I wonder if the sentiment stems from times you describe. When your basic human existence was against the law. The holocaust was legal. Slavery was legal. The breaking of treaties was found to be legal. Redlining was legal, sundown towns were legal. The current Christian- fascist movement wants to remove laws that protect your existence. My rights- from being able to vote to not being raped, also on the chopping block. The rule of law is so essential to our democracy. But the rule of law has been abused in the past. And it can be again. It’s kind of like the advice to trust and listen to doctors with all the education about vaccines. Yes! I agree…oh wait- a minority of doctors actually are antivax. So it is not black and white? Is this the same? Where yes- in theory, the construct of believing in and supporting the rule of law seems like it is always the right thing. But wait- if no one ever broke the law, on the grounds of them being unjust, we would be a British colony, slaves would never have been aided in escaping their torment, Rosa parks and MLK would just have been jailed with no societal shift or consequences, Stonewall would not have sparked the laws that protect you- those actions were illegal, and thus if we blindly say the rule of law can never be questioned as a construct or in practical application even if unjust, those brave trans and gay folks would not have triggered a movement. Idk. I’m not in law. But in trying to find some grace for the youngster you describe…I wonder if more exploration as to their underlying reasons might have led to these kinds of concerns. The rule of law is essential- with the caveat that such rule and laws be just. (And then you can go in circles with modern academic sillyness about what is just- but our founders knew pretty well🤷♀️)? Thank you for this piece-very thought provoking!!!!!
I appreciate your response! Indeed, many bad things were legal until they were not.
For me, the more useful lens is on how to best share and equally distribute the power which declares legality and then swings power behind these decisions.
I do not think humanity has yet found a better way for sharing and equalizing large scale political power than representative democracy.
I would also admit, this requires eyeing the long arc MLK identified so well. I was 37 before it was legal for me to make love with another man. Yet here we are.
Despair is a tool of the enemy. “You have got to give them hope.” - Harvey Milk
Did you know that arc of history quote actually did not originate with MLK? It was actually a Unitarian minister in the 1800s. But I agree that representative democracy is best way to balance power and justice across humanity. And I think MLK added the part about not assuming it will arc toward justice-we have to jump up and grab it and pull it that way actively, that’s our responsibility toward the hope, I think!
I almost feel as if I have been summoned to comment on this. Maybe that is incorrect, but is still what I feel.
I am not sure if I believe in the rule of law, either. I mean, it is a nice concept and all, in abstract theory. I won’t argue with that. It’s just that the messy reality falls short. More on that a bit later.
So far as it being a privilege to be a third-year law student at a prestigious educational institution with such sentiments, arguably so. But I think stating the sentiment is irrelevant here. It is equally privileged to be such a student and not express such sentiments. The privilege here lies much more in occupying the position of privilege than anything one says while occupying it.
In part, “not sure I believe in the rule of law” is ambiguous. “I don’t believe such a thing currently exists in the USA, not really” would be more accurate in my case. Who knows how accurate it is in that law student’s case. Maybe he meant something else, such as “I don’t believe the rule of law can be a valid or useful concept.” In which case I would take issue with him. Again, who knows. Not enough information has been given for me to be able to make an informed judgement here.
Clearly, the rule of law as a higher principle can be a useful concept with which to rhetorically bludgeon a hypocritical ruling class into some state of submission to reality. Because all ruling classes have always been hypocritical, and have always exempted themselves from the rules they compel others to obey. (And the USA , even in today’s fascism-degraded state, is still definitely less bad in this regard than most governments have been throughout most of history; if anything is the natural state of government, it is authoritarianism to a pretty extreme degree.) Insisting that a ruling class obey its own rules is often a radical concept.
One must, I think, believe something like the above in order to be, as I am, a radical who believes that using the courts can be an effective (and typically nonviolent or minimally violent) tool for securing some measures of additional liberation in society.
One of the best things about small-l liberalism is its vulnerability to being shamed. A hypocritical, authoritarian status quo that can be shamed into acting better always beats a more hypocritical, more authoritarian status quo that is resistant to shaming.
This is something I wish more radicals had more appreciation for. It’s why I am currently in “popular front” mode, more interested in cooperating with anyone, regardless of ideology, who believes fascism to be a threat, than just about anything. I’d much rather be an anarchist in a liberal state than to be one in a fascist state.
I am glad that we seem to agree that a liberal democracy is better than an authoritarian regime. That said, I believe you are more cynical than I am about the rule of law. For my view, it has largely worked effectively for 250 years, but we ignore things when they are working.
Yes, America has a ruling class. But, in contrast to most human history ours is porous without violence.
I think our years of occasional debate on all this might be boiled to a glass half empty or full. I see the willfully hobbled power of constitutional representative democracy as a glass half full. Which is far fuller than humanity has managed under any other form of large-population government. You see it as half empty because of how much cruelty and injustice continue happening within its systems.
The point I try to make in this personal essay is that anyone who thinks Western democracy does not trend towards long-term justice does not know (or disregards) the history of my own life as a gay man.
A long, long, time ago, as a child first starting to think about political matters, I came to the conclusion that one of the main differences between the Left and the Right was that the Left tended to focus on the aspects of the status quo that were not working very well, while the Right tended to focus on those aspects that were. Or, to put it another way, the Left tended to make comparisons to an optimal possible situation while the Right tended to make comparisons to a pessimistic one. Even now, decades later, I still think that was a valid insight.
(I am not implying here that you are part of the political Right; I am merely implying that, relatively speaking, you are to my political Right.)
Which doesn’t make either of us correct or incorrect; it is possible to make factually accurate observations of either sort outlined above. It’s more of a general attitude or outlook, something that is mostly beyond any ability for the principles of logical positivism to resolve into either truth or falsehood. Science can’t answer every important question.
As a further thing to consider is that many of those reformist successes of liberal democracy had their genesis in radical critiques and action. Harry Hay was literally a Communist. Stonewall was literally a riot where people fought the cops. Gay liberation was not a cause associated with responsible liberals. It was radicals, using at times radical tactics, that began the process of bringing this issue to a head. “Responsible” politics had a “responsible” consensus to ignore these issues.
The same was basically true, for decades, with respect to slavery (and later with respect to racial equality). Society did basically nothing about these injustices until challenged to do so by radicals. Likewise for the exploitation of workers under capitalism and the challenges raised by labour unions and socialist movements. (In fact, there was cross-pollination between the abolition and socialist movements; there were prominent abolitionists who also considered themselves socialists, and Marx himself was a big fan of Lincoln.)
It is not possible, in other words, to neatly separate the gains of liberal reformism from the demands of radicalism. We would need to run an experiment in some sort of parallel alternate Earth where radicalism does not exist, and to observe how society evolves and advances in that world, to be able to separate things. And of course such an experiment is impossible to conduct. Such is the world of social science.
Anyhow, it was realizing the history of things like abolitionism, the labor movement, and the gay liberation movement that was instrumental in radicalizing me. I just don’t find it plausible that liberal democracy would have gotten to where it is without these critiques and pressures being made.
I wonder if the sentiment stems from times you describe. When your basic human existence was against the law. The holocaust was legal. Slavery was legal. The breaking of treaties was found to be legal. Redlining was legal, sundown towns were legal. The current Christian- fascist movement wants to remove laws that protect your existence. My rights- from being able to vote to not being raped, also on the chopping block. The rule of law is so essential to our democracy. But the rule of law has been abused in the past. And it can be again. It’s kind of like the advice to trust and listen to doctors with all the education about vaccines. Yes! I agree…oh wait- a minority of doctors actually are antivax. So it is not black and white? Is this the same? Where yes- in theory, the construct of believing in and supporting the rule of law seems like it is always the right thing. But wait- if no one ever broke the law, on the grounds of them being unjust, we would be a British colony, slaves would never have been aided in escaping their torment, Rosa parks and MLK would just have been jailed with no societal shift or consequences, Stonewall would not have sparked the laws that protect you- those actions were illegal, and thus if we blindly say the rule of law can never be questioned as a construct or in practical application even if unjust, those brave trans and gay folks would not have triggered a movement. Idk. I’m not in law. But in trying to find some grace for the youngster you describe…I wonder if more exploration as to their underlying reasons might have led to these kinds of concerns. The rule of law is essential- with the caveat that such rule and laws be just. (And then you can go in circles with modern academic sillyness about what is just- but our founders knew pretty well🤷♀️)? Thank you for this piece-very thought provoking!!!!!
I appreciate your response! Indeed, many bad things were legal until they were not.
For me, the more useful lens is on how to best share and equally distribute the power which declares legality and then swings power behind these decisions.
I do not think humanity has yet found a better way for sharing and equalizing large scale political power than representative democracy.
I would also admit, this requires eyeing the long arc MLK identified so well. I was 37 before it was legal for me to make love with another man. Yet here we are.
Despair is a tool of the enemy. “You have got to give them hope.” - Harvey Milk
Did you know that arc of history quote actually did not originate with MLK? It was actually a Unitarian minister in the 1800s. But I agree that representative democracy is best way to balance power and justice across humanity. And I think MLK added the part about not assuming it will arc toward justice-we have to jump up and grab it and pull it that way actively, that’s our responsibility toward the hope, I think!
I almost feel as if I have been summoned to comment on this. Maybe that is incorrect, but is still what I feel.
I am not sure if I believe in the rule of law, either. I mean, it is a nice concept and all, in abstract theory. I won’t argue with that. It’s just that the messy reality falls short. More on that a bit later.
So far as it being a privilege to be a third-year law student at a prestigious educational institution with such sentiments, arguably so. But I think stating the sentiment is irrelevant here. It is equally privileged to be such a student and not express such sentiments. The privilege here lies much more in occupying the position of privilege than anything one says while occupying it.
In part, “not sure I believe in the rule of law” is ambiguous. “I don’t believe such a thing currently exists in the USA, not really” would be more accurate in my case. Who knows how accurate it is in that law student’s case. Maybe he meant something else, such as “I don’t believe the rule of law can be a valid or useful concept.” In which case I would take issue with him. Again, who knows. Not enough information has been given for me to be able to make an informed judgement here.
Clearly, the rule of law as a higher principle can be a useful concept with which to rhetorically bludgeon a hypocritical ruling class into some state of submission to reality. Because all ruling classes have always been hypocritical, and have always exempted themselves from the rules they compel others to obey. (And the USA , even in today’s fascism-degraded state, is still definitely less bad in this regard than most governments have been throughout most of history; if anything is the natural state of government, it is authoritarianism to a pretty extreme degree.) Insisting that a ruling class obey its own rules is often a radical concept.
One must, I think, believe something like the above in order to be, as I am, a radical who believes that using the courts can be an effective (and typically nonviolent or minimally violent) tool for securing some measures of additional liberation in society.
One of the best things about small-l liberalism is its vulnerability to being shamed. A hypocritical, authoritarian status quo that can be shamed into acting better always beats a more hypocritical, more authoritarian status quo that is resistant to shaming.
This is something I wish more radicals had more appreciation for. It’s why I am currently in “popular front” mode, more interested in cooperating with anyone, regardless of ideology, who believes fascism to be a threat, than just about anything. I’d much rather be an anarchist in a liberal state than to be one in a fascist state.
Yes, dear, you were summoned (grin).
I am glad that we seem to agree that a liberal democracy is better than an authoritarian regime. That said, I believe you are more cynical than I am about the rule of law. For my view, it has largely worked effectively for 250 years, but we ignore things when they are working.
Yes, America has a ruling class. But, in contrast to most human history ours is porous without violence.
I think our years of occasional debate on all this might be boiled to a glass half empty or full. I see the willfully hobbled power of constitutional representative democracy as a glass half full. Which is far fuller than humanity has managed under any other form of large-population government. You see it as half empty because of how much cruelty and injustice continue happening within its systems.
The point I try to make in this personal essay is that anyone who thinks Western democracy does not trend towards long-term justice does not know (or disregards) the history of my own life as a gay man.
A long, long, time ago, as a child first starting to think about political matters, I came to the conclusion that one of the main differences between the Left and the Right was that the Left tended to focus on the aspects of the status quo that were not working very well, while the Right tended to focus on those aspects that were. Or, to put it another way, the Left tended to make comparisons to an optimal possible situation while the Right tended to make comparisons to a pessimistic one. Even now, decades later, I still think that was a valid insight.
(I am not implying here that you are part of the political Right; I am merely implying that, relatively speaking, you are to my political Right.)
Which doesn’t make either of us correct or incorrect; it is possible to make factually accurate observations of either sort outlined above. It’s more of a general attitude or outlook, something that is mostly beyond any ability for the principles of logical positivism to resolve into either truth or falsehood. Science can’t answer every important question.
As a further thing to consider is that many of those reformist successes of liberal democracy had their genesis in radical critiques and action. Harry Hay was literally a Communist. Stonewall was literally a riot where people fought the cops. Gay liberation was not a cause associated with responsible liberals. It was radicals, using at times radical tactics, that began the process of bringing this issue to a head. “Responsible” politics had a “responsible” consensus to ignore these issues.
The same was basically true, for decades, with respect to slavery (and later with respect to racial equality). Society did basically nothing about these injustices until challenged to do so by radicals. Likewise for the exploitation of workers under capitalism and the challenges raised by labour unions and socialist movements. (In fact, there was cross-pollination between the abolition and socialist movements; there were prominent abolitionists who also considered themselves socialists, and Marx himself was a big fan of Lincoln.)
It is not possible, in other words, to neatly separate the gains of liberal reformism from the demands of radicalism. We would need to run an experiment in some sort of parallel alternate Earth where radicalism does not exist, and to observe how society evolves and advances in that world, to be able to separate things. And of course such an experiment is impossible to conduct. Such is the world of social science.
Anyhow, it was realizing the history of things like abolitionism, the labor movement, and the gay liberation movement that was instrumental in radicalizing me. I just don’t find it plausible that liberal democracy would have gotten to where it is without these critiques and pressures being made.
I just came here to say thank you for sharing your personal story.