Sometimes, I’m amazed at how much politics and football are alike. Yes, they are both contact sports, although sometimes politics is more like boxing – with all the bobbing and weaving going on.
Both require a fan base for each team. I’m a Redskins fan – which pretty much means my favorite team is the Redskins and anyone who plays against the Cowboys ;). In politics, we’d call those fans mainly Republicans or Democrats. There are those out there who simply like football – without any allegiance to any team. In politics, we call those folks Independents.
If the Redskins are playing well, more people will identify themselves as Skins fans. If the Skins are playing poorly, the number drops. Same in politics: whichever “team” is on a win streak, their party affiliation numbers go up. Lose – and watch the number of people who identify with a particular party drop. Everybody loves a winner.
Without a fan base, a team will move or just fold. In politics, the lack of a fan base is probably the biggest reason why we only have two viable political parties and why we have so few candidates. The barriers to entry are high: you need a whole lot of money to have a football team. And you need a whole lot of money to have a viable political party or campaign.
One thing that is different in football than politics is criticizing your team. In football, criticism is a part of being a fan. We even have a term for it: Monday Morning Quarterback. But in politics, criticizing your team is almost taboo. Only those considered “on the fringe” of a political party can criticize it. And few are willing to be considered “on the fringe” of a political party. Everyone wants to sit at the cool kids’ table, and be considered an insider. We save our criticism for the other team, even if our team is doing the exact same thing.
Why do we football fans criticize our favorite team? I know why I do: because I want them to be better. I want them to hire the right staff, draft the right players, and, yes, win. Isn’t that what we want for our favored political party or candidate? If what we hope to gain by voicing our criticism is to make our team better, it makes no sense, really, to reserve our political criticism for the other party.
What are we trying to do – make them better?
VIVIAN J. PAIGE | All Politics is Local 
Great points and analysis. The big difference is, however, in football, all that matters in the end is the substance (score). In politics, they focus more on the appearance and looks than actually achieving goals (scoring/winning).
Au contraire. Politics is all about winning. Putting those wins to a good use are another matter.
In politics, appearance of winning is more important than actual accomplishment. Politicians are more content blaming others or other parties for failure than actually working through deals for meaningful success or progress. With football, players know the blame game doesn’t do any good with a loss.
Remember, in football, the players are actually the most qualified to accomplish the goals they have set forth, in politics, they are just the most qualified to talk about results, accomplishment of the results is often better left to others.
I think we’re saying the same thing, just a little differently. The definition of a win in politics is getting elected.
In sports, accomplishment is the win. Whereas in politics, accomplishment is an afterthought.
And I agree: football players are the most qualified people. In politics, if we get the most qualified, it’s a fluke. Generally we just get the person with the most connections.
I hear you, and that’s the problem: Politicians feel they’ve won once they’re elected. But to use the sport analogy, that’s just like being drafted. It’s all nice and great to get to the league, but the job has just begun. Seems like there has long been a disconnect between this understanding for pols.
My roommate is a big football fan, he told me about some pro team in cali (don’t know which cause I don’t pay attention to sports), they had no money and basically just went to some parks and grabbed random dudes who looked like they knew what was going on and formed a team around it. They did pretty well apparently. Even if the story isn’t true, think about the analogy to politics. Give me 5-7 unemployed people with good names, strong work ethic, that are speak well, and I’ll take over city council without spending a dime. When politicians are as dumb as they are today, it doesn’t take much.
Better yet, with a few grand you could take over a city committee, replace the chairperson, change the bylaws, and refuse to re-nominate any incumbents.
Its only hard to do these things because everyone is too stupid or too lazy to think about it.
I only wish it were as easy as you say, Max.
Oh, but it is..the key is that you need young people with nothing to lose. Anyone with a job and a family is not going to be able to do much. You get someone with no full time job and a bunch of friends and you can do some serious damage. When Norfolk cops kept harassing me for skating, I made theirs and the city attorneys office miserable for weeks with constant visits and FOIA requests, got the media involved. Don’t mess with someone who doesn’t work full time, because they will make their full time job making your life miserable.
Is that why all the activists are liberals?
Viv,
The other similarity being that there are people who, in Dylan’s words “just want to be on the side that’s wiiiiiniiiiiiing.” That has to worry Democrats as the election approaches and the polls keep showing big Republican leads.
Yep. That’s what I said in the 3rd paragraph 😉
The big difference is that football players try to earn your money. The politicians just want to take it.
@LOUDelf – you and I agree. And I love that election = being drafted analogy. May have to use that one myself 😉