In this post, we dive deep into the heart of American political tradition by presenting a complete collection of first presidential inaugural address speeches that have shaped the United States from its inception to the present day. Each speech, a time capsule of its era, is summarized up front (with a link to the full text) to highlight the core messages, visions, and promises made by the presidents at the dawn of their administrations during their first (or singular) inaugural address.
Accompanying these summaries, we’ve included visual opportunities to get a sense of the inauguration speeches “at a glance,” via word clouds and histograms. These are generated from the text of the speeches themselves, to offer a uniquely infovisual perspective on the recurring themes, values, and priorities that resonate through America’s history.
Understanding our history is not just about recounting events; it’s about connecting with the voices that have guided the nation’s trajectory at each pivotal moment. These speeches are more than formalities; they are declarations of intent, reflections of the societal context, and blueprints for the future, delivered at the crossroads of past achievements and future aspirations.
By exploring these speeches, we not only gain insight into the leadership styles and political climates of each period but also engage with the evolving identity of America itself. We can compare the use of language by different presidents in a way that reflects both shifting trends in culture and geopolitics as well as the character and vision of the leaders themselves.
This collection serves as a vital resource for anyone looking to grasp the essence of American political evolution and the enduring principles that continue to inform its path forward.
George Washington inaugural address (1789)
Washington speech summary
George Washington’s inaugural speech, delivered in New York City on April 30, 1789, reflects his reluctance and humility in accepting the presidency. He expresses deep gratitude for the trust placed in him by his fellow citizens and acknowledges his own perceived inadequacies for the monumental task ahead.
Machiavellianism originates from Machiavelli’s most famous work, “The Prince,” written in 1513. It was a guidebook for new princes and rulers in maintaining power and control. Machiavelli’s central thesis was the separation of politics from ethics and morality. He argued that to maintain power, a ruler might have to engage in amoral or unethical actions for the state’s benefit. His stark realism and advocacy for political pragmatism were groundbreaking at the time.
Machiavelli’s work was revolutionary, providing a secular, pragmatic approach to governance, in contrast to the prevailing moralistic views of the era. His ideas were so radical that “Machiavellian” became synonymous with cunning, scheming, and unscrupulous behavior in politics. This term, however, is a simplification and somewhat misrepresents Machiavelli’s nuanced arguments about power and statecraft.
Throughout history, Machiavellianism has been interpreted in various ways. During the Enlightenment, philosophers like Rousseau criticized Machiavelli for promoting tyranny and despotism. However, in the 20th century, Machiavelli’s ideas were re-evaluated by political scientists who saw value in his separation of politics from morality, highlighting the complexity and real-world challenges of governance.
Machiavellianism in psychology
In psychology, Machiavellianism is defined as a personality trait characterized by a duplicitous interpersonal style, a cynical disregard for morality, and a focus on self-interest and personal gain. This concept was popularized in the 1970s by Richard Christie and Florence L. Geis, who developed the Mach-IV test, a questionnaire that identifies Machiavellian tendencies in individuals. People high in Machiavellian traits tend to be manipulative, deceitful, predatory, and exploitative in their relationships and interactions.
Machiavellianism in American politics
In American politics, Machiavellianism can be observed in various strategies and behaviors of politicians and political groups. Here are some ways to identify Machiavellian tendencies:
Exploitation and Manipulation: Politicians exhibiting Machiavellian traits often manipulate public opinion, exploit legal loopholes, or use deceptive tactics to achieve their goals. This might include manipulating media narratives, twisting facts, disseminating disinformation, and/or exploiting populist sentiments.
Realpolitik and Pragmatism: Machiavellianism in politics can also be seen in a focus on realpolitik β a theory that prioritizes practical and pragmatic approaches over moral or ideological considerations. Politicians might adopt policies that are more about maintaining power or achieving pragmatic goals than about adhering to ethical standards.
Power Play and Control: Machiavellian politicians are often characterized by their relentless pursuit of power. They may engage in power plays, such as political patronage, gerrymandering, and/or consolidating power through legislative maneuvers, often at the expense of democratic norms.
Moral Flexibility: A key aspect of Machiavellianism is moral flexibility β the ability to adjust oneβs moral compass based on circumstances. In politics, this might manifest in policy flip-flops or aligning with ideologically diverse groups when it benefits one’s own interests.
Charismatic Leadership: Machiavelli emphasized the importance of a rulerβs charisma and public image. Modern politicians might cultivate a charismatic persona to gain public support, sometimes using this charm to mask more manipulative or self-serving agendas.
Machiavellianism, stemming from the teachings of NiccolΓ² Machiavelli, has evolved over centuries, influencing both political theory and psychology. In contemporary American politics, identifying Machiavellian traits involves looking at actions and policies through the lens of power dynamics, manipulation, moral flexibility, and a pragmatic approach to governance.
While Machiavellian strategies can be effective in achieving political goals, they often raise ethical questions about the nature of power and governance in a democratic society.
Strong economic messages of the Keynesian buttressing of the middle class that is Bidenomics were everywhere in evidence at last night’s State of the Union address, Biden’s third since taking office in 2021. In SOTU 2024 he spoke about stabbing trickle-down economics in its gasping heart as a repeated failure to the American people. Instead of giving another $2 trillion tax cuts to billionaires, Biden wants to give back to the people who he says built America: the middle class.
The President delivered strong, sweeping language and vision reminiscent of LBJ’s Great Society and FDR‘s New Deal. He also delivered a heartwarming sense of unity and appeal to put down our bickering and get things done for the American people.
“We all come from somewhere — but we’re all Americans.”
This while lambasting the Republicans for scuttling the deal over the popular bipartisan immigration bill thanks to 11th hour interference from TFG (“my predecessor” as JRB called him). “This bill would save lives!” He is really effective at calling out the GOP‘s hypocrisy on border security with this delivery.
“We can fight about the border or we can fix the border. Send me a bill!”
He is taking full advantage of being the incumbent candidate here. He has the power and the track record to do all these things he is promising, and he’s telling the exact truth about the Republican obstructionism preventing the American people from having their government work for them.
I love that he calls out Trump in this speech, without naming names — almost a kind of Voldemort effect. He who must not be named — because giving him the dignity even of a name is more than he deserves.
He says that Trump and his cabal of anti-democratic political operatives have ancient ideas (hate, revenge, reactionary, etc.) — and that you can’t lead America with ancient ideas. In America, we look towards the future — relentlessly. Americans wants a president who will protect their rights — not take them away.
“I see a future… for all Americans!” he ends with, in a segment reminiscent of the great Martin Luther King’s “I Have a Dream” speech, with its clear vision of power and authority flowing from what is morally right and just, instead of what is corrupt and cronyish. It gave me hope for the future — that Americans will make the right choice, as we seem to have done under pressure, throughout our history. π€π½
Dark money refers to political spending by organizations that are not required to disclose their donors or how much money they spend. This allows wealthy individuals and special interest groups to secretly fund political campaigns and influence elections without transparency or accountability.
The term “dark money” gained prominence after the 2010 Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. In that case, the Court ruled that corporations and unions could spend unlimited amounts of money on political campaigns, as long as the spending was not coordinated with a candidate’s campaign.
This decision opened the floodgates for massive amounts of dark money to flow into political campaigns, often with no way for the public to know who was behind it. Dark money can come from a variety of sources, including wealthy individuals, corporations, trade associations, and non-profit organizations.
Hidden donors
Non-profit organizations, in particular, have become a popular way for donors to hide their political contributions. These organizations can operate under section 501(c)(4) of the tax code, which allows them to engage in some political activity as long as it is not their primary purpose. These groups are not required to disclose their donors, which means that wealthy individuals and corporations can funnel unlimited amounts of money into political campaigns without anyone knowing where the money came from.
Another way that dark money is used in politics is through “shell corporations.” These are companies that exist solely to make political donations and are often set up specifically to hide the identity of the true donor. For example, a wealthy individual could set up a shell corporation and then use that corporation to donate to a political campaign. Because the corporation is listed as the donor, the individual’s name does not appear on any public disclosure forms.
The money can be used to run ads, create content and propaganda, fund opposition research, pay armadas of PR people, send direct mail, lobby Congress, hire social media influencers, and many other powerful marketing strategies to reach and court voters.
These practices erode at the foundations of representative democracy, and the kind of government the Founders had in mind. One is free to vote for who one wishes, and to advocate for who ones wishes to hold power, but one has no Constitutional right to anonymity when doing so. It infringes on others peoples’ rights as well — the right to representative and transparent government.
Dark money impact
Dark money can have a significant impact on elections and public policy. Because the source of the money is not known, candidates and elected officials may be influenced by the interests of the donors rather than the needs of their constituents. This can lead to policies that benefit wealthy donors and special interest groups rather than the broader public.
There have been some efforts to increase transparency around dark money. For example, the DISCLOSE Act, which has been introduced in Congress several times since 2010, would require organizations that spend money on political campaigns to disclose their donors (the acronym stands for “Democracy Is Strengthened by Casting Light On Spending in Elections”). However, these efforts have been met with resistance from groups that benefit from the lack of transparency — who, somewhat ironically, have been using their influence with the Republican Party to make sure the GOP opposes the bill and prevents it from passing, or even coming up for a vote at all.
In addition to the impact on elections and policy, dark money can also undermine public trust in government. When voters feel that their voices are being drowned out by the interests of wealthy donors and special interest groups, they may become disillusioned with the political process and less likely to participate.
Overall, dark money is a significant problem in American politics. The lack of transparency and accountability around political spending allows wealthy individuals and special interest groups to wield undue influence over elections and policy. To address this problem, it will be important to increase transparency around political spending and reduce the influence of money in politics.
A network of exceedingly wealthy individuals and organizations have channeled their vast fortunes into influencing American politics, policy, and public opinion — they’ve formed a wealth cult. And they’ve leveraged that cult and its considerable fortune to influence and in many ways dramatically transform American politics.
The term “dark money” refers to political spending meant to influence the decision-making and critical thinking of the public and lawmakers where the source of the money is not disclosed. This lack of transparency makes it challenging to trace the influence back to its origins, hence the term “dark.”
The wealth cult has funded disinformation campaigns, the spread of conspiracy theories, created fake social movements through astroturfing, enabled violent extremists to attack their country’s capitol, cruelly deprived vulnerable people (especially immigrants, poor people, and women) of the kind of state aid granted generously throughout the developed world, bribed regulators, rigged elections, crashed economies, and on and on in service of their extremist free market ideology beliefs.
They believe in “makers and takers,” or Mudsill Theory, as it was once called by pedophile and racist Senator and slavery enthusiast James Henry Hammond. Some people were born to serve others, they say. Hierarchies are natural, they claim. Wealthy men should make all the decisions — because that’s what’s best for everyone, they say in paternalistic tones.
Below is a list of the covert gang of folks trying to take down the US government — the anti-government oligarchs who think they run the place. The Koch network of megarich political operatives has been anointing itself the true (shadowy) leaders of American politics for several decades.
Spearheaded by Charles Koch, the billionaire fossil fuel magnate who inherited his father Fred Koch’s oil business, the highly active and secretive Koch network — aka the “Kochtopus” — features a sprawling network of donors, think tanks, non-profits, political operatives, PR hacks, and other fellow travelers who have come to believe that democracy is incompatible with their ability to amass infinite amounts of wealth.
Despite their obvious and profligate success as some of the world’s richest people, they whine that the system of US government is very unfair to them and their ability to do whatever they want to keep making a buck — the environment, the people, and even the whole planet be damned. Part of an ever larger wealth cult of individuals spending unprecedented amounts of cash to kneecap the US government from any ability to regulate business or create a social safety net for those exploited by concentrated (and to a large extent inherited) wealth, the Koch network is the largest and most formidable group within the larger project of US oligarchy.
The Kochtopus
By 2016 the Koch network of private political groups had a paid staff of 1600 people in 35 states — a payroll larger than that of the Republican National Committee (RNC) itself. They managed a pool of funds from about 400 or so of the richest people in the United States, whose goal was to capture the government and run it according to their extremist views of economic and social policy. They found convenient alignment with the GOP, which has been the party of Big Business ever since it succeeded in first being the party of the Common Man in the 1850s and 60s.
Are we to be just a wholly-owned subsidiary of Koch Industries? Who will help stand and fight for our independence from oligarchy?
Philip Anschutz — Founder of Qwest Communications. Colorado oil and entertainment magnate and billionaire dubbed the world’s “greediest executive” by Fortune Magazine in 2002.
American Energy Alliance — Koch-funded tax-exempt nonprofit lobbying for corporate-friendly energy policies
American Enterprise Institute — The American Enterprise Institute (AEI) is a public policy think tank based in Washington, D.C. Established in 1938, it is one of the oldest and most influential think tanks in the United States. AEI is primarily known for its conservative and free-market-oriented policy research and advocacy.
Betsy and Dick DeVos — founders of the Amway MLM empire, and one of the richest families in Michigan
Myron Ebell — Outspoken client change denier picked to head Trump’s EPA transition team who previously worked at the Koch-funded Competitive Enterprise Institute.
Richard Farmer — Chairman of the Cintas Corporation in Cincinnati, the nation’s largest uniform supply company. Legal problems against him included an employee’s gruesome death thanks to violating safety laws.
Freedom Partners — the Koch donor group
Freedom School — the all-white CO private school funded by Charles Koch in the 1960s
FreedomWorks
Richard Gilliam — Head of Virginia coal mining company Cumberland Resources, and Koch network donor.
Harold Hamm — Oklahoma fracking king and charter member of the Koch donors’ circle, Hamm became a billionaire founding the Continental Resources shale-oil company
Diane Hendricks — $3.6 billion building supply company owner and Trump inaugural committee donor, and the wealthiest woman in Wisconsin.
Charles Koch — CEO of Koch Industries and patriarch of the Koch empire following his father and brother’s death, and estrangement from his other younger brother. Former member of the John Birch Society, a group so far to the right that even arch-conservative William F. Buckley excommunicated them from the mainstream party in the 1950s.
The Charles Koch Foundation
(David Koch) — deceased twin brother of Bill Koch and younger brother to Charles who ran a failed campaign in 1980 as the vice presidential nominee of the Libertarian Party — netting 1% of the popular vote. In 2011 he echoed spurious claims from conservative pundit Dinesh D’Souza that Obama got his “radical” political outlook from his African father.
The Leadership Institute
Michael McKenna — president of the lobbying firm MWR Strategies, whose clients include Koch Industries, picked by Trump to serve on the Department of Energy transition team
Rebekah Mercer — daughter of hedge fund billionaire and right-wing Koch donor Robert Mercer, she worked with Steve Bannon on several projects including Breitbart News, Cambridge Analytica, and Gab.
Robert Mercer — billionaire NY hedge fund manager and next largest donor after the Kochs themselves, sometimes even surpassing them. Funded the “Clinton Cash” hit job on the Clintons.
MWR Strategies — lobbying firm for the energy industry whose clients include Koch Industries, whose president Michael McKenna served on the Trump energy transition team
John M. Olin — chemical and munitions magnate and Koch donor
George Pearson — Former head of the Koch Foundation
Mike Pence — Charles Koch’s number one pick for president in 2012.
Mike Pompeo — former Republican Kansas Congressman who got picked first to lead the CIA, then later as Secretary of State under Trump. He was the single largest recipient of Koch money in Congress as of 2017. The Kochs had been investors and partners in Pompeo’s business ventures before he got into politics.
David Schnare — self-described “free-market environmentalist” on Trump’s EPA transition team
Marc Short — ran the Kochs’ secretive donor club, Freedom Partners, before becoming a senior advisor to vice president Mike Pence during the Trump transition
This mind map shows the intersections between the Koch network and the larger network of GOP donors, reactionaries, and evil billionaires who feel entitled to control American politics via the fortunes they’ve made or acquired.
Colloquially known as “throwing good money after bad,” sunk cost is a concept from behavioral economics that reflects our tendency to keep going with an investment long after it turns south, because we are psychologically unable to let go of a once good thing.
Sunk cost is considered a fallacy, because it represents an example of behavior that is technically irrational while being culturally ubiquitous.
The concept of sunk cost plays a crucial role in both traditional economics and behavioral economics, though it’s interpreted and applied somewhat differently in each field. At its core, a sunk cost refers to any expense that has already been incurred and cannot be recovered.
In conventional economics, this might include money spent on non-refundable purchases, investments in projects, or any other expenditures that, once made, cannot be refunded or reused. The fundamental principle here is that sunk costs should not influence ongoing or future decision-making, since these costs cannot be altered by any current or future actions.
Sunk cost in behavioral economics
However, when we transition to the realm of behavioral economics, the perspective on sunk costs shifts to focus on the psychological impact these irretrievable expenditures have on individuals’ critical thinking and decision-making processes.
Despite the rational advice to disregard sunk costs, individuals often fall prey to the “sunk cost fallacy.” This fallacy leads people to continue investing time, money, or other resources into ventures or products simply because they have already made significant investments, even if the current evidence suggests that continuing would not be beneficial. This behavior is driven by emotional factors such as commitment, fear of waste, or the desire to not appear inconsistent, rather than by logical economic reasoning.
Understanding the sunk cost fallacy is vital in both personal and professional contexts. It highlights the importance of making decisions based on future value and potential outcomes, rather than being anchored to past investments. Recognizing and overcoming this bias can lead to more economically rational decisions, allowing individuals and businesses to allocate resources more effectively and pursue paths that are more likely to yield positive results. In essence, the concept of sunk costs and the associated fallacy serve as a reminder of the complex interplay between economic theory and human psychology.
High demand groups and cults are terms often used interchangeably, but they do have nuanced differences. Both are social organizations that exert a high level of control over their members, but the degree and nature of that control can vary.
High-Demand Groups vs. Cults
High-Demand Groups
These are organizations that require a significant commitment of time, resources, or emotional investment from their members. They can be religious, political, or even corporate in nature.
The key characteristic is the level of demand they place on members, which can sometimes be excessive but not necessarily harmful. One thing to watch for is if the commitment seems to steadily (or even quickly) increase over time — that’s a definite red flag.
Cults
A cult is a more extreme form of a high-demand group. Cults often have charismatic leaders who claim exclusive knowledge or power. They employ manipulative tactics to control members, isolating them from friends and family, and exploiting them emotionally, financially, or physically.
Often these cult leaders are narcissists, sociopaths, or even psychopaths. They feel no empathy and no shame, and get a cheap thrill from deceiving and manipulating others for their personal benefit.
The Relationship Between the Two
All cults are high-demand groups, but not all high-demand groups are cults. The line between the two can be blurry. A high-demand group becomes a cult when it starts to harm its members through manipulation, exploitation, or abuse.
Isolation: Efforts to cut you off from friends and family should be taken as a warning sign.
High Time Commitment: If the group demands an inordinate amount of your time, be cautious.
Financial Exploitation: Be wary if you’re asked for large sums of money or to give up your financial independence.
Exclusive Beliefs: Claims that the group has exclusive access to truth, salvation, or power are concerning.
Fear and Guilt: Manipulation through fear, guilt, or threats is a classic control tactic.
Lack of Transparency: If the group is secretive about its activities, goals, or finances, that’s a red flag.
How to avoid them
Research: Always do your homework before joining any group. Look for testimonials or reports from ex-members.
Consult Trusted Sources: Talk to friends, family, or professionals about the group.
Take Your Time: Don’t rush into commitment. High-demand groups often pressure new recruits to make quick decisions in order to get you on the back foot.
Set Boundaries: Make it clear what you are and are not willing to do.
Trust Your Instincts: If something feels off, it probably is. Your gut knows!
High-demand groups and cults can have a profound impact on individual lives, often in detrimental ways. While high-demand groups may offer a sense of community and purpose, they can cross into harmful territory when they become exploitative or abusive, turning into cults. Recognizing the signs and knowing how to avoid them is crucial for safeguarding your emotional and financial well-being.
Climate Change Denial: From Big Tobacco Tactics to Today’s Global Challenge
In the complex narrative of global climate change, one pervasive thread is the phenomenon of climate change denial. This denial isn’t just a refusal to accept the scientific findings around climate change; it is a systematic effort to discredit and cast doubt on environmental realities and the need for urgent action.
Remarkably, the roots of this denial can be traced back to the strategies used by the tobacco industry in the mid-20th century to obfuscate the link between smoking and lung cancer. This companies conspired to create a disinformation campaign against the growing scientific consensus on the manmade nature of climate change, to cast doubt about the link between the burning of fossil fuels and the destruction of the planet’s natural ecosystems — and they succeeded, for over half a century, beginning in 1953.
Origins in big tobacco’s playbook
The origins of climate change denial lie in a well-oiled, public relations machine initially designed by the tobacco industry. When scientific studies began linking smoking to lung cancer in the 1950s, tobacco companies launched an extensive campaign to challenge these findings. Their strategy was not to disprove the science outright but to sow seeds of doubt, suggesting that the research was not conclusive and that more studies were needed. This strategy of manufacturing doubt proved effective in delaying regulatory and public action against tobacco products, for more than 5 decades.
Adoption by climate change deniers
This playbook was later adopted by those seeking to undermine climate science. In the late 20th century, as scientific consensus grew around the human impact on global warming, industries and political groups with a vested interest in maintaining the status quo began to employ similar tactics around lying at scale. They funded research to challenge or undermine climate science, supported think tanks and lobbyists to influence public opinion and policy, and used media outlets to spread a narrative of uncertainty and skepticism.
Political consequences
The political consequences of climate change denial have been profound. In the United States and other countries, it has polarized the political debate over environmental policy, turning what is fundamentally a scientific issue into a partisan one. This politicization has hindered comprehensive national and global policies to combat climate change, as legislative efforts are often stalled by ideological conflicts.
Denial campaigns have also influenced public opinion, creating a significant segment of the population that is skeptical of climate science years after overwhelming scientific consensus has been reached, which further complicates efforts to implement wide-ranging environmental reforms.
Current stakes and global impact
Today, the stakes of climate change denial could not be higher. As the world faces increasingly severe consequences of global warming β including extreme weather events, rising sea levels, and disruptions to ecosystems β the need for decisive action becomes more urgent. Yet, climate change denial continues to impede progress. By casting doubt on scientific consensus, it hampers efforts to build the broad public support necessary for bold environmental policies that may help thwart or mitigate some of the worst disasters.
Moreover, climate change denial poses a significant risk to developing countries, which are often the most vulnerable to climate impacts but the least equipped to adapt. Denialism in wealthier nations can lead to a lack of global cooperation and support needed to address these challenges comprehensively.
Moving forward: acknowledging the science and embracing action
To effectively combat climate change, it is crucial to recognize the roots and ramifications of climate change denial. Understanding its origins in the Big Tobacco disinformation strategy helps demystify the tactics used to undermine environmental science. It’s equally important to acknowledge the role of political and economic interests in perpetuating this denial — oil tycoon Charles Koch alone spends almost $1 billion per election cycle, heavily to climate deniers.
However, there is a growing global movement acknowledging the reality of climate change and the need for urgent action. From international agreements like the Paris Accord to grassroots activism pushing for change, there is a mounting push against the tide of denial.
Climate change denial, with its roots in the Big Tobacco playbook, poses a significant obstacle to global efforts to address environmental challenges. Its political ramifications have stalled critical policy initiatives, and its ongoing impact threatens global cooperation. As we face the increasing urgency of climate change, acknowledging and countering this denial is crucial for paving the way towards a more sustainable and resilient future.
When someone has skin in the game, they have some stake in the outcome of their opinion or decision. They are incentivized to act in their own best interest, naturally aligning them with the best outcome. It mitigates effects like moral hazard, which misaligns incentives of the parties in an interaction based on an asymmetry of knowledge, power, and/or other factors.
The metaphor of skin in the game also relates to a number of core concepts in moral philosophy:
The term “skin in the game” is said to have originated from gambling, where it denotes having a personal stake or investment in an endeavor. In a broader sense, it implies that individuals or entities have something of personal value at risk in the outcome of a situation, typically financial or reputational.
Ethical implications
Accountability and Responsibility: When an individual or entity has “skin in the game,” they are more likely to act responsibly and ethically. This stems from the direct impact their actions will have on their own welfare. For example, a business owner with a substantial personal investment in their company is more likely to make decisions that ensure long-term sustainability over quick, risky profits that could jeopardize the business.
Trust and Credibility: In contexts like financial advising or political leadership, having “skin in the game” builds trust. Stakeholders are more likely to trust someone who shares in the risks and rewards. It demonstrates a commitment to shared outcomes, which can be a strong ethical foundation.
Moral Hazard Reduction: The concept helps mitigate moral hazardsβsituations where one party takes risks because another party bears the cost of those risks. For instance, if a CEO’s compensation is tied to the company’s performance, they have a vested interest in the companyβs success, reducing the likelihood of risky behavior that could harm the company while benefiting themselves personally.
Aligned incentives
The notion of “skin in the game” is closely linked to the alignment of incentives, which is crucial for effective and ethical decision-making.
Mutual Interests: When all parties involved in a decision or project have something at stake, their interests become more aligned. This alignment leads to decisions that are more likely to benefit all involved, rather than favoring one party at the expense of others.
Long-term Planning: Aligned incentives encourage long-term thinking. When decision-makers share in the long-term risks and rewards, they are incentivized to plan for sustainable growth and stability.
Risk Sharing: It also implies a fair distribution of risks. In a well-aligned system, no single party bears an undue burden of risk, which fosters a more equitable and ethical environment.
Buckle up, we’re in for a wild ride. Many of the serious scholars of political history and authoritarian regimes are sounding the alarm bells that, although it is a very very good thing that we got the Trump crime family out of the Oval Office, it is still a very very bad thing for America to have so rapidly tilted towards authoritarianism. How did we get here?! How has hyper partisanship escalated to the point of an attempted coup by 126 sitting Republican House Representatives? How has political polarization gotten this bad?
These are some of the resources that have helped me continue grappling with that question, and with the rapidly shifting landscape of information warfare. How can we understand this era of polarization, this age of tribalism? This outline is a work in progress, and I’m planning to keep adding to this list as the tape keeps rolling.
America has had flavors of authoritarianism since its founding, and when fascism came along the right-wing authoritarians ate it up — and deeply wanted the United States to be a part of it. Only after they became social pariahs did they change position to support American involvement in World War II — and some persisted even after the attack of Pearl Harbor.
With Project 2025, Trump now openly threatens fascism on America — and sadly, some are eager for it. The psychology behind both authoritarian leaders and followers is fascinating, overlooked, and misunderstood.
Scholars of authoritarianism
Karen Stenner — Australian political psychologist Karen Stenner found that approximately 1/3 of populations are authoritarian, have an authoritarian personality, or have authoritarian tendencies.
Derrida — the logic of the unconscious; performativity in the act of lying
ketman — Ketman is the psychological concept of concealing one’s true aims, akin to doublethink in Orwell’s 1984, that served as a central theme to Polish dissident CzesΕaw MiΕosz‘s book The Captive Mind about intellectual life under totalitarianism during the Communist post-WWII occupation.
Erich Fromm — coined the term “malignant narcissism” to describe the psychological character of the Nazis. He also wrote extensively about the mindset of the authoritarian follower in his seminal work, Escape from Freedom.
Eric Hoffer — his book The True Believers explores the mind of the authoritarian follower, and the appeal of losing oneself in a totalist movement
Fascism — elevation of the id as the source of truth; enthusiasm for political violence
double highs — social dominators who can “switch” to become followers in certain circumstances
Loyalty; hero worship
Freud = deeply distrustful of hero worship and worried that it indulged people’s needs for vertical authority. He found the archetype of the authoritarian primal father very troubling.
What are the signs of fascism? And what is fascism? Fascism is a complex and multi-faceted ideology that can manifest in various ways, making it challenging to pin down with a single definition. However, there are certain signs, traits, tactics, and behaviors that are commonly associated with it. Here’s an overview:
Traits
Authoritarianism: Fascism is inherently authoritarian, advocating for a centralized power structure, often under a single charismatic leader.
Nationalism: Extreme nationalism is a hallmark, often coupled with the belief in the inherent superiority of one’s own nation over others — a form of collective narcissism.
Militarism: A strong emphasis on military power and aggression as a means to achieve national objectives is common. Many fascists are former military and/or current militia members.
Anti-Intellectualism: Fascist regimes often distrust intellectuals and experts, preferring emotion and popular sentiment. Railing against the “Eastern elite” is a common refrain.
Xenophobia and Racism: There’s often a strong element of fear or hatred towards outsiders or people considered “different.”
Traditionalism: A romanticized, mythologized view of the past and a desire to return to so-called “traditional” values.
Anti-Communism: A strong opposition to left-wing ideologies, particularly communism and socialism.
Tactics
Propaganda: The use of propaganda to manipulate public opinion is rampant in fascist regimes. Often, conspiracy theories are used to whip up strong emotion quickly.
Suppression of Dissent: Any form of opposition is often met with severe punishment, including imprisonment or even death.
Cult of Personality: Leaders often build a cult of personality around themselves, portraying themselves as the saviors of the nation.
Scapegoating: Blaming societal problems on a particular group, often minorities, to divert attention from real issues. One of the oldest examples is antisemitism.
Control Over Media: The media is often state-controlled or heavily influenced to propagate the regime’s messages.
Political Violence: The use of violence, or the threat thereof, is common to intimidate opposition and enforce policies.
Behaviors and Beliefs
Dogmatic Beliefs: A refusal to consider alternative viewpoints or engage in constructive debate.
Manipulation of History: Rewriting, distorting, or hiding historical facts to suit the regime’s preferred narrative.
Secrecy and Surveillance: A lack of transparency and an emphasis on surveillance to monitor citizens.
Economic Control: Often, there’s a form of state capitalism where the government controls key industries.
Social Darwinism: A belief in the survival of the fittest, often used to justify social inequality.
Identifying a Fascist
Identifying someone as a fascist can be complex due to the ideology’s fluid nature. However, if an individual strongly exhibits many of the traits, tactics, and behaviors listed above, it could be a sign. Fascism is a multi-dimensional ideology that can manifest in various ways but generally includes authoritarianism, extreme nationalism, and a range of tactics aimed at maintaining power. Understanding these signs is crucial for recognizing and combating the rise of fascist ideologies.
In a world of increasing disinformation, it’s more important than ever to be armed with actual information. And being curious about the meaning, nature, and origins of things is a rewarding journey in and of itself.
Think of these dictionaries as tools for your mind — they can help you make connections between concepts, understand the terminology being used in the media and all around you, and feel less lost in a sea of dizzying complexity and rapid change. A fantastic vocabulary also helps you connect with people near and far — as well as get outside your comfort zone and learn something new.
Dictionaries List
This section includes dictionaries and definitions of important terms in important realms — and is continually being built out. Stay tuned!
Authoritarianism is a political system where a single leader or a small group holds significant power, often without the consent of the governed. Decisions are made by authorities without public input, and individual freedoms and democratic principles are usually suppressed. The government may control various aspects of life, including media and the economy, without checks and balances. This leads to a concentration of power that can foster corruption and human rights abuses. In an authoritarian regime, obedience to the authorities is often emphasized over personal liberties and democratic participation.
Definitions and terms relating to the study of the mind, including ideas from social psychology, political psychology, positive psychology, and Buddhist psychology.
A growing body of psychological and cognitive research is showing that the conservative mind has a few things in common. Some research suggests that conservatives may be more attuned to potential threats and have a stronger emotional response to them compared to liberals. For example, studies have found that conservatives tend to have greater physiological responses to images and sounds that evoke fear or disgust.
Other studies have found that conservatives tend to score higher on measures of cognitive closure, which refers to the tendency to seek closure and avoid ambiguity and uncertainty. This may manifest as a preference for traditional values, adherence to fundamentalism, and a resistance to change. Additionally, conservatives may be more likely to rely on heuristics (mental shortcuts) when making decisions, whereas liberals may be more likely to engage in deliberative thinking.
It’s possible these traits at growing scale could present a profound challenge for American democracy in years to come:
are low in the “openness” trait — seek comfort and familiarity, and avoid novelty or challenge
dislike change and difference
tend to be rigid and dogmatic thinkers; close-minded
have a strong need for closure
have a high tendency to jump to conclusions while exuding self-righteous conviction
Psychopaths are the pinnacle creatures of Cluster B — a group of personality disorders that all include pathological narcissism or NPD as a foundation. A psychopath is a cold-blooded human predator, devoid of empathy — they can be very cruel and very dangerous. They feel no shame — they consider shame the hallmark of Lesser People.
Psychopaths and their slightly-less-chilling counterparts the sociopaths (together: ASPD) make up roughly 5% of the general population — a figure which generally shocks people. That’s right — about 1 in 20 of all the people you have ever met, functionally speaking, have very little conscience. Some of them choose to behave ethically for various purposes, but many do not. They are certainly not to be trusted.
Part of the dark triad
The dark triad in psychology refers to psychopathy along with two other personality traits: narcissism, and Machiavellianism. These individuals exhibit a manipulative and malevolent style with others.
Attributes of psychopaths (this page is a work in progress):
It’s important to note, though, that not all sociopaths are killers — far from it. These are simply the notable examples most people have heard of, to get a reference point on what these personality types are like.
Most sociopaths — unfortunately — are the guy next door, the woman at work, or the dude who took you home in his Uber. They’re someone you know.
