Lincoln would not have prosecuted Trump

"And the war came" is a phase from Lincoln's second inaugural address shortly before the end of the war and of his life, that looks back on the words of his first.  Four years before he expressed hope that differences between the confederacy and the states united by the federal constitution could be resolved by compromise.   We are at a similar place right now, with failure to foresee the future consequences of such an internecine war making such a tragedy possible.


War and politics are different domains of positions and of public discussion.  In reality it is a  continuum, something not realized until a transition between the two occurs. Opposing groups in the form of political parties are designed to allow their divergent interests and values to be determined short of actual combat by a structured periodic plebiscite to determine which shall prevail. Politics can be enjoyable, a club that brings people together against a common enemy. It has this carnival quality of an intoxicating unifying institution -- that is until the music stops.

We may actually be closer now than even the prelude to the Civil War.  The current President has articulated only somewhat less than an overt threat with words such as these: "I can tell you I have the support of the police, the support of the military, the support of the Bikers for Trump – I have the tough people, but they don’t play it tough — until they go to a certain point, and then it would be very bad, very bad."

The escalation of this saber rattling occurred recently from other side of the political divide from the presumptive Democratic candidate for the Presidency, Joseph Biden  It was  response to a question whether he would promise to "not pull a President Ford” by pardoning Trump “under the pretense of healing the nation.” Biden emphasized his concurrence  with, "Absolutely, yes. I commit.”  In this response was a tacit assumption that he condemned Ford's pardoning of President Nixon.  This has not been the universal judgement of history, which is illustrated by the words of Ford's 2001 Kennedy Center Profiles in Courage award.

Lost to our public memory is the lesson that could be learned from the similarity between the Nixon presidency and that of Trump.  This 1983 Atlantic Monthly article sounds familiar: "I'll tell you what," the prosecutor says. "They'll run for cover. One third of the country still supports him, (Nixon) and we're on the verge of civil insurrection. If he told the Joint Chiefs, 'I want the troops out and I want to dissolve Congress,' they would have done it."  The article expresses that while Ford did not specifically agree to pardon Nixon, he did convey his belief that this was the preferable course of action for the country. . 

Biden's glib statement is meaningful; as the question was an opportunity for him to define a direction for his administration that would have been a reversal of the hatred, both  by and against the incumbent.. He could have responded without denying that his opponent deserves to be punished for his actions, for example, "This is a difficult subject, as the expectation of endless prosecution could energize Trump to foolishly try to prevent the constitutional transfer of power."

It would have been bad enough if he had stopped with this vow not to pardon, but he went further, and in doing so betrayed his lack of mastery of the structure of the executive branch of our government. He continued with “It’s hands-off completely. Look, the attorney general of the United States is not the president’s lawyer. It’s the people’s lawyer.” He is accurate in as far as traditionally, once an attorney general is appointed there is a high degree of autonomy in specific choice of cases.  Yet, as in all cabinet positions, it is the elected president who defines the broad outlines of policies. The AG is the "peoples lawyer" only to the degree that he follows the principles that are determined by the elected president. 

Biden may have been trying to convey that he would not use the justice department to advance partisan goals, but in doing so he went too far.  He passed on the opportunity to express a higher goal, to reverse the pathological hatred of one party of the other.  Rather, he signaled that he would adopt an approach to lead his party to the destruction of the enemy, defined in the person of Donald J. Trump. No prominent Democrat has publically questioned his statement, so the full extent of the consequences of  Biden's promise has not even been aired.  Hatred of Trump is what unites Democrats to the degree that anything short of making him suffer for what he has done to the the country is blasphemy. 

The day after the attack on Pearl Harbor, the Japanese became Japs, to be destroyed after great carnage in a war that ended in a flash that unleashed the specter of nuclear Armageddon.  Our country demanded minimal retribution and no reparations. We only required that they become a democracy, which resulted in their becoming a stalwart of the "free world."

The ending of the Civil War was only a cessation of armed conflict; as the residue of slavery was deeper and broader than could be erased by Reconstruction. The resistance began with the KKK the same year the war ended continuing in many forms to this day.  The current Democratic party, in proposing destroying the life of the deposed leader ignores the reality that Donald Trump would never have attained power if he did not reflect a movement much larger than himself.  The challenge is greater than winning an election, and certainly not to be achieved by seeking retribution on the one who brought the stresses of our country to a head.

Addendum-Alternative laws that would allow presidential rule by decree

Congress, after the shock of  9-11, chose to redefine the Presidency in the "John Warner act of 2007" It enhanced the power of the federal chief executive over that of governors.  It was to sunset in five years, but it appears to have been reactivated as recently as 2018 and still is the law of the land. 

In spite of many Americans fearing the President becoming a dictator, over the last half century or so, the mood of the country was to enhance the power of this office, whether escorting negro children to school after Brown v. Board or preventing the encroachment of "evil empires." Trump possesses all of the plenary authority that has been enshrined in f,ederal law that can not be negated, even by the high court if it were so inclined. 

My article, "Lincoln....." without being explicit, proposes that the Democrats negotiate with Trump, assuming that a fair election would require that he leave the office he holds.  "The deal is you accept the will of the majority of the electoral college, and in return you get a federal pardon, which will allow you to continue to build your political base as a citizen leader, and maybe even return after the Dem's screw up their term."

So far little support my suggestion. Let's give it a description, "appeasement"-- forgetting how this word is now equated with cowardliness.  It is really making the best of a crisis by opting for compromise instead of a predictable catastrophic outcome.  The British public appreciated Nevil Chamberlain's efforts using this strategy, and only a revisionist interpretation makes it seem his doing his best faced by the complex challenge is to be condemned. 

There is another side of the nefariousness of Trump. It is what I view to be the profound defects of the coalition that forms the current Democratic party.  The chaos in the streets we are experiencing is only partly by those who want to revise the laws that define acceptable behavior of the police.  For many it is overtly radical, with posters such as "Eliminate the Police" similar to those who chant, abolish, rather than reform, ICE. 

These events have shifted Biden's "probably choosing a Black VP" to he damn well better, and will do so.  The vast scope of presidential responsibilities is ignored when a single identity becomes the primary criteria. The single black woman with experience in the federal government is Senator Kamala Harris, who is one of two candidates castigated in this Washington Post article for accusing the officer who killed Michael Brown in Ferguson. While every list of people of color who were wrongfully killed by police include this event, the article goes into detail why the officer, Darell Wilson is innocent, following the mandate to use lethal force when appropriate. 

Police officer Wilson and George Flowd are both victims of our times.  While I have no viable prescription for a solution, the first step is transcending the toxic partisanship that is certain to lead to a catastrophe we dare not imagine.


 .