← Back to Library

The liberal case for the Olympics

The Patriotism Puzzle

Matthew Yglesias opens with an uncomfortable observation: some progressives are refusing to root for Team USA at the Olympics. He treats this seriously rather than dismissing it as performative outrage. The piece asks a harder question than it appears to — what does patriotic pride mean in a country whose current leadership many citizens oppose?

Matthew Yglesias writes, "It's good and appropriate for Americans to recognize the United States of America as a flawed country with a checkered past and some morally questionable acts in its history." But he pushes back against treating American flaws as unique or incomparable. The world's history is conquest and bloodshed everywhere. What distinguishes one nation from another is what it built after the conquest.

Every country is built on "stolen land," but one country sent astronauts to walk on the moon.

The Olympic Idea

The modern Games emerged in 1896, organized by French theorist Pierre de Coubertin alongside Greek businessman Demetrios Vikelas. Matthew Yglesias notes that Coubertin held retrograde views — he opposed women's sports and espoused racist ideas. Yet the core mission was liberal: bring nations together through peaceful competition.

The liberal case for the Olympics

Matthew Yglesias writes, "The Olympic Movement, which came together in the late 19th century to create the modern Olympic Games in a kinda sorta imitation of a tradition from ancient Greece, is a quintessential liberal project, the point of which is to bring the people of the world together in a peaceful and celebratory way."

When French patriots wanted to organize competitions excluding Germans after the Franco-Prussian War, Coubertin refused. The whole concept was international. He believed the Games would promote world peace. Historians say he misread the ancient Olympic truce. The Games were paused for two world wars. Smaller conflicts continued throughout the Olympic era.

On cultural understanding, though, the project succeeded. The Games showcase obscure sports — speed skating, curling, Nordic ski events — and introduce global audiences to competitors from places they might never otherwise encounter. Dutch speed skating culture, born on frozen canals, becomes shared knowledge.

Matthew Yglesias writes, "International sports competitions do model the idea of a peaceful world full of proud and independent states interacting with one another in a positive-sum way."

Athletes and Speech

American athletes have spoken out. Freestyle skier Hunter Hess criticized recent policy trajectory. Alpine skier Mikaela Shiffrin spoke about pluralism and kindness as contrast to current leadership. Conservatives accused them of disloyalty.

Matthew Yglesias writes, "A core principle of living in a democratic society is that the people who happen to have won the next election are not themselves the nation or even the state."

This distinction matters. The administration is not the country. Criticism of leadership is not treason. Matthew Yglesias writes, "If you love your country, you care about what happens in your country." Loving America means wanting it to adopt good policies and reject bad ones. It means being bothered more when the American government does something wrong than when Italy or Thailand does.

Critics might note that this separation feels abstract when the administration's rhetoric explicitly conflates itself with national identity. When leadership demands loyalty oaths, the theoretical distinction becomes harder to maintain in practice.

Matthew Yglesias writes, "American citizens do not face a sharp dilemma between rooting for their country and rooting against [the administration]." The country remains an electoral democracy with scheduled elections. Athletes who speak out face social media criticism, not imprisonment. That distinction is real and worth preserving.

Positive-Sum Competition

Nationalist politics often insists on zero-sum framing: trade wars, resource competition, immigration as theft. Matthew Yglesias argues this model is fundamentally false. Modern economies function through cooperation. Buying Canadian goods is not Canada stealing American wealth — it's mutual gain. Immigration grows the pie, not just redistributes slices.

Sports are officially zero-sum. One gold medalist per event. If someone gets faster, you drop down. But the structure isn't war. Losers aren't enslaved. Their land isn't expropriated. Countries that finish low in the medal count don't pay reparations.

Matthew Yglesias writes, "The point is to play hard and win. But the premise of the competition is that even though only one person or team can end up in first place, it's broadly beneficial for everyone to have the opportunity to compete on a major stage."

The emotional force driving negative-sum conflicts gets channeled into positive-sum interactions: ticket sales, television revenue, exposure for obscure sports, athletes demonstrating peak human performance. Everyone benefits even when only one wins.

Do Something Useful

Matthew Yglesias acknowledges irritation at seeing administration figures at the opening ceremonies. But he asks the harder question: what action follows the anger?

Matthew Yglesias writes, "If you are mad about [the administration] and the [political movement], the relevant question is always 'What are you going to do about it?' Developing an unpatriotic attitude toward the Olympic Games is obviously not going to help."

Donating to strategic races. Urging party leaders toward popular positions. Sharing information about unpopular policies. These help. Rejecting the Olympics does not.

Critics might note that this framing assumes citizens have spare capacity for activism beyond daily survival. Not everyone can donate money or attend rallies. Some need rest.

Matthew Yglesias writes, "You are also under no requirement to spend 24 hours a day, seven days a week engaged in constructive political activism. You can just watch people do snowboard slalom or try to understand curling tactics or get invested in biathlon."

Bottom Line

Matthew Yglesias makes a clear case: the Olympics model peaceful international competition in an era of zero-sum nationalism, and rejecting them for political reasons confuses administration with country. The Games aren't perfect — Coubertin's elitism, the failure to prevent wars, the commercialization. But they remain a liberal project worth supporting. Patriotism means wanting your country to excel while also wanting it to be right. Both can be true at once.

Sources

The liberal case for the Olympics

by Matthew Yglesias · Slow Boring · Read full article

I’d normally be inclined to dismiss this PragerU video of random progressives saying they don’t want to support Team U.S.A. at the Olympics as nutpicking, but I actually have heard a few people in and around my social circle expressing similar sentiments, so I think it’s worth some consideration.

My sense is that first and foremost what’s actually happening here is that a certain number of people don’t like sports and find big sports culture events alienating or annoying and, rather than just saying that, they want to develop political takes.

That’s fine as far as it goes. But the whole phenomenon does, I think, also reflect other things, including American progressives’ troubled relationship with the concept of national pride and American patriotism, feelings about Donald Trump, and attitudes toward the general idea of nationalistic conflict.

Broadly, this reminds me of the points I made about land acknowledgments recently. It’s good and appropriate for Americans to recognize the United States of America as a flawed country with a checkered past and some morally questionable acts in its history.

But it’s simply inaccurate to conceive of the United States of America as a uniquely or unusually flawed country with a history that is somehow different in kind from the overall history of the world, which is full of conquest and bloodshed and enslavement and brutality.

There’s a lot to be genuinely proud of about the United States in terms of our cultural and technological achievements, our generally high living standard and high degree of human freedom, our track record of trying to build a diverse and pluralistic society, and our moments of genuine high-mindedness on the world stage.

Every country is built on “stolen land,” but one country sent astronauts to walk on the moon. Besides which, it’s no good for the people of any country to only ever be hangdog and depressed about themselves all the time. It makes a lot more sense to identify distinctive good things to be proud of and cultivate a relationship with those aspects. You’ll orient yourself wrongly toward a lot of specific questions, including the Olympics, if you don’t get the big picture right.

But there are also specific aspects of the Olympics that are worth considering here.

The Olympic Movement, which came together in the late 19th century to create the modern Olympic Games in a kinda sorta imitation of a tradition from ...