Trump's method is "disruption" — just like this infamous Prussian monarch
Democracy at Work spoke with Dr. Barbara Stollberg-Rilinger, an acclaimed historian.
When I reached out to Dr. Barbara Stollberg-Rilinger, the former chair for early modern history at the University of Münster, it was because I wanted to discuss her book “The Holy Roman Empire: A Short History.” Her monograph is a classic, the definitive work explicating the inner workings of one of Europe’s most iconic pre-modern empires.
Instead we wound up talking about Frederick William I. He served as King of Prussia and Elector of Brandenburg and Prince of Neuchâtel from 1713 until his death in 1740. His legacy is that of expanding the power of the king at the expense of the ancient liberties.
Additionally, according to Stollberg-Rilinger, he was an awful lot like America’s current president, Donald Trump.
The following conversation was so fascinating that I offer it below with only one bit of further commentary, and with edits only as necessary for clarity, context and length. That aforementioned bit of further commentary comes from the abstract of a recent paper by Daniel K. M. Yamashiro of Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and Gary Scott Smith of Grove City College.
“Trump’s perceptions of his childhood trauma and religious life offer an important lens into the history of family trauma, the pain of childhood neglect, the impact of religion on personal development, a father’s pivotal decision, means of coping with physical abuse, the help of a famous religious role model, and the early display of leadership traits,” they wrote. “Autobiographies, biographies, and interviews, including a poem Trump wrote as a twelve-year-old, shed light on these matters. Trump’s childhood involves strict training, parental neglect, physical beatings, the development of survival instincts, and an obsession to win.”
It added that Trump also had “experience with an abusive authority figure at a military school in New York” and that “various religious influences contributed to the formation of Trump’s leadership skills during the trauma he experienced.”
Now, without further delay, an authority on the Holy Roman Empire… Dr. Stollberg-Rilinger.
Let's start with their childhoods.
I don't know much about Donald Trump's childhood, but I know a lot about Frederick William’s childhood. He was the only son, and I mean son of the looming king, when he was born. His father wasn't king yet. But anyway, the inherited his rule, contrary to Trump, obviously. As a child, he was from the very beginning a huge problem for his educators and teachers, because he was not able to behave properly. He wasn't able to control his affects. He was cruel. He tormented his mates, and so on. He was absolutely uneducable, so to speak. That is one thing. The other thing is that, if you imagine an early modern court, especially the members of the aristocratic elite that had to control themselves in their outer performance and their habits and their attitude, it was crucial for themselves as elites, and Frederick William was absolutely unable to adapt to these styles, these aristocratic styles of behavior. He was unable to control himself in all possible respects.
That is why he was he felt as an outsider, so to speak, at his parents' court, the later royal court of Prussia. In a way, he took vengeance for this when he ascended to the throne, I would say. One has to imagine the kind of frivolous court culture of the time. On the other hand, it was a highly ceremonial culture, and he hated both sides of this contemporary court culture in that he felt obviously felt embarrassed as a child and as a teenager when he had to perform these frivolous roles on the courtly stage.
Now let's go to the disruption that he caused in [Prussia] upon taking power
Disruption is the key word, I think. There are parallels that are very, very obvious. Although, as I said, he inherited his rule and he was connected, but the parallels are obvious.
I should say in advance, for historians of the early modern period, like the period of Enlightenment, it is kind of a “No go” to compare present phenomena and persons to the early modern time. And I absolutely know, and I'm absolutely aware of this, that one has to be very careful not to be anachronistic. When I started to write my ongoing biography of Frederick William I, I was not at all aware of these parallels.
But the longer I'm writing on this book, and the longer Trump's second presidency lasts, all these parallels really are overwhelming. You cannot overlook them, so to speak.
Disruption, this is something that is very obvious. First, when he ascended to the throne, Frederick William I fired almost two thirds of all public officials, court servants, legal officials, etc. He fired two thirds of all officials, all kinds legal officials, financial officials, port officials.
The second point that is very similar is that he raised tariffs, introduced new taxes, and added all kinds of fiscal measures that began to ruin the country because merchants and craftsmen left the country in masses…
But he usually, he did not listen to any advice, but intimidated his advisers and all the traditional institutions that had moderated the king's power. Today, when we imagine a pre-modern king, non-historians usually think about an absolute king who can just do what he wants to do. But this was not the regularly the case, a pre-modern king usually had to take into account that he had to rule in consensus with the elite, with the political elites of the time, the so-called estates, the parliaments, or whatever you called it at the time.
He was not the regular type of a pre-modern king. He ignored all traditional rights and privileges and freedoms of the country, as they called it. He violated from the very beginning all norms and rules and values, be them legal or even political values, or moral values or even aesthetic values. And demonstratively cultivated an image of an outsider. He even called himself a tyrant and a despot.
Back Seat Socialism
Column by Matthew Rozsa who is a professional journalist for more than 13 years. Currently he is writing a book for Beacon Press, "Neurosocialism," which argues that autistic people like the author struggle under capitalism, and explains how neurosocialism - the distinct anticapitalist perspective one develops by living as a neurodiverse individual - can be an important organizing principle for the left.
Twitter (X) @MatthewWRozsa