Is it really such a terrible big deal, a just-about disqualifying big deal, that Donald Trump toyed with Chris Wallace on Wednesday night and refused to say whether he'd support the results of the presidential election if he loses?
Yes. It's that bad and worse. Sure, Trump has said so many off-putting, off-color and previously out-of-bounds things during the past 12 months that it's no surprise some of his critics and supporters alike are asking, why make such a big deal about this particular comment?
Here's why, in five easy pieces:
1. His refusal comes in the midst of a campaign that is largely predicated on the notion that the American system can't be trusted. The FBI is corrupt. Our trade negotiators are stupid. When he says he might not respect the results of the election, what his supporters hear is an invitation to take matters into their own hands, should their candidate lose. That's dangerous.
For the past couple of weeks, Trump supporters have been claiming, without a shred of evidence, that the "election is rigged." As Hillary Clinton said on the stage, this is not new for Trump. He claimed he was unfairly singled out by a corrupt media, unfair party rules, and cheating opponents all through the Republican primaries. His complaints have risen in volume in direct proportion to whether his remarkable lead was growing or shrinking.
So it's been no surprise that his claim over the past three weeks has been that the system is rigged against him. Never mind that he had tremendous success in the primaries, and had every opportunity to close his gap with Clinton.
2. Clinton said something important Wednesday night. She noted that there can be just four minutes between when a president orders a nuclear launch and when the missiles are off. Her implication was clear: If the president is given to hasty, impulsive decisions there isn't much time to reconsider when the issue is a nuclear launch. (And no, her saying so was not a breach of security.)
Trump's response to Wallace's question about respecting the election results offers a perfect example of what she was warning about. Trump speaks on impulse routinely. And if he is challenged on that gut-level response, his instinct is to double down. To justify. To explain or even deny. But not to apologize and not, at least not until much later, reconsider. (His comments on Thursday about accepting the results "if I win" and clarifying that he'd accept "a clear" result were examples of this morning-after trend.)
It may have been an extreme case to cite a nuclear launch as a test case, but judgment in such life-or-death situations has long been a hallmark of whether voters eventually judge a candidate to be "presidential."
There have been dozens of other examples of when Trump says something hasty and ill-considered, and then doubles down for days or longer before eventually backpedaling. Wednesday's comments about leaving the country "in suspense" about whether he'd accept the election results was just the latest, and especially jarring, example.
3. Trump didn't say he might challenge the results in court or that he'd ask for a recount if the results were in doubt _ all elements of our election law available to any candidate if the necessary facts are present. He offered those rationales after the fact, of course. But on Wednesday, he said he could not promise to accept the results of the election. Not accepting the results of a presidential election is just one step short of calling for a civil uprising, or worse.
As Wallace said, and an aghast Clinton echoed, the peaceful transfer of power from one person to the next, based solely on submission to the rule of law, is the defining characteristic of the American experiment.
4. Despite what Jeffrey Lord maintained on CNN all night long, there is no factual basis in the comparison between what Al Gore did in 2000 to what Trump explicitly left the door open for in 2016. In 2000, the election results were in doubt. The Florida secretary of state was counting the votes in one way and the Florida Supreme Court was demanding she count them another way. Eventually the Supreme Court stepped in and ordered the state court to stay out of it, and Bush was declared the winner.
Liberals thought then that this was outrageous. Many still do. Gore had won the popular vote, and the vote-counting in Florida had been halted by the U.S. Supreme Court in one of its weakest opinions ever. Even Justice Sandra Day O'Connor came to regret it. But what did Al Gore do? He accepted the verdict immediately once the justices ruled.
"While I strongly disagree with the court's position, I accept it," Gore said.
5. Finally, the reason Trump's comments _ indeed, his candidacy _ are dangerous has a lot less to do with Trump himself. He's not so special. He walked into a time and place in 2016 in which large numbers of Americans are ready for profound disruption in our political process. These voters range from folks fed up with politics-as-usual to those feeling left out of the economic recovery to those whose anger and embrace of violent rhetoric borders on nihilism. Some are the "deplorables" Clinton has spoken of. Many others are not.
But from their anger and need, Trump draws strength _ and votes. Like many demagogues before him, in this country and elsewhere, he promises to swing his sword on their behalf. But it is the people who make Trump strong, not the other way around. Like his predecessors, he leaches power.
What's horrifying about this is that Trump hasn't shown any capacity for controlling that power or in harnessing it for some purpose other than his own electoral standing.
So as he heads into Election Day 2016, he is almost certain to lose now. I believe he knows this. And along the way, he's perfectly happy to stoke that anger all the way to the end.
ABOUT THE WRITER
Michael A. Lindenberger is a columnist for the Dallas Morning News. Readers may email him at mlindenberger@dallasnews.com.
