by Delgreco K. Wilson, M.A.

CAMDEN, NJ – When the logic of the market replaces the ethics of democracy in political discourse, we all lose.

In the annals of American sports commentary, few declarations have been as revealing as Stephen A. Smith’s famous professional mantra: “I wake up every day asking, ‘how can I make my bosses more money?’ and then ‘how can I get some of it?'” This philosophy has propelled him to the pinnacle of sports entertainment, culminating in a recent ESPN contract worth over $100 million for five years. But when this same transactional worldview—where value is measured exclusively in revenue and influence is calibrated for profit—extends into the realm of political analysis, it threatens to degrade our democratic discourse and undermines the particular responsibilities of Black public figures in an era of political crisis.

Smith’s foray into political commentary and his openness to a 2028 presidential run have made him a lightning rod in Black intellectual circles, where his commentary is increasingly viewed as vacuous at best and dangerously aligned with MAGA interests at worst. The controversy surrounding him represents more than just another celebrity dabbling in politics; it exemplifies the dangerous convergence of entertainment and governance in modern America and resurrects painful historical questions about the pressure on Black figures to seek validation from white-dominated institutions.

The Profit Motive in Political Commentary: When Everything Becomes a Business

Stephen A. Smith’s business philosophy, however successful in sports entertainment, becomes profoundly problematic when applied to political analysis. The fundamental incompatibility lies in their core values: democratic discourse requires truth-seeking, principled argument, and concern for the common good, while market logic prioritizes profit, audience growth, and personal brand expansion. Smith has explicitly acknowledged his lack of political expertise, telling The Washington Post, “I’m certainly not an aficionado by any stretch of the imagination… Most Americans are not aficionados. They don’t know all the intimacies and intricacies of every single issue”. Yet rather than humbly acknowledging these limitations, he presents them as a credential of authenticity.

This approach has tangible consequences. Political analysis driven by entertainment values gravitates toward sensationalism over substance, conflict over consensus, and viral moments over nuanced truth. Smith’s commentary follows this pattern—loud, confident, and often lacking in policy depth. As journalist Carron J. Phillips noted in The Contrarian, “Politics, like elections, have real-world consequences. Thick skin is mandatory in the political landscape. And, given recent examples, Smith hasn’t proved he can take a punch in this arena”. The same performance that works for sports debate becomes irresponsible when discussing issues like tariffs, foreign policy, or civil rights.

Smith’s political rise reflects what happens when celebrity status masquerades as expertise. His appearance in presidential polls and his serious consideration of a 2028 run—despite having never held office or demonstrated deep policy knowledge—speaks to our degraded political landscape. As Bill Whalen, a former media consultant for Arnold Schwarzenegger, observed, “The question is, what does Stephen A Smith believe in at the end of the day?… Where is Stephen A Smith on abortion? Where is he on DEI? Where is he on quotas and affirmative action? Where is he on crime? Where is he on spending? The list goes on. You just don’t know”.

Historical Context: The Burden of Seeking White Validation

To understand the strong reaction to Smith’s political commentary within Black communities, one must appreciate the historical burden of what it has meant for Black Americans to navigate white-dominated institutions and seek acceptance within them. This dynamic is not rooted in any inherent trait of Black people but in powerful structures created by centuries of oppression:

• The Legacy of Slavery and Jim Crow: For centuries, Black people were systematically dehumanized, with the slave master’s approval often meaning the difference between better treatment and brutal punishment. Under Jim Crow, access to resources, justice, and safety frequently depended on being deemed “respectable” by the white power structure.
• Respectability Politics: This strategy emerged whereby marginalized groups attempted to police their own members to align with dominant culture’s values, hoping this would grant them social mobility and rights. The unspoken promise was that if Black people acted “properly,” they would be seen as more human and deserving by white society.
• Gatekeepers of Opportunity: Throughout American history, the primary gatekeepers of economic, political, and cultural power—CEOs, university admissions officers, publishers, Hollywood executives—have been overwhelmingly white. Gaining validation from these gatekeepers often appeared the most direct path to economic mobility, educational access, and cultural representation.

Against this historical backdrop, Stephen A. Smith’s approach reads to many critics as a modern manifestation of these dynamics—a Black public figure gaining platform and reward through amplifying viewpoints that align with white conservative interests rather than community needs.

Stephen A. Smith’s Political Evolution and Black Opposition

Smith’s political positioning has evolved into what he describes as a “fiscal conservative and a social liberal” who is “utterly disgusted” with the Democratic Party. While he claims the mantle of an independent thinker, his commentary consistently aligns with MAGA talking points that have drawn criticism from Black intellectuals and community members.

Table: Stephen A. Smith’s Political Positioning and Community Response

Smith’s commentary on Black voting patterns has been particularly contentious. He has lamented what he calls Black voters’ “unconditional loyalty” to Democrats, arguing that this “disenfranchises” the community by reducing its political leverage. While this argument contains a strategic logic, many critics note that it ignores the historical reasons for Black alignment with Democrats—including the party’s support for civil rights legislation and the Republican Party’s embrace of voter suppression tactics and politicians with white nationalist ties.

The backlash against Smith reflects a broader rejection of what many see as his transactional approach to racial justice. His commentary often frames political choices in terms of market-style negotiation rather than principles of justice or historical solidarity. This approach strikes many Black critics as not just politically naive but historically ignorant of how racial hierarchy actually functions in America.

The perception of Smith as aligned with MAGA interests intensified when Donald Trump himself endorsed a potential Smith presidential run, saying he’d “love to see him run” and praising his “great entertainment skills”. For many Black observers, Trump’s endorsement confirmed Smith’s alignment with political forces that have shown consistent hostility to Black civil rights and democratic participation.

Conclusion: Beyond Transactional Politics

Stephen A. Smith’s extension of his profit-first philosophy into political commentary represents a dangerous narrowing of democratic possibility. It reduces citizenship to a transaction and political discourse to entertainment. The strong negative response from Black intellectual circles reflects not just disagreement with his specific positions but a profound understanding of what happens when community interests are subordinated to personal brand-building and revenue generation.

The challenge for Black communities—and for American democracy broadly—is to resist the siren song of transactional politics that measures value primarily in ratings and revenue. What makes Stephen A. Smith’s political commentary so concerning is not that he holds conservative views, but that his entire approach to politics appears to mirror his approach to business: everything is a negotiation, every principle has a price, and the highest value is expanding one’s own platform and profit.

As we navigate the complex political landscape of 2025 and look toward future elections, the need for authentic representation grounded in community accountability has never been more urgent. The alternative—a political discourse dominated by entertainment values and personal profit motives—threatens to complete the corrosion of our democratic institutions. Black communities’ rejection of Stephen A. Smith’s political brand represents not closed-mindedness but a hard-won understanding that some things—justice, representation, human dignity—should never be put on the auction block.