🔗 Share this article

Across US history, presidents have not been judged by whether unrest occurred on their watch but by their reaction to such events. Every emergency poses the same test: will the individual who holds the presidency utilize power to stabilize the nation, or instead deepen divisions in it?

A Sacred Vow and The Purpose

This solemn promise for the presidency was created exactly for this moment. It binds the president to principles greater than self-interest or political affiliation—the US Constitution and the rule of law. In the wake of the death of rightwing political activist Charlie Kirk, the current president has disregarded this commitment, choosing instead to wield his immense power to split further a deeply divided nation, not unite it. Future generations will not soon forget this serious instance of exploiting tragedy.

Lessons from the Past

One can look to past events to see this challenge is recurring.

At the edge of civil war, President Lincoln appealed to the “better angels within humanity” and emphasized the country that leadership entails a sworn obligation to safeguard, protect and uphold the nation’s founding document”.

In this case, presidential action meant seizing an opportunity of deep tragedy and turning it into a renewal of equal rights and justice. But not all leaders have taken this route. Andrew Johnson, who took office following Lincoln’s assassination, employed his platform to attack elected officials, even threatening an incumbent congressman. He even took a shot at Lincoln’s achievements by delaying a protection previously assured to freed individuals. He refused to condemn the brutality which targeted African Americans and supporters backing Reconstruction. His war against lawmakers and abandonment of presidential duty led to impeachment and resulted in a reputation defined by division and cultural decline.

The Urgent Lesson

This insight is not merely theoretical. It is urgent. When violence shocks the nation, the president’s job is to communicate the truth regarding justice, to call for calm and to make clear that responsibility lies with individuals, not groups. Blame lies with a single perpetrator, not an entire faction of voters. The oath leaders take is a promise to all Americans. It obliges them to represent the whole country and to equally apply the law impartially or favor. That obligation rules out blaming entire communities for the act of one person, and it rules out converting sorrow into an excuse for settling political scores.

A Choice Made

However during this crisis, instead of fulfilling that duty, this president has opted to weaponize tragedy. By blaming what he labels “radical left” for the act 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 clear: you become targets first before being people.

During a discussion on national television, the president stated he was hoping to unite the nation. Simultaneously, he placed the blame on a sweeping and vague “far-left extremists”.

“They do not play fair and they never did,” he claimed. Recently, he warned to initiate an investigation targeting a liberal financier George Soros. The current leader is repeating his usual divisive playbook, attributing public crises on political opponents and desecrating the presidential vow along the way.

A Better Path

There is a different approach, and we have seen it in much more recent history. Following the events on 9/11, President Bush went to an Islamic center and insisted that Muslim citizens were not the enemy. He refused group accusation. After the Oklahoma City bombing, Bill Clinton encouraged the country to lower its rhetoric and to dismiss the conspiracism which may justify violence.

After Martin Luther King Jr’s assassination during the sixties, Lyndon B Johnson addressed a grieving nation and urged Americans to recommit to democracy and justice. He spoke plainly about the danger that violence presented to civil society and about the duty of the government to secure individual freedoms instead of foment fear.

What Honor Looks Like

What would following the oath appear now? It would begin with a clear condemnation of ideologically motivated aggression and unauthorized justice. It would affirm the independence of law enforcement and judiciary and would promise that justice shall be enforced fairly. It would reject collective guilt and refuse any attempt to convert sorrow into a cudgel against political enemies. It would call on the public to shared principles: toward the concept that disagreements are resolved our fiercest disagreements via legislation, argument and voting, not through intimidation.

A Defining Decision

Today’s choice is clear. A leader can meet the moment through upholding the constitution and uniting the nation. Yet the incumbent has chosen another way. He has catered to our worst demons, not our better angels. He has accused an entire segment of the population, labeled as “radical left”, for the behavior of an individual whose motives for his act of murder remain uncertain. And he has chosen to target enemies and smear his opponents, instead of to respond to the call of the oath. History shall judge his tenure like Johnson, who made a disgrace of the oath, not Lincoln, who sought to fulfill it.