Category Archives: Public Policy and Governance

Patrimonialism

What in the world is “patrimonialism”?

In a recent Atlantic essay, Jonathan Rauch argues that Trump’s approach to governance isn’t classic authoritarianism, autocracy, oligarchy, or monarchy. Instead, Trump is installing what scholars call patrimonialism. (I’m evidently not much of a scholar, because that’s a term I had never previously encountered. Live and learn…)

Rauch began by describing what we’ve all seen:

Since taking office, he has reduced his administration’s effectiveness by appointing to essential agencies people who lack the skills and temperaments to do their jobs. His mass firings have emptied the civil service of many of its most capable employees. He has defied laws that he could just as easily have followed (for instance, refusing to notify Congress 30 days before firing inspectors general). He has disregarded the plain language of statutes, court rulings, and the Constitution, setting up confrontations with the courts that he is likely to lose. Few of his orders have gone through a policy-development process that helps ensure they won’t fail or backfire—thus ensuring that many will.

In foreign affairs, he has antagonized Denmark, Canada, and Panama; renamed the Gulf of Mexico the “Gulf of America”; and unveiled a Gaz-a-Lago plan. For good measure, he named himself chair of the Kennedy Center, as if he didn’t have enough to do.

Rauch cites to scholarship that locates the origin of the term in the writings of Max Weber–he of the Protestant ethic.

Weber explored the issue of legitimacy. What elements of leadership support an individual’s claim to rightful rule? According to Weber, there are two avenues to such legitimacy. One is “bureaucratic proceduralism”– a system in which following the rules and norms of institutions bestows legitimacy,. That, of course, is the system Americans have taken for granted. It’s why Presidents, federal officials, and military inductees swear their oath to the Constitution, not to a person.

The other source of legitimacy is more ancient, more common, and more intuitive—“the default form of rule in the premodern world,” Hanson and Kopstein write. “The state was little more than the extended ‘household’ of the ruler; it did not exist as a separate entity.” Weber called this system “patrimonialism” because rulers claimed to be the symbolic father of the people—the state’s personification and protector. Exactly that idea was implied in Trump’s own chilling declaration: “He who saves his Country does not violate any Law.”

In his day, Weber thought that patrimonialism was on its way to history’s scrap heap. Its personalized style of rule was too inexpert and capricious to manage the complex economies and military machines that, after Bismarck, became the hallmarks of modern statehood. Unfortunately, he was wrong.

As Rauch explains, patrimonialism isn’t a systematic approach to governing; instead, it is “a style of governing,” replacing  rule-based, formal lines of authority with highly personalized ones based on loyalty to an individual. It’s a “system” of rewarding the leader’s friends and punishing his enemies. (Think about how “governance” works in tribes, street gangs, and criminal organizations.)

In government, it’s running the state “as if it were the leader’s personal property or family business.”

The difference between patrimonialism and autocracy is the former’s disdain for bureaucracy, because bureaucratic rules and processes might obstruct the “dear leader’s” desired actions.

People with expertise, experience, and distinguished résumés are likewise suspect because they bring independent standing and authority. So patrimonialism stocks the government with nonentities and hacks, or, when possible, it bypasses bureaucratic procedures altogether. When security officials at USAID tried to protect classified information from Elon Musk’s uncleared DOGE team, they were simply put on leave. Patrimonial governance’s aversion to formalism makes it capricious and even whimsical—such as when the leader announces, out of nowhere, the renaming of international bodies of water or the U.S. occupation of Gaza.

Rauch points out that Trump is patrimonialism “perfect organism.” He’s unable to distinguish between public and private, legal and illegal, national and personal. As John Bolton, Trump’s first-term national security advisor, said “He can’t tell the difference between his own personal interest and the national interest, if he even understands what the national interest is.”

Patrimonialism has two fatal flaws: incompetence and corruption, and Rauch spends much of the essay documenting the evidence of both. It is well worth your time to click through and read in its entirety, especially since most observers–including this one–have been fixated on the incompetence and insanity, and only vaguely aware of the copious corruption. As Rauch reminds us, however, corruption is the real Achilles’ heel, because it’s understandable– not an abstraction like “democracy” or “Constitution” or “rule of law.”

The resistance needs to focus on it.

Comments

Send This To Your Republican Senator Or Representative

Stuart Stevens is one of the “Never Trump” Republicans who established Lincoln Square Media. In a recent Substack newsletter, he traced the decline of the GOP into its current cult form, and described what he called “the great betrayal”–the squandering and shaming of the legacy left by former Republican defenders of freedom and liberty. Stevens bemoaned what he sees as MAGA’s dishonoring of the sacrifices made by the “greatest generation”–the soldiers who fought and died to defeat fascism in the second World War, of whom his father was one.

What struck me about this particular diatribe, however, wasn’t the understandable despair by a former partisan over the party’s abandonment of long-held principles. It was the following message, aimed directly at the spineless Republicans currently “serving” in the U.S. House and Senate.

As I read these four brief paragraphs, I became absolutely convinced that they hold a message that thousands of us should reproduce and send to the cowardly Republican Senators and Representatives who are refusing to do their jobs.

 We should never lose sight that Republicans can end the evil that is creeping over America at any time. No one is asking them to take a beach or charge a machine gun. No one is forcing them to support a president who Russia helped elect and now is delivering for Russia in ways that not even the most vodka-drenched FSB colonel dared hope. They can do what Liz Cheney, Mitt Romney, Adam Kinzinger, and a handful of others have done. They stood up for what they knew was right, and lo and behold, they still walk the earth. They are not superhuman or Gods, just decent human beings. You could be the same.

Winston Churchill said of the Battle of Britain pilots, “Never was so much owed to so few.” To these cowardly Republicans, we can only say, “Never was so few to blame for so much.” The murdered innocents in Ukraine are your legacy. An America that votes in the U.N. with Russia and North Korea is your legacy. You go to bed and wake up, hoping that shame is an endangered species headed to extinction.

But you know you have failed the moral test of our time. You know the face you see in the mirror is a coward. You will be remembered without respect. You have allowed evil to sit at America’s table and feast on what is good and right about our country.

May God have mercy upon your souls. History will have none.

Read those paragraphs again. They distill the contempt so many of us feel for the political posturing and excuses that are offered by elected officials who are too timid to protect even their own legal and governing perquisites. Stevens isn’t taking aim at the Red State “true believers”–the racists, the White Christian Nationalists, the conspiracy theory buffoons. He isn’t expecting thoughtful  and considered action from the Marjorie Taylor Green/Jim Banks contingent, aka the “crazies.” He is describing the many Republicans who actually know that we have three branches of government, and that the Constitution has vested specific governmental powers to each of them.

He is reminding them that they have the legal and constitutional authority to stop the madness and destruction. All they have to do is use the powers that are constitutionally theirs. Congress could revoke the insane tariffs tomorrow. Congress could refuse to allow the Russian asset in the Oval Office to shame us, and continue to support Ukraine. Congress could begin investigations of the multiple corruptions that this lawless President doesn’t even try to hide (his solicitation of bribes via “sales” of his meme coins, to take just one example.)   

I don’t know whether Senator Jim Banks is a MAGA ideologue or simply corrupt in the Trump mold, but Indiana Senator Todd Young obviously understands how fraught America’s situation is. His discomfort with Trumpism, however, routinely dissipates when it’s time to cast a ballot–his vote to confirm the disastrous Pete Hegseth is only the most recent example.

Last week, some 300 Hoosiers rallied outside Young’s Indianapolis office. My sister participated. She has back problems and used a walker; the sign on that walker echoed Stuart Stevens’ message. It said “My spine isn’t perfect–but I have one.”

America could emerge from its precipitous national decline almost immediately-if Republicans in Congress regrew their spines. And it wouldn’t take all of them– a principled handful would be sufficient to put the brakes on Trump’s coup.

Stevens is right: God may or may not have mercy upon their souls, but history–and the rest of us– most definitely will not.

Comments

There’s No Method To His Madness

The New Republic recently ran an essay titled “There is No Method to his Madness. He’s Simply Insane.” I couldn’t agree more.

The article began by noting that past heads of state have sometimes pretended irrationality in order to confuse opponents, but noted–confirming what any rational observer has already concluded–Trump is not among them. For one thing, he clearly lacks the intellectual capacity to devise such a strategy. Or any strategy.

It’s not just Trump’s unpredictable tariff policy that appears insane. His entire administration is defined by madness—in both senses. On Friday, he went on another incoherent rant on social media, claiming once that the 2020 election was stolen from him and rewriting history to blame all of our current problems, including Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, on Joe Biden. In other Truth Social posts, he’s boasted about being a king and claimed that the “European Union was formed for the sole purpose of taking advantage of the United States.”

If these acts were merely confined to deranged posts, perhaps one could argue there’s “method in his madness.” After his rant on Friday, Trump gave a speech at the Justice Department wherein he kvetched about various imaginary enemies of the United States (which, coincidentally, are his personal enemies) and made clear that he expects the department to serve as an extension of his personal wrath. Similar delusions have led to the dismantling of USAID, a wasteful visit to Fort Knox to check if the gold had been stolen, and continual talk about annexing other countries.

The article goes on to detail further evidence that our would-be King has no (mental) clothes, despite his courtiers’ efforts to find method in the madness.

What makes the insanity so dangerous, however, isn’t simply Trump’s ignorance of governance and economics, but the venom that characterizes his approach to others, and the festering resentments that impel his actions. Trump is a limited intellect and damaged ego occupying a human body;  fears and jealousies and grievances–not strategies or principles–prompt his eruptions, and explain both his grandiose fantasies (comparing himself to Winston Churchill, annexing Canada) and his tacky decorating fetishes (gold toilets).

While it would be inaccurate to describe them as principles, there are a few long-standing grievances that predictably motivate Trump’s constant stream of illegal (and often ridiculous) Executive Orders. Our mad king thinks he is in a position to take revenge, not just over the legal system which (finally) was holding him to account, but over all those people who sneered at him over the years–those “elitists” with their intellectual and cultural bona fides, the businesspeople who made their fortunes without ripping off suppliers or hiding in bankruptcy court, the women who found his “charms” unpersuasive.

Politics gave Trump the adulation he wanted, but from people he clearly despises.

Those long-standing resentments explain so much: Trump’s war on a legal community defending rules he regularly broke–and his special animus for the lawyers who had the nerve to represent people antagonistic to him. His refusal to allow disclosure of his own GPA undoubtedly sheds some light on his efforts to destroy intellectual inquiry on the nation’s campuses. Both his own resentments and the need to pander to his MAGA cult help explain his efforts to turn academia into a mechanism for Right-wing propaganda.

As for the roots of his White Nationalism–his definition of “DEI” as discrimination against White men and his ferocious efforts to return women and minorities to subservience–I can only assume that he agrees with MAGA that his White skin is a sign that he is superior and that any effort to ensure fair treatment for women and minorities is an attack on that superiority. (Unfortunately, his entire administration demonstrates the folly of believing Whiteness denotes even minimal competence…)

Bottom line: the United States has a president who is ignorant, petulant and demonstrably insane. He is also, in all probability, a Russian asset. Our constitutional system of checks and balances is currently not working, because members of the GOP majorities in the House and Senate fear the mad king and are not living up to their oaths of office, and the Supreme Court’s majority is ethically compromised.

The remedy must come from We the People. And it begins by acknowledging the truth of that last paragraph.

Comments

Poison Gas

I have repeatedly cited the observation by a noted civil libertarian to the effect that poison gas is a great weapon–until the wind shifts.

In case the clear meaning of that observation eludes anyone, it is a recognition that ignoring the rule of law in order to punish people you dislike is a very dangerous tactic, because when those disliked folks gain power–as they inevitably will– they can turn those same illegal tactics against you.

It is abundantly clear that Trump and his MAGA minions don’t understand the operation of due process guarantees. (Granted, Trump is embarrassingly ignorant of all civil liberties, and indeed, ignorant of how the world works.) That ignorance is shown by the increasing hysteria with which the administration keeps asserting that Abrego Garcia is “a bad dude,” and that bad dudes aren’t entitled to due process.

There is substantial evidence to rebut the administration’s accusations about Garcia, but their probity is totally irrelevant. Giving an accused individual due process requires that the government prove its allegations in a court of law. If Garcia is really a gang member or otherwise unfit to live among us, the state should be able to demonstrate that fact. A grant of due process doesn’t keep authorities from expelling bad guys–but it does require government to provide the evidence upon which they are painting an individual as someone who should be expelled from our shores.

If a mere accusation is poison gas sufficient to justify deportation, none of us is safe. The accusatory finger can be pointed at anyone, for any reason. That’s why Talking Points Memo–among many others–has  editorialized about the extreme importance of this case.

As best we can tell, Abrego Garcia was on the third deportation flight from Texas to El Salvador on March 15. The other two flights contained people deported under the Alien Enemies Act without any judicial review. The AEA deportations were the first to be challenged in court, which led to the big blow up in U.S. District Judge James Boasberg’s court about whether the Trump administration had willfully violated his order blocking them.

It was in the midst of that legal battle that the case of Abrego Garcia’s mistaken deportation emerged, an error the Trump administration admitted, serving as the perfect signifier for why due process is so essential. If Abrego Garcia could be deported in error – and in violation of an existing order by an immigration judge – isn’t that precisely why the law offers procedural protections that all of the deportees that day were entitled to at some level?

TPM noted that the administration’s positions inside the courtroom have been at odds with its public statements. It  has gone from admitting the deportation was in error to the launch of “a full-scale propaganda campaign from the White House on down, sowing misinformation, inventing facts, smearing Abrego Garcia with falsehoods, and furiously trying to muddy the waters to obscure its own malfeasance.”

The editorial quoted Timothy Snyder, a noted scholar of tyranny:

The president defied a Supreme Court ruling to return a man who was mistakenly sent to a gulag in another country, celebrated the suffering of this innocent person, and spoke of sending Americans to foreign concentration camps.

This is the beginning of an American policy of state terror, and it has to be identified as such to be stopped.

Americans who have been following the news are aware that Garcia is only the most prominent example of extra-legal apprehensions and deportations, which have been accelerating under this lawless regime. This reality–among other Trump acts in defiance of the rule of law–has brought us to the current constitutional crisis, as the administration stonewalls and evades, and refuses to submit to court orders.

The Republicans in the House and Senate could end this crisis. Even if they failed to impeach the mad king, they could assert their powers under the Constitution and take back the authority that Trump has usurped–authority that is rightfully theirs. Their failure to do so–the cowardice preventing them from even publicly protesting Trump’s blatantly illegal, unconstitutional and immoral behaviors–is a betrayal of immense proportions. Assuming we emerge from the current abyss, these Republicans will go down in history as weaklings and traitors whose failure to honor their oaths is a repudiation of the values upon which this country was founded.

It will also be seen as an invitation to turn the poison gas in their direction when Democrats gain control. Of course, if that happens, we really will have lost the Founders’ America.

Comments

The Problem With Mad Kings

Back in 2009, I wrote a book titled “Distrust, American Style,” in which I explored the role of trust in government and civil society. My research for that book involved dipping into the considerable scholarship on the subject, and confirmed the immense importance of trustworthy behavior by both governments and the various elements of our society. I traced the negative effects of then-emerging examples of untrustworthy behaviors–by businesses like Enron, by a variety of sports figures, and by religious figures. (Catholic Church scandals were in the news daily.)

I did not, however, turn my attention to the importance of trust to national economic performance. Paul Krugman has recently filled that void, explaining the likely, significantly negative consequences of having a madman and would-be king occupying the Oval Office.

Krugman began by focusing on the stupidity of the law firms that “bent the knee” to our mad king–pointing out what should have been blatantly obvious (and raising doubts about the intellectual and analytic bona fides of the fat-cat partners who cowered before Trump’s patently illegal threats.)

Less than a month ago many of America’s biggest law firms made deals with the White House in which they promised to end diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) practices and to devote substantial resources to pro bono work on causes the administration supports. It was a shameful capitulation.

It was also stupid. Anyone who looked either at Donald Trump’s personal history or the history of authoritarian regimes in general would have realized that there’s no such thing as a deal with this administration. Whatever you think Trump and co. have agreed to, they will feel entirely free to make new demands whenever it suits them.

Those firms should have known that giving in to Trump just signals weakness, which leads him to demand further concessions.

Then Krugman explains why Trump’s mercurial behaviors are such a threat to the American economy. U.S. efforts to build an anti-China trade alliance are doomed to failure, Krugman says,  “Because nobody with any sense trusts the Trump administration to honor the terms of any deals it makes, whether they’re deals about pro bono work with law firms or tariff deals with other governments.”

And as more and more people realize that Trump and his minions can’t be trusted, the damage will spread from trade to finance. The international role of the dollar and, eventually, America’s ability to service its debt are very much at risk.

Why can’t Donald Trump be trusted? Partly because he’s Donald Trump. But even if he weren’t, absolute monarchs — which is what Trump is trying to become — are fundamentally untrustworthy. The ruler may sometimes choose to honor his promises, but it’s always his choice — a choice that can be changed at any moment. And his untrammeled power makes the nation he rules weaker, not stronger.

Krugman uses historical examples to buttress his central argument that reliance upon a nation’s commitment to the rule of law–a commitment that promises stability–is central to economic growth and prosperity. And as he says, Trump will be unable to make trade deals because nobody trusts his promises.

The international role of the dollar depends in significant part on the belief that the U.S. government can be trusted to behave responsibly. “Among other things, international investors normally assume that the president will respect the independence of the Federal Reserve and refrain from, say, arbitrarily rewriting the terms of federal debt.”

Krugman ends his economics lesson by writing that, “Even now, I don’t think businesses, investors and the public in general fully appreciate what it means that we’re all subject to the whims of a mad king. But they’ll learn.’

Actually, there are indications that the more sophisticated investors and businesspeople are beginning to understand the enormous consequences of installing this madman in office, and of surrounding him with sycophants and clowns unable to restrain his incoherence.

But I’m quite sure Krugman is correct when he says that the public in general doesn’t “get it.”

A couple of days ago, I quoted Frederich Hayek for his analysis of the conditions giving rise to the emergence of “the worst.” They were 1) a dumbed down populace, 2) a gullible electorate, and 3) scapegoats on which that demagogue can focus public enmity and anger. MAGA voters have proved Hayek prescient. Millions of Americans lack even rudimentary civic and economic literacy, and have been kept gullible by media outlets that tell them what they want to hear.

And as a recent Facebook meme has it, “This is all so unfair to people who were just voting their racism.”

Sic transit America…

Comments