In partnership with

Hey all, and happy Tuesday! I want to apologize right out the gates to those of you who are subscribed to the Friday Focus — I’ve been under the weather and have missed the last two Friday posts. I’ve comped each of you a free month as thanks for your patience! Look forward to more consistently fulfilled promises going forward. Now, onto the hot take du jour!

I want to start today’s post with an excerpt from a book:

I love writing this newsletter.

But it’s not rare for me to stare at my computer screen on a Saturday in wait of inspiration to strike, only to be disappointed by the blinking cursor that languishes alone on my screen. So I try again on Sunday. And Monday. And then Tuesday afternoon comes and out spews some frustration that, unbeknownst to me, has been festering deep inside of my stomach for many days.

Today is one of those days.

Seoul and Son

If you’ve paid any attention to global news today, you may have seen the political drama that is unfolding in South Korea. In short, embattled President Yoon Suk Yeol proclaimed that the opposition party had engaged in “clear anti-state behavior aimed at inciting rebellion” that have “paralyzed state affairs and turned the National Assembly into a den of criminals.” Then, in a move unseen for decades on the peninsula, Yoon declared martial law.

All political activities were prohibited.

The military set its sights on the National Assembly.

Arrest warrants were issued against the leaders of parliament.

Fortunately, parliament quickly convened and acted to unanimously overturn Yoon’s directive. Eventually, the military backed down and Yoon walked back his bluster. But for six hours, South Korea stood on the verge of a coup.

In the heat of the American Presidential campaign, the images seen on TV and in the press were conjured up as the sum of all Democrats’ fears. After the January 6th insurrection, and in light of Trump’s vow to be a dictator on day one, it was easy for many on the left and in the media to draw a simple conclusion: that the Republican Party was the party of insurrection while the Democrats were the party of norms.

And then Joe Biden pardoned his son.

Almost instantly, members of the media, of the GOP, and of Joe Biden’s own party have denounced the action as an abuse of power. This action, they say, makes Joe Biden no better than Trump when it comes to norms. And some even saw Yoon’s behavior in South Korea as little more than one step beyond the corruption that Biden demonstrated:

These claims are, to keep this newsletter family-friendly, utter bovine excrement.

Let me tell you why, after telling you about this newsletter’s sponsor, 1440 Media:

Receive Honest News Today

Join over 4 million Americans who start their day with 1440 – your daily digest for unbiased, fact-centric news. From politics to sports, we cover it all by analyzing over 100 sources. Our concise, 5-minute read lands in your inbox each morning at no cost. Experience news without the noise; let 1440 help you make up your own mind. Sign up now and invite your friends and family to be part of the informed.

Sign up today!

America is Not Korea

South Korea has had 13 presidents over its nearly 70 years of existence:

1. Syngman Rhee was overthrown in a coup.

2. Yun Bo-Seon was overthrown in a coup.

3. Park Chung-hee was assassinated.

4. Choi Kyu-hah was overthrown in a coup.

5. Chun Doo-hwan was sentenced to death after his term.

6. Roh Tae-woo was sentenced to 22 years in prison.

7. Kim Young-sam was imprisoned during the Park administration, and sent Chun & Roh to prison.

8. Kim Dae-jung was imprisoned by Park and Chun, but was later freed and won the Nobel Peace Prize.

9. Roh Moo-hyun was impeached and committed suicide.

10. Lee Myung-bak was sentenced to 15 years in prison.

11. Park Geun-hye was sentenced to 24 years in prison.

12. Moon Jae-in had a tame presidency.

13. Yoon Suk Yeol declared martial law and will likely be impeached.

Look at all of that red! Of the thirteen South Korean presidents, only one has served without a major constitutional crisis. 

In contrast, the United States has only had three presidents impeached, and only had two removed from office against their will. Don’t get me wrong—we have had plenty of constitutional crises. But each crisis has gotten smaller and smaller. The Whiskey Rebellion and the Civil War gave way to Watergate and Iran-Contra, which gave way to… Bush being wrong about Iraqi WMDs and Trump throwing a post-election tantrum.

Absent a historical frame of reference, it’s easy to today’s American political drama as the crisis of our times. But it pales in comparison to what we as a country have overcome.

While countries like South Korea endure coup after coup and France is on its Fifth Republic, America remains on its first. Trump was never—and is never—going to become a dictator because while our institutions are far too willing to bend for my taste, they have endured countless tests without breaking.

Our countries are not the same.

But our leaders may, in just one small way, be similar.

Yoon’s and Biden’s Actions Share One Trait

Far from violating the norms set out by previous leaders, they were committed in line with the precedent said leaders set.

I’ve already laid out the case for how Yoon’s behavior is far from a break from the historical trend. But Joe Biden pardoning his son? You must be thinking I’m full of it. Surely no president has offered a pardon so questionable!

But let’s take a look at some other controversial presidential pardons:

• Rather than pursue justice and restitution for the Civil War, Andrew Johnson granted a full pardon to all former Confederates in 1868.

• Gerald Ford pardoned Richard Nixon for all crimes that he may have committed while in office, shielding him from all legal accountability for the role he played in the Watergate scandal.

• George H.W. Bush pardoned six Reagan administration officials who engaged in the Iran-Contra affair.

• Bill Clinton pardoned his half-brother Roger Clinton, who was convicted on drug trafficking and drug possession crimes.

• Donald Trump pardoned:

  • Charles Kushner, the father of his son-in-law Jared Kushner and the presumptive next U.S. Ambassador to France, who was convicted of tax fraud, witness tampering, and false statements to the FEC,

  • Steve Bannon, his former chief strategist, who was charged with defrauding donors who believed they were funding the construction of a southern border wall, and

  • Paul Manafort, his former campaign chairman, who was convicted of tax and bank fraud among a laundry list of other crimes.

And these are just the cream of the crop! From Jimmy Carter pardoning 200,000 Vietnam draft dodgers to Richard Nixon commuting the sentence of Jimmy Hoffa, presidential pardons are rife with controversy.

You are allowed to be mad about this pardon. But you are not allowed to expect me to take you seriously about “Joe Biden abusing power and undermining norms” unless you’re also mad about every almost president since the Civil War doing the exact same thing.

What Is Reasonable

There is room for debate here, though.

I’m far from Joe Biden’s biggest fan. And I think there are real ethical questions about the nature of the pardon power granted to the President.

The United States Constitution is almost entirely void of any limitation on how the President is allowed to use the pardon power, or what even constitutes a pardon. Would a tweet announcing a pardon suffice in court? Does there need to be an official letter? Should there be standards on who is allowed to be pardoned? Who should check this power if anyone?

These questions are all unanswered by the Constitution. But in that vacuum, there is opportunity for change.

Allow me to announce my modest proposal for the 28th Amendment to the United States Constitution:

If preservation of ethics in the process of granting pardons and commutations is a genuine interest that we as Americans share, let us do something about it. Let us limit the pardon power in a manner similar to the limits placed on judicial officers.

Where judges have a strong possibility to biased against either party in a legal proceeding, they are required by law to recuse themselves. While we can’t expect the President to be truly unbiased in exercising the pardon power, we can define certain biases and relationships which are beyond the pale.

We can say that we don’t want our presidents pardoning their family, friends, and business partners. We can say that we want our presidents to only pardon on the grounds of granting clemency. But to do so we must amend the Constitution.

Do I expect this will happen?

No.

We are in a historical drought when it comes to Constitutional amendments. I do not believe this political drama is significant enough to stir up the passions of a nation to change the Constitution.

For real change to happen in our polarized age, it must be incited by a major shared threat. Absent a threat or challenge which truly unites Americans under a common cause, any proposed change is almost certainly doomed to fail under the weight of partisanship and misinformation.

But until then, I am confident that we can trust our institutions to bend and not break, so long as we allow them to.