Though in some circles I have a reputation for being a rebellious and seditious sort of person with no respect for the rules (and I have no idea how I acquired such a bad reputation), in truth I have always been a stickler for rules and procedures in my life, as long as they served the cause of justice to which I am passionately devoted. From childhood my knowledge of and interest in preserving fair play and obedience to rules and standards has allowed me the privilege of often being a referee, and in being recognized as a person who is just and fair in my habits, even if a bit harsh and sarcastic sometimes.

Politics is a place where overheated rhetoric often casts out the still small voice of truth. For example, there is a certain breed of political extremist that delights in making the frequent (and false) claim that a rejection of their own political platform means that one can only choose between fascists and communists. This sort of rhetoric is incompatible with the civility of public discourse that is necessary for a republic to long endure. Such false dilemmas give people the cover they need in their own minds to engage in corrupt behavior in order to save what they claim to hold dear. One can easily hear such people claiming that “we had to destroy the republic in order to save it,” in the manner of people who calmly plotted over the destruction of villages in Southeast Asia because of their lack of love for their neighbor.

If we want to have credibility as defenders of rule of law, we have to make sure that we not only are scrupulous about obeying the letter of the law, but that we are also found to be obedient to the spirit of the law. Those who deliberately engage in deception and in trying to exploit loopholes have no moral high ground to complain when others use the same loopholes, or other loopholes, to gain their own point. Instead, all it sounds like is whining and sour grapes. All that one needs is the cheese and crackers to have your own pity party. And that is the sort of party that I do not plan on attending.

The hard part of the rule of law is that rule of law demands that the law is king and rules over everyone. Everyone is applicable to the same standard, and this is hard for some people to genuinely understand and support. It is a very easy thing to want to regulate the clearly evil conduct of other people, but we may not want to restrict our own conduct as well. If we write in special exemptions for ourselves or our allies, we are hypocrites engaging in unjust behavior. If something is wrong, it is wrong when anyone does it, including ourselves. The same is true in reverse. If we do not want to be fettered by rules and restrictions on our conduct, we must accept that others will be equally unfettered in their conduct that we are likely to view as corrupt and unjust. What is permissible to some is permissible to all, in a republic where there is a rule of law with the same legal standard for everyone.

This is easy to assent to in the general, but when one gets to the particular, our sense of justice and equity is often blinded by our own partisan commitments. And this is perhaps inevitable but no less regrettable for it. Principles like justice and freedom and equality are very easy to support, but much depends in how they are defined. Freedom from the threat of evildoers is a far different matter than freedom to do whatever I please, no matter its harm to others. We may want justice, harsh justice, in the aim of righting the wrongs that we have suffered, but want to be treated with mercy ourselves. We want others to judge us by our intentions while we judge them by their results. Likewise, a strong support of equality of opportunity, to allow all the chance to prosper based on our unequal talents, is a far different matter than pushing for an equality of reward and of living.

It is no different with the rule of law. We have to decided whether we want to be in charge pushing our agenda, or if we want a just moral order to be in place that we are also under. If our aim is merely the rule of likeminded people over others, we cannot presume that our aims are necessarily good and just for everyone overall. Nor can we, with justice, demonize our opponents simply because they oppose our candidates or our agendas. We must take their concerns and misgivings seriously, and also take the time to demonstrate that what is good for us is good for everyone else. We cannot assume, for example, that a rising tide will lift all boats, or that the interests and concerns of others are wrong simply because they conflict with our own. Our interests may simply be selfish and so may theirs be, and neither ours nor theirs are right nor wrong simply for being selfish. They simply are what they are.

If our interest is truly in the well-being of others, any personal ambitions or partisanship that we will have will be secondary for our desire to see all prosper and flourish. If we may have to suffer for the well-being of others to increase, we will do with as much cheer and self-restraint as we can. If our well-being increases along with others, we will have the good cheer to celebrate others on their blessings and receive their congratulations as well with joy. What is all too rare in these wicked days, though, is that concern for the well-being of others. So many of our crises and divides could be bridged if we cared more about the well-being of others rather than being recognized as being right. As this is a flaw I share myself to no small degree, I am not seeking to mock or malign anyone, for I know all too well my own weaknesses.

That said, we have to ultimately decide whether it is laws or men we wish to prevail. If laws, we must be very careful to see that those laws are fair and just. If men, we must see that those men are fair and just as well. We cannot presume to support the rules of law if we are narrow partisans supporting a narrow political agenda, because the rule of law rules ourselves as well as others, by the same just standard. And, truth be told, I see little interest in the rule of law these days by anyone. It seems that almost everyone is looking for a political savior to rise to save us from ourselves and from the seemingly insoluble dilemmas of our age. Unless we are patient and humble enough to await the rule of our Lord and Savior, whose rule is likely to be a lot different than we may now imagine, I think we will be waiting in vain. After all, if we really knew what God’s laws said, we would not be in such a hurry to jettison all restraint against our own immoral ways as seems the custom of our times. Ultimately, we will get the laws and the rulers that we deserve–I hope we have the grace of receiving better than we deserve, though, but I am not sanguine.