The habits of liberal democracy are self-sustaining only up to a point. The norms of orderly government have to be practiced to retain wide support. Once questioned, they’re at risk of breaking. For the past few years, the U.S. has been finding out just how fragile these norms can be.

The latest source of revelation was the reaction to the murder of Brian Thompson, CEO of UnitedHealthcare. We don’t yet know what kind of derangement – ethical, cognitive or both – plagued his killer, but even in a country too familiar with lethal violence, you might have expected a universal and unqualified condemnation of this heinous act.

Far from it. A remarkable number of politicians, commentators and dwellers on social media saw the need to put the crime in context, as they would say. Murder is not the answer, most of them concede, but remember that the health insurance industry is also a violent predator. People are angry and right to be, they explain.

Writing in the Financial Times, Robert Pape, a professor of political science at the University of Chicago, noted that national surveys have found that between 2021 and 2024, 10%-15% of Americans “consistently support violence for political goals that they endorse.”

This position, in effect, sees terrorism as legitimate and, if conditions warrant, admirable. Perhaps, after the celebrations attending the Hamas atrocities of Oct. 7, 2023, the willingness of so many Americans to take that view shouldn’t be surprising. But it certainly ought to be disturbing.

The idea that disagreements can and should be resolved peacefully is surely the foundational norm of democratic politics. But U.S. politics is increasingly organized around rival fundamentalisms. The issue isn’t so much polarization – the hollowing out of the middle – as what’s happening at the poles.

At both extremes, the true believers’ disdain for compromise is hardening, and upheaval of one kind or another is the goal. The old-school left, as always, is militantly anti-capitalist, committed to radical change in pursuit of economic justice. The new cultural left wants an even more encompassing revolution to advance its idea of “equity.” Even the moderate left is alert to what it sees as the existential threat of climate change – and in its own way is deeply suspicious of compromise.

Meantime, so-called conservatives have aligned themselves with an equal and opposite fundamentalism, one that sees their political opponents as mortal enemies, dedicated to wrecking their lives and trashing the very idea of America.

In short, among the most politically engaged, support is growing for “by any means necessary.” When the other side threatens catastrophe, you can’t let caution and moderation obstruct what’s urgent and right.

A contest like this has no place for norms. Norms by definition are conservative (in the traditional sense) – practices and understandings without formal underpinning, customs of good political behavior that have proven themselves over time. Upheaval is what norms exist to prevent. And, as it turns out, norms are proving to be mutually dependent. If any get broken, others come under threat. Why stop at one?

The current state of U.S. politics has introduced a twist. Sometimes, apparently, you have to break norms to protect them. President-elect Donald Trump, to be sure, is a proud destroyer of norms. His entire political pitch revolves around this promise. But the response of his critics has often been to push back by breaking other norms.

The result is a cycle of escalation. It manifests in many ways, but you could sum it up by noting that the idea of “loyal opposition” now seems laughable. That norm is so over. Its successor is “resistance” – a plainly anti-democratic idea. For the moment, democratic norms must be set aside – you know, to save democracy.

Call it the domino theory of norms. Campaigning for the presidency against Hillary Clinton, Trump leads his followers in a chant of “lock her up.” Disgraceful, to be sure. What’s needed, obviously, is “lawfare” to put Trump and his friends behind bars. Trump expresses hyperbolic contempt for anybody who disagrees with him; his critics merely liken him to Hitler and Mussolini. As president, he delivers a state-of-the-union address that Nancy Pelosi ostentatiously tears up for the cameras; not to worry, his supporters laugh, retribution will be ours. Every broken norm undermines another.

The wide middle of the U.S. electorate still exists and wants normalcy and stability, in my view, not transformative upheaval of one kind or another. In choosing Trump over Kamala Harris, voters presumably thought the upheaval he promised will be a smaller nuisance to them than the joyful transformation advocated by Democrats.

In any event, I don’t doubt there’s an appetite for moderation, compromise and incremental progress, which both parties have chosen to ignore. It’s a systemic political failure. If new leaders don’t emerge to address it, the costs could be enormous.

_____

This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.

Clive Crook is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist and member of the editorial board covering economics. Previously, he was deputy editor of the Economist and chief Washington commentator for the Financial Times.

_____

©2024 Bloomberg L.P. Visit bloomberg.com/opinion. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.