I’ve written clearly a few times that Democrats have one key leverage point with a plausible shot of ending the spree of criminal and unconstitutional conduct Trump has unleashed through the federal government. That comes with the expiration of the current “continuing resolution” which funds the government along with the need to again raise the debt ceiling. I’ve argued that Democrats’ position needs to be this: no discussions, no negotiations until the law breaking stops. After that, if there is an after that, they can negotiate on actual budgetary issues, but not before.
Today Sen. Schumer sent out a “Dear Colleague” letter to his caucus setting forth Senate Democrats’ position. Congressional leaders put these out as a combination of advice and guidance to members as well as public messaging. Politico and I assume others are interpreting the letter as taking that budgetary cudgel off the table. They have good reason to interpret it that way. Schumer makes no mention of the condition I note above. He says: “Democrats stand ready to support legislation that will prevent a government shutdown. Congressional Republicans, despite their bluster, know full well that governing requires bipartisan negotiation and cooperation.”
On its face it seems pretty clear that Schumer doesn’t want to go there. And presumably at least a significant number of members of his caucus don’t either. If you care about this I would definitely make your feelings felt about it. But there’s another issue that may be playing a role here.
Freshly minted Sen. Andy Kim went on Meet the Press this weekend and host Kirsten Welker pressed him with a series of highly loaded questions about whether he was “going to vote for a government shutdown” or whether he supported other Democrats who “want to shut the government down.” The questions sounded like they came right out of the White House press office and quite possibly they did. Kim answered the substance well: he said there’s a campaign of lawlessness and Democrats need to use the leverage they have, etc. But he didn’t do a good job parrying the question itself. Democrats can’t shut down the government. They’re in the minority. They certainly can’t “vote” to do it. What’s happening is that Republicans are coming to Democrats begging for help in bringing their own extremists to heel. Many Democrats are saying “we’re ready to help but the crime spree has to stop first.” That’s not an unreasonable demand. If Republicans can do it on their own — which they should be able to do since they’re in the majority — let them do it. If not, you know where to find us.
I raise this exchange because Democrats, or at least some Democrats, are rightly concerned that Republicans not be allowed to paint a potential shutdown as something the Democrats are doing or that Democrats are voting to do. It’s literally Republicans who are doing it. And another group of Republicans wants Democrats’ help to stop it. Hakeem Jeffries answered some reporters’ questions this weekend and got a lot of heat for saying something at least somewhat like what Schumer said: basically, “hey we’re in the minority, we can’t do anything. Republicans are in control and they’re talking about shutting the government down on themselves.”
When I went back and looked at the transcript, I got the sense that Jeffries wasn’t really ruling out using this leverage. He wants to keep the focus on Republicans who can’t stop arguing with each other about whether they want catastrophic budget cuts to fund the Trump tax cuts or existential ones.
What this all comes down to is that I think Democrats have good reasons, at least possibly good reasons, to leave up in the air just what they’re going to do. But that’s also a good way to give themselves the room to in fact cut some budget deal that doesn’t require a binding agreement for Trump to stop breaking the law. So talking this way could mean either thing. And I’m genuinely not sure which it is. They may not be sure themselves.
Accepting these statements means trusting the Democratic leadership to do the right thing. And that’s not a wise approach. There are plenty of ways not to get cornered into saying “yeah, we can’t wait to shut down the government” while also making clear that you’re serious about bringing this campaign of criminality to an end. You can just say: “We’re definitely not going to have a shutdown. We’re just going to make sure ending the wave of criminality stops as part of any deal.” Who could argue with that? Having that be a red line is really the absolute minimum ask. You can use strategic ambiguity in a way that ends up being against your own supporters. What’s more, while ambiguity has its place it can also read as weakness. It can be a cover for weakness.
The things Schumer says he’ll focus on — messaging, the courts, oversight (which is close to meaningless in the hands of the minority) — all have their place. But there’s one power point Democrats have that at least holds out a real and substantial chance of changing things in the near term. That’s the red line I mentioned above. I’m as certain as I am about anything that Democrats need to use that power. I’m pretty sure they should also telegraph that willingness. But there are at least decent contrary arguments.
Here’s the thing: If Chuck Schumer called me up and said, “Hey, we are absolutely going to go to the mat on this but we just want to keep the focus on Republican chaos for now,” I might say, okay cool. But I don’t think we know that or can be confident about that without the leadership publicly locking itself in. (And no, in case you’re wondering I’ve never spoken to Chuck Schumer. So that’s not happening.) Democrats really need to demand assurances that they’re going to use it. Otherwise there’s just too great a chance they either won’t be ready or willing to hold the line. Again, saying no help without stopping the criminal behavior just isn’t a big ask.
