Let’s trot out this cliché one more time: “The 2024 presidential election is the most consequential in our nation’s history.” Well, maybe, but it’s certainly the most consequential since 1860. That election blew apart the republic. Whether or not the 2024 election detonates the good ol’ U.S. of A. is TBD.

In 1860, Abe Lincoln, the Republican nominee, campaigned against the expansion of slavery. That’s right. He opposed slavery’s expansion, not its abolition. He argued that the “peculiar institution” was constitutionally protected in the states where it existed. He was right. Lincoln was trying to get elected and hold the nation together. He failed in the latter.

As it was, the Democrats, being Democrats, lied. They charged that Lincoln would abolish slavery upon assuming office. Isn’t it wondrous how history approximates? Now, Kamala Harris charges ad nauseum that Donald Trump will enact a national abortion ban should he capture the White House. He will not. Trump’s position is definitive: the abortion question must be settled by the people in the states. In fact, where abortion referenda have appeared on state ballots, pro-abortion forces have fared better than pro-life factions. That’s complicating Harris’ narrative that abortion “rights” can only be protected nationally.

The lie about Lincoln wanting slavery abolished had some bite. To borrow from Mark Twain, in 1860, the Democrats’ lie traveled across the Union before the truth had a chance to put its boots on. Had the Party of Jackson not splintered over how to handle the slavery question -- had they united behind Stephen Douglas -- Lincoln would have lost. He certainly would have been crushed in the popular vote.

Democrats aren’t split on abortion like their forerunners were on handling slavery. Most favor blank check abortion that’s guaranteed by Washington. Harris’ problem isn’t the issue. Her problem is Trump. He’s making it difficult for Harris to credibly charge that he’s out to impose a pro-life regime on women. Her bigger problem, unrelated to abortion, is that like Stephen Douglas, she’s burdened by a Democrat president’s failures. While Douglas wasn’t James Buchanan’s vice president, as his party’s standard-bearer, he was saddled with Buchanan’s baggage.

Recently, Trump voiced concerns about Florida law limiting abortions to six weeks as too short a period. Claimed the Los Angeles Times back in 2021, most voters are “OK with a 15-week limit,” which is likely what Trump is in step with. He has come out against a pro-abortion amendment to Florida’s constitution that would permit abortion up to the “point of viability, which is generally estimated to be around 24 weeks of pregnancy.” Corporate media is making a fuss. They mean to embroil Trump in an abortion-related controversy to help Harris’ campaign.

By endorsing the U.S. Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision, Trump has carved out room for himself to address issues that resonate as much with abortion-backing women as they do with most working class and middle-income wage earners. Top-of-mind, the cost of groceries, gas, and utilities, not to mention rents and mortgages.

Trump positioning on abortion is forcing Harris’ campaign to buy truckloads of advertising hoping to spook women. As with the black vote, Trump doesn’t need a majority of pro-abortion women to support him. He needs to siphon off enough support to reduce abortion as a factor in swing states.

A recent ABC News/Ipsos poll suggests that women are coalescing around Harris. The poll is of registered, not likely, voters. Polls have been notoriously inaccurate since 2016. Landlines are almost extinct. Finding respondents has become difficult. Many voters decline to participate. Some may misrepresent their positions given their hesitancy to identify as voting Trump. Does abortion really matter more than paying bills?

Back in 1860, most voters rejected abolishing slavery. Ending its expansion went far enough for non-southerners. Voters don’t want to end abortion, but they don’t want it given a blank check either. Many will entertain limits -- no abortions past 15 weeks, no late-term abortion.

Trump would commit political harakiri by not embracing the Dobbs decision. Ironically, on abortion, Trump has adopted a variation of Stephen Douglas’ “popular sovereignty” doctrine. It works politically now.

Harris is adamantly hostile to life issues. If she’s elected, efforts will be made to enshrine abortion as a national right. The ACLU has published a roadmap (August 6) for a Harris administration to “secure federal abortion protection once and for all.”

When we talk about protecting innocent human life, that’s broader than lives in the womb, as rightly compelling as the latter is. With Harris in the White House fronting the same cabal that Biden does, the threats to our welfare, liberty, and lives grow. If you care to deep-dive the damage done to all three since Biden assumed office, and apprise yourself of the mounting risks, dip into Victor Davis Hanson’s library of tour de force analyses at his website, Blade of Perseus.

We face the prospect of major wars erupting in not one region, but three, across the globe: Eastern Europe, Asia Pacific, and the Middle East. In Washington, there’s still glib talk about the feasibility of “limited” nuclear war. The Science and Security Board at the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists has the Doomsday Clock set at 90 seconds to midnight.

Biden’s handlers ripped open the southern border for narrow political gain. They’re flooding the nation with millions of illegals, among whom are untold numbers of criminals. Anyone remember Laken Riley? What about the Venezuelan gangs that are menacing citizens in Aurora, Colorado?

Among the illegals are terrorists and, surely, enemy saboteurs. Terrorists kill to instill fear and panic. Saboteurs -- likely military professionals or professionally trained -- destroy critical infrastructure and kill to achieve military objectives. According to Newsweek, August 5:

U.S. Border Patrol encountered over 250 migrants who were on the terrorist watchlist over a two-year stretch, with at least 99 of them released into the country, according to a Congressional report released Monday.

In Great Britian, the government is weighing changes to its “Online Safety Act” that would punish social media outlets for speech it disapproves. Arrests, related to the recent antiimmigrant protests and disturbances, have been made of social media users and others, charging hate speech or incitement or whatever can be cooked up. London’s detestable police chief Sir Mark Rowley has even threatened to arrest social media posters overseas for alleged violations of British law. What lessons are Democrats drawing from the Brits?

In Brazil, Alexandre de Moraes, the chief justice of Brazil’s Supreme Court is strongarming social media enterprises to comply with the government’s censorship regimen or face fines, arrests, and closures. Elon Musk refuses to comply. Independent journalist Michael Shellenberger dropped this bombshell: "The Biden administration and Democrats have played an influential role in instigating censorship in Brazil[.]"

Our liberties are being imperiled in ways that would make a just resolution to abortion (guaranteed protections afforded the unborn to life) impossible. What once seemed fantastic doesn’t anymore: the elite, despite their pro-democracy rhetoric, aim to impose some form of tyranny on us. You can bet abortion will be enshrined as bedrock law, and opponents who speak out and assemble in opposition will risk arrests.

In fact, it’s happening already. Ask 89-year-old Eva Edl, who’s been sentenced to 10 years in federal prison for violating the FACE Act. As she told Glenn Beck, she expects to die in prison for peaceful protesting abortion.

If you’re pro-life, do you really have a serious reason not to vote for Trump?

J. Robert Smith can be found at X. His handle is @JRobertSmith1. At Gab, @JRobertSmith. He blogs occasionally at Flyover.

Image: Robert Marshall Root