Fetterman’s Debate Challenges: Selling Policies and Proving He’s Fit to Serve
by Mark Steyn—
Last Thursday, in a debate sponsored by the Constitution Project, conservative pundit Mark Krikorian, the President of the Institute for Research & Education on Human Rights, debated the constitutional lawyer Robert Fetterman. In a debate that, as often happens, ended with a lot of back and forth, Fetterman was challenged by Krikorian on his views on the Constitution of the United States, and was forced to defend his beliefs in a series of sharp exchanges.
As usual, Fetterman, who calls himself a constitutional scholar and philosopher, showed an impressive command of the facts and arguments. He showed a good command of the facts and arguments. As often as he was challenged, Fetterman was able to defend himself vigorously against the charges that he is an unqualified hack with no credentials, or that he is a “bully” and a “tyrant” who will destroy free speech. There were a few moments to which Krikorian did not rise to an adequate defense of his position. Some of those were the points where he failed to raise a basic question in his response. In each case, I think, he was able to answer the question. I’ll summarize Krikorian’s points, and briefly discuss some of the issues that arose. This is my second experience with Fetterman, as I have interviewed him in the past, and I intend to continue to challenge him.
First, Krikorian was asked a series of questions on what he meant by his claim that the Constitution is “an exercise in authoritarianism.” Here is a sample of Fetterman’s reply:
Q: Would a “tyranny” on one end or the other be more or less effective than a dictatorship? (“tyranny”)
A: I think that’s a difficult question. I think the answer is, as the Founders wrote in the Constitution, is that they were really concerned that government, especially a large, powerful, and perhaps undemocratic and totalitarian government would abuse its powers and, as the Founders wrote in the Constitution, be unresponsive and unresponsive to the needs of the American people and their expectations. And that’s what they wanted to prevent
