Softball and Partisanship

[Coast2CoastHoya]

From a Wall Street Journal article (http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB114584256978033769-lMyQjAxMDE2NDI1NDgyNDQyWj.html):

" Softball on the Mall Was Bipartisan Fun Till Politics Intruded
By Brody Mullins.

. . .

During the off-season, a group of Republican teams seceded from the [Congressional Softball] league after accusing its Democratic commissioner, Gary Caruso, of running a socialist year-end playoff system that gives below-average teams an unfair chance to win the championship.

The league "is all about Softball Welfare -- aiding the weak by punishing the strong," the pitcher of one Republican team told Mr. Caruso in an email. "The commissioner has a long-standing policy of punishing success and rewarding failure. He's a Democrat. Waddya' expect?" read another email, from Gary Mahmoud, the coach of BoehnerLand, a team from the office of Republican Majority Leader John Boehner.

The softball coup is a "reflection of how partisan and Republican this town has really become since Republicans took control," responds Mr. Caruso, a longtime Democratic aide who worked for congressmen in the 1980s and '90s. "Republicans come here and want to bash your head in. And if they don't get their way, they pick up the ball and go home."

. . .

"It's pretty well known that most of the competitive teams and most of the fun teams are Republican," says Bob Honold, the captain of one Republican team. "Maybe we are just more talented people."

Mr. Caruso will remain the commissioner of the old league, now only about one-third its size last year. "It used to be that softball was one of the few things in Washington that both parties agreed on," he says. "Now that is coming to an end, too." "

Very, very sad for those of us who love summer softball on the Mall to see it not only get "partisanized," but also overly competitive. If you want super-competitive softball, I say play in one of the Arlington leagues, not one of the DC beer leagues. As for the state of American politics expressed in this microcosm, I open the floor to Hoyatalk members' learned opinions.

[Coast2CoastHoya]

Ok, since no one took the bait, I'll start.

One could easily blame the Republicans or the Democrats for doing such violence to a cherished institution of the summer season in DC, but they're both to blame. The current Democ-Repub two party system is destroying America. We've seen it with voter turnout, with foreign relations, by dint of the fact that 90% of what goes on on the Hill is posturing and finger pointing instead of customer (citizen, that is) service, and now with one of America's great pasttimes, softball. Case in point: Republicans (ironically) want a change from the status quo, so they name call and then run away from the existing system without trying to fix it when they don't get their way. The Democrats retort with more name calling and entrenching their position (also ironically) and don't address the faults in the existing system. No one tries to find a middle ground, and all of a sudden, something that was fun, worthwhile, or beneficial isn't anymore all because people can't seem to agree with someone who has an R or a D next to who they work for.

We have stood by for a decade and watched this happen more each year, but largely dismissed it as "mere politics." Those who have spent considerable time in Washington comment that this is worst partisansim they've ever seen, but most people seem to think it'll blow over - certainly our elected leaders and their staff have better uses of their time and our tax dollars than firing shots across each other's bows? Didn't George Washington advise us against this kind of thing in his Farewell Address when he said that "[t]he alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty"? [fn1]

It seems as though we're willing, as an American people, to put up with some of this while it stays within the guise of "politics as usual." But now we see - as Washington did - that allowing that to go on spills into other areas: parties "serve[] always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection." [fn2] Of all things in this city, summer league softball as an institution has been a outlet and a release from the partisan bickering that goes on from 9-5, notwithstanding the partisan alignments of the teams. Now, it seems, that too is lost. I wonder what the next step will be - bars segregated by party affiliation? Already there - go into Tortilla Coast or Bullfeathers and see for yourself. Sports teams looking for an owner but undone by politics? See the situation with Soros and the Nats.

I, for one, have always been proud to be independent of any party affiliation, and I vote based on issues and situational necessities. I'm even more proud now. Am I still going to play softball regardless of who it's with? Absolutely. I just wish the elected officials and aides and staff on the hill would spend more time working with each other instead of against each other, and if they can't, to leave the rest of us - and for God's sake, our recreational activities - out of it.


[fn1] George Washington, Farewell Address to the People of the United States, originally published in The Independent Chronicle, Sept. 26, 1796, available at www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/milestones/farewell/.
[fn2] Id.

[Filo]

C2C -- just saw this post. Brilliant. Thanks for taking the time to type that out. Couldn't have said it better myself.

Proudly independent and totally frustrated with the state of politics.

[DFW HOYA]

At the root, it's a fundamental disrespect for bipartisanship. Congress plays more to their money interests than the ability to build consensus for the good of the country. Both sides are to blame.

It wasn't that long ago that Democrats ripped into their own Speaker (Thomas O'Neill) for being too accomodating to a popular Republican president. Republicans responded by putting up a firewall between true believers and the often described "big tent", which is put up and taken down every four years at the convention.

Memo to Democrats: The average Republican is not a uneducated rural voter or a religious zealot. Half this country voted for the President because they agreed with his basic positions and have grown to doubt yours. Reaching across the aisle might make your case a little more believable in 2008.

Memo to Republicans: The average Democrat is not an Ivy League snob or a Hollywood actor. Half this country did not vote for the President because they do not see his issues in their daily lives. Reaching across the aisle might make your case a little more appreciated, too.

[Nitrorebel]

Since I'm studying a lot of these questions in a comparative sense, there is a fabulous literature on party-systems in the established democracies. The general agreement is that the American system in its current constitution has a lot of components that lead to unstable electoral politics:
- Two-party systems tend to breed apathy due to a lack of choice
- Presidential systems are decidely unstable by definition. There are only 4 other Presidential democracies in the world today I believe. Most have failed miserably due to the instability of such a sytem
- Electoral college
- Lack of proportional representation makes it impossible for smaller parties to rise, and skews the actual electoral preferences of the electorate.

A great book to check out that discusses the inefficiencies of the American system is Robert Dahl's "How Democratic Is the American Constitution?" (Yale Press, 2001). Dahl is one of the leading political sociologists in the world, for those that don't know.

Most other democracies have regularly re-written their constitutions and electoral systems, and are much younger. Usually, due to wars (World and civil), revolutions, parliamentary majority.

[jerseyhoya34]

Interesting discussion here...

I think the basic problem is that Americans have not demanded answers and bipartisanship from their elected leaders to the degree that is needed to bring about cooperation. Looking at 2004, 76% of Kerry voters and 81% of Bush voters decided how to vote over one month before Election Day. I suspect many decided before Labor Day. This dynamic gives an incentive to campaigns to ratchet up their existing support and to turn out the base as opposed to reaching out to a narrow group of undecideds/non-leaning independents through some sort of substantive effort. If we want to see change from our leaders, there will need to be some impetus from below because the current dynamic is sustaining entrenched elites in DC.

In DFW's memos, he lays out an idealistic vision, but it ignores empirical reality. Republican voters, like Democratic voters, are largely uneducated. According to the GSS, 69.6% of Republican voters have a HS degree or less education, and 76.3% of Dems have a HS degree or less. Nonetheless, "uneducated" would describe the average Republican voter, as it would a Democratic voter.

On the issue of religious zealotry, 35% of Bush voters described themselves as Evangelicals or Born Again Christians. While "zealot" does not describe the average Republican voter, this group of evangelicals is sizeable and commands the attention of Bush's administration. For many Americans, this is an unpleasant development and could jeopardize our national security, referencing the recent comments by Bush about God and Iraq.

Third, most Republicans did not vote for Bush because of his stance on the issues in 2004. In exit polls, 27% of Bush voters indicated that they voted for Bush because of his stance on the issues in the campaign. 4% of Bush voters said they voted for him because Bush cares about people like them. Another 14% of Bush voters voted for Bush because of his religious faith. 16% because he was "honest and trustworthy"...29% because he was a "strong leader"....

Democrats are not losing because of a failure to take stances that are appealing to Republicans. They tried that by voting for the War in Iraq, Patriot Act, and Department of Homeland Security, among other things. The problem is a lack of stylistic appeal to the American people. Some of that relates to the issues, such as a failure to relate positions on issues to Americans' lives etc.

Where were the calls for bipartisanship in Congress during the Clinton years? Few and far between in Republican circles... They decided on a strategy to frustrate Clinton's administration, and it worked for them politically.

[Deleted]

Here's my two cents:

My problem with the state of American politics can best be described with a restaurant analogy. To me, both parties talk a big game throughout the year(s) leading up to an election. They hit numerous issues, talk about how X and Y will be addressed during the campaign season, how the voters will have a chance to decide based on the issues, etc. Reminds me of The Cheesecake Factory: big menu, lots of choices, everyone is covered.

Then by the time the campaign season really starts rolling, the parties find the handful of issues they can rally their bases around and pummel the rest of us with them. At this point, its like going to eat at the Olympia Cafe (the "Chee-burger, chee-burger, chee-burger" restaurant in that famous SNL skit): you've got a tiny menu, few choices... all in all, disappointing.

And it gets even MORE disappointing when the items on that limited menu are items that I (and I'd venture to say a good portion of the country) don't care about: whether or not Candidate X did this or that during some war, what two consenting adults are doing in their own bedrooms, etc. Both parties are guilty of narrowing the debate, both parties are guilty of baiting the other, and both parties are guilty of biting and following the other into this one- or two-issue conflict.

I'm hardly some tree-hugging liberal - there are many issues on which I'm "Democrat" and others on which I'm "Republican" (although not this new breed of spend, spend, spend Dubya Republican). But the issues I think effect America and her national security (in the broadest sense) the most - the environment, education, the economy, civil rights - are often paid lip service by both parties, and it leads people like me - who'd LOVE to get more involved in politics, work in the public sector, etc. - to tune out.

I personally don't care for either the Republican or Democratic party. I certainly don't care for the current political arena which takes someone like Al Gore (who, say what you will about the guy, was a major cursader for the environment until he ran for President and then suddenly... nothing) or John McCain (what happened to the Straight Talk Express? Have you seen this guy kiss the ass of the administration and the right wing of the GOP recently? BLAH!) and reduces them to some sort of bum pandering to ANYONE for a vote.

It disgusts me. What happened to principled men and women leading this country to greatness? Kissinger once said, "the task of the leader is to get his people from where they are to where they have not been. The public does not fully understand the world into which it is going. Leaders must invoke an alchemy of great vision. Those leaders who do not are ultimately judged failures." I couldn't agree more. Unfortunately, neither party in power is helping the situation one bit.

What happened to government serving and bettering the lives of EVERYONE by looking out for the NATION'S best interests? To standing up to special interests and, while not lower the standing of the privileged, raising the standing of the unprivileged? I'll leave you with what one of my heroes, RFK, once said, something I think both parties could use a good dose of: "It is important that we should dedicate ourselves to what the Greeks wrote so many years ago: to tame the savageness of man, and make gentle the light of this world. Let us dedicate ourselves to that and say a prayer for our country and for our people.[/i]"

[/rant]

[SFHoya99]

Buff, that was a serious post. From you. And there were no pop culture references in it.

I agree 100%. Money, political parties, and specifically two party systems are killing this country.

And the American people are too fat and happy to care. Let's face it: our lives are pretty good, which is why we have what, a 99% incumbency re-election rate?

[Deleted]

sfhoya99 said:

Buff, that was a serious post. From you. And there were no pop culture references in it.

Oh, sorry. I won't do that again.

Samuel L. Jackson's best work was as "Sam" in 1994's Fresh.

[EasyEd]

Wow! Who would have thought that a little softball game that almost no one has ever heard of would bring all the liberals out of the woodwork? And you accuse the two parties of being too partisan?

[SoCal Hoya85]

I blame gerrymandering for the increase in partisanship and the growth of rivalries so large no one can seem to work with one another.

As long as partisan groups draw up the crazy illogical lines for congressional districts creating few contested seats in the House, politicians on both sides will be rewarded for moving to the ideological extremities instead of the middle where most of America resides. This of course discourages compromise, with the victim being the American people when people like DeLay and McKinley are elected.

In my home state of California there is a petition circulating to have an independent group (as independent as can be made anyway) draw the districts which I think is a good idea and should be emulated by other states.

[Filo]

It disgusts me. What happened to principled men and women leading this country to greatness? Kissinger once said, "the task of the leader is to get his people from where they are to where they have not been. The public does not fully understand the world into which it is going. Leaders must invoke an alchemy of great vision. Those leaders who do not are ultimately judged failures." I couldn't agree more. Unfortunately, neither party in power is helping the situation one bit.

There's the rub. The best and the brightest do not go into politics. It's not worth selling your soul to all of the spcial interests in order to succeed. I am sure there are some politicans who are in it for the right reasons, but a great many are in it for power, self-aggrandizement, etc. and have fundamental flaws as human beings.

[Coast2CoastHoya]

thanks for the comments, guys .... good to hear i'm not alone in my consternation over all this.