There was a time pre-2008 when conservatives would argue that, yes, there were some bad actors in high finance, but this was a prosecution problem, not a regulatory problem. Weed out the baddies, don't strangle the system with tighter regulations.

This line of reasoning went totally silent after 2008 when people started asking why there weren't any prosecutions for bad actors in the financial crisis.

Banks were making huge settlements and in some cases even pleading guilty to felonies *as institutions,* but no individuals were charged. From a legal perspective, these offenses were essentially impossible: crimes were committed, but there were no criminals involved.

It is striking to watch the right re-run this narrative around policing itself. Once criminal accountability is actually on the table, the narrative shifts from removing a few bad apples to defending the bad apples, or making a lot of distracting noises. https://twitter.com/zachdcarter/status/1384917336411488256

The point here is not that these arguments were self-serving or disingenuous. I think they were generally sincere. But they always assumed that the criminal justice system existed to enforce existing hierarchies, and that justice itself was expressed through those hierarchies.

There's something important here on rule of law. The right will support rule of law as an abstract principle so long as it means enforcement of social inequality in practice. As soon as rule of law is understood to require something else, the right loses interest in rule of law.

This puts the left in an unusual position. Rule of law, social cohesion, preserving existing institutions -- these are typically conservative ideals. The left is more comfortable talking about social change and progress.

But the left has a very compelling argument available about marshalling the existing powers of the state to break down inequalities in the name of social stability.

There are limits to this. The record on police reform, for instance, is not inspiring.