What do President Trump and Canada’s 1984 women’s Olympic rowing team have in common? Both are losers but the women lost with poise and grace

Canadian Olympian rower Angela Schneider recently co-hosted the CBC’s Ontario Today program with host Rita Celli. The topic was a novel twist on Donald Trump’s refusal to concede the election to Joe Biden - “Have you been a sore loser?” The theme of the talk-show was to get listeners to call-in and confess their hissy fits and what they learned from them.

“Have you been a sore loser?”

To start the program off with a confession by the co-host, Angela Schneider said that when she won the 1984 Olympic Silver medal in 4-person rowers event, she was a ‘sore loser’ because she felt they should have won - that the Canadians were better than the Romanian team that won gold. She didn’t throw a temper tantrum or make unfavourable comments about the winning team, but when she read an article in the Globe and Mail that said she looked like she wanted to throw the medal in the lake, she was mortified that she looked like that. If she had thrown her Silver medal in the lake where the competition was held, she would have been a ‘spoiled loser’ - signalling that she believed that the sport was corrupt and rigged against her team. And to think that she was immortalized in the major Canadian newspaper who said she “looked like she wanted to throw the medal in the lake”, was antithetical to her beliefs in the ethical standards of the sport of rowing. 

Now a professor at Western University teaching a course about ethics in sport, she described Donald Trump’s failure to concede the election to Joe Biden as that of a ‘spoil sport’ who claims the election was rigged against him and that it was unfair. Spoil sports and sore losers in the world of sports are universally regarded by the fans and media as....

Spoiled losers, according to Angela’s definition, are bent on bad mouthing the sport as rigged against them. Here are a three examples from Austin Schindel’s “25 Biggest Sore Losers in Sports History”: [1] :

Cleveland Caveliers owner Dan Gilbert - “The biggest loss that the Cleveland Caveliers owner Dan Gilbert experienced was after he lost his star and money maker LeBron Jams to the Miami Heat. In an open letter to James and the city of Cleveland, Gilbert called James a quitter and said that the Cavaliers would win a title before the Heat. It was a bitter attack from a small man who was clearly upset about losing the man who brought him to the top.”

 Serena Williams “ When you get cheated for a foot fault and then two years later lose a point for yelling while the ball is still in play, you are bound to have an outburst or two. Serena Williams, one of the world’s best female tennis players, for all her talent, has a hot head. After losing to Samantha Stosur at the 2011 U.S. Open, she refused to shake the chair umpire’s hand after she felt that she was once again cheated.”

Vancouver Canucks Fans -“Wait, this is because they lost the Stanley Cup? You sure? Yes, these riots ensued because the city of Vancouver lost the Stanley Cup in game 7 against the Boston Bruins. They lost on their home ice, prompting this violence and destruction Remember, this wasn’t the players who were the sore losers, but the thousands of insane irrational fans”.

The sports commentators and media have been quick to criticize professional athletes for their poor sportsmanship when they lose but they fail to use the power of the Losers’ Consent as the basis of their articles - i.e. the importance of winners acting magnanimously in their victory and the losers acting with grace by acknowledging that the winners were the rightful victors of the competition. 

Losers of Presidential elections are expected to lose like a winner, with poise and grace 

Scott Farris, in his 2012 book “Almost President: The Men Who Lost the Race But Changed the Nation,” noted that every losing candidate since 1896 has issued a concession:

“in 1932 Republican incumbent Herbert Hoover telegraphed his congratulations to Democrat Franklin Delano Roosevelt the day after the New York governor unseated him, and Hoover promised to dedicate himself “to every possible helpful effort.” [2]

“In a speech delivered in June 1877, Tilden [Democrat Samuel Tilden won the popular vote but lost to Republican Rutherford B. Hayes] decried his loss as a result of corruption and fraud, but also told supporters that they should be of good cheer. “The Republic will live. The institutions of our fathers are not to expire in shame. The sovereignty of the people shall be rescued from this peril and be re-established.” [3]

Although Ginny White, in the Wisconsin State Journal, described Donald Trump’s reaction to the preliminary election results as that of a ‘sore’ loser’, her description is the epitome of Angela’s ‘spoil sport’:

“Donald Trump is not only a loser, he’s a sore loser. Ever since Joe Biden won the presidential election, Trump has been throwing a toddler tantrum. He’s refusing to accept the decision of a record 75 million American voters. Instead, he’s trying to overturn the election results by clogging the courts, inflaming his followers and destroying our record of peaceful transitions between administrations.”

“True to form, President Trump is claiming he’s being treated unfairly, the election was rigged, and voters couldn’t possibly have rejected him and his rolling dumpster fire of an administration.” [4]

Shaun Bowler didn’t realize how accurately he was predicting Trump as a ‘spoil sport’ in his 2016 article “I study democracies, and what I’ve learned is this: they collapse without graceful losers”:

“In every contested election there are winners and losers. While lots of attention, money, and power flows to the winners, it is really the losers who are key to keeping democracy healthy.

More specifically, it is important that the people who lose elections recognize that they lost fair and square — assuming that that is indeed the case — and that they convey that truth to their supporters.

By talking preemptively about a “rigged system” that may well lead to a “stolen election,” Donald Trump is weakening his voters’ faith in elections in a way that could prove extremely dangerous.” [5]

Trump’s refusal to concede and allegations of a rigged election is contrary to the noble concept of ‘Losers’ Consent’ 

On Saturday (November 7, 2020) the Associated Press declared Biden/Harris the winners of Pennsylvania, thereby amassing the necessary Electoral College votes to surpass the required 270. But President Trump declared he would continue to fight because the Associated Press do not determine the winner. The President is using his attorneys to pursue legal challenges alleging voting irregularities and voter fraud that would delay formal certification of the results, and he has not publicly accepted the results of the election or a willingness to concede. Some stalwarts within the Republican party like Senator Lindsey Graham (Republican, South Carolina) are arguing against conceding - “Don’t accept the media’s declaration. Don’t concede, Mr. President. Fight hard.”   

The list of prestigious political players acknowledging the Biden/Harris win was topped with George W. Bush, former Republican president, who publicly congratulated Biden/Harris on their victory and went on to say:

“President Trump has the right to request recounts and pursue legal challenges, and any unresolved issues will be properly adjudicated,” Bush wrote. “The American people can have confidence that this election was fundamentally fair, its integrity will be upheld, and its outcome is clear.” [6]

“President Donald Trump’s inner circle is beginning to split over his ongoing refusal to accept the results of the 2020 election, as Jared Kushner and first lady Melania Trump advised him to come to terms with President-elect Joe Biden’s victory and his adult sons pressed him and allies to keep fighting.” [2]

On the other hand, members of the GOP are pushing for the President to continue the fight:

“Donald Trump has no intention of admitting defeat in the US presidential election or offering Joe Biden his concession, his campaign insisted on Monday. “That word is not even in our vocabulary right now,” Jason Miller, a senior campaign adviser, told Fox Business.” [7]

Losers’ Consent - how to ensure that the losers will accept the winners as legitimate.

Amy McKeever traces the history of Presidential election losers conceding - beginning in 1896, when Republican William McKinley defeated Democrat William Jennings Bryan. She quotes John R. Vile, dean of political science at Middle Tennessee State University in Murfreesboro, who has written about the history of concession speeches:

“ What happens if a president doesn’t concede - Since it is not a formal part of the election process, there are no legal consequences if a presidential candidate such as Trump refuses to concede. As Gore learned, a concession isn’t a binding contract. And declining to concede doesn’t necessarily mean that an election will remain perpetually up in the air...

But Vile argues that it matters for presidential candidates to concede even if it doesn’t have legal consequences, because words matter. Adherence to established electoral norms has helped shore up U.S. democracy even in the midst of its most chaotic and divisive elections... ” [4]

Losers’ Consent is about more than words. Elections are designed to give citizens the power to decide who they want as their rulers. And since every election has winners and losers the derivative problem is how to ensure that the losers will accept the winners as legitimate. The theory is that the losers’ perception of the fairness of the election drives their willingness to accept the winning party, thereby enabling the transition of power in ways that maintain social order and support the legitimacy of those institutions and their occupants.

Sometimes, acceptance of the winners by the losers is just too much to swallow

But one could have a ‘fair’ election in which acceptance of the winners by the losers is just too much to swallow/accept - which in extreme cases could result in riots, rebellions, civil wars. To avoid this potential adverse effect, political scientists have argued that one needs to reconcile the losers to their loss. Hence the concept of getting the ‘Losers’ Consent’ to accept the winners as legitimate, even if they have to ‘hold their noses’ to do so.

“The basic idea is that regime support among citizens in the aftermath of an election depends on the widespread belief that the electoral contest has been resolved in a legitimate fashion” [5]

The media reports invariably focus on the proclamations and opinions of the winners and offer fewer stories about the feelings and attitudes of the losers. This bias in media coverage papers over a critical issue - do the losers recognize the outcome as legitimate even though they find the result distasteful/unsatisfactory in terms of their hopes and aspirations.

“In the end, the viability of electoral democracy depends on its ability to secure the support of a substantial proportion of individuals who are displeased with the outcome of an election.” [6]

If the loser doesn’t concede and instead, continues the fight, the legitimacy of the winner’s victory becomes null and void in the eyes of all the loser’s supporters and a crisis of legitimacy is triggered. President Trump’s election playbook has been to challenge the legitimacy of the Presidential election of 2020, even before the election was held:

“This is a case where they’re trying to steal an election,” he said. “They’re trying to rig an election, and we can’t let that happen.” [7]

More on President Trump’s claims and action later. But, bear with me and let me continue to delineate Losers’ Consent further.

It’s called the “democratic bargain” 

The winner has an effect on the losers’ concession/consent by how magnanimous they are in publicly recognizing the worthiness of the loser and their supporters and the winner’s desire for the ‘healing’ process between the supporters of the winners and losers to begin - i.e. an abandonment of the ‘we-they’ conflict in favour of a return to business as usual. 

“the “democratic bargain . . . calls for winners who are willing to ensure that losers are not too unhappy and for losers, in exchange, to extend their consent to the winners’ right to rule.” This bargain is also one of the core components of democracy.” 

“Supporters of losing candidates tend to lose faith in democracy and democratic institutions, even after elections that aren’t particularly contentious. When your preferred politician or party loses, resentment is inevitable. This is why the democratic bargain is so important . . . if the losing candidate doesn’t uphold his or her side of the bargain by recognizing the winner’s right to rule, that acute loss of faith in democracy among the candidate’s supporters can become chronic, potentially devolving into civil disobedience, political violence, and a crisis of democratic legitimacy. How the loser responds is especially critical . . .” [8]

“. . .graceful concessions by losing candidates constitute a sort of glue that holds the polity together, providing a cohesion that is lacking in less-well-established democracies.” [9] 

One of President-elect Biden’s key campaign messages has been directed at President Trump’s constituency:

“But the former vice president, who pledged throughout his candidacy that he would represent the Americans who voted for Trump as well as those who voted for him, reiterated that promise in his address Saturday. “Let this grim era of demonization in America begin to end here and now,” he said, calling for Democrats and Republicans in Congress to cooperate with each other.” [10]

Al Gore’s concession in the 2000 Presidential election is heralded as the exemplar of a ‘gracious loser’

The example held up by advocates of the Losers’ Consent is Al Gore’s concession and remarks settling the 2000 Presidential election This Presidential election resulted in a dead heat between Al Gore (Democrat) and George W. Bush (Republican). It all came down to the vote counts in Florida - a messy situation with questions about timelines and process, a confusing ballot used in Palm Beach County, punch-card ballots in which not all of the holes were punched cleanly, disagreements about how much of the “chad” — the bit of paper that should have been punched out of the hole — could remain attached for the vote to still count, etc. The tie defaulted to the lawyers and the courts in a highly disputed result. The Florida Supreme Court ruled in favour of a statewide recount of the ballots (supporting Gore). Bush then appealed to the Supreme Court, which rejected the recount, Florida Supreme Court mandated a statewide recount of the ballots, a victory for Gore. Bush’s team appealed to the Supreme Court, which rejected the recount, leaving Gore with a choice: continue to fight in the court of public opinion or concede. Gore’s fight was a fight over counting ballots, not over an allegation that the election itself was unfair.

“No work of fiction could have plausibly captured the extraordinary twists and turns of the 2000 U.S. presidential election. After mistaken television network projections on election night leading to a concession call by Al Gore to George W. Bush that was withdrawn an hour later, and the ensuing 36-day political and legal war over how to resolve what was essentially a tie, Bush ultimately garnered the presidency when a sharply divided and transparently political Supreme Court ended the manual recount in Florida that might have produced a different outcome. It was the closest presidential election in American history, with only several hundred votes in Florida determining the winner out of more than 100 million ballots cast nationwide.” [11]

“In December 2000, for example, Al Gore conceded defeat to George W. Bush after one of the country’s closest and most divisive elections. The Supreme Court halted the recount of votes in Florida and effectively handed the presidency to Bush, even though Gore won the national popular vote and had good reason to argue that the court’s decision was politically motivated.. . . Gore later noted that he easily could have defied the court’s decision, but that he made the excruciating choice not to for the good of the country. “[I]nstead of making a concession speech, [I could have] launched a four-year rear guard guerrilla campaign to undermine the legitimacy of the Bush presidency, and to mobilize for a rematch,” he told The Washington Post in 2002. “And there was no shortage of advice to do that. . . . I just didn’t feel like it was in the best interest of the United States, or that it was a responsible course of action.” [12]

Not only did Al Gore concede, but he delivered a televised concession speech from his office in the White House, declaring that “partisan rancor must now be put aside.” Losers’ consent involves a whole hearted acceptance (albeit reluctant) of the winners right to rule, for now and the need to move on.

“But after the Supreme Court halted it, Gore didn’t reject that ruling as partisan, rant about rigged systems, rail about conspiracies or run around telling Americans that he was their rightful leader, foiled by dark forces. He felt that the stability of the country hinged on the calmness of his withdrawal. So he told Americans to move on.” [13]

Before a concession, what about a commitment to a peaceful transfer of power ?

During a September news conference at the White House, reporters asked if he would commit to a peaceful transfer of power “win, lose or draw” to Mr Biden (Trump trailed Joe Biden in national polls with 41 days to go until the election).

“Well, we’ll have to see what happens,” the president told a news conference at the White House. “You know that.” Mr Trump also said he believed the election result could end up in the US Supreme Court, as he again cast doubt on postal voting. “I’ve been complaining very strongly about the ballots,” Mr Trump, a Republican, said. “And the ballots are a disaster.” “Get rid of the ballots, and you’ll have a very - you’ll have a very peaceful - there won’t be a transfer, frankly, there’ll be a continuation.” [14]

This refusal by the President to commit to a peaceful transfer of power if he loses November’s election triggered a flood of media speculation and possible interpretations of what his words meant:

“This is not merely a refusal to commit to doing his civic duty to facilitate a transfer of power, should he lose in the vote count. It’s an open declaration to supporters that he intends to thwart the transfer of power by any means necessary, even if he is on track to losing in the vote count.” - The Washington Post

“Mr. Trump’s refusal — or inability — to endorse perhaps the most fundamental tenet of American democracy, as any president in memory surely would have, was the latest instance in which he has cast grave uncertainty around the November election and its aftermath. Democrats are growing increasingly alarmed as Mr. Trump repeatedly questions the integrity of the vote and suggests that he might not accept the results if he loses.” - The New York Times

“... recent reporting suggesting that the Trump campaign is planning aggressive challenges to election results in battleground states. Taken together, this news has brought what had been brewing worries about a constitutional meltdown this November to a boil. Questions like “How far is he willing to go to win?” and “Will he leave office if he loses?” were once seen as far-fetched hypotheticals pondered by experts and pundits; now, a month out from the election, they have become mainstream concerns.” - VOX.com

“Among the most chilling words uttered this week by Michael Cohen, were “given my experience working for Mr Trump I fear that if he loses the election in 2020 that there will never be a peaceful transition of power . . . ” [15]

“Politics is becoming more and more zero-sum: It’s about helping their team win, and making sure the other team loses”

The lofty goals/expectations of Losers’ Consent - that the losers will, if treated respectfully, accept the legitimacy of the winners win and move on - is an increasingly doubtful proposition in this era of zero-sum politics and the never ending struggle to win and crush the opposition.

“Today, political parties are no longer just the people who are supposed to govern the way you want. They are a team to support, and a tribe to feel a part of. And the public’s view of politics is becoming more and more zero-sum: It’s about helping their team win, and making sure the other team loses.” [16]

“Our elections and our legislating are drowning in unhealthy win-lose competition”

Regrettably, Losers’ Consent and its concern that the losers of any election - where the objective is to get the losers to see the outcome as legitimate and one they can reluctantly support until the next election when they get another chance to defeat the winners- is a foreign concept from an earlier era where civility prevailed. Katherine Gehl and Michael Porter, in their article “Fixing U.S. Politics”, denounce the prevailing win-lose competition of today’s politics: 

“Healthy competition in an industry is a win-win... We don’t have this sort of healthy competition in the politics industry—quite the opposite. Competition takes place on two key levels: competition to win elections and competition to pass (or block) legislation. Our elections and our legislating are drowning in unhealthy win-lose competition: The duopoly wins and the public interest loses.

The rivals (the Democrats and the Republicans) have entrenched their duopoly so that they do well even if the customers they should serve (citizens and voters) are profoundly dissatisfied. The rivals differentiate themselves by dividing up voters according to ideological and partisan interests. They target mutually exclusive groups of partisans and special interests in order to minimize overlap of core customers. This division enhances customer loyalty and reduces accountability. Each competes to reinforce the division by demonizing the other side instead of delivering practical solutions that would most likely require compromise.” [17]

The practice of “demonizing the other side” is perhaps the most perverse feature of this win-lose competition. It prevents/inhibits the losers from seeing a path forward that enables them to support the winners.

Even surveys of the public have indicated their concerns about the deepened polarization, bitterness, disrespect, contempt, between groups

In an America that is so divided, losers’ consent is unlikely to find many advocates. Conceding to the winners is more likely to result in those proposing to concede, being cast out of the group. American democracy has become a constant fight between Republicans and Democrats for control and the right to rule in the manner they see fit. Losers’ consent does not have a role in the ‘winner-take-all’ paradigm of contemporary politics.

“Government policymaking dysfunction from partisan polarization is generally seen as a corrosive failure of institutions. Much of it being reflected in a lost sense of governing trust (or social contract) and many deadlocked unmet policy needs. Over 80% of Americans have said the country is greatly divided about important values, with 77% saying they are dissatisfied with the state of politics. About 70% to 90% have said they are very concerned with the deepened polarization, bitterness, disrespect, contempt, and even hatred between groups. A December 2018 New Hampshire poll found more voters viewing political dysfunction (74%) and disunity (68%) as a threat to America than any other major issue. After the 2018 midterm elections, The Economist (2018) emphasized America’s divisions and prospects for poor policymaking with both sides declaring victory. Most of the public expected gridlock through 2020 (Pew Research 2018)” [18]

The all-consuming power of partisan bias

Sean Westwood and Shanto Iyengar of Standford University, found that in the 1980s, Americans began to report increasingly negative opinions of their opposing party. “Previously, partisan conflict mostly applied to political issues like taxes or abortion. Now it seemed, among his acquaintances at least, to be operating more like racism or sexism, fueling negative or positive judgments on people themselves, based on nothing more than their party identification.” [19]

“Partisanship, for a long period of time, wasn’t viewed as part of who we are,” he said. “It wasn’t core to our identity. It was just an ancillary trait. But in the modern era we view party identity as something akin to gender, ethnicity or race — the core traits that we use to describe ourselves to others.”

The reality is that elections produce winners and losers, which in extreme cases, may result in losers resorting to armed conflict and even civil war. The more typical behaviour of dissatisfied losers is to continue the fight by obstructing the ability of the winners to implement their agenda through political maneuvering and mobilizing the court of public opinion through broadcast media and social media platforms. Partisan medial outlets, social media platforms and resident conspiracy theorists of the far right and extreme left have an impact on citizens before and after elections. In their most aggressive form, partisan media try “to provoke visceral responses -e.g. anger, righteousness, fear, moral indignation -though the use of overgeneralizations, sensationalism, misleading or partially inaccurate information, ad hominem attacks, and partial truths about opponents” [20]

“Partisan tribalism makes people more inclined to seek out and believe stories that justify their pre-existing partisan biases, whether or not they are true... “You want to show that you’re a good member of your tribe,” Mr. Westwood said. “You want to show others that Republicans are bad or Democrats are bad, and your tribe is good. Social media provides a unique opportunity to publicly declare to the world what your beliefs are and how willing you are to denigrate the opposition and reinforce your own political candidates.”[21]

Partisan media harden this partisan bias and the losers’ perception of illegitimacy

Losers’ consent and winners’ restraint. The real threat to democracy is not having enough of both.

The Christian Science Monitor, in an article about the on-going fights between the ‘Leaves’ and the ‘Remains’ even after the ‘Remains’ lost the referendum, provides an interesting comparison between the Brexit combatants and the Republicans and Democrats fighting it out in the Presidential election in America.

“In elections, referendums, or legislative votes, not all losers are gracious and not all victors are magnanimous. Both may resort to maximal, dubious tactics when they should instead work on a consensus that will maintain the integrity of the democratic process. Losers often either abandon the system or try to rip it down. Winners might rig it to stay in power even though democracies need a regular churn in parties and people assuming power to keep faith in democracy. In addition, not all vote victories are that clear-cut. In one study of stable democracies between 1950 and 1995, only around 45% of victors won with a majority.” [ 22]

The article makes a startling statement, “Democracy cannot survive if it produces oppressive winners and sore losers.” Edward de Bono, one of our last philosopher kings, described this extreme competition as the ‘fight idiom’ - a self-reinforcing contagion embedded with the military terms of war:

“The ‘fight’ idiom involves all the battle jargon. There are tactics and strategy. There are offensive potions and defensive positions and fallback positions. There is gaining ground and there is losing ground . . . This fight idiom has always been the usual conflict idiom . . . I suspect it is because we have so admired, and always used, the argument clash that the parties are permanently kept in the fight mood whether they like it or not. There is a self-fulfilling prophesy . . . [23]

Losers’ Consent is a difficult sell in a “winner-take-all” universe

Photo of Trump supporters in Lansing to protest the results of the presidential election [ [Sydney Combs, “The election is over. See photos of America’s divided reaction”, The National Geographic, Nov 2020] 

Early in the Presidential election, President Trump surprised many political strategists by declaring that if he lost the election, it would be because the Democrats “stole the election”, that “mail-in-voting would result in voter fraud”, that if mail-in-voting was allowed, “you’d never have a Republican elected in this country again.” The interesting point about the President’s blatant efforts to undermine the legitimacy of the election is that such accusations of voter fraud and rigged election results are usually made by candidates after the election results reveal they have been defeated, not well in advance of the election. Furthermore, these claims were made without offering any evidence that the 2020 Presidential election would be ripe with fraud.

This strategy is the antithesis of Losers’ Consent that seeks to assure the losers that the outcome was legitimate, fairly held and administered in a non-partisan impartial manner and that the winners will be generous and noble.

“The president has embraced some of the most outlandishly false claims about voter fraud, at times proclaiming that the popular vote in the 2016 election — which he lost — was “rigged.” He has long impugned voting by mail, which, while more vulnerable to fraud than in-person voting, has proved overwhelmingly secure in states with mail-in elections, including Colorado and Washington State. (Mr. Trump had formed a special commission to investigate voter fraud in 2016 but it produced no evidence before he shut it down in 2018.) Even so, he applied for his own mail-in ballot in Florida in March.” [25]

President-elect Biden, on the other hand, has steadfastly claimed he will be “a President for all Americans” and seek to unify the country: 

“Biden has spoken this week about the need to “to put the harsh rhetoric of the campaign behind us, to lower the temperature, to see each other again, to listen to one another, to hear each other again, and respect and care for one another, to unite, to heal, to come together as a nation.”

That sounds nice. Good luck..”[26]

There is little doubt in my mind that the President-elect can act like a President for all Americans but it remains to be seen if any of President Trump’s supporters will give him the benefit of the doubt and accept him and his party. This legitimacy gap is being fuelled by the current President who continues to claim a rigged election .

Although voting by mail was viewed by many states and their election commissions as an important means of avoiding the serious health hazard of crowded polling stations amid a pandemic, the President’s push to “limit voting options is in keeping with Republicans’ decades-running campaign to impose restrictions that disproportionately affect people of color, the poor, and younger voters, under the banner of combating voter fraud — which is exceedingly rare.”

“In other places, Republicans have seized on the idea that fraudulent voting is common (which it isn’t) in order to enact restrictions on voting that disproportionately mean fewer Democrats cast ballots. At times, those advocating for the changes slip and admit that they recognize their policies will aid their own party but, generally, those are aberrations, given the implication. No politician wants to be seen as advocating a self-serving limit on the ability to vote, even if that’s actually the rationale..” [27]

Conceding defeat makes little sense for President Trump

If the President is planning to run again in 2024, he needs to keep his faithful voters wedded to him in spite of losing the election - it makes little sense to concede defeat. His faithful ‘followers’/ voters (70 million of them!) are his assets for future use. Although we tune-out most of the President’s braggadocio,his old claim “I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody and wouldn’t lose any voters, OK?” is probably close to the truth.

The Toronto Star and CTV News have described his supporters’ loyalty in cultural terms:

“... something like 48 per cent of American voters cast ballots for Trump. Those who support him, believe him. More than that, they believe in him, in a way the Democratic political strategist and author Spencer Critchley told me is almost religious — they are loyal to him, Critchley says, like to a medieval king chosen by God. I have spoken to many of those supporters, and their affinity for him is cultural. They wave away the apparent negatives, saying most come from the nefarious imagination of the media and the Washington establishment. They are deeply cynical about politics, which is part of why they like Trump: he’s shamelessly open about what they think everyone else is doing, and entertains them in the process, insulting the people they dislike, saying the impolite things they believe, or want to believe.” [28]“His rise broke open a new path to the presidency, driven more by force of personality than policy, that echoed even as he lost the Electoral College vote. His nativist message and stoking of “culture wars” proved the power of the politics of division and hastened a generational political realignment. While he deepened his reach with white rural and working-class voters with his economic and racial grievance-stoking... his stances on trade, immigration and foreign policy have resonated with voters and how close he came to clinching a second win.” [29]

Anne Applebaum, in her recent article,“ Trump Won’t Accept Defeat. Ever.”, coined the expression His forever campaign is just getting started: 

“... Even if Trump is forced to make a grudging concession speech, even if Biden is sworn in as president on January 20, even if the Trump family is forced to pack its Louis Vuitton suitcases and flee to Mar-a-Lago, it is in Trump’s interest, and a part of the Republican Party’s interest, to maintain the fiction that the election was stolen. That’s because the same base, the base that distrusts American democracy, could still be extremely useful to Trump, as well as to the Republican Party, in years to come.

Certainly these voters can be used to discredit and demean Biden’s presidency. Just as Trump once helped convince millions of Americans that Obama was illegitimate, so he will now seek to convince Americans that Biden is illegitimate. “Biden Is Fake” Facebook groups will be used to gin up Republican votes and support for Republican causes; emails with “Phony Biden” in the subject line will be used to raise money.” [30]

“His 88-million-strong Twitter following gives him a bullhorn to be an influential voice on the right, potentially making him a kingmaker among rising Republicans”

The New York Times reminded us that Trump captured 48% of the popular vote in spite of “four years of scandal, setbacks, impeachment and the brutal coronavirus” and that this power base gives him options no other one-term president has had:

“At the very least, he has 76 days left in office to use his power as he sees fit and to seek revenge on some of his perceived adversaries. Angry at a defeat, he may fire or sideline a variety of senior officials who failed to carry out his wishes as he saw it, including Christopher Wray, the FBI director, and Dr. Anthony Fauci, the government’s top infectious diseases specialist, in the middle of a pandemic.

And if he is forced to vacate the White House on Jan. 20, Trump is likely to prove more resilient than expected and almost surely will remain a powerful and disruptive force in American life. He received at least 4 million more votes than he did in 2016 and commanded about 48% of the popular vote, meaning he retained the support of nearly half of the public despite four years of scandal, setbacks, impeachment and the brutal coronavirus outbreak that has killed more than 233,000 Americans.

That gives him a power base to play a role that other defeated one-term presidents like Jimmy Carter and George Bush have not played. Trump has long toyed with starting his own television network to compete with Fox News, and in private lately he has broached the idea of running again in 2024, although he would be 78 by then. Even if his own days as a candidate are over, his 88-million-strong Twitter following gives him a bullhorn to be an influential voice on the right, potentially making him a kingmaker among rising Republicans. [31]

The photograph below is “On the steps of the Michigan State Capitol in Lansing, Trump supporters shout at Biden supporters as the two groups turned up to protest and counter-protest the results of the presidential election” [Sydney Combs, “The election is over. See photos of America’s divided reaction”, The National Geographic, Nov 2020] 

Losers’ Consent is wishful thinking in 2020 

Although the graceful exit by the loser and warm words of congratulations offered to the winner are the most visible evidence of Losers’ Consent, the more important feature is the underlying efforts of the loser to convince his/her followers to accept the results of the election and to keep their powder dry until the next election. As noted earlier:

“Supporters of losing candidates tend to lose faith in democracy and democratic institutions, even after elections that aren’t particularly contentious. When your preferred politician or party loses, resentment is inevitable. This is why the democratic bargain is so important . . . if the losing candidate doesn’t uphold his or her side of the bargain by recognizing the winner’s right to rule, that acute loss of faith in democracy among the candidate’s supporters can become chronic, potentially devolving into civil disobedience, political violence, and a crisis of democratic legitimacy. How the loser responds is especially critical . . .” [32]

Million MAGA March, the March for Trump & Stop the Steal DC, and Women for America First

Thousands of supporters of US President Donald Trump marched on November 14th in support of his unsubstantiated claims of voter fraud in the election - carrying placards which read “Stop the Steal” and “Trump 2020”. Demonstrators included members of far-right, anti-immigrant group the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers militia group. Some of whom were decked-out with military gear. The demonstration was primarily peaceful until later in the evening, as Trump supporters and counter-protesters clashed in several skirmishes.

The lack of face-masks demonstrated their rejection of public health measures to contain the spread of coronavirus while America is grappling with some of its worst Covid-19 infection rates since the pandemic began. The BBC reported “Mr Trump’s motorcade passed the gathering demonstrators on Saturday morning and did a circuit of nearby Freedom Plaza, but he carried on to his golf club in Sterling, Virginia without addressing the crowds.” His motorcade looked unsurprisingly similar to his joy ride through supporters outside Walter Reid Medical Center where he was receiving treatment for his Covid-19 infection.

The following photograph is from the November 16th Washington Post article“D.C. police recovered eight unregistered firearms from people arrested during Saturday demonstrations that included violent clashes between supporters of President Trump and counterprotesters” [33] 

FOX News in their article “ Thousands of Pro-Trump supporters descend on DC for ‘Million MAGA March’ near White House” reported:

“Demonstrators came from various corners of the country -- including Arizona, Georgia, Nevada, Florida, Pennsylvania and Maryland -- and were largely peaceful. The Trump supporters were partying, live streaming, singing and chanting “Stop the Steal,” “Four more Years” and “USA.” Upbeat supporters said Trump has been a fighter for America and now it’s time to stand up for him as he fights for four more years. 

“President Trump: We have your back,” said Scott Presler, a conservative activist.” [34] 

“We are two countries...”

George Packer, in his Atlantic article “Face the Bitter Truth” makes the insightful case “We are two countries, and neither of them is going to be conquered or disappear anytime soon.” [35] 

A simple comparison of the above photograph with the photograph below confirms George Packer’s case - Sydney Combs photograph “Atlanta residents took to the streets to celebrate the announcement of Joe Biden’s victory in the 2020 Presidential election. Georgia was one of the swing states whose close vote count delayed the call in the narrow race. President Donald J. Trump is expected to challenge the results in court but the margin is wide enough that he it is not expected to change the result of the election.”, “Photos of America’s divided reaction”, The National Geographic.

President-elect Joe Biden and his VP Kamala Harris promised to unite the country and restore a sense of calm and normalcy to the White House. But Dan Balz, of The Washington Post, is doubtful:

“Now however, Biden faces a series of obstacles that threaten his ability to unite the country and therefore govern successfully. Those start with the disposition of the man he defeated. The president has greeted the prospect of defeat with obstinance and disbelief, whipping up his loyalists with a fusillade of lies to believe the election was stolen...the 45th president is not likely to follow the path of other presidents, who have graciously conceded defeat and then yielded the stage to the successor.

Trump craves the limelight and for nearly five years has had the brightest lights in the world focused on him. Biden may try to ignore his defeated rival, treating him as background noise, but Trump will still speak for a goodly portion of the electorate that supported him for reelection — an army 70 million strong.” [36]

References for Losers’ Consent

[1] Austin Schindel, “25 Biggest Sore Losers in Sports History”, Bleacher Report, Turner Broadcasting System, 2020

 [2] Amy McKeever, “ No modern presidential candidate has refused to concede. Here’s why that matters.”, National Geographic, Nov 2020

[3] Ibid

[4]Ginny White, “Trump is as sore as losers come”, Wisconsin State Journal, Nov 2020

[5] Shaun Bowler, “I study democracies, and what I’ve learned is this: they collapse without graceful losers”, VOX, Oct 2016

[6]Barbara Sprunt, “Republicans Toggle Between Congratulating Biden And Saying Election Isn’t Over Yet”, npr, Nov 2020

[7] Kaitlan Collins, et al, “Jared Kushner, Melania Trump advise Trump to accept election loss”, CNN, Nov 2020

[3] David Smith , “Donald Trump has no intention of conceding, campaign insists”, The Guardian, Nov 2020

[4] Amy McKeever, “ No modern presidential candidate has refused to concede. Here’s why that matters.”, National Geographic, Nov 2020

[5] Richard Nadeau and Andre Blais, “Accepting the Election Outcome: The Effect of Participation on Losers’ Consent”, British Journal of Political Science,, Oct 1993

[6] Ibid

[7] Peter Baker and Maggie Haberman, “In Torrent of Falsehoods, Trump Claims Election Is Being Stolen”, The New York Times, Nov 2020

[8] Uri Friedman, “Trump’s Rigging Allegations: Why Democracy Depends on Graceful Losers”, The Atlantic, Oct. 2016

[9] Shaun Bowler, “I study democracies, and what I’ve learned is this: they collapse without graceful losers”, VOX, Oct. 2016

[10] Camila Domonoske, Barbara Sprunt, “Hope, Healing And ‘Better Angels’: Biden Declares Victory And Vows Unity”, National Public Radio (npr), Nov 2020

[11] Thomas E. Mann, “Reflections on the 2000 U.S. Presidential Election”, Brookings Institute, Jan 2001

[12] Uri Friedman, “Trump’s Rigging Allegations: Why Democracy Depends on Graceful Losers”, op. cit.

[13] Frank Bruni, “Save Us, Al Gore”, The New York Times, Nov 2018

[14] “US election: Trump won’t commit to peaceful transfer of power”, BBC News, Sept 2020

[15] Robert Reich , “If Trump loses, we know what to expect: anger, fear and disruption”, The Guardian, March 2019

[16] Amanda Taub, “The Real Story About Fake News Is Partisanship”, The New York Times, Jan 2017

[17] Katherine M. Gehl and Michael E. Porter, “ Fixing U.S. Politics, Harvard Business Review, July-Aug 2020

[18] John W. Straka & Brenda C. Straka, “Reframe policymaking dysfunction through bipartisan-inclusion leadership”, Policy Sciences, April 2020

[19] Amanda Taub, “The Real Story About Fake News Is Partisanship”, The New York Times, Jan 2017

[20] Yphtach Lelkes, “Loser’s Consent and the Partisan Press: The Effect of Political Parallelism on the Political Legitimacy Gap”, Amsterdam School of Communication Research, Sept 2013

[21] Amanda Taub, “The Real Story About Fake News Is Partisanship”, op. cit.

[22] “In Britain’s Brexit brawl, time for restraint, consent”, The Christian Science Monitor, Aug 2019

[23] “Conflicts: A Better Way to Resolve Them”, Edward de Bono, Penguin Random House UK, 1991

[24] Edward Keenan, “Donald Trump lost the election. But he won’t go quietly”, The Toronto Star, Nov 2020

[25] Jim Rutenberg, et al, “ Why Republicans Are So Afraid of Vote-by-Mail”, The New York Times, April 2020

[26] [Edward Keenan, “Donald Trump lost the election. But he won’t go quietly”, op. cit.

[27] Philip Bump, “ Trump just said what Republicans have been trying not to say for years”, The Washington Post, May 2020

[28] Edward Keenan, “Donald Trump lost the election. But he won’t go quietly”, op. cit.

[29] Jill Colvin and Zeke Miller, “Trump defied gravity; now falls back to earth, future TBD”, CTV News, Nov 2020

[30] Anne Applebaum, “ Trump Won’t Accept Defeat. Ever.”, The Atlantic, Nov 2020

[31] Peter Baker and Maggie Haberman, “Win or lose, Trump will remain a powerful and disruptive force in U.S. politics”, The New York Times, Nov 2020

[32] Uri Friedman, “Trump’s Rigging Allegations: Why Democracy Depends on Graceful Losers”, op. cit.

[33] Keith L. Alexander, Tom Jackman and Fenit Nirappil, ““ Charges from Saturday’s pro-Trump protests and counterprotests include gun charges, inciting riots, destruction of property”, The Washington Post, Nov 2020

[34] Marisa Schultz, “ Thousands of Pro-Trump supporters descend on DC for ‘Million MAGA March’ near White House”, FOX News, Nov 20210

[35] George Packer, “Face the Bitter Truth”, The Atlantic, Nov 2020

[36] Dan Balz, “Biden promises to unite the country. After this election, is it even possible?”, The Washington Post, Nov 2020

Created by R.J. (Robb) Ogilvie, Managing Partner, Ogilvie, Ogilvie & Company - Posted on LinkedIN on November 11, 2020, Revisions November 19th, 2020

Author, policy wonk, facilitator and curator of information about ‘wicked’ policy issues