Leftists Are Against Football Now

In what might be the most bizarre article of the 2024 election season, a writer from The Nation has expressed deep concerns over the Democratic Party's embrace of football. Yes, you read that right—football, America's most beloved sport, has become the subject of a heated political debate. The article claims that football, with its hyper-masculinity and violence, is steering the Democratic Party toward a right-wing trajectory. This absurdity perfectly encapsulates the chronically online perspective that often detaches itself from reality.

While this article might seem like a parody, it was not written by a Republican or a conservative think tank. Instead, a Democrat author worries that aligning with football could negatively impact the party, especially with young voters. This wild argument suggests that football, with its tough nature and history, is somehow antithetical to progressive values. The concern is that the sport will push the party closer to conservative ideals—a laughable proposition, to say the least.

As the article continues, the author lays out some jaw-dropping takes. Criticizing football for being “too harsh and dangerous,” the writer accuses conservatives of enjoying the sport simply because it reinforces traditional masculinity. In one of the article’s golden moments, the author claims that right-wingers see football as a way to “socially castrate” the American male—highlighting the deep divide between the author’s worldview and the millions of Americans who simply love football.

Ironically, the article even takes a detour to jab at Donald Trump, accusing him of being part of the problem despite Trump actually having played football at the New York Military Academy. The writer dismisses football as a breeding ground for hyper-masculine conservatism, lamenting its place in American culture and politics. At this point, it becomes clear that the article is less about football and more about a growing discomfort with anything resembling traditional American values.

Even more entertaining is the writer's critique of Democratic politicians like Minnesota Governor Tim Walz, who leans into his past as a football coach to connect with voters. The author finds this troubling, suggesting that embracing football and its associated “conservative” symbolism could alienate the party’s progressive base. The article’s conclusion is that football might be pulling the Democratic Party to the right, and the sport’s violent and masculine nature is simply too risky for a left-leaning platform.

What the author fails to understand is that football is a universal American pastime enjoyed by people of all political affiliations. It’s not inherently right-wing or left-wing—it’s football. The fact that the author associates the sport with conservatism only highlights a deeper misunderstanding of the cultural importance of football in the U.S.

The absurdity of this piece lies in its attempt to villainize football for political reasons. The writer worries that supporting football could alienate young, progressive voters, many of whom care more about issues like climate change and social justice than about who wins the Super Bowl. The suggestion that football will cost Democrats the election is ridiculous and disconnected from the reality of how many Americans view the sport.

At the end of the day, football isn’t going to decide the 2024 election. Whether Democrat or Republican, most Americans view football as a way to bring people together, not as a political statement. Trying to weaponize the sport for political purposes is not only absurd—it’s out of touch with the millions of fans who just want to enjoy the game.