Mike Pence's Stand

Mike Pence’s experience on January 6, 2021, offers an instructive moment in the history of American democracy, a sobering reminder that adherence to constitutional principles often comes at great personal cost. It also sheds light on why Pence is, quite appropriately, not positioning himself to serve as Donald Trump's running mate in 2024. In a time where the lure of political expediency has become irresistible to many, Pence’s decision to stand firm, not only in the face of a deranged mob but also in defiance of the demands of the president he served, is a rarity in modern politics. It is a moment that will resonate in the annals of American history for reasons that go beyond Pence’s personal safety—it is a moment about character, duty, and the profound moral clarity required of those entrusted with power.

Pence was no ordinary political understudy, no mere appendage to Trump’s presidency. His presence on the ticket in 2016 was an unmistakable signal to conservatives who still believed in the traditional architecture of constitutional governance—that a safe, steady hand was near the tiller. Yet, as January 6 revealed in stark terms, Pence was unwilling to abdicate his role as a constitutional officer in service to Trump’s whims.

The crux of the matter, and indeed the core of Pence’s significance that day, was his refusal to endorse Trump’s dangerous and entirely fictitious notion that the vice president could unilaterally overturn the results of a free and fair election. There is no ambiguity in the Constitution regarding the vice president’s role in certifying electoral results: it is ceremonial, not discretionary. Trump, however, pressured Pence to ignore the will of the American people, urging him to reject the certification of Joe Biden’s electoral victory, as if the vice presidency were a magic wand capable of erasing the inconvenient reality of electoral defeat.

Pence, to his credit, refused to bend. When the mob stormed the Capitol, calling for Pence’s execution, erecting gallows as if in some grotesque historical tableau, the vice president was hurried to safety by Secret Service agents. The Capitol was under siege, the pulse of American democracy interrupted by rioters who, emboldened by the president’s own rhetoric, sought to rewrite the results of an election by brute force.

As Special Counsel Jack Smith’s filings make clear, Trump was not a passive observer. He was, instead, an active instigator. From the comfort of his White House dining room, watching the chaos unfold on television, Trump reportedly responded to warnings about the rioters’ intent to harm Pence with a shrug. “So what?” he is reported to have said. The president of the United States, the steward of the world’s oldest constitutional republic, could not have been less interested in the peril his vice president faced. “Make them riot,” Trump allegedly remarked. These are not the words of a man concerned with the preservation of democratic order; they are the words of someone willing to sacrifice the republic to indulge his vanity.

What is essential to grasp about January 6 is not simply the immediate danger Pence faced, but the broader implications for our political culture. When Pence made his decision not to intervene in the certification of electoral votes, he made a choice that was both legally obvious and politically courageous. In doing so, he upheld the Constitution—a document that, for all its grandeur and philosophical brilliance, is utterly dependent on those who swear to protect it. Pence’s actions that day were not heroic in the grandiose sense that our culture often attributes to politicians, but rather in the quieter, graver sense of duty fulfilled.

This brings us to the current moment and why Pence’s name will not appear alongside Trump’s in 2024. Serving again as Trump’s running mate would be nothing short of a betrayal of the very principles Pence defended that day. The notion that Pence, having refused to participate in Trump’s unlawful demands, would now align himself with Trump once more is preposterous. That Trump believes anyone who serves as his vice president must submit to his every command is further evidence of his complete disregard for the constitutional order. The vice presidency, as Pence demonstrated, is not a subservient role—it is one bounded by law and duty to the nation, not the whims of a would-be autocrat.

Pence’s decision to break with Trump is not about self-preservation or personal animosity; it is about something far greater. On January 6, the vice president made it clear that his loyalty lay not with a man, but with a system of government that has endured for over two centuries. To rejoin Trump would be to repudiate that moment, to suggest that the rule of law and the Constitution are negotiable when political opportunity calls. Such a course would be unthinkable for a man who faced down a violent mob because he would not bend the knee to lawlessness.

In the end, Pence’s refusal to back Trump in 2024 is a testament to a form of political leadership that, regrettably, is in short supply. He understood the gravest responsibility of any public servant: to preserve the institutions that make our democracy possible. And that, more than anything else, is why he is not running for vice president in 2024. Pence has seen, firsthand, the dangerous path Trump has charted. He knows, too, that for a democracy to survive, its leaders must be willing to put country over party, duty over ambition, and law over loyalty to any one individual.

Pence, for all his faults, proved on January 6 that he understands these principles. Trump, as ever, has demonstrated that he does not.