We are Not a Nation of Laws

Understanding what it means if the facts and the evidence are there, and they decide not to prosecute – how do we then call ourselves a nation of laws? Liz Cheney quote in CNN Interview, published Aug. 4, 2022. 

We are clearly a nation of men, not of laws.   The old saying is an aspiration, just as democracy is an aspiration.  Justice depends on those who must enforce the law, or not, and for which laws. 

It used to be exclusively the province of men.  As in, no women.  That has changed., at least in terms of active participation.   We still have no way to bring the intelligence of young people into the formula for self-governing, as our civic education in democracy prepares them poorly and our system changes but slowly, if at all.    

But the real point is that the US of A has always chosen to be on the edge of lawlessness, or if not that, lawless on its edges.  Those edges, or frontiers, were always moving, and absorbed our aggressive tendencies until the 20th Century.  Then we had world war to absorb them, or most of them. Some leaked out in "racial" riots, and in lone-wolf-type political assassinations. 

This American tendency toward weak observance of the law and prevalence of violence is not the norm for a society said to be advanced. There are plenty of examples, other nations, where the laws are clear, and enforcement is thorough and efficient, disobedience rare and incarceration even more rare.  Many of those have full democratic exercise; others maintain the vote but have less free speech and economic liberty.  

Self-restraint of the people is critical for lawful societies. Too much disobedience is simply uncontrollable for the authorities. 

As for the previous question, though, there are so many pending investigations of Trump at this time, that surely there will be at least one indictment--possibly several, once the retaining wall of respect for past holders of the Presidential office has been breached.  The announcement or whatever of his 2024 Presidential run should be no impediment, and in fact it ends any need for the social restraint generally shown toward excoriating ex-Presidents, especially one-term losers.  Instead of doing something good for the country, or humanity or the future of the planet, he continues to suck money away from suckees and shows a willingness to carry the ludicrous con forward.  As for the DOJ, the threat of his forever-imminent announcement certainly did not spur them to immediate action. 

Mere indictment, and I mean criminal indictment(s), civil suits being necessary but insufficient, clears way too low a bar.  I want to see convictions, even if plea-bargained (I would think avoiding prosecution under the Espionage Act would be important for his future employers).  Trump's card is his own conviction that there would never be a jury that would vote unanimously against him; I think if the jurisdiction is properly chosen (like Atlanta, maybe, for his Georgia vote tampering) it is a possibility.   Again, though, we need the heavy stuff, perhaps the insurrection itself if the right persons will turn, if we want to change the course of the story he tells himself:  so far, he's still free and making money, so everything's basically fine.  

Lawlessness is Central to Our Culture

It seems obvious to some, but we are slow to recognize to what degree we fixate on the borderline between legal and extra-legal, and beyond.  The Western, which almost always turns on that question of how we act when we are outside the control of the civilized world.  The Gangster epics, which are all about the spaces between what we do in life and the law, and the kind of people who occupy them.  All the varieties of cops-and-robbers, including so many that make heroes out of criminals, even assassins who kill for money.

Okay, you may say, that's just Hollywood, Dreamland, the sublimation of desire to survive in the real world with its stifling conformity.  This ignores the American tendencies to live outside the rules in our daily lives  (I excuse attorneys from reading the following).  Smoke pot, drive intoxicated, exceed the speed limit, fail to come to a full stop, cheat on taxes.  Everybody does it, or some of it--but not everyone everywhere. 

In many countries, people obey the law because it is the law and they know it.  In America, people obey the law best when it suits them, randomly when it coincides with their intentions to be free.  

Remember the line in "America, the Beautiful" at the end of the second verse : 

"THY LIBERTY IN LAW"

I think that's the way we want it to be, that in our liberty of actions we choose to obey the law, and that the law protects our liberty.  As for the latter, it's a whole other subject, but let's just agree that the reality is that the law is not evenly applied to all in that regard: Some people's liberties are more protected--we could generalize and say it's the people who can afford good lawyers. 

Do we choose to obey the law?  There's a favorite defense American lawbreakers employ, that they didn't know it was against the law--essentially Trump's play in the Mar-a-Lago document theft case.  It's useless in a court as a defense, which presumes you know the law:  in some sense the law must be known to expect obedience, as our justice system does.  Sometimes, no doubt, we know, whether or not we'd ever admit it. 

Overall, though, I would say our tendency is that when it comes down to it, we choose liberty. 

Tonight and Beyond

 I don't advocate spending the entire evening waiting for election returns, thinking there may be decisive results.  My suggestion is to wait for the outcome of two House races in Virginia, in the first batch of results (closing at 7 pm Eastern).  If Abigail Spanberger can't win in its 7th District, moderate Democrats are about to be buried; if on the other hand Elaine Luria can hold on in the 2nd district, the Democratic party is still in the race for control of the House.   If one or the other can't be called quickly, there is a good possibility of the outcome described.  That's about all you will get of the big picture tonight.   

As for the Senate, it's very unlikely that we will know the outcome, probably for even more than just a day.  I stick with my previous prediction from two months ago:  The roller coaster has run its cycle and returned to start.  The most likely scenarios are either 49-50 or 50-49, pending Georgia's likely runoff.  Nevada is the #1 cause for that uncertainty, though there are many others.   Finally, I expect incumbents to win, and party control to be maintained in most other cases.  The exception, and the highlight of the Senate contest in general, would be for John Fetterman to pull out a 3 to 4 point win over Dr. Oz in the highlighted Pennsyvania Senate race, though it will not be called for days.  I still believe. 

I neglected the governor and other state races previously; there are 5-6 close races, but a variety of reasons leads me to think that none of those will be decided tonight.  Among ones that will be called,  the Democrats should pick up seats in Massachusetts and Maryland--Wes Moore, in the latter, being one of tonight's star attractions.  I expect, however, that they lose a couple of the many where they face close challenges (Wisconsin, Nevada and Kansas, in particular).  Most importantly, the Democrats will hold onto critical 2024 states Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Minnesota.  If Republicans hold onto Arizona and Georgia, those states will be harder for the Democratic party to hold in '24. State legislature battles matter, too, but that's too much detail for my free time. For wat it's worth, I'm confident Democratic control of my state's legislature is safe, and its governor's race, too. 

Some of the pundits (Cook, Sabato) feel compelled to call all races, one way or the other, leaning on their accumulated experience, while Nate Silver at fivethirtyeight.com takes the careful approach of leaning on probabilities rather than categorical outcomes.  Silver's approach gets my respect, while Sabato and Cook were even more careful, frankly admitting that, when in doubt, they pushed their final predictions to follow the customary midterm correction pattern (i.e., against the Administration).   The best might be the approach followed by Nathan Gonzales--he identified some 41* "Contested districts" (a lot less than CNN's 82) not clearly leaning one way or the other.  Within that, he showed those that "tilt" toward each side, with about 40% of those still "tossup".   The outcomes in those seats, and the 21 currently-Democratic ones that Cook shows as Lean Republican in his final assessment, are the ones that will determine whether this House race is a cliffhanger ("at the edge of a precipice") or a landslide ("over the edge"). + 

 Luria's seat is in both sets, and is identified as the median seat nationwide, in terms of its 2020 Presidential outcome.  As I feel we are very much in the same place as then, I endorse a singular focus on her seat as the bellwether among all others. So I repeat my suggestion:  stay up until Luria's seat reports (say 90%), then sleep soundly.  When you wake up, we'll still be waiting.

Pre-Assessing the Outcome 

Going into 2022's campaign, my main concern was whether Trumpists would win, or whether the mark of his involvement would once again be the L on the forehead.  He's tried to load the results to his favor on this critical measure, but the outcome is not determined by his primary successes, but by his general election record of wins and losses.  I expect him to have setbacks with high-profile extremist followers like Mastriano (PA-Gov.), Bolduc (NH-Sen.), and even Masters (AZ-Sen.), along with the galling win of his election-theft opponent Brian Kemp (GA-Gov.), but we should be prepared that he will have a gratifying win with ass-kisser J.D. Vance (OH-Sen.) and possible wins for likeminded reality-benders Kari Lake (AZ-Gov.) and Dr. Oz (PA - Sen.).  His stamp will remain questionable in value (particularly if he doesn't share his money) but this election will not lead to the termination of his candidacy.  Unfortunately for us all; his participation demeans. 

After the Flood

With the money thing, I have had enough:  I pledge no political contributions for 2023, and I will refrain from comments on domestic electoral politics for the full year.  I don't care who announces for 2024 then, or before then. 

The most important development for 2024 arising from the campaign was the re-emergence of Barack Obama--not coincidentally occurring as he releases his latest book.   Of course he cannot run again, but I have the feeling that he is ready to resume a position in the lead for his party (the "Obama-Biden party", as opposed to the Trump one).  He and Joe have probably discussed strategy, and Biden should be expected to be as cagey as possible about his running, or not.  Certainly not determined by anything the President who served between them does. 

I think it is quite likely Biden will not run, but he will wait to see whether Trump is likely to win nomination.  I do not feel it is certain that Trump will clear the field;  Trump's attack on "Ron DeSanctimonious" (a good one, I have to admit) shows he expects the Florida governor to be a serious rival:  he spent the time to work out a good insult nickname for him.  If Trump fades, Biden can step aside, though whether to draw a line of equivalency to DeSantis is imponderable at this point.  If he does pass on running, Kamala Harris is going to be challenged--maybe not by Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg, who is enjoying his job, but by some proven Democratic winners with more moderate profiles (such as Amy Klobuchar or Gretchen Whitmer).

To be bluntly honest, I am concerned by a trend that I detect for Democratic candidates who are People of Color (especially women) to fall a bit short in statewide general election contests to representatives of the White Christian Male Patriarchy.  Meanwhile, Republicans are finding some winning candidates who are sometimes not white, sometimes not Christian or male, but almost all sufficiently loyal to the Patriarchy (and its archon, Drumpf).  I'm not sure what to do about that--Wes Moore is a notable counter-example--but I think the remedy is the rise of younger voters, which must happen in 2024 if it does not in 2022.  In them I place my ultimate faith. 

Fear Not

Although we are surely in a transition period toward a New World Disorder, and the US is right in the middle of it, I don't see a lot of difference in the USA coming out of this election (with the proviso that complete whackos don't win in Michigan or Pennsylvania governor's races).  The House, even with a margin of a few votes, works like a Parliamentary majority.  Padding the total for the Republicans, or keeping it as narrow as possible for the Democrats, matters more in terms of positioning for control after 2024's election. Kevin McCarthy's margin will matter in terms of  how much he has to give in to the extremists' hostage demands, but nothing the House comes up with will pass the Senate, let alone get by Biden's veto pen.  Anything that gets done, and it will be precious little, will originate from bipartisan efforts in the Senate that somehow get through the MAGA House.  Mostly required legislation that even those who want to kill the Federal government's authority will have trouble opposing. 

I refer to the 2022 outcome as the Red Wade, drawing off someone's typo in a comment on PredictIt.  The waters are shallow--it is astonishing how shallow the nationalized arguments have become--but there's plenty of blood in the water.  

Bill Maher was correct when he said Americans have two chances left to save their democracy (I would add: such as it is.).  We are likely to waste one of them today, though that is not certain.  I do think that some of the focus on screwing with election processes and processors from the MAGA side will dissipate quickly if they get a victory in 2022's election. 

* I liked his electoral judgments more than his math, which was always off by a seat or two out of the 435. 

+ See Sabato's list of "Tends R" seats in comment.  I will include Gonzales' Tossups. 

Them Changes

Before we get to the late Queen, mourning precedence for me goes to Mikhail Gorbachev, the last top leader of the Soviet Union.  His time in his nation's throne of power was much more brief than Queen Elizabeth II's time in her throne of display, but more consequential on the whole.  Even if the gains in global security from the end to the USSR vs. USA Cold War are fading rapidly, he gets the thanks of history for his instrumental role in the sudden fall of the Iron Curtain and the end of the Communist dictatorship at home. Sad that so many long for its return there. 

I have never lived when there was another reigning monarch in Great Britain, yet the story of that monarchy is as close as ever to our history, separated by only a couple hundred years.  Not even;  lands near to us both north an south still profess loyalty to the throne (at least so far; let's see how they take to King Charles III).  Elizabeth was a worthy heir to the storied tradition of the British monarchy, and she took to her duty proudly.  If she seemed to be the moralistic bourgeois scold, maybe we failed to remember that, in the royal family, affairs of the heart are really affairs of the state.  She was just doing her job, like making sure she had a nice long list of male heirs when she died.  We can be sure she brought a sharp intelligence to it, and according to many, a keen sense of humor.   Above all, she observed the limits, and did her part to make sure others did, too. 

She doesn't deserve from the British any of the Gorbachevian blame Russians assign to him for the diminution (or end, depending on how you see it) of the Russian Empire.  When she took over the role (1952), the biggest piece of her one, India/Pakistan, had already sheared off, and much more was already in progress, peacefully or not.  She was expected to preside over a whole bunch more of independence-minded colonial subjects cutting her loose, to a greater or lesser extent.  The Commonwealth thing was a mostly well-intentioned effort to keep British fingers in the pie and reduce lingering resentments felt toward the former masters.  She did her best to keep a good humo(u)r about it all:  More than how she felt about so-and-so, I would be interested in her attitudes at the time toward this somewhat hopeful, but also tragic, experience driven by necessity.  Like, what about Africa?

Britain politically is in deep trouble, not that Charles can do anything about it. By coincidence, the change of government nearly coincided with the Queen's passing, so the new Prime Minister had to meet with His Excellency.  'Best of luck', I'm sure was his counsel (a command?).  Maybe the grieving period will find some sort of new resolve for the pandemic-stricken nation.  In the meantime, Liz Truss,  well-supported (if only within her own party's membership), will lead a patchwork clique of rightist Brexiteers right over the electoral cliff two years away.  Or maybe she won't.  Last that long, I mean. 

None of this matters much in its relation to US foreign policy toward Europe, which is deterministic under the current wartime circumstances--they need us, and we will support any of them.  Even the neo-fascist-tending new government likely to arise from Italy's next election, because it will be pro-US. 

As for 'This here' nation, with two whole months left until Election Day, we are firmly fixated on our navel.  What women see then is disturbing them. What has changed? A little of everything, but mostly the Supreme Court's decision.  The Patriarchy is a real target. The play to make the election a referendum on a failed Biden Administration has itself been played out. There's a choice, and it's Biden vs. Trump, though neither is on the ballot.  Those are real changes, but mostly in our moods; all of these have been in the cards, now played on the table. 

As for the all-important Senate contest, I continue to say that 50-50 is the most likely outcome, though there is more chance of 51-49 D than 49-51.   I firmly expect Democrats to hold AZ and win PA.  GA is not likely to be decided Election Night, and NH may be too close to make an early call, so then the focus should be on NV (most vulnerable Dem incumbent), NC (open seat), and WI (most vulnerable Republican incumbent).  If the Democrats can win one of those three, it may be clear Election Night and thus make continued Democratic control somewhat assured (50-49 in that scenario, with GA determined later).  The way things look now,  it may take a couple days before the outcome of enough House races are clear in order to determine control there.

Changes...in Sport

Major League Baseball released its rules changes for 2023 today. Long under consideration, their general objective is a game played more swiftly, with more "balls in play" (not just a strikeout, walk, or home run).  One is a fixed time between pitches, with some reasonable allowances for either the pitcher or hitter (to briefly perform essential functions, like grabbing his crotch or spitting); the second is a larger base for the runner to touch (more about that in a moment). The third, and most controversial, is the creation of a restriction on the positioning of the defense.  Infielders need to be positioned at the start of the play with two on either side of an imaginary line going from the home plate, through the pitching rubber to second base, and they also can't start the play in the outfield. 

I'm against this rule.  I don't like that major league teams can successfully employ extreme shifts in their defensive alignment, but if it works, it's because hitters aren't able to take advantage of them.  The all-or-nothing swing has combined with the sharp breaking stuff pitchers are coming out with to create record low batting averages.  But why constrain the strategy of teams to something less-than-optimal?  I foresee a lot of issues with fielders running laterally with the pitch to get into a better position or angle to defend where the batter is known to hit.  For me, a good compromise would draw from the volleyball "libero" position which solved the problem:  one fielder would be able to position himself anywhere in fair territory--he'd probably be the shortstop, but not necessarily so.  

The 'expanded bag' decision is a reform I agree with entirely.  It will promote safety and make stolen base attempts significantly more attractive.  And more successful:  the secret reason for the change is to cut down on that odious play where the fielder takes the throw after the base-stealer has just reached the bag, holds a tag firmly down on the runner and hopes he loses contact with the bag for an instant as he decelerates. Increasing the square length from 15" to 18" saves the runner only three inches (something that was mentioned, telling me that the length between bases is not so sacrosanct) but increases its surface area more than 40%. 

Which brings me to my radical idea to improve batting averages, and to get hitters to think not just about slugging, but hitting:  I suggest reducing the distance from home to first, by the proverbial "half a step".  Now, that will improve the infamous, stubborn BABIP (Batting Average on balls in play), more than this set of changes! Some other time I may fly that "kite" in a fuller exposition. 

Tennis gets next mention for its change, generational in nature.  The current US Open men's tourney is cementing it.  Frances Tiafoe and Nick Kyrgios winning over Rafael Nadal and Daniil Medvedev signaled rapid movement away from the Big 3 era of men's tennis, and even from the recent transitional, pandemic-era Three or Four Guys Chasing the Big 3 Era*.  The symbol of the New Order just officially begun was the 5 1/2-hour Jannik Sinner vs. Carlos Alcaraz quarterfinal the other night, so good I couldn't turn it off at whatever a.m.   

Alcaraz stands out as the one who will define this New Age.  If he completes his run in the US Open by defeating spectral nice-guy Casper Ruud, he will become the youngest ATP #1-ranked men's player in history--by a couple of years.  His athletic ability is truly off all charts of normal distribution, and he shows a lot of tactical tennis smarts and even strategic acumen.  And no sign of getting tired, however many five-set matches.  I don't know how long he could keep that combination intact, but for that amount of time he is always going to be nearly impossible to defeat, the way Federer, Djokovic, and Nadal have been, except when playing each other.

As for the women's game, an unusual amount of order is developing.  The period since the decline from the near-total domination by just-retired Serena Williams, some five years long, has been chaotic.  There have typically been four different champions in the four Grand Slam events, each coming seemingly from nowhere.  Then it looked like Naomi Osaka would dominate, but she freaked at the tsunami of fame.  Ash Barty had a firm grip on #1, but then almost immediately dropped it for other interests (like getting married, it turns out).  We now have Iga Swiatek, humble but consistent, taking on talented Tunisian Ons Jabeur, with Coco Gauff in the wings, nearly ready for her time on central stage.   Some pretty amazing diversity going on there, at the top of the women's game. 

I have only one relatively minor radical suggestion for tennis.  Since the men's Grand Slams insist on being 3-of-5 sets throughout, while the rest of the season is 2-of-3, make the sets to five games instead of six.  It would be less a battle of attrition and would get to the point--the tie-breaker--in those sets where there is no edge emerging.  Better TV, too, or should I not mention that? 

I give NCAA college football credit for recognizing what is better TV and going with it.  The expansion in their playoffs (the CFP, get used to the TLA^) from four teams to 12 that they have announced recently is impressive, and it puts to shame all those conniving conference con artists with their empire-building schemes (the SEC and "Big 10").  

The lesson, quite simply, is that more playoffs, with more teams, is better.   The NBA reminded us of this recently as its already-bloated 16-team playoffs expanded even further with the Play-In improvisation during the pandemic, which is now permanently in place.  Major League Baseball also bumped its playoff participant number once again, though this year it doesn't seem to be adding more pennant races, just more teams with postseason participation, their aspirations soon to be crushed by the Dodgers and Astros. 

In general, the further down the ranking that the cutoff between the Interested and the Uninteresting may lie, the better for league health.  Less critical press, more engaged fans.  

*The Three or Four Guys I'm thinking of are Dominik Thiem, Stefanos Tsitsipas, Daniil Medvedev, and Sasha Zverev.  I'm hoping Zverev recovers completely to challenge the new, younger, guns.  

^Three-Letter Acronym. 

Midterm Election Preview

It's almost Labor Day, so time for the real campaign to begin.  With the exception of the occasional special election in the House, the rest of the electoral history this year amounts to sparring for position in the general election.  We should remember that, instead of trying to score Trump's endorsement or blacklist successes and failures in primaries. 

"The Red Wade"

A Republican commenter's typo on PredictIt inadvertently provided the phrase to me, which I think is a good summary.  The waters turn out to be shallow, though there's some blood in them.  Beware sharks. 

"madlaw" on Political Wire hit this thought with a good rejoinder:  "Red Wade" could be the alter ego of the Deadpool comics character.  

Anyway, my view is that, for all the fuss, fairly little has changed since 2020:  It's not inflation, nor abortion, nor the Jan. 6 Committee, though those provide impetus for those all-important shifts of a couple points or two, mainly among those unaffiliated with the two parties, and to ensure that turnout this year will be healthy for midterm elections.  The 2022 election is essentially Biden vs. Trump, though neither name will appear on ballots.  One can only  hope there is some prospect that the 2024 one will somehow have a different theme. 

Republicans' confidence in past months rode on historical patterns as being near to necessity, combined with Biden's steadily-weakening approval rating.  A referendum on Biden, with a shaky economy, looked like a sure winner for the opposition in a midterm test.   But Trump had to rear his ugly head. 

There has been a sharp reversal in the perception of the outcome of the election, particularly an erosion of that level of confidence.  As evidence, the proposition that Republicans would win control of both the House and Senate was as high as 80% on PredictIt, as recently as April.   It's now at 34%, which I think may be a typical market over-correction.  This is driven by major movement in the odds for both the Senate and the House--30% or so on the Senate odds, 15% on the House.  

In the battle for control of the Senate, we can look at PredictIt's market for the number of GOP seats, where the highest value is for 49 (meaning a Democratic gain of one seat).  Personally, I think 50-50 is the most likely outcome.  The simplest route to that result is the Democratic pickup in Pennsylvania, which I think is extremely likely, offset by Republican success in picking off one Democratic incumbent.  Nevada's Catherine Cortez Masto is the most likely target, with Rev. Warnock in Georgia also in some danger, from the physically imposing and mentally impotent football star Herschel Walker.  

There are a number of other close contests, at least within the margin of error, but I tend toward the view that the chances for upsets are evenly balanced.  To be more explicit, a Democratic pickup in Wisconsin is about as likely as a Republican one in Arizona; a Democratic upset in Ohio, Florida, or North Carolina is about as likely as a Republican one in New Hampshire.  That last state is still a little hard to handicap, as it's the one state that still has an important primary yet to come; a ridiculous Trumpist extremist (Dan Bolduc) is a slight favorite over the moderate (Chuck Morse) who would actually have a chance to win there. 

As for the House, there are so many variables it is better to talk in terms of broad ranges.  The result of redistricting surprisingly did not give a strategic advantage to one party or the other, at least for this election.  The polls suggest that there is no longer a clear popular-vote advantage for one party or the other anymore, but due to extreme population concentrations for the Democrats in a number of urban districts, the Democrats need a 2-3% national popular vote margin to stay even in the House, and they don't have that yet.  So, I'm going with "narrow Republican majority" as my prediction. 

If I had to pick a number in a House "How many seats will the GOP Have"market on PredictIt, I would pick 222 on the betting roulette wheel. Apart from its appeal as a sexy number,  it would just offset the 222-213 advantage the Democrats won in the 2020 election, and so would be a gain of 9 for the GOP.  But I won't get to do that bet:  the CFTC (Commodity Futures Trading Commission), which somehow became PredictIt's regulator, has just put PredictIt in jeopardy.  As a result, they have stopped adding new markets, just before that one on the specific House result would have been put out there.  They may get a new decision allowing them to continue doing business beyond Feb. 15, 2023, but that is the current date all trading would end.  I may have to find a new hobby. 

That 222 number has a very large Margin of Error, though--let's say 15 seats.  The consensus of the various pundits going into the district-by-district fundamentals is that there are about 200 seats where the Republicans have a significant or huge advantage and about 190 seats for the Democrats to have the same.  This leaves 45 that have narrow margins or are just plain tossups:  in statistical terms, the null hypothesis of 50-50 can not be rejected.  

What We Will Take Away

What we would logically and reasonably conclude from those outcomes I describe above is that the head of the Republican party is leading his followers toward an electoral disaster for their movement, as they will have blown a chance to regain control that should have been theirs.   Once again, Trump's guidance to Republican voters proves ruinous to their general election chances, particularly those of Senator McConnell to become Majority Leader again.   

But you really have also to blame Republican primary voters who are blind to the warning signs.  The party is at the edge of the demographic precipice, as us old farts steadily release our physical carbon to the biosphere and "conservative" becomes as much a cursed and tainted label as "liberal" became for some, decades ago.  Reduction of the extent of the central government is a natural policy advantage American Republicans could have, as is a strong security stance, but the Republicans, led by Trump, are in the process of losing ownership of both of them.  The incompetence of Trump's administration was so transparent as to appear intentional, and he managed to antagonize the military and law enforcement, as well.

Policy-wise, the Republicans without Trump's blather are bereft.  Rick Scott's attempt to re-create something like Gingrich's Contract Against America (or whatever) differs in its outcome--he's a laughing stock (and designated scapegoat if the Republicans fail to win a Senate majority, as head of their campaign committee) and so are his policy suggestions, which are ignored by Republican candidates across the nation. 

The Democrats in D.C. for their part have truly thrown a lot of policy linguine at the wall, and less of it is garbage than I was expecting (with a 50-50 Senate).  Getting some gun control legislation passed, even if it is not such a BFD, was worth doing, drawing a line in the air after the Uvalde massacre.  The Inflation Reduction Act--not a lie, just a gross exaggeration, as it will have a marginally beneficial, if undetectable, effect economically--was good politics and brings us into line with our international commitments on climate change action and minimum corporate tax.  I'm less impressed with the healthcare improvements in it, but at least they maintain our national healthcare system, as opposed to destroying it and putting nothing in its place, the reform proposed when the Republicans and Trumpists had Congressional control.  

In terms of Biden's Student Loan forgiveness policy announced today, it fulfills another important campaign promise to a volatile target audience.  Personally, I would've preferred a simple approach:  expanded opportunity for forgiveness through work, and an announcement to suspend interest on all these Federally-owned loans, with retroactive adjustments for payments since 2009 (to pick a date, I choose an homage to Obama), which would have been good policy going forward while not creating moral hazard, though not as generous.  But this will do, unless the courts piss on it. 

If this set of disappointing Republican results remains the scenario, Biden vs. Trump 2.5 will look promising, even if the GOP regulars fail to excise the Drumpfist cancer.  Still, we should hope it never comes to that, for the damage it will continue to wreak on our electoral and psychological health.  At least, we should hope the Donald gives us a present and announces he will not announce until 2023.  By then, the results should be digested better, and we can instead address the many, but more subtle, deficiencies of Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (memorably described by Tim Miller of The Bulwark as a "campy tribute artist", referring to his performative relationship to The Dickhead Former Guy)..

If, on the other hand, that 30-40% chance instead hits, and the Republicans get solid control of Congress, despite all the Vance, Masters, Oz, Walker, and the rest of the loser candidates resulting from Trumpist idiocy, then we will know he will run, and be nominated, and thus Biden will have to run, too, assuming he is able.  So we better be prepared for that eventuality, too. 

My Joe Biden Story

(January, 2022) - This might be the time for me to give my personal recommendation for our President, as he is surely beset by misfortune and insufficient support in these days.

My one and only in-person encounter with our 46th President came in the late winter of 1974 (so long ago!), when young Joe Biden was in his first term as Senator from Delaware, having won his seat in an upset and then lost his wife and young daughter in a tragic auto accident in the previous 18 months.  

I had the great honor of being one of two persons representing the Commonwealth of Virginia in a program jointly sponsored by the W. Randolph Hearst Foundation and the U.S. Senate, the U.S. Senate Youth Program.  It consisted of travel to D.C., fine hotel (the Mayflower) and dining, privileged tours of all the great edifices of our Republic (my favorite is the Library of Congress, though the Supreme Court is indeed most impressive), but, most of all, it featured private audiences with the high and mighty of the day--usually a speech, including a lot of content about that official's role, and some Q and A with the attendees--did I mention we were all high school seniors? My one real obligation, besides behaving myself, was appearing for a photo op with Virginia's Senators, who were undoubtedly the worst duo in the nation at the time (Harry Byrd and William Scott). 

Great care was taken in the selection of speakers, who all showed impressive consideration in taking their  scheduled event, and mostly showed some enthusiasm about the civic educational function the whole thing represented.   One more thing they showed was courage:  we were a keen, well-informed bunch and far from passive in this highly-charged moment of history. 

For the Watergate scandal was at a peak then:  Nixon's resignation was only months away, and he was basically hunkered down in his bunker.  Still, we were granted access to Vice President Gerald Ford and other officials of Cabinet or near-Cabinet rank (not Kissinger, though), along with Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart.  In particular, though, a host of Senators came before us, one at a time. 

Not too many of them that I can remember were Republicans.  Chuck Percy (IL) I know was one. They didn't want to speculate about the looming question of impeaching Nixon.  Two of the old-timers of the moment I remember in particular were Jennings Randolph (WV), an expert on the history of the Senate, and former VP and then-Senator Hubert Humphrey, an impressive wind-up speechifier if ever there was one.  We also saw the other Senator from Minnesota, young Walter Mondale, who I remember being somewhat flustered by our frank questions. 

If I'm not mistaken, Senator Edward Kennedy had to cancel on us, but we had a substitute, Senator Biden.

May, 2022:  We were taken aback, somewhat. Here was this young upstart--recently widowed, with his own children deceased in an auto accident, winner by the narrowest of margins in a huge upset.  We knew nothing and expected little.

 (By 'we', I mean the vibe of our group, the selected prospective student leaders. At least we cared enough to fill out the application.) 

But he was the one whose appearance before us gained the most approval.  His frankness, his urgency--who knew how long he would serve?  He certainly had no reason to think it would be decades--and his empathy, they came across to us, who had expectations, desires, curiosity. 

The circumstance, of Biden replacing the no-longer-electable Teddy, caused me to see an indirect connection to Biden as a Latter-Day Kennedy, which I have clung to, against all others, ever since. Anyway, among my many outrageous pronouncements during that fall, my freshman year of college (now post-Nixon), one was the advocacy of the notion of Biden as future President.  (He, then, like AOC now, was not old enough.)

My friends, it must be said, looked at me askance:  they were skeptical of the bona fides of any Democrat, no matter how seemingly progressive (I think Fred Harris was popular in our circle in early 1976 there, before Carter caught on), and Biden would not put his toe in the Presidential water at all for another decade or more.

They were certainly right in their skepticism in the years that followed, and I could not explain it away.  He disappointed me, so many times.  His sponsorship on the dastardly Crime Bill was a concession to the crime panic of the time (and we seem to have that one building again now, too!).  I found his sponsorship of the much-despised Bankruptcy Bill in the early aughts more defensible:  after all, he was the senator from Delaware.  If the rest of the country wanted to use bankruptcy as its curtain covering the cost of massive numbers of health-related family financial failures, it was his duty to make sure it was a fair bill, one preventing excessive exploitation of its lenient provisions. (Note:  student loans the exception--why?)  

I was not a supporter in his previous runs; as I recall it, I was for Al Gore in '88 (until Ed Koch's endorsement killed him), and Biden's speech plagiarism fiasco in that campaign is now legendary, and now seems so quaintly distant. The years passed, and he became less relevant until Obama picked him out for VP in 2008 (somewhat parallel to Biden's choosing failed competitor Kamala Harris).  

Still, there is fulfillment, for me, after all these years.  And for Joe Biden.  His destiny was present, essential, but indiscernible.  Now we know what it was, all along. 

Vindman is Half-Right

Former Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, of 1st impeachment fame, was on Amanpour tonight advocating an aggressive approach to the Ukraine invasion. His interlocutor was visibly surprised by the earnest advocacy of a less risk-averse strategy for the US and its allies to pursue. 

His professed belief is that a little counter-attack strength will be the best deterrence to Putin at this point. If there is no change, Putin will be able to slowly grind Ukraine down, one of the worst possible outcomes. One thing he said that I totally agree upon, is that we are overthinking the complications involved in the proposed transfer of Polish Soviet-era MIG's over to Ukraine. 

More broadly, we are thinking much too narrowly of the possible range of operations of Ukrainians against Russia. Particpation against the Putinist War and Russian assets--again within Cold War proxy warfare rules, which I would say is the basic approach Putin has regressed upon--can be worldwide, anywhere Russian-style autocracy does not hold sway. So, his suggestion is simply to bring Ukrainian pilots over to Poland, file all the appropriate papers for the loan of Polish assets guaranteed by US dollars or whatever, and have them fly the planes over the border, immediately merging with whatever Ukrainian air assets remain and starting to make a more active air competition over Ukraine. All legit. 

Just this will make a big difference in the Russian strategy, if I'm right, as those vulnerable Russian columns of armored troops would become one 40-mile-long immobile target for attack. The whole top-down Russian battle plan assumes air superiority--it relies upon it.  The results would be catastrophic for the plan. Think of the US destruction of the Iraqi armor in the latter stages of Gulf War I. Putin can't risk that, or shouldn't.

Rationally, his move would then be to move to freeze the battle, or at least buy a little time before continuing to attack. (Remember there were two Chechen wars; the second one was the more brutal one.) 

Vindman is more aggressive than I. He says attack Russian air assets in Belarus. To me, that means expanding the war beyond Ukraine's borders. I was thinking attack those artillery assets firing on Kharkiv from inside Russia--that is fair game, but that might not be quite as much a shock to the Russians as pulverizing their invading troops. 

So,again, it is creating that threat of loss of massive invasion assets which I'd advocate. 

Some other time, maybe I will go into more detail with another harebrained idea, involving the Russians'  enclave at Kaliningrad. For now, I'd just say that, as part of the Aegean Sea blockade of Russian Navy and cargo exiting the Black Sea, there should be some training program for Free Ukrainian Navy SEALs. 

My next post will be for the one actor in this tragic episode that I have had the pleasure of meeting, our President Biden. He has so much on his plate, and he is doing his best with this unforgiving, soul-destroying job, that of protecting the best hopes of mankind, while keeping us out of war. Something wearily familiar in the latter history of this land (Wilson FDR LBJ). At least, unlike the Ukrainians, he asked for the job. I'm sure he'd agree, this is all Trump's fault. So would Vindman.

Nationalise Chelsea F.C.!

We must face the fact that the Cold War is back on. 

We have Putin recklessly pursuing revanchist expansion dreams for Mother Russia, the invasion on his Ukraine neighbor a violent homage to USSR days that imprinted his mind set and behavior.  The US finds itself anchoring a coalition of free nations resisting authoritarian aggression.  Anything is thinkable except direct conflict between the US and Russia.  

So, Russians abroad need to make some choices.  If you are not with Putin and funding his outrages, then you must break with him--"defect", it used to be called.  And, not just renounce the Putinist Russian regime, but actively contribute to its ultimate defeat.  Assets belonging to Putinist Russian entities or sanctioned individuals should be seized, not just frozen.  Proceeds will go toward eventual claims against Russia on behalf of its victims.  Assets to seize include oil and gas shipments; the owners of those assets can apply to get redress, if they prove their cause.  That would be after they were utilized during the present crisis, though.  

I would broaden the scope of sanctions, not just to Putin and his family, but to every member of the Duma that voted for invasion, violating international law.  The purpose is, indeed, punitive: Any deterrent days of those sanctions are ended,  not coming back. 

The Strange Case of Mr. Abramovitch

As a young man, Roman Abramovitch was one of the future-oligarch cronies of Putin during the future despot's years of rise to untrammeled domestic power.  He made a pile of dough, then emigrated--or has tried to, over a long period of time.  A little research turns up that Abramovitch, who has Jewish roots, was able to obtain an Israeli passport in 2018, and then, late last year, a Portuguese one, legally issued under a law in that country permitting it.  

A passport of any EU country permits residence in any other one.  This is where it gets complicated:  Roman would like to reside in the U.K., in London to be specific, with his pride and joy, the Chelsea Football Club, currently Champions Cup holders and third in the English Premier League of soccer.  Brexit being what it is, neither passport gives him full-time residence in the U.K., though they each give him some relative privilege in getting visas to be there.  Privilege that can be cancelled.  Beyond just that, I think if the authorities in Portugal and Israel took a very close look, they would find some error or possible area needing further review in each one (I don't know if Roman still has the Israeli one), with the passport's active status revoked in the meantime. Like the undertaker in the Godfather saga, in an organization any member may find it is their time to make a special contribution to the whole. It is the time for Portugal to do its bit for NATO. Israel is playing it cool, a low profile in the confrontation, so far--it, more than most nations, "understands"+ the need occasionally to step over recognized borderlines in the interest of perceived national security. ^  

I saw an essay from someone suggesting blowing up one of Abramovitch's possessions, a multi-centi-million dollar yacht.  I too question the need for that yacht continuing to exist in any form, but I would let him stay on it as a stateless person.  Unless he makes a considerable sacrifice:  it could be to take on the Free Ukrainian citizenship that will soon be available for refugees from the conflict and give generously to their cause (I'm thinking a billion pounds or so), or it could be to yield to Boris Johnson's apparent desire to get at that luscious sportive asset, merely takes a vote of Parliament, who I expect will be most willing.  Once the British get possession of the team (again, Roman could apply for redress, which would get the most modern, expedited post-Covid non-attention), they can operate it for the benefit of Ukrainian relief funds.  Ultimate ownership can be determined later, though it should recognize the permanent stakeholder status of the West London borough residents.  I assume Roman won't agree to just go back to Mother Russia and leave all the fruits of his ill-gotten gains behind. 

Why am I turning on Roman, who has certainly brought unprecedented success to my club through his period of some two decades of owning it?  Well, thank you, Roman, but I owe you no more loyalty than you did, say, for Romeo Lukaku, or Mohammed Salah?   (The first Abramovitch loaned out, lost, then bought back for too much; the second is the superstar that got away and eventually found his way back to one of Chelsea's archrivals).   Or for the 1001 coaches you've had hired and fired.* To be fair, Abramovitch's money has brought great talent, and those players, and their myriad talented coaches, have added to the club's brand.  To be Cold War-style ruthless, we can do without Roman now.

Just an example.  There are eight million stories in the Naked Refugee World. 

Closing Notes

--I should say something to the Russian public**:  we can stop this from becoming Cold War II.  

The first one ended so badly for you.  It's not unlike what the US will have to do to eliminate the influence of the (still!) Putin-brown-nosing traitor Dickhead45 from our society.  It must start, in Russia, at the local level--remove the cadres who hold up your Fearless Leader. Renounce toxic nationalism based on ethnicity!*** 

--I know why Putin wanted control of Chernobyl; it's to hide the past from the world's further scrutiny and the humiliation of the USSR's epic fail there.

--"paranoid, myth-making, grievance-oriented" - if you are looking for words to describe Putin that can be shared at the cocktail table, this was CNN International Anchor Christiane Amanpour's carefully-articulated description of today's Vladimir.   Thank you Ms. Amanpour.

_________________________

+The term the Chinese Foreign Minister gave as his reaction to the Russian argument for invasion. 

^The US, of course, should not be viewed as above these other nations in their history of observing them, either 

* I exaggerate slightly. 

**Who are near the top in Google's listing of the source of hits on this blog (even if only for spam purposes, in many cases). 

***Look up the animated series, "Rocky and Bullwinkle". 

Showing Him the Door

The door is not a jar. 

 I was rather shocked that these diplomatic experts on Sunday's talks had no real idea what it would take to de-fuse the ticking bomb of Russia's massing of forces outside the Ukraine.  So, as far as i can tell, none of these simple but effective notions were presented: 

0)  Counter-proposal to Russia's request to retreat to pre-1989 NATO:  Ukraine wants its nukes back!  Perfectly reasonable request, it yielded them voluntarily (under pressure from the West) as part of a comprehensive security guarantee for the Ukraine (to which Russia also agreed).  Since that guarantee is obviously no longer operable, the West will consider Russia's request for a return to never when they  comply with this request from the Volensky government (note: not a replacement puppet one)

1)  Withdrawal of forces; creation of demilitarized buffer zone.  I suggest 150 km, but that also applies to Russian and Belarussian forces at the Ukrainian border.  Russia would insist on some right to mess with "autonomous" Donbas if Ukraine violates the demilitarized zone there, but otherwise commit to respect Ukraine's territorial sovereignty .   Except for....

2) Conference on the Permanent Status of Crimea - The ultimate objective would be to ratify the fait accompli, nothing more.  Russia took it in 2014, in a flash, Then they announced a referendum on annexing it, and then announced its overwhelming success and subsequent incorporation in Mother Russia.  Russia has a fairly legitimate claim to ownership, which passed to the Ukraine during the Soviet period for obscure reasons.   The Conference would include Ukraine, the US, Europe, and Turkey, and would address claims against Russia related to the invasion and occupation, but Russia would have legal status.  It would solve one of the most difficult problems of all in de-escalation. 

3)  Germany will commit to 'accelerating its review of NordStream2'  when Russia completes 1) and commits to joining 2).   Wink, wink.  A carrot, as opposed to a stick. 

There would not be any concession on those crazy Russian proposals, yet we are talking about something real, and particularly for eliminating any reason to claim a military threat to Russia proper (or its satellite, Belarus).  

President Biden has insisted he was not advised how the Afghan military and government control were in no way prepared for the period after the US withdrawal.  If he reads here, then he will know the way to find the Holy Off-Ramp! (Batman...)

The State of Sports, Pt. 2

 On the Absence of Any Alternative to The Fall Classic

The Romans knew it:  Bread and circuses were the key to domestic tranquility.  Bread--nowadays, the economy--is a subject for another day, but the meaning of circuses here and now is our own sporting industry, competitive and gladatorial. It is almost a national necessity to ensure that the events continue despite any circumstances. At least in peacetime. 

The Fall Classic, of course, is the World Series of our Major League Baseball. In 2021, we had a relatively normal one, after a surprisingly normal regular season and an exciting set of playoff series.  The victory by the Atlanta Braves was a relatively just finish, despite their fans' somewhat odious chant ('The infamous 'Tomahawk'.  Really, it just needs to be re-imagined.)  The franchise did some great things in 2021 to rise from a bad midseason position (trailing, and losing their best player, Ronald Acuna, Jr. to injury); they picked up no less than four quality replacements who showed up in the postseason. 

So, a bad time to take on the needless anxiety for the 2022 season arising from the lockout of the majors' players by the owners now (a lack of a new union contract).   I think I will await some progress on the negotiations, which have just been agreed to begin shortly after 45 days, with about as many to get a deal. Meanwhile, back to the main topic. 

The Aussie Should Move to November

That is my outrageous suggestion, one which I make with all seriousness for consideration by the sport of pro tennis. 

I would suggest putting it 3-5 weeks before the current year-end, match-play style tournaments in early December.  In other words, early November. I think it would add some needed luster to the season's mediocre ending and would end up making the first two months of the calendar year a true vacation, one that I think would enhance the consistency and health of the players in the other ten. 

It's no real challenge going from Melbourne, Australia to anywhere in the world for the top eight men and top eight women, with a couple of weeks and today's private jet services.  The challenge would be the time zone adjustment and preparation time needed in Australia--just as it is now, but with this change, having a good month or more after the current last Grand Slam of the season, the US Open in September, for those who wished to take on the challenge of the new climax of the season. 

The big benefit, though, will be to the Australian Open itself.  Instead of the fourth of the grand slams, it would be on more equal footing in terms of significance.  Then, there is the climate factor:  each year, the heat during this time of year (think: hotter than the Fourth of July) has been getting worse, and more consistently worse for that matter.  Moving it to a lovely spring period might present some precipitation challenges, but that's what being a modern big-time sporting venue sometimes requires. 

I think there is no better sport for the Australians to show their sporting hospitality prowess.  It is certainly nothing like the grudge match with England in cricket.  OK, maybe like rugby.  So, what is this stupidity about Djokovic and his lack of immunity?  We all know when Novak (the new moniker is 'no-mask') had it:  it was in the first summer of Covid, 2020.  If we could only think back to then....but he's been isolated in his hotel long enough that if he had omicron, it would show.  Unfortunately for him, the national PM has a point to make as he looks toward a tough re-election battle based on the success of his heavy lockdown approach. 

All right, forget tennis as the replacement, but I will comment below on its competitive situation.  Next? 

Breaking News in Football: A Tie Can Be Better than Kissing Your Sister 

Football pretends to be a fall sport, but its focus is really in the winter.  At least, the NFL's is. The transition from the useless preseason games into the real season is hardly noticeable, and I can barely pay attention to the oversensitive retired jock blather through much of the regular season.  As playoffs and the season itself continue to expand, there is less pressure on coaches and their teams in the early-going.  Lots of time to work things out, if your team is competitive; the season still doesn't have that many games but there's room to lose a couple here or there in the fall.  The crunch comes in the last three weeks of the season, when the arcane tiebreaking scenarios and their resolution give games artificial significance.   

In this "Biggest Season of All", the regular-season crunch now has moved ever later, into the holidays and the new year. In recent years the NFL has expanded the season with the bye week, expanded the number of days nationally televised games are available, added yet a 17th regular-season game (taking away a preseason one, I hope) and now, the number of teams making the playoffs (from six to seven, for each conference). All of the other moves worked spectacularly well for the industry; the public has not reached saturation, somehow, and the NFL's product marketing remains excellent. 

The audience attraction for the last weekend ended up being the battles for those two seventh-and-last spots, set up by some of the recent surprise results.  On the NFC side, the 49ers produced the largest comeback of the season (17 points at halftime) to win their berth.  The AFC spot came down to the very last game to be played in the schedule. The Raiders, who have finally found a home for their renegade marauding, in Las Vegas, hosted the Chargers, who broke San Diego's heart recently by moving to a megastadium near L.A.  

The winner of the game would get the spot, the loser eliminated. There was one wrinkle, though;  in the NFL regular season they now play an overtime period, 10 minutes or less.  Most of the overtime games end with one team scoring more or sooner, but it is possible for there to be a tie--it happens typically once or twice a season.   The Pittsbugh Steelers, who won a game in overtime earlier on Sunday, were one of those teams with a tie in their record this season.  Their win Sunday afternoon would put them into the playoff brackets.  Unless....unless the Raiders and Chargers should tie.   In that one odd case, both those teams would make it in, and the Steelers would be out. 

To make the story as short as I can, I jump to the crux of it.  Through a combination of relatively unlikely occurrences, without really aiming to do so the Raiders-Chargers result collided at the improbable football score of 29 each at the end of regulation time.  In the overtime, each team's first possession ended in a 3-point field goal.  The Raiders found themselves with the ball, near midfield, with a couple minutes left, and the score tied at 32. The next score would win, but, if neither team scored anymore, they would both get through. 

At this point, Raiders coach  Rich Bisaccia (his success to this point itself a major story, as he was named head coach in a disastrous situation in the middle of the season) had to decide whether to take the pragmatic strategy, three running plays to run out the clock and take the tie, or allow the natural competitive juices to flow and go for the win, taking the risk of an adverse outcome.  They ran a couple of running plays, seemingly willing to take the tie.  At this point, Chargers' coach Brandon Staley, who had shown himself earlier in the game to be an outlier risk-taker, took a timeout to stop the clock, with about a minute left.  Why?  Possibly he was thinking to get the ball back and make his bid to win, for some reason.  After that, though, the Raiders ran one more successful play, which put them in the outer range of their field-goal kicker. 

Again, a decision for Bisaccia:  Go for the field goal and the win, with its concomitant risks (the attempt could be blocked, or run back by the defensive team), or, having countered the Chargers' bluff, take a knee and the tie.  They went for the kick, it barely went through, and the Chargers were out and the Steelers saved.  Score one for competitive integrity, minus one for game theory. 

The change to add the seventh team to the playoffs is a winner from the start.  It adds two more nationally-televised games to the frenzied Wild Card weekend, and it places additional emphasis on the challenge to be the best team in the conference and get the bye in that weekend, a week of rest and recovery.   The seeding may not turn out to give those #1 seeds so much advantage:  they will have a week of down time, then face the lowest-seeding team in the next round, but that will be a team that has scrapped to get in and then won their first game.  We have seen in baseball that is a formula for a likely upset. 

As for college football, they miss few chances to get it wrong. I'm hearing a debate about whether to expand their playoffs (currently four teams, nearly always with controversy about the last one or two) to eight or 12, or leave it as it is (the preference of the big schools and their conferences).  The correct answer is 6, or imitate the NFL and go for the touchdown with 7. 

My loony idea for football:  Blind-side shocks damaging the brain and spine are the biggest long-term issue for the issue (credit to the brilliant Michael Lewis for his essay on the subject in his book named "The Blind Side").  Protective helmet technology has come a long way, but I see a radical fix for the problem:  a rear-view camera in the back of the helmet, and a small video capability up by the brow.  Quarterbacks and other skill positions (running back, wide receiver) will be able to use it and brace themselves for those mind-killers. 

Footie:  Coming to America, Part Deux

The game we Americans know as soccer, most of the world calling it some form of 'football', has remained an import most of us have regarded with distrust throughout its history.  There have been efforts to install it as a major draw before (remember Pele on the Cosmos?), then there was the World Cup here in 1994 which briefly raised its profile. 

The current version of the men's professional league (MLS, or Major League Soccer) has lasted a couple of decades and does have significant support, locally, for its franchises.  Those running it have been smart enough to keep their ambitions within their revenues, so far.  

I see a good chance that the game may be lifted up to about the level of fourth place in the US professional sports hierarchy, passing ice hockey (also an import not congenial to most of the country).  The reasons are as follows:  1) The Women's national team's successes have raised our awareness; 2) Youth leagues and high school teams continue to grow (partially assisted by parents' fears of American football injuries to their children); 3) The US will be hosting the men's World Cup again in 2026 (with Canada--something that has not penetrated general awareness yet); and 4) Christian Pulisic. 

Pulisic may be the best men's player the US has ever produced; he is, for my money, clearly the most exciting one.  He doesn't just "play like an American"--he has been coached in the international style and has proved himself, first in the German Bundesliga and now for my team, Chelsea, in the English Premier League.  This spring, he became the first American to feature on a team winning the European club championship.  He is the undoubted star of the US Men's National Team, and I'm gunning for them to equal or surpass their modern best performance, the quarter-finals of the tournament, in the ridiculous, but neutral, arenas of Qatar, the host for the 2022 World Cup.

As for me, I now have an MLS team, NYCFC (an expansion team, which uses the English "Football Club" in its handle).  For now, they play in Yankee Stadium (the Yankees are part-owners) when the baseball team isn't there.   They surprised everyone and won the MLS Cup through penalty kicks recently. 

The Future Is Encouraging

All these sports are showing impressive talent rising from our youngest adults, who are moving to push the aging veterans out of their positions at the top.  Soccer always has them, but now they are arising from more parts of the world than ever.  American football has the likes of rising, highly skilled quarterbacks Justin Herbert, Taylor Lawrence, Lamar Jackson, and Joe Burrow, recent graduates from the college game who have already proven they can stand up against the Tom Brady/Aaron Rodgers/Ben Roethlisberger axis in the pro passing game.   Similarly, basketball has Ja Morant, Trae Young, and Giannis Antetokounmpo to challenge Lebron, Chris Paul, and the other Old Guard hoopsters.  And tennis, with the Big 3 finally near to moving on (except Djokovic, who will have to be shoved off the court), shows rising stars like Carlos Alcazar (the "new Rafael Nadal", only bigger physically), Coco Gauff, Naomi Osaka, and a host of Eastern European and Americans rising through the ranks.  In last year's dramatic Olympics and US Open, Alexander Zverev and Daniil Medvedev showed that Djoko is no longer invincible in Grand Slam finals. 

And, the professional leagues are generally showing more balance, if not quite parity, with several teams capable of performing at the highest level.  Generally, they are the ones with the highest payrolls, but not always so. 

Postscript:  

I am encouraged by the report from yesterday's first formal negotiations between the baseball players' union and the team owners.  The players are seeking earlier free agency and a larger cut of the pie, the owners are suggesting measures for a bigger pie.  In particular, I note the owners' offer of an expansion of the postseason to 14 teams (from the current 10).  Not exactly the magic 7 (per league) the NFL found, though; I expect it would be a play-in tournament of teams 4-7 (one game, or at most 2-out-of-3), while the three division winners get a week off to recover and line up their starting rotation.  The solution always seems to be to lengthen the season, give the fans more.  

What I really see from this is that The Fall Classic for 2022 should be safe, and maybe the season will even start on time.