An astonishing piece in the Wall Street Journal (subscription only), offers noted academic Harvey Mansfield casually rejecting — believe it or not — the rule of law. He’s not arguing that we should all be able to act in blissfully lawless ways, of course — simply that the laws of the nation should not be permitted to rule over (and occasionally over-rule) the president.
Democracy is famously inefficient, yes, but it is also famously useful when it comes to curbing latent tyrants. And democracy — unimpeded democracy — is the best safeguard against executive incompetence. Should America find itself in the hands of, say, a raving presidential version of King George III, are we sure we want this man to have unfettered extra-legal privilege? Impeachment is always an option (until declared illegal, or rendered impossible — generally the next quiet step in a creeping tyranny); but do we really want this to be theonly option?
And there is little reason to believe, despite Mansfield (and his mentor, Leo Strauss, and his mentor, Carl Schmitt), that a plodding democracy is incapable of pulling itself together to act brutally and efficiently during wartime. America, Canada and Australia — to name a few reasonably democratic nations — were crucially effective in the last century’s complex wars. On the other hand, an incompetent absolute leader in the same situation (see under “Mussolini”) might well be brutal, but is unlikely to prove even remotely effective.