The New World Order Series

Back in 2008, Barack Oba­ma made a com­ment com­par­ing the long­shot odds of an African-Amer­i­can win­ning a pres­i­den­tial elec­tion to the odds of the Boston Red Sox win­ning the World Series.1 Famous­ly, the Red Sox had won in 2007 for the first time since… well, OK, since 2004. But before that they had­n’t won since 1918.

Oba­ma took some (admit­ted­ly light-heart­ed) jabs for root­ing for the Red Sox, and since he is cur­rent­ly root­ing for the Cubs he’s get­ting some of the same crit­i­cism this year. Hav­ing lived in a num­ber of places in the coun­try myself, I can relate to hav­ing mixed sports loy­al­ties, or at least mul­ti­ple sports sym­pa­thies. I grew up in Red Sox ter­ri­to­ry and will always have some loy­al­ty there. My moth­er’s side of the fam­i­ly comes from Chica­go and I have a num­ber of oth­er con­nec­tions to the Windy City (includ­ing hav­ing lived there dur­ing my first year of col­lege.) I nev­er fig­ured out that my moth­er’s side of the fam­i­ly hav­ing come from the South Side that I was sup­posed to have White Sox in my DNA, so I end­ed up with a lot of love for the Cubs. Liv­ing for close to half my life in San Fran­cis­co (includ­ing being there for Loma Pri­eta, the day that base­ball saved hun­dreds of lives) left an indeli­ble Giants brand, but the above­men­tioned sym­pa­thies remain. If the Giants aren’t in the series, I don’t think that it’s hyp­o­crit­i­cal or fair-weath­er fan­dom to root for the Cubs, or for Oba­ma, a Hah­vahd man, to have root­ed for the Red Sox.

In any case, my rec­ol­lec­tion is that Oba­ma him­self drew the par­al­lel, cre­at­ing a nar­ra­tive that life imi­tates base­ball which dove­tailed nice­ly with his 2008 «Hope» campaign.

Now it’s 2016, and as I write the sev­enth game of the World Series has just begun. I don’t know the out­come, but the nar­ra­tive here fits with the best that sports ought to be: the Cleve­land Indi­ans haven’t won the World Series since 1948, and the Chica­go Cubs haven’t won since 1908. No mat­ter how this turns out, the results will be historic.

The Cubs have come back from a 3 – 1 deficit after game four to force a sev­enth game. That in itself is a unusu­al come­back — a rare one if they go on to win.2

The par­al­lels to this elec­tion cycle are spooky. Okay, it’s all sym­bol­ic, but if Oba­ma can draw those 2007 World Series and 2008 pres­i­den­tial elec­tion par­al­lels3 then I can put on my foil hat and com­pare the narratives.

Clin­ton is from Chica­go. Yes, that’s where she’s actu­al­ly from despite the oth­er places she’s also from. She is the first woman nom­i­nee from a top-two par­ty in US his­to­ry, and in good shape to be the first woman Pres­i­dent of these Unit­ed States.

Her oppo­nent, Don­ald Trump, is arguably the most open­ly misog­y­nist4 can­di­date ever to clinch the nom­i­na­tion of a major par­ty in the Unit­ed States since the Nine­teenth Amend­ment guar­an­teed women the right to vote. He is also a «long­shot» can­di­date, not hav­ing held pre­vi­ous office and hav­ing run a cam­paign about which «uncon­ven­tion­al» would be an understatement.

Note as well that the Repub­li­can Con­ven­tion at which Trump was nom­i­nat­ed to be the GOP can­di­date was held in Cleveland.

Shall I also point out that the Cleve­land team is the one bear­ing a name based on a com­plete lack of cul­tur­al or geo­graph­ic knowl­edge? Nev­er mind the team which has an offen­sive car­i­ca­ture for a logo.

This elec­tion cycle has had so many last-minute twists and turns — I’ve lost count of the the num­ber of «Octo­ber sur­pris­es» and expect there are a cou­ple of Novem­ber sur­pris­es still in store — that it’s fair to com­pare it to a World Series which has gone to Game Sev­en. (Do I even need to point out that the elec­tion is for the office com­mon­ly referred to as «leader of the free world»?)

So who is going to win? I’m bad at pre­dict­ing, but I’ll keep doing it any­way. My pre­dic­tion — and my fear — is that the World Series will pre­dict the out­come of the elec­tion, that if the Cubs win Clin­ton will as well and that if Cleve­land wins Trump will be the next President.

Why fear? Because there is enough irre­spon­si­ble rhetoric from the Trump camp about rigged elec­tions. A con­spir­a­cy the­o­ry sug­gest­ing that both the Unit­ed States elec­tions and Major League Base­ball (or is that Big League Base­ball?) could be rigged just heaps more momen­tum on the cam­paign of FUD (Fear, Uncer­tain­ty, and Doubt) which seeks to unweave the fab­ric of our nation.

So per­haps I’ll sug­gest only that the World Series is being played out in an atavis­tic man­ner which will presage the Pres­i­den­tial elec­tion. That a win for the Cubs will embold­en the Chica­go fac­tion, and that a win for the Indi­ans will embold­en Cleveland.

Or hey, all I’ve been doing is pro­mot­ing a nut­ball the­o­ry based on vague and ten­u­ous coin­ci­dences and sup­port­ed by noth­ing sci­en­tif­ic, empir­i­cal, or even log­i­cal. So maybe Trump has already won.5


  1. I haven’t found the cita­tion for this. It’s my own rec­ol­lec­tion. Take with appro­pri­ate chunks of rock salt. 
  2. It’s hap­pened, but not often. Ten times total. It’s even hap­pened to the Indi­ans before: http://m.mlb.com/news/article/3620268// 
  3. Yes, those ones I haven’t cit­ed. 
  4. See com­ments about the word «misog­y­nist». 
  5. Or maybe I’m just angry because Don­ald Trump has tak­en all the fun out of con­spir­a­cy the­o­ries. 

3 Replies to “The New World Order Series”

  1. A cou­ple tech­ni­cal points
    “Shall I also point out that the Cleve­land team is the one bear­ing a name based on a com­plete lack of cul­tur­al or geo­graph­ic knowledge?”

    Are you try­ing to say there were no Indi­ans, er, Native Amer­i­cans, in Ohio? The Eries, Shawnees, Kick­apoos and oth­ers might disagree.

    And in my dic­tio­nar­ies, “misog­y­ny” is defined as “hatred for women” (I checked Amer­i­can Her­itage, Mer­ri­am Web­ster, and Encar­ta.) so I don’t that is a valid charge against Trump. Crude and dis­re­spect­ful at times, perhaps.

    1. Dad wrote: Are you try­ing to
      [quote=Dad]Are you try­ing to say there were no Indi­ans, er, Native Amer­i­cans, in Ohio? The Eries, Shawnees, Kick­apoos and oth­ers might disagree.[/quote]

      The Cleve­land team is *not* named for the Eries, Shawnees, or Kick­apoos. It’s got a name that stuck because ear­ly Euro­pean explor­ers could­n’t fig­ure out that they were nei­ther in India nor were they com­mu­ni­cat­ing with peo­ple from India. It was an hon­est mis­take, but one that was­n’t cor­rect­ed until the best any­one could come up with was «Native Amer­i­can» or «Indige­nous Amer­i­can». I’ll stand by «lack of […] knowledge.»

      I don’t *real­ly* have much prob­lem with the team being named «Indi­ans». The logo/mascot seems in poor taste by mod­ern sen­si­bil­i­ties. Being some­thing I grew up see­ing, it did­n’t both­er me until I saw the [«New York Jews» and «San Fran­cis­co Chi­na­men» hats](http://cleveland.cbslocal.com/2013/10/08/racism-of-sports-logos-put-into-context-by-american-indian-group/) made to cause a reac­tion out­side of the famil­iar­i­ty of the logo. Now it makes me cringe. 

      [quote=Dad]And in my dic­tio­nar­ies, “misog­y­ny” is defined as “hatred for women” (I checked Amer­i­can Her­itage, Mer­ri­am Web­ster, and Encar­ta.) so I don’t that is a valid charge against Trump. Crude and dis­re­spect­ful at times, perhaps.[/quote]

      Maybe a bor­der­line case; he does not seem to have open hatred of women, no. But I con­tend that it’s stronger than «dis­re­spect­ful at times». He seems to have lit­tle respect for women beyond what he can get from them, and even then with lit­tle or no regard that they have any right to deny him what he wants. That might be a form of appre­ci­a­tion, but it’s still steeped in contempt.

      Admit­ted­ly, that’s not very dif­fer­ent from how he seems to regard men. Per­haps if he were gay he’d have boast­ed about kiss­ing men with­out con­sent or «grab­bing them by the cock.» Such hypo­thet­i­cals are moot. There are plen­ty of peo­ple of all gen­ders and per­sua­sions who val­ue con­sent. But he’s not gay, and this kind of behav­ior is direct­ed toward women.

      This is a top­ic which deserves a deep­er dis­cus­sion, but it’s not the crude­ness of his «hot mic» com­ments that offends me — the vul­gar­i­ty *can* legit­i­mate­ly be chalked up to what he calls «lock­er room talk.» What is most trou­bling about his talk on the Access Hol­ly­wood tape is how he talked about grop­ing kiss­ing *with­out con­sent* and with a clear under­stand­ing that he could­n’t get away with it if he weren’t wealthy, famous, and powerful.

      That rais­es ques­tions about his respect for the con­cept of gov­ern­men­t’s legit­i­ma­cy being based on the con­sent of the gov­erned. But again, that’s going fur­ther afield the topic.

    2. Misog­y­ny
      [quote=Dad]And in my dic­tio­nar­ies, “misog­y­ny” is defined as “hatred for women”[/quote]

      After con­fer­ring with oth­ers on this usage and seman­tic issue, OK, I con­cede that «con­tempt» and «hatred» aren’t the same.

      *The Ran­dom House Web­ster’s Dic­tio­nary* adds «…or hos­til­i­ty.» Oth­er dic­tio­nary entries begin­ning with «mis-» (eg «mis­an­thrope») also add «dis­trust.» That’s not quite as far off, but still not exact­ly what we’re describ­ing with Trump.

Leave a Reply