Now the rule of law has two defects, each of which suggests the need for one-man rule. The first is that law is always imperfect by being universal, thus an average solution even in the best case, that is inferior to the living intelligence of a wise man on the spot, who can judge particular circumstances. This defect is discussed by Aristotle in the well-known passage in his "Politics" where he considers "whether it is more advantageous to be ruled by the best man or the best laws."

Of course, America, as an Enlightenment nation, is based on the notion that universality is a virtue, not a defect. It's hard to imagine anything more fundamentally un-American than to argue the opposite--as is done here. There is nothing in the rule of law that demands "an average solution even in the best case." There are all manner of solutions that remain available under law--for all branches of government. Anyone who cannot see this is, by definition, not a wise man. Heck, they're not even smart enough to pass high school civics.

Finally, there is nothing to guarantee that the alternative is is "the living intelligence of a wise man on the spot." That is certainly not the alternative we get under the Bush ("My Pet Goat") Administration.

The other defect is that the law does not know how to make itself obeyed. Law assumes obedience, and as such seems oblivious to resistance to the law by the "governed," as if it were enough to require criminals to turn themselves in.

Perhaps second graders are as naive as the law is supposed to be according to Mansfield. But I doubt it. Heck, the manly men among them have already had to face the tough choice of whether to be policemen or firemen when they grow up.

The best source of energy turns out to be the same as the best source of reason--one man.

Like I said, there's a 3-word refutation to this argument: My Pet Goat.

Ironically, there is a perverse nugget of truth in journalists' defensive stance. When the right wing is staunchly based in illusion, and bloggers argue for reality-based journalism, we are, de facto arguing for reporting that favors one party over the other.

This reflects the long history of rightwing media strategy: Don't try to take over the newsrooms. Instead, take over the corporate suites, editorial boards and political columns. By doing so you (1) Make the "balancing" of opinion the cardinal virtue that then infects the reporting of news itself, (2) Establish the parameters of what constitutes "left," "right" and "center," and shift the entire spectrum sharply to the right, and (3) Set the agenda of what counts as news, as well as how to cover it in light of (1) and (2).

Naturally, a media system that has conformed to the right's intended plan will be extremely hostile to reality-based criticism. That's the whole point: it is impervious to reality, whether it comes in through the front door in the form of news, or through the side door in the form of media criticism.

Thus, this complaint:

I'm not sure what can be done to make it any clearer that media criticisms have nothing to do with a desire that journalists be more partisan.

misses underlying the point that reality and Democratic partisanship have, over time, come to be one and the same thing. This is particularly evident as the GOP becomes increasingly anti-science, as well as anti-transparency in government. Reality is the enemy of authoritarianism. And increasingly, that is the partisan--as well as ideological--divide in America today.

Given the nature and existence of this divide--and the media's assimilation of the rightwing media agenda--"journalists" will automatically be on the Republican/conservative side, attacking us for being partisan.

Welcome to the Mad Tea Party.