Politics From the Sidelines

During the fourth quarter of the deciding game of the NBA Eastern Conference semifinals, the Celtic’s Glenn “Big Baby” Davis passed up an open jump shot from the elbow, deciding instead to drive to the basket. He missed the contested shot, which led to a Cleveland fast break and a shooting foul at the other end. Facing his team’s bench from his slot along the paint in preparation for the free throws, Davis could be seen shouting across to the sideline that he “f***ed up.” A quick pan over to the Boston bench revealed that his teammates were the source of criticism and targets of his vulgar confession. Anyone who has played competitive team sports knows this is a lesson in perspective. It’s all too easy to analyze the failure of others from a seat on the bench.

It is so in party politics, as well. When Gordon Brown visited Queen Elizabeth last week, informing the monarch and the British people of his failure to maintain control as Prime Minister and leader of the Labour Party, he was playing, in effect, the role of “Big Baby.” Viewed from the outside, one might wonder why the negotiations to establish a coalition with Social Democrats eluded Labour’s effort. Surely, a tenuous coalition intended to maintain leadership position through to the next election cycle trumped the alternative admission to Her Majesty that he blew the layup. Yet, party leadership decided that it was prudent to abdicate, so Brown willingly splayed himself before the Queen.

The conclusion seems to indicate that, after thirteen years in power, the Labour Party grew tired of answering the shout-downs by Conservatives across the aisle. Labour ministers sat envious of the comfortable position of minority blamelessness in an increasingly complex political environment and decided to take advantage of recent election results to form a line of retreat. It is now their turn to grouse and snipe over national conditions without the burden of accountability. Sweet.

Here in the United States, the complexities found in parliamentary politics boil down to the relatively simpler two-party system, with both major parties each wielding its own extremist weapon. Republicans link arms with Conservatives, as Democrats do with Liberals, and both use their minor brethren as a spiked club to pummel the platforms and philosophies of their opponent. The resulting battles resemble a succession of kamikaze attacks against our ship of state, no matter which party holds control at a given moment.

Historically, we are our own worst enemy in times of relative peace (constant police actions aside), with the out-of-power party intent on limiting national success during the opponent’s watch. It’s impossible to measure the cost of political paralysis at all levels of government, but one could easily conjure a number in the hundreds of billions. This raises no great call for concern, if only because both sides consider national self-mutilation a serviceable political tool.

As the perceived stakes rise, the stridency increases. Opposition to government policy, as measured on the American Panic Meter, crosses into the red zone more often these days. Based on the current dialog, we are closer to civil war than at any time in the past century. To be blunt, our only salvation lay with the fractious nature and latent stupidity evident among the individuals cast as spokespersons at both extremes. They reveal themselves as opportunists eventually, moving into position to collect fees and honoraria and using those platforms to espouse alarmism at rising volume levels. Centrists of varying shades may be swayed briefly by the windy blasts, but their roots remained fixed to the ground in which they were planted. This strong middle remains our vanguard against either side of the rhetorical fence, but its nature to stay silent also threatens true progress.

The best and worst argument against the Centrist is in the self-limiting failure to take a pronounced stand. In this respect, moderate thinkers populate the bench, pointing out the flaws and faults of those who take the risk of acting on their convictions. At the same time, who better to make a true assessment than one who has a clear view of the entire court? If the roles reversed, this country would be a crashing bore and we might all begin to feel the strain of disinterest. The last time that happened, our nation’s power expanded and spawned the unrest of the Sixties. That alone argues against a policy of stasis, for no single condition can withstand the power of an opposing force forever.

Thus, we watch as each side takes its shots in a never-ending game that moves end to end without any clear and lasting advantage. What remains certain is the notion that it’s more fun to pick apart decisions than it is to execute them and it’s easier to accept failure than to fight to the last breath. A millennium of political reality describes a varying cast of doers and don’t-doers, with the rest of us alternately cheering, crying and hiding our eyes as the clock ticks down.




Abstract Invention by Charlie Accetta is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License.