This is far more useful than the argument that Trump’s approach to politics amounts to “fascism.” As an historian of Nazi Germany and the Holocaust I never found the fascism paradigm very apt.
If we want to set the country on a better trajectory we must empower voters to a far greater degree than anyone in the political class seems to want. Making voters the campaign donors may be the best first step.
First I’ve heard of this! I think the idea has great merit. One question….How do we deal with the fact that so many Americans don’t vote? I can see where this may motivate people to pay attention, because they may feel more empowered to vote. I also wonder if many are not motivated to vote because they simply don’t really care, or think about, our country’s issues. Is it better they stay out of elections altogether? Hopefully these would be a minority of those who don’t vote. But seems they may be easily pushed/pressed to donate one way or the other. Is this a problem?
Hi Ann, thanks so much for commenting. Our country has always had low voter participation compared to other wealthy societies, probably because we're the only country where voters have to take affirmative steps to register, and if you haven't registered, you can't vote. Everywhere else the government registers you automatically. Given how little influence we have on policy, it's remarkable to me that Americans bother to vote at all. By empowering Americans who currently feel disempowered (because we are), Voter Dollars should increase voting and give citizens a new reason to inform themselves about the issues. In any case, I don't think that the voters are the problem at present. Both parties are held hostage by their donors and can offer little of real substance to us. When we go to the polls all our choices are lousy. Once we become the donors and politicians answer to us, voters will make good decisions because we'll have good alternatives to choose from. Finally, even if the voters were the problem and demagogues could manipulate them to donate their Voter Dollars to the wrong candidates, is there an alternative? If the voters are powerless, then who should have power. There's no alternative to democracy, as I see it. Thanks again for your thoughtful questions. Please consider subscribing to my Substack
This is not America’s first brush with patrimonialism. Trump’s admiration for Andrew Jackson reflects his fundamentally personal, transactional perspective. If you need something to disturb your sleep further, read Thomas Carlyle’s book “On Heroes and Hero Worship and the Heroic in History”. The fawning sycophancy is nauseating. More importantly, it’s imaginary. None of his historical or mythical figures were as simple as history paints them. They simply reflect who humans wish they were to give us imaginary bigger-than-life heroes to worship. Our emotions are so easily manipulated. I believe Trump is still more astounded than anyone with what his adherents will accept and rationalize. Interpretive Confabulaters in top gear can rationalize amazing things that more sober thought would reject without hesitation. Trump’s Joint Session speech last night floored me. But, since long before his first term I’ve been amazed that people don’t immediately recognize his phoniness. A master of not thinking.
This article is eye opening. As people decry Trump and start using words like authoritarian, fascist, dictator, this article puts the logic behind Trump if we like it or not. There are correlations with patrimony and ideas of authoritarian, fascist but this article brings us closer to the bone. If we understand this then we understand our position better and where the fork in the road leads to. But if we fail to express this in our public discourse on the political realities then we are just engaging in Trump derangement syndrome (which can be our first and strongest impulse), then the moment will be lost to make the best possible outcome more viable.
In a patrimonial state, what happens to the regime when there is a crisis that cannot be resolved by rewarding loyalists and punishing heretics? Do the loyalists simply act as if the leader in his infinite wisdom will resolve the crisis? What should the opposition do?
All of the comments here understand the point Hanson and Kopstein make in their article and in their important book, The Assault on the State. Now, we need to educate congress, especially our paralyzed Democrats who vacuously recite the "authoritarian" line. If people understand just one part of the patrimonial argument, that the Trump/Musk purge is not weeding the "Deep State" but killing our extraordinarily effective administrative state, perhaps slowing the destruction, saving the Constitution is still possible.
In mentally comparing "patrimonial" to "authoritarian", I came up with this: Patrimonial is perhaps a sub-class of authoritarian. Patrimonial regimes are probably always authoritarian, but authoritarian regimes may not be patrimonial. Example: the USSR under Stalin was patrimonial (and authoritarian, indeed totalitarian), whereas the USSR pre- and post-Stalin was still authoritarian, but not patrimonial.
Aspects of all the adjectives routinely applied to Trump and Trumpism are in play here. At the bottom, though, the reality is that an amoral, vengeful, misogynistic, narcissistic, liar, huckster, con man, cretin, adoration junkie, power-luster, and would-be tin pot dictator with a gift of gab has perpetrated the most successful con job ever by any major American political figure, Andrew Jackson included. He has convinced half of American voters that he actually gives a damn about them or about whatever problems and grievances they feel they have. In truth, his only concern for them has been and remains as hands to pull voting levers, mindless adorers at his Nuremberg style rallies, deep pockets to pay his legal expenses, fund his campaigns, and to keep him out of jail.
Trumpism is a fever, and like someone with a malarial fever, the patient either succumbs, or the fever breaks and the patient begins the road to recovery.
Trump fever at that stage, and we await the break or the final succumbing. America depends on the outcome.
How does feature #3 "So, if the U.S. government provides lucrative contracts to companies controlled or largely owned by Elon Musk, no problem." square with Trump's move to eliminate federal tax incentives for electric vehicles (EVs) and his executive order revoking a 2021 directive from former President Joe Biden, which had set a non-binding target for 50% of new vehicle sales to be electric or plug-in hybrid by 2030. Both of these changes adversely impact the value of Tesla as evidenced by the 31% decline in its stock value since Trump took office. So, how does this benefit Musk?
This is far more useful than the argument that Trump’s approach to politics amounts to “fascism.” As an historian of Nazi Germany and the Holocaust I never found the fascism paradigm very apt.
If we want to set the country on a better trajectory we must empower voters to a far greater degree than anyone in the political class seems to want. Making voters the campaign donors may be the best first step.
www.savedemocracyinamerica.org
First I’ve heard of this! I think the idea has great merit. One question….How do we deal with the fact that so many Americans don’t vote? I can see where this may motivate people to pay attention, because they may feel more empowered to vote. I also wonder if many are not motivated to vote because they simply don’t really care, or think about, our country’s issues. Is it better they stay out of elections altogether? Hopefully these would be a minority of those who don’t vote. But seems they may be easily pushed/pressed to donate one way or the other. Is this a problem?
Hi Ann, thanks so much for commenting. Our country has always had low voter participation compared to other wealthy societies, probably because we're the only country where voters have to take affirmative steps to register, and if you haven't registered, you can't vote. Everywhere else the government registers you automatically. Given how little influence we have on policy, it's remarkable to me that Americans bother to vote at all. By empowering Americans who currently feel disempowered (because we are), Voter Dollars should increase voting and give citizens a new reason to inform themselves about the issues. In any case, I don't think that the voters are the problem at present. Both parties are held hostage by their donors and can offer little of real substance to us. When we go to the polls all our choices are lousy. Once we become the donors and politicians answer to us, voters will make good decisions because we'll have good alternatives to choose from. Finally, even if the voters were the problem and demagogues could manipulate them to donate their Voter Dollars to the wrong candidates, is there an alternative? If the voters are powerless, then who should have power. There's no alternative to democracy, as I see it. Thanks again for your thoughtful questions. Please consider subscribing to my Substack
This is not America’s first brush with patrimonialism. Trump’s admiration for Andrew Jackson reflects his fundamentally personal, transactional perspective. If you need something to disturb your sleep further, read Thomas Carlyle’s book “On Heroes and Hero Worship and the Heroic in History”. The fawning sycophancy is nauseating. More importantly, it’s imaginary. None of his historical or mythical figures were as simple as history paints them. They simply reflect who humans wish they were to give us imaginary bigger-than-life heroes to worship. Our emotions are so easily manipulated. I believe Trump is still more astounded than anyone with what his adherents will accept and rationalize. Interpretive Confabulaters in top gear can rationalize amazing things that more sober thought would reject without hesitation. Trump’s Joint Session speech last night floored me. But, since long before his first term I’ve been amazed that people don’t immediately recognize his phoniness. A master of not thinking.
This article is eye opening. As people decry Trump and start using words like authoritarian, fascist, dictator, this article puts the logic behind Trump if we like it or not. There are correlations with patrimony and ideas of authoritarian, fascist but this article brings us closer to the bone. If we understand this then we understand our position better and where the fork in the road leads to. But if we fail to express this in our public discourse on the political realities then we are just engaging in Trump derangement syndrome (which can be our first and strongest impulse), then the moment will be lost to make the best possible outcome more viable.
In a patrimonial state, what happens to the regime when there is a crisis that cannot be resolved by rewarding loyalists and punishing heretics? Do the loyalists simply act as if the leader in his infinite wisdom will resolve the crisis? What should the opposition do?
All of the comments here understand the point Hanson and Kopstein make in their article and in their important book, The Assault on the State. Now, we need to educate congress, especially our paralyzed Democrats who vacuously recite the "authoritarian" line. If people understand just one part of the patrimonial argument, that the Trump/Musk purge is not weeding the "Deep State" but killing our extraordinarily effective administrative state, perhaps slowing the destruction, saving the Constitution is still possible.
"Patrimonial" does seem like a good descriptor.
In mentally comparing "patrimonial" to "authoritarian", I came up with this: Patrimonial is perhaps a sub-class of authoritarian. Patrimonial regimes are probably always authoritarian, but authoritarian regimes may not be patrimonial. Example: the USSR under Stalin was patrimonial (and authoritarian, indeed totalitarian), whereas the USSR pre- and post-Stalin was still authoritarian, but not patrimonial.
Aspects of all the adjectives routinely applied to Trump and Trumpism are in play here. At the bottom, though, the reality is that an amoral, vengeful, misogynistic, narcissistic, liar, huckster, con man, cretin, adoration junkie, power-luster, and would-be tin pot dictator with a gift of gab has perpetrated the most successful con job ever by any major American political figure, Andrew Jackson included. He has convinced half of American voters that he actually gives a damn about them or about whatever problems and grievances they feel they have. In truth, his only concern for them has been and remains as hands to pull voting levers, mindless adorers at his Nuremberg style rallies, deep pockets to pay his legal expenses, fund his campaigns, and to keep him out of jail.
Trumpism is a fever, and like someone with a malarial fever, the patient either succumbs, or the fever breaks and the patient begins the road to recovery.
Trump fever at that stage, and we await the break or the final succumbing. America depends on the outcome.
How does feature #3 "So, if the U.S. government provides lucrative contracts to companies controlled or largely owned by Elon Musk, no problem." square with Trump's move to eliminate federal tax incentives for electric vehicles (EVs) and his executive order revoking a 2021 directive from former President Joe Biden, which had set a non-binding target for 50% of new vehicle sales to be electric or plug-in hybrid by 2030. Both of these changes adversely impact the value of Tesla as evidenced by the 31% decline in its stock value since Trump took office. So, how does this benefit Musk?