My mother-in-law, a lifelong fan of the Boston Red Sox, was quite enamored of Johnny Damon, the shaggy haired outfielder with a penchant for hitting the long ball. That changed when George Steinbrenner lured her favorite player into the barber’s chair and onto the bench of her arch nemesis, the New York Yankees.
Same guy. Same skills. Same game. Yet her attitude toward him changed completely based on the jersey he wore.
Sports as a metaphor is prevalent in literature and commentary because sport provides a more easily understandable reference point for what might otherwise be a complex and contentious topic.
All of life really does come down to the basics, much as baseball really does come down to hit the ball, catch the ball, throw the ball. That’s pretty much it.
Imagine a scenario where one of your co-workers announces with pride that players signed to the New England Patriots are the best, most talented, and eminently likable people in the world. That’s not too big a stretch of the imagination. You may have heard something similar expressed by a friend or co-worker at some point in your life. The team affiliation might be different, but the basic message is the same.
Is the speaker thinking of Tom Brady, the most successful quarterback of all time? Is he referencing a man who has proven himself to be cool under pressure, able to withstand significant opposition, and still pull out a win? Or is he referring to Aaron Hernandez, a spectacularly talented player but deeply troubled individual who was convicted of a heinous murder before dying young in prison?
Both men played the same sport. They wore the same jersey. They were both at the top of their game — yet one is on his way to legendary status and the other’s name is a shameful cautionary tale of potential gone wrong.
That is an interesting contrast in character and ability well worth our consideration.
But this column isn’t about sports. It’s about life. More specifically, the way American men and women interact with the management of our communities and our nation as a whole.
Yes, the mid-term elections are just days away and as is too often the case, team spirit has replaced rational thought on all sides.
Blind devotion to the Red Sox is as myopic and wrong as is blind devotion to the Yankees. Heralding the Patriots as the home of the best men in the world due to the long shadow of Tom Brady, while completely ignoring the ills of Aaron Hernandez is equally pointless. The view is incomplete, based on a heaping helping of loyalty but devoid of logic.
This is as silly as adopting the belief that Cessna pilots are really good people, and Piper pilots are okay, but you need to keep a close eye on Grumman pilots, and Cirrus pilots don’t have any idea what they’re doing.
None of those beliefs are valid. None could hold up to any scientific rigor at all. But is it really so different than picking teams to favor or detract from in any other arena?
In recent years Americans have devolved into a mass of team-centric voters with little time or energy to research the candidates or the issues that face us. The glittery, euphoric, affirmation offered by social media has deflected our attention further apart and to races in states we don’t live in. Places where we don’t have a vote, in areas of the country we may or may not understand well at all.
I am a Floridian. Over the course of my life I’ve lived in Arizona, Connecticut, New York, and the Sunshine State. The ballot I fill out will not contain the names of candidates, or referendums, or amendments found in other states. I’ve wasted not one minute campaigning for or against candidates running in other states. Not even in Connecticut where my brother is on the ballot. That’s not my state. My choice is not a factor in his fate.
For decades now we’ve benefitted from a robust, “Get Out the Vote” campaign. Unfortunately, we’ve had very little in the way of “Understand Who and What You’re Voting For.”
Picking by team is probably not a rational way to go regardless of where you live. Remember Johnny Damon. Keep Brady and Hernandez in mind.
The U.S. Senate will be on my ballot this time around. There are five people running, representing three different political parties and two with no political affiliation. There is also a write-in option if I choose not to vote for any of the five listed.
There are four candidates running for the governor’s seat. My ballot also includes a series of Constitutional amendments, a county referendum, and a charter amendment.
Voting by team involves ignoring the capabilities, histories, and foibles of each and every candidate listed in favor of a marketing slogan that may or may not pertain to the person listed on my ballot. That is not comforting to those who prefer to vote straight party line, but it is true.
One of the proudest moments in my life came during a presidential election year not long ago. The people who sit around my dinner table all voted. They each cast their ballot their way. Between us we voted for three different presidential candidates. We didn’t fight. We didn’t call each other names or complain our parents, children, or siblings were tearing our nation down. We did something all too rare these days. We respected each other’s choice and wished them the best.
We don’t do team spirit at my house. We don’t vote as a block. We don’t all believe the same things. Yet we care for each other and cheer each other on in victory, just as we console each other in defeat.
Wouldn’t it be beneficial if we could do that as a nation? I’m just asking.
You can respect people, but hate their ideas. It is foolish to think that all opinions have the same inherent value. And while I try not to offend, it is my duty to call stupid out. The reward for politeness should not be slavery.
There is a lot of bad opinion, and it usually comes from those who try to deny others their right to speak and protest, peacefully, One warning sign of authoritarianism is the refusal to openly investigate an election that has been marred in controversy.
I can think of nothing that would so divide a country, as would insisting an election free and fair but opposing any attempt to validate it by conventional audit. Such opposition all but guarantees fraud occurred. And the more you refrain, free and fair, the more I suspect fraud.
I’m fairly certain the point of Mr. Beckett’s article is playing out EXACTLY as written in the comments. Each post in response underpins the tribalism Jamie so eloquently pointed out. Even those attempting to steer clear of such tribalism still wanted to leave a message for Mr. Beckett, and by extension, GA News: “Stay in your swim lane, aviation is politics free.” That too, is tribalism.
For the record, I abhor discussing politics in an aviation setting as well, that’s MY tribalism showing…as I want to “protect” (as we all do) our lovely world of aviation, without the polarization all other aspects of our lives are subject to.
But: Every single comment like
“what the hell does this have to do with aviation”
“Editors of GA News you failed on this one”
“here’s hoping we aren’t about to see an unintended change in ‘atmosphere’ here”
“Why would General Aviation News carry this particular editorial?”
Is Tribalism. Tribalism is something I too have to actively fight against my own instincts on; we all do. Many of these comments, at their core, are attempting to silence a voice one doesn’t agree with; all in the service of trying to protect the “apolitical” industry we claim aviation to be.
I enjoy Mr. Beckett’s writing, regardless of his views, or that of his employer (AOPA) some of which I agree with, some I do not. But I enjoy reading his WRITING. He could write about endangered banana slugs for all I care…just maybe use an airplane term somewhere in it as he did in this one.
Lastly, Jamie’s article ends with what evidently strikes many as a controversial statement:
“…care for each other and cheer each other on in victory, [just as we] console each other in defeat. Wouldn’t it be beneficial if we could do that as a nation?”
And that is offensive how? Controversial how? Upsets one how?
1) Care for each other
2) Cheer each other on in victory
3) Console each other in defeat
Those three lessons sounds a lot like the joy, humility and spirit of flying to me.
Well done Jamie.
Well done GA News.
I look forward to responding to any response(s) with overt positivity, and care for each other. Safe flying everyone.
Hmmm….what individual has advocated to end the oil and gas industry, ignored the southern border, cause high inflation with $trillions in gov’t spending.
Now I see $7 avgas, much higher costs of parts and services….
All these things were much better when the last guy was writing executive actions.
Guess how I’ll be voting.?
In fact, it has a lot to do with aviation. Vote for the person who represents YOUR interests most and ignore the partisan labels. Vote across party lines for the best candidate, do not let partisan politics distract and even dupe you into voting for THEIR candidate just because that candidate is affiliated and endorsed by party X.
What’s more important, their opposition to privatizing ATC or their “label”? Jamie is absolutely right – examine the candidate, not the party. The purpose of loud, rabid partisan politics is to distract us from the things that matter, and to ensure that the candidate THEY chose, not WE chose, gets elected.
It needed to be said – unfortunately, and whether we like it or not, 24/7 politics has now intruded into our lives and it plans to stay there. (Yes, I’d MUCH rather be flying . . . )
Jamie,
Please stick to what you do best, because you ARE the best at it! You could literally fill a book with wonderful human interest stories relating to aviation and safety. Normally, I can pick out your writing just by reading the title, but not today.
I’m also going to digress (since you did) and say that voting for the candidate for national office based on the “person” is useless. Once they get to Washington, the arm-twisting by party leaders starts, rewarding them (or not) for holding the party line. Even the Manchins of the world eventually vote with the party. Today’s national politics is strictly about numbers…if you have the numbers, you win the vote. The only two parties that matter today couldn’t be any further apart in their platforms, so it shouldn’t be too hard for anyone to pick the one that matches their beliefs.
Having moved around the Country quite a bit I’ve found virtually every EAA chapter and collection of always special airport friends groups to be “politics free zones”. It’s predominantly (and, refreshingly) about airplanes, plane people, flying, fixin and, hopefully, improving skills and hardware. “Our” nifty unique little corner of the world. With genuine respect for very good points made, Jamie, here’s hoping we aren’t about to see an unintended change in “atmosphere” here. I always enjoy and appreciate the time(!) and imagination (and, memories!) you invest for us to provide great reads on…airplanes, plane people, flying and fixin.
I think the author is saying that if you should vote based on policies not parties. So vote for candidates that support aviation.
(just one comment that Cirrus pilots truly don’t know what they’re doing and Bonanza pilots are really good at flying — and voting, I’m sure, also.)
Why would General Aviation News carry this particular editorial? These self-congratulatory thoughts on tribalism don’t belong here, or any AOPA publication.
Amen . ( Editors of GA News you failed on this one) One more like this and I hit the delete button .
What a silly comment, in my personal view (and only with that view). Nevertheless, I respect Your opinion. That’s the lesson that should be extract from the article,
I might have missed something here but what the hell does this have to do with aviation???? I like this site, the shared pictures and stories about aviation but this line of commentary is not particularly appropriate for General Aviation News. Find another outlet for your editorials.