On 13 June and repeatedly thereafter, President Joe Biden promised not to pardon his son Hunter for his gun- and tax-related crimes or to commute the sentences for his convictions. Biden said he wanted to restore integrity to the office by not using his office to benefit his family. Then, on 1 December, he broke that promise. Almost at once and ever since, pundits of both political parties have deplored his broken promise though some have also expressed sympathy for his decision.
Pundits have several basic criticisms of Biden’s decision. One is the allegation that, by breaking his promise to the American people, Biden lied. To have lied, Biden would have had to know when he made his promise that he would not keep it. But there is no reason to believe that he anticipated in June pardoning his son in December. Not until September did Hunter plead guilty and, and not until December did he face sentencing, possibly involving some, but not much, prison time. There is no reason to think that either father or son would not have accepted the decisions of the court.
Partisans on the right and cynics on the left and right retrospectively impugn Biden’s motives. They claim that his alleged motive for lying was a political one, a pretense that he embraced higher ethical standards of public office than his predecessors or current opponent who had pardoned family members. However, those who can separate their partisan politics from their moral judgments or suppress their cynicism about politicians know that Biden has high ethical standards.
The criticism that Biden lied rests on two misconceptions. His promise cannot be a lie because promises are not truth-function propositions; instead, they are commitments to do or not do something in the future. Moreover, a promise cannot be made knowingly “false” –that is a lie—retroactively by an unforeseen future action.
The other basic criticism of Biden’s decision is that promises made must be kept without exception. Yet everyone knows that promises are not kept for good reasons. “Hey, kids, I know that I promised a spring vacation at Disneyland, but a crisis at work means that we have to go at another time.” When Biden made his promise, he hoped or believed that he would be re-elected. He could not know whether Hunter would be convicted, or whether or to what extent he would receive a prison sentence. When he broke it, he knew that Trump had won, had threatened revenge on the “Biden crime family,” and had nominated Pam Bondi as Attorney General to implement it. Given that the charges and likely penalties were unusual for Hunter’s gun- and tax-related crimes, Biden had reason to fear for his son, to believe that Bondi would seek additional penalties. These concerns arose long after Biden’s promise and provided a reasonable basis for breaking it.
Three things trouble me about the criticisms of Biden’s pardon. One is that they disregard the definitions or features of lies and promises. Nothing which I have argued is abstruse. Another is that they disregard the personal and political contexts in which Biden made and broke his promise. He did nothing unreasonable or unethical in dealing with changed circumstances. Finally, since the criticisms are unfounded, my effort to understand them leads me to one conclusion: after the election outcome, Democrats are venting their disappointment and frustration with their diminished leader. Biden deserves better than unfounded criticisms impugning his ethics and insinuating flaws in his character. He is a good man and has been a good president. It does no one any good to say otherwise.
No comments:
Post a Comment