Ep. 1820 - AOC Is The Dumbest Politician In American History. And She Could Still Be President.

**Matt Walsh** (0:00)
For the vast majority of this country's history, intelligence was considered an asset in politics. Most Americans preferred to vote for politicians with a high IQ, not because these politicians represented the common man, but precisely because they didn't. They were extraordinary. This has been true since the nation's founding and before. Ben Franklin won a medal from the Royal Society for his research on electricity. John Adams was a gifted attorney who managed to get several British soldiers acquitted of charges related to the Boston Massacre, which was no small feat since the trial took place in Boston. Thomas Jefferson maintained a famous library and he could translate passages in ancient Greek and Latin. These men were all-time geniuses. These attributes were valuable in politics because everyone understood that when you elect competent leaders at whatever level of government, you get favorable results for everybody.
That's all that people cared about at the time. Nobody elected George Washington because he was charming. There's actually a story from the Constitutional Convention where a guy put his arm on Washington's back as a greeting and Washington removed the hand and just stared at the guy until he backed away slowly. I personally find that story to be extremely relatable. It was the level of charisma and warmth that you could expect from Washington and nobody cared. We elected Washington because he was a brilliant tactician who defeated the British and he was a great leader. But somewhere along the line, after a half century of importing tens of millions of foreigners into the country, our standards changed. Intelligence is no longer the qualification that it used to be, quite the opposite. Today, some of the dumbest and least impressive people in the country hold elected office. One need only watch any random congressional hearing for five minutes to see that the general IQ of our politicians has clearly plummeted to depths never before seen or explored. Indeed, it seems that the dumber and less impressive you are, the more likely you are to achieve political success. The more likely you are to become the Democrat Party's nominee for president.
That's not an accident. Now, yes, it's easy for conservatives to mock dumb candidates. We can laugh at the fact that Tim Walz said he was friends with school shooters or the fact that Kamala Harris speaks like an AI chat bot minus the computing power, or the fact that Joe Biden performed so poorly on the debate stage that his wife thought he was having a stroke, but dumb candidates are capable of doing two things that smart candidates simply cannot, at least with any degree of effectiveness.
First of all, dumb candidates are relatable and familiar to dumb voters, and there are sadly a lot of those, and we're importing more every day. When a Haitian arrives in Ohio, slack-jawed, prowling for cats to devour, he can find comfort in the ramblings of an alcoholic, like Kamala Harris, who talks about coconut trees and giving away a bunch of free stuff. It's reassuring. It reminds him of home, and therefore when some NGO comes along to collect 50 ballots from that Haitian, every single one of those ballots is guaranteed to be favorable to the Democrat Party. The other benefit of fielding dumb candidates, and this is the really big one, is that they can easily wave their hand and disavow all of their previous statements, and their party's previous statements, they can snap their fingers and make all the bad press go away. After all, you can't hold dumb people accountable for things they've said in the past. They had no idea what they were doing back then, or now. They can go on camera and say, oh, I didn't really mean that, and millions of people will buy it. If you want to reset a disastrous era for your political party, or at least give the impression of doing so, a dumb candidate can get the job done.
Now, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez may not understand much, but she definitely grasps this concept. She is now, with virtual certainty, going to be on the Democratic Party's ticket in 2028, either as the presidential or vice presidential nominee. She is the party's ideal candidate because she can simultaneously disavow what communists are planning while also giving them everything they want. Unlike Gavin Newsom, AOC doesn't come across as overly calculating and manipulative, because she seems like a moron, because that's exactly what she is, and for Democrats, that's their secret weapon. On one of the Sunday shows this weekend at ABC News, AOC put this strategy into action. So watch her response to Jonathan Karl, who asks her about the pesky fact that just a few years ago, Democrats, including AOC, were calling for the elimination of local law enforcement in the country. So here's her explanation after he asks about Francesca Hong, the communist in Wisconsin who wants to abolish the US government, and here's how she handles that.