President Trump – Life In A Word

Game Over

Tag the Dallas Cowboys with “politically correct” for their actions Monday night. The National Football League staged fifteen games last weekend – and thirty protests – but it wasn’t until the final contest Monday night where we saw something bordering on considerate. With the Cowboys, we witnessed unified “free speech” and regard for the American flag; neither action compromising the intent of the other.

If you missed Monday night’s game you would’ve been misled by Tuesday’s headlines, including, “Jerry Jones Leads Cowboys in Taking a Knee…”. Jones – the Cowboys’ owner, president, and general manager – did take a knee, but he did so alongside his players and coaches; a unified show of disagreement with President Trump’s comments. More importantly, Dallas knelt prior to the national anthem, so as not to confuse protest with allegiance to country. During the anthem, the team stood with arms locked together and helmets removed. I’m okay with that approach. Even President Trump is okay with that approach.

As for the other twenty-nine teams, it was myriad versions of disunity and disrespect before kickoffs. (NPR’s website lists them all here). Random players knelt during the anthem while other stood – a visibly mixed message. Owners and coaches stayed away for the most part, suggesting the same divisiveness alluded to by the President. The Pittsburgh “Kneelers”, Seattle Seahawks, and Tennessee Titans – in total contempt of country – stayed off the field entirely during the national anthem.

Athletes exercising their right to free speech in sports venues is a distraction and nothing more, at least to the average fan. The football field is simply not an effective platform for politics. I, along with millions of others, tune in to watch the game, so anything outside the action itself (i.e. commercials) is irritating. It’s the same reason I no longer watch awards shows; I don’t want the inevitable helping of political commentary along with the acceptance speeches. The day the same thing happens in movie theaters is the day I buy my last ticket. Sports and other entertainment venues should be escapes from the endless newsreel of the real world.

With the NFL, I’d argue the protests are not just irritating, but damaging. Based on the number of emails Sports Illustrated received from disgruntled fans after last weekend, viewership is already taking a significant hit. The NFL can’t afford to lose viewership. The league is having enough trouble dealing with losses of sponsorship, and lawsuits tied to chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE). Forget about viewers; one of these days the NFL might not have players.

Tyler Eifert, a tight end for the Cincinnati Bengals and a graduate of my alma mater Notre Dame, contributed one of the better player perspectives in his essay, “Why I Stand“. His words could’ve been mine when he said, “I am not questioning anyone’s reasons or rights to protest, but instead the method. This entire protest about raising awareness for racial inequality has gotten lost in the media and turned into a debate about whether to sit or stand for the national anthem… I stand because I love my country. I stand because I want to honor the people putting their lives on the line for me on a daily basis…” Tyler Eifert gets it. The American flag stands for the freedom allowing him to play football in the first place.

Kneeling in front of the flag (or absence from the field altogether) is trickling into other sports as well. Oakland Athletics catcher Bruce Maxwell became the first pro baseball player to join the anthem protests by taking a knee before his team’s game. The Minnesota Lynx joined arms on the court before the WNBA finals began on Sunday, while the Los Angeles Sparks returned to their locker room during the anthem. Even high-schoolers are kneeling. Until we see something more constructive, these actions have little merit.

NFL player protests will cease, especially if franchise owners enforce a league-sanctioned code of conduct they currently choose to ignore. The country is no less divided because of these demonstrations. Rockies baseball manager Bud Black says, “…for me to be arrogant enough to say that the other half of the country is wrong or that I’m definitely right, I think (that) is the wrong thing to do. … I’m proud to be an American. And I’m also thankful to have the First Amendment, so I see it both ways. I have my opinions, but that does not mean they are right, so I’ll keep them to myself.”

I wish NFL players would keep their opinions to themselves, at least on game days. Sports fans are switching off their televisions in record numbers, including me. I have better things to do with my Sunday afternoons.

Fade to black.

Perfunctory Perception

The Washington Post began a recent front-page article with the headline “Why President Trump is Probably Right…”, and I was immediately suspicious. The Times is an outwardly liberal rag. I can’t recall one article – let alone a headline – where they’ve waxed positive about the current administration. Curiosity piqued, I read Kristine Phillips’ well-written article and discovered it was not so much about President Trump himself as it was about the “first 100 days”. You’re going to read a lot about that this weekend. And history tells us one hundred days – no matter the successes and failures contained within – rarely define the legacy of a U.S. president.

We have Franklin D. Roosevelt (32nd U.S. President – 1933-1945) to thank for setting the bar of “first 100 days”. Four months into his first term Roosevelt delivered a noteworthy “fireside chat” to the people, including a plan to pull the country out of the Great Depression. Roosevelt also had a congressional majority squarely aligned with his administration. As a result fifteen major bills were passed in his first hundred days, including the most critical; to stabilize the nation’s banking system. It was a virtual sink-or-swim chapter in American history.

No president since the days of the Great Depression has faced a more daunting economic crisis, which is why none of their “first 100 days” measure up to Roosevelt’s. Our last two presidents make for interesting examples. George W. Bush entered his term intent on cutting taxes and reforming education, and he did sign the No Child Left Behind Act within the first year of his administration. But more likely Bush will be remembered for the unforeseen events on and after September 11th, 2001. Barack Obama sought economic stimulus by signing the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act in the first few months of his administration. But more likely Obama will be remembered for the Affordable Care Act, signed towards the end of his first year.

Since Roosevelt’s administration, seven of nine presidents have been elected to a second term (not including Kennedy and Nixon). Accordingly one hundred days is usually the prelude of an eight-year tenure, representing less than 3% of the total time frame. I’d venture to say a president’s legacy is more the product of what happens during the other 97%.

To draw personal parallels, I thought about what it would be like to be judged as a son or a husband or a father; a student in school or a manager in the workplace – based on “first 100 days”. No thanks; I can say with confidence I needed “the other 97%” to establish my legacy in each of those roles.

So where was President Trump “right”, according to The Washington Post? The full headline read, “Why President Trump is probably right about the ‘ridiculous standard” of the first 100 days”. Assuming two terms, Trump’s administration has another 2,820 days. I’ll go with “probably right” too. After 100 days, you’re still circling the ring trying to land a punch. You’ve still got your fifteen rounds.

Again, the media will be all over this topic in the next couple of days so enjoy their rush to judgment. The conservatives will make a best effort to spin Trump’s first 100 days positive; the liberals not so much. The New York Times is quick to point out not one of Trump’s campaign-promised pieces of legislation has been passed, while The Hill prefers to recognize his “five key moments”. Even Trump himself – who I voted for – recognizes the significance of perception. One hundred days may be a perfunctory time frame but there’s no escaping the report cards. Hence we have a bold tax plan – which could amount to Trump’s most defining legislation – released just days before the end of “the first 100”.

The most thought-provoking quote I found on this topic came from author Doris Kearns Goodwin. “Less important than a scorecard of accomplishments,” she said, “is the leadership style demonstrated during the early days.” In other words, our commander-in-chief himself – not just his policies – is a work-in-progress well beyond this weekend. Keep your eye on the remaining 97%.

Band of the Leader

Last week at church I was pleasantly surprised to see a brass quintet accompanying the organist. Trumpets, tubas and French horns are typically reserved for the Christmas season services but there they were – a small group of our members – playing along with the hymns of the day. It somehow made the service more meaningful.

At President Trump’s inauguration I was pleasantly surprised to see a small band accompanying young Jackie Evancho as she performed America’s national anthem. It was the first time I’d heard Jackie sing, and I thought her performance of “The Star-Spangled Banner” was flawless. Perhaps some of you know Jackie as the singer from “America’s Got Talent”. For me, her most recent performance lent credence to her status as “the youngest solo artist ever to go platinum”. Jackie also performed for former President Obama at the Lighting of the National Christmas Tree, suggesting a refreshing lack of political persuasion in her decision to sing.

But back to the band – the “band of the leader” as it turns out. Shortly after Jackie finished America’s anthem one of the inauguration commentators labeled the accompanying musicians “The President’s Own”. That phrase stuck with me the rest of the day. Thanks to my curiosity and an in-depth article on Wikipedia I now know more about this talented group. In brief:

“The President’s Own” is formally called the “United States Marine Band” (USMB). It is the oldest of the United States Military Bands, established in 1798.
The USMB became “The President’s Own” in 1801, after a performance for then president John Adams. Later that year Thomas Jefferson requested a performance at his own presidential inauguration, and the USMB has performed at every inauguration since. Counting President Trump’s that’s a total of fifty-three inaugurations.
The USMB has 130 members but typically performs with only 42.
The USMB performs about five hundred times a year, including state funerals and dinners, and arrival ceremonies for visiting heads of state.
The USMB’s most common performance is fifteen-minute “patriotic openers” for large events, including the playing of “Marine’s Hymn” (official hymn), “Semper Fidelis (official march), and “The Star-Spangled Banner”.
The USMB’s most famous director – back in the late 1800’s – was John Phillip Sousa, who composed “Semper Fidelis”, “The Stars and Stripes Forever”, and other famous march music.
USMB members serve a four-year contract as active duty enlisted Marines. They are not required to complete the training of a typical Marine and are therefore never involved in combat missions.
Without a musical instrument in his/her hands, you could still recognize a USMB member by the lyre on their uniform rank insignia (replacing the normal crossed rifles).

I love the historical significance of “The President’s Own”, one of many uniquely American elements linking our current leaders to our Founding Fathers. I also love the pomp and circumstance – bands, parades, fireworks and other “fuss” designed to accentuate our country’s most important moments.

Speaking of President Trump’s inauguration and the unquestionable divide of the people over his first week of actions, I found the words of the following quote spot-on. Perhaps you can imagine “The President’s Own” playing in the background as you read, somehow making the words even more meaningful:

“We were a country that has been snoozing. Now we are alert. Whether it’s negative or positive, energy has risen. People are engaged. They’re studying. They are thinking more. And I think that’s good. You can’t get that without someone being bold enough to say things people don’t agree with.” —Hall of Fame running back Jim Brown to the Wall Street Journal.

Some content sourced from Wikipedia, “the free encyclopedia”.