norms

actions create consequences

Norms are more relevant to our lives than we realise sometimes. The American Heritage Dictionary defines them according to neighbourhood (a pattern regarded as typical), a profession (a standard or expectation for a given enterprise or effort), or a community (a pattern of behaviour considered acceptable or proper by a social group). Regardless of the analytical level, the commonality between the three definitions is repeated actions seen by an affected subject.

Norms develop over time because the repetitive behaviour is sustained, especially at the community level. We also develop them because constant violence becomes intolerable at a point, particularly with three hundred forty million people involved. I would suggest that norms generally accentuate positive expectations as indications of society’s preferred behaviour—and as manifestations of unacceptable choices affecting all. Perhaps we can discuss that.

One of the most central norms to our contemporary life is that elected officials govern for a set term, then depart their offices without political assassination when constituents dispute a policy.

Assassinating political figures is just not acceptable behaviour in the modern world. Of course each of us can name a dozen instances where that norm did not hold but we then generally spend much time examining why it did not sustain itself. John Wilkes Booth made clear a political cause motivated him to assassinate President Abraham Lincoln in 1865. Other causes such as mentally breakdown can be the reason as true when John Hinkley narrowly failed to assassinate Ronald Reagan in 1980. The individual who shot Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe two years ago held a grudge about Unification Church donations scheme with which Abe had long-standing links. We will never know exactly why Lee Harvey Oswald murdered John Kennedy in 1963 but it was an unthinkable act as all of these are.

The murders of MPs in Britain, namely Labour’s Jo Cox in 2016 and Conservative Sir David Amess five years later, both occurred in highly polarised environments. Cox’s killing was merely days before the 2016 ‘Brexit’ vote, although I think it fair to say the link between that specific vote and her murderer remains somewhat vague. Amess’s death at the hands of an Islamic Jihadist was obviously a political act on a topic of on-going polarisation in Britain.

Yesterday’s assassination attempt in Slovakia, a Central European state far away, was a further reminder that every single person who runs for political office trusts the norms of respecting elected office to deter such actions. Ominously, it also is a flashing red light that the political polarisation affecting so many western democracies appears undermining those norms of democratic behaviour. Robert Fico survived multiple wounds from a ‘lone wolf’ shooter who vehemently opposed the populist’s policies on Ukraine. The would be assassin is a 71 year old with no specific political party affiliations but deep frustration on an issue challenging much of Central Europe of late.

Americans are not immune in the era of hyperpolitix as the attack at a Republican baseball practice indicated in 2017 when a man drove from Illinois to commit the crime. A passionate supporter of Bernie Sanders on the left, the shooter died at the scene but Scalise was seriously wounded. Heated rhetoric can motivate primordial hatred.

We are seeing norms eroded in many ways in the U.S. political system. We must be extremely vigilant to prevent all politicians and their supporters from using hyperbolic language to incite such actions. The shock felt by the nation in 1963 or 1981 might not be as deep today because presidents are under constant attack for their legitimacy in office. Even that shift towards lowering any strong respect for the office of the presidency is a dramatic erosion of a two hundred plus year old norm. Graduating to more dangers steps could be a tragic but almost certainly preventable outcome if we curb our polarising language and behaviour as a nation.

But we have to want to do that. One of the things that has always separated us from other states was the belief we were a ‘shining citty (sic) on the hill’ as ‘a beacon of hope’ as John Winthrop proclaimed in the early seventeenth century. We run a risk, with our overheated rhetoric and polarisation, of becoming just another mob if we aren’t careful.

Thoughts? Reactions? Am I overly concerned? Are there simple solutions we are ignoring? Actions create consequences so as we approach our 2024 elections, now is the time for Americans to act to bind ourselves together in one nation rather than to rip ourselves apart. We tried civil war once and it did not go well. Let’s try other actions with measured consideration to preserve the good we have.

Thank you for considering this column. I appreciate any thoughts. If you find it valuable, please feel free to circulate it. Thank those who subscribe to this column as I appreciate your commitment.

Be well and be safe. FIN

The American Heritage Dictionary, Fifth Edition. New York: Harper Collins, 2022.

Thomas Grove and Laurence Norman, ‘Slovakia’s ‘Lone Wolf’ Assassination Attempt: How Polarization is Spilling Over into Violence ‘,WSJ.com, 16 May 2024, retrieved at https://www.wsj.com/world/europe/slovakia-charges-suspect-in-prime-ministers-shooting-says-he-acted-alone-00257c1e?mod=europe_news_article_pos1