A notable group of conservatives has labeled leftists and Democrats with terms like dumb, stupid, incompetent, crazy, and insane. Ann Coulter’s 2007 book, “If Democrats Had Any Brains, They’d Be Republicans,” reflects this sentiment. Figures like Rush Limbaugh and Donald Trump have often called Democrats “Dumbocrats.” Recently, the leader of the House Freedom Caucus described Democrats as “the crazy party,” while JD Vance suggested the difference between the two parties boils down to “common sense vs. crazy.”
This year, Matt Margolis penned an article for PJ Media titled, “Democrats Are Too Stupid to Heed This Warning,” arguing that the Democratic Party has lost its way since the 1990s. While some might find humor in these remarks, conservatives should approach this narrative with caution.
Labeling an opponent’s actions as crazy or stupid can imply a disconnect between the intended outcomes and what actually happens. This approach may undermine the important messages conservatives wish to communicate about leftist policies and could also absolve leftists of accountability for their actions.
For example, Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) recently discussed the left’s open-border policy, describing it as part of a calculated strategy to attract new Democratic voters. Yet, he simultaneously labeled the policy as “just stupid” and “one of the dumbest policies I’ve ever heard.” In a following interview, he characterized today’s left as crazy. This dual depiction—of leftists as both strategic planners and foolish—raises questions. Which is it? The nuances aren’t trivial; they matter.
It’s crucial to differentiate between leftist leaders and their broader agenda, and the “useful idiots” supporting them. Yes, there are certainly some individuals in the left’s ranks who seem less than bright—like Vice President Kamala Harris, who often struggles to make coherent points, or Rep. Hank Johnson, who once worried about Guam tipping over from overpopulation. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez once suggested that America would look like wealthy suburbs without police funding.
Moreover, millions of California voters continue to support politicians whose policies have led to significant challenges for the state. However, these instances don’t justify dismissing the entire leftist agenda as simply foolish. They’re often part of a larger, intentional plan.
The rise of the New Left
Historically, radical leftist movements in the U.S. have aimed to dismantle long-standing institutions and structures in favor of a different social order. They fundamentally oppose the current state of America.
When viewed through this lens, actions like defunding the police, imposing stringent regulations, shutting down coal and nuclear plants, and welcoming open borders reformulate themselves from seeming incompetence to calculated tactics intended to achieve a broader ideological goal. If these actions disrupt America and push for a fundamental shift, then the left supports them.
Whether one agrees or disagrees with this view of various policies is a different discussion. The important takeaway here for conservatives is that not every damaging policy is born from stupidity.
In “America’s Cultural Revolution,” Christopher Rufo explains the evolution of the radical left from traditional Marxist ideas to a focus on race, gender, and identity. Conventional Marxism pitted the working class against the wealthy. In the U.S., however, the size and mobility of the middle class made a simple class-based revolution unlikely.
This shift was influenced by figures like Antonio Gramsci and Herbert Marcuse, leading the New Left to prioritize “the war of position” and a gradual infiltration of institutions based on identity rather than direct political conflict. Barack Obama played a prominent role in this transformation, famously stating during his 2008 campaign in Missouri, “We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America,” and he did just that.
During his presidency, the media significantly increased its usage of terms like racist and racism, contributing to a prevailing narrative shift. According to Gallup, public perceptions of black-white relations soured notably during his tenure, dropping from 70% to 47% positivity by 2015.
This was not a mere coincidence but a strategic political approach aimed at division. Obama campaigned on a message of hope and unity while governing through a lens of division. His Executive Order in 2011 established diversity and inclusion initiatives across federal agencies, with repercussions that have been widely observed.
Stupid or strategic?
Describing leftist leaders or their policies as stupid is not just a poor choice of wording; it can mislead conservatives about the challenges they face. Typically, we don’t attribute malice to stupid actions. By labeling something as “stupid,” we might dismiss the intent and accountability behind those actions. Figures like Stalin and Mao aren’t usually categorized by their stupidity, and it would be misleading to refer to the Axis powers of World War II in such terms.
There’s a risk in implying that actions deemed crazy or stupid produce drastically different outcomes from those that their architects intended. What if, in fact, those actions are resulting in exactly the turmoil their creators aimed for?
In the past, Democrats and Republicans generally shared a vision for America but had differing ideas on how to achieve that vision. That seems like a bygone era.
Conservatives should maintain clarity on what they believe to be the left’s ultimate goals. Political actions should be framed as reflections of a deeper ideological agenda rather than as failures born from incompetence or stupidity.
This doesn’t imply that every Democrat is a radical leftist or that every controversial policy is part of a coordinated strategy. Nor should conservatives ignore genuinely foolish statements or decisions that seem incompetent. The key is to avoid conflating foolishness with strategic intent.
Some political actors might be genuinely misguided, while others could be intelligent individuals firmly committed to a destructive ideological vision. These categories shouldn’t be mixed up.
If conservatives aim to comprehend and effectively counter the modern left, they ought to focus less on blurting out that its leaders are stupid and more on unpacking their long-term objectives. Such leadership may possess insidious qualities, and even be morally indefensible, but dismissing these figures as simply foolish risks missing the larger picture entirely.
Instead, let’s challenge them on their true intentions.
