In the era of Trump 2.0, two new frameworks have gained particular attention in attempts to explain the character and mechanics of the MAGA/Trump machine: the Broligarchy Narrative and the End Times Fascism model. While broader debates about the “fascism” label continue, this discussion focuses on these two recent, media-prominent theories before advancing a more compelling alternative: the personalist, kleptocratic “locomotive” model.
1. The Broligarchy Narrative
The “Broligarchy” concept, coined and developed in outlets like Time, Vox, and activist commentary
, describes a merger of Silicon Valley’s tech titans with state power under Trump. In this view:
-
Tech Billionaires as Power Brokers: Figures like Elon Musk, Peter Thiel, Mark Zuckerberg, and Jeff Bezos are not just donors or influencers, but central actors shaping policy, running agencies, and rigging the system for profit and control. Musk’s $288–300 million in campaign support and subsequent operational role in dismantling federal agencies (e.g., through DOGE) are cited as emblematic
.
The broligarchy model warns that unchecked, this alliance of wealth, tech, and executive power threatens to entrench a new, durable oligarchy—one that manipulates both state and society through money, data, and spectacle.
2. The End Times Fascism Model
Developed by Astra Taylor and Naomi Klein in The Guardian and elsewhere, “End Times Fascism” focuses on the ideological and apocalyptic dimensions of the Trump coalition
:
-
Supremacist Survivalism: The governing ideology is a blend of corporate secessionism (e.g., “freedom cities,” seasteading) and mass-market “bunker nationalism.” Tech billionaires and Christian nationalists alike are depicted as prepping for collapse, building “arks” for the chosen while deepening the crises that threaten the rest.
-
Apocalyptic Coalition: The alliance fuses Silicon Valley’s accelerationist fantasies (AI, Mars colonization, crypto) with Christian millenarianism and MAGA populism. This coalition is not just about profit but about preparing for—and accelerating—the end of the world, offering emotional compensation through visions of dominance, exclusion, and survival.
-
State as Bunker: Policy, propaganda, and spectacle are all geared toward hardening borders, expelling “enemies,” and privatizing survival, with the MAGA base offered a mass-market version of elite prepping and fatalism
.
Taylor and Klein argue that this “Armageddon complex” is genocidal at its core, and that resistance requires a new, inclusive story of solidarity and planetary stewardship.
3. The Personalist-Kleptocratic “Locomotive” Model
In contrast to both frameworks, the model I find most compelling—and have advanced elsewhere—centers Trump 2.0 as a personalist autocracy with kleptocratic and crony capitalist features. This model, drawing on both current events and political science, is defined by several key dynamics:
A. Trump as the Locomotive (with credit to Quinn Slobodian)
-
Transactional Coalition Management: Trump is not the figurehead of a stable oligarchy or a coherent ideological front. Rather, he is the “locomotive” (per Quinn Slobodian): various ideological and interest group “passengers” (tech titans, Christian Zionists, MAHA, anti-interventionists, etc.) board and disembark as expedient, influencing policy only as long as it suits Trump’s immediate interests.
-
Contingent Alliances: Even the most powerful allies (Musk, Leonard Leo, RFK Jr., Tulsi Gabbard) are instrumentalized and discarded or sidelined when their utility wanes or their interests diverge from Trump’s. The Musk-Trump feud is a case in point: Musk, despite his operational indispensability, was publicly humiliated and lost status, though Trump calibrated his retaliation to avoid harming government interests
.
B. Deep Stories, Performative Politics, and Political Gestures
-
Narrative Agility: Trump excels at deploying “deep stories” (per Arlie Hochschild) and performative politics to mobilize and reassure disparate groups. These range from the “New David” myth for evangelicals, to populist “everyman” narratives for working-class whites and minorities, to law-and-order strongman tropes for suburban conservatives.
-
Appointments as Signals: Key appointments (e.g., Huckabee for Christian Zionists, RFK Jr. for MAHA, Gabbard for anti-interventionists) serve as political gestures, signaling loyalty and commitment to specific constituencies. These gestures are tactical, not programmatic, and often send conflicting signals to different factions—by design.
C. Kleptocracy and Crony Capitalism
-
State as Patronage Machine: The regime is marked by self-enrichment, insider deals, and the use of state power to reward loyalists and punish dissenters. DOGE, for example, shifted from a Musk-led efficiency project to a vehicle for executive control and loyalty enforcement under Russ Vought.
-
Institutional Brittleness: Unlike a true oligarchy, power is brittle and highly dependent on Trump’s personal dominance. The coalition is held together not by ideology or shared interest, but by transactional loyalty and the promise of access to power.
4. Why This Model Fits Better
-
Explains Volatility and Contradiction: Unlike the broligarchy or end times fascism models, the personalist-locomotive approach accounts for the regime’s improvisational, contradictory, and contingent coalition management. It explains how Trump can simultaneously court and sideline tech elites, Christian nationalists, or anti-interventionists as needed.
-
Captures Mobilization and Symbolism: It recognizes that deep stories, archetypes, and performative politics are central tools of personalist rule, used to mobilize the base and reassure key constituencies—without requiring ideological coherence.
-
Accounts for Elite and Mass Dynamics: The model explains both the disposability of even powerful elites (Musk, Leo) and the emotional, symbolic glue that holds the mass coalition together, through narrative flexibility and political gestures.
5. Conclusion
The broligarchy and end times fascism frameworks both capture important elements of the Trump 2.0 era—elite capture, apocalyptic ideology, and the collapse of institutional safeguards. But they overstate the stability, coherence, and permanence of the coalition. The reality is a personalist, kleptocratic regime in which Trump is the locomotive, and all others are passengers—useful, but never indispensable, and always subject to the leader’s calculations.
This model, rooted in both political science and lived experience, best explains the volatility, improvisation, and narrative agility that define Trumpism today—and offers a clearer roadmap for understanding how such a regime survives, adapts, and might ultimately be challenged.
.
Collapse of Safeguards: The erosion of campaign finance law (post–Citizens United), the expansion of executive power, and the rise of the “attention economy” have enabled this tech elite to dominate both the political and informational landscape
.
Hostile Takeover: The narrative frames Trump 2.0 as a new Gilded Age, a “hostile takeover” where tech oligarchs are not just influencing but executing policy, often to the detriment of democracy and public accountability.
------------------------------------
Another outline without comparitors (broligarchy/end times) :
The Personalist Playbook: Trump 2.0 as Kleptocratic Locomotive
I. The Personalist-Kleptocratic Model: Beyond "Broligarchy"
The Trump 2.0 regime is not a stable oligarchy of tech titans and ideologues ("broligarchy"), nor a coherent ideological project ("end times fascism"). It is a personalist autocracy defined by three core features:
-
Centralized Power: Trump is the sole arbiter of influence. Alliances are transactional, contingent on loyalty, and revocable at will. The Musk-Trump feud exemplifies this: despite Musk’s $300M campaign support and operational role in dismantling federal agencies via DOGE, Trump sidelined him after mounting criticisms of Trump and his signature legislation, i.e. the "One Big Beautiful Bill" (OBBB). Musk’s subsequent financial losses, GOP base disapproval, and failed policy interventions underscore the regime’s personalist logic: no elite, however wealthy or operationally critical, is indispensable
.
II. Why Competing Models Fail
A. Broligarchy: Overstates Stability
The broligarchy narrative (e.g., Vox, Time) posits a tech-government power-sharing arrangement. Yet Musk’s rapid marginalization disproves this. Tech elites are courtiers, not co-rulers—useful for funding campaigns (Musk’s $288M), capturing attention economies, or executing rapid deregulation, but disposable when inconvenient
.
B. End Times Fascism: Overstates Ideological Cohesion
Taylor & Klein’s "end times fascism" highlights apocalyptic survivalism fusing tech libertarians, Christian nationalists, and MAGA populists. While compelling, it underplays Trump’s transactional coalition management. Figures like RFK Jr. (HHS Secretary) and Tulsi Gabbard (anti-interventionist envoy) have no logical place in an "apocalyptic coalition" but serve immediate electoral or symbolic needs
.
III. Coalition Management: Deep Stories, Performative Politics, and the "Locomotive"
Trump’s regime thrives on narrative agility, not ideological consistency. As Quinn Slobodian’s "locomotive" metaphor suggests, Trump is the engine; ideological and interest group "passengers" board or disembark based on tactical utility
.
A. Deep Stories as Mobilization Tools
Trump deploys archetypal narratives to resonate with disparate demographics:
| Archetype | Core Narrative | Audience | Example |
|---|---|---|---|
| "Everyman Populist" | Betrayed by elites, "I am your retribution" | Working-class whites, rural voters | "Only I can save you" rhetoric |
| "New David" | Anointed leader chosen by God | Evangelicals, Christian Zionists | Bible photo-op, Mike Huckabee’s Israel appointment |
| "Law & Order Strongman" | Protector against chaos | Suburban conservatives, police unions | Kristi Noem’s border spectacles |
These stories are emotionally resonant but ideologically flexible. They draw on Hochschild’s "deep stories"—narratives that feel true even if factually contested
.
B. Performative Gestures Over Policy
Appointments and spectacles signal loyalty to key groups:
-
Mike Huckabee as Israel Ambassador reassures Christian Zionists.
-
RFK Jr. at HHS appeals to anti-vaxxers and "MAHA" (Make America Healthy Again) voters.
-
Tulsi Gabbard’s anti-interventionism pacifies libertarians and paleocons
.
These gestures are tactical, not programmatic. When alliances sour (e.g., Leonard Leo’s Federalist Society), Trump discards them publicly, as with his "real sleazebag" denunciation[CNN].
C. The Locomotive’s Fuel: Transactional Loyalty
The regime’s survival hinges on balancing contradictory factions:
-
Tech Titans: Useful for deregulation and attention economies but punished if defiant (Musk).
-
Christian Nationalists: Mobilize the base via "bunker" rhetoric but sidelined when priorities shift (e.g., Trump’s reduced focus on abortion post-2024).
-
Anti-Interventionists: Leveraged to critique "endless wars" but ignored when striking Iran
.
IV. Conclusion: The Personalist Imperative
Trump 2.0 is neither oligarchy nor ideology—it is a improvised autocracy where power flows from one man’s capacity to balance narratives, punish dissent, and reward loyalty. The "locomotive" metaphor captures its dynamism: passengers (elites, interest groups) may steer temporarily, but the engine’s direction is unchanging.
Implications:
-
Fragility: Personalist regimes collapse without the leader. Trump’s eventual exit could shatter the coalition.
-
Mobilization Over Governance: Policy is secondary to spectacle; the regime’s longevity depends on sustaining emotional resonance.
-
Resistance Strategies: Opponents must target the engine (Trump’s cult of personality) rather than individual passengers.
This model, synthesizing kleptocracy, personalism, and narrative agility, offers a roadmap for understanding—and challenging—Trumpism’s unique threat to democratic institutions.
References
Norden & Weiner, TIME (2025)
BBC (2025), "How bitter Trump-Musk feud escalated"
Platformer News (2025), "The bro-ligarchy blows up"
Slobodian, Democracy Now! (2025)
Slobodian, Crack-Up Capitalism (2025)
Polletta & Callahan, Deep Stories (2017)
The New York Times (2025), "It’s Getting Harder for Trump to Keep the Gang Together"
This essay synthesizes the author’s original work with insights from Quinn Slobodian’s "locomotive" metaphor, Arlie Hochschild’s "deep stories," and comparative personalism studies. Further empirical validation of coalitional volatility and narrative fluidity is recommended.
.
Kleptocratic Instrumentalization: The state is a vehicle for self-enrichment and crony capitalism. Trump’s DOGE initiative, initially framed as a technocratic efficiency project, became a patronage engine, awarding no-bid contracts to loyalists while purging dissenters. Russ Vought’s takeover of DOGE institutionalized this shift, embedding Project 2025’s unitary executive theory into federal operations
.
Institutional Brittleness: Personalist regimes lack the durability of oligarchies. Power hinges on Trump’s whims, not institutionalized power-sharing. While Musk’s infrastructure (Starlink, SpaceX) granted temporary leverage, Trump’s retaliatory threats (contract cancellations, regulatory attacks) revealed the limits of even operational indispensability
No comments:
Post a Comment