Here’s the situation. The Alabama Crimson Tide and the Clemson Tigers are playing for the national football championship. Alabama leads Clemson by four points with one second to play in the game. Clemson has the ball at Alabama’s one-yard line. A field goal won’t help. If Clemson scores a touchdown, the Tigers win the national championship. If they fail to score, the Crimson Tide wins the national championship. Everything is on the line.
Clemson tries a quarterback sneak. The call on the field is “touchdown.” Bedlam ensues. Players and fans rush the field, but are immediately called back by the referees. The play is close, and Alabama head coach Nick Saban, who believes that the Clemson quarterback did not reach the goal line, asks for an official review. The rule in such situations is that the call by the referee stands unless there is indisputable video evidence that the call was mistaken. The game is now in the hands of NCAA officials.
The review takes a while. With so much at stake, the officials want to get the call right. Clemson’s coach and players are cautiously optimistic. They believe that their quarterback made it across the goal line and that the call on the field will be confirmed by officials.
Saban and his players are equally confident that the Alabama defense blocked the scoring attempt. They expect there to be indisputable video evidence to that effect. The Alabama coaches and players stand nervously on the sideline, awaiting the verdict.
Then something surprising happens. The game’s television announcers proclaim that Clemson has won the national championship. Moments later, the words “SABAN REFUSES TO CONCEDE” appear on the screens of those who are watching at home. Nothing has been decided by the officials, mind you. The announcers make it seem as though Saban is being unreasonable. “Why won’t he concede?,” they whisper. “This review is depriving Clemson’s coaches, players, and fans of their chance to celebrate.”
I hope you can see the analogy I’m drawing between this fictional football game and the 2020 presidential election. The Alabama Crimson Tide represent President Donald Trump. The Clemson Tigers represent Joe Biden. The championship game represents the presidential election. The announcers represent the American media.
In both cases, everything is at stake. In both cases, there is a process in place for reviewing close outcomes. In both cases, someone is said to be “refusing to concede” when all he is doing is invoking the procedure that has been set up for just such occasions. (As you may have surmised, a major television news network, CNN, recently displayed a graphic reading “TRUMP REFUSES TO CONCEDE.”)
Imagine the following dialogue between the announcers and Alabama head coach Nick Saban, who has been fitted with a microphone:
Announcers: “Why are you prolonging this?”
Saban: “Because I believe that we won the game.”
Announcers: “The call on the field is that you lost.”
Saban: “That’s true, but the outcome of the game hasn’t been determined. As you know, there’s a procedure by which to challenge such calls, and I’m invoking that procedure. There’s a lot at stake and we need to get the call right.”
Announcers: “You’re abusing the process.”
Saban: “No, I’m not. The call was close. Everyone acknowledges that. The process has a beginning, a middle, and an end. Let’s be patient and await the result.”
Announcers: “But Clemson’s coaches, players, and fans want to celebrate. Why would you deny them that pleasure?”
Saban: “I’m not denying anybody anything. If the call is confirmed, then Clemson’s coaches, players, and fans can celebrate to their heart’s content. If the call is reversed, then they have no reason to celebrate because we will have won the game.”
On and on it goes, with no resolution.
Who is being unreasonable: the announcers or Saban? I suspect you’ll say the announcers. But Saban represents President Trump, so aren’t you committed to saying the same thing about Trump’s invocation of the electoral rules about recounts, vote challenges, and the like? Unless there is a relevant difference between the cases—and frankly, I don’t see one—the same judgment must be made about both.
Most “mainstream” media outlets, from ABC, NBC, CBS, and Fox to the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, and other major newspapers, are badgering President Trump, implying that he has an obligation to concede—and that he is being unreasonable (or worse, intransigent) for not doing so.
What’s the rush? Let the process play out. Joe Biden can’t assume the presidency until noon on 20 January 2021 in any event. That’s more than two months away. Even if he had won the election in a landslide, which he most certainly did not, he wouldn’t be president until noon on 20 January 2021.
I’m confident that if and when all legal challenges are rebuffed, President Trump will concede, just as the fictional Nick Saban would concede if the official review went against his team. Any honorable person would do so. No reasonable person would concede when the outcome is still uncertain.
The media should ask themselves a simple question: If the situation were reversed and Joe Biden were filing the legal challenges, would they say that Biden is refusing to concede? I can’t believe that they would. Instead, they would insist that every legal procedure be carried out and that Biden should, in the meantime, remain steadfast and confident.
(Note the rhetorical difference between describing someone as steadfast, determined, unwavering, or resolute and describing someone as stubborn, thick-headed, bull-headed, or intransigent.)
One more point. When Nick Saban decides whether to request an official review of the call, he has to consider not just his own interests but the interests of his coaches, players, and fans. He represents them and speaks for them, after all. Doesn’t he owe it to them, if not to himself, to insist that the review procedure be carried out as written? I assume you believe that he does.
Why is the same not true of President Trump? Some 73 million people voted for him and support him. They expect him to represent their interests and to keep on fighting. Suppose (contrary to fact) that President Trump were tired of campaigning and ready to return to private life. He’s been around the block enough times to know that recounts seldom succeed. Perhaps, all things considered, he’d like to concede.
May he do so? He may not! President Trump owes it to his millions of supporters to fight for them, even if he would rather not, and this means demanding that the electoral rules be followed. He not only has a right to pursue these remedies; he has a duty to do so.
Surely the media can understand this. They are not stupid. Their impatience is a manifestation of partisanship. They are not, as they profess to be, disinterested or detached observers of political events. They are rabid partisans who care less about the integrity of the political process than about its outcome.
Who says football can’t teach us anything about life?