Honestly, it was just something he randomly brought up in an interview for either JL or the Superman issue for Deathstroke way back when, and I never forgot it. It wasn't so much what he said, but rather the thinking behind it.
Basically he called Superman just a buffed out Tom Hanks. The whites white dude to ever white dude (my words, not his). He wasn't someone that Priest himself related to outside of Priest being a minister, and similar to Clark having to get up everyday and see the good in a not so good world.
Not groundbreaking, but it's the Tom Hanks and "I don't really relate to him" bit that got me. People like to say that you're not supposed to relate to Superman because his mind and code are so beyond our own, and rather we're supposed to aspire to be like him. But this Tom Hanks idea, and the really specific way Priest didn't shy away from the fact that Superman is an able bodied good looking white dude with the world very firmly in his pocket got me thinking.
What is Superman other than the personification of privilege? Very often like in Earth One Clark is depicted as a man so spoiled for choices of where his future can go that it's ridiculous. It's not a question of CAN he get a job but rather one of does he want what he can easily get.
It's around this point where the Clark Kent idea starts to breakdown in the modern world. We're supposed take his choice to become a reporter as him putting the needs of others ahead of his on comfort, but it's often so convoluted and not at all genuine to what you're seeing on the page because like two pages ago we just saw that Clark could probably cure cancer for his day job. So you've got to treat it as what it is: it's HIS choice not because reporting helps people, but rather because he likes to write.
But you're not allowed to show Clark being selfish in that way. Then we get into the increasingly more uncomfortable immigrant metaphor that wasn't even at the forefront of his original take. His OG take was one of assimilation. But the modern immigrant metaphor tries to paint him as this put upon X-Man who does thankless work for those that hate him, and doesn't fit in. But that's not genuine because of the simple fact that I have eyes, and can read. Once again, Superman "not fitting in" is a choice he makes because as previously established he can do literally anything, is a white dude, and looks like a movie star's perfectly molded wax statue that happens to move.
This brings us to Jon. You simply can't run away from the metaphor of privilege and nepotism with him...and that's a GREAT thing. Jon Kent as a second generation ultra powerful dude represents what very real power looks like today. The kind of power that shapes everyone's lives on a whim. If old money had a physical personification it's the powers of a Superman, is it not? There is no immigrant metaphor to hide behind, and now he has no "mild mannered" secret identity to say "represents the little guy". Jon is not the "little guy". He is in fact the BIGGEST GUY in the DCU, and he was made that before he was even born.
As a writer in the 21st century and in the 2020s you are more than obligated NOT TO run from this idea because it is VERY important today.
I had a female friend (who is also a woman of color) of mine drop some serious knowledge on me a while back, and it's stuck with me since. We were talking about how fiction is taking the opportunity of this era to lift up minorities and place them in positions of power to help heal a fundamentally broken system, but what she said floored me. She said something to tune of "why is it all on us?" I had no idea what she meant, but she explained that while it's great lifting up these characters and creating these new ones, it's also kind of "passing the buck and the responsibility of advancement onto people coming from the bottom." She wondered why the already privileged and established heroes of fiction weren't changing how the world works. Or why the equally or more privileged offspring of said heroes weren't doing the same. She said that minorities doing it alone allows for if the thing doesn't work then you've got a scapegoat in the form of them. And that the idea that this is for empowerment is a little condescending. "Yes, I know I'm independent and can make **** happen, but that shouldn't exclude me from help."
To me, Jon, out of literally any character in DC-- if not maybe popular fiction (not even joking)-- represents the idea of an ally with the means to help, and no way of giving him some sort of appropriated sob story. There is an overabundance of story to tell when you don't shy away from this. There is so much character work to be done here because you then make it about Jon learning and listening. Again, Bendis was already doing this with Legion, and he made the great choice to make Jon kind of a loveable dip **** who meant well and had the power and charisma to get **** done if he wanted. If that's not the perfect representation of a well meaning old money kid then I don't know what is.
But no, that's fine, lets make him Clark lite instead, that's totally what we need in today's day and age. Ironically, the current best take on Jon Kent is the horribly underused Superman and Lois Jon. Put that charming idiot in a comic, add powers to him, and you've got it.