Harvard Republicans Present Vision for America in Debate Against Democrats

Contributed by Richard Y. Rodgers

The Harvard Republican Club (HRC) went head-to-head against the Harvard College Democrats (Dems) in a recent debate moderated by Daniel Carpenter, Allie S. Freed Professor of Government and Chair of the Department of Government. The event drew a packed audience to the Science Center, where the two sides sparred over immigration, economic policy, and foreign policy.

On economic policy, Ian Chung ’28 of the Democrats attempted to lambast “Trumponomics” as a system designed to enrich the wealthy. This, according to the HRC’s Carter A. Stewart ’25, seemed to miss the point of economic revolution.

Citing the failures of bloated government intervention, the Left’s hostility toward job creators, and the Left’s concerted effort to undermine the American earner, Stewart challenged the audience to consider what kind of future awaits them.

“I really want to be popular, so I'm going to start this speech by attacking all of you,” Stewart began. “Those cushy, finance, consulting, NGO, jobs that you're recruiting for—that you're studying for—they're not going to exist very soon. They shouldn't exist.”

His argument was met with enthusiastic applause.

Then came the topic of foreign policy. The HRC criticized the Biden administration’s mismanagement of everything from Afghanistan and China to Ukraine and Israel. Elliott Detjen ‘26 advocated for a robust national defense, a strong stance against America’s adversaries, and a commitment to supporting allies, while emphasizing the need for a more equitable arrangement toward the defense of the international order. The Dems’ position, voiced by Rachel Fields ‘27, offered vague commitments to “diplomacy” while failing to address the “realpolitik” of global affairs.

Henry D. Pahlow ’28, representing the Dems, attempted to paint immigration restrictions as inhumane and accused conservatives of politicizing the issue. HRC President Leo A. Koerner ’26 called for a merit-based system that prioritizes American citizens over illegal entrants.

Pahlow suggested that the detention of Rumeysa Ozturk pointed to a systematic abuse of power. For Koerner, the detention of Ozturk is an inevitable consequence of turning over the hourglass on our American republic and halting the invasion of the Southern border.

Citing the success of Trump-era policies in curbing illegal immigration, Koerner argued that the United States should prioritize “highly skilled, desirable people” rather than allow uncontrolled migration that strains national resources. Koerner pointed to the changing realities across the nation, noting that when one goes to these places, “it’s not like America.”

Whereas the Democrats relied on emotional appeals to the existing liberal world order, the Harvard Republicans articulated a new vision of a strong, prosperous, and free America—one where government interference is minimized, law and order are upheld, and an assertive America stands tall on the world stage. For those in attendance paying any attention, the contrast was clear: the Republican Party offers the only viable path forward for America. Despite being outnumbered in academia, the Harvard Republican Club provided sound, logical alternatives to the tired talking points of the left. And if this debate was any indication, the future of conservatism at Harvard—and beyond—looks brighter than ever.