A dangerous shift in public morality means corruption is no longer universally condemned but judged based on political allegiance. Actions like a politician's insider trading, once an outrage, are now rationalized and defended by their own side, eroding shared societal ethics.

In populist eras, political discourse shifts from logic to emotion. People align with tribes, dehumanize opponents, and make decisions based on what feels right for their group. This makes rational, unifying solutions nearly impossible as the focus is on winning for one's team.

When politics becomes a tribal conflict where the opposing side is seen as an existential threat, supporters are conditioned to disbelieve any negative information about their own leaders. This tribal loyalty effectively exonerates leaders from accountability for unethical actions.

The goal of modern populist movements has shifted from winning elections to establishing permanent dominance. This is achieved by creating a mandate to prosecute and imprison political opponents, dismantling the norm of peaceful power transitions in favor of winner-take-all retribution.

In a populist era, your reaction to negative news about your own "team" reveals your moral standing. If your first instinct is to discredit the person who discovered fraud rather than address the fraud itself, you have succumbed to tribalism over principle.

The public's tolerance for political corruption stems from a broader cultural shift mirroring an economic model where success is celebrated regardless of ethical costs. If CEOs can decimate communities for profit, politicians are seen as entitled to their rewards after winning an election.

Using legal attacks against political opponents ("lawfare") is a societal gangrene. It forces the targeted party to retaliate, turning elections into existential battles for survival rather than policy contests. This high-stakes environment creates a powerful incentive to win at any cost, undermining democratic norms.

Society used to have a shared understanding that politicians becoming wealthy in office was wrong. Now, corruption is being justified based on political affiliation, creating a slippery slope where core moral agreements erode, depending on "who's doing the corruption."

The psychological engine of populism is the zero-sum fallacy. It frames every issue—trade deficits, immigration, university admissions—as a win-lose scenario. This narrative, where one group's success must come at another's expense, fosters the protectionist and resentful attitudes that populist leaders exploit.