A long list of prominent conservatives have referred to leftists and Democrats as dumb, stupid, incompetent, crazy, and insane. In 2007, Ann Coulter wrote the book “If Democrats Had Any Brains, They’d Be Republicans.” Both Rush Limbaugh and President Trump regularly referred to Democrats as “Dumbocrats.” More recently, the leader of the House Freedom Caucus called Democrats “the crazy party,” and JD Vance framed the contrast between the parties as “common sense vs. crazy.”

Matt Margolis titled a piece in PJ Media this year “Democrats Are Too Stupid to Heed This Warning” and posited that somewhere between the 1990s and today, the Democratic Party lost its mind. Some of this stuff gets a chuckle, but conservatives need to be careful with this narrative.

Calling an adversary’s actions crazy or stupid implies that those actions produce an outcome fundamentally different from what their architects intended.

Conservatives need to understand that this 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 Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) 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 that “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.

We need to distinguish between leftist leadership and its dominant agenda on the one hand and its useful idiots on the other.

To be clear, there are certainly some dim bulbs among the left — both in leadership and rank and file. Showcase examples include Vice President Kamala Harris, who frequently struggles to articulate coherent sentences; Rep. Hank Johnson (D-Ga.), who worried during a congressional hearing that Guam might “tip over and capsize” if it became too populated; and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), who told us that America with defunded police would look just like the wealthy white suburbs.

On a broader scale, consider millions of California voters who knowingly continue to vote for politicians whose policies have devastated the Golden State.

But these examples aside, the overarching leftist agenda — and the people who genuinely understand, subscribe to, and orchestrate it — cannot simply be dismissed as stupid. Doing so is dangerous.

The rise of the New Left

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 more like carefully conceived, sometimes ingenious tactics intended to advance that larger objective.

RELATED: Democrats are desperate to ‘Europe’ our health care system

Sorbetto/Getty Images

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.

Whether one agrees with that interpretation of any particular policy is a separate question. The important point is that conservatives shouldn’t automatically assume destructive policies are the product of stupidity.

In “America’s Cultural Revolution,” Christopher Rufo explains how the radical left’s approach evolved from traditional Marxist class conflict toward an emphasis on race, gender, and identity. Traditional Marxism defined the conflict largely in socioeconomic terms, pitting the working class against the wealthy. In the United States, however, the middle class proved too large, mobile, and invested in the existing system for a conventional class-based revolution to take hold.

Influenced by thinkers such as Antonio Gramsci and Herbert Marcuse, the New Left increasingly emphasized “the war of position,” “the long march through the institutions,” and racial and cultural identity as alternatives to direct political conflict. Barack Obama became a highly consequential figure in this transformation.

During his 2008 presidential campaign, Obama told an audience in Columbia, Missouri, “We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.” In the years that followed, he did precisely that.

The media proactively escalated the new narrative, increasing use of the terms racist, racists, and racism by roughly 700% between 2011 and 2019. The phrase “white supremacy” rarely appeared in the media until 2015, but by 2019, the Times and the Post were using it 17 to 18 times more often than in 2014, with similar jumps for “systemic racism,” “white privilege,” “unconscious bias,” and “whiteness.”

Gallup found that the share of respondents who believed black-white relations were “very good” or “somewhat good” plummeted from about 70% to 47% by 2015.

From the perspective of those who designed it, this was a deliberate and consequential political strategy. Arthur Brooks put it well, pointing out that the president ran on optimism and unity but governed on pessimism and division. In 2011, Obama’s Executive Order 13583 cemented DEI language, metrics, and policies across federal agencies. The resulting fallout has been well documented.

RELATED: The right is building its own lawfare defense machine — finally

Schöning/ullstein bild/Getty Images

Stupid or strategic?

To call leftist leaders or their policies stupid is therefore more than an unfortunate choice of words. It can mislead conservatives regarding what they are confronting.

We don’t tend to think of stupid people as evil. Perceived stupidity neutralizes perceived intent and, to some degree, perceived blame. “Stupid” is not the word that comes to mind for figures like Stalin, Mao, or Pol Pot, and it would have done us no favors to describe the Axis powers in World War II as merely stupid or crazy.

Calling an adversary’s actions crazy or stupid implies that those actions produce an outcome fundamentally different from what their architects intended. But what if the opposite is true? What if the policies are producing precisely the disruption their architects sought?

Once upon a time, Democrats and Republicans were two parties with broadly similar hopes for America but sharply different views on how to get there. That time has passed.

Conservatives should not lose sight of what they believe to be the left’s overarching mission. They need to describe political actions, and the consequences those actions produce, not simply as the unfortunate results of incompetent or stupid people, but as those of an underlying ideological agenda.

That doesn’t mean every Democrat is a radical leftist, every leftist is an intellectual strategist, or every controversial policy reflects a coordinated conspiracy. Nor does it mean conservatives should stop pointing out genuinely foolish statements or incompetent decisions. It means something simpler: Stop confusing foolishness with strategy.

Some political actors may indeed be foolish. Others may be highly intelligent and deeply committed to an ideological vision conservatives regard as destructive. Those two categories shouldn’t be confused.

If conservatives want to understand and effectively challenge the modern left, they should focus less on calling its leaders stupid and more on understanding what they’re trying to accomplish. That leadership may be insidious, duplicitous, destructive, morally wrong, and in some cases evil. But dismissing them as stupid or crazy risks missing the point entirely.

Let’s start calling them out on what they actually intend to do.

Editor’s note: This article was originally published at the American Mind.

​Barack obama, California voters, Common sense, Conservatives, Dei, Democrats, Kamala harris, Leftists, Mao, Pol pot, Racism, Republicans, Rush limbaugh, Stalin, Stupid, Systemic racism, White supremacy, World war ii, President trump, Aoc, Radical left, Left wing, Opinion & analysis 

President Donald Trump has taken a major step to shield American truckers and farmers from the high cost of fuel.

On Monday, Trump signed an executive order allowing them to use dyed diesel without paying a federal penalty.

‘The president listened to farmers and responded.’

Dyed diesel is a tax-exempt fuel that is intended for off-road use, customarily in farming, manufacturing, construction equipment, and trains. Although identical to standard diesel, it is dyed with Solvent Red 164 so that law enforcement can distinguish it from taxable on-road diesel.

Federal law prohibits the use or holding of dyed diesel unless utilized or held for nontaxable purposes. Each violation carries the penalty of a $1,000 fine or $10 for each gallon of the fuel involved — whichever is greater.

In his order, Trump noted that the agricultural and farming industries have been “particularly hard hit” by restricted global diesel supply and the correlated rising prices. While the White House primarily blamed the Russia-Ukraine war for the recent supply squeeze, the Iran conflict and issues over the Strait of Hormuz have also restricted supply and driven up prices.

Recognizing the need in these industries for “temporary relief,” Trump directed Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent “to use his authority to defer certain diesel fuel tax payment obligations and to provide penalty relief to the extent permitted by law.” The Internal Revenue Service will hold off on fines for highway use of dyed diesel until Dec. 31, 2026.

RELATED: First New York wants you to drive less. Then it wants to tax every mile.

The president also directed Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins and Department of Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy to facilitate the implementation of this policy. For his part, Duffy will work with the states and various organizations to optimize access to dyed diesel. Rollins, meanwhile, will work to ensure that farmers can get their hands on fuel in high-demand areas.

The White House claimed in a fact sheet that “this action will put money directly back in the pockets of American farmers, truckers, and workers, for example saving truckers over $100 per refill.”

Vice President JD Vance stated, “Another example of President Trump acting quickly to tackle an urgent issue. In this administration, we’re fighting every day to help hard working Americans, especially our farmers.”

Trump’s order was well received among various farmer groups, lawmakers, and governors.

Iowa Republican gubernatorial candidate Zach Lahn, who claimed to have advised on the EO, said that it “will provide immediate relief and much-needed savings for farmers in Iowa and all over America.”

Zippy Duvall, the president of the American Farm Bureau Federation, thanked the president “for recognizing that what happens at the fuel pump directly affects what happens on the farm and therefore at dinner tables across America.”

“The federal highway diesel tax is currently more than 24 cents per gallon, so it’s a big deal to farmers to be able to use tax-exempt diesel more broadly to get their harvest to market,” added Duvall.

American Soybean Association President Dave Walton similarly praised Trump’s policy and noted, “ASA is encouraged by the administration’s continued focus on agricultural affordability.”

While Trump’s order concerns federal regulations regarding the use of dyed diesel, numerous states have laws on the books concerning its use.

Republican Governors Bill Lee of Tennessee, Tate Reeves of Mississippi, and Kim Reynolds of Iowa are among the governors who rushed to announce that they will order the suspension of their respective states’ penalties for on-road dyed diesel use.

Overall, average fuel prices fell last week in 48 states yet remain high. The national average price of gasoline stands at $4.30 per gallon — $1.22 per gallon higher than this time last year. The national average price of diesel stands at around $6.31 per gallon, according to the price-tracking service GasBuddy.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

​Agriculture, Diesel, Donald trump, Fuel, Internal revenue service, Iran conflict, Jd vance, Russia-ukraine, Sean duffy, Transportation, Politics 

The man who shot and killed 13 people at Fort Hood nearly two decades ago will face execution by firing squad, according to an order from President Donald Trump.

U.S. Army Major and psychiatrist Nidal Malik Hasan was convicted for the Nov. 2009 mass shooting that killed 13 and injured at least 30 others near Killeen, Texas. He was sentenced to death after a 2013 court-martial.

Hasan said in court that the attack was intended to keep the US out of Afghanistan and avoid the killing of his fellow Muslims.

On Monday, the president approved the U.S. Army firing squad execution recommended by Sec. of War Pete Hegseth, according to a statement from Sean Parnell, Hegseth’s spokesperson.

“The Secretary of the Army will set the time and place of the execution. Judgement day for Hasan has finally come,” wrote Parnell on social media Monday.

Hegseth called it “justice,” while Republican Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis called it an “appropriate punishment for a terrorist!”

The U.S. Army has not carried out the death penalty for 65 years, according to the Associated Press.

Hasan yelled, “Allahu Akbar!” before beginning the attack with a laser-sighted handgun. He intentionally targeted military members.

His rampage ended when Fort Hood civilian police Sergeant Mark Todd fired at Hasan and paralyzed him from the waist down.

Hasan said in court that the attack was intended to keep the U.S. out of Afghanistan and avoid the killing of his fellow Muslims.

Hasan would have escaped the death penalty and given life in prison if just one member of the court-martial jury had voted against the decision, but they unanimously approved the death penalty.

Republican Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas released a statement approving of the decision.

“Nidal Hasan is a radical Islamist terrorist who carried out an attack in Texas that killed and injured dozens of Americans,” the senator said. “He deserves to be executed for his crimes, and I have fought throughout my entire Senate career to see that justice is served. I applaud President Trump and Secretary Hegseth for taking that decision.”

RELATED: Eric Holder calls out Trump over Charlottesville attack — and gets obliterated

The Fort Hood attack was the worst terror attack in U.S. history since 9/11 until the San Bernardino terrorist shooting in 2015, which killed 14.

Hasan is one of four men on military death row at Fort Leavenworth in Kansas.

The decision comes at a time when the botched lethal injection of a woman in Tennessee has led to a national debate about capital punishment.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

​Afghanistan, Capital punishment, Terror attack, Politics, Donald trump 

Famous Christian televangelist Jim Bakker passed away on Monday at the age of 86, according to his wife.

Bakker was one of the most prominent television evangelists of his time before he was convicted of financial crimes and admitted to having an affair with a church secretary.

In 1987, Bakker admitted to a sexual encounter with Jessica Hahn. … Two years later, he was convicted of fraud and conspiracy.

“It is with a broken heart that I share that my beloved husband, Jim Bakker, went home to be with the Lord this evening,” said Lori Bakker, his second wife, in a statement.

“For 66 years, Jim gave his life to preaching the gospel of Jesus Christ,” she wrote. “He was a pioneer of Christian television, but to me, he was my husband, my best friend, and the man I was honored to walk beside through so many seasons of life and ministry.”

Bakker was born in Muskegon, Michigan, and dropped out of a Bible college in Minneapolis after marrying his first wife, Tammy Faye Bakker. They began a traveling ministry before hosting a kids’ show for televangelist Pat Robertson.

He left in 1972 and began the PTL Satellite Network. PTL stands for “Praise the Lord.”

He and Tammy Faye became cultural icons in the 1980s and 1990s through their popular evangelical television program. The show drew 13 million viewers at its peak and led to their building a Christian-based theme park and hotel in Fort Mill, South Carolina.

RELATED: Televangelist says demons harvested her eggs to create ‘hybrid child’ — but that’s not even her most shocking claim

In 1987, Bakker admitted to a sexual encounter with Jessica Hahn, a church secretary, and was forced to hand over control of his empire to Jerry Falwell.

Two years later, he was convicted of fraud and conspiracy from an investigation into his company’s finances. He was sentenced to 45 years in prison, but that was later reduced to eight years.

The trial resulted in one of the most well-known moments of the Bakkers’ spectacle when Tammy Faye cried during a news conference and sang “On Christ the Solid Rock I Stand.”

Tammy Faye divorced Jim Bakker in 1992 and went on to marry Roe Messner, the contractor of the Christian theme park. Messner was convicted of bankruptcy fraud in 1995, and Tammy Faye died of colon cancer in 2007.

Bakker continued to evangelize up until his death and was a supporter of President Donald Trump.

“Even in his final days, his heart was still for the work of God and for the gospel to continue reaching the world,” Lori Bakker concluded.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

​Jim bakker, Tammy faye bakker, Televangelist, Obituary, Christianity, Politics 

Following in the footsteps of Macklemore, Paramore lead singer Hayley Williams is fighting her dwindling relevancy by making a political statement.

“She must have noticed the big boost Macklemore got from ruining Ed Sheeran’s tour, because neither Macklemore nor Williams have had a Billboard Top 100 hit since 2017,” BlazeTV host Sara Gonzales says.

“But there are two words that can make them relevant again,” she adds.

Predictably, Williams yelled “f**k ICE” and “free mother-f**king Palestine.”

“Hayley Williams actually wasn’t done. Hayley Williams wasn’t done trying to gain some sort of legitimacy again. Maybe people might start Googling her name. And so she decided to take it one step further by targeting yet another group,” Gonzales says.

“The greatest threat to American democracy is Christian nationalism,” she said in another set.

“I hate to sound like a broken record, but the Democrats force me to do this every single time because they are trying to brainwash people. They think if they say ‘democracy, democracy, democracy’ enough times that you will forget that our country is not a democracy,” Gonzales comments.

“It is actually a constitutional republic. That’s very important. Like, they’re doing this intentionally. They are using language to try to change your perspective on this country and how we are set up. It’s actually a very, very important distinction,” she continues.

One, Gonzales explains, that “the founding fathers knew they needed to very clearly lay out because they knew that American democracy promotes mob rule” and “its end point is socialism.”

“What would we have if we were a democracy?” she asks, before answering, “Legalized federal abortion, transgender protection at the federal level, men in women’s sports, men invading your bathrooms and girls’ locker rooms. You’d have state-mandated DEI.”

“I realize I’m describing a total dystopian hellhole, but that’s what you would have if we were an American democracy,” she continues.

“This is why leftists like Hayley Williams are pushing their democracy narrative. That’s what they want, actually,” she adds.

This is why she thinks Williams might be right.

The definition of Christian nationalism from the book “The Case for Christian Nationalism” reads “is a nation that understands itself to be a Christian people and therefore orders its laws and customs accordingly, seeking both its earthly and spiritual good.”

“So when you use this term how it has been defined, Hayley Williams is actually correct. Christian nationalism is the greatest threat to American democracy because it seeks to return us to our founding principles,” she says.

“That’s actually very scary for them,” she adds.

Want more from Sara Gonzales?

To enjoy more of Sara’s no-holds-barred takes on news and culture, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

​Christian nationalism, Free palestine, Macklemore, Hayley williams, Sara gonzales, Blazetv show 

Going to the doctor, casino, or a lawyer’s office is nobody’s business but the American who is doing it, an Oklahoma judge has declared.

The judge said that when a police officer used the Flock Safety system to track a woman’s cross-state movements, he went too far.

‘The government cannot go snooping through our personal lives.’

U.S. District Judge Sara E. Hill granted a motion to suppress evidence in a drug case last week after declaring that a Tulsa County, Oklahoma, deputy searching a woman’s license plate through the Flock systems violated the Fourth Amendment by way of unconstitutional search.

The officer had access to at least two automated license plate reader systems, court documents revealed, Flock and VehicleManager, which were used to observe 50 sightings tied to the license plate in question.

“These two systems have different capabilities, but they serve the same essential function: gathering and organizing historical data about a vehicle’s whereabouts on public roadways for use by law enforcement across the country,” the documents read, per CBS12.

Judge Hill said that the technology does not have the right to reveal sensitive information about a person’s whereabouts, even if it does not provide the same precision in location as a cell phone.

“It could track and log a couple struggling to start a family at the fertility clinic. It could show how often someone visits a liquor store or casino. It could show which doctor someone goes to or what lawyer’s office someone visits,” the document stated.

The judge went on, “This leaves the question of why is it the government’s business where everyone goes all the time? The government cannot go snooping through our personal lives and business without an adequate basis to do so.”

The court found that police cannot use a vast network of cameras to collect such vehicle data and then track a person’s movements without probable cause and a warrant.

RELATED: ‘A nightmare for individual liberties’ — Josh Hawley unveils sweeping new anti-Flock legislation

Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

In this case, the documents stated, when Tulsa County Deputy Sheriff Freddie Alaniz searched ALPR databases for a Mazda SUV under the queries “traffic violation” and “investigation,” all he knew “was that the vehicle had a California license plate.”

The deputy sheriff used the ALPR data to track the car’s movements across several states, which he later said raised suspicion on his part as to why the woman was making short trips.

Alaniz said he suspected the woman of possible drug trafficking, due to the length of her trip, her nervousness, and her use of a rental car. For those reasons, and others, Alaniz eventually detained the woman before having a K-9 search her car.

While the legality of the search and length of stop are argued by both parties in the document, the judge declared that the “use of the ALPR Systems was an Unconstitutional Warrantless Search.”

RELATED: Astronomers detect unprecedented radio signal — it’s coming from a gigantic planet

Charles-McClintock Wilson/NurPhoto/Getty Images

The decision comes after Missouri Senator Josh Hawley (R) revealed his plans for sweeping legislation against ALRP companies through his proposed Stop Flock Abuse Act.

Also, Florida recently banned the use of Flock cameras and other license plate readers on roads that are part of the state highway system.

In the Oklahoma case, the judge wrote that motorists can still have a reasonable expectation of privacy when driving, in that “the whole of their physical movements” should not be readily available for search.

The ruling does not stop police from using the cameras and does not declare a single use of the camera (a scan) to be unconstitutional.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

​Flock, Oklahoma, Fourth amendment, Tech 

Is Taylor Swift’s colossal fanbase finally beginning to dwindle? BlazeTV host Allie Beth Stuckey sees the writing on the wall, and it doesn’t look good for the global pop star. While Swift is coming off a record-breaking album and a very public marriage, her latest release has even some faithful Swifties wincing.

On this episode of “Relatable,” Allie sits down with former producer and longtime Swift fan Bri Schrader to have an honest conversation about Swift’s latest album release, whether or not it forebodes doom, and what Swift’s sudden “trad” shift may point to.

“So Taylor Swift released basically the deluxe version of her album ‘The Life of a Showgirl’ … and everyone’s talking about it because some of the songs are controversial,” says Bri.

She explains that the original album was already controversial because even hardcore fans thought it was “bad writing.” The four added songs only worsened matters.

Allie notes that “The Life of a Showgirl: The Encore” has a Metacritic score of “39 out of 100” — the “first red album” of Swift’s career.

“And then, we also have Poppie Platt, a reviewer for the Telegraph. She titled her review, ‘I’m a Swiftie, and even I think these songs are terrible.’ … She said that what [Swift] doesn’t seem to have realized is that the music must be good to do a surprise release,” Allie continues.

“Do you think, as some people are speculating, that she has lost her artistic edge since meeting Travis?” she asks.

“I love Taylor Swift, but I have felt that almost every song that’s been about him has just not been her strongest lyrically. And so has she lost her edge? I don’t know. I mean, maybe,” says Bri.

“She wrote a whole album about concepts and stories that aren’t even hers or related to her and that was my favorite album of hers, and so I think she’s still able to tap into that. So maybe it’s just the songs that are strictly about [Travis] that are kind of meh to me,” she continues, noting that people are specifically “clowning on” Swift’s song “Cleveland,” which is about Kelce taking her to see his hometown.

Bri believes Swift has entered a new era. “She’s in this phase right now that’s very like, ‘Oh, screw the haters. I found my man, and he plays football.’ She has, like, five songs that are just basically that,” she says, “and I think that’s what I’m tired of a little bit.”

“You would think she’d be more popular than ever having this football husband, having gotten married, obviously being excited about getting married,” says Allie.

“Maybe it’s because she’s moved even more. I mean, obviously she was always mainstream … but she’s gone into other realms that typically maybe don’t think about Taylor Swift … and now people just feel a need to always commentate on her life or her politics.”

“I feel like people are more annoyed with her in general than in seasons past in her life.”

Bri agrees that Swift’s public perception is shifting. “There’s a section of people who have always not liked her, who have always thought she was cheesy and annoying. Then there’s the people, I think, who were turned off by this album specifically,” she says, explaining how certain songs expressing desire for marriage and motherhood were criticized for being too traditional.

“People are now like, ‘OK, so she’s going to be a little trad now,’ and that’s annoying to a lot of the people who liked her before,” Bri continues. “So I think those things combined, she’s just at levels of annoying for most people right now, which is unfortunate for her.”

Allie believes Swift’s sudden shift to traditionalism is less about a real change of heart and more about political influence.

“Her and the Kelces are all a part of a psyop. … I’m not saying that it’s not real, but they represent what Democrats want to convey — that you can be a progressive feminist who likes Kamala Harris and hates Donald Trump and you’re from the Midwest, you represent normal Americans, you can be trad, you can have kids,” she speculates.

“But I think when presidential election time comes around that the Kelce-Swift combo is going to be flexing their influence muscles for the Democrats.”

In their crosshairs, she argues, will be a very specific demographic: “that white suburban mom … that instinctively doesn’t like Trump but is also kind of trad.”

“And I think the more trad she gets and the more she remains progressive in other ways, the more they think that she’s going to be able to persuade people over to their side. … She’s playing a long ideological game here,” says Allie.

To hear more, watch the episode above.

Want more from Allie Beth Stuckey?

To enjoy more of Allie’s upbeat and in-depth coverage of culture, news, and theology from a Christian, conservative perspective, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

​Allie beth stuckey, Taylor swift, Traditionalism, Travis kelce, Blazetv show 

The 2026 midterm elections present a tough environment for the Republican Party, raising questions about how to campaign in such challenging circumstances. As is often the case in American politics, the economy is a central concern for voters.

In the last few weeks, prices — particularly for gas — have been too high for the comfort of any incumbent party. What have Republicans been saying to assuage voters’ concerns?

When officers and soldiers complained about not being paid, Washington did not ignore them or tell them they should consider it a privilege to sacrifice for their country.

Some have taken a kind of high road, encouraging or even admonishing voters to rise above self-interest and consider the loftier aims President Trump and his administration are pursuing. Yes, gas prices may be high, but the president is trying to end the Iranian threat to American national security. This process is taking longer and causing more economic pain than anyone would like. But it is worth it for the nation in the long run, and so patriotic voters should toughen up. So the argument runs.

This approach, however, has no shortage of critics. They think it is futile or worse to tell ordinary voters, whose economic means are increasingly limited, to grin and bear higher prices on the necessities of life. This environment, they suggest, is a recipe for electoral disaster for the Republican Party.

The critics have a point. It is never prudent for any political party — especially a pragmatic, competitive party that hopes to win elections and not just advance philosophical arguments — to appear indifferent to the ordinary self-interest of voters.

To make this error is not only to misread the present American electorate, but to misunderstand human nature, the basis of politics at all times and in all places. This is not to say that a successful political party must appeal only to narrow self-interest. Voters can respond to appeals to moral principle and national pride. Nevertheless, to neglect self-interest is to neglect one of the vital springs of human conduct.

The party that does this as a regular practice courts defeat.

This is one of the practical political lessons that George Washington, one of the greatest Americans, learned during the Revolutionary War. As the war lengthened, he pleaded with increasing urgency with Congress to provide for the army — better pay, better clothes, better food. Washington continually reminded the nation’s political leaders that without adequate provision, it would be impossible to keep the army together, much less achieve victory.

RELATED: The GOP has mastered the art of wasting a majority

Tierney L. Cross/Getty Images

Underlying Washington’s argument is an assumption about the nature of the men composing the army essential to securing American independence — namely, that they could not be relied upon to continue in service if they were not properly compensated.

In other words, Washington assumed that the heroes of the Revolution were governed to a considerable extent by self-interest. Washington laid out this understanding explicitly in a 1778 letter to a committee of the Continental Congress:

A small knowledge of human nature will convince us, that, with far the greatest part of mankind, interest is the governing principle; and that, almost, every man is more or less, under its influence. Motives of public virtue may for a time, or in particular instances, actuate men to the observance of a conduct purely disinterested; but they are not of themselves sufficient to produce a persevering conformity to the refined dictates and obligations of social duty. Few men are capable of making a continual sacrifice of all views of private interest, or advantage, to the common good. It is in vain to exclaim against the depravity of human nature on this account — the fact is so, the experience of every age and nation has proved it, and we must, in a great measure, change the constitution of man, before we can make it otherwise. No institution, not built on the presumptive truth of these maxims can succeed.

It is important to emphasize that Washington is not taking a low view of human nature — he is taking a realistic view of it. Washington does not deny that human beings act on motives other than self-interested ones. He was himself a man of honor and of conscience. In his general orders to the army, he routinely appealed to lofty principles when communicating with his subordinates — officers, gentlemen, and ordinary soldiers.

In his private correspondence, Washington acknowledged that many men had joined the army out of patriotic motives. Such motives are genuine in the human heart and therefore have real influence on political life. Nevertheless, he understood that such motives cannot sustain most men, and certainly not a whole nation, on their own.

Conservatives often say that we would do well to learn from the high principles of our nation’s founders. But it is also just as necessary to learn from their realistic understanding of human nature. Without their realism about what motivates human beings, the founding generation would not have defeated the British and established a republican government in the service of lofty ideals.

RELATED: Ohio should be easy. Vivek is making it hard.

Blaze Media Illustration

Similarly, no political movement today (or at any time) can succeed in the long term without taking care of its voters’ self-interest and the common good of the country more generally.

Of course, sometimes, despite a ruling party’s best efforts and intentions, bad economic conditions will sour the electorate’s mood. What is such a party to say to its voters? Here, too, Washington provides a good guide.

When officers and soldiers complained about not being paid, Washington did not ignore them or tell them they should consider it a privilege to sacrifice for their country. He reminded his men that their long-term interests would be served by the nation’s independence; he agreed that their complaints were just and reasonable; and he assured them that steps were being taken to improve their situation.

This was a prudent and candid way for Washington to deal with his army, and it offers a model for how Republicans should address American voters today.

Editor’s note: This article was originally published at the American Mind.

​American politics, American voters, Continental congress, Gas prices, George washington, Midterm elections, National security, Republican party, Revolutionary war, Human nature, 2026, Economy, Self interest, Opinion & analysis 

A repeat offender is accused of murdering an elderly woman in a broad daylight attack late last month on a street in the Fells Point neighborhood of Baltimore.

The 76-year-old victim — who was an art gallery owner — and her husband reportedly “were staunch about staying in Fells Point and believing in that community and wanting to lift the community up.”

‘It’s very surreal. It was so sudden. And the fact that it was so violent. And the fact that she was such a good person and so community-oriented.’

Claudia Bismark died days after investigators said 32-year-old Montray McCray assaulted and robbed her and her husband after they left Broadway Market in Fells Point on Sept. 29, WBFF-TV reported.

Police said officers responded to the incident just after 9:30 a.m. and spoke with the victims who told them an unidentified male knocked them to the ground and stole a wallet from one of them before fleeing.

Police said both victims were taken to an area hospital for medical treatment, but the 76-year-old woman — now identified as Bismark — succumbed to her injuries and was pronounced dead Thursday.

Police added that Warrant Apprehension detectives also on Thursday arrested McCray while in the unit block of South Carrollton Avenue. Police said McCray was taken to the Central Booking Intake Facility; initially he was charged with assault, robbery, and reckless endangerment.

But now McCray is charged with first- and second-degree murder in connection with Bismark’s death, WBFF reported.

What’s more, court documents indicate McCray assaulted a man near the city’s Inner Harbor just days before the attack on Bismark and her husband, the station said.

WBFF, citing court documents, said the victim told officers his attacker punched him in the face and robbed him after he refused to give money to the attacker.

The victim added to police that the attack happened as he was walking from getting Chipotle in the 400 block of East Pratt Street near the Inner Harbor just after 2:15 p.m. Sept. 26, the station said.

WBFF, citing court documents, reported that surveillance video from the earlier attack as well as the assault against Bismark and her husband helped lead police to tracking down McCray.

McCray appeared in court Monday for bond hearings related to both cases, the station said.

RELATED: Thug shoves elderly woman off NYC subway platform, onto tracks in reportedly random attack

Court records also show that McCray’s criminal history dates back a decade, WBFF said.

He was arrested in Baltimore City in 2016 and charged in connection with a felony drug case, the station said, adding that the Baltimore City State’s Attorney’s Office said the case was listed as STET — meaning the case stays pending and no action is taken.In 2018, records show McCray was arrested in connection with another felony drug and gun case, WBFF reported, adding that the State’s Attorney’s Office said the case was never prosecuted.Records also indicate that McCray in 2019 was found guilty of violating his probation and sentenced to two and a half years in prison, the station said.McCray in 2023 was found guilty of violating a protective order, WBFF noted.

He’s scheduled for an Oct. 29 preliminary hearing, the station said.

Bismark was the owner of the Bismark-Wilson Art Gallery on Bank Street, according to a separate WBFF story.

On the day of her death, the station said family, friends, and neighbors gathered at the site of the assault against Bismark and her husband for a candlelight vigil.

Longtime friend Kate Norris told WBFF that Bismark and her husband lived in Fells Point for decades, and she was passionate about art, people, the community, and traveling.

“It’s very surreal. It was so sudden. And the fact that it was so violent. And the fact that she was such a good person and so community-oriented,” Norris added to the station. “They were staunch about staying in Fells Point and believing in that community and wanting to lift the community up.”

As for Bismark’s attacker, Norris told WBFF that “it feels like the system failed us, our family, the community in letting somebody like that either be on the street or unmonitored if he had mental health problems. And this isn’t the first time. While I was at the vigil, I learned of a woman who lost her husband two years ago when he was walking the dog. Same situation.”

WJZ-TV reported in July that new security measures and checkpoints took effect in Fells Point after a string of teen takeovers.

“The amount of shootings that have happened in Fells the last couple of months has been an uptick that I don’t think I’ve seen before,” Baltimore resident Sophia Gana told WJZ.

The station said the safety changes came a month after police were called to disperse a large crowd in Fells Point — and on that same weekend, police reported two shootings in the neighborhood.

“I’ll see on like social media, it just gets wild out here,” Daniel Jacks added to WJZ.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

​Murder, Baltimore, Physical attack, Elderly woman, Repeat offender, Crime 

The public can’t agree if artificial intelligence is a good thing or a bad thing for society, but one state is taking a stand in opposition. A Florida attorney general recently made a motion to block further ChatGPT development, and unless several strict terms are met, OpenAI can’t release new AI models in the state ever again.

In late September, DeSantis-appointed Attorney General James Uthmeier filed a temporary injunction against OpenAI. The document shines a spotlight on OpenAI, bringing to light the company’s claims that ChatGPT “poses an existential risk to the continued survival of humankind.” Furthermore, AI companies like OpenAI “admit that they provide a service without fully knowing how it works.”

Uthmeier’s motion delivers the government reckoning they crave.

Ultimately, this threat is what led Big AI CEOs, like Dario Amodei, Sam Altman, and Elon Musk, to join together in a call to “pace the frontier.” However, so far, that union has amounted to nothing but lip service, as frontier model development continues unfettered, at least for now.

Not willing to wait for the AI companies to do the responsible thing on their own, Uthmeier’s motion delivers the government reckoning they crave. He scathingly rebukes OpenAI, calling the company “grossly negligent” and stating that ChatGPT was “defectively designed,” making it a “public nuisance” that put Floridians in danger without warning.

These aren’t specious claims either. The motion cites several real incidents where ChatGPT harmed Florida citizens. It:

Provided minors with information on how to harm themselves and/or take their own lives. Explained how to combine drugs that resulted in dangerous side effects. Offered tips that enabled anorexia. Helped plan a mass shooting and at least one homicide resulting in multiple losses of life. Created a platform meant to “hook” young users for more engagement.

RELATED: This cute new personal assistant can help run your life — if you let it access your personal data

Muse Charm/Meta

To ensure ChatGPT no longer poses a threat to Floridians, Uthmeier proposed several remedies that all must be met. A failure to comply means that OpenAI can’t release future models in the state, though existing models can remain active. To meet all requests, OpenAI:

Can’t develop new AI models until “third-party approved safety guardrails” are put in place to shore up training safety protocols and prevent automated cyberattacks. Can no longer allow ChatGPT to offer additional information after serving a response to a query, eliminating its engagement bait loop designed to boost usage numbers. Is barred from deceptive marketing practices that claim ChatGPT is “safe, accurate, or reliable.” Footnotes at the bottom of responses that claim AI can make mistakes do not suffice in this case. Cannot give ChatGPT human-like attributes, including pronouns and language that equates the service to a trusted friend, all of which confuse users and the AI platforms themselves. Must ban minors from the platform, both to protect their safety and to keep ChatGPT from collecting data belonging to underaged users.

There are clear pros and cons to an outright ChatGPT ban in Florida. On one side, it ensures AI platforms can no longer influence the thoughts and beliefs of Florida citizens as OpenAI tries to tame the monster it created. On the other side, it cuts Florida citizens off from what has become a vital knowledge resource, potentially leaving them behind as other United States citizens freely access the latest frontier tech.

Depending on how you feel about AI, either one of these might sound like the better option.

The most glaring problem, though, is that the injunction specifically targets ChatGPT while leaving the others — Claude, Gemini, Grok, and open-weight models — completely untouched. If the state of Florida was serious about protecting citizens and children from generative artificial intelligence, they would hand out a comprehensive AI ban not unlike Bernie Sanders’ proposed American AI Sovereign Wealth Fund Act, which Glenn Beck explained is a bad idea.

The motion is currently under review by 10th Judicial Circuit of Florida Judge Heather Beato. In the meantime, OpenAI voluntarily paused training on its upcoming model, GPT-6.1 Astra, after it subverted instructions while gathering data on federal government websites.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

​Artificial intelligence, Ban, Tech, Openai 

Democratic Texas state Rep. Jolanda Jones warned over the summer that James Talarico was not doing enough to win black votes for the upcoming midterms.

Just weeks before Election Day, his campaign may lose even more ground with black and Hispanic voters, potentially dooming Democrats’ efforts to seize control of the Senate from Republicans.

‘Talarico needs to pay for us to get our voters out. Only then does Talarico have a chance to win.’

James Talarico’s U.S. Senate campaign in Texas ran into problems from the very beginning when he defeated Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-Texas) for the Democratic nomination. Crockett suggested that black voters in Texas are not excited about Talarico.

Now his campaign has given critics an opening to accuse the woke candidate of ignoring both blacks and Hispanics.

On Monday, a black voter outreach event at the Central Texas African American Civic Engagement Symposium was canceled, just a week after Talarico did not appear in person for an event with the U.S. Hispanic Business Council in South Texas.

Talarico attended the Hispanic event virtually, claiming to be too ill to be there in person.

“I was looking forward to being down in the Valley,” he said on Wednesday. “I’ve been talking about it all week. I was ready to eat my favorite quesabirria tacos, but I was starting to feel kind of under the weather a few days ago. And last night, it got so bad that I went to urgent care here in Dallas.”

Afterward, critics pounced on the campaign.

“James Talarico is either taking black voters for granted or giving up on them altogether,” said Zach Kraft, a spokesperson for the Republican National Committee, in a statement to the Daily Wire. “Either way, Talarico’s attempt to heal his relationship with black voters is simply mediocre.”

In August, an embittered Crockett pointed out that Republicans were not spending in the race as if they believed that Talarico had a chance to win.

“I watch money. When I look at the money, if Republicans start spending money in Texas, then I’ll be convinced,” she said at the time.

Texas PAC, partially funded by the Republican-linked Senate Leadership Fund, has since reserved $117 million for ads for Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, Talarico’s Republican opponent, Punchbowl News reported in late September.

RELATED: ‘He’s been lying to voters’: Paxton BEATS DOWN Talarico over alleged election fraud

“I look at where does the NRSC stand? Where does DSCC stand? Right now, neither one are investing, which tells me that their internals are saying the same thing,” she added. “So it looks like status quo.”

That criticism fits with Jones’ warning in July to the Talarico campaign. She said the campaign was paying for “white infrastructure and Hispanic infrastructure” to get out the vote, but not for black infrastructure.

“Talarico needs to pay for us to get our voters out. Only then does Talarico have a chance to win,” she said at the time.

The Talarico campaign was also embarrassed when it was caught last week pushing a video about a “huge crowd” of Talarico supporters “in deep-red Lubbock, Texas.” However, the video was taken in February, not October.

While polling shows a very tight race between Talarico and Paxton, the Democrat has been getting constantly hammered over his extremist comments and ties.

Early voting in Texas begins October 19.

You can check out the latest polling average between Paxton and Talarico, plus race trends and other helpful data at Blaze News’ Poll Watch.

Texas Senate polls 2026: Talarico vs. Paxton

Texas Senate polls 2026: Talarico vs. Paxton pollwatch.theblaze.com

Every public poll of the 2026 Texas Senate race, James Talarico (D) vs. Ken Paxton (R), and the Blaze polling average. From Blaze News.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

​James talarico, Black vote, Us senate, Ken paxton, Texas, Politics