The arguments in favor of slower qualifying standards are based on false, shaky, or unproven premises:
Premise #1: A talented runner will be inspired by watching someone from their hometown barely qualify for the trials and then finish 10 minutes behind the winner; that talented runner will then go on to win championship races in the future - I have never seen any evidence of this. What I have seen over and over instead is today's great runners citing the great runners who came before them as their sources of inspiration. Deena Kastor inspired Shalane Flanagan, who then inspired many of today's most successful American women. Today's top American men were inspired by the likes of Bob Kennedy, Meb Keflezighi, Alan Webb, Dathan Ritzenhein, and Ryan Hall, all of whom broke barriers and showed that Americans can be competitive on the global stage. Even contemporaries can inspire each other. This week, Athing Mu cited Ajee Wilson and Sydney McLaughlin as sources of inspiration. Greatness inspires greatness. Mediocrity just inspires more mediocrity.
Premise #2: There's no harm done to the elites by having more runners - Keep in my mind that each additional runner and their entourage makes it that much more difficult for the elites who have a legitimate chance to qualify for the Olympics to book a room in one's preferred hotel at a reasonable rate, find convenient parking near the race site, access a Porta Potty before the start, meet up with loved ones at the finish, etc. We should not make these important details more difficult to manage for our top runners vying for a spot on the Olympic team. They have enough to worry about!
Beyond these important logistical race day matters, there's the very real possibility that allowing more runners in the field will diminish the prestige of the Trials, which could hurt our top runners financially in terms of their sponsorship contracts. If any 2:19 runner can make the Trials and generate buzz, then why should a shoe company sponsor someone like Ben True or Noah Droddy? These elite runners were not sponsored leading up to the New York Marathon. I wonder if that can be attributed to the slower standards that made those runners seem less special in the eyes of potential sponsors.
Premise #3: Slower standards will grow the sport - Where's the proof that people are joining the sport because they came across the slower trials standards and thought to themselves, "Hmm, I think I can beat that time, so I'm going to start running!" Slower standards don't encourage newbies to join the sport. They just benefit people who are already very good runners but not quite at the top elite level.
There is also plenty of evidence that suggests the sport is already quite healthy in terms of participation. At the high school level, track and field is the most popular sport for girls and the second most popular sport for boys, only behind football:
https://www.edweek.org/leadership/statistics-on-school-sports-how-many-students-play-sports-which-sports-do-they-play/2021/07
At the adult level, running or track is among the top five sports that adults participate in, along with golf, basketball, baseball or softball, and soccer:
https://media.npr.org/documents/2015/june/sportsandhealthpoll.pdf
The New York Marathon needs a lottery system because so many people want to run that race. We're good!