I have not mentioned Han Fei Tzu, the most famous Legalist writer, in a long time. Perhaps because the whole Legalist thing is just so cynical and negative - which, of course, a good deal of politics is, also. In any event, two stories caught my eye recently and drew me ineluctably to Han Fei Tzu:
1. Study Links Punishment to an Ability to Profit, from yesterday's NYT. Apparently some German economists have come up with a game that seems to demonstrate that people will generally favor social arrangements that include punishment as opposed to more idealistic possibilities of social cooperation. Han Fei Tzu argues that social order and political power require clear rules that are routinely and equally applied to everyone and which are backed up with harsh punishments and, when appropriate, alluring inducements. The Legalist world is a carrot and stick world. The clear rules and punishments part of the Legalist formula seems borne out in the cited study:
The study, appearing today in the journal Science, suggests that groups with few rules attract many exploitative people who quickly undermine cooperation. By contrast, communities that allow punishment, and in which power is distributed equally, are more likely to draw people who, even at their own cost, are willing to stand up to miscreants.
There are two catches, however. First, Han Fei Tzu would not at all like that phrase "power is equally distributed." His key purpose is the maintenance of the Ruler's power, and the Ruler is, quite literally, above the law. Power is decidedly not equally distributed in a Legalist polity. Second, not only does the German study stray from Legalist principles, it also may not capture modern life either. It is just one study, based on a game with specific rules and goals. Generalizing from that narrow, experimental context to society at large may be specious. The story, then, hints at a grim Legalist reality but may only describe the dour conclusions of a pessimistic inquiry into a bleak element of the human condition.
2. Bush Authorized Secrets' Release, Libby Testified, from yesterday's Washington Post (and just about every other news source in the US). The on-going scandal over the disclosure of the identity of an undercover intelligence agent for political purposes had disappeared from the headlines for a time. But now, it seems, the central question of who allowed for the agent's name to become public has led us to President Bush. And the President does not want these sorts of stories dominating the news: Leaker-in-Chief?
From a Legalist point of view the key issue here is the relationship between the Ruler (in this case, President Bush) and his "ministers," or political counselors (in this case, Lewis Libby). The Ruler should be loyal to ministers who are loyal to him, Han Fei Tzu would say. But the very moment a minister becomes a political liability, the Legalist Ruler should cut him off ruthlessly. Bush is not doing this, not yet, at least. The White House is not refuting the story that the President authorized Libby to leak classified information. They are allowing the President to be politically hurt and not putting the blame on Libby. Whatever else the President might be, he does not, therefore, appear to be a Legalist. He's much too soft. Maybe he really is a Taoist ;)
Comments