The Rule of Law Versus the "Wise Man"
---
Harvard professor Harvey Mansfield defends yielding to "unitary executives" (a/k/a "philosopher-kings" or "dictators") in time of crisis:
Some hasty stitches:
--Who gets to decide when the need for "a wise man on the spot" supersedes the need for the rule of law? When was the last time a Hitler, or Castro or Chavez or Mugabe, decided that the crisis that needed his "wisdom" had in fact ended and therefore ceded power? Stated differently, who thinks that we'll ever see "Threat Condition Green" in our lifetimes?
--What evidence do we have that our electoral process facilitates the election of "wise men" — assuming any are even running (more on that below). Given how "unwise" voters tend to be, why should we think they would elect "wise men" even when given the chance? (And that's assuming a flawless electoral system; issues such as the Electoral College, disenfranchisement, "dirty tricks," etc., only compound the implausibility of Mansfield's premise).
--Much more importantly, who (other than Harriet Miers) seriously believes that George W. Bush is a "wise man"? Some may yet believe that he is "well intentioned" and "patriotic," but that is not synonymous with "wise." Do we have a single data point — even one — to suggest that he is "wise" (especially in a context that was not also politically convenient at the moment)?
How many "wise men" have served as President in recent history — and what have their records been? Mansfield cites Washington (not relevant), Lincoln (extremely not relevant) and FDR (a whole other blogpost). What about, say Nixon or Wilson? Generally thought, at least ex ante, to be something close to "wise;" generally thought post facto to be disastrous presidents. Go figure.
Who seriously believes that "wise men" are, as a rule, even drawn to politics in the first place? Other than the excruciatingly rare, once-in-a-generation exception (e.g., Theodore Roosevelt, Daniel Patrick Moynihan), "wise men" avoid politics and opt instead for productive, non-parasitic endeavors — in business, academia, whatever.
Look at every single candidate, from both parties, running for president in 2008. Which can you seriously and objectively describe as "wise"? And with which can you allay your fears that their "wisdom" will always trump the megalomania which seduced them into politics in the first place? What rational basis can you have to believe that Mitt Romney won't become a theocrat, or that John Edwards won't rekindle his "Two Americas" class warfare, or that Giuliani (or McCain — or Clinton for that matter) won't simply become "George W. Bush — The Sequel"?
As another allegedly "wise" man might have said, you go into the polling booth with the candidates you have, not the candidates you wish you had. It is the height of unwise, anti-intellectual fantasizing to think that "wise men" even exist in high-level politics, let alone that they can ever be trusted to "rise above" (i.e., circumvent) the rule of law.
---
*Actually Mansfield expressly rejects this idea later in his essay as applying only to Congress and not to the President (i.e., the same gobbledygook that John Yoo blathers). Indeed, Mansfield's essay is very long and very wrong. It was just the "wise man" inanity that particularly got my goat.)
The American republic was the first to have a strong executive that was intended to be republican as well as strong, and the success, or long life, of America's Constitution qualifies it as a possible model for other countries.Actually, the American republic was the first to have a doctrine of explicitly limited powers* — that was a far more relevant distinction than having a "strong executive." And, to the best of my knowledge, every other attempt to replicate the American model (i.e., establish a strong presidential rather than a weak parliamentary executive) has ended in either dictatorship or anarchy — so much for "a possible model for other countries."
Now the rule of law has two defects, each of which suggests the need for one-man rule. The first is that law is always imperfect by being universal, thus an average solution even in the best case, that is inferior to the living intelligence of a wise man on the spot, who can judge particular circumstances.Translation: Since "the rule of law" is determined by people who disagree, it would be better, at least in some cases, to deny everyone the chance to disagree altogether (i.e., by yielding to a dictator).
Some hasty stitches:
--Who gets to decide when the need for "a wise man on the spot" supersedes the need for the rule of law? When was the last time a Hitler, or Castro or Chavez or Mugabe, decided that the crisis that needed his "wisdom" had in fact ended and therefore ceded power? Stated differently, who thinks that we'll ever see "Threat Condition Green" in our lifetimes?
--What evidence do we have that our electoral process facilitates the election of "wise men" — assuming any are even running (more on that below). Given how "unwise" voters tend to be, why should we think they would elect "wise men" even when given the chance? (And that's assuming a flawless electoral system; issues such as the Electoral College, disenfranchisement, "dirty tricks," etc., only compound the implausibility of Mansfield's premise).
--Much more importantly, who (other than Harriet Miers) seriously believes that George W. Bush is a "wise man"? Some may yet believe that he is "well intentioned" and "patriotic," but that is not synonymous with "wise." Do we have a single data point — even one — to suggest that he is "wise" (especially in a context that was not also politically convenient at the moment)?
How many "wise men" have served as President in recent history — and what have their records been? Mansfield cites Washington (not relevant), Lincoln (extremely not relevant) and FDR (a whole other blogpost). What about, say Nixon or Wilson? Generally thought, at least ex ante, to be something close to "wise;" generally thought post facto to be disastrous presidents. Go figure.
Who seriously believes that "wise men" are, as a rule, even drawn to politics in the first place? Other than the excruciatingly rare, once-in-a-generation exception (e.g., Theodore Roosevelt, Daniel Patrick Moynihan), "wise men" avoid politics and opt instead for productive, non-parasitic endeavors — in business, academia, whatever.
Look at every single candidate, from both parties, running for president in 2008. Which can you seriously and objectively describe as "wise"? And with which can you allay your fears that their "wisdom" will always trump the megalomania which seduced them into politics in the first place? What rational basis can you have to believe that Mitt Romney won't become a theocrat, or that John Edwards won't rekindle his "Two Americas" class warfare, or that Giuliani (or McCain — or Clinton for that matter) won't simply become "George W. Bush — The Sequel"?
As another allegedly "wise" man might have said, you go into the polling booth with the candidates you have, not the candidates you wish you had. It is the height of unwise, anti-intellectual fantasizing to think that "wise men" even exist in high-level politics, let alone that they can ever be trusted to "rise above" (i.e., circumvent) the rule of law.
---
*Actually Mansfield expressly rejects this idea later in his essay as applying only to Congress and not to the President (i.e., the same gobbledygook that John Yoo blathers). Indeed, Mansfield's essay is very long and very wrong. It was just the "wise man" inanity that particularly got my goat.)
Posted by Kip on
2 May 2007
To comment on this post, please visit the new blogsite.
