"Over the course of American history, presidents have not been judged by whether violence occurred on their watch but by how they responded to it. Each crisis poses the same test: will the person who holds the office use it to steady the republic, or to further polarize it? The oath of office exists for precisely this moment. It binds the president to something larger than self-interest and party, the constitution and the rule of law."
"One can look to the historical record to see this dilemma is not new. On the brink of civil war, Abraham Lincoln appealed to the better angels of our nature and reminded the country that the presidency carries a constitutional duty to preserve, protect and defend the constitution. In this case, national leadership meant taking a moment of profound shock and transforming it into a reaffirmation of civic equality and lawful process."
Presidents are judged by how they respond to violence rather than whether violence occurs. The presidential oath binds the office to the Constitution and the rule of law, requiring leaders to steady the republic and promote unity. Donald Trump, after Charlie Kirk's death, forsook the oath and used power to deepen polarization. Historical contrasts show Abraham Lincoln appealing to national unity and preserving constitutional duty, while Andrew Johnson vilified opponents, obstructed Reconstruction protections, refused to condemn terrorizing violence, and precipitated impeachment. The urgent lesson is that presidents must tell the legal truth, call for calm, and treat guilt as individual, not collective.
Read at www.theguardian.com
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]