On Oct. 27, Mike Dubke ’92 P ’19 and Mark Elias ’90 sat across from one another on the Wellin Hall stage and debated a range of topical issues as part of Hamilton’s Common Ground program, which strives to demonstrate respectful dialogue through two speakers of differing political backgrounds. The discussion was moderated by independent communications consultant and journalist Jackie Judd P ’14, whose line of questioning focused on the increasing polarization within American politics.

This is not the first time Dubke and Elias have debated such issues as part of a formal Hamilton event. On Dec. 2, 2017, they engaged in a Common Ground-inspired talk, broadcast to the community over Facebook Live. Judd also moderated this event.

Dubke is a former assistant and communications operative in the Trump White House, while Elias was general counsel for Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign and a partner with the law firm Perkins Coie.

Judd started the discussion by asking both men whether the upcoming midterm elections on Nov. 6 are unique. Immediately, it became clear in Dubke and Elias’ answers that finding common ground would be a challenge. Dubke referenced the Tea Party in the 2010 midterm elections to convey that he thinks this election will be quite typical. He added that following the past week’s bomb scare involving many prominent Democrats, people react as if political polarization has never been worse, but in reality, dialogue on media spaces, such as Twitter, allow people to “let off steam” and respect opinions. Elias, however, said he thought that this upcoming election is very unique in that one political party is becoming focused on more educated voters while the other is focused on uneducated white voters, forming cleavages based on race and gender. He used Whole Foods to support his claim, saying that if you look within thirty miles of the expensive supermarket chain, you know “Republicans are in trouble” within that region.

Unlike their contrasting thoughts on this year’s elections, both Dubke and Elias were able to agree when it came to the struggles of finding common ground between the two opposing parties, specifically within policy making. Elias brought up climate change as an example of a frequently debated topic, saying that one group believes that it exists and the other does not. He said that it is difficult to find common ground when one party supports policies that view climate change as a “Chinese hoax” and thinks that liberals sent pipe bombs to members of their own party.

The two disagreed once again when discussing the impact of the media on polarization. Dubke praised the new media outlets, saying that average citizens can use them as a platform to present their own views. He described a past in which information went through the funnel of a few newspapers and, referencing the people who filtered what was seen by the public, said that the “gatekeepers have been dethroned.”

Referencing two media behemoths, Fox and MSNBC, Dubke said that the networks simply found marketplaces in which they could exploit their viewership and that this practice has been common historically amongst news outlets.

Elias spoke about the Trump administration and said that much of the rhetoric Trump and his staff have used would have been deemed unacceptable by media outlets in past administrations. He said that phrases like “Lock Her Up” used by Trump during the 2016 presidential election would never have been employed by Barack Obama or George W. Bush.

He also spoke about how he believed American citizens recognized Trump more than members of their own party during the campaign, adding that Trump has used his power to sharpen divisions more than any of his predecessors.

Describing the Republican party as immoral, especially in relation to their current immigration policy, Elias said to Dubke, “I hope you know your grandchildren will be appalled.”

Dubke countered by saying that politics have always been this polarized, using clashes between Federalists and Democratic-Republicans as an example, and that what America has now is just an acceleration of ease with which people can express themselves.

Transitioning the discussion to the recent confirmation hearing of Brett Kavanaugh, Judd asked Dubke and Elias whether or not they believed that U.S. political institutions are holding up. Both agreed that they are fragile, with Dubke reflecting on past supermajority votes for Supreme Court justices where quality mattered over the political views of the nominee, and Elias discussing the President’s attacks on American government institutions.

Elias spoke about his disapproval when he saw Kavanaugh’s partisan interview on Fox News and then later watched him point at Democratic senators during the hearing and accuse them of being partisan.

Dubke said that the Democrats mishandled the allegation by withholding information. Elias countered by saying the timing did not matter, since Dr. Ford came forward with the allegations and Kavanaugh had the opportunity to answer; he was either fit for the position or not.

Attempting to find a source of agreement to conclude the program, Judd asked each man for a trait they admire in the other person. Dubke told Elias that he admired the passion with which he expressed his views and Elias said that he admired Dubke’s courage in presenting his opinions on a Hamilton College stage, joking, “If there were a despotic democratic president, I like to think that I would have the courage that he has.”

Debate Society President Casey Macolino ’21, reflecting on the event, said, “I thought that this Common Ground represented the country on the whole and showed that both voters and politicians are struggling to reach any form of compromise.”