Liberalism By Way of Football

Given that today (February 3^rd) was Super Bowl Sunday – Congratulations Ravens! - it is perhaps appropriate to see the NFL as an exemplar of the clear demarcation between liberalism and conservatism. Please note that liberalism and conservatism in this context have nothing to do with the mostly interchangeable political parties of Democrat and Republican.

To wit:

There is currently running rampant a debate over the rate and severity of concussions and other head traumas in professional football, and by association collegiate, high school and every other organized football association. This is a proper and necessary debate and should be held within the confines of a privately held concern, the aforementioned NFL. The NFL is not a public organization – it is not a part of government or under its jurisdiction.

Couple that fact with President Obamas’ inauguration speech, which was by both impartial and partisan review a declaration of his unabashed liberal policies and intentions for his second term.

Taken together and in the context of this philosophical treatise, one must consider the intent of comments made by President Obama when queried about his opinions on the football injury debate in a soon to be released article in the New Republic.

The three following excerpts are both telling of the liberal ethos and of great concern to those who believe the government to be ‘of the people, by the people and for the people’.

To wit:

“I'm a big football fan, but I have to tell you if I had a son, I'd have to think long and hard before I let him play football,"

The scope of that statement is an almost perfect embodiment of liberalism – what is good for you might not be good for me, so we may have to change it to meet my standards. By definition, this statement indicates that those involved in the largest sport franchise, a private corporation, is unable to properly address workplace concerns on its own, so the government needs to step in and help the defenseless millionaires participating in a private endeavor. It is far different to express concern from a detached government perspective as opposed to injecting oneself into such a situation on such a personal level. The NFL is more than capable to address its own issues. As President Reagan fondly noted, “the nine most terrifying words are ‘I am from the government and here to help’” A sane voice of conservatism.

The next quote from the forthcoming article:

"And I think that those of us who love the sport are going to have to wrestle with the fact that it will probably change gradually to try to reduce some of the violence,"

Again, the misconstruction of sport as unstructured violence. Even the most casual citizen understands that football is a contact sport. Those who choose to play it do so of their own free volition. This statement seems to equate professional sport with the gladiatorial games of ancient Rome, where victims were killed for sport. To make this statement is to tell the American sports fan that they are thirsty for blood. The supposition made by the President is ridiculous and insulting enough, yet the liberal mindset is intent on removing all delineations of success in favor of watering everything down to a warped premise of ‘fairness’. There needs to be a winner and a loser in the Super Bowl. There is not a tie and both sides awarded the trophy because they tried their best and no one wished to hurt anyone’s feelings. This is a dangerous mindset to have for those in authority – once you try to legislate sport, where does it end? Should race cars be limited to only speeds of 40 miles per hour to minimize crashes? And by setting a top speed limit attainable by all, everyone would have a ‘fair’ chance to win. By attempting to equalize outcome, what is actually happening is the distillation of excellence. America is nothing if not the pursuit of individual excellence.

The final excerpted quote:

“In some cases, that may make it a little bit less exciting, but it will be a whole lot better for the players, and those of us who are fans maybe won't have to examine our consciences quite as much.”

This comment is beyond both bizarre and troubling. President Obama may be worried about the overall safety issues at the forefront of the current football concussion debate, but exactly why does he believe that it rises to the level of a point of personal morality? Football fans are like every other sports fan – they want their team to win, but not at the expense of injuring the opposition. The statement from the President, presented this way, can only mean that government is now the sole arbiter of how the citizenry should think. If you enjoy football and its inherent physicality, than of course there is a defect in your thinking – your conscience is out of sorts. One could presume then that the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) would kick in and your errant thinking would be documented and treated by the government.

This is exactly why the government, especially the President, must be mindful of their use of the bully pulpit. Even with an inescapable liberal agenda, the questions must be asked on just how far that agenda will go to ‘help’ and ‘correct’ the conscience  of a nation.

Democracy demands eternal vigilance, on and