“Michael Jordan Can’t Beat LeBron James in This One Area”: How MJ’s Aversion to Political Activism Was Contrasted by The King’s Outspoken Statements

The NBA’s 2 greatest players LeBron James and Michael Jordan have had different paths to greatness, on the court as well as off it.

LeBron James was born into a single-parent household with an absent father. His mother, Gloria James, was still a teenager when she gave birth to him. They were poor for nearly all of James’ pre-teen years, surviving on coupons and welfare.

Michael Jordan, by contrast, was born in better circumstances. Although by no means rich, he was in a stable household with siblings around and 2 loving parents. Jordan had struggles in his early life, but they aren’t comparable to James’ struggles.

Do these circumstances affect how LeBron and Jordan have had differing political stances and how they encounter such situations? An ESPN writer hinted at the same in 2015.

ESPN: “By this measure, Michael Jordan can’t touch LeBron James”

An ESPN writer named Howard Bryant gave rave reviews of LeBron James’ social work in 2015. Back at that time, James had endowed a $41 million fund to send over 2000 at-risk kids in Akron to college. Bryant compared LeBron’s magnanimity favorably to Michael Jordan:

“Days after the anniversary protests marking Michael Brown’s death in Ferguson, Missouri, James partnered with the University of Akron and countered the numbers with other numbers, pledging $41 million to send as many as 2,000 at-risk Akron kids to college.”

“James does not live independent of his environment, and neither did Jordan. James is in the prime of his youth and earning power amid national protest and Black Lives Matter.”

“Jordan, meanwhile, came of age during the most comprehensive wave of conservatism in the 20th century, a political retrenchment that followed the sweeping social ambition of Lyndon Johnson.”

“The similarities between James and Jordan end when their shared No. 23 jersey rests on a hanger, for Jordan has never been known for a single courageous social act.”

How fair is this criticism of MJ?

There’s no doubt that being apolitical was a commercially conscious decision taken by the Michael Jordan camp. The USA was a predominantly conservative nation in the years that Jordan grew his talent and became a superstar.

He stood to alienate at least half of America’s voter base had he chosen to ride with the Democratic party. However, if there was one athlete in his generation with the image to withstand such heat, it was Jordan.

Jordan could definitely have been more proactive with the advancement of social justice causes given his position as a beacon of black excellence. It is the one criticism of his playing career that tends to stick, all things considered.