Glenn greenwald has been supportive of unitary executive theory the past few years, now. What a sad turn around.

It’s very easy to reason about when someone says “I alone can fix this.” You have a single person to look at and listen to. Not a faceless sprawling beauracracy and slow wheels of legislative progress.

It’s the same reason the antagonist in nearly every film is a single bad guy who is eventually karate-chopped down to size. It’s the same reason WW2 is a ‘simpler’ and more palatable narrative (a couple main bad guys) than WW1 (complex political and social movements across many countries led to war). Even though the same complexity of politics and social changes were also at play

In a big society where end effects are far away, we look to the strong men to handle the big problems

It shouldn't be hard to understand why absolute power in the hands of yourself is the best political system. Since everyone can't be king, their next preference is going to be absolute power in the hands of someone who has their interests in mind. Unfortunately, we live in a world where people have varied interests and you can't really trust that anyone is fully aligned with you anyway.

Desperation, ignorance, and failure of the golden rule. They want their cult to win, and are fine with inconsistency and illegality when it benefits them. This is perhaps the ultimate vulnerability of representative government that cannot be remedied except through education and socially-enforced norms, or else democratic government must be abandoned but not for a malicious emperor.

Fear. In my opinion these decisions and problems always come back to fear.

Laziness. Convenience is the most powerful force in humanity and it's driving us to self destruction. Obesity, car oriented everything, etc.

Most people don't want a strong man in charge with absolute power. Dictators rule by fear and naked force, far more so than even the "monopoly on violence" claimed by modern states. A king is just another word for dictator, it's all the same. Although I would say Americans aren't really drawn to the model of a king so much as a "CEO in chief," but CEOs are essentially kings within their domain.

The people who do support it believe that they themselves will be granted noble status within the new regime, rather than being serfs.

Natural order. We structure all of nature into kingdoms. They flower out from a core archetype. And it also helps project an inheritable identity.

The problem above any American political and philosophical questions (moral questions notwithstanding), is mistaking Trump for anything resembling a worthy king. It will bring trouble.

In the ancient world the king was a symbol of the prosperity of the people and scapegoat for the sins and troubles of the people and was ritually killed and replaced when things weren’t working out. History whispers that one should be careful what one wishes for.

I don't know about the US but in other countries it is definitely by design that the departments and their data are separate. It is far too easy to abuse gathering and joining data on people otherwise. History did teach us these lessons, and it's continuously visible as well today, fortunately at small scales just because they are separate.

It would truly be a nightmare scenario to have all government databases under a single potentially corrupt roof or having someone with access to all of them cough.

I believe Americans would be terrified of the idea of government agencies linking all their information together. Letting them be siloed is quite likely intentional.

You seem to be making the analysis based on first principles, but it looks like it’s inspired by some facts or experience you have. could you share that source /info?

Have you read Marbury v. Madison?