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.
I don't think this aged well. Absent a pardon, Hunter would likely be living outside the US by now. Consider that years of whispering and snickering about TDS by people who should have known better, people you may have engaged with on other topics, has percolated up into this piece.
In my mind it's a certainty that Kash Patel would be ordering up a fresh investigation into Hunter.
I’m curious how you think any of that, if true, should alter what I wrote? Where did I build my case on the proposition that Trump would not abuse his power?
This is, to be fair, exactly how I feel. I’m literally not wasting another second caring about this country. If they want chaos and destruction, I’m probably in a better position than most to survive it. If they wanted something better, they would have chosen it.
I have a hard time understanding what you lefties mean by "love". The only reason Joe pardoned Hunter was to protect himself - Joe uses his family members to enrich himself, and they in turn use his name and influence to enrich themselves. If the investigations into Hunter had continued, all of this would have been laid bare, and Joe's legacy would have been as one of the worst presidents in US history (it already is in the minds of so many of us). That whole family is essentially a trailer park clan who lucked into one of their people getting into a power position, and they milked it for all it was worth, including selling out the country to foreign interests *using his own goddamned child to do it*.
Where I come from, that is not love. I come from a large intact middle class family where divorce and betrayal is extremely rare. Drug use doesn't occur and neither does banging your dead brother's widow. We don't shove our elders into the limelight in order to keep a gravy train rolling either. And what we certainly *don't* do is put each other at legal risk in order to make money. That's crime family bullshit.
Do you people not see the Bidens as a crime family? Even with Joe's brothers out there with Hunter collecting cash from the Chinese govt and getting ten percent to "The Big Guy"?
Opinions about Trump notwithstanding, how can you view the Bidens as morally upright people? I am genuinely baffled. Is this what you see as family love? Have your brains been poisoned by mob boss dramas on TV? Because the takeaways from those shows are not supposed to be sympathy for the mob bosses. Tony Soprano was not a hero in any sense of the word.
Ugh. I don't think I am going to get anywhere with anyone here. And please....none of the "but Trump" stuff.
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.
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.
I don't think this aged well. Absent a pardon, Hunter would likely be living outside the US by now. Consider that years of whispering and snickering about TDS by people who should have known better, people you may have engaged with on other topics, has percolated up into this piece.
In my mind it's a certainty that Kash Patel would be ordering up a fresh investigation into Hunter.
I’m curious how you think any of that, if true, should alter what I wrote? Where did I build my case on the proposition that Trump would not abuse his power?
This is, to be fair, exactly how I feel. I’m literally not wasting another second caring about this country. If they want chaos and destruction, I’m probably in a better position than most to survive it. If they wanted something better, they would have chosen it.
I have a hard time understanding what you lefties mean by "love". The only reason Joe pardoned Hunter was to protect himself - Joe uses his family members to enrich himself, and they in turn use his name and influence to enrich themselves. If the investigations into Hunter had continued, all of this would have been laid bare, and Joe's legacy would have been as one of the worst presidents in US history (it already is in the minds of so many of us). That whole family is essentially a trailer park clan who lucked into one of their people getting into a power position, and they milked it for all it was worth, including selling out the country to foreign interests *using his own goddamned child to do it*.
Where I come from, that is not love. I come from a large intact middle class family where divorce and betrayal is extremely rare. Drug use doesn't occur and neither does banging your dead brother's widow. We don't shove our elders into the limelight in order to keep a gravy train rolling either. And what we certainly *don't* do is put each other at legal risk in order to make money. That's crime family bullshit.
Do you people not see the Bidens as a crime family? Even with Joe's brothers out there with Hunter collecting cash from the Chinese govt and getting ten percent to "The Big Guy"?
Opinions about Trump notwithstanding, how can you view the Bidens as morally upright people? I am genuinely baffled. Is this what you see as family love? Have your brains been poisoned by mob boss dramas on TV? Because the takeaways from those shows are not supposed to be sympathy for the mob bosses. Tony Soprano was not a hero in any sense of the word.
Ugh. I don't think I am going to get anywhere with anyone here. And please....none of the "but Trump" stuff.
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