In addition to the difference in context, the rest of the quote from Fried also seems to suggest that the ends justify the means. That simply is not consistent with traditional American ideals of democracy.

Calling for the impeachment of a federal judge for what he allegedly did before he took the bench is also interesting. If you cannot get your opponents go after their lawyers. Does Obama really want to support such nonsense?

As for the Charles Fried quote, the rest of the paragraph reads: “It is not just a difference of scale, but our leaders were defending their country and people — albeit with an insufficient sense of moral restraint — against a terrifying threat by ruthless attackers with no sense of moral restraint at all.”

That puts a little different light on the matter, no?

As for T&R commissions, these are at best useful after the fact. But what about going forward? I’m surprised that none of the authors on this blog has yet commented on the reported (and acknowledged, by CS) nomination of Cass Sunstein as head of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, a/k/a “regulatory czar”. That means we’ll be seeing a lot more cost-benefit analysis. As historian Theodore Porter has pointed out, the main reason for the adoption of CBA in the US government was to shield administrative decisions from democratic scrutiny.