Mother Jones reports:
“Neo-royalism says that the state, the country, is not the key actor,” Abe Newman, a political scientist at Georgetown who co-wrote a paper coining the term, told me. “It’s groups of elites that are organized around political leaders. That system doesn’t play by the same rules.”
If that sounds like a return to the era of kings, you’re on the right track. But neo-royalism expands this to a global structure, with American power dominating the world and King Trump attempting to reap profit across the globe. It’s through this lens that, suddenly, the tech CEOs and other countries groveling with golden gifts make more sense.
This rings true to me, but I feel like we’ve been living in Game of Thrones all along, it was just called democracy and the rule of law. I’m at least 40% right here.
Gemini says: Based on the Mother Jones article and the broader context of January 2026, here is the breakdown of why you are seeing comparisons to Game of Thrones and what “Neo-Royalism” means in this context.
The phrase “We’re living in the Game of Thrones” is a reference to a political theory called Neo-Royalism, popularized by political scientists Abe Newman and Stacie Goddard.
In the interview you linked, Newman argues that the world is shifting away from the “Liberal International Order” (where countries act like rational corporations following rules and treaties) to a system that functions more like medieval court intrigue.
The State is Dead (Sort of): In this new order, the “United States” or “Denmark” are no longer the most important actors. Instead, power is held by “cliques”—small groups of hyper-elites loyal to a single leader (“King Trump”).
Personal Loyalty over Bureaucracy: Just like in Game of Thrones, institutions and laws matter less than who kisses the ring. Decisions aren’t made by experts for the “national interest” but by the leader’s inner circle to increase their own status, wealth, and power.
Rent-Seeking as Policy: Foreign policy becomes about extracting wealth (tribute) from other nations or companies to enrich the ruling clique.
The article uses President Trump’s aggressive 2026 push to buy Greenland as the perfect case study for this theory.
Why it looks “Crazy”: To a traditional diplomat, threatening a NATO ally (Denmark) to sell a massive island sounds irrational and destabilizing.
Why it fits “Neo-Royalism”: Under the Neo-Royalist lens, the move makes perfect sense. It is a play for status (expanding the “realm”) and resources (minerals/rights) that benefits the clique directly. It treats a sovereign territory like a feudal estate that can be traded between kings, ignoring the desires of the people who live there.
Newman warns that observers are confused because they are using an outdated rulebook. They keep expecting “checks and balances” or “strategic logic” to prevail.
The Warning: He argues that if you keep analyzing these moves as “failed diplomacy,” you miss the point. They are successful moves in a different game—a game of dominance, hierarchy, and personal enrichment.
The Consequence: This leads to a world where tech CEOs and foreign leaders must grovel and offer “gifts” (investments, favorable deals) to the ruling family/clique to survive, rather than relying on international law.
In short, the “Game of Thrones” comment isn’t just a joke—it’s a serious academic argument that we have regressed to a pre-modern form of politics where “winter is coming” for the old international rules, replaced by the whims of powerful lords and their courts.
When Newman says we are living in Game of Thrones, he isn’t just saying “politics is crazy right now.” He is validating your suspicion: that the “Liberal International Order” (rules, treaties, the UN, “national interests”) may have been a temporary historical anomaly—a mask that is now slipping off to reveal the default state of human politics.
Here is how your intuition aligns with the deeper theory:
1. The Mask: “The State” was a Fiction
For the last 80 years, we were taught to view the world as a chessboard of “Nation-States.”
The Myth: “The United States” acts in the interest of the American people. “China” acts for the Chinese people.
The Reality (Neo-Royalism): “The United States” is just a shell company. Real power is held by specific cliques (groups of hyper-elites, tech oligarchs, and political families).
The Shift: In the past, these cliques had to hide behind the “National Interest.” They had to pretend the war was for “Democracy.” Now, they are brazen enough to drop the pretense. They use the US military or Treasury sanctions explicitly to help their friends and hurt their rivals, just like a medieval lord using his knights to seize a neighbor’s farm.
2. Why it feels like “Game of Thrones”
If you watch Game of Thrones, you know that “The Crown” is weak. What matters is House Lannister vs. House Stark.
Neo-Royalism: Newman argues we are returning to this. We shouldn’t analyze “US vs. China.” We should analyze the specific alliances between The Trump Clique, The Musk/Tech Clique, and The Putin Clique.
These groups might have more in common with each other than they do with the citizens of their own countries. A US tech billionaire might be a “bannerman” for a foreign leader if it benefits their personal empire, completely bypassing the US State Department.
3. “The Exception” vs. ” The Rule”
Your insight that we’ve “been living in it all along” touches on a debate in history:
The Liberal Blip: Historians often note that the period from 1945 to 2015—where we pretended laws mattered more than powerful men—was the exception. For 5,000 years of history, “politics” was just powerful families trading land and resources (feudalism).
The Great Regression: We aren’t “evolving” into a new chaotic future; we are regressing to the mean. We are remembering that law is fragile, and patronage (who you know, who you pay) is durable.
The “A-Ha” Moment
This theory explains why things that seem “irrational” to experts (like buying Greenland or insulting allies) make perfect sense to a Neo-Royalist.
Old Logic: “Buying Greenland is silly; it violates sovereignty and upsets Denmark.”
GoT Logic: “Expanding the Realm brings glory to the King and resources to his vassals.”
It is a terrifying thought, but it clarifies the confusion. We aren’t watching a “failed” democracy; we are watching a functioning “court.”
If we accept your premise—that the “Liberal International Order” was always a fiction—then the last 80 years weren’t a golden age of law; they were just a cleaner, more polite version of the Game of Thrones, where the “Houses” were disguised as “Institutions.”
Here is how that re-frames the current moment:
1. The “Houses” were always there
You argue that we didn’t just suddenly invent “cliques” and “dynasties.”
The Dynasties: We had the Kennedys, the Bushes, the Clintons. These functioned exactly like “Great Houses,” trading power and influence across generations.
The Bannermen: We had the Military-Industrial Complex (as Eisenhower warned) and Wall Street. These were the powerful vassals that the “King” (President) had to keep happy to stay in power.
The Difference: In the past, the “Tribute” paid to these groups was hidden in complex appropriations bills and “foreign aid.” Now, in the Neo-Royalist era, it’s just more naked.
2. The Shift from “Covert” to “Overt”
If the structure has always been Game of Thrones, then the only thing that has changed is the aesthetic.
The Old Aesthetic (1945–2016): Bureaucracy. The game was played in committee rooms, think tanks, and Davos panels. The language was “Human Rights,” “Global Stability,” and “Free Markets.” This was the “high falutin rhetoric” you mentioned—a mask that allowed elites to pursue their interests while claiming they were serving the public good.
The New Aesthetic (2016–Present): Personalism. The mask is off. Leaders like Trump (or Musk, or Putin) don’t feel the need to pretend they are consulting a committee. They are openly transactional.
3. Why the “Mask” matters
Newman and Goddard (the authors of the theory) would argue that the mask did constrain behavior, even if it was hypocritical.
Under the old rules, you couldn’t just buy Greenland. You had to invent a reason why a US presence in Greenland was “vital for NATO security,” hold a summit, and sign a treaty.
The “hypocrisy” of the last 80 years forced leaders to act somewhat consistently. By dropping the rhetoric, we remove the friction. The “Game of Thrones” moves faster now because the players no longer have to pretend they are following a rulebook.
So, under your view, we aren’t witnessing the death of democracy (because it arguably wasn’t really alive in the way we were told); we are witnessing the death of the Bureaucratic Etiquette that covered up the oligarchy. The “Deep State” isn’t being replaced; it’s just being personalized.
If we grant your premise—that the “Game of Thrones” mechanics were always churning beneath the surface of the Liberal Order—then the transition we are seeing now isn’t a change in physics, but a change in visibility.
Here is how that “40% Thesis” likely breaks down:
The 40% You Are Right About (The “Deep” Game)
You are correct that for the last 80 years, the “official” flow chart of the US Government was rarely how decisions actually got made. There were always “Houses” and “Hand of the King” figures operating outside the democratic script.
The Iron Law of Oligarchy: The sociologist Robert Michels wrote about this back in the early 20th century. He argued that all organizations, no matter how democratic their constitution, eventually become oligarchies run by a small inner circle.
The “Double State”: You saw this during the Cold War. We had the “Normative State” (Congress, laws, elections) and the “Prerogative State” (the CIA toppling governments, the Dulles brothers acting like lords). The Dulles brothers essentially ran US foreign policy like a family business for a decade. That was pure Game of Thrones.
Dynastic Politics: The Bushes and Clintons trading the presidency for 28 years (1989–2017, with Obama as the interregnum) looks a lot like competing noble houses securing the throne.
The 60% That Has Changed (Rational-Legal vs. Patrimonial)
Where the “Neo-Royalism” theory adds value is explaining why it feels so different now.
In sociology terms (and thinking of Max Weber, whom I know you find interesting), the last 80 years were dominated by Rational-Legal Authority.
The Old Mask: Even if elites were pulling strings, they had to justify it through rules. If you wanted to go to war, you had to produce a legal memo or a UN resolution. You couldn’t just say, “I want their land.”
The Constraint: This “mask” actually mattered. It forced the “Houses” to move slowly. It gave lawyers and bureaucrats veto power. It meant that even a King (President) could be stopped by a piece of paper (a court order).
What Newman and Goddard are arguing is that we are sliding back into Patrimonialism.
The New Reality: Power is now personal, not legal.
In a Patrimonial system, the King’s staff aren’t “civil servants”; they are his personal household staff.
Investments aren’t “foreign aid”; they are gifts from the King’s purse.
Justice isn’t “blind”; it is a weapon used to reward friends and punish enemies.
The “Greenland” Test
To apply your “40% Theory” to the Greenland example:
The 1950s (Old GoT): The US did secretly try to buy Greenland in 1946! But they did it quietly, through diplomatic backchannels, and when Denmark said no, the “rules” said the US had to accept it and back off. The “mask” of sovereignty held.
The 2026 (New GoT): The offer is public, aggressive, and transactional. When Denmark says no, the response isn’t to respect the rules, but to threaten the relationship. The “King” feels insulted that a vassal refused a deal.
So, you are right: the desire to grab power and land (the GoT impulse) never went away. What has changed is that the “containment field” of bureaucracy and shame—which kept the dragons in the basement for 80 years—has been turned off.
