Table Of ContentInstitutions under Siege
Much of the research on institutional change shows how systems shift
slowly and incrementally. Yet, in the case of former President Donald
Trump, change was rapid and radical. In Institutions Under Siege,
leading political sociologist John L. Campbell offers new insights for
understandingthelegacyoftheTrumppresidency.Thebookexamines
Trump’s attack on the “deep state” through the lens of institutional
change theory, and demonstrates how he capitalized on tipping points
anddistinctleadershiptacticstoinspire,makedealswith,andthreaten
peopletogetwhathewanted.Thebookalsoassesseswherethedamage
causedbytheTrumpadministrationismostlikelytoendureandwhere
long-lasting damage was prevented. Sharp and insightful, Institutions
UnderSiegecontrastsexistingsocialscienceliteraturetodrawattention
to the unique significance of tipping points and the characteristics of
particularleaders.
john l. campbell is Class of 1925 Professor and Professor of
Sociology Emeritus at Dartmouth College. He is a leading scholar on
how institutions and politics affect policymaking and economic per-
formance in advanced capitalist countries. He is the author of several
booksincludingAmericanDiscontent:TheRiseofDonaldTrumpand
Decline of the Golden Age (2018) and What Capitalism Needs:
ForgottenLessonsofGreatEconomists(2021).
Published online by Cambridge University Press
Published online by Cambridge University Press
Institutions under Siege
’
Donald Trump s Attack on the Deep State
JOHN L. CAMPBELL
DartmouthCollege
Published online by Cambridge University Press
ShaftesburyRoad,Cambridgecb28bs,UnitedKingdom
OneLibertyPlaza,20thFloor,NewYork,ny10006,USA
477WilliamstownRoad,PortMelbourne,vic3207,Australia
314 321,3rdFloor,Plot3,SplendorForum,JasolaDistrictCentre,NewDelhi 110025,India
103PenangRoad,#05 06/07,VisioncrestCommercial,Singapore238467
CambridgeUniversityPressispartofCambridgeUniversityPress&Assessment,
adepartmentoftheUniversityofCambridge.
WesharetheUniversity’smissiontocontributetosocietythroughthepursuitof
education,learningandresearchatthehighestinternationallevelsofexcellence.
www.cambridge.org
Informationonthistitle:www.cambridge.org/9781009170185
doi:10.1017/9781009170178
©JohnL.Campbell2023
Thispublicationisincopyright.Subjecttostatutoryexceptionandtotheprovisions
ofrelevantcollectivelicensingagreements,noreproductionofanypartmaytake
placewithoutthewrittenpermissionofCambridgeUniversityPress&Assessment.
Firstpublished2023
AcataloguerecordforthispublicationisavailablefromtheBritishLibrary.
isbn9781009170185Hardback
isbn9781009170192Paperback
CambridgeUniversityPress&Assessmenthasnoresponsibilityforthepersistence
oraccuracyofURLsforexternalorthirdpartyinternetwebsitesreferredtointhis
publicationanddoesnotguaranteethatanycontentonsuchwebsitesis,orwill
remain,accurateorappropriate.
Published online by Cambridge University Press
To Kathy, Jessie, John, Ian, Elinore and Alex
Published online by Cambridge University Press
Published online by Cambridge University Press
Contents
Listof Figures page ix
Listof Tables xi
Preface xiii
1 Institutional Guardrails 1
2 TheTipping Point 29
3 TheBig Lie 46
4 Reinterpreting Republicanism 77
5 Blind Justice? 104
6 You’re Fired! 133
7 EconomicRocket Fuel 164
8 Damage Assessment 191
References 213
Index 251
vii
Published online by Cambridge University Press
Published online by Cambridge University Press
Figures
1.1 Institutionalchanges during theTrump regime page 28
3.1 Percent saying Russianeffortsto influence the2016 election
benefited Trump/Clinton campaign 59
3.2 Percent whoare very/somewhat/not too/not at all confident
theTrump administration will make a seriouseffort toprevent
Russia from influencingfuture USelections 60
3.3 Shareof registered voters saying theNovember 3, 2020,
presidential election “probably” or“definitely”would
be/was free andfair 61
3.4 Shareof voters believing the resultsof the 2020 election
ineachstatearereliablebasedonwhatthey’veseen,read,orheard 62
3.5 Percent ofregistered voters saying theybelieve each of the
following was a free and fair election, ornot 62
3.6 Shareof voters saying each of the following electionswas
free and fair 63
3.7 Doyou haveconfidencein the honesty of USelections? 64
3.8 Percent ofrespondents inOECD countries saying theyare
confidentin the honesty of their elections, 2019 65
4.1 Gapbetween Clinton/Biden and Trump voters on key
cultural issues 83
4.2 How much do you personally worry aboutrace relations? 84
4.3 Median party ideology 100
4.4 Median party ideology (a)in the House and (b)in the Senate 101
5.1 USfederal courtnominations returned to thepresident by
theSenate 107
5.2 Average number of judicial appointments made peryear
by each president 108
ix
Published online by Cambridge University Press
x List of Figures
5.3 Wouldyou like tosee the Senate vote infavor of this nominee
serving on the USSupreme Court? 118
5.4 Percentwho have a favorableopinionof each federal agency 129
6.1 Cabinetdepartmentstaffing, 2016 135
6.2 Change in cabinet departmentstaffing, 2016–2020 136
6.3 Cumulative days cabinet positionswere vacant(as of June 6
in their third year) 137
6.4 Averagenumber ofdaysfor the Senate toconfirm
presidential nominations 138
6.5 (a) Senior Executive Service employees, 2016–2018 and (b)
Change in Senior Executive Service employees bycabinet
department, 2016–2018 143
6.6 Turnover infirst-term cabinet appointments 147
6.7 Percentof first-term A-team positionsexperiencingturnover 148
6.8 Truthfulness of public sentiments 150
7.1 Federal budgetdeficit, 2009–2019 169
7.2 Tax burden and economic competitivenessin thirty-seven
OECD countries, 2019 170
7.3 Averageannual GDP growthduringpresidential administrations,
1945–2019 171
7.4 Change in after-tax personal income due tothe TCJA,2018 173
7.5 G20 corporate tax rates, 2012 175
7.6 Effects of theTax Cuts and Jobs Act 176
7.7 Government debt as apercentageof GDP 184
Published online by Cambridge University Press
