Several political scientists are noting that our new regime here in the US is an example of what Max Weber called “Patrimonialism.” I first saw this in Jonathan Rauch’s piece in The Atlantic the other day.

In a key section Rauch says,

Patrimonialism is less a form of government than a style of governing. It is not defined by institutions or rules; rather, it can infect all forms of government by replacing impersonal, formal lines of authority with personalized, informal ones. Based on individual loyalty and connections, and on rewarding friends and punishing enemies (real or perceived), it can be found not just in states but also among tribes, street gangs, and criminal organizations.

In its governmental guise, patrimonialism is distinguished by running the state as if it were the leader’s personal property or family business. It can be found in many countries, but its main contemporary exponent—at least until January 20, 2025—has been Vladimir Putin. In the first portion of his rule, he ran the Russian state as a personal racket. State bureaucracies and private companies continued to operate, but the real governing principle was Stay on Vladimir Vladimirovich’s good side … or else.

Francis Fukuyama takes up the topic of Trumpian patrimonialism in his piece for Persuasion.

Fukuyama describes the problem of patrimonialism as we’re experiencing it:

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 circumstances as well, as the state undertakes to protect property rights and adjudicates transactions without regard to the identity of the rights-holder.

Do we want to live in an “impersonal modern state?” Do we want our status and our fortunes to rely on our relationship to one man? I for one would rather be a citizen than a subject.

Finally, Hansen and Kopstein, the political scientists Rauch’s article works from, also have a piece in Persuasion. Their focus is on how the shift back to patrimonialism is revolutionary.

Here’s their discussion on how we should take the rhetoric of the patrimonialist leader:

There are certain rules of the game in patrimonial politics. Hanging on every word of the leader is one of them. Unfortunately, then, we need to follow Trump’s communications in their entirety in order to understand where he is taking the country.

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.

Once upon a time I would have been surprised that so many were willing to submit to this kind of leadership. Of course, James Madison expected members of congress to zealously guard the powers associated with their office, and how does such an expectation fare in our age?