Baseball and the Presidential Campaign

Tonight in Los Angeles, the contenders for the Democratic presidential nomination will convene for a debate sponsored by the Human Rights Campaign. It will doubtless be enlightening, and I'll be watching with a rooting interest. After all, on Tuesday night at Chicago's Soldier Field, another Democratic debate saw baseball introduced as a vital issue of great importance to our national debate. We can thus hope that tonight moderator Melissa Etheridge will follow on, and ask the tough questions that need to be answered.

For those who missed out on Tuesday's debate, the following question was posed to Senator Obama by moderator Keith Olbermann: "Senator Obama, were you president of the United States today, would you honor Barry Bonds at the White House?"

Sadly, Mr. Obama neither rolled his eyes nor threw a crumpled-up piece of notepaper at Olbermann, but instead pivoted directly to his favorite theme, cynicism. "I hope that all of us are focused on making sure that sports is something that kids can look up to, not something that they start feeling cynical about," he said.

Personally, I hope this isn't true. I don't want any of these people focusing on making sure that baseball isn't engendering cynicism in children. They have more important things to focus on, and I'm not just talking about the rise of China and India as global powers, climate science, campaign finance, or whatever other issues you might care to name.

As a service, then, to Ms. Etheridge and to the moderators of the next Republican debate, scheduled for September 5 in New Hampshire, I propose that the following six pressing questions be asked of those who are running for president. If they just have to talk baseball, let them at least talk about things that matter.

1. Over the last two decades, the federal government has forfeited tens, if not hundreds, of millions of dollars in revenue due to a tax loophole that allows municipalities to issue tax-free bonds for the construction of ballparks owned by private interests. Would your administration work to close this loophole, or do you think it's a good idea for the federal government to pay welfare to rich people who own baseball teams?

2. The federal government helps to subsidize minor league systems for the NFL and the NBA through the Department of Education. Is there any good reason why baseball is forced to develop its own prospects without a helping hand? What would your administration do about this unfair arrangement?

3. Do you support proposed legislation that would federalize testing high school baseball players for steroids? If so, please address the Fourth Amendment issues raised by this proposal, and please name the department that would administer this program.

4. Do you see any problem if one city's baseball team, largest newspaper, and largest sports-focused television network are all owned by the same person or corporation? If so, what would your administration do about it, and under what authority?

5. It's easier for a Korean pitcher to get a work visa than it is for a Korean nuclear physicist to do so. Do you think this is just? If not, what specifically would your administration do about it?

6. President Bush has abandoned the practice of throwing out the ceremonial first pitch of the baseball season. Would you reinstate this practice? If so, would you throw out the first pitch in Washington, D.C., in Cincinnati, or elsewhere?

While I'll watch the debates, breathlessly waiting to hear these urgent questions posed, I of course don't expect they will be. Barry Bonds's role in promoting loutish behavior among children is clearly far more important than Washington's unconstitutional subsidy of sports teams or the various bizarre schemes Congress members are cooking up for making 13-year-olds submit urine specimens to the Anti-Doping Agency.

These questions really should be asked of all the candidates, though, not because baseball is (in this context) important or relevant to the federal government, but precisely because it isn't. Its very lack of importance allows politicians to use it as a tool to generate good feelings, usually by claiming to root for some team they don't care about, and as a tool for funneling money to backers and supporters. Meanwhile, baseball gets to posture as an ostensibly apolitical institution, while reaping benefits such as enormous welfare payments and preferential legislation from the capital.

This is all petty, but then so is most corruption and ineptitude. That's exactly why politicians should be grilled about it. The fact that rather than any of this, the only baseball-related issue anyone would even think to ask a candidate about concerns Bonds is very mildly frightening, and highly telling. I can guarantee this: Commissioner Bud Selig would prefer 1,000 questions about steroids to one about his precious ballpark subsidies. Anyone who wishes to run the executive branch should be able to demonstrate that he or she understands exactly why that is, and why the problems that baseball causes aren't about cynicism, but about money.