If the trajectory of the 2016 presidential election remains constant, there is an overwhelming probability (86 percent according to Nate Silver at 538) Hillary Clinton will be declared the next chief executive of the United States.  That announcement is likely to come shortly after the polls close in California, Oregon and Washington.

Claims that the “election is rigged” has many pundits questioning whether Donald Trump will take the stage and concede defeat, ascribing the mantle of legitimacy to the victor.  This is a time-honored traditional.  But as we all know, this election cycle has been anything but traditional.

To uphold this standard of American politics, I would suggest Hillary Clinton deliver a concession speech.  After thanking all of those who have helped her become the next White House occupant, she should consider the following text as she acknowledges her victory.

Voters deserve the opportunity to hear a concession speech at the end of every hard-fought political campaign.  Concession speeches have often been touted as the losing candidate’s finest moment.  And the pundits often wonder why the candidate did not show the same eloquence and grace throughout the campaign.

My opponent has chosen not to use this opportunity to affirm the exceptional nature of the peaceful transfer of power in our democracy.  Therefore, believing a concession speech is still in order, I offer the following.

I concede that I and my campaign too often catered to our base and turned a deaf ear to the concerns of many Americans who have been hurt by past economic policies.  Their concerns must be a addressed by the next president and Congress.

I concede, at times, I and my campaign contributed to the lack of civil discourse during this election cycle.  Voters deserve better and I will ensure those who disagree with our policies and actions are still respected and given the opportunity to voice opposing views.

I concede I could have been more transparent about how my positions were initially formed and evolved over time.  I recognize the public deserves to know where their leaders stand on the important issues which affect their lives.

I concede my error in using a private email server was due in part to my failure to trust those normally responsible for providing this service.  That is not acceptable.  I have learned a lot about myself from the criticism many have made of my actions and will seek and heed the advice of individuals duly authorized to oversee the operations of the executive branch.

I concede my belief in the good being done by our family foundation and the Clinton Global Initiative justified my sometimes being more engaged in its operations than I should have been while Secretary of State.  Although there is no instance in which national policies or actions were influenced by donations to these efforts, I should have held myself and my staff to a more stringent standard.  I pledge to do so during my administration.

In the interest of reversing the deep divisions which emerged and grew during this campaign season, I hope I would have made these same concessions if I had been on the losing end of this election.  I also hope my opponent would agree that Americans deserve better than what we have presented to them over the past 18 months.  And it is incumbent on all of us–candidates, party officials and citizens–to think about how each of us has contributed to the ugly discourse and divisive nature of this election.  Only through trust, mutual respect and appreciation of each other’s aspirations will the next president have a chance to fulfill the desire of every person who has held that office to build “a more perfect union.”

I have always appreciated the fact the preamble to our Constitution refers to “a union,” not “The Union,” a synonym for the United States.  The dictionary defines “union” as “the act of uniting two or more things.”  America has always had factions starting with the revolutionists and the Tories during the earliest days of our nation’s history.  I believe the founders knew the survival of the political and governmental system they created depended on the ability of its leaders to find common purpose among the these factions.  As president, I vow to do my best to fulfill their vision of a nation united in purpose drawing on the diversity of ideology and approach among us.

Thank you again for this humbling opportunity.  Starting tomorrow, I look forward to working with each of you to secure the enduring promise of America for all our citizens. 

I hope Clinton does not have to give this speech.  I hope Donald Trump follows the examples of Richard Nixon in 1960 and Al Gore in 2000, both of whom had reason to challenge the election outcomes.  Each of these losing candidates reminded his supporters there comes a time when we must honor the voters’ choice in defeat as well as in victory.

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP

Last night in West Palm Beach, Florida, Donald Trump delivered a speech reminiscent of Father Edward Coughlin.  Coughlin, who some might consider Rush Limbaugh before there was a Rush Limbaugh, used radio in the late 1930’s to challenge what he believed was an international conspiracy of financiers and the media to undermine American sovereignty.

Included in Trump’s remarks were the following.

The Clinton machine is at the center of this power structure. We’ve seen this first hand in the WikiLeaks documents, in which Hillary Clinton meets in secret with international banks to plot the destruction of U.S. sovereignty in order to enrich these global financial powers, her special interest friends and her donors.

He went on to say that this global cabal is determined to take your jobs and ruin your lives.

In the final days of this presidential campaign, one needs to remember the historical verdict on  Father Coughlin.  Laurence DiStasi sums it up best by stating Coughlin tried to bring “a variation of the fascist agenda to the American culture.”

Trumps words were met with vociferous approval by those attending the rally.  If the polls are correct, those present at Thursday night’s event do not represent the majority of Americans.  Instead of breathing a sigh of relief, I wondered, “What if Trump had decided to run in 2008?”  Father Coughlin began his crusade during the Great Depression.  It was not his conspiracy theories which led many to rethink their belief in his message.  It was his support for the America First movement (where have we heard that recently?) when most of the country recognized Nazi Germany and the other Axis powers posed the real threat to U.S. sovereignty.  What would have happened if World War II had not become a catalyst for rebuilding the American economy after a decade of unsettling  unemployment and financial ruin?

History tells us the German people were more receptive to Adolph Hitler’s rise due to their economic condition.  And I understand much of Trump’s initial support came from those who felt they were left behind during the recovery from the last recession.  I can only imagine how successful he would have been if the announcement of his candidacy had focused on reforming the banking laws and tax codes instead of pointing fingers at scapegoats.

Desperate times cloud reason.  For example, would Americans and their elected representatives have supported the 2003 invasion of Iraq without September 11, 2001?

And that’s what brings me to 2008.  Remember, by November of that year, the unemployment rate was racing toward double digits and many Americans had lost their homes and their savings.  The same forces which produced a Father Coughlin were in play.  And his message, delivered by an autocrat who promised he alone could fix the situation, would have resonated with a much broader audience.

As any successful comedian will tell you, timing is everything.  The same is true in politics.

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP

While driving to D.C. on Friday, I was listening to Morning Joe  on satellite radio, when the panel was interviewing a Democratic representative about Congress’ failure to provide funds to fight Zika.  It’s not what he said that raised my ire.  It’s what he didn’t say and made me realize Democrats need to stop blaming Republicans for legislative gridlock.  They need to blame themselves for not articulating issues in a way that clearly defines what is at stake.

Zika funding is the perfect example.  While both Democrats and Republicans agree something needs to be done, Republicans have added a non-germane rider to the Zika bill to attack Planned Parenthood. When asked what he was going to do today to break the deadlock, he said, “I’m going to be talking to a lot of people about this.”  He did not specify who this included.

Public policy guru Kevin Gottlieb has always said, “When politicians feel the heat, they see the light.”  Gottlieb also reminds us a politician’s primary instinct is survival.  But to make an issue a matter of political life or death, it must be presented in a way voters will respond emotionally as well as intellectually.  This is where the Democrats fail far too often.

If I were running the Democratic National Committee, I would create and run the following political advertisement in the districts of every congressman and senator who believes Zika funding should be tied to Planned Parenthood.

[Picture of Meryl Streep and her two children in a scene from the movie Sophie’s Choice]

Voice over: Remember the movie Sophie’s Choice, when a mother in a concentration camp was forced to decide which of her children should live and which should die.  No woman should ever have to make that kind of decision.

[Picture of the congressman or senator from that jurisdiction]

Voice over:  This is a picture of (add your representative/senator’s name) who refuses to vote for emergency funds unless Planned Parenthood is barred from access to these dollars.  For many women, Planned Parenthood is their primary health resource. In other words, Zika prevention and treatment will only be available from providers Congress approves.

[Picture of a woman being inoculated against the Zika virus]

Voiceover: Call (add representative/senator’s name) and tell him/her this is a false choice.  Tell him/her you are not willing to open the door to defunding Planned Parenthood in exchange for Zika funding.  Either vote for a clean bill to address this potential health crisis or come November, you will find someone who will.

If Gottlieb is right, a clean Zika bill will be on the President’s desk post haste.

Sadly, this election cycle is being viewed as a choice between one candidate who tries to keep her cool and presents reasoned policy options and the other candidate who appeals to his supporters’ emotions without much content.  This too is a false dichotomy.  There is a third choice I like to call “cool heat,” bringing emotional intelligence, not just emotion to the debate.

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP