Successful mediocrity: low expectations pay dividends

The team stood on the bronze platform in stunned silence. A range of emotions could be seen on the players' faces: confusion, outrage, disappointment. One of them cried.

HYURA CHOI/YH

"But we won the game," said a shocked Vince Carter, who slammed home two final exclamation points in the U.S. team's victory over France in the gold medal game. Winning apparently was not enough for the International Olympic Committee. "We just felt that some of the other teams performed much better than we had expected," IOC president Juan Samaranch said. "Although Lithuania and France didn't actually beat the U.S., they really showed that they could compete on the international stage. They deserve the gold and silver for what they almost accomplished." "But we won the game," Carter repeated.

The Lithuanians gleefully accepted the gold despite their two close losses to the U.S. team. "It was unfortunate to lose to the U.S.," Lithuanian star Sarunas Jasikevicius said. "I know that we are deserving of this great honor, though, because expectations were much lower for us." NBA Commissioner David Stern was less than thrilled with the decision. "We matched them point-for-point," he vehemently exclaimed. "We won, plain and simple." The scandal-plagued IOC thought differently, and the U.S. will have to wait four years for another chance at the gold. Still stunned, Carter continued with his mantra: "But we won the game."

None of this happened. It is preposterous to think that the outcome of an athletic competition should be determined by something other than the score. Yet in the last two weeks, something similar has happened in a much more important forum—the presidential debates. On Tues., Oct. 3, Al Gore presented specific numerical examples of how his prescription drug and budget surplus proposals would benefit our country, causing George W. Bush, DC '68, to counter with broad generalizations and empty buzzwords. On Wed., Oct. 11, Gore's muted attacks still left Bush unable to defend his poor education record as governor of Texas. Although you may not like Gore, the debates proved once again that he has a better command over the issues that a president must tackle.

But many commentators came away from the first debate with a totally different opinion. Two politicians in swing-state Pennsylvania were quoted in The New York Times the next day. "If I had to pick a winner, I'd flip a coin," Republican Drew Lewis said. "I was pleasantly surprised...Bush wasn't overwhelmed at all." Democrat Neil Oxman concurred, saying "I don't think that people would think, `Geez, that guy knows absolutely nothing.'" To what lofty heights our presidential nominees must aspire! Suddenly, the ability to complete a sentence and dodge flying numbers proves that a candidate is fit to be president. To be less than "overwhelmed," to know more than "absolutely nothing" is apparently quite sufficient. I only hope that one day I too can be as successfully mediocre as Bush.

The mixed reviews of the debates stem from different pre-formed attitudes about the candidates. Gore has been portrayed as meticulous and calculating, while Bush has been considered laid-back and bumbling; and these characterizations have given voters reason to believe that Gore would be more successful in a debate forum. For Bush, any outcome short of breaking down in confused tears, mixing up Kosovo with Kansas, or just plain zoning out would have constituted a success for the pundits who had already given him no chance. The second debate, notable only for concessions such as Gore's, "I also believe in the golden rule" again added up to a draw, but Bush's ability to adequately navigate foreign policy and use words like "abrogation" and "egregious" paid dividends in polls. Because Bush managed to match Gore's encylopedic command of foreign policy, 46 percent of likely voters awarded him the victory while only 30 percent gave it to Gore in a snap ABC poll. No one actually believes that Bush has a greater command of foreign affairs, but that 16-point lead was spotted to him just for showing up. With a 16-point lead, Lithuania would have won too.

Political commentators must drum up controversy from nothing, and this tendency has probably given rise to the Bush-supporting media. One meaningless Fox News poll showed that 82 percent of people prefer a candidate who "garbles his words" to one who "exaggerates and makes stuff up," perhaps indicating that Gore should work on his word-garbling. In the end, though, America votes with its pocketbook, and Bush has given no compelling reason for change. Despite the media's insistence that this election will be competitive, Gore and his fuzzy numbers will have no trouble holding off Bush's garbling expertise.

Jay Augsburger is a senior in Saybrook.

Back to Opinion...