The debate over what the election was really about and what it all means for 2024 is well underway. We will leave that to others (mostly). We want to take this space to highlight one thing we would like to see less of in 2024, and one we would like to see more of: Democrats supporting election-deniers, and gracious concessions.
One read of the 2022 midterm elections is that they were a “clear victory for team normal,” to quote US Rep. Liz Cheney, and that Election Day was a good day for democracy. Election deniers mostly lost in most places, which is very good news. Voters, it seems, disapprove of people who say that votes don’t matter. One reason the 2022 midterms felt more normal is because losing candidates admitted they lost, when the whistle blew the losing team (mostly) left the field. This is in spite of Democrats helping amplify the voices of those most likely to deny electoral reality.
Less Please: Democrats supporting election-deniers
Some Democratic candidates promoted conservative Republican candidates during the primaries. The strategy appears to have worked, at least electorally. But effectiveness is not the only test of whether or not something is a good idea. Candidates of all stripes have been trying to pick their opponents for a long time. One example that gets a lot of attention (including from us) is Democrat Claire McCaskill appearing to support Todd Aiken in the 2012 Republican senate primary in Missouri. McCaskill painted Aiken as extremely conservative, which would theoretically both make him more attractive to Republican primary voters and less attractive to the general electorate. Aiken won his primary, and McCaskill won the general election. Whether or not behavior like McCaskill’s (and she is far from alone) is ethical is open to debate. (Also open to debate is whether or not it mattered - that A and B both happened doesn’t necessarily mean A caused B).
Less open to debate is whether or not candidates should promote anti-democratic candidates or conspiracy theorists. The approach might help get extremists on the ballot, making it easier for Democrats to win general elections. But, as a letter signed by 35 former Democratic elected officials put it, “it is risky and unethical to promote any candidate whose campaign is based on eroding trust in our elections.” In the short-term, the strategy appears to have worked - extremist anti-democratic candidates who won their primaries for the US House, Senate and other offices by and large lost the general election. But Democrats spent millions of dollars amplifying lies that undermine faith in democratic institutions. Democratic candidates and party organizations raised the voices of those who would bring down democracy. Those believers aren’t going away. They heard that the system is rigged and may believe close losses in places like Arizona or Pennsylvania are because of a secret cabal rather than the will of the voters.
Political campaigns should be competitive. The stakes are high, the attacks can often justifiably be sharp. Making sure voters know everything for which your opponent can be strategically smart. But no one in the political process should promote lies that undermine that process. If those in politics won’t stand up for elections, there is no reason for voters to believe in those elections.
As someone who has spent a career in Democratic politics I am pretty happy with the 2022 election results. As someone who is committed to promoting democratic ideals, I’m not entirely happy with how we got those results.
More Please: Concession Speeches
Political scientists often argue that two conditions for a healthy democracy are mutual toleration and forbearance. Steven Livitsky and Daniel Ziblatt, leading scholars in the field, write that mutual toleration means “politicians accept their opponents as legitimate. When mutual toleration exists, we recognize that our partisan rivals are loyal citizens who love our country just as we do.”
One way in which mutual toleration can be expressed is in concession speeches. A concession speech acknowledges the validity of the process and importance of the process continuing. A concession speech says that voters are more important than candidates. As losing Ohio Senate candidate Democrat Tim Ryan said: “I had the privilege to concede this race to J.D. Vance. Because the way this country operates is that you lose an election, you concede. You respect the will of the people.” Democrat Nancy Whaley lost the governor’s race in Ohio and told supporters, “Even when we don’t get the outcome we hope for, it’s vital that we respect our democracy.” In Pennsylvania, losing Republican Senate candidate Dr. Mehmet Oz told his supporters, “This morning, I called John Fetterman and congratulated him. I wish him and his family all the best, both personally and as our next United States Senator. …we need everyone to put down their partisan swords and focus on getting the job done.”
In race after race, Democrats, Republicans and independents running for all sorts of offices, who got fewer votes than their opponent, acknowledged the will of the voters. Candidates who campaigned against Trump’s brand of politics, and others who were endorsed by Trump, said “thank you for your support, we got fewer votes, time to come together and govern.”
We often talk about democracy being the will of the majority. It is a system of government in which the people pick their leaders. We, the people, express our preferences and leaders act on those preferences. We almost never talk about the flip side - democracy also means people sometimes don’t get what they want. Democracy means not always getting your way. Concession speeches strengthen democracy by acknowledging getting outvoted is OK. Losing is proof that as long as there is another election, as long as opposition voices can be heard, the system works. It is much more fun to declare victory, but it is more important to concede defeat.