“Even when the current state of affairs is completely wrong, it still strongly influences the political class.”

The evidence supports a general status-quo effect in politics: an experimental study of 377 incumbent legislators in three countries found that elected politicians often preferred the option presented as the status quo, and in some cases were more likely than non-elites to do so. A separate APSR study of U.S. lawmaking found that institutional features such as bicameralism, separation of powers, and anti-majoritarian rules give the system a "substantial status quo bias" and make policy change harder even when there is public support for change. That said, the claim is phrased very broadly and normatively (“completely wrong”), and the evidence does not show that the status quo always exerts a strong influence in every case; it shows a persistent, well-documented tendency, so “plausible” fits better than “strongly-supported.” Sources: Cambridge Core, "Political Accountability, Legislator Gender, and the Status Quo Bias"; Cambridge Core / American Political Science Review, "Parties, Pivots, and Policy: The Status Quo Test." (cambridge.org)