What Are Democratic Norms?

Two writers, from two sides of the political divide, make the case for democratic norms. You know all about democratic norms, but perhaps not well enough. By now you probably think that they involve presidential decorum... which they do... but you might not understand, in the political hue and cry, that there is much more to them than the president's observance of decorum.

Holman Jenkins suggests in the Wall Street Journal that today’s Democratic Party has not exactly upheld democratic norms:

Democracy is a system for curbing their quest for power. Of the two candidates in 2016, which was the protégée of the president in office? Which was backed by longstanding and highly organized support networks? Mr. Trump is accused of violating norms, but which party concocted evidence that its opponent was a Russian agent? Which now questions the legitimacy of basic institutions like the Electoral College and the Supreme Court? Which encourages the mobbing of partisan opponents in restaurants?

Mark Penn worked for Bill Clinton during the impeachment drama. He has become one of the most sane voices from the Democratic Party. Unfortunately, people like Penn have been drowned out by the radical fringe left.

Writing in The Hill, Penn opens by explaining that the most important democratic norm is accepting election defeat graciously. Thus, today’s Democratic Party, led Hillary Clinton, who morphed from enabler-in-chief to sore-loser-in-chief, reminds us with her presence and her appalling public statements, that it has not accepted the results of the 2016 election. Note that Penn entitled his article: “No, Civility Isn’t Optional” in a pointed rebuke to the dowager duchess of Chappaqua:

It is precisely the orderly transfer of power from the losers to the winners that has separated us from the pack. We have, unfortunately, over the last two years turned our democracy into a “Saturday Night Live” parody of itself. And the cause was not Donald Trump’s election but the failure to digest that election and move on. This error is now being repeated in the aftermath of Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation to the Supreme Court, with new threats of impeachments and investigations.

The recent turn to the criminalization of politics and the politicization of all of our institutions has degraded our democracy and, in the long run, only benefits those who want to get rid of democratic institutions altogether. Those in the Kremlin and the politburo of China’s state party are laughing at us. Why would anyone want such a system, they ask?

The point is well taken. As Alan Dershowitz has also been arguing at length, it is bad for democracy if we criminalize political differences. Moreover, if we expect the world to adopt democratic government and democratic norms, we ought to show the world that they work, and that they produce a harmonious transfer of power:

Today’s winners become tomorrow’s losers and the public swings not based on feverish moments but over long periods of time toward freedom and justice for all. It’s what makes this a great country. This may be a time of greater conservatism on the court but, most assuredly, over time the pendulum will swing again — or Congress will be pressed to actually solve problems rather than allowing them to be decided by the courts.

Penn continues:

The idea that if you lose an election, you should delegitimize the winner, is dangerous business that, once put in motion, can swing out of control. Similarly, if you lose a Supreme Court nomination fight, impugning the court as a whole is no less dangerous.

Democracy, Penn suggests, is about taking turns. It’s about recognizing that if you fail to accept the legitimacy of an institution today, you will see it attacked tomorrow, when you are in charge:

But our democracy must be the envy of the world, not a laughing stock. We must believe in its outcomes and use the mighty means we are given to influence the future outcomes — great ideas, powerful speeches, ads, social media, and even negative ads.

Yet, if the losers believe they can ignore the guardrails that keep us free, they are wrong. If they do not see supporting the system and waiting for their turn at victory as being their civic duty, then our leaders no longer deserve to lead.