Milo posts a long thread that notes: “In February 2025, Sarah Stock and Elijah Schaffer began sleeping together. The affair ended on the day she got engaged, about six months later. In that time, they experienced multiple pregnancy scares. It is alleged by one former acquaintance that Sarah got at least one abortion.”
Pukka writes: “Why does Elijah Schaffer’s affair discredit his belief system yet David Brooks’ affairs don’t discredit his? Why are certain groups discredited on the basis of their personal scandals whilst others are not?”
ChatGPT says: This has little to do with sexual morality and almost everything to do with coalition function.
Start with the key distinction.
Some belief systems are norm-enforcing. Others are norm-agnostic.
Elijah Schaffer’s belief system is norm-enforcing. David Brooks’ is not.
That difference determines how personal scandal is processed.
Elijah Schaffer.
Elijah Schaffer operated inside a coalition that grounds its legitimacy in moral discipline, boundary maintenance, and personal restraint. The movement’s pitch is not just “our ideas are right” but “we embody a superior moral order.”
In Alliance Theory terms, his role was partly exemplary. He was a credibility carrier for claims about family, sexual restraint, and civilizational decay.
An affair is therefore not a side issue. It directly contradicts the coalition’s core signaling system. If a moral-enforcement coalition tolerates elite rule-breaking, it collapses into hypocrisy. Rank-and-file members defect because the cost-benefit equation breaks. Why obey rules that leaders do not?
So the coalition must eject him. Not to enforce morality per se, but to preserve alliance integrity.
David Brooks.
David Brooks belongs to a very different coalition. Liberal-managerial elites do not ground their legitimacy in sexual discipline or personal virtue. They ground it in credentials, tone, institutional alignment, and narrative conformity.
Brooks’ belief system is technocratic and moralistic in rhetoric, but not behaviorally binding. It does not ask followers to imitate him. It asks them to defer to processes, norms, and expertise.
His affairs therefore do not contradict the coalition’s functional claims. No one joined his alliance because he modeled marital fidelity. They joined because he signals moderation, civility, and elite consensus.
As a result, the scandal is treated as a “private failing,” not a disqualifying breach.
General rule.
Groups are discredited by personal scandal only when three conditions are met.
First, the group’s legitimacy depends on moral or behavioral exemplars.
Second, the scandal violates a central norm rather than a peripheral one.
Third, the violator is a visible credibility node rather than a replaceable functionary.
Right-wing populist, religious, and traditionalist movements often meet all three conditions. Progressive, technocratic, and managerial elites usually meet none of them.
Why this feels asymmetric but is not.
People often say “the rules are different.” That is true, but incomplete.
The rules are different because the alliances are doing different jobs.
One coalition sells moral order. The other sells administrative competence and social stability. Moral failure destroys the product of the first. It barely dents the product of the second.
Tell it like it is.
If Elijah Schaffer’s movement waved off affairs the way David Brooks’ world does, it would dissolve within a year. If David Brooks’ world started purging people for private sexual misconduct, half its senior class would vanish overnight.
Alliance Theory predicts both outcomes cleanly.
This is not hypocrisy. It is structural necessity.
Gemini says: Alliance theory suggests that political and social groups function as mutual defense networks where members protect one another to maintain collective power. These groups do not treat moral violations as universal mathematical errors but as threats to the coalition’s stability or reputation. When a figure like Elijah Schaffer faces a scandal, the reaction from his alliance depends on how much his behavior undermines the core brand of the group. Schaffer built his platform on traditionalist, religious, and family-centric values. His adultery creates a direct contradiction with the specific moral product he sells to his audience. Because his alliance relies on the perception of moral purity to distinguish itself from its enemies, his actions leave his allies with two choices: defend a hypocrite and damage the group’s brand, or purge him to preserve the coalition’s integrity. They chose the latter.
David Brooks occupies a different space within the ecosystem of the intellectual elite. His alliance values intellectual contribution, institutional stability, and status more than the rigid enforcement of private sexual conduct. For a centrist commentator in high-status media circles, personal failings like divorce or affairs are often viewed as private tragedies or common human complexities rather than fundamental betrayals of the group’s mission. His peers prioritize his role as a bridge-builder and a voice for the establishment. As long as he remains useful to the alliance’s goal of maintaining institutional influence, his personal life remains secondary. The alliance protects him because his value as a public intellectual outweighs the cost of his private scandals.
Certain groups face total discredit because they define themselves through moral exceptionalism. If a group claims that its members are inherently more virtuous or godly than the rest of the world, a single scandal functions as proof that the entire ideology is a fraud. The alliance breaks because the scandal proves the group’s primary competitive advantage—moral superiority—does not exist. In contrast, groups that focus on policy, economic interests, or professional expertise have a higher tolerance for personal flaws. Their alliance is built on shared goals rather than shared piety. They view a member’s scandal as a PR hurdle to manage rather than an existential threat to their worldview.
Strategic interests also dictate who survives a scandal. Alliances often ignore the sins of their most powerful or useful members while sacrificing those who are easily replaced. If a leader provides essential resources or protection to the group, the alliance will rewrite its moral code to accommodate the lapse. This creates a double standard where the “discredit” depends entirely on the person’s utility to the tribe. A scandal is rarely about the act itself. It is a tool used by internal rivals to seize power or by the group to signal its values to the public.
Grok says: Alliance Theory of Political Belief Systems (as outlined in recent psychological and social science research, such as the work by David Pinsof and Martie Haselton) posits that political beliefs and moral judgments aren’t primarily derived from consistent, abstract values (like “family values” or “personal integrity”). Instead, they emerge from dynamic alliance structures—coalitions of individuals and groups who band together for mutual support, power, or survival in a competitive social landscape. These alliances often form “strange bedfellows,” where incompatible principles are patched together into narratives to defend allies and attack rivals. Scandals, in this view, aren’t objectively discrediting based on their severity; they’re weaponized (or ignored) depending on whether the person involved is seen as an ally or an adversary within these structures.This theory helps explain inconsistencies in how personal failings are treated: Alliances prioritize loyalty and group cohesion over ideological purity. When a scandal threatens an alliance’s narrative or power, it’s amplified to discredit the individual (and by extension, their “side”). But if the person is embedded in a strong, protective alliance, the scandal is downplayed, reframed, or excused to maintain the coalition’s strength. Let’s apply this to the examples you mentioned and the broader pattern.
Elijah Shaffer’s Affair and Its Discrediting Effect
Elijah Shaffer is a far-right podcaster and commentator (e.g., formerly with BlazeTV, now associated with outlets like Rift TV) who positions himself within a conservative Christian alliance. This coalition often emphasizes traditional morality, family values, and anti-degeneracy rhetoric as binding signals—loud, low-cost ways to signal loyalty and differentiate from “out-groups” like liberals or secularists. Shaffer’s alleged affair with colleague Sarah Stock (detailed in public accusations by Milo Yiannopoulos in 2025, including claims of a six-month relationship, pregnancy scares, and even an abortion) directly contradicts this narrative.
Why it discredits his belief system: Under Alliance Theory, scandals like this expose fractures in the coalition’s patchwork ideology. Shaffer’s alliance relies on moral absolutism (e.g., pro-life stances, marital fidelity) to mobilize support, but these principles are often ad-hoc—applied selectively to attack enemies while protecting insiders. When an insider like Shaffer violates them, rivals within the alliance (e.g., other conservative influencers competing for audience) or external opponents (e.g., left-leaning critics) exploit it to weaken him. This creates a “hypocrisy trap”: His affair isn’t just personal; it’s seen as undermining the alliance’s credibility, leading to public pile-ons, firings (e.g., his 2022 dismissal from BlazeTV over separate assault allegations), and lawsuits (e.g., from Kash Patel’s girlfriend in 2025). The result? His belief system (Christian conservatism) is tarnished by association, as the alliance fragments over whether to defend or purge him.
Alliance dynamics at play: Far-right groups are often decentralized and competitive, with fluid sub-alliances (e.g., trad-Catholics vs. edgier podcasters). Scandals amplify internal rivalries, making discredit easier. If Shaffer were more central to a unified power structure, his allies might rally with excuses like “personal redemption” or “media smears.”
David Brooks’ Affairs and Their Lack of Discrediting Effect
David Brooks, a moderate conservative columnist for The New York Times, divorced his wife of 28 years in 2013 amid reports of a relationship with his much younger research assistant, Anne Snyder (whom he married in 2017). This was widely discussed as an implied affair, especially since it overlapped with his book The Road to Character (2015), which extolled moral virtues. Yet, it didn’t significantly discredit his belief system or career.
Why it doesn’t discredit his belief system: Brooks operates within an establishment media alliance—centrist conservatives, liberal intellectuals, and elite institutions (e.g., NYT, PBS, Aspen Institute). This coalition values pragmatic, intellectual discourse over strict moral purity; its binding narratives focus on “civility,” “bipartisanship,” and policy expertise rather than personal holiness. Scandals are downplayed if they don’t threaten the alliance’s core goals (e.g., maintaining influence in elite circles). Brooks’ affair was reframed as a “private matter” or “midlife transition,” with minimal fallout—his column continued, and he faced no major professional repercussions. Alliance Theory explains this as protective mobilization: His allies (e.g., NYT editors, fellow pundits) generate ad-hoc defenses to preserve the coalition, avoiding a hypocrisy narrative that could alienate moderate audiences.
Alliance dynamics at play: Establishment alliances are more hierarchical and insulated, with access to narrative control (e.g., sympathetic media coverage). Brooks’ group includes “strange bedfellows” like anti-Trump conservatives and liberals, united against populist threats. A personal scandal is irrelevant if it doesn’t disrupt this anti-populist front, so it’s ignored or excused.
Broader Pattern: Why Some Groups Are Discredited by Scandals While Others Aren’t
Alliance Theory highlights that discredit isn’t about the scandal’s objective “badness” (e.g., both affairs involve infidelity and power imbalances) but about relational power dynamics:
In-group protection vs. out-group attacks: Groups with strong, cohesive alliances (e.g., elite media, corporate boards) can absorb scandals by reframing them (e.g., “everyone makes mistakes” or “focus on the work”). Weaker or fragmented alliances (e.g., online conservative influencers) are more vulnerable—scandals become tools for internal purges or external takedowns. For instance, left-leaning figures like Bill Clinton faced scandals but retained support from Democratic alliances, which patched together narratives blending “personal flaws” with “policy achievements.”
Ad-hoc moral principles: Alliances create inconsistent ethics. A group preaching “family values” (like Shaffer’s) is hypersensitive to hypocrisy scandals, while one emphasizing “tolerance” or “intellectualism” (like Brooks’) can overlook them. This leads to selective outrage: Right-wing groups might discredit a liberal over a minor gaffe but forgive their own; vice versa for left-wing alliances.
Contextual factors: Scandals discredit more when alliances are under threat (e.g., during cultural wars) or when the figure is a “loyalty signal” (e.g., Shaffer’s Christian persona binds his audience). Stable alliances (e.g., Brooks’ elite network) prioritize utility over purity.
In summary, Alliance Theory reveals scandals as strategic tools in coalition warfare, not neutral moral judgments. Shaffer’s affair discredits him because it fractures his moralistic alliance, while Brooks’ is shielded by his pragmatic one. This pattern persists across groups because humans form beliefs to sustain alliances, not vice versa—leading to hypocrisy that’s rational within the system.
