LeftyElephant.com is now up and running! Check it out for new contributors, new posts, and other material.
-Lefty
Thursday, August 13, 2009
Friday, June 26, 2009
Sex Scandals
Well, the who-is-going-to-be-the-next-face-of-the-Republican-party-game just became a little bit easier. Hint: it probably wont be Mark Sanford. That much is obvious, but the point that politicians seem to continually miss is exactly why that is the case.
Its easy to point to Sanford, a conservative Republican governor from South Carolina, and say that his current political firestorm is the product of his affair with a divorcee from Argentina. But that’s not what the problem is. People can accept and forgive transgressions, but the real mistake that Sanford made, and the one that is unforgiveable, is the hypocrisy of his actions.
Many nodes of the Republican party (though not all) have taken their typical posture in response to this kind of scandal. Talk radio has condemned his actions, but at the same time it has railed that the “liberal press” has provided a biased coverage of the story. Many say that a Democrat wouldn’t receive the same level of criticism, and that Sanford, while in the wrong, should be treated the same as anyone else. But if you ask me, I don’t think he should be treated the same at all.
Republicans always have, and forever should, be held to a higher standard and be subject to increased scrutiny with respect to moral and ethical transgressions. That’s just what happens when you develop a platform that entails gaining the moral high ground. We espouse family values, quote scripture, and carve out a political identify steep in conservative ideals. The end result of these ideological choices is that we are judged by the high standards that we ourselves create, and when our actions come into conflict with our ideals, we end up as little more than run of the mill hypocrites and liars.
The comparison has readily been made between John Edwards and Mark Sanford. Who has been treated more harshly? Has the media spewed more venom out towards Sanford by comparison? I find both of their actions despicable, and would not dare to defend either. But, I would argue that Sanford’s political identity would justify increased criticism relative to Edwards. Sanford stood for a return to family values, faith-infused governance, and fiscal responsibility. Compare that to his actions: he had a prolonged affair with a divorced mistress in Argentina, lied to his staffers, constituents, and family about it, and used state funds to secure his travel arrangements (although he does plan to reimburse the state). By contrast, Edwards was also a liar and an adulterer, but none of those things strike at the core of what he represents. He gained a following based on support for unions, lawsuits, and expensive haircuts.
To a large extent, how our actions are judged is self-determined. Transgressions are viewed against the backdrop of our proclaimed values and within the context of the reputations that we accrue over the course of our lifetime. Dissonance between our actions and those two factors is what people disdain, much more so than the actions themselves. And this disdain is not party-specific.
Democrats caught in similar levels of hypocrisy have largely received equal, if not more criticism than their Republican colleagues. Take for example Elliott Spitzer. His use of a prostitution service, which ran in direct contradiction with his tough on crime persona, was the most prominent political story in the news for a significant period of time. His political career was torn to the ground, and his base of support almost entirely lost. Spitzer was not a Republican, but like many Republicans who have received similar criticism for unethical behavior, he shared in their hypocrisy, and therefore received the same backhand of public reprimand.
In general, Democrats have received less criticism for ethical scandals because their party’s more liberal demeanor leaves room for personal choice, privacy, and understanding. You can’t really criticize a congressman for his own wrong choices when he is inclined to allow legalized marijuana, gay marriage, and a fundamental right to privacy. I mean, Clinton may have had an affair, but its not like his political beliefs exacerbated the problem. This was the same president who instituted the military’s don’t ask, don’t tell policy.
We Republicans need to stop viewing these scandals as opportunities to criticize the press in order to rally the right-winged base. Because guess what? Criticizing the press isn’t going to bring you more favorable coverage, and I don’t necessarily think that the right-wing needs a whole lot more shoring up. Last I checked, they were pretty firmly locked into the party.
What the party needs to do is to realize that the extreme reaction to these scandals is the price you pay when you have a moral-based consciousness and you violate it. You have to grow up and just deal with that. And in the meantime, maybe the party should learn to soften its tone towards those who don’t always share its conservative ideology, because it seems that the party’s figureheads themselves sometimes fail to share it as well.
Its easy to point to Sanford, a conservative Republican governor from South Carolina, and say that his current political firestorm is the product of his affair with a divorcee from Argentina. But that’s not what the problem is. People can accept and forgive transgressions, but the real mistake that Sanford made, and the one that is unforgiveable, is the hypocrisy of his actions.
Many nodes of the Republican party (though not all) have taken their typical posture in response to this kind of scandal. Talk radio has condemned his actions, but at the same time it has railed that the “liberal press” has provided a biased coverage of the story. Many say that a Democrat wouldn’t receive the same level of criticism, and that Sanford, while in the wrong, should be treated the same as anyone else. But if you ask me, I don’t think he should be treated the same at all.
Republicans always have, and forever should, be held to a higher standard and be subject to increased scrutiny with respect to moral and ethical transgressions. That’s just what happens when you develop a platform that entails gaining the moral high ground. We espouse family values, quote scripture, and carve out a political identify steep in conservative ideals. The end result of these ideological choices is that we are judged by the high standards that we ourselves create, and when our actions come into conflict with our ideals, we end up as little more than run of the mill hypocrites and liars.
The comparison has readily been made between John Edwards and Mark Sanford. Who has been treated more harshly? Has the media spewed more venom out towards Sanford by comparison? I find both of their actions despicable, and would not dare to defend either. But, I would argue that Sanford’s political identity would justify increased criticism relative to Edwards. Sanford stood for a return to family values, faith-infused governance, and fiscal responsibility. Compare that to his actions: he had a prolonged affair with a divorced mistress in Argentina, lied to his staffers, constituents, and family about it, and used state funds to secure his travel arrangements (although he does plan to reimburse the state). By contrast, Edwards was also a liar and an adulterer, but none of those things strike at the core of what he represents. He gained a following based on support for unions, lawsuits, and expensive haircuts.
To a large extent, how our actions are judged is self-determined. Transgressions are viewed against the backdrop of our proclaimed values and within the context of the reputations that we accrue over the course of our lifetime. Dissonance between our actions and those two factors is what people disdain, much more so than the actions themselves. And this disdain is not party-specific.
Democrats caught in similar levels of hypocrisy have largely received equal, if not more criticism than their Republican colleagues. Take for example Elliott Spitzer. His use of a prostitution service, which ran in direct contradiction with his tough on crime persona, was the most prominent political story in the news for a significant period of time. His political career was torn to the ground, and his base of support almost entirely lost. Spitzer was not a Republican, but like many Republicans who have received similar criticism for unethical behavior, he shared in their hypocrisy, and therefore received the same backhand of public reprimand.
In general, Democrats have received less criticism for ethical scandals because their party’s more liberal demeanor leaves room for personal choice, privacy, and understanding. You can’t really criticize a congressman for his own wrong choices when he is inclined to allow legalized marijuana, gay marriage, and a fundamental right to privacy. I mean, Clinton may have had an affair, but its not like his political beliefs exacerbated the problem. This was the same president who instituted the military’s don’t ask, don’t tell policy.
We Republicans need to stop viewing these scandals as opportunities to criticize the press in order to rally the right-winged base. Because guess what? Criticizing the press isn’t going to bring you more favorable coverage, and I don’t necessarily think that the right-wing needs a whole lot more shoring up. Last I checked, they were pretty firmly locked into the party.
What the party needs to do is to realize that the extreme reaction to these scandals is the price you pay when you have a moral-based consciousness and you violate it. You have to grow up and just deal with that. And in the meantime, maybe the party should learn to soften its tone towards those who don’t always share its conservative ideology, because it seems that the party’s figureheads themselves sometimes fail to share it as well.
Update From Previous Post: "Precedents"
The Supreme Court ruled yesterday, by an overwhelming margin of 8-1, that Arizona school officials had violated the rights of thirteen year old Savana Redding when they performed a strip search as a result of accusations that she possessed ibuprofen. Schools have previously been given significant latitude in student searches, with prior rulings specifically allowing backpack and locker searches, but the justices called the use of a strip search a “quantum leap” by Arizona educators in their ability to search students. The justices also questioned whether there “was any indication of danger to the students from the power of the drugs or their quantity, and any reason to suppose that Savana was carrying pills in her underwear”.
The decision, decisive in nature, was exactly correct, for many of the reasons that I had previously outlined in my original post on the subject, and I am extremely glad that the justices reached the decision that they made. The full case opinion can be read here:
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/08pdf/08-479.pdf
The decision, decisive in nature, was exactly correct, for many of the reasons that I had previously outlined in my original post on the subject, and I am extremely glad that the justices reached the decision that they made. The full case opinion can be read here:
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/08pdf/08-479.pdf
Saturday, May 9, 2009
Not So Black And White
This past week, the Metro section of the Washington Post contained an interesting, although slightly uneducated, editorial by a staff columnist named Courtland Milloy. The article, creatively entitled “A Law That Tears Black Families Apart”, discussed the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986, and, as most articles on the topic do, it suggested that the resulting laws (specifically, the fact that possession of 5 grams of crack cocaine carries a mandatory 5 year prison sentence…the same as possession of 500 grams of powder cocaine) were inherently racist.
Milloy compared the mandatory prison terms, which admittedly do disproportionately impact African Americans, to the Black Codes of the late 1800s (laws that allowed for “arbitrary imprisonment to limit the movement of newly freed slaves”). Additionally, Milloy offered a quote by Ben Jealous, president of the NAACP, which argued that “If you want to know why black children are overrepresented in foster care at four times the rate of the national population, then look no further than the mass incarceration of black people”.
But, what if you did look further than just that?
Incarceration rates are one aspect of the problem, but they are just one of the many challenges facing an African American community that is also subject to ridiculously high rates of single-parent families, a lack of emphasis on educational achievement, and a significant exposure to violent crime. To say that incarceration rates are the single factor behind the problem displays a lack of depth in understanding the problem. Much the same way that it shows a similar lack of understanding to suggest that the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986 was racist.
The New York Times best-selling book “Freakonomics” explores the ADA Act of 1986 in significant detail, and what it illustrates is that the motivation behind its enactment was not in any way racist. Instead, it was designed to address the massive public health and safety concerns that arose from the creation of crack cocaine.
Prior to the invention of crack, cocaine had made few, if any, inroads into poorer, predominately African American neighborhoods because it was too expensive. But crack allowed dealers to develop a product that required much less pure cocaine input, and therefore allowed a drug that could be sold at market for only a few dollars per hit. Also, a second benefit of this new drug was that it reached neural pathways within seconds, and was therefore highly addictive. These two factors made crack highly marketable in poorer communities, and the impact of this was by no means small.
Prior to the 1960s, there had been ample evidence to suggest that the African American community had been making real societal progress, eliminating disparities that had existed largely due to previous race-based policies. With the help of civil rights legislation, “the black-white income gap was shrinking…so was the gap between black children’s test sores and those of white children…(and) perhaps the most heartening gain had been in infant mortality.” Within just seven years of hospital desegregation, “the black infant mortality rate had been cut in half.” According to Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner, the two authors of Freakonomics, “by the 1980s, virtually every facet of life was improving for black Americans, and the progress showed no sign of stopping…Then came crack cocaine.”
As crack began to take hold of poorer African American communities, those previous signs of societal progress began to reverse themselves. Infant mortality began a steep rise once again, along with the rate of low-birthweight babies and the rates of “parent abandonment”. “The gap between black and white schoolchildren widened. The number of blacks sent to prison tripled…(and) within a five-year period, the homicide rate among young urban blacks quadrupled”.
Crack cocaine’s success also provided a consistent revenue stream for street gangs that had previously not been able to support large memberships. With a new, reliable source of income to support their activities, these gangs grew in both numbers and in violence.
In the words of Levitt and Dubner, “Black Americans were more hurt by crack cocaine than by any other single cause since Jim Crow”.
And so, the ADA Act of 1986 was enacted not to punish African American communities, but rather to protect them and to try to bring back the positive trends of societal progress that had been erased by the crack cocaine phenomenon. But, instead of uniting behind the need to reduce the use and impact of crack, African American communities have united behind the idea that anti-crack legislation has been disproportionately directed at their communities.
Well, guess what? That’s probably because the impact of crack itself has been disproportionately directed at those communities.
Crack cocaine warranted a different treatment than powder cocaine because its societal impact was so far and away greater. Simply put, there was a much more dire need to curb the influence of crack than of its powder form. To have created equal laws for the two drugs would have been to pass uniformed legislation that was designed solely to punish the use of drugs, which isn’t what the government was after at all. It was concerned with their use, but much more with their overall impact.
What the ADA Act of 1986 represented was a precise isolation of enforcement against the most serious drugs in terms of aggregate effect. And, inevitably, this mentality also meant that enforcement was bound to be more visible in black communities. But, this didn’t have to do with racism so much as it had to do with the fact that evidence pointed to those communities as being the most riddled by the crack problem. In a society where there is a finite amount of funds, and therefore a limited number of problems that can be focused on at any given time, the fact of the matter is that law enforcement directed its attention to the focal point of the problem. That focal point just happened to be black.
Granted, the success of harsh anti-drug policies is far from clear. And, in many ways, America’s war on drugs has done more harm than good. It has created a heavy taxpayer burden by raising incarceration rates, and it has largely empowered violent groups such as gangs and drug cartels (look no further than neighboring Mexico for evidence of what happens when these groups get money and power). So, to have a debate about America’s current drug policies is entirely justified and in many ways necessary; but to suggest that their purpose is discriminatory is ridiculous and naïve.
If the African American community wants to make true societal gains, then it needs to claim responsibility and to set aside blame. The Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986 is not the cause for there being so many African American foster children. It may or may not have helped alleviate the prominence of drug addiction the way that it had intended to, but its intent was correct and well placed. If anything, it was a piece of legislation that was driven by concern for the African American community much more so than disdain for it.
Sunday, May 3, 2009
Flu Season
I should probably preface this entry by stating the obvious: If I end up dying from Swine Flu, this posting is going to make me look pretty stupid. There. That’s done. So now, let me state the second fact that I think is pretty obvious: The amount of effort and emphasis being directed towards Swine Flu is pretty excessive.
I am not looking to downplay the significance of any of the deaths caused by the flu. Needless to say, a death is tragic. But, at the end of the day, Swine Flu (or H1N1 Flu, if you are sensitive to corporate complaints about the more popular naming) is not a whole lot more than a regional tragedy that has spread into a global nuisance.
As of 11am EST this morning, the amount of confirmed cases in the United States numbered only 226, while the total number of deaths in the U.S. amounted to just 1. Furthermore, the actual impact of the disease in Mexico City seems to have potentially been overstated as well. Although it was originally estimated that Swine Flu had caused as many as 103 deaths in Mexico, some experts now believe that the number of deaths directly caused by the flu might be as few as 17 (according to an AP article released yesterday). In general, the disease has amounted to little more than one really painful and obnoxious case of the flu.
Just for some perspective, the amount of deaths attributable, in the United States alone, to automobile accidents in 2008 was 5,115 (Just over 14 per day), the amount attributable to cancer totaled 565,650 (1,549 per day), and heart disease, the leading cause of death in the United States last year, claimed 724,269 victims (1,984 per day). In the state of Texas, where the one death from Swine Flu occurred, an average of 2 people die per year from venomous snake bites, giving snakes twice the death toll than that of Swine Flu.
I understand that the real story regarding H1N1 is not the damage that it has already done, but rather the unpredictability regarding the damage that it might eventually do. Or, in other words, we are basically acting out of fear of another Flu of 1918.
The flu of 1918 claimed somewhere between 50 and 100 million people (coming in the middle of World War I, more soldiers died from the flu than from combat), and it infected nearly one third of the global population, according to the CDC. And so, with statistics like that, it makes sense that organizations such as the WHO and the CDC are concerned. But, the problem is that there just isn’t the evidence to suggest that the current H1N1 outbreak will have an impact even remotely as great as the 1918 influenza. The fact is that the current fears are largely unsubstantiated, and that they detract from stories of real value.
The truth is that the single largest current event story IS in Mexico, but it has nothing to do with the Flu. It is the government’s war with the drug cartels. It’s a war that has claimed not hundreds, but thousands of lives. It includes grizzly beheadings of police officers and governmental soldiers. It contains infectious corruption throughout the host government, and shows every single sign possible of spreading across into our borders in full force.
Both the drugs funding these cartels and the guns arming them almost entirely originate from the United States. The estimated gross receipts from drug sales of these cartels exceeds the annual defense budget of the central government, and the bloody battles between government and cartel are largely occurring just miles away from an unsecured border along the southwestern United States.
So, the most dangerous export from Mexico these days probably has nothing to do with Swine or with the Flu. We would be much better served by focusing our attention on issues such as gun control, border security, and drug enforcement. I can guarantee that those issues will have a real impact on the future of our country, and I really can’t say the same about this whole Swine Flu story at all.
Then again, maybe I’ll be death number two from the Flu. Who knows.
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
A Parental Role
This past week an interesting punishment was enforced against a group of soccer moms and dads in Maryland. After a post-game altercation with a referee that was described by league officials as being “nothing less than egregious”, parents of 13-year-old girls Bethesda’s legacy soccer team were told by league officials that they would be forced to remain at least one hundred yards away from the playing field for the team’s next two games. And so, when the team took the field this Sunday, the girl’s parents were forced to watch from a hill, over a hundred yards into the distance, and with binoculars.
Personally, and as someone who has grown up heavily involved in community and school-related sporting leagues, I could not be any happier with the league’s decision, because I think that it is indicative of the kind of harsh punishment that needs to be handed down in order to rein-in out of control parent behavior at youth sporting events.
By any interpretation, parents have become too significant a component of youth sports. Visit any playing field and what you see is parents belittling their own children, ostracizing referees for missed calls (referees that much of the time are teenage volunteers), and creating conflict with coaches. What these parents achieve through these actions is not displaying support for their children, but instead they draw the focus away from the athletes and onto themselves. Furthermore, it is often the children that are punished for the actions of their parents. I was a member of several all-star teams in soccer, and I can remember that some players didn’t make the team not because they lacked talent, but because their parents had reputations for being headaches on the sidelines. When teams travel together for months, spending weekends at tournaments together, parent chemistry does become a contributing factor in the selection process. And so, it is the kid that is left to pay for what their parent does.
What parents need to be are facilitators and spectators. They need to provide support emotionally, financially, and transportationally for their children. They need to understand that these sports are not about them. They cannot relive and make up for their failings when they were kids, they cannot change a referee’s mind by calling them an idiot, and when they complain about their child’s playing time they need to understand that they only make the situation worse. They need to shut up, sit down, and just watch the games, while maybe letting out the occasional “Go (insert child’s name)!” cheer. Nothing more.
I’ve been there, and anything more than that is not just unwanted, but it’s flat out embarrassing.
I think that leagues should take a more proactive approach. Parents should be forced to miss games and/or pay fines. Because don’t parents always say how great sports are at teaching kids responsibility and maturity? Well, maybe it’s time that sports did that for the parents themselves.
Personally, and as someone who has grown up heavily involved in community and school-related sporting leagues, I could not be any happier with the league’s decision, because I think that it is indicative of the kind of harsh punishment that needs to be handed down in order to rein-in out of control parent behavior at youth sporting events.
By any interpretation, parents have become too significant a component of youth sports. Visit any playing field and what you see is parents belittling their own children, ostracizing referees for missed calls (referees that much of the time are teenage volunteers), and creating conflict with coaches. What these parents achieve through these actions is not displaying support for their children, but instead they draw the focus away from the athletes and onto themselves. Furthermore, it is often the children that are punished for the actions of their parents. I was a member of several all-star teams in soccer, and I can remember that some players didn’t make the team not because they lacked talent, but because their parents had reputations for being headaches on the sidelines. When teams travel together for months, spending weekends at tournaments together, parent chemistry does become a contributing factor in the selection process. And so, it is the kid that is left to pay for what their parent does.
What parents need to be are facilitators and spectators. They need to provide support emotionally, financially, and transportationally for their children. They need to understand that these sports are not about them. They cannot relive and make up for their failings when they were kids, they cannot change a referee’s mind by calling them an idiot, and when they complain about their child’s playing time they need to understand that they only make the situation worse. They need to shut up, sit down, and just watch the games, while maybe letting out the occasional “Go (insert child’s name)!” cheer. Nothing more.
I’ve been there, and anything more than that is not just unwanted, but it’s flat out embarrassing.
I think that leagues should take a more proactive approach. Parents should be forced to miss games and/or pay fines. Because don’t parents always say how great sports are at teaching kids responsibility and maturity? Well, maybe it’s time that sports did that for the parents themselves.
Sunday, April 5, 2009
Not A Closed Debate Apparently
Earlier this week the University of Maryland become engrossed in controversy when it was made public that the student-run Hoff theatre had made plans to show a pornographic film. Coverage of the issue quickly extended outside of the confines of College Park, and was reported as far away as in Australia. In response, the Maryland state legislature, and specifically state Senator Andrew P. Harris (R-Baltimore Country) eluded to potentially withdrawing funding from the University if it allowed the film to be screened. The University withdrew support from the screening, and so the Hoff cancelled the event.
The issue seemed over and done with, and even though the topic involved my former school, I didn’t sense much of a lingering story over which to generate a discussion or a blog posting. But, I guess that I underestimated the College Park student body.
Just today the Washington Post ran an article reporting that several student groups have come together to sponsor a showing of the film tomorrow night. The showing will be prefaced by a series of speakers discussing freedom of speech, and these groups explained that the entire program is “not about porn at all…The content doesn’t matter. It’s the precedent of a legislator pulling funding for an entire university based on an issue of morality”. In response, Senator Harris is by no means backing down. Instead, he has reiterated his threat that any showing of the film on the college campus would lead to the potential for a significant reduction in funding for the school.
My initial response to this story was that the school was entirely correct for canceling the showing. In my opinion, the University stands as a symbol and source of higher education. It should promote personal development and academic achievement. I viewed the showing of this film as being separate from and damaging to that objective. However, I am now not so sure that it is.
My anger is now mostly directed towards a state legislature that has for far too long over-politicized academia, and that now seeks to use the threat of reduced funding as a means to force its will upon a student body that has benefited little from the state. Collegiate students pay exorbitant tuitions that have risen precipitously in recent years, are forced to buy textbooks that can easily cost over three or four hundred dollars per semester, and all the while we have watched state funding dwindle. The University has been forced to use strategic employee furloughs to reduce annual expenditures, and revenues have had to be increased through raising tuition, housing, and even parking violations. In total, state funding for the University, although still substantial, now comprises less than half of the total funding for the school. Instead, private donations have arisen as the key source of capital, which has created large disparities in operating budgets between flagship programs (Robert H. Smith School of Business, A. James Clark School of Engineering) and lesser-recognized departments such as English and the various other humanities.
So, it seems at the very least to be unfair, and at the very most offensive that the state might now hold what sources of funding remain for the sake of dictating school policy. Instead, the issue should be left to the campus itself to adjudicate. A dialogue should have been initiated in order to assess student sentiment towards the idea of a pornographic screening, and the student body itself should have made the decision. In my opinion, I would venture to guess that such a dialogue might have produced an end result that would have surprised many outsiders. The social, political, and religious groups (many of which, such as the group “Feminism Without Borders”, now support the showing of the film as an exercise in freedom of speech) would have provided a significant coalition against the showing of such material. But, truth be told, what if it had been shown? What would the real harm have been? That we might have exposed college-aged students porn for the first time…
For the record, the Hoff theatre is entirely student-funded. It relies on specifically allocated “student activity fees” that are taken from a student’s annual tuition. And so, as owners and operators of the student union, these are the stakeholders with whom the decision should lay. I for one would vote against it, but I would by no means have held it against those with differing opinions.
I have lived on a college campus and there are a whole myriad of issues that need to be addressed. There is unsafe sex, drug use, violence, and whatever else you can think of. Academic programs are under-funded and resources seem to be allocated in much greater amounts towards buildings as opposed to the development of lessons and teachers that actually contribute to a students learning experience. And all the while, amidst what I see as a flawed academic fiber within American society, I find it disheartening that school funding is discussed only when there is an election on the horizon or a porno scheduled at the Hoff.
The porn industry will get ready its inventory due to an increase in publicity, Senator Harris will get ready his speech for a Tuesday televised press conference, and the students of College park will get ready their popcorn because Monday night is movie night.
Dissecting Denver
In many ways, trades are the pinnacle of professional sports. Whether excitement or disgust, anger or pure bliss, each player transaction inevitably invokes an emotional response from nearly each and every fan. We despise those players leaving the teams for which we have some vested interest, and we forgive any and all transgressions of those players that our teams acquire; focusing only on the future (which we proclaim is significantly brighter now that we have landed a gem). But when trades happen, more than anything, we prognosticate winners and losers. Who got the better end of the deal? Who was left high and dry? And while we cannot, and typically do not, foresee all of the future ripple effects that might answer this question appropriately (i.e. It doesn’t look good to trade Herschel Walker, but it looks a whole lot better when you consider that the received draft picks translated into Emmitt Smith and Darren Woodson), it is an age old tradition that one cannot help but participate in. Because let’s face it, it’s just plain fun.
So, with that said, who exactly won in this past week’s debacle in Denver? Jay Cutler, the Chicago Bears, or the Denver Broncos?
First, one has to consider the underlying factors of the fallout itself. And in order to do this, you have to really define the relationship between a football franchise and its quarterback. This position is likely the most glorified of all in American sports, and so it is not equal to relationships held between an organization and its other players, however good they might be. Rather, it is kind of like a romantic relationship between husband and wife (in fact, it’s a whole lot like that).
A quarterback needs to be established as “the man” through firm statements by the coach, general manager, and owner that he is the “franchise quarterback” (kind of like when you tell a girl that you want to go steady). They are drawn to contracts that promise big dollars upfront through signing bonuses and guaranteed payouts (the size of the bonus and guarantees signify the seriousness of commitment the same way that girls view the size of an engagement ring). And organizations will take more time scouting, analyzing, and breaking down quarterback prospects than they do any other position (think about how thoroughly you consider friends as opposed to girlfriends). Owners are overwhelmingly influenced by their fans’ opinions of QBs (parents have a similar effect with potential suitors) and coaches are always blinded and swayed by the big arm (insert any of a variety of particular body parts on the female anatomy that guys will let outweigh all other obvious flaws in a girl).
When you step back and view the interactions between QB and organization the same as those between husband and wife, it is completely understandable why Jay Cutler felt that he needed out of Denver. Coach Josh McDaniels’ attempts to acquire Matt Cassel were akin to a married man going onto e-Harmony to “just see what is out there”. It doesn’t work. And then to lie about it? No wife is going to put up with that.
Now this is not to say that Cutler’s reaction was completely correct. When wives and girlfriends (or even boyfriend and husbands for that matter) react towards romantic issues, these reactions are almost anything BUT rationale. They are driven by emotion, and so we become easily susceptible to overreaction. Truthfully, Cutler needed to relax, gain some perspective, consult outside sources (because friends are typically the only ones able to provide even a semblance of objectivity) and to work things out. However, he is young and ignorant and he just couldn’t find it in himself to set aside pride and ego. Neither could McDaniels, who is also young and ignorant and prideful and egotistical. In the end, this was two high school sweethearts who found themselves far into the deep end of marriage and unable to rely on maturity to work the problem out.
I for one actually think that the Broncos handled the situation correctly once they realized the depth of Cutler’s anger. He had been cheated on, and however much he might have said he could let it go, he never was going to. You never forget betrayal, and the past will never escape her mind when she sees you even glancing at another girl. The relationship is dead, and the divorce, whether you realize it or not, has already begun. And so the Broncos realized it and did what you have to do when it’s time to separate: they got the hell out of there. Did they get complete equal value back? Were the assets split 50/50, the visitation rights optimal, and all of the other potential gains realized? Definitely not. But what they got was freedom, and that has to be the end goal when you realize it’s just not working out. They passed on an ugly court process, the blame game, in-laws fighting, friends picking sides, and children in need of therapy. They forfeited a little bit of what they might have been owed, but instead got immediate freedom and a chance to hit the dating circuit and find the next Mrs. Denver Bronco as soon as possible.
I think that both sides have the opportunity to learn from the whole situation, because most people grow from relationship to relationship. You date in middle school and high school not because you are likely to find your life-long partner (although some do), but mostly because you have to fall on your face a few times before you can get it right. Being a good significant other is a learning process that for most people has a pretty steep curve. Even though we all inevitably pick sides in the aftermath, there doesn’t always have to be someone to blame for a relationship just not working out. So long as both man and woman, and in this case Cutler and McDaniels, learn where they can improve and how they can do it better next time. And most of us will make those adjustments.
The Chicago Bears seem to be willing to give Cutler the kind of attention that he is looking for in a mate, and the draft picks returned to the Broncos will give McDaniels the necessary ammunition to bring in more of those young collegiates that he has shown a preference for. In the end both sides can win if they learn, and there is no reason why other potential suitors should be afraid to date these two if they each show a certain degree of self-reflection with regards to the whole process. If they can do that, then Cutler is unlikely to be so hyper-sensitive (or at least to do it so publicly) in the future, and Josh McDaniels will probably be much more conscience of the relationship he develops with his next quarterback.
As Jay Cutler said in his press conference yesterday, “I think that there are some things that each side would do differently”.
So, with that said, who exactly won in this past week’s debacle in Denver? Jay Cutler, the Chicago Bears, or the Denver Broncos?
First, one has to consider the underlying factors of the fallout itself. And in order to do this, you have to really define the relationship between a football franchise and its quarterback. This position is likely the most glorified of all in American sports, and so it is not equal to relationships held between an organization and its other players, however good they might be. Rather, it is kind of like a romantic relationship between husband and wife (in fact, it’s a whole lot like that).
A quarterback needs to be established as “the man” through firm statements by the coach, general manager, and owner that he is the “franchise quarterback” (kind of like when you tell a girl that you want to go steady). They are drawn to contracts that promise big dollars upfront through signing bonuses and guaranteed payouts (the size of the bonus and guarantees signify the seriousness of commitment the same way that girls view the size of an engagement ring). And organizations will take more time scouting, analyzing, and breaking down quarterback prospects than they do any other position (think about how thoroughly you consider friends as opposed to girlfriends). Owners are overwhelmingly influenced by their fans’ opinions of QBs (parents have a similar effect with potential suitors) and coaches are always blinded and swayed by the big arm (insert any of a variety of particular body parts on the female anatomy that guys will let outweigh all other obvious flaws in a girl).
When you step back and view the interactions between QB and organization the same as those between husband and wife, it is completely understandable why Jay Cutler felt that he needed out of Denver. Coach Josh McDaniels’ attempts to acquire Matt Cassel were akin to a married man going onto e-Harmony to “just see what is out there”. It doesn’t work. And then to lie about it? No wife is going to put up with that.
Now this is not to say that Cutler’s reaction was completely correct. When wives and girlfriends (or even boyfriend and husbands for that matter) react towards romantic issues, these reactions are almost anything BUT rationale. They are driven by emotion, and so we become easily susceptible to overreaction. Truthfully, Cutler needed to relax, gain some perspective, consult outside sources (because friends are typically the only ones able to provide even a semblance of objectivity) and to work things out. However, he is young and ignorant and he just couldn’t find it in himself to set aside pride and ego. Neither could McDaniels, who is also young and ignorant and prideful and egotistical. In the end, this was two high school sweethearts who found themselves far into the deep end of marriage and unable to rely on maturity to work the problem out.
I for one actually think that the Broncos handled the situation correctly once they realized the depth of Cutler’s anger. He had been cheated on, and however much he might have said he could let it go, he never was going to. You never forget betrayal, and the past will never escape her mind when she sees you even glancing at another girl. The relationship is dead, and the divorce, whether you realize it or not, has already begun. And so the Broncos realized it and did what you have to do when it’s time to separate: they got the hell out of there. Did they get complete equal value back? Were the assets split 50/50, the visitation rights optimal, and all of the other potential gains realized? Definitely not. But what they got was freedom, and that has to be the end goal when you realize it’s just not working out. They passed on an ugly court process, the blame game, in-laws fighting, friends picking sides, and children in need of therapy. They forfeited a little bit of what they might have been owed, but instead got immediate freedom and a chance to hit the dating circuit and find the next Mrs. Denver Bronco as soon as possible.
I think that both sides have the opportunity to learn from the whole situation, because most people grow from relationship to relationship. You date in middle school and high school not because you are likely to find your life-long partner (although some do), but mostly because you have to fall on your face a few times before you can get it right. Being a good significant other is a learning process that for most people has a pretty steep curve. Even though we all inevitably pick sides in the aftermath, there doesn’t always have to be someone to blame for a relationship just not working out. So long as both man and woman, and in this case Cutler and McDaniels, learn where they can improve and how they can do it better next time. And most of us will make those adjustments.
The Chicago Bears seem to be willing to give Cutler the kind of attention that he is looking for in a mate, and the draft picks returned to the Broncos will give McDaniels the necessary ammunition to bring in more of those young collegiates that he has shown a preference for. In the end both sides can win if they learn, and there is no reason why other potential suitors should be afraid to date these two if they each show a certain degree of self-reflection with regards to the whole process. If they can do that, then Cutler is unlikely to be so hyper-sensitive (or at least to do it so publicly) in the future, and Josh McDaniels will probably be much more conscience of the relationship he develops with his next quarterback.
As Jay Cutler said in his press conference yesterday, “I think that there are some things that each side would do differently”.
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Precedents
On April 21st, the United States Supreme Court will hear its first major case involving school searches based on individual suspicion since its 1985 decision to allow warrantless searches of student’s purses. Not surprisingly, the case in question originates from California’s infamous Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which has long served as a consistent provider of controversial decisions. However, what might be surprising in this case is how uncontroversial their original finding in fact was, and yet that this in no way assures that the Supreme Court will arrive at the correct conclusion once it is presented with the case.
Our legal system is built upon a foundation of common law, which simply put means that we care a whole lot about precedents. Past decisions create legal frameworks within which our system operates, and therefore each ruling informs and in many ways dictates future rulings involving similar fact patterns. By operating in such a manner, we create order and stability through sacrificing a certain element of subjectivity. In certain instances, justice is compromised in the case at hand so as to create a precedent that might deliver the most justice in aggregate (i.e. Think about when evidence is thrown out due to illegal search and seizures. This does not help to assure that the criminal in a particular case is brought to justice, but it instead works towards protecting society as a whole against violations of privacy and private property).
But, unfortunately, in sacrificing justice on a case-by-case basis, the legal system loses an element of credibility with the general public. Much the same way that students lack trust in a teacher who is simply an “academic” without real-world experience, or an athlete pays less attention to a coach without “game experience” of his own, legal professionals and institutions fall prey to occasionally seeming disconnected from the practical application of their study. Rather than produce the result best suited for a particular case, they prognosticate and predict what will most assuredly advance us as a society. They become concerned more with theory than application, much like a career academic.
I say all of this in order to preface my feelings and fears with respect to the case that will be presented to the Supreme Court next month. Because, in this case, justice cannot be delivered by an academic with a theory and a book full of precedents, but it instead must be viewed through the lens of a regular human being, someone unafraid to bring justice today without concern for a ripple effect into tomorrow.
In this case a 13 year old student, Savana Redding (now 19), was accused by a fellow student of having had prescription-strength ibuprofen pills at school. As a result, and in an attempt to enforce a strict anti-drug policy, two female school officials conducted a strip search of the student. They forced her to undress down to her underwear, and then to expose her chest and her genitals in order to search for pills that she might have hidden. They found no pills, and Savana Redding never again attended the school. After months of humiliation and unwillingness to go back, she transferred.
The case becomes even more fascinating when you consider both Savana Redding herself and the school’s response to the entire incident. For Savana’s part, she had no prior disciplinary record at all. No accusations of misconduct and no history of misbehavior. For the school’s part, administration officials seemed to not only disregard this as unimportant, but saw the mention of Savana’s clean record as an opportunity to try to tarnish her character.
First, school officials claimed that Savana and other students had been “unusually rowdy” at a school dance and members of the staff suspected alcohol use (right…because it is completely absurd that a 13 year old might be somewhat “rowdy” with friends at a dance, and also because such information is entirely relevant to a subsequent strip search…).
Second, officials claimed that a student informed them Ms. Redding had served alcohol at a party at her house before the dance, but they failed to mention the accuser by name (and I think we should obviously assume that the accusation is credible, kind of like the accusation that was made about Savana having drugs at school that proved so completely correct).
Third, with regards to Savana’s lack of a prior disciplinary record, school officials actually argued that “Her assertion should not be misread to infer that she never broke school rules, only that she was never caught” (Actual quote!)
And lastly, school officials stated that their search was “not excessively intrusive in light of Redding’s age and sex and the nature of her infraction”.
Legal pundits have argued that the core of this case rests on the question of whether or not we should expand or contract the ability of schools to proactively combat drug use and misconduct. To this point, many legal experts suggest that the Supreme Court tread lightly here, and not create a precedent that enables students and parents to “seek monetary damages against educators in such school-specific matters where reasonable people can disagree about what is appropriate under the circumstances” (Rich Arum, NYU). But, the obvious shortcoming of such concerns is that there can be no question about whether or not the actions taken by the school were appropriate, because they just weren’t. They were humiliating, degrading, disgusting, and reprehensible. What the school did was exactly the kind of behavior that our legal system has been designed to reprimand, and that it should be principally concerned with.
I am by no means a raging liberal who agrees in a right to privacy above all else. I believe in protecting people and in ensuring safety and security in a broad social context, which is exactly what the school claims that it was trying to do in this case. But the problem here is that the school did the exact opposite. The emotional damage done to this one student far exceeded any potential benefit that might have been gained even if the school had found her to be in possession of two Advil. In choosing between having a society where a teenager is at risk of exposure to recreational drugs or periodic strip searches by adults, I’ll take the risk associated with the Advil every time. Most parents have some vague idea of how to discuss drugs with their children, but where do you start when your kid tells you they were stripped naked and searched for drugs by a teacher?
There is no knowing what the Supreme Court will decide in this case, and I would be inclined to think that it might likely agree with me to a large extent. However, in the case that they consider a different outcome, I think that the court needs to be mindful of the message it sends with this decision. Not in terms of legal precedent or application of case law, but rather in terms of whether or not this institution is able to view cases outside of a legal vacuum and instead through the lens of common sense. What the school did was wrong, and no other concern should matter.
Our legal system is built upon a foundation of common law, which simply put means that we care a whole lot about precedents. Past decisions create legal frameworks within which our system operates, and therefore each ruling informs and in many ways dictates future rulings involving similar fact patterns. By operating in such a manner, we create order and stability through sacrificing a certain element of subjectivity. In certain instances, justice is compromised in the case at hand so as to create a precedent that might deliver the most justice in aggregate (i.e. Think about when evidence is thrown out due to illegal search and seizures. This does not help to assure that the criminal in a particular case is brought to justice, but it instead works towards protecting society as a whole against violations of privacy and private property).
But, unfortunately, in sacrificing justice on a case-by-case basis, the legal system loses an element of credibility with the general public. Much the same way that students lack trust in a teacher who is simply an “academic” without real-world experience, or an athlete pays less attention to a coach without “game experience” of his own, legal professionals and institutions fall prey to occasionally seeming disconnected from the practical application of their study. Rather than produce the result best suited for a particular case, they prognosticate and predict what will most assuredly advance us as a society. They become concerned more with theory than application, much like a career academic.
I say all of this in order to preface my feelings and fears with respect to the case that will be presented to the Supreme Court next month. Because, in this case, justice cannot be delivered by an academic with a theory and a book full of precedents, but it instead must be viewed through the lens of a regular human being, someone unafraid to bring justice today without concern for a ripple effect into tomorrow.
In this case a 13 year old student, Savana Redding (now 19), was accused by a fellow student of having had prescription-strength ibuprofen pills at school. As a result, and in an attempt to enforce a strict anti-drug policy, two female school officials conducted a strip search of the student. They forced her to undress down to her underwear, and then to expose her chest and her genitals in order to search for pills that she might have hidden. They found no pills, and Savana Redding never again attended the school. After months of humiliation and unwillingness to go back, she transferred.
The case becomes even more fascinating when you consider both Savana Redding herself and the school’s response to the entire incident. For Savana’s part, she had no prior disciplinary record at all. No accusations of misconduct and no history of misbehavior. For the school’s part, administration officials seemed to not only disregard this as unimportant, but saw the mention of Savana’s clean record as an opportunity to try to tarnish her character.
First, school officials claimed that Savana and other students had been “unusually rowdy” at a school dance and members of the staff suspected alcohol use (right…because it is completely absurd that a 13 year old might be somewhat “rowdy” with friends at a dance, and also because such information is entirely relevant to a subsequent strip search…).
Second, officials claimed that a student informed them Ms. Redding had served alcohol at a party at her house before the dance, but they failed to mention the accuser by name (and I think we should obviously assume that the accusation is credible, kind of like the accusation that was made about Savana having drugs at school that proved so completely correct).
Third, with regards to Savana’s lack of a prior disciplinary record, school officials actually argued that “Her assertion should not be misread to infer that she never broke school rules, only that she was never caught” (Actual quote!)
And lastly, school officials stated that their search was “not excessively intrusive in light of Redding’s age and sex and the nature of her infraction”.
Legal pundits have argued that the core of this case rests on the question of whether or not we should expand or contract the ability of schools to proactively combat drug use and misconduct. To this point, many legal experts suggest that the Supreme Court tread lightly here, and not create a precedent that enables students and parents to “seek monetary damages against educators in such school-specific matters where reasonable people can disagree about what is appropriate under the circumstances” (Rich Arum, NYU). But, the obvious shortcoming of such concerns is that there can be no question about whether or not the actions taken by the school were appropriate, because they just weren’t. They were humiliating, degrading, disgusting, and reprehensible. What the school did was exactly the kind of behavior that our legal system has been designed to reprimand, and that it should be principally concerned with.
I am by no means a raging liberal who agrees in a right to privacy above all else. I believe in protecting people and in ensuring safety and security in a broad social context, which is exactly what the school claims that it was trying to do in this case. But the problem here is that the school did the exact opposite. The emotional damage done to this one student far exceeded any potential benefit that might have been gained even if the school had found her to be in possession of two Advil. In choosing between having a society where a teenager is at risk of exposure to recreational drugs or periodic strip searches by adults, I’ll take the risk associated with the Advil every time. Most parents have some vague idea of how to discuss drugs with their children, but where do you start when your kid tells you they were stripped naked and searched for drugs by a teacher?
There is no knowing what the Supreme Court will decide in this case, and I would be inclined to think that it might likely agree with me to a large extent. However, in the case that they consider a different outcome, I think that the court needs to be mindful of the message it sends with this decision. Not in terms of legal precedent or application of case law, but rather in terms of whether or not this institution is able to view cases outside of a legal vacuum and instead through the lens of common sense. What the school did was wrong, and no other concern should matter.
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Where The Responsibility Lays
Much of the discussion related to steroids, jail time, drug use, and the various other topics that have headlined recent news coverage in the sports world has revolved around the question of responsibility. Specifically, what responsibility do professional athletes have to be role models? As a part of their chosen profession, do they inherently agree to adhere to a code of personal conduct that differs from that of the normal individual, or should they be treated no differently than anyone else?
There is no shortage of opinions and differing viewpoints when the term “role model” is evoked. Charles Barkley famously dismissed the concept, arguing that he was not in any way a role model and suggesting that parents should themselves serve as their child’s role model. Others, taking a more idealistic approach to the topic, make the argument that popular figures in society must respect their position of influence on fans (especially children) and in doing so must present a public persona that reflects high ethical fortitude and moral consciousness.
My problem with this entire debate is that neither side enters into it objectively. Both are driven by the desire to defer their own responsibility, and therefore present arguments with varying degrees of truth and rationale, but that are infected with hypocrisy.
Athletes and other public figures are correct to make the case that no individual should be inherently held to a different standard with regard to personal conduct. In my opinion, privacy should be preserved for those who honestly want it. However, athletes don’t generally want complete privacy- they want it in bits and pieces. They want a selective privacy that exists to veil their transgressions and that disappears when marketing and positive public relations opportunities arise. In essence, they want the good without the bad.
Every time that a sports program plays a long character piece, or a professional league shows a commercial of an athlete volunteering at the United Way, these institutions and players directly call attention to their actions beyond the playing field. Furthermore, although they may claim to not have a responsibility to represent themselves well to young fans, nearly all of these players receive large amounts of income from endorsements, which do very much require that they represent themselves well to a broad marketing base. And, regardless of whether they like it or not, these marketing bases include all varieties of demographics, opinions, likes and dislikes. So while I might not personally be offended when Michael Phelps smokes marijuana, I can guarantee you that there are a significant amount of Subway consumers (Subway is an endorser of Phelps) who care a whole lot. And when Michael Phelps signs on as an endorser of their product, he agrees to appeal to both me and to that latter category of buyers and potential buyers.
Parents and general critics, however, also are not immune from getting egg in their faces in this whole debate. Because while we want to blame athletes for presenting poor examples to children, the fact of the matter is that this is mostly a problem because of the fact that parents often do no better. Rather than mentor their own children, parents are quick to pass the buck along to public figures and then to criticize them when they don’t fill the void effectively. However, if more attention were paid towards improving the family dynamic and in-home environment, there would be much less of a need for children to search externally to find heroes and idols. I would venture to guess that scientific studies show a much stronger correlation between a child’s success and their family stability than between success and the ethical fiber of professional athletes at the time. In the game of who’s to blame for a child’s end result, divorce, child abuse, and neglect will always win out over Alex Rodriguez and steroids.
So, as I said at the onset, there are truths to both sides of the equation here. Society is correct to expect more from public figures who voluntarily expose themselves to the public eye for the sake of endorsements or goodwill, and society at the same time must come to turn an introspective eye and recognize the very real need to expect more from itself. I think that Toronto Blue Jays outfielder Vernon Wells had it exactly right when he was asked to comment about the steroids issue: “There’s someone to blame in all this, and it starts with yourself”.
There is no shortage of opinions and differing viewpoints when the term “role model” is evoked. Charles Barkley famously dismissed the concept, arguing that he was not in any way a role model and suggesting that parents should themselves serve as their child’s role model. Others, taking a more idealistic approach to the topic, make the argument that popular figures in society must respect their position of influence on fans (especially children) and in doing so must present a public persona that reflects high ethical fortitude and moral consciousness.
My problem with this entire debate is that neither side enters into it objectively. Both are driven by the desire to defer their own responsibility, and therefore present arguments with varying degrees of truth and rationale, but that are infected with hypocrisy.
Athletes and other public figures are correct to make the case that no individual should be inherently held to a different standard with regard to personal conduct. In my opinion, privacy should be preserved for those who honestly want it. However, athletes don’t generally want complete privacy- they want it in bits and pieces. They want a selective privacy that exists to veil their transgressions and that disappears when marketing and positive public relations opportunities arise. In essence, they want the good without the bad.
Every time that a sports program plays a long character piece, or a professional league shows a commercial of an athlete volunteering at the United Way, these institutions and players directly call attention to their actions beyond the playing field. Furthermore, although they may claim to not have a responsibility to represent themselves well to young fans, nearly all of these players receive large amounts of income from endorsements, which do very much require that they represent themselves well to a broad marketing base. And, regardless of whether they like it or not, these marketing bases include all varieties of demographics, opinions, likes and dislikes. So while I might not personally be offended when Michael Phelps smokes marijuana, I can guarantee you that there are a significant amount of Subway consumers (Subway is an endorser of Phelps) who care a whole lot. And when Michael Phelps signs on as an endorser of their product, he agrees to appeal to both me and to that latter category of buyers and potential buyers.
Parents and general critics, however, also are not immune from getting egg in their faces in this whole debate. Because while we want to blame athletes for presenting poor examples to children, the fact of the matter is that this is mostly a problem because of the fact that parents often do no better. Rather than mentor their own children, parents are quick to pass the buck along to public figures and then to criticize them when they don’t fill the void effectively. However, if more attention were paid towards improving the family dynamic and in-home environment, there would be much less of a need for children to search externally to find heroes and idols. I would venture to guess that scientific studies show a much stronger correlation between a child’s success and their family stability than between success and the ethical fiber of professional athletes at the time. In the game of who’s to blame for a child’s end result, divorce, child abuse, and neglect will always win out over Alex Rodriguez and steroids.
So, as I said at the onset, there are truths to both sides of the equation here. Society is correct to expect more from public figures who voluntarily expose themselves to the public eye for the sake of endorsements or goodwill, and society at the same time must come to turn an introspective eye and recognize the very real need to expect more from itself. I think that Toronto Blue Jays outfielder Vernon Wells had it exactly right when he was asked to comment about the steroids issue: “There’s someone to blame in all this, and it starts with yourself”.
Friday, February 13, 2009
LEGOs
I haven’t had the time to really blog in the last several weeks (two words: busy season), and truth be told I haven’t had much time to keep up with the political landscape too much. A lot of this has to do with the fact that I just haven’t had the time to read about politics, but a lot of it also has to do with the natural post-election let down. It has to do with the transformation from an election cycle exploding with drama and hope and characters and invested emotions, towards the relatively more mundane grind of daily politics and governance, infected by partisanship, haggling, and pork-barrel projects.
It’s the inevitable truth: we are enthralled by ideas and conceptual change, but we don’t have the time of day for the practical implementation of those ideas. It’s kind of like LEGOs. When I was a little kid I used to walk into a toy store and all that I wanted to do was buy a set of LEGOs. I would see the pictures of the castles and the space ships that could be built and they were just cool. So, I would buy a set and take it home, but then the same thing would always happen. I would open the box, pull out the blocks and the directions and become instantly disinterested.
The fact is that I was interested in the final product, but not the intermediary process. I liked the concept of a castle, but not the task of actually building it.
In this respect, how I viewed LEGOs pretty directly mirrors how Americans approach politics. We love campaign promises and vote for the candidate that paints the most appealing picture of the future. We buy into the metaphorical castles and space ships, but when it comes time to build that future, we suddenly lose interest. However, the difference is this: when it came to me and LEGOs when I was a kid, my sudden disinterest was okay. At the end of the day, my Mom would take the instructions and the pieces and build whatever it was for me. I didn’t have to follow through in order to achieve the end result that I wanted. But, politics and real futures are an entirely different animal. When interest fades with respect to societal change, those politicians that we elect lose the political capital necessary to bring about the change that they promised, and it is the special interest groups left standing that dictate the actual agenda. The religious right, pro-life, anti-abortion, pro and anti-gun control groups have always had significant sway in America’s political landscape because they don’t lose interest. They are willing to make a purchase and read the instructions as well.
What was incredible about the Obama campaign was that it ignited an interest and a passion in politics that hadn’t really existed before. Having lived on a college campus during the campaign, I was able to see how people who had never cared at all about politics suddenly felt a sense of ownership and investment. But today? Those same individuals cant name any of his appointments (aside from Hillary), don’t know any of the policy changes that he has (or has tried to) implement, and they pass predominately uneducated judgments on issues such as the recent stimulus bill (that is if they care to pass judgments at all).
The fact is that the American conscience is all about immediate gratification and instantaneous results. In general, movies lasting longer than three hours don’t keep our attention, the average sports fan thinks that the MLB season is too long, we prefer fast food over spending half an hour to cook something at home, and we don’t like waiting for politics and governance to bring about long term change.
A politician running for re-election will talk about education, and voters generally love that, but in the end they are much more likely to invest real dollars into expanding the police force than they are to put money into the school system. And when they do invest in schools, they invest in new buildings and infrastructure rather than curriculum innovation and scientific research. Why? Because an increased police force lowers crime and investment in buildings produces something that the public can see and touch. Voters respond to tangible, recognizable change in the short term much more than they do to a foundation for long term improvement, regardless of how significant the latter might eventually prove to be. That’s why we spend significantly more money on highways and memorials than we do on real improvement for primary education, scholarships, and occupational re-training.
The need for immediacy and the impatience with the intermediate is a hallmark of American politics. However, unlike what was the case with my LEGOs, the political process does not possess a mother that will simply build it all and let us know when the final result is ready to be played with. My growing concern is that voters did not necessary take to heart the “we” component of “yes we can”, but instead they expect President Obama to build the castles and space ships himself. Oh yeah, and they want him to get it done pretty fast. Unfortunately, true change and improvement, whether Republican or Democrat driven, is not that simple or that quick.
It’s the inevitable truth: we are enthralled by ideas and conceptual change, but we don’t have the time of day for the practical implementation of those ideas. It’s kind of like LEGOs. When I was a little kid I used to walk into a toy store and all that I wanted to do was buy a set of LEGOs. I would see the pictures of the castles and the space ships that could be built and they were just cool. So, I would buy a set and take it home, but then the same thing would always happen. I would open the box, pull out the blocks and the directions and become instantly disinterested.
The fact is that I was interested in the final product, but not the intermediary process. I liked the concept of a castle, but not the task of actually building it.
In this respect, how I viewed LEGOs pretty directly mirrors how Americans approach politics. We love campaign promises and vote for the candidate that paints the most appealing picture of the future. We buy into the metaphorical castles and space ships, but when it comes time to build that future, we suddenly lose interest. However, the difference is this: when it came to me and LEGOs when I was a kid, my sudden disinterest was okay. At the end of the day, my Mom would take the instructions and the pieces and build whatever it was for me. I didn’t have to follow through in order to achieve the end result that I wanted. But, politics and real futures are an entirely different animal. When interest fades with respect to societal change, those politicians that we elect lose the political capital necessary to bring about the change that they promised, and it is the special interest groups left standing that dictate the actual agenda. The religious right, pro-life, anti-abortion, pro and anti-gun control groups have always had significant sway in America’s political landscape because they don’t lose interest. They are willing to make a purchase and read the instructions as well.
What was incredible about the Obama campaign was that it ignited an interest and a passion in politics that hadn’t really existed before. Having lived on a college campus during the campaign, I was able to see how people who had never cared at all about politics suddenly felt a sense of ownership and investment. But today? Those same individuals cant name any of his appointments (aside from Hillary), don’t know any of the policy changes that he has (or has tried to) implement, and they pass predominately uneducated judgments on issues such as the recent stimulus bill (that is if they care to pass judgments at all).
The fact is that the American conscience is all about immediate gratification and instantaneous results. In general, movies lasting longer than three hours don’t keep our attention, the average sports fan thinks that the MLB season is too long, we prefer fast food over spending half an hour to cook something at home, and we don’t like waiting for politics and governance to bring about long term change.
A politician running for re-election will talk about education, and voters generally love that, but in the end they are much more likely to invest real dollars into expanding the police force than they are to put money into the school system. And when they do invest in schools, they invest in new buildings and infrastructure rather than curriculum innovation and scientific research. Why? Because an increased police force lowers crime and investment in buildings produces something that the public can see and touch. Voters respond to tangible, recognizable change in the short term much more than they do to a foundation for long term improvement, regardless of how significant the latter might eventually prove to be. That’s why we spend significantly more money on highways and memorials than we do on real improvement for primary education, scholarships, and occupational re-training.
The need for immediacy and the impatience with the intermediate is a hallmark of American politics. However, unlike what was the case with my LEGOs, the political process does not possess a mother that will simply build it all and let us know when the final result is ready to be played with. My growing concern is that voters did not necessary take to heart the “we” component of “yes we can”, but instead they expect President Obama to build the castles and space ships himself. Oh yeah, and they want him to get it done pretty fast. Unfortunately, true change and improvement, whether Republican or Democrat driven, is not that simple or that quick.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)