Being A Good Sport: Lessons on the Election from the Wide World of Sports

Here I am playing with an idea that may have no legs. 

I am also stealing language about good sportsmanship from a page called KidsHealth and another called the Art of Manliness (not kidding). The second page, even though it has a ridiculous name, works well for what I am trying to do here, because of the premise in its title. Unlike these...

I replace 'good sportsmanship' with 'being a good sport'.

A good sport treats teammates, opponents, coaches, and officials with respect.

Behaving in a sportsmanlike way allows all players to persevere with dignity — whether they win or lose on any given day.

A good sport plays with...

• Integrity, because a win that does not come fairly holds no satisfaction and diminished the game.
• Honesty, treating others the way we all want to be treated, because today's vanquished will be tomorrow's victors.
• Unselfishness, in the shared desire to see all players participate in the game, enjoy the game, respect the game.
• Humility in victory and perspective in defeat, putting respect for the game above one's own fate on any given Sunday.

A good sport…

• Play fair. 
• Is a team player. 
• Stays positive, even in the face of errors, because we all make mistakes.
• Keeps trash talk to a minimum.  Let your performance speak for itself.
• Gives credit to an opposing player when they make a good play.
• Loses gracefully. 
• Does not blame teammates or the officiating when losing.
• Wins with class, without gloating or putting down the other team after a win. 
• Respect the rulings of officials. 

A lesson for today's victors: When a game was played without integrity or honesty, selfishly and without humility…this places an extra burden on the victor to demonstrate with words and actions that they respect teammates and opponents, the rulings of officials and the rules, so we can all find space to persevere dignity and keep playing the game.

As of now, many of today's winners are not only failing to meet the extra burden to win graciously to show respect for the game...they are speaking and acting in exactly the opposite manner--acting as if they earned 100% of the vote and that 'being a good sport' only matters for losers.

A lesson for today's vanquished: Gracefully respect today's outcome without abandoning the game, continue to advance our ongoing fight for what we believe it as a loyal opposition, because continuing to play the game remains our best way to persevere with dignity and become stronger together.

As of now, the dynamic emerging here is not one focusing on respect for the game, but like most power imbalanced situations the greater burden is on the more powerful (today) to be the lead agent. So, responding to ordinary and mild protests with efforts to shame the protesters, with the now famous thin-skin of the small handed man, is already ramping this up to do great damage to the game.

I wonder if perhaps great damage is what is needed to save the game in the long run?

I am deeply uncertain about all of this, but want to reflect on it because it feels like it challenges both sides, all sides, sides-ness, me and those whom I see as fundamentally indecent and unfit...to re-think and find creative ways to more productively address the conflicts we face...together.

Winning and losing are more temporally limited than we experience in the immediate moment, and this might be why 'being a good sport' emphasizes the importance of winning or losing in ways that respect the game.

(With the caveat already introduced that this becomes more complicated when we consider a longer time horizon still, such that respecting the game in the long run may involve in the moment tactics that push the envelope of the game. I want to consider this, but in due time, because while important I also want to avoid endorsing a 'bomb the villages to save them,' approach. Short of that extremist view, however, is Gandhi's use of coercion to get disputants to the table (hunger strikes) while still rejecting any coercion as legitimate to constrain the freedom of each disputant to choice their own position or approach or pathway for resolution.)

(And while on the sidebar, let me add this. The importance of the more powerful side reaching across the aisle first and most often did not come to me only now. This is one of the many reasons, and perhaps the most important, that I respect President Obama because that was his MO. He even made a Republican idea the centerpiece of his signature legislative accomplishment...but his continuous efforts were never reciprocated...that is nearly the opposite of the frequently heard BS that he did not reach across the aisle and is the central argument in the bi-partisan analysis by Mann & Ornstein, a leading liberal and a leading conservative thinker, pointing out that the president did this and that the problem was obstructionism from the minority. In that case it was not obstructionism caused by a failure to reach across the aisle, but in this case we risk exactly that.)

For not, let's return to the more limited time horizon for thinking about what it means to 'respect the game.'

Respecting the game, in politics, works on multiple levels, each level a mine field of contestation over what 'respecting' might mean. But respecting the game certain means respecting the rule of law and the constitution, including election law and rules governing how governing agencies and branches operate.

Respecting the game means, at the heart, being demonstrably willing to sacrifice one's own advantage in this and future playings of the game when that is required to preserve and strengthen the game itself.

Respecting the game also means winning and losing in ways that strengthen respect for the game, for the game's rules and institutions and authorities and processes and standards, among all players, current and future. 

In this sense, then, at least two things follow--one challenging today's winners and the other challenging today's losers to be their better selves.

Winning and losing graciously means speaking and acting in ways that strengthen the legitimacy of American democracy--that is, the sense among all Americans that our constitutional order is worthy of our support even if there are times when doing so does not advance a specific policy position we hold dear. That is, that our elected leadership is rightfully exercising authority over our lives through institutions and processes whose smooth functioning benefits us all.

This sense of rightful authority is strengthened by speaking and acting in ways that are more likely to be seen as justifiable, (legal and moral and 'American' are three important parts of being seen as justifiable here), that is, consistent with norms and rules and expectations. In the wake of a closely contested election, for today's losing side this means combining ongoing efforts to advance policy preferences with clearly articulated messaging that the election is over and, regardless of who won, we now turn to trying solve problems, to governing.

This sense of rightful authority is also strengthened by speaking and acting in ways that are more likely to be seen as advancing the public interest, making gridlock less likely and problem solving more likely. In the wake of a closely contested election, for today's winning side this means combining ongoing efforts to advance policy preferences with clearly articulated messaging that we are in this together. This includes selecting leaders we can build more widespread agreement around are more likely to result in policies that will be sustainable and build community because even those today's losing side do not entirely support are more likely to be seen as respecting the game, reinforcing the legitimacy of democratic governance that today's losing side depends on as they plan to become tomorrow's winning side.

From the New York Times today we see that one aspect of being a good sport, for today's losing side, is to focus on fixing the things in ourselves that contributed to our defeat, things we have a lot more control over (which is not to say we do not also need to continue to fight as a loyal opposition against hate and stupidity):

“Democrats adopted a strategy of inclusiveness that excluded a hefty share of Americans and consigned many to a ‘basket of deplorables’ who aren’t all deplorable. Some are hurt. Some are confused.

Liberals miss this by being illiberal. They shame not just the racists and sexists who deserve it but all who disagree. A 64-year-old Southern woman not onboard with marriage equality finds herself characterized as a hateful boob. Never mind that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton weren’t themselves onboard just five short years ago.

Political correctness has morphed into a moral purity that may feel exhilarating but isn’t remotely tactical. It’s a handmaiden to smugness and sanctimony, undermining its own goals.

I worry about my and my colleagues’ culpability along these lines. I plan to use greater care in how I talk to and about Americans more culturally conservative than I am. That’s not a surrender of principle or passion. It’s a grown-up acknowledgment that we’re a messy, imperfect species.

Donald Trump’s victory and some of the, yes, deplorable chants that accompanied it do not mean that a majority of Americans are irredeemable bigots (though too many indeed are). Plenty of Trump voters chose him, reluctantly, to be an agent of disruption, which they craved keenly enough to overlook the rest of him.”

Also in today's news we see an aspect of being a good sport on the winning side that appears to be missing today--reaching to find ways to rub your opponents nose in the mud is not winning graciously... 

...does not invite today's vanquished to see themselves as a loyal opposition who can work with you so solve (some) problems, and this is not in the public interest, but more of the same.

Why appoint the worst of the worst bottom feeders from the swamp you promised to drain?

Many days after posting this, a short article in the Huffington Post touched tangentially on the same idea. I like the 'lose gracefully and win humbly' framing. Dr. Majid Rafizadeh is an American political scientist and president of the International American Council on the Middle East.

“…the future lies with those who lose gracefully and those who win humbly, as Clinton and Trump have done so well.”

Meet the Press today (12/4) framed their conversation about the post-election divisiveness around the question are Hillary's team Sore Losers and Trump's team Sore Winners?

Heather McGhee from Demos noted that We will look back on this moment and wonder about our own backbone in responding to a Meet the Press conversation that was normalizing Trump, ignoring his 'serial' avoidance of the facts.

Amy Walter from The Cook Report used the frame 'Things that offend voters' v  'Things that effect voters' (impact me) as a lesson to learn from this election.