The quote is from Macbeth, "Nothing in his life became him like the leaving of it," which refers to Cawdor's speech of pious loyalty before being executed at the gallows. Cawdor was certainly not loyal, nor pious, so they were basically saying, "He was never so righteous a man as he was right before hanging."
I think. While I love Shakespeare, it can be a challenge. That's the fun of it.
The Macbeth quote means that the confession was totally genuine and the penitence was heartfelt, to the extent that the Thane of Cawdor earned back the respect, and faced his fate with dignity. Instead of going out screaming for mercy after making a self-serving deathbed confession.
It speaks to a virtuous man admitting his sins before facing death, and earning some respect. Like a disgraced military officer retiring to the drawing room to write a suicide note in calligraphy, open a fine bottle whiskey, and clean the service revolver prior to using it. Or, as one notable “Rupert” did, walk across no man’s land brandishing an umbrella at the Hun.
In Japanese culture, the equivalent might be an excellent haiku written before committing a textbook seppuku.
It’s not just about the vanquished either; it’s also about a victor being magnanimous in victory - acknowledging the admirable features in a defeated foe. Almost all of Shakespeare does that, check the Roman ones.
Brit Hume is referring to that, I think - in that the President could’ve contested the election outcome in a far more dignified way, like his predecessors have, and won over some of his critics by either being magnanimous in victory or conceding gracefully if not.
But President Trump is seen by his critics as a totally unstable narcissist who surrounds himself with sycophants, rants about himself on Twitter, calls people patriots one day and traitors the next, ignores obvious Russian influence on Cyber attacks, weaponises the roll-out of the vaccines, and is pardoning people that nobody but Trump would’ve even considered pardoning...
Hume is begging the question, if any other world leader ever in history had acted like that after losing an election due to fraud, would history remember them for all the good they did in office or even remember the injustice against them? Even if they were justified, or did win?
History suggests, unfortunately, that they aren’t remembered well, especially when the history books are written by their enemies.
Richard III is a great proof. The king was not a hunchback, did want to improve the lives of his people, he even ordered all judges in the land to exercise their duties without fear or favour, and if he’d had more than 2 years in power he’d be one of the greats. But that’s not how people view him.