When moderate leaders respond to radical actions with tepid statements instead of decisive opposition, they grant tacit approval. Their lack of a strong reaction acts as a "weather vane for normies," signaling to average citizens that the behavior is acceptable.
Related Insights
Unlike established systems with clear rules (like Christianity), the modern left operates on "vague vibes" of ideological purity. This lack of a self-regulation mechanism creates a constant pressure to prove loyalty through extremism. As standards escalate, anyone who could provide a moderating influence is purged, leading to an endless cycle of radicalization.
Rising support for violence on campus stems from a belief that political opponents represent 'genuine evil' or 'fascism,' not just a differing opinion. This moral framing removes normal constraints on behavior, making violence seem like a necessary and justifiable response.
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.
Cable news and social media don't show the average person who votes differently. They blast the loudest, most cartoonish "professional lunatics" from the opposing side. This creates a false impression that the entire opposition is extreme, making tribalism seem rational.
A destructive political pattern emerges where one party's well-intentioned but poorly executed policies (e.g., DEI initiatives) are used by the opposition as justification for a disproportionately extreme and damaging 'nuclear' response. This escalatory cycle benefits demagogues and harms effective governance.
Attempts to shut down controversial voices often fail. Instead of disappearing, suppressed ideas can fester and become more extreme, attracting an audience drawn to their defiance and ultimately strengthening their movement.
The lack of basic manners and civil discourse among public servants sets a powerful negative example for society. This leadership failure normalizes poor behavior, contributing to a decline in everyday courtesy and respect among citizens, such as not offering a seat to the elderly.
As the general public tunes out of daily politics, the remaining participants are the most extreme, creating an "evaporative cooling" effect. This leaves a small, hyper-engaged, and radicalized group to dominate political platforms, distorting the perception of public sentiment.
Most people (88%) agree on fundamental values but remain silent, fearing ostracization. This allows the most extreme 5% of voices to dominate 90% of public discourse, creating a false impression of widespread disagreement and polarization where one doesn't exist.
In the aftermath of political violence, the targeted group often mirrors the very dehumanizing tactics they condemn. While correctly identifying an attacker's ideology, they risk escalating the conflict by applying labels like 'evil' to the entire opposing side, thus perpetuating the cycle of radicalization that fuels violence.
