By Edelia J. Carthan, Ed.D.
Contributing Writer for The Mississippi Link Newspaper
Stephen A. Smith, we’ve admired your fervor as you passionately debate sports, bringing your signature energy and bravado to every discussion. However, when it comes to politics—particularly your recent comments about Vice President Kamala Harris not doing interviews—it’s clear that you’re out of your depth. Simply put, you're loud and wrong.
Let’s set the record straight: The current political climate is far from typical. The notion of a sitting president not running for re-election and endorsing their vice president is exceedingly rare. This scenario has only occurred a handful of times in our nation’s history.
Consider Lyndon B. Johnson in 1968: He chose not to seek re-election and supported his Vice President, Hubert Humphrey. Johnson’s decision was driven by unique circumstances, including the Vietnam War and national unrest. Humphrey, like Harris, was the de facto Democratic nominee, but his candidacy wasn’t confirmed until the Democratic National Convention. Johnson's decision to step down was also influenced by his plummeting approval ratings due to the war, which had reached an all-time low of 36% by March 1968. The expectation that a vice president should be conducting interviews or campaigning heavily before the official nomination is not rooted in political reality.
Take Harry S. Truman in 1952: He also stepped down after his first full term, but his Vice President, Alben W. Barkley, wasn’t even the nominee. Truman’s decision was influenced by fatigue, declining health, and the Korean War, which had become increasingly unpopular. Barkley, who was 74 at the time, was seen as too old to be a viable candidate, highlighting the unusual nature of expecting a sitting VP to take on the mantle of leadership before the convention. Truman’s approval rating had also sunk to 22% by February 1952, the lowest of any president until that time.
Then there’s James K. Polk in 1848: Polk didn’t seek re-election, sticking to his promise to serve only one term. His VP, George M. Dallas, didn’t run for the presidency, and there wasn’t any expectation that Polk would be out there doing interviews or playing a major public role before the conventions. Polk’s health had deteriorated during his presidency, and he died just three months after leaving office, emphasizing the toll that the presidency can take and the rationale behind stepping back from public life in such circumstances.
Stephen, you’re attempting to apply a sports narrative to politics, but this isn’t the NBA or the NFL. The political arena operates on a different timeline and set of rules. Vice President Harris is not hiding from anything; she’s following a strategic approach that respects the process. The Democratic National Convention is happening right now in Chicago. After this, she will do interviews. She has a plan, and she follows protocol. I think you may be used to or stuck in the Trump way of doing things, but there’s a new sheriff in town, and she’s a woman.
Instead of focusing on Kamala Harris’s adherence to a strategic plan, you should be talking about how white men can get away with anything—even running for President with 34 felony counts. No Black person could ever say or do the things Trump has and still be seen as a leader worthy of trust and followership. The same Bible that conservatives like to quote when it suits their interests also says, "By their fruits, ye shall know them." And, "Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free."
We are divided. We are wounded. We are losing at everything but sports and entertainment. Kids are watching, America is watching. The world is watching. Is this really the narrative we want to show? It is a time of truth, healing, and reconciliation. Change starts with you and me. We can make America great—again? When was America great? During slavery? Jim Crow? The Civil Rights Movement? Maybe I was absent that day in history class. Enlighten me.
Your commentary isn’t just off-base—it’s playing into the hands of those more interested in stirring controversy than in understanding history. Repeating Fox News talking points doesn’t add to the conversation; it diminishes it. You're better than this, Stephen. The energy and passion you bring to sports commentary are unmatched, but when it comes to political discourse, it’s time to recognize when you’re being used as a tool to further someone else’s agenda.
As we gear up for football season, I suggest you focus on what you do best: sports analysis. Leave the political punditry to those who understand the nuances and historical context of what’s unfolding. The last thing we need is more noise. This is a rare moment in history—one that doesn’t require your trademark volume, but rather, thoughtful silence and reflection.
So, Stephen, just stop talking about politics for a bit and get ready for football season. That's where you truly shine.
About the Author:
Dr. Edelia J. Carthan is a distinguished activist, advocate, and former college professor at the historic Tougaloo College. She is the President and CEO of CarthanEnterprises.com and a contributing writer for the Mississippi Link Newspaper. Dr. Carthan has devoted her career to education, social justice, and confronting false narratives. As a former candidate for the Mississippi House of Representatives, District 71, she leverages her Mississippi Delta experience, history, and a deep expertise to empower others and challenge misconceptions with truth, tenacity, and integrity. She is also a published author and Life Coach, dedicated to fostering healing, personal growth, and community development.
Comments