THE SUPER BOWL: SPORT and SPECTACLE

It’s Super Bowl week, offering an  opportunity for contemplating the upcoming game and what the Super Bowl  means in our culture. It’s only a football game, but over the time of its existence – this year’s game is the 53^rd edition (LIII, the National Football League insists) – it has become a national gathering event, bringing more people together for one activity than nearly anything else in American society.

Pro Football: Television Juggernaut 

Well over 100 million Americans annually watch the Super

Bowl.  With NFL television ratings up during the 2018 regular season, this year’s game might eclipse the record of 114 million viewers set in 2015 for Seattle’s gut wrenching loss to New England (yes, the Seahawks still should have handed Marshawn Lynch the ball). The NFL has had its ratings challenges recently, thanks mostly to the national anthem controversy and President Trump’s posturing. Concern about head injuries and brain damage for players may also have reduced interest in the game. High powered offenses, however, led by young quarterbacks like Kansas City’s Patrick Mahomes, Houston’s DeShaun Watson, Baker Mayfield in Cleveland, and Jared Goff of the Los Angeles Rams, apparently helped bring fans back.

Have doubts about pro football’s dominance of the American sports landscape? This year, 46 of the 50 most watched telecasts – of any kind – between September and December were NFL games.  Also, just consider television viewership for professional sports in the United States. Major

League Baseball, once the national pastime, drew an average of 14.3 million viewers for the five games of the 2018 World Series between the Los Angeles Dodgers and the Boston Red Sox. The four games of the 2018 National Basketball Association Finals drew an average of 17.5 million viewers. Even the scintillating seven game series between Cleveland and Golden State in 2017 averaged only 20.3 million. 

The Super Bowl: National Gathering Spot

The massive viewership results from more than pro football’s overwhelming popularity. The NFL wouldn’t get the massive number of people watching the big game had it not realized the need for marketing the contest to casual fans, especially women. In 2017 nearly half (47%) the Super Bowl’s viewers were women. By making the game a family or couple attraction, the NFL has gotten past its core viewership. With the Super Bowl telecast about a lot more than football, the NFL garners an audience of both casual fans and hard core football fanatics.

How’d the NFL do this? Start with the television  commercials.  Go to any office the day after the Super Bowl and it’s common to find as much or more talk about the commercials as the game itself. Advertisers, who this year will pay a little over $5 million for a thirty second ad, ramp up their creative efforts so they can get a buzz from their Super Bowl spots.

Another innovation that attracts casual fans has been big name musical acts as the half-time entertainment. Now, instead of marching bands, we get the Rolling Stones, Madonna, Janet Jackson (wardrobe malfunction no extra charge), or Beyonce. This year’s performers are Maroon 5, a three-time Grammy-award winning pop-rock band particularly attractive to millennials, and rapper Travis Scott. He agreed he’d appear only after the NFL pledged it would give his favorite charity $500,000.

                       

Finally,through year-round  adverting, the  NFL's food and beverage sponsors encourage gathering of fans for Super Bowl parties.  Each of us, for example, annually attend Super Bowl parties, often with people we otherwise see only a few other times a year. The NFL marketing machine now influences our social meeting habits.  Perhaps members of Congress might try getting together at a Super Bowl party.

What about this Year’s Game?

Marketing, sociology, and economics notwithstanding, they will play a football game Sunday, February 3, in Atlanta. Five-time Super Bowl winner New England and its relentless duo of coach Bill Belichick and quarterback Tom Brady meet the upstart Los Angeles Rams, led by wunderkind Sean McVay, the youngest-ever Super Bowl head coach, and young gun quarterback Goff.

The Rams probably have the better team, but Brady and     

Belichick are awfully hard to beat, especially  by inexperienced players and coaches. They demonstrated that in the AFC championship game when, for a while, the Patriot defense confused Mahomes and Brady surgically carved up the game, but fatigued, talent-challenged Kansas City defense.

The two championship games, both of which went into  overtime, raised the possibility officiating or the NFL’s overtime rules could decide the Super Bowl game. Los Angeles reached the Super Bowl with a mighty assist in the NFC championship game from the horrific miss of a

blatant pass interference penalty late in their win over New Orleans. Could such an abomination decide pro football’s championship? Of course it could. New England outlasted Kansas City in part because the Patriots won the overtime coin toss, took the ball, and scored. Mahomes and the explosive Kansas City offense never saw the field. Just saying, but under the college overtime rule, each team gets a turn with the ball. Just saying.

In any event, the game will captivate a lot of the country until it’s played. When it’s over we’ll start talking about the April NFL draft, June organized team activities (OTAs), July training camps, September’s start to the 2019 regular season, and next year’s Super Bowl. The NFL has this figured out, doesn’t it?

THE 2020 SUBTEXT: POLICY v. PROCESS

WHAT QUESTIONS SHOULD REPORTERS ASK AND WHAT MATTERS SHOULD CANDIDATES DISCUSS?

What’s more important: a candidate’s policy views or the election process?  On the policy side, candidates discuss, and the media ask about, issues like health care and immigration. On what we call the process side lie non-policy matters like a candidate’s personal life, campaign strategy, the state of the polls, and controversies stirred up in the media and by other candidates. That dichotomy has already shown up in the fledgling 2020 campaign.  

 
Elizabeth Warren and Rachel Maddow

Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren announced on January 2 formation of a presidential exploratory committee, a clear indication she’s seeking the presidency. Warren sat down the next day with MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow for her first major campaign interview.

Maddow asked no process questions, focusing on foreign policy and Warren’s extensive involvement in consumer protection issues. Maddow didn’t ask Warren about her age (she’s 69), her standing in the candidate pecking order, or the controversy over the DNA test Warren took last fall aimed at determining whether she has Native American ancestry, a test about which a Native American leader expressed dismay. What Maddow asked and didn’t ask provoked an intense discussion among the three of us on the policy/process dichotomy.

Woodson’s point

Ironically, or perhaps prophetically, the same day Warren appeared on Maddow’s show, Chris Hayes, another MSNBC host whose program precedes Maddow’s, warned the media it should avoid pursuing every sensational subject injected into the 2020 campaign. Hayes claimed the media too often did that in 2016 and expressed his concern about that diverting the public’s attention from serious policy discussion.

I agree with Hayes and think the issue of Warren’s ancestry

represents a good example of a process question the media should avoid. I don’t see a need for media exploration of whether Warren has Native American ancestry any more than I see the media having a responsibility for inquiring into whether Donald Trump’s hair is real or its true color is silver or blonde. I care much more about what’s in Warren’s head than what’s in her blood, just as I am more concerned about what’s in Trump’s head than I am about the color of what covers it.

What matters in the 2020 campaign includes how candidates view war and peace, foreign policy, NATO, infrastructure, immigration, preservation of democracy and the rule of law, and trade policy. If reporters insist on asking process questions, candidates should respectfully answer, but spend as little time on them as possible. Serious reporters should leave those questions for the tabloids. 

Rob's View

As a former broadcast journalist, political operative, and communication scholar, this issue troubles me. I get Woodson’s point about focusing on what’s important and I regard his issues list as a workable, useful agenda for the 2020 candidates. Voters need detailed information about where candidates stand on issues and what issues they understand and don’t understand. The current President displayed his ignorance of so much in 2016, tipping off the incompetence we now see. Too many voters disregarded Trump’s display of ignorance and the country suffers. Reporters and the public, therefore, must ask policy questions because the answers potentially reveal a candidate’s capacity for governing. 

I remain convinced, however, process questions matter. In Warren’s case, I see her less-than-deft handling of the

DNA test as significant. First, one can question her judgment in even taking the test since she apparently was baited into it by Trump’s name calling (the “Pocahontas” business). Second, that she didn’t anticipate negative reaction from some Native Americans could indicate a lack of foresight or sloppy staff work or both. Neither is irrelevant to her candidacy. Getting a total picture of an office seeker means making both kinds of inquiries.

Henry thinks

Although I’m not sure I buy into the policy/process dichotomy, I agree with Rob that Maddow should have asked

Warren about the DNA test matter. Although process requires a series of actions, those actions usually depend on policy positions. Policy development entails a course of action and the implementation of policy requires pre-formulation of complete policy positions, accompanied by process decisions. Policy and process intertwine in unusual and unpredictable ways, so I agree with the result Rob reaches on what Maddow should have asked Warren, though I don’t articulate my view the same way.

In Warren’s handling of the DNA test issue, the separation of process and policy become difficult. Her heritage assertion begs for explanation of how her recognition of that heritage may inform her positions on the treatment of Native Americans and what policy stances Americans and the American government should take on issues related to Native Americans. Her answers could lead us to numerous other policy issues and conclusions, especially given the atmosphere created by the current President.

Each of us brings to any endeavor the sum total of what we are. Our experiences and our understanding of who we are necessarily inform our policy stances.

What’s your view on this question?   

WHAT DO DEMOCRATS DO NOW?

DRAIN THE SWAMP, INSTALL SAFEGUARDS, AND PASS PROGRESSIVE LEGISLATION

Democrats took control of the House of Representatives on January 3. They immediately challenged President Trump on his government shutdown by passing bills the Republican controlled Senate approved last year. Following loud protests by the right wing media, Trump reneged on a pledge he’d sign the legislation that would fund the government while Congress debates his border wall request.

Speaker Pelosi knows her majority must do much more than try getting the government open. We agree. House Democrats should act boldly on oversight and policy change, demonstrating they can “walk and chew gum at the same time.”

Oversight

Limits exist on what the House can do,  given a Republican Senate apparently  more concerned about loyalty to Trump  than the country’s wellbeing. Still, after two years of government by scandal and  Tweet, Americans want oversight of the  Trump administration. For some, that means an  impeachment inquiry. While House Democrats  acknowledge that possibility, especially after Special Counsel

Robert Mueller completes his work, they don’t see  impeachment as inevitable. They recognize the danger in  impeachment that appears purely motivated by politics. 

We believe, however, the House shouldn’t wait on Mueller before beginning the oversight process, a responsibility of Congress, not Mueller. Congress must not only address the potentially impeachable offenses Muller might find, but also the other harms Trump has done to our democratic institutions. These include his irresponsible criticisms of the judiciary, the intelligence community, and the military. In exercising oversight, we hope Congress calls expert witnesses like former State Secretary Madeleine Albright,

intelligence officials Malcolm Nance and James Clapper, and historians Doris Kearns Goodwin and Jon Meacham who can detail the consequences of Trump’s actions. To anyone who sees this expansive focus as unprecedented and unwarranted, we can only say how unprecedented and unwarranted Trump’s behavior has been and offer a reminder that democracy hangs in the balance. 

If the Democratic House majority fulfills its oversight responsibilities, it will have plenty on its plate, including:

·Investigating Trump’s potential violations of the

emoluments clause of the constitution through his 

business enterprises.

·Securing and reviewing Trump’s tax returns.

·Examining the ethical breaches of Trump’s current and 

former agency heads.

·Conducting a fair, thorough, and impartial investigation 

into Russian meddling in the 2016 election. The House 

Intelligence Committee probe was a sham because the 

Republican majority on that committee protected Trump. 

Under Democrats, Congress must reassert itself as a co-

equal branch of government.  

·Holding hearings on voter suppression in places like 

Florida, Georgia, North Dakota, and North Carolina as a 

predicate for passing voter protection legislation.

This list will keep members of Congress busy during the  coming year and beyond. While the House doesn’t confirm  

appointments as the Senate does, the House can and should play a critical role in overseeing executive departments. It has subpoena power and the power of the purse. Republicans wouldn’t use their oversight powers because they feared angering or endangering Trump. Now, Democrats must use those powers and assure Americans their government operates fairly, ethically, and efficiently. 

Policy

The House members who rode last November’s blue wave 

to Democratic control ran on substantive policy issues that  

appealed to the young, voters of color, and suburban women. Now this coalition that “looks like America” must deliver.  We suggest they focus on:

·Health Care – The 2018 midterm elections were, in 

general, about health care and, in particular, about 

preserving coverage for pre-existing conditions. The 

new  House majority must keep the pressure on the 

Senate and Trump on health care.  After all, Republican 

senators may find it unpleasant facing the electorate in  

2020 after a vote that imperils the Affordable Care Act 

or  endangers pre-existing conditions coverage.

·Infrastructure – That the nation must do something

about its crumbling roads and bridges isn't in doubt. 

Trump claimed in 2016 he'd offer an infrastructure 

program. He hasn't. The Democratic House should 

pass a big infrastructure program that includes a fair, 

meaningful funding mechanism, forcing the hands of the

GOP-led Senate and Trump.

·Tax Fairness --- The House should repeal the 2017 tax 

cuts, thereby promoting fairness for middle and working 

class taxpayers, deficit reduction, and protecting Social 

Security and Medicare.

·Immigration Reform –  Yes, we must secure our 

borders (with something that works, not a wall).  Then 

we need a path to citizenship for the millions already 

here who live in the shadows. Experience, research, 

and common sense say doing this will befit the 

economy. Any immigration reform measure should 

address the plight of the Dreamers – the approximately 

800,000 people brought to the United States as 

youngsters who’ve grown up here, often serving the 

country in various ways including in the military, but who 

Trump and some of his nativist supporters suggest 

deporting even though those individuals have known no 

other home. 

The Start

The new House majority has already offered a major reform package aimed at making government more transparent, fairer, and more responsive to public will. HR 1 concerns voting rights, ethics, campaign finance, and other areas Congress should address in cleaning up the disgusting mess Trump and his cronies have made in the last two years. The measures are a good start and suggest Pelosi and her team are serious about change.

The GOP Senate and Trump will balk at many of these ideas, as they will balk at much on our list.  Let them balk. There’s another election in 2020 and the eight-point Democratic victory in 2018 indicates where the wind is blowing and what’s blowing in it. Balk too much and they might find themselves on the street two years from now. 

   

THE DOLLARWAY SYNDROME: RACE, INDIVIDUAL GOODWILL, and the CONTINUING STRUGGLE FOR EQUALITY

This time Rob introduces an idea he's developing for a book. We'll explore it with him over the coming months.

Fifty plus years ago, I first observed something in American race relations I've never forgotten. I now call what I saw the Dollarway Syndrome. I noticed it while attending Dollarway, the Pine Bluff, Arkansas high school from which I graduated in 1969. I didn't call my observation the Dollarway Syndrome then. Naming it and getting an understanding of it required college, graduate school, law school, and the ensuing 50 years of living. Even though I can now define and describe it, explain its manifestations, and offer conjecture about what it means, I continue grappling with why it exists and how we deal with it individually and as a nation.

A Definition 

The Dollarway Syndrome is the inclination of white Americans to treat individual  black Americans with respect, kindness, civility, and compassion while, at the same time, supporting and espousing political and social policies and outcomes that oppress black people. After a rough start, at Dollarway I found acceptance, companionship, and caring. High school for me turned out like high school should — a time of personal growth and exploration punctuated by special memories, with a few enduring friendships thrown in for good measure.  I also saw and experienced insensitivity, cruelty, and hostility directed at an entire people. Many of my classmates loudly expressed indifference or even glee at the killings of Martin Luther King and Robert F. Kennedy and championed the political causes of George Wallace and other Southern human right violators.

King and Kennedy - 1963

In the intervening years, I've seen this duality in the workplace, sports, business, interpersonal relations, and other facets of American life. That such phenomena exist and thrive remains disconcerting. Exploring this now represents a late-in-life effort at getting my arms around it and offering a perspective those who've observed and experienced the Dollarway Syndrome might find helpful.

Changing Times

Since I noticed the Dollarway Syndrome, I've seen great racial change in America, including the end of de jure segregation, a rising black middle class, election of the first black President of the United States, and increasing incidence and acceptance of interracial marriage. These and other changes in America's racial picture signal progress toward equity and a just society. Nevertheless, the United 

States remains a nation troubled by racial discord, with significant gaps between blacks and whites in wealth, income, educational achievement, professional advancement, political strength, and other indicators of status and power. The Dollarway Syndrome persists and, in my view, promotes marginal progress while preventing real equity.

What I've seen also counsels that I accept the challenge of exploring how those who care about creating a just society can make the Dollarway Syndrome serve that goal. White people otherwise hostile to black political and social progress, in their respectful and civil treatment of individual blacks, show a capacity for finding common ground with those seeking societal change. Woodson argues racial 

justice requires finding allies who can see improving America's racial landscape as in their best interest or in the best interest of the country. They view it that way despite the continuing prevalence of partisanship, racial isolation, and tribalism. Woodson's notion prompts an important question: How do blacks and whites form alliances that can extract America from the racial ruts in which we've found ourselves since my Dollarway days?

The last ten years have shown us hope and despair on matters of race. Barack Obama's election in 2008 provided  

the tantalizing, if ultimately false, hope of a colorblind society. During Trump’s first years, we've seen ugliness we thought we'd left behind. Obama's ascension and what's happened early in the time of Trump, signal opportunity and challenge. They show what we can do and what we haven't done. By looking through the prism of the Dollarway Syndrome and its maddening duality, perhaps we can see how we build on the opportunities while tackling the challenges.

The Personal Part

My history affects my view of this. I was born at the tail end of

the Jim Crow era and grew up in a small, segregated Arkansas town. I experienced the good fortune of being the child of educated parents who cherished learning, promoted hard work, and, by example, steered me away from hate. They kept their eyes open for injustice, but believed in the promise of better days and taught me optimism, not hopelessness. Partly because of them, I kept seeking education, which has served me well and shielded me from much of the world's harshness.

Race, however, always lurked in the background of my life. What I experienced and observed at Dollarway never left my consciousness. Things have changed, but, then again, they've stayed the same. That fact informs and defines my exploration of the Dollarway Syndrome.

Perhaps readers have experience with the Dollarway syndrome.  We invite them to share.