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

These chapters construct a political persona defined by a blend of regional authenticity and combative theatricality. Kennedy employs colloquialisms and rustic analogies to craft an identity as an outsider unbeholden to Washington’s established norms. This stylistic choice is the primary vehicle for the theme of Candor As Political Strategy. The confrontation with David Duke during the 2016 Senate debate serves as an example of this technique. By repeatedly referring to Duke by his federal prisoner number, Kennedy performs a strategic act of delegitimization. This was a premeditated tactic—“I decided to look up his federal prisoner number…and memorized it” (109)—designed for maximum media impact. Similarly, his response to accusations about Congressman Charles Boustany showcases a calculated use of denial. By repeating the allegations while disavowing any connection to them, he damages his opponent’s reputation while insulating himself from blowback. Through such episodes, the narrative establishes a persona that weaponizes bluntness, using plain speech as a political tool for defining enemies and controlling the public narrative.

The narrative reinforces this outsider persona by constructing a binary between the American heartland and The Insularity of Political and Media Elites. Kennedy defines Washington not as a seat of government, but as a “syndicate…and its five families: the entrenched politicians, the bureaucrats, the media, the academics, and the corporate phonies” (115). The phrase “five families” alludes to the five families of the New York mafia, implying a culture of self-dealing and corruption among these elites that approaches the level of organized crime. His analysis of Donald Trump’s 2016 victory is filtered entirely through this lens: He argues that Trump won because he understood that many people felt mocked by elites for their values. He portrays the press as the chief enforcement arm of this establishment, having abandoned objectivity to become part of the anti-Trump “resistance.” The account of Kennedy’s on-air clash with Chuck Todd is presented as a case study in this phenomenon, where any Republican utterance becomes a proxy battle over Trump. By consistently framing his political experiences within this insider-versus-outsider dynamic, Kennedy validates his own disruptive political style as a necessary response to a captured system.

The memoir utilizes key character foils to delineate Kennedy’s political identity. Donald Trump and Joe Biden are counterpoints against which Kennedy defines his own persona. He portrays Trump as a kindred spirit in disruption who shares a populist instinct and a disdain for the establishment. Yet, Kennedy curates his relationship with Trump, highlighting moments of both strategic alliance, as in the C-band spectrum auction, and principled opposition, as in his opposition to the First Step Act and some of Trump’s judicial nominees. This narrative balancing act allows Kennedy to harness Trump’s populist energy while emphasizing his own independence from the Republican president. This emphasis on independence belies the fact that, in the most consequential moments, Kennedy has tended to fall into line. For instance, he voted against both impeachments of the 45th president—first for withholding military aid in an attempt to pressure Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to announce an investigation into Joe Biden, and then for “inciting an insurrection” in the January 6 attack on the Capitol—and he objected to the certification of Arizona’s 2020 election results as part of an effort to prevent President Elect Biden from taking office. While Kennedy’s Trump is a well-meaning populist whose decisions are sometimes impulsive, his version of Joe Biden is a frail, ineffective leader being propped up by unelected aides with their own agendas. Kennedy implies that the Biden administration is run not by Biden himself but by an out-of-touch progressive faction. In doing so, he positions himself, once again, as an outsider challenging an insular political class.

The senatorial role of “advice and consent” in presidential cabinet nominations becomes a public stage on which Kennedy performs his persona as a guardian of governmental competence. Chapter 8, in particular, uses the committee hearing as a central set piece to demonstrate his political method. Through retellings of his questioning of various nominees, he presents himself as an interrogator exposing ideological extremism or a lack of qualification. His quips, such as telling a nominee, “I don’t know whether to call you ‘Professor’ or ‘Comrade’” (146), are depicted as moments of unvarnished truth-telling. By including the detailed account of his takedown of an unqualified Trump judicial nominee, Kennedy pre-empts claims of pure partisanship. This episode allows him to frame his aggressive questioning of Biden’s nominees not as political payback, but as the consistent application of a high standard for public service, paving the way for the defense of The Importance of Prosecutorial Independence that will occupy much of the book’s closing. The hearing thus becomes a venue for reinforcing Kennedy’s brand as a principled defender of institutional integrity.