Americans
are all Republicans. On the other hand, Americans are all Democrats.
Americans clearly are politically bipolar.
For
example, we all yearn to be out of control. We want to have the
option of the big gamble and its unlimited returns. It may never
happen to us personally—yet it just possibly could with a miracle
or two.
Let
me explain what I mean. Let us take a football team. I will admit
my age by saying the quarterback I choose is the star Joe Namath.
Now Joe just signed up for a three year contract for 6.5 million
dollars. Not a single American refrains from ejaculating “Amen.”
Here is a man with talent getting all the market is willing to pay.
Almost without exception we would disagree with the notion that
somehow Joe’s compensation should be tied to or limited in any way
by the contracts other team members with lesser star power have
managed to negotiate. We would find it repulsive should the NFL
stipulate a regulation that said the star of a team could earn no
more than four times the salary of the average player. This would be
downright un-American. Likewise, we would be incensed if the owner
of the team could not sell the team for what the market would bear
and reap all the financial rewards despite the fact that without an
outstanding and winning term the asking price would have to be much
less. In our heart of hearts we want no controls on the market.
That’s what it means to be American—seeing the market as
inherently just and fair in ways that are sometimes mysterious but
widely appreciated.
Another
view holds that it is not good for us to seek after unlimited
rewards. A star quarterback should no doubt earn more than the
average player, but the team should be tied together in some fashion
economically as it is in actuality a unitary structure of mutual
support. This properly would result in the star being paid less and
the average player being paid more. This better serves justice than
the often purblind and myopic free market.
Being
out of control is not without its downside. For a team without game
official control would no doubt degenerate rapidly into
bedlam—sensational entertainment perhaps, but no longer a game.
Taking a broader view, game officials have many levers of power even
though direct player compensation remains outside their control—they
cannot officiate by throwing money at the players. For example, if
it became the general consensus that in the game of football activity
on the field is stagnate, the rules of the game can be changed to
allow less huddle time or time out durations. If higher scoring games
are desirable, one foot in bounds rather than the two foot rule would
be acceptable. If greater justice is required, deliberate review can
be instituted.
Thus
while we are all republicans, we are also all democrats for while we
yearn to be out of control and enjoy a free-for-all, we greatly
qualify it with controls to enhance the game. Likewise, we are
democratic in that we want strong game officials. We don’t’ want
weak officials without proper and necessary training and essential
tools for we know that without strong regulatory strength the game
would be reduced to chaos.
This
is why we are currently in a bipolar state—the republican side of
our nature largely ascribes to “out of control” dreams of free
markets and unlimited compensation while the democratic side yearns
for greater control and more justice than the exercise of markets
alone provides. Both claim in all practicality to be the preferred
course and both viewpoints have skin in the game.
Print Page
