By: Chet Martin
I’ll do just about anything for free pizza. In that spirit, I was dispatched by Georgia Political Review at great expense to cover the debate between College Republicans and Young Democrats in room 213 of the SLC (underclassmen, stop trying to make MLC happen). The debate came together thanks to the Athens Political Union, an organization that deserves your love, support, and Facebook likes. Democrats and Republicans sent their best representatives, well-dressed and articulate members of their respective organizations, all of whom were capable of correctly pronouncing “Netanyahu.” What follows is a summary of their positions and a choice sprinkling of facts.
Education policy:
I’m pleased to report that both major American political parties seem to support children, and even support those children learning things. The Young Democrats charged the Republican Party in Georgia with cutting $5.5 billion from education funding since taking control of state government in 2003, a statistic that roughly corresponds to one cited by an AJC editorial. Furthermore, they alleged that prison construction companies use third grade test scores in a region to determine how many prison beds to build, a claim so shocking that it almost can’t be true (also it is not true). Though legend holds that low test scores have such a direct correlation with prison beds is widespread and has been cited by major journalistic organizations, careful reporting by The Oregonian’s Bill Graves dispels the myth, which is almost too bad, because it sounds like it would have made someone’s job at the Correction Corporation of America remarkably easy.
Republicans agreed that public education was broken, but argued instead for expanded student, parent, and educator choice in schools. While they never directly argued for charter schools and school vouchers, the Republican fealty to choice made the structure of the GOP’s education answer obvious to anyone listening carefully.
When asked to name specific education policies they supported, Republicans punted and made a vague nod towards choice, not listing a specific policy. Democrats, meanwhile, praised the lasting value of enrolling children in Pre-K programs, an empirically proven position, though the effects of government sponsored Pre-K (Head Start) are under more scrutiny. Nevertheless, the majority of data tends to support the proposition that Pre-K has some long-term effects throughout a child’s education.
Immigration:
Republicans rushed to praise the immigration bill that has passed the Senate under the direction of Republican Senator Marco Rubio, citing the wonderful border security efforts, expanded legal visa system, and welcoming gestures to immigrants who “believe what we already know: that this is the land of opportunity.” GOP debaters made sure to praise all these wonderful, humane-sounding immigration policies before objecting to “amnesty” for “illegal immigrants.” Though supporters can and will quibble about the terms, that’s a straightforward assessment of how the Senate’s immigration bill treats the nearly 12 million illegal undocumented immigrants currently in the United States. Republicans and Democrats bickered on the wisdom of the policy for a bit, until Democrats touted their support of the DREAM Act, which allows undocumented youngsters raised in the United States to attend college legally, among other things. Republicans replied that the DREAM Act was great, but the part that let one earn citizenship with military service – now THAT was super great.
When discussing the effects the large undocumented class has on society, Republicans claimed that these individuals cost society greatly by enjoying welfare benefits (especially healthcare) without paying taxes. This claim, an old bugaboo of right-wing attacks on immigration, is demonstrably untrue. Undocumented immigrants pay $10.6 billion on taxes at all levels of government, and would pay more in fees and back-taxes under the Senate’s “amnesty” program.
Government Shutdown:
This is almost too boring to report, except for one distinct ideological difference. Both sides bemoaned Washington and culture and leadership or something (maybe they were talking about RGIII? I blacked out). Yet Republicans attacked the idea that 15 percent of the government can be declared “non-essential,” and argued that such workers wouldn’t have a job in the private sector. Democrats stood up for government job security and declared that this 15 percent is “useful to the country.” Controversy!
Healthcare:
Admittedly this is a conversation out of depth of anyone who isn’t an expert with years of experience (healthcare represents a sixth of our economy, after all), so it is worth saying up front that both sides acted intelligently. To address the massive costs of healthcare in the United States, Republicans advocated a simplification of government revenue, tort reform (which hasn’t had much of an impact in Texas), and a “regulation of health insurance companies to keep prices down,” a policy that sounds suspiciously similar to Obamacare’s massive regulatory overhaul. Democrats noted the similarity, and defended the unpopular Obamacare, arguing that it was created in such a way as to see “what works and what doesn’t.” This claim is un-fact checkable at anything less than book length.
Republicans proved themselves masters of sound byte, stating, “[Our] main problem with the Affordable Care Act is that it’s not affordable to the vast majority of Americans,” further claiming that insurance rates have risen in every state but New York. That claim depends entirely on who is buying insurance; Obamacare’s subsidies will make things cheaper for those who qualify for low-wage benefits and those with a pre-existing condition, and may make things more expensive for most others. For what it’s worth, rate increases will be particularly intense among groups like the young and those living in the state of Georgia, so I sure hope there are no young Georgians reading this.
Syria:
Finally, the two parties turned to foreign policy. In a Freaky Friday-like turn of events, Republicans were remarkably dovish and unwilling to spend much on military maneuvers, while Democrats argued the effectiveness of force in bringing Assad to the bargaining table. Republicans countered with a critique of the President’s “red line” on chemical weapons use, arguing that the office of the presidency must always be respected and that this requires following through on promises. Strangely, much debate centered on the cost of mobilizing naval vessels off the coast of Syria. While data for the cost of the mobilization is not readily available, it must be acknowledged that deploying a few vessels from the U.S. Navy’s Six Fleet hardly compares to the Navy’s $150 billion dollar budget, or the estimated trillion dollars we spend a year on national defense and military activities.
Wrapping Up:
Audience members asked a few questions, which weren’t met with as much preparation as the declared subject matter. Democrats bemoaned gerrymandering, Republicans shrugged and pointed to its long history in American politics. Both parties agreed that humanitarian assistance is worth any price, a strange agreement between the party that recently opposed the Syrian intervention and the one that elected a president largely due to opposition to the Iraq War. Both seemed befuddled on questions of mental healthcare (though Democrats managed to tie it back to Medicaid expansion), and both seemed largely untroubled by claims that the United States eavesdropped on German Chancellor Angela Merkel. Is this the bipartisanship everyone claims to want?
In closing statements, Democrats called themselves the party of forward-thinkers, those who cared about the less fortunate, gay rights, the environment, and women’s issues. They questioned the motivations of those who refuse to use the government to lift up those in need of help.
Recognizing that they started with a major deficit in allegiance, Republicans asked simply that listeners understand that they are the party of fiscal responsibility and small government, hinting darkly that the utopian schemes of the Democrats were doomed to failure, and asked a striking question to the generation coming-of-age in the Great Recession: “Do you want jobs when you graduate?”
