“Politics by principle” is that which modern politics is not. What we observe is “politics by interest,” whether in the form of explicitly discriminatory treatment (rewarding or punishing) of particular groupings of citizens or of some elitist-dirigiste classification of citizens into the deserving and nondeserving on the basis of a presumed superior wisdom about what is really “good” for us all. The proper principle for politics is that of generalization or generality. This standard is met when political actions apply to all persons independently of membership in a dominant coalition or an effective interest group. The generality principle is violated to the extent that political action is overtly discriminatory in the sense that the effects, positive or negative, depend on personalized identification. The generality norm finds its post-Enlightenment philosophical foundation in Kant's normative precept for a personalized ethics and its institutional embodiment in the idealized rule of law that does, indeed, set out widely agreed upon criteria for the evaluation of legal structures.

In one sense, it is surprising that the generalization principle has not been applied directly to politics. But except in those settings in which politically driven action impinges upon the generality precept promoted in law, there has been little recognition of the potential relevance of the generalization norm. Such failure or oversight has been due, in large part, to the residual dominance of a romanticized and idealized vision of “the state” – an entity that remains benevolent toward its citizens while providing citizens with opportunity for full self-realization. In this vision, any principle must act to constrain the collective-political enterprise and may prevent the state from “doing good,” as defined in its own omniscient discovery.