Apr 2, 2016 5 min read

That sound you hear in this highly charged political atmosphere resembles the sound of glaciers falling into the sea. It is the collapse of rules that would normally control our political process.

The first rule holds that presidential campaigns must be based on optimism and forward-looking issues. This maxim is based on the idea that a positive campaign is more likely to broaden a party’s base and help the candidate enlarge his appeal in the few swing states that decide most presidential elections. Donald Trump’s campaign has shattered this rule by insisting that little is right with the country and that only his bold, unarticulated vision will “make America great again.” Significant blocs of voters are viewed as part of the problem and attacked in order to hold together his angry coalition of supporters.

In previous presidential elections, another axiom has held that candidates must be presidential on the campaign trail and in debates. It has been left to political action committees and surrogates to do the negative campaigning. Again, Trump has fractured this rule by not having a political action committee and showering competitors with degrading personal attacks at rallies and during debates.

In the modern era of presidential politics, developing a strong ground game in state and local party organizations has been an indispensable ingredient to ensure victory. Trump has not only ignored this rule, he has successfully accumulated large numbers of delegates without it. His success has been based on endless media coverage, name recognition and large, boisterous rallies. It remains to be seen whether Trump can be successful at the Republican National Convention or in November without developing contacts down in the weeds of state and local party politics.

Pennsylvania has its own broken maxim, and it’s not related to Trump. There is an unwritten political rule that being a justice on the state Supreme Court is the most secure, influential and respected elected position in the commonwealth. This rule is supported by the state’s constitution, which seeks to place the judiciary above the political fray, and have it act as a check on other political institutions.

Unfortunately, in Pennsylvania, almost half of the Supreme Court justices have been replaced since 2012 for criminal activity or ethics violations. The Supreme Court has been forced into a defensive position and the esteem in which it has traditionally been held has been damaged.

The United States Congress has a rule that once a congressional district has been reapportioned in favor of voters who are members of a congressman’s own party, re-election will become all but automatic. This maxim, also called gerrymandering, has been seriously undermined by the tea party.

It has become common for Republican office holders to be “primaried” out of office by candidates to their right, despite the incumbent having conservative credentials. This kind of redistricting has backfired against establishment Republicans responsible for tinkering with voting maps in the first place. For instance, Eric Cantor, a Virginia congressman who had been Republican House Majority Leader, was voted out of office in 2014 by a tea party supporter.

Since the chaos of the 1968 Democratic convention, leaders from both parties have stuck by the axiom that their quadrennial conventions are to be little more than well-choreographed infomercials that place their party and candidate in the best possible light. The Republican convention that will be coming to Cleveland in July is shaping up to be anything but. The Republican establishment is pulling out all the stops to prevent Trump from having enough delegates to win on the first nominating ballot. If they are successful, there will be displays of anger and disagreement, not unity.

Perhaps the most important liberal political maxim in recent years has been that the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United decision striking down limits on corporate campaign expenditures, was an abomination and must be reversed. Liberals believe it permits billionaires to buy elections. But in the current cycle, Citizens United has not been a factor and has rarely been discussed. Trump uses his own resources and has not organized a political action committee or sought large donors. The Democratic candidates are battling to accumulate the largest number of small donors. Outsized contributions from billionaires and corporations are not encouraged and considered a negative by all the campaigns.

A significant political maxim in presidential election years is that candidates for the House, Senate and local elections need a strong candidate at the top of the ticket to carry them to victory. But ticket splitting is not prevalent in modern American politics. This leaves Republican candidates in blue and purple states in a quandary. Do they support Trump with vigor should he become the nominee, give him lip service only, or launch attacks against him to remain in office? How this issue is resolved will determine whether Republicans will be able to retain their majority in the Senate and not lose a significant number of seats in the House.

Many other political maxims are in danger of being broken this year. Will we have an election where personalities and their negative attributes prove to be more important than positions or principles? Will voters who have long been party loyalists instead vote their hearts, their country or their moral beliefs? Will traditional conservatives and young progressives not vote at all? Will a third party emerge to not only challenge the two established parties, but also defeat them?

Stay tuned for the sound of additional traditional political maxims crashing to the ground.

Gary Stout is a Washington attorney.