And this is why the political left is out of power in Washington and can’t win an election in most parts of Louisiana—intellectual poverty behind its argumentation, seen as such by enough voters who demand better.

At its last meeting, the Louisiana Public Service Commission stripped Democrat Davante Lewis of his vice chairmanship for remarks made over social media. The job, which Lewis had assumed only at the beginning of the year, carries little weight and essentially grants its holder the power to run meetings in the chairman’s absence.

Lewis had been precociously placed in the role after just two years as a commissioner, at the request of that year’s chairman, Republican Mike Francis, in what Francis described as a spirit of bipartisanship. However, Francis moved to remove Lewis upon learning of the remarks, and in a 3-2 vote along partisan lines, Lewis was dumped.

Those remarks involved a social media post made by GOP Gov. Jeff Landry. The post simply featured a picture of Rachel Levine, a former assistant secretary in the federal Department of Health and Human Services known for supporting and trying to implement policy preferences at odds with best evidence regarding the gender dysphoria related to children, alongside the new department secretary, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., known for contrarian positions on several issues, including widespread vaccination. Landry’s comment was, “Major upgrade in the @HHSgov Secretary department. Lots of work to be done, and excited for @RobertKennedyJr to get started. Let’s Make America Healthy Again!”

Going unnamed by Landry, perhaps one in 20 Louisianans could identify the picture of Levine. Maybe one in 100 could identify Levine as a biological male. Yet Lewis flew off the handle at this presentation, posting (styling himself as “Commish. Davante Lewis”) a first and second sentence that read: “This tweet shows that conservatism right now is only about cruelty and chaos. They will find a way [sic] to be cruel to someone just bc [sic] they can[.]”

This is utter nonsense. So, to follow the implication, presenting two pictures and extolling the virtues of one figure is “cruelty” and sows “chaos?” And even among the tiny sliver of people who would know Levine is a man presenting himself in a manner typically identified with women (though they would disproportionately be consumers of both Landry’s and Lewis’s posts), how in the world is calling one an “upgrade” over the other being “cruel” to the other?

Note that non sequitur screeds without intellectual merit are the left’s stock in trade, where instead, its adherents anchor these arguments on purely emotive grounds. Lewis here engages in a familiar leftist tactic: manufacturing outrage where none is deserved as a means to establish victimhood, conjuring offense to claim moral superiority to back an entirely foundationless and specious argument.

However, the intellectual poverty of Lewis’ statement—or even his general PSC decision-making—doesn’t disqualify him from holding a position of authority on the body. What does is his post’s third and final sentence, which, paraphrased, is to call Landry the equivalent of what armed forces veteran and actor R. Lee Emery termed a “jackwagon.”

Simply put, while the public must tolerate Lewis because he won an election, it doesn’t have to accept someone so immature and lacking in judgment in a position of authority That he would respond as he did demands that he look at himself in a mirror and recognize it is he, not Landry, who embodies the insult he hurled at Landry.

Thus, it was entirely appropriate for the GOP majority on the PSC to vacate him out of an officer’s position. Doubling down on an emotive appeal bereft of reason, Lewis whined it was all because he is black, when in reality, it was because he disgraced the PSC.  And even though this hardly can be called a punishment—given the minor and symbolic nature of the revoked benefits—he has demonstrated the wrong temperament to be a leader of it.

Then, to add some comedy to the incident, the other Democrat commissioner who voted against the penalty. Foster Campbell, unintentionally reinforced the absence of intellect behind leftist interpretations of Lewis’ actions and predicament. Campbell claimed he would vote to keep Lewis in the role because, he alleged, he had seen other commissioners engage in derogatory free speech without sanction, making this attempt discriminatory.

But the only alleged example he gave was an incident in which he claimed that, while he was speaking, Francis (whether he was on the PSC at the time) held up a sign equating the substance of Campbell’s verbiage with bovine manure. Even if true, this is comparing apples and oranges: the alleged incident wasn’t a personal attack on another elected official but instead an expression of opinion about the quality of an argument. By contrast, Lewis directly insulted Landry over something that no reasonable and mature individual would find offensive.

But the only alleged example he gave was an incident in which he claimed that, while he was speaking, Francis (whether he was on the PSC at the time is unclear) held up a sign equating the substance of Campbell’s remarks with bovine manure. Even if true, this is comparing apples and oranges: the alleged incident wasn’t a personal attack on another elected official but instead an expression of opinion about the quality of an argument. By contrast, Lewis directly insulted Landry over something that no reasonable and mature individual would find offensive.

Lewis’ reaction to all of this shows that he hasn’t grown up yet, even as it conforms perfectly to the far left playbook of emotive appeals over reason. This will win him plaudits from the Angry Left, which clutches at victimhood like a string of pearls to define the world. Whether that bloc can provide enough votes to get him reelected remains uncertain—especially if he continues to blunder like this.