Politics & Power Quote by John Fund

Fund’s line dresses up a partisan distinction as a temperament test, and that’s the tell. By invoking the “unconstrained vision,” he borrows the authority of Thomas Sowell’s framework, where the left is cast as naively optimistic about human perfectibility while the right is soberly bound to limits, incentives, and unintended consequences. It’s a neat piece of rhetorical laundering: “Democrats” aren’t merely wrong on policy; they’re guided by a worldview that reliably overreaches.

The second half is even more strategic. “Rule of Law” is one of those phrases that arrives pre-sanitized, almost impossible to argue against without sounding suspicious. Fund uses it as a moral credential, not a descriptive claim. The implication isn’t just that Republicans prefer courts and constitutions; it’s that their opponents, by contrast, are comfortable bending norms in service of outcomes. That’s a powerful accusation because it reframes political disagreement as a question of legitimacy.

The subtext is aimed at contemporary flashpoints where legal process collides with moral urgency: immigration enforcement, policing, executive action, campus speech, election administration. In each, “unconstrained” suggests a willingness to treat rules as obstacles to justice, while “Rule of Law” signals restraint and continuity. The irony, of course, is that both parties routinely toggle between these modes depending on who holds power and which institution is in the way. Fund’s intent is less to map reality than to claim the high ground: Republicans as guardians of procedure, Democrats as romantics of outcomes.