We live in an era of executive privilege. How can we end it? How can we become a nation in which executives feel that they are accountable to something other than their own desires?
Needless to say, Plato, who loved executive power, would have had a hard time criticizing Bush for his constitutional violations. Plato barely believed in law, order or morality -- except as means of rewarding the exceptions and keeping the normals in their place. Aristotle, on the other hand, was a different story.
For Aristotle there are two ways to rule and three forms of rule. The three forms are rule by the whole, by a part, or by one. The ways to rule are in the interests of the state as a whole (which accords with justice) or in accord with the interests of the ruling group(= despotism).
Rule by one in the interests of the whole is called monarchy. Rule by one who rules in his or her own interests is called tyranny.
Rule by a part of the population that accords with justice is called aristocracy. Rule by a part that rules despotically is called oligarchy.
Rule by the whole that accords with justice is called polity (or republic, in Latin). Rule by the whole that accords with despotism is called democracy.
Here is a linkto a story about widespread despotic rule in Africa. I think the story is sad as can be, but true. This form of despotism, like that of the former Soviet Union, is carried out in favor of the political and clerical classes that hold power and staff the ministries.
For Aristotle, the aim of the state is longevity -- or stability. The chief cause of instability is injustice. A state that is perceived as unjust is not long for this earth. It might last more than a lifetime, but it is not likely to last many generations.
The most dangerous and destabilizing perceptions of injustice arise from class conflicts. Those most likely to be agrieved are the rich and the poor. The poor feel that the laws are holding them down. The rich feel that the laws are holding them back. Only the middle class is likely to feel that following the laws is beneficial.
Hence, for Aristotle, the key to stability is a large, vigorous middle-class, able to resist resentment of the state, whether it emanates from the rich or the poor.
The greatest danger to constitutions arises when a despotic administration sides with one or another of the revolutionary classes. Ruling in the interests of its base, such an administratioin will pander to a revolutionary class, and inevitably seek to overturn even the most fundamental laws, such as those that set out basic offices and functions of government -- ie., the constitution.
What we have seen in the past eight years is precisely what Aristotle warned of: the Bush administration is despotic in Aristotle's sense: it rules in favor of itself. It also panders to its base, which is not really the religious fanatics and churchly bigots who vote for the R's without thinking twice, but rather the rich, who despise the laws and would be quite happy to see America become a dictatorship.
Yes, from an Aristotelian point of view, it does look like the entire eight years of the Bushies has been an assault on the rule of law -- an attempt to reassert the rule of men, in place of the rule of law. Every chance they got, they insulted the rule of law -- by violating it, by refusing to follow it, by issuing signing statements, by obstructing justice, by thumbing their noses at every authority in government.
Now along comes Obama and his administration. Will we reassert the rule of law? I hope so.
Will the state again be administered in the interests of the whole, or will we continue to write policy for the sake of vested interests (that is, despotically)? I hope so, but on this score, I have my doubts. The Dem party's leadership does not inspire me with any belief in their ability to ignore powerful monied interests in order to do the right thing (for example, on health care).
Will we again become a state dedicated to, and perceived as dedicated to justice? Again, I very much hope so. But if justice means anything, it means application of the laws fairly across all classes and lines of interest. If there are to be no investigations or trials for torture, if there are to be no investigations or trials for conspiracy to start a war of aggression, if there are to be no investigations or trials for politcizing the justice department ... the list can go on and on ... in short, if there is to be no justice at the top, then it is difficult to imagine how the US will be perceived as dedicated to justice at home or abroad. Increasingly in America, law enforcement is something that happens to poor people. The rich and powerful, and even the president and his administration, can act with impunity.
States in which justice is perceived as a joke are not long for this earth. Obama and his team appear to have backed off recently from his campaign trail statements to the effect that there would be trials if necessary on the torture matter. I think that is a mistake, and that it is also a mistake to not threaten the Republican leadership with other possible costs -- such as investigatioins and trials over contracting in Iraq, criminality in the Katrina events, etc. One gains political leverage with them, and one calls their bluff (forcing them to show their hand), and one also makes the state appear dedicated to justice.
The incredible cynicism about government in this country is partly created by the rich and transmitted into the poor and middle class through their domination of the main stream media. But it also springs authentically from the natural sense of justice held by every living soul when they perceive that injustice (including the constant rewarding of incompetence) is tolerated or ignored.
Obama has a shot at turning the US into a state where justice is taken seriously -- more seriously than the "freedom" of businesses that the Republicans taut every day as the highest public value in the land. To do so, he will have to end the era of executive privilege in which we live, and bring about an era of executive responsibility.
But that will require, you know, actual costs for executive actions.