Playing politics to win

In his newly published book The Last Innocents: The Collision of the Turbulent Sixties and the Los Angeles Dodgers, my old colleague Michael Leahy reminds us that there was a time when political candidates left all serious campaigning for the office of the president until after the World Series. Only after the important business of settling baseball's champion was done would the public be ready to focus on the relatively minor job of selecting a bureaucrat-in-chief.

But these days, no one under the age of 55 or so pays that much attention to baseball, and politics has emerged as the national pastime of what Mencken unkindly called the "booboisie." That we follow politics as a sport nowadays isn't an original insight; it just seems to be the way things have devolved. I suspect it has something to do with the 24-hour news cycle and the constant need to draw viewers and listeners (and readers too, I suppose, though actual reading might require more resources than most fans are willing to commit to the pursuit of diversion) to your channel, show, site or podcast. I hear all the time that people doesn't especially like to think about their entertainment--and who can doubt that is exactly what national politics has become?

So that's why so many of us seem to display a curious incuriosity about what the actual election of a given candidate might mean for the way we live now and the way we'll be remembered. What we're interested in is victory, and if we need to suspend our sense of what is decent and right to see that, we'll do that. And we'll accept whatever partisan talking points the clever boys and girls on the TV offer us as cover--we'll adopt empty slogans about making America great again, we'll suddenly perceive terror in our restrooms--so long as it allows us a chance to root for the blues or the reds.

It's all a little silly. I admired Bernie Sanders until it became apparent that he was as much about brand extension as he was about pulling the Democratic Party in a progressive direction. Now I understand what he's doing, but I don't think it's noble. Hillary Clinton was the agreed-upon Democratic nominee before a single primary ballot was cast--ordinary voters had no say whatsoever in choosing the No. 1 seed. And while Donald Trump is neither a natural Republican nor public servant--he's a raging narcissist with little understanding of how the world works and a penchant for fascist posturing--he's the most authentic of the above-the-credits candidates. I believe Trump mostly says what he thinks. (As Maya Angelou said, "When someone shows you who they are, believe them, the first time.")

And that's scary, in part because a lot of people who don't necessarily agree with Trump's belligerent statements will end up backing him because he's won the Red team's quarterback position. He represents their best chance to win. And winning, as Vince Lombardi and Charlie Sheen have told us, is the only thing.

People who weeks ago were doing everything in their power to stop Trump now want to be his running mate. Republicans are urging party unity. Because you don't give up. Because you have to do everything in your power to win.

In case you're confused, I'm not wild about Hillary Clinton as a candidate. I don't like political dynasties, and I don't think she cares much about the problems of our endangered middle class or our working poor, but it's not personal. She's an adult, and she's capable. She'd probably do a pretty good job as chief executive. But her nomination was presented to us as a fait accompli. The way the Democratic Party has gone about choosing its nominee just doesn't seem very democratic.

On the other hand, you have to hold Bernie Sanders accountable for some of the juvenile actions of his supporters. While some of the most politically astute people I know are supporting Sanders, there's also a bratty, peevish contingent eager to talk smack and take offense. Sanders has not done a terrific job disciplining these hooligans, some of whom will probably jump ship and back Trump if (when) their man finally gives up the race. Being Bernie fans, they think the next best thing to victory is to act as spoiler--if they can't win, they'll burn down the Democratic nominee.

I don't think that there's enough of them to make Donald Trump president, and I don't think that a whole lot of Republican leaders really want to see Trump win either. They want him to be competitive, to give down-ballot candidates a chance, and they want to keep the party intact. But they'd accept Clinton; she's probably the best option for her boosters. She'll maintain the status quo. She won't upset the bankers.

Still, there's a chance that a coalition of disaffected Sanders rooters and low-information Great Americans could give Trump the White House. (It's a small chance, but I'm not in the guessing business.) And if Trump becomes president, he'll probably be an ineffective one, an on-the-job trainee with a big mouth. But he could be a real disaster. He could be the American Mussolini. I'm not naive enough to say it can't happen here.

We all like to talk about how we're the greatest nation on earth. And that we tend to ignore our problems until they become crises, and that we would rather listen to someone tell us that the Mexicans or the Chinese are the problem than do the necessary hard work. I believe we get the sort of government we deserve. And maybe our intellectual laziness and reflexive self-esteem means that we will finally, as Mencken suggested, "get it good and hard."

Probably not. The Cubs are at the Cardinals this evening. And it's a long time until November.

------------v------------

Philip Martin is a columnist and critic for the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette. Email him at pmartin@arkansasonline.com and read his blog at blooddirtandangels.com.

Editorial on 05/24/2016

Upcoming Events