Game of Thrones was fundamentally a show about power—how it’s gained, how it’s kept, and how it destroys the people who wield it. While it was marketed as a fantasy epic filled with dragons and supernatural threats, at its heart was a political thriller about the machinations of nobles fighting for control of a throne. And what made the show so compelling to so many people was that its political lessons, though set in a fictional medieval-inspired world, spoke to some fundamental truths about how power actually works in our own world. It’s easy to dismiss Game of Thrones as just another fantasy show, but beneath the spectacle and the shocking moments, it was offering a masterclass in political philosophy and the nature of ambition.
The world of Game of Thrones operates on the principle that honor is a luxury, that idealism is a weakness, that power is the only currency that truly matters. It’s a deeply cynical worldview, and one that many viewers found both compelling and deeply unsettling. The show seemed to be arguing that in a brutal world, brutal people win. That the best leaders are those willing to do what others consider unthinkable. That compromises with evil are inevitable, and that those who refuse to compromise are the first to fall. These are ideas that have haunted political philosophy for centuries, and Game of Thrones made them feel contemporary and urgent.
The Iron Throne as an Impossible Position
At the center of everything is the Iron Throne itself, and the show’s central political lesson is that the throne is fundamentally corrupting. Every character who sits on it becomes lesser. Robert Baratheon, who won the throne through warfare and overthrew a dynasty, spends his reign drinking and whoring while his wife and his best friend make all the real decisions. Joffrey receives the throne and immediately reveals himself to be a tyrant with no restraint and no wisdom. Tommen, well-meaning and actually decent, is a puppet for everyone around him and ultimately destroys himself through his attempts at compromise. Cersei uses the throne as a weapon to destroy her enemies, and it destroys her in return.
No character in Game of Thrones successfully wields the throne without it corrupting them or destroying them or both. This is a radical political statement, particularly coming from a mainstream entertainment property. The show is suggesting that the entire pursuit of the throne is wrongheaded, that the structure itself is rotten, and that the only real victory would be to destroy the whole system rather than to win within it. Daenerys’s entire journey is built on the fantasy of that destruction—of breaking the wheel, of starting over, of creating something new rather than playing the same game with a different player on top.
The tragedy of Daenerys’s arc is that she becomes exactly what she sought to destroy. She aims to burn down the old system and create something better, something more just. But in pursuit of that goal, she ends up burning innocents along with tyrants, and she becomes the very thing she fought against—a tyrant using fear and fire to control others. It’s a perfect illustration of the political lesson that the game itself corrupts you, that once you enter the arena of power, you become complicit in the system you’re trying to change.
The Utility of Ruthlessness
One of the show’s most consistent political lessons is the simple principle that ruthlessness works. Tywin Lannister doesn’t apologize for being cruel because he understands that cruelty is efficient. The Red Wedding is an atrocity, but it wins a war. Cersei’s destruction of the Sept of Baelor is cruel and morally abhorrent, but it removes her enemies from the board. Ramsay Bolton uses brutality to hold the North, and it works until someone more brutal arrives. The show doesn’t shy away from the fact that in a brutal world, the most brutal person often wins.
Compare this to the Starks, who consistently try to maintain honor and justice and decency, and what happens to them? Ned Stark is executed. Robb Stark’s honor about his marriage vows leads directly to the Red Wedding. Sansa’s belief that people will eventually recognize her kindness and good faith leaves her vulnerable to manipulation. Jon Snow’s attempt to maintain honor and do what’s right gets him stabbed by his own men. The show seems to be arguing consistently that honor is a vulnerability, that goodness is exploited by the ruthless, and that in a competitive arena, the person willing to violate norms will beat the person trying to maintain them.
This is a deeply troubling political philosophy, and the show presents it without fully endorsing it. But it’s worth noting that many of the characters who survive are those willing to do terrible things. Littlefinger, who violates every norm and betrays every alliance when it serves him, lasts a remarkably long time. Varys, who is willing to manipulate events from the shadows for what he believes is the greater good, shapes the course of the entire series. Tyrion, despite his flaws and his position as an outsider, survives by being willing to adapt and negotiate and occasionally commit atrocities. The show’s central implication is that survival goes to those willing to be ruthless.
The Failure of Idealism
Game of Thrones consistently punishes idealism. The Night’s Watch is built on the idealistic notion that men will sacrifice their freedom and their lives to protect the realm from threats beyond the Wall. But it’s led by men who are corrupt, selfish, and often ineffectual. The attempt to make the Night’s Watch something noble and purposeful fails because it’s ultimately dependent on volunteers and outcasts. Daenerys’s ideal of freeing enslaved people throughout the world starts nobly but becomes increasingly megalomaniacal and destructive. Her dream of creating a better world becomes indistinguishable from simple conquest.
Even when idealism seems to work temporarily, the show is careful to show the costs. When the wildlings are brought south of the Wall, it’s the humane choice, the morally right choice. It’s also a choice that ultimately gets multiple Night’s Watch members killed and contributes to the chaos of the final seasons. Moral choices have consequences in Game of Thrones, and frequently those consequences are negative. If you show mercy, your enemies exploit it. If you trust people, they betray you. If you maintain principles, they’re used against you.
The show’s most idealistic character is probably Brienne of Tarth, who maintains her honor and her commitment to chivalry throughout the series, sometimes at great personal cost. But even Brienne is forced to admit that honor doesn’t matter, that the world doesn’t reward goodness, and that she survives primarily because she’s so extraordinarily skilled at fighting. Her idealism doesn’t protect her—her sword arm does. The show seems to be saying that idealism might be emotionally satisfying, but it’s practically useless.
The Corruption of Power
Every character who accumulates power in Game of Thrones becomes corrupted by it. This is perhaps the show’s most consistent political lesson. Power doesn’t corrupt people who are already corrupt—it creates new corruption in people who might have been decent before. Jaime Lannister begins the show as a man we despise, pushing a child out of a window, sleeping with his sister. But as he loses power, as he loses his sword hand and his status, he becomes capable of actual character growth and development. It’s only when he’s at his most powerless that he’s capable of growth.
Cersei becomes increasingly dangerous as she gains power. Each position she achieves—queen to Joffrey, regent, and eventually queen herself—makes her more ruthless and more unstable. Power doesn’t reveal her true nature—it creates a worse version of who she was. She’s given absolute authority and she uses it for revenge and destruction. By the time she’s at the height of her power, she’s willing to blow up a major religious institution with everyone inside it to eliminate her enemies. Power didn’t just corrupt her—it made her into a monster.
Daenerys’s entire arc is the story of how even the most well-intentioned person becomes corrupted by power. She doesn’t start out wanting to be a tyrant. She starts out wanting to free enslaved people and create a better world. But along the way, she becomes addicted to the idea of herself as a liberator, as someone destined for greatness. She becomes convinced that the ends—a better world under her rule—justify any means. And eventually, she’s using the same brutal tactics she once despised.
The show’s central argument seems to be that power is inherently corrupting because it allows people to justify atrocities. It’s easy to burn a city when you believe you’re doing it to create a better world. It’s easy to execute thousands when you believe they’re sacrifices necessary for the greater good. Power separates the consequences of your actions from your daily experience of them. A tyrant doesn’t see the suffering she creates. She sees only the world bending to her will.
The Inevitability of Compromise
One of the show’s more sophisticated political lessons is that effective governance requires compromise, but that compromise frequently means compromising with evil. Tyrion’s entire tenure as Hand of the King involves making deals with people he despises for outcomes he can live with. He knows that Cersei is terrible, that Joffrey is a monster, that the system is rotten. But he works within it anyway because he believes he can mitigate some of the damage, can save some lives, can push the system toward something slightly less terrible.
This is a deeply adult political philosophy, and it’s one that the show treats with genuine complexity. Tyrion isn’t congratulated for his pragmatism. He’s forced to live with the knowledge that his compromises allowed terrible people to remain in power. His efficiency as Hand might have saved lives in the short term, but it also reinforced the system that ultimately caused more suffering. The show suggests that in a corrupt system, even your attempts to minimize harm end up perpetuating the system.
Jon Snow’s attempts to find compromise between the Free Folk and the Night’s Watch ultimately lead to his assassination by his own men. They object to his pragmatism, to his willingness to work with people they consider enemies. His compromise is seen as a betrayal. But the show also suggests that his refusal to compromise would have been even more disastrous. He was caught between two groups that couldn’t coexist peacefully, and neither compromise nor refusal to compromise would have worked.
Information and Manipulation as Political Tools
Game of Thrones emphasizes again and again that information is as valuable as any weapon. Varys, who controls no armies and commands no wealth, is one of the most powerful people in Westeros because he controls information. Littlefinger manipulates events from the shadows through whispers and secrets and his understanding of what people want. The Lannisters’ wealth is valuable, but their information network—Cersei’s spies, Tyrion’s sources—is often more valuable. The show recognizes that in a world of politics, controlling the narrative is as important as controlling the military.
This extends to propaganda and the manipulation of public opinion. Daenerys is venerated across the world not because she’s objectively the best option but because Varys and others have cultivated an image of her as a liberator and a savior. The common people worship her not because of her actual accomplishments but because of stories told about her. This is deeply cynical, but also fundamentally true. In politics, perception is reality. What people believe matters more than what’s objectively true.
Democracy as an Ideal
What’s fascinating about the show’s ending is that it suggests the only solution to the problem of power concentration is something approaching democracy. The election of Bran as king, while imperfectly executed, suggests that the answer to the eternal problem of power corrupting those who hold it is to distribute that power among many people and to make leadership accountable to more than just the monarch’s whims. It’s not a fully fledged democratic system—the Six Kingdoms still have their lords and their hierarchies—but it’s a recognition that concentrated power in the hands of one person leads to tyranny.
This is a radical conclusion for a show that spent eight seasons demonstrating that power corrupts everyone and that ruthlessness wins. The suggestion that the solution is actually to dismantle the entire structure of concentrated power is genuinely interesting, even if the show’s execution of it felt rushed and somewhat unearned. The political lesson is that the throne itself is the problem, and that the only real victory would be to destroy the throne and create a system of distributed power.
What Game of Thrones Teaches Us
Game of Thrones offers a deliberately pessimistic view of human nature and political systems. It suggests that people are fundamentally self-interested, that power corrupts, that the game is rigged in favor of the ruthless, and that honor is a luxury the struggling can’t afford. These are old lessons from political philosophy—they echo Machiavelli, they echo Hobbes, they echo everyone who’s ever argued that humans are fundamentally driven by self-interest and that morality is a luxury.
But the show also suggests, particularly in its ending, that recognizing these realities is the first step to creating something better. You can’t build a just society if you’re under the illusion that virtue is rewarded or that the system is fair. You have to recognize the corruption of power, the inevitability of compromise, the advantage of ruthlessness—and then create structures designed to counteract these realities. You have to assume the worst of human nature and build safeguards accordingly.
Game of Thrones is ultimately a show about how difficult it is to create a just society in a world of competing interests and limited resources. There are no easy answers, no heroes who can save everyone, no solutions that don’t involve tradeoffs and moral compromises. But there might be systems that distribute power in ways that prevent any single person from becoming too corrupted by it. And in suggesting that answer, even if imperfectly, the show offered something genuinely profound about the nature of political power and what it takes to create something approximating justice in an unjust world.
Discover more from Anglotees
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.