12/12/00 1:05 p.m.
The Gore Concession
What the loser should say.

By NR’s John J. Miller & Ramesh Ponnuru

t may soon be possible to think of Al Gore's concession speech. The vice president has been doing some of this himself, according to press reports, and he has said that he will honor the U.S. Supreme Court's decision. If that ruling comes down against him — early signs are hopeful for George W. Bush — then Gore has an obligation to head for the nearest open microphone and call it quits.

Because this was no ordinary election, the situation calls for no ordinary concession. It ought to be full-throated — nothing snippy. But Gore must do more than simply accept his defeat and acknowledge the legitimacy of Bush as president — the sort of thing any losing candidate does on election night. Gore must go out of his way to build Bush's legitimacy, because he has done so much to tear it down.

First, Gore should apologize. He was within his rights to pursue these legal challenges, but that doesn't mean he was wise to pursue them. If the Supreme Court ends it all today, Gore's recounts and lawsuits will have been for naught. At no point during the post-election struggle was he able to capture more votes than Bush; this was not a seesaw contest. Gore started out behind, and he stayed behind, despite all his desperate actions. He might very well have let stand his first concession — the one he made privately to Bush on election night, and then withdrew. It would have spared the country five weeks of turmoil and uncertainty. Gore should say that he sincerely regrets putting his country through this period, and that he was mistaken for following the course he did.

Second, Gore must say he will abide by no result involving Bush electors defecting to him. He's already done this once, sort of. But he should do it again, in stronger terms. He ought to say that under no circumstances will he allow himself to be sworn in as president on January 20, 2001. Perhaps he should go a step further, too, and encourage electors currently pledged to him to vote for Bush. Some of them, of course, are bound by state law and can't switch. But others have more leeway, and Gore can bump up Bush's majority in the Electoral College. That accomplishes two things: It undercuts any attempt to have a few Bush electors switch their allegiance (this week's cover story in The Nation is "Wanted: Three Republican Electors"), and it serves as a generous and symbolic nod to Bush's rightful claim on the White House.

Third, Gore must explicitly denounce threats like the one Jesse Jackson made on Monday about a "civil-rights explosion." Last week, in Newsweek, Rep. John Lewis (D., Ga.) wrote, "If there's a perception that this is not a legitimate presidency, the political climate will not be orderly and peaceful. I'm not making a threat; I just think it's so." Perhaps Gore should privately phone Jackson and Lewis and request that they lay off. He should publicly say that there should be no protesting Bush's inauguration, and that a history of peaceful transition is one of American democracy's most notable accomplishments. In other words, Gore must calm the base he riled up.

Gore may not find it in himself to do any of these things. Several of his public post-election performances have been abysmal, notably his November 27 address. There's a good chance Gore will not go humbly — look for snide comments about how he just wanted every vote to count, or how he really carried the popular vote. The expectations for a Gore concession are necessarily low. Which makes just barely possible to hope he'll pleasantly surprise.