News

Panel discussion on presidential nominees provides platform for student debate and engagement

By Ben Katz ’20

Tags news

On Tuesday, Nov. 1, Hamilton College Democrats and the Government Department co-sponsored the first ever “Presidential Supporters’ Forum.” In years past, College Democrats and College Republicans had co-hosted a debate among members of the clubs representing their respective candidates, often over Fallcoming and Parents Weekend. But with College Republicans’ declining to endorse the Republican nominee Donald Trump, and with the club split between Trump, Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton and Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson, no such debate could take place. 

The forum featured representatives of Trump, Clinton and Johnson and was moderated by Sam Rosenfeld, a visiting assistant professor of government who studies political parties and American political development. The guidelines for the forum provided that the representatives of the three candidates did not have to follow their candidates’ stated positions exactly, and were allowed to mix their own opinions as long as they stayed in line with the candidates’ general positions. Arielle Saber, a first-year who attended the forum, thought that “[the representatives] did a great job and seemed really well-informed.” 

Audience members were responsible for asking questions, which focused on a wide variety of topics, both pertinent to policy differences between the three candidates and to differences in character and temperament. Many of the questions directed at the candidates focused on economic and trade policy, specifically Trump’s unorthodox anti-free trade position. Additionally, students questioned the candidates on their national security positions and credentials, focusing on the role of the United States in Iraq and Syria after the fall of the Islamic State. Other questions focused on race relations in the United States, the direction that the U.S. is moving in and Supreme Court nominees. Saber especially “appreciated the question about the Supreme Court justices. A huge issue that I think has been somewhat overlooked throughout this election is the fact that our next president will have incredible influence over the future of the Supreme Court. When asked about their plans to fill these seats, each student responded in such a way that clearly aligned with their respective candidates and their political party in general. 

I think it’s great that despite all of the other (in my opinion relatively pointless) issues that have been brought to the forefront in this election, specifically those having to do with the nominees’ online presences, we, the voters in this election, can still recognize the importance of the Supreme Court in our government and the role the president has in nominating justices.” Much as in the real debate, no questions were asked by the audience on the environment and climate policy, though Professor Rosenfeld threw in a question at the end about climate change and environmental regulations.

Perhaps the most valuable contribution of the forum to Hamilton was that it allowed the sharing of vastly conflicting views in a dignified and respectful manner. Saber said, “While I disagreed with nearly everything the student who represented Trump said, I do think he spoke clearly and in a way that allowed him to be convincing. It was refreshing to hear someone speak eloquently about Trump’s policies, as opposed to the ridiculous rhetoric we’ve been hearing throughout the entire election. The forum sounded more like how a presidential debate is supposed to sound—very different from the behavior in the actual debates!”

Charles Dunst ’18, the co-President of Hamilton Democrats echoed this sentiment. “It was great to see the diversity in thought on this campus in practice.”

All News