Stephen A. Smith knows how to stir the pot.
In a speech that is bound to stir debate, ESPN’s Stephen A. Smith drew an audacious parallel between former U.S. President Donald Trump and WNBA star Caitlin Clark during a recent episode of “First Take.”
Smith’s commentary was triggered by remarks from a WNBA player who criticized Clark’s perceived detachment from issues of racism linked to how her image is utilized.
Smith ventured to compare this scenario to the contentious discourse surrounding Trump’s “Make America Great Again” slogan, which critics argue has been appropriated by some as a covert rallying cry for racist ideologies. He argued that both situations reveal deep-seated societal divisions.
“You have somebody that’s a presidential candidate. What is his claim to fame? Make America Great Again. What have people interpreted that to mean? Make America White Again… what has that led to? A divide. It is not a divide that is created. It is a divide that is illuminated because it’s highlighting and showing that it’s been in existence all along. It hasn’t gone anywhere,” Smith articulated during the show, according to Awful Announcing.
RELATED: Travis Kelce Reveals If He’ll Visit Donald Trump’s White House if Former President is Re-Elected
Through this comparison, Smith seemed to suggest that Clark, like Trump, might not be directly accountable for the ways in which others use her name, just as Trump may not be wholly responsible for every action taken by those who champion his slogans.
“There’s still a lot of work to be done,” Smith noted. “Because things haven’t changed as much as we’d like to believe, period.”
However, a critical distinction arises in Smith’s analogy. Unlike Trump, who has often been accused of deliberately fostering an “us vs. them” mentality for political gain, Clark has not engaged in rhetoric that promotes divisiveness.
This significant difference casts doubt on the effectiveness of Smith’s comparison, highlighting the complexity of holding public figures accountable for how others interpret and manipulate their words and actions.
This conversation underscores the ongoing challenge in distinguishing between a public figure’s direct influence and the broader cultural interpretations and manipulations of their persona.
