Washington runs on soundbites and shortcuts; How to Test Negative for Stupid: And Why Washington Never Will is Senator John Kennedy’s unapologetic manual for resisting both—while showing why the capital keeps failing the test.
Speak plainly, fight groupthink, and guard free speech—because “you’re not free if you can’t say what you think,” and only “dead fish go with the flow.”
Kennedy grounds his case in lived scenes (Senate lunches that end with four-letter words), legislative receipts (e.g., the Holding Foreign Companies Accountable Act), and media dust-ups (Gannett pulling an op-ed over “biological male/female”).
Best for readers who like political nonfiction with bite, first-person candor, and policy notes braided with barbed humor; not for those who prefer neutral tone, progressive policy priors, or academically footnoted social science.
If you come to How to Test Negative for Stupid for a plain-English take on Congress, the media, and the border, you’ll find a steady stream of punchlines, snapshots from GOP caucus lunches, and a defense of saying the quiet part out loud—even when it costs you a week of headlines.
How to Test Negative for Stupid’s voice is unmistakably John Kennedy: a Louisiana lawyer-professor turned senator who claims “the right to remain silent, but not the ability,” and who likes dogs more than reporters.
That mix—policy receipts, lived vignettes, and a folksy insult comic’s sense of timing—makes How to Test Negative for Stupid both a readable primer on DC culture and a Rorschach test for readers’ politics.
Kennedy argues that American freedom hinges on speech plain enough to puncture fashionable nonsense; Washington fails that test because careerism, media curation, and bureaucratic inertia reward euphemism over candor. As he writes: “You are not free if you can’t express yourself. You’re not free if you can’t say what you think.”
Table of Contents
1. Background
The book’s frame is simple: a senator’s notebook of scenes, fights, one-liners, and “receipts,” offered as a common-sense standard for policies and behavior that are often anything but.
You see this in the very Table of Contents—from “A Day in the Life of a U.S. Senator” and “Sweet Victory (Took Long Enough)” to “Speed Round,” ending with an Epilogue—telegraphing a memoir spine with policy interludes.
2. How to Test Negative for Stupid Summary
How to Test Negative for Stupid in one line
John Kennedy argues that American self-government depends on plain speech and unapologetic common sense, while Washington’s culture, incentives, and media gatekeeping systemically reward the opposite—so the capital will keep “testing positive for stupid” unless citizens and lawmakers insist on candor, accountability, and basic competence.
Kennedy’s voice and setup
The introduction establishes the entire project: Kennedy presents himself as a senator who “has the right to remain silent, but not the ability,” and roots that impulse in a small-town Louisiana upbringing that prized saying what you mean and being known for it—humor included.
He links free speech to freedom itself: “You are not free if you can’t express yourself… if you can’t say what you think.” This is both his personal credo and the book’s thesis for how to think and talk about policy. The tone promises anecdotes over abstractions, with scenes from hearings, caucus lunches, and press encounters showing how Washington reacts when someone “says the quiet part out loud.”
From the outset, colleagues warn him to respect “tradition, custom, and decorum,” but Kennedy frames these nudges as pressure to mute inconvenient truths. He recounts pushing witnesses at hearings—even when they are invited by his own party—and getting told to dial it back for the sake of “teamwork.”
The early chapters are a primer in the Capitol’s informal rules: protect your team, avoid embarrassing insiders, and prefer euphemism to directness. Kennedy signals he will keep doing the opposite.
Anatomy of a Washington day
In his “day in the life” material, Kennedy demystifies the Senate as a place that often looks august but operates like an understaffed theater: long empty stretches on the floor, ritualized speeches, and performative clashes. The point isn’t cynicism for its own sake; it’s incentive analysis.
When the cameras reward soundbites, the culture adapts to maximize them. He extends this insight to committee work: when an “expert” witness coasts on jargon, the social rule is to nod along—until someone violates the script and forces a clearer answer. Kennedy says he will keep violating the script.
The throughline is blunt: Washington elevates intonation and tact over substance, and that’s how “stupid”—his umbrella term for euphemism, showboating, and unserious policy—wins ground.
He argues the fix is not complicated: strip away the varnish, put the receipts on the table, and invite the public to decide. He views his “folksy” quips not as schtick but as a method for translating opaque bureaucracy into intelligible stakes.
The free-speech hinge
Kennedy’s core claim is that free expression is the keystone right: remove it and the rest decay. He repeats variations on this throughout, culminating in the epilogue’s insistence that “without that, the other rights we in America enjoy are useless.”
What follows is a case study in how speech norms are policed: he recounts a 2024 op-ed opposing biological males in women’s sports, which a cluster of Gannett papers published and then removed days later; he reproduces the editorial rationale as “loaded language” objections to terms such as “biological male” and “biological female.” For Kennedy, this is exemplary of a wider editorial culture that confuses standards with curation of acceptable viewpoints.
His question to readers: even if the outlets could cut the piece, should they have, and what does that do to the public’s ability to weigh arguments?
How to Test Negative for Stupid does not pretend neutrality about the underlying policy; it defends a categorical position and backs it with physiological claims (e.g., heart and lung capacity differences, bone density, shoulder width) and outcome examples (e.g., high-school sprint times vs. Olympic women, NCAA cases).
Kennedy’s point is twofold: first, that material differences remain after cross-sex hormones; second, that safeguarding women’s safety, privacy, and opportunities—including scholarships and NIL income—requires policies that respect those differences. The broader lesson isn’t only about athletics; it’s about a political habit of treating contested premises as “settled” and punishing dissent via gatekeeping.
“Receipts”
To show he’s more than a quote machine, Kennedy catalogs bills he supported and helped pass, leaning on two as proof of method: the Holding Foreign Companies Accountable Act, which forces non-U.S. issuers—especially Chinese firms—to meet American auditing standards or face delisting; and the Rebuilding Small Businesses After Disasters Act, which expands access to SBA disaster loans.
The narrative intent is clear: common-sense talk can translate into statutory changes that protect investors and speed local recovery after catastrophes.
He also includes vignettes about presidents to argue that candor is a nonpartisan diagnostic. A long White House scene with President Biden is played partly for humor (slow walking, staffers signaling to end the conversation), but the policy subtext—concern about the president’s stamina and communication—serves Kennedy’s claim that image-management crowds out frank assessment.
He presents such moments to explain why many citizens no longer trust elites’ narration of reality.
Immigration and border policy as a case study
The “stupid vs. not stupid” frame is applied most directly to the border. Kennedy asserts that terminating policies such as Remain in Mexico, ending certain asylum arrangements, and ceasing to use Title 42 produced “total dysfunction.”
His remedy is to reinstate those tools (“go back to what worked”), tighten asylum criteria, and finish the wall—framed as simple rule-enforcement rather than cruelty. He repeatedly says he doesn’t think migrants are bad people; he thinks laws should be enforced to preserve the credibility of rules.
Whether a reader agrees on policy details, the chapters reveal Kennedy’s method: reduce complexity to concrete levers, test claims against outcomes as he sees them, and condemn what he reads as elite denialism and euphemism.
Media criticism and the Trump-era lesson
Kennedy recounts hostile interviews and headline storms to argue that a large swath of prestige media conflated Republican arguments with Trumpian intent and therefore treated disagreement as delegitimization.
His “Meet the Press” anecdote functions as an exhibit: after he walked back an error, he still found himself branded a “useful idiot.” His conclusion is not that he was above mistakes, but that the ecosystem’s reflexes—assign motive, escalate rhetoric, ignore corrections—made thoughtful debate nearly impossible.
For him, media bias is not subtle editorial shading; it’s an aggressive prosecutorial stance in service of bigger-government priors.
The purpose of these stories is to support the larger theme: if public referees punish dissent through selective amplification and de-platforming, good policy formation suffers because error-correction relies on argument, not silence.
Kennedy wants readers to treat “loaded language” policing as a stress test: if terms needed to make distinctions are banned as offensive, then clarity has been traded for comfort.
Crime, policing, and the rule-of-law claim
On public safety, Kennedy argues that leniency and symbolic reforms have produced a predictable spiral: downgrade offenses, discourage policing, and you will get more crime.
His example list includes California’s $950 threshold and a D.C. police budget cut, placed within a longer defense of the necessity of order (“Without order, there can be no justice”) and punishment for criminal acts. The tone is prosecutorial and deliberately provocative—aimed at puncturing what he sees as elite narratives about root causes that minimize personal responsibility.
The endpoint is a familiar Kennedy refrain: common sense over “fashionable” doctrine.
These chapters exemplify his preferred argumentative structure: start with a vivid (sometimes caustic) image, insert a policy change or data point, and finish with a crisp normative claim about accountability.
Agree or not, you never doubt the prescription: reverse permissive signals, restore enforcement, and stop pretending that rhetoric can replace consequences.
Race, equality vs. equity, and schools
Kennedy devotes a late chapter to reframing racial debates. He declares “America is not a racist country,” while acknowledging racism exists; his argument is that weaponizing history and labeling disagreements “racist” by default turn reflection into performance.
He distinguishes equality (equal treatment under law) from equity (equal outcomes via quotas, in his telling), and brands the latter “socialism in a tuxedo.” The proposed fixes center on schooling (choice, rigor) and culture (family stability, the “Success Sequence” of finishing school, work, marriage, then children).
His claim is that disparities have multiple causes and that durable uplift flows from institutions that teach, demand, and reward responsibility.
Across these pages he reprises his larger rhetoric battle: jokes and criticism are not racism; making every disagreement a moral indictment is “weaponized ignorance” that shuts down the very truth-telling citizens need to judge policy. The punch line—again—is that honest talk is the precondition for honest solutions.
Education, rigor, and everyday order
Kennedy’s education plank is terse and deliberately old-school: teach reading and math hard, ban phones in class, and attach consequences to misbehavior.
This is less a detailed policy blueprint than a provocation against what he views as fads that substitute novelty for mastery. The deeper claim is that institutions drift toward comfort—and that leaders must reintroduce friction (expectations, discipline) to recover excellence.
He returns to this in his discussion of families, insisting that policy cannot do what households won’t: transmit norms that stack the deck in favor of self-government.
That’s why he treats school choice and the “Success Sequence” not as partisan lines but as cultural scaffolding strong enough to resist political fashion cycles.
Courts, constitutionalism, and norms
Another cluster of chapters compiles what Kennedy calls norm-erosion: threats to pack the Supreme Court after Dobbs; rhetorical broadsides against justices; executive workarounds after losing in court (student-loan relief; eviction moratoria).
He uses quotations and timelines to argue the lesson is not about one policy dispute but about modeling disdain for lawful limits—teaching citizens that outcomes justify tactics. He calls that “a splendid recipe for hollowing out the rule of law.”
The remedy is familiar: obey decisions you dislike, persuade voters, legislate changes, and stop treating constitutional loss as a PR problem to be engineered around.
Foreign policy and the long game
Kennedy sketches a strategic picture in which China, Russia, and Iran align to divide spheres of influence and weaken the United States. His line is neither isolationist nor maximalist: he says he doesn’t want America to be the world’s policeman—but absolutely doesn’t want the Chinese Communist Party in that role either.
The thematic point is continuity with domestic chapters: euphemism, denial, and drift invite adversaries to test boundaries; seriousness about interests requires candid talk and predictable consequences.
The method beneath the one-liners
Readers may come for the zingers, but Kennedy continually translates the jokes back into method. When he says “only dead fish go with the flow,” he’s insisting that innovation in “art, science, philosophy, medicine, technology, cooking, and golf” came from rule-challengers; the same should hold in public life.
When he cracks that he sometimes wishes he had a line back, he acknowledges the costs of speaking plainly—there are misfires—but refuses to treat offense as a veto on necessary clarity. This is also why he takes pride in making “the right people mad.” The method is to surface the hidden premise, cut through jargon, and force a decision.
He emphasizes that most Americans are too busy “living their lives” to decode baloney, and that leaders’ job is to respect that reality by being brief, concrete, and intelligible. How to Test Negative for Stupid is explicitly pitched to those citizens, not to “experts who write for newspapers nobody reads anymore.”
What counts as “stupid”
By the end, you can extract a checklist of the behaviors he treats as stupid:
- Euphemism over candor—when leaders hide tradeoffs in soothing language rather than facing them.
- Decorated incompetence—when credentials or traditions protect error from correction (e.g., witness deference, insider etiquette).
- Gatekeeping dissent—when institutions punish or erase arguments instead of answering them (his Gannett example).
- Performative politics—when media and officeholders prefer conflict theater to problem-solving.
- Norm erosion—when courts, laws, and procedures are treated as obstacles to be engineered around rather than limits to be respected.
The counter-habits form his “test negative” kit: say it plain; show receipts; enforce rules consistently; teach rigor early; and refuse to outsource judgment to fashion, fear, or a favored euphemism.
Kennedy closes by returning to sentiment and scope: he reiterates that he “doesn’t hate anyone,” but keeps a “low tolerance for… bullshit,” and will keep speaking bluntly until voters or God say otherwise—because the country belongs to citizens, not to their managers.
Why Washington “never will” (in his view)
The subtitle’s fatalism is deliberate. Kennedy believes the capital’s reward structure—status for politesse, safety in groupthink, coverage for aligned narratives—naturally selects for leaders and communicators who dilute truth to avoid backlash.
To reverse that selection pressure would require a sustained citizen demand for blunt analysis, repeated electoral punishment for euphemism and excuse, and institutional humility about how often fashionable ideas are wrong. Since he suspects the current incentives are durable, he expects Washington to keep failing the test until voters change the rewards.
How to Test Negative for Stupid’s purpose is to model the alternative and to show that even under the existing regime, candor can still block bad nominees, kill weak policies, and pass useful statutes.
Final synthesis
How to Test Negative for Stupid is not an academic treatise; it’s a senator’s casebook of scenes, arguments, and maxims meant to re-normalize straight talk in public life.
The narrative alternates between memoir and polemic, with recurring targets—media curation, bureaucratic drift, and elite pieties—and recurring remedies: articulate the tradeoffs; defend the conditions for disagreement; and anchor judgments in outcomes rather than intentions. Readers looking for line-by-line econometrics will not find it. Readers wanting a coherent, quotable framework for telling sense from nonsense in Washington will.
The epilogue distills the ethos: speak plainly because citizens own the country; protect speech because every other right leans on it; and stop pretending that elaborate language can redeem bad ideas.
That is why Kennedy thinks the capital, left to its own devices, will keep “testing positive”—and why he insists ordinary people, through their speech and votes, are the ones who can force a negative.
Highlighted takeaways
- Free speech is the hinge of the whole American experiment. “You’re not free if you can’t say what you think,” he insists, tying this to his own refusal to soften quotes that trigger editors.
- The Senate’s glamour is mostly theater; the real incentives are perverse. The chamber is often “empty as a timeshare salesman’s heart,” and caucus lunches can devolve to “F-you” punctuation when ideology runs out of gas.
- Receipts matter more than rhetoric. He lists bipartisan and Trump-era bills he backed (e.g., the Holding Foreign Companies Accountable Act, de-listing noncompliant foreign issuers; Small Business disaster lending expansions) as proof he can translate candor into statutes.
- The media can function as a speech cartel. Kennedy recounts Gannett removing his op-ed for using “biological male/female,” despite “seventeen citations,” casting the episode as emblematic of standards drift.
- Border security as non-negotiable governance. How to Test Negative for Stupid castigates the Biden administration for reversing Title 42 and Remain-in-Mexico, urging a reversion to “what worked.” (Readers may dispute the policy analysis; the chapter shows how Kennedy frames “stupid vs. not stupid” in practice.)
- Education: rigor over fads. “Two hours of reading, two hours of math… and homework,” with strictness around phone bans and consequences—a provocation against what he sees as ed-school fashions.
- Personal arc: losing, switching parties, and learning to raise money. He narrates party realignment (to the GOP in 2007), fundraising pratfalls, and finally winning the Senate seat in 2016.
3. How to Test Negative for Stupid Quotes
- “I have the right to remain silent, but not the ability.”
- “You are not free if you can’t express yourself. You’re not free if you can’t say what you think.”
- “Because only dead fish go with the flow.”
- “The Senate… is usually empty as a timeshare salesman’s heart.”
- “If a kid is late to school and it’s his fault, he should have to sit on the floor. Cell phones should be forbidden.”
- “The Trump administration used [Title 42] to turn away over two million people. The Biden team stopped using it.”
- “…their ‘standards department’ objected to my use of the terms biological male and biological female, calling it ‘loaded language’.”
- “How to Test Negative for Stupid is for people who might enjoy learning about a few things—some funny, some tragic—that have happened to me in the United States Senate…”
4. How to Test Negative for Stupid Analysis
Does the evidence and logic land?
Yes and no.
Yes, when Kennedy works from receipts. The op-ed incident is documented with editorial language (“loaded language”) and a concrete demand to rewrite; the post-interview firestorms are paired with a legislative counterweight—named bills with testable outcomes. That combination (anecdote + statute) is where the book’s “anti-stupid” frame is strongest.
Yes, when he de-glamorizes the Senate. The empty chamber detail, the parliamentarian as offstage conductor, and the profanity-laced lunches puncture the civics-class aesthetic and crystallize how incentives shape outcomes—a sturdy lesson for any institutional analysis.
Maybe, where causality outruns the evidence. On immigration, for instance, the case rests on policy reversals and asserted results; it’s rhetorically tight but empirically compact, with limited engagement of confounders (asylum backlogs, court rulings, hemispheric push factors). The chapter functions as a platform-plank, not a meta-analysis.
Net: How to Test Negative for Stupid fulfills its stated purpose as a guide to common-sense talk in uncommon times more than a balanced white paper. If you judge it by clarity, punch, and quotability, it passes. If you judge it by citation breadth across contested domains, you’ll call it incomplete by design.
5. Strengths and Weaknesses
Strengths (pleasant).
The voice is a machine—funny without flab (“empty as a timeshare salesman’s heart”), specific without getting lost in footnotes, and dotted with scenes you can see. Those scenes do what all good political writing should: show incentives at work, not just beliefs.
The “say it plain” ethic is not just shtick; it’s the thesis. Lines like “you’re not free if you can’t say what you think” and “only dead fish go with the flow” double as editorial principles and a reader contract: you may not agree, but you won’t be gaslit.
The policy receipts keep it from floating away. Tying his HFCAA and disaster-loan expansions to a broader “do the basics right” theme helps the book clear the “not just a roast” bar.
Weaknesses (unpleasant).
At times, the “stupid vs. not stupid” frame collapses nuance. On immigration, for instance, there’s little engagement with competing data. On race and history, How to Test Negative for Stupid declares “America is not a racist country,” an argument many will find under-argued given the brevity of evidence presented.
The media chapter elides the thorny editorial-judgment vs. censorship line; a newsroom’s standards may be wrongheaded, but they’re also the newsroom’s. That debate deserved more than one contested op-ed.
6. Reception
Trade and retail signals.
HarperCollins markets How to Test Negative for Stupid as a #1 New York Times bestseller, leaning into Kennedy’s reputation as “America’s most quotable Senator.” Independent and retail listings confirm Broadside Books as the imprint and October 2025 as the publication month (224 pages, hardcover).
Review climate.
Kirkus Reviews was notably sour, calling the soufflé “collapsed” and quoting partisan jibes as emblematic of the project; this is a useful counter-read if you want a skeptical lens on tone and substance.
Audience sentiment (volatile but indicative).
Retailer snapshots (e.g., Amazon UK) show overwhelmingly positive early star-ratings (~88% 5-star at time of capture), underscoring how the book is finding its tribe quickly. As always, these numbers are moving targets.
Media footprint.
Interview clips and talk-radio segments use How to Test Negative for Stupid as a springboard to broader swipes at Washington and progressive figures, which, love or loathe, keeps the title in circulation and its pull-quotes in the news stream.
7. Comparison with similar works
Think Ben Sasse’s Them for institutions + Greg Gutfeld’s The Plus for zingers, dressed in a Louisiana law-prof’s blazer.
Where Sasse leans sociological and David Brooks goes communitarian, Kennedy is prosecutorial: pick a policy, reduce to brass tacks, test for nonsense, and say it—even if it earns a newsroom scarlet letter. That places How to Test Negative for Stupid nearer the satirical-memoir side of political nonfiction than the academically gentle “here’s a bipartisan blueprint” lane.
8. Conclusion
If you want a fast, quotable, first-person tour of DC that favors clear talk and legislative receipts over politeness, How to Test Negative for Stupid is a brisk, satisfying pass; if you want a neutral, data-dense policy tome, or you bristle at conservative satire, this won’t convert you.
I’d give it to political-junkie general readers, civics teachers assigning “voice in rhetoric,” and early-career staffers trying to understand why the Senate looks serious on C-SPAN but feels like an empty theater most days.
The book, How to Test Negative for Stupid is less a bipartisan truce than a cross-examination—and whether you nod or gnash your teeth, you’ll leave with quotable lines and a clearer map of how incentives make Washington, well, Washington.
Related
