Should All Selections Be Contests?

What’s your favorite contest? The Super Bowl? The Stanley Cup? The MLB World Series? The Final Four? How about some portion of the summer or winter Olympics? Or maybe a few of the college, elementary or high school level contests that lead up to a championship? Television strains to design new contests each year—Chops Champion, The Bachelor, Naked and Afraid, American Ninja Warrior, Survivor, the Amazing Race, So You Think You Can Dance, Kids Baking Championship, etc., etc., etc.  Something for everyone. The drama of winners and losers mesmerizes. Even spelling can become a serious contest. Competition excitement lures viewers into becoming fans. Players can become icons. Commentators raise the intensity. Face paint, banners, all sorts of merch encourage enthusiasts to show their colors.

International soccer is infamous for the fights that can ensue engagement as fans seem rabid. American sports don’t trail very far behind. Referees watch for rule infringement during the games, but fans secretly hope for ferocity. The money exchanged for games, paychecks, betting, and arenas boggles the imagination. No price seems too high for a national hero who scores winning points. The only unforgivable sin is to lose—or at least to lose too often. Americans admit they love their contests and invest heavily without complaint in their continuance.

And then there are the political elections. Even people who swear they detest politics and couldn’t point out on a map most of the countries involved in wars and conflicts including the United States, even those people can act like rabid fans of their parties that are suddenly treated as teams in a contest. For many, loyalty is more important than performance. The artifacts are there—the t-shirts, banners, face paint, and flags, to mention some of the merch. As in sports, the idea is to make money and generate power for future decisions. Since President Regan, television interviews no longer need present both sides of an issue, so they often don’t.

Opponents can be beaten—financially, socially, even physically—according to information that can be false, sometimes without any repercussions if the team gains enough power. The reputations of opponents are fair targets for smears that can veer wildly away from facts. Candidates beg and threaten those they hope are their constituents—especially the conspicuously well-off– for money which can be parlayed into media image which can be parlayed into power. Few voters can discuss candidate records, seeking honest answers. They tend to vote for people they think they like. Moral indiscretions can be ignored. Blatant lies can be swallowed whole. Again, the only unforgivable sin is to lose. No one wants to back a loser.

But should an election of the people who will be trusted to represent the needs of the populace and the integrity of the country be so similar to contests designed strictly for profit? Shouldn’t an election be about selection (thoughtful choice), instead of contest? Shouldn’t the voters be choosing according to qualifications and ability? Doesn’t every country yearn for leaders who can improve the lives of their citizens and protect their boundaries from invasion? Don’t most people simply want a good life, peaceful and comfortable? We’ve already witnessed the outcomes of poorly chosen political leaders who shrink the coffers of the people and defile the gravity of the situations, basking in notoriety and self-aggrandizement. As in the choice of a coach for a winning team, selection should require careful consideration because this time the consequences won’t disappear at the end of a season, as in sports. Instead, proponents of all conceivable viewpoints may be forced to suffer into the future. Let the games begin?