Batting from Under: Michael Knowles Takes on Mehdi Hasan

It has been nearly 9 months since the assassination of Charlie Kirk. Last September, just two weeks after his murder, the Dartmouth Political Union (DPU) was supposed to host Kirk in a debate with Marxist media commentator Hasan Piker.

On May 5th, in what supposedly took around half a year in planning, the DPU decided to host a debate between conservative commentator Michael Knowles and liberal journalist Mehdi Hasan. The topic was “Constitutional Norms Under President Trump” and whether the President is guilty of breaking them. This is a rather difficult topic to debate as a conservative.

Knowles’ general argument was that President Trump should be judged based on whether he has strayed from the historical pattern of how the Constitution has been interpreted by other presidents. According to Knowles, acting as other presidents have typically done makes presidential power legitimate regardless of what the text of the document says (this is not typically how “conservative” judges view the Constitution). Mehdi attempted to prove that many of Trump’s actions are, in fact, unprecedented and are a threat to democracy. By all legitimate standards, Mehdi won the debate. Surprisingly, though, by the end of the debate, audience polling swung from 22% to 28% of respondents claiming they believe Trump has “upheld the Constitution.” We cannot even begin to suppose how this result might have come about. Clearly, Michael Knowles has one favorable debate tactic that Mehdi does not: charisma.

We think most people would agree that Trump pushes Constitutional boundaries. “Uphold the Constitution” is very broad. It is no surprise that feelings for Trump might influence how you interpret this question. What Mehdi did was come prepared with plenty of facts and instances of Trump breaking Constitutional norms. It is hard to argue that Trump has not done this in some way, shape, or form. However, the reality is that Trump is Trump, but American democracy will still be around in two years. Trump’s actions certainly call for criticism. Knowles avoided criticizing Trump at all costs. This sort of unconditional defense is good for his career, but not necessarily for legitimate and nuanced dialogue. This was abundantly clear when the Catholic Knowles repeatedly refused to denounce Trump’s recent post of himself, where he appeared to be Jesus. He instead only affirmed that he was “glad” the President took down the post.

What Knowles did was mostly reassure the audience that, regardless of Trump’s actions, the liberal panic over “fascism” or “No Kings” is a bit much. Accompanied by his decreased support across the board, Trump most certainly is not and will never be the King of America. After all, if there was a time for Trump to declare himself dictator, the time for that has passed (that would have been in 2021 when he left office).

While Michael Knowles is certainly entertaining and is reassuring when he speaks, if conservatives were interested in a more combative, passionate, and legitimate debating style, then they certainly walked away from the debate disappointed. There was a bit of a mismatch between the two debaters, as Mehdi Hasan was a serious and cold debater who clearly spent a lot of time preparing for the debate. Perhaps Knowles would have been better paired with the original Hasan – the America-hating, communist Piker.

The debate ultimately lasted an hour and a half, with a decent segment dedicated to an audience Q&A. The first half of the debate seemed to be mostly respectful. It was not until the latter half that moderator Ella Klinsky could be seen visibly struggling to contain the back-and-forth interruptions. This is not to shame Ms. Klinsky; she did about as good a job in that regard as possible. Even in the context of a serious debate, Michael Knowles demonstrated his professional ability to troll. This, mixed with Mehdi’s clear hatred for Trump and combative nature, made him the perfect bait. It was certainly one of the most entertaining debates the DPU has ever hosted.

And while everyone enjoys entertainment, this debate in many ways demonstrated precisely what is wrong with contemporary American politics. Trump is certainly guilty of having made the American presidency less presidential and American politics less serious. The stakes have increased, but the content of American political discussion has become less focused on important issues and more focused on defending Tweets.

American political discussion no longer looks to debate the importance of religious or social institutions, why we should or should not lower taxes, or what we should do about the Medicare and Social Security programs bankrupting the nation. Instead, American politics has become a sort of reality TV show. The Right (up until recently) has spent its time unconditionally defending Trump. The Left has spent less time promoting actual policy and instead has run mostly on how terrible and dangerous President Trump is.

Dartmouth hosted two prominent political figures on campus, and in the entire hour and a half, no time was spent actually discussing political issues. The entire time, it was only a question of Trump, his actions, and his character. This is not entirely to blame on one side or another, but it is a mere reflection on the unfortunate state of American politics. This is one thing that Charlie Kirk did well. He promoted a coherent and ideologically driven conservatism across the nation. With Kirk, it was not just about Trump. In the news and in most American political commentary, it seems to be dominated by Trump and his unorthodoxy. This is the biggest problem conservatives face. When the discussion focuses solely on defending Trump, less time is spent promoting genuine conservative ideals like free markets, limited government, or duty to God, family, and country.