Follies of New Members

Follies of New Members

Political follies are distributed among politicians universally due to two factors. Either they are new and have never learned the rules of their new role or they are experienced and forget the rules today may not be the ones they learned when they started. The universality of this  phenomenon is on the front page of the newspaper  worldwide every day.

I recently was in Ireland on my way to do a small seminar at Galway at the National University of Ireland.  Since I read any newspaper I can get a hold of, I picked up the Irish Independent and read an intriguing story about folly created by a newcomer to elective politics.

It seems Ms Maria Bailey, a Fine Gael TD(member of Parliament) fell off a swing in a hotel playground outside a restaurant on the 10 July 2015 in the evening. She went to the hospital the next day claiming grievous injuries. Her personal injury claim stated she could no longer sit or stand for long periods without experiencing pain or discomfort. The following morning, she claimed she could not get out of bed.  Since a doctor could not be found to assist her, she struggled down to the emergency ward.

She had a severe headache and was in severe pain with swollen jaw and bite was off line. All of this happened from falling off a swing with “both hands full” at 9:30 the night before. Her personal injury suite claims the “swings were unsupervised” and “there were no signs to instruct patrons”  who hands are full how to use the swing safely.  She was sitting on the swing to have her picture taken by friends.

After the incident occurred, she continued over the few days  to campaign for a seat in the parliament. She won a seat on the Fine Gael ticket 18 days later.  In fact, she ran the Bay 10K in 53 minutes and 56 seconds 5 days after election.

Then Ms Baillie sued the Dean Hotel for 60,000 Euros. The hotel offered 600 Euros for medical expenses. This offer was rejected. The hotel is fighting the case in court.

The question you might ask, ”Why is this story from 4 years ago on the front page of a major Dublin newspaper for a week or more, in advance the European and local Irish elections?”  Ms Baillie’s case comes up at this politically sensitive time because Fine Gael’s platform for re-election is calling for reducing the personal injury claims culture.

She is the daughter of a senior local Fine Gael politician and herself, an elected Fine Gael official and is perfect example of how the system of personal injuries claims are abused. A little paragraph in the article tells why it is a problem for Ms Baillie. 

When Fine Gael was called for a comment on the case, there was no response. However, senior officials were reported as being unhappy with the unwelcome attention before the local Irish and European elections.

This little tale from Ireland is like stories in the papers around the world about politicians who think they are invisible to public scrutiny. You only have to show anger or greed or disrespect or arrogance or stupidity once to begin to get a reputation.  

This Irish tale began 4 years ago and now it bounces up into view. A similar case occurred in Congress. From rural Illinois came a young Congressman who decided to decorate his office like the set of the TV show, Downton Abbey, using his congressional funds to pay for it. He was also using funds from his Congressional allotment to pay for himself and others to travel around the world.  If he had asked one question of the ethics committee, he would never have had the problems that led to his leaving Congress after just 6 years of service.

As I watch my political colleagues, I often think of Robert Burns, the great Scottish poet who wrote: To a Louse, On Seeing One on a Lady’s Bonnet at Church:  Oh, would some Power give us the gift to see Ourselves as others see us!! It would many a blunder free us,

It never is easy to see ourselves, especially in political life, because of the multi-facetted view people bring to observe the politician as he or she walks across the stage. It takes great effort to step on the stage which leaves little energy to be reflective on how the performance is being received. Reading the audience in front of you is a chore in and of itself. You can change your behavior in response to your immediate audience’s reaction. The problem is that what you do or say goes out beyond your immediate purview.  Who knows how it looks or sounds at a distance?  Facebook, Twitter, Snapchat and What’s App have compounded the problem.  Before the telegraph you could say a lot of things in one place and know that no one would know across the country for 6 weeks or more. No politician has any privacy today, PERIOD. If a politician is going to survive and prosper, he or she needs someone around them who will tell them the truth.

The Toughest Vote

The Toughest Vote

Memorial day is a day to remember that I gave President Bush the go ahead for the war on Terror. A group of Saudi religious fanatics commandeered four Jetliners and launched attacks on the towers in New York, the Pentagon and a site never to be known. Perhaps the White House or the Capitol Building itself was the goal.

That day was a day of chaos in Washington and in the nation at large. The Constitution gives the power to declare war to the Congress in 1789. But over the years this power has been given to the President by the inaction of the Congress.  If you ask most Americans when we last declared war, if they have any idea, the say 1941 after Pearl Harbor. We did declare war against Japan, Germany and Italy in Dec 1941. But the last Congressional Declaration was in June 1942 against Bulgaria, Hungary and Rumania.

But you say, “What about Korea, Vietnam, Grenada or other places where troops have been sent?” A President can launch the country into war and then dare the Congress not to fund his actions.  Ever since 1942 the President has been acting unilaterally. 

A few days after the disastrous events in New York and Washington, D.C. George W. Bush II came to the Congress and asked for a declaration of War on Terror. The Congress debated whether the President’s proposal was too open ended, but in the end, Many Democrats did vote for it.  Many of us knew we were giving a blank check to an administration who were lusting for war. Those who we against it talked among selves about other approaches to Saudi strike on America. Only one member of Congress, Barbara Lee from Oakland, California voted No. Voting yes was the easy vote because if you voted No, you would have to endlessly explain why you didn’t support the President and the country in its moment of need. There is no vote I regret more than that vote.

Why? We unleashed the Neocons who  propelled Bush to invade Afghanistan. Afghanistan had provided training camps for the Saudi invaders. But The Congress punished all the people of Afghanistan with endless devastation because Osama bin Laden had operated from this country. And this war is still going on today because of that vote. 

Worse, however, is what followed. Once President Bush and Vice President Chaney smelled blood, they decided to do regime change in Iraq, mostly  at the behest of the oil companies who were tired of dealing with a troublesome awful leader in Iraq named Saddam Hussein. Bush and Company ignored the lessons of regime change efforts by Bill Clinton in Somalia.  “Those who fail to learn from history are bound to repeat it.”

Bush  came to Congress for a resolution to authorize use of Military force in Iraq only. The President believed he had the authorization because of our previous action on Terror. On October 10-11 the House (296-133) and the Senate (77-23) supported invasion of Iraq. Seventeen years later we are mourning  the deaths of thousands of Americans and untold millions of Afghanis, Iraqis, Syrians, Yemenis and to what end. 

No member of Congress should ever forget that he or she sent people to die for no good purpose.  I spent two years in the USN during the Vietnam War, taking care of soldiers, sailors and Marines who came back from that foolish war. I”ve sent me into battle by my statement of “fit for Duty.”Memorial Day, for me is a day to remember all those who “survived” the war with PTSD as well as obvious physical injuries.

The people, by electing us, have given Congress enormous responsibility by giving the duty to Congress to decide if our military  should strike another country. I read today that the Vice President is predicting endless war  at the West Point graduation.  Authoritarian leaders have led their countries into disaster in the past.  The idea that killing endless civilians will make us safer is a dangerous delusion.  We must not attack Venezuela or Iran or North Korea.  

  

If vote for this I'll lose my next election

If I do this, I’ll lose my next election

This excuse is the answer given to leaders by fearful and timid legislators. For the moment we will ignore the reality of this fear in order to focus on history.

With the election of Ronald Reagan and the mantra of  ”no new taxes”. We entered an era that closed the door on the use of increasing taxes to solve problems.

The Washington State election for governor in 1980 was won by a candidate who aped the Reagan mantra.  John Spellman became governor in an era when the budget of the state was in free fall.  He had control of both Houses the legislature but was faced with an imploding state budget.

During his first 2- year session of the legislature The governor called 6 special sessions in order to raise the sales tax minimal amounts to cover the quarterly budget short falls.

He also raided millions from the teachers Pension fund and moved the state payday from the last day of the month to the first day of the following month , in order to pick up a 25 th month of revenue for the two year period.

Wall Street was not amused or fooled and dropped Washington State bond rating from AA to D. The voters were not amused or fooled either. In the election of 1982 they narrowly voted both the Houses back into Democratic control.

Washington States tax structure is one of  the most regressive in the country.  In 1935 in the midst of the  1929 Recession the Legislature enacted an graduated income tax which had only two rates. One percent for most and two percent for the rich. Everyone knew it violated the Constitutional principle that everyone should be taxed at the same rate so no one was surprised that it was immediately was sent for review by the Washington Supreme court.

But the state needed money to pay it’s bills so a temporary 1% sales tax was passed. The Supreme Court affirmed the “one rate” provision and rejected the income tax proposal. Since then, at least a dozen times, both Republican and Democratic have  proposed an income tax.  The citizens have rejected every single one.  So today the Sales tax is the single largest source of state revenue.

As the 1983 session began, the Democrats,who now were in control of the legislature made the decision to take bold steps to stop the decline in revenue while repairing the destruction of teacher pensions and the Wall Street bond downgrading which made borrowing for construction projects much more expensive because of the undesirable bond rating.

In the Senate the Democrats decided to pass a budget that  raised sufficient revenue to solve all the known problems with one tax vote. The howls from the members about how they would lose if they voted for taxes could be heard from Seattle to Idaho and from Vancouver BC to Vancouver on the Columbia.

The task of the Ways and Means chairman was to convince his one vote Senate  majority to trust him and thus, to vote once in the two years for a huge tax increase before they saw the actual budget.  That meant that they had to blindly trust that the money raised would be sufficient to cover the state’s needs for 24 months AND that the things they wanted would be in the package.

How to get that trust was the question? The proposal was made orally but every member was wary of what the Chairman  of ways and Means said. A white board was put in the Democratic Caucus room and the Chairman wrote up on the board, with a grease pen, the specifics of what would be in the package paid for by the tax vote. Distrustful members copied down what was put on the white board.  The plan was erased by the chairman every day at the end of the caucus so no one wandering through the area would see the proposal and tell the press. The members were so leery they never leaked the proposal until it was unveiled publicly.

It repaid the Teachers Pension Fund and raised the sales tax 1.1% in one jump.  It also raised the Business and Occupation Tax significantly. It was the single largest tax increase in State history. It passed by a 25-24 vote.

Shortly we got our bond rating raised and to my knowledge, not a single member lost his or her seat if they had voted for the bill.

Except in very special circumstances rarely do members lose the trust of their voters for doing what is clearly in the public interest. 

Much good public policy is lost by timid souls who fear losing their seats.

Teddy Roosevelt said,” It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit is to the man or woman who is actually in the arena, who face is marred by dust and sweat and blood;  who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again,  because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms; the great devotions; who spends him or herself in a worthy cause; who at best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst,  if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory or defeat."

The Congress of 2019 will test the souls of each and every member.

 If I do this, I’ll lose my next election

This excuse is the answer given to leaders by fearful and timid legislators. For the moment we will ignore the reality of this fear in order to focus on history.

With the election of Ronald Reagan and the mantra of  ”no new taxes”. We entered an era that closed the door on the use of increasing taxes to solve problems.

The Washington State election for governor was won by a candidate who aped the Reagan mantra.  He became governor in an era where the budget of the state was in free fall.  He had control of both Houses the legislature but was faced with an imploding state budget.

During his first 2- year session of the legislature he called 6 special sessions in order to raise the sales tax minimal amounts to cover the quarterly budget short falls.

He also raided millions from the teachers Pension fund and moved the state payday from the last day of the month to the first day of the following month , in order to pick up a 25 th month of revenue for the two year period.

Wall Street was not amused or fooled and dropped Washington State bond rating from AA to D. The voters were not amused or fooled either. In the election of 1982 they narrowly voted both the Houses back into Democratic control.

Washington States tax structure is one of  the most regressive in the country.  In 1935 in the midst of the Recession the Legislature enacted an graduated income tax which had only two rates.  Everyone knew it violated the Constitutional principle that everyone should be taxed at the same rate so no one was surprised that it was immediately was sent for review by the Supreme court.

But the state needed money to pay it’s bills so a temporary 1% sales tax was passed. The Supreme Court affirmed the “one rate” provision and rejected the income tax proposal.  At least a dozen times, both Republican and Democratic have  proposed an income tax.  The citizens have rejected every single one.  So today the Sales tax is the single largest source of state revenue.

As the 1983 session began a decision was made to take bold steps to stop the decline in revenue while repairing the destruction of teacher pensions and the Wall Street bond downgrading which made borrowing for construction projects much more expensive because of the undesirable bond rating.

In the Senate we decided to pass a budget the raised sufficient revenue to solve all the known problems with one tax vote. The howls from the members about how they would lose if they voted for taxes could be heard from Seattle to Idaho and from Vancouver BC to Vancouver on the Columbia.

The task of the Ways and Means chairman was to convince his one vote majority to trust him and thus, to vote once in the two years for a huge tax increase before they saw the actual budget.  That meant that they had to blindly trust that the money raised would be sufficient to cover the state’s needs for 24 months AND that the things they wanted would be in the package.

How to get that trust was the question? The proposal was made orally but every member was wary of what the Chairman said. A white board was put in the Democratic Caucus room and the Chairman wrote up on the board, with a grease pen, the specifics of what would be in the package paid for by the tax vote. Distrustful members copied down what was put on the white board.  The plan was erased by the chairman every day at the end of the caucus so no one wandering through the area would see the proposal and tell the press. The members were so leery they never leaked the proposal until it was unveiled.

It repaid the Teachers Pension Fund and raised the sales tax 1.1% in one jump.  It also raised the Business and Occupation Tax significantly. It was the single largest tax increase in State history. It passed by a 25-24 vote.

 Shortly we got our bond rating raised and to my knowledge, not a single member lost his or her seat if they had voted for the bill.

Except in very special circumstances rarely do members lose the trust of their voters for doing what is clearly in the public interest. 

Much good public policy is lost by timid souls who fear losing their seats.

Teddy Roosevelt said,” It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit is to the man or woman who is actually in the arena, who face is marred by dust and sweat and blood;  who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again,  because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms; the great devotions; who spends him or herself in a worthy cause; who at best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst,  if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory or defeat.

The Congress of 2019 will test the souls of each and every member.

The Toughest Vote on Memorial Day

The Toughest Vote

Memorial day is a day to remember that I gave President Bush the go ahead for the war on Terror. A group of Saudi religious fanatics commandeered four Jetliners and launched attacks on the towers in New York, the Pentagon and a site never to be known. Perhaps the White House or the Capitol Building itself was the goal.

That day was a day of chaos in Washington and in the nation at large. The Constitution gives the power to declare war to the Congress in 1789. But over the years this power has been given to the President by the inaction of the Congress.  If you ask most Americans when we last declared war, if they have any idea, the say 1941 after Pearl Harbor. We did declare war against Japan, Germany and Italy in Dec 1941. But the last Congressional Declaration was in June 1942 against Bulgaria, Hungary and Rumania.

But you say, “What about Korea, Vietnam, Grenada or other places where troops have been sent?” A President can launch the country into war and then dare the Congress not to fund his actions.  Ever since 1942 the President has been acting unilaterally. 

A few days after the disastrous events in New York and Washington, D.C. George Bush II came to the Congress and asked for a declaration of War on Terror. We debated whether the President’s proposal was too open ended, but in the end, we did.  Many of us knew we were giving a blank check to people who were lusting for war. We talked among selves about other approaches to Saudi strike on America. Only one member of Congress, Barbara Lee from Oakland, California was the only No vote in the entire Congress. Voting yes was the easy vote because if you voted No, you would have to endlessly explain why you didn’t support the President and the country in its moment of need. There is no vote I regret more than that vote.

Why? We unleashed the forces propelling Bush to invade Afghanistan. Afghanistan had provided training camps for the Saudi invaders. But we punished all the people of Afghanistan with endless devastation because Osama bin Laden had operated from this country. And it is still going on today because of that vote. 

Worse, however, is what followed. Once President Bush and Vice President Chaney smelled blood, they decided to do regime change in Iraq, most at the behest of the oil companies who were tired of dealing with a troublesome awful leader in Iraq named Saddam Hussein. They ignored the lessons of regime change efforts by Bill Clinton in Somalia.  “Those who fail to learn from history are bound to repeat it.”

They came to Congress for a resolution to authorize use of Military force in Iraq only. The President believed he had the authorization from our previous action on Terror. On October

10-11 the House (296-133) and the Senate (77-23) supported invasion of Iraq. Seventeen years later we are celebrating the deaths of thousands of Americans and untold millions of Afghanis, Iraqis, Syrians, Yemenis and to what end. 

No member of Congress should ever forget that he or she sent people to die for no good purpose.  I spent two years in the USN during the Vietnam War, taking care of soldiers, sailors and Marines who came back from that foolish war. Memorial Day, for me is a day to remember all those who “survived” the war with PTSD as well as obvious physical injuries.

The people, by electing us, have given us enormous responsibility by giving the Congress to decide if we should strike another country. I read today that the vice President is predicting endless war today at the West Point graduation.  Authoritarian leaders have led their countries into disaster in the past.  The idea that killing endless civilians will make us safer is a dangerous delusion.  We must not attack Venezuela or Iran or North Korea.  

  

No One goes to Congress to Become a Scoundrel

As I watched TV the last days of February in 2019 in Washington DC before the Oversight Committee of the House of Representatives I couldn’t help thinking of an essay from a don at Oxford, C.S. Lewis, entitled The Inner Ring .  It should be required reading for every new and old member of congress before they start a new session. 

Lewis lays out for the King’s College, University of London Graduates, the path a person follows to become a scoundrel. It is a commemoration address in which one usually is looking for the bright future in front of the graduates. Lewis chooses to follow a different line of thought.

Instead he talks about a path some will take even though they are not planning to do so.  People rarely directly seek to become a scoundrel but rather, evolve gradually into the state in which Michael Cohen finds himself today. The process is gradual and incremental and almost imperceptible as a person slips from being an honorable person into becoming totally dishonorable and discredited. 

The desire to be in the inner ring, in some aspect of one’s society, is almost universal.  To be accepted and trusted and admired by one’s peers is a state that all members of Congress want to attain.  It is a state one must reach if you are to be re-elected and accumulate power in the institution.

An often told story is the Tip O’Neil tale in which a freshman got an interview with Tip to ask for a plum committee assignment.  “Are you one of the new class of freshman? Go home and get re-elected so I can see if you are for real!!”

Getting into the inner ring of the Speaker or the chairman of your desired committee is one of the first tasks every member sets his or her mind to as the session begins. How do you pledge your fealty or vote to the chairman? How do you show proof of your believability? 

In 1993-4 I was the leader of a Single Payer Health Care caucus and I had 95 pledged votes. Chairman Rostenkowski was moving toward bringing out a bill that he and Mrs. Clinton had crafted that was not a single payer scheme.  Danny, one day drifted up to me on the floor, and said, “Doc, if we bring my bill to the floor without single payer in it, will you support my bill?”

I knew the implications of opposing the chairman and said, “I know the rules.  You have my vote.” I acquiesced for future consideration.  He knew it and I knew it. I was in the inner ring and there was no benefit to opposing him and thus, being on the outside. This is the normal way of operation in the circles and overlapping circles of the political process.

But C.S. Lewis told his audience the day will come when the request from a member of the circle will come that is not quite right and you know it. Will it be a vote for a bad amendment or a request for silence in committee when an issue you understand is being discussed and you don’t explain the truth to the committee because a colleague has asked you to be quiet? Or will it be an effort to word a contract so it avoids scrutiny and goes to a friend?

The slide down hill is hard to reverse.  If you succeed, the next one is easier. If you fail it is important to show you aren’t “untrustworthy” and will try harder to succeed.  And so, step by step, you descend into scoundrel hood. No one sets out to do this.  

Michael Cohen never in his wildest imagination thought that the events of the 27^th of February would have occurred; he never dreamed as he went to the office for 10 years, knowing that each day he would lie to keep Donald Trump’s approval and consequently wind up headed for the penitentiary. He knew, as he called more than 500 people to threaten them, that if he failed, he was in danger of being put outside the Inner Ring.

What is most intriguing, and baffling is that moral truth of The Lewis lecture is not new and we as humans continue to ignore it.  The story is as old as the story of the fall of Jericho. Judeo-Christian history tells us that God told the Israelites, thousands of years ago, that He would deliver Jericho into their Hands.  One caveat that He gave was that no one should take any of the booty of war for himself.

Jericho was a total success.  The walls fell down.  But one man, Achan, disobeyed and took some of the spoils of war.  He put them under the floor of his tent.

A few days later God told the Israelites to go against the city of Ai. To their surprise they got whipped by the men of Ai.  Joshua, the Israelite leader, asked God why they had been defeated. God said, ”Someone in the camp has sinned.”  Joshua lined everybody up and found the guilty party.  Achan was identified as the offender and he and his family were stoned to death and all his wealth was burned. 

The next time the Israelites went against Ai they won decisively.

The message in my Sunday School was be sure, “Your sin will find you out.” No scoundrel expects to be discovered.  As each escapade goes unpunished the next one is easier. One can only wonder how the Trump family views the future.  Will Mueller or the Southern District Court of New York find the political booty under the tent ? Will the Judiciary or Oversight or Ways and Means or the Intelligence Committees find the Emoluments under the tent? 

What we should be fearful of

A few days ago  I watched our president ramble on TV for nearly an hour without a teleprompter or using scripted notes.  He was extemporizing about a National Emergency that no one else can see. In talking about it, he admitted that he didn’t need to do it.  He essentially undid his argument by saying he was just trying to do it “a little quicker.”

For 46 years I have observed politicians, including myself, reacting to the pressures of political life.  As I watched Donald Trump today, I couldn’t help thinking of a great and powerful Congressman whom I knew from Chicago. Danny Rostenkowski was from Chicago where I was born. 

When I came to Congress, I wanted on to the Ways and Means Committee because I was interested in establishing a National Health insurance plan for all. I asked the Speaker, Tom Foley to appoint me to the committee.  He said, “Danny never lets anyone on the committee whom he has not had a chance to observe for a full session. There is some one in line ahead of you but, in two years, you will get on the committee.

Two years later I was appointed to the Ways and Means Committee and then Tom asked for a favor in return. He asked me to be on the Ethics Committee.  During my term of service on the Ethics charges were raised against Danny.  Mostly his Ethics charges resulted from acting like a ward Politician from Chicago in the era of the senior Daley.  In a variety of ways, he misused his Official Account for the running his Congressional Office.  To cut a long story short he agreed to plead guilty to some small charges and was sentenced to two years in the Federal Penitentiary.

 I had become a good friend over the 6 years we served together.  We often went out to dinner and since I had a car, I became his occasional driver. 

On the night before he reported for his imprisonment, we had dinner in DC.  He asked for a ride home and as we got near his apartment, he said “Doc, let’s have one last drink at the Democratic Club.” 

Over that last drink he asked if I wanted to know why he finally plead guilty. I said,” Sure. I wondered why you fought so long and, then caved in.”

He said,” I plead guilty cause I felt so bad for Virginia, my secretary for years.  The justice department was pressing her and my whole staff to turn on me and she was falling apart. She’d been so loyal I couldn’t stand putting her through this any longer. It wasn’t right so I agreed to plead to take the pressure off my staff.”

You might ask “what about today reminded you of Rosty.”

Donald Trump, to my trained eyes, is falling apart under the pressure of the Mueller investigation.  He is talking in half sentences and jumping from topic to topic with no apparent reason. He lies endlessly and manufactures his own reality and statistics. As the investigation gets tighter it seems the day is coming when there might be an indictment of Donald Junior or Jared or Ivanka.  Imagine for a minute, the pressure a father will feel as he thinks about watching his own children being tried and perhaps convicted. Children he raised and got ensnared in the Justice system will face the future knowing that their problems are the result of loyalty to a father who led them astray.

The only defense Mr Trump has shown in the whole of his life has been to Attack and bully anyone with whom he disagrees. He will be like a cornered animal who can only attack.  What fruitless and destructive action he may take should be the concern of every person in a responsible position from the Vice President on down. 

Everyone is absorbed, at the moment, with the nuances of the Constitutionality of the Executive order.  Mr McCabe’s book and Jim Clapper’s book should be careful read and thought about. They express the concerns of rational men thinking about a president who listens to no one except those who tell him what he wants to hear.

Perhaps its time to listen to the childlike wisdom of the mythical child who opined that the emperor has no clothes before it is to late for us to stop some act that has longstanding consequences.  I am reluctant to write this. I don’t want to raise fears, but I can’t ignore what my eyes see.       

Sports are the roots of Politics

The president should stop watching Fox and cable news and watch some sports on TV. Politicians talk often in terms of sports analogies. What this reflects is the deep roots that sports sink into our souls as young people. Sports are the place where we learn the rules of the society in which we live and each society has its own special sport. If one looks at the world, soccer is the most dominant sport, but each country has some variation particular to the people of that country.

Cricket is the game of England: a complex, slow-moving game played in a leisurely fashion over many days. It is thought to be a gentlemanly and polite game of the effete upper class. But I recently read a story of a cricket batter being killed by bowler who used the method of “Spinning.” It turns out that outsiders don’t know you can legally kill an opponent, using this technique but English cricket bowlers know about.  It isn’t considered “cricket” but there is no rule to stop it.

Irish football has its own set of rules. But hurling is the true Irish sport. It became their national sport when the English tried to ban it. In confrontations with ill-equipped Irish peasants, the English observed that the methods the Irish used to throw stones that killed them was identical to the game of Hurling.  The British wanted to prevent them from practicing  the game because they simultaneously became adept at throwing rocks with deadly speed and force. Preparing for combat and practicing hurling became  a sporting way  to prepare to deal with the hated English.

Melbourne Australian football is played on cricket fields but is totally different .Australian football is a combination of rugby, soccer  and some elements reminiscent of American football except it is played without the American football armor(pads). Sending thousands of Irish and English prisoners to Australia and dumping them as far from as possible from civilization had an effect on the Aussie national personality.  The first thing that strikes you as you enter the stadium is that the game is played on the oval cricket pitch.  The message of disrespect for the English national game is clear.

Many years ago, I met a man named Whitney Azoy who was a long time USAID contractor in Afghanistan. He had long and distinguished career in Central Asia. Before we attacked Afghanistan in the late 1990’s, I was visiting an Afghan refugee camp in the Peshawar, Pakistan. One night over beer with him he told me, “You will never bring democracy to Afghanistan. It is a country whose national game, Buzkashi, has few rules except for the one that says you cannot knock your opponent off his horse with a whip. The goal of the game is to get the goat which has been thrown into the middle of the field among multiple teams of horsemen. There is no time clock. There are no sidelines or goal lines. When the sun goes down the game is over. The rule of law is a western idea that is foreign to how Afghanis see the world.”

That conversation got me thinking about the way our politics differ from country to country. And then I began to look at the United States. Our national game before the Second World War was baseball. After the Second World War our national game began to be football.

 Baseball is a game where one person stands 60’6” from another and has a ball thrown at him or her as hard as possible. It is an individual game, in which one person, seeks to dominate another. It was a game of individual courage and strength like knights of old, jousting.

After the Second World War we adopted the martial feeling of war to such an extent that we accepted football as our national game. Teams line up like armies on both ends of the field and then run at each other, attempting to smash the other side into submission.   Increasingly we have armored football players in order to protect them but to be honest, we don’t really care about injuries. Irony of ironies, president Trump announced on the day of the Super bowl that football is alright for the ordinary people, but he was wary of allowing his son to play football.

  We start each game with a kickoff where 11 men from one side run as fast and as hard as   they can at 11 men from the other side and smash into each other to begin the game. Of late they is some hand wringing over head injuries but it reminds me of our attitudes toward PTSD and veterans. It only becomes an issue when we can’t avoid it any longer. We accept casualties in war or sports, as long as, we win.

A recent event highlighted by a story in the Economist about soccer protest in Turkey illustrates the principle of the connection between sports and politics.  Like our President, the Turkish leader, Erdogan was upset by protests by soccer fans at a match in Istanbul.  But he couldn’t figure out who the guilty were. His answer was to require fans to have a ticket AND a government card that could tie their identity to their seat number. Thus, he could identify who the fans in Section 105 were, who were holding up banners or signs opposing the great leader.

Protests by sports figures like those who “take a knee” similarly seem to perturb our great leader.  The people of the country that support him feel threatened by a non-violent protest.  Right now, we are celebrating the 100^th anniversary of the birth of Jackie Robinson who showed us all what a true hero is. By his merely showing up at Ebbets field in Brooklyn every day and playing magnificently, he demonstrated what our politics should be. Colin Kaepernick is the modern day equivalent but the President and the football owners are afraid. There no one of the character of Branch Rickey in the whole  group of Football owners.  They are all fearful millionaires/billionaires who  take a knee to a President who believes that our national sport is, “Who is the biggest Bully wins.”  Maybe he thinks Buzkashi is our national sport.