What does it say about our collective values when a figure so deeply entangled in the unraveling of democratic norms is celebrated as a paragon of public service? This fall, Washington State University will honor former Vice President Mike Pence with its Thomas S. Foley Award—a gesture that feels less like a tribute and more like a mirror held up to the contradictions of modern politics. Personally, I think this decision raises a deeper question: What exactly constitutes 'integrity' and 'courage' in an era where the line between loyalty and complicity has grown increasingly blurred?
The Foley Institute’s criteria—ethical leadership, political courage, commitment to democratic values—sound noble on paper. But when applied to a man who stood at the center of the January 6 insurrection, actively worked to overturn a free and fair election, and later claimed the U.S. Constitution was 'under siege' by the very system he helped dismantle, the irony is almost comical. What makes this particularly fascinating is how the institute’s own history intersects with this moment. Thomas S. Foley, the namesake of this award, was a Spokane native who served as Speaker of the House and ambassador to Japan. He represented a different era of politics—one where bipartisanship and institutional respect were still possible. Today, such ideals feel like relics in a world where political theater often overshadows governance.
Let’s dissect the award’s logic. Pence’s resume includes a governorship in Indiana, a decade in Congress, and a vice presidency. But his legacy is now inseparable from the chaos of 2020. The institute’s statement praises his 'commitment to upholding democratic norms,' yet Pence’s actions during the certification of the election—where he infamously refused to accept the results—directly contradicted that claim. One thing that immediately stands out is how the award’s criteria seem to ignore the most consequential aspects of Pence’s career. If 'political courage' means standing against the will of the people, then Pence’s refusal to certify the election would qualify. But if it means protecting the integrity of democracy itself, then his actions were the opposite of courageous.
What many people don’t realize is that Pence’s post-vice presidency has been a masterclass in rebranding. He founded Advancing American Freedom, a group that’s essentially a think tank for conservative ideology, and later taught at George Mason University. These moves feel like calculated steps to distance himself from the worst of his past while leveraging his political capital. From my perspective, this is less about redemption and more about positioning himself for future influence. The Kennedy Profile in Courage Award he received in 2025 only adds to this narrative of selective recognition—honoring someone whose actions directly challenged the very principles the award is named after.
A detail that I find especially interesting is the timing of this award. It’s being presented in 2026, a year that will likely be remembered for the fallout from the 2020 election’s aftermath. By choosing to honor Pence now, the Foley Institute may be trying to signal a shift in how institutions view political figures. But this raises another question: Are we witnessing a broader trend where legacy is being rewritten through selective acknowledgment? If you take a step back and think about it, this award isn’t just about Pence—it’s about how we, as a society, choose to remember and celebrate those who shape our political landscape. What this really suggests is that the definition of 'public service' has become malleable, shaped more by narrative than by action.
In the end, this award feels like a cautionary tale. It reminds us that institutions are not immune to the pressures of the times. The Foley Institute, named after a man who embodied a more unified era of politics, is now bestowing an honor on someone whose actions symbolize the fragmentation of that ideal. As I see it, the real lesson here isn’t about Pence’s qualifications—it’s about the need for institutions to critically examine their own values. Because when the highest accolades go to those who most clearly embody the erosion of those values, it’s not a celebration. It’s a warning.
