At 10:48 a.m. on July 13, I posted a comment on Facebook congratulating the New York Times for writing what I considered a long overdue editorial, entitled “Donald Trump Is Unfit for a Second Term.” About six hours later, a shooter, identified as Thomas Matthew Crooks, shot at Trump,  wounding two others and killing the father of two. Trump received a superficial wound to his right ear.

The next day a friend posted a response to my post: Maybe you need to rethink the timing of this post.

Although it troubles me to be on the opposite side of a question from someone whom I respect and who may be smarter than I am, I don’t think I need to rethink either the timing of the post or my opinion of Donald Trump.

As might be expected, the attempted assassination produced a profusion of opinions, some more informed than others. Social media exploded with various theories, including the theory that the whole thing was staged. (I won’t believe that unless an authoritative source provides some proof). Then there was the claim that God shielded Trump from the assassin’s bullet, and memes popped up, including one with Jesus’ hand on Trump’s shoulder. I consider it blasphemous to contend that God would intentionally shield Trump and intentionally let the father of two be killed. And there were the pundits, claiming that the shooter had just handed the presidency to Trump, although if being shot at entitles you to be president, there are dozens of young men in Atlanta who have a greater claim.

As regrettable as the attempt on Trump’s life was, as un-American and uncivilized as it was, there’s one truth that cuts through all of the noise: the shooting is irrelevant to the one most important question—whether Trump is fit to be president or not.

I agree with the Times. Trump is unfit for a second term. I thought—and events bore me out—that he was unfit for the first term. His reputation as Citizen Trump predicted his actions as Candidate Trump, and—contrary to the prayers of millions of US citizens— didn’t change when he became President Trump. Every day, he continued to enlarge his image as a self-centered, boorish deadbeat, and moral bankrupt . He made promises that he could not and would not keep. He continued to assure his base that he hated the people they hated. He continued to refer to almost everyone in demeaning terms.

Some people said that the US voters would never stoop to electing such a person. But, due to the Founder’s compromises, he was elected, the Electoral College trumping the fact that Hillary Clinton won the popular vote.

During his single term, his documented actions included kowtowing to dictators, betraying allies, and making such an outrageous claim at the UN that they laughed in his face. A first for an American president. Then when he faced his greatest challenge, he failed miserably, forcing a public health emergency through a political sieve.

While the chaos of Trump’s term was fresh on the minds of the voters, they fired him, the Electoral College finally agreeing with the popular vote.

Now Trump comes seeking a second term, carrying a 180-day playbook that is frightening in every detail. It essentially eliminates the guardrails that keep any single person from turning the world’s oldest government under the same management into an authoritarian regime run like those of the people Trump expresses admiration for.  

Trump and his campaign aides probably appreciate the actions of Thomas Crooks. The bandaged right ears and upraised hands deflect attention from the real question and from Project 2025.

I regret that Thomas Matthew Crooks shot at Donald Trump. I regret that one of his supporters, from all reports a decent person, died in the shooting. And I regret that there are people who think that Trump being shot at makes him more fit to be our president. However, there’s only one important question, and it has nothing to do with July 13 and everything to do with November 5.

On that day, we’ll have to make a decision between not only two very different people, two very different parties, and two very different visions of the United States, but also how this country will be governed for the next four years and possibly beyond. The right has already said that they will accept the results of the election if they win, and the Heritage Foundation leader has promised that the second American Revolution will be bloodless if the left allows it.

The one important question is which direction will we as voters support on November 5. Or, to put it another way, just how much of what we have valued for more than two hundred years are we willing to surrender?