Democracy depends on political norms

Politicians who play by our democracy’s essential political norms put the oil in its joints. Those who violate them risk democracy’s creaking and breakdown.

Political norms are no more complicated than kindergarten norms. “Treat others as you want to be treated.” “Sharing is caring.” Like the norms of the NFL or movie studios.

Players want to win the game. But once over they accept the score and each other to maintain a league that can produce an $18 billion season. Bill Maher has explained how good movies can be made by actors who don’t like each other, but work together because, “We’ve got a movie to make.”

Politicians must do no less. They have a nation to govern. They must accept election results and maintain civility and respect for those with whom they disagree.

In 2008 a supporter of Sen. John McCain attacked Obama as “an Arab.” McCain bristled, "No ma'am, he's a decent family man, citizen, that I just happen to have disagreements with.”

Abraham Lincoln beat Stephen Douglas for the presidency. Douglas’ response? "Partisan feeling must yield to patriotism. I'm with you, Mr. President, and God bless you."

In 2000 Vice President Al Gore became the first presidential candidate since 1888 to win the plurality of the vote but lose the electoral vote. The election was ultimately decided by four Justices of the Supreme Court appointed by President Reagan and one appointee of President H.W. Bush. Al Gore’s response?

“While I strongly disagree with the court's decision, I accept it. I accept the finality of this outcome …. For the sake of our unity as a people and the strength of our democracy, I offer my concession.”

Equally important is the norm of forbearance. Just because the Constitution grants the president or Congress a power doesn’t mean its use complies with norms.

President Washington knew he was creating norms. His self-restraints included terms (two), executive orders (eight) and pardons (16). He only vetoed two bills, signing many with which he disagreed “out of respect” for the Congress.

Article II, section 2 of the Constitution says the president has power to appoint Supreme Court justices — “with the advice and consent of the Senate.”

In 1986 Democrats joined in the approval of President Reagan’s nomination of conservative Antonin Scalia for a 98-0 vote. Between 1866 and 2016 the Senate never refused to hold hearings on a president’s Supreme Court nomination — including the 74 occasions when it was the last year of the president’s term. Why? That was the norm.

Until President Barack Obama’s nomination of Merrick Garland March 16, 2016. (Robert Bork was given a hearing; and supported by three Democrats and opposed by six Republicans.)

We have the power to fix our democracy — at the ballot box. Ask yourself four questions: “Does this candidate follow the norms? Practice tolerance and forbearance? Strengthen or weaken democracy? Would a kindergarten teacher say he or she ‘Plays well with others?’”

Nicholas Johnson is the author of “Columns of Democracy.” mailbox@nicholasjohnson.org