IS AMERICA BECOMING A BANANA REPUBLIC?
Throughout the years of my youth, I took pride in the fact that America was a nation with a thriving middle class. There were pockets of extreme wealth here, to be sure, but that could be said of just about any country. The difference is that in the so-called “third world,” the affluent represented a tiny minority, whereas the vast majority of the people were quite poor. I saw this for myself when I vacationed a couple of times in Jamaica or traveled to Mexico. It was so nice to return to America and not see such an unequal distribution of wealth.
Well … I am sure our wealth distribution is still more equitable than that of Mexico or Jamaica, but we seem to have turned the corner in a downward spiral. And if anyone had doubts about this point, they should have been dispelled earlier this past week, when the Pew Research Center released its report of the median wealth of American households in 2009.
The numbers are stark. From 2005 to 2009, the median household net worth dropped from $135K to $113K for white families, $167K to $78K for Asian-American families, $18K to $6,325 for Hispanic families, and $12K to $5,677 for African-American households.
The lead headline for these numbers was that the wealth disparity between white households and African American or Hispanic households grew tremendously to where white Americans now have, on average, 20 times the assets of blacks and 18 times the assets of Hispanics. But to me, the shocking numbers are the dollar figures themselves. If you are African-American or Hispanic family and your assets exceed liabilities by $6,400, you are now better off than most other Americans from your ethnic group. By contrast, partners from big law firms commonly bill more than that amount in a single day.
In total, as of 2009, there were about 4.7 million households in America with a net worth of at least a million dollars, representing roughly 4.1 percent of all the nation’s households. With the stock market rebound, that number has surely grown significantly in the past two years, and economists are expecting it to grow dramatically in the next decade. There is no question that while times are tough for the average African-American or Hispanic American, the wealthiest among us are doing just fine.
I think a lot about these figures these days when listening to the talking heads on TV angst about the debt ceiling negotiations. They want to turn those negotiations into a proverbial page turner. But who are they kidding? The people who run our government today are clearly beholden to the 4+ percent of the nation who are worth a million dollars (and who generate the lion’s share of political contributions), and the last thing they’re going to do is watch their stock portfolios go up in smoke. We’ll get a debt-ceiling deal, and it will be hailed as a great accomplishment by some of the yentas on Capitol Hill and 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. But when all is said and done, the deal will be just one more sign that this nation is becoming a banana republic – albeit on a larger scale than our neighbors to the south.
Clearly, if anyone should be sacrificing in these negotiations, it would be the Americans who are best able to withstand the sacrifice. President Obama was first proposing to increase taxes on those Americans who earn at least $250,000 per year, but later, it was clear that he would have been happy to limit the tax increase to Americans who earn a cool million. No matter – the GOP guardians-of-great-wealth were unwilling to permit even the more restrictive tax increase. So if you earn at least $1 million a year – and if your family’s net worth is measured not in the seven figures but rather in the eight, nine or ten – have no fear. You and your assets will be just fine.
The “compromise” that will be hailed on Tuesday will be felt by a very different group of Americans – the ones who depend on programs like Medicare and Social Security. These include Americans on the south side of the 50th percentile in terms of family net worth. Democrats will tell you that they oppose this approach – that they would much prefer raising taxes on the rich to cutting benefits for the poor or middle class – but had no choice in the matter. The Republicans, they will say, drove a hard bargain. They were willing to drive our collective car off the cliff, Thelma and Louise-style, and the only sane option was to reach a “compromise” in which taxes would be left alone and the budget would be balanced on the backs of those who can afford it the least. This was the same reasoning they employed when, in early 2009, we saved our banks by spewing bazillions of dollars onto Wall Street with virtually no strings attached. It was either that, the Democrats will tell you, or suffer financial Armageddon.
Personally, I’m growing a little tired of all the rationalizations and euphemisms. We “have no choice” but to “reach a compromise.” I find it hard to believe that we have no choice, and I find it impossible to call any of this a “compromise.” In 2008, I joined most of my fellow Americans in voting for what appeared to be a progressive President and a progressive Congress. And what do we have? One party rule – and it’s not the progressive one.
To be sure, the Democrats are being given an extremely difficult hand of cards. But are they doing the most with those cards? Can they not at least try to drum into the heads of the American public the most relevant facts – including the numbers that tell the real tale here?
For me, the two most relevant numbers are $6,325 and $5,677. They are difficult to remember. But once you focus on them and realize what they represent, they’re very difficult to ignore altogether.
By the way, next time you call your local Congressperson, why don’t you ask for the price of a good house servant. They’ll probably tell you to wait a few years, for surely the price will go down. But I think you’re likely to get a pretty good deal right now. And if you live in Bethesda, Beverly Hills or Scarsdale, I don’t doubt for a second that you can afford it.
Sunday, July 31, 2011
Sunday, July 10, 2011
A FORK IN THE ROAD
The negotiations over the debt ceiling are truly shaping up as one of the great dramas of our time. If only they weren’t so important, this would be pretty entertaining stuff.
As a progressive, it is easy for me to fear what might happen – massive cuts in Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, and minimal tax increases for wealthy individuals and corporations. After all, President Obama doesn’t have the best track record in negotiating huge deals; he tends to unilaterally give up a ton at the start and then search for a meaningful compromise, which is not exactly a technique taught in Negotiations classes.
Still, every now and then, I wonder if the debt ceiling talks might actually provide a much needed opportunity for Washington to address some of its long term problems. Amassing huge quantities of debt offends me as a son of two children of the Great Depression. It’s time to live within our means, wouldn’t you say? Our tax code is a nightmare in terms of not only its complexity but its ridiculous and offensive giveaways to special interests. Can’t we at least get that code reformed? And if in order to stop our passion for deficit spending, we need to generate more revenue than what can be accomplished merely by closing loopholes, isn’t it time to roll back those Bush tax cuts, at least insofar as they benefit the wealthy?
What did you say? The Republicans will never go for it? Well they might, if the Democrats are willing to put spending cuts on the table, and I think they will and they should – not necessarily Medicaid, but Medicare and even Social Security. As sad as it would be to take part of the nest egg away from of our nation’s aged and infirm, as long as our wealthy are being asked to take on their fair share of the burden, middle class Americans should be willing to pitch in as well. We owe it to our children and grandchildren, who for years have been subsidizing our fiscal irresponsibility.
So are we headed in the direction of increasing the marginal tax rate for wealthy individuals, closing the tax loopholes, and making Medicare, Social Security, and for that matter, the military, a bit leaner and meaner? Many would oppose this course on the grounds that we’re already suffering economically, so it seems an inopportune time to think about budget cuts and tax increases. But if not now, when? If we whiff on this opportunity to confront the National Debt, despite the fact that the problem is now at the center of our focus, do we really think another opportunity will come around any time soon? Trust me, when it comes to making short term concessions to advance long term goals, this nation has developed a pretty sorry track record lately. If there is an emerging consensus on the need for serious debt reduction, we might want to take this shot while we can.
In short, despite what all the Chicken Littles are saying, the unfolding drama that is now unfolding in Washington might actually produce welcome, as well as nightmarish, results. Truth be told, I suppose I’m still a bit pessimistic, but maybe President Obama will surprise us. Or better still, maybe Speaker Boehner will surprise us. It will be pretty exciting to find out.
ON A FINAL NOTE: I will be on the road for nearly all of the remainder of July, so it is unlikely there will be any more Empathic Rationalist posts until the month’s end. I hope you all are having a great summer and look forward to posting again in the hot and humid month of August.
Take care.
The negotiations over the debt ceiling are truly shaping up as one of the great dramas of our time. If only they weren’t so important, this would be pretty entertaining stuff.
As a progressive, it is easy for me to fear what might happen – massive cuts in Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, and minimal tax increases for wealthy individuals and corporations. After all, President Obama doesn’t have the best track record in negotiating huge deals; he tends to unilaterally give up a ton at the start and then search for a meaningful compromise, which is not exactly a technique taught in Negotiations classes.
Still, every now and then, I wonder if the debt ceiling talks might actually provide a much needed opportunity for Washington to address some of its long term problems. Amassing huge quantities of debt offends me as a son of two children of the Great Depression. It’s time to live within our means, wouldn’t you say? Our tax code is a nightmare in terms of not only its complexity but its ridiculous and offensive giveaways to special interests. Can’t we at least get that code reformed? And if in order to stop our passion for deficit spending, we need to generate more revenue than what can be accomplished merely by closing loopholes, isn’t it time to roll back those Bush tax cuts, at least insofar as they benefit the wealthy?
What did you say? The Republicans will never go for it? Well they might, if the Democrats are willing to put spending cuts on the table, and I think they will and they should – not necessarily Medicaid, but Medicare and even Social Security. As sad as it would be to take part of the nest egg away from of our nation’s aged and infirm, as long as our wealthy are being asked to take on their fair share of the burden, middle class Americans should be willing to pitch in as well. We owe it to our children and grandchildren, who for years have been subsidizing our fiscal irresponsibility.
So are we headed in the direction of increasing the marginal tax rate for wealthy individuals, closing the tax loopholes, and making Medicare, Social Security, and for that matter, the military, a bit leaner and meaner? Many would oppose this course on the grounds that we’re already suffering economically, so it seems an inopportune time to think about budget cuts and tax increases. But if not now, when? If we whiff on this opportunity to confront the National Debt, despite the fact that the problem is now at the center of our focus, do we really think another opportunity will come around any time soon? Trust me, when it comes to making short term concessions to advance long term goals, this nation has developed a pretty sorry track record lately. If there is an emerging consensus on the need for serious debt reduction, we might want to take this shot while we can.
In short, despite what all the Chicken Littles are saying, the unfolding drama that is now unfolding in Washington might actually produce welcome, as well as nightmarish, results. Truth be told, I suppose I’m still a bit pessimistic, but maybe President Obama will surprise us. Or better still, maybe Speaker Boehner will surprise us. It will be pretty exciting to find out.
ON A FINAL NOTE: I will be on the road for nearly all of the remainder of July, so it is unlikely there will be any more Empathic Rationalist posts until the month’s end. I hope you all are having a great summer and look forward to posting again in the hot and humid month of August.
Take care.
Monday, July 04, 2011
A JULY 4TH ESSAY
Today, I was honored to give the keynote address at a 4th of July breakfast sponsored by the Greater Baltimore Muslim Council. What follows is what I said (give or take a few words). I bet you can identify the statement about which someone from the audience later said that she, as a Muslim American, could never have gotten away with saying what I said as a Jewish American. Sadly, I have to agree that she's right.
Here's the talk:
As the Coordinator of the Jewish-Islamic Dialogue Society of Washington, I am often called upon to sing the praises of certain homelands. Inevitably, these places are associated with a particular ethnic group. I might be asked to explain, for example, why, as a Jew, I can be such a committed Palestinian nationalist. Or why, as a lover of justice, I can be such a devoted Zionist. Most people embrace one of these states -- they become lovers of Palestinian sovereignty or of the Jewish State -- but I am proud to embrace both. And I enjoy explaining what it means to have a vision of “two states for two peoples,” both of whom constitute first cousins in the same family, the family of Abraham.
Today, though, I have been asked to proclaim my love for a very different country -- not a homeland for a single ethnic group, but rather a melting pot state. In such a state, peoples from all over the world come together and celebrate their common humanity. To be sure, this melting pot has ethnic neighborhoods, ethnic religious congregations, and even recognizes some ethnic holidays. But what it doesn’t have is the sense that one ethnic group holds a more central place in its cultural fabric than any other. Rather, the nation to which I allude wishes to create a common tapestry in which all of the world’s cultures participate. The nation’s motto is e pluribus unum – “out of many, one.” And that requires honoring each and every ethnic culture that contributes to the fabric. But perhaps even more importantly, it challenges people to figure out how to create the most beautiful fabric possible out of such a diverse set of threads.
That is the quintessential challenge posed by the United States of America. And it has many formulations. What principles can we adopt to help us all live in peace and with justice? What happens when our notions of freedom and equity conflict? And have we learned lessons from our own melting pot nation that can be used to inform debates between warring groups outside of these borders? To these types of questions, which have been around from the time of this nation’s founding, others have been added resulting from the nation’s unique wealth and power: are we responsible for serving as the world’s mediator? Or as its policeman? I go back and forth when I think about those latter issues, but it is a measure of America’s greatness that they can be asked with a straight face.
My grandparents came to these shores at the same time that most American Jewish families came – at or around the end of the 19th century. My parents and I have enjoyed traveling around the world, but all of our lives, we have called America home. The family first settled in New York City. And then, in the 1940s, my parents moved to Washington, D.C. The family has been based in the D.C. area ever since. And as residents of the nation’s capital, we have been privileged to encounter so many majestic American landmarks. Allow me to discuss just a few.
Let’s start with the Smithsonian Institution. Unquestionably, these museums house some of the greatest collections of artwork in the world. But do we charge people to enter into those hallowed halls? Not a penny. Whether you are from Albany or Amsterdam, we don’t want your money, we just want you to walk in and admire some of the greatest paintings and sculptures your species has to offer. And you will quickly forget what you’re country you’re in. Because this being a melting pot, the Smithsonian Institution has been designed to celebrate masterpieces from all over the planet without even the slightest touch of parochialism. Yes, the Smithsonian makes me proud to be an American, but it does so by teaching that to be an American is, first and foremost, to be a citizen of the world.
The next set of landmarks I’d like to reference is a series of related memorials. They focus on an incredible time in our history – a time in which the United States of America was finally transformed into the United States of America. We know this time period as the “Civil War,” but it wasn’t simply a time of bloodshed. It was a time when Americans decided that they must risk their lives to fight for the ultimate principles on which this nation was based. We would decide once and for all whether slavery would be permitted here. And we would decide whether we owe our allegiance primarily to the individual state from which we hail, or to the nation that attempted to unify these diverse states. The memorials of this era include battlefields, of which the DC area has so many – places called Gettysburg, Antietam, Bull Run, Chancellorsville, the Wilderness, Fredericksburg. Every such battlefield memorial is hallowed ground, for it was there that countless numbers of men gave their lives for truly elevated purposes.
For me, what ties these battlefields together are two very special memorials. They are located only a couple of miles from each other, and are among the most prominent landmarks in Washington, D.C. One, which is housed at the Arlington National Cemetery, is the home of Robert E. Lee. It is difficult to imagine a more noble American soul than Lee, regardless of where you stand on the issue of blue versus grey. Lee graduated second in his class at the United States Military Academy, but then, true to his allegiance to the State of Virginia, he was forced to command the Confederate Army against the United States Military. Remember – prior to the Civil War, a person’s country to which he or she held allegiance was the state from which he came. In Lee’s case, he was a Virginian first and foremost, and only secondarily, an American. So in choosing to fight for the South, Lee made the only choice a patriot could have made. That mentality changed after the Civil War.
The other memorial to which I referred is, of course, the Lincoln Memorial. It is there where you can read Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation, which freed the slaves in all the southern states. But no less moving, are the words he used in consecrating the battlefield at Gettysburg.
In just a small number of words, Lincoln summarized so beautifully what it means to be a martyr and what it means to be an American. I give you the last paragraph of that immortal speech:
“[I]n a larger sense, we can not dedicate -- we can not consecrate -- we can not hallow -- this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”
That is how the Gettysburg Address ended. It began on a very similar note – by reminding the audience exactly what it was that unified us as Americans. This nation, Lincoln said, was “conceived in liberty,” and was “dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.” In that last phrase, he was harkening back to another set of immortal words – those in the Declaration of Independence. The Declaration is but another short, and yet so sweet, statement that defines who we are as Americans. It was unveiled precisely 235 years ago on this very day by Thomas Jefferson.
Jefferson is my favorite figure in U.S. history. I always carry with me two dollar bills to remember him and what he has to teach us. I frequently wear ties that celebrate him and his legacy. And when someone asks me to identify my favorite place in the United States, I have but one answer: Monticello, the place that Jefferson called home.
Monticello is a good 2 ½ hour drive from Washington, but it is always worth the trip. I’ve been there countless times. And whenever I go, it reminds me of the greatness of both the man and the nation that he was so instrumental in forging.
Now, make no mistake – Jefferson is no a saint. He is no Moses, he is no Jesus, he is no Muhammad. His flaws go beyond Moses’ shortcoming revealed in Chapter 20 of Numbers or Muhammad’s shortcoming revealed in Surah 80. But because Jefferson never proclaimed himself to be a saint, he is in fact a figure to whom we all can relate. A human, all-too-human figure, who nevertheless devoted himself to so many wholesome pursuits. You see all this in Monticello. You see how this one man was such a devotee of art, music, philosophy, science, anthropology, agriculture, religion, nature, language, architecture, literature … and of course, statecraft. And the more you study Jefferson, the more you see his footprints all over this nation as it has evolved over time.
We owe so much of our commitment to religious liberty to Jefferson. We owe so much of our commitment to public schooling to him. And we owe to Jefferson so much of our respect for equity and liberty. How, someone might ask, can one be passionate about both, if at some level, they conflict with one another? And the simple answer, is that to be a student of Jefferson is to realize that we have no choice. “We hold these truths as self evident,” he wrote. “That all men are created equal. And that they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights. Among these, are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”
Equity and liberty are American values. They are Jeffersonian values. And so is commitment to the faculty of reason. For Jefferson was an Enlightenment philosopher. And the nation that he and his colleagues forged is very much a product of the Enlightenment. We must not forget that either. And when we, as Americans, go out among the world at large and fight for such principles as justice and peace, it is worth remembering a couple of key points.
The melting pot concept works for us, but that doesn’t mean it will meet the needs of everyone else. The fact that there is an America, for example, doesn’t mean there shouldn’t be a China, an Italy, or an Israel. But when we do encounter ethnic or religious groups that wish to remain outside the scope of a melting pot state, and that are fighting over the same land, there is much that we can draw from as Americans to help them solve their problems. Specifically, we can draw from the same Enlightenment principles, the same commitment to reason, that so moved Jefferson and that has inspired Americans ever since. You’ll find those principles imbuing the words of Lincoln at Gettysburg, and of the actions taken by the founders of the Smithsonian. We must never forget those Enlightenment principles. They are our birthright as Americans. And as someone whose Judaism is more important to me than even my patriotism as an American, I can safely say that the principles of the Enlightenment are in harmony with the principles of Moses. If you think you’ve found a conflict, my advice is to think again.
So, if Jefferson, Lincoln and Lee were alive today, what would they ask of us as children of Abraham? They, who fought so hard to enable us to live in peace and prosperity, would they wish for us today to take this largess and just enjoy ourselves? Or would they beseech us to strive to live like they did – and better yet, to live as our Prophets did – and dedicate ourselves to the noblest of causes?
As one who believes that you don’t give up your ethnicity simply because you’re an American citizen, as one who believes that you cannot enjoy peace until your family is at peace, I come here today to tell you that there is no cause more noble for a Jew or a Muslim than to see that our peoples can live in peace in Israel and Palestine. Some think that can happen in one melting pot state, but we who have studied American history know the unique and often tragic circumstances that gave rise to a melting pot state on these shores. And the situation in Israel and Palestine is very different.
To me, the place that is holy to Jews, Muslims and Christians will not know peace until Muslims come to love Israel as a Jewish state and Jews come to love Palestinian Nationalism. Right now, though, that is a vision few of us are willing to work for. But I ask you to think about think about it in the name of a God who commands us to create peace, in the name of our father Abraham who would have wished Isaac and Ishmael to live in peace, in the names of those great Americans who have taught us about war and peace, and in the name of family.
Jews and Muslims are not enemies. We are the closest of cousins. If there is anything I’ve learned as the coordinator of a Jewish-Islamic dialogue society, it is that.
Today, I was honored to give the keynote address at a 4th of July breakfast sponsored by the Greater Baltimore Muslim Council. What follows is what I said (give or take a few words). I bet you can identify the statement about which someone from the audience later said that she, as a Muslim American, could never have gotten away with saying what I said as a Jewish American. Sadly, I have to agree that she's right.
Here's the talk:
As the Coordinator of the Jewish-Islamic Dialogue Society of Washington, I am often called upon to sing the praises of certain homelands. Inevitably, these places are associated with a particular ethnic group. I might be asked to explain, for example, why, as a Jew, I can be such a committed Palestinian nationalist. Or why, as a lover of justice, I can be such a devoted Zionist. Most people embrace one of these states -- they become lovers of Palestinian sovereignty or of the Jewish State -- but I am proud to embrace both. And I enjoy explaining what it means to have a vision of “two states for two peoples,” both of whom constitute first cousins in the same family, the family of Abraham.
Today, though, I have been asked to proclaim my love for a very different country -- not a homeland for a single ethnic group, but rather a melting pot state. In such a state, peoples from all over the world come together and celebrate their common humanity. To be sure, this melting pot has ethnic neighborhoods, ethnic religious congregations, and even recognizes some ethnic holidays. But what it doesn’t have is the sense that one ethnic group holds a more central place in its cultural fabric than any other. Rather, the nation to which I allude wishes to create a common tapestry in which all of the world’s cultures participate. The nation’s motto is e pluribus unum – “out of many, one.” And that requires honoring each and every ethnic culture that contributes to the fabric. But perhaps even more importantly, it challenges people to figure out how to create the most beautiful fabric possible out of such a diverse set of threads.
That is the quintessential challenge posed by the United States of America. And it has many formulations. What principles can we adopt to help us all live in peace and with justice? What happens when our notions of freedom and equity conflict? And have we learned lessons from our own melting pot nation that can be used to inform debates between warring groups outside of these borders? To these types of questions, which have been around from the time of this nation’s founding, others have been added resulting from the nation’s unique wealth and power: are we responsible for serving as the world’s mediator? Or as its policeman? I go back and forth when I think about those latter issues, but it is a measure of America’s greatness that they can be asked with a straight face.
My grandparents came to these shores at the same time that most American Jewish families came – at or around the end of the 19th century. My parents and I have enjoyed traveling around the world, but all of our lives, we have called America home. The family first settled in New York City. And then, in the 1940s, my parents moved to Washington, D.C. The family has been based in the D.C. area ever since. And as residents of the nation’s capital, we have been privileged to encounter so many majestic American landmarks. Allow me to discuss just a few.
Let’s start with the Smithsonian Institution. Unquestionably, these museums house some of the greatest collections of artwork in the world. But do we charge people to enter into those hallowed halls? Not a penny. Whether you are from Albany or Amsterdam, we don’t want your money, we just want you to walk in and admire some of the greatest paintings and sculptures your species has to offer. And you will quickly forget what you’re country you’re in. Because this being a melting pot, the Smithsonian Institution has been designed to celebrate masterpieces from all over the planet without even the slightest touch of parochialism. Yes, the Smithsonian makes me proud to be an American, but it does so by teaching that to be an American is, first and foremost, to be a citizen of the world.
The next set of landmarks I’d like to reference is a series of related memorials. They focus on an incredible time in our history – a time in which the United States of America was finally transformed into the United States of America. We know this time period as the “Civil War,” but it wasn’t simply a time of bloodshed. It was a time when Americans decided that they must risk their lives to fight for the ultimate principles on which this nation was based. We would decide once and for all whether slavery would be permitted here. And we would decide whether we owe our allegiance primarily to the individual state from which we hail, or to the nation that attempted to unify these diverse states. The memorials of this era include battlefields, of which the DC area has so many – places called Gettysburg, Antietam, Bull Run, Chancellorsville, the Wilderness, Fredericksburg. Every such battlefield memorial is hallowed ground, for it was there that countless numbers of men gave their lives for truly elevated purposes.
For me, what ties these battlefields together are two very special memorials. They are located only a couple of miles from each other, and are among the most prominent landmarks in Washington, D.C. One, which is housed at the Arlington National Cemetery, is the home of Robert E. Lee. It is difficult to imagine a more noble American soul than Lee, regardless of where you stand on the issue of blue versus grey. Lee graduated second in his class at the United States Military Academy, but then, true to his allegiance to the State of Virginia, he was forced to command the Confederate Army against the United States Military. Remember – prior to the Civil War, a person’s country to which he or she held allegiance was the state from which he came. In Lee’s case, he was a Virginian first and foremost, and only secondarily, an American. So in choosing to fight for the South, Lee made the only choice a patriot could have made. That mentality changed after the Civil War.
The other memorial to which I referred is, of course, the Lincoln Memorial. It is there where you can read Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation, which freed the slaves in all the southern states. But no less moving, are the words he used in consecrating the battlefield at Gettysburg.
In just a small number of words, Lincoln summarized so beautifully what it means to be a martyr and what it means to be an American. I give you the last paragraph of that immortal speech:
“[I]n a larger sense, we can not dedicate -- we can not consecrate -- we can not hallow -- this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”
That is how the Gettysburg Address ended. It began on a very similar note – by reminding the audience exactly what it was that unified us as Americans. This nation, Lincoln said, was “conceived in liberty,” and was “dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.” In that last phrase, he was harkening back to another set of immortal words – those in the Declaration of Independence. The Declaration is but another short, and yet so sweet, statement that defines who we are as Americans. It was unveiled precisely 235 years ago on this very day by Thomas Jefferson.
Jefferson is my favorite figure in U.S. history. I always carry with me two dollar bills to remember him and what he has to teach us. I frequently wear ties that celebrate him and his legacy. And when someone asks me to identify my favorite place in the United States, I have but one answer: Monticello, the place that Jefferson called home.
Monticello is a good 2 ½ hour drive from Washington, but it is always worth the trip. I’ve been there countless times. And whenever I go, it reminds me of the greatness of both the man and the nation that he was so instrumental in forging.
Now, make no mistake – Jefferson is no a saint. He is no Moses, he is no Jesus, he is no Muhammad. His flaws go beyond Moses’ shortcoming revealed in Chapter 20 of Numbers or Muhammad’s shortcoming revealed in Surah 80. But because Jefferson never proclaimed himself to be a saint, he is in fact a figure to whom we all can relate. A human, all-too-human figure, who nevertheless devoted himself to so many wholesome pursuits. You see all this in Monticello. You see how this one man was such a devotee of art, music, philosophy, science, anthropology, agriculture, religion, nature, language, architecture, literature … and of course, statecraft. And the more you study Jefferson, the more you see his footprints all over this nation as it has evolved over time.
We owe so much of our commitment to religious liberty to Jefferson. We owe so much of our commitment to public schooling to him. And we owe to Jefferson so much of our respect for equity and liberty. How, someone might ask, can one be passionate about both, if at some level, they conflict with one another? And the simple answer, is that to be a student of Jefferson is to realize that we have no choice. “We hold these truths as self evident,” he wrote. “That all men are created equal. And that they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights. Among these, are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”
Equity and liberty are American values. They are Jeffersonian values. And so is commitment to the faculty of reason. For Jefferson was an Enlightenment philosopher. And the nation that he and his colleagues forged is very much a product of the Enlightenment. We must not forget that either. And when we, as Americans, go out among the world at large and fight for such principles as justice and peace, it is worth remembering a couple of key points.
The melting pot concept works for us, but that doesn’t mean it will meet the needs of everyone else. The fact that there is an America, for example, doesn’t mean there shouldn’t be a China, an Italy, or an Israel. But when we do encounter ethnic or religious groups that wish to remain outside the scope of a melting pot state, and that are fighting over the same land, there is much that we can draw from as Americans to help them solve their problems. Specifically, we can draw from the same Enlightenment principles, the same commitment to reason, that so moved Jefferson and that has inspired Americans ever since. You’ll find those principles imbuing the words of Lincoln at Gettysburg, and of the actions taken by the founders of the Smithsonian. We must never forget those Enlightenment principles. They are our birthright as Americans. And as someone whose Judaism is more important to me than even my patriotism as an American, I can safely say that the principles of the Enlightenment are in harmony with the principles of Moses. If you think you’ve found a conflict, my advice is to think again.
So, if Jefferson, Lincoln and Lee were alive today, what would they ask of us as children of Abraham? They, who fought so hard to enable us to live in peace and prosperity, would they wish for us today to take this largess and just enjoy ourselves? Or would they beseech us to strive to live like they did – and better yet, to live as our Prophets did – and dedicate ourselves to the noblest of causes?
As one who believes that you don’t give up your ethnicity simply because you’re an American citizen, as one who believes that you cannot enjoy peace until your family is at peace, I come here today to tell you that there is no cause more noble for a Jew or a Muslim than to see that our peoples can live in peace in Israel and Palestine. Some think that can happen in one melting pot state, but we who have studied American history know the unique and often tragic circumstances that gave rise to a melting pot state on these shores. And the situation in Israel and Palestine is very different.
To me, the place that is holy to Jews, Muslims and Christians will not know peace until Muslims come to love Israel as a Jewish state and Jews come to love Palestinian Nationalism. Right now, though, that is a vision few of us are willing to work for. But I ask you to think about think about it in the name of a God who commands us to create peace, in the name of our father Abraham who would have wished Isaac and Ishmael to live in peace, in the names of those great Americans who have taught us about war and peace, and in the name of family.
Jews and Muslims are not enemies. We are the closest of cousins. If there is anything I’ve learned as the coordinator of a Jewish-Islamic dialogue society, it is that.
Sunday, June 26, 2011
A POLITICIAN WITH A CHARMED LIFE
It’s Barack Obama’s world and you’re just living in it.
Spare me all the crap about what a tough hand he was dealt when he walked into the White House – the multiple wars, the horrid economy, the obstructionist Republicans. Sure, Barack was dealt a tough hand, if the game is to become one of those transformative Presidents worthy of Rushmore. But let’s say we lower our standards a bit. Let’s say Barack doesn’t need to be the next Lincoln or Roosevelt. Think of him simply as an ambitious politician with a strong desire to be loved. Now let’s look at his hand. Here’s a guy who, in January ‘09, was inaugurated in a fashion that may have made the Messiah jealous. He was then put in a strong position to be hailed as the Jackie Robinson of American statesmen, receive star treatment from Hollywood and the mainstream media alike, generate some solid legislative accomplishments, easily win re-election, and finally, when his second term is over, live out his life with the moniker of “Mr. President.” Put all that together, and I’d say he’s sitting on, if not a pair of aces, at least a pair of kings. Not too shabby.
When Barack came into office, he was indeed severely limited in his ability to generate “the change we’ve been looking for.” But those same limitations, when combined with his natural political skills, made him almost impossible to beat in 2012. To be sure, if the unemployment rate is high enough, he could lose. But it would have to be sky high, because most voters appear poised to blame Bush and the Congress for the horrid economy, rather than Barack. Even those voters who don’t think Barack is doing a particularly good job on economics seem to approve of his Presidency. Talk about Teflon.
It reminds me of the old story about the two friends who camped out in the woods. Upon spotting a bear, one immediately starts running, prompting the other to say “What are you doing, you can’t outrun that bear.” “I don’t have to,” his friend responded, “I just have to outrun YOU.”
Well that is pretty much all Barack has to do in this climate. He doesn’t have to fix the economy. He just has to look like a better economic steward than Bachmann. Or Romney. That wouldn’t exactly require a remake of Don Quixote, now would it?
In the next several months, I expect the Republican Party to reap what they have sowed ever since President Reagan shoved them in the rightward direction. Back in the day, a guy like John Huntsman may have been the type of Republican who could have caught fire in his own party and appeal to Democrats and Independents as well. But now, in 2011, he’s pretty much toast. You know the problem – he’s not Cro-Magnon enough for Rush, Beck, and the other talking heads who have the ears of the party faithful. I’m not even sure that Romney can win, or to put it another way, I’m not sure that he can win AS Romney. He might have to run as Faust like he did in 2008. And if that happens, somehow I don’t see Barack Obama losing to a chameleon who just sold his soul to Grover Norquist and the Tea Party.
Just look at recent history and all the times that a sitting President has run for re-election. Those bids were successful in 1972, 1984, 1996 and 2004 (and as horrid a President as Bush was, that says volumes). The only upsets were in 2000 and 2012, and in both of those occasions, the President had lost the support of many in his own party. If the GOP wants to win, it had better hope that the Dems lose their love for Barack. Sorry, Dittoheads, but I don’t see that happening.
This last week is a perfect illustration of why, from a Democratic standpoint, Barack truly is an untouchable. His performance was the stuff that mutinies are made of – one kiss-off to the liberal wing of the party after another. But will there be a mutiny? Don’t make me laugh.
Hell, I can just point to my own behavior as an example of the typical liberal voter. On Wednesday night, just before I sat down to watch his Afghanistan speech, I was miffed at the President for his foreign policy. Let’s leave aside my obsession with the Israeli-Palestinian peace process and how ineffectual (and at times incompetent) he has been in that area. I was annoyed that he couldn’t make the case for his latest war in Libya, or at least treat the American people with enough respect to allow our representatives to decide whether we should continue our involvement in bombing that country. And I was annoyed that he was about to announce a pullout from Afghanistan at a snail’s pace – leaving twice as many American troops in that country as when he took office, and ensuring that this increasingly-pointless war would at least rival Vietnam in its duration.
So yes, I was pissed at the guy. And yet what did I do just before the telecast started? Needing to change shirts after work, I went into my bedroom closet and pulled out my “Dream Realized” T-Shirt with Barack’s portrait on the front. Pissed? Yeah. Ready to vote against him and in favor of Mitt or Michelle? Not on your life.
Nor am I alone, apparently. After the speech, which should have made any honest-to-God liberal sick, the reviews on the left were almost universally negative … but tepidly so. Absent was any effort to connect Barack’s incoherent policy in Afghanistan with his silent policy in Libya; taken together, they represent the kind of furtive Presidency that should have impressed even a Cheney. And absent was the willingness to demand a compelling explanation of why we’re embarking on a second decade of propping up a corrupt regime engaged in what seems to be a perpetual civil war, one that now has very little to do with Al Qaeda. No, the muted criticism seemed to be confined largely to the idea that the “pull-out isn’t fast enough.”
Not fast enough? Is that the most we liberals can say?
Assume that Mitt Romney or Rudy Giuliani had been elected President in 2008. And then assume that they would do exactly what Barack has done in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya these past 2 ½ years. Is there any question how outraged the American left would have been by this point? Is there any question that people would be protesting on the streets, MSNBC would be hurling acid-laden vitriol, and Romney/Giuliani would be viewed as war-mongers and secrecy-freaks?
President Obama essentially told us that America will stay the course in Afghanistan, but what he didn’t really tell us is why. He seemed to think that as long as he added some anti-war rhetoric and announced that instead of tripling the number of troops in Afghanistan by the end of his first term we will only be doubling that number, everyone on the left would be appeased. And do you know what? He’s right. Because everyone on the left knows that his name is Barack, and not Mitt or Michelle.
Fast forward to a bit later in the week and head a couple of hundred miles up I-95, and you’ll see the same dynamic at play. In Manhattan, 600 hundred or so gay activists paid a reported $1,250 per head to hear Barack bob and weave on the issue of gay rights. Yes, he believes in them (whatever that means), but no, he won’t commit to the cause with respect to the one hot-button issue that everyone is talking about – gay marriage.
It was the same position he has been taking for years. And each time, we hear the obligatory whines from the gay community about how Barack needs to suck it up and say what every progressive believes in his or her heart: that gay people have a right to be married. But will these activists really stay home in November 2012? Or let me ask that question this way: after what happened with Gore, Bush and Nader, do they really believe there’s an alternative to Barack?
I doubt it. Most likely, these gay activists left that fundraiser pissed off at Barack. Then they went home, put on their “Dream Realized” T-shirts, and went to bed.
There’s an old saw that in the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.
Here in America, our President -- Barack “Jackie Robinson” Obama -- is sitting on a pair of them.
It’s Barack Obama’s world and you’re just living in it.
Spare me all the crap about what a tough hand he was dealt when he walked into the White House – the multiple wars, the horrid economy, the obstructionist Republicans. Sure, Barack was dealt a tough hand, if the game is to become one of those transformative Presidents worthy of Rushmore. But let’s say we lower our standards a bit. Let’s say Barack doesn’t need to be the next Lincoln or Roosevelt. Think of him simply as an ambitious politician with a strong desire to be loved. Now let’s look at his hand. Here’s a guy who, in January ‘09, was inaugurated in a fashion that may have made the Messiah jealous. He was then put in a strong position to be hailed as the Jackie Robinson of American statesmen, receive star treatment from Hollywood and the mainstream media alike, generate some solid legislative accomplishments, easily win re-election, and finally, when his second term is over, live out his life with the moniker of “Mr. President.” Put all that together, and I’d say he’s sitting on, if not a pair of aces, at least a pair of kings. Not too shabby.
When Barack came into office, he was indeed severely limited in his ability to generate “the change we’ve been looking for.” But those same limitations, when combined with his natural political skills, made him almost impossible to beat in 2012. To be sure, if the unemployment rate is high enough, he could lose. But it would have to be sky high, because most voters appear poised to blame Bush and the Congress for the horrid economy, rather than Barack. Even those voters who don’t think Barack is doing a particularly good job on economics seem to approve of his Presidency. Talk about Teflon.
It reminds me of the old story about the two friends who camped out in the woods. Upon spotting a bear, one immediately starts running, prompting the other to say “What are you doing, you can’t outrun that bear.” “I don’t have to,” his friend responded, “I just have to outrun YOU.”
Well that is pretty much all Barack has to do in this climate. He doesn’t have to fix the economy. He just has to look like a better economic steward than Bachmann. Or Romney. That wouldn’t exactly require a remake of Don Quixote, now would it?
In the next several months, I expect the Republican Party to reap what they have sowed ever since President Reagan shoved them in the rightward direction. Back in the day, a guy like John Huntsman may have been the type of Republican who could have caught fire in his own party and appeal to Democrats and Independents as well. But now, in 2011, he’s pretty much toast. You know the problem – he’s not Cro-Magnon enough for Rush, Beck, and the other talking heads who have the ears of the party faithful. I’m not even sure that Romney can win, or to put it another way, I’m not sure that he can win AS Romney. He might have to run as Faust like he did in 2008. And if that happens, somehow I don’t see Barack Obama losing to a chameleon who just sold his soul to Grover Norquist and the Tea Party.
Just look at recent history and all the times that a sitting President has run for re-election. Those bids were successful in 1972, 1984, 1996 and 2004 (and as horrid a President as Bush was, that says volumes). The only upsets were in 2000 and 2012, and in both of those occasions, the President had lost the support of many in his own party. If the GOP wants to win, it had better hope that the Dems lose their love for Barack. Sorry, Dittoheads, but I don’t see that happening.
This last week is a perfect illustration of why, from a Democratic standpoint, Barack truly is an untouchable. His performance was the stuff that mutinies are made of – one kiss-off to the liberal wing of the party after another. But will there be a mutiny? Don’t make me laugh.
Hell, I can just point to my own behavior as an example of the typical liberal voter. On Wednesday night, just before I sat down to watch his Afghanistan speech, I was miffed at the President for his foreign policy. Let’s leave aside my obsession with the Israeli-Palestinian peace process and how ineffectual (and at times incompetent) he has been in that area. I was annoyed that he couldn’t make the case for his latest war in Libya, or at least treat the American people with enough respect to allow our representatives to decide whether we should continue our involvement in bombing that country. And I was annoyed that he was about to announce a pullout from Afghanistan at a snail’s pace – leaving twice as many American troops in that country as when he took office, and ensuring that this increasingly-pointless war would at least rival Vietnam in its duration.
So yes, I was pissed at the guy. And yet what did I do just before the telecast started? Needing to change shirts after work, I went into my bedroom closet and pulled out my “Dream Realized” T-Shirt with Barack’s portrait on the front. Pissed? Yeah. Ready to vote against him and in favor of Mitt or Michelle? Not on your life.
Nor am I alone, apparently. After the speech, which should have made any honest-to-God liberal sick, the reviews on the left were almost universally negative … but tepidly so. Absent was any effort to connect Barack’s incoherent policy in Afghanistan with his silent policy in Libya; taken together, they represent the kind of furtive Presidency that should have impressed even a Cheney. And absent was the willingness to demand a compelling explanation of why we’re embarking on a second decade of propping up a corrupt regime engaged in what seems to be a perpetual civil war, one that now has very little to do with Al Qaeda. No, the muted criticism seemed to be confined largely to the idea that the “pull-out isn’t fast enough.”
Not fast enough? Is that the most we liberals can say?
Assume that Mitt Romney or Rudy Giuliani had been elected President in 2008. And then assume that they would do exactly what Barack has done in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya these past 2 ½ years. Is there any question how outraged the American left would have been by this point? Is there any question that people would be protesting on the streets, MSNBC would be hurling acid-laden vitriol, and Romney/Giuliani would be viewed as war-mongers and secrecy-freaks?
President Obama essentially told us that America will stay the course in Afghanistan, but what he didn’t really tell us is why. He seemed to think that as long as he added some anti-war rhetoric and announced that instead of tripling the number of troops in Afghanistan by the end of his first term we will only be doubling that number, everyone on the left would be appeased. And do you know what? He’s right. Because everyone on the left knows that his name is Barack, and not Mitt or Michelle.
Fast forward to a bit later in the week and head a couple of hundred miles up I-95, and you’ll see the same dynamic at play. In Manhattan, 600 hundred or so gay activists paid a reported $1,250 per head to hear Barack bob and weave on the issue of gay rights. Yes, he believes in them (whatever that means), but no, he won’t commit to the cause with respect to the one hot-button issue that everyone is talking about – gay marriage.
It was the same position he has been taking for years. And each time, we hear the obligatory whines from the gay community about how Barack needs to suck it up and say what every progressive believes in his or her heart: that gay people have a right to be married. But will these activists really stay home in November 2012? Or let me ask that question this way: after what happened with Gore, Bush and Nader, do they really believe there’s an alternative to Barack?
I doubt it. Most likely, these gay activists left that fundraiser pissed off at Barack. Then they went home, put on their “Dream Realized” T-shirts, and went to bed.
There’s an old saw that in the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.
Here in America, our President -- Barack “Jackie Robinson” Obama -- is sitting on a pair of them.
Sunday, June 19, 2011
THE WEEK IN SPORTS
The words “sports” and “momentous” rarely go together. In fact, to say that this has been a “momentous week in sports” seems oxymoronic. The whole idea of spectator sports is to escape from the real world and re-enter a childlike state where you can concern yourself with how people run, jump or throw around balls, rather than wage wars, confront illnesses, or rearrange the tax system. Momentous? Impossible.
Yet every now and then, we sports fans live through a week that is so transformative that we simply must pause and take notice. This has definitely been one of those rare weeks.
Let’s start with the hardwood. The sports week began last Sunday night with the Dallas Mavericks winning their first-ever championship. It was also the first time that a player from outside of the Americas received accolades as being one of the game’s all time greats. And for good reason. Dirk Nowitzky, who hails from Germany, took over these playoffs with a display of outside shooting, passing, and inside toughness that was eerily reminiscent of Larry Bird in his prime.
But let’s face it – when you think about what has transpired in basketball this past Sunday, your first thoughts do not extend to the Mavericks or Nowitzky. The real story centers around the team they beat, and especially its star player: the athlete formerly known as “King James.” Talk about a fall from grace.
Less than a decade ago, the entire basketball world was ablaze with excitement at the prospect of witnessing a player whose talent was unmatched in the game’s history. Some compared him to Michael Jordan, except that LeBron James was so much bigger than Jordan. Taller and more massive, to be precise. And the story wasn’t just that James was THAT good, but that as luck would have it, he was able to be drafted right out of high school by his hometown Cleveland Cavaliers. That’s right, the “Mistake by the Lake” was granted the privilege of hosting the man-child to which Sports Illustrated referred as “the Chosen One.” Even if you’re not from the Midwest you had to appreciate this story, reminiscent as it was of how a sleepy hamlet in northeast Wisconsin came to be called “Titletown” because of a team that would dominate the National Football League for years.
We knew that it would take the Cavs a little while to reach the level of Vince Lombardi’s Packers, but we also felt that the Cavs’ dominance was just a matter of time. LeBron James was the Rookie of the Year in 2003-4, and by 2007, he propelled the Cavs to the NBA Finals. In 2008-09 and 2009-10, LeBron won the MVP award and the Cavs had the league’s best regular season record. But a championship continued to elude the Cavs, and last summer, LeBron announced on a 60-minute ESPN telecast that he was “taking his talents” to Miami where he would play with two other superstars and win not one, “not two, not three, not four, not five, not six, not seven” championships. LeBron, who has sported a “Chosen 1” tattoo on his back for years, came to be the most despised man in northeast Ohio.
This past Sunday, the LeBron brand officially crashed and burned. For the second straight year, when his team needed him the most, James was missing in action. And this time, America absolutely loved it! It wasn’t just Ohioans who wallowed in LeBron hatred; fans all over the country figured that they’d stumbled onto the best comedy since Animal House. The jokes abounded: “Did you hear that someone asked LeBron for change for a dollar? He only gave up 75 cents. ‘Sorry, I don’t have a fourth quarter,’ LeBron said” (That’s a reference to the fact that in the six NBA Finals games, he averaged a whopping three points in each of the fourth quarters – hardly Messiah material.) Or perhaps you prefer this one: “LeBron was right when he said ‘not two, not three, not four …” championships. He ain’t gonna win any!”
Clearly that’s wrong. He’ll get his championship. In fact, he still seems destined to win multiple championships when all is said and done. But I doubt he’ll ever get the affection of the public. LeBron, you see, committed two sins that an athlete cannot commit if he wants to be loved. To begin, he appeared to suggest that athletes can win championships without even having to work at it – all they have to do is get together with a couple of superstar friends during an off-season party, decide to play together, and … voila, it’s celebration time! Sorry, but we fans want our athletes to have to work for their titles. We want to think that a major league championship is like an odyssey; you can’t simply inherit one the way, say, George W. Bush inherited the Presidency. LeBron didn’t seem to appreciate that.
The other thing LeBron did is celebrate his own greatness before it was demonstrated. That’s a major no-no. Fans can choose to celebrate an athlete who has never won the “Big One,” but when an athlete publicly touts himself as the “Chosen 1” or “the King” … he’d better have some rings.
Right now, LeBron is about as accomplished as Dan Fouts, but he struts around as if he’s Joe Montana. He’s got the pedigree of George Gervin, but he talks as if he’s Michael Jordan. And he’s not alone – when he joined the Miami Heat together with Chris Bosh and Dwyane Wade, Wade proclaimed that trio arguably the greatest trio in the history of basketball. But the last time I checked, the 60s Celtics and 80s Lakers both had trios of all-time greats who each had won many championships. By contrast, the trio of Wade, Bosh and James have won a total of 1, 0, and 0 titles, respectively. Greatest trio ever? Make me gag.
This past Sunday, the sports gods had their say: “LeBron: shut your mouth. Wait until you win a championship before you start tooting your own horn. In fact, why don’t you wait until you win, not one, ‘not two, not three …’ Why don’t you just let your ball skills do the talking. It worked for America’s new darling, Dirk the German. And trust us, no sooner will you get humble than you’ll win titles. Otherwise, it’s just way too much fun for EVERYONE to watch you lose, and we do want the fans to have some fun.”
So that was Sunday’s news.
I’m going to largely skip over the news from the middle of this past sports week. But let’s at least briefly acknowledge what happened.
In talking about LeBron and Dirk, I was making the sports gods look inspired by their pursuit of justice. They see a big mouth with a whale of talent go up against a less talented, but more humble opponent, and they choose to let the first guy fall on his face and propel the second one to stardom. Love those gods!
Or do I? Because only three days after the Mavs beat the Heat, the sports gods were saying “justice, schmustice” when they allowed the Boston Bruins to defeat the Vancouver Canucks and claim this year’s Stanley Cup. This was just the latest in Bean Town’s long list of championships – it seems like between the Celtics, Red Sox, Patriots and Bruins, that city has won about 100 titles in my lifetime. Vancouver? The Canucks are their one major league team in any of the big four North American team sports, and suffice it to say that despite playing in a few different championship series, Vancouver has won as many Stanley Cups as LeBron James.
Cruel, gods. Cruel. Did you really have to give the Canucks a two games to none lead before you made them fall apart yet again? That’s just wrong. Vancouver has given the world its most beautiful urban park. It deserves better.
So yes, the sports week started on a high note and, at least for me, took a dip in the middle. But it sure ended with a bang. And if you don’t know what I’m talking about, there’s still time to find out: turn on your TV round about 6:00 p.m. Eastern time today, and prepare yourselves to watch greatness. You see, this week the sports world has been introduced to its latest version of “the Natural.”
One of my friends once said, in reference to Michael Jordan, “When I saw Magic Johnson play, I swore I’d never see a better basketball player. Obviously, I was wrong.” Well, folks, when I was watching the U.S. Open yesterday on TV, I found myself saying the same thing about a different sport. When I watched Tiger Woods play, I swore I’d never see a better golfer. It sure looks like I was wrong.
To be fair, I’m not predicting that Rory McIlroy, the 22 year-old from Northern Ireland who has now led after six of the last seven rounds of major championship golf, will be better in his prime than Tiger was. Nobody in golf’s history has been better in his prime than Tiger was. But what I am saying is that McIlroy seems more of a natural than Tiger – his strokes are equally brilliant, and FAR more effortless. And that means that McIlroy’s prime promises to last a lot longer than Tiger’s.
Tiger has already endured multiple knee operations. And this only stands to reason given the wicked torque in his swing. Tiger crushed the golf ball, but he was also crushing his own body in the process. If we do see him make a comeback, I predict he will become the golf equivalent of the junk-ball pitcher in baseball, who doesn’t have the fastball to strike out hitters but has learned crafty ways to turn curve balls into slow grounders. Those pitchers can be highly effective, but they’re not exactly Mount Rushmore material.
McIlroy is different. I don’t see anything violent in his swing. It all looks so gentle, so easy. And yet he’s just blowing away not only the field but the golf course. Nobody in history has reached 14 shots under par in a U.S. open, until now. Nobody had even reached 13. And the crazy thing is, he was practically doing the same thing at this year’s Masters until he choked on the last day.
Well, we’ve now come to the last day of the U.S. Open, and McIlroy still has time to choke once again. It happened to LeBron, it could happen to him, right? I don’t think so. This weekend has the feel of a coronation. And McIlroy has the feel of being the real deal. I expect he’ll do what Tiger used to do when he had a huge lead: go about his business with a workmanlike round, hitting fairways and greens on a regular basis, and making the occasional mid-range put. We’ve seen the prototype. We know how it can work. Only this time, we won’t watch a guy cussing and spitting and violently striking the ball, as if he’d rather be in the ring cleaning Mike Tyson’s clock.
No, this time, we’ll be watching a guy who looks like the golfing gods had him in mind when they created the sport. All true fans love it when that happens, and it doesn’t happen often. You won’t find a sports fan who doesn’t love Babe Ruth or Wayne Gretzky any more than you’ll find an art history buff who doesn’t love Rembrandt or Michelangelo. What’s not to love?
The words “sports” and “momentous” rarely go together. In fact, to say that this has been a “momentous week in sports” seems oxymoronic. The whole idea of spectator sports is to escape from the real world and re-enter a childlike state where you can concern yourself with how people run, jump or throw around balls, rather than wage wars, confront illnesses, or rearrange the tax system. Momentous? Impossible.
Yet every now and then, we sports fans live through a week that is so transformative that we simply must pause and take notice. This has definitely been one of those rare weeks.
Let’s start with the hardwood. The sports week began last Sunday night with the Dallas Mavericks winning their first-ever championship. It was also the first time that a player from outside of the Americas received accolades as being one of the game’s all time greats. And for good reason. Dirk Nowitzky, who hails from Germany, took over these playoffs with a display of outside shooting, passing, and inside toughness that was eerily reminiscent of Larry Bird in his prime.
But let’s face it – when you think about what has transpired in basketball this past Sunday, your first thoughts do not extend to the Mavericks or Nowitzky. The real story centers around the team they beat, and especially its star player: the athlete formerly known as “King James.” Talk about a fall from grace.
Less than a decade ago, the entire basketball world was ablaze with excitement at the prospect of witnessing a player whose talent was unmatched in the game’s history. Some compared him to Michael Jordan, except that LeBron James was so much bigger than Jordan. Taller and more massive, to be precise. And the story wasn’t just that James was THAT good, but that as luck would have it, he was able to be drafted right out of high school by his hometown Cleveland Cavaliers. That’s right, the “Mistake by the Lake” was granted the privilege of hosting the man-child to which Sports Illustrated referred as “the Chosen One.” Even if you’re not from the Midwest you had to appreciate this story, reminiscent as it was of how a sleepy hamlet in northeast Wisconsin came to be called “Titletown” because of a team that would dominate the National Football League for years.
We knew that it would take the Cavs a little while to reach the level of Vince Lombardi’s Packers, but we also felt that the Cavs’ dominance was just a matter of time. LeBron James was the Rookie of the Year in 2003-4, and by 2007, he propelled the Cavs to the NBA Finals. In 2008-09 and 2009-10, LeBron won the MVP award and the Cavs had the league’s best regular season record. But a championship continued to elude the Cavs, and last summer, LeBron announced on a 60-minute ESPN telecast that he was “taking his talents” to Miami where he would play with two other superstars and win not one, “not two, not three, not four, not five, not six, not seven” championships. LeBron, who has sported a “Chosen 1” tattoo on his back for years, came to be the most despised man in northeast Ohio.
This past Sunday, the LeBron brand officially crashed and burned. For the second straight year, when his team needed him the most, James was missing in action. And this time, America absolutely loved it! It wasn’t just Ohioans who wallowed in LeBron hatred; fans all over the country figured that they’d stumbled onto the best comedy since Animal House. The jokes abounded: “Did you hear that someone asked LeBron for change for a dollar? He only gave up 75 cents. ‘Sorry, I don’t have a fourth quarter,’ LeBron said” (That’s a reference to the fact that in the six NBA Finals games, he averaged a whopping three points in each of the fourth quarters – hardly Messiah material.) Or perhaps you prefer this one: “LeBron was right when he said ‘not two, not three, not four …” championships. He ain’t gonna win any!”
Clearly that’s wrong. He’ll get his championship. In fact, he still seems destined to win multiple championships when all is said and done. But I doubt he’ll ever get the affection of the public. LeBron, you see, committed two sins that an athlete cannot commit if he wants to be loved. To begin, he appeared to suggest that athletes can win championships without even having to work at it – all they have to do is get together with a couple of superstar friends during an off-season party, decide to play together, and … voila, it’s celebration time! Sorry, but we fans want our athletes to have to work for their titles. We want to think that a major league championship is like an odyssey; you can’t simply inherit one the way, say, George W. Bush inherited the Presidency. LeBron didn’t seem to appreciate that.
The other thing LeBron did is celebrate his own greatness before it was demonstrated. That’s a major no-no. Fans can choose to celebrate an athlete who has never won the “Big One,” but when an athlete publicly touts himself as the “Chosen 1” or “the King” … he’d better have some rings.
Right now, LeBron is about as accomplished as Dan Fouts, but he struts around as if he’s Joe Montana. He’s got the pedigree of George Gervin, but he talks as if he’s Michael Jordan. And he’s not alone – when he joined the Miami Heat together with Chris Bosh and Dwyane Wade, Wade proclaimed that trio arguably the greatest trio in the history of basketball. But the last time I checked, the 60s Celtics and 80s Lakers both had trios of all-time greats who each had won many championships. By contrast, the trio of Wade, Bosh and James have won a total of 1, 0, and 0 titles, respectively. Greatest trio ever? Make me gag.
This past Sunday, the sports gods had their say: “LeBron: shut your mouth. Wait until you win a championship before you start tooting your own horn. In fact, why don’t you wait until you win, not one, ‘not two, not three …’ Why don’t you just let your ball skills do the talking. It worked for America’s new darling, Dirk the German. And trust us, no sooner will you get humble than you’ll win titles. Otherwise, it’s just way too much fun for EVERYONE to watch you lose, and we do want the fans to have some fun.”
So that was Sunday’s news.
I’m going to largely skip over the news from the middle of this past sports week. But let’s at least briefly acknowledge what happened.
In talking about LeBron and Dirk, I was making the sports gods look inspired by their pursuit of justice. They see a big mouth with a whale of talent go up against a less talented, but more humble opponent, and they choose to let the first guy fall on his face and propel the second one to stardom. Love those gods!
Or do I? Because only three days after the Mavs beat the Heat, the sports gods were saying “justice, schmustice” when they allowed the Boston Bruins to defeat the Vancouver Canucks and claim this year’s Stanley Cup. This was just the latest in Bean Town’s long list of championships – it seems like between the Celtics, Red Sox, Patriots and Bruins, that city has won about 100 titles in my lifetime. Vancouver? The Canucks are their one major league team in any of the big four North American team sports, and suffice it to say that despite playing in a few different championship series, Vancouver has won as many Stanley Cups as LeBron James.
Cruel, gods. Cruel. Did you really have to give the Canucks a two games to none lead before you made them fall apart yet again? That’s just wrong. Vancouver has given the world its most beautiful urban park. It deserves better.
So yes, the sports week started on a high note and, at least for me, took a dip in the middle. But it sure ended with a bang. And if you don’t know what I’m talking about, there’s still time to find out: turn on your TV round about 6:00 p.m. Eastern time today, and prepare yourselves to watch greatness. You see, this week the sports world has been introduced to its latest version of “the Natural.”
One of my friends once said, in reference to Michael Jordan, “When I saw Magic Johnson play, I swore I’d never see a better basketball player. Obviously, I was wrong.” Well, folks, when I was watching the U.S. Open yesterday on TV, I found myself saying the same thing about a different sport. When I watched Tiger Woods play, I swore I’d never see a better golfer. It sure looks like I was wrong.
To be fair, I’m not predicting that Rory McIlroy, the 22 year-old from Northern Ireland who has now led after six of the last seven rounds of major championship golf, will be better in his prime than Tiger was. Nobody in golf’s history has been better in his prime than Tiger was. But what I am saying is that McIlroy seems more of a natural than Tiger – his strokes are equally brilliant, and FAR more effortless. And that means that McIlroy’s prime promises to last a lot longer than Tiger’s.
Tiger has already endured multiple knee operations. And this only stands to reason given the wicked torque in his swing. Tiger crushed the golf ball, but he was also crushing his own body in the process. If we do see him make a comeback, I predict he will become the golf equivalent of the junk-ball pitcher in baseball, who doesn’t have the fastball to strike out hitters but has learned crafty ways to turn curve balls into slow grounders. Those pitchers can be highly effective, but they’re not exactly Mount Rushmore material.
McIlroy is different. I don’t see anything violent in his swing. It all looks so gentle, so easy. And yet he’s just blowing away not only the field but the golf course. Nobody in history has reached 14 shots under par in a U.S. open, until now. Nobody had even reached 13. And the crazy thing is, he was practically doing the same thing at this year’s Masters until he choked on the last day.
Well, we’ve now come to the last day of the U.S. Open, and McIlroy still has time to choke once again. It happened to LeBron, it could happen to him, right? I don’t think so. This weekend has the feel of a coronation. And McIlroy has the feel of being the real deal. I expect he’ll do what Tiger used to do when he had a huge lead: go about his business with a workmanlike round, hitting fairways and greens on a regular basis, and making the occasional mid-range put. We’ve seen the prototype. We know how it can work. Only this time, we won’t watch a guy cussing and spitting and violently striking the ball, as if he’d rather be in the ring cleaning Mike Tyson’s clock.
No, this time, we’ll be watching a guy who looks like the golfing gods had him in mind when they created the sport. All true fans love it when that happens, and it doesn’t happen often. You won’t find a sports fan who doesn’t love Babe Ruth or Wayne Gretzky any more than you’ll find an art history buff who doesn’t love Rembrandt or Michelangelo. What’s not to love?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)