The Death of Democracy Doesn’t Need an Enabling Act—Just a Complicit Congress

History Repeats Itself—But With New Names

In 1933, Germany’s Reichstag—once the legislative heartbeat of the Weimar Republic—ceased to function as an independent governing body. With the passage of the Enabling Act, Adolf Hitler assumed unchecked power, and the Reichstag became little more than a stage for his speeches. Its members, rather than fulfilling their duty to legislate and hold the executive branch accountable, became instruments of a totalitarian state.

In 2024, the United States has not yet passed its own version of an Enabling Act, but it may not need one. The Republican Party, dominated by Donald Trump and his MAGA movement, is already showing signs of voluntary submission to an authoritarian leader. The GOP-controlled House and Senate, despite wielding legislative power, operate not as a check on Trump’s ambitions, but as an extension of his will. The collapse of a democracy does not require a single decisive law—it can happen through the slow, steady capitulation of those elected to defend it.

The Reichstag and the Republican Party: Parallel Paths to Powerlessness

When the Enabling Act passed in 1933, the Nazi regime systematically eliminated political opposition. The Communists were arrested en masse, the Social Democrats were forced into exile, and remaining lawmakers were either intimidated or coerced into submission. There are whispers and rumors of eerily similar actions now–as Republican legislators stay silent and vote against the interests of their constituents and democracy not out of loyalty to Trump or MAGA, but out of fear for their own lives and the lives of their families.

The Reichstag met only 19 times between 1933 and 1945, passing just seven laws—all dictated by Hitler. Compare this to the current state of the Republican-led House of Representatives. Since reclaiming control, the House has prioritized obstruction, partisan revenge investigations, and performative politics over governance.

Republican lawmakers who dare to challenge Trump face political exile—just as Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger did when they stood against the January 6 insurrection. Those who remain fall in line, fearing the wrath of Trump’s base more than they fear the collapse of democracy.

The Reichstag became an empty institution under Hitler. The United States Congress today isn’t any different.

Eliminating Opposition: From Political Arrests to Political Exile

In Nazi Germany, opposition figures were not just removed from power—they were jailed, exiled, or executed. While America has not yet seen political prisoners on that scale, the Republican Party’s internal purges are undeniable.

  • Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger, who served on the January 6th Committee, were ostracized and effectively removed from Republican politics.
  • Former allies like Mike Pence and Chris Christie, once loyal to Trump, are now persona non grata for daring to challenge his narrative.
  • Election officials and judges who ruled against Trump’s baseless fraud claims have been harassed and threatened.
  • Trump and Musk, with the help of a cadre of authoritarian sycophants, are punishing anyone who is not a MAGA loyalist and purging the federal government of employees who will not bend the knee to a would-be tyrant.

This isn’t an exact parallel to Nazi Germany, but the underlying principle remains the same: opposition is not tolerated, and those who speak out are punished.

The Death of a Legislature: The GOP’s March Toward Irrelevance

With no opposition left, the Reichstag ceased to function. Today, with the Republican Party reshaped into an arm of the MAGA movement, Congress risks the same fate.

  • The House, despite Republican control, is incapable of governing—spending more time on political spectacle than on passing meaningful legislation.
  • GOP lawmakers routinely echo Trump’s rhetoric, even when it contradicts facts, legal rulings, or their own previous positions.
  • Trump has openly declared that he wants to “terminate” parts of the Constitution that limit his power, yet Republicans refuse to condemn him.

A legislature that refuses to act as a check on executive power is no longer a legislature—it is a rubber stamp for autocracy.

Nuremberg and the Future Reckoning

After World War II, the Nuremberg Trials held Nazi officials accountable—including former Reichstag members who enabled Hitler’s rise. They claimed they were just following orders, just going along with the system—but history did not excuse them.

As Trump bulldozes American democracy, today’s Republican leaders–and maybe some of the elected Democrats–should expect to face a similar reckoning.

History will remember politicians like John Cornyn, Tommy Tuberville, Marjorie Taylor-Green, Ted Cruz, Lindsey Graham, and countless others as spineless enablers, too afraid or too ambitious to stand against an autocratic tide. And when the US version of the Nuremberg Trials comes, they will face the same fate as their Nazi dopplegangers–Göring, Hess, Frick, and the rest of the Reichstag members who were complicit.

The Final Warning

The collapse of democracy does not always require a single defining moment. The United States may never see its own Enabling Act because it may not need one.

A Congress that refuses to act, a political party that submits to a strongman, and a citizenry too distracted to resist—this is how democracy is suffocated.

We have already seen this playbook. We already know how this works out. Democracy will prevail and those enabling authoritarian fascism will be held accountable–even if they have to be hunted down decades later.

I just hope they all know that “I was just following orders” wasn’t a valid defense then, and it won’t be a valid defense now.

Let the Dog Catch the Mail Truck: Why Democrats Should Let Trump Be Trump

The metaphor of a dog chasing a mail truck is often used to describe relentless pursuit without consideration of the consequences. With Donald Trump’s recent election victory, this analogy takes on new significance. Voters who fervently supported Trump’s return to the presidency have, in essence, caught the mail truck. Now, the question arises: Should Democrats expend their political capital to obstruct Trump’s policies, or should they allow these policies to unfold, letting the consequences speak for themselves?

This article draws inspiration from a thought-provoking piece in The Bulwark and recent Threads posts by Jonathan V. Last, who explores the idea of stepping back and “letting Trump be Trump.”

While this approach might highlight the destructive nature of certain policies in a way that words alone never could, it’s important to acknowledge the gravity of this concept if played out in reality. Allowing Trump’s policies to unfold without resistance would likely lead to catastrophic consequences for global peace, geopolitical stability, the U.S. economy, women’s rights, marginalized communities, and countless families.

It’s a scenario that, while theoretically illuminating, poses immense moral and practical challenges. As much as the end result—a public reckoning with these choices—might seem desirable, the devastating costs make it almost impossible to watch it happen without intervention. This tension, the near impossibility of standing by while harm unfolds, is part of the reason why Democrats often intervene, inadvertently shielding these policies from the full measure of accountability.

Historical Context: The Democratic Dilemma

Historically, Democrats have often intervened to mitigate the impact of Republican policies, sometimes shielding their opponents from the full political fallout. For instance, in Arizona, when a 19th-century law criminalizing nearly all abortions was reinstated, Democrats provided the necessary votes to repeal it, thereby sparing Republicans from potential backlash . This pattern of intervention raises the question: Is it more strategic for Democrats to step back and allow Republican policies to proceed unimpeded, thereby exposing their flaws and shifting public opinion?

Key Policy Areas to Consider

Foreign Policy: The Ukraine Example

Trump has signaled a potential withdrawal of support for Ukraine, a move that could have significant geopolitical ramifications. Instead of obstructing this policy, Democrats might consider allowing it to proceed, thereby highlighting the dangers of such a move when the consequences become apparent. This approach could serve to underscore the importance of sustained international alliances and the risks associated with isolationist policies.

Economic Policy: Tariffs and Trade

Trump’s reintroduction of tariffs is poised to impact the economy, potentially leading to higher consumer prices and strained international trade relations. Rather than blocking these policies, Democrats could focus on exposing instances of cronyism and the adverse effects on consumers. By shining a light on how these tariffs may benefit a select few while harming the broader population, Democrats can make a compelling case against such economic strategies.

Public Health: Vaccine Policies

The appointment of vaccine skeptics to key positions within the administration poses a threat to public health initiatives. In response, Democratic-led states could implement their own public health campaigns, promoting vaccination and countering misinformation. Allowing federal missteps to become evident may reinforce the importance of science-based policies and the dangers of politicizing public health.

Immigration: Mass Deportations

Trump’s proposal for large-scale deportations raises concerns about feasibility and societal impact. By not obstructing these policies, Democrats could allow the public to witness the chaos and human cost associated with such actions. This exposure might lead to a shift in public opinion, particularly among communities directly affected by these policies.

The Risks of Obstruction

Obstructing Trump’s policies could have unintended consequences, such as shielding Republicans from accountability and wasting political resources that could be better used in proactive policy development. By stepping back, Democrats allow the full impact of these policies to be felt, potentially leading to a more informed and engaged electorate.

The Benefits of Allowing Policy Implementation

Allowing policies to proceed without obstruction can lead to greater public awareness of their impacts. This strategy builds a case for change based on observed outcomes rather than theoretical arguments, fostering a more informed public discourse and potentially leading to more sustainable policy solutions.

Ethical Considerations

Balancing the duty to protect vulnerable populations with the strategic benefits of non-intervention presents an ethical dilemma. While immediate harm may occur, the long-term gains in public policy and opinion could justify a strategy of allowing policies to unfold. This approach requires careful consideration of the potential risks and benefits, ensuring that the pursuit of political strategy does not come at the expense of ethical responsibility.

Strategic Patience

Revisiting the dog and mail truck metaphor, Democrats face a choice: continue to intervene and potentially shield Republicans from the consequences of their policies, or step back and allow these policies to demonstrate their effectiveness or failure. By adopting a strategy of strategic patience, Democrats can let Trump be Trump, allowing the electorate to witness firsthand the outcomes of his administration’s policies.

Call to Action

Engaging the public in this discourse is crucial. Voters should stay informed and critically assess policy outcomes, holding elected officials accountable for their decisions. Democratic leaders are urged to consider the potential benefits of allowing certain policies to unfold without obstruction, fostering a more informed and engaged electorate that can make decisions based on observed realities rather than partisan rhetoric.

Bottom line: Trump, his sycophants, and the MAGA cult-at-large have fucked around. It’s about time they find out. However, we already know Trump idolizes both Hitler and Putin, and one thing we can learn from their rise, or the rise of neofascist authoritarians like Viktor Orbán—is that when the “finding out” happens, it may very will be too late to reverse the damage.

Inside Donald’s Head: Part 1 of 9

Donald Trump

Have you ever read Donald Trump’s book, The Art of the Deal? It was on my list of things I aspired to read at one point, but I never did get around to it. In my defense, the book was popular when Donald was merely a questionably successful business person–it was pre-Apprentice, never mind pre-politics. In the wake of  Donald’s swearing in as President, one group took a closer look at the book, though, to find clues to how this guy thinks.

One of the quotes pulled from the book addresses Donald’s thoughts on maintaining a schedule. He said, “I try not to schedule too many meetings. I leave my door open. You can’t be imaginative or entrepreneurial if you’ve got too much structure. I prefer to come to work each day and just see what develops.”

I realize Donald probably didn’t actually “write” a single word of the book, and these are really the words of whatever co-author or ghost writer Donald was working with. It’s fair to assume, though, that Donald said something along these lines and based on how he ran his campaign and seems to be operating in the White House, the philosophy seems credible.

Personally, I don’t disagree. Anyone who has worked in a corporation and has been mired down in meetings knows what it feels like. You look at your calendar and see all of your day allocated to various briefings and meetings and just shrug your shoulders, knowing it won’t be a very productive day.

A recent study by Attentiv found that the average meeting includes nine people, and that 63 percent of meetings don’t have a pre-planned agenda. Most meetings are between 31 and 60 minutes, and more than a third of those who participate in the meeting find it to be a waste of their time.

That said, the President of the United States is not a CEO, and the United States government is not a business–so that strategy won’t necessarily work for managing a country. Admittedly, it might make sense to look at all of the various standard meetings, determine the goal or value, and then identify whether or not they can be reduced or eliminated. But, there’s a lot going on in any given day–decisions to be made, crises to address, plans to develop–and it’s not something that can be done by the seat of one’s pants…especially if the one wearing said pants has an adversarial relationship with facts and truth.

The good news is that Donald apparently likes to have an open door policy and keep his calendar clear. He’s not used to being an employee, but as his new boss feel free to stop in and tell him what you think of his performance if you happen to be in the DC area.

 

Follow by Email
Facebook
Twitter