In the early 17th century, a rather insignificant Protestant minister named Samuel Rutherford wrote a book titled Lex Rex. The term “Lex Rex” translates into “The Law is King”; its inverse “Rex Lex” translates into “The King is Law”. Rutherford was a thinker of the same strain of thought as John Locke and the Founding Fathers of the United States, generally believing in the ideas of Classical Liberalism and Democracy. The concept of “Lex Rex” was very much a reactionary one in its time; it rebelled against the infallibility of the king. To the humanistic liberals of the 17th century, the king was a man who was endowed with the same natural rights as the common man, and subject to the same common law. The king was not in any way a god to these men, nor was the king fated by god for a divine purpose. Many of the Enlightenment thinkers rejected Christianity and the divine right of kings, which had helped maintain the power of the king consistently for many centuries. The reactionaries who developed the intellectual underpinnings of classical liberalism had firsthand experience of mass injustice in the hands of a single monarch. This must have had a profound impact on their worldview, causing them to idealize systems of limited government, checks and balances, and separation of powers. All these ideas can be broadly grouped together as a “dispersed power” of a bureaucracy, rather than a “central power” of a king or dictator. But today, in the modern United States, we can plainly see that the “Law” is not “King”, as Rutherford would have hoped for. In fact, this week the “Law” was overpowered by a group of individuals in the case of Hillary Clinton. The facts of the Clinton e-mail scandal, which are widely known, bear proof to the fact that Clinton clearly broke the law, regardless of intent. Yet today, to no one on the Right’s surprise, it was announced by the FBI director that Clinton will not be indicted, and thus will not face charges for her crime. By following logic we know that Clinton broke the law, we know that she will not be sentenced, and therefore she is above the laws of our country. Clinton has proved that our leaders have zero respect for the laws they create, and face no consequences for violating them. In the 21st Century, it is not a king who is abusing his absolute power, but instead a group of lesser bureaucrats, and the main cog of the whole scandalous system, is somehow running for President of the United States.
The concept of “Lex Rex” is dead in America, but does that mean that “Rex Lex” now prevails? Not exactly, since there is no king or absolute monarch here. But for all intents and purposes “Rex Lex” is the truth in America, if you replace “Rex” with the upper echelons of the government, the media, and academia. Although these institutions lack absolute power individually, when their lesser powers are converged together they produce an effect that might as well be termed absolute. Hilary Clinton alone did not withstand the heat of the law, it was only with the help of the Leftist system that she avoided consequences. The FBI director made it clear that other people in the past who had done the exact same as Clinton have gone to jail, and that future law-breakers will also be properly judged, yet, in carefully filtered words, he announced that the status of Clinton exonerated her from any negative effects of her illegal actions. Interestedly, the director also remarked that many people communicated with Clinton via her unsecured e-mail server, which is also a violation of federal law. These people, who can be deduced as high-ups in the government, witnessed illegal activity and failed to report it. It would not surprise me if the corruption in our government is so deep that the FBI refused to indict Clinton because it would set in motion a house of cards that would lead to the eventual reveal of illegal actions by even Barack Obama himself. And our (((overlords)))) who are banking of a Clinton victory this November could not even win the election in light of a massive government scandal far worse than Watergate. Clinton and Obama are flashy names and easy targets for us Right-wingers, but the rot is more than those two individuals. If it was just these, then perhaps the FBI would put them behind bars for their crimes. But it is far more likely that there is such a large quantity of powerful individuals involved, both Democrats and Republicans, and that so many our guilty in this vast network of shady dealings, that, regardless of personal affairs, they all have each others back in this. The Law is not the King in this day and age, and our Law is something our highest public figures do not even find worth following. The gross negligence of Clinton is repulsive from whatever angle you look at it. If it was true that it was mere ignorance that caused Clinton to not understand how to perform basic functions of the role as Secretary of State, then she is a low-IQ fool who should have never been in that position in the first place. If she was aware of the protocol but decided not to follow it because it inconvenienced her, then she is entitled and frankly quite lazy, as it would not be very difficult to fix the problem with all the resources she had at hand. Even if there was no foul-play or corruption, as Secretary of State she should have been a law-following example. But does anyone really buy that Hillary Clinton, a woman who has crawled to the top of the political food web, is too stupid to either properly manage her e-mails or at least ask for help from a specialist? If so, it was not mere ignorance, it was malice, and she was clearly acting illegally, to cover up facts that she did not want others to know. So she is either a fool, a person who thinks she’s above the law, or a criminal, none of which bodes well for her.
What would Rutherford think of this fiasco? What would our Founding Fathers think? In my opinion, they would be abhorred by the behavior of our massive government, and would consider this government far more egregious than King George ever was. And if this is true, if it was possible to go back in time and bring back these men, and they validated my prediction, what would that say about the state of modern democracy? Or was America’s democratic system bound to collapse into its sorry modern state eventually? These are questions that have no real answer. The point is that this scandal serves as a reminder of something the inventors of Lex Rex did not truly account for. When you have one corrupt monarch, generally the monarch is the stem and root of the corruption, and thus his death and the ascension of a new ruler can fix the problem. An absolute ruler serves no one but himself, and complete selfishness is quite simple to defeat, compared to the complex web of corruption in the massive bureaucracies of the 21st Century. These groups have thousands of shadowy members, all acting in their own self-interest, but also intermingling with each other in deals and trades, making an almost indestructible chain of corruption. It is easy to clean a shirt with one wine stain on it, but a lot harder to clean a shirt that you poured an entire bottle of wine on. One good man can put a bullet in the head of a mad king, but what can anyone possibly do when a government has gone mad? Law is King, this is true, but I would rather have a king that believes it, then an administration that does not. It is also interesting that it took a certain amount of time before any real opposition to monarchs took place in history. When the king is wise and just, and all the citizens believe the king is wise and just, no one ever contemplates Rex Lex or Lex Rex, because these concepts are interchangeable. But when kings began to turn against their people, or maybe the people against god, men began to question the king’s authority and rule. Let’s take an example of a great king: Louis XIV, the Sun King of France. In the summer of Louis’s rule, the average French person was content. There was no revolution in the air, men were proud of their king, and their king was, for the most part, a good king. One under appreciated aspect of monarchy is the greatly positive impact on the psychology of a people. People under a king have a strong sense of culturally happiness and belonging, because the king is not merely the symbol of the government and its power, but also of the culture and history of that people group. This is impossible for large bureaucratic, diverse government that are distinctively not resemblant of the original settlers of the land. Even a Leftist would admit that Barack Obama is not a image of the United States, its history and culture, in the same way Louis XIV was of France. The French were proud under the rule of Louis XIV, but I can think of few Americans (in the original sense of the term) who are proud of Obama’s America.
Let’s take a white pill, and look away from the fact that the elite in our society can break any law they wish with impunity. Perhaps this will be the issue that finally sinks Clinton, causing the American people’s mistrust of her to sky rocket, and cause a surge for Trump. People generally don’t like criminals very much, but what people like less is criminals who get away scotch free. Especially wealthy and powerful ones. Donald Trump is already hammering this point into the psyche of his audience, and I am sure it will at least have some effect. If Trump can successfully create an image in the minds of Americans that Hilary is unaccountable to laws that ordinary folks would be, it might very well be just as damaging to her as an indictment. Most realistic people on the Right were not expecting an indictment from the FBI anyway, because we realized that nepotism and corruption is so prevalent in our government agencies. And even if the FBI indicted, could we seriously trust Loretta Lynch to actually prosecute Clinton, paving an easy path to the White House for the Left’s greatest nightmare, Donald Trump? Although it would be very gratifying to see the fall of Hillary Clinton, we must now adjust to reality and focus on winning the election. If Trump gets elected, which I believe he will, the shift in American and global politics will be cemented for the Right. Under a Trump administration, perhaps Lex Rex and Rex Lex would not be discussed so prevalently, and justice would be served to all law-breakers. One day, Clinton’s chickens will come home to roost, but today is not that day.