🔗 Share this article

Across US history, presidents are rarely evaluated by whether unrest took place on their watch but rather by their reaction to such events. Each crisis poses the same test: would the person who holds the office utilize power to steady the republic, or instead deepen divisions in it?

The Oath and Its Significance

This solemn promise of office exists for precisely this moment. It binds the president to something larger than self-interest or political affiliation—the constitution and the rule of law. In the wake of the passing of a conservative advocate a prominent figure, Donald Trump has disregarded this oath, opting rather to exercise his immense power to further divide an already polarized country, not unite it. History shall not soon forget this grave act of exploiting tragedy.

Lessons from the Past

One can examine the historical record to see this challenge is recurring.

On the brink of civil war, President Lincoln invoked the noble instincts of our nature” and reminded the nation that leadership carries a constitutional duty to “preserve, protect and defend the constitution”.

At that time, presidential action meant seizing a moment of deep tragedy and turning it into a renewal of equal rights and justice. But not all leaders chose this route. Andrew Johnson, assuming power after Lincoln’s murder, used his bully pulpit to vilify members of Congress, going so far as to menace one sitting congressman. Additionally, he aimed criticism at his predecessor’s legacy through postponing a protection Lincoln promised to freed individuals. He refused to denounce the violence which targeted both Black citizens and supporters backing Reconstruction. His war with Congress and his abdication of presidential duty led to formal charges and left a reputation marked by discord and cultural backsliding.

The Urgent Lesson

This insight is not merely academic. It is urgent. Whenever unrest strikes the country, a leader’s role is to tell the truth regarding justice, to call for calm and to make clear that responsibility is individual, not groups. Fault lies with one singular culprit, not an entire faction of the American electorate. The oath presidents swear represents a commitment to every citizen. It requires leaders to represent the entire nation and to fairly enforce legislation without fear or bias. This duty excludes blaming whole populations for actions of one person, and it rules out turning grief into a pretext for settling political scores.

A Choice Made

Yet in this crisis, instead of discharge that duty, the incumbent has opted to exploit the event. Through accusing what he labels “far-left” for the deed of a single individual, he has not only avoided accountability; he has mocked the pledge. A promise that should bind him to all Americans is being repurposed into an instrument of division. The implication to political opponents and vulnerable communities is unmistakable: you become objects of hostility and citizens second.

During a discussion with NBC News, the president stated he was hoping to unite the nation. Simultaneously, he pinned the blame on a sweeping and ill-defined “radical left extremists”.

“They don’t play fair and never have,” he claimed. Recently, he warned to initiate an investigation into Democratic megadonor George Soros. The current leader is repeating his same polarizing strategy, attributing public crises to rivals and violating the oath of office in the process.

A Better Path

There is another path, and we have seen it in recent decades. After the attacks of September 11, George W Bush went to a mosque and affirmed that American Muslims were never the enemy. He refused collective blame. Following the domestic terror attack, Bill Clinton urged the public to lower its rhetoric and to reject the conspiracism which may justify violence.

In the aftermath of Dr. King’s murder in 1968, President Johnson addressed a grieving nation and called on Americans to rededicate to democracy and fairness. He spoke plainly about the danger that unrest posed to democratic life and concerning the duty of leaders to secure citizens’ civil rights instead of foment fear.

What Honor Looks Like

How might honoring the pledge appear now? It would begin with a clear denunciation of ideologically motivated aggression and of vigilantism. It would support the autonomy of law enforcement and courts and would promise that justice will be enforced fairly. It would refuse collective guilt and refuse all efforts to turn grief into a weapon against political enemies. It would call on Americans to shared principles: to the idea that disagreements are resolved through debate through law, argument and voting, not through coercion.

A Defining Decision

The current option is stark. A leader can rise to the moment through upholding the nation’s laws and uniting the nation. Yet the incumbent has chosen a different path. He has catered to base instincts, not our better angels. He has accused a whole group of the population, labeled as “far-left”, for the actions of one person whose motives for his act of violence are still not settled. And he decided to attack rivals and smear his opponents, rather than to answer the call of the constitution. The future shall judge his tenure like Johnson, who made a mockery of the oath, not Lincoln, who sought to honor it.