By now everyone knows about Donald Trump's racist attacks against the Hispanic judge presiding over the Trump University lawsuit. Over the weekend, Trump doubled down on his bigotry, claiming not only that Judge Curiel is biased and a "disgrace" because he's Hispanic, but also that a Muslim judge would probably be just as bad.
Some prominent lifelong Republicans, like Erick Erickson, have rightly condemned Trump's racism. But when Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell was asked about Trump's attacks, he said he disagreed with them but he refused to say whether they were racist. To be clear, McConnell was asked three times, point-blank, whether Trump's attacks were racist, and he refused to answer.
In fact, when he was asked about Erickson's condemnation of Trump's remarks, McConnell actually disapproved of the condemnation. "The right-of-center world needs to respect the fact that the primary voters have spoken," said McConnell, defending the selection of Trump as the Republican nominee. And when McConnell was confronted with Erickson's complaint that "the party of Lincoln intends to circle its wagons around a racist," McConnell responded by saying: "I think the party of Lincoln wants to win the White House."
The lack of self-awareness in this response is staggering. In the 1850s, the push for Southern secession was intensifying. The Democrats were mostly pro-slavery and the Whigs were fracturing internally over the expansion of slavery into new territories. The anti-slavery faction rejected the Whig Party's slavery-appeasing platform, and this internal division handed the 1852 election to the Democrats. As this fight over the expansion of slavery intensified, and talk of secession escalated, the Whig Party collapsed and the Republican Party emerged not only to fight the expansion of slavery but also to declare that "the Union of the States must and shall be preserved."
In other words, the party of Lincoln was founded on the rejection of racial divisiveness. Erickson's complaint -- about the Republicans circling their wagons around Trump -- was clearly meant to highlight the contradiction inherent in the party of Lincoln embracing the most openly racist and racially divisive presidential candidate that this country has seen since the fight over desegregation.
But McConnell didn't get it. Or, if he got it, he didn't care. For McConnell, getting his candidate into the White House is all that matters -- no matter how racist and divisive that candidate might be. And so, with this, we can mark the official death of the party of Lincoln.
You think this is hyperbolic? It isn't. The party of Lincoln has been hacking out its final breaths for some time now.
You want evidence? Let's start with the Union. As noted, the party of Lincoln proclaimed that "the Union of the States must and shall be preserved." The Republican Party Platform of 1860 -- the year Lincoln ran for president -- declared: "[W]e hold in abhorrence all schemes for disunion, come from whatever source they may." The Party rejected all talk of secession and "denounce[d] those threats of disunion... as an avowal of contemplated treason, which it is the imperative duty of an indignant people sternly to rebuke and forever silence."
Does this sound like today's Republican Party? No. Today's Republican Party is the welcoming reservoir of secessionist sentiment. Just last month the Texas GOP held a debate and an actual vote on whether to include support for secession as a plank in its platform. Nobody denounced the secessionists for "contemplated treason." Instead, the secessionists were held at bay by the inclusion of compromising language. And all this talk of secession didn't arise overnight. It has been gaining popularity among Republicans for at least a decade. The Texas Nationalist Movement -- at home within the Texas GOP -- has reported a 400% increase in membership since 2012.
And that's not all. Lincoln's Party Platform also declared support for "legislation, whenever such legislation is necessary," to protect the Constitution's prohibition against the deprivation of "life, liberty or property without due process of law." In 1860 this referred directly to slavery. But reading this plank in light of the Republicans' support for post-Civil War Reconstruction, and in light of the 20th-century struggle against racial segregation and other forms of institutionalized racism -- i.e., slavery's progeny -- it's certain the party of Lincoln, staying true to form, would have supported the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
But in 1964, the Republican Party nominated Barry Goldwater -- a candidate who opposed the Civil Rights Act. And today, decades later, the Republican Party harbors prominent figures who continue to question or undermine the validity of these legislative efforts against racism. Most recently, Republicans have spearheaded the renewed assault on voting rights -- which was made possible by a Republican-appointed majority on the Supreme Court.
Does any of this sound at all like the party of Lincoln that supported legislation to protect against racial discrimination and the deprivation of liberties (like the freedom to vote)?
And here's the real kicker. The 1860 Republican Platform declared: "That the Republican party is opposed to any change in our naturalization laws or any state legislation by which the rights of citizens hitherto accorded to immigrants from foreign lands shall be abridged or impaired." That's right. The party of Lincoln was pro-immigrant, and favored "giving a full and efficient protection to the rights of all classes of citizens, whether native or naturalized." How does that compare to the anti-immigrant rhetoric of today's Republican Party -- particularly the racist remarks recently made by its current standard bearer, about a particular federal judge?
The obvious answer is that it doesn't. Today's Republican Party simply does not compare, at all, to the party of Lincoln.
In fact, when McConnell responded to charges of racism by suggesting that winning the White House is all that matters, he unwittingly revealed yet another chasm between today's Republican Party and the party of Lincoln. In 1864, when Lincoln was running for reelection in the midst of the Civil War, it started to look like he might lose. In preparation for that possibility, Lincoln wrote what has come to be known as the "Blind Memorandum." In that memo, Lincoln declared it his "duty" to cooperate with the new Democratic president, "to save the Union." And he got the members of his administration to sign the memo, sight unseen. In so doing, the Lincoln administration pledged to work with a newly elected Democratic president to save the Union -- because Lincoln cared more about what was best for the nation than about winning the White House.
McConnell's refusal to condemn Trump's racism -- i.e., his refusal to put the good of the nation over his desire to win the White House -- should be heard for what it was: a death rattle. The Republican Party is now a haven for secessionists and neo-fascists, led by an unapologetic racist and xenophobic demagogue. In short: the Republican Party is no longer the party of Lincoln. The party of Lincoln is dead.