None of This is New
October 31, 2011
Those commenting on national affairs keep saying that our political processes are too polarized to get anything done; but political parties were every bit as divided in the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries as they are today, and public debate was even more strident than the lack of civility we see today.
The grilling of Supreme Court nominees, Wall Street bankers and British Petroleum executives can seem sensational, but this has been nothing like the early 1950s when Senator McCarthy of Wisconsin conducted hearings into Communist sympathies of employees in government and Hollywood.
It is almost laughable to assert that modern political debate is disintegrating. Heck, in 1804 our nation’s vice president, while in office, challenged a critic to a duel. And shot him dead! Now that’s discord!
My point is that the political process didn’t break recently. If it’s broken, it’s always been broken, always contentious and acrimonious – from the drafting of the Declaration of Independence and Constitution, to the War Between the States, until today: corrupt politicians, polarized political parties, bitter debates, contentious elections.
None of this is new, except for the increased media coverage. None of this alone is to blame for today’s inability to solve problems. And all of this together is not to blame for today’s problems.
Perhaps closer to the heart of the problems today in Michigan and our nation is a lack of heart in “we the people.” A lack of passion, principle and – most of all – common vision and purpose.
Maybe we’ve just had it so good for so long that we’ve forgotten to dream for better days and fight for a better future.
Maybe these tough times will refresh our dreams and reignite the fight.
Sweating the Small Stuff - #3
June 5, 2018
I’m sure it discouraged some of our state’s high school football coaches to learn that the Representative Council of the Michigan High School Athletic Association did not approve at its May 6-7 meeting what some people refer to as the “enhanced strength of schedule proposal” for determining 256 qualifiers to the MHSAA’s 11-player football playoffs.
There was desire among some Council members to appease those who keep trying to reduce the difficulties that a football tournament causes for regular season scheduling and conference affiliations. Others noted that the proposal, as presented, could cause as much harm to some schools and conferences as it would help others, that it did not solve the scheduling problem but shifted it.
During spirited discussion, some Council members resurrected two ideas that have been rejected previously, such as (1) doubling the playoffs once again (and shortening the regular season to eight games), and (2) coupling a six- or seven-win minimum with the revised strength of schedule criteria. The pros and cons of each idea flowed freely.
And therein is the problem. If one digs down into the details of proposals, both old and new, there are both positive and negative aspects apparent, both intended and unintended consequences likely.
There can be paralysis in analysis; but when we are dealing with more than 600 high school programs and a physically demanding sport with fewer regular-season contests permitted than in any other sport, one cannot be too careful. Eliminating one of just nine regular-season games? Increasing first-round tournament mismatches? Disadvantaging larger schools locked in leagues or areas of the state where smaller schools predominate? These are not minor matters.
And until there are sensible answers, these are not trivial questions.