By Jim Blasingame ©2026
In his excellent little gem, “The Basic Laws of Human Stupidity,” author Carlo M. Cipolla crystalizes the impact stupid people have on the rest of us. You know. When we aren’t being one of those people.
Cipolla breaks human behavior into four quadrants and establishes five laws with which to identify and manage others when they exhibit stupidity in our presence. Of course, I encourage you to buy Cipolla’s book and avail yourself of all his wisdom. But for our purpose here, we’re only going to deal with Cipolla’s cardinal behavior found in his Third Law:
“A stupid person is someone who causes losses to another person, or group of persons, while himself deriving no gain, and possibly incurring losses.”
Take a sec and think about that behavior and people you know who this law describes. I’ll wait here. Hmm … hmm … hmm …
We’ve all known stupid people but have probably miscategorized them. When someone opposes us on a matter about which we’re very serious, if not passionate, well, then, we’re likely to minimize their position by declaring it – and them – to be stupid. But Cipolla would challenge us.
During that discussion/argument/negotiation, our antagonist likely holds the opposing view because he anticipates some level of positive outcome for himself if he prevails. Cipolla says we shouldn’t regard such self-interest behavior as stupid. In fact, he holds that it’s quite logical and perfectly human. This will be on the test: Stupid people cause harm when their behavior benefits no one – including themselves.
Now that we’re properly oriented, let’s see where we can find stupid in our world today.
When “stupid politics” is redundant
Whoa! That didn’t take long.
You may not be surprised that the immediate result of our search for stupidity lands us in the middle of contemporary U.S. political debate. Someone once allowed that “the Democrat Party is the evil party, and the Republican Party is the stupid party.”
History is replete with examples of political debate getting out of hand. Ask Julius Ceasar. Or Alexander Hamilton. But, thankfully, historically, most political debates have ended in a very non-stupid state – a compromise. Cipolla calls that behavior “intelligent.” It’s the opposite of stupid, because everyone gets something they can live with. And you’ll recognize a fully executed, hard-fought intelligent transaction when you see it, because both sides will have a tear in their eyes.
Alas, the wages of the stupid – harm – seem to increasingly prevail over the fruit of compromise – progress. And today, this imbalance lives prominently at the geopolitical level of the national debate.
The Vandenberg Resolution
Once upon a time, in a galaxy far, far away, a maxim was coined by one of America’s bipartisan champions, Senator Arthur Vandenberg, (R-MI). Post WWII, the Senator proposed that in matters of national security, international relations and geopolitics, Congress should defer to the Executive. The Commander-in-Chief should be given the benefit of the doubt and not weakened abroad by internal political differences. And for several decades thereafter, with rare exceptions, American political differences stopped “at waters’ edge.”
The power of this practice was both simple and sensible, based on two immutables: 1) countries don’t have friends, they have interests; and 2) the United States of America, warts and all, the only benign superpower on Earth, is outnumbered by the malevolent states.
Therefore, as galling as it may be for the rotating “loyal opposition” to accept, to violate Vandenberg would be like rooting for the opposing team. Who does that?
When stupid shifted a paradigm
Unfortunately, as my late friend and revered futurist Joel Barker taught us, the paradigm has shifted.
As an Earthling, if you value life, liberty and humanity, irrespective of political philosophy, the multi-layered Iranian regime is a threat to all you hold dear. As dastardly as other “nuclear” countries may be, for over 80 years, the world has been spared a nuclear event thanks to a concept Cipolla would classify as intelligent: MAD – Mutually Assured Destruction. So-armed nations have recognized that unleashing a nuclear attack would almost certainly result in a lose-lose scenario, which would be contrary to their fundamental negotiating goals – to win AND survive.
Up to now, employing any kind of nuclear weapon has been recognized as the essence of Cipolla’s Third Law: stupid behavior that could define existential.
So, with all the monomaniacal behavior of the Iranian regime – now several layers deeper than previously thought – in what Bizarro World is managing this global threat not the perfect application of Vandenberg’s Resolution? Even if you’re not compelled to help, at least don’t hurt.
Only the stupid would lend leverage to an entrenched belief system that defines success as not merely the conquering, but the annihilation of an entire populace, including their diaspora. Plus, that singular benign superpower and it’s 342 million citizens. Even if it kills you and every Iranian citizen.
If you viscerally denounce a president’s social media posts; when you attempt some political advantage from a policy you think is “wrong for America;” even if you hypocritically rail against the appropriation of a practice your side of the aisle invented and used for decades, I’ll defend to the death your right to take those positions. Because inside our “waters’ edge,” where “politics ain’t beanbag,” there can always be hope that our passionate positions will set us on a coarse to compromise.
But, outside of the CCP and Politburo, who supports the Iranian regime’s prime goal of unfettered possession of nuclear material and technology? As it turns out, apparently, some who personify Cipolla’s Third Law.
Ut prius – the most dangerous stupid
In 2006, Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi loved us up by declaring his county’s feelings toward America were both post hoc and ut prius, “We love everything Americans do. We even love what they do before they do it.”
It’s your right – and not stupid at all – to passionately protest something I do or say, including if I forecast my intentions. But what do we call it when advanced opposition is assured ut prius – before it exists or even proposed? Before being appraised for value. Before it’s known who, if anyone, will benefit or be harmed.
Since such behavior is so patently illogical, it qualifies under Cipolla’s Third Law: it’s stupid.
When an obvious quest for political gain results in condemnation of everything a president does, including violating Vandenberg, while that administration attempts to defuse a murderous regime’s single-minded devotion to acquiring nuclear weapons, you’ve crossed the Rubicon between a tear in everyone’s eye to everyone losing. You’ve telegraphed your opposition – ut prius.
And that, according to Cipolla, is stupid.
Today, sadly, political stupidity is manifesting as a kind of viral derangement syndrome fueled by no less than hate. The last half of the definition of hate provides this judgment: it can have a destructive effect on the individual and communities.
If the Iranian regime is motivated by hatred of Israel and America, how does more hate contribute to a resolution? Wouldn’t that be stupid?
Going forward, whenever we observe anyone seeking political gain when such behavior could actually cause harm to everyone, we can thank Cipolla for providing us with a precise and handy label.
Let’s call it, “Cipolla’s First Law of Politics: Don’t be stupid.”
__________________________________
Jim Blasingame is one of the world’s foremost thought-leaders on entrepreneurship and the Main Street economy.