Well worth a mass
Also: Astros fall to Earth.
It’s July of 1593. For the last four years — really, the last thirty — France’s been wracked by religious discord and disorder between Catholics and Huguenot Protestants, a period known in history as the Wars of Religion. They’re the second-deadliest religious war in European history; three million people lost their lives as the four horsemen of the apocalypse ran roughshod.
Thankfully, the war is drawing to a close. Henri de Bourbon, King of Navarre, became King Henri IV of France in 1589 on the assassination of his distant cousin, Henri III. There’s just one tiny problem:
Henri is a Huguenot.
And, boy, are French Catholics not having it. The Catholic League, backed by a still-powerful Spain, controls much of France. The Pope excommunicated Henry and declared him devoid of any right to inherit the crown. Henri confronts these challenges head-on, and defeats the League in battle in 1590. But his crown is still on the balance.
Enter his mistress, Gabrielle d’Estrées. Gabrielle argues with Henri, and encourages him to do what most people would consider unthinkable: renounce his Protestant faith, and convert to Catholicism. Being what was known in France at the time as a politique (a powerful person dedicated to the success and well-being of the state above all else), Henri was probably predisposed to at least listen to Gabrielle, who was one of his closest advisors.
On July 25, Henri converted. As he did so, he commented:
Paris vaut bien une messe (Paris is well worth a mass).*
I mention the above story because it’s a pithy way to demonstrate what someone is willing to sacrifice in order to gain power. It’s a good story! And honestly, Henry of Navarre’s life is a good story, full stop. But that’s for another time. I was going to tie that story to the rapidly sharpening fight between the two progressive contenders for the Democratic Presidential nomination: Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. Then the wheels came off.
If you’re a leftist Democrat, this past week hasn’t been…fun. The week’s been dominated by what’s at best a surpassingly jejune story.
FIGHT! FIGHT! FIGHT!
You could practically sense the transcendent glee of American political reporters! For most of 2019, Sanders and Warren refrained from campaigning against each other. That truce, however, started to fray after an incredibly mild comparative script written and used by Sanders’ campaign was discovered, and brandished as evidence that Sanders would stop at nothing in his ruthless pursuit of the Presidency, a quest begun long ago in the days of his youth, back in — when was it? — 2015.
Yes, I am being extremely sarcastic here, because this is just such a wildly vapid story, and this is the kind of insipid squabble that has no winners, only losers, and just makes people bitter and sour and, in every sad way you can imagine, ruins relationships.
Before I go further: I support Bernie. I supported him in 2016**, and I support him now. I think the promise of a Sanders Presidency is paradigm-shattering, in the same way that Ronald Reagan’s Presidency shattered the New Deal paradigm. There’s other reasons, but I’ll leave it at that.
[sidebar: the two best pieces on this whole pathetic episode are this essay by Rebecca Traister at The Cut, and this essay by Libby Watson at the New Republic. Men, especially, should read the former, and just sit with it a whole long minute. The latter makes a novel argument; you should ignore the somewhat sneering tone and focus on what Libby gets at, which is that fighting is good in politics, especially now.]
But what made this past week so emotionally fraught is that, like tons of other people, I also like Elizabeth Warren. If Bernie weren’t running, I’d be supporting her unstintingly. So, watching this squabble brew over the past week feels a lot like watching two people you’re fond engaging in an utterly pointless and entirely avoidable fight.
I mean, listen to that audio! It’s so profoundly uncomfortable. “I think you called me a liar on national TV.” You can feel not just the anger, but the hurt in Warren’s voice. And Bernie responds: “You called me a liar. You told me —”. And then, wisely, in the nick of time, he backs off; he gets that that moment, when both of them are exhausted, surrounded by microphones, right after a debate staged by the very organization that stoked this fight for no reason other than entertainment (hold on to that, I’ll get back to that in a second!), that moment is most decidedly not the moment to have what’s likely to be a fairly acrimonious argument between two people that haven’t just been political comrades, but genuine personal friends.
That makes me keenly sad, because I don’t know if this is a relationship that can be mended fully. And it makes me even more immensely angry at the people who reported this impossibly bovine story:
Sit with that for a second: a great story. This, unironically, from a person whose biography states: “Newsjunky interested in news that’s not junk.” As the meme goes: Yo, what the fuck?
Kristin’s network, CNN, just hosted a debate for two hours - the last one before people vote in Iowa, finally at long last kicking off the actual primaries - and this is the story she thinks is great? You’d almost think that CNN ran with their original story just so they could score the exclusive, TMZ/Inside Edition-style.
And that, right there, is the problem.
Right before CNN’s Abby Phillip dove into this blether of a story, she smartly got at a policy-based fight between Sanders and Warren. They exist! They do, despite the desperate wish for some to pretend like they’re ideological twins. This one was on Trump’s abysmal replacement for the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) — the unimaginatively named U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA)***.
Sanders opposed it; he thought it didn’t go far enough to protect workers and the environment. He prefers to craft and sign a much better one, presumably once he’s elected. Warren supported it; while it was bad, she said, it had some modest improvements and it did offer some environmental and labor protections. Better to get something on paper now, and then work to improve it.
You couldn’t ask for a better summary of their clashing approaches — revolution versus reform, if you will. That, right there, that’s a great story! That’s news! That’s not junk! Hell, it’s even got the potential for a fight!
And we never explored it further, because Phillip used it as a pretext to dive into the real story, the real difference between the two: was Sanders a stone sexist pig? Was Warren lying? Who said what? It didn’t matter that neither candidate wanted to discuss it. CNN had the exclusive on this “story”, and it’s titillating in all the trivial ways that political reporters like, so there it was.
And so we are where we are. We’re there because even when given the opportunity to frame a policy discussion in the only context they seemingly know how to cover (drama! fighting! conflict!), political reporters are incapable of doing that, and will default to covering gossip instead. Which is how, among other reasons, a former bankrupt reality show star is now President.
Astro-nomically bad
The fallout of the Houston Astros (and potentially, the Boston Red Sox) sign-stealing scandal grows at an exponential rate. If you’re just catching up, here’s a quick summary:
First, read the two links above, both by The Athletic. They’re what kicked off this entire mishegas, and they are exemplars of sports reporting. Yes, you’ll have to pay, but it’s worth it and the site has specials all the doggone time.
This is the MLB Commissioner’s report on the Astros (PDF), and it’s just a brutal read. The punishments handed down are entirely justified, though I think Rob Manfred could’ve gone further.
Those punishments, you ask?
A one-year suspension for general manager Jeff Luhnow.
A one-year suspension for manager A.J. Hinch.
The forfeitures of first- and second-round draft picks in both 2020 and ’21.
A fine of $5 million, the maximum allowed under MLB’s constitution.
The placement of former Astros assistant GM Brandon Taubman on baseball’s ineligible list. Yes, the same guy who was stoked about disgraced closer & domestic abuser Roberto Osuna, and gloated about it in front of women reporters, before smearing them.
I mean…wow. Owner Jim Crane wasn’t affected, since the investigation showed he wasn’t involved in any way. No players were suspended. Crane, for his part, reacted immediately to the suspensions of Hinch and Luhnow by firing them for cause. It’s a model of accountability, and it says a lot that we have it in baseball, but not in politics:
"Today is a very difficult day for the Houston Astros," Crane said. "MLB did a very thorough investigation and the Astros fully cooperated and we accept their decisions and findings and penalties."
"I felt with what came out in the report they both had responsibilities,” Crane added. “Neither one of them started this but neither one of them did anything about it.” (emphasis added)
But wait! The Boston Red Sox then decided to try to forestall the inevitable storm by parting ways with manager Alex Cora.
Good luck with that, I guess. Cora was the main person responsible for this scandal on the Astros, and he’s suspected of doing the same with the Red Sox, so it’s probable that he’ll wind up banned for life. What a disgrace! Look at the difference in statements, by the way. I get that the investigation is still ongoing, but there’s no acknowledgment of Cora’s culpability, and everything is couched in terms of being a “distraction”, which is arrant bullshit. Get this:
The reason Alex Cora managing the Red Sox would be a distraction is because the integrity of his work with the Red Sox is now tainted.
But wait, there’s more! The New York Mets hired club legend Carlos Beltrán in November as their manager, replacing the hapless Mickey Calloway. Since the Mets were in “win-now” mode (they currently project as the second-best team in the National League this coming season), hiring Beltrán was a quizzical move. While folks thought he’d make an excellent manager someday, that day wasn’t supposed to come in 2020. Part of the reason Calloway struggled was because of his inexperience as a manager; despite his ties to the Mets, Beltrán might’ve struggled as well.
We won’t know, because on Thursday, the Mets “parted ways” with Beltrán, thanks to him being the player who led the Astros’ cheating effort. Remember when I mentioned no players were punished? Carlos Beltrán would’ve topped the list had Manfred decided to punish players.
You’re thinking, well, that’s SO typical of the Mets! And, sure, it feels that way; I’m a Mets fan, and I thought Beltrán managing the team was pretty cool, even if I was bemused about the idea of hiring him to manage now, as opposed to a few years down the road, with a bit more experience. It now looks as though he may not get the chance to manage any time soon; perhaps, he never will.
But go a little deeper: now the Mets have a chance to hire a manager who’s been there and done that. Someone like Buck Showalter? Bruce Bochy? Dusty Baker? We’ll see.
OK, I’ve gone on long enough. Thank you for reading. Remember: you’re awesome. I love you. Yes, you, and you, and you, too. You’re awesome as you are, and I love you for how messy and wonderful and human you are. Remember, if you need anything, just reply back. And if you think someone would enjoy this newsletter in all its rambling glory, share it?
* Henri was that rarity in an age of absolute monarchs, a popular politician. He was unusual for a French king in that the actual citizenry were deeply fond of him; he was nicknamed “Good King Henry”. Supposedly, he also coined the phrase “a chicken in every pot”. The actual phrase was as follows: Si Dieu me prête vie, je ferai qu'il n'y aura point de laboureur en mon royaume qui n'ait les moyens d'avoir le dimanche une poule dans son pot! (If God grants me life, I will make it so that no plowman in my realm will lack the means to have a chicken in his pot on Sunday!)
** Good god, I’m so embarrassed by my writing. Also, I’m struck by how I hedged everything I said, as opposed to just fucking laying it out. I’m a lot less constrained about that, and I think that was borne out of insecurity and lack of confidence in myself.