Conservative radio host Clay Travis recently criticized Mike Pence, a guest on his program, for not saying that, if elected president, he would pardon Donald Trump. Travis accused Pence of being “pretty disrespectful” to his old boss.
In my view, Trump lost any claim for respect from Pence when he told Pence, in effect, to violate the Constitution, summoned a mob to Washington to intimidate Pence and Congress, and riled up the mob to the point that Pence’s physical safety was in jeopardy. But even if Trump hadn’t done these thing, the decision whether to pardon the former president should be based on the merits or, more cynically, on one’s political interests, not repayment for past favors.
On the merits of pardoning Trump, I agree with Chris Christie. His response to questions about this matter is that he’s very unlikely to pardon Trump because pardons should only go to those who acknowledge wrongdoing in some way. Trump, says Christie, is very unlikely to admit wrongdoing in any way.
Without such an acknowledgement, I think commutation of sentence is the most Trump should receive if he’s found guilty. I also think it’s premature to assess the merits of that form of relief.
What about the politics of a pardon promise? Here, the best approach will vary from candidate to candidate. For Vivek Ramaswami, the best approach is to promise a pardon.
His only possible path to the nomination is if Trump is knocked out and he inherits Trump’s support. The only way for Ramaswami to inherit that support is for him to be ahead of the pack in promising a pardon for Trump.
I doubt that Ramaswami has any path to the nomination. However, he does have a path to influence in a second Trump administration. Promising a pardon might clear that path.
For Chris Christie, all but ruling out a pardon ensures his won’t win the presidency. He can’t win the nomination if he alienates Trump supporters and, if Christie somehow became the nominee, his alienation of Trump and his core supporters (probably about 25 percent of Republicans) would preclude his election.
But Christie’s quest for the presidency is already doomed because he’s already alienated Trump supporters. He’s in the race to derail Trump and, I suspect, because he likes running and debating. So why not take a principled position on the pardon issue?
What about the four candidates I consider serious, or at least semi-serious, challengers — Pence, Ron DeSantis, Nikki Haley, and Tim Scott? To my knowledge, none of the four has yet ruled out a pardon or promised one. Haley, though, has said she’d be inclined to issue one. The other three have been non-committal.
For all four, pardon politics are a problem with no good solution. But some options are better than others.
Ruling out a pardon is the worst option for the same reasons it would be a very bad option for Christie if were a serious candidate, rather than a would-be spoiler.
Promising a pardon is a better option, but not at all a good one. For one thing making such a promise at this early stage, before a factual record has been developed, would alienate Republicans who are strongly anti-Trump. This cohort may only amount to 10 to 20 percent of Republican voters, but these voters represent an important building block for candidates trying to obtain the level of support needed to sustain a bid for the nomination. Conceding this bloc of votes would be a setback.
Candidates like Pence, DeSantis, Haley, and Scott must also worry about the effect of an early pardon promise on their prospects in the general election, if they get that far. Swing voters, many of whom disapprove of Trump, might hold the promise against the candidate, especially if it was made before the facts were in.
Of course, withholding a pardon promise would alienate Trump’s core supporters, perhaps causing them to stay home in November 2024. However, if the candidate signals an openness to pardoning Trump without promising it, Trump will have an incentive — the hope of a pardon — to encourage his supporters to turn out.
The other option is to make no commitment one way or the other at this stage. This approach largely avoids the disadvantages of the alternatives.
The disadvantage of this option is evident from Clay Travis’ questioning of Mike Pence — to many it makes the candidate look wishy-washy and “disrespectful.” It invites the criticism Travis lodged against Pence — one that will resonate with many Republican voters:
I think as a matter of principle, if you believe… Donald Trump is being prosecuted to a large extent for political-based reasons, something that has never happened in the 240-plus year history of the United States, that we are setting an awful precedent here. . . .
To me, what is gained by allowing Donald Trump to be put in prison in the event he was convicted? We lose infinitely more by not just taking a principled stand and saying as a matter of principle, this shouldn’t happen, With all due respect, when you aren’t telling us what your decision would be, I think you’re dodging the question, and frankly, not stepping up on the front of leadership, which in the past you’ve been willing to do. To me, not answering is a no.
But not answering isn’t a “no.” It’s a “maybe.” And as Pence pointed out, judging the investigation into Trump at this point is premature.
Premature or not, the “maybe” answer might hurt Pence and the others. But in the primaries, the voters who won’t accept that answer aren’t likely to vote for anyone other than Trump even with a “yes” answer. And, as noted, once we get to the general election, Trump will have an incentive to back any GOP candidate who holds out the hope of pardoning him.
Therefore, as a general matter I think a non-committal answer is the best of the three bad options at this juncture. A candidate can always switch to a “yes” or “very probably” answer if it becomes clear that this is the best option, politically.
Perhaps, though, it makes sense for one of the semi-serious challengers to move closer than the others to a pro-pardon position. This, I suspect, is what Nikki Haley has concluded. If she’s angling to be Trump’s running mate, saying she’s inclined to pardon Trump seems like a particularly