On the subject of the fast-track trade bill…
… otherwise known as Obamatrade, I trust Jeff Sessions far more than I would trust Ryan. Sessions claims:
If, as promoters amazingly suggest, the President had more powers without fast-track, he would veto it. The authority granted in “Trade Promotion Authority” is authority transferred from Congress to the Executive and, ultimately, to international bureaucrats. The entire purpose of fast-track is for Congress to surrender its power to the Executive for six years.
Not a good idea at all.
If Obama is so hot for the bill to pass, it is difficult indeed to believe it would be one that limits his powers rather than expands them, although that’s what Ryan would have you believe.
Sessions explains the bill’s impact:
Finally, it must be observed that this is not a “free trade” deal. It is, as Daniel DiMicco explained, a ”˜unilateral trade disarmament’ and ”˜the enablement of foreign mercantilism,’ whereby we open our markets to new foreign imports and they keep their non-tariff barriers that close their markets to ours. President Obama refuses to answer questions about the impact on unemployment, wage stagnation, and trade deficits. He refuses because the answer is all three will get worse.
Although the House voted the bill down decisively yesterday, the fight’s not over. Apparently the plan is to bring it up for another vote next week. But I’m not sure there are enough twistable arms to get this bill to pass. Its rejection was strongly bipartisan, although for different reasons for each party.
It reminds me a little bit of the Enabling Act in Germany in 1933—not in degree, because the Enabling Act had an enormously broad sweep compared to the narrow one of the trade bill. But the upshot of the trade bill would be that Congress itself would be voting to give Obama more power.
To extend the somewhat-strained analogy, McConnell would be acting in the role of Ludwig Kaas, the head of the Centre Party and an opponent of Hitler who in 1933 nevertheless acquiesced in the Enabling Act and helped it to pass.
The Enabling Act is famous for being the mechanism by which the Reichstag effectively voted itself out of power and out of relevance. Hitler wouldn’t have needed it if he’d had a strong enough majority in the legislature, but his party had been unable to obtain it through the previous election despite tons of intimidation by the Nazis towards the opposition and the populace. So he decided to finesse the public by cobbling together enough of a coalition to give him powers that would make it unnecessary for him to worry about how the Reichstag would vote thereafter. One coalition, one time, and his troubles were over. A combination of threats, arrests (of the Communists, for example), physical intimidation, and lying promises did the trick. Kaas (who was a priest) was lied to, although it’s not clear whether he believed Hitler’s promises or just didn’t see any alternatives to succumbing:
Later that month, from 15 March, [Kass] was the main advocate supporting the Hitler administration’s Enabling Act in return for certain constitutional and, allegedly ecclesiastic guarantees. Hitler responded positively via Papen. On 21 and 22 March the Centre leadership negotiated with Hitler on the conditions and reached an agreement. A letter, in which Hitler would confirm the agreement in writing, was promised by the government but never delivered.
Kaas – as much as the other party leaders – was aware of the doubtful nature of any guarantees, and, when the Centre fraction assembled on 23 March to decide on their vote, he still advised his fellow party members to support the bill, given the “precarious state of the fraction”, saying: “On the one hand we must preserve our soul, but on the other hand a rejection of the Enabling Act would result in unpleasant consequences for fraction and party. What is left is only to guard us against the worst. Were a two-thirds majority not obtained, the government’s plans would be carried through by other means. The President has acquiesced in the Enabling Act. From the DNVP no attempt of relieving the situation is to be expected.”
A considerable group of parliamentarians however opposed the chairman’s course, among whom were the former Chancellors, his nemesis Heinrich Bré¼ning and Joseph Wirth and former minister Adam Stegerwald. The opponents also argued in regard to Catholic social teaching that ruled out participating in an act of revolution. The proponents however argued that a “national revolution” had already occurred with Hitler’s appointment and the presidential decree suspending basic rights, and that the Enabling Act would contain revolutionary force and move the government back to a legal order. Both groupings were not unaffected by Hitler’s self-portrayal as a moderate seeking co-operation, as given on the Day of Potsdam of 21 March, as against the more revolutionary SA led by Ernst Ré¶hm.
In the end the majority of Centre parliamentarians supported Kaas’s proposal. Bré¼ning and his followers agreed to respect party discipline by also voting in favour of the bill.
On 23 March, the Reichstag assembled at midday under turbulent circumstances. Some SA men served as guards, while others crowded outside the building, both to intimidate any opposing views. Hitler’s speech, which emphasised the importance of Christianity to the German culture, was aimed particularly at assuaging the Centre Party’s sensibilities and almost verbatim incorporated Kaas’s requested guarantees. Kaas gave a speech, voicing the Centre’s support for the bill amid “concerns put aside”, while Bré¼ning notably remained silent.
If you look at Hitler’s speech before the vote, it will probably send a shiver of dread down your spine for its duplicitous and soothing message to those of a religious bent. Also, in Orwellian fashion, the Act was actually called (in German, of course), “Law to Remedy the Distress of People and Reich.”
Only one person, the leftist Otto Wels, spoke against it. What happened next was telling:
After [Wels’] speech ended, Hitler took to the podium once more, working himself into a rage and dropping the mask of pacifism. In his final appeal to parliamentarians, he asked them to “sanction that which we could have taken anyway.”
Doesn’t that say it all?
Senator Jeff Sessions has done yeoman work on all these trade bills. His comments, speeches and reports have all been detailed and very much fact based.
He is also a lawyer and nearly a federal judge so he knows what he is talking about when he speaks of transferring authority from one branch to another.
I have lost all respect for Paul Ryan. A complete shill.
If these bills are so great, why all the secrecy?
Obama is upset about this as if doesn’t, then his post-presidency speaking fees go down.
This was Pelosi’s finest hour; stabbing Barack in the back.
The Republicans have proven to the base that they too can lie as easily as Obama.
As I was reading about the Enabling Act I kept trying to convince myself (albeit with no supporting evidence) that Republicans weren’t this stupid then I remembered the saying…there are 2 parties in this country the dangerous and the stupid. Well the stupid party is about to hand over more power to the dangerous, heaven help us all.
Excellent post, Neo, thanks.
I’d point out that the TPP, which was supposed to be the problematic part, was not defeated. It passed 219 – 211.
TAA, which the Dems like, was supposed to be passed first, enabling passage of TPP by pulling in Dem votes. The opposite happened.
It’s almost like Pelosi decided to stick it in Obama’s eye. Noow that that’s done, I expect TAA to pass next week, unless something unusual happens.
Sessions on TAA next week
neo…
You left out one key legislative tactic of the Nazis: they pulled the vote on a SHORT FUSE.
(This is where Goring came in — as he grabbed the gavel.)
MANY of Hitler’s legislative opponents were merely out of town — and couldn’t get back in time.
THAT’S how the Nazis pulled off their majority vote.
He simply violated German custom — the equivalent of the American Senate’s rules — to get the vote hyper-accelerated.
The opposition never imagined that such a bombshell could’ve/ would’ve raced through the process — lightning speed — and that Goring ruled that there was a quorum.
Yes, that ruling did NOT tabulate those present, being too few.
Goring mere called for yeas and nays and on the call out declared that a quorum existed.
At that moment, the building was STUFFED with every Nazi, as Hitler and crew made sure that his boys did not leave town in front of the instant vote.
An act that voted itself out of existence was something that was totally beyond the imaginations of the non-Nazis.
blert:
The Wiki article for the Enabling Act (to which I linked in my post) goes into that topic. But I didn’t discuss it because I didn’t see it as especially relevant to my post, which was about how even Hitler’s opponents who were there cooperated, in the main, and voted for it. Perhaps because they feared if they defied him he’d do it anyway, and they hoped the crocodile would eat them last.
From Wiki:
So he finessed their plan to boycott and thwart him, and he thwarted them. You are correct that most ordinary politicians had no idea how the Nazis were willing to operate, and by the time they realized, it was too late.
Happens a lot with evil, unfortunately.
Cornhead wrote:
Continuing Neo’s theme, one might dub this a Dolchstoss.
I’m not sure whether the comparison with the Nazi takeover of Germany is correct or not. I tend to doubt it since there are so many Democrats in Congress who oppose the bill whereas the Nazis walked lockstep together to take over Germany. Only time will tell how this will all shake out and whether Neo’s Nazi comparison has merit.
Dennis:
At the moment it’s certainly not going the way of the Enabling Act—fortunately. Nor is Obama having a bunch of armed men standing around threatening members of Congress, or arresting members of a party.
The IRS, however…
I do think that studying how tyrannies succeed give us a heads-up on what to look out for, and how it can happen.
How is this fast-track authority different from other fast-track authorities granted to the President over the years?
As I understand it, the fast-track authority grants the President the authority to negotiate trade treaties without amendment from the Senate.
The Senate, however, retains its authority to approve the treaty on a straight up-or-down vote, without amendment or filibuster.
Eric:
The Sessions quotes explain some of the way it would work, but not necessarily what the differences are from previous presidents. The important thing (I think) is that previous presidents had not previously so strongly signaled their determination to abuse their power. Obama has. Nor do I think previous administrations were secretive about what the deals they were contemplaying actually were.
Some of what Sessions says, from the link:
More here.
If Bruce Jenner can really be a girl (and let’s face it the top elites and “progressives” universally say the entity formerly known as Bruce is a girl!), then there is even less claim to race since it is only skin deep and X and Y chromosomes are in every cell of the body and every single drop of blood.
NO blood is black or white or any color but red. No cell is racial. A scant few produce slightly more melanin than other. That’s it.
Black is an invention. White is a fiction. Yellow is only yellow.
The race mongers – EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM – are every bit as fascists as Hitler himself.
They are enemies to humanity itself.
Wrong thread!
As a matter of principle, Democrats do not care about people, but rather environmental stability. As a matter of principle, Republicans care about people, but may be exceptionally (i.e. individually) corrupt. The reality is that both groups have overlapping and even converging interests.
Unfortunately, the dynamic is complicated, and difficult to unravel. However, we know that Democrat politicians and interests lead the financial collapse of 2007. We know that Obamacare, a “populist economic” program, does not support universal medical care, borrowed from other social programs (e.g. Medicare), massively increased the national debt (i.e. devaluation of capital and labor), and shifted responsibility for medical reform (i.e. Medicaid).
The Democrats clearly have ulterior motives to support and oppose aspects of the trade bill. The Republicans would do well to be perfectly transparent about the direct and indirect benefits and consequences of these bills.
That said, I wonder who is telling the truth, if anyone.
Did people know about Fast and Furious before it happened?
What has happened to Paul Ryan?
Maybe this IS the parallel universe.
Libertarians are controlled by the Left’s propaganda branch. A few generations hasn’t changed that.
The Libertarians were promised that so long as they cooked up pretexts domestically for homo salvation and Gaystapo coverage, that the foreign wars sabotaged by Democrats, would cease entirely.
As such, the neo cons can take the great share of blame for foreign wars, which Paul Ryan ilks blame for much of America’s misfortune.
That is not the same as hating or blaming the Leftist alliance domestically, however. That is not the same at all.
An alliance is made from mutual interest or common objectives. It does not necessitate common beliefs or agreement on religious truths. The Libertarian hierarchy may believe that the way to utopia will be clear once the Republicans are stepped over, in favor of Democrat peace. But Democrats are more warlike than people realize.
Looking over Ryan’s history at a gloss, his economic policy goes way back to Ayn Rand, pillar of the Libertarian movement, almost.
His foreign policy wasn’t particularly outstanding or abnormal. He followed along with the Republican administration more or less.
A deal maker, Ryan is. Perhaps he believes Hussein is also a deal maker, that Hussein will obey his side of the deal. Or perhaps Ryan is getting some kind of critical mass return deal that he needs for Ryan’s other projects to go through.
Or perhaps there’s the blackmail angle. Or the government leak of so and so information, which can be false flagged back to Snowden or China or Russia.
Reminds me of the establishment of the CC, NLRB, FCC, SEC, TVA, WPA, TSA,…..
Why go for a strained analogy with Hitler’s Enabling Act when US history provides plenty of nearly-identical acts of Congress surrendering power to the executive?
One aspect of the fast track trade bill that has received little attention is that it will create an INTERNATIONAL EPA, that will have regulatory authority that bypasses congress. In the long term, that may be the most harmful aspect of this abomination.
Cowardice is to complain and do nothing more.
Cowardice? What legal action might we take sir?
Call & write Congress? Done… repeatedly. Vote for another party’s candidate? Done… repeatedly. Attend another party’s (Tea party) meetings? Done…
The simple reality is that if Congressional representatives are deaf to reasoned persuasion or political threat, then no legal remedy exists. And, absent sufficient political consensus for reform, no practical means of change is available.
Pingback:awesome stuff