Throughout his career in public service – as legislator, vice president in the Obama administration, and as president of the United States – Joe Biden crafted his identity as a moral guardian committed to upholding legal norms without qualification or compromise in the public sphere, particularly among the highest echelons of the administration and Congress.
Indeed, his crusade against governmental corruption (manifested in his pivotal role in comprehensive campaign finance reform and his persistent confrontation of international partners who had strayed dramatically from democratic principles, integrity, and fair political conduct, turning their positions of power into vehicles for quick and ostentatious self-enrichment at the public's expense) emerged as one of Biden's most distinctive characteristics. The outgoing president positioned himself as the successor to the distinguished Senator Estes Kefauver, who dedicated his political life to an uncompromising battle to cleanse the political system of its moral and ethical afflictions.
Yet now, this very same stalwart who in recent years spared no criticism of Donald Trump and fully backed his prosecution and removal from politics over various ethical transgressions (including the "hush money" payment to adult film actress Stormy Daniels and multiple tax violations), is set to exit the public stage as one of those politicians whose personal interests eclipse all other principles, including equal treatment under the law.
The irony is profound: Biden – who spent the past decade criticizing Southern courts for applying vastly different legal and moral standards to white defendants versus African American or Latino American suspects – has completely abandoned this legacy of integrity and impartial judgment by granting his son Hunter a sweeping presidential pardon for criminal offenses (including approximately $1.5 million in tax evasion and concealing information about his history of drug and alcohol addiction when applying for a firearms permit).
This pardon came just before an expected verdict in one of his trials that would likely have resulted in several years of imprisonment. In light of these developments, one cannot escape the conclusion that even the mightiest principles have crumbled. What precisely distinguishes Trump, who upon completing his first White House term pardoned associates, from his successor Biden, who readily discards his own established principles to act in blatant nepotistic fashion to spare his son from imprisonment? What fundamental difference exists between this barely explained pardon and the incoming president's practice of staffing his administration with relatives and associates? Does this not inflict grave damage on the Democratic Party's image as the complete antithesis to Trump's impending administration, which they argue threatens the foundational pillars of American democracy?
Historically, US presidents (President Bill Clinton among them) have not hesitated to exercise their presidential pardon privilege for suspects and offenders. However, such actions were not always driven by narrow personal, familial, or sectoral interests that were fundamentally problematic. President Gerald Ford's 1974 blanket pardon of his predecessor Richard Nixon for all Watergate-related offenses serves as an example. Unlike Biden, Ford acted to protect the presidency's institutional standing in America's collective consciousness and ethos from the threat of erosion and devaluation. He paid dearly for this decision – Ford's narrow defeat by Democratic candidate Jimmy Carter in 1976 stemmed directly from this choice.
By contrast, Biden's decision to grant his son Hunter a comprehensive pardon lacks even a trace of altruism. It stands as a cynical and self-serving choice that overshadows his long-preached pursuit of integrity and moral standards in public life, potentially leaving an enduring negative imprint on the Democratic Party and further complicating its recovery from the November 5 defeat.
Against this backdrop, one can only pose the question to Biden, the moral preacher: "Et tu, Brutus?" Or in other words, have you, the champion of unwavering ethical standards, also succumbed to the very behavior you condemned?
