One of the primary ties that bind free and democratic societies together is a shared commitment to the rule of law. Underlying this commitment is a shared presumption that rules are set in advance, and outcomes are accepted as legitimate as long as they occur within the confines of the rules that were in place at the time.

In light of the Democrats primary fight, one can be forgiven for questioning whether or not a commitment to rules is a core value in that Party. Throughout the process, it seemed that the Democrats first instinct was to short-circuit the process to the advantage of a desired candidate or outcome. For example, in keeping with their internal rules, the Democrats decided to strip Florida and Michigan of their nominating delegates as punishment for moving their primary dates forward. Although this outcome was in keeping with internal Party rules and was accepted as legitimate initially, Hillary began agitating to ignore the rules and seat the delegates after it became clear that she might actually need those delegates. At another point in time, some Party leaders became fearful of the damage that the protracted nominating contest was inflicting on Party unity. Their proposed solution was to sanction states that did not move their primaries forward and help end the primary fight one way or the other. The fact that this would have been a case of changing the rules in the middle of the game did not seem to bother them.

Now the primary fight is over, and the ultimate 'modified' seating of the delegates does not seem to have altered the outcome that would have occurred had the delegates not been seated at all. However, the fact that so many Democrats were willing to jettison the rules whenever it suited them is worrying. It indicates that the idea that rules should be followed whatever the outcome is not a deeply held Democrat value. This is not meant to cast judgment on the Democrats method of choosing a presidential candidate. Whether their system is adequate is for them to decide at a later date. However, basic fairness says that changes to rules should not be made in the middle of a contest, in this case a primary contest. The behavior of many Democrats also indicates that their love affair with judges who arbitrarily change laws from the bench to ensure a "desirable" outcome is not something that will be abandoned any time soon. America needs its two major political parties to be committed to the rule of law. That one of the major parties is only tenuously committed to this bedrock principal is not a good thing for America.