The rule of law has long stood as a pillar of liberal constitutional democracy—a commitment to neutral adjudication, impartial justice, and political fairness. Neutrality of this kind lends legitimacy to a regime of laws as opposed to one of mere men. Yet in recent years, particularly under the aggressive strategies of the progressive left, a dangerous transformation has occurred. The law is no longer a matter for maintaining order or resolving disputes. It has become a weapon—“lawfare”—wielded not for justice but for victory. Under the guise of legality, the left has harnessed the institutions of justice to pursue their political enemies, disable dissenting voices, and cement ideological dominance. This development has fundamentally undermined the credibility of judicial institutions and poisoned the well of political cooperation.

The question now facing conservatives, populists, and defenders of our constitutional order is whether it is possible to restore neutrality to the law without first demonstrating that its misuse must carry real and symmetrical consequences. Such a restoration is unlikely to occur until the right learns to engage in the kind of tit-for-tat strategy once described by Robert Axelrod in his seminal work, The Evolution of Cooperation.

It is only when the costs of weaponizing the law are made clear to all sides that the incentive to cooperate may re-emerge. If left unreciprocated, the present course guarantees only further erosion of the republic’s legal and political norms.

Consider the prosecution of former President Donald Trump—criminal charges initiated by Democratic prosecutors in overwhelmingly partisan jurisdictions, often on legally dubious or unprecedented grounds. Likewise, conservative Supreme Court nominees have faced extraordinary confirmation gauntlets, with lawfare-style tactics deployed to destroy reputations through manufactured or exaggerated allegations. State attorneys general and bureaucratic agencies have coordinated lawsuits and regulatory campaigns to bankrupt conservative nonprofits, persecute pro-life advocates, or silence dissenting views on matters of sex, religion, and speech.