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.