Some 2400 years ago, Aristotle observed in The Politics:

And the rule of the law, it is argued, is preferable to that of any individual. On the same principle, even if it be better for certain individuals to govern, they should be made only guardians and ministers of the law.… Therefore he who bids the law rule may be deemed to bid God and Reason alone rule, but he who bids man rule adds an element of the beast; for desire is a wild beast, and passion perverts the minds of rulers, even when they are the best of men. The law is reason unaffected by desire.

Aristotle extolled the supremacy of law neither out of goodness nor decency but because he understood that law enables the most durable and efficient form of political rule. Law, specifically, legitimizes and protects society’s rulers as they seek above all else the smooth and continuous extraction of wealth from the ruled. It has been apparent for centuries that upholding the system of law can at times compromise a particular ruler’s immediate goals even as it protects rulers in the aggregate. Frederick the Great recognized this well when the absolutist Prussian leader submitted to a court that had ruled against him in a civil suit brought by a neighbor who complained about the king’s windmill.

Leaders in the U.S., irrespective of their decency or lack thereof, have also largely understood the invaluable function of the rule of law. This is why, before 2020, losers of presidential elections have always conceded, even when, like Al Gore, they had valid reasons not to. Richard Nixon........

© CounterPunch