It's an ominous attitude because it has the same basic self-interest that drives Trump. It's not vindictive or hateful or illegal or any of the other things that characterize Trump's selfish actions. But it's the same kind of action all the same: "The world is not the way I want it to be. I have the power to change that. I will, and I don't care what the consequences are." It's an attitude that drives diehard MAGA. I don't want to see it even more widely accepted.
In a better world, Biden would have pardoned his son only of those charges he believes have grown hopelessly politicised, leaving the door open to the prosecution of known wrongdoings and future discoveries. In the real world, Republicans will sprint through any open door to destroy Biden’s son. Benghazi comes to mind. Any pardon worth its paper would have to be too broad, trading one set of wrongs for another.
As a father, I understand the urge to protect a son; as a citizen, I’m neither shocked nor disappointed, simply a bit more cynical.
Let me add, Noah, that I’m happy to see you mixing it up below the line. You’re as sharp as anyone here on Substack, but your comment section is generally a ghost town.
I recognize that I am generally deficient in getting involved in the comments -- mostly because it takes me much longer than it should to decide what to say down here. Not sure why that is -- I can be very quick in person, or in one-on-one text conversation. But I've never gotten the hang of it in the comments.
Seeing a regular sign of life from you down here would certainly encourage me to check out the comments more often. At times, I start writing a reply only to abandon it out of the suspicion that I’m writing into the void.
Apropos of nothing, didn’t you once have an irregular series dedicated to “parallel” films (I forget what you called it), puting two works into a sort of conversation? I couldn’t find any trace of that online, and perhaps I’ve twisted it out of all recognition after all these years, but I think about that every now and then.
Yes, back when I wrote for The American Conservative, I had an occasional series called the "Double Feature Feature" that paired two movies. The original intention was that they would be movies that you wouldn't think went together, but I wasn't able to stick with that.
I did a little Googling and found the following pairs:
"The Philadelphia Story" and "Blue Valentine"
"Richard III" and "The King’s Speech"
"The Tree of Life" and "A Serious Man"
"Gravity" and "All Is Lost"
"Birdman" and "Synecdoche: New York"
"Fruitvale Station" and "Margaret"
"Bernie" and "Rope"
"Blazing Saddles" and "Harold and Kumar Go to White Castle"
There may be more that I missed, but honestly, I didn't even remember some of those!
Some of those hold up better than others, and might be worth developing further, along the lines of the piece I wrote for Modern Age about "Barbie" and "Poor Things" -- https://modernagejournal.com/barbie-and-the-franken-feminists/235800/. A number of my Modern Age pieces are pairings, sometimes admittedly a bit forced.
I've mused about reviving the idea here, or maybe in some other venue, but I worry about forcing it. Pairings that work well enough for a review of two or more contemporary films (or plays, or both) don't necessarily stand the test of time as a deep read of either.
Anyway -- we'll see what I do. I'm delighted that you remember those pieces though. Thanks for bringing them back to my mind.
I agree with almost everything in this post, and yet I still find myself thinking that if I were in Biden's shoes, I would pardon my son. I wouldn't try to justify it (at least not to myself), but I'd do it anyway, because he's my son and he didn't murder anyone. That we know of.
It is entirely possible to believe that something is doing something wrong, or that will have bad consequences, or whatever, and also to be aware that you would do that wrong thing too if you were put in the same situation.
I'm debating whether that's my position or if on some level I believe it's morally justified to bend the rules for family in certain circumstances. As Paul Bloom points out in his post on the topic, there are many cultures where the clear answer would be that it's immoral not to favor one's kin in this way.
"I don’t know precisely what it portends, but I’m pretty sure it isn’t anything good."
I don't really disagree with anything you write here, Noah, but honestly, do you think there is ANYTHING that portends ANYTHING good at the moment? I am dubious.
Our second oldest finally got us all to watch that before Thanksgiving, and I agree--the finest, funniest, live-action (sort of) Loony Tunes-esque comedy I've seen in decades. An America that can produce that still has some value, I suppose.
t’s worth noting that while Hunter has faced relentless scrutiny for his personal struggles, Donald Trump’s children—Donald Jr., Ivanka, and Eric—have skirted accountability despite serious allegations of criminal activity. These include defrauding investors in Trump real estate projects, violating campaign finance laws through unreported donations, and misusing charitable funds from the Trump Foundation (which was shut down after a court found it repeatedly broke the law). Yet, none of these cases were pursued with the same fervor as Hunter’s relatively minor charges.
I appreciate Millman's honesty and integrity in this post. The worst, most clueless take is by another substacker . . . . . . "On the one hand, people are concerned about a president issuing a pardon for his child .... On the other hand, people have expressed the belief the Joe Biden did the right thing and that the family has endured enough. I come down closer to the latter side of that equation. The pardon process is supposed to be used to do justice. And this is justice. Hunter Biden would likely not have been charged on these facts if he was anyone else."
Because we all know how the system is so unfair to the children of presidents compared to the kids of single moms in Chicago!!!! Say Biden did this out of weakness and love for his son. Say anything. But don't tell anyone that this is justice. What is the rule, "All president's kids should be pardoned? https://open.substack.com/pub/joycevance/p/the-week-ahead-fa9?
I’ve had a busy morning so haven’t seen much commentary yet. I think it will be hard for me to be convinced that any take feels more on point than this.
Perhaps this had nothing to do with politics or sending any message. Perhaps, Biden simply wanted to protect his son as best he could and was willing to accept any criticism that would prompt. After all, he had nothing to lose. He has been president, fulfilling a life-long wish and knows he is nearing the end of that life. Why not give a protective gift to his son? Sure, there are ramifications for the nation, but I suspect none of that matters to Biden at this point, but his son does.
I'm agnostic on whether Mr. Biden should have pardoned his son. I lean toward thinking he shouldn't have.
One (probably minor) thing I think I disagree with, though: I don't think the recent court case is the "only" reason Biden won't be prosecuted for the pardon. Even without the immunity, prosecuting a president for a pardon would be an uphill battle and unlikely to succeed.
One (less minor) thing I think I disagree with: I'm not sure we know what Mr. Biden is thinking deep down. With the available evidence, I think it's a stretch to say he intends a "screw you" to an ungrateful party and nation. That may be the effect of what he's doing. But it requires too much mind reading to suppose he's really thinking or intending that.
I'll close by saying that it's easy for someone like me in the cheap seats of commenterdom to criticize. I really enjoy reading your blog overall, and thanks for writing it.
I am, of course, very sorry to hear that. I would much rather you continued to subscribe and tell me why I am so wrong. But obviously your time and attention are finite, and I understand if you'd rather not spend them on a Substack that you find generally unenlightening.
Basically, I am just tired to my depths of Democrats being played as naifs and Republicans never paying a real price. We (meaning Merrick Garland) played it by the rules and the Supreme Court laughed at him and gave Trump a get out of jail card. The Democrats stood for democracy and the electorate laughed at them and handed the keys to the car to Trump. The Republicans play Calvinball when it comes to Supreme Court nominations and we just have to take it, take it, take it.
I’m sick of taking it. We always have to follow the law (we’re not Trump!) but we have to fight back and use power. I hold no brief for Hunter Biden and he’s a sleazoid, but the persecution of him and, by connection, of his father, by the Republicans was disgusting in the extreme (the leaked pictures!). The point wasn’t to see justice done; in Adam Serwer’s memorable phrase, the cruelty was the point. They wanted, they lusted, for Joe Biden to feel the worst pain they could inflict, by torturing his son.
Screw them. I’m glad Biden threw it back in their face. Does this give Trump a permission structure to do “the same thing” (as if pardoning Jan. 6 insurrectionists would be “the same thing”)? That’s a classic MAGA trick. They find some vaguely related Democratic action and use that to justify some vastly larger action which they were always going to do anyway.
The nation will survive the Hunter Biden pardon and it will do no more (less, actually) damage than Clinton’s disgusting pardon of Marc Rich. (Whether it will survive the Jan. 6 pardons to come is another question.) And you know, I’m glad that Biden loves his son in a way that Trump would never show for any other human being, apart from himself. He answered to a higher morality.
NO! You got this one wrong Noah. Joe and all Democrats in office should in unison, and on TV, the enwspapers, the web be saying the same thing...FUCK YOU MAGA! And Joe himself can add YOU CAN'T TERRORIZE MY SON ANYMORE FOR BULLSHIT. And repeat...over and over again until all in the USA have heard it an know that Democrats are not pussies! When MAGA goes low, we kick their ass in any way possible. And history will APPLAUD!
Agree with everything except the analogy to Marcus Aurelius. He declined to appoint his son as his successor which is not the same thing as pardoning him in anticipation of extreme harassment for the next four years. I'll be honest: I think Democrats should denounce this and throw Biden under the bus but I sympathize with what he did.
It's an ominous attitude because it has the same basic self-interest that drives Trump. It's not vindictive or hateful or illegal or any of the other things that characterize Trump's selfish actions. But it's the same kind of action all the same: "The world is not the way I want it to be. I have the power to change that. I will, and I don't care what the consequences are." It's an attitude that drives diehard MAGA. I don't want to see it even more widely accepted.
You are wrong. Joe is acting as a BENEVOLENT DICTATOR. You can see that the world thinks and knows he did the right thing.
In a better world, Biden would have pardoned his son only of those charges he believes have grown hopelessly politicised, leaving the door open to the prosecution of known wrongdoings and future discoveries. In the real world, Republicans will sprint through any open door to destroy Biden’s son. Benghazi comes to mind. Any pardon worth its paper would have to be too broad, trading one set of wrongs for another.
As a father, I understand the urge to protect a son; as a citizen, I’m neither shocked nor disappointed, simply a bit more cynical.
Let me add, Noah, that I’m happy to see you mixing it up below the line. You’re as sharp as anyone here on Substack, but your comment section is generally a ghost town.
I recognize that I am generally deficient in getting involved in the comments -- mostly because it takes me much longer than it should to decide what to say down here. Not sure why that is -- I can be very quick in person, or in one-on-one text conversation. But I've never gotten the hang of it in the comments.
Seeing a regular sign of life from you down here would certainly encourage me to check out the comments more often. At times, I start writing a reply only to abandon it out of the suspicion that I’m writing into the void.
Apropos of nothing, didn’t you once have an irregular series dedicated to “parallel” films (I forget what you called it), puting two works into a sort of conversation? I couldn’t find any trace of that online, and perhaps I’ve twisted it out of all recognition after all these years, but I think about that every now and then.
Yes, back when I wrote for The American Conservative, I had an occasional series called the "Double Feature Feature" that paired two movies. The original intention was that they would be movies that you wouldn't think went together, but I wasn't able to stick with that.
I did a little Googling and found the following pairs:
"The Philadelphia Story" and "Blue Valentine"
"Richard III" and "The King’s Speech"
"The Tree of Life" and "A Serious Man"
"Gravity" and "All Is Lost"
"Birdman" and "Synecdoche: New York"
"Fruitvale Station" and "Margaret"
"Bernie" and "Rope"
"Blazing Saddles" and "Harold and Kumar Go to White Castle"
There may be more that I missed, but honestly, I didn't even remember some of those!
Some of those hold up better than others, and might be worth developing further, along the lines of the piece I wrote for Modern Age about "Barbie" and "Poor Things" -- https://modernagejournal.com/barbie-and-the-franken-feminists/235800/. A number of my Modern Age pieces are pairings, sometimes admittedly a bit forced.
I've mused about reviving the idea here, or maybe in some other venue, but I worry about forcing it. Pairings that work well enough for a review of two or more contemporary films (or plays, or both) don't necessarily stand the test of time as a deep read of either.
Anyway -- we'll see what I do. I'm delighted that you remember those pieces though. Thanks for bringing them back to my mind.
Thanks for those, Noah. I completely missed Modern Age. Looks like it’s gonna be a time sink…
Eh -- it's only 21 pieces, 75-80k words total. Shouldn't take you long at all. ;-)
I agree with almost everything in this post, and yet I still find myself thinking that if I were in Biden's shoes, I would pardon my son. I wouldn't try to justify it (at least not to myself), but I'd do it anyway, because he's my son and he didn't murder anyone. That we know of.
It is entirely possible to believe that something is doing something wrong, or that will have bad consequences, or whatever, and also to be aware that you would do that wrong thing too if you were put in the same situation.
I'm debating whether that's my position or if on some level I believe it's morally justified to bend the rules for family in certain circumstances. As Paul Bloom points out in his post on the topic, there are many cultures where the clear answer would be that it's immoral not to favor one's kin in this way.
Excellent
"I don’t know precisely what it portends, but I’m pretty sure it isn’t anything good."
I don't really disagree with anything you write here, Noah, but honestly, do you think there is ANYTHING that portends ANYTHING good at the moment? I am dubious.
The success of the film "Hundreds of Beavers" is a sign of something good, however modest.
Our second oldest finally got us all to watch that before Thanksgiving, and I agree--the finest, funniest, live-action (sort of) Loony Tunes-esque comedy I've seen in decades. An America that can produce that still has some value, I suppose.
t’s worth noting that while Hunter has faced relentless scrutiny for his personal struggles, Donald Trump’s children—Donald Jr., Ivanka, and Eric—have skirted accountability despite serious allegations of criminal activity. These include defrauding investors in Trump real estate projects, violating campaign finance laws through unreported donations, and misusing charitable funds from the Trump Foundation (which was shut down after a court found it repeatedly broke the law). Yet, none of these cases were pursued with the same fervor as Hunter’s relatively minor charges.
https://open.substack.com/pub/patricemersault/p/an-open-letter-to-president-biden?r=4d7sow&utm_medium=ios
I appreciate Millman's honesty and integrity in this post. The worst, most clueless take is by another substacker . . . . . . "On the one hand, people are concerned about a president issuing a pardon for his child .... On the other hand, people have expressed the belief the Joe Biden did the right thing and that the family has endured enough. I come down closer to the latter side of that equation. The pardon process is supposed to be used to do justice. And this is justice. Hunter Biden would likely not have been charged on these facts if he was anyone else."
Because we all know how the system is so unfair to the children of presidents compared to the kids of single moms in Chicago!!!! Say Biden did this out of weakness and love for his son. Say anything. But don't tell anyone that this is justice. What is the rule, "All president's kids should be pardoned? https://open.substack.com/pub/joycevance/p/the-week-ahead-fa9?
I’ve had a busy morning so haven’t seen much commentary yet. I think it will be hard for me to be convinced that any take feels more on point than this.
Perhaps this had nothing to do with politics or sending any message. Perhaps, Biden simply wanted to protect his son as best he could and was willing to accept any criticism that would prompt. After all, he had nothing to lose. He has been president, fulfilling a life-long wish and knows he is nearing the end of that life. Why not give a protective gift to his son? Sure, there are ramifications for the nation, but I suspect none of that matters to Biden at this point, but his son does.
Both his choice and the reaction to it just point to Dems being whiny hypocrites
I can’t see that just refusing to be meek victims of Republican revenge prosecutions is “giving up on America.”
I'm agnostic on whether Mr. Biden should have pardoned his son. I lean toward thinking he shouldn't have.
One (probably minor) thing I think I disagree with, though: I don't think the recent court case is the "only" reason Biden won't be prosecuted for the pardon. Even without the immunity, prosecuting a president for a pardon would be an uphill battle and unlikely to succeed.
One (less minor) thing I think I disagree with: I'm not sure we know what Mr. Biden is thinking deep down. With the available evidence, I think it's a stretch to say he intends a "screw you" to an ungrateful party and nation. That may be the effect of what he's doing. But it requires too much mind reading to suppose he's really thinking or intending that.
I'll close by saying that it's easy for someone like me in the cheap seats of commenterdom to criticize. I really enjoy reading your blog overall, and thanks for writing it.
Good attention hack, Gladiator
Noah, I so profoundly disagree with your post today that I'm taking the most extreme step I can.
With some amount of sorrow, I have unsubscribed.
I am, of course, very sorry to hear that. I would much rather you continued to subscribe and tell me why I am so wrong. But obviously your time and attention are finite, and I understand if you'd rather not spend them on a Substack that you find generally unenlightening.
Noah, I appreciate your generous reply.
Basically, I am just tired to my depths of Democrats being played as naifs and Republicans never paying a real price. We (meaning Merrick Garland) played it by the rules and the Supreme Court laughed at him and gave Trump a get out of jail card. The Democrats stood for democracy and the electorate laughed at them and handed the keys to the car to Trump. The Republicans play Calvinball when it comes to Supreme Court nominations and we just have to take it, take it, take it.
I’m sick of taking it. We always have to follow the law (we’re not Trump!) but we have to fight back and use power. I hold no brief for Hunter Biden and he’s a sleazoid, but the persecution of him and, by connection, of his father, by the Republicans was disgusting in the extreme (the leaked pictures!). The point wasn’t to see justice done; in Adam Serwer’s memorable phrase, the cruelty was the point. They wanted, they lusted, for Joe Biden to feel the worst pain they could inflict, by torturing his son.
Screw them. I’m glad Biden threw it back in their face. Does this give Trump a permission structure to do “the same thing” (as if pardoning Jan. 6 insurrectionists would be “the same thing”)? That’s a classic MAGA trick. They find some vaguely related Democratic action and use that to justify some vastly larger action which they were always going to do anyway.
The nation will survive the Hunter Biden pardon and it will do no more (less, actually) damage than Clinton’s disgusting pardon of Marc Rich. (Whether it will survive the Jan. 6 pardons to come is another question.) And you know, I’m glad that Biden loves his son in a way that Trump would never show for any other human being, apart from himself. He answered to a higher morality.
Biden was right, and you were wrong.
I agree with you, but it’s no reason to unsubscribe.
NO! You got this one wrong Noah. Joe and all Democrats in office should in unison, and on TV, the enwspapers, the web be saying the same thing...FUCK YOU MAGA! And Joe himself can add YOU CAN'T TERRORIZE MY SON ANYMORE FOR BULLSHIT. And repeat...over and over again until all in the USA have heard it an know that Democrats are not pussies! When MAGA goes low, we kick their ass in any way possible. And history will APPLAUD!
Agree with everything except the analogy to Marcus Aurelius. He declined to appoint his son as his successor which is not the same thing as pardoning him in anticipation of extreme harassment for the next four years. I'll be honest: I think Democrats should denounce this and throw Biden under the bus but I sympathize with what he did.