The crowd chants the name of the valiant hero as he prepares to make his entrance and address the rabid crowd of 80,000 who stand jam-packed in the stadium in anticipation of his arrival. A fighting song is played and the wrestling superstar makes his way to the stadium where he is greeted by thousands of screaming fans. In his speech, he vows to prove his opponent wrong at their big showdown. As he finishes, the crowd again cheers “OBAMA, OBAMA! OBAMA!”

Wait, Obama? I thought we were at a wrestling show. Truth be told, I love professional wrestling with a passion despite its theatrical, fake plotlines. But I can’t help but notice the similarities between modern-day American politics and wrestling. Not only do election campaigns incorporate elements of professional wrestling, it seems wrestling is willing to incorporate political elements into its “sport.”

Take, for example, the 2008 Presidential campaign. Barack Obama made an appearance on the April 21, 2008 edition of WWE RAW, where he, alongside other presidential hopefuls Hillary Clinton and John McCain, were shown campaigning via pre-taped videos. The Pennsylvania primary imminent, the three decided to send special messages in order to boost voter appeal and gain extra political points. Clinton, in fact, promised then-WWE champion, Randy Orton that “if things get a little tough [in Washington], I may even have to deliver the People’s Elbow because this country is worth fighting for. Now, I promise to stick to the political arena, so don’t worry, Randy Orton; you’re safe for now.”
Although elected officials might cringe at the thought of appearing at professional wrestling events, it’s not uncommon for wrestling shows to deal with important political and social issues. In fact, it happens on a pretty regular basis.

Perhaps the most brazen attempt to on tackling on a hot political issue occurred in September 2002 on Smackdown. That month, wrestler Chuck Palumbo asked his tag team partner Billy Gunn for his hand in marriage. The elated Billy Gunn happily accepted his partner’s proposal and not one for long engagements decided to hold the wedding the very next week. Initially, WWE got a lot of positive mainstream press for taking this issue on, even receiving praise from the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD). Sadly, the WWE took a 180 degree spin and one week later turned their relationship into a typical pro-wrestling storyline. During the show, Gunn and Palumbo admitted that it was all a publicity stunt and that they weren’t actually gay. If that was not enough, WWE had Gunn and Palumbo portrayed as good “straight” guys and the gay storyline was soon forgotten.WWE’s next attempt at tacking the political issues of the day came on the April 14, 2003 edition of WWE RAW when Christopher Nowinski, a 2000 Harvard graduate, debated fellow wrestler Scott Steiner on the issue of “Operation Iraqi Freedom.” Nowinski’s side of the debate was a well-articulated critique of the Bush administration’s foreign policy and war effort while Steiner’s argument featured such moronic lines as, ”I’ve wrestled a lot of countries” and “The Dixie Chicks and all those Hollywood numbnuts can go straight to Hell or France, same difference.” As you can probably tell, WWE took advantage of Nowinski’s Ivy League background and cast him into the role of the snobby Ivy League elitist intellectual. Although I commend WWE for raising awareness about the Iraq War, I regret that they make the liberal, more informed position “nerdy,” unrelatable, and stigmatized.

In late 2004, WWE tried to address racism in America, but unfortunately began endorsing racist policies. In December of that year, it introduced a new character, Muhammad Hassan (portrayed by Italian-American Mark Copani), through a series of vignettes as an Arab-American who was tired of facing racial profiling after the September 11th terrorist attacks. When he first debuted, the Hassan character had well-articulated points about racism in America; however, after a couple months, he had already became a caricature who merely cried “racism” at every given opportunity. His racist opponents were even portrayed as heroic. Upon encountering Hassan, Stone Cold Steve Austin proclaimed, “I see sand people.”

WWE eventually decided to cast Hassan as a villain by making him excessively bitter about the racism he encounters. The character quickly devolved and his last appearance on television came on July 7, 2005 on WWE SmackDown. On this episode, Hassan and various masked men attacked The Undertaker and then proceeded to simulate the beheading proceedings depicted in the various videos of Iraqi militants decapitating American hostages. Needless to say, this would offend any member of the Arab-American community.
See? Pro-wrestling has been far from quiet when in comes to politics. It really comes at no surprise then when we hear of former WWE CEO Linda McMahon, wife of current WWE CEO Vince McMahon, is vying for the Republican nomination for one of Connecticut’s US Senate seats. Yet in spite of a spotty record as an employer (McMahon had actually abolished mandatory drug testing for WWE employees in 1996), McMahon leads her primary opponent by ten points.

Despite many of the problems with the WWE shows, it is surprisingly good at engaging the public political in politics. In 2000, the then-WWF launched the “SmackDown Your Vote” campaign, designed to encourage 18-34 year olds to register to vote. The campaign made an appearance at the Republican and Democratic National Conventions and asked George W. Bush and Al Gore to appear on their television shows (though both declined their invitations). “SmackDown Your Vote” continues to this day and in 2008 began to receive notice from politicians as evidenced by Obama’s appearance on WWE RAW.

See? Pro-wrestling and U.S. politics are starting to go hand in hand. In fact, one could draw several parallels between the two: both feature larger than life characters, displays of power, mass influence, and homophobia and racism. Obama’s popularity is equally mirrored by that of wrestling superstars.Let’s just hope Linda McMahon doesn’t lay the “smackdown” on Connecticut’s “candy ass.”

n his February 24th column for The Dartmouth, “Major Consolidation,” Peter Blair ’12 promoted the assimilation of minority and women’s studies programs into “foundational” departments like history and religion, rejecting the necessity of programs that are, in his view, “secondary.” Citing the Webster’s Dictionary definition of liberal arts, Blair argues, “Departments that offer secondary and specialized courses of study about single racial, ethnic, geographic or gender groups are not in line with the idea of a liberal arts education.” However, he misses the point of what a liberal arts education is supposed to be.

The aforementioned Webster’s definition says that liberal arts is meant to develop “intellectual capacities.” Given that women’s and minority studies teach us to question the world around us, in particular the existing social norms formed by a society dominated and framed by Caucasian males, they seem to achieve that development of “intellectual capacities” precisely. In courses offered by the very programs Blair would have excised, a student can discover the basis for the social norms we (often blindly) follow today. Blair probably did not consider the importance of possessing the ability to not only track the history behind the traditionally dominant forces in our society, but also to question these institutionalized norms, when he so casually recommended the removal of a program like women and gender studies. Examining issues from a different perspective enhances our education because it causes us to question the version of history we learned in elementary, middle and high school. After all, aren’t liberal arts educations supposed to make us think and use logic? Also, isn’t a liberal arts education supposed to prepare us to be free people in society? How can you exist in society as an intellectual if you do not understand the differing perspectives within your own country?

Furthermore, it’s important to have specific programs geared toward these studies because otherwise they get overlooked by departments predicated on a classical Western tradition. The history of the United States is generally from the perspective of white history. Lost in this is indigenous Native American culture, many facets of which are overlooked and ignored. Having minority studies programs ensures that alternative perspectives are heard and conveyed to students. Then, a more genuine and truthful history can be told: if we do not include the voices of the people who have been so involved in the development and the often unpleasant history of this country, we would be left with merely a shadow of the story and hardly a true “history.”

Learning from the perspectives presented by the women’s and minority studies programs prepares you to question the social paradigms under which we live, a vital part of becoming a contributing member of society, which a liberal arts education is designed to do.