Pennsylvania, Kansas, Ohio, North Carolina — what do these four states have in common? No, they’re not battleground states in 2012. These states represent the homes of the top four seeds in the 2011 March Madness tournament. They’re the favorites, the powerhouses.
Our selector-in-chief President Barack Obama was asked to fill out a bracket and the basketball-loving southpaw happily obliged. He chose each top seed to make the Final Four. No big deal, right?
As a Democrat, Obama is hailed as an advocate of the lower and middle classes (in theory). He’s responsible for preserving the increasingly disintegrating American dream — heck, at least keeping our delusions of grandeur alive.
A dream where a son of a white mother and black father can be raised with help from grandparents in the middle class and one day preside over fat cats like the Winklevoss’s and Rockefellers.
By refusing to pick even one dark horse for a Cinderella story, perhaps Obama is subconsciously describing the elitist climate across the nation. He’s the last of a dying breed.
While unions languish nationwide and benefits/pensions for blue-collar workers are slashed, tax rates remain low for the wealthiest one percent. This American dream will soon be consigned to one venue, “American Idol.”
Many of us look to our president for inspiration. We want to know that a man from humble roots, the quintessential American underdog can win. David can conquer Goliath. We want to know these things happen. We want to know he understands the worries of the little guy and will do all he can to assist and inspire.
The reality is bleaker. The window of underdogs capturing our nation by storm is closing.
Last week, our student body overwhelmingly elected Tim McBride to serve as president of the Student Government. I’ve met Tim, and I sincerely believe he’ll make a fine SG President, relying on his affability, energy and intelligence. McBride’s lengthy list of endorsements was as long as the walk to the Metro (including popular incumbent Nate Bronstein and The Eagle).
As the unmistakable favorite, how could anyone else compete?
Michael Morgante, a sophomore in the School of Public Affairs, wrote a provocative letter to the editor challenging McBride’s actions. To paraphrase: For someone who made diversity a focal point in his campaign, why not campaign for a more diverse candidate? It’s not as if there was a scarcity of qualified candidates. Some who came from more diverse backgrounds had commensurate experience. Wouldn’t sacrificing the presidency lend more credibility to the cause and a future run? He’d be all but assured the post his senior year as the move would exemplify the type of selflessness and authenticity lacking in most candidates.
To compound the issue, Vice Presidential winner Liz Richards wrote a letter to the editor defending McBride detailing the closeness of their relationship, basically asserting they grew up together. Not exactly the kind of diversity we’re hoping for. When defending diversity, I can’t think of a better way to shoot one’s self in the foot than her letter.
I don’t question McBride’s intentions and ideals. I firmly believe he will continue efforts for a more inclusive, diverse SG despite his occupation of the most coveted post on campus. He campaigned tirelessly and has a record of seeing things through.
What troubles me is the notion that underdogs can’t win. The odds are stacked against them and those who claim to be representing their interests (Obama for the middle and lower classes, McBride for diversity) seem unfazed by the suggestion that they can use their power to do more. To place bold action above sentiment, transforming the way politics is done. Granted, Obama’s bracket is purely symbolic, whereas McBride’s dropping out would’ve been remarkable.
Nonetheless I can’t help but ponder the difference between what was and what could’ve been.
Conor Shapiro is a graduate student in the School of International Service and a liberal columnist.
edpage@theeagleonline.com
