The economist has been freaking out about norms destruction since day 1 of the trump whitehouse. This “book review” seems like just another chance to sound their favorite alarm.
Not that they’re wrong, but the people (at least almost half of them) voted for someone who promised to break these norms. As far as I’m concerned, we signed a contract for 4 years of bull in china shop. Smart people need to be focusing on he silver lining and coming up with new, better norms and institutions that we will need when the rage winds down.
The thing about norms is that, once they're broken, it's very hard to un-break them.
It is in every politician's best interest to obstruct their opponents, prevent their opponents from voting, destroy ballots, jail their enemies on made-up charges, halt investigations into themselves, pack the court that will oversee their cases with allies, etc.
"Democratic norms" are a gentlemen's agreement to not use these highly effective tactics against each other, in the mutual interest of republicanism and democracy. They are highly advantageous, but the consequences are dire.
This is why, during the Obama presidency when Republicans first started deploying them, they called it "the nuclear option". Once one side has gone nuclear, the other side must reciprocate or die.
> "Democratic norms" are a gentlemen's agreement to not use these highly effective tactics against each other
This, more than any one election outcome, is what scares me most about our present moment. We've certainly seen malicious and undemocratic practice in the past and survived. Presidents from Nixon to Jackson have been utterly ruthless to opponents, and while Trump criticizes the press with particular zeal, he seems to achieved less actual influence than a lot of predecessors. (GWB, Nixon, and FDR all come to mind as having more actual influence over the press.)
What's more alarming is that it looks like our actual infrastructure doesn't work right and it simply took ~200 years for some of the cracks to show (or develop). The filibuster went from a rare protest or blackball to a motivator for bipartisanship to a minority veto, and then it went away. "Advise and consent" becomes a way for the legislative branch to cripple the others. Failure to appoint (and recess appointments to back it up) lets the executive cripple the judiciary and bypass the legislative. The only legal check on the executive is reserved to an increasingly partisan Congress, under rules of impeachment and pardon which have never been put to a full test. And all of that is before we touch on any of the more controversial representation, districting, and voting rights issues.
I'm not predicting national doom like some people have, but I'm definitely worried about a situation that alternates between paralytic divided governments run on recess appointments and executive orders, and united governments openly favoring their constituents in the absence of real minority-party or judicial checks.
(As for the nuclear metaphor, I can't help noticing that it seems to be about attack, rather than armament - in which case the dying part happens regardless of reciprocation...)
> The economist has been freaking out about norms destruction since day 1 of the trump whitehouse.
Isn't this a necessary action in order to preserve any semblance of norms? If no one said anything, we'd just silently drift to a new field, let alone a moved set of goalposts.
Approximately half the country wants the goalposts moved to the next county over and isn't picky about which direction they get moved. While I understand that someone who wants the goalposts right where they are would fight to keep them there it seems like an exercise in futility. It's not like the traditions of how government operates circa 2016 resulted in highly effective government. There's plenty of Trump administration policy things to be be angry about. Destruction of norms is not one of them IMO.
Yeah, but Johnson survived not because anyone supported him or his policies, rather he survived because politicians wanted to protect norms. Times have changed considerably since then. I'm pretty sure politicians are far more interested in destroying norms. So I wouldn't count on the Johnson Conundrum happening again. People are out to break those norms nowadays.
Sure, the country survived, but did it return to the political status quo? Last I checked, presidents are still allowed to use the veto on policy proposals they disagree with, rather than it's original purpose as a constitutional defense tool.
Rome survived when their political structures fell apart in the first century BC too. Does that mean you would be equally happy to live under the thumb of Nero as you would to live in the free and open democratic society of the second century BC republic?
Some people say that Brexit was a similar act of norm-breaking, and now the govenment is stockpiling insulin in advance of their planned disaster.
The current US government is actually not all that bad in practical terms by the standards of its behaviour in the 60s and 70s, but this is mostly because it's corrupt and ineffectual. They can't even prevent their own money launderers from being jailed.
Why would they prevent it? They are just cannon fodder, for them doing time is an occupational hazard that comes with such a high service price. If they can protect the king long enough (i.e. enough news cycles that people will bore of the whole affair), then it’s job done.
the rage is not winding, its now a part of cultural. There are kids that have seen antifa rallies and this is the norm to them. On the other end there are kids that have seen this and will always see these people as traitors. Maybe the protest are a fad but the supporters of the protest and against the protest have deep seeded hate.
We are in the anti civil rights era. Where the position of segregation and identity politics is being sold as the answer for the outcome of the equality era.
This is not a position argued , but a position felt. Many dont like minority quotas and many dont trust white men. The diversity is our strength idea while not wrong does not come without costs.
If I told you a new norm would be secession would you accept that?
Not that they’re wrong, but the people (at least almost half of them) voted for someone who promised to break these norms. As far as I’m concerned, we signed a contract for 4 years of bull in china shop. Smart people need to be focusing on he silver lining and coming up with new, better norms and institutions that we will need when the rage winds down.