CULTURAL REVOLUTIONSrnJACKIE, TIGER, AND ELLEN—rnnot as catchy as Martin, Bartin, and Fish,rnor Abraham, Martin, and John, butrngood enough to mesmerize the press thisrnspring. In one respect, the mainstreamrnmedia were right: Jackie Robinsonrnwas a courageous man; Tiger Woodsrnis an extraordinary golfer; and EllenrnDeGcnerate—well, two out of threernain’t bad.rnBut here’s the “rest of the story.”rnThe national love-fest that celebratedrnWoods’ victory at the Masters and thern50th anniversary of Robinson’s breakingrnof the color barrier in professional baseballrnwas principally a white thing, and arnneoconservative white media thing atrnthat. In fact, hard-core liberals, regardlessrnof race, showed little interest in thernhoopla. Carl Rowan dismissed the celebrationsrnas much ado about nothing, sayingrn”healing the racial divide” will “requirernmore of all of us than just arnweekend celebration of one marvelousrnkid’s exploits on a golf course in Georgia.”rnThe “postliberal” John Hoberman,rnin his recently published Darwin’s Athletes:rnHow Sport Has Damaged BlackrnAmerica and Preserved the Myth of Race,rnsaid that the “almost millennial significance”rnaccorded Robinson’s achievementrnhas meant “a great deal of sentimentalismrnand a willed evasion of issuesrnthat are more complicated than the idealrnof integration.”rnAn exception on the left was RogerrnWilkins’ lead editorial in the April 21 issuernof the Nation. Wilkins gushed thatrnnot just Jackie Robinson, but even Jackie’srnwife had “changed our culture.” It’srn”no coincidence,” he said, “that thernSupreme Court ordered the schools desegregatedrnseven years after Jackie andrnRachel went to the Dodgers.” And we’vernbeen blaming Earl Warren all thesernyears.rnConspicuously absent from thesernlove-fests were professional athletes,rnespecially black sports stars. When arnreporter asked star first baseman FrankrnThomas of the Chicago White Sox whatrnJackie Robinson meant to him, Thomasrnreplied, in effect, “Jackie who?”rn(Thomas blamed his ignorance on thernfailure of the public schools to teachrnenough black history.) When PresidentrnClinton invited Tiger Woods to join himrnat Shea Stadium for the anniversary partyrnin honor of Robinson, Tiger declined:rnhe had a restaurant to open in MyrtlernBeach. And far from carrying on aboutrnWoods’ status as the first “Cablinasian”rn(Tiger’s word for Caueasian-black-rnIndian-Asian; he hates being calledrn”black”) to win the Masters, veteranrngolfer Fuzzy Zoeller wondered whetherrnthe victory by “that little boy” meantrnthat eollard greens and fried chickenrnwould be served at the tournament nextrnyear, a “racially charged comment” thatrncost Zoeller his multimillion dollarrnendorsement contract with Kmart.rn(Zoeller, by the way, should have beenrnfired, not for insensitivity, but for assumingrnthat Woods could appreciate Southernrncooking.)rnAs for the neoconservatives’ take onrnTiger Woods, their commentary mirroredrnthat of sportswriter Rick Reilly,rnwho said, “[Woods] is not the Pope.rnHe’s more like a god.” Their hagiographyrnwas so overblown that it was clearlyrnpart of their campaign to co-opt as manyrnminority heroes as possible. The problem,rnhowever, is that the facts about thernlives of their newly anointed conservativesrn(whether Martin Luther King, ColinrnPowell, or Tiger Woods) keep gettingrnin their way. For example, CharlesrnKrauthammer’s description of Woods inrnhis nationally syndicated column onrnApril 21 had little resemblance to thernTiger Woods interviewed in the Aprilrnissue of Gejitlemen’s Quarterly:rnKrauthammer: “[Woods] combinesrngreat athleticism with . . . poise andrnmanners and simple soft-spokenrnpoliteness,” a rarity in “this age ofrnthe . . . trash-talking, in-vour-facernsports star.”rnWoods: “If I say I’m there [for arnphotoshoot] for an hour, I’m there,rnon time, for an hour. If they askrnfor more, I say, ‘Hell, f-k no.’ AndrnI’m out of there.”rnKrauthammer: “Woods is morernthan just good . . . he has not justrnthe old-fashioned virtues of respectrn. . . he is a paragon and a rarity: arngentleman athlete.”rnWoods: “I get f—king p—scd whenrnI’ve got a [computer] station andrnno games to play on it.”rnWoods, the “gentleman athlete,” thernLord Chesterfield of the links, then tellsrna room full of female staffers at GQ arnseries of X-rated jokes too raunchy tornrequote.rnThe Washington Times quickly justifiedrnthe embarrassing GQ interview withrna “So’s your old man” rejoinder: “If disappointingrncolumnists and making tastelessrnremarks were crimes, most of Washingtonrnwould be wearing orange jumprnsuits.” Other conservatives also rallied tornTiger’s defense. Thomas Sowell defendedrnWbods’ no-show at the Robinson celebrationrnby arguing that the young manrndidn’t want to be racially pigeonholed.rnYet, if this is true, why was Woods’ firstrntelevision commercial a prime-timernwhine about the courses he couldn’t playrnbecause of the color of his skin?rnBut the most telling commentaryrnabout Woods came from golf writer EdrnSherman of the Chicago Tribune, whornsaid Tiger is “the pied piper of golf,rnluring kids of all backgrounds, especiallyrninner-city kids, into a game where opportunityrn. . . has been limited.” If I rememberrncorrectly, the Pied Piper lured thernchildren of Hamelin down a black holernin a mountain, where they were neverrnseen again. Considering the success ofrnsuch “hoop dreams” in the black community,rnMr. Sherman’s analogy is all toornapt.rn—Theodore PappasrnT H E REPUBLICAN PARTY hasrnspent the last four years gloating and gigglingrnover the Clinton scandals—draftrnevasion, Whitewater, Travelgate, VincernFoster, the Rose law firm, Waco, RonrnBrown, Henry Cisneros, Hillary, the illegalrnnaturalization of aliens, the LincolnrnBedroom, legally and ethically dubiousrncampaign contributions both foreignrnand domestic, and (gasp, wheeze), anyrnnumber of grotesque sexual rendezvousrnin which Mr. Clinton may or may notrnhave involved himself. Nevertheless, asrnwe have come to expect from the StupidrnParty, the Republicans have blown it.rnNot only has all the GOP’s seandalmongeringrndistracted many conservativesrnand the party itself from morernsubstantive criticisms of the Clinton ad-rnJULY 1997/7rnrnrn