Trump Grazed, Rule of Law Hit Again

Over the weekend, a sniper attempted to assassinate Donald Trump while he was speaking at a campaign event.

The former President was apparently nicked on the ear, but was escorted away for obvious reasons. Ever alert to the chance to capitalize on a moment, he struck a defiant pose on the way out.

I am no fan of Donald Trump or Joe Biden and frankly wonder if the best outcome for our country in the short term might be for the both of them to expire before the election.

Nevertheless, as unfortunate for America as it will be for either man to take office again next year, it is of the utmost importance that we conform to the rule of law in the process of determining which, if either, does so.

It pains me to say this, because each is so manifestly unfit for office, and in this case, particularly so: By his actions while in office and after he lost the 2020 election, Donald Trump has shown little understanding or respect for the rule of law in general or our country's form of government in particular. (Neither has Biden, but I'll get to him in a minute.)

I do not share the hysteria concerning Trump himself so many leftists project about a second Trump presidency: Trump is a power-luster, but fortunately does not have a comprehensive program and would probably be too disorganized to implement one, anyway. His danger is two-fold.

In the short term, he is an outstanding marketer who knows how to appeal on an emotional level to general feelings of patriotism, and he projects the kind of backbone and willingness to fight that this country desperately needs.

But there's no steak to the sizzle.

Setting aide the question Isn't America still great, despite her current difficulties? for a moment: What patriotic American wouldn't want her to be great again?

If someone were prosecuted unjustly, as Trump was in New York, who wouldn't appreciate defiance?

And after decades of failed economic policy, increasingly bizarre attempts at social engineering, and blatant failure to take law and order seriously on the part of the Democrats, who wouldn't be starved for a viable alternative?

To many well-meaning Americans, Donald Trump is the vessel for these hopes.

Unfortunately -- as we saw with his lack of a consistent, pro-liberty legislative agenda/rule by executive order; his naive behavior around (and admiring remarks about) despots the world over; and his carelessness with national security information (for which he should have been prosecuted years ago) -- Donald Trump is hardly that "right man at the right time," no matter how much he may seem like it to some, or how much we might hope is the case.

In the long term, it's worse. Trump panders to the religious right, whose ideologues (such as J.D. Vance, Josh Hawley, and much of the Heritage Foundation) are happy to play along, knowing that he will pave the way for them to fill the power vacuum that will exist when he is gone, if the Democrats do not quickly, radically, and obviously change for the better to embrace American values. (I am not holding my breath.)

I won't spend long on the Democrats. They are so obviously bad to ordinary Americans that they make Trump, who is extremely unappealing to those outside his fanatical base, look acceptable to anyone who doesn't pay too much attention to politics.

The fact that the Democrats failed to prosecute Trump timely for his national security lapses or for his role in the civil unrest after the 2020 election shows how unserious they are about our nation's institutions.

Their blatantly political proecution of Trump based on a dubious legal theory in New York underscores that problem by showing that they only did so to hamper his political campaign.

So, yes. As upset as I am that one of the current major candidates (or Kamala Harris) is almost certainly going to take office after the next presidential election, let me be clear that it is a truly ominous development that we have people taking potshots at political candidates.

This is at best a symptom of a long erosion of respect by ordinary people of law and order, but that has been undermined for at least the past several presidencies by the kind of politician who gets elected on the basis of the kinds of handouts he will give and to whom.

Two sayings come to my mind at this point:

If your government is big enough to give you everything you want, it is big enough to take away everything you have.

And:

A republic, if you can keep it.

The first is misattributed to Thomas Jefferson and the second is by Ben Franklin.

Those objectives are incompatible, and until American voters stop trying to achieve the first, they will endanger the second. There is still time to change our nations' course, but if we lose our Republic, we won't have to just posture about how horrible things are anymore.

-- CAV