Fans of sports teams naturally love the players on their teams and dislike those on opposing teams. It isn’t personal. It’s just the way human emotion works. Thus, a specific player can be a hated monster when playing for a dreaded rival and then suddenly become a hometown hero when traded to one’s own team.
As a long-time Dodger fan, I can definitely attest to this phenomenon, although I must confess that I did not change my feelings about Juan Marichal when he briefly wore a Dodger uniform at the end of his career. (Marichal had assaulted the Dodgers’ catcher, Johnny Roseboro, with his bat years earlier when he wore a Giants uni.)
This same phenomenon exists in politics, although the circumstances differ. Politicians don’t normally switch sides in terms of party identification. Instead, policies are the stock in trade.
Thus, Republicans can claim to hate government spending, but applaud the Republican senator who supports a decision to award a big government contract in their state. Democrats can hate corporate welfare but suddenly support a Democratic president who bails out a failing corporation in their state.
In these instances, it is often the brand identification that controls. In sports the brand is the team. In politics, it’s the political party.
But some trades are much harder to accept than others. When the Dodgers traded Mike Piazza in perhaps the worst trade in the team’s history, I continued to follow his accomplishments even though he stayed in the National League and often single-handedly beat the team I love.
And so it is in politics. Some presidential decisions are much harder to accept than others. Many Republicans continued to feign loyalty to Richard Nixon, even when he imposed wage and price controls (an absolute treasonous act to a true conservative if attempted by a Democrat) in an attempt to fight the inflation of the early 1970s. So, too, did many Democrats continue to support Bill Clinton when he championed welfare reform (an absolute anathema to a true liberal, especially if pushed by a Republican). Party loyalty in both instances trumped what would otherwise be offensive policy.
A similar pattern is emerging among Democrats in the decision of President Obama to engage militarily in Libya. A vast majority of these same Democrats could be expected to rail strenuously against such a decision if a Republican president had made it.
But because Obama is a Democrat (in name, at least), he is getting widespread support from within his own party, with only the likes of Dennis Kucinich and his small band of sympathizers objecting to it.
(The decision has created a fair amount of discord among Obama haters in the Republican ranks as well. Many are unwilling to give him any credit for doing what they would have praised as brilliant leadership from a President John McCain, or, as they did initially for President George W. Bush when he started two wars in the space of 16 months.)
I am beyond the point of blind allegiance or unquestioning fealty. Obama lost that level of loyalty in me some time ago (as I have documented fully in previous columns). At this point in his presidency, even without the Libya decision, I am a likely Obama voter in 2012 only by default, as in no one else is even as attractive as he will be.
In this respect, I feel a little like the fan of a team that signs a completely mediocre player because he’s the best the GM can find. I’m not happy, and I certainly don’t expect the new player to turn the team’s fortunes around, but he’s better than anyone else who was available, and so I’ll cheer for him (albeit with decidedly muted cheers).
The decision to initiate military action against the Qaddafi regime was wrong for all the right reasons. No, that isn’t a misprint. Obama’s motivation (at least as publicly stated – I’m not ready to probe his inner-thoughts or to suggest he is wholly duplicitous) was noble. Qaddafi is a madman who may have been on the verge of a mass extermination of large numbers of his citizens. Genocide in any guise is an offense to humanity, and it should be thwarted by the collective might and will of all the civilized peoples of the world.
But war is also an offense to humanity, especially war that is not necessitated by the most primal of human instincts – self-defense. Moreover, war creates its own progression of horrors, some intended, many not desired, if even contemplated.
Because of these unintended consequences, and those abhorrent ones that are intended, the initiation of deadly military force should only be undertaken after a careful calculation of all factors at play.
And, in the instance of Libya, Obama did not calculate well.
For openers, he did not consider how the decision would play out. Yes, an imminent genocide might have been averted, assuming that Qaddafi was going to proceed with that threat. But averting the immediate threat hardly removed the equally plausible threat that Qaddafi would bide his time and wreak his vengeance when the NATO forces ultimately withdrew.
And even if, as seems to be the unstated but likely goal, Qaddafi is overthrown, what will replace him? Is the United States going to be engaged in yet another nation-building enterprise in yet another hostile foreign country where the mere presence of America is viewed skeptically at best, and with hostility at worst?
And who are the people Obama would have in control of the country if Qaddafi is overthrown? Are they really pro-West democrats, yearning to establish a Jeffersonian republic where nothing but dictatorial rule and local war lords have been the only form of government they have known?
And, finally, what of that Nobel Peace Prize Mr. Obama humbly accepted a while back? If he ever really intended to be a champion of change, couldn’t he have used this opportunity to turn away from military force when the standard response was “bombs away”?
Will we never overcome the resort to force to solve problems?
I’m still waiting for the “change president” to take charge.
I agree with Professor Telfeyan. I also believe that the Democrats no longer represent the Middle Class – many of whom have lost their jobs and their homes. Many of the boomers now retiring (many lost their jobs) are without sufficient funds to “comfortably retire”. Comfortably retire means having a modest roof over your head, medical care and enough to eat.
Many resentment income taxes and point out that those in European countries pay ever higher taxes. But one needs to assess what we receive for our tax money – 2.5 wars (or police actions or whatever other designation might be appropriate). Obama discussed having millions or billions of Quadiffi’s monies tied up – which he will make sure is returned to Libya to rebuild that country. What about deducting some Trillion dollars the US spent the first week of bombing that country first? What about our own people? We cannot afford medical care for our citizens, but we can afford endless wars.
Yes, Ed, the Democratic party is no longer the party of FDR. Our “fearless leaders in Congress” allowed the laws to be changed so the banks could make risky loans and run this country into deficits. In essence Congress allowed banks to gamble with taxpayer monies (insured bank accounts). Banks were bailed out, but most homeowners were not.
And how about GE, Chevron, and other multinationals that have figured out how to pay income taxes on billions of dollars of profits? The average middle income worker pays a higher percentage of taxes than the CEO hedge fund managers and the corporations they manage. They only pay 15% and NO Social Security or Medicare tax. Our progressive income tax laws are, in essence, regressive.
Some years ago when I was an undergrad, I had to read a book entitled (as I recall some years later) “The Finest Politicians Money Can Buy.” The author wrote a sequel 10 years later, “Still the Finest Politicians Money Can Buy.” It is now about 36 years later and there has been no meaningful campaign finance reform. The sad aspect of this is that even if a candidate would like to run for office in order to undo some of the past laws that lead to our present fiasco, they can’t because they don’t have enough money to run for office. I predict that unless campaign finance change comes about that we will lose our democracy – that is, unless we have already.
Alice Thomas
Let me begin with Qaddafi. As a person. Yes, he’s eccentric. He’s not the monster the US portrays him as. Ego driven, yes as most Arab/African leaders are. Yes, he has more clothes and shoes than Imelda Marcos. I can barely listen to his rambling speeches.
Obama is an eloquent speaker. Dresses conservatively. Appears humble. Sends his countrymen to die in Iraq, Afghanistan and now Libya. I actually enjoy listening to his speeches!
Which President is responsible for the loss of more lives? Just the facts ma’am.
We Americans can never judge the Arab/N.African countries based on our sanitized version of Democracy. We have to take into context the lack of education and literacy in these countries before we take it upon ourselves to ”rescue” them. Having said this, it’s up to their leaders, particularly those with oil wealth to educate them. Sadly, many of them squander the wealth.
Noble cause? France is oil dependant on Libya. Libya is strategically located next to Iran. We love the Libyans more than the Sudanese, Rwandans, and all other countries that practice genocide and slavery.
Do I pity the people or women oppressed in the Arab/N. African countries? Being an empath, yes. However, they choose to submit. If the masses uprise, surely this would end. There must be a collective consciousness amongst themselves to force change.
Never underestimate Arab Nationalism. It goes far beyond religion. We are treading into dark waters with each war we enter. We can complain about the ridiculous costs of these wars, focusing on our own needs, yet I feel most Americans are not viewing the repercussions beyond the U.S. economy. The costs of human life.
Russia and China are buddies with Iran. These are big powers in terms of weapons and nukes. We are in huge debt to China. Iran doesn’t like us. Most Arab countries (excluding our allies) are not too fond of us (an underestimation) and with each civilian who dies, the lava rises ….
P.S. I don’t like volcanos. They cause instability.