When it comes to losing, what matters most is not how the losing presidential candidate deals with defeat. More important is that those who voted for the losing candidate accept the result.
So, should they lose, what will Donald Trump or Kamala Harris say on November 5 to encourage their followers to get behind the new president to unify the fractured American republic?
Harris: “I urge my fellow patriots to accept this shocking result, to come together under Donald Trump, the man I labelled a fascist barely a week out from today’s ballot, the man I accused of wanting unchecked power, a weirdo and degenerate who has divided the country. God bless America.”
Trump: “I was robbed. Again. Those Democrats behind Lyin’ Kamala stole our votes. It’s the only way cheats win. But forget all that. Stand behind your next president, Laffin’ Kamala. I told you she has a low IQ, that she’s a Marxist, that she should be impeached and prosecuted, but now we come together for the sake of this great country. God bless America.”
There’s no chance Trump will say nice things about Harris should he lose, but it would be grand if he accepts the result of the American people.
To be fair, of course, the reverse is also true – there is zero chance of Harris saying nice things about Trump if he wins and a high likelihood she will attribute a Trump win to racism, stupidity, disinformation or some other source of imagined malevolence.
Trump’s right, of course, that “losing is never easy” and few would expect him to prepare a concession speech, or even a victory address, before the result is known.
Still, there’s a lot to be said for showing even base level dignity when you lose – and when you win. (We’ll get to Malcolm Turnbull in a moment.)
Historians say the best concession speeches follow a pattern: you tell your loyal crowd of followers, patiently waiting to hear you speak, that you have congratulated the winner; you call for patriotism over partisanship from them after a tough election, for unity; and you encourage your side of politics to keep up the good fight.
Political theorist and historian Paul Corcoran analysed concession speeches from defeated presidential candidates from 1952 to 1992 and found in landslide elections, where the country has spoken with a clear voice, unifying the country is arguably less important than firing up the base for next time. For example, Barry Goldwater in 1964 and George McGovern in 1972 could legitimately make more effort to keep the flame alive for their side given the country seemed pretty united against them.
Corcoran found where elections were close, with the country split squarely down the middle, most losing US presidential candidates understood the importance of unifying the country by accepting the result and convincing your side to do the same. A dignified concession speech is especially important in the modern era where millions of people inhale the exhaust fumes of echo chambers on social media to get high as a kite on views that confirm their moral righteousness.
We know Trump has lousy form as a loser. By all means, laugh at his jokes, enjoy his bravado, admire his policies (especially if tariffs are your thing), acknowledge that he probably understands how a business can make a buck better than a San Francisco “progressive” does.
But genuine conservatives should never forget that the 45th president of the United States refused to accept that he lost the last election. By a long shot, that is the worst side to his flawed personality.
As president, the mercurial Trump cheered when the US Supreme Court returned the democratic settlement of issues to the states, only to reject the democratic settlement that ended his presidency in 2020.
Trump is known for many odious tantrums but none so wicked as the one that would help fuel the January 6 riots on congress where five people died, when he demanded that his vice-president, Mike Pence, block the certification of the 2020 election result.
Corcoran, from the University of Adelaide, described the ritualistic drama of the final act for the losing presidential candidate as follows: “In the theatre of modern election campaigns, the curtain rises for the final act on a cheering throng paying final tribute to its defeated candidate.
“The resonance with classical drama has overtones of the absurd. Aristotle’s types – tragedy, comedy, and epic – are marvellously apt for what we are likely to see. Normally, modern audiences expect cinema verite: out of the studio, shooting on location, the open-air rough-and-tumble of circus in the round, with clowns, spin doctors, public relations trapeze artists, and other exotics. The concession speech is a throwback. In this scene, no one wants verite. A bit of illusion will do nicely.”
We wait to see if Trump, a master of illusion elsewhere, will conjure up some dignity if his bid to retake the White House is dashed by democracy.
Trump is not alone, of course, in exhibiting a childlike refusal to accept bad news. Our own former prime minister, Malcolm Turnbull, won’t appreciate the comparison with Trump but it’s hard to ignore the similarity.
On election night in 2016, it seemed that Turnbull had to be coaxed out of his Point Piper mansion to finally address the audience patiently waiting to hear from him.
It was, to be sure, a bad night for the Coalition with Turnbull leading the Coalition government to a loss of 14 seats, squandering the majority that Tony Abbott delivered three years earlier.
But it was Turnbull’s speech at Sydney’s Sofitel Wentworth Hotel that left the worst taste in the mouths of many Liberals. When he did arrive, his speech was best summed up by veteran Nine News political analyst Laurie Oakes: “It’s the first time I’ve seen a bloke who has probably won the election saying ‘we was robbed’ – I thought that was, quite frankly, pretty pathetic.
“It was an angry, bitter speech for a bloke that only two days ago promised a different kind of politics because Australians, he said, were sick of the personal stuff, the rancorous stuff – that’s what we got tonight.”
With Turnbull, there has been a Trump-like determination to bring down his enemies. It seemed as if the former prime minister had drawn up a list of enemies and went after them one by one. His outburst on Network Ten’s The Project, of all places, describing Peter Dutton as a “thug” said much more about Turnbull than it did about Dutton.
Interviewed by the ABC’s Four Corners for its series Nemesis, Turnbull was asked why he wanted to become prime minister. “I owed it to Australia,” he said. Consider the debt discharged.
We learn all too late a lot about leaders after their defeats. In our own country, Julia Gillard is the gold standard. She understands that less is more. John Howard is another stellar former prime minister, always loyal to the Liberal Party. And he’s worth listening to when he does speak.
Howard is right that Trump crossed a line when he rejected the 2020 election result. If Trump loses next week, he has a chance to redeem himself in defeat.
More Coverage
Game changer for a game in need of a superhero
For most of his career, Joseph-Aukuso Suaalii has been pushed and pulled in different directions by those who want something from him and two rugby codes that claim him as their own when he belongs to both. I just want to watch Suaalii play.
Banker Ross McEwan will shape BHP for decades to come
The former NAB chief executive has one major job ahead as he takes on Australia’s most powerful board role.