The missing art of concession in democracy

The golf term “concede,” which is commonly used when a short putt is given without requiring the stroke, has recently sparked attention. The reason: U.S. President Donald Trump, reportedly poised to receive a $400 million luxury jet from Qatar’s royal family, defended himself by saying, “If they offer you a concede, you’d be a fool not to take it.”

A passionate golfer, Trump reached for a term from his favorite sport. But he seemed to miss the core value behind it: sportsmanship. That he used the phrase to justify an extravagant gift only highlights the disconnect.

In golf, there is no strict rule about when to offer a concede. It is a gesture of respect and courtesy, meant to maintain the flow of the game. Its meaning becomes most powerful in high-stakes moments.

The 1969 Ryder Cup, a fierce contest between the United States and Europe, remains the most iconic example. In what became known as “The Concession,” American golfer Jack Nicklaus, with a win in reach, conceded a short putt to British opponent Tony Jacklin, ending the match in a tie. Nicklaus later said he didn’t want to win by luck or pressure.

Though criticized by his own team for giving away a sure victory, Nicklaus was forever remembered as a symbol of integrity. By contrast, many golfers who cling to winning at all costs often lash out, throw clubs, and disregard fellow players, drawing disapproval from fans.

Politics, like golf, requires grace and mutual respect. But Trump sees opponents not as rivals, but as enemies. Words like “concede” or “accept” have no place in his vocabulary. He continues to deny his loss in the 2020 election and is openly preparing acts of retribution against critics if he regains power. The arena where Trump truly needed to show concession was not in Doha, but in the White House and Congress. Instead, he turned those institutions into a battlefield.

A similar atmosphere is forming ahead of South Korea’s presidential election, now just five days away. The contest has descended into intense emotional conflict, raising fears of post-election turmoil. Candidates show no willingness to recognize one another’s strengths or offer political concessions. Supporters, too, seek not dialogue or balance, but total defeat of the other side. Their devotion demands not compromise, but absolute victory.

Since the unprecedented declaration of martial law, society has fractured. Small businesses stand empty, and generational divides are widening over issues like pension reform. These challenges cannot be solved by force or partisanship alone. But it’s hard for voters to imagine today’s political leaders negotiating genuine solutions.

In both Korea and the United States, the time for political “concedes” is long overdue. What began as a gesture in sport is now more urgently needed in democracy.