An Ill-Conceived Shutdown Strategy
Democratic leadership still keeps playing normal politics in times that are anything but.
As a general matter, I am not in favor of government shutdowns, neither in terms of good governance nor of political strategy. There is a long rant about institutional structures I could go into, both about the general silliness of a massive government bureaucracy that can artificially run out of funding and also the problems with allowing a minority veto in the Senate for these measures. Regardless of how I view a given legislative majority, having a majority of seats in both chambers ought to allow a party to keep the lights on.
I am pretty sure I am on the record on this matter, although I believe I have weighed in more on the debt ceiling issue than shutdowns, per se. I will note that I understand why the minority party in the Senate would use whatever powers the rules allow, and understand the theory behind this negotiation tactic. My memory may be failing me, but I do not think that the party forcing the shutdown ever makes any major gains, legislatively, from this tactic, and that, further, they tend to lose political capital. These facts alone call into question the soundness of pursuing a shutdown strategy.
Having said that, I was sympathetic to the notion that the Democrats, the current minority party in the Senate, might utilize this inflection point of leverage as a means of drawing attention to Trump’s authoritarian behavior over the last nine months, especially as it pertained to ignoring legislative authority. It seemed to me a clear argument that centered on the question of why fund things if Trump is going to do whatever he wants might have had some resonance.
A partial list would include mass firings and dismantlements of Congressionally-authorized agencies via DOGE, removing a member of the FTC in a way that, in my view, likely contravenes the law while threatening to do the same against a member of the Federal Reserve, and not spending monies already appropriated.
Beyond that, much of which I acknowledge gets a bit wonky, is the avalanche of Executive Orders that he has been using like decrees to govern, and the multitude of examples of ignoring due process of law (you know, laws passed by Congress).
There is a long list of things to choose from to highlight. How about focusing obvious wastefulness that also contradicts congressional intent? For example, via the NYT: $10 Mill/ion in Contraceptives Have Been Destroyed on Orders From Trump Officials or the destruction of food aid.
How about highlighting the plight of American farmers suffering from tariffs in what the courts have already said is an abuse of the laws passed by Congress regarding presidential authority and tariffs?
Democrats should have made this about not being willing to fund a rogue government, or at least to highlight the ways in which Trump is circumventing Congress.
There is a whole set of grifts that could have been highlighted.
But, instead, they have chosen to play normal politics and talk about health care and bipartisanship.
Look, I agree that the health care issue is important, but it is too mundane and too much an example of normal politics to break through and make any difference whatsoever. It is essentially a fight over the contents of the spending package (aka, the “Big Beautiful Bill”) that already passed.
I mean, is this the kind of rhetoric that we need at this moment? I think not.
Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, however, quickly retorted that Thune “did not come to me one time to say, ‘Is this bill acceptable? What do you want in the bill?’ They call it bipartisan. It is not. That is not how you negotiate. That is not how you pass appropriations bills” (Source).
That’ll mobilize the population!
Sometimes I wonder if American politicians, as a general matter, and Democrats in particular, understand where the leverage points are, which are the primaries and the general elections. How many GOP Senators are going to lose their nomination fights, let alone their general elections, over these health care provisions? And for all the 2028 rhetoric, Trump can’t legally run,* so what does he care?
It is possible, however, that some House seats may be vulnerable to a shift in public opinion over the damage that Trump is doing writ large. So focus your attack there.
This was a moment to at least try and mobilize opposition to provide a rally point. Health care subsidies, as important as they may be, are not going not ignite much passion in the public.
The main thing, in my view, that the Democrats needed to use this leverage point was to break through the noise and get more public attention on how Trump is governing, especially as it pertains to ignoring the legislature.
Instead, we get very normal, very anodyne bleating about health care spending and, Heaven help me, bipartisanship. Trump and his allies are out there trying to paint the entire Democratic Party as radical leftists and extremists, and Schumer wants to complain about insufficient bipartisanship.
I don’t see any of this ending well.
Trump is already using this to his political advantage. While Schumer whines about the lack of consultation by Thune, the administration is ready to make this as partisan as possible. For example, via the Handbasket: Trump mandates all federal agencies send email blaming Dems for potential gov’t shutdown.
So, sure, let’s play like this is still just good ol’ normal budget politics.
And remember: shutdowns as a strategy fail in normal times, so it is, of course, madness to assume that they will work in abnormal times, especially if pursued as if things are boringly normal.
Trump understands the need to seize the moment in ways that the Democrats simply don’t.
“We can do things during the shutdown that are irreversible, that are bad for them and irreversible by them — like cutting vast numbers of people out, cutting things that they like, cutting programs that they like,” Trump warned Tuesday in the Oval Office (source).
And, you know, he is really, really worried about bipartisanship. Here’s how he responded to his meeting with Schumer and Jefferies this week, via Politico: Trump posts vulgar deepfake slam of Democratic leaders after White House meeting.
As you know, any normal president would.
I am quite aware of how little power the Democrats have as the minority party in our system and how this budget deadline creates a theoretical moment of leverage. But it is not an especially strong hand, and if it was going to be played, it needed a strategy that understood the moment, and this simply isn’t it.
Going back to 2021, the Democrats in Congress have not understood what they are facing, opting instead to hope that at some point we are going to snap back to normal.
Normal ain’t coming through that door, and the Democratic Party needs to understand that.
*I will put it this way: if he actually does manage, for whatever reason, to run again in 2028, we will have much, much bigger problems than health care spending at that point.
Contrast the anemic Schumer, mewling about bipartisanship, with the hundreds of thousands of pissed off Americans who will be protesting against autocracy, corruption, racism, Christian nationalism, and the gutting of the things that truly do make America great, like science and tolerance, at the upcoming No Kings rallies on October 18.
Fully agree that this strategy just makes no sense. They picked the most anodyne issue as their hill to die on. And I think they’ll wind up getting the blame for it, since there were enough Republicans in both Houses to keep the government open.
Bringing knives to a gun fight. The mainstream media doesn’t know how to deal with Trump*, and neither do the Dems. I kept waiting for Schumer to talk about the persistent bad faith, the refusal to negotiate, and the Republican Congress’ eagerness to surrender its constitutional powers to a senile narcissist who is being manipulated by Stephen Miller and Russell Vought.
*The MSM gleefully piled on when the topic was Joe Biden’s cognitive ability, but has refused to mention, much less explore, the bizarre behavior Trump puts on display every day, from posting obnoxious fake ads to his inability to craft a cogent sentence (“the weave”).
Steven, your points echo a point I’ve been trying to make in other posts, even though we haven’t always seen eye to eye. Democratic messaging continues to fall short. They keep spotlighting the same issues we’ve heard for years, and simply shouting “healthcare” isn’t enough anymore. As you noted, there are plenty of other concerns that deserve attention, and they should be packaged in similarly concise, compelling soundbites.
While I’m encouraged to see the Democrats showing some backbone, it’s clear that without effective messaging, the effort could backfire. Voters won’t understand what the party truly stands for. And let’s be honest—Schumer doesn’t connect well with the broader public. So my issue isn’t with the shutdown itself, but with how it’s being presented.
Early polls indicate that the majority of people blame the Republicans, and more specifically, Trump. IMO other than maga types, people will assume that since Trump acts like he runs all aspect of the country, he will get the lion’s share of the blame.
If he is blamed, and it starts hurting people, he will cave. That is the only way to deal with Trump since the Supreme Court has his back.
Personally would like to see them persistently reiterate that GOP has control of all three bodies and if they don’t want to negotiate to help all Americans they could simply eliminate the filibuster and pass their agenda. Filibuster is weakened and obstructionist, just move on from it. Sure does not guarantee elimination of potential future shutdowns, but feel it is time to move on from it. They need to pound that drum loudly though. GOP has complete control of the Government.
I would simplify things even further. No negotiations or talks until you seat our duly elected Representative from Arizona.
Listening to coverage about the shutdown from normal outlets, I have been pleasantly surprised by a lot of reporting, journos noting this is also about trying to tame a rogue president and his minions, not just healthcare.
@Charley in Cleveland:
Or bringing a butter knife to the Battle of Verdun. It’s ridiculous. Trump and company want to eliminate opposition in the company, and have taken many steps already to do so. But if you’re an elderly senator with a very limited playbook, I guess you keep doing the equivalent of running up the middle over and over again, even if that play keeps failing, and the other team is trying to cripple your running back.
I was watching a YouTube thumbnail auto play and CNN had a poll that shows that about 50% of Americans and Democrats want the Democrats to stand on principle and not compromise (at least not this soon into the shutdown). They compare this to 2013 polling and times have changed, WAY more folks today want the Democrats to stand firm.
I think the email blaming Democrats will backfire. The Democrats are being asked what they should say or do to get the GOP to negotiate and I say the Democrats should do less than nothing.
The GOP claims they need the Democrats to keep the government open so it is up to the GOP to reach out to Democrats and talk turkey as to how to make it possible to pass an agreement that is at least semi acceptable to Democrats who know that the GOP will get the lions share of what they are asking for.
Steven and James may wish the Democrats were using stronger rhetoric to make their point as to why they need to hold firm and not give the GOP everything they want in the bill to keep things open but it is heartening to see a fairly large amount of Americans stick with Democrats.
This makes it much harder for the GOP to claim a majority of Americans want the Democrats to cave in to the GOPS demands.
Finally, any agreement needs to have it in writing that Trump will not simply ignore any agreement that is agreed upon, where the GOP says they came to an agreement that gives Democrats a quarter loaf but President Trump decides to ignore the agreement and says the Dems get no loaf at all.
As James notes in his post this could happen due to the recent Supreme Court decision which is just unacceptable and should piss off both parties that Trump can simply decide he does not want to abide by any bill that is ultimately gets agreed upon by Congress.
I think I disagree with most of y’all. I think, “we are fighting for your healthcare” is a good, powerful message.
If the things Republicans are doing are unconstitutional and illegal, the point of the tricks that they are doing is to take away healthcare. Among others.
American voters want to know “what does this have to do with me”. Healthcare is what it has to do with them. They care a lot about it, and it’s an issue owned by Democrats.
Now, I don’t think Chuck Schumer does very well on media. Not at all. He is completely outshined by Trump. But that’s another reason to focus on bottom-line issues.
If you were to say, “Trump is an authoritarian who is acting illegally” the average voter will be all “say what? What did that even mean?”
The game Trump plays, is that he is hyperbolic and over the top at all times, so it can be hard to figure out when he means what he says, and when he’s just posturing. I’m not sure he knows all the time.
I, personally, have fallen for this. I think a lot of us here did, in fact. So we have to accept that large swaths of voters haven’t caught up yet.
And yes, Trump is doing things that are illegal right and left. Yes, the court is making crazy decisions to let things spin out. And yes, he behaves in an anti-democratic way every day.
I still think “they are trying to take away your healthcare” is a better argument.
Hmmm. I dunno. IMO, Dems should not be tying their brand to shutdowns or giving fuel to a nihilist regime. Preliminary polling shows Trump and Republicans getting more blame because the public knows Democrats are not for shutdowns. Dems should protect that, especially with voting in big elections already happening.
But if Senate Dems must make demands and withhold votes to jerkoff the “DO SOMETHING!!11!!” folks, 15-25+ million Americans potentially losing healthcare is not “anondyne.” That says to me OTBers are among the privileged whose healthcare is not at risk here.
In mid-Sept, I injured my hip/groin/glute from too much gym. But I’m back to 85-90% already, largely because when domiciled in California, I have cadillac level Blue Shield insurance. Skipped the ER, seen immediately by the best specialists.
If you’re sick or injured and about to lose healthcare, this is deadly serious. Doesn’t seem messaging around the abstractions of Trump ignoring Congress and governing wrong is more powerful than bread and butter. They who don’t already disapprove of Trump inappropriately usurping power ain’t gonna change.
Then again, waking up two weeks ago unable to get out of bed for the first time ever, crawling across the floor in pain, has a way of focusing the mind on healthcare. What do people without coverage do in such a situation? Scary.
@Jay L. Gischer:
I think you were writing this when I was writing. Agreed on all counts and QFE. So now we shall see.
My feelings on this are really complex. For the reasons James sites in his article today, it’s hard to trust this administration on any promises.
And I get that the supposed crux of the opposition is a pandemic-related healthcare extension:
Ironically, the Republicans are making it all about a separate States Right’s issue–the ability of States to use their own funds for health care to people who do not qualify based on immigration status. To be clear, this doesn’t involve any federal funding–no matter what J.D. Vance and others imply.
Both exist under the same carve-out. It is ironic that again, the entire idea of “States’ rights” has totally flipped parties on this one.
In times that are anything but normal politics, why are we debating what the right political play for the Democrats would normally be?
In non-normal times, it doesn’t matter what Schumer and Jeffries say is driving the shutdown. Republicans are already blatantly lying about Medicaid for illegals and they didn’t wait for the Dems to provide messaging they could plausibly mischaracterize – they’ve been saying the left is for open borders & free health care for the undeserving for over a decade now. In non-normal times, it doesn’t matter what policy principles and funding priorities the Democrats stand on. Republicans are behaving as though they are above the law and they are passing rescissions of allocated funding regardless.
We’d like to believe Democrats have agency here – in this non-normal politics time, they don’t.
@Jay L. Gischer:
I’ll take it one step further–and I have no idea how it’s possible to escape the following “trap.”
If the Dems saying the above AND “Trump is a fascist” AND “Trump is a threat to democracy” then they risk creating the following cognitive dissonance with “average” vote–why are you even negotiating and cooperating in any way with them?!
The fact that they are sitting down to have negotiations, even if the talks are intended to benefit the country, seems to contradict the rhetoric. Again, this goes back to the Bidens having tea with the Trumps post-2024 election.
I don’t know what the answer is, but this ain’t it. Frankly, this is an area where AOC and Mamdani are running rings around the current Democratic leadership. That said, neither of them is (yet) in a position of leadership where they have to navigate these sorts of challenges. So, being outsiders, they have a lot more room to maneuver.
@DK:
I am going to push back on this.
First, keep in mind that I (and James) support some kind of universal healthcare. It is not that we find the topic unimportant.
Second, and to the reason that I used the one “anodyne” in this context: it is too damn normal for this context. When haven’t the Dems argued for health care? They argued against this very same issue with the BBB, for all the good it did them. The Dems are always talking about health care. They need to use this moment for something that goes beyond seemingly normal politics to leverage it, in my view.
Put another way, the problem is not, “OTBers are among the privileged whose healthcare is not at risk here,” but that the majority of the public is so privileged and tends not to worry as much about those who don’t have it or might lose it. If we, collectively, cared about millions losing health care, we’d have universal health care by now, yes?
Anodyne means “not likely to offend or arouse tensions : innocuous”–which is what the Democrats talking about a normal Democratic talking point is, IMO (alongside “bipartisanship”).
@Jay L. Gischer:
But when most people realize that this specific fight is only about certain people who will lose certain subsidies, the power of the issue will wane.
Think about how hard it was to pass the ACA, and also think about how many states did not accept Medicaid expansion.
People may get upset about their healthcare, but a large number of people don’t care as much as they might should about other people’s healthcare.
@Jay L. Gischer:
\
Putting my response another way.
“They’re taking away my healthcare, oh no!!!”
“Wait, they’re taking away someone else’s healthcare? That’s a shame, but oh well. Why are the Democrats shutting down the government over that?”
BTW, since Johnson, Speaker of the House and Kisser of the Orange Ass’ Ass, is keeping the House in recess until October 7th., even if the Senate hammers out a compromise bill and passes it, the House can’t take it up until then.
What’s the level of well-conceived strategy for that?
@Steven L. Taylor:
Such rhetorical questions probably don’t signal how the parties message the shutdown, as we could ask them about any Democratic or Republican demand.
e.g. If we cared collectively about Epstein’s buddy Trump ignoring the legislature and governing improperly, wouldn’t his approval rating already be sub-20%, robbing him of any political power, leverage, or intraparty influence?
Or, if we cared so much about illegal aliens receiving benefits, they would’ve already been removed from the country and illegal entry halted long ago, no?
But not necessarily: too many other variables and barriers. Por ejemplo, if we didn’t have an electoral college or Senate filibuster, we’d have universal healthcare (and ex-president Hillary Clinton).
Americans haven’t solved immigration and healthcare for all sorts of overdetermined political, cultural, and structural reasons. But this doesn’t necessarily signal people have tuned out on these issues. Hence why it makes sense the parties continue to press them accordingly, playing to strengths.
Maybe Democrats should respond to fearmongering about the undocumented getting healthcare with, “So you’re saying Republicans have not kept their promise to close the border and remove illegal immigrants?”
@Matt Bernius:
Biden’s style won him Georgia and Arizona in 2020. In the same position, would AOC? Mamdani?
I rather like both, but as you acknowledge with your disclaimer about outsiders vs national leaders, this idea that politicians who get elected playing to Brooklyn progressives are some model for Democrats nationally is a bit much.
I am still waiting for Bernie-AOC-Mamdani ilk to start running and winning in swing states and districts, and in West Virginia. All are prolific fundraisers. AOC in particular came out of nowhere to best an established, well-funded, and not-disliked Dem lion — impressive work by her.
Our DSA brothers and sisters claim to be super popular and to have a pulse on The Working Class in a way mainstream Democrats allegedly do not, so where are election wins outside of deep blue areas? Surely Rust Belt and Sun Belt voters and small donors will flock to their superior policy programs and message.
Ten years since Berniemania, what’s the hold up?
One point I want to note is that losses are much bigger than gains psychologically.
I’ve even seen a rough quantification. A loss of size X is roughly counterbalanced, emotionally, by a gain of 3X.
And no, this doesn’t make any sense from a standpoint of expected value decision making. But it does reflect basic loss aversion that is part of most human psyches. I have trained myself to note it and counteract it in situations where it matters.
I haven’t made it go away, even in myself.
So, there’s resistance to giving people X in the first place, and then the blowback when, once you’ve given it, you then take it away. Much more intense. Much more powerful.
And it probably is going to affect, directly or indirectly, 50 million people or so. Many of whom are not solid Democratic voters, but by gum, they have a reason to vote now…
I’ve no insight on what “should” be done here. But because I’m desperate to include myself in this discussion, I will offer up this seemingly relevant story:
In xenosociology class we learned about a planet full of people who believe in anti-induction: if the sun has risen every day in the past, then they think it’s very unlikely that it’d rise again.
As a result, these people are all starving and living in poverty. An Earth xenosociologist visits the planet and studies them assiduously for 6 months. At the end of her stay, she asked to be brought to their greatest scientists and philosophers, and poses the question: “Hey, why are you still using this anti-induction philosophy? You’re living in horrible poverty!” The lead philosopher of science looks at her in pity as if she’s a child, and replies:
“Well, it never worked before…”
Doc Taylor opines:
And Doc Joyner adds
They have the votes to kill the filibuster. They are just choosing not to keep the government open.
@DK:
The Democrats’ demands should be broader: restore tariff power to Congress together rid of the job killing tariffs, restore Medicaid to keep rural hospitals afloat, ACA subsidies.
I’d like no masked thugs beating and abducting people, and RFKJr fired, but the message is simpler if it’s just economics and healthcare.
And the message should always be “Republicans have the votes that they should be able to do this on their own. If they want our help, we have to stabilize the economy before the damage gets worse.
And then let Republicans explain why things are failing 53-47. And how that doesn’t mean their Senators are voting against it. Get them to have the same argument Dems have with semi-informed voters who want to know why they didn’t codify Roe v. Wade, put a public option into ObamaCare, give everyone a pony, etc.
@Gustopher:
Same. Still it’s hard to see the crazy Stephen Miller regime caving on any of this, nor see anyone in the broader electorate changing their minds based on some horserace stuff about who gets blamed for a government shutdown, while the most vulnerable are actually harmed by it. I’m interesting to watch the polling.
Seems Americans who wanted to protect public healthcare, avoid fascism and tariffs, and keep RFK Jr away from power should have heeded Harris’s many warnings on these topics, and loudly supported Democrats last year. Instead of worrying about cat-eating Haitian they/them migrants or running around bleating “Genocide Joe!” and “Uncommitted!” This shutdown fetish seems like folks are looking for a magical third act deus ex machina solution to Trump. When it’s simply too late in the plot.
Personally, I feel the Democratic message here should be…
…not a message at all. Americans are getting what our election activity earned us.
What liberals need is a narrative change that makes Trump seem weaker and weaker. So if I had my druthers, Dems would be doing everything possible to get their new rep seated, support lawsuits against the Trump regime, and pouring resources into helping New Jersey and Virginia Dems win as big as possible.
And then using those election results to hammer MAGA as incompetent losers — failing, out-of-touch, and unpopular on grocery Trumpflation, job destroying tariff taxes, skyrocketing electric bills, the implosion of farming and construction and tourism, millions of Americans losing healthcare while Trump bails out Argentina, fascist domestic military deployments, masked ICE goons, Venezuelan warmongering, and pedophilia coverups.
A pointless shutdown in the hopes it’ll get stubborn “I need generals like Hitler had” authoritarians to relent seems like a dangerous, unnecessary risk distracting from that work — and distracting our candidates who need to win in a few weeks. But this is what the base demanded of Schumer and Jeffries. So we shall see.
@Mimai:
Ouchies! From beyond the blue line Mmaii gets the pick… Mimai shoots…AND SCORES!!!!
and now Mimai goes to the penalty box for beating the goalie out of their skates!
@Gustopher:
And remind everyone (repeatedly ad infinitum) that the 60 vote requirement was the GQP’$ bright idea.
@Charley in Cleveland: Because the MSM is owned by the billionaire class and they currently love Trump. The billionaire class learned in 2008 that recessions are an opportunity to expand their income/power easily and cheaply. I wouldn’t be surprised if some of them are supporting Trump because they know his economic policies will cause an economic crash. A crash being an excellent opportunity for them to buy formerly successful businesses, real estate, stocks and more for cheap. In the mean time the billionaires benefit from reduced taxes which increases their power.
That is why the media will not cover Trump like they did Biden. The only “hope” is that Trump does something that angers the billionaire class and then we’ll see such coverage.