"I think we Americans, of all people, understand the importance of a good, legal, constitutional framework as the basis of political life"
About this Quote
Coming from Paul Bremer, the U.S. diplomat who led the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq after the 2003 invasion, the line carries both conviction and a measure of aspiration. It asserts a core feature of American political identity: the habit of grounding public life in a written constitution, a web of laws, and institutions that channel conflict without extinguishing it. Americans are taught from civics classes onward that the Constitution is not merely a document but a framework that distributes power, limits authority, and legitimizes political outcomes through procedure rather than force.
That sensibility emerged from the countrys own turbulent founding, the failures of the Articles of Confederation, and the intellectual ferment of the Federalist Papers. Over time it was reinforced by judicial review, the Bill of Rights, and the cultural prestige of the rule of law. Even during painful chapters like Reconstruction, the New Deal, and the civil rights era, arguments were framed in constitutional terms, a testament to the frameworks endurance as the nations common language of politics.
Bremer was invoking that tradition in a context where the stakes were immense: trying to midwife a new political order in Iraq. The emphasis on a legal-constitutional basis signaled the belief that durable stability begins with clear rules, separation of powers, and guarantees of rights. Yet the Iraqi experience also revealed the limits of legal design when security is fragile and social trust is thin. Decisions such as broad de-Baathification and disbanding the army complicated efforts to anchor legitimacy, illustrating that constitutions require not only text but buy-in, enforcement, and inclusive politics.
The American lesson he appeals to remains sound: constitutions are scaffolding for plural societies, a way to make disagreement governable. The harder lesson is that scaffolding alone does not build the house. It must rest on political consent, capable institutions, and a lived commitment to the rule of law, at home as well as abroad.
That sensibility emerged from the countrys own turbulent founding, the failures of the Articles of Confederation, and the intellectual ferment of the Federalist Papers. Over time it was reinforced by judicial review, the Bill of Rights, and the cultural prestige of the rule of law. Even during painful chapters like Reconstruction, the New Deal, and the civil rights era, arguments were framed in constitutional terms, a testament to the frameworks endurance as the nations common language of politics.
Bremer was invoking that tradition in a context where the stakes were immense: trying to midwife a new political order in Iraq. The emphasis on a legal-constitutional basis signaled the belief that durable stability begins with clear rules, separation of powers, and guarantees of rights. Yet the Iraqi experience also revealed the limits of legal design when security is fragile and social trust is thin. Decisions such as broad de-Baathification and disbanding the army complicated efforts to anchor legitimacy, illustrating that constitutions require not only text but buy-in, enforcement, and inclusive politics.
The American lesson he appeals to remains sound: constitutions are scaffolding for plural societies, a way to make disagreement governable. The harder lesson is that scaffolding alone does not build the house. It must rest on political consent, capable institutions, and a lived commitment to the rule of law, at home as well as abroad.
Quote Details
| Topic | Justice |
|---|
More Quotes by Paul
Add to List
