Some years ago Jerry Seinfeld observed that, in the age of free agency, fans of professional sports these days were doing little more than rooting for laundry.
He was right, of course. In the earlier days of pro sports, fans could freely attach themselves to players and teams simultaneously. One could root for Ted Williams and the Red Sox, knowing that, barring a league-shattering trade, the former would certainly be back with the latter year after year.
These days, with player movement as frequent as it is, it is a dicey proposition indeed to give one’s loyalty to a player, who may be gone from the home-town team at any time. Even players that seemed to be the cornerstones of their franchises are sometimes traded. Beloved his first few years with the Red Sox, Nomar Garciaparra was gone at the trading deadline in 2004. Those of us who cheer for the Sox, however, were able to adjust. Similarly, a year or so later when Johnny Damon left the Sox for the Yankees, he became the hardball equivalent of Benedict Arnold, and, incidentally, inspired the classic line “Johnny Damon: looks like Jesus, acts like Judas, throws like Mary!”
Now, why do I bring this up? Because Jerry Seinfeld, instead of observing the landscape of modern professional sports, could just as easily been making political commentary. Parties and politicians now routinely find themselves switching sides of political issues and many, whether elected officials or rank-and-file party registrants and adherents, blindly follow along.
A recent example was the manner in which the Massachusetts Legislature dealt with the appointment of a U.S. Senator in the event of a vacancy. In 2004, when John Kerry seemed actually capable of winning the presidency, Massachusetts Democrats successfully pushed through a change in the law so that the Governor (then Republican Mitt Romney) could not appoint an interim-Senator. The Democrats argued that this important matter should be left solely to the citizens, not to other politicians. Republicans, in the hope of having a U.S. Senator appointed from their party, argued that the Governor should appoint someone so that the Commonwealth was fully represented on the issues of the day.
Five years later, with a Senate seat from Massachusetts vacant and a Democrat Governor, Massachusetts Democrats decided that the Commonwealth needed full representation in the Senate and again pushed through a change in the law, this time giving the power to appoint back to the (now Democrat) Governor. Republicans argued that the naming of a U.S. Senator should be up to the people, not another politician.
This is just a recent and easy example of politicians’ positions being situational rather than deeply-held. It’s not an isolated event, by any stretch. Did you ever notice how many politicians’ views on the federal line-item veto depended on whether their party held the White House?
Now, for the politicians themselves, at some level this is all just business. It may be about trust in the President since he shares your party affiliation, or it may be about currying favor with one’s party leadership. Whatever the root cause, my guess is that the change in most politicians’ positions is highly calculated and reached very consciously. The farther we move from the principals involved, however, the less conscious the change in position. We all know people who blindly follow a party or a politician, regardless of changes in position. They blissfully ignore changes in position or, at the most, offer a tepid explanation such as “He said what he had to say to get elected” as if that is a virtue, or “Give him a chance” while making it obvious that there is no limit to their own patience since, you know, “their” politician is on the “right” team.
He was right, of course. In the earlier days of pro sports, fans could freely attach themselves to players and teams simultaneously. One could root for Ted Williams and the Red Sox, knowing that, barring a league-shattering trade, the former would certainly be back with the latter year after year.
These days, with player movement as frequent as it is, it is a dicey proposition indeed to give one’s loyalty to a player, who may be gone from the home-town team at any time. Even players that seemed to be the cornerstones of their franchises are sometimes traded. Beloved his first few years with the Red Sox, Nomar Garciaparra was gone at the trading deadline in 2004. Those of us who cheer for the Sox, however, were able to adjust. Similarly, a year or so later when Johnny Damon left the Sox for the Yankees, he became the hardball equivalent of Benedict Arnold, and, incidentally, inspired the classic line “Johnny Damon: looks like Jesus, acts like Judas, throws like Mary!”
Now, why do I bring this up? Because Jerry Seinfeld, instead of observing the landscape of modern professional sports, could just as easily been making political commentary. Parties and politicians now routinely find themselves switching sides of political issues and many, whether elected officials or rank-and-file party registrants and adherents, blindly follow along.
A recent example was the manner in which the Massachusetts Legislature dealt with the appointment of a U.S. Senator in the event of a vacancy. In 2004, when John Kerry seemed actually capable of winning the presidency, Massachusetts Democrats successfully pushed through a change in the law so that the Governor (then Republican Mitt Romney) could not appoint an interim-Senator. The Democrats argued that this important matter should be left solely to the citizens, not to other politicians. Republicans, in the hope of having a U.S. Senator appointed from their party, argued that the Governor should appoint someone so that the Commonwealth was fully represented on the issues of the day.
Five years later, with a Senate seat from Massachusetts vacant and a Democrat Governor, Massachusetts Democrats decided that the Commonwealth needed full representation in the Senate and again pushed through a change in the law, this time giving the power to appoint back to the (now Democrat) Governor. Republicans argued that the naming of a U.S. Senator should be up to the people, not another politician.
This is just a recent and easy example of politicians’ positions being situational rather than deeply-held. It’s not an isolated event, by any stretch. Did you ever notice how many politicians’ views on the federal line-item veto depended on whether their party held the White House?
Now, for the politicians themselves, at some level this is all just business. It may be about trust in the President since he shares your party affiliation, or it may be about currying favor with one’s party leadership. Whatever the root cause, my guess is that the change in most politicians’ positions is highly calculated and reached very consciously. The farther we move from the principals involved, however, the less conscious the change in position. We all know people who blindly follow a party or a politician, regardless of changes in position. They blissfully ignore changes in position or, at the most, offer a tepid explanation such as “He said what he had to say to get elected” as if that is a virtue, or “Give him a chance” while making it obvious that there is no limit to their own patience since, you know, “their” politician is on the “right” team.
No comments:
Post a Comment