“Get That Son of a Bitch Off the Field!” Trump, Race, and Sports
The Box Score
All modern presidents talk about sports, but Donald Trump is in a different league when it comes to his tone and intent.
While most presidents use sports to unify the nation, Trump uses them to divide, especially on matters concerning race.
Trump’s position-taking on the NFL national anthem protests is arguably the most consequential statement a president has made on sports.
The Complete Game
In “The Sports Talk Presidency,” we learned that all modern presidents talk about sports. Donald Trump is no exception. In his first two years in office, Trump mentioned sports in roughly 11 percent of his speeches, a rate only exceeded by Barack Obama. While most presidential sports talk is pretty much the same, Trump’s sounds quite different; whereas most presidents use sports to unify, Trump used them to divide. Nowhere is this more apparent than his comments on race and sports.
This article examines Trump’s position-taking on the NFL national anthem protests. In “Five Lessons of the Modern Presidency,” we learned that self-interested politicians often take positions on issues to gain or consolidate political support. All presidents position-take, and many of them have done so using sports. What makes Trump unique is that he was the first to use sports as a wedge issue. And the strategy worked. The NFL protests offered Trump a way to rally his troops and further divide an already divided nation. In doing so, Trump helped turn sports into just another front in the ever-widening partisan war.
A Closer Look at Race, Sports, and Presidential Rhetoric.
All presidents since Nixon have used sports in an attempt to bridge racial divides. They did so by recognizing groundbreaking accomplishments of Black athletes like Jesse Owens (25 references from seven presidents) and Jackie Robinson (33 references by seven presidents), and by communicating familiar, if not always accurate, bromides of how sports can bring people together.
Consider just a few examples from the 492 presidential mentions of race and sports. Gerald Ford eulogized golfer Lee Elder by saying that Americans “pay tribute to a person who has achieved what we think in the sports world is a great accomplishment—the right to compete in the Master’s Tournament at Augusta.” Richard Nixon viewed sports (and music and art) as the meritocratic ideal to be emulated throughout American society and politics: “In the field of music, in the field of art, in the field of athletics, we all know that as far as ability is concerned, it is recognized; it knows no color, it knows no religion. If a man or a woman has it, he or she goes to the top, and that is the way it ought to be.” Ronald Reagan frequently told a story of how he fought for racial integration in baseball during his time as an announcer:
“But I, fortunately, was raised by a mother and father who believed that the—well, the only intolerance they had was they were intolerant of intolerance. And I was raised to believe something else. And when I was a sports announcer in Iowa, not too far from Centerville, announcing major league baseball—how many of you remember that, within that span of time, major league baseball—no blacks were allowed to play? It was in the Spaulding Guide. It said, “Baseball is a game for Caucasian gentlemen.” And there were some of us at that time that began campaigning that this was wrong, and this was immoral, and it should be changed. And I am proud to say I was one of those.” -- Ronald Reagan, Remarks and a Question-and-Answer Session With Participants in the National Conference of the National Association of Student Councils in Shawnee Mission, June 29, 1983.
Even “Silent Cal” Coolidge recognized the unifying effect of sports back in 1924:
“A special consideration suggests the value of a development of national interest in recreation and sports. There is no better common denominator of a people. In the case of a people which represents many nations, cultures and races, as does our own, a unification of interests and ideals in recreations is bound to wield a telling influence for solidarity of the entire population. No more truly democratic force can be set off against the tendency to class and caste than the democracy of individual parts and prowess in sport.” -- Calvin Coolidge, “Address to the National Conference on Outdoor Recreation in Washington, DC: "The Democracy of Sports.” May 22, 1924.
Both Republican and Democratic presidents’ tendency to repeat similar themes on race and sports is so pronounced that their words often seem crafted by the same speechwriter. Consider how three very different presidents offer similar depictions of how the U.S. Olympic team reflects the proverbial American melting pot:
Reagan: And I have just a final point here. One of the things I noted and liked so much as I watched the games on TV was that often in many of the events, you could sort out or figure out who represented what country, except with the American athletes. With the American athletes, we almost always had to see the U.S.A. on your uniforms, because our team came in all shapes and sizes, all colors and nationalities and races and ethnic groups. And I was thinking, you can talk on and read forever books about the melting pot; but the past 2 weeks, there it was winning medals for us, representing us every day—140 countries represented here in the only place in the world where those who are competing for this nation had the bloodlines and the background of more than those 140 countries.
Clinton: The last thing I want to say is this: If you look around in this vast, wonderful, magnificent sea of people, you will see people whose ancestors came from all different places. When I went to see the Olympics and to start them off and I met with the American Olympic team, it made chills run up and down my spine. I thought to myself, if these kids didn’t have the American uniform on and they were just walking out there in the Olympic Village, you wouldn’t have a clue where they were from. You’d think, well, that person is on the African team and that one’s on the Korean team and that one’s on the Japanese team and that one’s from the Caribbean somewhere and this one’s from Latin America and the other one’s from Europe and there’s somebody from Scandinavia. You can be from anywhere and be American.
Obama: And one of the great things about watching our Olympics is we are a portrait of what this country is all about: people from every walk of life, every background, every race, every faith. It sends a message to the world about what makes America special.
The preceding is not to say that every president spoke well about the intersection of race, politics, and sports. And it certainly does not suggest that presidents were able to use sports to bridge racial divides. It does mean, however, that all recent presidents, Republican and Democrat alike, made some effort to address racial issues through sports. Moreover, it is difficult to find evidence of a president criticizing a racial or ethnic group through sport. Presidents might rebuke an athlete of color, as Obama did with Baltimore Raven running back Ray Rice after his domestic violence arrest. They might also point to some incidents to illustrate the continuing need to address racism, as Obama did after comments made by former Clipper owner Donald Sterling. But I have found no evidence of a recent president, besides Trump, making a public statement criticizing an entire racial or ethnic group in the context of sports.
Trump’s Position-Taking on Kneeling
Trump takes a very different tact on race, and nowhere is this more evident than his statements on the NFL players kneeling during the national anthem. Before we get to the story, let’s take a little refresher on the rhetorical technique of position-taking. It is often advantageous for politicians to take a position on an issue, win, lose, or draw. For ambitious politicians, being on the right side of an issue is usually more important than an actual policy win. In this way, we can distinguish position-taking from going public, although they are both strategies of instrumental rhetoric. Position-taking is a political strategy designed to boost a politician’s popularity or provide an electoral advantage; going public seeks a specific policy outcome. In this essay, I argue that Trump’s criticism of NFL players kneeling during the national anthem is an example of presidential position-taking, and one that finds no parallel in White House history.
During the 2016 NFL pre-season, San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick first sat, then, after consultation with former Seattle Seahawk player and ex-Green Beret Nate Boyer (who is White), eventually took a knee during the national anthem to protest police brutality and racial injustice in America. Other NFL players, almost all Black, soon took up the protest.
Kneeling during the national anthem was controversial before then-presidential candidate Donald Trump first weighed in on the subject on August 29, 2016—Trump said that Kaepernick “should find a country that works better for him”—but Trump was instrumental in reframing and weaponizing the debate.
Trump’s reframing of the protests dismissed all of the players’ concerns about racial inequities and injustices. For Trump, the issue was about patriotism, the U.S. military, heritage, and respect for national symbols. “The issue of kneeling has nothing to do with race,” the president said in a September 2017 tweet. “It is about respect for our Country, Flag, and National Anthem.” Trump repeated variants of this frame—the protesters disrespect the flag, the military, and America—in 37 separate tweets and public statements. For example, at an October 16, 2017 news conference, Trump was asked about Hillary Clinton’s view that the protesters’ actions were not disrespecting the flag or the military. Trump responded to Clinton’s comments by saying:
“Oh, I hope Hillary runs. Is she going to run? I hope. Hillary, please run again.
Go ahead… I think she’s wrong. Look, when they take a knee—there’s plenty of time to do knees, and there’s plenty of time to do lots of other things… But when you take a knee—well, that’s why she lost the election. I mean, honestly, it’s that thinking, that is the reason she lost the election. When you go down and take a knee or any other way, you’re sitting essentially for our great national anthem, you’re disrespecting our flag and you’re disrespecting our country.” -- Donald J. Trump, The President's News Conference With Senate Majority Leader A. Mitchell McConnell, October 16, 2017.
Trump’s “respect the flag” frame was powerful for several reasons: it resonated with the core values of many Americans, Trump and his allies in the conservative media repeated it often, and it was simple and easy to understand. The last point deserves a little more elaboration. Powerful frames usually dispense with nuance and cast complex issues in simplistic, absolutist terms. Frames of this sort alleviate an audience’s need to go through the painful process of reconciling competing values or reanalyzing pre-existing beliefs. In many ways, Twitter is the perfect vehicle for sending powerful and simplistic frames. Consider, for example, this Trump tweet sent on October 23, 2017, “Two dozen NFL players continue to kneel during the National Anthem, showing total disrespect to our Flag & Country. No leadership in NFL?”
Now, contrast Trump’s framing with the nuanced approach taken by Obama when asked about Kaepernick in early September 2016:
“And in terms of Mr. Kaepernick, I’ve got to confess that I haven’t been thinking about football while I’ve been over here [China], and I haven’t been following this closely. But I—my understanding, at least, is, is that he’s exercising his constitutional right to make a statement. I think there’s a long history of sports figures doing so. I think there are a lot of ways you can do it. As a general matter, when it comes to the flag and the national anthem and the meaning that that holds for our men and women in uniform and those who fought for us, that is a tough thing for them to get past to then hear what his deeper concerns are. But I don’t doubt his sincerity, based on what I’ve heard. I think he cares about some real, legitimate issues that have to be talked about. And if nothing else, what he’s done is, he’s generated more conversation around some topics that need to be talked about.
So, again, I haven’t been paying close attention to it, but you’ve heard me talk about in the past the need for us to have an active citizenry. Sometimes, that’s messy and controversial, and it gets people angry and frustrated. But I’d rather have young people who are engaged in the argument and trying to think through how they can be part of our democratic process than people who are just sitting on the sidelines and not paying attention at all.
And my suspicion is, is that over time, he’s going to refine how he’s thinking about it, and maybe some of his critics will start seeing that he has a point around certain concerns about justice and equality. And that’s how we move forward. Sometimes, it’s messy, but it’s the way democracy works. All right?” -- Barack Obama, “The President's News Conference in Hangzhou,” September 5, 2016.
If the more powerful frame wins, then Trump is the winner by knockout. Trump’s frame is clear, hard-hitting, and angry; Obama’s frame is nuanced, measured, and optimistic. Obama recognizes that NFL players have a legitimate grievance and that their actions are hurtful to many Americans. He acknowledges the tension between freedom of speech and respect for others. Obama questions whether kneeling during the anthem is the most effective way to change hearts and minds, yet celebrates the players’ civic activism. And he ends on an optimistic note about progress and democracy. Unfortunately for Obama, and for the United States, nuance and measured speech had long since fallen out of favor with Americans.
Trump knew early on that the NFL protests offered him an issue and a frame that would resonate with his base. At a dinner with conservative leaders in mid-September, Trump boasted that his critique of the NFL players was gaining a lot of traction. “It’s really caught on. It’s really caught on,” the president observed. “I said what millions of Americans were thinking.”
In late September 2017, during a campaign rally for Senate candidate Luther Strange in Huntsville, Alabama, Trump issued his strongest rebuke of the NFL players. As Trump meandered, off-script, through a familiar litany of grievances—the “fake news,” the D.C. swamp, Mexican drug smugglers throwing cocaine over the wall and hitting people in the head—the energy began to drain from the Republican faithful in the Von Braun Center. So, Trump pivoted to the NFL:
“Luther and I, and everyone in this arena tonight, are unified by the same great American values. We’re proud of our country. We respect our flag. Wouldn’t you love to see one of these NFL owners, when somebody disrespects our flag, to say, “Get that son of a bitch off the field right now—out, he’s fired”? He’s fired! Wouldn’t you love it?... that’s [kneeling during the anthem] it’s a total disrespect of our heritage. That’s a total disrespect of everything that we stand for, okay? Everything that we stand for.” -- Donald J. Trump, Remarks at a Campaign Rally for Senator Luther J. Strange III in Huntsville, Alabama. September 22, 2017.
The crowd erupted in cheers and applause at Trump’s “son of a bitch” comment. The president then set the hook by talking about how the NFL’s TV ratings were tanking because of him, complaining that the NFL’s attempt to protect its players from concussions was ruining his enjoyment of the game. Then he returned to the subject of protests, asking the audience to leave the stadium the next time a player took a knee.
Trump’s intuition about his NFL statements “catching on” was not only anecdotally supported by the Strange rally, but is also born out in survey data. The Upshot’s Kevin Quealy reported that the NFL’s “unfavorable” ratings among Republicans jumped from around 25% before Trump’s comments during the Strange rally to 58% shortly after (Democrats’ favorability of the NFL remained essentially unchanged). Table 4 describes the results of a 2017 CBS News/YouGov poll that also shows a clear partisan cleavage on the issue, with Republicans strongly supporting Trump’s comments (72%) and Democrats equally supportive of the NFL players (67%). There was also a strong partisan and racial divide over the perceived motivations for the protests. Democrats and African-Americans viewed the protesters as calling attention to racism (82% Democrats; 84% African-Americans), unfair police tactics (84% and 88%), and sticking up for people in their community (86% and 88%). Republicans, by contrast, believed the protesters were intentionally disrespecting the flag and anthem (70%). Republicans and Democrats also had differing opinions of why Trump offered his comments in the first place: Republicans felt he was trying to unite the country (65%); Democrats felt his motivation was to divide (64%). Finally, Trump certainly had his finger on the pulse of his Republican base when it came to the anthem and the flag. A substantial majority of Americans, regardless of party identification or race, reported that the American flag held significant meaning for them. But Republicans’ support for the flag was off-the-charts: 98% felt it represented a shared American heritage, and 95% thought it was part of an honored tradition. It is little wonder that the president’s comments played well with a base that so strongly values patriotism, heritage, and tradition.
(How Trump’s comments affected the NFL’s bottom line is an interesting question. There is little doubt that NFL ratings were down for the 2017 season. How much of that was due to Trump and how much is attributable to cable cord-cutting or a growing disinterest in football is debatable.)
Trump’s divisive comments about African-Americans were not limited to the NFL. Trump tweeted that he withdrew the Golden State Warriors invitation to the White House after Stephen Curry said he would not visit if invited. He got into a Twitter spat with LaVar Ball after securing his son’s release from a Chinese jail, calling Ball “a poor man’s version of Don King, but without the hair.” And Trump blamed ESPN’s ratings “tank” on Jemele Hill, an African-American sports anchor who dared to criticize him.
The president’s criticism of persons of color was also not limited to African-Americans. On three occasions, the president singled out undocumented immigrants in the context of sports. After a car crash took the life of Indianapolis Colt linebacker Edwin Jackson, Trump tweeted, “So disgraceful that a person illegally in our country killed @Colts linebacker Edwin Jackson. This is just one of many such preventable tragedies. We must get the Dems to get tough on the Border, and with illegal immigration, FAST!” During his 2018 State of the Union Address, Trump mourned the death of Jamiel Shaw, a promising high school quarterback who was murdered by an undocumented gang member. And in an interview with Jim Gray of Westward One, Trump was asked if his Executive Order 13769, which banned travel and refugees from seven majority Muslim nations, might hurt Los Angeles’ bid to host the 2024 Olympics. Trump responded, “Well, I don’t know, but we have to have—regardless, we have to have security in our country.”
The frequency that Trump says something polarizing about athletes of color is astounding. Of his 50 comments on race, Trump mentioned or alluded to Black athletes 44 times, and each time he said something polarizing. I could find only one White sports figure that Trump routinely criticized, and that was NFL commission Roger Goodall, whom Trump blamed for not “getting tough” with the protesting Black football players.
While Trump is sparing with his praise for anyone, he tends to applaud White players, White owners, White coaches, and teams from predominately White sports. In September of 2017, Trump tweeted, “So proud of NASCAR and its supporters and fans. They won’t put up with disrespecting our Country or our Flag – they said it loud and clear!” In October 2017, Trump invited the Stanley Cup Champion Pittsburgh Penguins to the White House. The visit came two days after Trump’s “son of a bitch” comment and one day after Trump disinvited Steph Curry and the Warriors to the White House. Trump started the festivities by pointing to the Penguins assembled behind him and saying, “By the way, everyone wanted to be here today. And I know why.” Now, no one knows for sure what the president meant by “and I know why,” but one possibility might have been that the players standing behind him were all White (Trevor Daley, the only Black player on the Penguin’s Stanley Cup roster, did not attend the White House ceremony).
A few caveats are in order here. I do not suggest that Donald Trump is the first president to speak to his base or pursue a divide-and-conquer strategy. I do argue that Trump is one of the first to do so using sports. And it is important not to overstate the effect of Trump’s comments on race and sports. Political and racial divisions were painfully evident in America well before Trump ever commented on Colin Kaepernick.
That said, Trump’s application of his no-holds-barred rhetorical style to sports only exacerbated the long-standing racial and political divides in America. His unwillingness to make unifying statements on race has emboldened the alt-right and White supremacists. And his comments open the door for other political commentators on the right, like Fox News’ Laura Ingraham, to bash Black athletes and score easy points with their audience. In February 2018, Ingraham took offense at Cleveland Cavalier’s all-star LaBron James for critical comments he made about Donald Trump, saying, “It’s always unwise to seek political advice from someone who gets paid $100 million a year to bounce a ball. Keep the political comments to yourself… shut up and dribble.” While American sports were never the idyllic, apolitical pastime they were made out to be, they have never been more political or politicized than they are now. And much of that is due to Donald Trump.
