Have you been to a hockey game recently? I've become a serious fan of Hockey East, attending about half of Umass Lowell's home games for the last four years. As a somewhat disinterested spectator (My alma mater is Umass Amherst, not Lowell) the games provide plenty of opportunity to reflect on the behavior of other attendees.
The basic
rules of hockey are simple: two defensemen and three
offensemen for each team, try to score by shooting a puck past the
defending goalie into the opposing net. A player can't go offsides
(cross into the opponent's third of the rink unless the puck is
already there), or ice the puck (hit the puck more than halfway
across the rink into the opponent's end). There a couple exceptions
and specifications, but one could watch an entire game knowing just
the above, and understand ninty-nine percent of the game.
So what did I mean when I said no one
knows the rules? Penalties. Every time a player commits a foul they
receive a penalty; removal from play for two or five minutes. During
that time the offending team plays one player short. For extreme
fouls the player can be ejected from the game (This only happens
about once per team per year).
Penalties are what bring out the worst
in the fans. While the names of the penalties seem straightforward,
the spectators don't know what they entail. It's partly because
penalties are subjective. Did that player 'hold' someone, or did
they get tangled up in a fight for the puck? Did the center 'trip'
the defenseman, or did he go for the puck and the other guy tripped
over his stick? One might think that penalties such as 'roughing' or
'slashing' would be straight forward, but there is a lot of ambiguity
and the action moves so quickly.
This means referees have a tough job.
They have to observe a quickly developing game from a terrible
vantage point (try watching five people in front of you and five
behind at the same time), and they have to judge what to call as a
penalty. The best comparison to a referee is probably a teacher
trying to manage their classroom. How many times does the teacher
want to punish a student, instead of attempting to carry on with the
lesson? The answer is never, but sometimes there is some act, that
if not called, will lead to an escalation of behavior.
It probably won't surprise anyone that
fans are unable to judge the application of penalties fairly. They
become enraged when they believe a referee is in error. In their
eyes any infraction committed by the opposing team deserves a
penalty, while every time the home team levels an opponent, its just
“a good hit”. Those who most enjoy the violent nature of hockey
(and that's not me) would be the end of it if they ever got their
hands on a ref's whistle. They would be forced to concede they know
nothing about the rules of penalties and to eliminate them.
Unfortunately, the political situation
of the United States of America is in a worse situation.
While the rules of the political system
of the United States are admittedly more complicated than a game of
hockey (though I'm not sure about football), most of the basics could
be covered in a semester of college. Concepts such as the three
branches of government, majorities, and elections shouldn't be beyond
the understanding of the voter.
But when it comes to penalties, there
are no official rules, or even names (except for impeachment, a rare
offense). How is anyone supposed to when someone has committed an
offense? Voters are left with their own judgment, aided by the media
they ingest. The closest that voters have a referee is the Supreme
Court, yet it is clear that they are inherently political as well.
Some people will claim that the
contentiousness of our present situation is nothing new, and that the
very goal of the Constitution, as intended by the framers, was to
prevent progress. The first point is true, since political conflict
is as old as Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton (it was all
Hamilton's fault – just kidding). And the political violence just
before the Civil War is something that we haven't reached yet.
But while the first part of the
statement is true, the second is not. The Constitution was designed,
not to grind progress to a halt, but to foster compromise. To aid
compromise, it was assumed that a certain level of civility, a
respect for tradition and proper behavior, would exist. It's clear
that at some point civility vanished. Like fans at a hockey game,
it's easy to point fingers, but difficult to eliminate bias. It
might seem that Donald Trump is the devil incarnate and the
Republican Party is responsible for his creation by practicing a
scorched earth resistance to President Obama, but to others it seems
that President Obama's outright rejection and belittlement of the
Republicans created the rise of a righteous and reasonable man. It
doesn't matter who is right, right now, because this is only a
product of a protracted struggle and disintegration of politeness.
I'm not saying someone isn't right. But we
can't point to anything within the last eight years as the cause,
because the beginning is further back. And even though one party
started the slide into the mud, it's not like the other hasn't been
wrestling them the whole way down.
In this mess of a presidential year,
very few have been bi-partisan. The most recent tussle, the
nomination to replace Anthony Scalia, has exposed the difficulty of
calling foul. Both sides stand by their action, while claiming the
other is acting villainously. Only John Kasich has demonstrated
reasonable civility (although President Obama nominating a fairly
moderate judge could be considered to demonstrate reasonableness as
well), by endorsing
Merrick Garland in spite of the virulent protests of his own party.
Aside from President Obama and Kasich,
it is hard to find anyone that has offered the hand of reconciliation
to the other side. Clinton, Reid, Trump, Cruz, Sanders, Rubio, and
McConnell have all failed in the cause of the country and in
demonstrating a bravery that rises above party politics.
Again, this is not to say that they are
equal. Some have restricted themselves to some mild statements of
rebuke, while others have lied and personally insulted their
opponents. There is a wide gulf separating these candidates. When
it comes down to it, those who disagree on policy are free to debate
the merits of their side, but the breaking of conventions, the lies,
and personal insults are a sign that a politician has committed a
foul. Not everyone has done this, but few have tried to reverse this
progression.
The partisan rancor isn't the end of
the United States, just as the fight between the Federalist and the
Democratic-Republicans wasn't. Maybe this time next year a movement
will rise up and break the polarization that tightly grips the United
States. If not then, there will be future opportunities for the
country to come together. Until then, try to judge as impartially as
one can, act for the best interest of the people of the United
States of America, and if the other guy (or gal) wins in the election
don't act like your opponent is right now.
Comments
Post a Comment