admin
The latest backlash against Stephen A. Smith shows why so many on the right regard him as a consummate flip-flopper rather than a principled commentator. Even conservative commentators like the Hodgetwins have made videos calling him out for changing positions whenever the cameras demand a new angle.
Smith has flirted with the idea of higher office in the press, even as he awkwardly backpedals about whether he’d run or how he’d vote, with polling showing token support that only fuels the circus around him. Reporters noted that speculation about a presidential bid is more media theater than a serious campaign, and Smith himself joked about the practical realities of running on late-night television.
The substance of the criticism cuts deeper than showmanship: Smith has publicly entertained voting for the current president and admitted he “maybe” should have voted for him, a startling admission from someone who has long presented himself as a center-left voice. That kind of on-the-fly political reorientation looks less like thoughtful evolution and more like tactical recalibration to stay relevant.
Meanwhile the corporate left’s reaction has been anything but consistent — MSNBC even labeled him a MAGA “megaphone” and Smith spent time defending himself from that charge, proving how easy it is to be smeared when your positions don’t march in lockstep with the party line. Rather than owning a coherent ideology, Smith toggles between outrage and conciliation depending on which outlet is paying attention.
Sports takes are no exception to the pattern. One week he crowns LeBron; the next he insists Michael Jordan deserves the throne — the vacillation has been cataloged by numerous outlets and it screams opportunism more than honest reassessment. Fans and critics alike have watched him pivot from praise to condemnation in a way that suggests headline-chasing drives his opinions.
Other media figures have not been shy about calling out Smith’s character and credibility, with vociferous critics accusing him of dishonesty and calculated performance. When peers publicly question your integrity, voters and viewers should pay attention to why that distrust exists rather than accept every dramatic soliloquy as gospel.
Conservatives shouldn’t celebrate shrillness, but neither should any serious thinker accept perpetual flip-flopping masquerading as nuance. What the media needs is fewer stagecraft personalities and more voices willing to stake coherent positions even when it’s unpopular, and the public deserves pundits who build credibility through consistent principles, not applause lines.
