On December 2, Jonathan V. Last of The Bulwark wrote,
Like Biden, I’m a sucker for norms. You know that. But I think we need to be more realistic about them.
(1) They’re not “norms” anymore. They’re preferences. Unless a practice is recognized as normal and essential by the entire political system, it’s merely a stylistic preference. Like choosing pistachio over chocolate.
(2) Adhering to a stylistic practice does not increase the chance of restoring it as a “norm.” People often say that we need to uphold a broken norm now so that it will be re-adopted in the future. There is not a lot of evidence to suggest that these B follows A. Will Republican presidential candidates release their tax returns in 2024 because Joe Biden and Kamala Harris released their tax returns in 2024? I doubt it.
If you want to adhere to a norm, you should not do so under the misapprehension that you are reestablishing it. The immediate benefits—whatever they may be—must suffice.
(3) A “norm” is not a suicide pact. Pretend—just for a moment—that Kash Patel is confirmed as FBI director and he begins his 10-year term in February of 2025.
Now pretend that, in 2028 some Democrat is elected president.
Should “norms” prevent that incoming Democrat from summarily firing Director Patel?⁶
But firing Patel without cause would make this Democratic POTUS just as bad as Trump! Wouldn’t Democrats be honor-bound to allow Patel to continue his tenure?
All of which is to say that our thinking about norms should be more hard-headed. This is not to say that you must fight fire with fire, or an eye for an eye.
It is very much notto say that, “If Trump does Bad Thing X then the forces of liberalism must do Bad Thing X in return.” In general, you should strive to live your values.
But we shouldn’t cling to memories of an age which has already passed if doing so means perpetuating an illiberalism.
Facing MAGA 