Sentimental Favorite in the Indy 500

I’ve recently come to the full realization that the Indianapolis 500 is my favorite sporting event of the year. I guess I have probably realized this for a long time now, but I never sat down and acknowledged it so fully until this past year. I have literally interrupted vacations for the Indianapolis 500, including once making my wife sit in a hotel room in California for a few extra hours one Memorial Day weekend while I watched the race. I’m still mad that I missed Arie Luyendyk’s first win in the race because I was graduating from high school and my high school has for years held its graduation ceremony at the same time as the race … despite the fact that it’s only a few hours from Indianapolis in an area heavy with racing fans. Every May, I watch qualifications runs and Bump Day, I pore over statistics about the drivers, and I reread about past races. I love a lot of sports and, outside of Indy car racing, I’m not much of an auto racing fan, but for some reason the Indy 500 is my favorite sports event. I suppose when I have more time to reflect on it, I’ll try to understand why that is. For now, though, with the race happening this weekend, I want, as a fan, to offer some public declaration of support for my sentimental favorite: Sarah Fisher.

Much is made of Danica Patrick as a female driver in a male-dominated enterprise. I root for Danica and certainly support her, but there is little question that her questionable use of sexuality is a major aspect of her popularity. On the other hand, Sarah Fisher’s public persona is much more rooted in her connection to driving. With this Sunday’s Indianapolis 500, she will become the woman who has made the most starts in the race, as she runs her eighth Indy 500 race, surpassing her current tie with Lyn St. James. She is also running her second consecutive race as not only a driver, but a racecar owner. She may not have a high chance to win, as the bigger teams tend to dominate the Indy Racing League races. As a smaller outfit, it’s difficult to maintain the car and speed of the larger teams. Yet, there is always a possibility and Fisher’s experience and ability only add to that chance. For her talent, her experience, and the honorable way in which she carries the mantle of female auto racers, I’m rooting for Sarah Fisher this Sunday.

Oh yeah … and her appearance on The Daily Show this past Monday doesn’t hurt either.

Race and Politics in South Bend

On Sunday, while we were discussing the topic of some folks protesting Barack Obama’s commencement speech and honorary degree at the University of Notre Dame, my wife asked me if I thought racism had something to do with it. I took her question to mean an inquiry about whether or not people who didn’t like Obama for some reason explicitly involving race were using another issue as a means of expressing their dislike for him. I responded with a no—that I didn’t think it was racism and that the same folks who have expressed these concerns about Obama have done similarly for white folks as well. Then, later that day, I got to thinking about it …

On the surface, I agree with my earlier comment. I don’t think this is explicitly an issue of race. However, upon further thought, I think it does involve racism and can be instructive about how racism is conceptualized and discussed. Here’s what occurred to me:

I think it’s a fairly safe assumption that it has been and continues to be an easier path for a black politician to have a chance to run for president as a Democrat than as a Republican. That’s based on my sense of how Democrats and Republicans are perceived and how they present themselves in terms of how they represent black constituencies and issues of significance to those constituencies. I’m not meaning to inject my own political leaning there. While personally I do believe that Democrats tend to be better than Republicans at recognizing and addressing issues of significance to black men and women, I have plenty of criticisms of how Democrats handle these issues in addition to criticisms of how Republicans handle these issues. So, my argument here is not based on who actually does represent black interests better. Rather, I’m arguing that within popular consciousnesses, Democrats tend to be aligned much more fully with black candidates. Certainly, some black candidates have run for office as Republicans (J.C. Watts, Michael Steele, Lynn Swan, Ken Blackwell and Alan Keyes (who was among the protestors at Notre Dame this weekend) come to mind); however, the path to the possibility of presidential candidacy has tended to be more associated with the Democratic Party. So, then, it seems to be little surprise that Obama ran for and was elected president as a Democrat.

As the presidential candidate of the national party, he is also expected to maintain the party platform. This is as true of Democrats as it is Republicans and it tends to be especially true on the issue of abortion. It’s quite doubtful that at this moment in American history any Democrat could gain the party’s nomination for president while advocating a pro-life position and it’s just as doubtful that at this moment in American history any Republican could gain the party’s nomination for president while advocating a pro-choice position. One only needs to look at the lengths that Rudy Giuliani went to in 2007 and 2008 to distance his own pro-choice stance from what he might do as president. It’s quite conceivable, then, that Obama’s own private position on abortion could range anywhere from falling right in line with the party position to veering slightly from it to differing quite widely from it, and that, as a Democrat, he is asked to maintain adherence to the party’s position regardless of his own personal feelings.

Putting these two together, then, the protests of Obama do involve racism. They do so in that they help perpetuate a system that continually closes off opportunities for minorities (in this case African Americans). In this specific case, saying someone does not deserve honor based on her or his stance on abortion is not explicitly excluding a person based on race. However, when we look at the structure of contemporary United States politics, there is definitely an argument, based on what I have just described, that saying someone like Obama does not deserve honor does perpetuate exclusion of African Americans. If we work with the assertion that a black candidate has a better chance to run for president as a Democrat and the assertion that a Democratic candidate for president my maintain a pro-choice position, then a position that holds the candidate’s position on abortion against that candidate—particularly when tying it to what is defined as “honorable”—does significantly contribute to the reduction of opportunities for black men and women. In the process, it does reinforce racism.

Perhaps this is too many suppositions on my part. Maybe I’m assuming too much about the ability of a black Republican to run for president or about what is asked of candidates on both sides in terms of their abortion stances or about the degree to which Obama might differ in private opinion from the party position. I’ll concede that I am working a bit from supposition, but I’ll also argue that I have not made any assertions here that I think are particularly egregious and that the suppositions that I have made do appear to have significant basis in reality. I’ll also argue that they do point to a broader point about racism that needs to be a much fuller part of the discussion of issues of race in the United States. That point is that racism is a system of advantages and disadvantages, opportunities and lacks of opportunities, rights and denials of rights. Racism is not just explicit exclusion on the basis of racial identity. It’s a much deeper structure in which differences in status and opportunity that were established long ago continue to be reinforced and perpetuated. It’s deeply embedded into the everyday lives and activities that constitute United States society. And I believe we need to be much more willing to be cognizant of how deeply everyday things that may on the surface seem to have little to do with race do involve perpetuation of racial inequities at deeper, more complex levels. Obama’s public position on abortion is at least in part a product of the complexities of American politics. Idealistic pronouncements of the character and honor of an individual based on her or his position on abortion fail to recognize the significance of the political system in affecting those positions. In the process, they fail in adequately attending to the complex political realities of the ways that racism, sexism, heterosexism, classism, and other forms of discrimination work and in acknowledging how structures of society that are based in these forms of discrimination must be managed and negotiated as individuals seek opportunities.

As someone who is a self-described moderate on abortion, I believe those critical of the position of Obama and the Democratic party on abortion should continue to vocalize these criticisms. I would even say that what I have argued here does not suggest that they should not protest in favor of what they believe is right. I would, though, ask these folks to consider the many different kinds of ramifications of their protests and the statements that they have made about Obama and others in their protests. Indeed, while I do not agree with Obama on everything, one of the things that I very much like about him is the interest in opening up dialogue on various issues that he appears to promote. I believe that Obama’s commencement speech at the University of Notre Dame showed this quality once again—a quality that seems to put him in stark contrast on so many levels from his predecessor, whose administration seemed time and again to paint folks who disagreed as dishonorable, unpatriotic, and many other similar terms, rather than as compatriots in dialogue with honest and important differences of opinion with which they should engage.

In the end, I believe that both sides have a point about abortion. This is an issue of life and how we define what is a life worth protecting. At the same, though, this is very much an issue of women’s rights and individual civil liberties. The problem, as Obama himself suggested in his commencement speech, is that so often the rhetoric of both sides seems unwilling to engage the other side in meaningful dialogue, unwilling to accept that the other side has an important point to address, and unwilling to work with the other side in addressing this issue. In the end, I also believe that looking at abortion from a myopic view that does not recognize the complexities that inform positions of individuals and politicians when it comes to this issue is entirely inadequate and inappropriate. This is exactly why I do not like the way in which abortion is used as the sole means of judging a candidate’s acceptability. To the many conservative Catholics out there who vote for Republicans simply on the issue of abortion and who have even at times called for excommunication of politicians who are pro-choice, I would ask how they even vote at all. After all, the Catholic Church has come out in opposition to the Iraq War, the death penalty, and any number of other things that Republicans support—many of which also involve issues of “life.” You, my conservative companions, must have some sort of complex way of justifying all of those things in order to vote on the one issue of abortion alone. Would you like me to demonize your views on abortion and other issues or would you rather I try to understand them? If you picked the first option, then how can you ever hope to change anyone’s views or at least have people listen to you with consideration for your views? That would be seem to be the antithesis of what is being advocated in that scenario. If you picked the second option, then how can you in good conscience not extend that same kind of treatment to the very politicians whom you demonize for their positions on abortion, as if they, too, don’t have to negotiate the same tricky, complex world of contemporary American thought and politics that you have to negotiate in order to come to your own positions?

More Props to Gregg Doyel

With the Kentucky Derby fast approaching, I want to reiterate my sentiments about horse racing (which I expressed a year ago). Honestly, though, I don't think I could have put it better than Gregg Doyel did today.

Flaming Lip Service to Democracy

While leafing through my university's student newspaper this morning, I came across this story from the Associated Press about Oklahoma's adoption of the song "Do You Realize?" by the Flaming Lips as the official state rock song. The gist of the story is that the song earned the most votes in an online contest, but then enough Oklahoma legislators voted against making it the official state rock song to keep it from being declared as such. Reasons cited included being upset about use of foul language by band members and being offended by bandmember Michael Ivins once wearing a red tee-shirt with a yellow hammer-and-sickle symbol (a symbol that denotes the Communist Party) on it.

I was especially struck by the statement by Republican Representative Corey Holland, who said, "The great thing about this country is he has the right to make whatever statement he wants to make. I have the right to be offended by that.” The problem here is exactly the problem with so many politicians, especially on the conservative side, who offer us rhetorical constructions of equality without recognizing the relations of power that are involved in the things that they are discussing. Here, Holland suggests that he and Ivins are on equal terms in public discourse--that Ivins' right to express himself with the tee-shirt and Holland's right to be offended by it are on equal footing. On the one hand, in a situation free of hierarchies of power, I might agree with Holland. These are both legitimate forms of expression and personal opinion. However, this situation is not free of hierarchies of power. Namely, as a state representative, Holland had the power to vote against adoption of the Flaming Lips' song as the state rock song and, thus, join those who kept the song from being declared the state song. In the process, Holland and others like him could assert their right to be offended over the right of the Flaming Lips to express themselves, which is exactly how censorship and marginalization develop and proceed. In this instance, Holland has a certain form of power that makes his statement, at best, misleading, and, more likely, dishonest.

This is indicative of a larger problem that exists with much discussion of rights, opportunities, and equality in the United States. In the name of these kinds of idealistic, oversimplified maxims about equality of rights and opportunities, our public discourse so often neglects the power relations that make things unequal and that privilege some perspectives over others. Until we become much more willing to talk about these issues of power and be self-reflexive in our discussion of these issues, I'm afraid we'll keep spinning our wheels, not really addressing issues and not really pursuing a better democracy. And I'll keep reading stories like this and feeling incensed at the state of public discourse in the United States like I was this morning.

Fortunately, this story has what, from my perspective at least, is a happy ending: The governor of Oklahoma signed an executive order declaring the song the official rock song of the state. This is, of course, a solution that does not divorce itself from the issues of power that I have been discussing, as in this case the governor asserted his power over that of the legislature. The difference between me and Holland--a difference that I think makes a world of difference--is that I'll acknowledge that that issue of power is involved and that, even while I am glad for the governor's decision, I acknowledge that the process by which the song was adopted remains a reflection of a system that continues to need work if it is to approximate a fuller democracy.

Remembering Bea Arthur

As I’m sure many of you know already, Bea Arthur passed away at the age of 86 on Friday, April 25. She’s most known for her leading roles in Maude and The Golden Girls, but there are two clips that stand out to me in remembering Arthur. First is her contribution to Comedy Central’s roast of Pamela Anderson in 2005, which can be seen here. In this clip, Arthur has me laughing silly. I think it demonstrates just how good Arthur was at comedic performance. Second is her skit on the Star Wars Holiday Special back in 1978, which can be seen here. The entire venture of that holiday special reeks with goofiness. Arthur’s performance, including her bit alongside Harvey Korman, who passed away last year, fits right in.

I think the acting world has lost a great one.

Happy Earth Day with Kenny Loggins

So, Happy Earth Day, everyone! To commemorate it, I'm wearing my I Love Recycling shirt and I've been listening to my favorite "green" song all day: Kenny Loggins' "Conviction of the Heart." Here's a YouTube video that someone made that uses the original, along with pictures to celebrate Earth Day. Additionally, here, one of my favorites--Richard Marx--teams up with Loggins live to perform the song. Finally, here is a video in which someone has set scenes from The Lord of the Rings films to the song--a fitting combination given the anti-Industrialist themes of the series.

Fair and Foul in Remembering Integration

Today marks the 62nd anniversary of the date on which Jackie Robinson played his first game with the Brooklyn Dodgers, thereby breaking the race barrier in major league baseball that had existed since the 1880s. Over the years since the event occurred, particularly after the first decade or so after it happened, the integration of Major League Baseball in 1947 has tended to be celebrated by Major League Baseball and many others as a unquestionably progressive act. That kind of portrayal of the integration of major league baseball as a unilaterally progressive event stems from a number of sources and types of arguments. While I do not think that Jules Tygiel means to make so broad a claim, his argument in Baseball’s Great Experiment: Jackie Robinson and his Legacy that the integration of major league baseball significantly affected the Civil Rights Movement certainly helps fuel that kind of celebration. Meanwhile, such broad claims are offered by the likes of David Horowitz, who has used the integration of major league baseball as an excuse to argue that a free market system always does the right thing in the end.

The problem with Horowitz’s view and with the celebration of integration as so unilaterally progressive is that the way that major league baseball integrated is not without significant elements of exclusion and marginalization. While this critique is part of my own work, both in my dissertation a few years ago and as part of my argument in a forthcoming article in Journal of Communication Studies, my arguments owe debt for their framing to other works in which various elements of the critique can be found, including, among other places, in passing in Harry Edwards’ The Revolt of the Black Athlete and more fully in William C. Rhoden’s Forty Million Dollar Slaves: The Rise, Fall, and Redemption of the Black Athlete and in Brad Snyder’s Beyond the Shadow of the Senators: The Untold Story of the Homestead Grays and the Integration of Baseball. As one part of the critique goes, the integration of major league baseball consolidated control of professional baseball into white hands. At the time that Jackie Robinson broke the color barrier, the Negro Leagues, which offered black ballplayers the opportunity to play, also offered black men and women very viable business opportunities in the forms of the professional baseball teams that they owned and ran. Within fifteen years of the integration of major league baseball, the Negro Leagues were defunct and, to this day, major league baseball remains largely a white-owned enterprise, with one Latino owner (Arte Moreno/Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim), one team owned by an American subsidiary of a Japanese company (Nintendo of America/Seattle Mariners), and no African American owners. In other words, while integration did allow for black ballplayers to play major league baseball, it did so at the expense of black ownership and management of teams. It could have been done differently. For instance, Major League Baseball could have invited some of the Negro League teams to join the National League and the American League as new teams. After all, within that same fifteen years after integration that saw the evaporation of the Negro Leagues, both the National League and the American League added new teams as Major League Baseball expanded. By expanding in a way to include black ownership, integration could have been done on at least a little more equitable of a basis. In this manner, integration of the major leagues echoed other types of integration. The same kind of consolidation under white control occurred within media organizations, like newspapers. It also happened in education after the famous Brown v. Board of Education case overturned segregation. The result? In the newspapers industry, while a few black journalists got jobs, many black reporters, editors and managers were now without work and owners of black newspapers saw their businesses go under. In education, black students now went to school with white students, but integration took place in white schools, leaving black schools to close and black teachers, administrators, and staff members jobless, despite years of experience and educational background. To this day, these inequities remain far from being overcome. The same holds for Major League Baseball.

So, while there certainly may be positives associated with the 1947 integration of Major League Baseball, it is not the unilaterally progressive event that it tends to be characterized as having been. Rather, it was a step toward a particular path toward democracy—a step in one direction among a number of choices for direction and a step that needs to be followed by other steps that work toward further progress. For years, Major League Baseball has used April 15 to pat itself on the back, celebrating the event of integration and suggesting how this shows the usefulness and importance of Major League Baseball to United States society. Today, though, as I looked at how the 1947 integration was being characterized on Major League Baseball’s official website, I was happy to see what I think is improvement along these lines. The attention was focused much more on the person of Robinson and the struggle that he endured as the one who integrated the major leagues. This included recognition of various programs that have been developed to work toward equality and progress involving issues of race. Perhaps Major League Baseball is listening to some of the voices who have been offering critiques of how integration has been remembered. I’d like to hope so and it is nice to see what appears to be a more progressive take on the ways to remember integration. Still, it does continue to be situated in a form of paternalism, as giving scholarships and developing programs continue a kind of noblesse oblige tradition, whereby those in power offer some opportunities to the less-empowered—i.e., “give back to the community”—yet do so in ways that reinforce their own standing as the empowered, that attempt not to disrupt the status quo too much and, thus, that don’t really do a lot in terms of altering the deeper structural inequities of society. Major League Baseball is taking up the “there’s-still-a-long-way-to-go” kind of message, yet it must recognize that its own structures do continue to be part of the problem. While certainly just a step and not a cure-all, I think that making significant moves to ensure African American ownership of at least a couple of teams in the near future would be a step in the right direction along those lines. The likes of Horowitz would cry “foul” at this as the kind of affirmative action type of policy that he and other conservatives rail against, associating it with concepts like “reverse racism” and suggesting that it is “special treatment” of minorities that takes us away from really treating people as equals. I’d argue that it’s only “fair” to compensate for the special treatment that white-owned teams received in 1947 when the major leagues integrated, as well as the special treatment in 1961, 1962, 1969, 1977, 1993, and 1998, when white owners received newly created expansion teams.