We support our Publishers and Content Creators. You can view this story on their website by CLICKING HERE.

There’s a popular conception that politicians at the federal level, especially the leaders of the major parties, must possess a high degree of cunning and intellect. After all, only the most Machiavellian schemers could navigate the cutthroat labyrinth of party politics to the highest offices in the Capitol or the White House, right?

Oftentimes, people strain, sometimes desperately, to attribute complex machinations and ulterior motives to the current chaos of the American political landscape. It’s part of a senseless hope that there is some deeper meaning to be found in the inane ramblings or narcissistic posturing of our political class.

National Review’s Jim Geraghty displayed this sentiment Monday, seemingly struggling to make sense of Kamala Harris’ rise to power and the very real possibility that she could be the next president despite the mountain of evidence that she is, indeed, a simpleton.

“There’s this nagging complication — if Kamala Harris is as stupid as her critics claim, why does she have the Democratic presidential nomination and a roughly 50–50 shot of being the first female president in U.S. history?” Geraghty posted on X.

“Do you know how many ruthlessly ambitious Democratic men and women have desperately yearned to get where she is? How many smart, tough, shrewd, often underhanded and cold-blooded pols have tried to claw their way up the greasy pole and fallen short? And somehow this supposed dunce managed to do it?” he continued.

Geraghty is overthinking it. In reality, the vast majority of Washington denizens are merely average, and more than a few are complete buffoons.

Case in point: Kamala Harris. She might actually be one of the most intellectually feeble people to seek the presidency. When she tried to claim the nomination on her own, in 2020, she ran one of the most amateurish campaigns in a primary already chocked full of imbeciles. She was so hopelessly inept as the “border czar” that the propaganda press tried to memory-hole the fact that she held the position.

On the campaign trail in 2024, she has become the queen of word salads and non-answers, only capable of parroting the most vapid talking points. None of her nonsensical words of “wisdom” ring more hollow than the oft-repeated “What can be, unburdened by what has been.” Truly the mantra of mental midgets everywhere.

Most recently, she’s now accused of multiple instances of plagiarism, including in congressional testimony — truly a signifier of a sharp and adept mind.

So, to address Geraghty’s question: How did Kamala reach the highest levels of the Democrat Party?

First off, she became then-candidate Joe Biden’s running mate in 2020 for a very specific reason, and it was not her intelligence. The Democrat Party then handed her the nomination on a silver platter, without a single primary vote in her favor, after the soft coup against an obviously declining Biden.

Second, it’s sad to admit, but a large portion of the population is stupid enough or deranged enough to support Harris. There are more than enough people willing to cast a vote for her based on her race or her gender, the fact that a “D” appears next to her name on the ballot, or the obvious reality that she is not Donald Trump.

Third, plenty of mediocre (at best) or even outright moronic people have bumbled their way into the halls of power in this country — far more than we’d like to admit given our “enlightened” form of government. Some men more suited to serving as the White House janitor have wound up in the Oval Office because they were pawns in larger political intrigues, were at the right place at the right time, or were the least bad option.

The Democrat Party nominated Franklin Pierce and James Buchanan in 1852 and 1856, respectively, by passing over arguably the most famous and accomplished Democrat of the era, Stephen Douglas. Franklin Pierce remains one of the most forgettable presidents, and Buchanan has become infamous for his disastrous handling of the secession crisis on the eve of the Civil War.

Infighting and intrigues caused in large part by President Woodrow Wilson saw the Democrat Party of the Roaring Twenties nominate a succession of candidates in 1920, 1924, and 1928 that evinced an electoral strategy akin to “meh, good enough.” These men found themselves leading one of the major national parties not because they inspired voters or had any real chance of overcoming the Republicans’ strong economic record, but more due to the fact someone had to be nominated.

Sometimes people rise to power based on events entirely out of their control, even sheer dumb luck. Both candidates in the 1976 presidential election could thank the fallout from Watergate for their moment in the national spotlight.

Gerald Ford was catapulted to the presidency after corruption scandals rocked the Nixon administration. Vice President Spiro Agnew resigned in October 1973, paving the way for Ford to become President Richard Nixon’s No. 2; then the Watergate scandal pushed Nixon out of office.

Jimmy Carter was a virtual unknown outside his home state of Georgia before the 1976 election, but the anti-establishment feeling in the nation in the wake of Watergate suddenly made the dark horse the most viable candidate in a stable of Washington swamp creatures.

Ford, while apparently an affable man, is mostly known as a moderate, placeholder president burdened by the baggage of his predecessor and the ultimate defeat in Vietnam. Though Carter somewhat rehabilitated his image post-presidency, his tenure in office saw economic turmoil at home and humiliation for the U.S. abroad in the Iran hostage crisis.

All this to say, just because someone serves in public office or rises to party leadership does not mean that person possesses any special guile or wit. Perhaps if she wins, Harris will reveal herself as a political genius who was patiently playing the fool to deceive her enemies, but more likely she’ll continue to reveal what she really is: a dolt with a small talent for opportunism.

Sometimes, a spade is a spade. Sometimes, an idiot is an idiot. Kamala most likely isn’t playing 4-D chess. She’s struggling at checkers.

Hayden Daniel is a staff editor at The Federalist. He previously worked as an editor at The Daily Wire and as deputy editor/opinion editor at The Daily Caller. He received his B.A. in European History from Washington and Lee University with minors in Philosophy and Classics. Follow him on Twitter at @HaydenWDaniel