It Was Always Going to End This Way
Majorities gonna majority.
Back when all this started back on October 1st, I wrote the following.
It all starts with this: I do not believe that there is any real chance for the Democrats to get what they want on healthcare. This is not a moment in which, this time, finally, the hostage-taking minority party is going to get what it wants.
[…]
Maybe I am forgetting something, and I would be happy to be corrected, but I cannot think of a time that the party that caused the shutdown was able to come anywhere near what they demanded, or even get what might be considered a major concession. There are, if I recall correctly, some occasional fig-leafs of concession, but nothing more.
[…]
But please, for the sake of clarity, understand: the Dems will not be able to leverage the restoration of these cuts. If they do, it will be remarkable, and I will be happy to be wrong. At best, they may get a promise to hold a vote on something on the subject in the future (you know, in a Congress they don’t control, so we know how that will go).
And that is precisely where we are after the longest shutdown in American history.
I keep thinking of the bit in Hamilton in which Jefferson and Madison taunt Hamilton: “You don’t have the votes. You don’t have the votes! You’re gonna need congressional approval, and you don’t have the votes!”
I am not being flippant with the reference; rather, the lyrics distill the basic situation rather succinctly. The goal of shutting down the government to force the ACA subsidies to be restored was a non-starter from the beginning because the Democrats are in the minority in both chambers. They don’t have the votes, and no majority party is going to capitulate to a massive (in their minds) policy change on the basis of a shutdown.
I am currently a bit vexed by some political journalists/commentators and folks with PhDs in political science on Blue Sky who seem to think otherwise.
I will note from the beginning that I preferred that the Democrats, if they were going to go the route they went, should have made the shutdown about Trump’s authoritarian actions. Moreover, if they really wanted a clear goal, they should have insisted from the beginning that the GOP would have to end the filibuster to reopen the government (a demand Trump made, but to my knowledge, not a single Democratic Senator made, although Fetterman endorsed the notion).
Again, as I said back when this all started.
Really, I would rather the Dems go all-in and say they won’t cooperate, period, because of an easily recited list of grievances against the Trump administration and force the Reps to change the rules in the Senate so that the party owns all of this completely.
Indeed, I think one of the problems with our politics in general is that the public has a hard time knowing where to assign blame. A shutdown helps confuse the question of responsibility even further.
Pretending like this is about healthcare, as important as that is, isn’t going to work and makes all of this likely pointless, in my estimation.
But that’s not the pathway they chose, so the endpoint was always, always, always going to be about a token vote on the ACA subsidies.
I think any other expectation runs counter to reality.
I will say that I think the GOP took more of a public relations hit than I expected. Mike Johnson’s willingness to just sit the whole thing out and keep the House out of session was not great optics. Trump’s ballroom mania, bathroom renovation, and Great Gatsby soiree underscored how little he cared about people suffering. Moreover, his willingness to block SNAP funds was pretty telling.
I expect that the shutdown may have helped Virginia Democrats win a super-majority in the state assembly.
But, at the end of the day, it was not worth all the suffering and frustration.
Government shutdowns don’t work to force majorities to do what they don’t want to do. Minority parties have no real power in these situations, and shutdowns do not generate the leverage needed to create even temporary power.
It would be nice if parties would learn this lesson.
Even better, it would be nice if we would join pretty much the rest of the world in having spending continue at the previously voted on levels in these circumstances. All of this spectacle has been yet another example of American exceptionalism at its worst.
Oh, and we get to argue about all this again in January!
Agreed all around, with a caveat: Democrats are organically in a worse position on shutdowns than Republicans given the priorities of their respective bases. Republicans have been running against “the government” for 45 years. Civil servants, who are the pawns in this game, are a Democratic constituency. While things like SNAP disproportionately benefit people in red states and rural areas, those people hate “welfare” and vote against it. The GOP can simply endure the pain longer than Democrats.
@James Joyner:
As good a short summary of our current predicament as I’ve seen.
So, the enemy was feeling the political pain, they were in the process of exacerbating that pain with Trump’s attack on states that tried to cover SNAP, and we’re on a high over the recent elections. . . and that’s the moment when we surrendered. And didn’t just surrender but did it messy, without consensus, without a message to put out, without even a superficial attempt to frame the narrative.
This is political malpractice. It’s weak and stupid. I don’t for a minute buy Schumer’s ‘I voted no,’ bullshit. This is his job, he’s the guy who runs the Blue side of the Senate. He needs to go. I hope AOC primaries him. Weak-kneed incompetent old man.
@Michael Reynolds:
What pain was Trump feeling? Or Mike Johnson? Or the Republicans, writ large?
They felt pain last Tuesday, but that moment in time is done.
The people feeling pain were ATCs, SNAP recipients, and federal workers, not “the enemy.”
There was never going to be an outcome wherein the Dems got what they wanted.
MR: you are constantly telling me that PS isn’t a science, etc., but I told you exactly how this was going to go down seven weeks ago, because minority parties do not have the leverage to force majorities to do anything they don’t want to do.
The best possible outcome was busting the filibuster, but even then, the ACA subsidies would still be gone.
None of this is a defense of Schumer, but I would also note something else I have been saying forever: party leaders in Congress have no actual power over the members of their caucuses.
@Michael Reynolds: You seem to have some unusual notion about what a Majority Leader in the Senate can do and can’t do.
I’m disappointed, yes. But Senators are Senators, and they will do what they think is best for them (and their state).
Meanwhile, we got to blast out who is responsible for raising health insurance costs.
@James Joyner: Agreed.
@Jay L. Gischer:
This message, at least, will have legs.
@Steven L. Taylor:
Actually, I think you’re mistaking me for someone else. I don’t think I’ve ever said that, and I don’t believe it, at least beyond a vague sense that there’s a difference between the levels of rigor between, say, physics and sociology. I respect your learning, I respect your field, I just don’t always think you’re right.
As for the pain? Trump’s poll numbers were finally, actually falling.
Of course we wren’t going to win. That was a given. But there’s losing smart and there’s losing stupid. This was stupid. The Dems had weeks to think about how to lose and rather than going down ‘fighting for the people’, they just crawled off into a corner and sniped at each other.
Here’s my ‘lose smart’ strategy: announce that you will maintain the filibuster for 10 days. Just 10 days. And use the ten days to beat on rising ACA premiums and food inflation. Get Dem governors on board, hit the shows, flood social media, make this less of a contest of wills we were going to lose, and more of a protest against Trump’s economic failures, using the ballroom and the bathroom as visuals.
@Steven L. Taylor:
I’m not so sure about that.
There are a LOT of Republicans out there currently peddling “alternative facts,”/aka lying about this.
They’ve been given their talking points, one of which is that Democrats are the ones putting money in the pocket of insurance companies. It is an absolutely shameless re-writing of history and Democrats need to smack the sh!t out of this, NOW. I’m sure some are thinking “surely no one is going to believe that,” but do not underestimate the inattention of the public, or the subservience of our allegedly “Democratic leaning” press.
In the words of Han Solo, I have a bad feeling about this.
@Jen: That’s fair. But, of course, none of that would get better if the shutdown lasted even longer.
@Michael Reynolds:
I appreciate you saying so, and clearly, I am not always right.
I am just trying to point out reality on this topic.
The political malpractice was, as Stephen rightly noted when this started, in choosing the ACA subsidies as the hill to die on. Sigh–Trump will take credit, Thune will snicker how he called it weeks ago when he said once the progressive left got their election results the D’s will cave, and in the end they got nothing but a vote they are going to lose (which they could have had a month ago). For that, they basically said the R’s (and Joyner 😉 ) were right all along that it was the D’s causing the problem (because the filibuster is a sacred cow) and it’s the D’s fault there was a shutdown, layoffs, missed paychecks and benefits, etc…Way to piss on your own base’s enthusiasm.
So depressing that our choices in this country are between the actively evil and the wildly inept.
@Michael Reynolds:
You did say it. Different words from today, but same idea. IIRC, something like, “Political science isn’t a science in the same way as medical science is.”
Your previous example, medicine, can be useful to illustrate the differences between natural between natural sciences and social sciences, but social sciences introduce additional barriers.
Physics is also an example, but it describes a different aspect of the differences. You are conflating procedural rigor and epistemology. Those are related, but distinct concepts.
We tend to categorize biology with physics and chemistry. But that is not really the best way to group them. Physics explains chemistry. Both are physical sciences. Chemistry can be thought of as a bridge to applied sciences and life sciences.
I wrote a more detailed explanation, but it is a discussion for an open thread. Your comment today conflates procedural rigor with its parent subject, epistemology. Rigor is mandatory, but it is only one relevant aspect in this discussion.
Regardless, the argument Steven made is not a result gleaned from fancy calculations. As I understand it: the system’s rules give the minority party no avenue to exert influence on the details of final legislation. They can filibuster all they want, but for legislation concerning basic duties, e.g. funding, the majority has no incentive to make substantive concessions.
(Steven,
@Steven L. Taylor:
Why don’t you? 😛
Seriously, all too often people ask for impossibilities and then get very upset when these are not delivered.
I’m not singling out anyone, just making an observation.
The Republicans also didn’t have the votes.
There were three ways this could have ended:
1. The Democrats get something
2. The filibuster dies
3. The Democrats fold
I am furious at the Democrats in the Senate for choosing option 3. After 40 days. Suddenly on a Sunday so their constituents cannot call. Orchestrating who will be the 8 to break ranks who aren’t up for election soon.
Cowardly, useless motherfuckers.
It was all fine when it was just poor people paying the price, but if Trump messes with air traffic so the wealthy feel any impact the Dems will fold in 24 hours.
Fuck them all to hell.
@Gustopher: As I have repeatedly stated, #2 was my preference.
#1 was never going to happen.
#3 was always where this ends, especially since Trump and the House both were happy to ignore the situation. Or, in Trump’s case, make it worse by blocking SNAP payments.
@Gustopher:
I honestly think SNAP would have spurred action sooner if Democrats didn’t think it would benefit them in last week’s elections. We’re a year away from the next election, so the signaling power is no longer useful unless you wanted this to go on for another year.
Further, it’s not just “the wealthy” who fly places. Sometimes, flying is the only reasonable way to get somewhere on time. I’m sure all manner of weddings and funerals were disrupted. People who didn’t make it in time to say goodbye to a dying relative.
Yes, Trump’s FAA chief brought this to a head. But, while absolutely politically motivated, there were legitimate safety concerns. Air traffic controllers and TSA agents who haven’t been paid for weeks were calling out sick at a high rate. But, yes, Democrats were willing to use them as pawns until last night. Most still are.
I understand why people are mad.
And I am not defending the Democratic leadership.
What I am doing is telling everyone the truth: there was no way to use the minority veto power of the procedural filibuster to force a major legislative concession.
It has never happened (I am open to correction on this assertion).
I feel like trying to explain to people why a team down 24 points with 60 seconds to go in a football game can’t win. I mean, sure, maybe there is some bizarre scenario where the other team helps you score a very quick set of 3 TDs and 2PATs, but if even part of the other team wants to stop you, forget it.
There used to be a requirement (it was enacted via a proposition, and repealed by another one) that a budget for the State of California be passed with a supermajority. I think this was an element of the infamous Prop. 13.
So, year after year, Republicans (in the minority of the Legislature) would hold out and force a shutdown. And eventually cave and get not much. If anything. And they would do it again the next year.
I don’t think there should have been a lot of expectations that it would gain much.
However, not voting for that piece of garbage budget when the reconciliation vehicle it should have been done with was used to pass an even bigger piece of garbage is ok with me.
If it makes R leadership think twice about doing that sort of thing again, good.
@James Joyner:
The wealthy don’t give a shit about food stamps or whether you get paid or can afford health care.
They do care about flying. Both to haul their asses around, and to move cargo.
Lots of non wealthy people also fly to see their dead relatives get planted in the ground and what not.
But, they’re tied together. If first class and cargo were running separately from coach, with their own planes, airports, air traffic controllers, skies, etc, then that would be one matter, and the government would find a way to fuck over the coach travellers only and go on with life with the upper classes and politically powerful never noticing or caring.
But they’re tied together. And the pain hits the wealthy too. And they do not like pain.
@Steven L. Taylor:
#1 was that the Democrats get something.
That something could have been a small potted plant. Either figuratively or literally a small potted plant. Are you sure a small potted plant was entirely off the table?
(A small potted plant would not have been worth it, granted, but to drag it on and not even get a small potted plant is breathtakingly awful.)
I think the shutdown was finally beginning to hurt people who would notice and care and make things harder for Republicans. I think there would have been a lot of pressure on Republicans within a week or two*. I think gutting the filibuster could have happened.
Or a particularly nice potted plant. One with flowers.
——
*: and aside from the immediate policy goals, this hurts Republicans when the people who support them don’t feel insulated from the effects of their decisions to support them.
@Gustopher:
I mean, I guess they have already gotten whatever somethings they were going to get.
And the real question is whether a better something would be made manifest if they held out longer. I find that unlikely.
@Michael Reynolds:
Yes, it’s weak and it’s stupid. But, the only political malpractice going on is Democrats turning on each other over their evolving approach to this latest round of Shutdown Gamesmanship.
If you are attacking Democrats over what they’re doing with the politics rather than going after Republicans for what they’re doing with the policy, you’ve lost the thread.
The Republican’s Big Beautiful Bill is going to raise the cost of healthcare for millions of Americans – the Dems weren’t going to get that concession through the shutdown and they would not have been given much credit anyway since they wanted to maintain the status quo. Nobody gets too excited about keeping what they already have.
On the other hand, people hate losing what they have and the Republicans have now demonstrated the ends to which they are willing to go in order to take that money away from people. Not only did they pass the legislation on a party line vote, now they’ve shown their willingness to shut down the government in order to keep their cruel policy in place.
A unique opportunity to end the filibuster may have been lost by the moderate Dems cave in, but the opportunity to hang bad policy outcomes around the necks of the majority party is alive and well.
@Jen:
Amen.
It’s not so much a rewriting of history than a profound misinterpretation of how insurance works. Sure, insurance companies are easy to villainize and the Republicans won’t have too a hard a time smearing the Democrats. But, risk pools are risk pools and people not having the funds to pay for unexpected medical expenses is really hard to gaslight.
@Kurtz: Yeah, that was the interchange I was thinking of…
Yup.
See my interchange with Hello World! in this thread as I attempt, I think in vain, to explain why this is so unlikely (or, at least, to point out the complexities of what people think they wanted to have happened).