AC Voting Panel Discusses November Election

AC Votes sponsored a panel of lecturers from various disciplines at the Lyceum last Tuesday, October 8, to discuss the upcoming elections.

The aim of the moderately well-attended event was to give less politically active students the opportunity to learn more about the central issues of the election. The panelists discussed topics within their respective areas of expertise before answering questions from participants.

“We wanted to create a space where anyone who wants to come can come and you don’t have to be an expert in anything. You would just learn something,” said Kiara Vigil, dean of new students and associate professor of American studies, who moderated the event.

The first speaker, economics professor Adam Honig, discussed the economic policies of Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump. Although Honig said both parties need to pay more attention to fiscal responsibility, he said of Trump’s proposed tariffs of up to 20% on all imports that “[i]It’s hard to imagine a more inflationary platform than the one he proposes.”

“In general, trying to do everything yourself, as Trump seems to want, is the North Korean model, and that doesn’t bring much resilience or prosperity,” Honig said.

Although Honig noted that Harris also supports imposing some tariffs, he said Harris’ tariffs were relatively targeted.

Javier Corrales, professor of political science, charted a new course with a discussion of how Trump’s candidacy poses a unique threat to liberal democratic institutions.

As an expert on Latin American politics, Corrales noted similarities between Trump’s rhetoric and policies and those of illiberal politicians in the region.

“I can tell you, the signs of illiberalism — overt, not even hidden — coming out of the Republican campaign are very obvious,” Corrales said. “For me that is the central issue. There are so many other political questions, but that’s why this election is so existential for the United States.”

Assistant Professor of American Studies Angus McLeod then spoke about the peculiarities of education policy. McLeod discussed Trump’s plans to abolish the Department of Education, which would significantly limit the federal government’s power to regulate schools. Trump’s proposed measures also include combating what he calls “critical race theory” and “radical gender ideology,” promoting patriotic education and creating “American academies” as an alternative form of higher education through taxation and fining foundations “anti-Semitic universities” are financed.”

McLeod added that Trump had some policies that those on the left could agree with, such as supporting Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) and reforming the way the government evaluates colleges based on the type of students they attend.

Regarding Harris’ policies, McLeod noted that much of her platform is “vague and full of platitudes,” but pointed to specifics such as free universal preschool, tuition-free vocational schools and community colleges, support for HBCUs and protections for LGBTQ+ students.

Lloyd Barba, assistant professor of religion, turned to the concept of sanctuaries in the context of immigration in America. In recent decades, churches have often served as refuges for immigrants to avoid deportation. In response to the Trump administration’s immigration policies, the number of churches calling themselves sanctuaries grew, reaching over a thousand by 2018.

Barba also addressed the emergence of sanctuary cities during the Trump presidency that refused to cooperate with Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Despite attempts to target them, Barba said sanctuary cities often have better crime records because undocumented migrants can report crimes to police without fear of deportation.

Barba made a prediction if Trump wins a second term: “We will see another concerted effort to dismantle sanctuary cities, but we will also see a strong response from colleges, houses of worship, and city and state officials around the world . “Land that proclaims a sanctuary.”

Lawrence Douglas, professor of law, jurisprudence and social thought, summarized his criticism of the Electoral College. Douglas pointed out that a president can be elected while losing the popular vote and that the value of certain states’ votes is greater than that of others.

“I would try to describe this process neutrally as anachronistic, dysfunctional and dangerous,” Douglas said.

Following Douglas’ comments, the panel answered questions from the audience.

One student wondered about a possible repeat of January 6th. Douglas argued that the biggest risk to the electoral process was not another attempt to stop the certification of voters in January, but rather obstruction of the vote count. If local or state officials intervene in this process, it could be impossible for states to finally allocate their electoral votes to one candidate or another.

“It’s not so much that the state is falsely pro-Trump, but that they’re simply unable to figure out who won the election in the state. Then you’re actually dealing with a world of hurt and turmoil. This is a real danger,” Douglas said.

Jeb Allen ’27, staff writer for The Student, enjoyed hearing the opinions of all the panelists, particularly Honig’s discussion of the economy.

“I think a lot of Americans are unsure and a little convinced by Trump’s idea that he would be better for the economy. “It was very interesting to hear a genius like Professor Honig go through them and say, ‘No, these are terrible ideas.’ It’s populist rhetoric,” Allen said. “I think Harris also has some populist economic ideas. But it was very interesting to hear him go through and explain the steps [policy] would have terrible consequences for the national economy.”

Vigil has a simple call to action for those who attended the event. “Hopefully they feel that if they are not registered to vote, they want to do so when they are eligible. If not, they might just want to support their friends.”