“A house divided against itself cannot stand.”¹
(Abraham Lincoln, 1858)
Recently, President Putin’s Ukraine war strategy was questioned by one of his long-time supporters who also led a mercenary army on a threatening march to Moscow. Though he eventually laid down his arms and appeared to reconcile with Putin, both he and his followers never modified their critique of Putin’s war strategy. But that critique died with him when his private plane exploded shortly after take-off. He appeared to have met the common fate of prior critics of Putin or his policies. As a corollary to his fate, the mercenary army he recruited was then disbanded or allowed to join Putin’s military. Putin understood he could neither win his unprovoked war in Ukraine nor govern Russia unless he eliminated any dissonant voice before it could muster a rebellion against his Presidency. He knew a divided house cannot stand.
One hundred and sixty-two years ago, an American presidential candidate faced the reality that his country was despairingly divided between slave states and non-slave states. His political opponent supported slavery. He did not. If he should win, he would be then destined to become President of a divided electorate. Nevertheless, shortly after assuming office, he wrote the Emancipation Proclamation, then sequestered it in his desk drawer. He feared that neither his campaign against the extension of slavery nor any proclamation against its inhumanity could bridge the divide between the American states. Instead, the Confederacy would have to be defeated and the Southern States reunified into the United States of America. He knew a divided house cannot stand.
Today, any elected American President faces many divisive challenges. But, in a democracy, no President has Putin’s power of suppression of adverse opinions or assassination of political opponents or dissidents. He, or she, must be ruled by the electorate and the governing principles established by the American Constitution and the rule of law derived from its principles. And those principles must be held as inviolable as a moral code, for they define the extent and limitations of the three branches of the democratic state, namely, the legislative, judicial, and executive. And democratic “rule by the people” can only be assured by free and fair elections and, consequently, by the universal acceptance of the majority as reflected in those elections. Therefore, all of us Americans must understand and accept these principles as Civics 101, else forgo our responsibilities as citizens in a democratic state—or worse. The alternative course would allow any divisive element to pervert, or even overturn, the very democracy that defines the United States of America. For, indeed, a divided house cannot stand.
There are many ways in which Americans can become divided: wealth or income inequality resulting from runaway capitalism often abetted by powerful lobbyists; racial, tribal, or religious/doctrinal persecution/ostracism; or the usurpation of governing power by opportunistic men (yes, always men) who choose to serve their own interests rather than those they govern or the very principles of the democracy they swore an oath to serve. We Americans do not have or even want to have the Putin option. Nevertheless, we must now face the same reality that candidate Abraham Lincoln did in 1858. At the outset, he knew what needed to be done to preserve our American republic, thereby abiding by Benjamin Franklin’s alleged exhortation, “if you can keep it.” And George Washington had also warned us that “cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.”² And those “very engines” were referenced by a more recent President who, like Lincoln, admonished Americans that “we must guard against a weakening of the values that make us who we are.”³ The values President Obama referenced by these words were made explicit in our American Constitution’s Preamble and determinative in the “check and balance” structure of the government it constituted.
Nevertheless, America now finds itself divided not only amongst political factions, but also within the functioning of its Constitutionally defined branches of its government. How did Americans become so divided in their politics and in support of the founding principles of our democratic republic?
“your union ought to be considered as a main prop of your liberty, and that the love of the one ought to endear to you the preservation of the other.”
The simple answer to this question is our loss of perspective on the source of our union and the nature of our individual responsibility to preserve it. Again, the words of our first President come to mind: “your union ought to be considered as a main prop of your liberty, and that the love of the one ought to endear to you the preservation of the other.”4 These were the words of the man who not only trained but also commandeered the volunteer army that won our freedom from the British throne. In addition, he also chaired the Convention in Philadelphia that gave America its founding Constitution. Both contributions to the founding of America’s democratic republic were performed without pay—for they were inspired by George Washington’s love for a united America and the preservation of the freedom it guarantees for its citizens. Washington and the founding fathers of our Constitution demonstrated for all of us what it means to be an American. If the country they birthed had later lost the war of 1812, any of these men who survived would have been charged with treason and hung from the gallows. They exemplified the meaning of the word “patriotism.” But how do we rate our performance on the patriotic scale today?
“a decline in courage may be the most striking feature that an outside observer notices in the West today.”
At this very moment in America’s history, our two major political parties are at war with each other, where one Party resembles what Washington coined a “faction” that would “put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation the will of a party”4 rather than any alternative position in pursuit of the general welfare. Factions tend to fight for advantage rather than collaborate for any compromise that may benefit most, if not all, of their constituents. How can our personal freedoms be protected when we Americans can no longer agree on how we should unite to protect and extend them? Solzhenitsyn may have been right in his criticism of American liberals when he said, “a decline in courage may be the most striking feature that an outside observer notices in the West today.”5
Let us review America’s current state of our union and its effect on our freedoms:
- Republican State legislatures have gerrymandered voting districts to the point of disenfranchising millions of voters. As a result, Donald Trump won the Presidency while losing the popular vote by over 3 million votes. He lost his incumbency by over 7 million votes yet could have won with just 46,000 more votes in so-called swing states. Is it not a core principle of a democracy that the majority rules? Any violation of that principle is a disenfranchisement of citizens in a democracy—which inevitably results in a loss of personal freedom and of any viable union of the voting republic. Instead, gerrymandering has disproportionally concentrated governing power in a minority to the detriment of the general welfare.
- As a result, any resemblance to our traditional Republican Party has been vanquished and no longer exists. Gerrymandering has netted a new majority within the Party that disavows traditional Republican values of adherence to the core values of the Constitution, to fiscal responsibility, to national defense—especially in confronting threats from illiberal regimes and in supporting constructive relationships with other nations, and to the strengthening of law enforcement in our cities and at our borders. Instead, this rogue Republican Party has no published public policy platform. Instead, it vows only its total tribal allegiance to Donald Trump, bowing to his every whim without regard for the wellbeing of all Americans. Nor does it promise support to nations with whom America aligns itself by formal treaty agreements. Trump’s command of his rebranded MAGA (“make America great again”) Republican Party has so distorted America’s foreign policies that alliances with NATO, the Quad, and peaceful/democratic states around the world have been replaced with his self-admitted identification with “strong” men, which translates to dictators like Kim Jung Un, Putin, and even dictatorial administrations from Hungary, to the Philippines, Cuba and South America. Donald Trump would make America his island state, detached from the world and dedicated to his every whim and personal needs. He would rule a divided nation like he managed his businesses. The White House would replace his gold entrusted perch atop Trump Tower. Instead of the many bankruptcies he wielded as a self-proclaimed business icon, he would mismanage the most powerful military and influential economy in the world. Then he could freely consort with the other dictators he so admires and command a world they could rape in tandem—a world where territorial boundaries are flouted and chaos reigns—a world subject to soulless men.
- Donald Trump’s “stop the steal” retort and his claims of a “rigged election” were built on lies disavowed by his own campaign managers, by the Department of Justice, by members of his Executive Branch, and by the decisions of 61 court judgements. Nevertheless, his lies inflamed a riot on January 6, 2021, that threatened the integrity of the vote count, attempted to disenfranchise the voting republic, and effected an insurrection against the peaceful transfer of power. He violated more than just our voting rights, but both the self-determination of citizens in a free democracy and the very integrity of the United States as a democratic republic.
What may be more divisive than perverting the legitimacy of the Electoral College, corrupting the values of the Republican Party, and instigating an insurrection to disenfranchise voters is the intended outcome. Those Trumpian insurrectionists were attempting to install an unelected man “who would be king” in violation of the Constitution. And that perverse coronation would be the end of the democratic Republic we call America. It also would spell the end of the 235-year-old beacon of hope that America’s Constitution established as the United States of America.
If Trump were to regain the Presidency by way of an insurrection, is there any doubt that he would never relinquish the office voluntarily? He instead would pardon, as promised, those convicted of various crimes while participating in the January 6 insurrection. For he calls them hostages, not prisoners convicted of crimes, just as he calls himself “the greatest President in history,” while ignoring his convictions for massive fraud and sexual assault. He would install sycophants to govern in line with his interests rather than the well-being of the electorate. There is nothing, other than his projected grievances, that connects him with his MAGA followers. They will never sit at his table, discuss common human experiences, or share the same life goals. Any man who displays the symptoms of a sociopathic narcissist is incapable of normal human relationships. He will only serve his own interests and protect his self-glorified—but fragile—ego at any costs.
At this writing, this man has yet to stand trial before a jury of his peers to face 91 federal indictments. Ironically, he has already admitted his guilt, claiming a Presidential immunity that is non-existent, especially for an ex-President. As Liz Cheney has so eloquently stated in her book, this man should never be allowed to set foot in the White House. “Every one of us—Republican, Democrat, Independent—must work and vote together to ensure that Donald Trump and those who have appeased, enabled, and collaborated with him are defeated.”6
In conclusion, America is now facing an existential crisis. It’s very democracy is at stake. As our current President has recently stated, this crisis is not about political parties and candidates, but about us–that is, who we are and whether we can be the responsible citizens of a democratic republic. Only we can decide our fate! This 2024 election is either a vote for our Constitutional democracy or its demise. And the latter is that point of no return.
_____________________________________________________
1 Carl Sandburg, “Abraham Lincoln,” p. 138
2 George Washington, “Farewell Address, 1796.”
3 Barack Obama, “Farewell Address, 2017.”
4 Ibid., Washington, “Farewell Address, 1796.”
5 Solzhenitsyn, as quoted by Eliot Cohen in The Atlantic, February Edition
6 This quote precedes the last statement in her book, namely, “this is the cause of our time.” Liz Cheney, “Oath and Honor,” p.368.