Not About Race

I don’t usually read Maureen Dowd’s columns, but I happened to stumble across this one. Her thesis is that a significant part of the opposition to President Obama’s health care reform proposals and some of his other initiatives is based on his race. She intimates that the stupid and juvenile “You lie” outburst from South Carolina Republican Congressman Joe Wilson during the President’s recent speech on health care has some racial component. New York Times op-ed columnists apparently have a supernatural ability to read the depths of a person’s soul and determine whether his actions are motivated by race. I don’t claim to have supernatural powers, and I don’t doubt that there are still benighted, abject racists in American society. I don’t sense, however, that race has anything to do with why many people are concerned about some of President Obama’s proposals.

The fact is that President Obama’s campaign for the presidency promised change, and he is now, by his own admission, trying to bring about very significant changes to American society. It is not at all surprising that the President’s efforts to fundamentally change how Americans get and pay for health care have attracted attention and opposition, because those efforts target an area that poses highly personal issues of choice and control. People who oppose the President’s proposed reforms recognize that he means what he says; they oppose the changes he is pursuing because they recognize that the changes are significant and they are concerned about how those change could affect them. Suggesting that President Obama’s proposals are minor and uncontroversial — and therefore that the only reason people could have for opposing the proposals must be racism — does a disservice both to those who oppose his policies for legitimate reasons and to the magnitude of President Obama’s proposals.

President Obama seems perfectly willing to engage in the war of ideas about health care reform and to advocate for his proposals on their merits. Those of his defenders who, like Maureen Dowd, contend that his opponents must be reacting to President Obama’s race are cheapening and undercutting the President’s efforts. President Obama does not need their paternalism.

A Bitter Pill

Ohio State’s loss against USC last night was another tough one to take.

The game started off disastrously, when Terrelle Pryor threw a terrible pass that was picked off and returned close to the Ohio State goal line. (It looked like Pryor was pretty wound up pre-game; ESPN had the camera on him at one point when he was tapped on the helmet by a back-up and Pryor seemed to have an almost angry, startled reaction.) After the first USC TD I suspect that most of the Ohio State fans were fearing another humiliating blowout loss to an elite team. Fortunately, that didn’t happen. Ohio State came back to score a quick touchdown, the Stadium was rocking and sounded incredibly loud, and the game settled into a tough defensive battle. Ohio State took the lead but could not put the game away, and at the end the Trojans put together a fine long drive to score the winning touchdown. It reminded me of the 1980 Rose Bowl, when Ohio State valiantly fought a great USC team down to the wire but could not stop Charles White and the Trojans offense and lost narrowly at the end of the game.

Some thoughts on the game:

Ohio State’s defense played a very good game. The defensive line more than held its own against a highly regarded USC line, the linebackers for the most part filled the gaps and made some big hits, and the defensive backfield did not get burned on a deep ball. When you only give up 18 points against an offensive powerhouse — 7 of which came after the Trojans offensive was given the ball on the Ohio State three-yard-line — you have played good defensive football.

Not to take anything away from the OSU defense, but my sense was that USC is not playing with its full playbook. Pete Carroll is doing a good job of not overwhelming his freshman quarterback and putting him into tough positions where he has to make big plays, and the kid played a good game.

You also have to admire Carroll’s confidence in his offensive line. USC repeatedly went for it on fourth down and converted. Those conversions tend to be back-breakers for a defense.

I thought Ohio State had a good offensive game plan to use against the Trojans, but the offense failed to execute in the second half. Ohio State repeatedly had the ball in good field position, where a score could have either put the game away or changed the game dramatically, and it just could not move the ball into scoring position. Obviously, USC’s defense had something to say about that, but some of the problem also appeared to be execution. Ohio State’s offensive line looked to play better than it did against Navy, but it still has a lot of room to improve.

I liked the toughness of Boom Herron, I liked the use of Brandon Saine as a receiver, and I think DeVier Posey has lots of promise. Terrelle Pryor obviously has tons of talent and ability, and made some good throws after his early error. Ohio State has a number of significant offensive weapons. It just needs to work on putting things together and scoring TDs rather than settling for field goals — which has been a problem the last few years.

Obviously, the Buckeyes need to work on the two-minute drill.

I give credit to the USC for coming into a hostile environment and emerging with a win. I am glad that Ohio State came back after the tough start and played a gritty game against a talented opponent. I don’t buy the concept of moral victories, however. Ohio State had the game in hand, and just could not close the deal. As a result, what could have been a tremendous win became a bitter pill for Buckeye fans.