First-Year Students from College Democrats and College Republicans Debate U.S. Foreign Policy, Economy and Social Issues

Disclosure: The author of this article, Dhruv Shah, serves as the Director of Speakers on the board of the Georgetown University College Democrats. 

DHRUV SHAH: On March 21, 2023, six first-year students from the Georgetown University College Democrats (GUCD) and Georgetown University College Republicans (GUCR) faced off in a wide-ranging debate moderated by members of the Georgetown Bipartisan Coalition. The debate was structured with three main categories: foreign policy, the economy and domestic/social issues. There was also an audience Q&A portion at the end of the debate.

The debate began with foreign policy, with Dylan Shapiro (CAS ‘26) representing GUCD and Andrew Wong (SFS ‘26) representing GUCR. Much of this part of the debate focused on the role of China on the world stage and how that informs U.S. foreign policy overall. Both Shapiro and Wong found agreement in the strategic value of the recent AUKUS deal as a way to defend our allies in the Indo-Pacific and curb Chinese influence in the region. They did, however, disagree about the Biden administration’s handling of the Chinese spy balloon, with Wong arguing that allowing the balloon to fly across the continental U.S. signaled weakness on behalf of the administration. Shapiro rebutted by defending President Biden, saying he took strategic steps to ensure that the balloon didn’t pose a national security threat and shot it down when it was safe to do so. 

The most contentious part of this section dealt with the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan. Wong criticized the Biden administration for the fallout that resulted from the withdrawal, specifically mentioning the 13 U.S. troops that were killed in the aftermath. Shapiro was quick to say that using the lives of these 13 deaths in order to prove a political point was in bad taste and went on to defend the pullout from Afghanistan.

The next area of debate was the economy, with Asher Maxwell (CAS ‘26) representing the Democrats and Jordan Van Slingerland (SFS ‘26) representing the Republicans. Starting with the failure of Silicon Valley Bank, Maxwell and Van Slingerland found some agreement in applauding Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen and the FDIC for protecting depositors. However, they vastly diverged when diagnosing the problem itself. Maxwell said that the failure of Silicon Valley Bank could have brought the global economy down if the Biden administration had not taken action. He also laid blame for the failure, in part, on congressional Republicans and the Trump administration in 2018 for loosening bank regulations. Van Slingerland argued that a single bank failure would not have brought down the economy, saying, “one domino does not destroy a whole domino set.” 

The two then went on the spar over the impending debt ceiling deadline. Maxwell began by saying that congressional Republicans are taking the global economy hostage and that the bare minimum would be for them to raise the limit, adding that ideally, the debt ceiling would be abolished. Van Slingerland retorted that Democrats’ spending was actually taking the economy hostage, emphasizing that raising the debt ceiling would be a temporary fix to a larger problem of high spending and debt. 

Lastly, GUCD’s Simone Guite (CAS ‘26) and GUCR’s Elizabeth Oliver (CAS ‘26) represented their respective clubs in the domestic and social policy section of the debate. They began with discussing President Biden’s decision to block the Washington, D.C. crime bill from being enacted, and the broader issue of statehood for Washington. Oliver began her response by speaking to the issue of crime generally, saying that Democratic policies about crime make society unsafe and hurt minority communities. She also took the stance against statehood for the District, citing that making the District a state risks giving it too much power over the seat of federal government, in violation of the separation of powers. Guite essentially took the opposite stances, defending the crime bill as a move towards ending the cycle of crime and incarceration. She also argued in favor of  statehood, highlighting how residents of Washington currently have no representation in the federal government. She also mentioned the January 6 Capitol attack, saying that if the District were a state, it would have been able to more easily get law enforcement to the scene and stop the attack. They then moved on to the recent approval of the Willow Project by the Biden administration, with Oliver supporting the move, citing concerns over energy dependence on authoritarian regimes, such as Saudi Arabia and Venezuela, and Guite opposing the decision, citing concerns over climate change.

Oliver and Guite ended by debating the legality and morality of the abortion pill. Oliver began by firmly opposing the abortion pill, saying that the decision to approve it by the FDA was rushed and the chemical abortions are dangerous for women. She also brought out a model of first-trimester fetus in support of her argument that abortion “ends the life of an innocent human being” and should be illegal. Guite immediately pushed back, highlighting that less than one percent of those who have sought medicated abortion have had complications. She went on to say that medicated abortion is “safer than tylenol” and that abortion overall is safer than birth in the United States. 

To conclude the event, the audience was given a chance to ask questions of the debaters. Audience members asked about a variety of topics, including affirmative action, gerrymandering, transgender rights, the border crisis, and gun violence. The debate was full of funny, intense, and confusing moments. You could clearly sense the passion in the voice of the debaters. Although many argue that debates don’t accomplish anything, I disagree. Meaningful debates and dialogues can lead to a renewed understanding of the other side and provide a chance to change hearts and minds. And worst case, they can be somewhat entertaining.

Dhruv Shah is the Co-Executive Editor for On the Record. He is from North Brunswick, NJ and is a freshman in the School of Foreign Service, studying International Economics. Dhruv is particularly interested in progressive politics and economic policy.