Whether you're a fan of him or not, we've got to face the facts: Donald Trump is now the president of the United States of America (assuming he doesn't get impeached, but that's a topic for another article). While winning 304-227 in the electoral college is certainly impressive, it's also important to note that Trump lost the popular vote by about 3 million Americans. Even though the popular vote is meaningless in terms of who wins the presidency, it's a good indication of how well-received a president will be when it comes time to take office. It should come as no surprise, then, that there were days of protest after the 2016 Presidential election. People were upset that their party's candidate lost yet again to a "broken" electoral system, and the country divided even further.

Even at his inauguration, Trump received a share of frustrated protestors. Some blocked passageways and others turned violent

But Trump hadn't even seen the end of it. During his first days in office, women (and men) gathered in solidarity to protest the Trump administration's anti-abortion, anti-Planned Parenthood, and socially conservative appointed judges.

There are a lot of ways that you can look at this. Some will say that this is an expression of disapproval toward Trump's treatment of diverse groups, and they would be right. However, I'd like to approach things from a different angle. I'd like to get right into the core of these protests, and ask a more fundamental question; is Trump good for democracy?

In terms of mobilization of the American electorate, I have to say that Trump has done an amazing job. Everything from his presidency to his campaign rallies served to involve the American people in democratic action (either for him or against him). Voter turnout in 2016 (55.3%) remained relatively constant from 2012's 54.9%, despite favorability ratings being low for both Clinton and Trump (38.0% and 39.4%, respectively).

Sure, there were protests against his administration, but these protests serve in part to legitimize our democratic way of taking action. Fundamental to the first amendment are the freedoms of assembly and speech, which both serve to empower political involvement. Of course, this legitimization comes to a halt as soon as protests become violent. Peaceful protests foster a healthy democracy, whereas violence and attacks are destructive. I think that overall, he has moved the American electorate to action (either for him or against him), which has served to strengthen our democratic principles and way of acting as a whole.

A large part of maintaining a democratic society involves keeping citizens educated, a job primarily done by the media. Broadcasting heavyweights such as CNN, NBC, CBS, and ABC influence public opinion daily, for better or for worse. While their grip has been lessened with the advent of the internet and the rise of individual content creators, media corporations will continue to have a place in modern society, no doubt about it.

With such great power comes great responsibility, however. For a democratic society to work, the media must be transparent, and it must be willing to report honestly and fairly, sticking to objective information and facts as much as possible. This empowers citizens to make their own judgments about events.

As we all know, however, this isn't how American democracy works. 32% of Americans in a September 2016 poll reported that they have a "great deal," or a "fair amount" of trust in mass media to report news fairly and accurately. Why is this the case? It could certainly be for a number of reasons: the media, in an age of clickbait and catchy headlines, reports on information before a story is developed. Americans may not trust the media any longer because they have other, more direct sources of information via internet empowerment. Or, more simply, the media could have gained a poor reputation due to multiple past instances of failure to effectively communicate the news.

In an age that media trust is so low, I think it's important to have a counterbalance to such a powerful yet unpredictable force. This is why I think that Trump's presidency could help to further a democratic future. When a media is critical of a president, it furthers transparency between government and citizen. A critical media provides a "check" on presidents that help to safeguard the public, as wrongdoing and controversy are more likely to be reported.

Where things start to get dicey is when it comes to Trump's heavy usage of executive orders. Since their inception, the constitutionality of executive orders and presidential directions have been somewhat questionable, as the power is not specifically permitted in the Constitution. From the desegregation of public schools under Dwight D. Eisenhower to Executive Order 9066, they've always been a hot-button topic for civil libertarians and constitutionalists.

Since Trump has taken his oath, he has, via executive order: Provided Affordable Care Act "relief," Reinstated the "Mexico City" abortion policy, Left the Trans-Pacific Partnership, frozen new federal hirings, Pursued undocumented immigrants, Introduced a lobbying ban, and Created a plan to defeat ISIS via financial cutoff. While these are nowhere near George W. Bush's 291, Obama's 275, or FDR's record-breaking 3,522 executive orders, it's still important to note that Trump has only been in office for a week at this point. The future regarding Trump and his use of executive orders is very questionable, and it's something that's certainly important to keep following.

At the end of the day, even something as non-partisan as analyzing Trump's ability to sustain and build democracy in our society can get rather subjective. I'd like to leave you all with a question: Do you think Trump is beneficial to democracy? Why or why not do you feel that way? Please leave your responses in the comments below!