Like so many around the world, I am interested to see the extent to which President Obama pursues criminal investigations into the activities of the previous administration. Of course, the natural inclination for anyone concerned with upholding the rule of law is to call for blood. Judicial recriminations would serve as a deterrent for future administrations and Obama’s re-branding of American foreign policy will create a political environment hostile to any return to the high-handed tactics of the Bush era. America’s reputation as a system governed by laws is restored and the bad guys are punished …so the theory goes anyway.
On strictly moral/legal grounds it is difficult not to side with this line of thinking. Yet, although I am no fan of the Bush Doctrine, I feel as though someone should offer an alternative way of looking at this situation. Humans behave in a manner so far from how morality would dictate that basing public policy on how things ought to be can have serious long-term consequences.
In these United States, the federal government has been entrusted with every means of coercion and legal redress (i.e. the military, police, and federal courts). When a governmental body possesses this kind of monopoly on the use of force, the extent to which it behaves according to its own rules depends on the interests of those wielding its power [1]. Should anything go seriously wrong in Washington D.C., there are very few means by which peripheral governmental institutions, such as the 50 states, could prevent a radical change in federal policy. The question before us is this: with this kind of personal vulnerability, is it really in the interest of the American public to encourage political vendettas at the federal level?
American national politics has become a zero-sum game in which nothing is off-limits, not even the family of a candidate. An individual’s entire life is paraded and scrutinized in front of the world. As a consequence, the acquisition of even the lowest national office is likely to be purchased at great personal cost. This type of vetting process almost guarantees that good men and women shy away.
What remains of the candidate pool often consists of ambitious opportunists, who are just as likely to break the rules as they are to follow them; the deciding factor being how either path affects their position. If history is any guide, when overweening ambition is combined with high-stakes power politics, competition is bound to become personal and the likelihood of the machinery of state being misappropriated increases with every confrontation.
In such an environment, repeated demonstrations of political rivals using their offices to settle old scores increases the personal risks involved with relinquishing power; at some point, someone is likely to feel compelled to go all in. Julius Caesar provides the most famous example of this. His military exploits in Gaul and the die-hard loyalty of his army made him a political threat to the Roman Senate. Fearing his popularity, Caesar was ordered to give up his governorship of Gaul and disband his army.
Although he was a brilliant military strategist, Caesar’s career was built upon immense financial debt and dubious political dealings. If he had disbanded his army, his enemies would have been able to prosecute him under Roman law. True to form, Caesar decided to gamble that his political/military skills would trump those of his opponents; he was right. Caesar’s victory put an end to the Roman Republic and paved the way for one-man rule.
The point I’m trying to make is that so far the United States have been lucky. Law is ultimately an abstract concept, a collection of papers and opinions. What gives legal decisions their teeth is the state’s monopoly on the use of force [2, 3]. Resting so much of that power in so few hands in the federal government is a dangerous arrangement every American citizen should be cognizant of. To date, the men and women we have sent to Washington have largely submitted to the rule of law. Yet, if we set a precedent for post-administration legal actions, how long will it be until they don’t…until they can’t?
On strictly moral/legal grounds it is difficult not to side with this line of thinking. Yet, although I am no fan of the Bush Doctrine, I feel as though someone should offer an alternative way of looking at this situation. Humans behave in a manner so far from how morality would dictate that basing public policy on how things ought to be can have serious long-term consequences.
In these United States, the federal government has been entrusted with every means of coercion and legal redress (i.e. the military, police, and federal courts). When a governmental body possesses this kind of monopoly on the use of force, the extent to which it behaves according to its own rules depends on the interests of those wielding its power [1]. Should anything go seriously wrong in Washington D.C., there are very few means by which peripheral governmental institutions, such as the 50 states, could prevent a radical change in federal policy. The question before us is this: with this kind of personal vulnerability, is it really in the interest of the American public to encourage political vendettas at the federal level?
American national politics has become a zero-sum game in which nothing is off-limits, not even the family of a candidate. An individual’s entire life is paraded and scrutinized in front of the world. As a consequence, the acquisition of even the lowest national office is likely to be purchased at great personal cost. This type of vetting process almost guarantees that good men and women shy away.
What remains of the candidate pool often consists of ambitious opportunists, who are just as likely to break the rules as they are to follow them; the deciding factor being how either path affects their position. If history is any guide, when overweening ambition is combined with high-stakes power politics, competition is bound to become personal and the likelihood of the machinery of state being misappropriated increases with every confrontation.
In such an environment, repeated demonstrations of political rivals using their offices to settle old scores increases the personal risks involved with relinquishing power; at some point, someone is likely to feel compelled to go all in. Julius Caesar provides the most famous example of this. His military exploits in Gaul and the die-hard loyalty of his army made him a political threat to the Roman Senate. Fearing his popularity, Caesar was ordered to give up his governorship of Gaul and disband his army.
Although he was a brilliant military strategist, Caesar’s career was built upon immense financial debt and dubious political dealings. If he had disbanded his army, his enemies would have been able to prosecute him under Roman law. True to form, Caesar decided to gamble that his political/military skills would trump those of his opponents; he was right. Caesar’s victory put an end to the Roman Republic and paved the way for one-man rule.
The point I’m trying to make is that so far the United States have been lucky. Law is ultimately an abstract concept, a collection of papers and opinions. What gives legal decisions their teeth is the state’s monopoly on the use of force [2, 3]. Resting so much of that power in so few hands in the federal government is a dangerous arrangement every American citizen should be cognizant of. To date, the men and women we have sent to Washington have largely submitted to the rule of law. Yet, if we set a precedent for post-administration legal actions, how long will it be until they don’t…until they can’t?
No comments:
Post a Comment