Congratulation to those who won, and lost, on Election Day

The victors are toasted and courted, their victory parties packed. People who didn’t answer their calls during the campaign are clamoring now to get onto their schedules.

But, as usual, many backers of the losers found it inconvenient to show up at election-night wakes. Defeated candidates typically are allowed a graceful departure speech, but then are expected to disappear. Hardly anyone wants to know how much in debt they are or what they think they might do with the rest of their lives.

Of course, there’s nothing new in that. But, ideally, democracy should be more. The losers deserve some consideration from the community. They provided us that precious gift, a choice, and they ought to be thanked. Then, further, some of the should be congratulated for raising important issues and making the ultimate winner accountable.

On some occasions, it happens to be the winning rival who senses this best. Take Mayor-elect Paul Schell, who lost hard in his mayor’s race 20 years ago, and after Tuesday’s election went out of his way to praise Charlie Chong and offer to consult him in the future. It would be smart politics to follow through on that offer, because Chong truly spoke for many alienated citizens. But that practicality doesn’t detract from the essentials decency of Schell’s gesture.

Sentimental twaddle? Window dressing? If so, let’s have more of it. It we want civilized campaigns, and better candidates to make themselves available, we need to cultivate better customs of politics. There is too much talk about lowering the financial costs of elections and not enough about lowering the psychological and social costs.

It’s as unrealistic and foolish for the media and voters to ignore good motives in politicians as to ignore their base motives. Both have utility. Two contrasting ways that this operates can be seen, yet both are favorable to increasing understanding and respect for politicians. Both also entail comparisons between politics and the economy.

Have you ever noticed that the political in a democracy is like the entrepreneur in a capitalist economy? Both compete to succeed and both do so in a free market. In some cases the politician starts by seeking first his own benefit, but in so doing he has to find out what his customers–the voters–want, and serve their needs. In this, his selfish “animal spirits,” as Adam Smith might have called them, advance the common good.

In the second model, the politician/entrepreneur begins with a largely altruistic attitude but in our skeptical age he may have to hide it for fear of being mocked as a probable fanatic or charlatan. In the spirit of, say, Benjamin Franklin, he has to find a selfish excuse for unselfish service. He pursues this by seeking to construct an interest boc–a customer base–among the voters to demand the policies. he wanted to advance in the first place. Trying to make altruism work on practical grounds is a tough business.

Both kinds of political economy are found in traditional American politics, but the second is the kind people most often fail to recognize for the simple reason that it doesn’t square with the prevailing cynicism. We are quite ready to believe that some supposedly upstanding politician is really motivated mainly by greed. What we find incredible is that some politicians actually are trying desperately to shore up a far-sighted and idealistic purpose with some hard-headed political support that will propel and protect it.

Most of the time, political motives are mundane, of course. In a humorous account of the joys and sorrows of political life almost 200 years ago, President John Adams described how “ministers of the state,” when removed from office are miserable and secretly ache to return. Deep down, they are motivated by what Adams termed “a passion for distinction.” They most “desire to be observed, considered, esteemed, praised, beloved, and admired by (their) fellows…”

The American Founders also sometimes described this motive as the “desire for fame.” It can be the low fame that longs to see one’s name in the papers and his face on TV, and that hopes that heads will turn when he enters a restaurant. Or, it can be the very highest fame, wherein a wise man or woman knows that nothing we do on Earth has much permanency, and we should strive to secure our reputation with the eternal judge. It’s a desire for fame that looks far beyond public opinion polls. Don’t knock or doubt this higher motive. In times of national trial, but also in the seemingly humdrum routines of school boards and town councils, it benefits us more often than we know. It is found among election losers as well as winners. That is why they, too, should be recognized for their service. Self-government is a rugged enterprise, and still a noble one, to which the losers as well as the winners contribute.