A Post Election Proposal
On a recent CBS Sunday Morning, correspondent John Dickerson gave a reflective monologue on what the next President will be tasked with upon being sworn into office on January 20, 2025. Dickerson laid out some of the ongoing conflicts she or he will have to deal with—Russia, China, an ever-escalating situation in the Middle East, as well as the ongoing challenges of border issues, high prices, abortion, climate change—these are just some of the known issues. There’ll be the unseen challenges that will inevitably arise.
Dickerson pointed out that it will take vision, patience, and commitment. As such, we, the American people, are electing values, temperament, and character. Acknowledging that misinformation, divisiveness, and distrust plague the political landscape, Dickerson ended his commentary by stating that the first task of the next Presidency will come before the oath is taken, demonstrated by how that individual manages victory or how they don’t.
The Jazz Leadership Project has a particular way of viewing challenges and conflicts—through the principle of Antagonistic Cooperation. This is a perspective where we learn to frame conflict as a productive learning opportunity, driving innovation, growth, and progress. Embracing conflict as a driver of growth fosters creativity and diverse viewpoints and is a springboard for the shared responsibility and share accountability of another of JLP's principles, Shared Leadership.
When Greg and I read Jefferson Shupe’s article from FAIR’s (Foundation Against Intolerance And Racism) newsletter, we thought it a fresh, creative approach to address ever-widening divisions that continue to tear apart our democratic foundation. In managing victory, Shupe’s novel idea allows for both of the JLP principles to be put into action. We share it here for your consideration.
From Concession Speeches To Constructive Dialogue: A Post Election Proposal
By Jefferson Shupe
I believe there’s a way we can get the best of both worlds, where winners run with their agenda, and losers still feel a part of the process. I call it the Runner-up Retreat. Here’s how it works.
Our current post-election tradition is for the loser(s) to give a concession speech, and then for the winner to give their winning speech. These statements help the nation come to grips with the results and settle down from months of emotion and build-up. They help us move forward together. The Retreat would take this a step further.
Our new custom begins in the winning speech as they publicly invite the second-place candidate to a couple of Runner-up Retreats throughout the term. The election winner and some hand-picked members of their team meet with them in good faith to get their perspective on the state of things. What are the winners missing? What are the constituents who didn’t vote for them thinking and feeling? They might even explore small changes in policy that can satisfy more constituents while staying true to the winner’s agenda. If they can find new common ground on even one issue important to the American people, the Retreat will have been worth it.
Let’s take a U.S. Senate race. In Arizona, Mark Kelly won with 51.4% of the vote in 2022. The runner up, Blake Masters, garnered 46.5%. With Blake attending Runner-up Retreats with Mark, the 46.5% of Arizona voters have something to look forward to before the next election. In some small way, at least, a whopping 97.9% are still a part of the process!
Let’s manage expectations. Obviously, this won’t make losers forget that they lost, and civility will be tested on both sides. An appointed moderator can tag along to enforce a few rules, remind them of their roles, set the tone of the meeting, and put constituent fears of back-room deals to rest. They would urge both sides to come at this in good faith for the sake of the constituents, for the winner not to be a gloating jerk, the loser to keep from becoming an insufferable heckler. We’re not in election mode anymore, we’re listening and problem-solving within the realities of the electoral mandate.
Some voters may be thinking: I didn’t walk neighborhoods for two months just to pressure my candidate to compromise with the other side! But there is no pressure to compromise here. The loser isn’t owed anything and isn’t standing in the way of the winner’s agenda. But once the campaign emotions have dissipated, the winner should want to have a finger on the pulse of the other side.
They say a compromise is an agreement where neither side gets what it wants. But I’m looking for a collaboration where both sides get more of what they want. Let me explain.
The Right and the Left
The Right and Left often look at the same thing from different angles. We don’t think quite the same, and we’re accustomed to shaming and fighting each other for it. But there are also times we can leverage it. There is a lot we disagree on fundamentally, but with good faith and a little humility, we can also help make each other better. The Right can help the Left see opportunities they’re missing, and how to achieve their goal with a new approach that the Right won’t object to as much. The Left can point out hidden dangers of the plans on the Right, or help them see ways to move forward, better living up to their own principles.
In the months leading up to an election, sure we can view the other side primarily as the team to beat at the ballot box. But at other times of the year, we’d be smart to view them as people with something valuable to offer. As someone who leans to the right and used to think the left must be intentionally trying to ruin the country, hard experience opened my eyes regarding my friends on the left. I don’t expect they’ll ever get me to join their side, but I find tremendous value when I seek out their liberal perspective.
I truly believe that when one half of the country shuts the other side out of the conversation, we throw out the baby with the bathwater.
If you’re thinking, there’s no way it can work—no possibility of both sides coming together in good faith—then ignore the presidential election for now and start at the local ones. Ask each candidate if they will pledge to extend this invitation to the runner-up, and if they lose, whether they plan to accept. Communicate to them that you think this is valuable to you, their constituents.
Some candidates may think that a meeting with their rival will weaken their plans to rile up their base in the next election and drive them to the polls. But with this strategy, we the people lose. Some issues go unresolved year after year, only to be dusted off at election time. Let’s show them that while we voted them in for a reason, we certainly don’t mind if they speak to their opponent. In fact, we insist that they do.
We have forgotten how to pursue a political agenda in a way that doesn’t inherently divide, and we are buying into the troubling narrative that there is no use in engaging with anyone on the other side. But there is an appetite to reverse course—the number of American citizens and organizations has exploded in recent years who say the rift of toxic polarization is being forced dangerously wide. In fact, I recently met a global conflict mediator who has worked in the Middle East and other parts of the world reeling from deeply embedded hatred. He has returned home to the States. Not because he has retired, but because he is seeing the same sobering trajectory here.
Will the Runner-up Retreat really change anything? Some of them may not result in any concrete policy changes. But just as our tradition of the concession speech is significant even though it doesn’t change election results, the spirit of the invitation to the retreat and the act of accepting it are likely more profound than the retreat itself.
Whether or not this idea catches on with the candidates, I pledge to live it in my own circle and invite you to join me. If I’m on the side that wins big, I’ll try to keep the happy dance private (you’ll thank me) and be genuine and generous with the outreach as I say, “Hey, let’s hang out soon and talk politics. I sincerely want to know what you’re thinking.”
We want to acknowledge the passing of jazz grandmaster and music icon Qunicy Jones. May he Rest in Power. Here’s Greg’s account of meeting Jones in 2010.
