A few days ago, I went to eat lunch at Banditos. It was Sunday, and it was close to 3pm. Thinking that this would be a reasonable time to try to have a peaceful meal at Banditos, and knowing that I would never go there when it was busy, I was shocked when we got inside and realized that the place was packed. Why was it packed on a Sunday at 3pm? Apparently, the answer is football. And everywhere I looked around this whole restaurant, all I could see was this horrid game. Worse yet, there were nearly 100 people, mostly guys, drinking pitchers of budweiser and screaming and yelling at the tv–their fists violently thrown in the air every couple minutes the entire time I was there. Now, I have no problem with the pitchers of beer, although I would prefer to never taste Budweiser ever again, but I absolutely detest Football, and all that is associated with it. I admit I’m not a big fan of any sports, but I can watch them all, all that is, except, American football–which I have always believed is the epitome of everything wrong with this country.
So when I came across this article last week, I thought it was interesting. This is from the New York Times. Have a look.
Electoral politics as sport By James Carroll The Boston Globe January 14, 2008
OVER THE NEXT three weeks, America will be in thrall to its cult of masculinity. Weekends will be defined by the NFL playoffs, culminating in the Super Bowl Feb. 3. What remains of the nation’s attention, after football, will be seized by
presidential politics, leading up to the decisive primaries on Super Tuesday, Feb. 5. The first process is a celebration of a peculiar notion of manliness, while the second is a prisoner of it.
It does not take an anthropologist to understand that professional football occupies its central place in the American imagination as a sublimation of violence. That may be its main virtue. Indeed, games in which males draw up lines on fields and
then contest those lines with balls date to the dawn of history, when such activities took the place of actual combat. Struggles between tribes were ritualized with primitive games, sometimes to the death. The first balls may have been decapitated
heads.
Our bullet-shaped pigskin amounts to moral progress, but the unconscious appeal of such sport still consists in its character as regulated mayhem. The fact that the symbols of the National Football League amount to self-parody - the martial and
animal names of teams, outsized body armor, fight songs, victory dances, rhetoric like “bomb” and “blitz” - does not take away from their character as aggrandizements of the warrior ethos.
In America, football is a last preserve of “manhood.” Boys embrace it as a rare rite of passage that is not generally available to girls, and men value it, both as players and spectators, as one remaining source of gender bonding that has withstood
the pressures of the feminist revolution.
Indeed, football players remain the beau ideal for girls who hope only to be some guy’s trophy. And football, with its culture of unashamed physicality, butt slapping, and hugging, offers release from the otherwise too-threatening impulses of the
homoerotic.
Unlike baseball, where patience and deftness reign supreme, or basketball, where the graceful feint outscores the brutal confrontation every time, football is all about hitting and taking down. It celebrates virility in its crudest form, with brawn
as the ground of excellence. All of this is at the service of a violence that can be openly enjoyed because, in the end, no one dies and, with luck, no one is really hurt.
But violence is uniquely the point of this game, and it reveals a lot about the United States both that no event competes with the Super Bowl as a festival of national cohesion, and that no other nation has “American football” (as opposed to
profoundly non-violent soccer) at the center of culture.
Electoral politics comes to climax in this same period, but in this primary season politics does not so much parody the cult of manliness, as try to break free from it. The stakes in the race for US president are mortal, and people will die, and
will get hurt - perhaps by the hundreds of thousands - if the wrong runner wins. Candidates reveal themselves, and their idea of the voting public, by what they emphasize.
In this uncertain time, Americans are thought to be wanting “toughness” in their leader, above all. Belligerence, readiness for war, contempt for tribal aliens (aka immigrants), cruelty toward miscreants, intolerance of nuance - such are the
professed virtues of candidates. But the cult of virility is reduced to the absurd by the clack of television and radio pundits - mostly, but not entirely, male - who sustain a testosterone-fed feedback loop around which violence cycles both as
America’s greatest threat and best solution.
John McCain’s ascendancy slides along the grooves of this preoccupation because his warrior credentials - and impulses - are unimpeachable. Mitt Romney is Clark Kent, saving us from migrant workers. Mike Huckabee began to win by donning the costume
of a hunter, flourishing a gun. Rudy Giuliani is the cop who will do whatever it takes, whatever “it” is. Republicans instinctively bang the manhood drum, and if that is the music America wants, Republicans cannot lose.
The Democratic problem is that the cult of masculinity is always reactionary, and no liberal Democrat can authentically indulge it. Hillary Clinton thwarts the manliness ethos just by being a woman, even if obliged to pass its test. John Edwards
features the visceral rage of the warrior class, while defining it as working class. Barack Obama politely declines to play the game, which may, in this season, be the real toughness.
All of which is to say, in both contexts, “Go Patriots.”
James Carroll’s column appears regularly in the Globe. © Copyright 2008 The New York Times Company