tv Student Debate on Presidents Coolidge and Reagan CSPAN January 11, 2016 12:00am-1:07am EST
on in this state of the union address. >> c-span coverage starts with the senate historian and james are can back at the history interdiction of the president's annual message and what to expect in this address. then, the republican response by south carolina governor nikki haley. on c-span, c-span radio, and c-span.org. our coverageer ,tarting at 11:00 p.m. eastern also live on c-span two. members ofar from congress with their reaction to the president's address. >> coming up next, coolidge,
versus reagan. debate, participants discussed the legacies and personalities of birth -- both personalities. this is an hour-long event. >> we thank you for joining us this evening. you will hear more about the institute of politics and the entire evening in just a bit when we start our second debate. first i want to tell you about the coolidge foundation. promotingicated to calvin coolidge, who served as fromdent who served 1923-1929.
we help many of you will come and visit. our charge is to greatly increase the understanding and awareness of president coolidge and his bow use and his legacy and times. programs andber of we are proud to announce our coolidge scholarship, a full ride to any undergraduate university the student desires to attend. the application opens this fall, and we will award our first scholars in the early spring of next year. we hope all of you will check it out, and maybe if you are a high school junior, consider applying. another major program is the debate program. throughout the year, we bring hundreds of high school students to the historic site of coolidge to learn about policy and to learn about history and economics and certainly to learn about debate and to debate the
issues that they learn. we think it is important to encourage civil debate so that our society can continue to grow and to develop in a civil manner and with a strong democracy. like i said, tonight is a continuation of our debate program, and it is a two-part debate, and the resolution on the docket tonight is to resolve the presidency of calvin coolidge is a better model than the presidency of ronald reagan's or gop hopefuls today. like i mentioned, we will have two debates. later, we will be joined by national experts who will debate that, but it is my job now to introduce the student debate. we are very lucky to be joined by america's official high school debate team that competes internationally in a format against other countries. we thank usa debate and the debate association for joining
us and especially their coach, cindy, who is here tonight. and we thank coach david trumbull for his good work, as well. so now, i am going to introduce the two teams, and were never, the resolution is the presidency of calvin coolidge is a better model than the presidency of ronald reagan for gop hopefuls today. now, introducing team coolidge from team usa is joshua may and nikhil ramaswamy and from saint anselm pelletier. there he go. now, representing team reagan, saying that reagan is a better model, please welcome a law student here in new hampshire, katherine muzzy.
these are some of the best debaters in the country, and they will run their own debate and keep their own time. i will say they are debating in a format, so i hope you take notes and enjoy. so when you are ready, please take the podium. thank you. katherine: before i begin, i would just like to thank the coolidge foundation and the new hampshire institute of politics for hosting this event and bringing us all together to discuss such a relevant issue.
and with that, we will get started. when president calvin coolidge was being interviewed once come he was asked if he had any hobbies. he replied simply that his only hobby was holding office. because president coolidge embodies the statesmanship that links all americans today, we are proud to support the resolution, that the presidency of calvin coolidge is better than the model of ronald reagan for gop hopefuls today. i would like to present two persuasive arguments to support our case. first, coolidge delivered better government and created economic prosperity that lasted. first, let's look back at his demeanor.
doing what he said he would. he would often say it takes a great man to be a good listener. calvin coolidge's personal traits, which you can leave the listening skills and emphasis health to keep the government small. the president once remarked that i have never been hurt by what i have not said. coolidge lived by the philosophy that one should underpromise and over deliver, including polarizing american politics to do otherwise. americans become disillusioned with politics. a most recent pew research poll shows america is more polarized than it ever has been before. they cannot possibly be expected to agree to it, and it represents modern american
politics. because no candidate could compromise like president coolidge, we have a legislative and executive branch that is unwilling and unable to work together towards progress. president coolidge represents the antithesis of this, as someone who ushered in an era of collaboration and trust. he had strong integrity, a man who was unwilling to personally attack an opponent and refuse to make a promise which he could not keep. president coolidge up us to be as authenticity involve the american people so much that the decade's slogan was to keep cool with coolidge. president coolidge's ability to learn a high level of trust with the american people is particularly our poll given the context in which he took office. he was forced to counter a scandal, and he did so delivering on the few promises that he carefully made. to put this in context, it would be particularly interesting to have a president like this when
this is at a historical low. compromise on integral issues, such as tax reform and the debt ceiling which continue to stagnate american with the making and the economy today. we must move forward. but we must move forward well. something that can only be done by a candidate who is willing to honestly underpromise and over deliver as well, like coolidge did. on the other hand, as beloved as
he is, president reagan is someone whose greatness we recognize. but we recognize also this is a greatness that often cannot be replicated. there is nothing to improve american optimism about the government. instead, it breeds disappointment and, in turn, distrust. what it needed now was coolidge's ability to deliver on his promises. that made him a more trustworthy figure in american politics and could usher the gop into a new era of political prosperity. let's move on to the economic prosperity. president coolidge experienced significant challenge. i the summer of their first year, the stock market has fallen by 47.8% from its peak, further than it might be. president coolidge fundamentally reversed this trend of economic disaster towards one of success. we see this as a champion of the economy fortunately reasons. and this is something we can definitely look to as some we should follow today. president coolidge fundamentally believes that good governments do not hurry to legislate but give the administration a chance to catch up. he was for cutting the deficit, and president coolidge shrunk the government at every turn. they faced increasing regulation
until coolidge, who had seen how they had suffered from a lack of access, josie -- choosing to make a profit. they actually used the coolidge start is to show how often he met with his budget directors, and it was a lot. they cut back on the use of pencils, and he lowered the tax on paintbrush handles. the point of all this was reduced regulation over the industry, with those burdened by heavy regulation.
calvin coolidge is the only one to leave office with the federal budget lower than it was when he became president, and a think we should all agree this is something we should look forward to. after the initial cuts, coolidge continued to cut. as revenue cut lower the top rate again. this time, all of the way down to 25% for some income levels. this was even lower than the ronald reagan top tax rate of 28%, and the government collected tax revenue, with a budget surplus, reducing the debt to $16.9 billion in 1929. not only did president coolidge cut the size of government though, but he vastly improved
economic performance. the nation did so well under coolidge of people spoke of coolidge prosperity. measuring the total size of the economy, growing substantially under coolidge. during his second time in office from 1924 until 1929, gdp grew in adjusted terms 3.5% each year. this is significantly higher. the stock market grew by 200%. so ultimately today, considering the model of the presidency, we recognize it delivered better government and created economic prosperity that was stable. therefore, we are proud to support this and president coolidge himself. thank you. thank you. [applause] katherine: when president reagan played an actor, he played a good guy. altruism, whether he was a skilled actor or a practice politician, president reagan
strongly signifies the characteristics that the gop needs in its leaders today. i will begin by refuting the opposition's first two arguments, and then i will present ours. the opposition made an argument about president coolidge's demeanor. however, president reagan's demeanor was conservative, and a pragmatic conservative greed he found a silver lining in things that he did not like to have enemies around. he was a collaborator who saw the best in everyone. he was an active collaborator. president coolidge was one stoic silence, but president reagan made the best of both words. the second argument is about president coolidge's with economic policies. i have two of the reasons why president reagan was greater. economic change and he had to
cope with the failure of three previous presidencies from nixon, ford, and carter, a combination of slow growth and inflation, and the budget was in deficit. reagan had a choice. he can focus on debt or growth. he chose growth. after a century of economic policies that have been burdening the economy, there was an economic recovery tax act. the next year, wall street immediately began regrowth. by 1990, the country hit its 86 months of growth under reagan. under his presidency, federal spending as a percentage of gdp fell. he not only coped with an economy in catastrophe, but he did so while perfectly exemplify republican trickle-down economics.
second, president coolidge of us miss policies may not be relevant today. president coolidge also entered during a time of economic downturn but less than that of reagan. he had 200% growth, and while he eliminated a recession, he created a bubble, soon turning into the great depression, going from one extreme to another. that is not a viable policy. at our first argument is that president reagan embraced the ideal of openness. in 1984, president reagan said i believe in the idea of amnesty for those who have put down roots for those who have lived here, even though some time back, they may have entered illegally. his words translated to action when president reagan signed the immigration act of 1986. in combination of the 18 million jobs that the reagan economy created, america flourished. although team opposition does not advocate amnesty for immigrants, it demonstrates a larger trend. they must be willing to adopt their ideologies for the 21st century for the long-term good of their party. if they do not, they will continue losing electric. a recent report suggests that the republican party rhetoric about immigrants is an issue. one young republican said, i
would vote for him, but i have family who wants to come your. republicans were more moderate and would compromise, things would change. these latinos are a solid support base for democrats. there needs to be more moderate. increasingly, voters are demanding immigration reform. in fact, the wall street turtle found that many republicans want some kind of reform to the deportation process, desperately needed in america. millions of undocumented immigrants live in the united state and there is the already failing message of the past. and our second argument is about international relations.
our trade policy rests firmly on the free and open market. the stronger the ties of human progress. they spearheaded the trade talks that lowered tariffs worldwide, korean the wto, and negotiated the free trade agreement, the precursor to nafta. during president reagan's term, american spending on foreign goods doubled, making products cheaper for americans. there was also a benefit to foreign and developing nations. our partners earn billions. a global spirit and revolutionizing markets. this helped to defeat the undefeatable opponent, the soviet union, once and for all. reagan did not start out tough. he wrote to soviet leaders nationally to negotiate, and he lifted the grain embargo as a sign of good faith, but after playing the good guy for three
years recognize the need to take a hard line approach. he sought sanctions on moscow. president reagan did not mind being combative. he called the soviet union an evil empire. he refused to engage with the ussr and push them to the economic limit. eventually, because of his aggressive tactics, president reagan convinced soviet leader mikhail gorbachev chose to reduce arms. for the end of his presidency, reagan went to berlin and gave a speech to gorbachev directly, mr. gorbachev, tear down this wall. the berlin wall came down only after reagan's presidency. reagan's relevant lesson is
this. we should initially offer the care to everyone. however, if he's an cooperation is turned down, we must give them the stick. otherwise, we will have no backing. leaders like vladimir putin run wild. ronald reagan would given the chance to get the job done, and he accomplished on believable things. he gave newfound strength to the economy, and as matthew will tell you, he rekindled the american spirit. we have never been so proud to oppose. thank you. [applause] nikhil: it seems the chief business of opposition is to confuse the man with the model when it comes to the presidency of ronald reagan. we agree that he was a great man, but we think his uniqueness is exactly the reason why he is
so hard to emulate today area in this speech, i will be deconstructing the case made by the opposition and then introduce our third argument and then reinforce our first w, so first, let's deconstruct what the opposition said in their first speech. the first was that reagan was able to emulate a strong immigration policy by granting amnesty to many illegal immigrants. we agree that during president reagan's time, amnesty might have seemed like a good prospect for handling the problem of illegal immigration. however, the issue is that republicans today do not support amnesty for illegal immigrants. in fact, 65% of republicans and 45% of american voters themselves oppose amnesty plans proposed by president obama alone. this shows that reagan's policies of granting amnesty to illegal immigrants will not
serve to unify the republican party if today but rather divide it even further. and while the policy may have been good in the 1980's, it simply does not hold true today. but more importantly, what we have to consider is that president coolidge consider the changing nature of the american citizenry, the indian citizenship act of 1924, signed by calvin coolidge, and granting full citizenship to america's indigenous people who were at the time called indians. what this demonstrates is that president coolidge was able to prioritize the needs of every single individual in america instead of trying to select and prioritize the needs of key pockets throughout the country. therefore, clearly, the presidency of calvin coolidge should be emulated today. but let's go on to their second
part. they talked about how foreign policy was extremely beneficial. consequently, more effective in foreign policy cases like the resolution to the cold war. however, the reagan cowboy persona also manifested itself in other ways. this style of cowboy foreign policy made the united states unpopular abroad. a cowboy foreign policy would harm u.s. foreign relations. tapered simple, the invasion of iraq or the attack in libya. with today's leaders leaping into conflict, the american people are outraged. for example, iraq is the least
popular war in u.s. history. americans have rejected the idea -- the war between ukraine and russia, but let's go on to the third substantial argument, which is that under calvin coolidge, we had a better foreign policy, and we can see this in three levels of analysis. first, the rate increased collaborative nature. secondly, through enforcing and maintaining the monroe doctrine, and let's look at the nature and how calvin coolidge's ability to ornate with the department better advances foreign policy. in today's society, collaboration is a far better approach to solving and addressing international crises and simply strong-arming international leaders and increasing military intervention. this is something that gop hopefuls need to recognize today, especially at a time when the united states is entangled in so many foreign issues abroad. but the second we have is the monroe doctrine. president coolidge maintained the monroe doctrine, keeping
america dominant in the western hemisphere and increasing our presence in places like latin america. teddy roosevelt had gone to war, but president went there in peace. in havana, to proclaim that all nations here represented stand on an exact footing of equality, the same authority as the largest and the most powerful. his very words signify that he adopted a policy, especially with international negotiations to assure that every single international actor was to be his voice was heard and represented, which proves that the best chance to deescalate foreign conflicts was for him or presentation to address issues abroad.
but the third level of analysis that we give you is through the establishment of a packed. today, we have a sense that the rule of law would reduce international conflict, and president coolidge did also. that is exactly why he signed the pact, it renounced war as a means of solving conflict. coolidge saw that there was not necessarily an individual conflict but that such a plan could have great power. any other nations as a direct result ended up signing that pact. let's look at a modern example of where this foreign policy approach would be beneficial. going back to the conflict between ukraine and russia, military intervention, and helping -- like the conflict is not a wise policy, something that few hopefuls should recognize. by adopting a persona like calvin coolidge did and by maintaining and enforcing the pact, and we will have the peace for negotiations and discussions as a means for the escalating conflicts instead of outright war. war to coolidge was a last resort, and therefore, we should prioritize the foreign policy approach.
it now, let's go on to reinforcing our first and second argument. our first argument centered on calvin coolidge up us to give demeanor. it is said that this simon approach is unable to make any kind of any flippers because that person's voice would be drowned out. this does not mean that you do not make any decision. it simply means you think before you speak. you think before you act, and you think before you leave. this reinforces what president coolidge himself said. do not hurry to legislate. give it a chance to catch up with legislation. this is what a gop hopeful today needs, especially when the republican party is so divided on issues like taxes warm and debt reduction. but then we bring up the economy. both president coolidge and president reagan cut tax rates, and there was a reason for that. it worked in growing the economy.
reagan's spending policies were not as wise as coolidge, even if economic growth took place. from $900 billion to $2.7 trillion in his two terms in office. others could only double it. and we agreed that president reagan had to deal with his predecessor, carter's mistakes. it is simply too grandiose. a better solution to growing the economy is to do what calvin coolidge did, to promote the establishment and further advance the free market to grow the american economy. fundamentally though, because he was able to underpromise and over deliver, we are proud to propose the motion. [applause] matthew: there are no problems with growth. we were left with a literal crisis of confidence, and president reagan was a great optimist, the believer, the one
will defend and rebuild our own, and finally, i will complete our opposition case with our arguments. let's start off with our first argument about calvin coolidge's demeanor. president ronald reagan once said that the greatest leader is not necessarily the one who does the greatest things. he is the one who gets people to do the great things. inspiring others he at what we would say on team opposition is that the gop needs this kind of leader. when voters are leaving the party, and apathy is increasing, we need someone who will inspire and motivate, but second, we would argue that other people cannot emulate president reagan and that when it fails it has negative consequences. what we say on team opposition is that the gop hopefuls should make every attempt to model president reagan's philosophy and policy, even if they cannot manage his large actor personality but we can emulate
his core believe. certainly and finally, we would say that just because gop hopefuls are quiet does not mean that democrats and others will be, as well. even if gop hopefuls have incredible ideas, they will never translate and be heard by the general public, and what we would say is on the gop hopefuls, we need a fighter. and yes, calvin coolidge was extremely effective, maybe too effective, and they cite it as a benefit, and it should actually be seen as a risk. when our economy is as fragile
as ever, the bubble popping will not be compensated. reagan did a more effective and relevant job. he actually reduced spending as a share of gdp. because reagan instituted 86 straight months of gdp growth, the fact that spending increased is not a sign that he did a bad job. instead, it increased proportionally. the second thing we would say is that reagan espoused specific trickle down and supply-side economics, whereas what they advocated were general spending cuts, and today's status quo, we need specific policy. the final argument is about
calvin coolidge' is foreign policy. unfortunately, according to our very own state department, one act is largely viewed as a failure. some things were excellent and noble, but instead, the lack of enforcement mechanism -- what we would see on team opposition is that leaders and dictators could sign the pact and then not follow through on it. we do not think that is an effective foreign policy. the second that we would say is that both did a job when it comes to the monroe doctrine. they were ending the cold war and by pushing off gorbachev. and they need to tell us like leaders like vladimir putin and xi jinping would suddenly change their tune and offering them the possibility of collaboration for so many years. ladies and gentlemen, when the carrot does not work, we give them the stick. second, we are just talking about amnesty. there are the deportation systems that over 70% of republicans would potentially be in favor for. younger and minority voters are
seeking this on this crucial issue. they are waiting for a standardbearer to demonstrate strength and compassion, which president reagan epitomized. looking out for the long-term health of the gop, and even if immigration or was unpopular in the short term, but in the long term, the gop must adjust to demographics in the united states. let's now approach their attack on our argument on foreign policy. reagan had realism based in realism, and the second thing we would say and we carry greater obligation and now, let's go to team opposition by smith's final argument. and president obama, a democrat, ronald reagan tapped into our
idea that we want dynamism and to return to the optimism that once belonged. reagan it united the country. we had economic malaise, the oil embargo, and general discontent. and why do gop of social -- gop officials need to emulate this? people like mr. trump are relying on rudeness to garner attention. in research conducting in september, other gop hopefuls like jeb bush and marco rubio became most associated with, strangely enough, the phrase joyful tortoise, and democrats screamed over them. not many gop hopefuls today have shown resident reagan's charismatic work.
instead, they are either too quiet or too bombastic. we need them to leave the extreme. but despite this, they show that current gop hopefuls are unlikable because of their refusal to compromise. according to politico, and all the gop residential candidates rejected reagan's approach. president reagan's takeaway is this. political brinksmanship is never worth it when it endangers the american good. we need someone to clear the air for the gop and bring our nation back together. thus, we oppose. [applause]
joshua: this summer, i was proud to visit vermont. he still has lasting lessons that can apply to not just the politics but to the politicians. it is for this reason that it is in trouble for us to apply them to today's politics in today's politicians at this great juncture, not just in the history of the republican party but in the history of the country itself. and so, let's begin by applying these lessons to today. we can look at three. firstly, a candidate ought to understand that his demeanor and defines him, that economics is a priority, and that thirdly that a good foreign policy is a friendly foreign policy. and let's begin with this on their highest ground. the idea of demeanor. we agree fundamentally with what was said in the last speech. president reagan is the great communicator.
he is the man able to unite the american people together, but just as nikhil said in his last speech, ronald reagan is hard to replicate. it is for this reason oftentimes much of what reagan has to say gets lost in translation. great things like, mr. gorbachev, tear down this wall, turn into mr. trump saying let's build a wall. as it turns out, that is rather
important. that the same messages are what is trying to be said. the only difference is that mr. reagan, because he is such a man of great character, is able to unite people, while donald trump terrifies them. he divides them. that is the difference between a divided country. it is not the difference in model. it is a difference in manner, and that is what the key distinction is in today's round. how can coolidge, on the other hand, provides a much greater model, one that is more universally applicable, and what he tells us is to under promise and over deliver, that we all ought to act within our means, with which we never before drain. he says that they ought not tell us that they can achieve the impossible, but instead, they ought to collaborate and come together with the other side so that they can produce a more effective policy at every step. fundamentally, we believe that that is what changes the state of american politics. furthermore, when we talk about what wins elections, when democrats like hillary clinton are being criticized because they do not appear genuine enough, and she has to keep saying, "but i am a
grandmother," we run into problems. and bernie sanders and others are well viewed because they are viewed as genuine, we can say that being a genuine politician is important to the american people. and what is more genuine, more friendly, more real than being trustworthy and delivering on your promise? that is what president coolidge had. this is the motto we want to go on june candidates today and for the entire system, which is that ultimately that is how we get out of the quagmire that has trapped us with the issues from immigration reform for policy, crushing the american people under this burden of politics. the second area of analysis and the lesson to be learned is that the economy must be our
priority, and hear what were ronald reagan gives us is two lines. first, that he is able to produce great change from very hard conditions, and we say that is absolutely true. let's not undersell president coolidge. when the stock market was down by 50%, that is rather significant. in fact, it is even more deadly than what happen in the 1929 great depression, because he was able to turn that around. he was able to make that into 200% growth, and that is the kind of economic balance, economic growth that brought electricity to american homes, cars to american garages, food onto the american table. ronald reagan talked about making america great again. calvin coolidge is what made america great in the first place, and ultimately, it is that fundamental balance of economic austerity which calvin coolidge was able to pursue to such an excellent degree, which is why believe he is a fundamental model for how economic policy should look. and the second thing we learn is on trade, and he was able to pursue trade and globalization and connect the world, and that is absolutely true. but this is like criticizing president calvin coolidge
because he did not have a cell phone. the technology was just not there. we think this is interesting but irrelevant, and fundamentally, you're not going to be in to see any kind of success on this matter because calvin coolidge did believe that the chief business of the american people is business, and he worked to empower them in a global setting. now, that was fundamentally different in the 1920's that it was in the 1980's. we acknowledge that, but we believe that corpus will is something that is likely to apply, whether you cannot use a cell phone or whether you are in the 20th century. and immigration. they say president reagan was able to pursue immigration reform to a great degree. that was true, but it does not contextualize well. first, we had nikhil stand up and tell us about amnesty and what they talked about, and
secondly, even when you try to apply to reagan model today, does not always work that well. look towards presidential candidate marco rubio, as he tried with the gang of eight to pursue a united front for immigration reform and instead only divided the country further. only on immigration reform and only stagnated. for the mentally, that is the problem. and then you have the reverse effect. and then the other area we have on this idea of immigration which the opposition is still proud of is that in the current context, republicans are not seen as pro-immigration, despite the fact that reagan was the great reformer. people who are of minorities or strong.
they do not see how they are expecting the long lasting prosperity which they are talking about, and a third layer of analysis here is on foreign policy. yes. president reagan was an amazing foreign policy person, but that does not change when you look towards the model, because the model gets misapplied and misunderstood. it is what leads us to great interventionism when we ought to be seeking collaboration with our friends and neighbors. when we do not collaborate with our own state department and certainly when we do not collaborate with the outside world, it is very difficult to justify our policy. calvin coolidge did just that he understands that demeter has an impact -- demeanor has an impact. we are proud of both the man and the model of president calvin coolidge. thank you.
[applause] sonya: the most terrifying words in the english language are i am from the government, and i am here to help. these words said by president reagan exemplify what many voters of field today in 2016. in this speech, i will be examining how today's gop hopefuls and best improve their campaign through three questions. first, which model best attracts voters to the gop party. second, which model best bolsters the american economy and provides benefits for the common person, and third, which model best reasserts this.
it on to the first question, which model best attracts voters to the gop party. there are a series of things republican party should be concerned about in the context of the 2016 election, specifically three demographics. youth, minorities, and women. by 2020, millennial's are expected to make up 40% of the electorate. historically, glossing over the youth vote has lost votes, specifically mitt romney and john mccain. they have not won the female vote since 1988, a deep rooted problem for the gop. president reagan recognized the necessity of seeking the female voice by nominating the first e-mail supreme court justice, sandra day o'connor. today, the extremist views of
several republican candidates alienate female voters. it was president reagan's demeanor that road even many democrats to the republican party. in the midst of the iran-contra crisis, the oil embargo, and general discontent, reagan was the great communicator, the unifying force that tied us all together. today, the american population is more polarized than ever. we need a great communicator to unite us all, but not only did president reagan unite the american public, he also united his own party as well as congress. president reagan led bipartisan support that passed important pieces of legislation, such as the 1986 tax reform act. while the demeanor may have been important in the 1920's, we need a strong and unifying force to speak for republicans. next, team opposition wants to be quite president ronald reagan
to mr. donald trump. first, president reagan had much better hair than donald trump. then the attention seeking attitude, it was president reagan's warm personality that made even democrats gravitate towards him. i am not asking that all of our politicians become hollywood actors and actresses, but the american people are more willing to vote for a man or a woman who proves to be human just like them. this might explain why so far the republican front runners are non-politicians. the american public is not satisfied with politics as usual.
the second question, which model best bolsters the american economy and provides benefits for the common person. president coolidge's fiscal policy encourage speculation, with the help the investment of the mid-1920's and to gambling and for the growth of the time, president coolidge bus with policies are also not exacerbated. income and buying power. on the other hand, president reagan's policy of supply side and trickle-down economics reinvigorated the economy. there was still the leftover from the nixon, ford, and carter administrations. yet, nominal federal spending increased, with federal spending as a share of the economy falling, making goods cheaper for the average american, and while calvin coolidge did make noteworthy cuts, it was before the existence of noteworthy programs, such as social security and medicare, which are problems we have deal with in the status quo today. on the topic of immigration reform, there are two crucial regions why republicans have to be more susceptible to adaptation if they want to be successful in 2016. first, the gop resistance to change alienate young voters and immigrant voters. they need someone like president
reagan who is willing to take a stand for the long-term good of the party, and second, 70% of republicans as was spoken of earlier agreed that there needs to be some type of reform, the immigration system, for example, through deportation. they cannot staunchly stick to old-school ideology in hopes of keeping up today. they must be more open to adaptation and change, and moving on to the third and final question, which model best reasserts america's global presence. this is two ways as demonstrated by president reagan. first, a globalized economy and second, a tough approach. a free, open market and globalization. as president reagan once said, our policy rested firmly on the foundation of free and open
markets. and in responses earlier, team coolidge said at the time, there was no such thing as globalization. however, that proves our point exactly. given that we live in a globalized society, the gop motto with their globalized trade policies on a nonexistent or outdated policy -- president reagan, on the other hand, engaged in the global economy and treated numerous international treaties and organizations, demonstrating his ability to cooperate with other nations. for example, he led efforts to create the wto as well as facilitated agreements for the free trade agreement. isolationism as shown historically has only stagnated growth in the u.s. economy.
next, hard-line foreign policy. the cold war was a terrifying time, not only in america, but the rest of the world. president reagan first tried it the coolidge way with negotiations, but after three years of little success, president reagan recognized the importance of backing up his words with money and military strength. it is what inspired americans and eastern europeans, whereas president coolidge's laid-back approach to foreign policy likely would not vacate foreign leaders like vladimir putin and xi jinping today. today, the gop candidates must understand the importance of cooperation within one's cabinet, as both presidents reagan and coolidge exhibited. but at the same time, a strong leader needs to be willing to negotiate and to be tough when these negotiations aren't working. not all presidents should be war hawks, but president reagan leaves a legacy that there is more to being president and constant isolation and appeasement. without a doubt, president coolidge and president reagan were the best presidents for
their time. in the ages of the internet and globalization, however, we see that president reagan's model remains more in touch, more relevant for today's gop candidates. campaigning is not just about electing a president. it is about offering a vision for transforming america. it is because today the american people need a great communicator more than ever that we are proud to oppose today's motion. [applause]
>> the republic party is at a political crossword. unless a new standardbearer can be found to unite the party and the nation. republicans must have a leader with dynamism, power, and passion. we have had two such in this debate. but the next question is this. which model is most relevant? president ronald reagan. this debate boils down to three issues. first, i'm going to talk about presidential demeanor. second, i'm going to an life the debate on economic policy, we will conclude with a discussion on foreign policy, but first, presidential demeanor. in this new world of social media, entertainment, and instant communication, we need a leader who can use these outlets to the party advantage, and in president coolidge's time, less words may have been viewed as an asset, but today, they might very well be drowned out by louder voices. just because republicans choose to be quiet does not mean that bernie or hillary or donald will
also. the gop hopefuls, voters want a fighter and refuse to engage with hopefuls like marco or jeb bush because they feel like they are not occupying the space enough. to that extent, casting a ballot in favor of team opposition seems relatively obvious idiot but second, on the issue of immigration, we did not say we want to capture people who are so staunchly democratic there is no chance of them ever going republican, but there is a massive population of voters out there that want to vote republican but feel that they cannot do so because of this issue. to that extent, the gop loses a little footing in the short term on immigration, with the ability to thrive in the future. we need to shatter the myth that
the gop is not the party for women, minorities, or younger voters. we need to reform the negative images that have surrounded the gop in 2015. the third part of the debate of presidential demeanor is the claim that individuals like trump misinterpret president reagan's legacy. it is not actually modeling reagan's presidency. reagan never, ever acted as childishly as mr. trump. we should model the policy and passion of president reagan and bring our gop hopefuls back from the extreme and back towards kindness and compassion. that is what president reagan's presidency was. on team opposition, we advocate ideals of globalization. team opposition advocates isolation. president coolidge did not live
during a time of globalization, but looking at his presidency may not give us the tools that we need. the times have changed. only president reagan's presidency was based in a similar reality. president reagan's spearhead of the free trade agreement between canada and the wto. it may not be president coolidge's fault that he lived during the 1920's, but that does not mean we have present reagan's achievements. finally on foreign policy, today's crises are more similar to the ones that president reagan faced. we have enormous uprisings in china, russia, forces in the middle east. president reagan was effective but don't with other kinds of dynamics. president reagan's policy, on
the other hand, ended the cold war. he offered the carrot. to isolate. there was one pact which we refuted earlier perfectly exemplifies this, but when the usa may be losing its authority abroad and subsequently allowing leaders like vladimir putin to set the rules of the game, we need to get back on the board and embrace reaganism. there needs to be a point in time in which the american public say enough is enough and take a stand. president calvin coolidge was the right man for the time. president reagan was, as well. today, the challenge facing the republican party is choosing the right standardbearers for this nation for this critical time in history. we believe the right model is the one established by the great communicator, president ronald reagan. [applause] nikhil: we fundamentally agree. to sum up this debate, we will
look at three questions we need to look at to evaluate whether president reagan or president coolidge is the best model for gop hopefuls today. the first question is who best characterizes the presidency? the second, who best promotes economic growth? and finally, who best protects our foreign policy.