Right now, Yale houses the future of American leadership — it always has. Beyond just the graduates who become big names in government, we also have the future political staffer class, national security apparatus and the journalists and public intellectuals who will drive national political discourse here, among us. For our future leadership, Yale is where political identities and ideologies form. For those who come in with them, Yale is where they harden.

Many have argued before that Yale is a liberal ideological bubble, but that isn’t really true. Even excluding the New Right populist supervillain factory housed in the dark depths of Yale Law School, there is still a sizable population of vocal conservatives at Yale College. The Buckley program is the clichè example, but there is also the right coalition of the Yale Political Union. The Tories, Federalists, Conservatives and Party of the Right form a distinct conservative ecosystem on campus, historically responsible for producing right-wing governors, senators, judges and political commentators.

As a debating body with parties across the political spectrum, well organized and nominally more prestigious than nearly every student group on campus, to engage or not engage with the Yale Political Union — more specifically with its well-populated right-wing parties — is a dilemma for us on the left. Do we dedicate time and effort to understanding, arguing with and potentially even fraternizing with those unabashed Tories, Federalists, Conservatives and Party of the Right members? 

Most Yale leftists and liberals — that is most Yale students — consider understanding the right a waste of time. To us, the exercise of debating ideas with our right-wing counterparts can seem fairly unnecessary, if not actively self-destructive. Why spend time talking politics and philosophy with the most conservative Yalies on campus? Watching their debates like “resolved: broken windows lead to broken cities” takes up valuable time. I have my beliefs and spaces to express them with like minded peers. Why engage in debate with my ideological opponents?

There’s an answer for both the optimist and the cynic. For the optimist, while it is a bit overdone, it still is worth repeating that political discourse can be good for all involved. Exposure to new perspectives and new ideas makes all of us better thinkers. On more minor issues, you might find yourself agreeing with those you ideologically oppose or even persuading them to work with you on a policy issue.

I know I’ve enjoyed listening to the speeches of the right from the Yale Political Union. Sometimes, they give me a new way of justifying my beliefs. Other times, I’ve re-examined what I believed when a contradiction in my beliefs reveals itself. I hope I’ve also done the same for members of Yale’s Right. This process helps us develop and, by proxy, makes America’s future leaders better: political discourse is a civic duty.

However, for the cynics among us — those who doubt if the right can be reasoned with or if they can act in good faith — it is still worth engaging critically with their ideas. It makes us better fighters.

Politics is a bloody conflict of ideas. We are all gladiators, and we battle in an arena where champions wield concepts instead of clubs and words instead of swords. The Coliseum is packed, and the victor of each bout is determined by a crowd that doesn’t always understand each combatant’s weapons or how they wield them. To lose is temporary death. Should that crowd judge that our opponents fought more valiantly, we are at their mercy until the next round.

In this view of politics as competitive instead of collaborative, engaging with our adversaries through the Yale Political Union presents us with an opportunity to spar. We get to practice our own techniques and sharpen our own strategies while also learning how our future opponents approach combat. 

In essence, engaging them in debate on the Union floor or in the pages of the News is practice. It is practice for constructing our arguments and deconstructing theirs, both in writing and in debate — a skill we will need when we meet again on the Senate floor.

I know I want to jump into this fray. To paraphrase the Chairman of the Independent Party at the first union debate of the year, I’m tired of boring classroom, dining hall or common room debates where 90 percent of those involved share variations on the same left-wing principles, and the other 10 percent either keep quiet or are the most annoying person ever. 

The rationales for the optimist and the cynic persuade me to seek out the opinions of the campus right. For one, I think they are genuinely good people to know, be friends with and joke with. I’ll say it: very rarely should politics determine the bounds of any relationship, and, often, disagreements can be the start of a very successful one. But I also want to see what they really think and why they think it. Maybe my mind will be changed. Maybe I’ll persuade some of them instead. If that’s not possible, I’ll at least better understand how they present their arguments. So, in 20 years, when I run for office against some member of the Tories, I will be well prepared for that battle.

MILES KIRKPATRICK is a sophomore in Saybrook College majoring in the Humanities. His column, “Looking Across the Aisle”, runs biweekly and discusses right-wing politics and spaces at Yale and nationwide. He can be reached at miles.kirkpatrick@yale.edu.