consequences of public shaming are disastrous and real. This is not a debate about whether we can judge other’s actions or whether we can publicly shame actions in the public sphere. Our government officials and others who represent us are nominally accountable to us, and I think we all agree it is our prerogative to actually hold them accountable. What is more complex is whether we should actively publicize the mistakes of those in the private sphere, participate in and amplify the dialogue on social media, and stone those with whom we vehemently disagree with our 140 characters and retweets. 

Like the arguments in the affirmative of R: Snitch, many people may see public shaming as a soul-saving quest. If we do not make those who have sinned feel the physical and real impacts of their decisions, they will never repent. There is power in numbers and if the many can convince the one of his or her wrongdoing, is his or her repentance not worth any ill-effects incurred? After all, we are our brother’s keeper. Many may even see the confessional as using shame to accomplish this goal. Still, I am sure many of us would rather air our sins to a priest in persona Christi and not on Twitter. Where does a society founded on this type of pubic shame end? We have suffered through Nathaniel Hawthorne’s exploration of that very question. Others still have thoroughly enjoyed Arthur Miller’s. Are we really living the good life by tarring and feathering our neighbors? Can our neighbors live the good life without our and others… encouragement?

I would encourage the body to consider the ramifications of social media on public shaming. Audiences have grown. Ideas have gotten more extreme. The landscape has changed drastically.  This has made public shaming easier, more common, and more effective. Should we see this as the improvement of an already useful tool? Or should we fear this as the refining of an already harmful vice? Finally, if we are comfortable endorsing the public shaming of others, are we comfortable accepting the same may happen to us— regardless of whether it is justified? Must we be?

R: Sacrifice Your Lifestyle for the Environment

Climate change is an incredibly complicated and controversial issue. What most of us agree on is that the environment is delicate, and nearly every action we take, whether it be our consumption, our travel, or even our internet searches, has an impact on the environment. As conservatives, we care deeply about what we are doing to perpetuate or hinder the good. For some of the body, questions of participation with evil often consume our minds when making decisions about which goods and services we procure and from whom. The combination of these truths makes us ask the question: to what extent are we willing to contribute to climate change? Many of us either flew or drove to school. Most of us eat red meat. Many of us are fans of denim, cotton, and other resource-heavy clothing. We prefer the convenience of having our own car to riding public transit. Some of us may have money invested in Exxon, Chevron, General Motors, or ConocoPhillips. Are these lifestyle choices permissible given the problem of climate change?

Many members of the body may say yes. And if so, what does this ask of us individually? What, as a society must we sacrifice to save our climate? And what are the costs of these sacrifices? Do they outweigh the benefits? I want to be clear that even if you speak in the affirmative of this resolution, that does not mean you must be willing to change your lifestyle, but it might raise interesting personal questions. Those in the negative of this resolution need not be climate change deniers. Economic concerns are very important and bad economies can have life and death consequences. As an example, many climate scientists will point to the increasing severity of natural disasters in their calls for life-altering, economy-killing climate measures. But some will point out that deaths from natural disasters are at an all-time low. Aside from a large spike in 2010 due to the Haitian earthquake, the last decade has seen the fewest deaths of any in recorded history. Why? Many would argue it is because nations had the resources to save lives when disasters struck, and proactively work to mitigate damage. Others in the negative of this resolution may argue that it is the multinational corporations who are polluting that need to change, not us as individuals. Others may argue that politicization has blown the climate crisis out of proportion.

Still, climate change poses an undeniable threat to human and societal welfare. We must ask how much responsibility we individually have to protect our communities, and if we must fundamentally change the way we live our lives to protect the environment. 

R: Promote Democracy Abroad

Americans, by and large, are enthusiastic about democracy. Though that enthusiasm may be faltering slightly, the general view on the right is that the United States should be the political, economic, and perhaps even cultural leaders of the world. We are the city on the hill, Thucydides’ Athens, the pedagogical city. While discussions of the economic and cultural influences the United States has on the world are best saved for another debate, now more than ever, the question of the utility of the United States spreading its political framework abroad is coming to a head. Does it work to promote democracy abroad and if so, should we? When examining historical examples, one certainly cannot say that democracy promotion is easy. In instances where the U.S. has had direct involvement in democracy promotion, it has largely failed. Even outcomes of American-inspired calls for democracy like the Arab spring were unsteady at best and utter failures at worst.

 

As a Time magazine article published in December 2020 put it, often the societal pressures that start revolutions are very different than the ones that drive democratic transition. “The former are driven by the persistent socio-economic and political dysfunctions…; democratic transitions, meanwhile, require particular enabling conditions. These include a national pro-democracy movement that can not only organize mass protests but also win elections; a set of state institutions, at least some of which (the army in most cases) would enable such a transition; and a regional environment that is supportive, or at least accommodating.” For a system of government that is supposed to be the panacea for all instability, democracy seems to have difficulty spreading successfully. Why?

Is it simply our failure as a nation to promote democracy effectively? Or is there something inherent about democracy promotion that yields negative results? If the former is true, it seems the answer is to rethink the way we promote democracy and return to the fight with more vigor than ever. If the latter is true, then perhaps it is time for the United States to stop its futile mission, even if democracy promotion seems like the right thing to do. The final question that remains is: Even if democracy can successfully be promoted, should we do so? Are we comfortable enough with democracy’s (or more specifically American democracy’s) supremacy to promote it abroad? Is it not also logical to assume that the countries where democracy is not present now might never be home to democracy? Finally with the democratic backsliding that exists in parts of Eastern Europe, is now perhaps the time we need to promote democracy the most?

R: Great Friends Think Alike

For many of us, this past year has been one where we must prioritize the communities of which we want to be a part. Restrictions made gathering difficult, so most of us found it necessary to live and socialize only with those with whom we could converse and spend time easily. For many of us, that meant the friends who think like us— who share our values. However, now that we are reentering the broader community of the University, it is worth asking if our true friends should challenge us on the truths that we hold fundamentally. Are there not other qualities such as loyalty, compassion, empathy, and trust that are as, if not more important than sharing one’s values? 

Aristotle, the most definitive authority on friendship says in book eight of his Nicomachean Ethics that, “The perfect form of friendship is that between the good, and those who resemble each other in virtue. For these friends wish each alike the other's good in respect of their goodness…” Is Aristotle not right that a friendship must at least have its foundation in a common sense of virtue? If our friends do not share our ends, can they really be our friends in the greatest sense? 

It may, in this case, be permissible to argue against Aristotle. Is his image of the ideal friendship simply too idealistic for modern political life? After all, Aristotle himself admits these friendships are incredibly rare. There is also a question of what we define as “great.” Aristotle lauds friendships of utility and friendships of pleasure as having their proper place in life too. Can these be considered great? 

I look forward to discussing these and other questions at our first debate of the semester R: Great Friends Think Alike on Thursday, September 2nd, 2021 at 7:30 PM. It is my great pleasure not to include a Zoom link and instead inform you that we expect the debate to be held in the Saybrook Lyceum room. 

R: Sacrifice Your Lifestyle for the Environment

Climate change is an incredibly complicated and controversial issue. What most of us agree on is that the environment is delicate, and nearly every action we take, whether it be our consumption, our travel, or even our internet searches, has an impact on the environment. As conservatives, we care deeply about what we are doing to perpetuate or hinder the good. For some of the body, questions of participation with evil often consume our minds when making decisions about which goods and services we procure and from whom. The combination of these truths makes us ask the question: to what extent are we willing to contribute to climate change? Many of us either flew or drove to school. Most of us eat red meat. Many of us are fans of denim, cotton, and other resource-heavy clothing. We prefer the convenience of having our own car to riding public transit. Some of us may have money invested in Exxon, Chevron, General Motors, or ConocoPhillips. Are these lifestyle choices permissible given the problem of climate change?

Many members of the body may say yes. And if so, what does this ask of us individually? What, as a society must we sacrifice to save our climate? And what are the costs of these sacrifices? Do they outweigh the benefits? I want to be clear that even if you speak in the affirmative of this resolution, that does not mean you must be willing to change your lifestyle, but it might raise interesting personal questions. Those in the negative of this resolution need not be climate change deniers. Economic concerns are very important and bad economies can have life and death consequences. As an example, many climate scientists will point to the increasing severity of natural disasters in their calls for life-altering, economy-killing climate measures. But some will point out that deaths from natural disasters are at an all-time low. Aside from a large spike in 2010 due to the Haitian earthquake, the last decade has seen the fewest deaths of any in recorded history. Why? Many would argue it is because nations had the resources to save lives when disasters struck, and proactively work to mitigate damage. Others in the negative of this resolution may argue that it is the multinational corporations who are polluting that need to change, not us as individuals. Others may argue that politicization has blown the climate crisis out of proportion.

Still, climate change poses an undeniable threat to human and societal welfare. We must ask how much responsibility we individually have to protect our communities, and if we must fundamentally change the way we live our lives to protect the environment.