Son of The Proposition Nation: The Rule of Law

Over the last several years, the neoconservatives have largely dropped their slogan from the 1990s, originally adopted in response to the immigration debate, that America is a “Proposition Nation”—meaning that American identity consists of nothing but prescription to an idea, the idea of universal individual equality. The reason for this, I believe, is that the neocons have become aware that many of our new immigrants do not believe in that idea, but have very different beliefs, and therefore to promote that idea as the definition of America only underscores the fact that the immigrants are not assimilating to our society as the neocons assured us they would. Instead, the neocons, along other liberals, in all discussions about how American identity can be maintained in the face of Muslim and other non-Western immigration, have adopted a new ritualistic incantation: that America is defined by “the rule of law.”

May I suggest the following experiment. The next time you see a neocon or liberal utter this phase, ask him: “If America, operating under the rule of law, adopted polygamy, would it still be America? If America, operating under the rule of law, adopted sharia, would it still be America? If America, operating under the rule of law, became a Spanish speaking country with a Hispanic culture, would it still be America? If America, operating under the rule of law, surrendered its sovereignty to a transnational organization, would it still be America?”

The examples should make it clear that the rule of law, by itself, does not define what we are substantively as a people, a country, a way of life. Anyone who reduces America, or any Western country, to “the rule of law” and other such abstract phrases, is a liberal who has shown him incapable of defending our actual civilization from the mortal threats that encompass it.

- end of initial entry -

Jake Jacobsen writes:

Points all very well made!

A further thought. Our focus is on illegal immigration and we have dealt extensively with the Minutemen. They are infamous for all but chanting this phrase at demos, so I have challenged some of them asking them “but what if they changed the law and passed amnesty?” Would you then respect the law?

“The Law” such as it is is by nature a malleable and political thing and it can change, which is why it is dangerous to invoke it in this way. Also, I genuinely believe this is a big part of why our elite class were so puzzled by the freak-out average Americans threw during the last several amnesty debacles. I really think they were sitting around sipping their soy lattes and saying “Right, right, so we’ll change the law, what’s the problem?”

The problem is that what we and they call “the rule of law” is a shared understanding, an unspoken covenant that appears to be breaking down like most everything else as industrial strength liberal solvent is applied, well, liberally!

LA repliesL

That’s an excellent point about the Minutemen. Even the putative right-wingers today are all liberals, incapable of speaking any language other than that of liberalism.

Joseph L. writes (June 22):

The “rule of law” idea weakens the already insubstantial “Proposition Nation” idea (which surely assumed the rule of law already). In fact it is the weakest possible stricture on immigrants short of outright criminality. So from a liberal point of view this move is not a retreat but an advance.

LA replies:

Yes, an advance toward the greater dissolution of any shared concept of our society.

Thucydides writes:

Your point that the rule of law is no more satisfactory as a criterion of national identity than Proposition Nation is well taken. I would like to point out that what was once meant by the term “rule of law” has itself been changing for the worse.

Liberals, in their refusal to seek any common understanding of the human good, and their rejection of any notion of some source of human value beyond individual will and appetite, have turned by default to the legal system when it is necessary to work out some resolution of moral issues. The rule of law once referred to the idea that the state would provide a neutral framework of definite rules, known in advance, that would enable citizens to guide their affairs in ways that would not trespass on others. Law was not aimed at securing specific moral or social objectives beyond preventing citizens from abusing each other through violence and fraud. State action based on rules known in advance would not be arbitrary and ad hoc, for that leads to corruption and inability of private citizens to plan for their futures. (No doubt memory of this is what the neocons have in mind when bragging about the American rule of law). Of course, liberals who care only about results, and do not see justice as something that inheres in fair process, were never happy with Rule of Law in this sense.

Beyond this, liberals, including many neocons, have ruled out the notion of any common morality in the guidance of human affairs. As a result, nothing is left to regulate human affairs but resort to law. For liberals, the rule of law means the replacement of morality with obedience to judge-made rules consisting of abstractions thought to provide justice. As Rawls puts it, virtue is the disposition to follow such rules. Such judge-made rules are spuriously read into the Constitution so as to be mandatory on all and unamendable (except by second thought of the judges). Thus contested moral or ethical questions that might best be provisionally resolved through the legislative process in the form of rules open to change and improvement, are removed from any influence of the people, and the judicial process is wrecked by diversion from its proper functions. Judges are turned into unelected political representatives, and judicial appointments become a matter of partisan struggle. Decisions are not temporary political compromises, but winner-take-all arbitrary fiats, a practice which hardly contributes to civil peace.

Now in fairness to the neocons, liberal legalism may not be what they mean by the rule of law. Nevertheless, the once noble ideal of the rule of law has been almost completely undermined by liberalism, and can no longer be said without qualification to be something that prevails in our country or is characteristic of it.

James P. writes:

To define America only as a place where the “Rule of Law” applies is to give the game away to liberals from the start. They will define the playing field and the rules! Who makes the laws? Liberal politicians. Who interprets the laws? Liberal lawyers and judges. We have seen that laws and their interpretation have relentlessly shifted this country leftwards in recent decades, and there is no reason to believe the process will stop anytime soon. Far from preserving American identity, the “rule of law” is part of the liberal assault on American identity.

One could also note that many countries are defined by the rule of law. The rule of law operates in America, Japan, France, and Australia. If there is no other important definition of national identity than operating under the rule of law, then there can be no meaningful difference in the national identities of these nations. Since there are quite obvious differences between these nations, there must be more to national identity than simply operating under the rule of law.

Lastly, what happens when America receives a large number of immigrants who do not believe in the rule of law any more than they believe in the proposition of universal individual equality? The rule of law simply is not respected in most of the countries our immigrants come from, and it is absurd to believe they will respect it here. They will undermine American identity under this definition just as they have under any other definition that has ever been advanced.

Mark Jaws writes:

Herr Auster,

Your mocking the Minutemen for sticking to the “rule of law” struck a nerve with me, because as a founder of my county’s anti-illegal immigration group, I too am always spouting about “rule of law.” Sure, I’d like to talk about the demographic consequences of unchecked third world immigration, and in fact I have written several hard hitting letters to three newspapers discussing the costs of low-skilled Hispanic immigration, but that type of talk will not get conservatives rallying around the flag, and, more importantly, put boots on the ground. Only when I plea with folks about upholding our American “rule of law” do they respond.

Think about this. In 1955 blacks did not congregate in churches such as United Trinity, although many of them probably secretly hated whites—and from their point of view with good cause. However, through incrementalism they worked their way up the ladder of basic rights then to outright racism on their part now. First, they asked for a seat on the bus, which seemed harmless. Then they wanted to be served in white restaurants. Then it was voting rights and rights in the work place, with equal pay for equal work, which all seemed reasonable. With each victory more and more blacks were emboldened to stand up and ask for more. Then equal rights, became equal outcomes, then racial preferences, followed by the disparaging of white history and culture, and finally, after 50 years of such incrementalism, they have gone from wanting a seat on the bus to the widespread raping and killing of white folks without the black leadership even batting an eye because most of them view us as privileged devils receiving our just desserts and now is payback time.

Well, I believe in incrementalism, too. Today, we talk about rule of law in lobbying our politicians to enforce the very laws they passed. In a few years we will talk about the exorbitantly high costs imposed by Hispanic immigration and the fact that Hispanic family values do cost us taxpayers mucho dinero. The cries of racism will wear thin and as long as we stick to the facts, such as black-on-white crime stats, we will gradually enlist more alienated white traditionalists into our ranks, and thus we will keep on moving the yardsticks further to the right. My end game is more than the rule of law, Mr. A, but I know that in the absence of a huge economic downturn, this war against the Left has to be waged one skirmish, one battle at a time.

There are very few conservative activists who talk to as many white people as I do. I Know what type of discussion CURRENTLY turns them off, and I know what works. I have seen the staunchest rule of law advocate turn nearly blue when I began to discuss the consequences of whites one day being in the minority. They are still Eloi, Mr. A. And unfortunately, most of them will remain as such until the Morlocks start eating them. Hence, the sheeple must be brought along slowly. If you think there is a better way, I’d like to know.

LA replies:

This is an excellent comment by Mr. Jaws and I take his correction. His view of incrementalism is very well stated and at least theoretically valid. But here’s the question in my mind: While the blacks and their white leftist facilitators really did have a larger direction for their incrementalism that took it beyond its liberal facade, namely to advance the condition of blacks, as much as it could be advanced, by whatever means would work, can we say that whites, such as the Minutemen, have an ultimate direction that goes beyond mere liberal defense of the rule of law? As far as I can see, even the most right-wing whites today (not counting the neo-Nazi types of course) are liberals at bottom, being true believers in liberalism. So, when I hear about Minutemen chanting “Rule of law, rule of law,” my thought is, not that they have a larger purpose but are only speaking the language of liberalism because that is the only acceptable language today; but that they are chanting it because that indeed is their ultimate belief.

Now I hope I’m wrong, in which case my put-down of the Minutemen in the initial entry deserves criticism. But it’s the latter, my comment was valid.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at June 19, 2008 01:05 PM | Send