Beware the "Benevolent CEO" ...

Curtis Yarvin’s Illiberal Fantasy of Democracy.

In a recent New York Times Magazine interview, Curtis Yarvin—a leading voice in the neo-reactionary movement—laid out a vision for a new form of governance. Yarvin's idea of a "benevolent CEO" government offers a radical departure from liberal democracy.

Under this model, a single, all-powerful executive—akin to the leader of a highly efficient corporation—would wield unchallenged authority to govern the state. For Yarvin, this vision promises an escape from what he perceives as the inefficiencies and stagnation of contemporary democratic systems.

This essay’s purpose is to shine a light and ring a clarion warning, to help everyone see and understand that Yarvin’s warped view is not some fringe academic fantasy. It is an ideology that has been embraced by the Trump MAGA-Republican movement, which now wields illiberal power over the "once" democratic republic of the United States.

Beneath the movement’s slogans and cultural grievances lies a dangerous blueprint: the dismantling of democracy in favor of centralized, unchecked authority. If we fail to acknowledge the threat, we risk losing the very foundations of liberty and justice.

At first glance, Yarvin's proposition might sound appealing to those frustrated with political gridlock. But a deeper examination reveals a much darker reality. His model is not a cure for democracy’s ailments but a path toward authoritarianism cloaked in the false promise of benevolence.

In truth, Yarvin's "CEO democracy" mirrors the kinds of oppressive regimes we have come to recognize through Orwellian titles like "The Democratic People's Republic of [Fill in the Blank]." It is a vision entirely at odds with the principles of an open society.

The Anti-Democratic Illusion of Benevolent Rule

The crux of Yarvin’s model rests on the assumption that a powerful leader—unconstrained by democratic processes—could govern both efficiently and justly. He points to historical figures such as Frederick the Great and modern technocratic states like Singapore as examples of strong, effective leadership. But this argument ignores a critical flaw: there are no structural safeguards in Yarvin’s system to ensure that a leader remains "benevolent."

History is replete with examples of leaders who began with ‘good intentions’ but succumbed to the temptations of unchecked power. Without democratic mechanisms like checks and balances, judicial review, and free elections, power inevitably consolidates. As Lord Acton famously warned, "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." The so-called benevolent dictator is a myth—one that too often descends into tyranny.

The Dangerous Appeal of False Efficiency

Yarvin’s critique of democracy rests on his concept of "the Cathedral"—a supposed alliance of academia, media, and political elites that, in his view, manipulates public discourse and suppresses dissent. To Yarvin, the solution is to bypass these institutions altogether and install a leader who can govern swiftly and decisively, free from the constraints of democratic debate.

Again, this rhetoric may resonate with those disillusioned by political dysfunction. However, it overlooks a key virtue of democratic governance: while democracies can be slow and messy, they protect pluralism, dissent, and the right to self-governance.

Democracies provide a platform for dialogue and compromise, ensuring that policies are shaped by diverse voices and perspectives. The inefficiencies Yarvin decries are not flaws—they are features designed to prevent the concentration of power and the erosion of rights.

Autocracies, by contrast, may achieve short-term efficiency but often at the cost of justice, transparency, and accountability. Dissent is stifled, minority rights are trampled, and policymaking becomes a tool of the ruling elite.

Yarvin's model does not solve democracy's challenges; it bypasses them by abandoning democratic principles altogether.

The False Promise of Order Through Fear

An insidious undercurrent of Yarvin’s philosophy is its reliance on fear as a tool of control. By casting "the other"—whether intellectual elites or marginalized groups—as existential threats to societal order, neo-reactionary models like Yarvin’s justify repression in the name of stability. We have seen this play out in regimes that justify mass surveillance, censorship, and the suppression of dissent by invoking the need for security and social harmony.

But true security and harmony cannot be built on fear. They require trust—between citizens and their government, between communities, and between individuals. Liberal democracies, despite their imperfections, seek to foster that trust through transparency, accountability, and the rule of law. Yarvin’s model erodes this foundation by concentrating power in the hands of a few, erasing the very safeguards that protect against abuse and arbitrariness.

A Warning for Our Times

The seductive appeal of autocratic efficiency has led many societies down dark and dangerous paths. The 20th century alone provides ample warnings of what happens when citizens trade liberty for promises of stability and control.

Fascist and communist regimes alike were born from discontent with democratic inefficiencies and the lure of a singular leader who could "fix" everything. The result was not order but unimaginable suffering and repression.

Curtis Yarvin’s vision is no different. It is a dystopia masquerading as reform, an illiberal nightmare dressed in the language of innovation. It is crucial that we recognize this for what it is: a dangerous assault on the very principles that sustain free and open societies.

If democracy is faltering, the answer is not to abandon it but to strengthen it.

We must address the dysfunctions of our institutions through greater transparency, participation, and reform. We must empower citizens to have a meaningful voice in their governance and ensure that power remains accountable to the people.

This is a defining moment.

As Yarvin’s ideas gain traction in certain circles, it is imperative that we remain vigilant. Democracy’s survival depends on our ability to defend it from both overt attacks and seductive alternatives that promise efficiency but deliver tyranny.

We cannot afford to place hopes in a “strongman” to save our republic. The stakes are simply too high. Fellow Americans, we must save ourselves.

Do You Want To Know More? READ THE BOOK! *Just Released!*