COLUMNISTs

Can’t unring that bell

Trump’s hesitance to accept election result unnerving

The last of this year’s presidential debates could have been different.

It turned out to be not much different from the two that came before. Both candidates actually talked for a while about real issues on which they hold quite different stands.

Potential voters could see in those fleeting moments where the nominees for the Democratic and Republican parties each aligned on subjects that would be normal fare in an American political contest.

None of that made the headlines the day after the debate. It might as well have never happened.

Post-debate talk was all about Republican Donald Trump’s refusal to say he’d accept the outcome of the upcoming election.

He said he’d wait to decide and keep Americans in “suspense.”

The comment, which came in response to the debate moderator’s direct question, triggered yet another round of angst in this election unlike any other in recent memory.

Chris Wallace of Fox News, who moderated the event, asked Trump a question that should have been expected.

“You’ve been warning at rallies recently that this election is rigged and that Hillary Clinton is in the process of trying to steal it from you. Your running mate Governor Pence pledged on Sunday that he and you, his words, will absolutely accept the result of this election. Today your daughter Ivanka said the same thing. I want to ask you here on the stage tonight, do you make the same commitment that you’ll absolutely accept the result of the election?”

The question obviously came in the context of Trump’s recent posturing at campaign rallies.

His answer?

“I will look at it at the time.”

He, of course, expounded on the thought.

First he repeated his contention that the amorphous “media” is dishonest and corrupt and piling on. Then he questioned the legitimacy of “millions of people that are registered to vote that shouldn’t be registered to vote.” To cap off the rant, he suggested Clinton, the Democratic nominee, is guilty of “serious crime” related to e-mails and should never have been allowed to run for president. All of that, he said, is evidence the election is “rigged.”

Wallace tried to bring Trump back to the original question, asking:

“But, sir, there is a tradition in this country, in fact, one of the prides of this country is the peaceful transition of power and no matter how hard fought a campaign is, that at the end of the campaign, that the loser concedes to the winner. Not saying you’re necessarily going to be the loser or the winner, but that the loser concedes to the winner and the country comes together in part for the good of the country. Are you saying you’re not prepared now to commit to that principle?”

Again, Trump answered:

“What I’m saying is that I will tell you at the time. I’ll keep you in suspense, OK?”

A day later, after taking strong criticism even from some Republican leaders, he walked his answer back a bit. He first joked he’d accept the outcome of the election “if I win.”

Then he gave what would have been a more fitting answer from the debate stage. He’ll accept the outcome, unless there is reason to challenge it.

That’s a more reasonable position, although, coming from Trump, even that might have raised eyebrows.

Instead, Trump’s initial comment raised real fears that he might lead some sort of revolt among his supporters after the election.

He demonstrated a willingness then and there to trash America’s tradition of the peaceful transfer of power.

Or at least many people, including some from his own party, heard that threat from a major party’s nominee for president.

Try as he might, Trump cannot unsay what he said.

Nor can he fully erase the fears he awakened with this challenge to a fundamental principle of American democracy.

—––––– –––––—

Brenda Blagg is a freelance columnist and longtime journalist in Northwest Arkansas. Email her at [email protected] .

Upcoming Events