C2 Chris Bell
Chris Bell
2026-09-22 · 7 min ·
cite 
@misc{bell2026political,
  author       = {Bell, Chris},
  title        = {{Political Sport}},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://chris.cbell.dev/writing/political-sport/}},
  url          = {https://chris.cbell.dev/writing/political-sport/},
  note         = {ORCID: 0009-0006-3476-8618}
}
ORCID 0009-0006-3476-8618
· thoughts

Political Sport

I feel like more and more, people have gained this sense of 'disconnect' from the political. Not disconnect in the 'I don't like to talk about politics way,' but disconnect in the 'Politics is not something that directly affects me' way. This is partly because of the news cycle's portrayal of large scale issues which have a lag on effect to individual citizens, but I think another, more significant, part is the pursuit of 'winning' in the political landscape.

Is there anything so gross as to make politics a game? Think about what it takes: the type of person who plays in politics is one who isn't11From their point of view subject to the politics they play in. A person who sees politics as a game has no need to compromise, nor negotiate, as the victory is the point.1From their point of view

I believe a person who views politics as a game is hosting a virus. The afflicted impose their will onto others without considering the effects of its fruition. This virus is not part of the body politic. The 'us-vs-them' mentality uses the 'us-vs-them' tool22If I say 'the tool' as a term in this essay, I mean the concept of 'us-vs-them as a tool of thought'. solely to propagate the mentality, and this very mentality is the essence of political sport.2If I say 'the tool' as a term in this essay, I mean the concept of 'us-vs-them as a tool of thought'.

A person engaged in politics can use the 'us-vs-them' tool as a stereotypical simplification. If there is a political group which behaves in a morally wrong way,33That being: demonstrable harm, supported by evidence. Treat 'morally wrong' as a for a moment. then being against that group is a way of reducing the cognitive load in dealing with that group. You should make yourself aware of the vulnerability you will have in this position, however. The efficacy of this tool engenders its broad and thoughtless application in your overall cognition, which opens you up to making unholy alliances for pragmatism while reducing your resistance to its overuse. I believe a person who uses this tool with abandon has the 'us-vs-them' mentality and has succumbed to this virus.3That being: demonstrable harm, supported by evidence. Treat 'morally wrong' as a for a moment.

With that, I'd like to further distinguish the 'us-vs-them' tool from the mindset so that we do not fall into the classic 'well, both sides are this way' trope. The virus treats the tool as a maxim and political belief in and of itself. There is no longer an end to their use of the tool, the tool is the political motivation. This is not a new concept: Carl Schmitt's44The card-carrying member of the Nazi party who was called the crown jurist of the Third Reich political philosophy reduced all politics to the manifestation of the friend-enemy distinction; this simplification is quite useful for an ascendant tyrant.4The card-carrying member of the Nazi party who was called the crown jurist of the Third Reich

As an example: The establishment Democrats are quite upset at DSA candidates winning elections. The Democrats, whose primary policy goal for the past decade now has been reduced solely to "stop Trump," which, in and of itself, is a flaccid version of McConnell's anti-American55I say anti-American because of his obstruction strategy to make Obama a 1-term president at the cost of doing legislation. McConnell continued his obstructionist strategy even after he failed to prevent Obama's second term, in which he proposed a bill, thinking the Democrats wouldn't bite, but, when his bluff was called, he began to filibuster his own bill! A true 'us-vs-them' with collateral damage being all of us. tactic of stopping Obama, have no goal or vision of change. The DSA has, like any other political group, identified problems and attempted to address them with solutions that differ from the current political hegemonies. Democrats, who are also backed by billionaires, have decided to pull a McCarthy instead of addressing any policy the DSA has proposed. It is much easier to attack the abstract.5I say anti-American because of his obstruction strategy to make Obama a 1-term president at the cost of doing legislation. McConnell continued his obstructionist strategy even after he failed to prevent Obama's second term, in which he proposed a bill, thinking the Democrats wouldn't bite, but, when his bluff was called, he began to filibuster his own bill! A true 'us-vs-them' with collateral damage being all of us.

If you have the 'us-vs-them' mentality, you may begin to buy their argument of 'sOcIalIsm Is bAd aNd MArx wAS wROnG!'66This does not seem to me like a reduction in the substance of what the establishment Dems are genuinely claiming. The extent of this line can be seen in the vitriol found in James Carville's, a veteran Democratic strategist, rhetoric (see this article in the guardian for a calmed down taste, or listen to his podcast for some spicier takes). DSA, despite the name, is operating within a capitalistic framework. The policies they propose and have enacted are not socialist concepts; ownership is still in the hands of the capitalists when the day is done.77Yes, their goal is probably towards a form of socialism. They are also some of the few reasonable political groups at the moment that have any proposal to fix anything. by abusing the 'us-vs-them' mentality. If you have a gross feeling towards the term, define it on paper first and then look it up to see how far off you were.88There are a few and they have morphed over time. Your grandfather's socialism is entirely different from the millennial's and gen z's socialism. Afterward, ask your congressperson to define what they mean by socialism. If they use it again, make them define it clearly. If they are going to use these words, and vilify this perspective, they should at least know what they are vilifying.6This does not seem to me like a reduction in the substance of what the establishment Dems are genuinely claiming. The extent of this line can be seen in the vitriol found in James Carville's, a veteran Democratic strategist, rhetoric (see this article in the guardian for a calmed down taste, or listen to his podcast for some spicier takes).7Yes, their goal is probably towards a form of socialism. They are also some of the few reasonable political groups at the moment that have any proposal to fix anything. by abusing the 'us-vs-them' mentality.8There are a few and they have morphed over time. Your grandfather's socialism is entirely different from the millennial's and gen z's socialism.

But there is a very fine line between using the 'us-vs-them' tool and being used by it. The Democrats are not wrong because they are them, they are wrong because their practices and beliefs towards how they are dealing with the DSA99And Israel, and the drone program, and Trump, and silicon valley empowerment, the list does go on... 'Us-vs-them' would be a hell of a lot easier than considering these. are wrong. The tool simplifies discussion around a legitimate opposition. However, the 'them' morphs over time, as this tool tends to force us to look at an abstract 'person' instead of the very people themselves. Once we make this abstraction, we must be careful and avoid attacking the straw man we've built and associating 'them' with the straw man.9And Israel, and the drone program, and Trump, and silicon valley empowerment, the list does go on... 'Us-vs-them' would be a hell of a lot easier than considering these.

How does this virus spread? When a political actor1010Which I will often call simply a politician, but I mean anyone who is acting in politics in a broadcast-messaging-for-influence position. This includes your influencers, political pundits, etc. has an 'us-vs-them' mentality, they have talking points. They, at best, hold a Sartrean bad-faith1111Sartre's concept of 'bad faith' is to lie to ourselves about what we know or have come to know belief in these points and don't question the definitions or usage of the terms or make an effort to know. By repeating and broadcasting these points uncritically, they allow people to fill in the gaps in whatever way they please. Those who follow that politician may give more grace to their ill-used words, allowing the 'us-vs-them' mentality to sneak in and entice the followers to genuinely defend all critiques of the point based on the interpretation they've misattributed to the politician.1212This relates somewhat to a broader point I'd like to make in a future blurb: generalization creates moral category failures. Likewise, the opposite case is also true, where the political opponents of the original point-proponent1313That is: the politician who stated vague aphorisms like "all lives matter" or "keeping kids safe" without any contextual consideration or treatment. have an easy to attack point behind which they can rally their flock.10Which I will often call simply a politician, but I mean anyone who is acting in politics in a broadcast-messaging-for-influence position. This includes your influencers, political pundits, etc.11Sartre's concept of 'bad faith' is to lie to ourselves about what we know or have come to know12This relates somewhat to a broader point I'd like to make in a future blurb: generalization creates moral category failures.13That is: the politician who stated vague aphorisms like "all lives matter" or "keeping kids safe" without any contextual consideration or treatment.

How do we prevent the spread of this virus? When you see it in people on your side, call it out in public if they bring it up in public, and call them out in private if they do so there. Make your objections known and try to have some actual principles. A pragmatic compromise can and should be limited to just that; don't permit its elevation to an enthusiastic consensus.

How do you prevent the virus from using you? , self-critique, and continued education. Our default behavior seems to be one of least resistance, and the us-vs-them tool is a way of reducing our cognitive load when engaging with politics. As a result, we must periodically re-evaluate our thoughts on something and re-establish our perspective on certain political issues. No one is right about everything,1414This is different from not being wrong about anything, which is a trivial thing to do: present no opinions and be an object in the world. but everyone should try to be.14This is different from not being wrong about anything, which is a trivial thing to do: present no opinions and be an object in the world.

Uhm,1515Something something dead horse encourage herd immunity by stopping the spread and get a booster for your bullshit inoculation regularly. Otherwise, those who wish to push a pro-division stance will use a within-class identity-based equality of opportunity as a substitute for structural change. For the left side of politics, I think this is the direction that political sport will take, and if you aren't careful you will cheer alongside them, thinking that you won the political game. Afterward, you will feel just as disconnected with politics as you did before, because the results don't affect you, the status quo continues, and in a year you will have nothing to show for your win.15Something something dead horse