The New Yorker Examines Why Conservatives Hate Soccer

Every time the World Cup roles around soccer aficionados in the Unites States hope this will be the years soccer goes mainstream in America. In the 16 years since New York City hosted the World Cup the nation has been making baby steps towards that end, and the numbers this year are certainly encouraging — more people watched than watched “the Kentucky Derby or the final round of the Masters golf tournament or the Daytona 500, the jewel in NASCAR’s crown.” Surprised? Probably not if you were one of the millions of people that has caused almost every World Cup game to show up on Google trends.

This news however, may not be reassuring to some on the American political right who apparently hate soccer. In this week’s New Yorker Hendrik Hertzberg examines the phenomenon, and namechecks Glenn Beck (in what I think marks his second appearance in the New Yorker). Here is the short version: Because nothing in this country can currently be popular without being politically polarized the right has concluded only Socialists like soccer, and if the U.S. becomes a nation of soccer fans it’s because President Obama is secretly a socialist. Here’s Hertzberg’s version:

Back in 1986, Jack Kemp, the former Buffalo Bills quarterback turned Republican congressman, took the House floor to oppose a resolution supporting America’s (ultimately successful) bid to host the 1994 World Cup. Our football, he declared, embodies “democratic capitalism”; their football is “European socialist.” Kemp, though, was kidding; he was sending himself up. Today’s conservative soccer scolds are not so good-natured.

Their complaints are variations on the theme of un-Americanness. “I hate it so much, probably because the rest of the world likes it so much,” Glenn Beck, the Fox News star, proclaimed. (Also, “Barack Obama’s policies are the World Cup.”) What really bugs “silly leftist critics,” the Washington Times editorialized, is that “the most popular sports in America—football, baseball, and basketball—originated here in the Land of the Free.” At the Web site of the American Enterprise Institute, the Washington Post columnist Marc Thiessen, formerly a speechwriter for George W. Bush, wrote, “Soccer is a socialist sport.” Also, “Soccer is collectivist.” Also, “Perhaps in the age of President Obama, soccer will finally catch on in America. But I suspect that socializing Americans’ taste in sports may be a tougher task than socializing our healthcare system.”

http://www.mediaite.com/online/the-new-yorker-explores-why-conservatives-hate-soccer/

I've watched the whole argument over soccer with amusement.

I've never understood in the first place how people can get so emotional about someone kicking (hitting, chasing, throwing, whatever) a ball around.

But when they make it a fire-breathing left vs right, patriotic American vs evil liberal socialist argument it becomes over the top absurdity.

I've heard people (seriously) call it socialist. I've heard people say it's not even a real sport. Really? How can a sport be socialist? :shrug: How can an activity with a set of rules and two teams kicking a ball around trying to score goals not be a sport? And why even get so fired up about it? They should just not watch the damn game if they don't like it. But make it a metaphor for economic systems? Get real people! :rofl:

Filled in on a local sports radio show (he does double duty and often politices sports) and explained that it is "socialist" and said he hated it. Hilarious how these guys have to march in lock step then call everything but what has been pre-approved by their handlers as either "Socialist", "Communist", or "Nazi". Yep, their sports have to meet "party approval" but they are the ones that are "free". So funny!

Yea, either watch a sport or not watch a sport. It's not politics! I am tired of EVERYTHING being forced into a contrived representation of politics. That's just not reality.

Groups of men run around in a field and throw a ball back and forth, and that's democracy. Groups of men run around in a field and kick a ball back and forth, and that's socialism. Have I got it?

:shrug:

Soccer is an international sport.

Most other nations compete at soccer.

Most other nations belong to the UN

Ergo,

Soccer = UN = destroying US sovereignty.




:crazy:

Think:

Metric System
Fahrenheit vs Celsius
Driving on the right vs left.


We strive to maintain ridiculously hard to use systems that are different than the standard used by most of the planet. Just another wedge between Americans and the rest of the planet imo. I'm sure many could add to the list.

In this case, it's other countries who use a standard different than used by most of the planet. Another wedge between those countries and America and most of Europe.

As for "impossibly different," it's been quite possible so far. I mean, ideographs and right-to-left writing were "impossibly different" for far longer and had actual economic consequences--Arabic's positional character variation was nasty, too--but I heard few progressives arguing that other countries really must conform because, well, we really all need to write in the same direction. Instead the call was to adapt, not just accept diversity but actually appreciate diversity.

I dislike being told I should like soccer. I don't like sports in general, but I find it less annoying when people tell me I should like basketball or even jai alai or curling.

They start off by saying how much they like it. I always find that a poor argument. Some people like being tied up and treated like dogs, yet I remain unconvinced about the relative merits of S&M as a personal lifestyle choice for myself and my wife.

They say how fast paced and exciting it is. "The score was 1-0." "Yes, and it was an exciting match up!" I had a friend in high school who watched the Fischer-Spassky chess matches white-knuckled and on the edge of his seat. I hardly expect to fill stadiums across the country with 80k paying people to watch a chess match. "World Chess Tournament" in South Africa would not have produced the same excitement. Or revenue. I also doubt that would convince the soccer fans I've talked to to all suddenly demand that ESPN broadcast local, regional, national, and international chess matches Sunday afternoons. Even they're not convinced by that argument.

These arguments are anodyne and banal. De gustibus non disputandum. Yet disputare they want precisely de gustibus.

Then ultimately the argument goes to, "The rest of the world likes it, why do you want to be different?" This is annoying and is saying, "I'm in the big herd and we don't like that your herd is different. Celebrate diversity, appreciate differences--be like us or we'll be pissed at you for not conforming." The little bundle of smugness and hypocrisy is revolting. "Difference is good--as long as it's not your."

At least when my kid's best friend tells me I have to like soccer because it's played in Mexico and everything Mexican is best he's being honest in his ethnocentrism and chauvinism. A few DUers are like that, as well. They're repugnant in their childish beliefs--my kid's friend is 6 so childish beliefs are to be expected--but brutally consistent and I can at least respect that.

At 300 million people, for the most part America has sufficient economies of scale that metric vs British doesn't much matter; and it covers a sufficiently large land mass for things like F vs C to not be a big issue.