When I was studying law at the Pontifical Catholic University in Lima, Peru, we marveled at the U.S. system of checks and balances. Landmark cases like Marbury v. Madison were beacons of democratic governance. At the same time, Peru was facing a devastating collapse of the rule of law. The late President Alberto Fujimori dissolved Congress, dismissed judges, and installed faceless tribunals to try Shining Path terrorists—responsible for horrendous attacks like the one in Miraflores, where a bomb killed 25 and wounded 155, just blocks from my home.
While Fujimori is remembered by many for defeating the Shining Path, his legacy is tainted by the erosion of Peru’s democratic institutions, a reverberation that continues today.
As a proud U.S. citizen, my experiences deeply influence how I view American politics and the upcoming elections. I’m troubled by recent events, particularly the January 6, 2021 insurrection, and more recently, Project 2025—the Republicans' MAGA blueprint—which both seem to target the very foundation of this country: its system of checks and balances.
I'm closely following the presidential race and key congressional contests, especially in districts with a growing Hispanic electorate, such as Virginia’s 7th District. The Hispanic population in Prince William County grew from 82,618 in 2010 to 125,520 in 2022—an increase of 42,902. With Rep. Abigail Spanberger opting to run for governor, this critical swing seat is now wide open.
This race pits Eugene Vindman against Derrick Anderson, and I attentively watched their September 17 debate, thanks to Sam Sirashi for sharing the YouTube link. The debate was hosted by the Coalition for Action and the Prince William Chamber of Commerce. WUSA9 News Host, Larry Miller, aptly moderated the debate. It included the candidate for the Virginia 10th District, current Democratic State Senator Suhas Subramanyam. To the surprise of many, his opponent, the Republican candidate Mike Clancy did not show.
Although I am not a resident of Virginia District 7, my interest stems from its large Hispanic population and the candidates' views on issues that resonate with this growing community, particularly in the face of Donald Trump’s anti-immigrant rhetoric. Initially, I hoped the race would feature two female Latina candidates—Maria Martin and Elizabeth Guzman—but they were defeated in the primaries. Ironically, it appears that women’s reproductive rights will be one of the key issues determining the outcome of this race.
Similarities Between Vindman and Anderson
Both candidates embody the American Dream:
Vindman, a Jewish Ukrainian refugee, arrived in the U.S. with his family and just $800.
Anderson was the first in his family to graduate from college.
Both have served the U.S. with distinction:
Vindman is a retired Army colonel with 25 years of service.
Anderson is a former Special Forces Green Beret, having completed six tours of duty overseas.
Both are lawyers
Vindman holds a law degree from the University of Georgia School of Law.
Anderson graduated from Georgetown Law.
Both acknowledge the rising cost of living:
Anderson highlighted that it now costs $1,100 more to get by in Virginia, with many falling behind on credit card payments due to basic needs.
Vindman emphasized childcare costs.
Both are concerned about the opioid crisis, with Anderson noting that five people die daily in Virginia due to fentanyl overdoses.
Profound Differences
Personal Lives
Vindman is married with two daughters attending public schools in Prince William.
Anderson is single and frequently mentioned his mother during the debate.
Project 2025
Vindman presented Project 2025 as the Republican MAGA playbook, raising concerns about its drastic proposals that would impact the American way of life as we know it and the unlikelihood that Anderson, as a junior congressman whose campaign was financed by MAGA, would stand in the way of its ruthless implementation by Donald Trump. He labeled as laughable the attempts of the former president to distance himself from Project 2025 when it was written by 30 of his closest advisors and his name is mentioned 300 times.
Project 2025 which was issued by the Heritage Foundation provides cuts to overtime pay, Social Security, and Medicare, as well as layoffs of federal civil servants and their replacement with MAGA loyalists.
Most concerningly, it prescribes mass deportations and severe limitations on women’s reproductive rights. As noted, he questioned Anderson’s ability to stand up to Trump’s implementation of the plan. Vindman, on the other hand, stood up to Trump and his daring action cost him his military career. Vindman, who served as deputy legal advisor for the National Security Council, was forced out of his role in retaliation for supporting his brother Alexander’s testimony in the Trump impeachment trial
Anderson sought to distance himself, stating that Project 2025 was not his plan and that he had not even read it.
Women’s Right to Choose
Anderson avoided answering directly whether he supports women's right to choose, instead just repeating that he agreed with the Supreme Court ruling that it was up to each State to decide its policy on this issue. He did say that he supports IVF and access to contraceptives.
Vindman and Subramanyam, both fathers of daughters, strongly affirmed their support for women’s rights, including restoring the protections of Roe vs. Wade and access to IVF and contraceptives.
Immigration
Anderson described chaos at the border and blamed Biden and Harris for policies contributing to the crisis.
Vindman and Subramanyam criticized the Republican Party’s lack of seriousness in addressing immigration reform, noting that after some of the most conservative Republican legislators cooperated in drafting the bill, Trump then successfully pressured them to withdraw their support so that he could maintain illegal immigration as a hot-button issue during the presidential campaign.
The debate did not address the issue of mass deportations that is included in Project 2025.
Police Reform
Both Vindman and Anderson acknowledged the difficult work of the police. Vindman as a prosecutor worked closely with law enforcement to prosecute criminals. He stated that all members of the community, including minority communities should be treated with dignity and respect.
Vindman supports the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act, which seeks to reform police practices by banning chokeholds, ending qualified immunity, and establishing a national police misconduct registry.
Anderson expressed objections to parts of the bill. For instance, he indicated that it prevents law enforcement departments from acquiring military equipment that is needed for them to do their jobs, such as retired military dogs that can help in identifying bomb threats and drugs.
Guns
Vindman and Subramanyam denounced the impact of the National Rifle Association in the debate over guns and in politics. Both advocated for common sense policies such as red flag laws, safe storage, and closing gun ownership loopholes. Vindman noted that he is a responsible gun owner and his perspective about guns has been profoundly changed because of his kids.
Anderson emphasized the importance of addressing mental health issues in the community.
Minority Political Representation
Vindman raised concerns about MAGA extremists’ attempts to restrict voting rights and political representation for minorities, though he could have expanded on this issue further.
In Conclusion
As someone who has witnessed the erosion of democratic institutions under a strongman in Peru, I believe Eugene Vindman is the best option to represent Virginia’s 7th District.
His courageous denunciation of the perils that Project 2025 entails to all of us and his proven valor in confronting Donald Trump grant him the moral authority to represent all members of the community in Congress.