The AHI – A Welcoming Community

Before I joined Hamilton College as a bright-eyed, forward-thinking freshman in the fall of 2019, I was informed by the guidance counselor at my high school that graduates who attended the college had spoken highly of the Alexander Hamilton Institute (AHI). It was described as a welcoming community, determined to help supplement a Hamilton College education by sharing perspectives that differ from the left-leaning norm of our community. As an academically-inclined student who appreciated the merits and pitfalls of all parts of the political spectrum, I was excited to explore this opportunity and was even more delighted to be welcomed into a community that fosters personal growth, promotes academic rigor, and accepts dissenting opinions. As a moderate, I often find myself walking the line between left-leaning social policies and right-leaning economic policies. Like what I think is a silent majority of the Hamilton College community, I identify as socially liberal and fiscally conservative on most issues. My political identity is respected and accepted by the AHI.

The AHI has also provided me with opportunities I would be able to find nowhere else. I was fortunate to be accepted to the WAPONS (Washington Program on National Security) program, open to students from across the country but limited to less than twenty per year, attending with two other Hamilton students and a dozen from various institutions across the nation. Led by the sweet and respected Dr. Juliana Pilon, former Professor of Politics and Culture and Director of the Center for Culture and Security at the Institute of World Politics in Washington DC,  the program took us around the city and politically around the world, from dawn to dusk, speaking with influential figures who work in a variety of venues involving national security. I had the unique opportunity to have discussions with Raytheon lobbyists speaking about how defense contracts operate, a Brigadier General of the U.S. Army who operated in Afghanistan and described his personal experience, experts in Middle Eastern politics who offered enlightened perspectives on deteriorating Israeli-Palestinian relations and nuclear proliferation, and representatives from the International Monetary Fund’s Polish delegation who addressed the future of cryptocurrency in regard to national and global economic agendas.

Dr. Pilon radiated expertise, energy, and passion for every trip we took on our two-week journey, and that enthusiasm clearly permeated the program's atmosphere. Even after hours, when she went home after a long day of leading “her children” around the capital, the students often met to discuss the day’s events together with her right-hand man, Mason Goad (a scholar and graduate student pursuing a higher degree in International Security), who assisted in all daily activities. As if Dr. Pilon’s connections allowing her to bring in a variety of high-profile figures weren’t enough, she invited the whole WAPONS delegation to her home outside the city, where we had coffee, hors d'oeuvres, and dinner-table chats about her and her accomplished husband Dr. Roger Pilon’s antics in graduate school and beyond. It was one of the most rewarding experiences I’ve had to date.

The WAPONS program was one of the best summer experiences in which I’ve been involved.  Informative and engaging, exhausting but worth every minute, it helped foster new understandings of the meaning of national security, including the importance of collective action and collaboration in finding modern, creative solutions to difficult, timeless problems.  This opportunity was possible only through the coordinated efforts of leaders of the AHI, especially its president Dr. Robert Paquette and Dr. Pilon, one of its Senior Fellows.

My experience with the AHI has been everything I expected and more – accepting, engaging, philosophical, and academic. The opportunities I have had through the AHI are unparalleled in quality and unmatched in perspective. A community that welcomes dissenting opinions and will challenge members and non-members alike with occasions to analyze political and apolitical topics, the AHI takes a facts-based and reasoned approach with which every member of the Hamilton Community should engage. Whether you agree with the right-leaning tendencies of the AHI’s president and staff or not, it is always beneficial to understand and discuss the reasoning and opinions in alternatives to one’s own beliefs, to stray from the spiraling whirlpool of confirmation bias. The AHI offers that, in a safe environment for intellectual discussion and dissent.

European Perspectives on the EU: Part III

Note: This is the final installment of an interview with two Hamilton College students from EU countries. 

What are your thoughts on the leadership of the European Union, and do you feel that the leadership needs to be reformed? 

Chiara Bondi: The EU parliament works in a unique way, and I don't know too much, to be perfectly honest, about how it all works. I just know that some of the most politically important countries in the EU are some of the most stable and independent ones, like Germany. Germany deals with its own problems, and only if something involves the rest of Europe do they call on the EU for support. The EU was originally created to protect all European nations from any attack or threat. But currently its leadership is so bureaucratic and involved in micromanaging the affairs of member countries that I do not know how effectively it can be reformed. 

The EU has some good things and a lot of flaws. It would be impossible to reform it with just simple changes. Rather, very deep reforms, fundamentally changing the EU with new treaties and agreements, would be required. Someone in the EU parliament who wants radical, fundamental changes would have to get enough support in the parliament to become leader of the EU before it could really think about reform. Would it be bad if one powerful leader came in and forcefully made sweeping changes? Probably not, because the EU’s system is currently broken – for example, letting someone like the Catalonian rebel leader Carles Puidgemont escape justice. He escaped and can’t be extradited back to Spain, since Spanish laws do not apply to Germany and Belgium, countries he fled to. And this has had a politically crippling effect in Spain. Radical reform of the EU might be problematic in the short term, but in the long term will be beneficial. 

Gabriele Fett: I would say we need more direct elections, since we don’t really vote for the person leading the EU, only for representatives. I don’t know how that would work, though. A few large countries that agree with each other and disagree with smaller countries could band together and elect a leader that represents their interests, screwing everyone else. Voters in Germany, France, Italy, and Spain could just dominate the leadership election. It would be like California and New York and maybe Texas dominating U.S. elections. If there were a better checks-and-balances system in the EU that could make it more vulnerable or at least more responsive to public opinion, that would be good too.

In 2020, the United Kingdom officially left the European Union. Do you feel that your home country should follow the U.K. and leave? And what are your reasons for either remaining or leaving? 

Chiara: I’ve been asked this question quite a few times. I think Italy needs to get their s*** together a lot better before leaving. Right now, if they left the EU they wouldn’t be doing as well as the U.K. is. One of the pros of the EU is that most countries use one currency, the Euro. Before the U.K. left, there was no Schengen Area and you had to go through immigration, and it had a different monetary system based on the pound, so it was already quite separate from the rest of the EU. The only thing they were getting from the EU was the defense agreements, and they realized they could defend their country on their own and that there was no overarching threat to them. Also, the U.K. has always had a really strong relationship with the United States, so if anything were to happen to them, they would work with the U.S. 

Italy does not have any of this. It is part of the Schengen Area and does not have its own independent currency. If you look at Italy throughout history, it has always changed sides to whatever seemed to benefit them, and never stuck to one idea. So in order to leave the EU and still function properly without a decade of disaster, they first need to establish better diplomatic relations outside of the EU, develop their own monetary system, change how the ports of entry work, and enforce border control since Italy would no longer be a member of the Schengen Area. Can they leave the EU next week? Not a chance in hell. Italy is not independent enough, stable enough, and to be perfectly honest, does not have smart enough leadership. I don’t trust Salvini, Conte, or Gentolini with my life. The first thing I would fix is the internal problems in Italy. They need a stable and competent government that people can trust before they even think about leaving the EU. 

Gabriele: Italy should definitely not leave the EU. Unlike the U.K., we do not have a robust economy. It’s pretty weak for the most part, and it’s very tourist-oriented and service-oriented. We are not big exporters of important materials or goods. We export fancy clothes and fancy cars, but Gucci and Ferrari are not the reason most people are employed in Italy. So it would be silly to rely on frivolous exports. Italy is also in massive debt, and Germany has helped a lot with money so it doesn’t fall under like Greece. It would be like shooting themselves in the foot to leave. Maybe a country like Holland, Denmark, or Austria could leave, because they have much more robust economies and governments that function much better than Italy. The EU is almost like a babysitter for Italian governments. 

In one sentence, how has the EU affected your life? 

Chiara: The EU has opened my eyes politically and culturally, as it has enabled me to see so many different cultures and learn how to interact with people and appreciate people with different ways of life than my own, to see different political ideologies and how the world actually runs. Visiting and seeing everything firsthand teaches you a lot, and I appreciate this, despite my criticism of how outdated the EU is and the many problems it has inadvertently created. 

Gabriele: The EU has made my life easier with the ability to travel without having much difficulty. I fly a lot, especially when I was living in Italy and traveling to visit family members in the U.S. Traveling from Rome to Frankfurt to Los Angeles, or Rome to Paris to LA, and being able to go through the lines quickly without passports is really nice. And flying back into the EU is nice. There are two customs lines, one for EU passengers and another for non-EU passengers, and it can be up to three times faster for EU passengers. You just show them your identification and they let you go through.

America’s Response to War in Europe

The Russian invasion of Ukraine is one of the most historically significant foreign policy actions since the turn of the century. Many will die, and the ramifications of President Putin’s actions will affect the world for years to come. The Biden Administration and NATO are facing a momentous task. They have acted diligently so far, but political pressures will only grow for our world leaders. The United States has a notably steep road ahead.

Observe the private sector, Congress, and the media carefully going forward. To start with the private sector: despite early dropoffs in the stock market, war should be terrific for our economy. History serves as our guide here; World War II lifted us from the Great Depression, while the more recent Russian invasion of Crimea resulted in an initial market selloff, followed by a market surge. The media motivations behind emboldening war cries are just as clear: more conflict equals more viewership, and therefore more money. With most politicized media outlets facing ratings slumps of late, media executives would welcome flashy updates about the “War in Europe” to their 24-hour cycles with open arms. 

Looking to Capitol Hill: keep in mind that wartime presidents and Congresses are very popular. Be prepared for politicians on both sides of the aisle to advocate for increased military action against Russian aggression. They have “skin in the game,” although not compared with the soldiers who could be Europe-bound in no time flat. Democrats will use Ukraine to divert attention away from their inflation–enabling economic policies, while many hawkish Republicans will use this opportunity to further bolster national defense and American troop presences across Eastern Europe.

To the credit of this White House, President Biden has adamantly confined punishments of Russia to targeted sanctions. He understands that Ukraine is not a NATO ally, and that a war between nuclear powers over Ukraine’s sovereignty remains highly undesirable. But even so, those unpopular Democrats and hawkish Republicans will emerge in short time – against the wills of their constituencies ­– and Biden will have an increasingly difficult time ignoring their calls to arms.

Two points to keep in mind as we watch the U.S. response to the crisis are American energy policy and the quality – in my view, the strategic inadequacy – of Biden’s foreign policy officials.

The Biden Administration enacted flawed energy policies and they need to reverse course fast. The United States now imports between 12 and 26 million barrels of oil from Russia each month, after losing our energy independence status last year. Will Biden sanction Russian oil companies, thereby raising domestic fuel prices even more, or does he leave those companies untouched? The first outcome appears more likely, as Russia is a petroleum (and natural gas) country and the best way for Biden and NATO to cause real economic damage is by targeting Russian energy production capacities. If this is indeed likely, we should prepare for average gas prices to surpass four dollars per gallon in a short time. The policy prescription for Team Biden here is simple: the administration needs to ignore the progressive wing of his party and bulk up our energy infrastructure. We are not in peacetime anymore, and “climate czar” John Kerry’s excessive energy gambles unacceptably threaten the American people.

Biden’s foreign policy team is utterly and woefully predictable. Between President Obama and the West forfeiting Crimea in 2014, Biden forfeiting Afghanistan last year, and refreshed American dependencies on Russian oil, Putin considered weak targeted sanctions as his worst-case scenario. With President Trump, Putin never knew what he was going to get; this seems to have resulted in a four-year Russian imperial hiatus. But the hiatus is now over, the establishment foreign policy bureaucrats are back in charge, and their playbook has been predictable since the end of the Cold War. While I am not advocating untested foreign policy approaches toward an aggressive nuclear power, Biden’s national security officials must be more creative with their strategies and keep our adversaries guessing.

Mike Tyson once said, “Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the face.” No one knew how Putin would strike Ukraine, while few seem to have expected him to invade so broadly and quickly. There will be confusion in NATO countries about how to respond, amplifying the importance of clear direction from President Biden and European leaders. The West has just been punched in the face, and our leaders are now in the game of damage control. Let us hope that they will lead and represent the free world well. 

European Perspectives on the EU: Part II

Note: This article is the second part of an interview by Philip Chivily on the European Union. He interviewed two residents of the European Union, Chiara Bondi and Gabriele Fett, both attending Hamilton College.

Do you have any criticism of the European Union? 

Chiara Bondi:  Oh, yeah. From a cultural point of view, the EU is excellent. Politically, I think the EU has created a sense of dependency for most of its members, because now it is hard for them to assert their autonomy or leave.

To give you an example, Spain entered into a conflict with Morocco in 2002 because a group of Moroccan soldiers took over the small Perejil Island between Spain and Morocco. The island is extremely tiny, about the size of Hamilton College. The fact that Spain felt the need to contact all the other countries in the EU to fight Morocco for an island the size of a peanut says a lot about what a country feels like it can do. Spain didn’t want Morocco to control it because they didn’t want Morocco to get any closer. The idea that it had to call upon the EU for support and aid to kick Morocco out of this island says a lot. The EU should be a last resort after trying every other option.

Another example is: In the 2010s, France suffered many terrorist attacks. The culprits were people who immigrated there from non-Schengen countries and had lived in France for a long time. Immigration policy should be 95 percent France’s decision, and the EU should not really step in. Immigration policy in Spain is Spain’s decision, and immigration policy in Italy is Italy’s decision.

 A situation like a radical minority of immigrants launching terrorist attacks on French soil is a local issue, and I don’t see the point of bringing in the EU. To rely on the EU to solve terrorism problems related to immigration would be like the U.S. calling on NATO to solve its mass shooting crisis. I think the EU is just really outdated in that sense. 

Gabriele Fett:  I’m overall pro-EU like most Europeans are, but with some criticisms. The reason there are many anti-EU movements now is the perception that many of its bureaucrats are disconnected from reality, distant from most people, making a lot of money compared with the average citizen. That they are making rules no one understands, with no logic behind them, and that when people criticize them the critics are called populists and racists. Not to say there are not racists and populists.

 We have definitely seen things such as skinheads in Northern Europe and Poland, and many people in these places being very anti-immigrant. But there is a distinct difference between someone who admires Hitler, or says “get the brown people out of Europe,” and a concerned Italian citizen saying “I’m not sure if we can afford bringing this many people here. Do we have the resources, and do they have the skills?” It seems that EU bureaucrats treat those two groups of people the same, which is very dangerous. It’s like the difference between a racist person voting for Trump and a person who is not racist at all voting for him for economic reasons – and you are lumping them together in the same category, which could not be further from the truth. It’s a dangerous precedent. I guess the criticism is that the bureaucrats can’t take criticism.

European Perspectives on the EU: Part I

The European Union is a controversial and confusing entity. During the past decade, it has increased its influence across its domain despite losing one of its largest member states, the United Kingdom. I am no seer, but I expect the European Union to further integrate its members more closely together, and to expand further into Eastern Europe and even to parts of the former Soviet Union in the next few decades. Regardless of your opinions on the European Union – whether you believe it has improved the lives of hundreds of millions of Europeans and made Europe a more progressive or welcoming place, or that it is a technocratic socialist forerunner of a dangerous New World Order – it has increased peace and stability on a continent known for nearly perpetual warfare since the Roman Empire. In a way, it is a more concrete 21st-century version of the “Concert of Europe,” the international diplomatic system that maintained a general peace for a hundred years up to the First World War. I decided some time ago to interview two residents of the European Union, Chiara Bondi and Gabriele Fett, to get their honest opinions of it. 

To begin with, please tell us where you’re from and how you found Hamilton.

 Chiara Bondi:  I am a senior here at Hamilton and a math major. I am an Italian citizen, a resident of Spain, born in France. Quite a variety. I grew up in an Italian academic system. Part of my family is American, from New York, and I always admired how their educational system worked. I’ve always wanted to go and try it, trying the same experiences in the same environment, both academically and socially. I never had the chance in high school, but realized I might as well do it through college. I knew I wanted to go to the East Coast and a small college. Out of all the possible colleges in the Northeast, that were small and liberal-arts, where I could play golf, I knew Hamilton was where I wanted to be when I toured the school, had info sessions here, and talked to students and faculty. I loved it. Now I’m here and I’m very happy. 

Gabriele Fett:  I’m a junior at Hamilton, from Rome, Italy. I wanted to go to a liberal arts school. I toured all of them and this was the nicest one, in my opinion. 

What are the benefits of living in the European Union? 

Chiara:  One of the benefits, especially as a young person, is culture. Because of all these international agreements, you only need one form of ID. Typically you just need either your personal ID or your passport. With no restrictions, it is really easy to travel within countries, making it really easy to learn. It is really enjoyable to just travel around and visit a city you never thought about visiting, visiting its museums and learning about its history and culture. A lot of people see the EU and Europe as just one entity, and to some extent you can see it as just one country politically, but demographically and culturally every country is different. You are able to easily learn and educate yourself about it. From a political standpoint, it was very important to rebuild Europe after World War II and then develop a system for trade and dialogue between countries that would work, for countries to avoid war and defend each other. But now, there doesn’t seem to be much political benefit.

Gabriele:  I’m not a business owner, but if I were, it would be free trade and no tariffs. And personally, as an individual, it’s being able to go to other countries without much document checking. I have been able to go to other countries such as Holland and Sweden. You show them your EU passport and they just let you go by. There are no other steps you need to take. 

What is your opinion on the Schengen Area, the region in Europe with very easy border crossings thanks to the EU?

Chiara:  The Schengen Area really promotes culture. I know a lot of people don’t value culture as they should, but it is very valuable. Learning how to adapt to different cultures, since you can’t just go into a different country and expect to interact with locals in the same way you interact with people from your own country. For example, in Italy when you meet people you give them a handshake; in Spain, it is two kisses on the cheek; in France, it can be as much as five kisses on the cheek. If you are an Italian and you go to France and don’t know this, and just shake their hand, they are going to see this as extremely rude. Traveling through Europe taught me how to quickly read the environment around me and adapt. I think the Schengen Area is good for this reason, especially for young people, making it easier to learn and explore. You are not just visiting old places, but learning about a place’s history, heritage, and culture, becoming a more worldly person. 

Gabriele:  It seems fine. Open borders are a weird thing. When people think of them, they are imagining you can just walk across them without any checks. That’s not what it is. You have to go through checkpoints, you have to show them your ID, it has to match you. It’s more that you don’t have to get a visa or any other documentation. It’s more like going from California to Texas.

Time’s Coronation

The R.M.S. Titanic’s story is a familiar one. The flagship of England’s White Star Line, Titanic was the largest moving object in history when it set sail in 1912, only to strike an iceberg and sink on its maiden voyage, claiming the lives of more than two-thirds of those on board. The ship was as magnificent as its sinking was tragic. It was luxuriously furnished with a gymnasium, a swimming pool, a Turkish bath, a squash court, and numerous common rooms designed to evoke the Palace of Versailles. It was also a technological marvel, equipped with an electrical plant stronger than most cities employed and a remotely activated bulkhead system with watertight doors. The Titanic’s passenger list complemented its extravagance, boasting famous names like Astor and Guggenheim. 

Mark Twain satirically labeled this era “The Gilded Age,” and the French remembered it as “La Belle Époque,” “the beautiful time.” It was a time of boldness and decadence, innovation and pride, where relative peace following the Civil War in America and the Franco-Prussian War on the European continent enabled rapid industrialization and cultural development. Exponential improvement was the faith of this era, with men believing their creations could match, or even surpass, God’s and allow resolute mastery of the world. Of course, these optimistic sentiments were often real only for the upper classes. While some reaped the benefits of this economic prosperity, most toiled for a pitiful wage and many demanded change to ameliorate their miserable conditions. On the Titanic, a few enjoyed lavish staterooms, while many impoverished immigrants packed into crowded and noisy steerage cabins, although they were still leagues ahead of most other offerings.

“Titanic as Gilded Age,” emphasizing the class component of the disaster, is a tired trope, true but exhaustingly explored. Ultimately, neither rich nor poor could predict the ship’s sinking. Both wealthy and destitute passengers believed in some form of civilizational progress, the former enjoying a comfortable ocean crossing impossible a hundred years before, and the latter searching for better lives that only the New World could provide. Few believed this progress would stop; fewer predicted it would stop in such a spectacular fashion. Two pieces of fiction did imagine such a disaster, both emphasizing a lack of enough lifeboats to save passengers. One of the authors actually died on the Titanic. 

And so, the tragedy was an unfathomable event in a world that crowned man master of all, limited only by his whim and wonder. The claim that the Titanic was an “unsinkable” ship, likely offhand bravado, ultimately cemented the disaster’s legacy as a testament to mankind’s hubris in this age of limitless possibilities. It was almost as if nature had intervened to humble mankind. The Titanic’s sinking heralded an age of immense uncertainty and incredible loss, the resulting disbelief surpassed only by the First World War, which erupted little more than two years later. As Titanic survivor Jack Thayer wrote, the disaster “was the event that not only made the world rub its eyes and awake, but woke it with a start – keeping it moving at a rapidly accelerating pace ever since with less and less peace, satisfaction, and happiness.”

Historians often wonder whether an event represents change or continuity. In many ways, the Titanic’s sinking signifies change. Its place in historical memory is worth considering. When the ship sank, more than 1,500 people went into the cold Atlantic, so frigid that Thayer purportedly compared it to a thousand knives stabbing you at once. Recovery teams found only about a fifth of the victims’ bodies; most were lost to the sea forever. And few tangible records of the Titanic’s fateful voyage survived. Notably, a vacationing Catholic priest, Father Francis Browne, took numerous photographs of life on the ship before he departed at its penultimate stop, his superior having ordered him back. The photos are endlessly fascinating. Father Browne took one of the last known pictures of the ship, and likely the last one of its captain, Edward J. Smith, ominously peering down from a higher deck, the photograph itself taken at such a jarringly sharp angle that it looks like Titanic is already sinking.

The wreck lay undisturbed for more than 70 years, until a 1985 expedition led by Robert Ballard finally located the watery grave, more than two miles below the ocean’s surface and remarkably preserved. Humans had gone where no man should go, piercing the void and granting the majestic ship an audience once again. Ballard’s team knew they were on the right track when they entered a debris field, first spotting a boiler on the ocean floor on their grainy video feed. The next day, the Titanic’s bow emerged from the darkness. Later expeditions extensively photographed the area. The debris field looks like a battleground, with anything the depths’ primordial creatures could not devour strewn about as if a bomb had gone off. Yet it is strangely peaceful. A bottle of champagne remains unopened, a stack of dishes unbroken, and a lifeboat davit still attached to the ship. Most poignantly, matching boots sit next to each other in the sediment, where their owner came to rest more than one hundred years ago.

But the Grand Staircase’s ornate carving, “Honour and Glory Crowning Time,” is lost forever, having either immediately splintered during the ship’s plummet or gradually disintegrated over time. Judging from its supposedly identical companion on the Titanic’s sister ship Olympic, the carving was beautiful, and its allegorical value rich. Even if its practical purpose was to hold a clock, what does it mean for time to be “crowned,” especially in an age of limitless possibility when mankind’s progress seemed inevitable? Maybe the carving meant that despite this progress, man and his creations are ultimately temporary, subject to forces greater than ourselves. For the Titanic, which will eventually fade into a pile of rust, time has ultimately prevailed, recording the exception to progress that nature had forced.