Donald Trump’s Hatred Toward America's First Black Vice-President Kamala Harris

“The supreme leader makes the law serve him, rather than serving the law himself. That is the essence of tyranny.” - Hannah Arendt

“The health of a civilization is measured by the degree of protection it affords its opponents.” - Christopher Hitchens

“The protection of political opponents is not generosity, but the essence of democratic decency. When that protection is withdrawn, politics becomes vengeance.” - Vaclav Havel

When envy and hostility corrupt power, it manifests itself in actions that are not only symbolic but also dangerously harmful. Removing a rival's protection is a deliberate act of retaliation, not a governmental strategy to save money. In American political high office, security is a duty of care, an understanding that those who once carried the burden of the state now bear the mark of its enemies, rather than a gift that can be given or taken based on loyalty. A president who uses that shield as a tool of punishment is entering a more sinister darker political environment where accountability is reduced to hatred.

The code of conduct that such an act demonstrates is what makes it especially disgusting. Even in the midst of intense political rivalry, leaders have upheld the thin line of decency by maintaining protections. Nixon, for example, antagonized the Kennedys, and Obama mistrusted Bush supporters. Breaking that line of political respect may normalize retaliation as a tactic used by future presidents similar to so many corrupt authoritarian regimes, leaving those who oppose you not just humiliated but also in danger. As a result, American politics is no longer a debate of ideas to improve the American society for the betterment all of its people, but rather a field in which individual safety is used as political unethical leverage.

This is blatantly morally disgusting. It smells of revenge, of a president so overcome by hatred that his narcissistic and authoritarian personality lets it dictate policy. The unethical act is equally obvious: removing security is an abandonment of duty when there are threats against these political rivals. More importantly, for the president to take away such security measures from politicians, signals, domestically and internationally for assassins and terrorists have open game on these politicians. History would remember harm to those cast aside as morally, ethically, and legally negligent, even as malice disguised as executive Presidential authority, rather than as an accident.

Leaders are frequently seduced by power into thinking they have the authority to determine who should be protected and who should be made visible for open game to physical attacks or assassinations. However, when the state uses its duty of care as a weapon, it actually loses more than it gains. Because at that point, it stops being the protector of the American people and instead turns into a weapon of one man's hatred.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ceqy3jnl39do

https://www.newsweek.com/full-list-people-donald-trump-revoked-security-details-2020601