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”.

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.