Political Culture: Two Guys Named George Play Ball

In our current age of hyper-partisan combat and contempt – to which I have proven myself at least as susceptible as my fellow fifth-rate political blatherers – it sure does chap my ass when I find myself appreciating the talents and perspective of a conservative.

It’s going to be a tough year for many Democrats, who currently find ourselves despising a candidate from our own party while finding it difficult to work up much of a lather over John McCain. He’s an altogether good man, a rare commodity in Washington these days, who (apart from a little obligatory ass-kissing of certain “agents of intolerance”) is refraining from all the name-calling, dissembling and other standard-issue bullshit we’d have every reason to expect from anybody else who might have been the GOP nominee.

John McCainI’d be willing to bet that McCain will prove himself the only Republican in the whole country who’s capable of getting through this entire election season without saying the word “Hussein” unless it’s got “Saddam” attached to it. (A shout-out to Eric, whoever you are: You’ve already lost this bet, based on your performance in the comments beneath last week’s column. Congratulations.) McCain is wrong on Iraq, he’s anti-choice, and his party is a cesspool of corruption, bigotry, selfishness and incompetence – but at least he is an honorable man who promises four years of higher ethics and moderation. A McCain presidency, if combined with a filibuster-proof Democratic majority in the Senate, is not an entirely unappealing prospect.

Of course, the last Republican candidate who promised moderation gave us our current long national nightmare instead. This column is really about that guy – and about another guy who I found myself loathing a little less on Sunday, if only for a few minutes.

Nationals ParkThe subject on which I found myself incapable of mustering the usual outrage with George Bush and George Will was baseball. Sunday was, of course, Opening Day – a time when politicians and pundits traditionally set down their brickbats, put on their rose-colored glasses and celebrate the one shared obsession that renders partisanship obsolete (unless you’re a Yankee-hating Red Sox rooter, or vice versa). And both these guys named George rose to the occasion with performances that betrayed a generosity of spirit one wishes they would exhibit when it came to the more important issues of the day.

Will’s annual baseball-themed column in the Washington Post was short, sweet, and a classic of its kind. It was a reminder that, even as we obsess over the current political gamesmanship between teams Obama and Clinton, the games that started up Sunday night at the new ballpark in Washington hold lasting lessons that can (and should) be applied to the affairs currently plaguing our state. Here’s a sample paragraph:

George Will“Bill Veeck, who did more for America in one night than most of us do in a lifetime (the night in September 1937 he planted the ivy along Wrigley Field’s outfield walls), said that the great thing about baseball – aside from the fact that you do not need to be 7 feet wide or 7 feet tall in order to play it – is: Three strikes and you’re out, and the best lawyer can’t help you. Baseball, which provides satisfying finality and then does it again the next day, is a severe meritocracy that illustrates the axiom that there is very little difference between men but that difference makes a big difference.”

When Will writes like this – as he has done in a couple of excellent, best-selling books, Men at Work and Bunts – a baseball obsessive can’t help but recall his essential contributions to Ken Burns’ PBS documentary on the subject from 14 years ago. (To my wife’s eternal dismay, I break out the videotapes of that show every 18 months or so, and devour every one of its 19 hours.) His stentorian voice is at once wry and authoritative, and when listening to him talk baseball one is reminded why, in his advancing age, he is much better as a television commentator than as a print columnist. He’s quick on his feet and erudite in the extreme, but he’s most useful when he’s got less airspace in which to vent. Here’s Will discussing Willie Mays.

He’d clearly not been effective in his time-management while putting together the infuriating column that appeared just three days earlier, in which he spotlighted some shoddy statistics cobbled together by a right-wing think tank to argue that liberals are less charitable than conservatives. (While imagining that liberals’ addiction to government spending left them no desire to offer private contributions, Will completely ignored the phenomenon of religious tithing – not to mention the hundreds of millions in checks cut to televangelists each year – both of which would drive conservative percentages skyward without necessarily resulting in much “charity.”) It reminded me of the ass-backward logic employed by Republicans in 2004, when John Kerry, joined by other millionaire Democrats, noted that the Bush tax cuts had been too generous to the wealthy. “If John Kerry’s so worried about not paying enough taxes, why doesn’t he donate more of his money to the government?” they muttered, before emptying their drool cups.

Speaking of contributing to the government – or not – George Bush last Sunday took a break from dismantling American democracy to throw out the first pitch at the Opening Day game between the Braves and the Nationals. He was roundly booed for his efforts (a ball, head-high to a giant), as one could only expect for a man with a 28% approval rating.

Of course, as with all things in these times when “reality” is based on ideology rather than, you know, facts, whether or not Bush was booed depends on whether or not a Republican has doctored the soundtrack. More videos here and here confirm the lusty booing. Yet, courtesy of a contributor calling him/herself “RepublicanRevolution,” here is your next Emmy winner for sound editing:

The real scene was practically a photographic negative of Bush’s pugnacious stroll to the mound at Yankee Stadium in October 2001; with the 9/11-stricken crowd screaming its approval, he had confidently thrown a perfect strike that night, providing symbolic evidence that America would quickly vanquish any foe that challenged its cherished values (or its national pastime, which had been forced to delay the World Series by a week).

Or so it seemed at the time; Bush, unfortunately, has spent the last seven years undermining those same values in the name of not-quite-vanquishing any of those foes. Nevertheless, on Sunday, after his far less triumphant return to the mound, Bush did something amazing: He made a couple million ESPN viewers forget what a douchebag he is, if only briefly.

George BushVisiting with game announcers Jon Miller and Joe Morgan in the booth for an inning and a half, Bush was affable, humble, knowledgeable about the game and clearly enthusiastic about what he was doing. He expressed sincere concern over the steroids problem and hope for baseball’s handling of it, he laughed at his lousy pitch (even playing along as Morgan used ESPN’s “K-Zone” technology to show just how bad it was), and he even happily admitted mistakes and inadequacies from his days as part-owner of the Texas Rangers. He didn’t, for once, seem like he was holding onto long-discredited ideas just to avoid the embarrassment of being proven wrong, and he wasn’t enunciating his words slowly and clearly as though he needed to prove he knew how to say them. He was, for a span of about 15 minutes on the air, that guy Americans wanted to “have a beer with” in 2000; for a quarter of an hour, even I wanted to have a beer with him, as opposed to looking forward to his death so I can urinate on his grave.

Of course, soon enough I switched over to the news and saw his most recent “press availability,” in which he snapped to a reporter, “We are withdrawing troops – it’s called ‘return on success.’” And once again I felt I was being lectured to by the dumbest man in the country. Still, during that ballgame I saw the path George Bush should have taken with his life – a rise to baseball commissioner, rather than leader/decider/destructor of the free world – and I saw a man I might actually have liked, had he taken that road.

Just as Will’s column had done earlier in the day, Bush’s engaging appearance on ESPN reminded me that even when a man makes his living disparaging and/or destroying every political ideal I’ve ever held, I should retain enough goodwill to see where he and I might find common ground and a shared passion.

But only for a moment. And only over baseball. And then it’s back to the barricades.

Tags: , , , ,

  • I'm disappointed you didn't throw in a clip of Dana Carvey's impression of George Will hosting a sports trivia show: "In 1954, Willie Mays, in an emphatic stroke of Byzantine whimsy, made his over-the-shoulder catch off of Vic Wertz. What was it not unlike?"
    Throwing out that first pitch in the World Series truly was Bush's finest moment as president. Which is unspeakably depressing.
  • He shows nice form on the mound there, no? Certainly like like some dude who had half his ass blown off by an I.E.D.
  • Also, I think you're falling into the same trap that the mainstream press has as far as seeing McCain as "honorable". He's much better than many, to be sure, but he's been pandering pretty shamelessly to the conservative wing of the party regarding torture and immigration, and doesn't want to abide by the campaign finance rules that he himself championed.
  • If I had known there was a bet, I wouldn't have mentioned the middle name that must not be named. I can't afford to lose any bets in this economy! Saying the name that must not be named is only good for a little entertainment value anyway, as people object to actually enunciating the candidate's real name. Priceless. It signifies nothing about Obama. It tells a lot about those who object to saying his name. And about people like me who can't resist an impish urge to say it. Hussein! Hussein! Hussein! It's so FUN.

    "...as opposed to looking forward to his death so I can urinate on his grave." And they say conservatives are haters??? It is as I've always observed: liberals are often exactly what they accuse others of being. It's called "projection."

    I'm as unhappy with Bush's performance as the average guy, I think, maybe not always for the same reasons. But people who are willing to put aside their prejudices for a moment will discover that Bush is an incredibly smart, thoughtful, caring man. He even expresses himself well, when the cameras aren't on him. Your musings here remind me of Bob Geldof's meeting/tour with Bush in Africa, which he described in Time magazine:

    http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1...

    Geldof credits Bush with saving millions of lives in Africa. So put that in the balance when weighing your urge to piss on his remains. It isn't only in the context of baseball that the man's character shines. I don't think you understand the pain he's put himself through, meeting and praying with the families of those who have died in Iraq. Living in Iowa, where many have been called to serve, I think disproportionately so, we hear of those stories from acquaintances. The image of Bush as a man without concern for those who have paid the price for his decisions does not fit what we know is the reality.

    At least you mixed your gall with a little sugar this time. That was nice.
  • Wow, so Bush makes time for "meeting and praying with the families of those who have died" in a war he started for no good reason. Very big of him.

    As for the President's intelligence, I'm with you, Eric -- he isn't stupid, and those who insist on believing he is don't do anyone any favors. I do think he's demonstrated a lack of curiosity, however, and as far as being thoughtful and/or caring? Sorry, but I'm not sold. It'll take someone other than Geldof to do the convincing.
  • I want to believe Bush is stupid because, at least, that's an explanation. Somehow, the notion of him being the world's greatest delegator and outsourcer (outsoreceror? I'll take the Vorpal Blade for fifty hitpoints) just isn't as satisfying as incompetence. Incompetence would indicate that he got us all into this mess by accident.
  • JonCummings
    Please try not to be so disingenuous when it comes to Obama's middle name, Eric; it's a little late for conservatives to be disingenuous when it comes to the Republican Party's fear- and hate-mongering. You know perfectly well why you (and the dittoheads, whom I continually hope you'll rise above) use the word Hussein any chance you get, and it's really rather pathetic that conservatives assume either such stereotypical suspiciousness out of anyone with that name, or else such stereotypical stupidity out of anyone who might be swayed by your use of it. Either way, you may win an election, but your soul is dead. I wish the rest of us could take comfort in that, but we'd have to live with the results of four more years of your intellectually and morally bankrupt policies.

    As for Bush, the amount of money he's pushed through to fight AIDS in Africa is worth five weeks of the Iraq War, and it's only given on the usual abstinence-not-condoms basis. I agree wholeheartedly that this money is a wonderful thing, and hopefully it's being used wisely. It's probably the one worthwhile thing the man has done in seven-plus years. Hooray!

    But your discussion of "the pain (Bush) puts himself through meeting and praying with families" is laughable. Who are you, Dick Cheney? You can't start a war of choice, based on baldfaced lies, then provide too-little body armor and too-few veterans benefits, and then expect sympathy for your efforts to comfort the families of soldiers whose blood is all over your hands.
  • Cap
    I really don't get what an intelligent person like you has against conservatives. It's a lot brighter way to be: strong US defense is good for the world and the country, Tax CUTS always increase revenue and jobs and there is far less corruption (yes, I know both sides have it, but I am saying less) on the conservative side. Yeah, some conservatives act self-righteous, but how many liberals do you know that are incredibly pretentious despite having no clear ideas other than bumper sticker mantras?
  • I've got a stomach full of gin, blue curacao, and bourbon, so I'll try to keep this as short and coherent as possible (no promises). Self-righteous people are a dime a dozen on either side of the aisle. But I'd much rather live by a philosophy where I'm willing to share what I have with strangers and trust them to act in good faith (i.e. liberalism) than assuming a tribal mentality where I convince myself that those people I don't know personally are intent on doing me harm and are endlessly scheming to take everything I possess away from me (i.e. conservatism). I'd rather help the weak than hold them in contempt. Supply-side economics fails every bit as badly as communism fails because both systems allow the worst in human nature to flourish (greed vs. laziness).
  • The reality of the "strong defense" mantra goes something like this: Tax dollars awarded to private corporations whose business is to find new and novel ways to kill people and whole societies. Always advocating for a "strong defense" is pork barrel politics pure and simple. Its' the kind of politics conservatives love to criticize, but always have time for when it comes to allocating money for the military-industrial complex -- a phrase, by the way, made famous by a Republican (Einenhower). Liberals and conservatives have supported these industries since WWII, but defense has become the catch-all phrase conservatives use when they want to accuse the other side of being weak.

    And Cap: tax cuts don't always increase revenue and spur job growth -- or were you asleep for most of the 1990s?
  • In the past eight years, we've depleted our National Guard for the sake of US defense to the cost of billions that the taxpayer will have to foot the bill. Tax cuts do not create revenue in a recession and spin this however you choose, we're in a recession. Bush may tell you otherwise but it ain't necessarily so.

    Tax cuts might increase jobs (not sure how) if we enforced keeping them in country. We don't. China has boomed thanks to most of our industry deserting the country to get in on all that cheap labor. Mexico has done okay for itself, but the people there know those slave wages aren't enough, so they migrate here, hence exacerbating the illegal immigrant population.

    Yes, liberals often speak with an inflated piety and when they get their big shot, they peter out. It's just the truth. But let us get one thing straight: it's not the political ideology that's the big problem. It's this administration that's the big problem, and the McCain platform to continue this administration's policies. Forget the whole "Straight Talk Express" and "Maverick" nonsense. You sync up McCain's non-election stances with his current ones and you'll find he has contorted himself to the image of this failed, spendaholic, bloodied-hands administration.

    This year it isn't about left versus right, liberal versus conservative. It's about that which reeks of Bush and his cronies and that which does not. Maybe the alternative isn't much better, but it is not THIS administration, and that's a start.
  • (I meant this to go under Cap's comments, BTW)
  • I don't agree that McCain is an honorable man. Despite his claim to "straight talk" the fact is that he is not telling the truth about his relationship with lobbyists. He has broken the campaign finance law that he co-authored. He would be delighted to keep the country at war indefinitely. Just because he's getting a free ride from the press, that doesn't make him honorable. And if he doesn't get down in the mud during the general election, you can be sure that his Republican colleagues will, at which point McCain will pretend he has nothing to do with it.

    Despite the fact that I'm a life-long Yankees fan, Mays is my favorite player ever. I wore number 24 in high school as a tribute to him.
  • Dang! Both videos are no longer available.
blog comments powered by Disqus