In an article appearing last month in The New York Times Magazine, Emily Bazelon explores the repercussions of President Donald Trump’s violation of “norms,” which she defines as, “the customs and principles that guide everyone else.” According to Bazelon, these “norms” are “boundaries made of sand…they exist only as long as there’s a consensus, even unspoken, to preserve them.” In other words, “norms” are dependent on a collective recognition of their validity. She goes on to describe some “norms” ignored by President Trump, and wonders how we may respond (or not respond) to his transgressions. She concludes ominously, speculating about what will happen in the wake of a Trump presidency, but then writing, “At the moment, even the question itself seems like an act of collective faith that our norms of government — including the most precious ones — will hold at all.”
Bazelon is far from the first to observe democracy’s dependence on “norms.” Alexis De Toqueville preferred the term “mores.” He cites early Americans’ shared “mores” as the most important factor in preserving democracy in the turbulent years following the War of Independence. He argues that “encroachments of power” were unable to wrest agency from the hands of the people because the country was united by “circumstances, origin, education, and above all mores.”
So what happens when that is no longer the case? We are not the homogenous nation we were when Toqueville observed us, and that is a good thing: our tremendous diversity makes our culture incredibly rich. But we are having a hard time communicating. Recent surveys show that Americans are increasingly unlikely to associate with people with different points of view. Instead, we attach ourselves to movements with a fervor that is often close minded and exclusionary. This state of affairs is ideal for a man like President Trump. He’s been allowed to break so many “norms” because as we become more and more divided against ourselves, we are unable to maintain Bazelon’s “consensus to preserve” our guiding “customs and principles.”
In the years ahead, Americans of all political persuasions must be better at confronting opposing points of view. We have to learn to communicate our differences more effectively if we are to preserve the democratic way of life we enjoy. Liberty does not require a population that agrees on everything. In fact, it fosters one that doesn’t. But what is necessary is a shared belief in certain core principles. If we can’t accomplish that, our “most precious norms” will crumble, and so will we. If that happens, 21st century Americans will be writ in to the books only as so many self-destructive tribes, squabbling in the twilight of a once great nation.
Reason from The Heart 