Two political science
professors, Henry Nau and Vincent Stine, faced off Wednesday in a debate sponsored
by the GW chapters of College Republicans and College Democrats.
Stine, who has taught
on topics ranging from religion’s influence on politics to the nature of
political parties, represented the Democratic side. Nau, who has been a
professor of international affairs since 1973 and was a senior staff member on
President Reagan’s National Security Council, represented the Republicans.
The debate featured
very little back-and-forth banter reminiscent of last year’s presidential and
Republican primary debates. Instead the professors answered questions from
moderator and fellow GW professor Daniel Ericson, and once opinions were given,
the discussion moved on to new topics.
On the question of
the country’s fiscal situation, both professors agreed that deals should
revolve around reforming entitlements and closing tax loopholes, with Nau
taking a stand against “agricultural and industrial subsidies.”
The professors also
agreed that the problematic implementation of The Affordable Care Act has
reflected poorly on the Obama administration.
“I think it is a big
embarrassment for the administration,” said the left-leaning Stine, “but I
don’t think (Secretary of Health and Human Services) Sebelius should resign.”
Nau expressed his
belief that many provisions of the ACA could have been worked out in the
private sector, and that government only makes healthcare reform less
efficient.
“Insurance companies
easily could have solved the pre-existing condition problem on its own…don’t
wait for government to solve your problem. Go out there and solve them.”
Ending the debate, Professor
Ericson asked the participants to predict the Democratic and Republican
presidential nominees in 2016. Nau and Stine were reluctant to give
predictions, noting that there are no clear front runners.
Both agreed that in
every election cycle, it is impossible to predict circumstances and events that
lead to candidate nominations.
