Mending the fences

Politics may make strange bedfellows, but one couple that didn’t exactly hop under the covers this presidential election was the respective campaigns and civility.

Even before an estimated 120 million Americans turned out to vote, voices on both sides of the deep political divide called for calm, reason and unity. These pleas were lost in a howling wind of distortions, rancor and personal attacks over everything from the Iraq war to gay marriage.

In this election, extremism in defense of getting the vote out was apparently no vice. So now that the election is over, how will the once bitter opponents come together, if at all? The beginning of that process has already occurred and could easily have escaped the notice of most voters, still heady with victory or stung by defeat.

A ritual art form all its own, the presidential concession and victory speeches simultaneously say a great deal and virtually nothing at all. The often perfunctory words, following the biggest loss or success of a candidate’s life, can set the nation on a path toward healing, particularly following an election as divisive as this one.

“I would compare this election season to a nationwide office Christmas party in which some people said and did things that they regret, not realizing that the next day they’d have to live and work with the same people in front of whom they’d just made a fool of themselves,” said Dr. P.M. Forni, co-founder of the Civility Project at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, which examines the significance of manners and politeness in society.

Forni praised both politicians for their graciousness in accepting the election’s outcome, something that hasn’t always happened in American history. Most observers felt that Kerry admitted defeat without resentment or self-pity, while Bush claimed victory without gloating and taunting. Both thanked their supporters, reached out to the other side and urged that hard feelings -- fueled, of course, by both their campaigns -- be put aside.

“The fact that this was an unqualified victory makes it more likely the nation will heal and unite in the coming weeks and months,” said Forni, the author of “Choosing Civility.” “We need, however, to keep articulating a healthy, responsible and smart national discourse of reconciliation.”

Such a discussion might help lower the flames on the simmering pot of the nation’s temper. Americans and stress are longtime and near constant companions, according to research. Most get angry 10 to 12 times a day, 4 in 10 feel rushed all the time, and more than two-thirds complain of “stress-related” symptoms when seeing a doctor, points out Forni. Mix in a fiercely contested election -- during wartime -- and anyone’s cool can be shaken.

Thus a candidate’s first official words after a bitter campaign can often mark a critical first step in reducing boiling tensions. In essence, the highly scripted speeches still manage to recognize the humanity of “the other,” offering acknowledgment and respect where there was little or none before.

*

A modern rite of passage

Perhaps the paired speeches matter most for the simple reason that they exist at all.

“Imagine a world where these speeches weren’t given. What would that say?” said Kurt Ritter, a professor of communications at Texas A&M; in College Station, who has studied the role of concession and victory speeches in politics. “It’s the symbolism of the act that counts.”

Even as late as World War II, losing presidential candidates would usually congratulate the winner by telegram only, or sometimes with a phone call, according to historians. In the days before television, the belief was that it was important to have something in writing to validate a victory.

But it was the rise of television in the 1950s that brought the postelection speeches to national prominence and soon made them a rite of passage signaling an end to the political strife. One of the first televised practitioners, Adlai Stevenson, is also considered one of the best. The eloquent and intellectual Stevenson was twice defeated by war hero Dwight D. Eisenhower, in 1952 and 1956. And many politicians today still borrow one of Stevenson’s best concession lines: “What unites us is deeper than what divides us.”

“The real attraction is the concession speech,” said Ritter. “Because of its high drama, it’s made for television. You’ve got to stand and deliver, and for politicians it’s one of the most painful speeches they ever have to give.”

During this campaign season, it’s easy to see why. Politicians, who have enough trouble admitting a mistake, have even more trouble acknowledging defeat. In addition to the vitriol surrounding legitimate issues, there were personal attacks exchanged between the candidates and their families. Most notably, Lynne Cheney, wife of Vice President Dick Cheney, said Kerry was “not a good man” and accused him of a “cheap and tawdry political trick” for bringing up the Cheneys’ lesbian daughter during a debate.

The campaign’s mean-spiritedness prompted an unusual appeal from Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) on a Sunday morning talk show two days before the election. “On Nov. 3 we’d better call a truce and stop this and sit down together, no matter who wins, and start talking about national unity and addressing these issues,” he said on CBS’ “Face the Nation.” “I deplore this kind of bitterness and anger.... The enemy is Al Qaeda, not Democrats or Republicans.”

Replied host Bob Schieffer: “I seldom agree or disagree with our guests when they make a statement, but I want to tell you, I agree with you 100% on what you’ve just said.”

As nasty as the 2004 election became, it still wasn’t the worst campaign in modern American politics. That dubious distinction, according to many historians, belongs to 1968, when Republican Richard Nixon faced Democrat Hubert H. Humphrey and independent candidate George Wallace.

Then the nation endured an almost unbearable series of events -- the Tet offensive in Vietnam, the assassinations of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. and presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy and the riotous Democratic National Convention. Unlike 2004, none of the three candidates captured a majority.

“Nineteen sixty-eight is the gold standard for divisive elections,” said Ritter. “And if ’68 was a 10, this election was probably an 8 or an 9.”

Humphrey’s concession speech was particularly stark and terse. Its opening included: “I have lost. Mr. Nixon has won.” Nixon’s victory speech was notably conciliatory, and it helped frame his inaugural address, which stressed the same theme of “bringing America together,” said Ritter. (Ironically, the victory speech stood in harsh contrast to Nixon’s legendary reaction to losing the 1962 California gubernatorial race: “You won’t have Nixon to kick around anymore, because, gentlemen, this is my last press conference.”)

*

Putting rancor aside

In 2000, former Vice President Al Gore is credited with having delivered one of the most difficult concession speeches in American history. Many Democrats still regard as stolen the election in which Gore won the popular vote but ultimately lost the high office after a controversial decision by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Nonetheless, five weeks after election night, Gore said: “Almost a century and a half ago, Sen. Stephen Douglas told Abraham Lincoln, who had just defeated him for the presidency, ‘Partisan feeling must yield to patriotism. I’m with you, Mr. President, and God bless you.’ Well, in that same spirit, I say to President-elect Bush that what remains of partisan rancor must now be put aside, and may God bless his stewardship of this country.”

“Gore was brief and candid, even adding an element of humor,” said Robert Robins, a professor emeritus of political science at Tulane University. “It achieved even a certain nobility.”

While ultimately Gore’s concession speech couldn’t sustain on its own a new era of cooperation between former foes, it is partially credited with setting a tone, after Bush assumed office, of bringing together the administration and Sen. Edward M. Kennedy for the No Child Left Behind program. Subsequent events soon overwhelmed such well-intended sentiments.

But it is precisely during times of great turmoil that civility matters most, argues Forni.

“The cues come from the winners and losers,” he added. “Graciousness in victory or defeat will help repair the tears that previous heated discussions may have left on the fabric of relationships and of the country.

“It is precisely when we’re stressed or fatigued that we need to be able to maintain our composure and poise in order to be an effective communicator and in order not to do or say things that we would regret. Part of wisdom is being happy with our actions and words, not just for the moment, but tomorrow and a year from now.”

*

Times staff writer Susannah Rosenblatt contributed to this report.