In a paper published in 1989- around the time Trump first said he might run for President- Peter Baehr discussed WEBER AND WEIMAR: THE ‘REICH PRESIDENT’ PROPOSALS.
Baehr, an eminent Sociologist, begins by asking why Weber is not considered a significant political thinker. He supplies the answer himself-
Throughout his adult life Weber supported a variety of liberal-nationalist measures designed to establish and enhance Germany‘s status as a great imperial power.
Sadly, Germany could not be a great imperial power. Thus Weber must be dismissed as a fool. The US could be a 'great imperial power'. Trump has spoken of annexing Canada and Greenland and the Panama Canal. He is demanding that Europe become part of a protectionist regime against 'BRICS' while also spending much more for rearmament. Perhaps his endgame is to expand American power using European money and troops. In domestic affairs, Trump behaves like Weber's 'Caesarist' or plebiscitary President who puts troops on the street and uses emergency powers- e.g. that of imposing tariffs- which a supine Supreme Court will rubber-stamp. His iron control of his party and the fact that they have a majority in both houses of Congress enables him to act Dictatorially. Indeed, he had said that was what he planned to do if returned to office. Currently, he is standing tall. Perhaps he will face some difficulty in the Senate but he has a lot of weapons at his disposal to gain compliance. Only if the Stock Market turns against him and cost-push inflation causes an economic contraction would his ambitions be checked such that next November, his party loses control of Congress. At that point he may become a 'lame duck' harassed by impeachment proceedings and so forth. That is also the moment of greatest danger. What if he launches a war? If he is willing to leverage America's economic might in an unprecedented manner, why not also leverage its military might- before China catches up? Just as there was a danger of militaristic dictatorship founded upon an Imperialist program in Weimar Germany (at least partly because of the nature of its Weberian Constitution ) similarly America's traditionally 'strong' Presidency poses the same risk.
In this context it is worth looking a little closer at Baehr's essay because he asserts that the Weimar Constitution bears in some limited respects 'a recognisably Weberian stamp.' Since those limited respects have to do with Emergency powers of the President (which Trump has already asserted) Weber's thinking bears re-examination as does the extent to which Carl Schmitt built upon Hugo Preuss's work. (Preuss was the Professor/Politician who drafted the Weimar Constitution. He was close to Weber and invited him to join the Drafting Committee)
During the latter part of the War, Weber had argued that a vigorous parliamentary democracy of the British type was the model system for Germany to emulate if it were to produce the leaders of energetic intelligence necessary for national reconstruction.
This was also traditional Republican thinking. They did not believe in slavish obedience even to a Republican POTUS. Trump's iron grip on his party is something many traditional Republicans consider an aberration. Yet, Trump has prevailed. Why? Perhaps like Weber after the Great War, the Republicans despair of any other means to maintain their country's greatness or, indeed, recover that greatness in the face of China's rise and rise.
The British parliamentary system, he maintained, had much to commend it. It served to expose and remove those politicians whose demagogy was not matched by their political judgement.
Sadly the Brexit referendum (an un-British device previously used to push through EU entry) had the effect of opening the door to demagogy. Nigel Farage is now seriously considered a future PM even though there is no evidence that he can keep in line any of the nutters who get elected on the Reform Ticket. In the case of Liz Truss, it was not Cabinet intrigue or a House of Commons rebellion which ended her short reign. It was the financial markets which decided she was a demagogue. Her reign lasted just 49 days. In the case of Trump, it may not be Congress or the Judiciary but the Financial Markets which place a check upon his vaulting ambition. The problem here is that he may have already secured economic weapons to manipulate the markets. Unlike Weimar Germany, America is very rich. There are vast sums controlled by Trusts and Private Equity mavens which can be used to support the market- if the President is unscrupulous and uses shady methods to apply pressure in the right places.
It enabled the supervision of the leader once installed as head of the executive.
The British PM has to answer questions on everything he did during the week while Parliament is in session.
The British parliamentary system also stood as a guardian of civil liberties (sic), offering firm resistance to imperious rule. And finally it ensured continuity and ‘the peaceful elimination of the Caesarist dictator once he has lost the trust of the masses’ (Weber, 1978, p 1452).
Britain had had one Cromwell. It decided never to go down that road again. Commissions in the Army were purchased till 1871. Nevertheless, the landed aristocracy kept a firm grip on higher offices. This could pose a problem for the Government- e.g. the 'Ulster Mutiny'- if it sought to go down too liberal a road. However, the Army was realistic. By 1922, the CIGS was announcing the 'End of Empire'. Ireland had to be freed. Egypt had to be declared independent. So too with Afghanistan. India too would have got a cosmetic type of independence had Gandhi stuck to his guns. Later Wavell- an army man- as Viceroy of India persuaded even the die-hard Tories that India had to be given up. Mountbatten- a naval man- befriended Nehru and thus Britain kept her influence in the Indian sub-continent. This pattern was repeated in Kenya. Kenyatta forgot his resentment at being imprisoned when he found he needed British military support to keep the North West Province. Malaysia had even more reason to be grateful to British soldiers who put down the Communist menace. By contrast American troops in Vietnam were useless.
(The British system with 'first past the post) was the sort of system that Germany itself would be wise to adopt, Weber had advised. His post-war writings, in contrast, entertain few hopes of parliamentary government being able to furnish the political conditions imperative for affirmative, dynamic leadership in Germany.
Why? My thesis is that, at heart, he believed Germany had to expand to survive. Economists like J.M Keynes took this view. Keynes thought America had already become a net food importer. Britain and France would get food from their colonies. Germany would starve unless it grabbed land to its East. Caesarism was Germany's only hope.
On the contrary, he now insisted that the ‘necessity for a leader to provide decisive political direction and a focus for national unity could ... only be met by divorcing him from Parliament and giving him a separate power base in a direct presidential election’ (Beetham, 1985, p 232)
Weber knew the British Parliament had gained strength through the 'no taxation without representation' principle. But the Kaiser's Parliament had voted for the War because taxes weren't raised. Instead Government borrowing went up. The hope was that French reparations would pay off the debt and leave a profit.
The Republicans could be 'deficit hawks' from time to time. Indeed, some still claim to be so. Trump says he will balance the budget by the time he quits office. How? Through economic warfare. Foreigners will pay through the nose to sell in America. We can cut taxes because we will be awash with tariff revenue. The problem here is that elasticities of traded goods and services are low only in the short term. There may be a windfall gain but after that revenue dries up. All you are left with is cost-push inflation. Interestingly, China is expected to have deflation of about 2 percent while America is expected to have inflation of 5 percent. Also its exports are expected to decline by 17 percent while China's exports may take a 5 percent hit. China will have positive growth. The US won't.
When economic warfare fails, the door is opened- if not to war then the instrumentalization of military power to extort money. But that is a slippery slope to actual war.
The causes of this change of heart are implicit in the three main reasons Weber advanced for supporting a President of the Reich ‘elected directly by the people’
The US has a system of indirect election. You can win the popular vote and still lose the election. What has strengthened Trump's position is that he got more votes than Kamala. I wonder whether this was because both her parents were immigrants? Alternatively, since she was a 'diversity hire', people may have questioned her ability.
To begin with, only a directly elected President, Weber argued,
could do what Napoleon III did- viz make himself Emperor
would be able to affirm the identity and unity of the infant Republic in the teeth of all those divisive interests that threatened to asphyxiate it at birth.
This was silly. German unification was popular. Separatism wasn't a big threat. Indeed Bavaria had needed Federal troops to crush the Commies and restore the elected Government. Yes, there was pushback against re-organizing the Federal units but the proposals were half-baked.
Of these divisive forces, consider first the particularism arising from Germany’s Federal make-up. In the near future, Weber claimed, the Bundesrat (Federal Council), ‘will rise again’ and with its resurrection the demands of the Republic’s constituent states (dominated by Prussia) will come to be elevated above the national interest.
Actually the elected Government of Prussia was a bastion against the Nazis till it was dismissed. What did Weber actually mean? I think he believed that troops had been diverted from the Western Front because Prussians were such cowards that they didn't want to be occupied by Russian troops. They didn't understand that the 'National Interest' required getting French gold before worrying about Rooskis raping Prussians.
The power of the Reichstag will decrease correspondingly - especially in its capacity to select and promote national leaders.
In other words, just as in America, where the Senate restrains the House of Representatives, there would be less adventurism by a Caesarist President. Why hadn't the US annexed Canada and Mexico and so forth? It could have used 'Negro' slave armies to do it. I suppose the answer is that Anglo-Saxons represent a decadent branch of the great Teutonic race. Those wimps even liberated their 'negro' slaves! How crazy is that? Weber had met and been impressed by WEB DuBois. Clearly, slave armies could be managed by Slave officers of intelligence and ability equal to that of Whites. Yet, America had neglected this opportunity. Why? It must be because Senators and Governors were jealous of their privileges. They feared a President who could do what he liked with a vast, slavish, Federal Army. This is why America could not fulfil the World Historical Mission of the Teutonic Race. Germany must step forward and take on the burden of the 'blonde beast'.
Consider also the quite literal provincialism of regionally based parties that will continue to fragment the political process in Germany. And, relatedly, consider the danger posed for a weakened Germany by proportional representation.
That danger was that a two party system would fail to evolve. Parliament would be regarded as a bear garden. The power of the Chief Executive would increase.
Such an electoral system, Weber declared, is guaranteed in postwar German conditions to transport the quest for economic advancement directly into the political arena.
The reverse was the case- as Weber's audience well knew. Poorer people would vote for the SDs. If they fucked up a Right of Centre party would take over. This gave the SDs an incentive not to fuck up and to quickly and effectively expel Bolshie nutters. Weber's own party would either have to amalgamate with the SD or join a right-wing, Catholic/Peasant party which had a modus vivendi with Industrialists and the professional classes. But this meant an independent Central Bank and sound finances. Hyperinflation, as a way to deal with War debt, was off the table.
Where interest groups constrain political parties to place the former’s preferred candidates at the head of the party list, parliament will: . . . become a body within which those personalities who care nothing for national politics set the tone, and who, in the nature of things, will rather act according to an ‘imperative’ mandate from those with particular economic interests.
In other words, Parliament will be a place where economic interests predominate and thus tackling actual bread & butter issues will gain salience. But this means an 'Imperial mission' would have to be justified on fiscal grounds. If the thing can't make money, don't do it. Talk of 'National Glory' is irrelevant. Fine words butter no parsnips.
It will be a parliament of philistines
guys who worry about whether the taxpayer is getting value for money from Government spending
- incapable of being in any sense a place where political leaders are selected
Except in the sense that sensible political leaders are selected- as happens in Anglo Saxon countries.
(’ Only a president elected directly by the citizenry,
like Napoleon III
that is elected ‘in a plebiscitarian way and not by parliament’, can become ‘the safety-valve of the demand for leadership’ .
Crowning yourself Emperor is a great safety valve- if you happen to be a megalomaniac or are deluded enough to think you must be a great General simply because your Uncle was.
Only through a ‘headship of state which indubitably rests on the will of the whole people without intermediaries’ can the prospect of centrifugal politics be averted.
In other words, we must replace a less than all-powerful Kaiser with an all-powerful elected Caesar. But the word Kaiser, or Tzar, means Caesar.
The second reason Weber campaigned for a Reich President elected by the people as a whole hinged on his assessment of Germany’s economic plight. Economic restructuring, including a dose of ‘socialization’, would be essential for Germany’s post-war financial and manufacturing recovery. It was vital that such transformation be endowed with the authority and legitimacy only a President chosen in Weber’s preferred manner could provide.
This is bizarre. It is the law which provides legitimacy. Commercial transactions burgeon where the law can be relied upon to enforce contracts and uphold property rights. The problem with Weimar's Article 153 was that it didn't uphold a fundamental right to property. Moreover it lapsed entirely in a State of Emergency.
The President, Weber editorialized, should be no parliamentary manikin, no mere figurehead, but actually just the opposite: a democratic dictator - Weber uses the term ‘dictator’ in its quasiclassical, Roman Republican sense - helping to create the conditions in which fundamental change would be possible.
Back in August, Trump clarified an earlier remark about people wanting a Dictatorship. CNN reports-
“The line is that I’m a dictator, but I stop crime,” Trump said during a Cabinet meeting, referring to his moves to send troops into major American cities. “So a lot of people say, ‘You know, if that’s the case, I’d rather have a dictator.’”
He later added: “Most people say … if he stops crime, he can be whatever he wants.”
The same remark might be made about the fiscal or trade deficit. If Trump can get foreigners to pay for American prosperity, people will let him do anything he likes.
It was a point he threw like vitriol in the face of the Social Democrats,
who correspond to the Dems in the US- except that Reagan or Bush would now count as Dems in terms of their policies. Dick Cheney voted for Kamala.
claiming, absurdly, that his prescription for the nation’s sickness was analogous to their view of the dictatorship of the proletariat: Let the Social Democrats remember that the much-discussed ‘dictatorship’ of the masses does indeed require the ‘dictator’, chosen by them, to whom they subject themselves just as long as he retains their confidence (1986, p 129).
This was nonsense. The 'vanguard' party would rule on behalf of the proletariat. If it was internally democratic (which is what all such parties claimed to be) then there was no Dictator.
Without a President elected by the demos, symbolising the unity of the nation, and acting accordingly, ‘the reconstruction of our economy, on whatever foundation, is impossible’ (1986, p 129).
Without Trump we can never Make America Great Again. Trump's hold on his party arises from the fact that he can win precisely because he has never held any other political job. All other contenders have a voting record or a record as Governor which can be examined. The problem is that Trump was re-elected on what people remembered of his record. The Dems seemed unable to challenge his assertion that both the economy and the International situation had been better on his watch.
Third, Weber envisaged in a plebiscitarian presidency the institutional prerequisite, though not the guarantee, of strong, creative, personal leadership.
Trump, despite his age, seems to provide that. But then, so did Hitler.
Bound to parliament in the selection of government ministers, the President would nonetheless remain free to formulate his own initiatives, and as the focus and representative of millions ‘would often be superior to the respective party majority in parliament, all the more superior the longer his period of office’ (1958, p 458).
In other words, you'd have an elected Kaiser. Since calling for the King to abdicate is treason, it would not be surprising if those who opposed the elected Caesar were locked up for sedition.
Recent elections had shown, Weber declared, that the German parliamentary party response to a strong personality was overwhelmingly negative, manifesting a combination of plain ‘very petty-bourgeois hostility . . . to leaders’
Aristocrats had no problem bowing down to the Kaiser. It was only the low born artisan or school teacher or small businessman who had the vulgarity and bad taste to refuse such homage.
, and fierce resistance among entrenched party veterans to the spectre of ‘socialization’ .
for the purpose of total war to become a great Imperial power. I can imagine Trump taking over a bankrupt factory on the grounds of national security. Such things have happened in the past but were struck down by the Courts because the motive was political. But if SCOTUS backs POTUS there may be no judicial avenue of redress.
Parliament could thus not be expected to supply the leaders Germany so urgently needed.
To be fair, there were few first rate men at that time. Rathenau was the exception. He was killed because he was a particularly able Jew.
Americans have always been aware of the dangers posed by a Dictatorial President. In addition to the Legislature and the Judiciary, the Cabinet system and the independence of Federal Agencies could have a countervailing effect.
Past Presidents saw that it was in their own interest to have respected, highly capable, Cabinet colleagues and that independent Federal Agencies could be more effective. Surrounding yourself with a pack of yes-men can backfire. Trump may yet come a cropper because of some of his Cabinet choices. But, paradoxically, this gives his party a reason to back his extreme program. If he fails, they can distance himself from that program. They don't have to admit that they had handed their party over to a crazy man.
No doubt, being ignorant of American politics, I am over-stating the case. One might say that Republicans had been alarmed by Ross Perot's ability to take votes from them and then had taken notice of Bernie Sander's increasing popularity on the basis of, among other things, his trying to get a law passed in 2005 opposing China's WTO membership and revoking normal tariffs on Chinese imports. Putting up Trump- who had been associated with Perot and had once been a registered Democrat- may have looked a smart move at a time when Hilary seemed unbeatable. Maybe, if Trump crashed and burned, the 'professionals' would be left in charge of the Party. Sadly, Hilary lost. The Republican Party became a hostage to the fortunes of a Wharton Class of '68 true believer in, closed economy, Keynesian. 'optimal tariff' Imperium. Suppose Trump succeeds. Then we'd be back in a Bretton Woods world of bilateral trade deals and fixed exchange rates. The Markets won't have the power to turf even a Liz Truss out of power not to speak of forcing a U turn on a future POTUS.
Suppose Trump does a deal with Xi and both continue to reign with the applause of their grateful people. Then, what happens to parliamentary democracies? Since outcomes will depend on the ability of their leader to ingratiate himself with one or other of the two Global titans, parliamentary politics will lose salience. Is there some way that legislators across Western borders can somehow join forces to avert their own irrelevance? Sadly, this will also mean allowing markets- as much as elections- to determine outcomes. That is 'Neo-liberalism'. It is very evil. Biden had applied for gender reassignment surgery on the basis that he was heterosexual and thus his penis was an illegal weapon of Patriarchal rape. Kamala was holding his hand. Then Neo-Liberalism, wearing a Nazi uniform, stepped into the room. It shouted 'Das ist verboten! Heterosexuelle Männer müssen ihren Penis behalten, um die Umwelt zu vergewaltigen! Sieg dem Markt!'. Biden protested that Heterosexual men don't in fact spend their time raping the Environment with their penises. Also this has nothing to with the 'victory' of the Market. Sadly, Janet Yellen confirmed that it was indeed the case that Neo-Liberalism conscripted all heterosexual penises into the laborious task of raping trees and bushes- more particularly in the Amazon forest. Biden cried and cried. Overnight, he became an old and senile man.
(Weber) knew that a species of parliamentarian would be ‘loath to make the sacrifice of self-denial required to allow the choosing of the highest organ of the Reich to pass out’ of parliament’s hands.
He didn't know that Parliament would make Ebert president and keep extending his term till the fucker died in 1925. Only then were elections held. Hindenburg won as he would win again. One immediate effect was 'Osthilfe'- Federal handouts for Junker landlords like Hindenburg himself- which was instituted in 1926. At the end of 1932, a national scandal was created by the disclosure of the considerable corruption involved in this program. This meant Hindenburg was ready to let go of General Schleicher and make do with an Austrian Corporal.
But he warned, ‘it must happen’:
it did happen. Hitler was the result.
If the ministers remain strictly bound to its confidence, parliament will not have cause to regret this. For the great movement of democratic party life which develops alongside these popular elections will benefit parliament as well. A president elected by means of particular constellations and coalitions of parties is politically a dead man when these constellations shift.
Is that what is happening to Macron? Perhaps. Still, by law, he can't get another term.
A popularly elected President as head of the executive, head of office patronage, and perhaps possessor of a delaying veto and of the authority to dissolve parliament and to call referenda, is the guarantor of true democracy, which means not feeble surrender to cliques but subjection to leaders chosen by the people themselves.
This may be what is facing America. If Trump can dismiss officials in supposedly independent Agencies and he can put troops on the streets of States run by the Democrats, what can't he do?
I suppose, if Americans believe MAGA involves economic/military warfare and the marking out of a distinct Imperium (perhaps supplemented by annexation of strategic or resource rich territory) then it makes sense to endorse Trump as the American Caesar.
My belief is that Weber thought Germany the choice between annexing territory or starvation. Thus he wanted a Napoleonic President.
...Weber had remarked elsewhere, speaking of Napoleon I and 111 (1978, p 1452):
'Every kind of direct popular election of the supreme ruler and, beyond that, every kind of political power that rests on the confidence of the masses and not of parliament . . . lies on the road to these ‘pure’ forms of Caesarist acclamation'
This was nonsense save if the Caesar was a great soldier and could annex territory. Napoleon I could do so but overreached himself. Napoleon III could not. History had repeated itself as farce.
Moreover, the President’s powers to dissolve parliament and resort to referenda display the familiar ‘Caesarist-plebiscitarian’ mechanism of legitimation. Finally, the President is a ‘dictator’, a term Weber elsewhere employs to characterise the ‘Caesarist’ leader Gladstone (1970, p 106).
Gladstone split his party over Ireland. Thus the Liberals were bound to decline while the Tories gained a fresh lease of life with the infusion of 'Unionist' Liberals. Oddly, some Unionists were won over to Protectionism. Churchill was unusual in that he went over to the Liberals on the Free Trade issue. But, after the post-War franchise extension, Labour eclipsed the Liberal party and so Winston had to return to his ancestral party.
Was Weber's support for a Caeserist President 'Sociological' (i.e. explained by Weber's own social position and the problems his Society faced) or was it 'Political' in a pure or theoretical sense? Initially, one may say the latter was the case. But after the War, Weber, like many of his colleagues, felt a sense of desperation or doom. In considering Trump's second term- at least as it now appears- we may well ask whether Trump's supporters are motivated by a similar 'Sociological' panic rather than some more abstract motivation to do with Judicial or Administrative overreach and the entrenchment of a 'Woke' culture supporting programs the majority of Americans reject. In Europe, concern over migration has led to a feeling that laws are being misapplied. Hans-Jurgen Papier, ex-president of Germany’s constitutional court, says that European Human Rights Rulings, ‘settle like mildew’ over states’ power. In particular, there is the feeling that Parliament has no power to curb increasing spending on things the court's have mandated but for which there is no popular support.
In Europe, 'Trumpism' may have been seen as part of the 'pushback' against Brussels represented by Brexit. But now that Trump has essentially torn up Article 5 of NATO, and proceeded to demand that Europe join him in economic warfare against 'BRICS' or 'de-dollarization', people in Europe are beginning to wonder whether Trump is the successor of Napoleon and Hitler- i.e. a 'man of destiny' who believes he is fulfilling a 'World Historical Mission' which, in its Teutonic form, is ultimately Racial and pitiless to non-European people.
Max Weber and Hugo Preuss couldn't be sure they were paving the path to Hitler. Much must be forgiven them because they were Teutonic pedagogues teaching ignorant shite. But, we can't say this of ourselves. If we continue to support Trump it can only be because we want America's global footprint to contract both economically and diplomatically. This means no more bleating about 'regime change' or 'wars against terror' or 'Democracy Summits' and so forth. A protectionist America may well be a comfortable enough place for many people. As a country, it can afford a long spell of mellow decline. Democracy does mean the freedom to pick comfort over greatness. But what is greater yet is the comfort of claiming to be restoring your country's greatness just as you settle down for a cozy little nap.
Trump, in his own view, is replicating and recapturing the Greatness achieved in his first Presidency. Sadly, history only repeats itself as farce. What is comical is that the MAGA cap is turning into Rip Van Winkle's coonskin hat. His supporters are busy quaffing a heady liquor and lying down to sleep comfortably. When they wake up China will be greater than it has ever again. Meanwhile, parts of the US can go back to traditional occupations like squirrel hunting and sister fucking. What is vital is that J.D Vance preserve the recipe for Trump's moonshine so his hillbilly descendants too can enjoy a quiet slumber. Usha Vance, of course, will have deported herself to oblige the Donald. The only good Injun is a dead Injun unless they live in faraway India and pay a lot of money in tariffs to sell their merchandise in the ever increasingly great Trump Empire.
No comments:
Post a Comment