Pod pick: Focus on the corruption

Since Donald Trump's first term as president, the labels "fascist" and "authoritarian" have been used by his opponents to describe his governing style. Notorious regimes such as those led by Hitler, Mussolini, and Pinochet have even been deployed as points of comparison by those trying to describe and understand the MAGA movement. In Trump's first term, I found these comparisons to be hyperbolic at worst and unhelpful at best (comparing someone to Hitler has a way of halting any productive discourse). Second term Trump already feels very different (scarier). Still, I wonder if fascism or authoritarianism are really the most helpful descriptions of what we are seeing. Even if they are partially apt, are these the best theories for understanding Trump's behavior and framing a potent argument against him? Correctly naming or categorizing Trump's behavior might seem trivial, but historical precedent could be instructional for those hoping to resist his movement.

In his excellent February article for the Atlantic ("One Word Describes Trump"), journalist and author Jonathan Rauch offered a novel description of Trump's governing style. Tim Miller did an interview with Rauch on a recent edition of the Bulwark Podcast, in which Rauch discussed his article and explained how patrimonialism is the style of government that best describes Trump's second term so far.

Some facts about patrimonialism from the interview:

• Patrimonialism is an ancient governing style that still persists today (ancient kings, medieval nobles, and crime bosses). Modern political examples include Narendra Modi (India), Viktor Orbán (Hungary), and Vladimir Putin (Russia).

• In a patrimonialist government, the state is an extension of the leader's household and the interests of the leader are reflected in all governance choices. Personnel are chosen and retained depending on their ability to reflect and advance the leader's interests.

• The opposite of patrimonialism is not authoritarianism, but bureaucratic proceduralism. Bureaucratic proceduralism is the governing paradigm of most modern nations, including the United States (at least until 2025). In this system, the governing apparatus is subject to layers of regulation. Decision-making and executive function occurs within a framework where experts and established processes are respected. Government actors swear an oath to the precepts of the people's government (i.e., the Constitution) and not to an individual.

• A hallmark of patrimonialism is a disdain for bureaucracy. Examples of this from the current administration include Trump's prolific use of executive orders, his illegal dismissal of inspectors general and defanging of ethics rules, and D.O.G.E.'s gutting of entire government departments.

• Patrimonialism and democracy are not opposites; in fact, patrimonialism (like authoritarianism) often springs from a democracy. But patrimonialism is not compatible with democracy in the long term because it degrades trust in government. Patrimonialism can eventually transition to authoritarianism.

• Historically, authoritarians have embraced and weaponized bureaucracy. We've seen some of this in Trump's second term (e.g., using the remnants of the Education Department to pressure private universities to do his bidding, using the Justice Department to investigate ActBlue), but mostly Trump disregards procedure and bureaucracy. This is another hallmark of patrimonialism.

• In a patrimonialist state, all public actors who wish to remain relevant shift their behavior to demonstrate fealty to the leader, whose whims and wishes become the primary heuristic for governing decisions at all levels. Full-throated endorsement of Trump is now a more important qualification than experience or merit (e.g., Pete Hegseth, Kash Patel, Dan Bongino...).

Rauch notes that patrimonialism has several key flaws. An obvious one is compounding incompetence which gradually becomes impossible to ignore. There is a reason that modern states rely on bureaucratic proceduralism: the shear scale of modern governments and militaries cannot be competitive in the long term under a patrimonialist regime. Unfortunately, this flaw can take years to produce the discontent needed to disrupt patrimonialism, especially in a highly politically polarized society like the United States.

An more potent weakness of patrimonialism is corruption. Rauch claims that corruption provokes a more immediate and visceral response from citizens than incompetence. He cites Poland and Ukraine as recent examples of patrimonial governments that were ousted after campaigns focused relentlessly on corruption.

I am appalled by Trump's behavior, especially his lawless approach to deportations, and I hope his opponents can find a winning formula for eventually defeating Trump-aligned politicians at the ballot box and mitigating the damage he can cause in the meantime. Rauch's observations are encouraging because they allow us to see Trump as part of an existing political paradigm that other democracies have successfully clawed themselves back from. The lesson I drew from this conversation is that the most successful argument against Trump will be focused on the blatant corruption of his patrimonialist regime. While Democrats may be tempted to make appeals for democracy and moral decency, these are unlikely to move the needle. While recapping Trump's latest ridiculous tweet may seem irresistible, these will be swamped by the next news cycle. Whatever ability Democrats still have to reach independent voters must be marshalled to make the truth unavoidable: Trump is the most corrupt politician in our nation's history and as long as he has power, he will use it to enrich himself at the expense of the public.

---

Protest signs that would likely be most effective if Rauch is correct:

• Picture of Musk or Trump with text "I am stealing from you"

• "Make corruption wrong again"

• Picture of Trump and Musk side by side with "fraud" written over Trump's face and "abuse" written over Musk's face. Headline text: "Found it"

• D.O.G.E.: Dishonest Oligarchs Grifting Everyone

One politician's approach:

Connecticut Senator Chris Murphy has shifted to vocally calling out corruption.