When ESPN commentator Stephen A. Smith declared on HBO’s Real Time with Bill Maher that Donald Trump won the 2024 presidential election because he seemed “closer to normal” than Kamala Harris, it wasn’t just the claim itself that sparked a backlash—it was the glaring contradiction. Trump, whose political brand is built on defying norms and challenging conventions, has hardly been synonymous with the concept of normalcy. Yet Smith’s comment underscored a broader trend in the American political landscape: a shift in how voters perceive leadership, rooted more in cultural touchstones than in policy achievements or personal character.
Smith’s argument centered on the idea that the Democratic Party’s focus on issues affecting small minority populations alienated voters who felt overlooked. He specifically referenced the party’s prioritization of discussions around the transgender community and other progressive causes, contrasting this with Trump’s ability to dominate headlines with bold executive orders, even those destined for legal challenges. For Smith, Trump’s appeal was tied to his performative follow-through, regardless of the outcomes. “He promised you he was going to do these things,” Smith said, “and he walked in the office week one, and that’s exactly what he’s doing.”
Critics were quick to respond, pointing to the Biden-Harris administration’s concrete achievements: the Inflation Reduction Act, the CHIPS Act, historic investments in infrastructure and green energy, and a record-breaking four years of job growth. A viral post on social media laid out these accomplishments in detail, lamenting that voters overlooked substantive policy wins in favor of what the user called “vibes.” This frustration highlights a widening gap in American politics: a disconnection between the actual legislative record and public perception, with the latter often shaped by media narratives and emotional resonance rather than facts.
Smith’s political evolution has not gone unnoticed. Once a self-described apolitical observer, he has steadily moved to the right, echoing rhetoric about alleged political witch hunts and even amplifying baseless claims surrounding the January 6 Capitol attack. For many, this transformation feels less like genuine conviction and more like opportunism. As one critic noted online, “Does he mean it? Or is he just a grifter following the power?”
In the end, Smith’s comments say less about Trump or Harris and more about the current state of American democracy. The election was not decided by policy or record, but by perception—a battle over who could project a semblance of relatability to a fractured electorate. Whether Trump’s return to the presidency represents a recalibration of norms or a rejection of them altogether, one thing remains clear: in today’s political arena, “normal” is in the eye of the beholder.
Recent Comments