The BDN Opinion section operates independently and does not set news policies or contribute to reporting or editing articles elsewhere in the newspaper or on bangordailynews.com
Terry O’Connell is an entrepreneur and a former member of the Bar Harbor Planning Board and treasurer and director of the Bar Harbor Chamber of Commerce.
David Estey’s Sept. 26 commentary raises important questions about the future of American democracy. I share many of the democratic principles he identifies, but I strongly disagree with his conclusion that those principles lead to only one legitimate choice at the ballot box. After reviewing the issues he raises, I believe several of his assertions require important context, while others confuse political disagreement with a threat to democracy. The following is my point-by-point response.
Estey warns of gerrymandering, voter suppression, election interference and partisan courts. These are legitimate concerns, but they are not unique to one party. The essential tests are whether elections remain competitive, votes are counted according to law, courts can resolve disputes and lawful results are honored.
Estey calls President Donald Trump a “would-be emperor.” That is a political characterization. A president remains constrained by Congress, federal courts, elections, appropriations, federalism and the Constitution. Presidential actions should be judged individually against those restraints.
Estey describes Congress as a “cultist body” and says partisan justices have placed the president “above the law.” Congress deserves criticism when members put party loyalty ahead of constitutional responsibility, but its members are independently elected and voters can replace them. Likewise, the Supreme Court’s presidential-immunity decision did not give a president immunity for everything he does. Trump v. United States expressly states that there is no immunity for unofficial acts.
Estey criticizes “dark money.” Money unquestionably plays an enormous role in American politics, but Citizens United dealt with independent political expenditures; it did not authorize corporations to make unlimited direct contributions to candidates. Whether independent spending nevertheless exerts excessive influence is a legitimate debate.
Regarding the Epstein files, Estey refers to “endless delays and coverup.” Transparency should certainly be demanded, but millions of pages of Epstein-related material have now been released. The pertinent questions are what legally releasable material remains withheld, why it is withheld and what evidence demonstrates an intentional coverup.
On immigration, due process concerns deserve serious attention, and courts should intervene when constitutional rights are violated. But enforcing immigration law is also a lawful federal responsibility. Americans can support strong enforcement while insisting that federal agents obey the Constitution and applicable statutes.
Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security are three different programs and should not be treated as interchangeable. The 2025 Medicaid changes are substantial, and the Congressional Budget Office projects significant coverage losses. But a Medicaid change is not automatically a Medicare or Social Security cut. Each claim should be measured against the legislation affecting that particular program.
Tariffs can raise prices, and Federal Reserve research has found price effects from recent tariffs. The policy question I see is whether those costs are justified by objectives such as protecting strategic industries, countering foreign subsidies, reducing dependence on China, strengthening domestic manufacturing or gaining negotiating leverage.
On NATO, Trump’s confrontational approach toward allies is well documented. His supporters argue that pressure has encouraged greater European defense spending and burden sharing. The appropriate question is whether that approach ultimately strengthens or weakens the alliance.
My central disagreement is Estey’s conclusion that the “only choice” on Nov. 3 is an overwhelming Democratic vote to prevent authoritarian rule.
The democratic principles he identifies do not, I believe, logically establish that there is only one permissible electoral choice. They instead provide standards by which every administration and political party should be judged: Are elections competitive? Are lawful results honored? Can courts rule against the government? Does Congress retain its constitutional authority? Can citizens criticize their leaders? Is due process respected? Can voters peacefully replace their representatives?
Those are meaningful tests of American democracy regardless of which party wins an election.