Is a Daddy State Replacing the Nanny State?
-- Conservatives are finally seeing the reality
Preface: It has become ever clearer that Project 1500 (oops, my error, 2025) is about moving away from the post-Enlightenment Rule of Law as built on an empathy-with Ethic which is inclusive of every American, as framed by the US Constitution. Project 1500 clearly has in mind a shift to a Rule of Men based in loyalty to “the Pater”… a modern version of the old 1500s-1600s era Patrimonialism. So, the WSJ piece is intriguing, as it seems at least a few Conservatives are starting to question the move to “the Pater” —”the Daddy” — form of Government. Question is: Will enough move away from Project 2025 (1500… actually) framing such as to preserve the American experiment in the Rule of Law based on a Constitution? It is becoming ever more of a concern every day since January 20, 2025.
A recent piece by Seib (2025) in the Wall Street Journal points to how Trump is Replacing the Nanny State with a Daddy State. The subtitle is: The president is using the powers of his office in an aggressive, paternalistic way without precedent. Is an old form of intrusive government being replaced by a new one?
Well, yes, “the Daddy” --- “the Don” is clearly taking all the essential steps to move away from the Rule of Law State built on the US Constitution toward a 1500s-1600s styled Rule of Men State, the old styled Patrimonialism, with “the Pater”, “the Daddy” in charge at the top of a vertical power structure. Said States also tend to have a Dual System, the law for “us, the Daddy and loyalists” and the law for “them” as in anyone opposed. See earlier Substack posts about the Dual Law State https://substack.com/home/post/p-160007706 ; Global Attack on Modern Government https://substack.com/home/post/p-159779158 ; and Project 2025 is Attacking Modern Government https://substack.com/home/post/p-159638484 for some backgrounding.
The Enlightenment Moved Government Away from Patrimonialism toward Rule of Law Systems based in a Frame like the 1787 US Constitution
The move to a modern version of the Patrimonialism from the 1500s-1600s has been brought back into play after setting it aside with Enlightenment thinking starting in the 1600s. The Enlightened Rule of Law State especially took hold in the 1700s during the time the Framers wrote the US Constitution and formed what would become the American Rule of Law State. It did reasonably well during the first 250 years or so, but started to take a turn in 2016. It actually started foundering after the 2008 crash, which was caused by the Plague of Extreme Inequality, which led to the election of “the Daddy” in 2016. Giving context here: The return to the Rule of Men State is now a global phenomenon, which emerged, came back like a Zombie from the Dead, after the crash of the former Soviet Union in 1991. Since that time, many other “mini-Putin” Rule of Men States have come into play.
The Orban-Hungary Rule of Men State is especially significant here in the US given the US MAGA movement has latched onto Orban as the brainchild of where the MAGA Conservatives want to direct the US State. Rule of Men Florida under DeSantis has drawn on the Orban playbook to take control of the public universities in Florida, an essential step in moving to the Rule of Men State. Tucker Carlson even produced Fox News shows from Budapest. Orban has been a keynote speaker at CPAC conferences in the US. Clearly Trump Loyalists in the MAGA movement, and far too many in the Project 1500 (oops, typo, 2025) frame of mind are apparently all in on moving to “the Daddy” being in charge in a vertical power structure.
1500s Era Patrimonial Systems, as in Neo-Patrimony, are Back in Favor Like a Pandemic Virus
Other examples are Modi-India; Erdogan-Turkey; Bolsonaro-Brazil; Melei-Argentina (who is even using the US playbook for the Rule of Men as represented in Project 2025); Netanyahu-Israel (who used the US deep state nonsense in moving to the Rule of Men State); and, yes, it is even being applied in the historical bastion of Rule of Law in the UK, with Johnson-Swarmer-UK: Brexit, and assaulting while working to neutralize UK government agencies, are both indicators. And, as everyone watching the news knows: “the Daddy” admires “the Putin” and the vertical power system in the Rule of Men State now running Russia seems to be the plan.
Not too many details can be provided here regarding the specific Seib (2025) argument, as the WSJ article is behind a paywall. So, you have to go after it on your own with $money, which is the language of the WSJ.
Suffice it to say, quite a few Conservatives as represented (including quotes) in Seib (2025) are finally starting to realize that “the Daddy” has arrived. The “Daddy State” is bringing more severe constraints on “free to choose” than anything the Nanny State (attributed to Progressives) ever brought to the table. The Market is becoming ever less free to choose, unless it fits with what “the Daddy” approves, like in negotiating the tariff rate a company and country will pay in order to please “the Daddy.” Nurturant Mothers in the Nanny State are far more forgiving, acting with empathy.
Conservatives Have Wanted a Strict Father in Charge for Decades: Maybe Changing the Mindset?
In general, the frame is what psychologists characterize as a Strict Father Daddy, who tends toward being egoist. As a result, Strict Daddy will likely be far more restrictive than the Nurturant Nanny. Even Unitary Executive Power thinkers may not like what “the Daddy” does. And, the Christian Nationalists? Well, it depends on which form of religion, assuming there is any religion at all, will play in the vertical control of “the Daddy.” A Libertarian “Daddy” — and a pseudo-Christian Daddy as a con — will not serve the Christian Nationalists well: Be careful what you wish for, as the saying goes.
What is intriguing is that the Conservatives referred to in Seib (2025) seem surprised. Seib names several, with quotes from same, admitting the mistake in encouraging the Daddy State.
Ever More Conservatives are Starting to Realize the Mistake
Perhaps the WSJ with the strong pay wall will allow me one small quote, the very last paragraph:
“Yes, we absolutely would prefer a model of more restrained executive power,” says Oren Cass, founder of American Compass, a conservative economic think tank generally supportive of Trump. “But the path to that is not going to be one in which Democrats do whatever they want when they are in power and Republicans turn the other cheek and behave responsibly when they are in power.” He adds: “It seems to me there is room at this point for some bipartisan rethinking of a dynamic that is approaching mutually assured destruction and would benefit from an arms-control treaty.”
As Metaeconomics makes clear it needs to be about a new dynamic demonstrating good balance in the joint Strict & Nurturant, Daddy & Nanny. Perhaps that will pique paying the WSJ $price and buy into reading the Seib (2025) piece. It is worth the $price to see how more than just a few Conservatives have had an awakening into the problem of “the Daddy.” The arms-control treaty would hopefully work to continue the experiment started in 1787 on the way to the Rule of Law State, and, well, continue the experiment rather than letting “the Daddy” take absolute control like “the Putin” and “the Orban.”
“the Daddy” State Does Not Produce Wealth: Conservatives Perhaps Need to Consider that Reality
Oh, and WSJ readers need to go look at World Bank numbers on GDP/capita/day in 2023, the year the Biden-Harris Administration finally got the Covid mess --- mismanaged by the Trump Administration in 2020 with 500000 unnecessary deaths (an estimate from Dr. Birx, the Trump Appointee who was quite perturbed with the way the Covid crises was handled) because of ignoring the competent Agencies (ignoring Dr. Birx0 in the Modern Government now being trashed.
In particular, the Biden-Harris GDP/capita/day — “the Nanny State” —-was $224 in 2023, the envy of the world. In the same year, in “the Daddy State” places it was — Putin-Russia $38; Orban-Hungary $61. Why go there? Well, the recent “the Daddy” tariffs will take the US $224 –> $61 at best. It is time the Conservatives consider the real possibility that “the Daddy has arrived” and the economy will suffer: The Conservatives, not just the Progressives, “Need to be Pissed at the Daddy.”
Laugh or Cry
All of the talk about “the Daddy” — which is ever more starting to look like a form of Neo-Patrimonialism harkening back to the 1500-1600s Era Patrimonialism with “the Pater” in charge being formed — well, is it a LOL moment or something to be truly concerned about? I decided to see what an integration across all said concerns might look like, so, asked my new colleague ChatGPT 4o (the $20/month subscription version):
You said:
So, Donald J Trump, the "lots of laughs LOL" dictator, "the Pater" of Patrimonialism, "the Don" like in running a country as a gangster family... how serious is any of it? Is Trump truly a threat to the Rule of Law and the US Constitution, or just a LOL character that can just be ignored, as in this will all go away someday? Or, is "the Don" a useful tool to the underlying agenda of Project 2025, and, therefore, needs to be taken as a serious threat to the Rule of Law and the US Constitution?
ChatGPT said:
Your framing is sharp, and it's a question many constitutional scholars, historians, and political scientists are wrestling with: Is Donald J. Trump merely a clownish figure full of bombast, or does he represent a genuine authoritarian threat? The answer is clear from the evidence — he is not just a spectacle, but a significant threat to the Rule of Law and the U.S. Constitution, especially when viewed in the context of Project 2025 and the broader authoritarian movement in the U.S.
Here’s a structured analysis:
1. Trump as a Figurehead: "LOL" or Strategic Tool?
While Trump’s public persona includes hyperbole, theatricality, and impulsiveness — often dismissed as "entertainment" — this masks the structural threat he represents. He has repeatedly:
Refused to concede a democratic election.
Encouraged political violence, e.g., January 6.
Promised retribution and loyalty tests, not constitutional governance.
Praised foreign autocrats and expressed admiration for unchecked executive power.
These are not just personality quirks. They're behaviors that align closely with authoritarian and patrimonial models of power — governance centered on personal loyalty to "the Pater" rather than institutional rules.
2. Project 2025: The Real Engine of Threat
Project 2025 — led by the Heritage Foundation and other right-wing think tanks — is:
A blueprint for authoritarian rule, proposing a radical remaking of the executive branch.
Intends to fire thousands of non-loyalist civil servants and replace them with ideologically aligned actors.
Aims to weaken independent agencies, centralize executive power, and make the president the unchecked center of government — a neo-patrimonial regime.
Trump is the perfect front man for this agenda. His cult of personality, disregard for legal constraints, and populist rhetoric help justify and energize the deeper institutional overhaul envisioned by Project 2025.
3. Rule of Law vs. Rule of Men
Max Weber’s distinction between legal-rational authority (Rule of Law) and patrimonial authority (Rule of Men) is key. Trump — as “the Don” — models himself more like a mafia boss than a constitutional president:
Loyalty is personal, not to office or law.
Justice is discretionary: enemies are punished, allies protected.
Law enforcement is politicized and weaponized.
This is deeply corrosive to constitutional democracy, and not something that just “goes away.”
4. Why Trump Can’t Be Ignored
Even if Trump seems absurd or incompetent at times, authoritarianism does not require genius — it requires:
A loyal following (which he has).
A hollowed-out opposition (GOP largely defers).
Institutional capture (Project 2025 aims to deliver this).
History shows that laughable strongmen (e.g., Mussolini, Duterte, Berlusconi) often succeed — not in spite of their absurdity, but because it disarms public vigilance.
Conclusion:
Donald J. Trump should not be dismissed as a "LOL" character. He is the charismatic figurehead of a well-organized authoritarian movement aimed at dismantling the post-Enlightenment constitutional order in the U.S. His alignment with Project 2025 marks him not as a passing anomaly but as a strategic tool for a fundamental shift to Rule of Men, replacing the empathy-with-all Ethic of the U.S. Constitution with loyalty-based governance.
Yes, Trump is a serious threat — not in isolation, but as part of a deeper, systemic effort.
Technical Analysis Using Dual Interest Theory (DIT)
Trump as “the Daddy” wants to take path 0G, the egoistic-hedonistic-narcissistic path, and even favors supporting Extreme Libertarians (like Elon Musk, Peter Theil) on the vertical axis of Figure 1. The Unitary Executive Power frame also supports such paths. Both path 0G and the vertical axis are low on Ethic, and high on Incentive. Ironically, “the Daddy” also panders to Christian Nationalists who want to impose an authoritarian (DIT refers to it as heteronomy) path 0M, impose a narrowly defined “Ethic” shared only within the Christian Nationalist frame of mind: Self-interest of people being free to choose a better path 0Z is denied. So, “the Daddy” ensures instability, as the loyalists are of two ilks, tending toward path 0G on one hand and toward an imposed path 0M on the other, both missing the economically efficient path 0Z. In fact, the unholy alliance of Extreme Libertarians, Christian Nationalists, and Unitary Executive Power framing all ensure missing the best path 0Z.
Economic efficiency as well as harmony in the social system can only occur on something akin to path 0Z, one of autonomy influenced by homonomy, with minimal outside control (heteronomy). It represents good balance in Market & Community: Government, the “:” meaning an Inclusive Government like guaranteed by the US Constitution. The “&” means each are essential to the other, like in ensuring more money, not less, is spent on competent civil servants as a case in point. Path 0Z describes “the Nanny” influencing (homonomy) choice without requiring it (heteronomy).
The Rule of Law State based in the US Constitution — as in “the Nanny State” that evolved out of The New Deal Order 1930 -1980 — holds the most potential to achieving the best path 0Z. Path 0Z of economic efficiency and harmony across the widely shared other-interest — the Ethic — can never be achieved with a Rule of Men State like Putin-Russia, Orban- Hungary, and the list is growing. The list could well include Trump-America given the current plans being played out by “the Daddy” and Project 1500 (oops, my mistake, 2025).
