Politicians, by definition of the job, are dependent on outside voices for success. If other people dont vote for them, they no longer can be politicians.
Coaches, on the other hand, are not as dependent on outside voices for their job. It doesnt necessarily matter what the fans think a team should do. What matters is whether or not they win.
Modern politics is almost wholly concerned with public relations and effective spin; it makes sense they'll desire close relationships with the people who will be tasked with communicating these spin jobs to mass audiences. Read that New Yorker essay about Ben Rhodes from around 2015/2016 where he states the average reporter is some 27 year old who "literally knows nothing" and will say whatever someone in the political apparatus wants as long as they can be granted access.
People are still invested enough in the material outcome of sports that all the spinning in the world can't overcome the fact that your football team sucks.
Respectfully, one push back. I have maybe met one or two GOP staffers who read Steve Sailer. Now we all read Yarvin and SlateStar not mention a few others but…. Not so much VDare.
So how can I say this? Maybe im out of touch? Not quite, I’m a longtime GOP hill staffer, conservative think tanker, former Trump appointee and now Republican operative.
If I may ask a question, when the issue is one of devising effective policy (what is the best policy we can adopt to get outcome x) or developing effective procedural strategy (how do we shepherd bill x through committees and to a vote/draft or issue a EO that will be effective and survive court challenge) how often do you rely on the counsel of popular journalists/writers? Objectively and in comparison to issue advocacy groups/industry groups?
In my experience on Capitol Hill and different agencies, short form content (ranging in length of a tweet to a oped) from an influencer can prompt real discourse, spark an idea or even a rebuttal to an objection from a policymaker.
However when wading into the weeds of the actual writing a proposal or negotiating an amendment or agency rule the policymaker and staff will look at more long form content like white papers or analysis from CBO, Congressional Research Service, industry groups, and established think tanks, etc.
In my current role I’m constantly trying to get content from opinion makers to match with established voices in DC. This can be a challenge when only certain industries or companies are funding endeavors. So the trick is to find the writers and groups who get funded on X issue but are interested in Y and Z because they see it as an opportunity to lead a policy conversation that will build their credibility as opposed to a donor deliverable.
Thank you for taking the time to type this out, that makes sense. Outside of being a fascinating insight into the nuts and bolts, this seems consistent with my hypothesis that the way politicians interact with media and the way sports franchises interact with media are not too dissimilar.
In both cases when it comes down to the practical tasks (legislative/executive/policy strategy and tactics : coaching/roster construction strategy and tactics) the “media” does not have much purchase. However in both cases when it comes to gauging “fan base” interests and values, public relations, etc… media gets more purchase. (See franchises being more responsive to media pressure campaigns on “social issues” than game strategy issues). The difference being, for better or worse, that this plays a far more important role in politics than it does in sports.
Also it’s not surprising that politicians admire writers because they are excellent communicators who often espouse the ideology preferred by the politician, whose goal is to be reelected. They are in search of a good message that resonates and want to be like their preferred messenger.
Indeed. It’s always been the case I think, but one of the more depressing things about the last 15 years is to the degree to which journalists have allowed themselves and their institutions to be flattered, captured, and deployed in service of the Parties. No offense to you but there was some truth to the suggestion that all you had to do to get the Orange Jefe on your side was stroke him
a little…but many of the people making that suggestion lived in very delicate glass mansions…
And the opposite is true with sports. Many sports writers want to be players, coaches, gms…
I’m a bit of a safe space for Republican operatives and staffers to get a straight opinion on a phenomenon.
I get sailer put in front of me a lot, but I don’t really read him. It’s, generally speaking, a context where he’s describing something that’s happening, and the staffer wants to know what’s missing.
I think that’s a fair characterization. We get sent alot of material from a wide array of writers. Which confirms Ethan’s point that politicians rely on writers…. But also, I think that’s because we want to be influencers and podcasters/writers are examples of the types of influencers we want to be like or hang with.
Not all politicians are empty vessels. The label certainly did not apply to Sen. John McCain when I worked for him. A big difference is that politics are carried out in the media whereas sports occur away from it on a real playing field. Thus, a “genius coach” can write off the media in a way simply not possible for a “genius politician.”
There is an example in soccer of an academic's ideas being implemented by coaches. Tactical Periodization which focuses on transitions and winning ball back was developed by an academic and heavily influenced Portuguese football and through Carlos Queiroz and Jose Mourinho had an impact on the game globally.
Coaches have to take tests to get licensed in Europe, for the most part. You CAN skip some of that conditional on the level you played at, but in some countries that’s even rare. Part of the licensing process is writing a thesis, and a few of those have been pretty influential (like Allegri’s) (someone actually collected and translated a couple of the Italian ones: https://www.torofoot.com/post/massimiliano-allegri-coverciano-thesis-2004-2005 )
Outside Italy it's mostly practical training about organising sessions and baiscs for strength and conditioning etc. The uefa badges aren't tactical focused unlike the Italian example which very much is.
There is a book coming out on the Italian Coaching training centre called The Thinkers Factory by Karan Tejwani. Out in July I think.
“Later on in the presidency, Obama forged a relationship with Ta-Nehisi Coates, also of the Atlantic. I’d say second term Obama’s messaging was highly influenced by the latter at least.”
Well this explains the direction race relations have gone in since 2012.
Similar to your Warriors suggestion, it's pretty well acknowledged that it was a message board contributor on the old dallasbasketball.com who posted about Erik Dampier's "Dust Chip" contract enough that eventually articles were written about it that brought it to Donnie Nelson's attention.
At the time there did seem to be a significant delta between the best team's understanding of the cap and the worst team's.
With very few exceptions, politicians are not idea-generators. Rather, they are figureheads of ideological movements, vessels that carry ideas (as a constellation of beliefs) to the masses. No - original thinkers and memetic generators are located in academia, in literature, and in journalism. i.e. the people who write! Interesting that Rufo, Hanania, and Sailer are all mentioned. Loosely, these folks - and Ethan - are all members of a new counternarrative idea-generating assemblage, though they are all engaging in different avenues, Rufo having picked academia broadly, while Ethan speaks unspoken truths in sports journalism (sports being loosely defined), while Sailer blogs his forbidden societal commentary, a blog being no different from social theory/data science papers published in academic journals, except his data isn't made-up. My strong suspicion is that they are all following/aware of each other on Twitter, and why shouldn't they? Like-minded individuals are natural allies and podcast guests.
To the commenter Sasha who Ethan quoted in the piece, you totally misunderstood Rufo if you think his point is simply that the wrong people are in charge. His thesis is that the wrong IDEAS are in charge. Yes, some clowns have to be fired in idea-making organizations to implement a change in regime/ideology, but the point is more what the institution believes in, not specifically who runs it.
Coaches routinely make less than optimal decisions because “they know better.” Here’s a radical thought: if coaches were more curious and open to opinions of “scribes” and “intellectuals,” they might end up learning some things.
No organization looks to journalists or talking heads for strategy, but at least in the NBA, they do seem to need them for motivation. If Barkley, Kenny and Shaq rip a player in the postseason for not being assertive or whatever, that guy will more often than not come out the next night guns blazing.
Agree on the general premise though. The entirety of sports analysis now is: the chart says you should do this 57% of the time while the decision makers on the field have other information and biases that make them think it's more like less than a coin flip so they do the other thing and then everyone goes nuts.
I guess what’s not explained is why politicians don’t bring their preferred intellectuals “into the building” and instead just flatter them by occasionally borrowing their ideas. Maybe because politicians are competing against one team instead of thirty.
When I was in university the hockey stats community coalesced around one blog (mc79hockey) and a lot of the guys in that comment section ended up working for teams (many still do).
So I think teams do look outside their walls for inspiration, they’re just looking for shape rotators not wordcells.
Yeah, I got caught on the ‘in-or-out of the building’ distinction whereas everyone else (correctly) honed in on the more important distinction: between how politicians “win” and how coaches do (thereby explaining why writers or journalists are important to the former but not the latter).
Here's my thought...
Politicians, by definition of the job, are dependent on outside voices for success. If other people dont vote for them, they no longer can be politicians.
Coaches, on the other hand, are not as dependent on outside voices for their job. It doesnt necessarily matter what the fans think a team should do. What matters is whether or not they win.
Modern politics is almost wholly concerned with public relations and effective spin; it makes sense they'll desire close relationships with the people who will be tasked with communicating these spin jobs to mass audiences. Read that New Yorker essay about Ben Rhodes from around 2015/2016 where he states the average reporter is some 27 year old who "literally knows nothing" and will say whatever someone in the political apparatus wants as long as they can be granted access.
People are still invested enough in the material outcome of sports that all the spinning in the world can't overcome the fact that your football team sucks.
Respectfully, one push back. I have maybe met one or two GOP staffers who read Steve Sailer. Now we all read Yarvin and SlateStar not mention a few others but…. Not so much VDare.
So how can I say this? Maybe im out of touch? Not quite, I’m a longtime GOP hill staffer, conservative think tanker, former Trump appointee and now Republican operative.
If I may ask a question, when the issue is one of devising effective policy (what is the best policy we can adopt to get outcome x) or developing effective procedural strategy (how do we shepherd bill x through committees and to a vote/draft or issue a EO that will be effective and survive court challenge) how often do you rely on the counsel of popular journalists/writers? Objectively and in comparison to issue advocacy groups/industry groups?
Great question
In my experience on Capitol Hill and different agencies, short form content (ranging in length of a tweet to a oped) from an influencer can prompt real discourse, spark an idea or even a rebuttal to an objection from a policymaker.
However when wading into the weeds of the actual writing a proposal or negotiating an amendment or agency rule the policymaker and staff will look at more long form content like white papers or analysis from CBO, Congressional Research Service, industry groups, and established think tanks, etc.
In my current role I’m constantly trying to get content from opinion makers to match with established voices in DC. This can be a challenge when only certain industries or companies are funding endeavors. So the trick is to find the writers and groups who get funded on X issue but are interested in Y and Z because they see it as an opportunity to lead a policy conversation that will build their credibility as opposed to a donor deliverable.
Thank you for taking the time to type this out, that makes sense. Outside of being a fascinating insight into the nuts and bolts, this seems consistent with my hypothesis that the way politicians interact with media and the way sports franchises interact with media are not too dissimilar.
In both cases when it comes down to the practical tasks (legislative/executive/policy strategy and tactics : coaching/roster construction strategy and tactics) the “media” does not have much purchase. However in both cases when it comes to gauging “fan base” interests and values, public relations, etc… media gets more purchase. (See franchises being more responsive to media pressure campaigns on “social issues” than game strategy issues). The difference being, for better or worse, that this plays a far more important role in politics than it does in sports.
Also it’s not surprising that politicians admire writers because they are excellent communicators who often espouse the ideology preferred by the politician, whose goal is to be reelected. They are in search of a good message that resonates and want to be like their preferred messenger.
Indeed. It’s always been the case I think, but one of the more depressing things about the last 15 years is to the degree to which journalists have allowed themselves and their institutions to be flattered, captured, and deployed in service of the Parties. No offense to you but there was some truth to the suggestion that all you had to do to get the Orange Jefe on your side was stroke him
a little…but many of the people making that suggestion lived in very delicate glass mansions…
And the opposite is true with sports. Many sports writers want to be players, coaches, gms…
You must be a glutton for punishment. I finally bailed on that world in 2017 and haven’t regretted it.
I hear ya, but after getting the right experiences I was able to work for myself and charge whatever I want…. Embrace the revolving door!
I’m a bit of a safe space for Republican operatives and staffers to get a straight opinion on a phenomenon.
I get sailer put in front of me a lot, but I don’t really read him. It’s, generally speaking, a context where he’s describing something that’s happening, and the staffer wants to know what’s missing.
I think that’s a fair characterization. We get sent alot of material from a wide array of writers. Which confirms Ethan’s point that politicians rely on writers…. But also, I think that’s because we want to be influencers and podcasters/writers are examples of the types of influencers we want to be like or hang with.
Realheads know: come for the noticing, stay for the thoughtful golf course reviews.
Not all politicians are empty vessels. The label certainly did not apply to Sen. John McCain when I worked for him. A big difference is that politics are carried out in the media whereas sports occur away from it on a real playing field. Thus, a “genius coach” can write off the media in a way simply not possible for a “genius politician.”
Sailer posting!
A boring man, as he says, made interesting only by Noticing - plenty of it obvious - in a world gone mad.
A moderate, and yet a radical of our time.
There is an example in soccer of an academic's ideas being implemented by coaches. Tactical Periodization which focuses on transitions and winning ball back was developed by an academic and heavily influenced Portuguese football and through Carlos Queiroz and Jose Mourinho had an impact on the game globally.
Coaches have to take tests to get licensed in Europe, for the most part. You CAN skip some of that conditional on the level you played at, but in some countries that’s even rare. Part of the licensing process is writing a thesis, and a few of those have been pretty influential (like Allegri’s) (someone actually collected and translated a couple of the Italian ones: https://www.torofoot.com/post/massimiliano-allegri-coverciano-thesis-2004-2005 )
Outside Italy it's mostly practical training about organising sessions and baiscs for strength and conditioning etc. The uefa badges aren't tactical focused unlike the Italian example which very much is.
There is a book coming out on the Italian Coaching training centre called The Thinkers Factory by Karan Tejwani. Out in July I think.
“Later on in the presidency, Obama forged a relationship with Ta-Nehisi Coates, also of the Atlantic. I’d say second term Obama’s messaging was highly influenced by the latter at least.”
Well this explains the direction race relations have gone in since 2012.
Similar to your Warriors suggestion, it's pretty well acknowledged that it was a message board contributor on the old dallasbasketball.com who posted about Erik Dampier's "Dust Chip" contract enough that eventually articles were written about it that brought it to Donnie Nelson's attention.
At the time there did seem to be a significant delta between the best team's understanding of the cap and the worst team's.
With very few exceptions, politicians are not idea-generators. Rather, they are figureheads of ideological movements, vessels that carry ideas (as a constellation of beliefs) to the masses. No - original thinkers and memetic generators are located in academia, in literature, and in journalism. i.e. the people who write! Interesting that Rufo, Hanania, and Sailer are all mentioned. Loosely, these folks - and Ethan - are all members of a new counternarrative idea-generating assemblage, though they are all engaging in different avenues, Rufo having picked academia broadly, while Ethan speaks unspoken truths in sports journalism (sports being loosely defined), while Sailer blogs his forbidden societal commentary, a blog being no different from social theory/data science papers published in academic journals, except his data isn't made-up. My strong suspicion is that they are all following/aware of each other on Twitter, and why shouldn't they? Like-minded individuals are natural allies and podcast guests.
To the commenter Sasha who Ethan quoted in the piece, you totally misunderstood Rufo if you think his point is simply that the wrong people are in charge. His thesis is that the wrong IDEAS are in charge. Yes, some clowns have to be fired in idea-making organizations to implement a change in regime/ideology, but the point is more what the institution believes in, not specifically who runs it.
Coaches routinely make less than optimal decisions because “they know better.” Here’s a radical thought: if coaches were more curious and open to opinions of “scribes” and “intellectuals,” they might end up learning some things.
Counterpoint:
No organization looks to journalists or talking heads for strategy, but at least in the NBA, they do seem to need them for motivation. If Barkley, Kenny and Shaq rip a player in the postseason for not being assertive or whatever, that guy will more often than not come out the next night guns blazing.
Agree on the general premise though. The entirety of sports analysis now is: the chart says you should do this 57% of the time while the decision makers on the field have other information and biases that make them think it's more like less than a coin flip so they do the other thing and then everyone goes nuts.
What about baseball?
I guess what’s not explained is why politicians don’t bring their preferred intellectuals “into the building” and instead just flatter them by occasionally borrowing their ideas. Maybe because politicians are competing against one team instead of thirty.
When I was in university the hockey stats community coalesced around one blog (mc79hockey) and a lot of the guys in that comment section ended up working for teams (many still do).
So I think teams do look outside their walls for inspiration, they’re just looking for shape rotators not wordcells.
Politicians do bring people in, that’s what the council of economic advisors is, that’s pretty much what the fed board is, and every SES political.
Yeah, I got caught on the ‘in-or-out of the building’ distinction whereas everyone else (correctly) honed in on the more important distinction: between how politicians “win” and how coaches do (thereby explaining why writers or journalists are important to the former but not the latter).