Holman W. Jenkins Jr. Quotes

Note that the two do NOT ALWAYS coincide. There are those who argue that law should be respected, right or wrong. There are also those who argue that law should be respected, only when it is in the right. Note also that “respect” and “obedience” are two different things. Some people argue that law and the courts and government must have respect. Others that they are only due obedience but not necessarily respect when they are in the wrong. Still others, like Thoreau, that obedience even is not required when the law is wrong. There are those who take this to the degree that obedience to a “wrong” law is wrong and there is a DUTY to disobey a wrong law. However, a more nuanced view does not treat all laws as the same importance. I may think a particular tax is unjust and wrong, but obedience does not necessarily have moral consequences. A law that says that people with a certain religion must not be hired, however, is sufficiently immoral that I am obliged to disobey it.

This political issue has been in contention in every major world power since the Roman Empire. There has always been a division between hard liners and others. At issue is whether the nation should defend and or take up the cause of any national, individual, corporation, ideals even against a foreign country who may object to the behavior or use their own legal system to punish violators of their local laws. Failure to do so, they have argued over the years, makes the power appear weak and will invite further insult and transgressions. They claim that the government’s duty is always to protect its citizens from foreign elements regardless of whether the citizen’s behavior is right or wrong, reasonable or unreasonable, honest or dishonest. Also, this view holds that the nation should NEVER apologize as this makes it seem weak. These people have argued that it is the obverse of “My Country, Right or Wrong” and should be “Our Citizens, Right or Wrong”. On the other side, it is claimed that defending citizens or institutions that are clearly in the wrong not only is morally and ethically improper, but by being so indiscriminate, it weakens the nation’s power and credibility when it later wants to defend its citizens who are in the right and are being railroaded and discriminated against. And an apology, if the individual and institution has been in the wrong or caused harm and damage, is the proper thing to do and will often resolve matters and this is the best outcome often for the erring individual or institution. It is such a universal political issue of contention, that in the 2012 Presidential Campaign Mitt Romney had castigated President Barack Obama for apologizing to the African Nations for forcing their ancestors into American Slavery, even though Romney was very much opposed to slavery. It was the apology that makes America seem weak. The other side is that the apology shows that America has strong democratic principles and occasionally falls short, and when it does so, it acknowledges and corrects it setting a democratic example for all.