Airs Sunday, March 9 at 6 p.m. If we value a free market in goods and free movement of capital, should we embrace the free movement of labor? Reciprocal treaties would allow citizens of the U.S. and other countries to work legally across borders. Would the elimination of barriers in the labor market depress wages and flood the marketplace with workers? Or would the benefits of a flexible labor supply be a boon to our economy, all while raising the standard of living for anyone willing to work?
Airs Sunday, February 23 at 6 p.m. The NSA collects data on billions of phone calls and internet communications per day. Are these surveillance programs legal? Do they keep us safe? What tradeoffs are we willing to make between security and privacy? As Benjamin Franklin might have asked, "Are we giving up essential liberty to purchase temporary safety, and thus deserving of neither?"
Airs Sunday, December 29 at 6 p.m. While gridlock and division in Washington make it difficult for either party or ideology to set the policy agenda, single-party government prevails in three-quarters of the states. In 24 states Republicans control the governorship and both houses of the legislature, and in 13 states Democrats enjoy one-party control. Comparing economic growth, education, health care, quality of life and environment, and the strength of civil society, do red or blue states win out? The debaters are Hugh Hewitt, Gray Davis, Stephen Moore, and Michael Lind.
Airs Sunday, September 29 at 6 p.m. Remotely piloted aircraft, or drones, have been the centerpiece of America’s counter terrorism toolkit since the start of the Obama presidency, and the benefits have been clear. Their use has significantly weakened al Qaeda and the Taliban while keeping American troops out of harm’s way. But critics of drone strikes argue that the short-term gains do not outweigh the long-term consequences—among them, radicalization of a public outraged over civilian deaths. Is our drone program hurting, or helping, in the fight against terrorism?
Airs Sunday, September 1 at 7 p.m. There are no good options and many reasons not to intervene in Syria: Assad's powerful allies, the public's aversion to another war, and wariness over an opposition army that includes Islamic extremists. Holding back means ignoring a growing humanitarian crisis, where the number dead have topped 100,000. Discovery of Assad’s use of chemical weapons prompted President Obama to approve the delivery of small arms and ammunition to rebel forces. But does this call for more assertive policy from the administration, or would direct intervention hurt our strategic interests?