Every election cycle, there's one concern that I hear from most of the people that I talk to about their candidate choices. Specifically, that those choices suck because they seem so much alike. I heard it constantly in 2000 (if only we knew). And I heard it a lot in 2004, where I agreed with it much less myself. I haven't heard it very much now in 2008, which I take to be a good sign. People can see the distinctions between Obama and McCain - even those people that aren't sure which one they are voting for today.
But most of the distinctions that I hear from people are surface noise. Campaign preferences. Stylistic choices at best. Very few people get deeper into the differences than their stances on Iraq and how much of a tax break they'll be handing out. Maybe that's what motivates some people, and hell, those are issues that motivate me. But what I don't hear anything about is the most core difference between the Democratic and Republican offerings for President this year. And I reference them by the party as much as by the individual candidates because this difference has become pervasive across each party's platform.
In 1776 some no good, rabble rousing, north-eastern commie liberal named Thomas Paine published a pamphlet titled Common Sense. It outlined, in very specific and articulate detail, the grievances that many colonists held against King George III and made the case for American independence. One of the core tenants of his pamphlet was that the rule of law is the only way to truly guarantee freedom from tyranny - because human beings were entirely to fallible. "For as in absolute governments the king is law, so in free countries the law ought to be king; and there ought to be no other."
This same philosphy was later incorperated into the Massachusets Constitution by another of those north-eastern liberal elitists, John Adams. He drew a clear distinction of powers and roles for the legislative, executive and judicial branches of the government, explicitly stating that no member of one branch had any business wielding the power of another, "to the end it may be a government of laws and not of men." This same guiding principle can be traced back to the Magna Carta and even to the establishment of habeas corpus. It does not guarantee that the law is always right, or that the law cannot be challenged. It simply states that the law is to be followed, and that those in power have neither the right nor the authority to usurp it.
Now to be fair, many Presidents from both parties have been guilty of violating this concept - including several whom I truly admire, such as Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt. Of course, there are a few that have placed themselves above the law for much less admirable reasons, and under much less dire circumstances. Nixon comes to mind quite easily. But the sum of all these infractions combined is dwarfed by the sheer scope and thoughtlessness that the Bush administration has overextended its authority since 9/11. You can argue that everything Bush did was for the good of the country - you'd be wronger than armpit flavored macaroons, but that's beside the point. The ground I'm staking here has to do with the philosophy behind his actions, and what they say about our democracy.
This is all a matter of how a person views the law and, by extension, the founding principles of our government. There are many people in this country - and in the Bush administration especially - who see the law as an obstruction. A hinderance. As just another rule that should be ignored or avoided at all costs. If there is a way to technically avoid the legal requirements of the law, that is good enough. By renaming prisoners of war to enemy combatants, they figure they're off the hook for obeying the Geneva Conventions. By renaming torture "enhanced interrogation" we can claim that we don't torture prisoners. By claiming that the Vice President isn't part of the executive or legislative branches, he can avoid the rules of ethics and oversight that govern his office. To them, the law is a nuisance. Some archiaic bunch of nonesense that they know better than. In short, they see the law as a burden.
It makes me sick.
I'm not going to tell you that every law we have on the books is brilliant or perfect. In fact, there are a lot of them I think should be changed. And we have processes to change them. But that process isn't to simply disregard or ignore the ones we don't approve of. Fulfilling the minimum legal requirement of the law is an empty gesture if you are knowingly breaking the spirit and intention of that law. We don't prohibit torture because there is a law that says so. We prohibit torture because it is both heinous and ineffective. We don't limit domestic spying simply because there are restrictions on the books, we limit it because it is an invasion of privacy.
It is simply not enough for our leaders to skate around the intention and the meaning of the law on the pretense of fulfilling it's technical standards. They should be proud to fulfill the letter of the law, and proud of a country that secures such freedoms for its people. Our leaders should want to obey the law. Following the laws that govern and protect this country shouldn't be seen as a punishment but as an act of patriotism. I know it sounds crazy to all of our cynical ears. But if we don't have leaders that believe in our laws and believe in our government, how can we ever expect this system to work?
Listen, it's obvious I have some pretty strong views about Sarah Palin. It's not exactly a secret I was trying to keep. But at the most basic level, what I knew about her from very early on was that she sees our government and our laws as just another thing getting in her damn way. Her attitude upon being elected mayor of a town smaller than some high schools in this country was that she could do whatever she bloody well pleased until a court specifically told her she could not. That she wouldn't even try to obey the law until she was legally forced to by another branch of her own government. Someone like that has no business being in in office, and certainly shouldn't be allowed to shape the direction of the country. And whether John McCain either can't see that, or just doesn't care is a moot point. It renders them both unfit for office.
So for those of you that haven't voted today, I want you to consider what sort of person you want in charge of your country for the next four, possibly eight years. And remember that, first and foremost, we are a nation of laws, not men.