The meaning of the word concede

Post Reply New Topic

Before I proceed, let me warn you that I am not a native English speaker (my native language is Russian) so it is always possible I hear the words a bit differently from how a native English speaker would hear them. But when I hear the word "concede" to me it sounds like something analogous to resigning. Kind of like if someone is "about to" get fired from job, then they resign "before" they get fired and that way they can save their face and say "well, I didn't get fired, I resigned". Similarly, if someone is about to lose an election, they can save face by saying "well, I didn't lose election, I conceded".

Indeed, if you look at the primaries, there were some candidates that dropped out "before" they actually lost. They simply realized that they "will" lose eventually so that they wanted to save money by ending their campaign. However, Bernie Sanders was not one of them. Yet -- despite the fact that he didn't give up until he actually lost -- he still used the word "concede". So to me it sounded like he didn't want to admit that he actually lost so he pretended that he conceded before he lost, even though that was not the case. Now, I am not holding it against Bernie, because overwhelming majority of candidates that lost (whether they be Democrat or Republican) do the same exact thing; Bernie is just the latest example. So maybe its a "tradition" of trying to save face in this particular way?

And in case of jobs the same thing. There are some people that truly resign, without being fired. For example, someone may resign because they found a better job, or because of family situation, or for any number of reasons. Yet there are others that resign because they are about to get fired. While on the surface it seems like a dishonest attempt to save face, in practice it became a tradition -- to the point that the employer who is about to fire someone would even "ask them to resign". So maybe "asking a candidate to concede" and "asking an employer to resign" is the same kind of phenomenon? Both concession of a candidate that is already lost, and resignation of an employer who has been fired, look dishonest. Yet in both cases -- thanks to the "tradition of saving face" -- those respective people are being "asked" to make that dishonest move before their firing from job or loss in an election actually takes an effect.

Now lets look at Trump's situation. People are making these two separate statements. They act as if its one statement, but actually there are two of them:

Statement 1: Trump is dishonest for the fact that he doesn't admit he lost

Statement 2: Trump is dishonest for the fact that he doesn't concede

To stress the difference between these two statements, let me tell you right now: I agree with Statement 1 and I disagree with Statement 2.

As far as Statement 1, its self explanatory. The reality is that he lost, and it is dishonest of him not to acknowledge the reality. And the constitution is that he should stop being a president at January 20, so it is dishonest of him to try to continue to be a president past that date. This should be a very simple logic, and I completely agree with it.

However, as far as Statement 2, I disagree with that statement. Because he can acknowledge his defeat *and* stop being a president *without* conceding. Just like when you play chess and you are being checkmated, you acknowledge your defeat *without* resigning. When was the last time you saw someone resign *after* being checkmated? Wouldn't you think it would be weird if that were to happen?

Now I realize that "acknowledging a defeat without conceding" is not what Trump is doing. Instead, Trump is refusing to acknowledge a defeat as well. So yes, he is dishonest. But you just have to be careful "where" he is dishonest. His dishonesty is manifested in his refusal to admit a defeat, yes. But it is not manifested in his refusal to concede.

As a matter of fact, I can picture the following scenario where Trump *would* concede and *use* it for his dishonest tactic. In particular, it can go as follows:

Trump There was voting fraud and blah blah blah

Trump supporter I agree with you

Trump Good. But, unfortunately, I have some personal things I have to take care of (family situation, health, etc) so I should concede. But, just for the record, I won my case: I have convinced everyone that I won an election. I am just conceding

A democrat Fine. As long as you will be out of the office, I don't really care any more about how you frame it. Glad you are gone.

Now, in the above scenario, Trump would have chosen his time of concession really carefully. In particular, he chose to concede immediately after his supporter had his say and before anyone else had time to reply. That way, he can frame it as if his supporter had the last word and so he just convinced "everyone" (which he haven't).

Now lets go one step further. Lets imagine that its not just Trump who does this, but everyone else does it too. Then the first few people would have to put a bit of effort in orchestrating such scenarios. But then after it would keep happening over and over, then at some point people would just say "you don't have to make an exact story on how you conceded lets just pretend that you did". And then whenever people say "I concede" it basically means "I leave it up to your imagination to think up a scenario on how I left without really losing". And this being the case, every single candidate who "conceded" after the election was dishonest. And if Trump refuses to concede, then he would be the only one "not" guilty of "this particular brand" of dishonestly.

So then the total summary would be the following. Every single person -- including Trump -- is dishonest. But Trump's brand of dishonesty is different from everyone else's brand of dishonesty. People other than Trump are dishonest in a sense that they pretended as if they voluntarily left the race after the race was already over. Trump on the other hand is dishonest in a sense that he refuses to acknowledge his defeat. Both is dishonest. Its just one is a lot more common than the other.

In the current context, "conceding" is interpreted as meaning accepting loss.

At this point in time, however, there's the minor detail (although quite relevent) that the election results are yet to be declared (in 2000, court cases went until mid December), so why would a person concede if they feel (subjectively) that there may have been fraud\irregularities which affected the process\results, and so want to wait on these being adjudicated before conceding...

Considering the unusual circumstances, both conceding and declaring victory should be placed on hold.

Regarding the general question of what "concession" is all about in the context of an election here in the U.S.A., see the following video:

What if a US presidential candidate refuses to concede after an election?
Van Jones

Let's apply the word in a sentence.

"An honourable loser would concede defeat in the US election".

By the way, the norm that the candidates have to concede is what created the problem to begin with.

If we didn't have a norm that losing candidates concede, then the winner would simply be announced and it would be a given that this person won, that other person lost, just like it is in the football game.

But if we do have a norm that losing candidates concede, then a dishonest losing candidate can stay in office by simply failing to concede. They don't even have to do any legal action at all. They can just fail to concede "just because they don't feel like it" and this will keep them in the office.

On the other hand if concession wasn't part of the formula then their defeat would be automatic and nobody would have to wait for any formal speech that they don't want to give.