From Football to Fiasco

There is no shortage of media coverage portraying Herschel Walker as an imbecile and fabulist. The former NFL star is 60 years old, played pro football from 1983 to 1997, made about $US15million during his career, and was encouraged to run for the US Senate in the state of Georgia by former president Donald Trump. His campaign, however, has been a calamitous series of errors—his lies about graduating from college, his views on gun control and climate change, and his peculiar thoughts about China’s “bad air” have all drawn a flood of media derision.

A New Republic headline announced that, “Herschel Walker Is Running to Be the Senate’s Dumbest Liar.” Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson has warned that, “If Herschel Walker wins in Georgia, America will have lost its mind.” And Deadspin has called Walker “the ultimate dumb jock.” I do not find this coverage offensive. Walker has indeed said many deeply stupid things during the course of his campaign, and has never been known as a great thinker in any case. Among his many and various faceplants, he has blasted absentee fathers only for it to emerge that he has three kids of his own whom he apparently never sees.

I don’t want to get into itemizing all the idiotic things the guy has said during his gaffe-prone campaign. As a journalist who has spent time in locker rooms with jocks like him, and on the campaign trail with equally ignorant politicians, idiocy does not interest me. (I once asked a police officer in Texas why he was running for sheriff, and he said he’d have to check with his campaign manager and get back to me.) But I do find myself wondering why ex-jocks have not made more frequent forays into the political arena. After all, successful election campaigns require name recognition, cashflow, and stamina, and retired professional athletes in the United States enjoy all three. The first two—fame and money—have certainly increased in the past few decades as pro sports moved ahead of the movies and TV shows in terms of ratings and profits.

People in the business community usually start their political careers in their 30s and 40s. So why are more athletes—who generally retire from sports at that age anyway—not also moving into politics? Basketball legend Kareem Abdul-Jabbar had this to say on his Substack recently:

I’ve always argued that it’s the responsibility of highly paid athletes to use their privileged platform to better the lives of others. That’s just the right thing to do. It also has the added benefit of elevating professional sports in the eyes of the public from being just greedy profit conglomerates raking in billions to being integral boosters of the communities that finance them. And it also elevates athletes from stereotypes of dumb gym rats with more bulging muscle than brain matter to grateful and compassionate neighbors.

Yet, sometimes athletes and former athletes want to take advantage of their fame by running for political office. That’s where things get tricky because, depending on the office, that’s a lot of power suddenly in the hands of someone just because they could slamdunk a basketball, slug home runs, or run touchdowns. None of these skills preclude someone from doing well as a politician, but neither do they add anything.

Abdul-Jabbar makes a number of good points here, but the combination of sports celebrity and elected political power is hardly a worry since ex-athletes don’t play much of a role in US politics. Walker is something of an aberration.

Much of this has to do with the fact that the skills most important to success in elite sports are related to what scientists call “muscle memory.” As Christopher Mance II, a former wrestler and self-styled “mental skills coach,” puts it, “In sports, the term muscle memory typically refers to one’s ability to execute a skill flawlessly without thinking. It takes an enormous number of repetitions to commit a complex skill to one’s muscle memory.” One researcher observed, “In most sporting competition, athletes are at a disadvantage if they need to think before moving.”

I’ve found I get bored talking to athletes about their groin pulls and the dedication they bring to their work, but most of the time I do it anyway. I’ve always preferred trying to get inside the brain of those able to accomplish feats of strength and skill. But this is generally a dead end. While most can explain why chicken breast is their main protein source (or at least provide their hired trainer’s protein explanation), they have a hard time articulating why they cut this way or that, made the no-look pass no one else saw coming, or hit a 400-foot home run in extra innings when a 100-mph fastball gave them only a few milliseconds of reaction time. They simply haven’t thought that way in decades, if ever.

University of Georgia Bulldogs' running back Herschel Walker #34 runs with the ball during a 1981 practice session. Walker was elected to the College Football Hall of Fame in 1999. (Photo by Focus on Sport via Getty Images)

When I was writing a profile of NBA player Kyle Korver, I realized why this was. The six-foot five-inch Korver, who started as an also-ran in the league, lasted 17 years and made an estimated $82 million in that time. When I began asking him how he was able to do that, he tried to explain how the technique he developed for shooting his three-pointers made up for his relative lack of height and speed. It soon became apparent that the only way he could show me what he meant was by demonstrating on the court. The ball needed to be passed into his right hand at precisely the right time and precisely the right height so he could get off his shot quickly without getting blocked. That way, he could make about 50 percent of his shots and keep his place in the league.

So what does all this have to do with Herschel Walker running for the Senate? The problem Walker faces is that professional US athletes have existed in a bubble since grade school, receiving preferential treatment from day one. Today, they live in an age of prerecorded podcasts and carefully curated Instagram posts which allow them to exercise tight control over their public image. This makes running for political office extremely difficult because the key to success is thinking through programs and policy and explaining them publicly, skills that star athletes have never really had to develop.

The media and business arrangements of the leagues, teams, and pro athletes mean it’s likely that Herschel Walker never had to answer any questions any more complicated than whether his foot still hurt after it got stomped by a 300-pound opponent. No one in the sports media ever bothered to ask whether or not he was telling the truth about graduating from the University of Georgia, or serving as a police officer and training to be an FBI agent. That simply wasn’t part of the deal.

Was being an African American from the South a factor in all this? Perhaps. The sociologist Harry Edwards has pointed out that Walker never involved himself in civil rights protests or other racial controversies because it might have hurt his career, so he isn’t used to navigating the fraught public debate about race:

“Herschel Walker,” Harry Edwards, the Black sociologist and longtime advocate for activism among Black athletes, told the Atlanta Constitution in 1986, “was in good shape in Georgia as long as he was ‘the right kind of n-----.’ It’s as simple as that. That’s something Black people recognize universally in this society. As long as he restricted himself to activities and comments about what was happening on the football field, he was OK. They were demonstrating against racial injustice in his hometown, and he couldn’t come out and make a statement about it because he was eminently concerned about being above reproach as far as his credentials relative to being ‘the right kind of n-----.’”

“Down in Georgia at that time they didn’t call you Black. They called you a n-----,” Edwards told me recently. “He was simply saying, ‘I’m not going to get involved with activism, because it’s not about Black folks, it’s not about the state of Georgia—it’s about me. And as long as they think that I’m a good n-----, I got a chance.”

Edwards is probably being unfair. We are who we are. Walker was seen as a star athlete from the beginning and duly placed on a pedestal, and in that role he made a lot of people rich and a lot of fans happy. He was probably required to do less studying than his fellow students, so he wasn’t asked for his political opinions and didn’t feel compelled to offer them. Now he is finding that he is not especially good at it, partly because he’s never had the practice.

It is true that people who make a lucrative living that involves a lot of public exposure and attention might be expected to seek a profession that offers more of the same when they retire. But most US athletes understand that getting into politics requires a different skillset, which is why, historically, only a tiny number of American professional athletes have done so (Bill Bradley, Jack Kemp, Alan Page, Dave Bing, and a few others). Herschel Walker is now aware of that, and he has brought in a new campaign team to try and keep his media critics at bay. In order to win in politics, a candidate has to embrace the electorate and answer questions that are not league-approved. They can no longer depend on the adulation that comes with sporting prowess and success.

None of this necessarily means he will lose his race. The polls indicate that it is close, and some Georgians will no doubt vote for him simply because he is the Republican candidate and/or because he is a former football star. Others won’t vote for him for the same reasons. We’ll just have to wait see how that game plays out. But Walker evidently thought that stepping from sports into politics would be easy. He’s discovering that it’s much harder than it looks.

This is a companion discussion topic for the original entry at

“Georgians will no doubt vote for him simply because he is the Republican candidate and/or because he is a former football star.” And some might vote for him after comparing him with his opponent and their likely votes on the very critical issue facing America.

A little odd that the author didn’t mention this possibility.


The continual revelations of multiple children from multiple baby-mamas have punctured any notion of Walker as plausible candidate.

Warnock is a target-rich environment, and won ONLY due to Trump self-destruction. The R leaders in GA told voters not to vote as the election was certainly rigged. A stupider thing I have never heard of, but anything from Trump is always pushing at the margins of collasalstupidity.

1 Like

As long as significant portions of the media continue to confuse politics and entertainment, know-nothing celebrities will continue to run for and often win public office.

1 Like

He did mention it though. That is what is meant by “Georgians will no doubt vote for him simply because he is the Republican candidate”. As a Republican candidate he will be expected to generally vote the way most Republicans do.

1 Like

Not quite the same thing. “Because he is the Republican candidate” sounds like either the voters in question are mindless party-line voters, or all Republicans believe the same thing, or both.

1 Like

It is true that political labeling contains some element of ambiguity. However, it is also true that if someone is a “Democratic Voter” or a “Republican Voter” it generally means they have policy preferences aligned with that party.

While I am sure there are people who vote for political parties while simultaneously not sharing that parties values, I feel its safe to say that when a political essayist mentions “People voting for the Republican candidate” they are not referring to these people.

Absolutely. This is why many voted for Trump. Few felt that he was an honorable man nor an honest man. But a vote for Hillary? No way in hell for me.

1 Like

Yup. You just described my state of mind in 2016 perfectly.

I confess it on my knees that if a Yank I might very well have voted for him in '16 myself. God knows our resumes anyway so there’s no point in denying it now. I still have these dreams where I’m in the voting booth and … the dream always ends there. I have no idea if I could actually have done it, but …

1 Like

Trump’s tenure in office wasn’t the disaster it has been made out to be. It is only a disaster because a group of elite opinion makers said so. He was a middle-level president at best. His replacement has been a catastrophe.


I think one of the differences between Yanks and the rest of us in the Anglosphere is that we expect some decorum from our head of state. For your average Canadian or Australian or Brit, DJT is simply impossible to imagine as head of state. For Yanks, it’s possible.




God save the Queen.

1 Like

All true. But of course, we don’t keep our heads of state for 70years. We like to rotate them through.

But you’re right of course. It’s hard to argue with the quality of British leadership…


1 Like

No system is perfect. Quite within the rules to counter just as you have. There have been some truly dreadful monarchs and even worse minor royals. Thing is tho that the Queen is not a whore in the way that all politicians are whores. Constitutional monarchy is best.

1 Like

No, it’s not. It’s an inherited position reserved for one family for no other reason than they were the last ones left standing after centuries of internecine strife and internal pillage. Forgot to mention… but I personally find theocracy the most repellent of all systems. And the English monarch is a theocrat…

1 Like

And that’s exactly why it works. William does not apply for the job, he is born into it. If he has the right stuff he will carry the burden as his grandma does, with style and self-sacrifice. But many have failed the test, his brother for one. His mother. His great great uncle. But if he is up to the job, he will anchor his country as no Trump or Biden can possibly do. I understand that you don’t understand.

1 Like

How insufferably smug and unfathomably vile.

It is not hard to “understand” the incestuous orgy of retrograde garbage that produces royalty. What boggles the mind is that in the year 2022, anyone on this planet would still find such a system “preferable”, let alone “desirable”.

How insufferably smug and unfathomably vile.

Just kidding. I do understand that you don’t understand and your reaction is predictable. Americans are always touchy about this.

Statistically speaking, the world’s constitutional monarchies are demonstrably the top performers by any measure of stability and prosperity. Whether or not it boggles your mind or not, monarchy works. It boggles my mind that 0!=1, but that’s the way it is.

1 Like

You do realize we have Charlie between Elizabeth and William? He could make Trump or Biden look like rocket scientists.

You also realize that they are merely figure heads, the real leaders are folks like Boris Johnson, Teresa May and Justin Trudeau?

America’s figure heads are on their currency - all offering faultless wisdom from the grave.