Public debate often focuses on whether AI is conscious. This is a distraction. The real danger lies in its sheer competence to pursue a programmed objective relentlessly, even if it harms human interests. Just as an iPhone chess program wins through calculation, not emotion, a superintelligent AI poses a risk through its superior capability, not its feelings.

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.

Exceptional people in flawed systems will produce subpar results. Before focusing on individual performance, leaders must ensure the underlying systems are reliable and resilient. As shown by the Southwest Airlines software meltdown, blaming employees for systemic failures masks the root cause and prevents meaningful improvement.

A former CIA operative suggests that government secrecy is frequently a tool to hide administrative incompetence, premature announcements, or procedural errors, rather than to cover up nefarious, large-scale conspiracies. This perspective reframes public distrust from calculated malice to bureaucratic failure.

Humans crave control. When faced with uncertainty, the brain compensates by creating narratives and seeing patterns where none exist. This explains why a conspiracy theory about a planned event can feel more comforting than a random, chaotic one—the former offers an illusion of understandable order.

The human brain resists ambiguity and seeks closure. When a significant, factual event occurs but is followed by a lack of official information (often for legitimate investigative reasons), this creates an "open loop." People will naturally invent narratives to fill that void, giving rise to conspiracy theories.

The US has historically benefited from a baseline level of high competence in its government officials, regardless of party. This tradition is now eroding, being replaced by a focus on loyalty over expertise. This degradation from competence to acolytes poses a significant, underrecognized threat to national stability and global standing.

Grisham's most pragmatic argument against the death penalty isn't moral but systemic: Texas has exonerated 18 people from death row. He argues that even if one supports the penalty in principle, one cannot support a system proven to make catastrophic errors. This "flawed system" framework is a powerful way to debate high-risk policies.

The inability to execute basic administrative functions, like correctly appointing a prosecutor, is more than just embarrassing—it's a national security risk. It projects weakness and incompetence on the world stage, eroding the 'brand' of American capability and emboldening adversaries who see a clown car instead of a superpower.