Sue Lani Madsen: At Gonzaga, everyone wins in the ‘More vs. Less’ government debate

When politicians come together to address any issue, one question underlies all others. Last Monday, two sides squared off at Gonzaga University’s Hemmingson Center to answer that question: Do we need more or less government to solve the problem?

About 300 people, mostly students, lined up to enter the ballroom in spite of excellent weather. One draw was the team anchors, two well-known, well-liked GU professors. Seeing your professor in the hot seat relieves the pressure of approaching finals almost as well as spring Frisbee on the lawn.

Michael Treleaven, chair of the political science department, was the local ringer on the More Government team. He was joined by Zach Carter, HuffPost’s senior political economy reporter. The Less Government team featured associate professor of business Donald Hackney with Tim Carney, a visiting fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.

The Washington Policy Center Young Professionals club at GU sponsored the debate. “Our main objective was to demonstrate how it’s possible to discuss controversial topics constructively,” according to Tessa Shelton, club president. “It doesn’t happen very often. Usually campus speakers come and preach to the people who agree with them, and we never get to see a discussion.”

These speakers explored the More vs. Less question with brief exchanges on a series of issues – rising college tuition, rising health care costs, tax reform and climate change. Local TV news anchor Nadine Woodward moderated.

It started with opening statements from each team. Carter for the “More” team questioned the question. “Government is not a quantitative variable that can be dialed up or down. It’s not how much government to have but how to do government,” said Carter. He pointed out there is no totally free market and that free markets exist within rules established by government.

Hackney spoke for the “Less” team. “I’m trying to cover 2,500 years of Western civilization in three minutes!” he quipped. He cited the social teachings of the Catholic Church on the concept of subsidiarity as the key to both how much and how to do government. Subsidiarity emphasizes decentralization, dealing with problems at the most local level possible. Hackney emphasized individual choice as the key freedom of the free market and had just started on the “Federalist Papers” when his three minutes ran out.

Short bursts from each side described how the Less or More philosophy shaped their preferred solutions in each issue area. Hackney and Carney often returned to the theme of subsidiarity, pointing out how big government is more susceptible to manipulation.

On climate change, More Government supported a higher carbon tax that “really pinches us … using price mechanism to push down our production of greenhouse gases.” Less Government said the worst thing government could do is devise a clever plan to reduce carbon emissions. There will always be unintended consequences and, secondly, corporate special interests will always have a seat at the table. Big government policy is why we have big government support for ethanol fuel, a net producer of greenhouse gases.

Treleaven and Carter agreed on the problems of lobbyist influence, then pivoted to point to less driving and more public transportation as a climate change solution. Carter got a laugh when he admitted “I live in New York and the subways are disgusting.”

Carter clearly enjoyed playing to the crowd. He may or may not have been joking when the discussion turned to tax reform and how to pay for more government. “Taxes exist to regulate inflation, they don’t exist to fund the government. Government can always fund itself because it prints money.”

Hackney had the last word before audience questions, emphasizing that concentrating power eventually erodes liberty. “How much control do I have over federal agencies and bureaucrats ginning up rules? Regulatory agencies are outside of our control, outside of our vote.”

There was a lot of laughter during the evening. Shelton was pleased at an atmosphere focusing on civil conversation. Carter and Carney were invited as sparring partners who are friends off stage even though they disagree with conviction on how to approach many issues. “It doesn’t make you a bad person if you disagree. We should be able to talk.”

Less demonizing, more seeking common ground. The WPC Young Professionals nailed it.