February 6, 2023
Is the USA the greatest country in the world? Is Michael Jordan the greatest basketball player of all time?
Everyone loves a good “Who/what is the greatest X of X” argument. Most of the time these arguments are completely subjective and good cases for or against any specific choice on a given topic can be made either way. Who is the greatest football player to have ever taken the field? Which rock band rises above all others? Who was the most influential ancient Greek philosopher? What was the most important invention/innovation that progressed mankind? The possibilities are endless for these debates.
One such debate that has been heating up in the United States recently is – Who is the GOAT of basketball – the Greatest Of All Time? The long-standing front-runner for the title has been Michael Jordan. Nobody that knows anything about basketball could doubt he is great, but the greatest of all time? There have been a lot of great players and a case can be made for many of them; some have won more titles than Jordan, some shoot better, some are better passers and rebounders. But with another player – LeBron James – about to break the all-time points record, more and more people are beginning to believe there is a good case for him taking the title, as he has remained an effective player well into his 20th season (longer than most).
I am solidly on the “Michael Jordan is the GOAT” team. Full disclosure, I watched him as a player while I was young when I was more into basketball than I am now, so I definitely have a bias towards selecting him over more recent players. I am, however, also a trained researcher and analyst, so I have been taught how to effectively identify and check my biases so that determinations can be made considering all the relevant factors on a more objective basis (as much as possible for such subjects). While I do not particularly care for LeBron James or his style of play, according to my own criteria he definitely must be included in any debate to determine at least the top five basketball players of all time.
Recently on one of the many social media posts about the Jordan/LeBron debate, someone made a comment on one of my pro-Jordan, anti-LeBron comments that made me think:
Does Michael Jordan appeal more to political “Conservatives” while LeBron James appeals more to political “Liberals?” (American definitions). We know there is generally an age difference between these groups that may in itself suggest such a correlation (since Jordan played in the previous generation and older people tend to lean slightly more conservative). But the reasoning in this comment was specifically based on the notion that LeBron’s well-known left-leaning political stances would impact people’s perception of his greatness on the basketball court. This sentiment is probably true to some extent, as reflected by none other than Donald Trump, the posterboy for partisan division these days. Michael Jordan famously defers from most political discussion – something many regard as a wise business decision (because Republicans buy sneakers too) while others (mostly on the political left) regard it as cowardice for failing to use his influence to speak out on certain topics, especially those regarding the black community and “social justice.”
I suspect there may be such a correlation, but it may be more interesting than a mere political preference based on stances these players take on the contemporary issues of today. It may be based more on the difference in liberal/conservative disposition that favors certain values over others and vice versa. In a game like basketball, this can be reflected in preferences for styles of play and how individual observers analyze and rate performance based on their valuations of various metrics and achievements. I do not intend to dive into the whole debate itself in this article, but for reference here is a typical article making the case for Jordan and an article making the case for LeBron. Obviously these players are extremely well-known and will appeal to a broad range of people for many reasons, but in general a Conservative may be more predisposed to admire Jordan’s game and his achievements given his situation compared to a Liberal that may be predisposed to admire what LeBron has done in his era. More on this later.
There is another “great debate” that comes up often on the internet – What is the greatest country in the world today? The tendency seems to be either to support or oppose a case for the United States of America, that is, the USA appears to be the default answer and people either agree with this assessment or critique it based on the many failings and shortcoming of the USA. This dichotomy and line of reasoning is evident in the following viral clip from a television show on this topic:
Unlike a GOAT debate over basketball players, there is clearly and necessarily a political argument behind any position supporting or opposing a country being the greatest in the world today. What is not as clear as with the basketball GOAT debate is who the leading contenders are for greatest country in the world (other than the US). “Greatest” in this context, after all, is a relative term. Putting aside the (cop out) notion that “no country is greater or lesser than any other, they are all unique in their own ways and equal,” who could possibly be another worthy contender for Greatest Country in the World today in terms of aggregate might/moral orientation/influence/prosperity/etc? Larger/powerful countries that have historical clout or are currently challenging the US for global hegemony and/or making an attempt at solidifying a multi-polar world order (Russia/China/England/Japan/etc) do not yet stack up in terms of military/economic might, nor are they usually oriented in the same moral/ideological direction as the US that fosters liberty, freedom, innovation, and prosperity. Smaller countries that out-perform the US as a whole on certain desirable social and economic metrics (think some of the “social democracies” of the EU, or the currently well-administered smaller states of the Middle East and Asia) certainly cannot match the US in strength, influence, or importance to maintaining the current liberal world order. Their success is also contingent upon, at least in part, the USA’s success in maintaining the current order. This is why, when this debate emerges, the tendency is not to make a case for any particular country other than the USA, but instead to criticize the USA itself, and/or rely on certain declines it has experienced. I see this lack of a case for any other country in itself as evidence that the USA, despite its many faults, must be the undisputed “greatest” by default. But for our purposes here, we must consider who tends to make these arguments for and against the USA. According to recent polls such as the one I highlighted here, younger, more liberal American citizens tend to feel less patriotic than older, more conservative American citizens. This trend spills over into such arguments about the USA’s status relative to the rest of the world. We can see from their respective answers to the question that their reasoning reflects what they fundamentally value in terms of upholding fundamental moral duties compared to achieving certain success in practical measurements. The former can be regarded as more objective and moral, the latter more subjective and practical. They match those values up to the perceived performance of countries as to how well they meet certain goals.
So far in our consideration we observe that there may be an underlying reason that American Conservatives tend to favor pro-USA, pro-Jordan arguments while American Liberals may be more inclined to challenge the pro-USA argument and support pro-LeBron arguments. This underlying reason may be related to differences in basic personality types that tend to favor certain methods of value judgment and one side or the other in the main political dichotomy in America. There are many modern psychological systems of personality breakdowns but the ancient division of four temperaments (melancholic, sanguine, phlegmatic, and choleric) serves well enough here. Many people that fall under the label of modern American Conservatism line up well with a “melancholic” disposition whereas many moden American Liberals line up well with a “sanguine” disposition. Immanuel Kant has an interesting summary of these temperaments in relation to moral judgments in his early book, “Observations on the Feeling of the Beautiful and Sublime.” While this is far from an exhaustive psychological consideration, in general, a person with a “melancholic” disposition is more likely to analyze the structure and purpose of a game like basketball or a country like the USA and identify the fundamental principles upon which they are based and make judgments about how well individuals uphold or reflect those principles in their situation. A person with a “sanguine” disposition is more likely to be living in the moment, enjoying the beauty of that which is before him, or critiquing the perceived injustice that is right before his eyes. A person with a “sanguine” disposition has a “good heart”; they have a lot of sympathy for those suffering and they feel deep respect for the outer brilliance of those before them. A person with a “melancholic” disposition has a “noble heart” and their feelings of sympathy and observations of beauty are usually more qualified by matching it up to some objective standard.
So considering our examples, a “sanguine” American Liberal may be more swayed by an argument for LeBron as the GOAT heavy on certain individual statistical achievements in themselves, his longevity, his inevitable record-breaking points total, and his perceived involvement in other issues of their concern. A “melancholic” American Conservative is more likely to put this into context, consider the differences in the game between eras, consider more factors of the game (more statistical categories, both offense and defense), how effective his performance has been overall (winning championships, relative performance with peers), and consider more intangible factors compared to that of Jordan and other players. Likewise, a “sanguine” American Liberal looks at the USA by statistical measures as Jeff Daniels’ character did in the clip above and sees disparities and flaws relative to the performance of other countries. They critique practical application whereas a “melancholic” American Conservative will be more likely to consider moral orientation and adherence to certain duties despite these problems we sometimes have with practical application. The “melancholic” American Conservative will look at the USA internally and the overall world state system and see the injustice still there, but will not so easily throw the baby out with the bathwater in an attempt to remedy that injustice by admiring and seeking to mimick models of other countries that cannot be applied to the USA without sacrificing more significant values and duties. The “sanguine” Liberal prefers a more pointed focus, the “melancholic” Conservative a “big picture” consideration.
This is not to say there are no exceptions to these general observations or that there is no overlap between them. There are also many nuances and perfectly valid arguments any side can make either way; I am not suggesting any particular disposition, temperament, or “side” is inherently 100% wrong from the start, making their entire argument bunk. As I said from the start, most of this is subjective. But I do think there is some truth to these general tendencies and recognizing them may help each side understand where the other is coming from so that we can bring up more factors in such debates that otherwise may not be considered.
