Lockard is an Iowa resident who regularly contributes to regional newspapers and periodicals. She is working on the second of a four-book fictional series based on Jane Austen’s “Pride and Prejudice."
So, what could Nelson Mandela and Caitlin Clark possibly have in common?
Both are conclusive proof that “the times, they are a-changin’.” Also, neither the former president of South Africa nor the basketball superstar “shrink” to accommodate others’ ideas of how they should live. Neither “plays small.”
Mandela helped end apartheid in South Africa 30 years ago. In his inaugural speech in May 1994, as he was sworn in as the country’s first Black president, he spoke of what it takes to overcome the most daunting obstacles, often those we have no control of, like the color of our skin.
Other things we have no control of: our sex (at least at birth,) and our height. Just 30 years ago, women, still considered the “weaker” sex, were preferred smaller. They needed “bigger” men to “take care” of them — basically a parent/child relationship, unfair to both sexes. “Shrinking” girls were common then.
How exactly does one shrink, anyway? Oh, there are ways. A tall girl can shrink herself by slouching, wearing whisper-thin shoes, remaining seated — anything not to tower over the boys. A short boy might do the opposite: sneak lifts into his shoes or hang upside down like a bat to “stretch” himself. Not long ago, tall girls and short boys were considered an unfortunate result of genetic dice, or even medical problems. Hormonal therapies were available to help a short male attain increased height by delaying his puberty. Hastening a tall female’s puberty had the opposite effect: Though it likely would not qualify her to shop in the petite section, she might “shrink” to a more desirable height.
Fast forward 30 years and bring on 6-foot-tall Caitlin Clark from Des Moines, Iowa, one of the most recognized figures in sports, men’s or women’s. Her NCAA legacy is the stuff of legend. All-time leading scorer, breaking the men’s Division 1 record with a career total of 3,685 points. (But who’s counting?) The Big Ten’s all-time leader in assists and a unanimous AP preseason All American. The list of her accomplishments goes on and on. After sporting No. 22 on her University of Iowa jersey (now retired), she was picked first in the WNBA draft in April and now plays for the Fever wearing the same No. 22. She is all of 22 years old. Must be her lucky number.
But it is not luck. It is not shirking, and not shrinking. It is a combination of talent and hard work, with a huge dose of commitment thrown in. Renowned for her shooting range, but just as much for her passing ability and assists, Clark shares both the ball and the accolades with her teammates. She will not lose her false eyelashes during the game, and won't be assessed fouls for using profanity. She is real; she is nice. Little girls want to be like her when they grow up; big girls want to be her now.
Caitlin Clark makes Iowans proud. She makes sports fans everywhere proud. But sports fan or not, one cannot help but be dazzled by her. “The Caitlin Clark effect” has been credited for the surging popularity of women’s basketball, changing everything for women’s sports.
Keep the faith, share the ball, make the most of your abilities, practice what you’re good at. Basketball and life are not so different. The stakes are high in both; both are tough and often unfair. Mandela spent 27 years in prison. Then he became first Black president of South Africa? A “girl” breaking the NCAA Division I scoring record? Impossible! Or so they said.
Oh, no! Neither Caitlin Clark, when missing a shot, nor Nelson Mandela, when missing a third of his life in prison, “shrank” so others wouldn’t feel insecure around them. They simply got on with their game. Whether “Caitlin Clark fever” continues with the Indiana Fever remains to be seen. This much is certain, however: She will not “play small.”
If looking for a sign the world is going in the right direction — often two steps forward, one back, yet still the right direction — remember Nelson Mandela from South Africa and think of Caitlin Clark and tall girls from Iowa, from everywhere. Tall girls and short boys, Black people and white people and sky-blue or pink people, all people.
We each bring something no one else can to that big table called Life.
We each bring our one and only self.
Eric Trump, the newly appointed ALT5 board director of World Liberty Financial, walks outside of the NASDAQ in Times Square as they mark the $1.5- billion partnership between World Liberty Financial and ALT5 Sigma with the ringing of the NASDAQ opening bell, on Aug. 13, 2025, in New York City.
Why does the Trump family always get a pass?
Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche joined ABC’s “This Week” on Sunday to defend or explain a lot of controversies for the Trump administration: the Epstein files release, the events in Minneapolis, etc. He was also asked about possible conflicts of interest between President Trump’s family business and his job. Specifically, Blanche was asked about a very sketchy deal Trump’s son Eric signed with the UAE’s national security adviser, Sheikh Tahnoon.
Shortly before Trump was inaugurated in early 2025, Tahnoon invested $500 million in the Trump-owned World Liberty, a then newly launched cryptocurrency outfit. A few months later, UAE was granted permission to purchase sensitive American AI chips. According to the Wall Street Journal, which broke the story, “the deal marks something unprecedented in American politics: a foreign government official taking a major ownership stake in an incoming U.S. president’s company.”
“How do you respond to those who say this is a serious conflict of interest?” ABC host George Stephanopoulos asked.
“I love it when these papers talk about something being unprecedented or never happening before,” Blanche replied, “as if the Biden family and the Biden administration didn’t do exactly the same thing, and they were just in office.”
Blanche went on to boast about how the president is utterly transparent regarding his questionable business practices: “I don’t have a comment on it beyond Trump has been completely transparent when his family travels for business reasons. They don’t do so in secret. We don’t learn about it when we find a laptop a few years later. We learn about it when it’s happening.”
Sadly, Stephanopoulos didn’t offer the obvious response, which may have gone something like this: “OK, but the president and countless leading Republicans insisted that President Biden was the head of what they dubbed ‘the Biden Crime family’ and insisted his business dealings were corrupt, and indeed that his corruption merited impeachment. So how is being ‘transparent’ about similar corruption a defense?”
Now, I should be clear that I do think the Biden family’s business dealings were corrupt, whether or not laws were broken. Others disagree. I also think Trump’s business dealings appear to be worse in many ways than even what Biden was alleged to have done. But none of that is relevant. The standard set by Trump and Republicans is the relevant political standard, and by the deputy attorney general’s own account, the Trump administration is doing “exactly the same thing,” just more openly.
Since when is being more transparent about wrongdoing a defense? Try telling a cop or judge, “Yes, I robbed that bank. I’ve been completely transparent about that. So, what’s the big deal?”
This is just a small example of the broader dysfunction in the way we talk about politics.
Americans have a special hatred for hypocrisy. I think it goes back to the founding era. As Alexis de Tocqueville observed in “Democracy In America,” the old world had a different way of dealing with the moral shortcomings of leaders. Rank had its privileges. Nobles, never mind kings, were entitled to behave in ways that were forbidden to the little people.
In America, titles of nobility were banned in the Constitution and in our democratic culture. In a society built on notions of equality (the obvious exceptions of Black people, women, Native Americans notwithstanding) no one has access to special carve-outs or exemptions as to what is right and wrong. Claiming them, particularly in secret, feels like a betrayal against the whole idea of equality.
The problem in the modern era is that elites — of all ideological stripes — have violated that bargain. The result isn’t that we’ve abandoned any notion of right and wrong. Instead, by elevating hypocrisy to the greatest of sins, we end up weaponizing the principles, using them as a cudgel against the other side but not against our own.
Pick an issue: violent rhetoric by politicians, sexual misconduct, corruption and so on. With every revelation, almost immediately the debate becomes a riot of whataboutism. Team A says that Team B has no right to criticize because they did the same thing. Team B points out that Team A has switched positions. Everyone has a point. And everyone is missing the point.
Sure, hypocrisy is a moral failing, and partisan inconsistency is an intellectual one. But neither changes the objective facts. This is something you’re supposed to learn as a child: It doesn’t matter what everyone else is doing or saying, wrong is wrong. It’s also something lawyers like Mr. Blanche are supposed to know. Telling a judge that the hypocrisy of the prosecutor — or your client’s transparency — means your client did nothing wrong would earn you nothing but a laugh.
Jonah Goldberg is editor-in-chief of The Dispatch and the host of The Remnant podcast. His Twitter handle is @JonahDispatch.