Jennifer Pahlka explaining rule of law with the inaugration of Donald Trump for the second time.
In The New York Times a few weeks ago, Stephen E. Hanson and Jeffrey S. Kopstein characterize the incoming administration’s patrimonialism (rule through personal power and patronage) as “an assault on the modern state as we know it.” Noting that Trump won the presidential election fairly, they correctly assess that reversing this assault “will require more than a simple defense of ‘democracy.’ …The threat we face is different, and perhaps even more critical: a world in which the rule of law has given way entirely to the rule of men.”
I agree. The rule of men is fundamentally inconsistent with the principles and values of our nation, and I do not welcome any nepotism, graft, or abuse of the system for retribution that may be coming our way. But why would half of voters tolerate this? The authors propose that “a slew of self-aggrandizing leaders has taken advantage of rising inequality, cultural conflicts and changing demography to grab power,” suggesting that the rule of law is a hapless casualty of other circumstances. But the principle of a nation governed by laws not men should have been non-negotiable. It should have been a crown jewel of our democracy for which all else could be tolerated. It wasn’t. The crown jewel was tarnished, and unless we understand the nature of that tarnish, we have little hope of returning that jewel to its rightful place.