The Olympics As Political Football
Matt Yglesias writes about where you can hold the Olympics without feeling like a moral hypocrite:
With Russia beating up on Georgia at the very same time as the Olympics are underway in Beijing, it’s perhaps inevitable that the conversation has now turned to the propriety of Russia hosting the 2014 winter games while under the rule of a “bad actor” regime. This, combined with the boomlet earlier this year for the idea of boycotting the Beijing games, makes me wonder if it wouldn’t be better to adopt a policy of trying to award the Olympics only to unimportant countries.
Well, that sounds nice and all, but of course it will not work, because at bottom, the Olympics are a big commercial enterprise. Whoever ponies up the money, gets the games. And yes, lots of times out and out bribery of IOC officials is involved. I was struck by this part of Matt's piece though:
A rule like “the United States gets to host Olympics but great power rivals whose governments we don’t approve of don’t” has a certain appeal from a U.S. point of view but it doesn’t seem likely to be adopted.
What strikes me about it is couldn't you make a good argument for boycotting the Olympics in the United States given the last 7 years of an unprovoked invasion of Iraq, use of torture, kangaroo star chambers in Guantanamo, evisceration of the rule of law, etc.? Myself, I am past seeing the Olympics as a political event. I no longer believe hosting an Olympics confers any moral legitimacy or acceptance. In some ways, just the opposite.
I do have a proposal for where to have the Summer Olympics at least - just do them in Athens every 4 years. Hell, they invented the Olympics, let's just do it there every 4 years.
Speaking for me only
| < Russia Announces Halt To Military Operations In South Ossetia | An Inadequate Response to Police Brutality > |





