How to Test Negative for Stupid: And Why Washington Never Will

Chapter 9 functions as a political parable about The Importance of Prosecutorial Independence. Kennedy’s questioning of Pam Bondi and Kash Patel is a Socratic exercise: Kennedy includes transcripts of his questioning of both nominees, in which he asks questions designed to lead them to the predetermined conclusion that the Department of Justice and FBI must be reformed without becoming instruments of political revenge. The dialogue is a didactic performance where Kennedy acts as the guardian of institutional norms, extracting commitments to due process. This framing is strategic, positioning him as a moderating force. The chapter argues that the prosecution of Donald Trump during the Biden administration set a dangerous precedent, undermining the perceived legitimacy of the US justice system. Kennedy holds himself out as someone committed to protecting that perception of legitimacy, citing the promises he extracted from Bondi and Patel as evidence, though Bondi’s Justice Department has since indicted New York Attorney General Letitia James, former FBI Director James Comey, and former US national security advisor John Bolton, all prominent Trump critics, while Patel has fired thousands of FBI agents who investigated alleged crimes by Trump and his supporters (Milton, Pat et al. “FBI Executives Ousted and Personnel Under Internal Review as Trump DOJ Fires Jan. 6 Capital Riot Prosecutors.” CBS News, 31 Jan. 2025). The subsequent shift in Chapter 10 to a “Speed Round” format completes this structural arc, moving from a single issue to a declarative manifesto. This transition from narrative to listicle consolidates the authorial persona, presenting Kennedy first as a principled thinker and then as a decisive leader with clear-cut solutions.

The concluding sections serve as the capstone for the book’s critique of The Insularity of Political and Media Elites. This critique is couched in a linguistic style that champions plain speech against the perceived euphemisms of a credentialed ruling class. Kennedy’s prose is laden with homespun analogies and sharp-edged humor that frame complex policy debates as simple matters of common sense. For instance, he critiques journalists by stating they “worship at the altar of more money and bigger government” (182), a metaphor that casts their purported elitism and liberal bias as a quasi-religious faith. Similarly, his discussion of race boils intricate academic and social theories down to a simplistic binary, labeling the concept of equity as “just socialism in a tuxedo” (206). This rhetorical technique is the enactment of the book’s populist argument. By refusing the language of academia, media, and bureaucracy, the text performs a separation between the authentic voice of “the people” and the corrupt discourse of the elite. This approach is designed to build trust with the reader, positioning Kennedy as a truth-teller articulating realities the establishment intentionally obscures.

The principle of Candor As Political Strategy is on full display throughout these final chapters, functioning as the primary tool for advancing the book’s arguments. Kennedy’s authorial voice is calibrated to project an image of unvarnished honesty, even when delivering structured political messaging. The “Speed Round” format of Chapter 10 is a testament to this strategy, presenting a series of contentious issues—immigration, crime, foreign policy—as topics that can be resolved with brief, decisive pronouncements. His call to restore stop-and-frisk policing, a contentious policy that has disproportionately targeted communities of color, exacerbating mass incarceration and fostering mistrust between police and the communities they are meant to serve, casts it as a straightforward law enforcement tool abandoned for political reasons. In this and other instances, Kennedy’s emphasis on plain speech erases nuance in favor of declarative certainty. The Epilogue provides a final meta-commentary on this strategy, stating that his directness is a necessary antidote to a Washington, DC, where he claims, “common sense is illegal” (211). Here, he leverages widespread dissatisfaction with the political class to pre-empt any disagreement with his own views: Whoever agrees with him has common sense, while whoever disagrees aligns themselves with the insular elite that has banished common sense from Washington.

Ultimately, these chapters work in concert to finalize the construction of a specific political persona: the institutionalist patriot who is allied with, yet distinct from, the disruptive forces of Trump-era populism. Kennedy crafts a position for himself as an insider who retains an outsider’s perspective. In the nomination hearings of Chapter 9, he is the establishment figure—a senior senator who uses his power to defend the very institutions that populism often targets. Yet, his language and his targets are those of the populist outsider. He recounts instances of advising President Trump, portraying himself as an independent actor unafraid to challenge figures within his own political ecosystem. This persona is designed to bridge the gap between traditional conservatism, with its emphasis on institutions, and the anti-establishment energy of modern populism. The book’s conclusion offers this synthesized identity as a model for conservative governance: one that can harness populist anger to reform and ultimately preserve, rather than destroy, the foundational institutions of the republic.