Patch Blog: In Politics & Sports, Winning Can Mean Losing

America has always been a nation torn between extremes - benevolent (the Marshall Plan)/vindictive (Cuban foreign policy); environmentally protective (National Park System)/environmentally destructive (unregulated industry); inclusive (civil rights legislation)/racist (Japanese-American internment). But nowhere is America’s duality more apparent than in its relationship with winning and losing. And nowhere is this conflict more present than in the realms of politics and sports.

Recently, there have been two episodes that bring this philosophical conflict into sharp focus.

Four years ago the struggling presidential candidacy of Republican Senator John McCain needed a lift. Trailing in most national polls to then Democratic Senator Barack Obama, a move was made to elevate McCain’s chances of winning the November 2008 Presidential election. That move was, of course, the recruitment of an obscure politician, Alaska Governor, Sarah Palin. Ms. Palin was all that Republican strategists hoped she would be - an attractive, no-nonsense, down-home, conservative “momma bear” with a no holds-barred willingness to mix it up with Democrats.

With Palin at his side, McCain’s polling numbers improved immediately, but as the weeks passed by and the election drew nearer a wider swath of the American electorate was exposed to a not so complimentary side of the Alaska Governor. Behind the heels, and shades, the winks and nods, and the “lock’n load” attitude there emerged steadily and inexorably a simplistic, internationally unaware, politically naïve candidate.

In my mind it was shocking that a major political party in the United States, in the 21st century, could even contemplate foisting such an ill-prepared vice presidential candidate on the American people. Even for a party that tends to champion malleable figureheads, choosing Sarah Palin was an act of disdain and political irresponsibility.

Now, I do write a blog called “Left Leaning” so it’s certainly no surprise that I should feel this way, but I am not alone in my criticism.

Over the past few months we've heard from those distinctly right-leaning Republican strategists who were directly involved with managing the McCain-Palin ticket. They too have become disenchanted not only with her, but with their own cynical roles in attaching Sarah Palin to the ticket. One, Nicole Wallace, believes that Palin was “fundamentally unprepared and unsuited for the job of Vice President of the United States." Ms. Wallace didn’t even wind up voting for the McCain-Palin ticket. The other is Steve Schmidt who stated that “the notion of Sarah Palin being president of the United States is something that frightens me, frankly. And I played a part in that. And I played a part in that because we were fueled by ambition to win.” Here it was, the party of responsibility and security ignoring its own self-imposed mandates for the sake of winning at all costs.

Remind me again why people should be running out to support this same party and these same guiding principles in the upcoming Presidential election?

Sports doesn’t matter nearly so much as the serious game of politics and running our country, but the New Orleans Saints of the NFL recently went down a similar path of  win at any price.

In this instance, team management was aware and directly involved with a so called “bounty” system that paid players to deliberately injure or otherwise take actions that would result in the elimination from games of specific game-day opponents. For the players who threw money into the pot it was literally a case of union members actively targeting fellow union members for career-threatening injury. All of this in the face of a Commissioner, Roger Goodell, who was specifically committed to ensuring player safety and fair play in the NFL.

Ultimately, what are we as a nation all about - winning responsibly and by the rules or winning at all costs? A lot of us, I truly think, just don’t know. In teaching our kids we are torn as parents between teaching them what is right, but knowing full well that the real world often demands and rewards a much more cynical version of “winning.” The Republican Party, had it won, would have placed (potentially) a nuclear arsenal and a multi-trillion dollar economy in the hands of an uninformed novice, and the New Orleans Saints did go on to win a Super Bowl. Both outcomes can be construed as involving “costs.” One, to the security and prosperity of a nation, the other, to the integrity and respect of a game. If good guys do indeed finish last, shouldn't we at least hope that bad guys are the first to be punished?