Presidential Pardons - when would you call it corrupt?

[hollodero]

(01-18-2021, 04:10 PM)Dill Wrote: Yes, of course. All that is true.

It's just that Americans have never had to think very much about such dangers, because most of our presidents are at least aware of what looks bad, and have avoided staining their legacy with appearance of corruption.

There is a value in presidential prerogatives, if given to people who have internalized the civic norms and ethical ideals upon which rule of law is supposed to rest. Obama's pardons tend to illustrate that value.

Sure, I get that. Our president has pardon and clemency powers too. I see the general sense behind that.

(01-18-2021, 04:10 PM)Dill Wrote: But if you hand that power to a malignant narcissist, then it is a tremendous power, incentive, and opportunity to abuse. 

Yes. Which is a problem of the system, eg. relying on thoughts and rules written in the 18th century.

(01-18-2021, 04:10 PM)Dill Wrote: That is one of the criteria people are supposed to think about when choosing a president--will he/she have those internal controls that guide ethical decisions? 

Someone who thinks we should have "kept the oil," and constantly wonders why we can't use nukes if we have them, and that insists running his business while in public office entails no conflict of interest, and brings four Clinton accusers to a foreign policy debate isn't just ignorant of international law and government, but also utterly lacking those traditionally expected internal ethical controls. There is no internal voice telling him "this behavior is shamefully wrong."

There are several reasons why Americans would vote such a person into office: 1) many voters themselves lack the expected ethical controls, and so don't miss them in their party's candidate, or 2) since presidents have generally respected legal and civic norms, voters have not given much thought to the possibility that an autocratic candidate, once in office, might gradually explore and expand his/her power to disregard norms to serve his own interests rather than those of the nation as a whole--especially where the president is able to avoid accountability. Or 3) some might indeed see the risk, but accept it in the hope that tax cuts or judges appointed might balance the damage.

I see all that points, but I feel you leave out the one most important factor. Which imho is that you live in such a deeply polarized time that someone from the own side can do no wrong and gets defended by all means necessary. It's not about the issue really. In that environment, a president can do almost whatever and simply not care about "optics". Whose optics, whose perspective? The leftist MSM? Liberals? Well, that does not really matter much, does it. It probably did matter in the end, but just barely, Trump got elected and almost got reelected after all. He was guaranteed almost half of the vote from the start, and nothing but the "R" mattered for that. Same goes for Biden.

That's what Trump figured out about you, probably by just watching FOX all day. You're deeply divided and entrenched, always out to argue a win for your own side and a loss for the other side, up to a willingness to ignore reality and defend the indefensible. You hardly lose anyone of "your people". Something that is not true for our own way more diverse political spectrum. That, imho, is the root of all your current problems, yet another 18th century heritage, the strict political duality where it's always an "us vs. them", nowadays by all means necessary.

And while imho the left side is way less extreme in that regard, this truth to a certain degree applies for both sides. Democrats got away with a lot and could get away with a lot more too now, eg. with pardoning a personal friend or political ally. One can easily tell a critic that Trump did way worse and hence all outrage is hypocritical. Which would be true.