Only in America could a piece that looks only at America be considered more broad than one that looks at the world. (grin)

Both Sara’s piece and David’s are interesting well researched writing that look at what is happening politically in the US. I agree with their focus, but was trying to step outside the narrow US blinders. You are right that focussing on the law is narrower than their (and Eli’s) societal focus; I’d argue that if we had the law the rest wouldn’t matter. I think of Thomas More, as depicted in “A Man for All Seasons” saying

“What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil? … And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you – where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws from coast to coast, Man’s laws, not God’s, and if you cut them down — and you’re just the man to do it — do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake!”

Setting all that aside, I very much enjoyed this piece focusing on the decline of the rule of law. Particularly the last portion on David Kelly.

It’s a glass half full, or half empty dichotomy. Eli’s piece focuses on the rise of “extra-legal authoritarian elements,” whereas I’m looking at the decline of judicial safeguards. He’s looking at a wider range, including public/ corporate attitudes as a causal force, whereas I think the key cause is the abandonment of a universal system of law. One reason for our differences may be that in the US the people seem to support some of this change (see poll cited above) whereas in Canada the people are largely opposed to much of what the government is doing.

Your second question is interesting. Though also a Brit by birth, I grew up in Canada, where we were taught about Magna Carta (1215, Runnymede… and I can’t remember the names of people I met yesterday) as being the great English achievement. But I remember Paul (in Acts) claiming the right of Roman citizenship as protection, so clearly there were some precursors. I don’t know of any country that had Magna Carta rights earlier… but I’d welcome learning if any reader can enlighten me.

Another question: as a Brit by birth and my first 32 years, though now also a US citizen, I am heartened to hear viable claims about the unique or great contributions of my natal land to the world (since it is more common on the Left to only be aware of its — very real — imperial and capitalist failings). But to argue that “the subordination of government to law… was an English achievement ” seems to be stretching it a little! Yes, much was achieved, and much was also honored by the non-observance of said achievements. But a few other lands and peoples also discovered the law, I hear. [My uncle was a big-time government lawyer in England and given to conservative opinions, and I recall dreading his pontificatory entry into a conversation about South Africa one time in my youth, only to be astonished at how totally he condemned apartheid for abrogating the freedoms of English law. He would agree with much of your post, if he were still here. He was also lame from a truck accident incurred while he was scabbing in the General Strike of 1926, so there were a good number of freedoms he didn't endorse].

Incidentally, those who have followed the Avatar discussions here and elsewhere may wonder what Juan Cole was referring to might like to read this, a link sent to me by Peter Gabel: http://www.aolhealth.com/condition-center/depression/avatar-causes-depression.