After the 2016 election, journalist Monica Guzman heard nonstop from her fellow liberals that Trump voters were awful. But her parents — Mexican immigrants like her — were Trump voters, and they were nothing like what she was hearing. So, that piqued her curiosity: Instead of separating herself from people she disagreed with, she devoted herself to asking WHY they believed what they did. Now, it’s the focus of her new book, “I Never Thought of It That Way.” Monica, the director of digital and storytelling at Braver Angels, a grassroots organization dedicated to bridging the partisan divide, joins Glenn to discuss where the divide came from, where the media went wrong, and what every American must do to overcome it. And they find they agree on much more than any polarized stereotypes would have predicted.
Site Navigation
Search
Latest Stories
Start your day right!
Get latest updates and insights delivered to your inbox.
Top Stories
Latest news
Read More
Pardon who? Hunter Biden case renews ethical debate over use and limits of peculiar presidential power
Dec 04, 2024
The decision by President Joe Biden to pardon his son, Hunter, despite previously suggesting he would not do so, has reopened debate over the use of the presidential pardon.
Hunter Biden will be spared potential jail time not simply over his convictions for gun and tax offenses, but any “offenses against the United States which he has committed or may have committed or taken part in during the period Jan. 1, 2014 through December 1, 2024.”
During his first tenure in the White House, Donald Trump issued a total of 144 pardons. Following Biden’s move to pardon his son, Trump raised the issue of those convicted over involvement in the Jan. 6 storming of the U.S. Capitol, raising expectations that he may use the pardon in their cases – something Trump has repeatedly promised to do.
But should the pardon power be solely up to the president’s discretion? Or should there be restrictions on who can be granted a pardon?
As a scholar of ethics and political philosophy, I find that much of the public debate around pardons needs to be framed within a more fundamental question: Should there be a presidential pardon power at all in a democracy governed by the rule of law? What, after all, is the purpose of a pardon?
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
From royal roots…
Black’s Law Dictionary, the go-to book for legal terms, defines the pardon power as, “an act of grace…which exempts the individual on whom it is bestowed from the punishment the law inflicts for a crime he has committed.” Although the power to pardon is probably as old as politics, the roots of the presidential pardon in the U.S. can be traced back to English law.
The English Parliament legally placed an absolute pardon power in the hands of the monarch in 1535 during the reign of King Henry VIII. In the centuries that followed, however, Parliament imposed some limitations on this power, such as preventing pardons of outrageous crimes and pardons during an impeachment.
The Founding Fathers followed the English model in establishing the powers of the executive branch in Article II of the U.S. Constitution. Section 2 of that article specifically grants the president the “power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States” and acknowledges one limitation to this power “in cases of impeachment.”
But the anti-democratic roots of the pardon power were a point of contention during the drafting and ratification of the Constitution. In a 1788 debate, Virginia delegate George Mason, for example, said that the president “ought not to have the power of pardoning, because he may frequently pardon crimes which were advised by himself. It may happen, at some future day, that he will establish a monarchy, and destroy the republic.”
Mason’s concern clearly identifies this vestige of the absolute powers of the English monarchy as a potential threat to the new democracy. In reply, based on the assumption that the president would exercise this power cautiously, James Madison contended that the restriction on the pardon power in cases of impeachment would be a sufficient safeguard against future presidential abuse.
…to religious reasoning
The political concept of pardon is linked with the theological concept of divine mercy or the charity of an all-powerful God.
Pardon, as Supreme Court Justice Marshall noted in the 1833 United States v. Wilson ruling, is defined as “an act of grace.” Just as in the Abrahamic faiths – Islam, Judaism and Christianity – God has the power to give and to take life, kings wield the power to take life through executions and to grant life through the exercise of pardons.
Echoing the command of the Lord’s Prayer “to forgive the trespasses of others,” English philosopher Thomas Hobbes’ book “Leviathan” asserts that the sovereign ought to display grace by pardoning the offenses of those who, repenting those offenses, want pardon.
Yet, this analogy with divine mercy for all individuals collides with the legal principle of treating different cases differently. If all trespasses were forgiven, pardon would be granted to all crimes equally.
There would be no need for distinctions between the wrongly and the rightly convicted or the repentant and unrepentant criminal. All would be forgiven equally. Universal pardon thus violates the legal principle that each individual should receive their due. In the eyes of law, it is impossible to pardon everything and everyone.
The incognito of pardon
What Hobbes recognized, if imperfectly, is that the power of pardon is just as essential to political life as to our personal lives. It helps to overcome the antagonisms of the past and opens a path to peace and reconciliation with others. The act of forgiving, as political theorist Hannah Arendt puts it, allows us “to begin again” and to create a new future together.
But how can we reconcile this need for pardon with the impossibility to forgive everything?
One answer can be found in the work of French philosopher Paul Ricoeur. Ricoeur talks about the “incognito of forgiveness” – “forgiveness” literally translates to “pardon” in French. Acknowledging the difficulty of turning pardon into a universal legal rule or norm, Ricoeur suggests that pardon can exist only as an exception to legal rules and institutions.
Pardon, in Ricoeur’s words, “can find refuge only in gestures incapable of being transformed into institutions. These gestures…designate the ineluctable space of consideration due to every human being, in particular to the guilty.” In other words, it has to fly under the radar of rules and institutions.
This insight is alluded to by Justice Marshall in his Wilson ruling. Marshall states that pardon is “the private, though official act of the executive magistrate, delivered to the individual for whose benefit it is intended, and not communicated officially to the Court.” The pardon remains incognito, or under the radar, in the sense that it is an extra-legal act that does not pass through legal institutions.
In these last days of the Biden administration, this incognito of pardon offers an important reminder of the need for pardon as well as its limitations. The democratic transfer of power always involves an implicit act of pardon that remains incognito. It allows for a fresh start in which society can acknowledge the past transgressions of an outgoing administration, but move on with the hope to begin again.
Though critics of the president may reject individual acts of pardon, especially involving family members, society should not give up on the power of pardon itself: It brings a renewal of hope to democracy.
Editor’s note: This is an updated version of an article first published on Dec. 15, 2020.
Davidson is a professor of philosophy at West Virginia University.
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Keep ReadingShow less
Recommended
Beyond the stereotype: An Alpha's witness to enduring leadership
Dec 03, 2024
As another election season draws to a close, I find myself reflecting on a familiar refrain — one that has grown all too weary with age. It is the lamentation of the allegedly apathetic African American male, a narrative that persists in depicting my brothers as disengaged and disinterested in shaping our collective future.
As a minister, a professor and a proud, 28-year member of Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity, I am here to tell you that this stereotype is as damaging as it is inaccurate. It is a misrepresentation that not only erases the fundamental contributions of Black men but also absolves our broader society of its responsibility to dismantle the systemic barriers that hinder true equality.
I have dedicated my life to the pursuit of justice, to the empowerment of marginalized communities and to the fostering of difficult yet necessary dialogues around race and inequity. Through it all, I have consistently found my brothers, my fellow Alphas, standing shoulder to shoulder with me on the frontlines of change.
Alpha Phi Alpha, the first intercollegiate Greek-letter fraternity established for African Americans, was founded on a bedrock of service, scholarship and social justice. From our inception on Dec. 4, 1906, at Cornell University in Ithaca, New York, we have understood that the fight for true equality demands more than sporadic outrage; it requires strategic mobilization, institutional building and an unwavering commitment to the uplift of our people.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
Our legacy is one of transformational leadership. Alphas have left an indelible mark on American society, includingMartin Luther King Jr., Thurgood Marshall, Duke Ellington and Langston Hughes to name a chosen few. These men, and countless others like them, didn't simply bemoan the challenges of their time; they actively organized, advocated and broke down barriers, often at significant personal cost.
Today, that legacy endures. Through our "A Voteless People is a Powerless People" campaign, Alphas has worked tirelessly to educate, register and mobilize Black voters nationwide. We recognize that true power lies not merely in protest but in the ability to shape policy, hold elected officials accountable and ensure our voices are heard in the halls of power. Beyond the political realm, our "Go to High School, Go to College" initiative has inspired generations of young Black and Brown boys to pursue academic excellence and understand education as a liberating force. Through mentorship programs, scholarships and community outreach, we are helping to cultivate a new generation of leaders — men who understand their potential and their responsibility to uplift their brothers and their communities.
Yet, despite this rich history and ongoing commitment to service, the stereotype of the apathetic Black man persists. African American men have always understood the stakes of our struggle. We've always known that freedom is not a destination but a journey that demands constant vigilance, strategic action, and an unwavering belief in our inherent worth and dignity, even in the face of systemic racism and discrimination.
Along with 10,000 men worldwide, I’m pleased to model a brand of leadership that is not merely reactive but proactive — that understands the power of collective action, the importance of institution-building and the enduring value of service to others. So, America, let's move beyond the tired stereotypes and lazy narratives. I invite you to recognize African American men's accurate and abiding contributions, not just as occasional voters but as steadfast leaders, organizers and change-makers.
In celebration of the fraternity's founding by our Seven Jewels — Henry Arthur Callis, Charles Henry Chapman, Eugene Kinckle Jones, George Biddle Kelley, Nathaniel Allison Murray, Robert Harold Ogle and Vertner Woodson Tandy — we celebrate their legacy and all who've come before us. Together, we wholeheartedly commit to inspiring a new generation to embrace the challenge and the privilege of leadership in their communities and world. Remembering the most accurate measure of a people is its ability to survive, thrive, transform and leave the world better than it found it. Such is the Alpha way:
“First of All, Servants of All, We shall transcend All.”
Johnson is a United Methodist pastor, the author of "Holding Up Your Corner: Talking About Race in Your Community" and program director for the Bridge Alliance, which houses The Fulcrum.
Keep ReadingShow less
Meet the change leaders: David Becker
Dec 03, 2024
David Becker is the executive director and founder of the nonpartisan, nonprofit Center for Election Innovation & Research, working with election officials of both parties, all around the country, to ensure elections are trustworthy. A key element of Becker’s work with CEIR is managing the Election Official Legal Defense Network, providing pro bono legal assistance to election officials who are threatened with frivolous criminal prosecution, harassment or physical violence.
Prior to founding CEIR, Becker was director of the elections program at the Pew Charitable Trusts. As the lead for Pew’s analysis and advocacy on elections issues, Becker spearheaded development of the Electronic Registration Information Center, or ERIC, which to date has helped the majority of states update tens of millions of out-of-date voter records, and helped those states easily and securely register new eligible voters.
Before joining Pew, Becker served for seven years as a senior trial attorney in the Voting Section of the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division, overseeing voting rights enforcement in several states, including California and Georgia, and served as lead counsel on major voting rights litigation, including Georgia v. Ashcroft, ultimately decided by the Supreme Court.
Becker serves as CBS’ election law expert, and his many appearances in the media include The New York Times, The Washington Post, CNN, MSNBC, “PBS NewsHour” and NPR, and he is frequently published on election issues.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
He is the co-author, with CBS News Chief Washington Correspondent Major Garrett, of the book “The Big Truth: Upholding Democracy in the Age of The Big Lie.”
I had the wonderful opportunity to interview Becker for the CityBiz “Meet the Change Leaders” series. Watch to learn the full extent of his democracy reform work:
- YouTubewww.youtube.com
Nevins is co-publisher of The Fulcrum and co-founder and board chairman of the Bridge Alliance Education Fund.
Keep ReadingShow less
Donald Trump’s legacy of retribution
Nov 21, 2024
Say what you will about Donald Trump. The man can hold a grudge.
So, too, apparently, do the neo-Nazis who marched on the Ohio state capital over the weekend. Freshly emboldened by Donald Trump’s re-election and competition with a rival white supremacist group in Ohio, they carried Nazi paraphernalia, shouted racist chants, and provoked a lot of criticism from local authorities.
And so it begins.
The thing is, many Americans nurse the racial grievances that Trump has expressed, though not as preternaturally and rabidly, perhaps, as the man who has given voice to their perceived loss of agency and entitlement.
Half of the electorate looked past Trump’s felony convictions, misogyny, uncloseted racism, open disdain for all manner of newcomers and cultural outsiders, and solidarity with people who already had more money than anyone could spend in a lifetime and saw an immediate return from their investment in his candidacy or feared he would come after them if they didn’t support him.
Appeals to better angels and more democratically inspired values missed their intended marks.
Calls for payback and cultural reckoning didn’t.
It remains to be seen how many people and institutions on the enemies list Trump has spent years assembling will be singled out for public censure, repudiation, and punishment along with the policies and programs they helped shape or were responsible for carrying out. Early indications are that the number is going to be large.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
No matter how big the number is, the reckoning Trump will push during the first two years of his second administration is bound to be messy, mean, and costly. People’s lives will be damaged. Careers will be lost.
Americans who share Trump’s feelings will applaud his single-minded campaign to force his will on every part of the federal government and publicly demonstrate their resolve.
A great many of us may end up blanching at the bitter fruit Trump harvests with his campaign of retribution. But absolutely no one at that point will be able to feign surprise or blush at anything he tries to undo and everyone who is taken down along the way.
Trump and his most aggressive supporters don’t give two hoots about protecting our reputation as a people united by a constitution based on laws, only in protecting their rights and privileges. In recent years, they’ve done nothing but mock and ignore the time-honored but otherwise unenforceable norms and customs that Sir John Moulton declared more than a century ago keep us doing the right thing when no one is looking over our shoulder.
Expanding that domain for an ever larger and more diverse array of citizens is the central project and most important accomplishment of democracies. Everything Donald Trump and his White Nationalist allies say and do makes clear that their grandest desire and principal goal is to shrink that domain along with the number and variety of people who have the privilege of engaging with it.
That’s the bad news.
Here’s the good news.
Barring some unforeseen catastrophe that provides an excuse for him to distract us further and grab even more power – a war, plague, natural disaster, or meltdown in the global economic system come immediately to mind – he will exact less vengeance than he has in mind to deliver. His successful excesses will come back to haunt him.
These are not the faint hopes of a liberal elitist or academic scaredy cat. They are the words of someone who’s read and written about all the conservative ways people have learned to express their disconsent to know this much.
(Wait for it.)
The campaign to undo all the damage Trump and his supporters intend to do will inspire a more conservative backlash from the American public than they are capable of imagining.
No, you didn’t misread the last sentence.
Trump’s campaign of retribution will be thwarted and come undone by people and institutions whose caretakers will renew our commitment to each other not by adding more new rights and privileges but by restoring the duties and obligations of citizenship that all kinds of people had come to practice and think was part of their birthright. Whether they were born here or not.
Donald Trump’s illiberalism won’t work long enough or on enough of us to strip the whole of us of the democratically inspired habits, customs, and norms that took centuries of trial and error to practice and enshrine in our everyday lives. These values, trials, errors, and accomplishments are “baked” into our culture. They can’t be blowtorched out no matter how hard Donald Trump tries, and they will be successfully called upon in fierce legal and extra-legal challenges to every undemocratic move he makes over the next four years.
The great irony in all the legal challenges that are already in the works and all the extra-legal challenges that will come to the streets of American towns and cities, as I just suggested, is that they will be vastly more conservative in character than the man provoking them pretends to be.
The only conservative part of Donald Trump’s game is the serious attempt to limit the right to play to those of us who look more like him. Newcomers and outsiders aren’t supposed to be able to learn how to play or even allowed to try. The more liberal parts of the game – finding out how to bend, break, and ignore rules without being held accountable for bending, breaking, and ignoring them – are supposed to remain a mystery to such people. They are no mystery to Trump and his neo-Nazis and White Nationalist allies.
Compelling evidence of black Americans’ principled rejection of such subtleties was plain on January 6, 2021, when they stayed home and tens of thousands of white people attacked the Capitol and tried to subvert the peaceful transfer of the national government. The several thousand white people who were tried and punished for breaking into the Capitol and assaulting police officers trying to protect it are now looking forward to being pardoned by the man who incited them to riot.
Like it or not, we are about to be treated to a master class in discovering the limits of accountability by Americans who will work to restore the duties and obligations of citizenship. Whether already lost – such as women’s reproductive healthcare – or in imminent danger of being further eroded – like voting privileges and birthright citizenship – the use of unrest on behalf of conservative principles and practices is one of those cultural traditions that is too firmly entrenched to deny.
Large numbers of regular Americans – men, women, and children of every color people come in, some pushing wheelchairs and strollers – will confront Capitol rioters, White Nationalists, KKK members, and neo-Nazis who’ll leave their guns at home but won’t be able to resist intimidating and pushing around unarmed people.
We will know how far down the road to illiberalism Americans have slid by the answers to two questions.
Which side will be protected by the National Guardsmen and U.S. servicemen and women Trump sends out to maintain public order?
What party will be in control of the House of Representatives and Senate after the 2024 midterm elections?
Monti is a professor of sociology at Saint Louis University.
Keep ReadingShow less
Load More