The Real-Life Application of Risk

By Janelle Frazier

March 27, 2009

I absolutely love board games, but I never could get into Risk. You know, that one where world domination is the object, military force the only existing bargaining method and the perfect strategic set-up, weighing the pros and cons of every action and reaction, is essential.

With that in mind, it is not surprising that Risk failed to catch my interest. Erring on the side of caution is where I have been my whole life and probably will always reside. It is a comfortable place, never stepping out of my safety zone or facing the repercussions of regrets too numerous to name from stupid decisions made along the way. Yet, the more I think about it, that is not quite how the world really works. Not everyone can hide in his or her safety zone; risk rules the lives of many an important figure. Life is definitely more complicated than a simple board game.

°°°°°

Jeremy Lusk, a 2008 X Games motocross champion, died in early February while trying to land a back flip known in the racing world as the "Hart Attack," signature trick of freestyle motocross racer, Carey Hart.  A fitting name for a stunt so dangerous, but that doesn't make viewing the crash footage any easier. Lusk chose to create his career on the underlying principle of risk- the daily choice of life or death, safety or spontaneity. His strategy involved pursuing what he loved, no matter the consequences.

How true that is in today's world. We never seem to escape the consequences of our actions. We can either embrace them, knowing full well the seriousness with which we roll the dice, or always be on the defense, forced to suffer the repercussions of our own indecisiveness.

Risk affects every aspect of our society: the economy, relationships, political agendas, the environment. Especially now, as the Obama-Biden camp steps into its new role in American history, calculating the risks facing this new administration is daunting. Already, potential peace talks with the Iranian president pose a threat to our country. Obama promised that the United States would meet with friend and foe alike in pursuit of open diplomacy, but does that include negotiations with a state that may or may not be harboring nuclear weapons and one that is famed for its strong anti-American sentiments?       

For Jeremy Lusk, risk was merely a factor that came along with the game, one that caused no more than a moment's hesitation in the pursuit of an end goal. He died doing something he loved, so I suppose he would have no regrets.

I guess that is how things ought to be viewed in today's political arena. Certain situations on the global scale call for an immediate assessment of the risks involved, but then an almost immediate response from the United States. President Obama is going to be dealing with possibilities of success or failure, of life or death, on a daily basis. It will be interesting to follow his strategy of playing the game in the next four years. Let's hope regret doesn't become an issue.

°°°°°

I cannot help but remember watching a couple of friends play Risk one afternoon last semester. Since the game does not really interest me, I was merely observing their quest for world domination, glad I was a bystander and not a player.

But now I understand that that relief from that sunny afternoon does not carry over into reality. We are all players in this game, whether we like it or not; we must choose daily how to face the risks that come with life. It can be on a small scale, as in choosing to break up with a significant other, or something as huge as the fate of a nation. 

If only life (and politics) were as simple as a board game. It's nice to dream of an imagined environment where every player sticks to the rules and every choice is merely fictional, forgotten when game night is over. Risk isn't my game of choice, but it seems to be a crowd favorite.