Judicial Bookshelf

Too little attention is sometimes directed to those supports that undergird what is valued most. For example, one current of American intellectual life in the nineteenth century sought a society that would run by itself. Despite vast differences among them, architects of experimental utopian communities, laissez‐faire economists, and Marxists had at least one thing in com‐mon: all anticipated a day when “the state” would shrink into a minimal background role or wither away completely. In contrast, the twentieth century demonstrated not only the endurance but also the power of political institutions. Government was here to stay, often for the better, as illustrated in the United States as much by the Herculean efforts to end the Great Depression or to conquer space as by the routine maintenance of a climate conducive to “the pursuit of happiness.” Yet government could also manifest itself with a vengeance, as illustrated by the oppression and carnage wrought by totalitarianism. Anyone who has thought about why some countries are long on freedom and others short knows that many factors and conditions incline societies toward one and away from the other. Yet two essential elements stand out: limited government and rule of law. The first proclaims that there are certain policies which government may not pursue; the second codifies those restraints independent of those who administer them. The first places some objectives out of reach, and the second sets the ruler apart from the rules. Louis XIV's reputed boast “L'ëtat, c'est moi” is as alien to as it is subversive of both.