Trumping the TPP

In early November, I argued that the release of the text of the Trans Pacific Partnership wasn't the start of a long fight over Congressional approval, but somewhere closer to the mid-way point on a road stacked toward approval of the deal. To put things in baseball terms, we were in the 5th or 6th inning of a game that was already being won by the proponents and architects of the deal. As I said then, it will be an ugly fight with lots of atmospherics. But on balance, I still give the edge to the TPP being approved in the United States.


But what are we supposed to make of the U.S. Senate Majority Leader's comments Thursday saying that the TPP should not come before Congress for approval until after the November 2016 presidential elections? Moreover, Mitch McConnell (R-KY) is not alone. Senator Orin Hatch (R-UT), chairman of the Senate Finance Committee-- where any TPP implementing legislation will be considered-- has also questioned the merits of the TPP. Yet, both were among the 47 Senate Republicans that voted for the Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) facilitating the Obama Administration's final push to complete the TPP negotiations this past fall.

What's going on? Is the TPP text so bad that McConnell and Hatch (among others) are now reversing themselves? Did the Administration effectively lie to everyone on Capitol Hill back in June during the TPA debate? Did Congress fall asleep afterward and take their eyes off the TPP negotiations? Did the White House fail to consult with Congress-- as required by TPA-- about the TPP as it was being negotiated? The answer to all of these questions is NO!

The real answer might be Donald Trump!!!!
There are a number of posts in this blog about the vagaries of trade politics in the United States and the dicey political challenges flowing from the distributional consequences of trade liberalization. Here I just wanted to say a few things about how Trump may be complicating approval of the TPP and suggest ways to separate the "noise" from the substance of the TPP debate.

Electoral Calendar

Observers of the American political system are often bewildered by the chaotic complexity of a system that is both profoundly open, but seemingly impenetrable (more on that below). One of the more challenging parts of the system is the country's electoral process. It might seem obvious for Majority Leader McConnell to suggest TPP be dealt with after next fall's elections; punitively deny President Obama any big "wins" in his last year in office, shield congressional Republicans from having to stump for free trade during the campaign-- most aren't very good at it at the best of times. But, it's been getting a little more complicated than that of late. I hate to give Donald Trump any air time, but he is complicating things for Republicans in this electoral cycle that may be shaping whether the TPP gets considered before or after November 2016. Let me explain.

There are really only two windows in the legislative calendar before the end of 2016 when the TPP can realistically be considered: 1) sometime between the end of the presidential nomination process and the summer 2016 recess when Members of Congress head back to their districts to begin campaigning in earnest and 2) the lame-duck session after the November elections. An excellent analysis of the mandated timelines for consideration is linked here.

Trump's candidacy may be closing the first of these.

A House Divided

Trump's candidacy is wreaking havoc inside a Republican Party already riven with deep divisions. Last fall, then-Speaker of the House, John Boenher, fell on his sword and resigned after years of bickering and paralysis within the GOP caucus. For several weeks after his announcement, it seemed as though no one wanted the job. Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) emerged as an early favorite only to be spiked by some of the same members of the Tea Party (no Freedom) Caucus that repeatedly undermined Boehner's Speakership. Paul Ryan (R-WI) initially resisted a movement to draft him into the job and cleverly played hard-to-get as a means of buying a modicum of political peace. However, what passes for peace in the GOP caucus may be in the eye of the beholder.

Donald Trump's campaign for president is a lot of things,  but it is definitely cause for concern inside the GOP. Pundits and experts have been writing him off for months, every new outburst or outrage surely signalling the end of Trump's prospects. If the GOP establishment (the leadership of the Republican National Committee, in particular) was initially anxious about Trump's candidacy before, they suddenly seem to be in a full blown panic. Trump isn't going anywhere. His campaign is not as purely about the narcissism of the candidate as it first appeared; there's method to the madness. Poll after poll suggest Trump has a solid base of support. Interestingly, the latest poll from the Wall Street Journal notes that Trump supporters represent a newly cohesive segment of GOP voters who are predominantly white, socially moderate, blue collar, and nervous; nervous about jobs, nervous about terrorism, angry at feeling left behind by the political establishment. It's been a steady block of Trump supporters that doesn't appear to be going anywhere.
Returning to the TPP and why Mitch McConnell might be rethinking whether Congress ought to consider it in 2016, there is open chatter that Trump's presence in the GOP race could result in a so-called "brokered convention" in Cleveland in July. Hence, rather than someone having the GOP nomination wrapped up by April, you could have an ugly spring and summer of focus on the GOPs leadership, followed by a messy process of horse-trading at the Convention itself.

The period between an April and the end of the primary process and the July Convention was an obvious one in which Congress could have considered the TPP. Members would still have to go home and defend their TPP votes, but any controversy over the TPP could conceivably have been drowned out with a little time and the excitement of both Party Conventions (Democrats meet in Philadelphia in late July). It was always unlikely to have the TPP taken up in the fall session of Congress as Members will be even less likely to want controversy following them out on the campaign trail. That leaves the lame-duck session between November elections and the swearing in of the new Congress in January 2016.

Cry and Sigh Revisited

I don't have any special down-in-the-weeds insights into what's happening on Capitol Hill, or what strategies are being contemplated by the White House as it plots its political offensive to win TPP approval. However, the lame-duck session has two main virtues:

1) Members of Congress will not have to face voters right after their TPP votes. Those who were just voted out of office have the most freedom to vote as they please on the TPP. But the lame duck session is desireable for rookies and the newly re-elected since it is as far away from the next election (2018 mid-terms) as you can get.

That sounds undemocratic. However, remember that the politics of trade liberalization are a challenge for Members of Congress (especially in the House) where the incentives for developing a deep body of knowledge about trade issues are limited. Having to be in near-constant re-election mode limits both the capacities and willingness of Members to vigorously pursue the merits of economic openness, even if their districts are not especially vulnerable to the concentrated adjustment costs (the losers).

2) Congress doesn't really want to deal with foreign affairs. As I wrote in May of this year, the Congress likes to yell and scream about foreign affairs, but doesn't really want the responsibility for actually managing the day-to-day of foreign policy. Nowhere was this more evident than last spring in the short-lived debate over the Authorization for the Use of Military Force (still unauthorized, thus evidence of my point), Congress and the White House do a delicate dance over the constitutionally divided authority over foreign affairs. The practical outcome is that Congress makes a lot of noise about foreign affairs, but would rather occupy a perch as "Critic-in-Chief" than Commander-in-Chief. In the case of the AUMF debate, it's my suspicion that the White House pushed the issue mainly as a way to generate false political cover for inaction against the Islamic State (ie. "If Congress wants more action, it would pass the AUMF.")

In short, Congress can basically re-approve something over which they really only want oversight capacity. 

A BIG (Paul Ryan) Caveat

What sort of academic would I be if I didn't give myself some wiggle room in my prediction that the TPP will be approved? In my mind, most of that wiggle room flows from any score-settling that might flow from the November elections. If we end up with a Democratic President (likely Hillary Clinton) and a GOP House and Senate (probable at this point), you could see some score-settling by Republicans intent on denying Obama a legacy issue and hamstring President Clinton's early foreign policy forays (see my earlier post on Clinton's "opposition" to the TPP)? If a Republican takes the White House, will a GOP House and Senate be disposed toward approval?

Here, I think everything depends on whether Speaker Ryan can herd cats within the GOP caucus in a way Speaker Boehner could not. If Speaker Ryan, who voted for TPA last June, decides he is willing to spend political capital on the TPP, then it will happen. For the moment, the House GOP caucus are standing with Ryan. If Republicans are able to increase their majority in the House next fall, Ryan may have even more political capital to spend on the TPP if he chooses. He doesn't mention the TPP in the interview below, but it's clear he's got a tall task ahead of him. Good luck...