History’s most shocking atrocities are defined less by their authoritarian leaders and more by the 'giant blob of enablers' who facilitate them. The current political climate demonstrates this, where professionals and politicians abdicate their expertise and principles to avoid conflict, becoming complicit in the process and allowing destructive ideologies to gain power.

According to James Burnham's "Iron Law of Oligarchy," systems eventually serve their rulers. In government, deficit spending and subsidies are used to secure votes and donor funding, meaning leaders are incentivized to maintain the flow of money, even if it's wasteful or fraudulent, to ensure their own political survival.

The appeal of a populist leader lies in their rejection of traditional political norms. When the electorate feels betrayed by the established "political class," they gravitate toward figures whose rhetoric is a deliberate and stark contrast, signaling they are an outsider.

When a political movement is out of power, it's easy to unify against a common opponent. Once they gain power and become the establishment, internal disagreements surface, leading to factions and infighting as they debate the group's future direction.

Cheering for a president to use executive orders or emergency powers is short-sighted. The opposition will eventually gain power and use those same expanded authorities for policies you oppose, creating a cycle of escalating executive action.

Viewing politicians as athletes in a game reveals their true motivation: gaining and retaining power. This framework explains seemingly inconsistent actions, like flip-flopping, as strategic plays for short-term public sentiment rather than reflections of moral conviction or long-term vision.

In politics, the perception of strength and decisiveness can be more electorally powerful than being correct but appearing weak or compromising. This principle explains why a political party might maintain a hardline stance that is unpopular, as the image of strength itself resonates more with voters than the nuance of being “right.”

Political alignment is becoming secondary to economic frustration. Voters are responding to candidates who address rising costs, creating unpredictable alliances and fracturing established bases. This dynamic is swamping traditional ideology, forcing both parties to scramble for a new populist message centered on financial well-being.

A radical policy proposal, like seizing university endowments for reparations, can be a strategic move to create internal conflict within a political coalition by forcing two key demographics (e.g., progressive students and African Americans) into a zero-sum conflict over resources and status.