I enjoyed this new book by Gabriel Sherman though I could have done without the preaching.
ChatGPT says: For Gabriel Sherman and his publisher, writing about the Murdochs is not neutral reporting. It is a ritual of boundary enforcement aimed at their own class.
Elite professional classes survive by policing moral contamination. When a figure or family is designated as politically radioactive, writers inside the class must signal distance. Silence looks like complicity. Neutrality looks like weakness. Moralized exposure becomes mandatory.
Gabriel Sherman is not primarily writing for Murdoch insiders. He is writing for credentialed journalists, editors, reviewers, media academics, and New York cultural elites. That group already agrees the Murdochs are dangerous. What they demand is proof of disavowal.
The book functions as a cleansing ritual.
Calling it Bonfire of the Murdochs is not subtle. A bonfire is a purification act. Alliance Theory reads this as symbolic destruction. The goal is not merely to explain the dynasty but to demonstrate that the author stands on the correct side of the moral boundary.
What Sherman must signal
He must signal that he understands the Murdochs are not just powerful but morally unclean. He must show he treats their internal war not as tragic or complex but as corrosive. Any tone of admiration would be read by his class as contamination risk.
This is why the book emphasizes rupture, toxicity, and damage rather than competence, strategic brilliance, or coalition mastery. Alliance Theory predicts this framing because competence narratives humanize. Humanization is forbidden once a target is morally out-grouped.
The publisher’s role
Simon & Schuster operates inside the same professional-managerial alliance. Publishing this book is itself a signal. It tells reviewers, journalists, and cultural institutions that the house is aligned with the anti-Murdoch consensus. The title, marketing copy, and jacket tone all function as alliance badges.
This is structurally identical to what happened with Jason Zengerle.
Jason Zengerle, writing about Tucker Carlson, faced the same constraint. Tucker had already been declared untouchable by elite media coalitions. Zengerle’s task was not to explain Tucker’s appeal too sympathetically. It was to show he recognized Tucker as a moral pollutant.
Alliance Theory predicts that biographies of fallen or forbidden figures must contain repeated disavowal cues. The author must be seen condemning the subject even while narrating them. Without that, the author risks social sanction.
The Murdochs do not need to signal purity to Sherman’s class. They are not dependent on it. Rupert’s alliance system runs through political power, capital, and mass audiences. Sherman’s alliance system runs through prestige institutions and reputational vetting. These systems overlap but are not symmetrical.
That asymmetry is crucial.
Sherman cannot afford ambiguity. Rupert can.
Books like this are not just accounts of power. They are status documents. They certify the author and publisher as safe participants in elite moral coalitions. The Murdochs are the sacrificial object that allows that certification to occur.
Sherman’s book is not just about a family destroying itself. It is about a class reassuring itself that it knows who the villains are and that it remains uncontaminated by them.
Alliance Theory treats the Murdoch family not as a family drama but as a coalition struggle over who controls a high-value alliance hub.
Rupert Murdoch built an empire by being the indispensable broker between elites, politicians, advertisers, and mass audiences. Succession is therefore not about inheritance. It is about who can credibly inherit his alliance map.
The core problem is that Rupert’s power is personal and relational. It is not fully codified in governance. That makes the fight inevitable.
Lachlan.
Lachlan Murdoch signals continuity. He reassures conservative elites, donors, and politicians that the alliance remains intact. From an Alliance Theory view, Lachlan is trusted because he preserves boundary clarity. He does not threaten existing partners. He protects Fox as an alliance engine rather than a moral project. This makes him legible to Rupert’s old coalition and therefore safe.
James.
James Murdoch represents alliance defection and attempted realignment. By publicly repudiating Fox editorial positions, he signals loyalty to a different elite coalition, namely cosmopolitan capital, ESG norms, and progressive legitimacy. Alliance Theory predicts this weakens his claim to the throne. He is telling Rupert’s core allies that he would rewire the machine against them. That is disqualifying in a succession fight even if it is morally applauded elsewhere.
Liz.
Elisabeth Murdoch plays the broker role. She builds influence through production networks and softer power rather than direct command of Fox. Alliance Theory reads her as hedging. She accumulates optionality across coalitions without openly threatening the dominant one. This keeps her relevant but limits her authority over the central asset.
Why Rupert favors Lachlan.
Alliance Theory is blunt here. Rupert does not ask who is smartest or most ethical. He asks who can prevent alliance collapse. Lachlan maximizes continuity and minimizes revolt among affiliates, regulators, and political patrons. James increases volatility. Liz increases ambiguity.
Why this is so bitter.
Succession in alliance systems is zero-sum. Only one person can be the trusted node. Public dissent is not a family disagreement. It is an act of coalition warfare. Once James attacked Fox’s legitimacy, he forced Rupert to choose between his son and his alliance. Alliance Theory predicts the alliance always wins.
The likely end state.
Formal control flows to Lachlan. James exits into a rival elite network. Liz retains influence but not command. The Murdoch empire survives by narrowing rather than transforming its coalition.
Tell it like it is. This is not tragedy. It is textbook alliance logic playing out inside a family because the family owns a political weapon.
Alliance Theory treats Succession as a show about inheritance only on the surface. At its core, it is about who controls an alliance hub and who is trusted to sit at the center of it.
Logan Roy as alliance node
Logan is powerful because he is the irreplaceable broker. Politicians, bankers, regulators, executives, media figures, and donors all route through him. His authority is not formal. It is relational. He remembers debts. He enforces loyalty. He punishes defection. Alliance Theory predicts that such power is fragile in succession because it lives in people, not documents.
Why the kids keep failing
Kendall, Shiv, and Roman all want the throne. None can inherit the alliance intact.
Kendall seeks legitimacy through competence and moral awakening. Alliance Theory says this is a mistake. Moral signaling threatens existing partners who benefited from the old order. Every time Kendall tries to clean the company, he signals alliance rupture. That makes him untrustworthy.
Shiv seeks legitimacy through elite approval. She wants validation from politicians, media, and progressive institutions. Alliance Theory predicts this alienates the core coalition. She is trying to swap alliances midstream while claiming continuity. That triggers resistance on all sides.
Roman seeks legitimacy through intimacy with power. He bonds with Logan and later with extremist political actors. Alliance Theory reads this as parasitic alliance behavior. He borrows power without being able to stabilize it. Once Logan is gone, Roman has no independent coalition.
Why Logan never names a successor
From an Alliance Theory perspective, Logan cannot name a successor because doing so would collapse his leverage. The moment a successor is named, allies begin defecting. Rivals begin courting. Logan’s ambiguity is a power-preserving strategy. He keeps everyone dependent and uncertain.
The board and shareholders
The board is not a governing body. It is an alliance marketplace. Votes are traded for future protection, access, and status. This is why principles evaporate instantly. Alliance Theory predicts that when stakes are existential, moral language becomes decorative.
Why Tom wins
Tom is not brilliant. He is legible. He signals total submission upward and controlled cruelty downward. Alliance Theory predicts that in a collapsing dynasty, power flows to the most reliable enforcer for the new dominant coalition. Tom aligns with the acquirer. He becomes the bridge between old assets and new power.
Why Greg survives
Greg is weak but flexible. Alliance Theory calls this low-status optionality. He attaches himself to stronger players without threatening them. He never signals moral superiority. He never demands leadership. That makes him safe.
Politics in Succession
The show’s politics are not ideological. They are transactional. Politicians matter only as alliance assets. Extremism is not a belief system here. It is a bargaining chip. Alliance Theory predicts this because media power cares about leverage, not doctrine.
The show’s real message
Succession is not saying the Roys are evil. It is saying alliance-based power is inhuman. It devours families because family loyalty conflicts with coalition discipline. Once power reaches this scale, intimacy becomes a liability.
Why the ending feels bleak
There is no catharsis because Alliance Theory allows none. Power does not reward growth. It rewards alignment. The siblings lose because they want recognition as individuals. The system wants a functionary.
Tell it straight.
Succession is the most accurate depiction of elite power ever put on television because it understands one brutal truth. You do not inherit power. You inherit the right to try to hold an alliance together. Most people fail.
