Patrimonialism

by Jack R. Johnson 03.2025

The recent shake down of Zelensky in front of the Presidential press corps (what’s left of it)  resembled nothing so much as a pack of small time wise guys shaking down an embattled shop owner. “You don’t have the cards!” sneered Trump, “you’re gambling with World War III.” While JD Vance, the lesser henchman piped up with the ultimate crime for the La Cosa Nostra types, “You need to be thankful… Have you said thank you once, in this entire meeting? In this entire meeting, have you said thank you once?” Like he’s channeling Joe Pesci.

Indeed, the single unifying word that can capture tenor and bathos of the recent turmoil was suggested by writer Jonathan Rauch in the latest issue of the Atlantic: patrimonialism. If you’re unfamiliar with the term, perhaps a few other similar phrases can help: The Mob, La Cosa Nostra, Our Thing. In Trump world, everything is transactional and he very much wants to be the capo di tutti capi (boss of all bosses). In this sense, as Rauch notes, “it is not classic authoritarianism—nor is it autocracy, oligarchy, or monarchy.” Instead, Trump’s source of legitimacy “is more ancient, more common, and more intuitive”—the default form of rule in the premodern world, a fealty to a single father figure, like, say, a Godfather. 

The famous sociologist, Max Weber called this system “patrimonialism” because rulers claimed to be the symbolic father of the people—the state’s personification and protector. It’s an idea that is encapsulated in Trump’s own channeling of Napoleon’s famous quote “He who saves his Country does not violate any Law.” Because of course, he is the law. Or, as King Louis XIV famously noted, L'État, c'est moi. (I am the state). Rauch writes, “Based on individual loyalty and connections, and on rewarding friends and punishing enemies (real or perceived), [patrimonialism] can be found not just in states but also among tribes, street gangs, and criminal organizations.” A notable example of such corruption could be Musk’s proposed Starlink contract with the FAA for its air traffic control communications network, worth some 2.4 billion dollars.  Until  Musk’s DOGE investigation, this contract was going to Verizon. The FAA and other companies DOGE has targeted for layoffs are responsible for regulating Musk-owned companies and several have accused his businesses of violations. Now, despite conflict of interest concerns, Musk has recommended that his own company be awarded the 2.4 billion dollar Starlink contract, which will add significantly to the $30 billion in public funds Tesla and SpaceX have received over the past 15 years, according to a Forbes analysis. This is patrimonialism in a nutshell. Notably, it is also the way Putin has managed to organize the Russian oligarchs to do his bidding.

To be clear, the United States has come close to patrimonialism before.  George Washington might have set up such a system, but he understood and defended the constitution by voluntarily stepping down after his second term. Andrew Jackson, however, famously declared that public offices should be rotated among party supporters in order to help the nation achieve its “republican ideals.” He favored a patronage or spoils system. Performance in public office, Jackson maintained, “required no special intelligence or training, and rotation in office would ensure that the federal government did not develop a class of civil servants set apart from the people.” His supporters advocated the spoils system on practical political grounds, viewing it as a way to reward party loyalists and build a stronger party organization. As Jacksonian Senator William Marcy of New York proclaimed, “To the victor belongs the spoils.”

The problem with the spoils system was the same problem that Weber noted with patrimonialism. It inevitably bred corruption, considerably more so than a merit based system. Lesser qualified individuals received jobs purely on the basis of their loyalty to their party and/or the president.

Jackson’s assertion that no special skill or training was required for working in the Federal government was doubtful in the early 1800s, but later in that century it was patently false. In Jackson’s time, there were approximately 20,000 federal employees. By 1884, there were over 130,000. Additionally, federal jobs became more specialized and required new skills thanks to the industrial revolution. Jobs were sold and bartered to the highest bidders, rather than being based on technical expertise or merit. Hundreds of government scandals and reports of inefficiency and corruption eroded public confidence. When the nation’s 20th President, James A. Garfield, was shot and killed in 1881, just months after taking office by a disgruntled job seeker, civil service reform became a rallying cry. 

Garfield’s assassination ultimately led to the Pendleton Act of 1883.  Under the law, the appointment process became a merit-based system that emphasized “recruitment through competitive exams and promotion based on competence rather than partisan identification.” The act took its name from long-time reformer Senator George Hunt Pendleton of Ohio and was signed by President Chester A. Arthur, who had become an ardent reformer after Garfield’s assassination.

 Initially, only 10% of federal employees were covered by the new system, which was overseen by the Civil Service Commission. But after the enactment of the Civil Service Reform Act, signed by President Jimmy Carter in 1978, more than 90 percent of federal employees were covered. 

The civil service was put in place precisely to fight the corruption inherent in a spoils or patronage system. The civil service is exactly what Trump and his appointees are trying to dismantle (appointees like Russell Vought, one of the main authors behind Project 2025 and now head of the Office of Management and Budget.) Whether they succeed or not will depend on a Supreme Court that has handed down decisions strongly in favor of executive power.

As former National Security Adviser, John Bolton has said of Trump (his ex-boss), “He can’t tell the difference between his own personal interest and the national interest, if he even understands what the national interest is.” I suppose that’s an understandable confusion, if you are like Napoleon or Mussolini or Louis XIV declaring yourself and the state to be one and the same. 

Those historical figures didn’t end well, of course. Napoleon was exiled to Elba and then St Helena. Mussolini was hung upside down from a scaffold at a service station in Milan's Piazzale Loreto, and Louis XIV’s grandson, Louis XVI was beheaded; along with many of his most loyal attendants, despite old Louis’ assertion (“I am the state!”) which did not seem to deter the starving citizens.