Quick. What do horse racing and politics have in common other than the terminology (i.e., describing an political race as a horse race and/or a candidate as a dark horse...)?
Give up? The answer, I believe, is that they are both industries that sell hope.
Most thoroughbred breeders will tell you that hope drives what they do. They fiddle with pedigrees and bloodstock to try and arrive at that elusive combination of stamina and speed that will produce the Next Great Horse. And then they market it as the Next Great Opportunity to Own the Next Great Horse.
It's all about hope that first Saturday in May when the birds are singing and the flowers are blooming and the three year olds are running for the roses. Twenty horses, riders, owners and trainers are each hoping for the immortality that comes with winning the premiere prize in their sport. And everyone thinks they can do it.
Hope springs eternal in racing. There is always spring. There is always the Kentucky Derby and there are always foals romping in the blue grass paddocks.
Politicians are selling the same thing. Vote for me and you'll get everything I promised. Vote for me and you'll see that I am better than the person who came before me. Vote for me and I'll bring you what you want--change or more of the same. A vote for me is your best hope for a better tomorrow.
As we all know, very few deliver when confronted with the realities of the system which is why, after too many hollow promises, it all begins to sound the same.
But every once in a while, and sometimes not even in one's lifetime, all the pieces fall into place. All the stars seem aligned and the real deal comes along. I think, on this inauguration day, that we are poised for that Next Great Opportunity. And I think our new president, who dares to have the audacity of hope, is going to deliver.
More than anything, I hope I am right. Because hope is both an incredibly powerful motivator and as Emily Dickinson noted (my title is from her), elusive. If we lose hope, we lose what makes us human and I think we finally have a president that understands what this race is all about.
Showing posts with label politics and horse racing. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics and horse racing. Show all posts
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Monday, March 3, 2008
A Friend in Washington
According to TheHorse.com, on February 29, Representative Ed Whitfield of Kentucky (Republican) opened the televised congressional hearing on the use of steroids in sports by "claiming leaders of horse racing have repeatedly failed on promises to self-regulate medication issues." Whitfield, by the way, is a champion of the anti-slaughter movement and I will be covering his meeting with long-time equine advocate Staci Hancock, during my time in Washington, D.C.
Staci told me that Whitfield was one of the people who got her involved in the cause. It was Staci's efforts, writing letters to all living owners of Kentucky Derby winners, that got the Jacksons involved in the anti-slaughter movement.
Whitfield also wants to ban steroids from the sport of racing and made no bones about his position. "England, France, all of Europe, Japan, South Africa, Dubai, Australia: All of the major racing jurisdictions have banned the use of drugs still commonplace in America," he told the committee. "England. . . banned steroids in racing over 30 years ago."
He also wasn't afraid to name names, citing hall of Fame trainer Jack Van Berg, who told him "he had seen enough." According to Whitfield, Van Berg believes that
"drugs ranging from medications like steroids and clenbuterol to prohibited substances like EPO (erythropoietin) are slowly destroying horse racing in America."
The issue of drugs in racing has been around nearly as long as the anti-slaughter legislation. "Through the years--horsemen's groups, who claim that they represent every trainer and every horse owner, have been in the forefront to stop the adoption of more stringent drug rules," Whitfield elaborated. "And they have been, and continue to be, successful, to the detriment of the sport."
Personally I don't think that racing has much choice. If they don't clean up their act, there simply won't be any audience. I am very much looking forward to meeting this equine advocate.
Staci told me that Whitfield was one of the people who got her involved in the cause. It was Staci's efforts, writing letters to all living owners of Kentucky Derby winners, that got the Jacksons involved in the anti-slaughter movement.
Whitfield also wants to ban steroids from the sport of racing and made no bones about his position. "England, France, all of Europe, Japan, South Africa, Dubai, Australia: All of the major racing jurisdictions have banned the use of drugs still commonplace in America," he told the committee. "England. . . banned steroids in racing over 30 years ago."
He also wasn't afraid to name names, citing hall of Fame trainer Jack Van Berg, who told him "he had seen enough." According to Whitfield, Van Berg believes that
"drugs ranging from medications like steroids and clenbuterol to prohibited substances like EPO (erythropoietin) are slowly destroying horse racing in America."
The issue of drugs in racing has been around nearly as long as the anti-slaughter legislation. "Through the years--horsemen's groups, who claim that they represent every trainer and every horse owner, have been in the forefront to stop the adoption of more stringent drug rules," Whitfield elaborated. "And they have been, and continue to be, successful, to the detriment of the sport."
Personally I don't think that racing has much choice. If they don't clean up their act, there simply won't be any audience. I am very much looking forward to meeting this equine advocate.
Tuesday, February 5, 2008
Off to the Races
It's Super Tuesday and in honor of the primaries being waged from coast to coast, I pose the following question: Why are political contests often called horse races?
According to Bartholomew H. Sparrow (true name...) in his book, Uncertain Guardians: The News Media as a Political Institution, the "horse race" aspect of political campaigns is a focus on the race, rather than on the issues or the policies being touted by the candidates. According to an anonymous NBC news executive, this focus appeals to the viewers who only "want to know...who will win." Similarly, according to James Carville, this perspective appeals to the press because "What reporter wouldn't rather report on strategy than message?" So we have endless predictions, polls and newscasters as handicappers, "turf" on which they somehow feel comfortable and qualified.
All of which seems to imply that actual horse racing is all about winning, not about breeding, training, strategy and a healthy dose of luck. By calling political races "horse races" the media implies that these races are only about who runs well on a certain day in a certain place and that what they are running on or for means very little. To which I ask, then why spend months spouting policies and promises? Just show up on race day and let the best man or woman win.
The analogy is further ironic in that the coverage of actual horse races (think about the two hour preamble to the Kentucky Derby) tends to focus on the "up close and personal" aspect of the horse's connections, his past performances and all the variables that could affect his performance. So while the lingo of "neck and neck" and "into the homestretch" comes straight off the track, pundits may be doing the candidates a true disservice by calling their campaigns horse races simply because, in the end, someone does win.
After all what makes a horse race interesting is that nothing is predictable. A horse could get hurt, refuse to leave the starting gate or lose its rider. A long shot can win; a favorite can lose and theoretically anyone can win. Trust me, if we knew the magic formula, it would be no fun.
So call a political contest a horse race because anything can happen and very often it's exciting to see how the stretch duel plays out. Not because someone always goes to the winner's circle.
And don't forget to vote.
According to Bartholomew H. Sparrow (true name...) in his book, Uncertain Guardians: The News Media as a Political Institution, the "horse race" aspect of political campaigns is a focus on the race, rather than on the issues or the policies being touted by the candidates. According to an anonymous NBC news executive, this focus appeals to the viewers who only "want to know...who will win." Similarly, according to James Carville, this perspective appeals to the press because "What reporter wouldn't rather report on strategy than message?" So we have endless predictions, polls and newscasters as handicappers, "turf" on which they somehow feel comfortable and qualified.
All of which seems to imply that actual horse racing is all about winning, not about breeding, training, strategy and a healthy dose of luck. By calling political races "horse races" the media implies that these races are only about who runs well on a certain day in a certain place and that what they are running on or for means very little. To which I ask, then why spend months spouting policies and promises? Just show up on race day and let the best man or woman win.
The analogy is further ironic in that the coverage of actual horse races (think about the two hour preamble to the Kentucky Derby) tends to focus on the "up close and personal" aspect of the horse's connections, his past performances and all the variables that could affect his performance. So while the lingo of "neck and neck" and "into the homestretch" comes straight off the track, pundits may be doing the candidates a true disservice by calling their campaigns horse races simply because, in the end, someone does win.
After all what makes a horse race interesting is that nothing is predictable. A horse could get hurt, refuse to leave the starting gate or lose its rider. A long shot can win; a favorite can lose and theoretically anyone can win. Trust me, if we knew the magic formula, it would be no fun.
So call a political contest a horse race because anything can happen and very often it's exciting to see how the stretch duel plays out. Not because someone always goes to the winner's circle.
And don't forget to vote.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
