Even if you do not follow baseball at all, you have probably heard of Steve Garvey. He was part of that great group of players whom the Los Angeles Dodgers drafted in the late ’60’s. He was a fine football player at Michigan State, and then an All-Star baseball player for the Dodgers.
Garvey looked like a prototype for a baseball star in a movie. Clean-cut good looks, square jaw. He was articulate, and loved to extol the virtues of baseball. He was the National League’s Most Valuable Player in 1974.
But some of the other Dodgers players did not like Garvey too much. Maybe jealousy, or maybe they thought he was a selfish player who cared mostly about his own statistics. One year, he had a hitting streak of games where he got least one hit, and was going for the Dodgers record in that statistic. He was at 30 straight games or so, and then didn’t get a hit, and had one more at bat in a game the Dodgers were losing 8-0 or so. He laid down a bunt, obviously to try to get a cheap hit to keep the streak alive. He got criticism for that.
Garvey ultimately finished his career with the San Diego Padres, and helped them win a pennant. After retiring, he became a spokesman for various products He still can be seen touting the very questionable providing of Reverse Mortgages by companies to people who are willing to sell the value of their mortgage for some ready cash. In a recent ad, Garvey says that his parents took out a reverse mortgage, which caused me to think that a star player might have helped them without them having to sell much of the value of the mortgage, but who knows?
What is known, is that Mr. Clean-Cut, Dudley Do-Right, Steve Garvey had affairs, and he admitted to fathering at least two children out of wedlock. This took some of the luster away from his reputation. But he has gone on, doing presentations about baseball and playing with the Dodgers, for which he of course gets paid. He is fun to listen to, he tells good stories.
Now I see that Garvey is considering running for Senate from California. As a Republican, which he was always known to be. That’s his right in either case, but what qualifications does he have for that? None, except for those which have gotten others like him elected in Caifornia.
I remember George Murphy running for Senator here, maybe back in 1964. My father scoffed, “He’s a song-and dance man!,” which he was, literally, in movies, though I had never heard of him. Murphy ran against Pierre Salinger, who had been press secretary in President Kennedy’s administration. Salinger looked like the prototype of a New York pol: jowly, beetle-browed, fast-talking. Murphy said he was a carpetbagger. They had a debate, where Salinger easily won on issues, because Murphy had no idea about most of them; but, in a precursor to other campaigns where television played a major role, the viewers seemed to like Murphy’s friendly demeanor more than Salinger’s fact-based statements. So Murphy won the election, stunning my parents.
That was just before Ronald Reagan, a former actor, pitchman for General Electric, mellifluous-voiced extolller of “good old-fashioned American values,” was elected Governor in 1966, on a platform of cracking down on student demonstrations against the Vietnam War. He was funded by some of the richest people in the country,. You know the rest of the story, as Paul Harvey used to say. He was almost the presidential nominee in 1968, but lost to Nixon; then was re-elected governor in 1970, and then President in 1980 and 1984.
Reagan is beloved by Republicans, who proudly call themselves “the party of Reagan” (of Lincoln, too, of course, even though there is no relationship whatsoever between Lincoln’s policies and ideals, and those of any Republican president since Theodore Roosevelt. But even many of the Republicans who do not support Trump, yearn for another Reagan, and say on television, that their party must go back to being the party of Reagan.
What does Reagan stand for, at least mythologically? Some kind of flag-waving, county fair type of preaching about “American values,” belied by the fact that all the money goes to the very rich. I don’t see Reagan as an evil person, more like a friendly emcee who presides over the fleecing of the American worker.
And then there is Arnold Schwarzenegger, who was a weightlifter and then action movie star, until the same kind of very wealthy Californians who got Nixon and then Reagan elected, saw an opportunity to reverse the liberal policies of Jerry Brown and his successor Gray Davis, by taking advantage of the Enron scam which made electricity prices shoot up, forcing Davis to make some kind of deal to keep the grid functioning, which they blamed on him, and engineered a Recall election, which got Davis removed from office, and Schwarzenegger put in.
In case anyone is wondering, Schwarzenegger was a bad governor, his only positive was caring about the environment. But his refusal to raise taxes (that was what the rich Republicans put him in for), caused a massive state deficit, as well as a yearly delay in having checks sent to Californians who were entitled to them under various state programs. Finally, after Schwarzenegger had served eight years as governor, Jerry Brown was eligible to run again, and he boldly got a tax-raising measure on the ballot, which voters were smart enough to pass,; and suddenly there was a budget surplus which has remained to this day.
And Steve Garvey is another in that line. A friendly, glib purveyor of homilies, and a kind of pseudo-patriotic campaign around getting back to old-fashioned values. That has won here before as outlined above; and even as Blue as California might be seen, they still love stars here. I wouldn’t count him out at all, particularly after what could be a grueling three-person Democratic Primary among Adam Schiff (my choice; he is eloquent, very knowledgeable, and the best suited for the foreign policy expertise important to the Senate) Katie Porter, and Karen Bass..
The past sometimes comes back again in politics. Or maybe it is just that the forces which started it are still there.
Filed under: General | 5 Comments »