Is Trump bad for democracy?
On Sep. 25 Braver Angels, a political nonprofit that aims to unite Republicans and Democrats, hosted a debate to answer that question.
The debate started with four main speakers, two arguing for and two arguing against.
Michael Lenz, a political science professor, was the first to argue for. His argument relied on the idea that Former President Trump’s negatives outweigh the positives. Lenz started his argument recognizing that the 2020 election raised the interest in politics, mostly because Trump was such an outsider.
Lenz then suggested the former president has extremely authoritarian views and that he had hinted he would refuse to accept the election results in 2024. Lenz mentioned a couple of Trump’s controversies, namely the January 6 Capitol attack.
Lenz ended his argument saying that the Trump presidency is, “a reflection of stagnating democracy”.
Tristan Goode, a student, argued against. Goode’s argument was that one man is not a threat to democracy and that the current party divide is because of both Democrats and Republicans. Goode also said that these kinds of debates or conversations seek to bring America back to greatness.
After the main speakers delivered their arguments, the debate was opened up to the audience. First, those who had an argument against Trump being bad for Democracy and then those who had an argument for.
Braver Angels requested audience members’ names not be included to create a safe space to participate.
One audience member argued against. In his argument he said that the idea Trump is a threat to democracy, is a threat to democracy. He argued that current media is the real threat to democracy. He said that January 6 was blown out of proportion and that calling it an insurrection was hyperbolic.
One audience member for mentioned an incident in 2020 when Trump had called the governor of Georgia, Brian Kemp, and coerced him to find more votes for him. The speaker said this was Trump exerting power over a democratic process.
Kevin Lavery and Diana Esters, Braver Angels fellows, moderated the debate. Lavery has been part of two other debates at Western Carolina University.
When debating passionate topics, head moderators are tasked with keeping things civil. According to Lavery, Braver Angels pride themselves on being able to have these controversial conversations and everyone comes away with a better understanding of each other and the topic.
To help Braver Angels’ overall goal of unification, debates are noncompetitive.
“It’s really more of a conversation, people just talking about what they think,” said Lavery.
However, the audience felt differently. One member of the audience, Seth Blumenfeld, felt that while it was an interesting conversation, by the end the question changed to the statement that increasing power in the presidency is bad for democracy. Blumenfeld felt that no one walked out with their minds changed, instead the question got fuzzy enough that everyone agreed in their own ways.
Samuel Diaz who attended the debate felt the debate went well and that there were no inflammatory moments.
“Having an open and honest dialogue surrounding these issues is so important, even if we disagree,” said Diaz.
