Don't dishonor the legacies of Lincoln and Reagan by lumping them in with Trump
My question is: What does Donald Trump have in common with Abraham Lincoln and Ronald Reagan?
After 750,000 had died in the Civil War, which cost over $150 billion in today's dollars, President Lincoln had every reason to punish the South for causing this bloody conflict. Yet in his second inaugural address on March 4, 1865, he did not refer to the Confederacy as the enemy but stated, "With malice toward none, with charity for all."
More: President Trump's policies are quickly advancing in Ohio
What a contrast with President Trump, who promised his supporters in the 2024 campaign that "I will be your retribution." And he's kept this promise. Within hours of taking the oath of office in January, he cut off security details for 51 former intelligence officials who displeased him, including former National Security Advisor John Bolton and Trump's Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo − despite threats against their lives from Iran − as well as Dr. Anthony Fauci, who was under threat for his response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Trump said he wouldn't feel responsible if anything happened to these men.
More: Trump executive orders targeting law firms are an assault on liberty | Strictly Legal
Trump has also fired dozens of Justice Department prosecutors who worked on cases against him and even those who prosecuted the rioters who attacked the Capitol on January 6. Recently, Trump denied security clearances for law firms that filed actions against him, which, in effect, deprives them of doing any legal work involving the government.
Let's talk about Ronald Reagan, a champion for freedom, who stood up to dictators in support of free nations around the world, exemplified by his famous declaration to the Soviet rulers at the Berlin Wall in 1987 to "tear down this wall." His words led to the fall of Communist rule in East Germany and throughout Eastern Europe and, ultimately, to the demise of the Soviet Union.
How different from President Trump's admiration of dictators like Rodrigo Duterte of the Philippines, who used death squads to kill up to 30,000 of his people and was recently arrested by the International Criminal Court for crimes against humanity. Then there is Trump's lavish praise of Vladimir Putin, whose invasion of Ukraine has resulted in one million casualties on both sides. He has also heaped affection on North Korean strongman Kim Jong-un, where 3.5 million have starved to death under the reign of Kim and his father. Yet, according to Trump, "Chairman Kim has a great and beautiful vision for his country.'
There is no record of Lincoln or Reagan engaging in name-calling. How would they feel to be joined with a man who calls the press "the enemy of the people," who described a political opponent as "one of the dumbest … men in Congress," and uses words like "scum" and "radical left wack-job" to describe his opponents?
More: A third Trump term is never going to happen. Why does he keep bringing it up? | Opinion
I have great respect for Chairman Russell Mock and the leaders of the Republican Party here in Cincinnati, but they know better. They know that exacting revenge, blacklisting attorneys and using ugly language is not something our party or our country stands for. Perhaps it's trite to bring up the phrase, "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing," but I think it applies here.
If our party wants to hold a dinner to honor Donald Trump, that's fine. But don't dishonor the legacies of great leaders like Abraham Lincoln and Ronald Reagan by lumping them with such a dishonorable figure as our current president.
Phil Heimlich is a former Hamilton County Assistant Prosecutor who has served as a Republican on Cincinnati City Council and the Hamilton County Commission. During the 2020 campaign, he helped lead Operation Grant, the Ohio affiliate of Republican Voters Against Trump. In 2024, he ran unsuccessfully in the Republican primary for Congress in Ohio's 2nd District. His podcast, The Radical Middle, can be seen on Facebook, X (@philheimlich), Instagram and Youtube.
This article originally appeared on Cincinnati Enquirer: Calling it the Lincoln-Regan-Trump Dinner is an insult to history
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
a few seconds ago
- The Hill
Trump orders a 35% tariff for goods from Canada, citing a lack of cooperation on illicit drugs
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump has raised the tariff rate on U.S. imports from Canada to 35% from 25%, effective Friday. The announcement from the White House late Thursday said Canada had failed to 'do more to arrest, seize, detain or otherwise intercept … traffickers, criminals at large, and illicit drugs.' Trump has heckled Canada for months and suggested it should become its 51st U.S. state. He had threatened to impose the higher tariff on Canada if no deal was reached by Friday, his deadline for reaching trade agreements with dozens of countries. Earlier Thursday, the president said Canada's announcement it will recognize a Palestinian state would 'make it very hard' for the United States to reach a trade agreement with its northern neighbor. Trump has also expressed frustration with a trade deficit with Canada that largely reflects oil purchases by America. Prime Minister Mark Carney had tempered expectations over tariffs, saying Ottawa would only agree to a deal 'if there's one on the table that is in the best interests of Canadians.' In a statement released early Friday, he said he was disappointed by Trump's actions and vowed to diversify Canada's exports. 'Canada accounts for only 1% of U.S. fentanyl imports and has been working intensively to further reduce these volumes,' he said, pointing to heavy investments in border security. Carney added that some industries — including lumber, steel, aluminum and automobiles — will be harder hit, but said his government will try to minimize the impact and protect Canadian jobs. Canada was not included in Trump's updated list of tariff rates on other countries announced late Thursday. Those import duties are due to take effect on Aug. 7. Trump sent a letter to Canada a few weeks ago warning he planned to raise duties on many goods imported from Canada to 35%, deepening the rift between the two North American countries that has undermined their decades-old alliance. Some imports from Canada are still protected by the 2020 United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement, or USMCA, which is up for renegotiation next year. The White House's statement said goods transshipped through Canada that are not covered by the USMCA would be subject to a 40% tariff rate. It did not say where the goods might originate. President Donald Trump said Thursday that there would be a 90-day negotiating period with Mexico after a call with that country's leader, Claudia Sheinbaum, keeping 25% tariff rates in place.
CNBC
a minute ago
- CNBC
CNBC Daily Open: New Trump tariffs (August remix) have dropped
The first time U.S. President Donald Trump unveiled his "reciprocal" tariffs on the rest of the world, the April 2 event had a cinematic, even grand, quality. It took place at the White House Rose Garden. There was a live band playing, according to The Wall Street Journal. Trump hoisted huge physical charts of his tariff rates, which were helpfully color-coded for visual clarity. This time, Trump's updated "reciprocal" tariffs, released the night before they come into effect on Aug. 1, seemed in comparison stripped of pomp and glamor. The White House's executive order popped up around 7 p.m. ET, just as people in the U.S. were getting off work. There was no live event, no big chart and certainly no entertainment — just a stern website with a black-and-white table. That austerity — and, one might even say, stealth — surrounding the recent announcement suggests two things. First, the White House could be aware that the dramatic shock of tariffs has less power to sway trade deals when staged a second time. The "90 deals in 90 days" that trade advisor Peter Navarro had promised in April are, after all, nowhere in sight. Trump, however, still left ajar the door to making "some kind of a deal." Second, the U.S. might actually be pleased with the effects of its higher-than-expected tariffs on countries without deals, and is willing to keep levies at those levels. In June, the U.S. Treasury Department reported an unexpected surplus thanks to tariff revenue, which were more than four times higher from a year ago. And economists aren't as alarmed by tariff-driven inflation as they once were. All that's speculation, of course. The order could have been released in this low-key fashion simply because the Rose Garden is now more like a Concrete Path. Or perhaps Trump doesn't want the penguins on the Heard and McDonald islands to hear about his levies this time. The U.S. rejigs tariff rates ahead of Aug. 1 deadline. Trump's executive order also imposed a 40% duty on all goods considered to have been transshipped to America. Here's how Asian leaders are reacting to the announcement, made Thursday evening stateside. The S&P 500 falls, retreating from an intraday high. Microsoft shares, however, rose around 4% to push the company's market cap above $4 trillion. Asia-Pacific markets — and tech giants, in particular — fell on Friday as investors digest latest tariff developments. Apple beats expectations for profit and revenue. The Cupertino-based company's iPhone sales grew 13% year over year, while overall revenue rose 10% in its fiscal third quarter, the fastest growth since December 2021. Amazon's gloomy guidance overshadows its earnings. Even though the company surpassed Wall Street's estimates for its second-quarter results, its expected operating income for the current quarter wasn't as high as analysts had hoped for. [PRO] Novo Nordisk's stock plunge isn't that surprising. On Tuesday, the firm's shares fell as much as 26% after it slashed its full-year guidance — and appointed a new CEO. Here's why companies tend to make both announcements simultaneously. Tariff turmoil: How global CEOs are shifting gears In interviews with CNBC this earnings season, CEOs across industries sent a clear message: tariffs are no longer just a political tactic. As trade rules grow more uncertain and tariffs resurface in policy discussions, business leaders say they're rethinking everything from where factories are located to how products are priced. The old "just in time" model is giving way to something more cautious: make goods closer to the buyer, ask for exemptions where possible, and stay alert to shifting consumer habits. —
Forbes
a minute ago
- Forbes
A Big, Beautiful Fiction - Does The EU/US Trade Deal Make Sense?
James Thurber's famous book 'The Secret Life of Walter Mitty' is yet another book I would recommend to readers, to continue a recurring theme of recent weeks. It is especially apt in the context of the US-EU trade deal. Walter Mitty appeared at the end of the 1930's, a decade that was shaped by Herbert Hoover's tariff policy, and that was marked by profound economic and geopolitical tensions. Mitty's fantasies were provoked by the reality of his pedestrian, harangued life – which will appeal to European leaders who care to dream of better days. Equally, the giddiness of Mitty's fantasies has its equivalent in the promises that Donald Trump has elicited from the EU – namely, to buy and invest hundreds of billions of dollars in energy. One week on, reaction to the US-EU trade deal is still mixed, and it is not quite clear who has 'won'. This may be because it is not a trade deal in the classical sense – at least in the sense of the laborious trade deals that the EU is used to striking, partly because a large facet of the 'deal' is based on a promise and also because the optics of the deal are quite depressing for Europe. At the headline level, EU exports into the US will be met with a 15% tariff to be paid by the US consumer, not unlike the Japanese 'deal'. Auto companies will not be displeased with a 15% tariff. Wines and spirits, steel and notably pharmaceuticals have yet to have tariff levels finalised and there will be some relief on the confirmation of 15% tariffs on pharmaceuticals, though the investigation into pharmaceutical exports back to the US is a tail risk. Interestingly, the EU has resisted attempts to water down its digital regulations. Politically the spin that the EU is putting on the agreement is that it was the best possible outcome in a difficult geopolitical climate (recall that the recent EU-China summit was a damp-squib). While there were some public expressions of dismay, notably from the French prime minister Francois Bayrou – these can be seen to be largely aimed at the public, rather than Brussels. Though Ursula von der Leyen is unpopular with EU governments for the singular way she runs her office – it is populated with officials who are close to national government (i.e. Alexandre Adam one of von der Leyen's key deputies is an arch Macronist) – there is no sense that the large countries were left out of the negotiation process, and any effort to isolate von der Leyen for blame, is ignoble. However, amongst the professional trade staff, there is still some despair at the humiliating optics of the deal, the fact that it is in many ways not binding, and the risk that there is no undertaking that it is final in the sense that another round of tariffs is imposed later. On the positive side for Europe, and flipping to the 'Mitty-esque' part of the deal, two of the key undertakings in the deal – that European companies invest USD 600 bn in the US, in addition to a commitment to purchase microchips, as well as a commitment from the EU to buy USD 750bn in energy from the US over the course of the Trump presidency – are not at all clear in their implementation, and very much open to a fudge, with the right accounting treatment. In particular the energy purchase commitment is unrealistic because it exceeds what the EU spends on energy in a given year and US energy firms do not have the capacity to service a commitment of USD 250bn in demand from Europe, whilst also serving other markets. In my view there are several aftershocks to watch for. The first is that the deal further damages trans-Atlantic relations, and the level of trust between the EU and the US is likely the lowest it has ever been, and this has strategic implications as far afield as Russia/Ukraine and the Middle East. One other implication may be a drift, by government and consumers, away from US brands – as this may well be an effect that is seen in other regions. Two financial market implications are that the dampening of growth in Europe will maintain downward pressure on rates in Europe. More importantly, in the context of a very oversold dollar, there is now an incentive for EU policy makers to try hard to talk down the euro, and we may see a short-term rebound in the currency pair. On the whole, if this is a 'final' deal and the topic of tariffs does not re-emerge in the next three years, it is not a bad deal for the semi's, autos and aerospace sectors in Europe, though the public optics are not good for the EU. The best parts of the deal for Europe are the fantastical claims of incoming European investment and energy purchases in the US. This is a Mitty style fairy tale that the Europeans hope Mr Trump believes in. The telling factor is that this deal has now emptied all goodwill from the trans-Atlantic relationship, and effectively completes another diplomatic rupture by President Trump. From a European point of view, this is yet another 'wake up call' and the best that can be hoped for is that it accelerates projects like the savings and investment union and 'strategic autonomy'. European leaders and the European policy elite keep talking about this, but until we see hard evidence (for example, German real GDP over the last five years is close to zero), they are the fantasists. Have a great week ahead Mike
