Microgovernment does not seem to cost anything--no new budget lines, no new bureaucracies--but of course it does. Financially, it shuffles expenses from government to someone else, usually the person being sued. Politically, it's anti-democratic, replacing congressional and executive branch decision-making. "It is a kind of three-card monte," says Olson. "You shift the responsibility to the branch of government that citizens can't do anything about." And it makes an already litigious society more so, afflicting more and more people with onerous discovery, bottomless legal expenses, and grotesque but legal invasions of privacy. (The United States, Olson notes, has far laxer discovery rules than any other developed nation.)
The GOP is reluctant to challenge the law's tyranny. During Flytrap, many Republicans conveniently abandoned their objections to wide-ranging sex harassment litigation, endorsing broad discovery in order to nail Clinton. But even those who insist that the legal system is out of control are afraid to challenge it: Every time they have done so, Clinton and the Democrats have trounced them, depicting them (with some justice) as shills for big corporations that don't want to be accountable to employees and customers.
Can anything change Clinton's mind? After all, he has suffered through legal hell once and has emerged unaffected. Maybe, just maybe, if he were sued again ...
TODAY IN SLATE
One of the most amazing feats in chess history just happened, and no one noticed.
The Extraordinary Amicus Brief That Attempts to Explain the Wu-Tang Clan to the Supreme Court Justices
Amazon Is Officially a Gadget Company. Here Are Its Six New Devices.
Uh-Oh. The World’s Oceans Have Broken Their All-Time Heat Record.
The NFL Explains How It Sees “the Role of the Female”
How to Keep Apple From Sharing Your iPhone Data With the Police
How to Order Chinese Food
First, stop thinking of it as “Chinese food.”