Two sports-takes that probably no one cares about.

First, I can’t believe Ohio State is being considered for the playoffs. I would much rather see a deserving 10-2 Clemson or even a 10-3 Utah. They at least won their conference. I would even rather see a one loss Southern Cal make the playoff. They at least played in their conference championship. I hate that Ohio State, the most overrated team in the past decade, can benefit from sitting at home while USC is penalized for playing in a conference game. The playoff should be the top four conference winners. No more of who deserves it. No one deserves anything. If you want in, then win your conference, period. If they keep talking about who deserves it, that it should be the best four teams no matter the record than I can make a good argument for Georgia, Tennessee, Alabama, and LSU being the four teams. Does anyone deny any of those four can beat any of the other teams in contention right now.

My second take is on my least favorite athlete, LeBron James This week he threw a tantrum because the media did not ask him about the Jerry Jones scandal this week but plagued him with questions about Kyrie Irving last month, alluding that the media was racist. Here is my answer to James. Why should they? Who are you that you think we care about your opinion on everything? If you are unfamiliar with the story here is the breakdown. The media asked James about Irving who is a basketball player, the same sport that James plays. It was about an event that occurred last month when Irving posted his support of an antisemitic movie. James and Irving know each other well having played on the same team and lastly, James claims to be a social justice warrior, unless its helping people from other nations who buy his shoes, and the media wondered why James was not condemning Irving. As for the Jerry Jones situation, it deals with football, which I am pretty sure is not James’ sport. It was about a photo that was taken 65 years ago when as a 14-year-old boy he attended a rally to stop the Little Rock Nine from attending Central High School. It also involved a man who James is not familiar with. They never played together or run in the same circles. I don’t care if James wants to share his opinion, I certainly do, I just don’t understand why James feels he should be asked about the situation. Is he upset he was not asked about the social justice issues in Iran right now, probably not. By the way I am not saying the Jones is not a story, it is, if for nothing else we can use it to teach about nine incredibly brave teens who risked their lives to challenge segregation. I am just saying the story is not about James.

 

Two sports-takes that probably no one cares about. 

First, I can’t believe Ohio State is being considered for the playoffs. I would much rather see a deserving 10-2 Clemson or even a 10-3 Utah. They at least won their conference. I would even rather see a one loss Southern Cal make the playoff. They at least played in their conference championship. I hate that Ohio State, the most overrated team in the past decade, can benefit from sitting at home while USC is penalized for playing in a conference game. The playoff should be the top four conference winners. No more of who deserves it. No one deserves anything. If you want in, then win your conference, period. If they keep talking about who deserves it, that it should be the best four teams no matter the record than I can make a good argument for Georgia, Tennessee, Alabama, and LSU being the four teams. Does anyone deny any of those four can beat any of the other teams in contention right now.

My second take is on my least favorite athlete, LeBron James This week he threw a tantrum because the media did not ask him about the Jerry Jones scandal this week but plagued him with questions about Kyrie Irving last month, alluding that the media was racist. Here is my answer to James. Why should they? Who are you that you think we care about your opinion on everything? If you are unfamiliar with the story here is the breakdown. The media asked James about Irving who is a basketball player, the same sport that James plays. It was about an event that occurred last month when Irving posted his support of an antisemitic movie. James and Irving know each other well having played on the same team and lastly, James claims to be a social justice warrior, unless its helping people from other nations who buy his shoes, and the media wondered why James was not condemning Irving. As for the Jerry Jones situation, it deals with football, which I am pretty sure is not James’ sport. It was about a photo that was taken 65 years ago when as a 14-year-old boy he attended a rally to stop the Little Rock Nine from attending Central High School. It also involved a man who James is not familiar with. They never played together or run in the same circles. I don’t care if James wants to share his opinion, I certainly do, I just don’t understand why James feels he should be asked about the situation. Is he upset he was not asked about the social justice issues in Iran right now, probably not. By the way I am not saying the Jones is not a story, it is, if for nothing else we can use it to teach about nine incredibly brave teens who risked their lives to challenge segregation. I am just saying the story is not about James.

Political Trends

 

An article came out this week from conservative writer George Will in the Washington Post that called for President Joe Biden and V.P. Kamala Harris not to run in the next presidential election. Will, who has opposed Trump from the beginning, basically said that the Republicans might make the mistake of running a man who has proven to be unqualified for the highest office and the Democrats need to protect the nation and not follow suit. Will, who voted for Biden in 2020, believes Biden is too old as seen in recent gaffs. It seems odd to not nominate a sitting president and Americans have become used to most of our presidents serving a full eight years. Only once in the 20^th or 21^st centuries has a party not nominated a sitting president and over the past forty-two years only two presidents have served only one term. Yet there was a time in our history when this was quite common. A time when the nation experienced a string of subpar presidents and went for twenty-four years without having a two-term president or even nominating a sitting president.

Looking back at presidents, you can see times when parties had long runs in power. Thomas Jefferson’s Democratic Republicans basically held power from 1800 to 1828, a twenty-eight-year run. The Republicans then held the White House, with only two interruptions from 1860 to 1932, a seventy-two-year run. Democrats came back with their own run and only one interruption from 1932 to 1968, a thirty-six-year run. It gets harder to tell after that. There could be a mini-run of Republicans from 1968 to 2008, a forty- year run with two interruptions, or maybe Clinton started a Democratic run in 1992 till today, a thirty-year run with two interruptions. The other possibility is that we are mimicking the one time we skipped when there were no runs. The parties went back and forth. The time between Andrew Jackson and Abraham Lincoln, 1836 to 1860, when only one sitting president was renominated and there were no two-term presidents.

This time period started off with the one president that was renominated. Martin Van Buren won as a Democratic in 1836 but his presidency fell into shambles the following year with the Panic of 1837, one of the largest depressions in American history. The same holds true in 1837 as it does today. Americans vote first with their wallets. Van Buren did get the Democratic nod in 1840, but Americans blamed him for their economic woes and voted in the Whig, William Henry Harrison, good old Tippecanoe and his VP Tyler too. Speaking of woes, Harrison gave a long-winded inaugural speech in the cold, got sick and died a month later. It was no longer "Tyler too," but now Tyler alone. He really was alone. He had been a Democrat his entire life but had switched to the Whigs to run on and balance the ticket. He was never supposed to be president and was shunned by both parties. When his term ended, he threw a party and announced to the crowd, “They cannot say now that I am a president without a party.” Clearly the Whigs had no interest in him running for a second term.

In 1844 both parties ran new candidates. The Whigs ran their founder and champion Henry Clay, while the Democrats ran an up-and-comer who most reminded them of Andrew Jackson, James K. Polk. Being from Tennessee, Polk even borrowed Jackson’s nickname and was known as “Young Hickory.” Polk was responsible for arguably the most controversial war in American history, the Mexican War, one that divided the nation along section lines. His presidency was so stressful that he decided to not run again for health reason. It was a good thing, too, or else he would have been the second president to die in office as he did pass about a year after he left the White House.

In 1848 both parties ran completely new candidates once again. Whigs went with their favorite tactic of running a war hero, and after the Mexican War there was none bigger than Zachary Taylor. Democrats, trying to continue to keep the ghost of Jackson alive, ran his Secretary of War, Lewis Cass. Even Jackson’s spirt could not help Cass, who lost to the very charismatic and popular Taylor. However, the Whigs retained their bad luck when, as with their last president, Taylor died, leaving the Whigs with the not as charismatic or popular Millard Filmore.

Not impressed with the Filmore presidency (no, I am not making these names up, they really were all presidents), the Whigs continued their trend and nominated the second most famous general of the Mexican War, Winfield Scott in 1852. The Democrats also ran a new name with Franklin Pierce, who won the day.  Pierce got caught up in the Bleeding Kansas debacle and might as well have been radioactive in the 1856 election, the way the Democratic Party threw him under the bus. The party picked the least controversial candidate they could find, and it turned out to be possibly the worst American president, James Buchanan. As there was no Whig party to speak of, two other parties ran candidates. The Know Nothings, trying to get Whig votes, dug up and ran the corps of Filmore, while the brand-new Republican party ran John C. Freemont. The Republicans had enough Whigs in the party to nominate a military hero. No surprise Buchanan won, being from really the only major party in the race although he would go on to do nothing but watch the nation crumble into Civil War.

Then, of course, there is the 1860 election, where again neither major party ran the same candidate. Democrats ran Stephen Douglas, while the Republicans took a shot at a newcomer and nominated Abraham Lincoln. Lincoln ended the run of new candidates when in 1864 he ran and won a second term. It's hard to imagine the turnover in the presidents as it was between 1836 and 1860, yet we can understand the back-and-forth. We have seen the presidency switch parties after each president since George H.W. Bush in 1988.

What we can learn from this is that, if the pattern holds and if Biden decides not to run, the Republicans will take over. We can also see this as a warning. The years between 1836 and 1860 are some of the most turbulent years in our history. It was during those years that things were becoming so divisive that it led to Civil War. I can’t say whether it was poor leadership that led to war or that even the best of our presidents could not have held us together during those years. However, I am leaning on the side of poor leadership. That means it's up to us now to choose leaders who can properly steer our ship of state and honestly try to unite us instead of playing politics. I am not saying that this is easy. Clearly, the last two presidents have failed, and I have no idea what candidate can truly bridge the divide. All I know is I hope we can find one soon and not suffer the same fate as they did the last time we saw this trend.

Dr. James Finck is a Professor of History at the University of Science and Arts of Oklahoma and Chair of the Oklahoma Civil War Symposium. To receive daily historical posts, follow Historically Speaking at Historicallyspeaking.blog or on Facebook.

 

 

 

Hadestown

With the traveling Broadway production Hadestown currently crossing the nation, I thought I would make a few comments about the show. Most of all I loved it, amazing production on all levels. Hadestown is a retelling of the Greek myths of Hades and Persephone as well as Orpheus and Eurydice. Instead of being all Greek columns the play is a modern adaption set in what seemed like a 1920s or 30s New Orleans flophouse or bar which would fit easily on the set of Streetcar. The style of the music is a perfect accompaniment to the setting with  the style of Dixieland, jazz, and a good dose of blues all wrapped up in a Broadway sound. The music was nothing short of amazing with incredible harmonies from the muses and rich almost haunting melodies. Many of the song were playful, with plenty of trombone, but also songs like, “All I’ve Ever Know” were as romantic and powerful as any song on Broadway.

I would say Hadestown was music driven, especially the first act, the way a play like Phantom is where the music is stronger than the story. The opposite is a play like Come from Away which the story is stronger than the music. The set is very modern in that the orchestra is on stage and often interacts with the characters. The set is also minimal and is not really important to the show. There is only a slight change when going from the bar to Hadestown and the only special effect is the rotating turntable on stage that has become common with many recent plays.

I was familiar with Hades and Persephone, the tale about two gods, Hades the god of the underworld and Persephone goddess of seasons, who fell in love, but Persephone’s mother Demeter goddess of Agriculture could not bare being without her daughter. A deal was struck that Persephone would spend half the year with Hades and half the year with her mother. Hence spring and summer she spent with her mother and fall and winter with Hades. I was not familiar with the story of Orpheus and Eurydice. Without giving too much away Orpheus was the son of Apollo and the muse of poetry. He had the gift of song and could charm all things living and even inanimate objects with his voice. He fell in love with Eurydice, a tree nymph. The play goes astray from the myth. In the myth Eurydice is bitten by a snake on her wedding day and dies while in the play she makes a choice to go to Hades. Either way Orpheus must save her from the underworld.

Starting with the act one finale, a powerful song entitled “Why We Build the Wall” the play does shift some towards the storyline and takes on a political tone. I do not have issues with political undertones in works of art. I assign novels each semester to my history classes with the caveat that any great piece of literature worth reading has a message or moral for the reader. My issue is that in our current environment of political correctness all the messages from songs, TV, movies, and Broadway only have messages from one side. Hadestown is no different. In one of the most intense songs of the show Hades is in his realm singing to the people under his control. The song is a call and response song where Hades sings, “Why do we build this wall,” and is answered by the chorus “We build the wall to keep us free.” Hades then asks, “How does the wall keep us free?” and they answer, “The wall keeps out the enemy.” Hades asks why are they the enemy and the answer is “Because they want what we have got.” In the production I watched Hades was played by a tall dark haired man with an absolutely amazing baritone voice, but he might as well be played by a blond with slightly orange skin and a tie too long.

While the play does seem to take the standard Broadway liberal side, what is interesting is it was written in 2006, years before anyone other than the Simpsons could have predicted the Trump presidency or his signature slogan of “Build That Wall”. Also, it is interesting that if Hades is serving as the antagonist then his convincing of Eurydice to come to Hadestown as her only option for survival can only be seen as a rejection of big government. Recognizing she is starving because she can’t find food in the winter Hades tries to convince Eurydice to leave her love by singing:

“Hey, little songbird, let me guess:
He's some kind of poet and he's penniless?
Give him your hand, he'll give you his hand-to-mouth
He'll write you a poem when the power's out
Hey, why not fly south for the winter?

Hey, little songbird, look all around you
See how the vipers and vultures surround you
They'll take you down, they'll pick you clean
If you stick around such a desperate scene
See, people get mean when the chips are down”

 

Hades convinces Eurydice that she will only be safe in Hadestown where he can take care of her. Of course, once she decides to leave the world, she is imprisoned like the rest who came to see Hadestown as their only protection.

My advice is this, no matter your political leaning, see the show. Know that there are some political messages, but don’t let that distract you from a stunning musical. Turn off your political brain and focus on the other messages, rekindling relationships that have struggled, or the power of love and beauty. I thought Hades internal struggle of mercy verses control is timeless both in politics and well as in relationships and definitely in parenting. Then there is the final message of trust. How much do we trust those we love especially with our own human weaknesses. Yes, I get tired of always having to be the ones giving in to the left for art, but to let that stand in your way of this show would be unfortunate enough to be a Greek tragedy.