Ah, Oscar. There is indeed a "constituency" for that line of argument. That is precisely the problem. There is always a tension between the liberal and illiberal, and never more so than when a society is under stress. The leaders we hope we have will be ones who try to ease the stress, reduce the tension, put the illiberalism into an "exception" box with boundaries. Their job is not solely to execute policies to deal with today's problems. They are the builders and maintainers of our evolving collective institutions -- they have a responsibility that goes beyond addressing the current problems that give rise to the impulse toward illiberal action. The leaders we should guard against are those who fan the flames of stress, increase the liberal-illiberal tension, and claim for themselves the capacity to know where the box's boundaries are. All without having to tell us what's in the box or where its limits can be found, except in their own subjective definitions of moral clarity. And all in the name of efficacy in protecting us from our anxieties. We rarely get the leaders we want in all respects. There's none among the members of the small pantheon from our first two hundred years who didn't succumb to an illiberal impulse or two. So it's incumbent upon us -- not only as citizens for today but as guardians for the future -- to ensure that the checks and balances are enforced. And when the illiberal impulses -- whether top-down or bottom-up -- attempt to override the safeguards of checks and balances, of transparency, of core principles of the rule of law -- it's our responsibility to push back against those impulses. To exercise that responsibility of citizenship is not treason. The fact that "raison d'etat" finds our political culture uncongenial isn't itself a protection. The risk is as great when we reify "the peoples' choice" or spurious "mandates." Those bottom-up impulses are equally fatal to the push and pull, tug-of-war, of what makes our system the best that's been devised to date. The "push and pull" is -- fundamentally -- one of the signature features of the very civilization we are trying to defend against external foes. The "moral clarity" line is a way of foreclosing debate -- of trying to evade and defeat the push and pull forces of a pluralistic system. It claims "rightness" (and by definition "wrongness" of the other) in a way that can't be appealed, either to reason or rule of law. It trumps all other ways of making decisions, of exercising authority, of exerting power. I shudder when I hear the words "moral clarity" now -- or more often these days "moral relativism." I've concluded "moral relativism" is totally devoid of meaning by now and is simply a code word that "elevates the tone" of mud-slinging and name-calling. But when "moral" comes along in an argument, that's when I know that we're about to hear another self-justifying rationalization that demonizes its opponents. Moral clarity is the first refuge of these scoundrels. [BTW -- the same is the case on the left with "ethical" -- gives me hives] As for the "democracy isn't a suicide pact" argument -- I certainly don't see anyone rushing to commit suicide, but that I suppose is a judgment matter. I for one would vigorously dispute the premise that we're even vaguely near the point where it's time to hand over our judgment faculties to our elected leaders. The biggest problem with the "suicide pact" argument is the next step in its awful logic -- it is not the external enemy, it is one's fellow citizens, who is the greatest danger, who is leading society into self-destruction. I for one have been there, seen that, don't want to go there. I would counter with a recent remark by a certain brooding friend. His remark captures a simple truth -- and in its simplicity it is just as vulnerable to being abused and manipulated as the "suicide pact" aphorism. But with that caveat, I submit it reminds us of another core truth for our system of governance: "Fear is no alibi."