What is now happening hasn't happened before in our lifetimes but has happened many times throughout history—typically, just before civil wars. In my opinion, this is a VERY big, bad deal yet most people are quietly going along with it. I wonder why—do they see this differently, don't they care, do they feel helpless? For these reasons, I am going to show you dispassionately and analytically what I’m seeing and ask you five questions to see if we by and large agree on what is happening. Then, if we agree, we can explore what we individually and collectively might do about it.   

My Perspective

Over my 50 years in the global macro world, I have focused on trying to understand the most important cause-effect relationships to bet on what’s going to happen. My experiences led me to study history to see how things worked, which led me to see that most things that are now happening have happened many times before for logical reasons. By studying many past cases, I could better understand the most important cause-effect relationships. 

In the process, I discovered that there are big, long-term cycles that transpire over many years (typically about 100, give or take about 50). These have led, and continue to lead, to big changes in circumstances that have always, and continue to, take people by surprise because they haven't experienced them before. I have found that by understanding them I could do a much better job of anticipating big changes that didn’t happen in my lifetime but have happened many times before. For example, I see that it is now true, and that it has always been true, that a confluence of five big forces drives most of what happens in ways that are understandable. These big cycle forces are:

1. the financial/economic force (that tracks debt and debt monetization) and productivity

2. the internal peace-conflict force (that tracks wealth, values, and political gaps)

3. the external peace-conflict force (that tracks relative wealth and powers levels of leading world rival powers)

4. the force of nature that is manifest in droughts, floods, and pandemics (especially now with climate change) and

5. the force of man's inventiveness, most importantly of new technologies (especially now via AI).

To the best of my ability, I tried to understand and then explain the cause-effect relationships and my template for understanding how the machine works in my books, and then I follow how things are transpiring relative to this template and describe them in my posts.

I believe that what is now happening is almost precisely following the template I laid out in my book, Principles for Dealing with the Changing World Order in Chapter 5, "The Internal Peace-War Cycle." We are obviously in Stage 5 of that cycle (which you can read about starting on page 167 and judge for yourself how well it describes what is now happening). I will reference the book at times in this post, but I don't want you to have to think about the full internal order cycle to explore what's happening now. This is because I think things are so obvious and so concerning that one doesn’t need to have that historical perspective to see it. 

The Timeless and Universal Truths and Principles About Order and Disorder That Are Most Relevant Now 

I believe that it is true for all people in all collective activities (sport, organizations, governments, etc.) that if...

a) there is no acceptable way to agree on what is probably true (e.g., there is no equivalent of instant replay in a sport) and...

b) both sides don't trust the referees/judges because they believe that they are under the influence of the other side, and ...

c) rather than judgements being made and enforced according to the rule book, they are made and enforced by the opinions of people that make up an unruly crowd…

...chaos and chaotic fighting will follow.

To me, it is obvious that this is now happening a lot and increasing.

What Do You Think?

In this piece I will ask you five questions about whether 1) most politicians in government, 2) most reporters and commentators in the media, and 3) most of the legal system do objective investigations of people and render unbiased judgements. I will also ask 4) where you think we are headed. If you choose to answer, which I hope you will do, and you write down the numbered answer to each question, then add up those numbers which will give a score representing your trust in the system. Then, if you’d like, you can share your total score and thoughts about it in the comments, which I’d love you to do. If you don’t want to do that, I’d still encourage you to think about the answers to the questions to help you reflect on the situation. After each question, I will share my answers so we can compare our thinking.

Trust in Politicians in Government 

Q1: Do you trust most politicians in government to render fair judgements of other politicians and non-politicians? Please answer 1) for no, 2) for too close to call, and 3) for yes. If you’re planning to tally your score, I suggest you write down this number so you can refer to it easily at the end.  

As for me, I answered 1) no because, based on what I see, most elected politicians and the people they appoint are fighting against “the other side” and fighting to be elected by “being loyal” to the party position rather than being objective. For me, the quality and consistency of the political process have become much worse because it is much more biased than fair.   

Similarly, most cases that have been judged by politically appointed government officials appear to be judged more on political biases (Republican/right or Democrat/left) than unbiased attempts at an objective best decision. In fact, it is now common knowledge that the political/ideological leanings of Congressional committees often determine who is being investigated for what, with the political biases of the committee chairs leading the ideological campaign of the committee, quite like the McCarthy era. Nowadays, most Congressional investigations aren't genuine investigations i.e., they aren't learning experiences for those in the legislative branch to help them write better laws as they were intended—as much as they are intended to hurt and influence those people and organizations that those on the committee don't like. Obviously, objectivity is not a highly rated quality of politicians in government and objectivity is declining, even though there are still many who nobly serve their country in the existing and very difficult environment. 

To be clear, I’m not commenting on which side—right/Republican or left/Democrat—is more guilty of politically-biased decision making. My point is simply that the system now looks to me mostly biased and unfair.   

Q2.  Do you believe that most Americans trust most politicians to render fair judgments of other politicians and non-politicians? Please answer 1) for no, 2) for too close to call, and 3) for yes.    

I answered 2), though I was torn between 1) and 2), so 1.5 would be the number that best reflects my view. This is because poll numbers show that 40% to 50% strongly or moderately believe that the political decision-making system is not working fairly, and the numbers are trending higher—which isn't the majority but is a dangerously high number particularly because of the strengths of the extremes. I will explain.  

There are too many polls for me to delve into here that lead me to my assessment of what most Americans think, but I will give a couple of examples highlighting the most important issues. It continues to be the case that many Americans dispute the results of the 2020 election, with 38% of Americans (and 67% of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents) believing that President Biden did not win the presidency legitimately. (Footnote Monmouth). In the same Monmouth poll, only 42% of Americans believe that our system of government is “basically sound.” And, according to Gallup, just 47% of Americans express only “some trust” in the judicial branch of government, down 20% in the last two years. (Footnote Analysis: Trust in the Supreme Court is at a record low | CNN Politics).   

I could show you dozens more survey results that paint the same picture that the level of distrust has been growing. Even more concerning is that about 15% of the population is so hard right and about 10% of the population is hard left that they appear willing to fight intransigently for what they want – i.e. they won’t accept losing. In a country where there are more guns than people, I am concerned about this and would think that we should be hearing more concerns about this than we are. It is true that there are more concerns being expressed about this picture now than when I first shared my book about the changing world order which was before the January 6th attack on the Capitol. (At that time, I estimated the odds of a civil war as about 1 in 3—I now estimate it a bit over 1 in 2). In my opinion, the existing concerns still fall short of where they should be. More importantly, there is hardly any understanding of this process that has repeatedly occurred throughout history and is now leading to this concerning trajectory.

Trust in Those in the Media 

Q3: What do you think about those in the media? Do you think that most of those in the media are painting accurate pictures? Please answer 1) for no, 2) for too close to call, and 3) for yes.

I answered 1) no. While there certainly are some high-quality objective journalists, it seems to me that they have become a rare breed. As I described in Principles for Dealing with the Changing World Order, this loss of trust is typical of Stage 5: “Not knowing what is true because of distortions in the media and propaganda increases as people become more polarized, emotional, and politically motivated.”

Do you think you are greeting unbiased, accurate reporting? To assess the objectivity of the stories conveyed by those in the media, I suggest that you read these stories carefully and ask if the writers have a bias and their desire to have you believe something good or bad about the person or the organization that they are writing about. I believe that you will find that most stories are biased. I find, and I believe you will too, that many writers are more interested in presenting malicious gossip about people and/or organizations with the intent to harm than they are in giving accurate, balanced reporting. They often reflect a political or social bias as they are in the political/social battle of one side against the other (e.g. the capitalists against the proletariat.)  

As an example, I thought this editorial exemplified this conflict in a classic way, though I must say that there are so many biases in the media that I can’t say that The New York Times, in this case, was as anti-capitalist as the writer implies or if the Horatio Alger Society and its members actually did something wrong. I don't want to get into an examination of that case. My point is simply that it is frequently the case that those in the media throw around biased opinions stated as facts that lead to damaging judgements by the public. This is very bad.  

Q4: Do you think that most Americans think that most of those in the media are painting accurate pictures? Please answer 1) for no, 2) for too close to call, and 3) for yes.  

My assessment is 1) no because the poll numbers are very clear in conveying that most Americans rate the objectivity of those in the media very badly, even worse than politicians. For example, only 7% of adults have a great deal of trust in the media (footnote Americans' Trust In Media Remains Near Record Low (gallup.com).   

As with everything, this is happening because of how the machine works. So, what are the causes that are leading to these results?  

I believe that the now extreme distortions by many of those in the media have happened because of how the pendulum has swung to an extreme that will likely self-correct in the ways that typically occur in the cycle. For example, in the US, unlike Canada and the UK, “journalists” can knowingly publish false information about people and organizations unless those who are lied about can meet the high legal standard of proving that the journalist intentionally lied and/or was reckless. This has logically grown to become so egregious that it produced a couple of big cases that led to big judgements against the news organizations that were behind them. These cases — the Fox Dominion Case and the Alex Jones Case, along with legislative proposals in some states to hold journalists responsible for intended slander, have led some to conjecture that the pendulum is starting to swing toward levying more controls. I very much doubt that these changes will come about meaningfully enough to have any significant effects on what will happen between now and January 2025 which is likely to be a very a crazy period.

How They Work Together 

As has always been the case and is logical, those who have enemies in common work together to hurt their enemies. The pattern has happened repeatedly throughout history. In Chapter 5, of my book Principles for Dealing with the Changing World Order, I described the internal order-disorder cycle transpiring in six stages and in the part describing Stage 5 of cycle, which is the stage just before the civil war, I describe what almost always happens in this stage and I believe is happening now.

In Stage 5, those who are fighting typically work with those in the media to manipulate people’s emotions to gain support and to destroy the opposition. In other words, media folks of the left join with others of the left, and media folks of the right join with others of the right in the dirty fight. The media goes wild like vigilantes: people are commonly attacked and essentially tried and found guilty in the media, and they have their lives ruined without a judge and jury...During times of great wealth gaps and populist thinking, stories that bring down elites are popular and lucrative, especially those that bring down left-leaning elites in right-leaning media outlets and those that bring down right-leaning elites in left-leaning media outlets. History shows that significant increases in these activities are a problem that is typical of Stage 5, and that when combined with the ability to inflict other punishments, the media becomes a powerful weapon. 

This old dynamic of the rise in the power of trials by opinions over trials by law (i.e. that take place within the legal system) is now called “cancel culture.” It plays out as a smear campaign intended to take down people and organizations without the rule of law. In fact, it intentionally bypasses, and becomes more powerful than the legal system in rendering judgements.   

The way it typically works is that there is a “targeted person” or “targeted organization” (i.e. the person or organization targeted to be taken down), a "complainer" (or a group of them who wants to take down the “target”), “investigative reporters,” and “amplifiers” (who take the story and modify it to make it sound like theirs, and put it out on their platforms). Often it also involves other players and sometimes doesn’t involve some of the roles I just mentioned- e.g. cancellation goes on in social media, on college campuses, around speaking events, etc. These people work together to paint a negative picture of the “target.” I call the group of such people the “attack group” which works like a mob trying to enforce vigilante justice. While in there are typically some truths woven into what is reported, the story is rarely presented in a balanced way and often is completely distorted with lots of unattributed and made-up assertions woven in to make the story the one that the investigative reporter wants it to be.

I suggest that when you see one of these attacks starting that you identify the specific people who are in each of these roles (i.e., the “target,” the “complainers,” “the investigative reporters,” and “the amplifiers”) and watch the ways these attacks are transpiring relative to this template because that will help you better understand what’s really going on in each case. 

The takedowns can be about almost anything. In this stage of the internal order-disorder cycle, it is no longer the case that what is allowed and not allowed is determined by what is legal. Nowadays, simply behaving in a way that such an “attack group” of people can lead to great penalties. The investigative reporters and their media outlets like this process because it brings them attention as fighters for the “noble causes” that their audiences are behind—e.g., fighting for those of the right or those of the left—while it also makes them money and gives them notoriety. This process is sometimes used in cases in which baseless accusations are made by “complainers” who want money to stop complaining (e.g., complaining employees who falsely claim to be mistreated). This dynamic has become so prevalent that it has become a quiet plague of sorts. Most CEOs consider this dynamic to be one of their top challenges.   

Why aren’t these take-downs fought against? Typically, it’s because the people or organizations targeted want the attention to go away as quickly as possible and don’t want to draw more attention to the situation by fighting the cases. Similarly, organizations typically drop, like a hot potato, any “target person” who works for them because they don’t want to be associated with them and they want these cases to go away. Also, this process is typically not fought against in the pursuit of justice because it is so threatening that most don’t want to antagonize those in the media. Most people are too afraid to speak up fearing that doing so will prompt those in the media to turn the process on them. 

The Decline of the Rule of Law 

Q4: How do you think the legal system is working? Do you think that it’s fair? Please answer, 1) for no, 2) for too close to call, and 3) for yes

I answered 2) i.e., too close to call, though I was equally inclined to answer 1) i.e., no, I don’t think the legal system is fair, so I think 1.5 would best reflect my thinking. It appears to me that in matters that are not political and at the local law enforcement level, the justice system works pretty fairly. However, as explained earlier, in many cases it appears to me that most politicians and most media reporters are pursuing politically based and self-serving agendas so that personal opinions of how people are supposed to behave matter as much or more than the legal system in judging people and organizations. Certainly, they are intruding on the legal system which is increasingly being challenged by those who are willing to threaten others and fight to get the outcomes they want. For example, we are now seeing some cases of politicians and jurors getting death threats to affect their judgements. The Hunter Biden case will be “another one of those” in which the political implications of it are far greater than the objective judgement of it, so it won’t be assessed to have been tried and judged without political bias.  

Also, it is an indisputable fact that the outcomes of even most filed legal cases are not resolved via the presentation of evidence by both sides in a court with fair judges/jurors/referees rendering fair judgements; instead, they are resolved in settlements with those who can bear the legal costs of great attorneys having big advantages. For these reasons, it’s hard for me to assess the legal system as being fair.  

I believe that over the next two years with election conflicts, Trump trials conflicts, and US conflicts with China and Russia ongoing, we will see the political-legal system tested to degrees and in ways that we have never seen in our lifetimes but have happened many times in history. I don’t know how this dynamic will play out, but I believe that it will be very risky for the reasons I just described I am most surprised that most people aren’t more worried about all of this. 

Like the Proverbial Frog in the Boiling Water  

Supposedly, if you throw a frog into a pot of boiling water it will jump out of the pot. But if you put the frog into a pot of cold water and gradually raise the water temperature to a boil, the frog will remain there and boil to death. The point is that if things gradually get worse those experiencing these changes might not notice them until they are terribly threatening or lethal and not make the needed changes in time to save themselves.  

History shows that the moves toward great disorders such as civil wars occur through a sequence of events that individually don’t create great concerns even though they previously would have been considered unimaginably bad e.g. the failure of a presidential candidate and a large percentage of the population to accept losing elections, and their fighting against the system due to their beliefs that the rules and the referees are biased and unfair. Eventually, events lead to unimaginable disorder.

As mentioned at the outset, I wonder why I’m not now hearing more screaming about current conditions being intolerable and more worrying about where we are headed. My guess is that it’s the frog in boiling water dynamic happening.

For example, it was not many years ago that most journalists strove to report objectively and what the society determined to be good and bad was defined by the laws and judged in a court in which evidence was presented and supposedly balanced parties rendered verdicts. While it was never perfectly like that, it was much more like that than it is now. It is my view that the system worked better when people bought into it more - when most people looked to the legal system rather than the opinions and characterizations of politicians, those in the media, and others to decide if people behaved badly and should be punished.  

Conclusions

While I will be interested in tallying-up your opinions, I suspect that we can agree that 1) the truth we get from, and the trust we have in, politicians in government and those in the media is very low, 2) they, and many others, are increasingly operating in ways that bypass and diminish the effectiveness of the legal system, and 3) this is leading to increasing chaotic fighting and the declining rule of law, so we appear to be headed in a dangerous direction.  

By following the template of the internal order and disorder cycle explained in Chapter 5 (if you care to read it) and/or by using logic to imagine where we will be in the future without the beliefs that the rules and referees are fair. One can imagine a growing risk that people will break into fights in which there is no respect for the rules, and the sides will fight to win at all cost—i.e. there will be some form of civil war. 

What can be done to prevent this should be explored more comprehensively at another time since this piece is already too long. But let’s at least agree that we should 1) worry (which would increase the chances of preventing what we are worrying about), 2) scream loudly against these intolerable behaviors, holding ourselves and others to high standards of behavior, and 3) go along with, rather than fight against, the judgments of the legal system, even though the legal system is more biased and less fair than we would like it to be. I think that it is pretty clear that if we don’t do these things, there is an uncomfortably high probability that we will experience terrible chaotic fighting.

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/declines-truth-trust-rule-law-have-throughout-history-ray-dalio/