The C-Word
After a few decades of open tabs, I’m arguably the American best equipped to absorb a pulverizing onslaught of mind boggling news before effortlessly synthesizing it all into a coherent whole; which is then delivered in clear, bite-sized chunks, featuring enough pithy humor and whimsical wordplay to leave your inbox vibrating with delight. So, it’s probably not a great sign that I’ve spent most of the past sleepless six weeks whimpering in the fetal position while querying Google and ChatGPT about just how many benzodiazepines are too many benzodiazepines. Let’s pause for a moment and try to put things into perspective. First, how do we define what’s happening? And second, how do we narrow down our reaction to a response that is honed and effective? For both, we’ll turn to Jonathan Rauch in The Atlantic (Gift Article), who has written the most clear analysis I’ve read so far. One Word Describes Trump. “Even those who expected the worst from his reelection (I among them) expected more rationality. Today, it is clear that what has happened since January 20 is not just a change of administration but a change of regime—a change, that is, in our system of government. But a change to what? There is an answer, and it is not classic authoritarianism—nor is it autocracy, oligarchy, or monarchy. Trump is installing what scholars call patrimonialism.” (I also had several contenders for one word to describe Trump, but none of them would have bypassed your email filters.)
+ See if Rauch’s description of patrimonialism sounds familiar. “Patrimonialism’s antithesis is not democracy; it is bureaucracy, or, more precisely, bureaucratic proceduralism. Classic authoritarianism—the sort of system seen in Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union—is often heavily bureaucratized … By contrast, patrimonialism is suspicious of bureaucracies; after all, to exactly whom are they loyal? They might acquire powers of their own, and their rules and processes might prove obstructive. People with expertise, experience, and distinguished résumés are likewise suspect because they bring independent standing and authority. So patrimonialism stocks the government with nonentities and hacks, or, when possible, it bypasses bureaucratic procedures altogether.” (Hard to read that and not say, Word!)
+ How about this? “Patrimonialism explains what might otherwise be puzzling. Every policy the president cares about is his personal property. Trump dropped the federal prosecution of New York City Mayor Eric Adams because a pliant big-city mayor is a useful thing to have. He broke with 50 years of practice by treating the Justice Department as “his personal law firm.” He treats the enforcement of duly enacted statutes as optional—and, what’s more, claims the authority to indemnify lawbreakers. He halted proceedings against January 6 thugs and rioters because they are on his side. His agencies screen hires for loyalty to him rather than to the Constitution. In Trump’s world, federal agencies are shut down on his say-so without so much as a nod to Congress. Henchmen with no statutory authority barge into agencies and take them over. A loyalist who had only ever managed two small nonprofits is chosen for the hardest management job in government. Conflicts of interest are tolerated if not outright blessed. Prosecutors and inspectors general are fired for doing their job. Thousands of civil servants are converted to employment at the president’s will. Former officials’ security protection is withdrawn because they are disloyal. The presidency itself is treated as a business opportunity.”
+ So how do you message against this political movement? Whac-A-Moling every new(s) affront won’t work. But luckily, almost every headline has something in common. And it’s something people vehemently dislike. In short, it’s time to use the C-word. From Rauch: “Corruption is patrimonialism’s Achilles’ heel because the public understands it and doesn’t like it. It is not an abstraction like ‘democracy’ or ‘Constitution’ or ‘rule of law.’ It conveys that the government is being run for them, not for you … the history of patrimonial rule suggests that [the] most effective approach will be [opponents] hammering home the message that he is corrupt. One thing is certain: He will give them plenty to work with.” Read the whole article, especially if you’re a member of Congress or a journalist. (Luckily, the whole thing can be comfortably experienced in the fetal position. You may even feel ready to stand back up after reading it…at least after the benzos wear off.)
