Flat Hills Road

I should be working, but the IOC is monopolizing my head space right now. The 2016 Olympic host is supposed to be announced within the hour. The leading candidates, supposedly, are Chicago and Rio de Janeiro; Tokyo and Madrid are also in contention. I want to get these thoughts down before the host is actually announced.

I can’t figure out if I want Chicago to win or not, but I’ve seen a lot of silliness posted online recently about the Chicago bid. People are entitled to their opinions, but I think sometimes those opinions are based on incomplete or erroneous assumptions about the cities and the process.

The most common pattern I’ve seen is people thinking the vote is up or down on a given city. These people make the argument, “Chicago shouldn’t host the Olympics because…” and then go on to say something like, “They have better things to spend their money on” (possibly true and a strong argument, but one the proposal counters very well), or “Chicago isn’t safe.” The problem with this argument is, if it was accepted, it would mean the IOC would turn down one city (Chicago) because it wasn’t safe, and instead select… Rio? Is Rio safer than Chicago? Seriously? This isn’t a binary-choice situation; it’s choosing the best of the alternatives. (Conway Hill has an excellent exploration of the idea that Rio may have the best bid, and very strong arguments, because he focuses on positive reasons Rio is a better choice rather than negative reasons why “Chicago shouldn’t win.”)

There’s also the “Obama has better things to do than campaign for the Olympics.” This, also, may be true, but consider the alternative. Madrid’s PM, Brazil’s Lula, and I’m sure the Japanese PM, are all in Copenhagen for the decision. Conventional wisdom is that “personal diplomacy” from Russia’s Vladimir Putin is what won the 2014 winter Games for Russia. If Obama didn’t go to Copenhagen, it would be interpreted as a strong vote of “no confidence” in the Chicago bid, and would almost certainly mean Chicago would not win.

In other words, unlike the IOC’s decision, Obama’s situation was binary: positive support of the Chicago bid, or negative action against the bid. He did not have a neutral option. And whether or not I agree that Chicago is the best choice, I do think it’s appropriate that our President be a positive supporter of our bid. It certainly would be inappropriate for him to positively support another country’s bid in opposition to ours.

Selfishly, I’d love to see a Chicago win, because I bet I could get some good work out of it, and see another Olympics only a time zone away. (I’m assuming I’ll still be able to get a media credential, which is not a given, of course.) But really, if Rio or Madrid win, I won’t be terribly disappointed. (After Beijing 2008, I doubt Tokyo has a shot at bringing the Games back to Asia so soon. Madrid is too “safe” a choice in the face of Rio, I’m afraid. But can any of them afford the Games, really?)

(ETA: Chicago eliminated in the first round of voting. Tokyo goes out on the second round. The third round will decide.)

(ETA2: And it’s Rio. Good for the IOC for finally going to South America. I hope Brazil stages a competent games without going too deep into debt.)