By Matt Underwood In the wake of the recent controversy surrounding the legality of former President Donald Trump running for office again, I have found myself deeply engaged in reflection and analysis of the situation. The idea that barring Trump’s return to politics is anti-democratic is a sentiment that has pervaded our political discourse. However, after careful consideration, I submit a different notion: Barring Trump from running for office is not anti-democratic, but rather a necessity to protect democracy itself.
The foundation of my stance lies in the understanding of the Constitution, specifically Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. This provision prohibits any person who has engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof, from holding office. The principle of upholding our Constitution should supersede any political considerations. After all, every politician swears an oath to uphold the Constitution, and it is our duty as responsible citizens to ensure that this oath is honored.
Historically, this provision has been used to bar members of the Confederacy post-Civil War from holding office, an action that prevented anti-democratic forces from consolidating elected power that could lead to another insurrection. Fast forward to the present, it seems we face a similar situation – Donald Trump’s relentless attempts to overturn the election results, his role in the January 6 attack on the Capitol, and his undermining of democratic norms all amount to actions against the US constitution. His lawyers have even argued that he has the right to take drastic actions against political rivals as long as he isn’t impeached – further proof of his contempt for our democratic systems.
The argument then logically follows – if we can apply the 14th Amendment to bar members of the Confederacy from office, shouldn’t the same measure apply to someone who has, in modern times, incited an act of insurrection?
Detractors might argue that this is an ‘anti-democratic’ measure that suppresses political opponents. But let’s flip the question: If someone was running a campaign overtly advocating the overthrow of the government – whether a socialist, communist, or in Trump’s case, an authoritarian – would it not be our duty and responsibility as guardians of democracy to ensure that such an individual is barred from office?
The crux of my argument is not born from personal disdain for Trump or his politics. Rather, it comes from a deep concern for the health of our democratic systems. You cannot advocate for democracy while allowing individuals who undermine it to run for and possibly hold public office. And if holding our Constitution to its word and barring Trump from future office is viewed as ‘leftist’, then maybe we need to revisit our understanding of democracy and constitutional law.
Predictably, some would view barring Trump as a move to suppress the people’s will. However, democracy does not entail leaving it vulnerable to those who would exploit it for their nefarious aims. Democracy’s strength lies in its ability to protect itself from threats, both external and internal, and this sometimes involves tough decisions.
In truth, the threat is not merely Trump – it is the wave of undemocratic tendencies he represents and the many that support it. This larger problem needs addressing and solving, but as a first measure, we must prevent an evident threat from becoming a cataclytic reality.
One cannot deny that my viewpoint will chirp the ‘anti-democratic’ bird from its opponents. Nevertheless, it is a measure to protect constitutional democracy rather than an attempt to challenge it. Stripping away all the political noise and delving into the nuances of our Constitution reveals that it’s a road that we may need to tread down. By honoring the Constitution and barring insurrectionists, such as Trump, we safeguard our democracy’s ideals.
By allowing those that blatantly defy and pose a threat to democracy to continue their course, we risk descending down a dark path that could lead to the erosion of the democracy we cherish so much. It is imperative that we remind ourselves of what the Constitution stands for and ensure it is upheld, regardless of the potential backlash and controversy.
In the grand scheme of things, this thought may not be popular among many. But it is an idea we must ponder upon as a society and an electorate – Do we knowingly enable someone who has disgraced and undermined our Constitution to hold Federal office, or do we uphold the very values we have pledged to protect and preserve? It’s a question that we, as guardians of democracy, must answer honestly, regardless of political inclination or affiliation. It is not merely about an individual: it’s about the safeguarding of democracy, and to do that we must be prepared to make tough but necessary decisions.