Text within this block will maintain its original spacing when published“The strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.” – Thucydides

For three millennia, give or take, the Rule of Law has been facing off against the Rule of Force. That is the gist of America’s current contest: not Republican versus Democrat, Conservative versus Liberal, Right versus Left. Does the strongest kid on the playground get to do what he likes or is he constrained by rules and customs, embraced and enforced by his community?

Tyrants, dictators, so-called strongmen practice the Rule of Force. Laws become tools for the Leader’s convenience, rights permissions granted by him, justice whatever he decides. Individuals don’t matter except as either engines or enemies of the state.

The Rule of Law aspires to equality: equal rights, justice, power; none superior or inferior. The state’s authority is derived from the consent of the governed. All are responsible for all.

For 250 years, the United States has been the poster child for the Rule of Law, history’s most successful democracy. We strove to live by that rule at home and among earth’s nations. We opposed tyranny (though we often collaborated with tyrants). The Rule of Law was what differentiated us and made us (at least in our own eyes) great. We bragged of being better than those brutes.

Until now.

The sneak attack on Iran, absent any declaration of war, and the slaughter of their leaders may lead to improved conditions for their citizens – time will tell. It was, however, without argument, a violation – indeed a cancelation – of the Rule of Law, which has defined our American enterprise from the get-go. It, like all the actions of the Nameless One, was undergirded by allegiance to the Rule of Force: I, the leader, can do what I like because I’ve got the power, screw you.

Events of the past year have proven the Nameless One correct: he’s got a lot of power, more than we thought possible, so mesmerized were we by our American myth. Not all of his adherents concurred with his ideas, but they were confused – and confident that our vaunted system would self-correct. Congress, the courts, the fifty states and, eventually, the voters would bring any despot to heel. Meanwhile pusillanimous partisans and greedy billionaires played along to plump their paychecks.

The question before us is stark, essential, existential, not narrowly political. Do we the people prefer the Rule of Law to the Rule of Force? And if we do, what sacrifices will we make to achieve that goal? Are we willing to forsake our comfort to preserve democracy? Or are we sunshine patriots, fans of the American idea as long as it doesn’t cost us much?

Make no mistake: there can be no amicable ending to this civil war. One or the other side will lose and the winner will wreak revenge. Fortunes will be decimated, lives shattered. I’ll be out of business, which makes my choice easy: free speech has already been contemptibly curtailed. I guess I’ll have to emigrate if our side loses, for to live I must speak my mind.

All systems of government eventually fail. America’s vaunted Rule of Law is failing now. Citizens lose interest in governance, leaders grow impatient with constraints, the rich connive to get richer, crooks outwit regulations, cynicism corrodes collaboration. Who the fuck cares, anyway…

I’m hopeful the Rule of Law will survive this assault and that we’ll have a chance to reconstruct America to prevent this crisis’ recurrence. Hopeful but not convinced. We the People have proven pathetic protectors of our precious birthright. I squirm with shame.