Where Do We Go From Here?

While the outcome of the Trump case was glaringly fixed, the verdict was no less momentous for our country. All of it reeked from the beginning: a District Attorney who ran their campaign on getting Trump for literally anything, manipulating the law for a crime that has never been charged before (and still has yet to really be defined), a judge that was openly hostile towards the defendant (who should have had a presumption of innocence), forum shopping the case into the most hostile district possible, and the icing on this rancid cake was jury instructions never before seen that made a guilty verdict all but assured.  The verdict was cooked from the beginning and a political figure was openly targeted by the institutions that are meant to protect us. This verdict puts a large majority of the country at a crossroads: sink to the level the progressives are willing to or take the higher road? What direction would the country be headed if we took the former while the latter presents so many other forks in the road? We should naturally be asking which way should we go?

At first, the logic sounds good: if the progressives want to re-write the rule book, then they should be prepared to play by those same set of rules. Therefore, when the pendulum of power sways back to the right, democrats should be prepared to be targeted by the same set of standards that they have levied against former President Trump. There is however a terrifying conclusion to that path. If we agree to play by their rules, then we will implicitly accept their premise that these institutions are not founded correctly and need to be abolished. Do we really agree that rule of law is not necessary? Do we want to needlessly toss aside the presumption of innocence in favor of the presumption of guilt the bureaucratic, compliance state would prefer? Our institutions have quite obviously fallen from their purpose and founding, but if we agree to mutually assured destruction, then we are also agreeing to destroy the foundation of the country and we should not so be so careless to disregard these institutions in pursuit of revenge or victory.

So that naturally begs the question: how do you successfully play a game when the rules have been so obviously disregarded? This is where emotion fails us because reason needs to be at the forefront of this conversation. The straightforward way is to redefine the rules of the game (not toss them all out) and establish the consequences if those rules are not followed. This shot across the bow is clearly because the left does not believe there will be retribution for their actions. And just like McConnell did when the Senate changed the rules for judicial appointments, we must communicate that this action will have repercussions, but those repercussions will be in strict accordance with the revised rules. Rule of Law is a resolute part of the foundation of this country; therefore, we need to outline what laws will be enforced. If they are concerned about classified documents, then that will be strictly enforced. If the left truly cares about campaign donations and improperly filed paperwork, AOC better hold on to her dress and be prepared for the rule of law to apply to every single action and person. We must be clear about what the law is and what punishment will accompany that law. And most importantly, that this law will apply to ALL politicians just as much as civilians.

The difficulty of this path is the necessity of strict adherence to the rules, even when emotionally it may not be fulfilling. This means that both sides must be targeted with the same intensity and fervor that the left is only using on conservatives. Likely this means that many republicans would find themselves firmly in the crosshairs of investigations, but, the end result is a new respect for our institutions and a necessary commitment to play by the same rules. Playing political favorites with the law is antithetical to our founding, and we should be willing to demonstrate with our actions that we believe in our founding principles. This also will require us to have incontrovertible evidence of the crime. We should not sink to the level of circumstantial evidence, innuendoes, and character attacks but instead upon the unignorable, firm facts of the case. This may not satisfy the emotional desire to lock up politicians who appear to be flouting the law for which we do not have direct proof, but it will put many in their place and incentivize everyone to abide by the law.

As many of our parents said, just because your sibling pushed you does not give you justification to push back. But this saying does not imply that we must simply roll over and take the abuse. Instead, we must not bow down to an emotional response but instead seek a more enlightened and rational response to bullying. The way to discourage a bully is to make sure they understand the penalty of their actions and that the consequences will be enforced strictly and quickly. As deeply satisfying as it would be to see many of the democrat politicians in orange, even Trump did not throw all his energy into placing Hillary behind bars. With this restraint, Trump showed his commitment to some of the founding of this nation and was seeking a higher avenue into making the capitol more principled and less swampy. The democrats are leading with and through fear. We all know it and see it as clearly as one can see the bully on the playground. Our founders fought some of the greatest bullies history has ever seen; they fought them when the game was rigged, and they did not succumb. Instead, they played with strength, patience and wisdom and rewrote the rules with a principled hand.