When Donald Trump says “nobody has ever seen a movement like this”…he’s not wrong. Already his second presidency has distinguished itself in one way: the unique way he did not hold his hand on top of a Bible as he took the oath of office.
Contrary to popular belief that it’s traditional or somehow legally required, there in fact is no prescription for a president to swear his oath on a Bible…or indeed anything in particular. There have been presidents who have omitted the Bible entirely: perhaps most notably, John Quincy Adams in 1825 was sworn in on a book of laws, rather than the Bible. This reflected an ideological current among the Founding Fathers, which held some influence through the turn of the 20th century, that government offices should not be blessed or baptized with religious documents.
But all of the presidents who did not put their hands over a Bible omitted Bibles from their ceremonies entirely. Donald Trump had two Bibles held up next to him, but he kept his hand at his side, rather than placing his hand over the Bible. This particular protocol appears to be unique to Trump’s second inauguration today.
Why this was done, I have no idea. It’s certainly not out of any secularist scruples, considering the ponderous series of prayers that were offered at the inauguration ceremony. Not to mention the presence of no less than two Bibles right next to the incoming president, which, while not unheard of, was very uncommon before Barack Obama’s inauguration.
It makes me wonder what I’d do if I were an incoming president. Certainly I would not have moved the proceedings indoors: at 23 degrees Fahrenheit with a wind chill factor of 11, all you’d need would be some nice thick fur coats and you could be outside all day. If a president isn’t tough enough to take that on, they shouldn’t be in that position in the first place. If the old men of the Senate would wither and die in the wind chill, too bad.
Frankly I don’t think the cold was the real reason; Trump was whining during the whole transition about the flags all being at half-staff because of Jimmy Carter’s death and the ensuing period of official mourning. By moving it inside the Capitol building, there was not a single flag at half-staff in sight. It also helps too that Trump is obviously scared of being shot at and killed during the inauguration. Not without good reason, considering he’s already been shot at twice just this year.
But if you ask me, risk is part of the game if you want to sit in that chair. If it were me, I’d do the walk down the street in front of the crowds with no protection bar bodyguards; if the president dies, he dies. Too bad. Either you have a free and open country with leadership that the people can access, or you don’t. If you don’t, then pray tell what’s the point of being alive in the first place?
Speaking of the people, I’d have representatives from every federally recognized tribe of American Indians present at the inauguration ceremony, front and center. In the Capitol I saw a statue of an American Indian in a prominent place, but I didn’t spot a single flesh-and-blood Indian anywhere. Charles Curtis at his inauguration had American Indians come in and perform tribal ceremonies with him in front of the mass audience…and that was in 1929. And Curtis and company were conservative Republicans. Surely we can be at least as progressive as a pack of conservatives were 100 years ago!? Admittedly Curtis was an American Indian himself (plot twist: Kamala Harris was not the first person of color to be vice president!), but we really ought to show a spirit of respect for the first nations of our country, as well as the diversity that’s harbored within its borders.
In that vein, why not add to the concept by including representatives from not only every native nation but every nationality who has immigrated over to this country? It would send a strong message of many nations from all over the world coming together to build up our country, side-by-side, struggling together for a bigger, brighter, better tomorrow. Donald Trump mentioned our destiny in the stars in his inaugural speeches, with specific attention paid to voyages to the Red Planet as the first step in that greatest of all human adventures: what a statement it would have sent to tie in our diverse present and our disparate past into a unified future, where we come together in one great mission to reach up to the sky and touch the face of God?
Though speaking of God, I tend to agree with the older current of thought that prized secularist scruples. If it were up to me, I would not be sworn in on a Bible, or any other religious text. Rather, I would commission a book consisting of the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, the Federalist Papers, the Anti-Federalist Papers, and the Constitution, all leather-bound and with an imprint on the front consisting of the rattlesnake emblem found on the Gadsden Flag, perhaps with the text “E Pluribus Unum” on it (our original national motto, before anti-communists hijacked it and transmogrified it into “In God We Trust”; yes, although it was put on the coinage as early as the 1860s, it wasn’t made the actual motto until the 1950s).
Ideally I wouldn’t have Martin Luther King Day either; rather Emancipation Day would serve as the all-purpose day of liberation for the people our country once enslaved, i.e. June 19 (or “Juneteenth”). Which really should have been the civil rights day in the first place, like it is for our sister countries in places like the Caribbean (who also grapple with a heritage of slavery). Instead of Martin Luther King being in the Rotunda, imagine a larger-than-life statue of a black slave rising from his knees, his chains broken, his fist raised up in the air, his face gazing up toward almighty God. Now that would be far more badass, not to mention fitting for a so-called Land of the Free.
Though again, as a secular institution any divine references should be kept implicit at best. As such, I would dispense with this praying nonsense; if you want to have a prayer, I’d encourage it, but this is an official government function, not a church service. Pastors have no more place leading prayers in capitols than they do in schoolrooms (speaking of which, why is school prayer forbidden but legislatures get to have all the praying they want?).
So I’d have no praying, no Bibles, and the inaugural parade focusing on cosmic destiny of a multinational country, all with fur coats and caps in the most extreme cold. Sounds like I ought to run for president of a Soviet country, not the United States. 😑
Actually that’s not the only aspect of how I’d run a presidency that would paint me as a sovok; I wouldn’t elevate the “First Lady” or the “First Family” to any sort of official position either. After all, it’s the president who was elected, not them. That sort of low-key role for the presidential spouse is the norm in eastern Europe, and in modern times was only reintroduced to the United States during Trump’s first presidency (not coincidentally, Melania Trump, his first lady, is from an Eastern Bloc country: Slovenia).
So who knows; maybe I’m just ahead of my time, and America’s future really will reflect the Soviet mindset in weird ways. The Soviet Union itself owed more to America’s founding heritage than is commonly appreciated (e.g. the USSR printed postage stamps commemorating Benjamin Franklin as late as the 1950s; yes, the communists venerated the Founders too…at the height of the Cold War).
If there is one thing this inauguration proves, though, it’s that these traditions are not as set in stone as we might assume at first glance. The office might shape the man, but oftentimes it’s the man who shapes the office…