From Democracy to Patrimonialism: Big daddy politics in the time of Trump

[Winehole23]

These guys seem to think we just kissed democracy goodbye

There's also a Francis Fukuyama essay on patrimonialism

In a leader-centered political order, whatever the boss says, no matter how outlandish, sets the agenda for every underling. In fact, the willingness of subordinates to parrot and defend even the most extreme parts of his stated agenda is one of the most important signs of regime loyalty, used by the leader to decide on promotions, demotions, and in cases of open criticism, retribution. Those opposed to President Trump cannot decide, say, to ignore his social media posts about making Canada the 51^st state, nor can they claim that his tariff threats are just a “bargaining chip” while focusing on his efforts to subordinate the federal bureaucracy to his will. All of these stated priorities matter, precisely because the essence of patrimonialism is the leader’s arbitrary right to treat the state as his personal property.

Third, the idea that various officials in a patrimonial state administration might have conflicts of interest is little more than a quaint anachronism. The phrase “conflict of interest” itself assumes that state officials are supposed to uphold the public good rather than pursue their personal self-interest. Under patrimonial rule, however, the interests of the “people” are equated with the personal interests of the ruler and his extended household, so in principle no conflict can ever arise between the two.

So, if the U.S. government provides lucrative contracts to companies controlled or largely owned by Elon Musk, no problem. As a proven Trump loyalist, Musk deserves no less. Nor is this in any way a violation of the core ruling principle in a leader-based order: under patrimonialism, the word “corruption” loses its meaning over time as old norms of probity are eroded. The letter of the law matters only for those lacking connections to the ruling household. Indeed, violations of even seemingly minor statutes and regulations can be used to launch lawsuits and criminal cases designed to punish enemies of the regime.

https://www.persuasion.community/p/sins-of-the-father

[Winehole23]

From the Fukuyama essay

Prior to the 2024 election, there was a debate about whether Donald Trump was a fascist. I thought that was the wrong moniker because fascism has specific associations with genocide and totalitarian power, and we weren’t close be being there yet. Fascism is driven by an ideology, and I don’t think Trump has ever been guided by anything that could be called an idea. I think he can be clearly labeled an authoritarian, as he and his allies like Elon Musk are deliberately dismantling existing checks on executive power in the U.S. cons utional system. He has not once sought to go through the Republican-controlled Congress to enact policies, deliberately preferring to do everything via executive orders like a king.

One of the big themes of my two Political Order volumes was the great difficulty of creating an impersonal modern state, in which your status depended on citizenship and not on your personal relationship with the ruler. A modern economy is only possible under these cir stances as well, as the state undertakes to protect property rights and adjudicates transactions without regard to the iden y of the rights-holder.

The problem with state modernity is that it is unstable. Human beings are by nature social creatures, but their sociability takes the form in the first instance of favoritism to friends and family. This leads to the phenomenon of “repatrimonialization,” a long word signifying the retreat of a modern impersonal state back into patrimonialism. This is a phenomenon that has plagued many earlier societies, like Tang Dynasty China, or the 17^th century Ottoman Empire, or France under the Old Regime. In each case, an emergent modern state was captured by powerful elites close to the ruler. In France, for example, the king sold rent-seeking privileges like tax collection to the highest bidder.

[Winehole23]

What is remarkable about the Trump administration is the degree to which it is open about its own corruption. The administration has fired inspectors general whose job it is to monitor and stop corruption; it has refused to enforce the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act; and it has made decisions favorable to the business interests of colleague-in-crime Elon Musk. Tech ans like Mark Zuckerberg and Jeff Bezos came to Trump’s inauguration bearing hundreds of millions of dollars in gifts, in hopes that the king would shine favor on them. As Trump imposes tariffs on much of the world, there will be a further flow of supplicants asking for exemptions, which will be facilitated by personal side-payments.


This kind of corruption is characteristic of modern day authoritarianism. For the Bolsheviks, Nazis, or Maoists, their primary objective was not personal enrichment. By contrast, the enemies of liberal democracy today do not for the most part make an ideological case against it, as Marxists once did. Rather, they see legal ins utions as obstacles to personal enrichment and attack them out of self-interest.

[Winehole23]

Robert Paxton, 2004

https://archive.org/details/anatomyoffascism0000paxt

[Winehole23]

today's ten-dollar word: megalothymia

https://www.the-american-interest.co...nd-of-history/

[Winehole23]

[SnakeBoy]

[Winehole23]

^^^ highly appropriate imho

why does the new ballroom need to be bigger than the White House?

btw, we already have a state ballroom

[Winehole23]

what's the problem, not big enough to fit all of Trump's billionaire cronies, would-be cronies and lickspittles?

[ChumpDumper]

What is your actual opinion on the new White House convention center?

Does your emotional fragility limit you to passive aggressive posts with pictures of Black President™?

[Winehole23]

Birtherism was TRUMP's political debut, as it were

Though he dabbled before under the influence of Jesse Ventura... Reform Party 2000

[SnakeBoy]

What is your actual opinion on the new White House convention center?

It's better than a tent

[ChumpDumper]

It's better than a tent

Is it?

Why?

[Winehole23]

SAVE ME BIG DADDY, I'M LOSING IN THE FREE MARKET

https://nypost.com/2025/12/04/media/...r-wbd-sources/

[Winehole23]

https://www.wsj.com/politics/policy/...tions-0d88250a

[Winehole23]

Trump wants one twice as big

[Th'Pusher]

It's better than a tent

A tent isn’t architecturally permanent—and that’s precisely the point. The White House isn’t just any building; it’s a historic structure with proportions that were carefully designed. The new ballroom, whatever its functional merits, is objectively oversized for the existing architecture and introduces an aesthetic that clashes with the restrained neoclassical design of the original building.

A tent may be temporary and less visually impressive, but it doesn’t commit future generations to living with what amounts to an architectural mistake. Once you’ve bolted a garish addition onto a national landmark, you can’t simply undo it when tastes change or when people realize it looks out of place. The White House has survived this long precisely because past stewards understood the value of preservation over the impulse to leave their own oversized mark.

Sometimes the less glamorous solution is the wiser one—something worth considering before we celebrate permanent alterations to irreplaceable buildings.

[SnakeBoy]

A tent isn’t architecturally permanent—and that’s precisely the point. The White House isn’t just any building; it’s a historic structure with proportions that were carefully designed. The new ballroom, whatever its functional merits, is objectively oversized for the existing architecture and introduces an aesthetic that clashes with the restrained neoclassical design of the original building.

A tent may be temporary and less visually impressive, but it doesn’t commit future generations to living with what amounts to an architectural mistake. Once you’ve bolted a garish addition onto a national landmark, you can’t simply undo it when tastes change or when people realize it looks out of place. The White House has survived this long precisely because past stewards understood the value of preservation over the impulse to leave their own oversized mark.

Sometimes the less glamorous solution is the wiser one—something worth considering before we celebrate permanent alterations to irreplaceable buildings.

The White House itself isn’t being altered. What’s proposed is an addition — something entirely consistent with its history. FDR’s East Wing wasn’t some architectural masterpiece; it was a rushed wartime project, purely utilitarian, and it never matched the elegance of the original residence. It served its purpose in the 1940s, but it’s outdated and inadequate for the modern presidency.

The new design, by contrast, is deliberate, proportioned, and meant to harmonize with the neoclassical style of the White House. It replaces a pragmatic but clumsy wing with one that actually fits the stature of the ins ution today. Preserving history doesn’t mean clinging to every makeshift addition; it means ensuring the White House remains both functional and dignified for future generations. Best of all, it costs the taxpayers nothing.

And here’s the real point: the resistance you’re voicing is exactly what we see from today’s libs on every issue. Desperate to protect the status quo, terrified of change, and blind to the fact that progress often means replacing outdated compromises with something better. Clinging to FDR’s rushed wartime wing as if it were sacred architecture is the perfect example of that mindset.

[Th'Pusher]

The White House itself isn’t being altered. What’s proposed is an addition — something entirely consistent with its history. FDR’s East Wing wasn’t some architectural masterpiece; it was a rushed wartime project, purely utilitarian, and it never matched the elegance of the original residence. It served its purpose in the 1940s, but it’s outdated and inadequate for the modern presidency.

The new design, by contrast, is deliberate, proportioned, and meant to harmonize with the neoclassical style of the White House. It replaces a pragmatic but clumsy wing with one that actually fits the stature of the ins ution today. Preserving history doesn’t mean clinging to every makeshift addition; it means ensuring the White House remains both functional and dignified for future generations. Best of all, it costs the taxpayers nothing.

And here’s the real point: the resistance you’re voicing is exactly what we see from today’s libs on every issue. Desperate to protect the status quo, terrified of change, and blind to the fact that progress often means replacing outdated compromises with something better. Clinging to FDR’s rushed wartime wing as if it were sacred architecture is the perfect example of that mindset.

lol. Obama’s joke at the correspondents dinner was pretty spot on. Trump is turning the WH into a gaudy casino. What do you expect when you put classless trash in office.

[ChumpDumper]

The White House itself isn’t being altered. What’s proposed is an addition — something entirely consistent with its history. FDR’s East Wing wasn’t some architectural masterpiece; it was a rushed wartime project, purely utilitarian, and it never matched the elegance of the original residence. It served its purpose in the 1940s, but it’s outdated and inadequate for the modern presidency.

The new design, by contrast, is deliberate, proportioned, and meant to harmonize with the neoclassical style of the White House. It replaces a pragmatic but clumsy wing with one that actually fits the stature of the ins ution today. Preserving history doesn’t mean clinging to every makeshift addition; it means ensuring the White House remains both functional and dignified for future generations. Best of all, it costs the taxpayers nothing.

And here’s the real point: the resistance you’re voicing is exactly what we see from today’s libs on every issue. Desperate to protect the status quo, terrified of change, and blind to the fact that progress often means replacing outdated compromises with something better. Clinging to FDR’s rushed wartime wing as if it were sacred architecture is the perfect example of that mindset.

Whose point is this?

You didn't write this.

[Winehole23]

structured paragraphs and compound sentences give it away

Snake Boy has never posted like that

[Winehole23]

(might be his longest post ever in this subforum ostensibly in his own words)

[Winehole23]

Trump having to live next to a demolished East Wing for three years because he didn't get permission to demolish it nor to build a ballroom in its place would be a fitting and symbolic result of his No Kings tantrum

Weeks after Trump demolished the historic East Wing of the White House to make way for the $300 million ballroom, the National Trust Preservation Committee has filed the first major lawsuit attempting to halt further construction until a “legally mandated review process” can take place.

The East Wing of the White House was entirely demolished to make room for Donald Trump’s $300 million ballroom.Alex Wong Getty Images

This would include a public comment period, giving Americans the chance to have a say in the future of the much-loved building.

“No president is legally allowed to tear down portions of the White House without any review whatsoever—not President Trump, not President Biden, not anyone else,” says the group’s complaint, which was filed in the US District Court for the District of Columbia.

Construction crews continue to remove the East Wing of the White House on November 14.Andrew Leyden/Getty

“And no president is legally allowed to construct a ballroom on public property without giving the public the opportunity to weigh in.

“President Trump’s efforts to do so should be immediately halted, and work on the ballroom project should be paused until the defendants complete the required reviews—reviews that should have taken place before the defendants demolished the East Wing, and before they began construction of the ballroom—and secure the necessary approvals."

https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-...th-legal-move/

[Winehole23]

TRO hearing on Tuesday

[Winehole23]

Trump having to live next to a demolished East Wing for three years because he didn't get permission to demolish it nor to build a ballroom in its place would be a fitting and symbolic result of his No Kings tantrum

https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-...th-legal-move/

in which case corporate donations for the ballroom would be stripped to their basic intention -- pure bribes