For a brief moment in last week's "presidential" debate -- which didn't seem very presidential at all -- the shouting and interrupting calmed down enough that I could actually understand a bit from both speakers.

It was in a section dealing with "Race and Violence in our Cities" -- a topic that has surged to prominence since the Memorial Day killing of George Floyd, and the big street protests which followed in many cities across the country.

Mr. Trump put his stance in typically stark terms. As quoted by Fox News (which named several errors by Trump in this exchange), Trump said, "We believe in law and order. But you don't. The top 10 cities ... are run by Democrats, and [in] many cases, the radical left. And they've got you wrapped around your [sic] finger, Joe."

Biden pushed back, "Yes, I'm in favor of law and order. Law and order with justice, where people get treated fairly."

There's a big difference between the historic approach of "law and order," the modified language used by Biden of "law and order with justice," and the ethically and constitutionally grounded notion of "the rule of law."

Mr. Trump wants us to think of him as "the law and order president," and he has been pushing that theme in his campaign. It's essential that we know what is meant by both law and order, and the contrasting principle of the rule of law.

I've discovered that if one does a Google search for "law and order" you'll get lots of websites about the TV shows using that name. The fact that mass media is inundating us with law and order language through cop shows is disturbing, but that's not my point for the day.

If the word "policy" is added to the "law and order" search, the results get more substantial. At the top of the list, I found a recent (June 2, 2020) article from Time Magazine, "The Real History of Trump's Law and Order Rhetoric." The phrase is not new, and it carries a lot of baggage. Time wrote:

Nixon made "law and order" a centerpiece of his platform. "Law and order" might sound simple, a 1968 TIME cover story on the campaign pointed out, but to some it was "a shorthand message promising repression of the black community" -- and to that community, it was "a bleak warning that worse times may be coming."

Nixon's predecessor, Lyndon B. Johnson, shaped decades of policy when his Administration decided to invest more in policing than in social welfare programs.

A month ago, The Christian Science Monitor also dug into the overlap of historic and contemporary calls for law and order. They acknowledge that "a government's most basic role is to provide stability and safety" -- but say that there's more involved when law and order is invoked in political campaigns. "Often, it's an implicit defense of the status quo against change."

The Monitor notes that "All of this rhetoric about invasion, rioting, and crime is part of a broader appeal to fear, an emotion to which conservatives have historically responded," according to Ted Johnson, a senior fellow at the Brennan Center for Justice. They continue:

In many ways, Mr. Trump employed a similar tactic in his 2016 campaign -- it's just that the "others" have changed. Four years ago, his harshest rhetoric was aimed at immigrants, and the alleged crime and economic damage they would cause. He revived the approach in 2018 with dire warnings about a migrant caravan from Central America. This time, the attacks are aimed at 'radical socialists' and Black Lives Matter protesters.

The most insightful article I found in this research, by Amy Erica Smith, came from 2018, in Vox. In late June of that year,

Trump outlined a demand for hardline action against people "who invade our country" -- though with little indication of what class of immigrants or asylum seekers he might be referring to. "When somebody comes in," Trump argued, "we must immediately, with no Judges or Court Cases, bring them back from where they came. Our system is a mockery to good immigration policy and Law and Order."

She continued, "The irony scarcely bears mention: the claim that law and order requires dispensing with the legal system. The claim is especially striking from the self-described 'law and order' president." Her excellent article -- I really recommend that you read the whole thing -- documents that this logical inconsistency is not just a Trumpian quirk. "Law and order politics" regularly entail government officials breaking the law.

She tells us what many of us knew in our guts, that "'Law and order politics' is not about the law. Instead, it is all about order." Her analysis from 2018 seems especially pertinent in the face of recent events.

Many decades of research point to two psychological orientations that likely explain what "law and order" proponents want. Social dominance orientation refers to a psychological drive to maintain oneself and one's social group at the top of social hierarchies, including hierarchies by race, gender, and immigration status. Authoritarianism refers to the impulse to uphold conformity and deference to authority within a group. These two orientations predict a wide range of views on policies that promote "order," even to the point of breaking laws: from the willingness to restrict human rights in the wake of terrorist attacks to persecution of immigrants.

I think of Trump's June 1 warning that if protests and riots continue, "We will dominate the streets" and his 2017 policy announcement that called for "energy dominance." Clearly, dominance is a good thing in his worldview. Mr. Trump's easy friendship with dictators and authoritarian leaders around the world -- widely documented and discussed -- is an indicator of his own authoritarian leanings.

Smith is the writer who most clearly named an alternative to the law and order rhetoric, pointing to a similar, but very distinct phrase used by academics and policymakers, the "rule of law."

This notion holds that the law applies equally to everyone -- presidents, sheriffs, citizens, and even illegal immigrants. In the United States, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, the rule of law means that all people on US soil, regardless of legal residency and citizenship status, are entitled to due process protections -- including often but not always "judges" and "court cases." For advocates of "law and order" who are driven by social dominance orientation or authoritarianism, this can feel like a radical and unwelcome leveling. On the one hand, the rule of law constrains the powerful; on the other hand, it empowers the weak.

This year, especially with the presence of social turmoil around racial justice and policing, Mr. Trump and his allies have come out with a full-throated affirmation of law and order that includes all of the abuses and distortions described by Smith and others. They're tapping into the historic roots of the phrase that are all about racial suppression and oppressive policing to maintain the status quo. They're highlighting rare incidents of violence and looting (most protests have been non-violent) to stir up fear.

One can never know what is going on in Mr. Trump's head, but I'm sure that his advisors and compatriots are fully aware of the powerful emotions and sub-conscious reactions that come along with law and order language. They are intentionally enflaming division for their political advantage, and as a part of their political ideology.

If there is another debate with Biden and Trump, and if the question of "race and violence in our cities" come up, I think it would be wonderful if Mr. Biden said that "I stand for the rule of law, which protects the innocent, and punishes those who resort to violence."

If he gets a chance to continue without being interrupted, he could expand the point by saying, "Donald, we've seen that you have a problem with the rule of law, where the laws apply equally to everybody. You've placed yourself above the law -- arguing to the Supreme Court, no less, that the laws don't apply to you. You've pardoned your friends who have been convicted of so many crimes as they worked for you. Our country will be a better place when we start to respect the laws and apply them fairly. We'll do that in my administration."

Even if Joe doesn't get a chance to say such a thing, the rest of us can speak up, rejecting the authoritarian approach of law and order, and standing up for the rule of law.

There's another aspect to the law and order question that's not about the law, but about the order side of the phrase.

Law and order seeks a superficial tranquility by the imposition of dominant control. The flip side to social order imposed by a suppression of conflict is found in an affirmation that I've heard frequently in faith communities: "If you want peace, work for justice."

The disorder that is a source of societal fear almost always grows from some sort of inequality and injustice. The feared wave of immigration that Mr. Trump has so often evoked -- and the wall that he has said will stop it -- comes from people fleeing violence and poverty and natural disasters in their own lands. If we want to reduce the flow of immigrants and asylum seekers, our government could work to stop repressive regimes and murderous gangs in countries south of our border. We could develop policies that increase economic opportunity and reduce poverty around the world. We could step in to provide real relief when climate change devastates crops or expands droughts -- and take responsibility for how our nation is contributing so substantially to that climate chaos. If there's a need to reduce immigration, we could accomplish that more effectively and more justly by working for economic and social justice, especially in Latin America.

This summer's long wave of protests against police violence have correctly named the injustice of biased and brutal "law enforcement." Rather than escalating the levels of violence to empty the streets of protesters, far more would be accomplished through systemic changes in policing and the courts. This summer, Colorado passed a sweeping set of laws that are a bold step in that direction -- banning some of the worst forms of aggressive police action, and holding law enforcement officers more accountable for their actions, and those of their peers. The passage of that legislation hasn't stopped all the protests in my home town, but the new law has given legitimacy to the protests, and advanced the struggle for justice. Political change to address real injustice has helped to bring peace in Colorado, and it will do the same in other cities and states.

The work for justice is often messy. It has, and it will, require street protests and acts of civil disobedience to expose where injustice exists, and to build the political power needed to change the status quo. The work for justice is often slow, so that conflict may continue for months, and years and decades. But working for justice is the path to peace.

The political call for "law and order" has a long and sordid history. It plays on fear, and it imposes order through repressive and dominating control. It empowers the status quo and rejects legitimate work for justice. "Law and order" actually contradicts the rule of law, and is a threat to the US Constitution and the principles of democracy.

Join with me in rejecting law and order. Join with me in seeking justice.