Here are the steps of how this happens, as I see it, though not every one of these steps occurs in every single case:

(1) Many people feel dissatisfied with the state of their society and its impact on their lives, and blame the groups that have long remained in power. (Sometimes these groups that have long been in power deserve blame for the bad state of affairs; other times, the bad state of affairs is due to circumstances largely outside of their control.) Blaming these groups that have long remained in power often also involves distrust in existing institutions.

(2) A new potential leader emerges who is perceived not to be a member of the groups that have historically been in power (or if they come from the original groups of power, then this potential leader typically claims outsider status, presenting themselves as a reformer who is different than the other insiders). Typically, this potential leader is viewed as being more “one of the people” than the prior groups in power.

(3) This leader is charismatic and, though potentially polarizing, many people find this person captivating and persuasive. Oftentimes, this leader is also high on traits commonly associated with grandiose narcissism (e.g., a belief in their own superiority and specialness, a need for admiration, arrogance, manipulative tendencies, a “with me or against me” mentality, and reduced empathy).

(4) This leader promotes a grand vision of what the country could become (or could be restored to again) under their leadership, which gets many people excited.

(5) The leader typically appears to be powerful and courageous, and willing to stand up against (and correct the errors and abuses of) the previous people in power who have held the country back.

(6) In addition to blaming society’s problems on the prior group in power, the leader also uses one or more other groups as scapegoats, and blames many of society’s problems on that group as well (typically a distrusted local minority group, immigrants, or some other country that the population sees as a potential threat). However, the scapegoat group(s) are either not actually a cause of any of the problems in that society, or are only a minor cause (with most of the problems being caused by other factors).

(7) The leader also exaggerates, lies to, and manipulates the people, claiming simple (but inaccurate) narratives about what’s gone wrong that make their solutions seem likely to be effective, and that paint themselves as the heroes and the prior groups in power (as well as the scapegoats) as villains.

(8) Through their charisma, exciting vision for the future, and promises to fix the problems in society by correcting the errors of the previous groups in power and by cracking down on the proposed scapegoats, the leader gets strong public support. The leader then gets into a position of executive power by one of a variety of means (e.g., being elected, being appointed, deal-making, coercion, or a coup).

(9) The leader then attempts to neutralize the power of formerly powerful groups that were in power (e.g., through violence, arrests, seizing their wealth, and/or disparaging them and damaging their reputations).

(10) The leader additionally harms the scapegoated group(s) (e.g., through arrests, preventing immigration, forced migration, tariffs, military action, and/or violence). Sometimes, though not always, the leader also cracks down on leading intellectuals and groups of intellectuals, attempting to weaken their influence or prevent them from being listened to.

(11) The leader amasses power and wealth for themselves while in charge, while also attempting to reduce the checks and balances on their power (e.g., by weakening or consolidating other parts of government, or by exerting control over media and journalism). Additionally, the leader typically engages in information control and propaganda in an attempt to get the population to view all of their actions as positive. The more effective their information control and propaganda are, the more they can get away with making terrible decisions on behalf of society and enriching themselves at the expense of the people.

(12) The leader’s actions sometimes produce no benefit at all for the bulk of the populace, and sometimes produce a short-term benefit to the populace, but ultimately, the leader’s actions come at a meaningful (and sometimes disastrous) long-term cost, leaving society worse off long-term than it was before that person rose to power.

And, with that, as has happened again and again in many societies throughout the world, populations end up trying to improve their country’s problems by electing an exciting new leader, but instead end up being lied to and manipulated, leaving the well-being of the people of their country worse off than it would have been. This is a worldwide phenomenon. It happened with Hitler in Germany, Kim Il-Sung in North Korea, Mao Zedong in China, Mugabe in Zimbabwe, and Putin in Russia. And it will likely keep happening. A first step towards helping stop this pattern is if voters become more aware of it.

To be clear, populism isn’t bad, per se. The unmet needs and desires of ordinary people who feel that their concerns are disregarded are very important. And widespread dissatisfaction with the status quo usually does mean that something needs to change. The real issue is that grandiose manipulators leverage populist sentiment to install themselves in power, leaving their people worse off in the long term.

It’s also important to observe that this pattern isn’t one of the right or the left – it’s a pattern that arises on both sides of the political spectrum.

This piece was first written on August 31, 2025, and first appeared on my website on October 23, 2025.

My understanding is that there are four main reasons tariffs get put in place:

(1) Special interests that benefit from tariffs lobby for them at the expense of everyone else. This is obviously a bad reason to have tariffs.

(2) Sometimes countries have an interest in building out capabilities in very specific industries as part of a long-term wealth/self-preservation plan, which can be rational and wise when narrow and well thought out (e.g., “in 20 years, we want to have a globally competitive automotive industry” or “we want to have a strong local industry in steel in case of war”). This can be a good reason to have tariffs, but it also requires a carefully thought-out, specific, long-term plan that is well executed. And these kinds of plans often fail.

(3) It is a punishment tool to retaliate or threaten other countries (though they cause self-punishment at the same time, so it’s a very costly form of punishment).

(4) Irrationality from leaders about the purposes and real effects of tariffs. In such cases, the tariffs mainly cause harm to all involved parties.

There are also some other special cases where tariffs get used, such as when a country subsidizes an industry and exports to another country. Still, the latter country wants its own producers to be able to compete on an equal playing field, so it puts in place tariffs. Or when a country can’t raise taxes for some reason, it can try to use tariffs as a substitute. Tariffs can sometimes be used as an attempt to increase local jobs in times of high unemployment. But this is a rare situation.

Trade is usually good because if A and B trade freely, it’s because they both believe they are better off making the trade than not. Hence, gains from trade. Tariffs distort this process and make the involved parties worse off. So unless a tariff is well justified, it’s very likely making things worse. That’s why I think that tariffs should be viewed as a special measure: something that countries should avoid by default but use when they have special reasons to do so.

This piece was first written on April 7, 2025, and first appeared on my website on April 22, 2025.