#48 - George W. Bush and the NBA

Why George W. Bush should be suspended from the NBA

12/7/04 (#48)

I admit, this might seem at first to be an implausible theory, assembled in pieces on disparate planes. However, put your politics aside and you'll see a kernel of truth at the vertex.

First, let's talk about Ron Artest. You may have heard his name recently, and if you have heard it used in the same sentence as phrases such as "petulant child millionaire" and "overpaid playground thug", you have been getting accurate reports. Artest is the Indiana Pacer who was the target for a plastic cup of beer thrown from the stands at The Palace of Auburn Hills in Detroit, and the target of massive (and deserved) media backlash for his response.

Growing up a Celtic fan in the 1980s, I nurtured an enjoyable loathing for the Detroit Pistons (proud owners of the moniker, "The bad boys of basketball"), and to witness this recent affront to sportsmanship from select Detroit fans was in keeping with my old image of Piston fans. (Mind you, as a Boston fan, I recognize that in the adage, "the pot calling the kettle black", the Boston pot is the color of anthracite.) But I loved watching the Pistons win the championship last year (that the Lakers were the team listed in the "L" column might have added to my enthusiasm for Ben Wallace and company), loved seeing Rasheed Wallace thrive in a way he never seemed to as a Blazer, and I have forgiven the Pistons for every past sin except Bill Laimbeer. That a drunken fan would do something as stupid as throw a beer at a player was shocking, but for a former Celtic fan, not surprising.

Artest decided that the appropriate response to this alcohol-filled projectile was to climb into the stands and punch his assailant. It is a testament to his overreaction that the object of his wrath was not in fact the tosser, but instead a belligerent loudmouth in the same vicinity. The entire melee was an ugly spectacle, with everyone involved looking like foolish asses.

The next day, Artest made a statement that did not include an apology. Despite attacking the wrong guy, getting suspended for the entire season (your team and fans rely on you, Ron), and being the subject of countless hours of national broadcast television condemning his behavior, he defended himself as if it was a clear-cut case of self-defense.

It's that lack of contrition, that inability to recognize that perhaps, just perhaps, he was in the wrong, that annoys me most about the entire Artest episode. He came off like a turd trying to convince the world that he smelled like a rose.

Coddled, immature, self-righteous young men in the NBA is not a new phenomenon. Danny Ainge griped so much that it was at times difficult to discern the action from the replays ("Didn't he just make that same complaint?"); Charles Barkley (who has blossomed as the most honest, outspoken, and humorous NBA commentator not named Bob Costas) was legendary for his arrogant, diva-esque attitude; but neither of these guys ever made Sportscenter by trying to beat up a drunken fool on national television.

Sadly, this was not a unique case of recent violence in sports. News channels of late have regularly featured volatile explosions at baseball games, football games, even high school basketball games. And after each one, a handful of fingers have been wagged in Artest's direction as if he is the failed role model who has opened Pandora's box and released these aggressive demons upon the sports world. While I believe he fully deserves the punishment he received, I don't think he's the source of the problem.

Next, let's talk about George W. Bush.

The recent campaign and election have left me devoid of interest in politicians as a species, and for this treatise, my personal opinions of Bush are irrelevant. The people have spoken, he won the election, I am doing my best to pretend it has no impact on my life. But I think there are certain personality traits about G. W. that we can all agree on---in fact, they are traits about which he regularly boasts:

1. He is comfortable with using force. Opponents say that when he realized that the war on terror couldn't be "won", he turned his attention to Iraq because there were clear milestones that could be declared victories. (The removal of Saddam, the hosting of free elections, etc.) He disregarded the pleas of the United Nations for patience, and pushed forward with his own agenda. Proponents say that the UN is an irrelevant organization that lacked the spine to deal with the very real problem of a brutal dictator who ruled with an iron fist and drums of toxic gas. Whichever the case, Bush believes that we are right to defend ourselves if we perceive a threat, even if others do not see the same urgency in that threat.
2. He doesn't care who disagrees with him. He has built a following (obviously a strong following) by asserting that you make a decision based on what you think it right, and you stick by that decision. Opponents accuse that this "resolve" is in fact his biggest flaw: If you are driving and see that the bridge ahead has collapsed, it is not an exhibition of "resolve" to continue driving as if the bridge was still there. But such accusations assume that the bridge has in fact collapsed, and it seems Bush and 51% of the nation can still see the bridge, so everyone else simply needs to buckle their seatbelts and hope that the bridge previously spanned a very shallow ravine. Whether you or I see it as "resolve" or "pigheadedness" is not relevant: HE defines it as Resolve, and he is resolute in that opinion.
3. He does not apologize. He has publicly stated that he doesn't feel that he has made any mistakes. (Which, to his defense, is a loaded question at a press conference. What President would respond with an honest assessment of their record?) But it was more than the question---Bush's actions and attitudes clearly indicate that he does not feel that there is anything for which an apology is needed.

The President is the leader of our nation, and like any team, business, or organization, the members look to their leaders to set the tone for their conduct. If a coach for a baseball team extols the virtues of fair play and professional conduct, they are more likely to get team members who play fair; If a manager at a stock trading company is loose with the rules and willing to take unsound risks, the team that reports to him sees that as acceptable conduct, and many will follow suit.

Perhaps Ron Artest feels justified because his actions are not out of line with the national mindset; perhaps the issue is not Artest as a role model, but Artest's role models. He was attacked, he responded in order to protect his security despite violating league rules (true, he didn't respond to the actual source of the attack, but that other guy was a loudmouth drunk, too), and he stands by his decisions despite public opinion.

Of course, the league voted on Bush's conduct, and 51% opted to extend his contract. It's not hard to imagine that Artest might be confused that his actions did not garner similar percentages of support. But if so, he's failing to take into consideration one crucial difference: The NBA is not the U.N., and in the NBA, the rules are enforced.

©2004 wpreagan