Debate again underscored dangers of reelecting a wannabe dictator

Tuesday night’s presidential debate between Donald Trump and Kamala Harris revealed far more than just the candidates’ personalities or political platforms. It underscored critical concerns about Trump’s judgment, his susceptibility to disinformation and manipulation, and his disregard for democratic norms.

In a striking moment early in the debate, Trump repeatedly refused to answer a straightforward question: Would he veto a national abortion ban if, as president, it reached his desk? This question strikes at the heart of one of America’s most divisive issues, yet Trump evaded a direct answer each time. His stated position — returning the issue to the states — was little more than a deflection.

As Harris pointed out, Trump ran on a platform of overturning Roe v. Wade, appointed three U.S. Supreme Court justices who made overturning Roe possible, has celebrated his leadership in overturning Roe and selected a running mate who has publicly advocated for a national abortion ban. Trump’s evasiveness at the debate, combined with his disturbing history, point to a man hellbent on not only limiting access to abortion but generally limiting women’s rights to exercise control over their own bodies.

The debate also reinforced other troubling characteristics of Trump’s leadership, including his arrogance, gullibility, disinterest in facts and possible lack of mental acuity.

One example that stood out was his claim that babies are being murdered after birth — a blatant falsehood unsupported by any evidence and contradicted by existing laws across the nation. Trump’s willingness to perpetuate such lies reflects a profound disconnect from reality, one that puts the country at risk of policy decisions based on the delusional rants of a mentally unstable man. He followed that doozy with a similarly crazed statement about immigrant transsexual operations — a conspiracy that echoed unhinged rants he’s made in the past about schools forcing children to undergo secret forced sex change operations.

Perhaps even more absurd was his belief that immigrants are “eating the dogs,” a claim he attributed to something he saw on television, but which has no basis in reality. Immigrants across the nation should bear in mind that in his own words, Trump believes you are dog-eating criminals who escaped from prisons and insane asylums while white supremacists are “very fine people” whom he invites to dine with him at Mar-a-Lago. Such backward thinking underscores lack of understanding of the realities faced by immigrants and asylum seekers who want little more than to build a better life for their families.

Trump’s pattern of simply making things up to support his worldview also extends to his claims about crime rates. Despite FBI data showing historic declines in crime, in the debate Trump suggested that crime was skyrocketing and that the FBI was falsifying data. It’s insulting because, for this to be true, the FBI and the leaders of thousands of law enforcement agencies who report crime statistics to the FBI, including Nevada’s own Trump-endorsed governor and former sheriff, Joe Lombardo, would need to be actively conspiring to make Trump look bad. This level of paranoia, coupled with his inability to distinguish fact from fiction, poses a grave threat to informed governance — especially considering that Trump’s trusted sources of information are literal enemies of American democracy.

While Harris repeatedly pointed out Trump’s need to seek approval from Russian dictator Vladimir Putin, Trump dug his own grave by discussing his admiration for and friendship with Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán. Since rewriting Hungary’s Constitution in 2010 to give himself near-imperial powers, Orbán has targeted Jews, Muslims and other non-Christians, as well as women, immigrants, minorities and LGBTQ people, for draconian restrictions on basic rights and freedoms.

He also seized control of the central bank, lavishing himself in riches at taxpayer expense, and used his influence to appoint friends and family members to high-paying government offices. Orbán’s unabashed nepotism was thrust into the spotlight recently when a party ally was pardoned after being convicted of covering up sexual crimes and pedophilia at a government-run children’s home. Orbán denied knowledge of the pardon issued by his top party official but given his iron-clad grip on the party and the country, it’s difficult to imagine that he was unaware.

Despite the scandal, on Tuesday night, Trump said Orbán is “one of the most respected men ... a tough person” who believes the U.S. “needs Trump back as president.” Significant portions of the Heritage Foundation’s playbook, Project 2025 — which was written largely by people expected to have a role in a would-be second Trump administration — are designed to replicate Orbán’s steps to turn a democracy into an autocracy.

This affinity for autocratic figures like Orbán, who stand in opposition to democratic values, is deeply troubling for anyone who believes in the sanctity of American democracy. Trump’s endorsement of such leaders, in addition to his years of rhetoric praising insurrectionists and violent paramilitary nationalists, raises questions about Trump’s own commitment to upholding democratic norms.

Of course, praising a foreign dictator doesn’t go far enough for Trump, he also needed to insult those who put their lives on the line to defend democracy and the law, including the police officers who defended the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, whom Trump referred to as “a disgrace.” These officers, hailed as heroes by many for their defense of democracy against an armed insurrection, were denigrated by Trump in front of a national audience. This sentiment encapsulates a broader issue with Trump’s worldview — his inability to recognize the value of those who protect democratic institutions, particularly when they stand in opposition to his own interests.

This week’s debate showed that the stakes of the 2024 presidential election go far beyond policy disagreements. As voters weigh their choices, it is crucial to consider the risks posed by a leader who demonstrates little regard for truth, democracy or the protections of American institutions.

Voters must decide whether they want a leader who will govern based on facts, uphold the democratic norms enshrined in the Constitution and defend the rights and freedoms of all Americans — or one who will sow division and erode the very principles that define the United States.