None of This is New
October 31, 2011
Those commenting on national affairs keep saying that our political processes are too polarized to get anything done; but political parties were every bit as divided in the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries as they are today, and public debate was even more strident than the lack of civility we see today.
The grilling of Supreme Court nominees, Wall Street bankers and British Petroleum executives can seem sensational, but this has been nothing like the early 1950s when Senator McCarthy of Wisconsin conducted hearings into Communist sympathies of employees in government and Hollywood.
It is almost laughable to assert that modern political debate is disintegrating. Heck, in 1804 our nation’s vice president, while in office, challenged a critic to a duel. And shot him dead! Now that’s discord!
My point is that the political process didn’t break recently. If it’s broken, it’s always been broken, always contentious and acrimonious – from the drafting of the Declaration of Independence and Constitution, to the War Between the States, until today: corrupt politicians, polarized political parties, bitter debates, contentious elections.
None of this is new, except for the increased media coverage. None of this alone is to blame for today’s inability to solve problems. And all of this together is not to blame for today’s problems.
Perhaps closer to the heart of the problems today in Michigan and our nation is a lack of heart in “we the people.” A lack of passion, principle and – most of all – common vision and purpose.
Maybe we’ve just had it so good for so long that we’ve forgotten to dream for better days and fight for a better future.
Maybe these tough times will refresh our dreams and reignite the fight.
A Backhanded Compliment
April 17, 2012
A year ago this month I listened to the attorney for another statewide high school athletic association pose this question: “Why is it that people quite readily accept inflexible age limitations over a broad spectrum of American life, including sports, but presuppose it is wrong for school sports?”
This attorney was in the middle of a controversy that more recently has visited the MHSAA: an overage student seeking relief from a universally applied maximum age rule. The speaker was perplexed and frustrated by the double standard.
Part of the reason for the double standard rests in the reality that people value the school sports experience so much more than other parts of life, including other sports experiences. Because they want the opportunity to play, they resort to litigation in an attempt to create the right to play.
Another part of the reason school sports is challenged on an issue on which other programs get a free pass is that school sports has a centralized authority, close to home. State high school associations are readily accessible targets, easier both to find and to fight with than most other entities with age restrictions.
And, of course, part of the reason for the double standard is the proximity of interscholastic athletics to academics – the former extracurricular, the latter curricular – the former a privilege for most teenagers, the latter a right of all citizens to age 26.
The reasons school sports are attacked on this issue while other entities are not are reasons really complimentary to school sports: the program is popular, accessible and connected to education. None of these features of school sports, or its age limitation, should change.