In Dante Alighieri’s 14th-century narrative poem, The Divine Comedy, the ninth and deepest circle of Hell is designated for traitors, a fitting metaphor for today’s political landscape where betrayal runs rampant. In a revised MAGA edition of Dante’s work, it’s suggested that figures like Liz Cheney, Gen. Mark Kelly, and the editorial staff of The Bulwark might comfortably find themselves alongside notorious betrayers such as Brutus, Cassius, and Judas Iscariot in this infernal domain. However, when it comes to former Vice President Mike Pence, the author argues that he deserves to be placed in a separate, arguably lower circle of hell reserved for those who choose neutrality in moments of moral dire consequence. It is easier to denounce a traitor for their definitive stance than to criticize those who remain passive during crises, reflecting a deep-seated frustration with complacency within the political sphere.
Pence’s controversial descent into the political abyss began on January 6, 2021, during Trump’s incendiary speech at the White House Ellipse, where the president erroneously suggested that Pence held the power to overturn the election results, thereby relegating him to either heroic status or utter disgrace. As Trump painted an overly simplistic scenario, Pence quickly found himself in an untenable position, obliged to align himself with Trump’s convoluted claims of electoral fraud. Trump’s audience was fired up with distrust; believing that their beloved leader would lead them to rightful victory, they were largely unaware of the violent consequences that would soon unfold.
Despite Trump’s stirring declarations of patriotism and unity among his supporters, it became clear that tensions were already boiling over. In a bid to rally the crowd, Trump invoked a narrative that played to their sentiments of disenfranchisement, promising they would soon march to the Capitol. However, Pence’s response was notably more measured. Moments prior to Trump finishing his remarks, he tweeted a letter that contradicted the president’s narrative, expressing concern over the supposed deficiencies of the election but firmly resting on his commitment to uphold the Constitution. This decision demonstrated a crucial shift from the rhetoric espoused by Trump, revealing Pence’s inner conflict and dilemma on navigating the politically charged environment.
Pence’s ultimate declaration that he lacked the authority to reject certain electoral votes marked a watershed moment in post-election politics. He considered the potential ramifications of sending results back to contested states, recognizing the real risk of inciting civil discord. Instead of the chaotic outbreak believed to be brewing, the day culminated in a mostly peaceful protest that Democrats would later brand as an insurrection, framing Pence’s actions as a crucial safeguard for constitutional order. For months thereafter, Pence existed in a politically gray area, maintaining a cautious reconciliation with Trump even as he subtly began to carve out his own path toward a presidential run in 2024.
As time went on, Pence seemed torn between loyalty to Trump and the growing necessity to distance himself for his own political survival. Initially remaining evasive about the fallout from January 6, he began to rely on sharp criticism of Trump’s behavior that day in a calculated effort to reshape his public persona. This tactical shift was underscored by varying statements regarding the integrity of the election, as Pence distanced himself from earlier admissions and critiques of the electoral process. It became increasingly evident that his past statements concerning “significant allegations of voting irregularities” were being relegated to the past as he sought to appeal to a segment of the Republican base looking for decisive leadership outside Trump’s shadow.
Throughout this uncertain transition, Pence’s journey reflects a broader moral quandary faced by many in Republican circles. The growing divide within the party signals the treacherous and often unforgiving terrain of American politics. With many Republicans regularly navigating past conflicts of loyalty and principles against the backdrop of Trump’s dominance, Pence’s story serves as a microcosm of the struggle between commitment to constitutional ideals and appeasement of a fervent base. As the political narrative continues to evolve, Pence’s choices serve as a somber reminder of the complexity, stakes, and lingering consequences tied to accountability, loyalty, and morality in times of political crisis. While he may have avoided the deepest circle of betrayal, the ambiguity of his allegiances suggests a nuanced exploration of the connections between loyalty, power, and personal integrity in the contemporary political landscape.
