I was very pleased to see that Ezra Klein has joined the ranks of those who think that Democrats need to gird themselves for a fight in the budget showdown coming at the end of this month. I have various disagreements with Klein, some rooted in policy and others more attitudinal, temperamental. But his influence within the Democratic elite is unrivaled. His words really matter. They matter enough to make me think Senate Dems may actually shift in time to make a difference here. His essential point is irrefutable. None of the arguments for standing down from back in March, which were at least arguable then, hold up anymore. (It’s this column at the Times that I’m talking about in case you haven’t read it or read about it.)
There are a couple of follow-up points I’d like to make about this. One is the idea that the Democrats are making a decision to “shut the government down.” In a sense this is a semantic point. But some semantic points are extremely important, and this is one of them. You really need to get this right. If Democrats do what a growing number of outside observers say they should and indeed must, they’re not making a decision to shut the government down. In fact, they would very much like to avoid that. Sometimes when there’s a shutdown standoff a lot of Republicans really do want to shut the government down in and of itself because they’re hostile to most of the things government does. None of that applies to Democrats. They’d much prefer that Trump agreed to their demands and the threat of a shutdown never materializes.
Of course, that seems quite unlikely. But again, even if a shutdown does happen, these “semantic” points are extremely important. So let’s go through them.
It’s the majority party’s responsibility to keep the government up and running. That’s quite literally what being in power means. That is especially the case where the party in power has unified control of the executive and legislative branches. They’re in charge. It’s on them.
For reasons tied to Senate rules and parliamentary procedure, a so-called “continuing resolution” requires at least seven Democratic senators to vote for it. That creates a rare moment in this Congress when Democrats aren’t merely bystanders. They have something that Republicans and the White House need. The question is whether they’re going to insist on something (and something meaningful) in return, or simply treat it as a pro forma situation in which they ask at most for a few small inducements on the margins in exchange for business as usual. That shouldn’t be much of a question given that the President has spent the past eight months securing extra-constitutional rule and violates the Constitution on a daily basis. The answer to that question really has to be yes, you demand some very big things.
That does not mean you’re shutting the government down. It means you’re having a negotiation in which you demand actual things and that you won’t simply fold at the first no. I know that part of Klein’s and others argument is that a shutdown is an “attentional moment”: you bring the underlying crisis to the surface so everyone will see it and then you let people choose whose demands they support. That’s a decent argument and I think it’s one I agree with. But it doesn’t change the equation. If Trump agrees to your demands, you don’t need your attentional moment. You’d be glad to avoid it. That whole argument is what you’re willing to accept if he forces a shutdown because the demand to follow the Constitution is one he can’t accept. Yes, this is kinda of a semantic point. But it’s such a massive own-goal type of semantic point that it’s really essential to get it right.
Three more points.
First.
As I said last week, Democrats remain out of power. It’s unrealistic to think they’ll be able to roll back all Trump’s unconstitutional actions. But they can target key ones.
What should they demand? I would class them all under the package heading of Ending Dictator Rule. Trump has to follow the Constitution if he wants Democrats’ help. Three broad areas to target are: 1) Forcing Trump to get Congress to pass a law making his tariffs legal 2) Force him to end his rescissions and make him follow the congressionally passed budget. 3) End the invasions of American cities.
I’m not trying to frame these in ways that make them most politically powerful. And I’m not putting them in order of importance. I’m just noting these three broad areas.
Second.
A group of the most endangered House Republicans have now introduced a bill that would extend the Obamacare subsidies until the 2026 election. This has very little support among Republicans outside of those who stand a good shot of losing their seats next year. The idea is that it gets passed with Democratic votes. I said last week that basing a budget deal on this is a terrible idea. But that doesn’t mean Democrats should say no. Change the bill to making the subsidies permanent again and then Democrats can vote for it. In fact, make them restore the Medicaid funding too. (Yes, no Congress can bind the actions of a future Congress. But you can make changing it again a lot harder and more visible.) It’s just not the basis of any deal. Make Republicans clean up their own messes.
Third.
I’ve seen some people say that if Democrats really gird for battle on this, Trump will simply demand that Senate Republicans end the filibuster. First, I think he may have a considerably harder time getting Senate Republicans to do that than some people seem to imagine. The filibuster benefits Republicans vastly more than it benefits Democrats. Most Senate Republicans know that. Trump won’t be around for Democrats being back in power. Some of those senators may. So don’t assume it’s as easy as all that. But what if he does get them to kill the filibuster — would it all have been for naught? Not at all. Getting rid of the filibuster is a huge step forward for civic governance in the United States even if it provides Trump with the short-term gain of getting out of this September jam.