Feeds: 
symbol identifies content for paid subscribers only.
WHEN SOCCER EXPLAINS CONSERVATISM.
Via Matt Yglesias, I think this post from Gary Schmitt on yesterday's U.S. soccer team upsetting No. 1 Spain (HELL YEAH!) accurately, if accidentally explains modern American conservatism:
As someone who didn’t play soccer growing up, but had a dad who did and whose own kids played as well, I can say unquestionably that it is the sport in which the team that dominates loses more often than any other major sport I know of. Or, to put it more bluntly, the team that deserves to win doesn’t. For some soccer-loving friends, this is perfectly okay. Indeed, they will argue that it’s a healthy, conservative reminder of how justice does not always prevail in life.[...]
For sure, there may be a number of reasons that is the case but my suspicion is that the so-called “beautiful game” is not so beautiful to American sensibilities. We like, as good small “d” democrats, our underdogs for sure but we also still expect folks in the end to get their just desert. And, in sports, that means excellence should prevail. Of course, the fact that is often not the case when it comes to soccer may be precisely the reason the sport is so popular in the countries of Latin America and Europe.
Schmitt doesn't really believe "excellence" should prevail, or he wouldn't be lamenting that the team that played better won the game. What he laments is that the team that was supposed to play better lost--in other words, it bothers him that it's even possible for someone with a distinct, inherent advantage to fail. This isn't support for "good "small "d" democracy", this is romanticizing oligarchy. It's the pathetic lament of someone who is disappointed that structural inequalities don't always produce a positive result for the advantaged. Schmitt is, in effect, arguing that nothing should have to be earned--you earn it depending entirely on who you are. He doesn't believe in competition that allows, well, competition. Aside from being really weird, this attitude basically defeats the point of watching competitive sports.
It is however, the kind of philosophy that explains conservative hostility to everything from the progessive tax system and universal health care coverage to Sonia Sotomayor being nominated to the Supreme Court. Everyone, especially those at the bottom, are meant to stay in their place.
-- A. Serwer
COMMENTS (7)
But wait - my understanding is that Spain did play better. The word I saw was "dominated" after the first 30 minutes. Not that 30 minutes is nothing, but if they "dominated" 2/3 of the match, then a 2-0 loss does seem to suggest a certain inequity in the sport.
Americans have no problem at all with sports where underdogs win a lot - after all, it's rare for even chamionship baseball teams to sweep most of their regular season series, or even to win the vast majority of them. But soccer seems to be a sport where outplaying the other team is only incidental to winning.
Perhaps Schmitt's analysis is ham-handed, but I don't think the underlying facts support your conclusion.
Posted by: JRoth | June 25, 2009 3:54 PM
"Everyone, especially those at the bottom, are meant to stay in their place." Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner! Conservatism in a nutshell.
Posted by: JohnM | June 25, 2009 4:29 PM
So Galt would never play soccer?
Posted by: Anonymous | June 25, 2009 4:43 PM
J Roth is right. Schmitt isn't complaining that the worse team played better, he's saying the team that played better didn't win. This is related to the difficulty in scoring in soccer in general. A dominant performance still may only yield a handful of decent scoring opportunities, and if the opposing keeper makes a few great saves (and/or defenders make a few great blocks), you could easily lose.
I'm not agreeing with the criticism, but Serwer misunderstands.
Posted by: Ronne P | June 25, 2009 6:00 PM
JRoth is confused about one thing: Soccer matches are 90 minutes long, so 30 minutes is only 1/3 of the match. But he has a good point about baseball; it is the sport I would pick if I wanted to single out a sport where the dominant team does not always win. As for Schmitt, he is on crack. In English football (soccer) for example, the top 4 clubs (known as the "Big Four" - Chelsea, Arsenal, Manchester United and Liverpool) finish 1-4 in a 20 team league year after year. A similar situation obtains in other big time soccer leagues. The Spanish team that USA defeated had been on a 35 game unbeaten streak (its last defeat was in back in 2006!). Lets face it, quality rules the soccer world. But look, if the better team always won what would be the point? As Chris Berman says, "Thats why the play the game!"
Posted by: John G | June 25, 2009 6:43 PM
Oh, I see I misread JRoth's post. I see what he is saying about the last 60 minutes. But the rest of my post stands.
Posted by: John G | June 25, 2009 6:46 PM
Forget, please, "conservatism." It has been, operationally, de facto, Godless and therefore irrelevant. Secular conservatism will not defeat secular liberalism because to God both are two atheistic peas-in-a-pod and thus predestined to failure. As Stonewall Jackson's Chief of Staff R.L. Dabney said of such a humanistic belief more than 100 years ago:
"[Secular conservatism] is a party which never conserves anything. Its history has been that it demurs to each aggression of the progressive party, and aims to save its credit by a respectable amount of growling, but always acquiesces at last in the innovation. What was the resisted novelty of yesterday is today .one of the accepted principles of conservatism; it is now conservative only in affecting to resist the next innovation, which will tomorrow be forced upon its timidity and will be succeeded by some third revolution; to be denounced and then adopted in its turn. American conservatism is merely the shadow that follows Radicalism as it moves forward towards perdition. It remains behind it, but never retards it, and always advances near its leader. This pretended salt bath utterly lost its savor: wherewith shall it be salted? Its impotency is not hard, indeed, to explain. It is worthless because it is the conservatism of expediency only, and not of sturdy principle. It intends to risk nothing serious for the sake of the truth."
Our country is collapsing because we have turned our back on God (Psalm 9:17) and refused to kiss His Son (Psalm 2).
John Lofton, Editor, TheAmericanView.com
Recovering Republican
JLof@aol.com
PS – And “Mr. Worldly Wiseman” Rush Limbaugh never made a bigger ass of himself than at CPAC where he told that blasphemous “joke” about himself and God.
Posted by: John Lofton, Recovering Republican | June 26, 2009 11:31 PM