He’s not doing what everyone always did, and that’s wrong. He’s not doing what everyone always did and that’s why he was elected. Change the name underlying the “he” in those sentences and pick which one you prefer. But the incoming administration is, if nothing else, defying the “norms” of the presidency. A random example:

Monday, January 9th

Family Matters, Part I: The Kushner Appointment. On Monday, Trump appointed his son-in-law Jared Kushner as senior adviser in the White House, raising questions from ethics experts as to whether the role would violate federal anti-nepotism laws. Whether or not Kushner is ultimately cleared under law, Trump is challenging legal norms and democratic principles against nepotism, an appointment characteristic of the policies of dictatorship regimes writes Jon Schwartz.

The Federal Anti-Nepotism Statute, 5 U.S. Code § 3110, states that a public official may not appoint a relative to a position in the agency in which the official is serving. While the law establishes that the President is a public official and a son-in-law is included as a relative, the interpretation of “agency” as including the White House or the Executive Office of the President could be debated based on the reading of a circuit court case in 1993, reported Ailsa Chang at NPR in November.

Who does this? Well, aside from JFK appointing Bobby as Attorney General, and Bill appointing Hillary to head his health care task force.*

Traditions bind us to history, to a sense of propriety, to a cultural establishment of the norms by which we conduct ourselves. But what traditions are not is law. We respect traditions because we choose to do so, and when we choose not to do so, we change them. Perhaps we create new traditions, though they only become traditions when they are accepted as the norm.

For example, there was no limit on the number of terms of office the president was allowed to serve when George Washington took the oath. It took the 22nd Amendment, following FDR’s third re-election, to make it the law. Until then, it was just tradition.

And we call the chief executive “Mr. President” because George wasn’t comfortable with “His Supreme Majesty, the Grand Poobah.” We were lucky that Washington was humble. This doesn’t prevent a president, some day, demanding the address, “They Highness.” There is no law requiring otherwise.

That we are a nation awash in tradition is good. It ties us together and ties us to history. And it’s bad, as it keeps us in a rut. Many people would agree that our government had become dysfunctional because of partisan politics, preventing us from accomplishing societal goals. It was time, then, to do something dramatic, to change things, to break from tradition.

Ironically, the same partisanship that gave rise to the problem presents itself again when it comes to what traditions should go. Was it the tradition of a male president? Was it the tradition of electing a career politician? Was it the tradition of capitalism?

The notion of Chesterton’s Fence comes to mind when considering what traditions need to go. An honest appraisal of why a tradition exists should be undertaken before deciding to reject it. This reflects our tendency to “remember the rubric and forget the rationale” as to why something has become the norm. We know the tradition, but we don’t remember why it became the tradition. It may serve a good purpose or it may remain merely as a historical artifact, a by-product of societal inertia.

By electing a president who lacks a fundamental understanding of law, governance and Constitution, we took a huge risk. On the one hand, many Americans decided that we needed to disrupt the way the country was governed and had enough of career politicians, the best and the brightest, the corrupt, the liars and schemers would could explain away anything, but who left their lives a misery.

For years, non-lawyer commenters here have argued that the law has grown into an incomprehensible monolith that makes it unworkable for the regular person. And indeed, they’re right. And they’re wrong. The contention that everything is, or should be, simple is belied by the fact that we’re all certain that we know exactly what law means, although our certainty is that it means something entirely different than what the next guy says.

The consensus that we need change may be the one thing most people can agree upon, even as we vehemently disagree as to what that change may be. To repeat myself, the alternative to bad isn’t necessarily good. It can also be worse.

So, we elected someone who refuses to be bound by traditions. Whether it’s because he doesn’t know what they are, or doesn’t care, or deliberately chooses to blow them up, isn’t clear and may change from issue to issue. But this reflects a choice by the American public to get out of the rut we’ve been in. They had enough. They’re mad as hell and they’re not going to take it anymore. And so they want change.

Supporters of Trump aren’t concerned about his refusal to adhere to tradition. They may as well be unconcerned about his skirting, if not violating, law. Opponents conflate law and tradition, as if violating anything ever done before proves that he’s going to destroy the nation and bring the Apocalypse upon us. As the president has a finger in a lot of issues, they are likely both right.

Did we need to break out of the rut we were in? That seems uncontroversial. Are we shocked that Trump is “violating” tradition at every turn? We shouldn’t be, as this was pretty much the fellow we elected, demonstrating little regard for the norms, be they of civility, knowledge, respect, throughout his campaign. Now that he’s doing what he was expected to do, everybody is shocked?

It may be that the rejection of tradition will work, or at least force us to revisit our traditions to determine whether they advance our national interests or not. It may also be that we’ve jumped out of the rut and into the fire. That’s where sound law constricting the authority of the president comes into play, to prevent one personality from bringing us to the edge of disaster. And beyond.

*The 1993 D.C. Circuit decision referenced in the quote relates to the interpretation of FACA, the Federal Advisory and Committee Act, a 1972 law limiting the proliferation of committees and task forces. It includes this notable paragraph:

The government would have us conclude that the traditional, if informal, status and “duties” of the President’s wife as “First Lady” gives her de facto officer or employee status. The government invokes what it describes as “a longstanding tradition of public service” by First Ladies–including, we are told, Sarah Polk, Edith Wilson, Eleanor Roosevelt, Rosalynn Carter, and Nancy Reagan–who have acted (albeit in the background) as advisers and personal representatives of their husbands. We are not confident that this traditional perception of the President’s wife, as a virtual extension of her husband, is widely held today. As this very case suggests, it may not even be a fair portrayal of Mrs. Clinton, who certainly is performing more openly than is typical of a First Lady. Indeed, in the future we may see a male presidential spouse, which could make the term “First Lady” anachronistic.

The problem with traditions, as the court notes, is that they change.