The Washington Times has a story on the fact that the 2016 Olympics has been awarded to Rio De Janeiro. There are a lot of thoughts and opinions on the fact that the Olympics did not go to Chicago. I would like to add mine.
- One of the rules of negotiation for the leader of a country is to let the other people do the negotiating and then show up for the 'talks' after everything has been settled. It avoids 'loss of face' and other complications. It's similar to the idea that a lawyer in a trial never asks a question unless he already knows the answer. There are two possible reasons President Obama chose not to follow this rule--one, political naivete, or two, arrogance. I have a hard time believing a politician that came up through the Chicago system is naive. I also believe that in Chicago what I consider arrogance would not have been arrogance--it would have been an understanding of the power President Obama held. The world is not as impressed with President Obama as Chicago is.
- Hosting the Olympics is not as impressive as it sounds. It greatly inconveniences the people who live in the host city. They have to deal with seven years of construction and road work. It is very expensive and not a lot of fun. I have heard that the only recent Olympics that made money for the host city was the Salt Lake City Olympics run by Mitt Romney.
- If President Obama had been willing to work with Mitt Romney (who has some experience not only in running the Olympics but in bringing the Olympics to America) rather than Oprah Winfrey, he might have found a way to bring the Olympics to Chicago.
So what is the lesson in all this? Politically it is a defeat on the world stage. In Chicago it means that some real estate speculators are no longer looking at amazing profits in the very near future. In America I am not sure what it means other than the fact that some of the bloom is off the rose. I believe it will impact the effectiveness of President Obama's legislative agenda, but I am not sure how severely.
Leave a comment