--- an assault which is not deeply good
Preface: Political Science research --- truly scientific research --- supports the contention that the Rule of Law based Democracies like in the US just simply work better than the old styled 1500s era Rule of Men Patrimonial Governments. Reason? Well, Rule of Law systems are more likely to be empathy-based ethical (and science-based, competence in the Government) systems, The Ethic represented in the Law, as in what reasoned people can go along with. Rule of Men systems, in contrast, run mainly on ego-based loyalty with only dark empathy among a few, with a tendency to corruption and incompetence. So, why are so many countries going back to the Rule of Men Patrimony, which is based in cargo-cult science? Said kind of science is make-believe and low-level theory --- to include ignoring the key role of The Ethic. The key role of The Ethic comes from serious inquiry into the humanities, the human sciences, as well as the biological and social sciences. The Rule of Law stands the test using science & humanities, the Rule of Men does not. The recent-must-read book by Political (Research) Scientists Hanson and Kopstein (2024) explores the reasons why Rule of Men is coming back into use, even though lacking in credentials. The book also helps in framing the work at stopping said move. It needs to be taken seriously: As serious inquiry in science & humanities (human science) --- not cargo-cult science, but true science --- makes clear, Rule of Men Government tends to create more problems than it solves.
To give context to this Metaeconomic Review of The Assault on the State… Attack on Modern Government (Hanson and Kopstein 2024), it needs to be understood that the assault and the attack are in effect on the Rule of Law styled Government which requires a competence based Administrative State. In contrast, The Rule of Men styled Patrimonial Governments being installed are run by loyalists, competence optional, and law is only used selectively to keep the Patrimony in power. The attack and assault on Administrative Government is in effect an attack on the Enlightened form of Government formed in many countries after the 1600s as represented in The Rule of Law --- which moved beyond the unenlightened form of Government in all time prior to and including the 1500s as represented in The Rule of Men. Why go back to the 1500s?
The attack on the Administrative Agencies and the Rule of Law are well underway in the US, starting especially on January 20, 2025, with 297 “orders'" framed by Project 2025 --- better named Project 1500 --- and being carried forward by the President, with all pointing in that direction. The President has even referred to the US Modern Administrative State as a nefarious “deep state” that is doing bad for the American public. Not. The Administrative State is deeply good for Americans. And, to make clear it is an assault, the President pointed out to a joint session of US Congress that “the days of unelected bureaucrats are over.”
So, to fix the nonexistent, bogeyman “deep state” the plan is to move away from professional, competent, dedicated civil servants who work to serve the public good. The plan is to replace competent civil servants with loyalists --- competence optional --- who are to be installed in the Federal Agencies --- both the Cabinet and Other Agencies --- in any still remaining after the assault is completed.
So, what is really going on is that Project 2025 is forming a deeply bad state, loaded with loyalists and, well, again, competence optional. And while Modern Government --- the Modern Administrative State --- is all about being deeply good made possible only with competent civil servants who are trained in science and know how to use the latest science (to include the humanities, as in human science), the assault puts no value in said kind of Government.
A Government run with loyalist loaded Agencies doing what “the pater” commands --- rather than with competent professionals who work to find sufficient reason based in science undergirding the Law to take some action --- is referred to in Hanson and Kopstein (2024) as a patrimony. It is about The Rule of Men, not The Rule of Law. The loyalists cater to “the pater” to run the government --- it is framing the country as a kind of family with the strict, strong father in charge, a vertical power structure --- which is not only likely to be incompetent but also to be corrupt. Patrimonies in general are mainly about using political power to take and concentrate wealth in the hands of “the pater” and the loyalists to same. The patrimonial Government is not about serving the widely shared public interest represented in the public good.
Making Sense of the Move to Patrimony
So, how make sense of it all? Why would the US be moving toward a regime of patrimony --- moving into a patrimonialism styled government --- which is about the Rule of Men (literally, with loyalists in tow) and away from an inclusive democracy based government which runs on the Rule of Law? The 1787 US Constitution put down the foundation to build a country that ran on The Rule of Law, with three power offsetting branches of government represented in the Legislative and Judicial as offsets to the Executive. So, why now move to a variant on the exclusive power of an Executive as in a patrimony? Why concentrate power in “the pater” as the Executive, who can then use (and make) Law as “the pater” wishes, to serve the ends of the patrimonial loyalists?
Hanson and Kopstein (2024) weave the story in 6-chapters covering 271-pages, and, a sobering story it is, pointing to the Spaceship-wide movement to patrimony. Said form of government was around in all recorded history through the 1500s, after which many if not all countries started to move beyond it, as represented in the Enlightenment. The Enlightenment pointed to a potentially far superior form of Government built on the Rule of Law, an understanding represented in a well-informed, well-educated group of US Founders of America in 1776. The Founders on the way to the framers of the 1787 US Constitution had knowledge coming out of 100s of years of serious and systematic inquiry in the sciences & humanities, and, yes, lots of Human experience as to what worked best. The pursuit of sufficient reason to choose some form of Government that worked best pointed to moving away from the Rule of Men toward the Rule of Law. The US is perhaps the best example of why it is the best form, helping ensure it is now the wealthiest Nation on the Spaceship Earth --- at least it was prior to January 20, 2025, which is the starting date for a major assault on the US Administrative State and the attack on US Modern Government. It is in effect an attack on The Rule of Law.
The Old Unproductive Debate About More Market VS More Government
To frame the Review, it is best to start with the observation in the last Chapter of the book that the US has always had a kind of ongoing, internal feud about, as Hanson and Kopstein (2024, p. 173) points to “… whether to have ‘more state’ or ‘more market’ … not recognizing that neither ‘the state’ nor ‘the market’ are capable on their own, each needing the other…” to do what is necessary in achieving the true wealth of the Nation. In fact, as Hanson and Kopstein (2024, p. 173) also point out, while it is about balance, the “…very quest to find a proper ‘balance’ between the state and the market … is a luxury of modern times” made possible in Rule of Law systems. In the old patrimonialism form of government, “the pater” and loyalists made all the decisions about what happened. In patrimony, the notion of finding the best balance in Market & State, Market & Government was not a question that the ordinary person had any say in resolving.
Dual Interest Theory (DIT) in Metaeconomics Points to Joint Market & Government
Notice the introduction of the “&” here, which comes from Dual Interest Theory (DIT) in Metaeconomics (see Lynne 2020 for how the “&” plays in every realm of economy & society). The old feud as in Market VS Government is unproductive as is made clear using DIT. In fact, the November 5, 2024 Election results led to a framing that Government is a kind of enemy to be subdued, minimized at best, and at worst just gotten rid of, as in shutting down the Modern Administrative State. It is framed as somehow the Government represented in the Administrative State is opposed to the Market, and, if only the Administrative State would be neutralized if not outrightly destroyed (like shutting down entire Agencies that are doing good things in serving the public good), the Market will somehow alone lead to the true wealth of the Nation.
Joint Effort in Market & Government is Essential to the True Wealth of the Nation
So, the frame, especially since the January 20, 2025 inauguration is to assault the Administrative State and attack Modern Government --- which DIT in Metaeconomics makes clear if it is successful will greatly reduce if not outrightly destroy the wealth of the Nation. DIT makes clear it is about a joint, inseparable, science-based effort of Market & Government that leads to true wealth, and, in fact to the GDP of $224/capita/day --- the wealthiest Nation on the Spaceship Earth --- which was still in play prior to January 20, 2025.
The assault and attack if it is successful assures the $224 will eventually be a far lower number, perhaps like in the Patrimonies already operating in Putin-Russia $38; Orban-Hungary $61; Erdogan-Turkey $35; Xi-China $33. Also, it could get even worse, as the directives coming out since January 20, 2025 are also bringing theology into play in an integrated church & state framing, so nudging the US toward theocracy, who just never do well: Compare US $224 with Akhundzada-Afghanistan $1/capita/day and Khamenei-Iran $17. So, why is the US moving toward patrimony under the Rule of Men with said rules based in ideology & theology (i.e., basing it in cargo-cult science) that counters a science-based system giving content to the Rule of Law? The move ensures far lower wealth (and happiness other than perhaps among the loyalists) than the US had prior to January 20, so, why head toward Patrimony?
Story is Weaved in Six Chapters on the Drivers to Move Toward Patrimony, and, How to Stop It
The titles of the six chapters in Hanson and Kopstein (2024) give some hints as to what is driving the move to Patrimony, and, how to slow it down on the way to stopping it, as in: At the Precipice; The Deep State Bogeyman; Beyond the Democracy Debate; How Vladimir Putin Resurrected Tsarism; The Wave from East to West; and, ending on a hopeful note, Reclaiming the Modern State. We take each in turn.
1 At the Precipice
The problem is the constant assault on the Administrative State from all directions, while way too few are working at making the strong case for having a competent, professional Administrative State which is essential to a Modern Economy & Modern Government. Hanson and Kopstein (2024, p. 14) point to the nature of the assault from both Left and Right, although concentrated on the Right: “On the left, democratic socialists see the state as an instrument of wealthy corporate interests, while anarchists continue their quest to smash the state entirely. On the right, Christian nationalists and supporters of enhanced presidential executive power have allied to undermine the power of the secular ‘administrative state.’ Meanwhile, influential billionaires promote the staunchly anti-statist philosophy of libertarianism at think- tanks, universities, and chambers of commerce across the country.”
The effort has especially come from the right in “… a global wave of rebellion against the modern state … countries around the world … libertarians, religious nationalists, and supporters of strong executive power have aligned against what they see as the threat to human freedom (which said groups claim stems from) overweening state regulation.” The assault from the Right has not only been especially assertive, but also well-funded, as in the Heritage Foundation coordinating the efforts of 100s of right-wing and religious organizations in putting out Project 2025.
Unfortunately, the story about the key role of Modern Administrative State with Agencies key in helping make the Modern Economy work has not been told enough. As Hanson and Kopstein (2024, p. 10) say it “Like the air we breathe, government agencies are mostly invisible, but without them we would be in grave danger. Without them, our food, water, and air would be poisonous, our money worthless, our children taught by incompetents or worse, our votes uncounted, and our national security violated. What if we no longer had legally constituted states, qualified experts, and well-organized bureaucracies to keep us secure, healthy, and democratic? What if we were to revert in the twenty-first century to premodern forms of personalistic rule? …. responded to public health crises, natural disasters, and questions of national security with quack remedies, consultation with oracles and soothsayers, or casting blame on ‘impure’ outsiders. This was considered normal, and the results were horrifying: millions of needless deaths in plagues, floods, and genocides. In the modern world, a return to this sort of rule would threaten the very survival of our species. And as unlikely as it sounds, we are far closer to that precipice than most people imagine.”
There it is. We stand on a precipice, and, for some reason are choosing to fall into it by returning to the Rule of Men, as in neo-patrimonialism, a modern version of the failed patrimonies of the 1500s. In particular, the US Project 2025 (also now in play in Milei-Argentina) is better referred to as Project 1500, the time when the Patrimonies ran every Government on the Spaceship Earth. Why go back to the 1500s? The Medieval Festivals really were not that much fun.
2 The Deep State Bogeyman
And, how did the US, in particular, get to the precipice? The stories leading to the precipice are about the deep state bogeyman, building on dark themes of bad things being doing to the American public. Hanson and Kopstein (2024, pp. 25-26) point to how “… Americans who primarily get their news from conservative media, the incessant repetition of these dark themes is certainly having an effect. Public opinion polls show that almost 40 percent of Americans believe that the deep state worked to overthrow President Trump, with strong majorities of both Republicans and Fox News viewers in agreement with this statement. And nearly half of Americans accept the basic idea that a shadowy group of military, intelligence, and other government officials somehow secretly directs national policy.” And, politicians have contributed to the disinformation, like in Newt Gingrich claiming, without any empirical evidence, that the 2016-2020 Trump Administration was being in effect stopped as in: “Of course, the deep state exists. There’s a permanent state of massive bureaucracies that do whatever they want and set up deliberate leaks to attack the president (Hanson and Kopstein 2024, p. 30).” Outrageous.
The point is, there is no deep state bogeyman. So, it is an assault on a non-existent bogeyman. It is just an outrageous claim with no scientific-credibility, lacking in any serious and systematic inquiry using science and humanities (human science) to give it credence. It is simply made-up, as in a kind of cargo-cult science of make-believe lacking in empirical credentials and lacking any substantive high-level theory based in said credentials.
Now, are there any legitimate claims about problems in an Administrative State at play in Modern Government running with professional, science-trained, dedicated civil servants --- with professionals operating without severe constraints by political ideology and religious theology? Well, it depends on who one asks.
Libertarian Claims
Libertarians trace back especially on the economics side of claims about a nefarious deep state to the Austrian economists Ludwig von Mises and Frederick Hayek. Chicago School Economists also became well known for said kind of framing, the most famous being Milton Friedman. And, one must also point to the pseudo-philosopher Ayn Rand. Even Alan Greenspan, had joined with the Rand Objectivist movement. Greenspan would be the Head of the Federal Reserve when the Libertarian based Neoliberal Order crashed the economy in 2008. Libertarian economic framing had started with substantive influence after 1970, building on the Friedman Declaration that corporations had no social responsibility. The libertarian movement especially grew in the 1970s and 1980s, with the Reagan Revolution also embracing the Neoliberal Order 1970-2008. Said Order is one of the main reasons we are now moving toward Patrimonialism because of the fact it led to Extreme Inequality, which ultimately brought Economic Populism and the move to Patrimony, but, more on that later.
So, what of the deep state? Well, Hayek had written The Road to Serfdom in the mid-1940s, which had been stirred by the move to almost exclusively public ownership of the means of production and central planning in the extreme socialism, communism states like Russia. The Government was running the Market with central planning, in effect “all state” and “no market.” Both Von Mises and Hayek pointed to the “calculation” problem, and the extreme intervention problem. The claim was that the Government could never have enough information about prices and costs to central plan the way to economic efficiency.
The claim led to an extreme over-reaction in the notion of “anti-statism” --- in effect anti-state --- frame of the Libertarian economists. The Administrative State was framed as a threat to the Market, being opposed to the Market, because it threatened being “free to choose” as Milton Friedman claimed.
Ironically, given that many libertarians claim Hayek as the brainchild of extreme anti-Administrative State thinking, Hayek actually was not that extreme (see Two Roads to Serfdom and The Two Roads from Mont Pelerin). Hayek fully understood the key role of oversight and bounding of the extreme libertarians was essential. Using more popular jargon, Hayek saw the dangers of Extreme Scroogism (another Road to Serfdom) and the role of some Moderate Socialism in tempering it. And, like Hanson and Kopstein (2024, p. 38-39) point out, there was a bit of exaggeration in the claims, still used by libertarians to the current time “… notwithstanding Hayek’s warnings in The Road to Serfdom, not a single country with a reformist social democratic government has ever ‘slid’ into one-party tyranny … therefore be able to argue that the state still has an important role to play in modern democratic capitalist countries without worrying that, even by broaching the topic, we are somehow inviting the imminent destruction of individual liberty.” The highly productive Scandinavian economies are a case in point.
Unfortunately, because of extreme libertarian framing: “In place of a productive discussion about how citizens of a democratic polity might strike a balance between overly invasive state intervention in their lives, on the one hand, and insufficient state provision of public goods, on the other, libertarian thinking has inspired a massive crusade against state bureaucracy itself (Hanson and Kopstein 2024, p. 39).” The libertarians need to consider DIT in Metaeconomics, which points to the key role of a competent, professional science-based set of Agencies operating within a Modern Administrative State.
DIT makes clear it is about striking balance in market freedom & administrative state nudging and perhaps bringing some reasoned controls into play (like environmental regulation to sustain the Spaceship system within which the economy is embedded), each essential to the other. DIT also points to the need to stay away from the virtually only public property extreme of Russia (which had 90-percent public property when the wall came down in 1991) and China, but also avoid the near100-percent private property implicit in extreme libertarianism. As DIT makes clear, it is about striking good balance in private & public property, market freedom & state bureaucracy.
Also, an important aside: The kind of economics underlying The Neoliberal Order 1970-2008, and especially underlying the Autocratic Neoliberalism of Project 2025 --- imposing the Market on people whether wanted or not, as turning the public schools into private schools --- well, it is carg0-cult economic science. It is a make-believe science lacking in empirical credibility, with the supposed high-level theorizing lacking in empirical support. It is an ideology, not a science. For more analysis on the matter of Cargo-Cult Economics and the need to replace with a Humanomics like represented in Metaeconomics, see Lynne (in press).
Religious Claims
Another party to the assault on the Modern Administrative State is coming from religious fundamentalists. Hanson and Kopstein (2024, pp. 39-40) point to “General Michael Flynn – Trump’s former national security advisor who pleaded guilty to lying to federal investigators, and ultimately the recipient of a presidential pardon – likened the walls of Jericho to those of the modern deep state and promised ‘we’re going to knock those walls down’ … Roger Stone, who had claimed to have been born again after being convicted for obstruction of justice in the Mueller investigation, told the crowd it ‘…. was Jesus Christ who gave our President, Donald Trump, the courage and the compassion to save my life when I was unfairly and illegally targeted in the Mueller witch hunt … My faith is in Jesus Christ, and we will make America great again and we will stop the steal’ … Alex Jones also made an appearance, maintaining that ‘Christ’s crucifixion was not our defeat, it was our greatest victory … The state has no jurisdiction over any of us. Our relationship with God is sacred and is eternal’…. the belief that a hidden power within the state, a state-within-the-state, is aiming to thwart God’s will.” Well, so much for a reasoned God who would likely support a Modern Administrative State run by competent civil servants who, with God, would work at finding sufficient reason for some action. A reasoned God would also help scientists do things like create an mRNA Covid vaccine brought to the attention of Americans by a competent scientist like Dr. Fauci, who is not some bad deep state person.
The Christian Nationalists especially do not see it as a subject for a reasoned God. To understand the frame, consider Sociologists Philip Gorski and Samuel Perry who summarize what they term “white Christian nationalism” with three words: freedom, order, and violence…. (freedom) for Christians to practice their religion ... Order means hierarchy with white Christian men at the top … violence is the means reserved for white Christian men to defend freedom and maintain order (p. 40).” Little to no reasoning here.
Also, Hanson and Kopstein (2024, p. 42) point out that Christian Nationalists are against any kind of socialism that is viewed as correcting past or present racial and ethnic injustices. In addition, Christian Nationalists do not favor the Modern State because it works to administer “…. welfare programs, provide aid to refugees, enforce economic and environmental regulations, or devise public health and vaccine requirements (as said Administrative Staters) are populated by ‘experts’ who show little deference to traditional hierarchies or sources of authority. For many Christian nationalists, the state is also seen as complicit in the ‘great replacement,’ itself a conspiracy theory about the supposed desire of Jews and other ‘globalists’ to engineer mass migration of nonwhite people to the United States and other ‘Western’ countries to replace whites with pliant and racially inferior peoples (p. 42).” The Administrative State is an imagined enemy to be assaulted.
And, then, the matter of sex and gender, the State wishing to act on the science rather than the religion, well, again, the enemy. It is wrapped in a claim by Orban of Hungary, who is a kind of brainchild of the Religious Fundamentalists as represented in the Christian Nationalists: “Hungary shall protect the institution of marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Family ties shall be based on marriage or the relationship between parent and children. To sum up, the mother is a woman, the father is a man, and leave our kids alone. Full stop. End of discussion (Hanson and Kopstein 2024, pp. 42-43)!” Ironically, recognizing the science of sexuality and gender, rather than using a simplistic designation based on visual inspection at birth, has now been renamed gender ideology. It is ironic in that the true gender ideology (really a gender theology) is based on using visual inspection.
Unfortunately, the counter to the science of gender has also been given supposed credence in the Law by the Federalist Society. Said society is powered by Libertarians and Unitary Executive Theorists, as well as by religious fundamentalists. Hanson and Kopstein (2024, pp. 43-44) point to claims “Leonard Leo reportedly believes that ‘most of the New Deal and administrative state are unconstitutional, that corporations have free speech and free religion rights, that women and LGBT people are not ‘protected classes’ under constitutional law, and that there is no right to privacy implied by the due process clause of the Constitution (i.e., banning abortion, contraception, and gay marriage are entirely constitutional).’ Judging by the rapidly changing ideological composition of the US Supreme Court, the Federalist Society’s efforts have been largely successful (pp. 43-44)… (even that has been too slow for Christian Nationalists, not fast enough in reintegrating) … church and state ...”
Reminded here of: “The opening verse of the Gospel of Saint John couldn’t have but astonished the Greek world with its philosophical overtones: “In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and the Logos was God” (1:1). The Greek Logos in this verse is usually rendered in English as ‘the Word,’ but to a Greek speaker, it also would have meant ‘reason.’ ‘In the beginning was reason, and reason was with God, and reason was God.’ Reason was God (Ahmari 2021, pp. 51-52).” As Ahmari (2021) convincingly argues, the reasoned God would support fact-content found by scientists who are reasoned. And, well, the sex and gender issue, it is clear the reasoned God would support everyone on the LGQBT spectrum. It is gender ideology to deny what the reasoned God would go along with.
Centralize the Power in the Executive: Unitary Executive Theory
And, then, the Unlimited Executive Power group, supposedly resting on a credible Unitary Executive Theory, is all in on assaulting the Agencies, because “… the ability of state agencies and judges to resist executive power blocks the power of the president to enact their favored conservative policies (Hanson and Kopstein 2024, p. 44).” So, again, it is ideology and theology, not coming out of serious and systematic inquiry using science and humanities. And, now it is coming out in the form of a Patrimony, “the pater” --- “the Don” – stated his views (Hanson and Kopstein 2024, p. 47): “I have an Article II, where I have the right to do whatever I want as president’ (pp. 46-47).”
Assault on the State is Drastic, and Any Resistance is Rebuffed with Hyperbole
Hanson and Kopstein (2024, pp. 47-48) bring it all together: “The combination of a libertarian suspicion of ‘creeping socialism,’ Christian nationalist resentment at perceived assaults on religious liberty by the ‘secular state,’ and anger at encroachments on Republican presidential power by ‘liberal judges and bureaucrats’ has become a recipe for general fury at the US administrative state in its entirety… Those who still wish to defend an ongoing significant role for the state in providing public goods (schools, roads, airports, and health inspectors, for example) and welfare protection are painted as communist apologists, crusading atheists, and victims of ‘Trump derangement syndrome’ – all at the same time.” Hyperbole, indeed.
Some Hope: Unholy Alliance is at Odds
Yet the resistance can have some hope because the unholy alliance is at odds, internally: “… three camps may agree on a common enemy, but their visions of the country’s future are utterly at odds. Libertarians obviously don’t want to live under the strict enforcement of religious morality, particularly when it poses a direct threat to individual liberty. The sacred texts of libertarianism are themselves hardly supportive of Christian values: Ayn Rand was famously atheistic, and Hayek was an avowed agnostic. Religious nationalists, for their part, might think they prefer vastly expanded power for the executive branch – as long as the occupant of the White House is, like Trump, willing to promote overt Christianity in government.. (and the various religious groups do not all agree, either) (Hanson and Kopstein 2024, p. 48).” The Chrisitan Nationalists will not be happy if a Libertarian or an Atheist or even a Deist (like the Founders of the US who in the main were Deists) was suddenly elevated into the position of “the pater.”
And, on moving Patrimony with the likes of “the Don” in charge with the Rule of Men, few in the alliance will be happy with it. Libertarians will soon discover the key role played by the Administrative in giving some order to the Market. Expert staffed agencies are key, e.g., in the joint effort of SpaceX & NASA. Regularized administrative procedures and an independent judiciary--- not tolerated in a Patrimony --- will be gone. Markets clearly are not free within a Patrimony. And, the Religionists? Well, what if “the pater” is not truly religious, like in the case of “the Don” or, perhaps someone with a different kind of fundamentalism makes way to the position of “the pater.” What then? And, then the Unitary Executive Power group will also soon sort out how the unchecked “pater” can quickly degenerate into lawlessness and weakness. The “pater” only pulls the levers of loyalists and cronies.
And, for the ordinary people, many of whom now fill the ranks of the MAGA: “… the return of premodern forms of rule and the destruction of professional government administration will plunge us back into the poor, unhealthy, and unsafe world that the modern state has helped much of humanity to overcome. But now the threat is not simply to one society or another, but to the entire human species (Hanson and Kopstein 2024, p. 50).” Make America Think Again (MATA), please.
3 Beyond the Democracy Debate
The gradual and sometimes not so gradual erosion of democracy around the Spaceship Earth is underway. Hanson and Kopstein (2024) point to the erosion as demonstrated in Modi-India and Orban-Hungary, both increasingly authoritarian states. It also emerged in Bolsonaro-Brazil, Johnson-UK, Netanyahu-Israel, and, yes, now in Trump-America. And, the crash toward patrimony is often demonstrated as some kind of pseudo-democracy, as in “electoral autocracy.” A main point made by Hanson and Kopstein (2024) is that the historical view that countries could be understood as being on some continuum from autocracy to democracy is flawed. It is far more complex, once it is realized that various forms of patrimony are what is actually at play, and that the really important continuum is from the Rule of Men to the Rule of Law. It is more about inclusive government made possible in the Rule of Law, while the loyalists as the “us” are all that is included in the Rule of Men.
And, the important distinction in Hanson and Kopstein (2024) is the key role of the competent civil service in the modern administrative state that is not only essential too, but is more likely to emerge in the Rule of Law form of Government. Now, it is not impossible to have a cadre of competent, science-framed professionals working in a Rule of Men Government, but it does not generally happen as the “merit” hire is no longer about competence --- as in versed in science & humanities, technically skilled --- but is about loyalty to the ideology and/or theology of the Man in Charge. The latter is also why Rule of Men Government tends to become ever more corrupt as well as incompetent through time.
Intriguingly, once the Patrimony is operating, “the pater” claims the expertise is that of the loyalists and the genius of the pater, so anyone outside are the real authoritarians. In the Patrimony, it turns to personalism, the leader and loyalists in play, rather than fact-content based proceduralism by a competent set of public servants in a competent agency. The personalism also tends to go with the men in charge, with women and anyone of gender on the continuum relegated to the background, even viewing same as some kind of existential threat.
Hanson and Kopstein (2024) point to the dangers of the Spaceship wide history and current move to Patrimonialism, pointing to Marcos-Philippines; Trujillo-Dominican Republic; and Selassie-Ethiopia, including even the Netherlands and France way back in the 1500s-1600s, as other cases in point. Ironically, early Russia had made moves away from Patrimonialism even earlier than some in the Western nations, and now has fully embraced it again under Putin-Russia.
Now, what moves such Patrimonial forms to a Modern Government, a competent Government with less to no corruption? Well, it is the Modern Administrative State. Modern Government using a Modern Administrative State is about providing for the widely shared interest, shared with others, in the public interest. It is that kind of public interest that leads to the public good. As DIT makes clear, the Administrative State helps in striking good balance in the private & public good. It is why the Modern Economy also emerges: The wealthiest countries on the Spaceship Earth have found ways to strike the balance in the Market & Government, Private Market Competence & Public Administrative State Competence. Patrimonialism which is long on loyalty and short on competence cannot compete in the modern Spaceship Earth system.
4 How Vladimir Putin Resurrected Tsarism
Hanson and Kopstein (2024) make it clear that a personalistic autocracy --- a Patrimony --- was built on the implosion of the Soviet economy after the 1991 break-up of all the countries formerly under the Soviet Union; the arrogance of Western advisors --- many economists --- who just made recommendations about moving full-bore to private property rights and incentives and did not deal with the shared interest in building a Rule of Law (institutions --- private property law did not even exist --- were ignored, including the need for building competent Administrative Agencies); and, some random circumstances that helped build the vertical power of a patrimonial petrol state, due to rapid increases in the price of oil at just the right time for “the Putin” take advantage of a huge inflow of petro cash. The Patrimony had substantive money from the sale of oil.
Instead, the West brought “shock therapy” as represented in moving from a public property state to a private property state without developed coherent property law; moving to price as the way to allocate resources without understanding the Market working with price is embedded in the larger Community: Government of shared interest, and the latter had to be built first; and, not realizing the extent of the rot and cronyism that was in place at the time of the Soviet Union being broke-up. And, it did not necessarily just go away. Putin-Russia is a Patrimony, in the main with a dysfunctional Administrative State, run by loyalists. It runs on The Rule of Men, with the Rule of Law only used to serve the loyalists in the Patrimony. The Rule of Men also tends to destroy independent initiative and autonomy, taking the creativity out of the system, slowing and dampening the innovism which is central in an integrated, joint Modern Market & Modern (competent Agencies key) Government.
5 The Wave: From East to West
Hanson and Kopstein (2024) point to a kind of arrogance on the part of the West that claims innovation in political structure and process moves West to East, as in exporting small-d democracy. In the current situation, the opposite is true: The Patrimonialism that originated in the East is coming West, at a rapid pace. And, what is driving it? Well, more or less the same forces that drove Putin-Russia.
In the US, it was the crash in 2008 that brought it into view. The massive, extreme inequality that was caused by The Neoliberal Order 1970-2008 was the main driver. The collapse of the house mortgage market was another, and, then, the recession that came after all of it. Labor had been left behind, especially in the middle-rank as lower-income people were being helped by Government safety net and welfare programs, and, the upper income group, well, massive wealth was accumulated by same over the “no social responsibility” era starting in the Friedman Declaration of 1970, made worse by the Reagan Revolution in the early-1980s . In DIT terms, only the Incentive to operated on extreme greed without any regard for the Ethic --- what other affected groups, especially middle-class labor, could reasonably go along with. Massive bank bailouts after the 2008 crash did not help, especially when sometimes Government bail out money was paid as bonuses to the people that had crashed the system: Neoliberalism on steroids, all Incentive and being opposed to Ethical reflection.
And, then, predictably the personalistic authoritarian in the form of Trump arrived to fix it. Trump then proceeded to vilify every Agency, every aspect of the Administrative State, mainly because said entities would bound “the Don” from absolute power.
In the UK, similar issues had come out of the same framing, as in the Thatcher Revolution coinciding with the Reagan Revolution. It all came to head with Boris Johnson in effect driving the UK to leave the EU.
Hanson and Kopstein (2024) go through the attempt to form patrimonialism in Ukraine, which Putin was wanting. It would be about a whole series of countries in region of the old Soviet Union run by Putins. Hanson and Kopstein (2024) liken it to the “heads of families” in Mario Puzo’s The Godfather. Intriguingly, Paul Manafort who later became a campaign manager for Trump in the 2016 election had been a consultant to a candidate that had in mind being the head of Patrimony-Ukraine. It was thwarted by Ukrainians who wanted instead to move toward the Rule of Law, and join the EU. Zelensky was elected as a result.
An intriguing approach had been used to bring the former Soviet Union countries into the EU. As made clear in DIT as being essential: “Europe held its doors open, but made membership conditional on passing what by the late 1990s had ballooned into 88,000 pages of EU law and regulations – known collectively as the acquis communautaire – into local legislation and implementing it, no questions asked … EU expansion amounted to a big modern state-building project, replacing the militarized totalitarian leviathans of the communist world with the law-based regulatory states of the EU (Hanson and Kopstein 2024, pp. 125-126).” Well, the Europeans understood the key role of the shared interest, as represented in the Law, giving context the Market.
And, while that worked at first for Hungary, Orban eventually built on internal discontent with the law passed down from Brussels, especially on sex and gender issues. Orban became the darling of the US Right, with both Governor DeSantis and later Candidate for the 2024 Election Trump. And, is it good? Well, “Orbán attacked the core of Hungary’s nascent modern state and replaced it bit by bit with a bloated army of incompetent loyalists who wrecked Hungary’s schools, gutted its healthcare system, and forced its most prestigious university to flee to neighboring Austria (Hanson and Kopstein 2024, p. 131).” Since January 20, 2025, many in the US are now wondering how moving toward Patrimony is going to go --- what has happened in Hungary is not good news --- perhaps even stirring flight from the US.
Hanson and Kopstein (2024, pp.. 132-134) point to a remarkably similar nature of the attack as the Patrimonial Government modeled on Putin-Russia comes West. Core features include the attack on the civil service and judiciary in the service of personalistic power; extreme libertarians having undue influence; religious nationalism; and, perhaps the most disturbing, the concentration of power in a leader and the loyalists. The attack on civil service, independent courts, investigative journalists, undermining and cutting oversight entities, and attacks on institutions of higher education are unprecedented in heretofore Rule of Law places. Also, as Hanson and Kopstein (2024, p. 136) point out, Netanyahu did it during the Covid crisis, as did Trump: “Relying on the residual expertise and capacity of the modern state, while ‘harvesting’ it for personal benefit, has become standard practice in the modern patrimonial playbook..”
6 Reclaiming the Modern State
Hanson and Kopstein (2024) work to give the reader hope, after going through a couple hundred pages that are quite disturbing, shocking may be an even better word, that way too many former Rule of Law Governments are going back toward 1500s era Rule of Men Patrimonialism. To deal with it, the suggestions are: “First, we must diagnose the problem clearly and educate the public … Second, … double down on the defense of our existing state apparatus against its enemies. Third, … mobilize public sentiment in support of the hardworking people who staff state agencies … Fourth, we need to reorient our foreign policy to include the defense of rule-of-law states – and not just democracy – the assault on the modern state is a worldwide phenomenon, and our collective response has to be an international one (p. 166).”
All good ideas, and, Metaeconomics has a lot to say about the essential role of the “defense of the existing state apparatus” as in thinking about the joint effort of Market & Agencies, Market & Government with each essential to the other. Understanding it is “&” and not “VS” is essential to keep America a competitor for being the truly most wealthy country on the Spaceship Earth.
So, be watching for: Rule by the leader’s extended household. The attack on the civil service, the judiciary, and government agencies. Elimination of professional expertise. Be careful of claims for no more unelected bureaucrats… call it out.
Also bring into view the matter of the supposed superiority represented in the (Hanson and Kopstein 2024, p. 163) false claim of the superiority of the Market in every instance, as in the “efficiency of the market” vs the Government not able to do any good as in the “tyranny of the government.” And, sure, there can be lazy or not well organized bureaucrats, always the department of motor vehicles critique comes to mind … but the same is true in private business. And, on abuse of welfare: The idle rich come to mind, living off of grandpa’s innovism and doing nothing productive for the larger society. Also, it is essential to point to the real possibility that wealth families can be corrupting to families… and how much easier it is to bound same by the Rule of Law than by a Rule of Men.
Also, Hanson and Kopstein (2024, p. 168) point to the need to be careful of the Left critique too.. like “governance-driven democratization, permanent democracy, recursive democratization… may not be workable. Yet, a viable Administrative state may need to “become an arena of democracy.” It is about placing the Administrative State within a liberal democratic society.
The matter of meritocracy also needs to be addressed. It is not just the Harvard, Yale and Stanford graduates who are capable in running a competent Administrative State. The public universities can play a key role, and help move the frame away from the notion that the elites are somehow in charge. Need unabashed support for the public universities, as well as the Administrative Agencies said universities help staff. Need to stop the attack on judges, election officials, professional journalists, even the postal service which is essential to handle mail-in ballots.
And, as alluded to at the outset, it is time to set aside the old tired debate about “more state” or “more market” … and the tired debate about “the state” vs “the market.” It is rather about Market & State, Market & Government in good balance.
The trashing of the people who choose public service must also be stopped, immediately. Young people --- the best and the brightest --- need to be encouraged to take up public service. Public relations campaigns are needed to bring young talent into Government service, not loyalists in a Patrimonial system.
Modern representative democracy needs the modern state. Need strong alliance between those who support democracy and those who support the modern state… global order will crumble with patrimonies in competition for power… like causing a climate catastrophe… need cooperation among modern administrative states. As Hanson and Kopstein (2024, p. 183) make clear: “Preserving the modern state at this critical juncture may determine the fate of humanity itself.”
References
Ahmari, Sohrab. 2021. The Unbroken Thread: Discovering the Wisdom of Tradition in an Age of Chaos. Harmony/Rodale/Convergent. Kindle Edition.
Hanson, Stephen E. and Kopstein, Jeffrey S. 2024. The Assault on the State: How the Global Attack on Modern Government Endangers Our Future. Hoboken, NJ: Polity Press.
Lynne, Gary D. 2020. Metaeconomics: Tempering Excessive Greed. (Palgrave Advances in Behavioral Economics). New York: Palgrave McMillan.
Lynne, Gary D. (in Press). "Cargo-Cult Economics to Metaeconomics: Toward a Humanomics with a Theory." Review of Behavioral Economics
Comments