[When I read the title I was not sure whether to agree or disagree, but the rationale and arguments in the text are very valid imo.]
People need to stop asking Democrats to play by different rules than Republicans, and they need to stop asking Biden to be a worse father than any of us would be in his place.
[…]
Biden’s detractors argue that his use of the pardon for Hunter somehow cedes the mythical “high ground” to Trump and clears the way for him to pardon the January 6 terrorists.
Fundamentally, these pundits are committing the same mistake that has plagued American media for at least a decade: demanding that Democrats play by a set of rules that Republicans have long rejected. And I am tired of it.
[…]
Trump will have all the power soon, and we don’t have to guess how he’ll use the pardon power, because he’s already used it for his own, corrupt ends. You know what’s “worse” and more corrupt than pardoning your family members? Pardoning your criminal coconspirators. That’s what Trump did […] the list of Trump’s pardons from his first term […]includes his former national security adviser Michael Flynn, who lied for Trump to the FBI; former foreign policy adviser George Papadopoulos, who lied for Trump to the Robert Mueller investigation; lawyer Alex Van Der Zwaan, who lied to Mueller; dirty trickster Roger Stone, who literally tampered with witnesses; and Trump’s former campaign manager Paul Manafort, who was engaged in an international conspiracy to obstruct justice and commit tax fraud.
[The article goes on with some more ‘Trump pardons’.]
The problem I’m supposed to care about is that Democrats have abandoned some ephemeral high ground that would have allowed them to object to Trump’s pardons of terrorists. Who are these people who think that bitching from a slightly elevated position is more effective at restraining raw political and military power? Do they also think there are magical bears out there who shit rainbows and that we can overcome authoritarian regimes with the power of friendship?
If institutionalists would really like to have an institutional solution to the problem, I have one: The pardon power is anachronistic bullshit and should be stricken from the Constitution.
[…]
Presidents (and governors) should not have the power to overturn convictions based on their feelings. If the justice system gets it wrong (as it does all the time), there should be a process freely and equally available to all to reverse convictions, without needing to have special access to the thought bubbles of the most powerful political figure in the land.
[…]
People need to stop asking Democrats to play by different rules than Republicans, and they for sure need to stop asking Biden to be a worse father than any of us would be in his situation.
This is a good pardon. Trump’s pardons were bad and will be again. If you can’t spot the difference between pardoning your son who was persecuted because of your job versus pardoning your criminal coconspirators or pardoning terrorists who attacked the Capitol at your request, you should take your head out of your ass.
Ten years ago, something this raw wouldn’t have been published. This is a fascinating take on how far the media have moved, but also society in general. And this also feels like that rare time where a columnist wrote the hed.
We live in an era where Nazis feel free to go nazi-ing and a CEO can be killed in broad daylight. Fixating on a pardon that was only necessary because of who someone’s dad is … is frankly absurd.
But the pardon power granted by the Constitution is not the problem. Yes, Trump will use it in all manner of terrible ways, but the problem here isn’t in the text, it’s in the modern context. When you elect a convicted felon president, the system has already failed.
I’m reminded of the SNL ad where they said something like “and the NFL is on Fox.” Pretty sure they also predicted Trump becoming president, and, well … no, you cant have two different sets of rules. But for those who came in late, the justice system exists to protect the powerful from the measly plebs.
This is a conversation to have, but it isn’t the right one.
The Rolling Stone, Playboy (back in the day), and more modern publications like The Root have been publishing shit this raw for a long time.
Gonzo. Fucking. Journalism.
We need to bring it to the forefront again. Fuck the false equivalency bullshit and pretending to be unbiased in a world that is more biased and blatant than ever! Fuck the New York Times, Washington Post, The Guardian, and all of the other bullshitters that ride that moderate fenceline like it gets them off. Their opponents at NY Post, Fox News, Daily Fail, NewsMax, Daily Caller, and SuperEagleJesusConservativeNews.ru certainly do not give a shit about moderation or maintaining some form of unbiasedness. They only care about getting their propaganda out there to their base in the most consumable way possible.
HST figured this out 50 years ago. There’s no such thing as “being unbiased”. The best thing you can do is give out your raw, truthful opinion on the state of the world and hope that enough people listen to it.
That’s fair. Not a lot of people read Playboy for the articles.
I was more referring to this sort of coverage moving over to The Nation. When it hits The Economist, things will be set right, but even they will have to reconsider neoliberalism. What struck me is that I have written this sort of piece before … I want to have a beer with this guy, as he speaks with my voice. Throat-clearing and all. The cadence is uncanny.
How do you think people like George Bush or Trump got elected?
The smarter and more-educated journalists out there need to figure out how not to always turn on their aloofness and find better ways to just relate to their audience.
Again, HST figured this out 50 years ago.