Over at The Nation, Dave Zirin opens a can of worms when expressing concern over American jingoism after some nasty comments on a DC sports talk radio show about Algeria after the recent World Cup match.
Yet after the show, I was reminded about why when the United States wins in international tournaments, it can bring a nasty undercurrent in its wake. I was listening to a DC sports radio show called the Sports Fix with Kevin Sheehan and Thom Loverro (Loverro writes a sports column for the Washington Times). Loverro was dismissive about the quality of the victory, saying, "When I think of Algeria, all I think about are terrorists and Abbott and Costello movies." (Given what Algeria suffered at the hands of French occupiers, they probably have a different definition of terrorism.) The two then debated whether United States vs. Algeria was "a Grenada game" or "a Vietnam game," comparing the soccer game to the two wars-Grenada of course being the easy win and Vietnam the tragic loss.
It reminded why these kinds of international competitions can leave me with such a sour taste. Why can't we just recognize that Algeria played gallantly against a better US team, which won by the skin of its teeth? Why must an insanely miraculous athletic victory also be a reinforcer of cultural supremacy? It's yet another reminder why it is so important for progressives to not just thrill to the joys of sport but be conversant in the politics of sports. The right will forever try to pump the worst kind of racist, nationalist garbage through our play, even at moments that by all rights should be above and beyond politics and just about the electric thrill of the moment. Especially given the right's (and Loverro's) contempt for "the beautiful game", soccer of all things shouldn't suffer the curse of being a cheap, political football.
I'm not a soccer fan, and still haven't become one, but am fascinated how many of my friends are suddenly glued to World Cup coverage after being unable to name a single soccer match they've watched since, you guessed it, summer of 2006. Nationalism, for better or worse, brings out a rise in people. I do find it interesting that the same progressive friends of mine who roll their eyes at mindless "America, fuck yeah!" people around policy become manic "USA, USA!" cheerleaders at international sporting events and make a number of dumb comments about other nations' people, customs, values, etc. On the merits, there's a big difference between the two, but it's hard to say you can't stand nationalism and then become a big nationalist in a different space.
Or maybe it's just because I'm still irritated at my fairweather compatriots, e.g. those who watched goaltender Ryan Miller from my beloved Buffalo Sabres (who won the Vezina trophy for goalie of the year last night) take Team USA all the way to the finals against Canada in this year's Winter Olympics, win tournament MVP, then turn to me and said "this sport you call hockey is great, they should do this all year round!" Harrumph.
This is an open thread on the World Cup and other international sporting competitions.
To say that Matthew Yglesias's new book, Heads in the Sand will single-bookedly save the Democratic party is a slight overstatement. It does, however, provide what may be one the most important tools democrats can use to win in 2008 and govern in the years to come: a coherent, intelligent and aggressive liberal policy on National Security.
HITS is a book that, for starters, takes the issue of National Security seriously. Unlike many liberal thinkers and politicians of the past decade, Yglesias argues that National Security is an issue of prime importance to the Democratic Party and to America. It cannot be sidestepped in favor of domestic issues, that democrats are traditionally more comfortable with. The few democrats who do address National Security, Yglesias's "Liberal Hawks," only do so in a way that reinforces the failed Bush doctrine of militaristic nationalism, even if they disagree with his specific policies.
Yglesias asserts that since Bush took office, a National Security/ Foreign Policy ideal of using American military force to unilaterally rid the world of its evils had . Since 9/11, the face of this evil has been terrorism. Bush's War on Terror operates on the wrong assumption that you can combat a transnational villain, such as Al-Qaeda, by attacking national entities, like Iraq, and can do so through the pure might of American power. Bush's view was also faulty because it saw terrorism as an expression of "Freedom-Haters," who abhorred the American way of life, instead of as a specific reaction to specific actions taken by the United States and other countries, an idea espoused by many well-established intelligence and military organizations.
Democrats, Yglesias adds, have recently been holding more consistently anti-war positions, but have yet to attack the flawed ideological underpinnings of the Bush foreign policy nor have the provided an affirmative alternative policy. Matthew Yglesias to the rescue!
The key thesis of HITS is that instead of treating organizations like the UN as a shackle that confines and restricts American interests, the United States should focus on aggressively strengthening these kinds of organizations to create a "liberal world order", governed by laws, that could in part act as an international police force, more able to effectively confront transnational criminals than a single national army could. Thus, instead of America being the world's police department, America would become the Commissioner of a larger international police force, that would protect human lives and human rights.
STATE BLOGS
