EDITORIAL: On the Lamont-Sununu Assembly
by Nhan Phan ‘24
On Tuesday, Sep. 19, the Academy hosted an assembly conversation between New Hampshire Governor Chris Sununu and Connecticut Governor Ted Lamont. In what was initially thought to be a decisive, extreme partisan debate about pressing issues impacting society today, this assembly provided a perfect example of what discussions surrounding American public policy should be like one that is civil, respectful, open to disagreements, and direct (as much as possible).
Don’t get me wrong, Sununu and Lamont are both seasoned politicians and several of their responses were political. I don’t quite necessarily agree with Sununu’s usage of examples when asked about why New Hampshire has the lowest minimum wage in the country, but I understand where he is coming from. Though he never stated this explicitly, Sununu’s usage of San Francisco’s homelessness crisis (where he repeatedly emphasized that there were 10,000 homeless) in comparison to their minimum wage ($18.07 as of July 2023, according to the City of San Francisco official website) created an inference that high minimum wage had a direct correlation to increased poverty. This may be true. An increase in minimum wage can cause employers to lay off workers, leading to downward pressure on wages in the informal sector by increasing competition for informal jobs. However, low-wage workers are in insecure jobs without a stable wage, making it impossible for them to get their foot on the starting line and unable to invest in education, a car, a house, or even a better, well-paying job. Moreover, the poverty crisis in San Francisco is not only caused by the high minimum wage: it is essential to remember that the aftermath of the pandemic, an oncoming recession, and a cost-of-living crisis are other consideration factors. Nonetheless, what struck me most during that segment was the respectfulness that the speakers, moderators, and the audience held.
In Harkness, Exonians are encouraged to take ownership of their ideas and comments. Something that simple may be the critical solution to having respectful discussions regarding conflicting ideas: during the assembly, I appreciated how Sununu and Lamont took ownership of their comments by explicitly stating at the beginning of their remarks whether their views aligned or differed with each other’s. This indication allowed viewers like me to distinctly understand that there is a robust conversation happening, not a defamatory, inflammatory shouting match between two grown adults who can’t seem to understand that the issues they are debating are bigger than themselves. Moreover, during the segment on approaches to the opioid crisis, I appreciated how Lamont gave credit to Sununu for his work; as good Exonians know to give credit where credit is due in Harkness, maybe Lamont did learn a thing or two during his time here at Exeter.
“When all voices are equally represented, we are held accountable for our views and defend them with our understanding. ”
Sununu admittedly gave a more modest, political answer when asked about Donald Trump. However, Lamont (at the hilarious expense of the moderator) gave a direct, honest opinion on the former president. To me, this moment somewhat represents the state of party-politics tensions here in the United States of America: Democrats hold onto their steadfast determination to avoid another Trump administration, while Republicans are being careful with what they say but perhaps yearn for change deep down. At least Sununu was slightly more explicit in his call for a change in new leadership as he claimed a “downgrade to yesterday’s ideas” is against America’s ethos. While it is relevant to note that neither candidate is running for office, this reasoning still holds. In a recent Republican Presidential Debate hosted by Fox News, when asked whether each candidate would support Trump should he be the critical Republican presidential nominee, every candidate raised their hands but continued to criticize Trump’s policies later in the debate.
Regardless, this assembly gave me much hope that civility in politics is alive. If anything, we should have more of these discussions: when all voices are equally represented, we are held accountable for our views and defend them with our understanding. During these moments, we are exposed to flaws in our understanding and, in turn, expose the flaws in others. The respect exhibited in the assembly is an optimistic sign that free speech can thrive when everyone comes prepared with a basis of understanding. As Sununu best put it, “empathy is something we practice.”
