Political theorist and sociologist Vilfredo Pareto identified two main personality types among ruling elites: foxes and lions. Foxes govern through manipulation and innovation, while lions rely on tradition and force. In a healthy civilization, power circulates between these two types, allowing a balance that meets the needs of society at any given time.

For decades, Western nations have been dominated by foxes, who favor manipulation over force. However, as populist movements began challenging their grip on power, the ruling class attempted to pivot to hard power. The American left responded with riots, imprisonment of political opponents, and even an assassination attempt on the populist presidential candidate. Yet these efforts failed, and Donald Trump won office with a decisive mandate.

Now that the attempt to transition to brute force has failed, the left is in disarray.

Now, after their failed shift toward coercion, progressives find themselves disoriented and divided. Their system of information control has been disrupted, and their attempts at brute force have backfired, leaving them uncertain about their next move.

In “The Mind and Society,” Pareto explained that every civilization has a ruling class, which can generally be divided into two groups. The first, type one residues or foxes, manipulates information and adapts quickly to shifting social dynamics. The second, type two residues or lions, is patriotic, courageous, and committed to preserving identity and tradition. Lions excel in physical defense and thrive in times when societies must carve out territory, settle new lands, or defend borders from external threats.

Lions typically rule through hierarchical structures and strategic applications of force, maintaining stability through a sense of duty and order. In contrast, foxes rely on deception and social engineering to achieve their ends. When either group dominates for too long without the other’s influence, societies risk stagnation, corruption, or collapse.

Foxes are intelligent and adaptable, skilled at manipulating ideas and combining concepts. They are not bound by tradition, which allows them to envision and implement radical changes. As societies grow more complex, they often turn to foxes, as the challenges faced by elites in advanced civilizations require abstract thinking and innovation. Foxes typically rule through soft power, using information control and bureaucratic systems to shape society.

Pareto argued that functional societies must maintain a balance between these two elite types. When a country overwhelmingly favors one over the other, it eventually declines. For decades, Western nations have prioritized foxes while marginalizing lions in elite institutions. Patriotic, strong, and tradition-oriented individuals have been pushed aside, while cunning and manipulative figures have been elevated.

This imbalance has led to an elite class that excludes many of its most capable potential leaders while embracing mediocrity or even corruption — simply because those in power share a similar mindset.

Foxes rule through manipulation and soft power, relying on information control and propaganda. Their preferred tactics involve getting political opponents fired, freezing their bank accounts, or using public shaming rather than resorting to direct force. News media, entertainment, and academia serve as their primary tools, while public humiliation remains their most effective weapon.

By carefully adjusting algorithmic information delivery and forging partnerships between corporations and intelligence agencies, fox-style elites can censor dissent without technically violating civil rights protected by Western constitutions.

Soft power allows elites to establish totalitarian practices without provoking the direct resistance that comes with brute force. But it depends on the credibility and prestige of the institutions enforcing it. People comply with these institutions because defying them can mean social and professional ruin — losing jobs, friendships, and status in polite society. To maintain control, foxes rely on institutions that command respect and influence.

These institutions can manipulate narratives and even push absurd claims occasionally, but overreach threatens their credibility. This became most evident during the pandemic lockdowns, when scientific, medical, and government authorities were caught lying so frequently that much of the public stopped trusting them. At a certain point, the cost of compliance with these institutions' demands outweighed the social penalties of defiance. Faced with growing dissent, the foxes began to panic.

As their grip on power weakened, the foxes turned to new tactics to reassert control. First came the violence of Black Lives Matter and Antifa, groups that effectively served as the Democratic Party’s paramilitary arms. This mob violence, cloaked in plausible deniability, aimed to intimidate those who had abandoned institutional authority back into compliance. Once the election was secured, Democrats shifted to more overt hard-power tactics, deploying the FBI to monitor church services and intimidate parents at school board meetings. Fearful of losing control, the fox-style elite attempted to rule like lions.

Nowhere was this desperation more evident than in the left’s relentless attempts to stop Donald Trump. The real estate tycoon provoked such an unhinged response that progressives sought to bankrupt him, remove him from the ballot, imprison him, and even assassinate him. These blatant displays of force resembled tactics used by third-world dictators. But a wounded animal is the most dangerous, and the foxes were willing to do anything to hold on to power.

Despite their efforts, both soft-power censorship and hard-power crackdowns failed. Trump secured a resounding mandate in both the popular vote and the Electoral College. At that point, Democrats faced a stark choice: embrace full-scale authoritarian repression or allow the duly elected Republican to take office. Their manipulation of information had collapsed. Their attempts to jail or kill Trump had backfired.

In the end, foxes lack both the skill and the resolve for violence. They are neither suited for nor adept at wielding force, and their sudden shift toward hard-power tactics only underscores their desperation. Now that the attempt to transition to brute force has failed, the left is in disarray. The American people rejected both manipulation and coercion — so what options remain?

For now, progressives seem trapped in a state of confusion, waging an internal battle between radical activists pushing for even more extreme measures and an establishment scrambling to rein in the movement they unleashed. Their failure to shift from soft power to hard power has left them demoralized. Let’s hope it stays that way.