Joe Posnanski

It’s been seven years since I lived in KC. I am surprised every once in awhile about the conventional thinking about certain players from Kansas Citians who have to live so close to such bad professional teams. It’s like all that losing warps their minds.

Anyone who thinks DeJesus is a better CF than Carlos Beltran is an idiot. Insanity has nothing to do with it. Blatant stupidity does.

I went to the game last night at Yankee Stadium, in the right field bleachers, with arguably the most dedicated fans in the Stadium. Not the most knowledgeable, however. They resoundingly booed A-Rod (and cheered Jim Leyritz, though one wiseguy asked him for a ride home—-gotta love New York) and screamed for Brosius.

Scott Brosius was so much worse a third baseman than Alex Rodriguez it boggles my mind. That’s the apt comparison—not Jeter, who’s a great player by any definition. Maybe Bill James can come up with a Brosius Effect stat.

Great article as always, Joe, but I wonder how much of it involves race? It seems like the elephant in this discussion’s room: it’s the David Ecksteins and Darrin Erstad’s are always the ones who are “fan favorites” because they’re “scrappy hustlers” despite being “not that good”. I could go on, but instead, just see every post ever on freedarko or firejoemorgan.

Elitism as excellence? I have no objections to that. I wish everyone strove for excellence with more determination (scrappiness? nah) and hunger, including myself.

Elitism as Craig Weaver described above me? Yeah, I have a problem with condescending people, especially politicians who have a bunch of advisors that can research and crunch numbers for them or are driven by lobbyist groups (ahem, Congressmen).

I think when Obama bashers say “elitist” they mean more along the lines of “snobby”. I don’t think any of his oppoents would described Obama as a en elite legislator in the sense you mean.

Your broader point on America’s preference for lunch-pail types is well-taken, however. Their Patron Saint in baseball is David Eckstein. And every time a team wins with one of these “gritty” players, they proclaim their thesis proved. I knew a lot of people who hated Manning (still do) for the same reason.

Excellent post, Joaldo. You’ve been hinting at this notion for a while. Good to see it put together so well. I agree elitism as defined by Craig Weaver above has an ugly and negative connotation. However, it could be argued that even in that context - or especially in that context - it is a word that has been “hijacked” or politicized. After all, there are Red Sox fans and then there is everybody else.

@ Melancholy Korean - Thanks for that spot on passage.

I can think of two exceptions regarding a rebellion against elite athletes: Tiger Woods and Roger Federer.

In Tiger’s well-documented case, he couldn’t possibly be more highly revered, and he revolutionized golf fandom in a way that made it acceptable for younger generations to follow the sport. And perhaps this is just me, but as an avid tennis follower, there’s no person I enjoy watching more than Roger Federer, arguably history’s most dominant tennis player.

Although, I suppose you could counter that rooting for Tiger or Roger is more like rooting for Rembrandt than A-Rod.

Joe,

I’m not a big fan of Sarah Palin, or a journalist for that matter, but even I can’t believe you think Sam Harris’ attack was fascinating. There are a few good points hidden in there, but they’re completely overshadowed by his conjecture without offering any basis in fact or logic. Although he does support his arguments with hypothetical (read: made up) quotes from everyone from Charlie Gibson to un-named “conservatives”. That’s pretty poor journalism from what I can see and would hope you recognize it. You made a much better argument for the Beltran over DeJesus comparison and it was a lot more interesting to read. Maybe Newsweek needs you and Bill James to help on the political front. It would definitely be more fun than Sam Harris and his rants.

Yeah, I’ll echo what some others have already said: I don’t believe that the word is being used in the way you seem to think this political season. The connotation in the remarks regarding Obama seems to be that he surrounds himself with other elitists, and that they as a group, Obama included, believe that they are intrinsically smarter than the people they will be representing; that they are better people than the great, unwashed masses.

I am not, of course, saying that I agree with that implication, but it is what I have been inferring up to this point

I believe it was William F. Buckley who quipped that he would rather be ruled by the first 2000 people in Boston’s phone book than by the faculty of Harvard. The reason is that education, generally, does not qualify one to lead, and in fact the political art is very different from the technical arts and sciences.

Albert Einstein, widely considered a genius, really liked Stalin and thought the Soviet Union had an ideal system of government. So did lots and lots of intellectuals, but not many commoners. University professors widely supported Hitler, Mussolini and Stalin. Before their names became widely synonymous with political evil, they were heroes amongst the American intelligentsia.

So while that quote from Sam Harris may sound really compelling to you (and many others, apparently), Mr. Posnanski, it is in reality complete nonsense.

I should note, however, that the American founders (and classical political rationalism, generally) saw the need for an aristocratic class to be the rulers in a democracy. And I certainly think that our leaders should be well-educated.

However, “education” does not mean “attended American university.” American college education, as elucidated by Allan Bloom in The Closing of the American Mind, no longer teaches liberal education and the political virtues of the aristocracy.

Oh Joe this is the first time that I think you’re talkin’ a load of BS. We’re not against elite athletes unless they’re prima donas and a lot of them are. We like the Brian McBrides of the world because they are warriors who play for more than themselves - they play for their team, country, family, and all the other things that matter. They also seem to be able to play beyond their physical capabilities for reasons that are unexplainable. They are as amazing as the elite athletes but seemed to have earned it more. An elite athlete with heart is loved just as much as skippy. The elitist stuff in politics is just that - politics.

I am not positive Joe, but I believe that Terrell was with the Cowboys in camp this year. He did not last long I think.

While i do think it i perfectly rationale for the people to want to be governed by people who they can relate to, i do think there is a strain of anti-intellectualism unique in the United States culture. For when some people talk about “elitist”, they seem to refer to intellectualism, and not in fact privilege or wealth.

For us liberals, we see by far the most important and dangerous divisons in society between those who “have” and those who don’t. We see institutions of wealth and aristocracy as being far more dangerous than education.

But, for whatever reason, there are definitely people who don’t trust academics, and intellectuals. It seems to be an odd thing to not trust. The fear of the intellectual who feels arrogant or superior to those who are not as educated seems to be a stronger fear, than the fear that teh rich and aristocracy look down upon those who are poor. (ala Marie Antoinette).

I think this disconnect is why some don’t understand how Obama, a person who has a rather humble background, a product of a single mother, and who until very recently was at best “middle class” on the wealth scale, can be considered more “elitist” than McCain, a product of 2 admirals, and married to a women of incomparable wealth. (and before him, George Bush who was a product of one of the most powerful, and rich families in American history.).

Most don’t really know whether Obama or McCain ACTUALLY believes themselves superior to the American Joe, but it seems as if more people think the intellectual is more likely to do so, than the aristocrat.

I do think this is why the dems attempts to use the # of McCain houses as an argument against him was less successful than the floating accusations of Obama as an out-of-touch “arrogant” academic.

(Btw, i think Obama really isn’t even a true academic. He taught a few classes at UofC, but he was only a lecturer, and wasn’t a prolific publisher or even someone with a clear academic idealogy. if anything his history as a community organizer and body of work as an illinois senator indicates he is an pragmatist and not an idealogue.)

Ortega is wonderful… but I would hope that soi distant progressives would at least take a gander at Ortega’s own politics.

Linus, I think you’ve hit on something here. Americans have become, seemingly, anti-education, perhaps because so many Americans are uneducated. You don’t see that in the 1st and 2nd generation immigrants, but among families that are not newly immigrated, there is definitely a massive divide between those people that value education and those who do not. And yet it is more complicated that that — people recall the Kennedys positively and there have been few more elitist families in US history. And others have pointed out that even in sports, there are some supremely talented folks who are wildly popular. It becomes more about perception, and these things are more complicated than any model we create. I do, generally, agree, however, with the overall point.

On a separate note, are there really that many people who either have never had a good steak or just don’t appreciate it? Anything over Medium Rare is just destroying a fine steak…

One of your best, sir. This is a thoughtful, lucid piece. Thanks for the great work.

John Peterson makes a number of good points, but I would say it’s inaccurate to say “Albert Einstein… really liked Stalin.” While it’s true that Einstein never publicly denounced the Soviet regime (even when asked to by leading anticommunists of his day), he harbored no great love for Stalin. He said that “from my point of view, both Stalin and Trotsky are political gangsters.” And while one can make a case that Einstein was a political naif who had some questionable far-left sympathies (born mostly out of his staunch anti-fascism), I don’t think you can make a case that he actually admired Stalin. Just thought I’d clear that up.

I don’t think I would want the faculty of Harvard governing the country either. That is not because I am anti-intellectual, but because I think the characteristics that make for great success in academia and the characteristics that make for success in politics are quite different. It could happen, but it would largely be accidental. Maybe Woodrow Wilson is the best example of someone who bridged both worlds, but even there, while he had tremendous insight into the kind of recovery needed to build lasting peace after the first world war, he didn’t have the political skill to make it happen.

The key thing that is missing from Palin and has been disastrously missing from Bush is a lack of engagement. They simply aren’t curious about things that they need to be curious about. None of us can be engaged with everything in the world - this crowd is pretty engaged with the sports world, for sure, and then our interests range all over the map. There is probably a wine expert or two in here, and I know basically nothing about wine except Merlot is red and I don’t like it. I can pop into a discussion about sports and not look like too much of an idiot, and I don’t talk about wine because I don’t know anything, don’t care, and really would rather just stare at the wall and think about the next Monday night football game than listen to other people talk about wine.

What I saw in the Gibson interview was someone who simply wasn’t engaged in the issues of foreign policy. I don’t care about the gotcha questions - does it really matter if you have memorized the prime ministers of all the former Soviet Republics? - but she didn’t demonstrate that she had ever thought about why we went to war, about how we could win or disengage. She talked tough about Russia, but didn’t show any appreciation for the ramifications of Georgia being in NATO and our responsibilities in a similar altercation. And man was she cocksure.

It is that combination of certitude and complete lack of curiousity that has led to the greatest failure of a presidency at least since James Buchanan if not ever. I tried to keep an open mind, but that Gibson interview ended that for this election anyway. That woman scares me.

To those of you who eat steak Medium rare…

You actually like eating raw muscle? If you cook it to Medium properly, you will preserve the juices that make it taste good. It will melt in your mouth. There’s nothing worse than getting an undercooked steak and having to chew through it like you were an animal that is feasting on your prey you just killed with your own 4 claws.

Btw, I never order steak at restaurants (unless it’s an expensive place), because you never know what you are going to get. This chart I found online seems as good as any guide.

http://www.askthemeatman.com/images/donenesspixbeefsteak5levels30kb.gif

John Peterson, of course, is telling us that if Wm. Buckley said it, it must be true. Actually, I question all of his “facts.” Among the biggest American supporters of Hitler were Ford and Lindberg–not exactly the intelligencia.
How this all got onto Obama I don’t really know. I do know that if he thinks he is smarter than the average person he probably is. Frankly, I want political leaders who don’t have to have everything dumbed down for them. And I would rather have Rodriguez than Jeter.
And we were an “elitist” society from the beginning. However, the premise and promise of America is that birth should convey less of a right to belong to the elite than abilities and work. However, to claim that we are all equally talented is just preposterous.

Wtsherman,

I don’t really think this is a question of Harvard and Yale versus teh rest of the world. And I also don’t think it is fair to say that universities are the hotbed of a specific idealogy.

Scalia was on faculty at UofC for much longer, and much more of a political idealogue before his ascension to the bench.

I think it is incredibly unfair to make generalized statements about academics as all having one single political agenda or thought. It just isn’t true. Stephen Calabresi, the founder of the Federalist Society, is a professor at Northwestern university and has a educational pedigree that would rival anyone’s. The entire idea of academia is a place where contrarian ideas are free.

It is an incredible mistake to say, “only if people were more educated they would vote one way” or “why are people so stupid.” The fact of the matter is, people vote for what they believe is relevant to their values. But this holds true both ways. The left, or progressives don’t vote this way because we are all brainwashed or naive about how the world works. And neither are conservatives all the unwashed uneducated masses who are completely duped.

This doesn’t mean there is no room for persuasion or a meeting place where we can really address the differences of opinion and understanding. It’s just too easy to forget about making the effort to understand.

There is an interesting question when it comes to relating to politicians. I honestly think that people can feel more comfortable relating to multi-millionaires, because of the simple fact that it is easier to believe we could be multi-millionaires one day, than we can believe we can all graduate from Harvard. In fact, for many, the choice of graduate, and even college education is one that is taken away from them at a young age. HS counselors tell the young before they even apply their chances. And yet, i think it is more possible for people to think that money can be just around teh corner regardless of age. It is ironic, because i think the truth of the matter is that true wealth is far more difficult and rare than education and graduate degrees. And yet we are conditioned to think that education is more dependent on “intellect” and an innate ability, while wealth and success is more contingent on hard work. So no wonder people can relate to the super-rich rather than the super-educated.

I’ve always appreciated excellence in any field. When I was growing up, a *good* Dodger game to attend had Koufax pitching. Later, when I bought my own tickets, I’d pay to see Ozzie Smith when the Cardinals came to town. And I was never prouder of Mike Piazza then one game, score tied in the 8th, he was on second, wild pitch (back before the Dodgers gutted the foul areas to sell more seats), and Piazza, the slow catcher whose Sports Center dream commercial was stealing home, took off from second, never stopped running, and scored to put the Dodgers ahead. Then Worrell gave up two runs in the ninth and everybody forgot what Piazza did. The thing is, what Piazza did was prove that in addition to the freak of genetics that gave him wrists that could be molded into bat swinging machines like no other catcher in history, as well as the determination to use those flex machines to develop that strength, was at his core a smart player, an alert player, a baseball player. I could never hit like Piazza, but I’d like to think that if I’d been on second base, I would have run hard, noticed the slow catcher, and scored a critical run. And we all like to think that way. Which is why David Eckstein is still in the big leagues, even though he is way below the VORP line. If Matt Kemp (recently thrown out attempting to steal third with two outs in an extra innings tie) played as smart as David Eckstein, I bet the Dodgers would already have clinched the NL West title.

Albert Einstein was probably as smart as people get. Elite. Brilliant. And without his theories we probably would have lost two million soldiers or more because we’d have had to invade Japan to end World War II. Almost every cure for every cured disease came from elite doctors who devoted long efforts to improving our lives. It took plenty of elite scientists to put Neal Armstrong on the moon; he didn’t walk there. There are lots of times when elite is good, really good.

We have had some presidents who, by the way we could judge them (easier these days, with SATs, transcripts, IQ tests and all) would have to be called elite intellects. Jefferson. Woodrow Wilson. Clinton. Possibly both Adamses, especially John Quincy, who wrote the Monroe Doctrine while Secretary of State. I’m not being partisan in citing Clinton; the man was a Rhodes Scholar. And while you can argue about how effective they were overall (Wilson had a stroke which effectively shortened his presidency, but without his League of Nations we probably would not have developed the United Nations and very arguably would have had World War III by now) nonetheless plenty of good things happened on their watches, very few disasters that were within the purview of the President to prevent, and they took advantage of opportunities (the Louisiana Purchase) or minimized disasters out of their control (such as World War I) as much as possible. We’ve had some presidents who were fairly clearly not elite, and during those presidencies we’ve had recessions, depressions, scandals of all sorts. I mean, Grant finished near the bottom at West Point, and the best we say of him as a president was that he wasn’t smart enough to realize how badly corrupt his friends and appointees were. There were exceptions. Carter was a rocket scientist, and when questions of science were before him he excelled (that we still have an ozone layer at all, not to mention ice in Greenland and Antarctica and land above sea level in Florida, Holland, Bangladesh, etc., is quite possibly due to his banning chlorofluorocarbons, and he may have been the only president in our history able to understand the scientist of catalysts as it applied to atmospheric chemistry) but questions of politics and diplomacy, not so good. Pretty lousy, actually. Hoover was by all accounts very very smart, but was in office for less than a year before the stock market crashed, and then there was nothing he could do. But in general, smart presidents have been good for the country.

In the past 28 years, we have had no clearer sign of the effects of the president on the economy (such as it is) than with the last four presidents. Reagan cut taxes without cutting spending and saw the worst recession in this country since the great depression. He also pretty much bankrupted the Soviet Union, ending the cold war, but it’s only in hindsight that people say that that was his plan. Bush saw that the deficit out of control was hurting the country, broke a campaign promise to raise taxes for the good of the country, and was a one term wonder for his insight. Clinton took office, did everything economically Greenspan told him to do, and the economy thrived. Bush the second ignored Greenspan, cut taxes and increased spending in amounts (if not percentages of GNP) like no president in history. And now the chickens have come home to roost. We’re looking at spending more to clean up the economic disasters than we’re spending in Iraq. Bush’s lobbyists and donors got their way, and gave us Enron, cutting the budget for regulators and auditors and following the free market beliefs that they loved so much. Look where we are in jobs, in real income, in foreclosures. McCain, who has been excellent on waste and pork but admits that the economy is not his strong suit, finished almost at the bottom of his class in Annapolis, and I firmly believe that his father being an admiral had something to do with his acceptance there. Obama earned his own way to eventually be the editor of the Harvard Law Review, the most prestigious graduate school appointment there is in this country.

I think we *need* an elite president to clean up the mess less by one of the least elite presidents in our history. I voted for McCain in the 2000 primaries because of his honest appraisal of the way lobbyists and money were ruining government, and after eight years of the oil companies and the banks calling all the shots, it’s clear he was right. But I’m voting for Obama this year because I don’t think McCain is elite enough to shorten the mess Bush is leaving us to less than two terms. In fact, in order to get the Republican nomination McCain has had to accept some of the tenets of Bush economics which have led to this disaster. Two more terms like the last two and I’ll be homeless, and then I won’t be able to read Joe. So I’m voting elite, and crossing my fingers.

MSS,

That is great news! We need as many voices in the wildnerness as we can summon to reveille. We shall make everywhere our church and invoke disparate gods, temporal (unread) and otherwise, to dupe dupes into subscription to our dogmatic notions of shaping the lives of people. The inspired scribes at illustrious publishing houses will un-err when recording our officious vision; these blessed hands will serve in the comfort of the Holy Spirit. You have redeemed my faith in faith; I now trust the tide is turning. My martial blade, long rested, is slouching toward the primary vain of my family’s turgid calve’s neck. Now the truth, i.e. God’s will, will for a second time, and this time finally, descend like snowflakes on all the living and all the dead. I herald your emergence, MSS.

And I also want Elite Chefs to work with my steak.

I’m a fan of French food. I go for medium rare.

(that reminds me when I was in southern Brasil, the waiter asked me how was the steak done. i told him too well. And he asked, “do you want rare rare? as in French rare?” I said yes. 15 minutes later… he brought back a new steak, which is bloody and undigestable… so much about the New World’s take on the Old World art…)

Laurence,

I love that example. Eckstein was the first guy who came into my mind when I starting reading this whole anticlimax from Joe.

If politics were baseball…

1) Sarah Palin has rushed through the rookie leagues (Mayor of Wasilla), A-ball (chairing the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission), AA (Governor of Alaska). And now she’s trying for the majors. Now if this were baseball, we’d be all over her record to see how she did in the minors. How about that 26 billion dollar pipeline deal? Did she do it well or not? Has she been a good governor? How quickly has she adjusted to each higher level? But instead, we’ve got all the Dusty Baker* types saying “She’s never been to the highest level. So she never will. End of story. Give me a Proven Major Leaguer.”

*In the light of this season, this remark is entirely unfair to Dusty Baker.

2) And then we’d have the BP guys comparing the minor leagues. Which is the better preparation? Governing a state? Or being a Senator, doing committees and Senate-type stuff? What’s the difference in values between a degree from Idaho and one from Delaware? Do we have enough information to know?

3) If this were baseball…we’d have the same metrics for everyone. If Palin gets tested on her knowledge, that’s fair enough… now let’s see Biden in the exact same situation. (I’m not saying he’d do better or worse- I just want to see.)

And if baseball were politics…

Managers would go for interviews and say “Let’s not talk baseball. No, you don’t want to know about my time at Oxford or Yale. Here, I’ve brought my sax. Listen to this!” And they’d do that because they were smart enough to know it would work on the stupid owners.

The above doesn’t make a case for Palin or Biden, but it does conclusively prove that baseball is better than politics.

Great discussion starter! However, the choice of Sarah Palin was truly astounding. She is not Derek Jeter, J.D. Drew, Ken Griffey Jr., Skippy, or a Princeton grad. Well, maybe Skippy.

In win shares of career accomplishment, she is George Mitterwald, Wilie Miranda, Sid Monge, David DeJesus to this point in his career. John McCain’s judgment is on display in contending, “These guys are ready for the Hall of Fame!.”

To Richard Aronson, I have to review this comment in your otherwise excellent review of recent presidential history…
“In the past 28 years, we have had no clearer sign of the effects of the president on the economy (such as it is) than with the last four presidents. Reagan cut taxes without cutting spending and saw the worst recession in this country since the great depression. ”

Didn’t Carter lose the ‘80 election in large part because the ecomony in ‘79 was in such trouble? It wasn’t until ‘83, late in Regan’s 1st term, that the economy really started to turn around. I don’t think there’s any debate that the defict grew under his watch, but your comment implies that the Regan tax cuts CAUSED the poor economy in the early 80’s when that was the legacy he was handed in the ‘80 election.

I’m really beginning to think that our government works best when it’s divided. Im my lifetime, I can only think of 3 times where one party ruled Congress and the White House at the same time:

76-80 - The Carter Years. Economically, a disaster. (see above)
92-94 - The Early Clinton years. I think that the old-line Dems who rules congress for 30+ years finally got one of their own in the white house, and it scared the electorate into the “Gingrich revolution” in 94. I think it was too short of a run to really judge the results of those 2 years, but some of Clinton’s greatest achivements were possible because he had GOP cover in congress in his later years… Welfare reform and NAFTA are 2 prime examples.
2000-06 - The Bush Years The GOP who held congress and reduced the deficit with Clinton now went Bananas when there was a Republican in the White House signing all the checks. Corruption and Spending went out of control in congress, while during this period there was not 1 single veto from Bush. Bush talked of spending controls early in his presidency, but that quickly went out the window with a spend-hapy congress who knew the Prez would sign the bills. This led to the historical rout of the GOP in the congressional elections of 06 (forget Iraq… that election was 90% about spending and corruption in Congress).

My biggest fear is that the Dem controlled congress, who still needs to “figure things out” (see approval ratings - Pelosi) is going to have an inexperienced Obama in the White House who, like Bush before him, will be unable to reign in the spending and the power weilded by a congress of his same party. It’s funny how the Obama campaign tries to paint McCain as 4 more years of Bush, but I think an Obama presidency will be more like 4 years of Bush 2000-06, a peroid we don’t really want to revist, do we??

I knew a guy called Skippy. Went to school with him. Even in high school he was called Skippy. He moved away, I moved away and now that he is in his late 40’s I wonder if he is still called Skippy.

As one who clings to religion and guns (or would, if I had one) I’d say there are elites and elites. Let’s distinguish between skilled and arrogant. Obama is arrogant. He may be right or wrong, good or bad, but he is insufferable and we all know it. Those who love Him (caps deliberate) or at least those I know who love him, are, unfortunately, pretty arrrogant too. Hank Aaron was skilled. He was consistent, straightforward, and reliable. He didn’t act as if the world owed him anything. Never arrogant, always grateful. Even when he had plenty of reason not to be.

So we admire Justin and hate Drew because Drew is a money-grubbing whiner. And we don’t care how good he is. Or at least many of us don’t. Put out. Do your best. Reach. Be a gamer. And even if you’re not the best, people will like you. My favorite Royal from the early days was Ed Kirkpatrick. I watched him sprint (as best he could) to first base on a ground ball right at the second baseman. I could have thrown him out by 10 feet. And that guy ran! That’s what we want…..in politics or sports.

Couple comments. First, those of you who make the point that Senator McCain has more elitist roots than Senator Obama, that is probably true, but I think most people assume that spending 6 years in a prisoner of war camp being tortured and having his health ruined for the rest of his life probably leeched out whatever feelings of superiority the Senator ever had. Whether that is a valid assumption or not is beyond me to know.

Second, I have never seen an election where the Vice presidential candidate of one party is compared so often to the Presidential candidate from the other. Frankly, were I a member of Senator Obama’s election team, this would worry me a lot. Does it really do him that much good to be a better candidate than the GOP’S VP candidate? I don’t see how these constant comparisons help him.

I think this tendency away from elitism is why so many people love college basketball but dislike the NBA. The NBA offers the clearly superior product, but many people would argue that college basketball is better, and they would have rabid support.

Only the best 400 or so players in the world have any chance of playing in the NBA. You have to be otherworldly gifted to get to the NBA. It is the most elite of all sports in that way. A fairly average baseball player can get a cup of coffee in the majors. Injuries and large rosters make it possible for tons of players to get a shot in the NFL. But in basketball, only the very best even have a chance. Case in point, three years ago JJ Redick and Adam Morrison were the two best players in college basketball. Neither has done anything substantial in the NBA.

The elitism of the NBA is seen as arrogance. Everything looks so easy for the Kobe’s and Lebron’s and Dwyane Wade’s of the world.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-RKmY1R0JdU

I think that play sums up why people struggle with the NBA. If you watch Josh Smith, at no point does he seem to be 1) running hard, 2) exerting anything more than minimal energy, 3) preparing to elevate over a 7-0 tall man. He looks like he just jogged down the floor. How many people are there on this planet that could make that play look that easy?

ps - i do agree with the basic point that everyone is qualified to be a politician if they are legally elected, however, and have been vetted by the populace.

Speaking politically and from conservative/libertarian leanings. I want my government leaders to be very educated, trained, and experienced. That is a good thing. But it is not the only thing. Nor is it even the most important thing. The moral convictions and beliefs that a person has will greatly impact the decision/positions a person takes. What that means is that knowledge without a moral core that is aligned with mine (or yours or truth) does not lead to good decisions. I will admit that I wish GW Bush and Sarah Palin were smarter or more experienced, that would make me more comfortable. But I trust either of their moral cores to make good decisions over someone (Obama) whose moral core is not in alignment with mine. It’s more than training it’s morality. Experience is a plus but apart from morality it is a weapon.

I think we are more dealing with “elite” as a perception via communication (physical actions for sports and verbal in politics) instead of elite as a defined measure of accomplishment (or in many cases, using an incorrect set of measurements/standards to defined accomplishment). DeJesus could be misidentified as elite defensively since he runs hard (not necessarily fast) and dives for balls, etc. which most fans like to see communicated through a players actions. They do not realize that balls that Dejesus dives and catches/misses on are balls that beltran would just coast and catch normally, thus they do not give beltran credit for his excellence since he is not communicating to them that he is far superior in his physical actions.

This is similar to the politics deal in that we label people as elite mainly/partially because of how they communicate, not what they communicate. We could have two different candidates have the same general thought, but the one who puts it in complex jargon is considered the elite and the one who dumbs it down for the general poluation is considered the non-elite. It’s a matter of whether a candidate makes it a point to try to appear overly intelligent, by being overly complex, that the general population doesn’t like. If someone doesn’t fully understand something they will most likely feel like they are being “had” or manipulated in some way. A president should be attempting to communicate to the entire population instead of a subset of intellectually comparable persons. There is no reason (except if you are needing to be very concise) to not make ones statements as widely understood as possible, especially as presidential candidate that is attempting to lead millions.

I think it’s pretty easy to explain why we like certain athletes and dislike others. I don’t think it’s a racial thing as someone above floated as a possibility. Take Griffey and Bonds for instance. These are very similar players, speaking in general terms. Both are African-American sons of former greats. Both were excellent outfielders who could hit for average and power. Yet one was almost universally liked, and one was almost univerally disliked. The simple reasoning is that one looked like he loved playing the game, and one was moody and surly.

That’s pretty much it. We’re drawn to the player who looks like he’s having fun and making the most of his opportunity. Can anyone think of a case where the situation exists where a player is valued more by fans than another when the lesser player has a bad attitude? A-Rod-Jeter, Bonds-Griffey, Milton Bradley-Everyone. I don’t mean bad attitude in the same way as a jerk. As Pos said about Beltran, when he was in KC he wasn’t very forth-coming with the media. He was shy. He didn’t say much. Fans like it when they feel like they know a player. If they feel like they know another player better, they’ll have a better connection with that person.

This is one of your best posts yet. Thank you, Joe.

I question the premise of this post.

In every sport the most popular athletes are the top performers. You can check merchandise sales and TV ratings for proof.

The popularity of pro sports debunks the idea that people want to watch athletes who are like them. They pay to watch athletes who are obviously unlike them, and they pay a premium to watch the athletes who are the most unlike them. If people weren’t interested in watching the best of the best, sports would cease to exist as a business.

Eckstein’s popularity is a myth. Last year he was fifth in the All-Star balloting among NL shortstops and 62nd overall.

First, I think there is a significant racial element to the “who do we identify with” question. We’ve all experienced this. And most examples of it aren’t among fans but among managers. How many 25th players on rosters are the same ethnicity of the man in charge? We’re just wired to feel more connected to people who look like us. Awareness of this most human of human flaws can help us overcome it, I believe.

Secondly, I found the Melanfolly Korean post to be somewhat off base.

“The mass-man would never have accepted authority external to himself…” Really? It is precise