Patrimonialism Shows the Fallacy of "Too Rich to Bribe"

One of Donald Trump's great selling points was his claim to be too rich to bribe. He offered his wealth as a qualification for office for two reasons.  To economic royalists, his wealth proved his great competence.  To populists, it proved that he had all the money he needed and could not be bribed.

His patrimonial behavior has proved the exact opposite.  A very rich candidate -- particularly one with a far-flung business empire, and especially if the business  empire is international in scope -- has more conflicts of interest than a less-wealthy candidate, and more opportunities to funnel customers to his interests.  I don't mean by this that being rich should be disqualifying.  Many people manage to be rich and also to have sufficient public spirit to avoid this sort of abuse of power.  

But it is also a lot easier to be a patrimonial ruler if you have great wealth to begin with.  I continue to believe that there is basically no support for patrimonialism in this country anywhere across the political spectrum.  On the other hand, I do believe that there are significant numbers of economic royalists who believe that being rich is a qualification for office, either because it shows great skill and competence, or because of the too-rich-to-buy fallacy.  And there are mindless cynics who are unconcerned by Trump's patrimonialism because they assume that our whole system works that way.  In fact, our system has extensive disclosure and conflict of interest laws that make this type of bribery quite rare and difficult.  

The real corruption in our system is not politicians taking bribes our using their office to steer business their way, but politicians making connections that they use after leaving office to become lobbyists or influence peddlers.  Or to write books for absurdly large fees, or get absurdly high pay for making speeches.  And it is also true that laws requiring all other federal officials to recuse when their own interests are in play do not apply to the President or Vice President because they deal with such far-flung matters, and because there is no one to step in and take their place. 

All of this is troubling, but it has prevented the sort of gross patrimonialism that Trump represents. And it effectively prevents any elected official who is not already extremely rich from behaving in a patrimonial manner.

That includes any potential Republican candidates for office in 2024 not named Trump.  While there are plenty of potential Republican candidates every bit as authoritarian and demagogic as Trump, and some a lot more competent at it, I do not believe we have any non-Trump patrimonialists on the horizon.

Why Conservatives Should Oppose Trump. He is a Patriomonialist

 

But her e-mails!

Some time back, I wrote a post on why conservatives should oppose Trump, even if he is an economic royalist (or at least governs like an economic royalist.  The reasons were very similar to reasons for liberals to oppose Trump, but they were not policy disputes.  Rather, they were reasons why everyone should oppose the man, whether they agree with his policies or not, as a menace to democracy and the rule of law.  And looking over these reasons today, I see that some of them were about a general (intellectual and temperamental) incapacity to govern and some were about demagogic tendencies, but most were really sub-categories of calling Trump a patrimonilaist:

• That  he knew absolutely nothing about government or policy and showed no interest in learning. OK, so this one is about his general incapacity.
• That he saw facts and evidence as things he could make up as he pleased, on the fly. Also incapacity.  Though it should be noted that patrimonial rulers often surround themselves with flatterers and develop reality deficits. But smart and capable patrimonial rulers can avoid the trap, so this is mostly incapacity.
• That he had the attention span and impulse control of a small child.  Also incapacity.
• That his entire career was built on fraud.  This is starting to get into patrimonial territory -- a belief that he does not have to follow rules and has no obligations to anyone else.
• That he seemed to have no concept of the rule of law, or of the public good aside from his own personal interests.  This is the essence of patrimonialism -- that the ruler's word is law, and that he governs for personal gain.
• That he appeared to think that if he won the federal government would be his own private property. Patrimonialism in a nutshell.  Under patrimonial rule, government is the ruler's private property.
• That  he was blatantly appealing to hate and celebrating base impulses as "authenticity."  This fits in the category of calling him a demagogue. 
• His threats to use libel and anti-trust laws to silence his critics.  This is an adaptation of patrimonialism. A true patrimonial ruler can automatically shut down all criticism.  Even Trump seems to realize that is not an option in the US and that he needs at least the pretense of legality to silence his critics.  
• His encouragement of violence at his rallies.  Probably fits in the category of demagoguery.
• The prospect of such a man having his finger on the nuclear button.  Um, probably mostly incapacity.

• His sons running his business empire while he runs the country. This is patrimonialism. It might be at one remove from patrimonialism because at least he was not running his own business.  But families of patrimonial rulers always use their positions to enrich themselves.
• His appointment of his daughter and son-in-law to important positions of power that they showed no qualification for.  Patrimonial rulers routinely give leading offices to family members
• The possibility that his foreign investments might create conflicts of interest.  Also patrimonialism, since conflict of interest is the whole point.
• His apparent belief that the Justice Department is a tool to protect his allies and harass his opponents.  Once again, this is basic to a patrimonial viewpoint -- that the instruments of the state are to be used for the ruler's personal whims.
• The flagrant corruption of many of his nominees. Given that patrimonialism assumes that a ruler will use is office to personal advantage, is it any surprise that the ruler's subordinates do the same?  None of this would be considered improper -- so long as the subordinates did not do anything to disadvantage the ruler.
• His positive delight in alienating democracies and befriending dictators.  I would call this a patrimonial approach to foreign policy -- the assumption that foreign policy is not based on interests or principles, but on personal relationships.  Democracies, which run their foreign policy primarily on interests, with some principles thrown in, are not able to form the sort of personal relationships a patrimonial ruler craves.
• The complete amorality of his foreign policy.  See above.
• His unwillingness to do any of the work involved in being a President. Personal incapacity.
• His disregard of the information resources available in favor of what he sees on TV.  This is an interesting one.  Patrimonial leaders choose their advisers for personal loyalty, rather than ability or ideology.  Donald Trump shared a common failing with many patrimonial leaders -- he equated personal loyalty with flattery and telling him what he wanted to hear. There are patrimonial rulers who can resist this temptation, but they are probably the exception and not the rule.  The result is that patrimonial leaders are often manipulated by courtiers and flatterers.  Being manipulated by courtiers and flatterers on TV is a new phenomenon.  I would call this a combination of patrimonialism and incapacity.
• His lax approach to security.  Incapacity.
• The whole disturbing Russia business. Another sign of a patrimonial outlook.  Having no sense of the public good beyond his personal interest, Trump had no scruples about accepting help from a hostile foreign power.  

So, it appears that I gave 21 reasons for conservatives to oppose Trump.  Looking them over, it appears that twelve of these are sub-categories of saying that he is a patrimonialist.  Six are general incapacity.  Two are demagoguery.  And one is incapacity and patrimonialism. 

And, once again, I regard all of these as things that should alarm liberals and conservatives alike.

Patrimonialism

 

But her e-mails!

After four years of observing Trump, I am confident that I can locate him on the political taxonomy.

Trump is not a totalitarian.  He has no interest in controlling every aspect of society or imposing his vision on it.  In fact, he shows no real interest in what becomes of the larger society, so long as it shows sufficient deference to him and doesn't make him look bad.

Trump is not an ideologue.  (Totalitarians are almost always ideologues, but ideologues are not necessarily totalitarians).  He has no ideology, no social vision, no principles, really.  Everything is about him. Once I believed that Trump's reluctance to denounce neo-Nazis at Charlottesville meant that he agreed with them.  Since then I have come to another conclusion.  Trump was to egocentric even to care what neo-Nazis stood for.  Only one thing mattered to him. They were on his side.  And anyone on his side -- from neo-Nazis to Q-Anon to Epstein's procurer -- rates in Trump's eyes as one of the good guys.  I am not even convinced that Trump is an economic royalist.  Granted, economic royalism is the only ideology that could justify him.  I just no longer believe that Trump cares about finding an ideology the justifies him.  He is too egocentric to feel the need for justification.

Trump's approach to governing is best described as patrimonialism, at least as I understand the term.  Patrimonialism, as I understand the term, is "a type of rule in which the ruler does not distinguish between personal and public patrimony and treats matters and resources of state as his personal affair."  

A ruler treats government (and, to a lesser degree, the entire country) as his private property, to be used for his personal advantage.  Public responsibility is not even a concept. Nor is corruption, since it is taken for granted that the ruler is acting to his own advantage only, and that public resources are his private property.  There is no rule of law because the ruler's will is law.  Public offices go either to the ruler's family, or to cronies chosen, not for ability or ideological principle, but for personal loyalty.  Armies, bureaucracies, courts, are all the the ruler's personal command to be treated as his personal resources.  A ruler has no obligation to concern himself with his subjects' well-being.  Rather, they exist to serve him.

Patrimonial government is very old.  Indeed, many believe that it was the original and historically most common form of government, and that everything else should be seen as an exception.

It is also true that our system of government was intended to prevent patrimonialism, and that our government has multiple layers of institutions in place -- from the separation of powers in the Constitution, to civil service protections, to the Hatch Act forbidding the use of federal resources for political campaigns -- to prevent it.

And just to be clear, I would expect an honest and principled conservative to be just as opposed to patrimonialism as an honest and principled liberal, and just as horrified at the prospect of patrimonial forms taking hold in the US.  Isn't one of the reasons for libertarians' aversion to government a conviction that all government reverts to patrimonialism if given the chance? 

Some Interesting Points of Comparison Between Trump-Russian and Trump Insurrection

 

But her e-mails!

There is a certain similarity between the original Trump-Russia investigation and the recent Capitol Hill insurrection and impeachment.

In both cases, there was an illegal conspiracy (or conspiracies) to benefit Trump.  Trump himself had no advance knowledge of the conspiracy(ies) and did not participate, but openly welcomed, encouraged, and sought to benefit from illegal actions. In both cases, Republicans have sought to portray non-participation as exoneration, when a normal leader would have denounced and sought to discourage the whole thing.  And, I will confess it, in the Russia scandal our side became so obsessed with proving direct participation in the conspiracy that we saw mere encouragement and a let-down, or even as exonerating.  The latest insurrection has convinced me that absence of conspiracy is far from exoneration.

Consider:

In Trump-Russia, the Russian intelligence services hacked the DNC computer and handed the e-mails over to Wikileaks in a manner calculated to advance Trump's fortunes.  A separate set of Russians operated a troll farm that engaged in illegal identity theft, bank fraud and wire fraud, and illegal meddling in U.S. political activity.  The FBI, Special Counsel, and the Senate Intelligence Committee probed for a direct line of communication between the Trump campaign and Russia.  No such evidence was found, and much of the behavior of the Trump campaign was inconsistent with the existence of such a line of communication. Nonetheless, a patriotic candidate would have denounced the hacks and made clear that he wanted no help from any foreign power.  Trump did not.  Instead he quoted Russian propaganda in public tweets and speeches, built his campaign around Wikileaks revelations, and publicly called on Russia to hack Hillary Clinton and find her missing e-mails.*  

Subsequent investigations have revealed more disturbing events taking place in secret.  Trump directed Michael Flynn to find Hillary's missing e-mails on the dark web, with no thought to the possibility that he might be dealing with Russian spies. No such e-mails were found because they were not, in fact, available on the dark web.  Paul Manafort was secretly selling campaign polling data to a presumed Russian spy.  Nothing suggests that Trump was aware of his campaign manager's activities, but he has never once spoke up to condemn what most people in his position would have seen as a shocking betrayal.

Now compare that to the recent insurrection.  The immediate appearance of the insurrection was a riot by an unplanned and unorganized mob.  And for most of the participants that was undoubtedly true.  But evidence is emerging of advance planning by some of the better organized and disciplined members of the insurrection.  In other words, a criminal conspiracy well before January 6.  It seems a safe assumption that Trump did not know about these conspiracies, much less take part in them.  But he did call on supporters to rally against the vote count on January 6.  He made quite clear that the purpose of the rally was not just to show support, but to pressure Congress into changing the certification.  He dropped broad hints before the rally that there might be violence.  And on January 6 he addressed the crowd, urging them to march on Congress, "fight like hell" and "show strength."  Given the total context, this does, indeed, sound like a call for violence.  It certainly incited violence.  And even if Trump did not intend violence, he appears to have enjoyed the spectacle and refused to take action to stop it.

A member of the Capitol Police was killed in the attack and others injured.  There is at least some evidence that some of the attackers would have killed Mike Pence or members of Congress if given the opportunity.  Do I think Trump intended anyone to be killed when the crowd marched on the Capitol to overturn the election?  I do not.  But he does not appear to have been much bothered by it.

Granted, there are differences.  I don't think the crowd would have attacked the Capitol if Trump has not incited them.  (And by incitement I mean not just the day of the attack, but the buildup for the preceding two months).  The Russians doubtless would have proceeding with their hack and leak regardless of what its intended beneficiary did.  On the other hand, the Mueller Report states that the Russians escalated their attempts to hack Hillary Clinton personally (as opposed to the DNC) when Trump urged them to do so.  Trump acted on his own initiative to overturn the election long before summoning crowds.  He also took an active part in organizing the rally that he almost certainly planned as an act of incitement.  The Russians acted on their own initiative with Trump as a generally passive beneficiary.  

But I do take the Capitol Hill insurrection as showing that one does not have to know of, or take direct part in, a conspiracy to be complicit for encouraging it and seeking to benefit.

______________________________________________

*In the clear light of hindsight, that itself is evidence that there was not a secret channel of communication, or he would have used the channel instead.

 Wow!  So much of my brain space has been taken up by Trump hatred that I don't know what will take its place with him gone.

Donald Trump and Fascism -- One Last Time

But her e-mails!

 So, with the full benefit of hindsight, what can I say about Trump and fascism.  Some people might say it should be self-evident by the insurrection to overturn the election.  But people who say that are simply using "fascism" as a generic term for anything threatens democracy.  And it is true, that historical fascism grew out of the failure of democracy and brought it down, but fascism is only one way that democracy can fail.  

So, granting that it is now beyond dispute that Trump is/was a threat to democracy, how much does that threat resemble actual fascism?  Also, I went through this in 2016, so how do I perceive Trump today as compared to then?

A middle class populist movement that both punches up and kicks down, but mostly kicks down. Check.  Trump both denounces elites and preys on racial fears, so yes, both now and in 2016.

This American Carnage Ends Now

Driven by fear and ambition, but fear predominates. Back in 2016, I saw Trump's movement as more about resentment and hope than fear.  In that I ignored the whole "Flight 93 Election" schtick and various attempts to catastrophize a Hillary Clinton win. This time round, the appeal to fear has been overwhelming and (really) insane.  Granted, given the disaster that was 2020, a morning in America campaign was not going to work.  But a rally round the chief campaign might very well work.  It worked for many other leaders.  But instead the whole appeal has been one on fear of riots and conviction that the country would not survive a Democrat in the White House and a Trump defeat would be the end of America.  So, yes, fear has definitely predominated this time.

A psychology of lizard brain machismo.  Well, duh!

An ideology of palingenetic populist hypernationalism.  Palingenetic means a rebirth.  In other words, palingenetic hypernationalism is the belief that one's nation has fallen from its former glory and must be reborn.  As captured in slogans such as Make America Great Again. The basic view that America is seen as weak and a world-wide laughingstock and must be restored is central to Trump's world view.

A paramilitary party that has taken over the state (or aspires to take over the state) and claims (or aspires to claim) an effective monopoly of political activity.  It has been obvious since 1992 or so that the Republican Party sees itself as entitled to political power, though not to political activity. In other words, what the Republican Party appears to aspire to is not a de jure one party state like a Communist or fascist country, but a de facto one party state, like Mexico in the heyday of the PRI.  Other parties were legal, but the system was rigged to ensure they could never win.  Trump certainly never made any attempt to suppress other political parties, but he went farther than anyone had before in rigging the system, i.e., by routinely ignoring the Hatch Act and using the federal government as an instrument of his political power.  

I alone can fix it

Back in 2016, I saw no paramilitary aspects at all.  And even today the Republican Party, Trump or no Trump, is a far from a paramilitary party.  But not as far as it was in 2016, or even 2019.  The Capitol Hill insurrection, which was mostly an unorganized mob, but did include organized paramilitaries is only the most recent example.  Trump's exhortation to the Proud Boys, "Stand back and stand by" is another such example.  Republican glorification of vigilantes like Kyle Rittenhouse is another such example. And there were the alarming forces in unmarked uniforms that Trump sent to break up riots in Portland.  On the other hand, so far none of these groups have been breaking up Democratic meetings or intimidating voters or otherwise acting like the true paramilitary arm of a political party.  So, no, not a paramilitary party, but taking steps in that direction.  

And now the old standbys.

From Stanley Payne, in Fascism: Comparison and Definition (1980):

The fascist negations:

Anti-radical: I generally said no in 2016.  Today the answer has to be yes.  Central to Trump's appeal was denouncing Democrats as dangerous radicals on the verge of creating a Communist tyranny.  And Republicans in general and Trump in particular took the very dangerous step of losing the distinction between the center-left and the hard left.

Anti-liberal: Very much so.

Anti-conservative: Again, fulmination against Republican elites and the desire to burn it all down are anti-conservative..

Ideology and goals:

Creation of a new nationalist authoritarian state based not merely on traditional principles or models. No, so far as I can tell.  Trump did not really seek to extend the power of the state, except over immigrants and protesters.  In his last year of power, he was much more geared to opposing expansion of the state's power to fight the pandemic.

Organization of some new kind of regulated, multiclass, integrated national economic structure, whether called national corporatist, national socialist, or national syndicalist.  Not a trace of it.

The goal of empire or a radical change in the nation’s relationship with other powers. No to empire; yes to a radical change in relationship to other powers.  In Trump's case, mostly destroying alliances, or turning allies into tribute-paying vassals.  I don't know whether Payne would consider this to be semi-fascist. 

Specific espousal of an idealist, voluntarist creed, normally involving the attempt to realize a new form of modern, self-determined, secular culture.  I have no idea what this means, nor do I see any real sign of it.

Style and Organization:

Emphasis on aesthetic structure of meetings, symbols, and political choreography, stressing romantic and mystical aspects. All of this is to some degree normal in a competitive democracy.  Candidates have their slogans, bumper stickers, T-shirts, logos, etc.  I would say Trump took if further than most with MAGA hats, Trump flags, dancing to YMCA (I don't get that one) and so forth.  But not as far as true fascists, or as the Tea Party, for that matter, with their 18th century costumes.  

Attempted mass mobilization with militarization of political relationships and style and with the goal of a mass party militia. See discussion of a paramilitary party above.  

Positive evaluation and use of, or willingness to use, violence. Back in 2016 I found Trump's fondness for violence disturbing, but mostly defensive.  Given his behavior in 2020, to say nothing of inciting an insurrection, this one is now a yes.

Extreme stress on the masculine principle and male dominance, while espousing the organic view of society. Well, duh.  

Exaltation of youth above other phases of life, emphasizing the conflict of generations, at least in effecting the initial political transformation. No in 2016.  No today, although the Proud Boys and other paramilitary trends show that Trumpism has its youth movement.

Specific tendency toward an authoritarian, charismatic, personal style of command, whether or not the command is to some degree initially elective. Duh!

So, I would say three out of three for fascist negations, maybe one half out of four for ideology and goals.  For style and organization, I would say yes for three out of six and maybe about half for three out of six.  Not good!

Robert O. Paxton, The Anatomy of Fascism, and the "nine mobilizing passions":

-- a sense of overwhelming crisis beyond the reach of any traditional solutions:  In 2016 I was skeptical, seeing Trumpism as driven more by anger than by fear.  This time round I would say yes.  The degree of fear over COVID restrictions, over Black Lives Matter and over the believe that the Democrats are wild-eyed radicals is really alarming. And it goes to prove that fear really is more dangerous than anger.

-- the primacy of the group, toward which one has duties superior to every right, whether universal or individual, and the subordination of the individual to it:  No.  The reaction to COVID shows the exact opposite, a radical individualism.

-- the belief that one's group is a victim, a sentiment which justifies any action, without legal or moral limits, against the group's enemies, both internal and external:  As in 2016, the sense of victimization yes.  And a willingness to go farther than Trumpsters went in 2016.  But still probably not this far.

-- dread of the group's decline under the corrosive effect of individualistic liberalism, class conflict, and alien influences:  Yes.

-- the need for closer integration of a purer community, by consent if possible, or by exclusionary violence if necessary:  I would say yes.

-- the need for authority by natural leaders (always male), culminating in a national chief who alone is capable of incarnating the group's destiny: Well, duh!

-- the superiority of the leader's instincts over abstract and universal reason:  Again, duh!

-- the beauty of violence and the efficacy of will, when they are devoted to the group's success: To judge from the Capitol Hill insurrection, yes.

-- the right of the chosen people to dominate others without restraint from any kind of human or divine law, right being decided by the sole criterion of the group's prowess in a Darwinian struggle:  In 2016 and today, I would say, the belief in their right to dominate, yes, but probably not going that far.

So out of the nine mobilizing passions, I would say six are yes and two are at least partly yes.  So I would say Trump showed some fascistic traits, especially when facing defeat.  But none of the true totalitarianism of the fascist ideology and goals.  He is simply too lazy, to unimaginative, and too incompetent ever to make a real fascist.