Opinion: I know how much it hurts to lose an election. But Trump's concession is vital for US democracy
By: Jim Kolbe (CNN)
Oh, woe, Trump won't concede. How uncouth. How uncivilized.
First there isn't a requirement to concede anything. The 2020 election is not officially ended until Jan. 6, 2021, when Congress accepts and certifies the electoral results of the election. The make up of Congress is reflected in the electoral college. While Congress has allowed this necessary step to become little more than a symbolic gesture, that wasn't the original intent. Congress may be willing to concede its Constitutional requirements to the not-so-objective and not-so-unbiased press but that doesn't eliminate the necessity of Congress accepting and certifying the electoral vote.
Secondly delaying the transition avoids interference by the incoming administration. Joe Biden is President-elect and not yet the President. However, the Biden transition team can exert a tremendous amount of influence over career bureaucrats who want to keep their jobs. Trump still has things to do, such as withdrawing troops from Afghanistan and Iraq. The Trump team is also finalizing preparations to distribute vaccines which interference from the incoming Biden administration could disrupt.
Finally after four years of unremitting hostility from the press and institutional dirty tricks by Democrats, a desire for some sort of political revenge should not be surprising. Uncouth, uncivilized behavior by Democrats over the last four years shouldn't be rewarded by gracious collegiality. Trump is only giving Democrats what they have earned.
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Conceding an election is never easy. I know from painful experience. When I first ran for Congress in southern Arizona in 1982, everyone predicted a tight race, and they were right. By 1 a.m. on election night I was certain that my opponent had won. It was narrow -- less than 3,000 votes -- but I knew from looking at the numbers that we weren't going to prevail, despite the never-say-die attitude of my staff.
I went into a private room to call my Democratic Party opponent, Jim McNulty, who was gracious in accepting the admission of my defeat. Was that phone call nothing more than a tea-service ritual? No, for several important reasons.
First, it is simply the polite course of action that models this behavior for everyone watching. Just as tennis or football competitors -- winners and losers -- shake hands or embrace at the end of a game, acknowledging your defeat in a political contest is a mark of graciousness.
Friends and supporters also need to know they were part of a good fight alongside you, but that you have acknowledged that everyone needs to get on with other aspects of their lives. It is also important for government officials and the public at large to have certainty about who will fill the office and to be able to make plans accordingly. They need to know the new agenda as soon as possible.
The president of the United States is not just the highest office in the country, but also the one where the transition can be the stickiest and even most dangerous. Our global adversaries will not stand in the wings politely waiting for us to resolve our election. Any vacuum of power provides an extreme vulnerability. A smooth and orderly transition closes the gap.
This is no idle fear. More than 15 years ago, the 9/11 Commission pointed out that the rapid-fire transition between President Bill Clinton and President George W. Bush, rushed through after a disputed ballot count in Florida, resulted in national security vulnerabilities. "The dispute over the election and the 36-day delay cut in half the normal transition period," said the report. "Given that a presidential election in the United States brings wholesale change in personnel, this loss of time hampered the new administration in identifying, recruiting, clearing, and obtaining Senate confirmation of key appointees." Some of these organizational gaps had yet to be resolved by the morning of the attacks on September 11, 2001.
Failure to concede an election when the outcome is certain and beyond doubt undermines the very foundation of our democracy -- the public confidence that elections decide who will guide the country or the state or the city. Pointless disputes over fictional "fraud" only fuels disinformation, increases distrust in our constitutional form of government, and weakens trust in their leaders and the very process of holding elections.
Losing an election is never fun. Publicly admitting your loss -- conceding the election to your opponent -- can be painful, especially for those who have built a career around the cultivation of their image as a winner. But it is a necessary step in maintaining our constitutional form of government. Nobody who is unprepared to take this step should think of running for office.
Tags
Who is online
93 visitors
Why should Trump concede anything? Donald Trump beat the Republican Party, the Democratic Party, and the mendacious press.
Donald Trump doesn't owe Democrats any favors.
'...the necessity of Congress accepting and certifying the electoral vote.'
And should Trump refuse to accept congressional certification of a Biden victory? What would you suggest then?
Another conspiracy theory pushed by the press and Democrats.
IMT asked you a hypothetical question.
The Presidential authority of Donald Trump ends when Joe Biden takes the oath of office. Trump cannot refuse to leave office because he would have no authority to remain in office.
A hypothetical conspiracy theory is still just a conspiracy theory. And the press pushes those hypothetical conspiracy theories as clickbait. That's how the press makes its money.
Exactly.
IMT did not state that he believes this will happen, he just asked you a question. Further, a conspiracy theory is about something that is believed to be in effect. IMT simply asked about a hypothetical situation; it is incorrect for you to deem this conspiracy theory because he did not suggest that anyone is actually working on keeping Trump in office.
What reality are 'they' not facing?
It is pure speculation and IMT's question was simply hypothetical.
Wait until you encounter someone who actually believes Trump will refuse to leave office. Then you have grounds to deem them not rooted in reality (based on their explanation).
So your context is well beyond this thread? And we are supposed to just know this from your comment?
So the 'they' really does not include the current participants in this thread; it is a vague reference to those who would hold a conspiracy theory.
That means your comment makes no sense in this context. Unless, of course, you wish to name the 'they' in this context and explain how these 'they' subscribe to this stated conspiracy theory.
In this context, the word ‘they’ had an established meaning.
You, however, when challenged, redefined ‘they’ to mean a group of people who are not even participating in this thread. That way you could equivocate from your flawed allegation.
Run away. But when you try to play games I am not going to let you pretend that the problem is me.
You tried to equivocate and I called you on it.
Pretending that I am just too stupid to understand your words is a slimy tactic.
We both know that I'm no democratic party adherent. And claims of election fraud raise that point. If the election was in fact 'stolen,' for what compelling reason WOULD he cede? Mind -- I'm ot the one claiming a 'stolen election' conspiracy.
A favor?! Trump is putting the whole country at risk by delaying the transition and doing whatever else he can to hobble the incoming President. Maybe all you unpatriotic crybabies should find a new home.
Interference by the incoming Biden administration can also put the whole country at risk.
There is no interference during a transition Nerm, to suggest otherwise is just being being asinine.
There is only one POTUS at a time.
He is President-elect. It’s not interfering, it’s his job.
That's correct, there is only one POTUS at a time. Trump is forcing Biden to slow the transition.
The bureaucracy is already staffed and running. As President-elect, Biden doesn't care about what the bureaucracy is doing. Biden's immediate interest is staffing choices for politically motivated reasons.
Trump is forcing Biden into a position of working with Trump's team during a slower transition after Biden is President. By delaying the transition Trump is forcing soon-to-be President Biden into a slower replacement and redirection of the bureaucracy based upon policy rather than political motivations.
Recall that Donald Trump was badly burned by filling positions before becoming President. And Trump had to go through the process of replacing those early appointments after becoming President. Trump was willing to throw those political appointees under the bus and take the political fallout. Biden, on the other hand, doesn't have a history of being willing to do that. Biden will be stuck with a team chosen to check off political boxes and Biden doesn't appear to be willing to accept the political fallout of having made some inappropriate choices.
Trump’s appointments only got worse and worse as time wore on, even though he crowed early on about how he only hires the best people. During the Obama administration Trump had the gall to tweet about the turnover rate in the Obama administration, only to make that appear comically minor compared to his own. Your post is so delusional.
Trump hires toadies.
Trump was badly burned because he is as incompetent as Ulysses S Grant was and far more nepotistic.
Trump is a narcissist.
It would be a responsible act as PotUS to get all those remaining Trump supporters who stupidly think he won or has a chance to win to move on and embrace reality.
He does not have to formally concede with the traditional concession protocol (speech and phone call to the winner). But it is the responsible thing to do. But Trump is a narcissistic asshole so I am not all that surprised he is petulantly dragging this on rather than accepting defeat gracefully as did his predecessors.
Simply stating that Joe Biden won the election begins the transition process. Trump still has things to do. And a quick transition would be politically motivated rather than policy motivated.
The responsible thing to do would be to make the transition based upon policy rather than politics. Several people have cited Obama's transition from the Bush administration. But everyone is overlooking that Obama continued Bush's policies.
Donald Trump did not continue the Obama administration's policies. Trump made the mistake early on of making appointments based on political motivations which hampered his policy agenda.
Biden has already made clear that he intends to revive and reinstitute the policy agenda of the Obama administration which, in reality, was a continuation of the Bush policy agenda. Don't ignore that Trump has been fighting and overturning that Republican policy agenda of the Bush administration. Trump has transformed the Republican Party. The significance of Trump's time as President has been a weakening of Republican neo-liberal globalism.
Democrats, being intellectually challenged, have been oblivious of what Trump was trying to accomplish. And now Biden is promising to bring back the Republican neo-liberal globalism that has caused so many of the problems the United States is dealing with.
If President Biden succeeds in reviving Republican neo-liberal globalism then he will cause more harm to the United States than anything Trump has done.
You are off on a tangent; my comment has nothing to do with transition. Just the protocol of concession.
The 'protocol of concession', as you call it, really is the beginning of transition. All the hullabaloo is really about beginning the transition.
On the Biden side of the transition is the filling of positions which is influenced, significantly, by paying off political debts within the Democratic Party. The purpose of transition for Biden is to unify and solidify support within the Democratic Party. Biden doesn't need access to Federal agencies to accomplish that.
Biden does need access to federal agencies to have access to pending casework.
If that is how you wish to view it.
"Oh, woe, Trump won't concede. How uncouth. How uncivilized."
It is kind of funny that the left is worried that Trump will do exactly what they did 4 years ago.
But then again the difference between 2016 and now is Trumps followers wont devolve into sniveling, whining toddlers for 4 years as we've seen with the left.
What value do you see for Trump to continue this charade that he has a chance to win this election?
What value do you see in Trump inhibiting the transition work of the Biden administration?
What does that have to do with what I said?
Try re-reading what I said and try to think before blathering off with nonesense
You need me to explain this to you? Okay, Jeremy, since you asked so nicely here is how it works:
You mocked those who argue that Trump should concede by copying this sarcastic snark:
In response I asked you to explain why you think Trump should not concede:
See? You mock those who think Trump should concede so I asked you why you think Trump should not concede. I then asked you why you think Trump should continue inhibiting Biden's transition. Surely you can comprehend the tie of my questions to your comment. Right?
The tie of my questions to your comment is crystal clear. Appears to me that you cannot formulate a rebuttal so you instead put forth emotional snark.
Trump does not give a rat's patoot about democracy.