The third and final debate between the presidential candidates went off as expected, with each side certain that their candidate was obviously the winner, rationalizing the flaws and ridiculing the opponent’s, but for one huge distinction. As the New York Times’ headline screams:

Trump Won’t Say if He Will Accept Election Results

Instead, he will keep America in suspense. As for the suspense part, few will lose sleep wondering how this will turn out. I don’t think suspense means what he thinks it does.

There is no constitutional duty to concede. There is no law that dictates that the loser of an election give a speech, a press release, anything, congratulating the winner and, something, something, ‘Murica. Whether or not Trump “accepts” the election results isn’t, in itself, of any importance whatsoever. The results are no different if he accepts them or not. Results are results, and if he chooses to be the whiny bitch of the election, this is America and he’s totally allowed.

The concession speech is an American tradition. It’s an act of graciousness that serves to put the animosity of the campaign behind us and move forward for the sake of the nation.  The calm after the storm may not last long, but for a few moments, we rise above the partisan bickering that has served our nation so well, and so poorly, to remember why we do this at all.

The idea is that every four years, America holds a bloodless coup. It’s an astounding thing.

Granted, there is irony and wrinkly to be had in Trump’s refusal to state that he would accept the results of the election, and the pearl-clutching because of it. Since this is nothing more than a proud American tradition, and since American tradition isn’t at the top of the Democractic Party platform or dear to the progressive movement, it’s kind of adorable that they finally found one they like. And remarkably convenient that it comes 19 days before an election.

But hypocrisy swings both ways, and the fear stems from that base of support that has their guns locked and loaded, that cries of a rigged election, a rigged media, a rigged candidate given a pass on behaviors that wouldn’t entitle others to run for office but run from arrest, will give rise to an absurd possibility. Will the crazies behind Trump take up arms? Just as this sudden appreciation of tradition is disingenuous on one side, the refusal to accept perhaps our greatest tradition of a bloodless coup belies the hypocrisy of the other.

It’s not that elections don’t have irregularities, but that those irregularities don’t rise to the level of changing the result. When Bush met Gore, it was the closest it had ever come to reaching a seriously dubious outcome. There was good reason to doubt the hanging chads. Yet Al Gore showed the grace of conceding, after nine people told him to, for the sake of the nation. And because his supporters could at worst yell mean names at the opposition.

What if Trump refuses? What if Trump gets his nutjobs (and, mind you, both sides have their nutjobs, though Trump’s are better armed) all worked up about having been cheated out of their win? What if blood is shed?

There is nothing that would be more un-American. For all the crying about how American traditions violate every principle of social justice, the nation will endure. The only question is whether this campaign, already a warning shot across the bow for those who contended for years that a non-politician was the answer to a paralyzed government of liars and self-dealing scoundrels, and the other side’s policies, would destroy America, because both sides have taken their best shots and done a fairly miserable job of things.*

There is, of course, a contingency plan should things get out of hand. The military has a plan to seize control of America, if needed. Should this election not end up in a peaceful transfer of power to the candidate who wins, the generals are ready to step in and stop the bloodshed. When they will step in is another matter, but then, if they didn’t have a plan in place, we would be screaming that they should have. That, too, is an American tradition, expecting someone to always be there to supply the fix for us.

Those who are running around the media with silly grins on their face following the debate are egging on the nutjobs, reinforcing their tinfoil-covered heads filled with the belief that this is their time, this is their man, this is where they make their stand.  Ridiculing Trump and his followers may be fun to do, but it’s not very gracious either. The flip side of being a good loser is being a good winner.

Graciousness was once an American tradition as well. Neither side seems to have much feeling for it, and it’s disingenuous of Clinton supporters to ridicule Trump supporters because they’re enjoying their moment. We would certainly do far better as a nation if the Republican candidate acknowledged that, should he lose, he will accept the decision of the American people (or the electoral college, as the case may be).  We would also certainly do far better if those enjoying their moment of glory behaved in accordance with the American tradition of being gracious winners.

*Bill Clinton’s administration took a huge budget deficit and turned it around to a budget surplus. Had his administration not coincided with the birth of the world wide web, this wouldn’t have happened. He gets credit for it, but he had nothing to do with it. He can’t help it if he’s lucky. Hillary is unlikely to enjoy the same good fortune.