Tanden and Kristol debate present, future of politics

Policy advisor Neera Tanden and political commentator William Kristol discussed the state of the country and civil discourse in the Cabot Center’s ASEAN Auditorium on Nov. 15 as the final event in the Jonathan M. Tisch College of Civic Life’s Distinguished Speaker Series. The talk, entitled “Resistance and Persistence: Civil Debate in Divided Times,” was moderated by Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter and columnist Farah Stockman.

Tanden, the president and CEO of the Center for American Progress, and Kristol, a conservative and the founder and editor of The Weekly Standard, discussed such topics as the 2016 presidential election, the causes of public mistrust for the government, the future of both parties, the GOP’s current proposed tax plan and voter engagement. The two took questions from various members of the crowd as well.

The talk was cosponsored by the Department of Political Science, CIVIC, Tufts Republicans and Tufts Democrats, according to Tisch College Dean Alan Solomont.

“There may be no more pressing issue in America today than the state of civil discourse and what it’s doing to our politics and to our democracy. It’s a problem that shows up everywhere, on college campuses, on Facebook and Twitter, and in the halls of Congress,” Solomont said. “When do we uncompromisingly resist ideas that we find harmful, and when do we persist in seeking dialog and common ground?”

Among the questions posed was why both speakers felt that the 2016 presidential election ended in President Donald Trump’s victory.

“I think the inability of Washington to do anything in the last six years of the Obama administration ... which I put completely at the feet of Mitch McConnell, did actually create a sense amongst a large swath of voters, both some on the left and many on the right, that created an anti-Washington fervor that many candidates tried to tap into: essentially, that Washington is broken and needed fundamental fixing, which to be honest is hard to argue with,” Tanden said. “Washington isn't fixing the country's problems.”

Kristol believed that the public’s anti-establishment feeling was demonstrated by the support of Bernie Sanders and Trump during the primaries, as they marketed themselves as insurgent candidates.

“We should have seen this coming a little more, politically,” Kristol said. “I think from a social science point of view, the fact that Bernie Sanders got 45 percent of the vote on the Democratic side and Donald Trump got 45 percent of the vote on the Republican side is the fact about 2016.”

When asked about the fate of the Republican Party, Kristol was split.

“[Someone] asked me yesterday, 'What are the chances you'll be voting Republican in 2020,' and I said, 'I don't know, fifty-fifty maybe?,'" Kristol said. "I won't vote for Trump if he's renominated; can you beat Trump in a primary? Could the congressional party really separate from a president of that party? That's very rare."

Tanden appeared to downplay the importance of fractures within the Democratic Party, citing the success of Virginia’s Governor-Elect Ralph Northam, a Democrat, as proof of the party’s cohesion.

“I think we’re learning as we’re going,” Tanden said. “I think there’s anger at everyone in the political system. The question is, [are the dissidents] a majority of your party or not?”

Additionally, Stockman brought up the topic of public dissatisfaction with the United States’ involvement in the globalization of free trade.

Kristol maintained that free trade, while not guaranteeing equality of outcomes, was a boon to the world and U.S. economies. Also, he attributed lowered rates of poverty and starvation worldwide over the past half-century to the growth of free trade.

"[People have voted against globalization] because nobody made the case for it, because people were intimidated by the case against it, because there were people who were hurt and it’s hard to stand up to the politicians,” Kristol said. “Still, more people are benefitting than are hurt by it.”

For Tanden, while free trade can be beneficial to some, it is critical to support those who it marginalizes.

“Too many people in the democratic establishment said that trade is a win-win,” Tanden said. “That can be true and it is true. Overall, trade is a win for the country. But lots of people lose in trade and people in the United States who lose from trade are the least capable. We give them the fewest tools.”

Among the questions asked by audience members, one was how to treat the issue of the Tufts Republicans’ request for Tufts Community Union Senate to provide funding for former Breitbart editor Ben Shapiro to speak on campus.

Kristol believed that Shapiro should be permitted to speak once invited.

“It's a free country,” Kristol said. “I think people's rights should be respected once invited and it's up to educational institutions, especially private ones to have their own rules about who can be invited and who shouldn't. Ben Shapiro strikes me as being way within the pale of respectability. I differ with him on some things, but the idea that he would not be permitted to speak on a campus is wrong.”

While Tanden agreed that Shapiro should be permitted to speak on campus, she also compared the situation to the response of many Boston residents to the Charlottesville, VA riots, as thousands appeared at Boston Common to counter-protest a conservative rally.

“My basic take is, in America we have to struggle with people who think very differently from ourselves and deal with that struggle,” Tanden said. "I guess it's fine to have these people and then massively protest them. That is the right thing, which is to have massive, large scale protests against the abhorrent ideas that are becoming more and more out there. I hope that Republicans and conservatives will join those protests instead of sitting in their seats.”

Following the debate, Stockman remarked to the Daily that she found the mutual cordiality of the two speakers highly indicative of the contrast between establishment and insurgent political figures.

“To me, the fact that they agreed on so much on stage showed that we're in a different moment,” Stockman said. “They’re probably more viciously attacked by people in their own camp than they are by the other side. That’s something new you’re seeing in both parties. Being people who have been in the establishment for so many years, they agree on some common rules even if they disagree on the outcome. They have a more in common than the insurgents in each party.”

Tufts Democrats President Misha Linnehan agreed that the civility of the debate stemmed from the lack of divisive issues in Stockman's questioning.

“It's good to hear a partisan back-and-forth that's civil,” Linnehan said. "I'm not sure there was a lot they disagreed on. I think there would have been more disagreement if they brought up issues that, traditionally, Republicans and Democrats disagree on, but that's kind of hard to do in the current time where the Republican establishment that's running Washington right now doesn't really have the policy views of the Republicans from eight years ago.”

Linnehan felt that Kristol was much further away from current mainstream conservatism than Tanden was from mainstream liberal thought, making Kristol much less of a consistent representative of the Republican Party than Tanden was for Democrats.

“I would say, it's pleasant to hear Bill Kristol talk and say that the current Republican administration is doing some things wrong," he said. "I wish that Republicans on campus would reflect that dialogue a bit more.”

George Behrakis, president of Tufts Republicans, also enjoyed the debate and voiced his interest in seeing more discussions between political figures of differing ideologies.

"They happened to agree a lot tonight, but I think it'd be better going forward to also bring people who perhaps differ a little bit more on different issues and ask them more difficult questions," Behrakis said.

Similarly to Linnehan, Behrakis believed that the agreement between Tanden and Kristol was primarily due to the ideological overlap between Kristol's opposition to the Trump administration and Tanden's support for Clinton's run.

"Because the discussion lingered on the election and that sort of thing, which is completely fine, they sort of agreed on a lot of those issues," Behrakis said.