Asked (and Answered?): Is the Left Stupid or Evil — or Something Else?
It’s common, and tempting, to dismiss one’s political opponents as “stupid.” Liberals may call conservatives “mouth-breathers” or “MAGA-billies,” while conservatives may hurl pejoratives such as “libtards” or “Dumbocrats.” This can be emotionally pleasing and sometimes, perhaps, even rhetorically effective. But does conservatives’ “stupidity” narrative blind them to darker realities and deeper dangers?
Commentator Greg Salsbury warns that this is exactly the case, that dismissing leftists as stupid may be stupid itself.
Writing Tuesday at RealClearPolitics, Salsbury also cautions against writing leftists off as merely “incompetent” or “crazy.” He says, essentially, that some of them are quite Machiavellian and that there’s method to their madness. As the commentator writes:
Conservatives need to understand that this [name-calling] tactic can not only contradict the more serious messages they’re trying to convey about leftist policies, it can also remove responsibility from leftists for their malevolence. Consider a recent interview in which Representative Jim Jordan explained that the left’s open-border policy was part of a shrewd, long-term plan to bring in new Democrat constituents, with sanctuary-city policies as another step in that plan. Yet in the same interview, he called the policy “Just stupid” and “one of the dumbest policies I’ve ever heard of,” and in a later interview, adding, “just about every single position today’s left adopts is crazy.”
So we are told that leftists are shrewd, long-term planners who are simultaneously stupid and crazy. Which is it? The distinction may seem trivial, but it’s not.
Some Dumb People — One Smart Program?
Now, Salsbury does acknowledge that there are “dim bulbs” on the Left, both in its upper echelons and lower ranks. He mentions as examples Kamala Harris, Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), and late congressman Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas). He also implicates the kinds of voters (e.g., in California) who repeatedly empower such poor leaders.
Yet the writer distinguishes between these examples and the “overarching leftist agenda” — and the Machiavellian manipulators who understand and orchestrate it. Salsbury then states:
As has often been the case with radical leftist movements in the United States, their stated objective is to dismantle existing American institutions, traditions, and governing structures in favor of a fundamentally different social order. Put simply, they despise America as it currently exists. Once you understand this premise, their positions look less like harebrained, stupid, illogical, or unworkable ideas, but as carefully conceived, sometimes ingenious tactics, intended to advance that larger objective.
In this light, things like defunding the police, draconian regulations and carbon taxes, mothballing coal and nuclear plants, wide-open borders, turning a blind eye to Medicaid and NGO fraud, supporting genital mutilation of minors, opposing voter ID, massive expansion of entitlement spending, lowering combat readiness standards in the military in the name of gender equality, and support for adversaries like Hamas can be understood not as disconnected examples of incompetence, but as elements of a broader ideological program. If it does damage to America and hastens the great realignment, they support it.
In a nutshell, this theory states that anything and everything will be supported if it helps destabilize the U.S. The idea is to disrupt the system until the apple cart is overturned. You then seize it, right it, and remake it as your own apple cart. You also then quash the destabilizing forces so you can cement power. (This last step is called “normalization” under communist dogma.)
Also relevant here is why the American Left is so race-oriented. Traditionally, Marxists played on class differences (poor vs. rich) to “divide and conquer” and gain power. This had always been effective because up until fairly recently in history, most nations were both relatively homogeneous and poor. The world now, though, is the wealthiest it has ever been. (Jean Valjean needn’t steal a loaf of bread to survive anymore; he’s lifting $200 sneakers.) So with no starving people to rally in the West, class appeals (while still pursued) lose effectiveness. The West is poor in one quality, however.
Unity.
Western lands are now often racially, ethnically, and religiously balkanized. Ergo, any divide-and-conquer demagogue will play the group-identity card to gain power.
Intelligence Isn’t Always Operative
Salsbury’s point is that none of this is “stupid” — at least not from a worldly, power-priority standpoint. But what’s also confusing is another factor: Very smart people can believe very dumb things.
Economist and commentator Dr. Thomas Sowell once explained this phenomenon perfectly.
“It doesn’t matter how smart you are,” he wrote, “if you don’t think.”
And when won’t you think? Answer: When you’re blinded by emotion — attachment to misbegotten ideas — and/or by pride.
An example of this, very likely, is New York City’s Democratic Mayor Zohran Mamdani. He does have ample brainpower. I also believe, however, that he’s an “activist politician.” (Hence the dark passion he displayed when giving the middle finger to a Columbus statue.) So, in thrall to false ideology, he’ll believe in discredited ideas — such as Marxist economics.
This is in contrast to Kamala Harris, who, I suspect, doesn’t believe in much of anything. All she may want is power, and she may be willing to feign belief in anything to get it.
This isn’t to say Mamdani doesn’t crave power, mind you, only that people may have multiple motives when seeking goals. What varies among politicians is the ideological-motive/power-motive ratio.
Another point Sowell has made is that virtually all of us have expertise in only a very narrow range of endeavor. And when stepping outside our wheelhouse, we can make stupid decisions.
An example from history is Adolf Hitler. The WWII-era Nazi dictator wasn’t dumb. He was a brilliant political strategist and likely possessed what we today call “high emotional intelligence.” (Hence his ability to manipulate people.) But when he stepped beyond his comfort zone and tried micromanaging battlefield decisions, it was disastrous. He was too prideful and unwise to listen to his generals — and stupid decisions resulted.
Heavenly or Hellish Priorities
A person’s priorities also must be considered here. People tend to project their own mindset onto others. So a decent, intelligent citizen may naturally view policy that destroys what’s great and good as a product of stupidity. “Why else would anyone be so foolish?” is the thinking.
Moreover, as ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle noted, a prerequisite for happiness is living a moral life. So choosing to reign in Hell over serving in Heaven is self-destructive (aka stupid).
But intelligence, knowledge, and wisdom are different things — and without wisdom, the first two qualities will be misdirected. Intelligent people can make the dumbest decisions when led by dark emotion or pride; they can have askew priorities. Demons, though, would say they’re smart; angels would say they’re stupid — that is, if they weren’t angels.
They really just might shake their incorporeal heads and lament that the lost souls are just that: far from God.
As for us in our material realm, we underestimate the intelligent ignorati at our own peril.
