President Trump recently shocked many by issuing federal pardons to Rudy Giuliani, Sidney Powell, and several others connected to his efforts to maintain power following the 2020 election loss. It raises some eyebrows, particularly given the ongoing discussions about the influence of various officials during that time.
Perhaps it’s worth considering if there’s a parallel being drawn here. Those who allegedly attempted to manipulate the 2021 Senate election against then-Vice President Mike Pence might be seen as mimicking actions taken by past figures like James Clapper and John Brennan, who investigated Trump’s supposed Russian ties back in 2016.
Why, though, would Trump pardon individuals who haven’t faced federal charges? It feels unusual, especially for a political party that just faced criticism for, well, seemingly misplaced priorities.
What’s clear is that state prosecutions against Giuliani and others remain unaffected, safe from the reach of Trump’s Justice Department. This gesture could feel more like an empty symbol than an effective tool for change, much like former President Biden’s late pardons for Trump’s adversaries. So, one wonders—what’s truly behind this move?
This brings me to a more pressing question: Where does this all lead? I’m not just talking about these individual cases or Trump’s ongoing legal issues, but also about the larger context of political strife as we approach the 2028 presidential election. How can we prevent politics from consuming us whole?
It’s comforting to think that, like in past eras of paranoia and fear, this too will eventually fade. The legacies of periods like Woodrow Wilson’s presidency and the McCarthy era lost their grip once it became evident that they had been outvoted.
Maybe, just maybe, politicians will eventually realize that mercy could be more attractive than revenge, leading Americans to bury old conflicts and move on.
Yet, we should entertain another possibility.
There’s this interesting story about Mark Grebner, a data scientist from Michigan State. He created a “Politics Score” for every resident of Michigan, predicting how likely they are to vote for Republicans or Democrats on a scale from 0 to 100. The names in his database are diverse, from celebrities like Eminem to business tycoons and even individuals with darker backgrounds.
What sets Grebner apart isn’t just his access to information; it’s the way he shares his findings freely, unlike many big-name companies with political scores that are often hidden from public view and sold to campaigns.
It’s no surprise that data collection has ramped up, becoming more invasive as political scoring evolves. Corporate interests are usually quicker to adapt since your voting habits matter only every two years, while they want to build lasting consumer relationships. But as artificial intelligence develops, the methods for creating detailed voter profiles are becoming more accessible.
Consider how rapidly information spreads these days. Some organizations can now analyze extensive data in mere hours, a task that used to take days.
Political data firms have little incentive to make their scoring systems public, as keeping it under wraps is part of their strategy. But with new competition on the horizon, it seems inevitable that more data will flood into the market.
The Trump administration has been working on a project to compile comprehensive files on all Americans, gathering everything from legal status to health records into one cohesive document. This approach contrasts with the fragmented system we have now, which complicates understanding individuals in a holistic manner.
Imagining a future with a “political score” sounds a bit dystopian, akin to a social credit system. Want a government job or need funding for school? Your score could dictate your access.
Even without stepping into a tech-driven authoritarian future, we can foresee troubling outcomes. Soon, almost anyone might know the political leanings of their peers, a development that carries weight in a society where political affiliation can determine one’s reputation and moral standing.
Figuring out if figures like Giuliani or Clapper are misguided or outright malicious might hinge more on personal political beliefs than objective analysis. Imagine if we could read the politics of everyone we meet—it would simplify things in ways that echo historical divides over religion or race, but with a single number.
