First-timer diary. Be kind.
Like many others, I was thoroughly disgusted by Karl Rove's drivel-ridden speech delivered in late June, which re-spun the theme that liberals hate America and are unpatriotic. This is patently false and has been rigorously debunked and refuted elsewhere. My view is, as a liberal, with a working brain stem, I like having context before rushing to judgement, and prefer intellect over emotional gorge. Rove's crap got my hackles up.
And made me think of Pete Rose.
Rose played baseball for 24 seasons, mostly with the Cincinnati Reds, and managed for a few more after he laid down the bat and glove. But he had a problem with gambling, and despite many other avenues for throwing away his money on games of chance, could not resist wagering on games within his own sport. This, unfortunately, was and is against baseball's rules and regulations (and is clearly posted in every clubhouse and locker room). Rose got caught, and in 1989 agreed to permanent ineligibility (colloquially known as the "lifetime ban") from employment within Major League Baseball, in exchange for no official finding of gambling violations by MLB. This was exceptionally damning against Rose; the only reason MLB imposes a permanent ban is for gambling or fixing games involving one's own team (gambling on other games leads to a one-year ban). Rose adamantly denied ever gambling on baseball, let alone games involving his Reds -- and yet he accepted baseball's highest sanction. Certainly it didn't look good, and baseball's evidence did indicate that Rose had wagered on Reds games. Yet, Rose accepted the worst possible punishment.
Two years later, the Hall Of Fame codified that players on MLB's permanently ineligible list were also ineligible for consideration for election to the Hall. This clearly targeted Rose, who otherwise would have appeared on the 1992 ballot.
And so, for the past 16 years, there has been ongoing debate in baseball circles whether or not Pete Rose deserves to be in the Hall, because his on-field accomplishments clearly merit such, but his other actions, combined with the Hall's policy, keep him out. To be sure, if Rose had appeared on the ballot, he would have been elected; and the Hall's museum does include several items and exhibits of his many accomplishments, primarily that he is the career record holder for most hits (4256). But being inducted as a Hall Of Famer honors the man, and Rose, based upon his illicit gambling (to which he confessed in a 2004 book, including Reds games) and his years of serial lying, does not come anywhere near deserving of such honor.
Rose was a very popular player (and an inveterate huckster; he remained in the public eye after his expulsion by virtue of being Pete Rose and through shameless and incessant merchandising on shopping channels), and had a legion of supporters and apologists who defended him and denounced his banishment to all ends, for years. They do appear to have dried up a bit since his published confession, but they're still out there. And they still want to see Rose, despite his thick tarnish, inducted into the Hall Of Fame. (It takes a special sort of dementia to move Rose from exile to reinstatement to summary Hall inductee in one go, with no thought to redemptive or penitent actions whatsoever. I don't think he ever will get in the Hall without a ticket -- he doesn't deserve it -- but should it come to pass, I'd like to see his plaque made of black, cast iron rather than the traditional bronze.)
Rose supporters point to his hits record -- 4256, a handful more than Ty Cobb had (4189) in his Hall Of Fame career. Hits are good, Rose has the most, surely that demands the honor of the Hall. (And were it not for the special circumstances surrounding Rose, it would be.)
Everything about Rose above is here for context, so those who haven't heard of him have some background about his situation. He was a very good player, and he cannot be admitted to the Hall, for a specific (albeit politically charged, for baseball anyway) reason.
So absent the Hall, his fans sometimes go with the argument that Rose is among the "Top X" greatest players of all time. When X = 50, this is probably reasonable, but usually X is 10 or five or, sometimes, one. This argument is most readily demolished by listing X-number of amazingly great players and asking which one Rose should replace, which of course he cannot. But the debate continues anyway, and a Rose supporter will point to Rose's hits record as the strongest pillar upon which to stand.
Rose supporters never make note that Rose owns the career record for outs made, and owns it by a mile; whereas hits are good, outs are bad. Rose has approximately 1200 more outs than the next ranking player has, which works out to batting about zero hits for two full seasons. That's a huge price that Rose made his teams pay in exchange for the piddling amount of hits by which he surpassed Cobb.
Another argument made in Rose's favor is that when he left the Reds to join the Philadelphia Phillies, they had just been eliminated in three consecutive postseasons (1976-78). In 1980, the Phillies won the World Series. As Rose was the most significant new player (the Phillies also got a new second baseman), he has been credited for helping the Phils overcome whatever challenges the team had to win the championship -- which slickly ducks the team's fourth-place finish in 1979, Rose's first season with Philadelphia. If he gets credit for 1980's success, he should also be tagged with 1979's fall and failure. Again, he was the most significant new player on the team.
I think the credit-Rose-for-1980 theory is bunkum, as baseball is a team game with very little in the way of simplistic causality. Nonetheless, it remains the second-favorite argument in support of Rose among his fans.
Neocons are like Rose supporters. They see the good, which is probably real, but cannot or will not see the prices paid or the attendant failures that come packaged together; or will only acknowledge them grudingly and in brief, dismissing them immediately after. Ignorance is bliss and all that.
Liberals want that context; the full picture, the many details, vision over willful blindness. The good news is delightful but the bad news cannot be denied or ignored. It keeps us, for good or for ill, honest. Which is something continually and sorely needed in this world.
Staying honest lets us keep thinking that, on the whole, we're the good guys. Once upon a time that was rarely in doubt. It's gotten lost in recent times. I'd really love to see us get there again, but we're going in about as wrong a direction as it's possible to go.
Rove probably understands this distinction, but even if so, it's irrelevant to him except as a means of strategy. He cast his lot long ago.
Pete Rose was a very good player. He wasn't among the very greatest, because when you're measuring against that standard, any shortcoming or fault or flaw cuts deeply, and Rose had some significant shortcomings as a player.
America is probably still the greatest nation in the history of the world (hey, I can be a homer), but our shortcomings are now showing badly. Our bronze plaque is tarnishing daily.
Neocons won't see the shortcomings; and without seeing them, there's no way to diagnose and treat and improve and correct them.
Rove doesn't want anyone to see.