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.

 

A BFD

But her e-mails!

 The seat of our government is under martial law.  Troops line the streets from the White House to the Capitol.  And right wingers are apparently asking, doesn't this bother you?  Don't you recognize how abnormal this is?  Doesn't it seem downright un-American.

To which I answer, yes of course.  Of course it bothers me.  Of course it is abnormal or, worse, I fear it may become the new normal.  And it is definitely altogether un-American.

But just in case you have been in suspended animation for these past two weeks, we just had an insurrection beyond the ability of the ordinary police to handle.  And yes, I grant you, organizing a second insurrection will take some time.  Maybe it is more than can be pulled off in two weeks.  But seriously, are you expecting us just to take a gamble on insurrectionists not making a desperate last-ditch attempt to block a peaceful transfer of power?  Because violently blocking a peaceful transfer of power is (in the words of our soon-to-be President) a big fucking deal.

Riot, Revolution, Coup, Putsch, Terrorism, Sedition or Insurrection?

But her e-mails!

 So what do you call the outbreak of violence at Capitol Hill?

The consensus appears to be riot. But I don't think riot does the job.  A riot suggests merely a violent public disorder by a crowd.  A riot implies an outburst of senseless violence.  Riots are often political in motivation, but with the intent merely to show anger and disapproval over some action by government (or some other actor).  Riots stop short of an attempt to overthrow the government.

At the same time, the outbreak could not be called a revolution, or even a failed attempt at revolution.  Revolution seeks the overturn of the state.  The recent outbreak merely sought the overturn of an election, not of our entire form of government.

Many have called it a coup, or at least an attempted coup.  A coup does not attempt to overturn or destroy the state, merely to change the names at the top.  The Capitol Hill outbreak actually sought to illegitimately perpetuate the name at the top after he lost an election, but the concept is essentially the same.  But I do not think coup is an accurate term.  A coup is normally the work of the army, or at least some paramilitary security forces.  A coup not only does not seek to overturn the state, it is an illegal action by the instruments of the state to change the leaders of the state.  Or, more succinctly, a coup is, by definition, an inside job.  And for all we are hearing about retired and active duty military or police taking part in the revolt, or even about insider assistance, the overall outbreak was clearly an outside job.  If the Capitol Hill police had initiated the revolt, I would call it a coup attempt at a very low level.  If they had joined the revolt one court argue.  And certainly if all the soldiers and National Guard brought in to protect the inauguration were instead to rise up to block it, that would rate as a coup.  But mobs (even with paramilitary leadership) do not stage coups.

Putsch

Is it a putsch?  I honestly don't have a good enough sense of what a putsch is to answer.  A putsch is some sort of revolt that stops short of a revolution. Some people use the term as a synonym with coup.  Historically in English the term putsch is normally associated with two unsuccessful attempts to overthrow the Weimar government -- the Kapp Putsch and the Beer Hall Putsch.  The Kapp Putsch was not the work of the regular German army but by the Freikorps, the paramilitary private armies that uneasily coexisted with the state, supporting it against left-wing rebellion, but were outside the government's control and of very 
dubious loyalty (at best).  When the Social Democratic government attempted to disband a unit of Freikorps, the unit refused to disband and instead demanded dissolution of the Reichstag and new elections.  When the government refused, the Freikorps marched on Berlin.  The army refused to fire on Freikorps, but stood by, allowed it to take over, and recognized the military government.  The attempt at overthrow was thwarted by a general strike. But the government did dissolve the Reichstag and call new elections, and the forces of the hard right (and the hard left) made gains.  

So was it a coup?  My own take is that it was something of a gray area.  The Freikorps was not officially part of the state, but it had an uneasy alliance with the state and might be considered an semi-official army.  The official army passively allowed the coup rather than actively participating, but it was a friendly, rather than an neutral, passivity.  The Kapp Putsch was a sort of a semi-coup, but I think you could call it a coup if you squinted a little.

Better known to most Americans is the Beer Hall Putsch.  Hitler and his paramilitary Stormtroopers seized a Bavarian beer hall where there right wing politicians were holding a rally and declared his intention to overthrow the Bavarian government and march on Berlin.  Hitler won over the crowd and marched on the government, but the army and police fired on his forces and the revolt was quickly quelled.  This was not a coup, at least as I understand the term.  It was not an inside job.  This Stormtroopers remained outsiders, while the instruments of the state sided firmly with the state.  Would it have been a coup if the military had joined the rebellion?  Maybe. 

Pooch

I suppose by this definition, one might call a putsch a sort of an aspiring coup.  A putsch, by this definition, is a revolt by a non-state paramilitary that seeks the support of the military.  If the official military (or police) joins in, then the putsch becomes a coup.  Otherwise it remains a failed revolt.  And by that standard, I suppose the Capitol Hill incident bore some resemblance to a putsch.  There do appear to have been some serious paramilitary types in the crowd.  And the crowd does appear to have expected the Capitol Hill Police to have joined them.  (The army was not in the picture at the time).  But the serious paramilitary types in the crowd were, to all appearances, a distinct minority.  Most of the crowd were simply a mob, and mobs do not make coups or even aspiring coups.  The revolt was not a putsch, though some might call it a pooch, as in screw the.

Some people have used the term terrorism.  The U.S. Code defines domestic terrorism as activities that:

(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State; 

(B)appear to be intended—

(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;

(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or

(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and

(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States

The Capitol Hill revolt certainly was dangerous to human life (one police officer was killed and many others injured) and violated US laws.  It appears to have been intended to influence the policy of the US government by intimidation or coercion.  So I am inclined to agree this was technically terrorism.  But it does not meet my more colloquial and less technical understanding of the term. I have trouble thinking of lone wolf political violence as terrorism, because I tend to associate terrorism with a secretive conspiracy.  And in this case the problem is just the opposite.  The attack was so open, so flagrant, by such a large crowd that it just lacks the secrecy I associate with terrorism. If the attack had been carried out the the small paramilitary core, the label would fit.  But mobs don't engage in terrorism, just as they don't stage coups.

Is it sedition?  Revolt by a mob seems a whole lot closer to sedition than either a coup or terrorism.  Looking again at the U.S. Code, it does not list a separate crime of sedition, but instead defines seditious conspiracy as:

If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

So apparently there are no lone wolf seditionist; sedition requires a minimum of two individuals.  It also appears to cover a lot of territory, including opposing government authority by force (done), interfering by force with the execution of US laws (in this case, election law) or seizing US property (broadcast all over social media).  The only reason I would hesitate to call the revolt sedition is that most definitions I have looked up define sedition not so much as rebellion as inciting rebellion.  That would make Donald Trump clearly guilty of sedition, but the crowd guilty of, well, something else.

What about insurrection?  The US Code is not much help.  Its definition of insurrection or rebellion is definitely circular:

Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

It is also interesting that insurrection or rebellion carries a sentence of ten years and sedition carries a sentence of twenty. 

Nonetheless, in the end I would say insurrection is the best description of what the Capitol Hill mob did. They sought, by a violent assault on the Capitol, to force Congress to overturn a lawful election.  What happened was not mere rioting because it sought to forcibly overturn a lawful succession in power.  It was not a revolution because it did not seek to destroy the state but only to change the names at the top.  It was not a coup because it was not an inside job.  It was too loose and unorganized to be a putsch.  It was too numerous, too open and too brazen to be terrorism.  And it differed from sedition in being what was incited, rather than the act of incitement.  Call it an insurrection, then.  Whatever the name, it was an unprecedented attack on our form of government.

One Small Comfort

But her e-mails!

 I suppose I should take one small piece of comfort from the recent insurrection.  At least so far no one has said it was just an exercise of every law-abiding citizen's Second Amendment right to violently overthrow the government.

Maybe if there had been more shooting. . . .

My Outrage is Unoriginal but No Less Real

But her e-mails!

Look, I know this is not original, and than any number of commentators have said the same thing much better than I have, but the Republican complaint that impeaching Trump is divisive is an absolute outrage!

First of all, when Joe Biden was first elected and talked of unity, Trump supporters angrily rejected the offer, saying they were not willing to forgive the way Democrats had treated them for the past four years. And now they expect to be taken seriously talking about unity after spending the last two months denying the outcome of an election because they lost?

So it's divisive to impeach Trump, is it?  

You know what else is divisive?  Refusing the accept the results of a free and fair election.  Filing sixty completely frivolous lawsuits to overturn the outcome. Pressuring state legislatures to override the will of the voters and send their own slates of electors.  Pressuring Congress to refuse to certify the outcome.  Demanding that the Georgia Secretary of State rig the vote. And when all that fails, inciting your followers to to march on the Capitol and force Congress to vote your way.  Donald Trump did all those things.  So don't come whining to me that it is divisive to make him face consequences for it.

So what, you may say.  Granted it was divisive, but being divisive is not an impeachable offense.  Otherwise, what President would ever have escaped impeachment.

Granted.  Divisiveness is not an impeachable offense, although Trump's extreme instance of it makes any criticism of the other side look disingenuous.  And I agree that it is not impeachable to assert without evidence that an election was rigged.  It is not impeachable to file sixty completely frivolous lawsuits seeking to overturn the outcome (although it may be grounds for court sanctions).  It is not impeachable to bring political pressure on state legislatures or members of Congress to override the results. 

I am even open to argument that withholding military aid duly appropriated by Congress to force a foreign leader to give you dirt on an opponent is not impeachable.

But trying to rig the outcome of the Georgia election is clear electoral fraud and strikes at the core of our whole system of elective government.  That is (or should be) an impeachable offense.

And if inciting an insurrection against a lawful election is not an impeachable offense, I can't imagine what is.

Shocking but Not Surprising

But her e-mails!

A phrase that gets used a lot in describing Donald Trump is "shocking but not surprising."  The Capitol Hill Riot/Insurrection fits in that category.  Nothing of the kind has ever happened before in the history of our democracy, which makes it shocking.  

But it is not surprising.  It is consistent with everything Trump has done since the election, and before.  Even before the election, he made clear that if he had lost, he would sue to overturn that outcome.  That alone is deeply abnormal.  It might have been understandable, or even successful, if the outcome had turned on one state.  But to overturn the outcome in not one, but at least three states was a bridge too far, so the courts unanimously refused.

The next step after the courts was Republican voting officials and state legislatures.  But aside from a small number of dissents in Michigan, that, too failed.

The next step was Congress, although that was doomed from the start. To overturn the Electoral College, both houses of Congress would have to vote to reject the outcome.  That clearly was not going to happen because Democrats had a majority in the House and enough Republicans had declared for Biden to guarantee a win there as well.  My guess was that Trump would lose both houses by a razor-thin margin.  

Trump also seems to have considered using the military or the Department of Homeland Security to overturn the election, but both organizations refused.

That left only one possibility -- violent insurrection by supporters.  I speculated that Trump might be willing to try even that after his attempt to overturn the result in Congress failed.  In that I was half-right.  He was, indeed, willing to overturn the election by violent insurrection, but not to wait until losing in Congress.  And I suppose that was predictable, really.  There was certainly plenty of talk about a protest on the day of the vote count, and plenty of warning that the protest might turn violent.  So the attempt to overturn the outcome by violent insurrection was also predictable.

Also predictable is that this may not be the last.  Insurrections take some time to plan, there will necessarily be a lag after the first attempt fails.  But there is talk of another violent incident on inauguration day -- or possibly January 17.

It ain't over yet.

ETTD

 

Former Republican strategist Rick Wilson coined the term Everything Trump Touches Dies (ETTD for short).  Why should this be?  

Trump famously said that he prefers loyalty to integrity.  To some extent, this just sounds like he favors honor among thieves.  Except that to Trump, loyalty is a one-way street -- something other people owe him, while he never hesitates to throw a "coffee boy" under the bus any time he becomes inconvenient.  What he really wants is not loyalty, but fealty.

ETTD means that in order to work for Trump, you have to set aside all integrity in favor of fealty to Trump. But sooner or later, everyone fails to live up to Trump's standards and is cast aside.  And they find that they are ruined outside Trumpworld because they have given up all integrity and ruined in Trumpworld because they no longer have the Big Guy's support.

None of which is to say that choosing integrity over Trump is any guarantee of success.  Bob Corker (Republican Senator from Tennessee) and Jeff Flake (Republican Senator from Arizona) sacrificed their careers rather than submit to Trump and have no future.

The best bet may be to be rejected by Trump.  Chris Christie hoped to be Trump's chief of staff.  Jared Kushner intervened to block him.  Now Christie retains some degree of respectability.

But the more obvious example is Mitt Romney.  The illustration above shows Romney meeting with Trump in hopes of being appointed his Secretary of State.  Who can doubt that if Trump had said yes, Romney would have made one compromise in integrity after another and end up realizing that he had lost his soul -- only to be cast aside anyhow when Trump had no more use for him.  Doubtless Romney was disappointed at being turned down.  But how many time since must he have thanked his Mormon God that Trump said no, and Romney escaped with his soul intact.

Giving Credit Where it is Due (or Not)

But her e-mails!

I think that we should be generous to Republicans who were late in getting off the Trump train and give some thought to just how hard it is for them.

Consider the mobs chanting "Hang Mike Pence," crowds harassing Lindsey Graham at the airport, and crowds harassing Mitt Romney, not just at the airport, but on an airplane where there was no escape, I think we need to understand the sort of pressure Republican office holders are under and the sort of retaliation they face for standing up for the election.

So, much as we dislike their politics, let us acknowledge the real heroism of William Barr saying that there was no election fraud; of Brad Raffensperger refusing to rig the Georgia election; of Republican state legislatures refusing to override the voters; of Mike Pence doing his duty as law requires in presiding over the vote count; of Mitch McConnell passionately arguing that election outcomes must be respected; of Tom Cotton deciding not to join the objections; of Mick Mulvaney resigning his post; of Pat Cippollone refusing to abet law-breaking; and, of course, of Mitt Romney.  We may see these men as doing the minimum the law requires, but we really should appreciate how hard it is for them to do even that.

But I still just can't regard Lindsey Graham with anything but pure contempt.  
 

Donald Trump poses a serious problem.  On the one hand, any attempt to prosecute his actions will invariably be perceived as partisan persecution and invite retaliation (however unjustified). On the other hand, letting him get away with it will incentivize further law breaking.

 Up till now I have grudgingly favored a pardon.  Expose his actions (preferably by some neutral, non-partisan body), but avoid prosecution.

But the latest tapes from Georgia are a bridge too far.  This is a clear attempt to rig an election and must be treated as such.

Oh, yes, and I have decided that I do favor a blue ribbon commission to investigate fraud in the 2020 election.  Provided it includes post-election actions.

Seriously, Though

What do you have to lose?

 I get that winning either Senate seat in Georgia is a heavy lift, and winning both is even more so. Also, I don't trust polls showing the Democrats narrowly ahead.  If there is one thing the latest election has shown, it is that polls under state Republican support by several points.

I am, nonetheless, cautiously optimistic that at least one Democrat can win and maybe (maybe!) we can persuade one Senate Republican to bolt the party and caucus with the Democrats.  

Two things are driving me here.  

One is the Trump in particular and Republicans in general are engaging in extraordinarily self-destructive behavior.  Trump vetoing the defense bill and threatening to veto COVID relief, and Mitch McConnell blocking any further relief are a great campaign ad for Democrats.  Trump caught on tape trying to rig the Georgia election might yet persuade one Senator to jump parties.  Lin Woods (not working for Trump directly, but clearly in his corner) saying thing so far out there that he has to assure us that he is not insane is testing the theory that the nuttier Republicans are, the better they do.

But the other thing is Kelly Loeffler's increasingly shrill and hysterical attacks on Raphael Warnock.  Attack ads work up to a point, but they lose effectively when they start to smell like panic.  And these ones seriously reek.

Memo to Donald Trump

 

Maybe you should try pouring gasoline over the Republican Senate campaign in Georgia and setting it on fire.  Because that seems less harmful that what you are doing right now.