[Previous entry: "Your Ownership Dinghy"] [Main Index] [Next entry: "Social Security and Grazer/Flora Ratios"]

03/23/2005: "The Rule of Rule"

Perhaps the most fundamental principle of democracy is the rule of law, often expressed as the phrase “a nation of laws, not of men.” The Founding Fathers thought of it as the key differentiator between the United States and England, where the whims of the King carried the force of law. Underlying this principle is the tenet that respect for the system must transcend political passions. Respect for the system must be paramount, lest the will of those with temporarily stewardship of the public trust use their power as a bridge to usurpation in the name of imposing their vision of the greater good. This principle has served us well over the last 200-odd years, and at one point in time was even championed by those calling themselves “conservatives.” What passes for Conservatism nowadays has a “new rule” (an allusion to the Bill Maher shtick). This new rule can be expressed as “the rule of rule.” Under this new rule, anything the majority can do to increase their political power – the power to rule unimpeded in the manner of George III over His Royal Colonies - is fair play. Examples abound, the most recent being the shenanigans in Florida that make a mockery of supposed right wing enthusiasm for states’ rights. And let’s not forget the threat to “rule” against the filibuster rule used so enthusiastically by the right wing during the many years they were out of power. Gone in all of this is any pretense at respect for the system. Their attitude is that if rules, accepted practices, longstanding traditions, constitutional interpretations, and even laws of the land need to be violated in the name of today’s partisan agenda, “Well, you can’t make an omelet without breaking eggs!” There is a fine line here, of course. Parties are expected to have the will to power. The line is crossed when they seek to prolong their power not through winning elections but by subverting the system that gave them temporary power, parlaying their momentary majority advantage into authority not enjoyed by their predecessors in the majority. In other words, they may rule that senate rules can be uprooted and ruined under their new rule of rule, but, by the rood, we will rue their role in history’s inevitable ruling that their rule was unruly!