At the core of the argument against Donald Trump lies a persistent claim that he threatens national and international norms. But breaking norms isn’t inherently bad; not all norms are good. So even if Trump challenges America’s political norms, that alone isn’t enough to disqualify his candidacy. The crucial questions are these: Which norms does he break? Are they truly norms, or are they just someone’s preferences? And if they are norms, are they good or bad?
These days, the American left complains the loudest about threats to “precious” norms. But this concern is largely performative — a superficial display of reverence. The left fundamentally hates norms. Leftists don’t reject only traditional American norms (although they do); they reject norms altogether. For them, defining anything as “normal” is a form of coercive bigotry that stifles individual autonomy, cultural diversity, and tolerance of “difference” writ large. Any serious analysis of threats to norms must acknowledge that the left has spent the past century working to demolish them.
For the sake of the nation — and for the sake of any genuine norms that remain — don’t let the normongers win.
This reveals an odd reality: Those most agitated about norm-breaking are the ones who break norms the most.
The left arrogantly assumes the right to decide which norms deserve respect. Leftists seem to believe that all the norms they disregard are bad, while the ones Trump allegedly violates are good. Curiously, their commitment to norms only appears when Trump challenges them. This selective concern for norms, paired with their hostility to traditional social standards, exposes their true motive. The left’s hand-wringing over norms is simply a rhetorical strategy to justify breaking long-standing protocols for treating current and former presidents, as well as presidential candidates.
‘Defending’ norms or destroying them?
The phenomenon of people who despise the very idea of norms lamenting that our norms are under attack has become so common in public discourse that it deserves its own term. I propose we call it “normongering.”
Pronounced aloud, normongering closely resembles “warmongering,” an adjacent concept. While a warmonger eagerly promotes war and conflict, a normonger despises norms yet stirs up political warfare and rhetorical conflict by falsely claiming that norms are under threat and in need of defense. The normonger frames his political aggression as a reluctant, defensive response to an unexpected assault, creating the misleading impression that he escalates hostilities only with regret.
The left has achieved major victories in weakening or destroying norms related to citizenship, pronoun usage, apparel, marriage, drugs, law enforcement, fitness, personal finances, elections, etiquette at meals, the workplace, sex, faith, diet, energy consumption, education, art, employment, parenting, and every other sphere of life. This unrelenting opposition to norms and normality remains a defining trait of left-wing politics. Perpetual conflict against norms and the “status quo” is its central activity.
Normongering serves as a powerful strategy for the left because it allows progressives to portray themselves as something they are not: normal people committed to defending the status quo.
Most Americans — and people in general — like norms. They seek to uphold existing norms and expect others to do the same, as norms provide a framework for public interaction, governance, and social situations. Unsurprisingly, the party that constantly calls for “fundamental transformations,” “comprehensive reforms,” and vague “change” also wages continuous war on norms. Meanwhile, leftists posture as the defenders of these norms, using this stance as a form of misdirection — an attempt to distract the public from the extensive list of norms they have already dismantled.
Trump is the exception
Do they really use appeals to the value of norms as a strategy for attacking them? Certainly. This is the defining trait of normongering, and it almost always appears as a hysterical reaction to Trump or his policies.
For instance, a long-standing norm has been to afford the president a degree of respect from both the press and citizens in positions of power. However, our media and celebrities have shattered that norm, routinely comparing Trump to Hitler. What has he done that compares to attempting world domination and the murder of 6 million Jews? In reality, nothing of the sort — except, they argue, that he threatens “our norms.”
Traditionally, impeaching a president was a last-resort measure for addressing executive misconduct. Elected officials were generally reluctant to pursue impeachment, understanding that it could lead to civil strife and divert resources from pressing governmental issues. Yet Democrats promised to impeach Trump even before his inauguration, absent any high crimes or misdemeanors. They made good on that promise, impeaching him twice. Why not? He was a threat to our norms!
The outrageous lawfare directed against Trump also reflects this norm-breaking approach. Armed agents descended on Trump’s personal residence over a dispute regarding the storage of presidential records. “No one is above the law!” declared Democrats. Yet these same individuals dismissed egregious records violations by Hillary Clinton (whom “no reasonable prosecutor” would indict) and Joe Biden (who, they argue, simply made honest mistakes due to age and forgetfulness).
This selective application of justice also extends to efforts aimed at keeping Trump’s name off the ballots in 2024. Meanwhile, a show trial in New York convicted Trump of 34 felonies, during which standard precedents and evidentiary procedures were ignored.
Americans have grown accustomed to the left’s pervasive disdain for norms, but we may now be approaching a Herculean level of normongering that could alter the nation’s future. Progressives have spent the past four years claiming, without evidence, that if Trump wins, he will become an “authoritarian dictator” who will “end our democracy” and that 2024 will be “our last election.” This rhetoric alone defies all norms of public discourse, but it could also signal a willingness to breach the most crucial norm in American politics: the peaceful and orderly transition of executive power.
‘Comprehensive reform’ means trashing norms
If Trump secures a clear and decisive win in November, will Democrats respect the choice of the American people? Recall that in 2020, during a scenario exercise called the Transition Integrity Project, prominent Democrats discussed plans to contest the presidency — even in the event of a “clear Trump win.” After the events of recent years, we can expect they will be even more committed to opposing the outcome of a fair and free election that doesn’t align with their preferred candidate.
If Trump wins, the normongers will refuse to seat the choice of the people. If they truly believe someone they call “literally Hitler” is taking office, they won’t simply congratulate him, hold an inauguration, and wait for another election in four years. Instead, they may employ every available procedural and judicial tactic to defy the result, justifying their actions by claiming Trump’s presidency poses such a severe threat to “our democracy” that they cannot honor the outcome. Should they succeed, they would have undermined our nation’s most fundamental norm — a peaceful transition of power — by invoking an imagined veto over the will of the people.
If they get away with it, the normongers may turn out to be correct: 2024 could very well be America’s last free election. Harris and her comrades have a long list of norms they are eager to violate when they take power: expanding the Supreme Court, ending the Electoral College, granting (more) benefits to people who enter the nation illegally, defying parents’ primary right to make decisions about their children’s health and education, paying reparations, and so much more.
Of course, all of these “comprehensive reforms” (read: “violated norms”) will be framed as attempts to protect the hallowed norms of “our democracy.”
For the sake of the nation — and for the sake of any genuine norms that remain — don’t let the normongers win.
