Erica Frantz

Well, it basically means a situation where you can envision, you know, a monarch and the members of their court sitting around the throne on bended knee, there to flatter the monarch, there to make sure that, you know, that everything that the monarch wants is implemented. You know, I often think about the story, you know, of the emperor with no clothes.

Well, it basically means a situation where you can envision, you know, a monarch and the members of their court sitting around the throne on bended knee, there to flatter the monarch, there to make sure that, you know, that everything that the monarch wants is implemented. You know, I often think about the story, you know, of the emperor with no clothes.

That sort of dynamic translates to these settings. And it's, again, I've talked earlier about disproportionate political influence, but The monarch is in the throne lofty above these other individuals. And you can visualize that sort of power dynamic. And that's what we see in places where power is concentrated.

That sort of dynamic translates to these settings. And it's, again, I've talked earlier about disproportionate political influence, but The monarch is in the throne lofty above these other individuals. And you can visualize that sort of power dynamic. And that's what we see in places where power is concentrated.

Yeah, that's a really interesting insight there about the broadening. And it makes sense because in these places with more concentrated power, we do see more volatile policy choices. And that's because policies are based on the whims of the leader. And if a particular leader happens to stick to an ideological platform, then you might not see so much dramatic change.

Yeah, that's a really interesting insight there about the broadening. And it makes sense because in these places with more concentrated power, we do see more volatile policy choices. And that's because policies are based on the whims of the leader. And if a particular leader happens to stick to an ideological platform, then you might not see so much dramatic change.

But leaders can change their minds very quickly. You know, in Turkmenistan, which is very different than the United States, the leader there, Sepimur Niyazov, in his court, was his former dentist, who ended up succeeding him, I believe. So they're really going after people who they think are going to be their loyal advocates.

But leaders can change their minds very quickly. You know, in Turkmenistan, which is very different than the United States, the leader there, Sepimur Niyazov, in his court, was his former dentist, who ended up succeeding him, I believe. So they're really going after people who they think are going to be their loyal advocates.

And even if those people have kind of bizarre ideas or ideas that are counter to what you might expect, If they're in the leader's ear, we might see those policies implemented. In this instance, with the skilled immigrants, you know, that might be something that economists would say is good for the health of the economy in the U.S. So it might not always be a bad choice.

And even if those people have kind of bizarre ideas or ideas that are counter to what you might expect, If they're in the leader's ear, we might see those policies implemented. In this instance, with the skilled immigrants, you know, that might be something that economists would say is good for the health of the economy in the U.S. So it might not always be a bad choice.

But the fundamental problem with these leaders, these personalist leaders, is that there's no predictability in terms of what they might choose to pursue. And oftentimes, they make bad choices.

But the fundamental problem with these leaders, these personalist leaders, is that there's no predictability in terms of what they might choose to pursue. And oftentimes, they make bad choices.

So that's an excellent insight. And there are some really nice parallels to authoritarian politics in that personalist leaders in those contexts often pursue what we call divide and conquer as a strategy. So it is intentional that they want a divided elite. They don't want any risk that the individuals around them could behind their back coalesce to challenge them.

So that's an excellent insight. And there are some really nice parallels to authoritarian politics in that personalist leaders in those contexts often pursue what we call divide and conquer as a strategy. So it is intentional that they want a divided elite. They don't want any risk that the individuals around them could behind their back coalesce to challenge them.

So from the perspective of a power-hungry leader, you want to have a less cohesive internal circle. You want people to fear that, you know, they're in a game of musical chairs. You know, the smallest sign of disloyalty, that person's going to lose their office. They want to create an environment of total uncertainty among those in their elite circle.

So from the perspective of a power-hungry leader, you want to have a less cohesive internal circle. You want people to fear that, you know, they're in a game of musical chairs. You know, the smallest sign of disloyalty, that person's going to lose their office. They want to create an environment of total uncertainty among those in their elite circle.

And one way that they do that is by, again, like pursuing this game of musical chairs. I think I mentioned the study from Russia that shows that the legislators that are in the pocket of the Putin regime are actually rotated out of office fairly quickly. They gain office, are in the legislature, get a few luxury cars, and then they leave power.

And one way that they do that is by, again, like pursuing this game of musical chairs. I think I mentioned the study from Russia that shows that the legislators that are in the pocket of the Putin regime are actually rotated out of office fairly quickly. They gain office, are in the legislature, get a few luxury cars, and then they leave power.

And, you know, this musical chairs is intentional because they are ensuring that individuals can't coalesce. to join forces to challenge them, that they're divided, and that they aren't very powerful as individuals, that no individual is very powerful apart from the leader.

And, you know, this musical chairs is intentional because they are ensuring that individuals can't coalesce. to join forces to challenge them, that they're divided, and that they aren't very powerful as individuals, that no individual is very powerful apart from the leader.