Column: No more games

By Craig Colbrook

It has recently occurred to me that I might take things too seriously. It might have happened when I was suffering from nervousness bordering on nausea during the Illini football game last weekend, or it might have happened when I got the same feeling from contemplating the fact that President Bush gets to name two Supreme Court justices. But, more than likely, it happened when I realized that for all my idealism and activism, I don’t get any more worked up for politics than I do for sports. I’m sure I’m not alone in this, and I’m also sure it’s a pretty dangerous way of viewing things.

Think about our modern political discussion. It’s based extensively on sports metaphors. Actions are called “plays.” Famous politicians are “heavyweights” or “heavy hitters.” When we talk about who might run for an office, we refer to a political party’s “bench.” And of course, every election is actually a “race.” While these are certainly evocative terms that explain the subject in an interesting way, I have to wonder if it’s OK to talk about politics, which often involves matters of death and destruction, with the same vernacular we use to describe Terrell Owens.

Of course, to some extent politics invites the comparisons. There are usually two sides (the teams) competing for votes (points, runs) that use natural talent and strategy and are differentiated by bright, primary colors (the uniforms, though why Republicans have chosen commie red is beyond me.) What’s frightening is that many politicians invite these comparisons, insisting that who governs and how they do it isn’t important. Ronald Reagan tried to make it look like grampa could run the world. Guys like Rick Winkel and Jim Oberweis engage in empty sloganeering (“Got Guv?”) And George Bush seems to be doing his best to prove to us that even the highest office in the land is little more than a sweet gig with ample vacation time.

So, it’s probably a good thing we give it no more regard than the White Sox, right? OK, that is a bad example, because even with an incredible record no one is paying attention to the Sox, but you take my meaning.

Of course, it’s not OK to even imply that politics are on the same level as sports. Even as a means of explanation, the metaphor doesn’t work. There might be two sides to a basketball game, but there’s generally a lot more than that in politics. There are many teams, sometimes individuals, who don’t always compete. Sometimes, they actually work together. The stakes include peace, the economy, people’s jobs and equal rights, not just home court advantage in the playoffs. And most importantly, the goal isn’t to win. The goal of politics is to make a better world for us citizens. With this in mind, it’s disturbing that in every discussion of political “winners” and “losers” that I’ve ever seen, the voters are never mentioned.

Get The Daily Illini in your inbox!

  • Catch the latest on University of Illinois news, sports, and more. Delivered every weekday.
  • Stay up to date on all things Illini sports. Delivered every Monday.
Thank you for subscribing!

Anyone who tries to present the world in this narrow view, anyone who talks about “winners” and “losers” or the “political play of the week” is either being hopelessly naive or intentionally deceitful.

Someone once told me that shows like Crossfire or Hannity and Colmes are so popular because they’re essentially wrestling matches for adults. That made a lot of sense to me. These shows aren’t to inform people; they’re to entertain them. But no matter how satisfying that is, it’s too simple for the actual problems we face today. Guys like me need to do a better job communicating what we think about politics without falling into the “winners and losers” trap. If we don’t, we may find ourselves in the “losers” camp far too often.

Then again, I’m an Illini football fan and a Democrat, so I’m probably used to that camp.

Craig Colbrook is a senior in Communications. His column appears every Friday. He can be reached at [email protected].