Yesterday in this space, I called for an election on how Canada should respond to Trump. In a note, public affairs expert Andrew Beattie neatly laid out what I believe is a widely shared fear about such a debate: the issues are too complex, and it would quickly degenerate into bombast and sloganeering. I see things differently, but you be the judge. Here's our exchange:Dear Don:I enjoyed your piece Would an Election on 'Managing Trump' Solve Anything? But while a Trump election may rally Canadians, I feel it may also divide us – perhaps more than ever.Regarding the Free Trade Election, I believe the choice was more “the status quo” vs. “Do you believe in a better future?” (Notwithstanding the fears about culture, manufacturing, etc., which didn't immediately impact most Canadians.) I feel this time it's different. The status quo won't be an option. And with our supply chains now so integrated, most people (me included) won't fathom the personal economic impacts of a trade war with the US, even though it will impact all of us.But my biggest fear is around the bombastic talking points that will emerge. This could cause our political system to descend to a Trumpian level - mostly because the issues are so complicated that people will latch onto the simplest answers to frame their opinion.I think playing out the government's term and allowing the ramifications to sink in is probably the best option. Then, some sixteen months from now, the solutions/platform may be more obvious, and Canadians can choose the option they believe will work best. In the meantime, the country remains more or less united against Trump's actions. And our unity is a strong negotiating card.Dear Andrew:I'm not clear why you think the choice between the status quo and a better future in the Free Trade election was somehow easier or more accessible to people then than the questions about Trump that are facing us today, such as “Should we stand up to the bully or lay low?” Your concerns over the complexity of the issues – supply chains, personal economic impact, and so on – were just as important in 1988.In my view, what made the FTA election remarkable from a democratic viewpoint was that, despite the levels of complexity, the debate boiled down to a few very basic questions: “Are you willing to take a leap of faith?” “Are you willing to put our sovereignty at risk?” And so on. This meant that ordinary people could participate in a meaningful way.I'm not saying the issues weren't complex or that analysis didn't matter. Analysis was as important then as it is today; but in the end, the ultimate choice – Yea or Nay – wasn't an answer to a single question. It was an answer to a range of questions, including those about our political independence, jobs, environment, lifestyle, culture, and so on. Or, to put this differently, the ballot question was about how we should approach the future. It called on each of us to try to balance a range of things. On this, no one was an expert. Even the experts had to fall back on their values, beliefs, and instincts.I think the same is true of the issues we're facing with Trump. The complexity around them is real, it is growing, and policymakers are struggling with it. However, their growing preoccupation with complexity on issues like this is in danger of crowding out any space for democracy. Increasingly, policymakers and experts complain that the issues they face are simply too complex for an informed public debate.Instead, they call in the communications people, who prepackage the conclusion they (the decision-makers) favour and develop a “strategy” to deliver it to the public in a “debate.” Over 30 years, the result is that public debate has become so shallow, polarized, and scripted that no one feels engaged by it. With the rise of social media, the different sides are now retreating into separate “echo chambers.” I think this is where the real threat of the Trumpian bombast lies.In my view, policymakers should show a little more humility by recognizing that, while expertise and technical analyses are important (especially for planning), they rarely provide clear answers to the big policy issues we face, such as dealing with Trump or deciding on the Trans Mountain Pipeline. Expertise can shed light on important aspects of these issues, but the basic question, say, whether to build the pipeline or to stand up to Trump is about balancing a range of factors – and this is a judgement call that always exceeds the available evidence. It draws heavily on our values, priorities, and even dispositions like hope or fear. On questions like this, no one is an expert and every citizen can play an informed role in public debate.My real point in proposing an election on Trump wasn't that I think this is the only or even the best way to arrive at a plan to deal with him. Rather, it was a pointed way to remind our leaders that in a democracy there is an important – indeed, an essential – role for the public in debates like this one. I was calling on them to recognize and make room for the public's rightful place in this discussion.Dear Don:I agree that we must find ways to engage the public. In fact, they are already engaged – directly through social media and the #BuyCanadian campaign; and indirectly through unilateral support in The House of Commons. I also agree that the Free Trade election raised some basic questions for Canadians. I think these conversations will occur again, soon enough.In the coming weeks and months, we will learn the outcomes from the Mexican presidential election and the US midterms. Either could change the Trump administration's focus over night. As for our own resolve and responses to the trade threats, these will be discussed in the next election. That is soon enough.In the meantime, let's not provide fodder to President Trump by diving into an election now and exposing our own divisions on the issue. Canadians are united in their support today and I fear an election tomorrow will only feed the Trumpian bombastic lies and weaken our position.Dr. Don Lenihan is an internationally recognized expert on public engagement and Open Government. He is currently advising The Ottawa Hospital on an engagement plan to develop its new Civic Campus – a $2 billion, 10-year project. He also co-chairs the Open Government Partnership's Practice Group on Open Dialogue and Deliberation. Don can be reached at: [email protected] or follow him on Twitter at: @DonLenihanAndrew Beattie is president of Sixth Estate and executive producer of Before the Bell, a public affairs and current events series based in Ottawa.