By Ben Solis
Staff Writer
Posted: June 10, 2021 1:19 PM

If there is one odd cultural artifact that has vigorously endured through the 20th Century and into our current age, it is the fine art of political sports analogies.

Phrases like, "moving the goal posts," or being "in the fourth quarter" of negotiations, used primarily by folksy lawmakers or electeds from the local level upward to the highest echelons of American politics attempting to weave homespun wisdom into policy debates or speeches.

We often take them for granted because of how commonplace they are and how intertwined our political lexicon is with sports and competitive culture. But they always seem to put a smile on the face of those using them or those political reporters who have the pleasure of hearing a good one on the spot.

A few weeks back, Court of Appeals Judge Michelle Rick hit a homer of a baseball analogy when the House Judiciary Committee held testimony on two bills that would move the Court of Claims to the circuit courts and away from the appellate system.

Ms. Rick in essence was attempting to explain why circuit court judges may be better arbiters of Court of Claims cases – which are essentially first legal resort trials for lawsuits against the state – because they do so every day in their own local courthouses. Court of Appeals judges have a particular skill set for parsing whether those trials were appropriately adjudicated but are not routinely mired in the trenches (a war reference now) of the trial process.

As a former circuit judge serving in a lower court a little more than 13 years, Ms. Rick likened her new job to being an umpire rather than a ballplayer.

"My example would be the trial court judges … have skills related to playing the game – hitting balls, fielding balls, sliding into bases, etcetera," Ms. Rick said. "The umpires, who are the Court of Appeals judges, in my analogy, may or may not be able to hit a fast pitch, field a ball or steal a base. But those umpires know what a ball or strike is, whether a pitcher has balked and whether a player is safe or out. Those different skill sets are critical for the baseball game to be played and likewise are critical for justice to happen."

There was plenty of worthwhile and valuable testimony taken that day, but I can only seem to remember Ms. Rick's baseball musings, and that's the point. Using sports analogies in such a way to explain policy changes or proposals can create a sense of novelty that you can't forget.

A 2015 piece by writer Bryan Curtis in the now-defunct Grantland sports blog says it much more eloquently than I ever could. The piece delves into the history of baseball jargon in the political realm, focusing mainly on a metaphor employed by then-Democratic U.S. Senate leader Harry Reid, who had just announced his retirement.

"When Reid ventured a baseball metaphor, he joined one of the few unbroken traditions in American politics. During Abraham Lincoln's 1860 presidential campaign, a political cartoon cast Lincoln as a 'run' and his three opponents as 'outs,'" Mr. Curtis wrote. "Warren Harding asked the American public to 'strive for production as Babe Ruth strives for home runs.' At an exhibit at the George W. Bush presidential library in Dallas, great baseball metaphors of the POTUSes are painted on the walls as if they were choice cuts from the Gettysburg Address."

The writer goes on to say that some "transcend mere filler," and that "they're fiendishly clever or awfully strange and help us understand the labyrinthine world of politics."

It's hard not to agree, as they disarm and permeate the din of serious business, forcing the receiver of said analogy to take a step back and listen like an average person in their respective state or district, and sometimes that's a feat in and of itself.