Let's Just Legalize Cockfighting

A few centuries ago, gladiators in the Coliseum at Rome would fight each other or lions. It wasn’t tame entertainment: someone often got killed. Today our coliseums house “sporting” events that are marketed as life and death struggles, but it just isn’t the same. We get a momentary thrill when we see a player dragged off the field with an injury, but hey, they’re still alive, aren’t they?

So where can a discerning public go to satisfy its taste for blood? The answer that comes immediately to mind is the legal system. Lawyers are our gladiators, always eager to jump into the ring and fight to the death (well, at least someone else’s death). Would the OJ Simpson trial have been such a public spectacle without the potential for death or life imprisonment verdict, or if it hadn’t been a murder trial?

To keep the public’s attention, there has to be a victor and a vanquished. If the contestants aren’t locked in mortal combat, what good are they?

Always trying to please, the American political system has figured this out. In debates on policy issues, each side grossly exaggerates the differences, feeding us, for example, images of helpless old people yanked off their life support or a bloated bureaucracy spending us into oblivion. The television sound bite makes a great blunt instrument, reducing deep and careful thought to a single whack on the head. Do you propose to reduce the rate of increase in my pet program? Bam—I AM OUTRAGED BY THE DEEP CUTS!... Is your proposal still alive? Wham—I’ll attack your character!

The joust reaches its highest form in political campaigns. The process of choosing an elected representative is transformed into a no-holds-barred, winner-take-all struggle. If elected, the contestant is subjected to constant public ridicule, in a job where it is next to impossible to get anything done—and they call this “winning.” Even the word “campaign” comes from the French term for “battlefield.”

We say we don’t like to see politicians throwing dirt at each other, but they keep doing it for the simple reason that it works. The thrust and parry of a hot election makes good headlines. We may deny that we like car races because of the possibility of a spectacular crash, but this is like the guy who says he reads Playboy for the articles. Issues and philosophy and vision don’t captivate our attention like the unfortunate candidate going down to flaming defeat.

Which brings me to my proposal. If we have such a strong drive to treat carnage and destruction as a spectator sport, why not pick an arena that has less far-reaching consequences? Cockfighting is banned in most places (as far as I know), because we are too civilized to go in for this sort of thing, but let’s not kid ourselves. As a species, we have never been too civilized for this, and having a few roosters fight it out to the death is surely preferable to the mayhem that we create when we put elected representatives in this role.

It may be too hard to undo decades of treating government like a game, so perhaps we could ease into this new model by electing the roosters that will fight for our cities, states, and country. The roosters could be organized in teams, which we could call “parties.” To add interest, we could even invent some “campaign finance reforms” and watch corporate sponsors come up with new and creative ways around them.

With a little luck, this would satisfy our need to watch death matches. We would read about our roosters on the front page and the op-ed pages, and the news of our government would be covered by the same sober reporting as is now done for scientific research and personal finance planning. Our peers would agree to represent us out of a sense of duty, and we would respect them for it in the same way that we appreciate those who serve as church ushers or Cub Scout den mothers. The business of governing would be done in a careful, thoughtful way in an atmosphere of reason and understanding, with the humility that comes from knowing that this is a practical, but inferior, alternative to the unattainable ideal of a benevolent dictatorship.

But if this doesn’t work, elect me president and I promise you that I will increase the programs you like, cut your taxes, and balance the budget. My opponent sucks eggs.