The Surrender Monkey Party

As probably everyone is aware by now, last night eight Senate Democrats voted with Republicans to invoke cloture on debate over a continuing resolution that will likely lead to the reopening of the government. This is the first step towards approving the CR, which will require its own vote by the Senate and then will need to be passed by the House of Representatives and signed by the President before the government can reopen. As observers from both sides of the aisle have been quick to point out, Democrats received very little — certainly nowhere near their demands — in exchange for their votes. As such, this has been the cave-in that launched a thousand takes. Mine, of course, will not be better than the others and will probably be worse than many. But, having spent most of last week enjoying the taste of victory resulting from Tuesday's election, it is probably necessary to return to the familiar confines of disappointment.

First, a review of how we got here. The current government closure might be traced back to March of this year. At that time, Republicans were attempting to pass a continuing resolution that would fund the government through fiscal year 2025. Because Republicans control the House of Representatives, have a Senate majority, hold the presidency, and, arguably, dominate the Supreme Court, Democrats have very little political power at the moment. The one bit of leverage they have is by virtue of the filibuster. If Democrats refused to vote to invoke cloture on the CR in March, the government would close. It appears that Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer did not expect the CR to pass the House and, therefore, was caught flatfooted when it arrived at the Senate. He put up a brief display of defiance before rolling over and voting in favor of the CR. Needless to say, the Democratic Senators who voted for cloture, including Schumer, came in for considerable criticism for their acquiescence to the Republicans. The move added to the reputation of Democrats as always being willing to cave in. In their defense, Senate Democrats argued that they would have a stronger hand at the end of the fiscal year, which was September 30.

As September 30 neared, Democrats attempted to engage in negotiations with Republicans, who, in turn, showed no interest in any such engagement. This is a critical point that many Democrats have yet to internalize. There is allegedly a huge demand in the country for the two parties to work together. Many Democrats profess a strong interest in seeking compromise with Republicans. But the reality is that Republicans have no interest in compromise. Why should they? They can simply do what they want, and Democrats will be sure to bend to their will. This lesson has been learned many times over. The result, predictably, is that House Republicans passed a CR without Democratic input and sent it to the Senate.

When the CR arrived at the Senate, Democrats, to the surprise of many, refused to vote to invoke cloture. In other words, they filibustered the bill. This led to the government shutting down. The Republicans assumed that the public would blame the closure on the Democrats, after all, they were the ones that caused it, and that the Democrats would cave in quickly in any case. Moreover, cult leader, convicted felon, and failed President Donald Trump, who cares little about the law, was more than willing to take privileges outside his authority to ensure that money was available for his priorities such as paying the troops and federal immigration agents. Trump was also willing to affirmatively hurt Democratic interests, such as by cutting funding for blue state infrastructure projects. As the weeks went by, Trump and the Republicans increased the pain on Democrats, expecting them to give in eventually.

A few things didn't go according to Republican plans. First of all, the public blamed Republicans for the closure, and nothing that the Republicans could do seemed to change that reality. Poll after poll showed Republicans receiving the majority of the blame. On October 18, 7 million people demonstrated across the United States in one of the largest demonstrations held in modern U.S. history. This was an amazing display of anger against the Republican government. Then, last Tuesday, Democrats scored one of the most complete political victories ever, almost entirely running the table and winning nearly every election possible. Democratic strength was as high as it could possibly be at a time that the party held no levers of the federal government. So, of course, the obvious reaction by Senate Democrats was to bend over.

Why the Democrats decided to cave will probably never be fully explained. In all likelihood, there is more than one answer. Pennsylvania Senator John Fetterman has, since suffering a stroke, sought to replace former Senator Joe Manchin as the Republicans’ favorite Democrat. He seems to support compromise and to define "compromise" as total and complete acquiescence. He rejects the entire notion of resisting the Republicans. He couldn't wait to support the Republican's CR.

Beginning November 1, many recipients of SNAP began losing their food benefits, putting many at risk of going hungry. During previous closures, administrations had continued SNAP funding, and money has been appropriated for that use. Trump, acting more like a Somali warlord than a U.S. president, chose to use food as a weapon and did everything he could, including going to the Supreme Court, to prevent funds for SNAP from being dispersed. However, between intervention by the States and legal actions, this appeared to be getting resolved. So, concern about hungry Americans may have motivated some Democrats, but if so, it was pretty short-sighted.

Senators don't have to worry about missing SNAP benefits, but they do fly a lot. Disruptions to air travel that began happening during the past few days were probably felt more personally by Senators and may have motivated some. In addition, it cannot be denied that the closure was causing true hardship for federal employees who have been missing their paychecks, even while many are still being required to work. Any or several of these factors might have caused Democratic Senators to become willing to give in to Republicans.

However, one factor that I think should be considered is the filibuster. Republicans have adopted the idea that negotiations are a sign of weakness. Therefore, they won't engage in them at all. As long as the Democrats refused to budge from their demands and Republicans refused to negotiate those demands, there was no hope of progress. Trump then began suggesting that Republicans simply discard the filibuster and pass the CR themselves. This idea began to gain increasing traction among Senate Republicans, though it does not appear to have gained enough to have passed. Nevertheless, the specter of the filibuster being done away with started to seem realistic. It has been clear for some time that the filibuster favors Republicans. Without the filibuster, the last Democratic Senate could have passed abortion rights legislation, gun control, possibly admitted D.C. and Puerto Rico as states, and maybe even passed Medicare for all. Republicans, on the other hand, can pass most of the legislation they prioritize on straight majority votes. When the filibuster has stopped Republicans in the past, they did not hesitate to create exceptions for when it can be used. In recent years, Republicans removed the use of the filibuster for Supreme Court justice confirmations and, more recently, for administration nominations. Reconciliation bills are already exempt from the filibuster. So, making an additional exception for continuing resolutions would not have been that big of a step.

On paper, Democrats should favor getting rid of the filibuster. But I believe that, regardless of what Senate Democrats may have us believe, many favor the filibuster. Senate races are expensive. Senate candidates, therefore, generally rely on large donors and, as a result, become beholden to monied interests. Make no mistake about it, most Senators arrive at the Senate determined to do the bidding of those monied interests, not the popular will of the voters. When masses of Democratic voters are clamoring for gun control, abortion rights, solutions for lowering healthcare costs, higher taxes on the rich, or other liberal agenda items, I believe that there are Democratic Senators who are quite happy to be able to throw up their hands and say, "I would love to do it but we can't because of the filibuster." The filibuster has provided a readily available excuse for Democratic senators to ignore the demands of their own voters. The fear of losing that protection is what I think drove Democrats to cave in.

When Democrats refused to vote to invoke cloture and the government closed, they had three primary demands. The first was that the enhanced subsidies for health insurance purchased on Obamacare exchanges be permanently extended. The second was for Medicaid funding that had been cut by Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill Act to be restored, and the third was that Trump be prevented from refusing to spend Congressionally appropriated funds, or what has been referred to as rescissions. The third one was basically a demand that Trump follow the law. The compromise to which Senate Democrats agreed was a reversal of federal employee reductions in force that occurred during the shutdown, the payment of backpay to furloughed government employees, and a promise to hold a vote on extending the subsidies. The RIFs have already been ruled illegal by a federal judge, the second is required by law, and the third is meaningless since Republicans will simply defeat it. If, by chance, it passes the Senate, House Speaker Mike Johnson will probably refuse to bring it up for a vote. So, in essence, the Democrats got nothing.

I've always thought that focusing on extending the subsidies was an error. I personally benefit from the subsidies and would love to see them extended. But, politically, the Democrats were attempting to save Republicans from themselves. Most of those who receive subsidies live in Republican states. The greatest number is in Florida. Republican Senators are going to get the most anger from their constituents. I am not sure why Democrats were so determined to come to the Republicans' defense. Nevertheless, Republicans refused the opportunity to allow Democrats to protect them.

One thing that should be understood by the Democrats’ surrender is that the blame should not be exclusive to the eight who voted to invoke cloture. This was clearly a carefully choreographed maneuver by the Senate Democratic leadership. The eight consist entirely of members who are retiring or who are not up for reelection next year. Certainly some of those voting against cloture actually support the CR. For instance, Mark Warner was one of the leaders seeking compromise, but voted against cloture. He is up for reelection next year and, while he probably supports the CR, he doesn't want to take the political heat. Tim Kaine, who rarely votes differently than Warner, is not up for reelection next year and, hence, voted in favor of invoking cloture. Had their election years been reversed, it's likely their votes would have been as well. The blame for this cave-in rests with Schumer.

Schumer either agrees with those who surrendered or was unable to stop them. Either way, this demonstrates that he is no longer fit to lead Senate Democrats. He has failed far too often. In the interest of accountability, Schumer should step down as leader. Short of that, Democrats should vote to replace him. If neither of those occurs, Schumer should most definitely be primaried. He is not up for election until 2028, but a campaign against him can begin today.

The continuing resolution provides funding to January 30. In the best possible scenario, the Democrats will be able to pass a subsidies extension with their promised vote. Then, against all odds, that measure will pass the House and be signed by Trump. That might justify yesterday's vote. Alternatively, when funding runs out on January 30, we could be right back to a government shutdown. The reality, however, is that Trump and the Republicans now know they can simply turn the screws on Democrats, and Democrats will give in. Therefore, to be successful, Democrats must be willing to endure much more pain than they have been willing to accept so far. The repeated cave-ins by Democrats, two of them this year alone, make any future holdout much more difficult.

If Democrats hope to be a serious opposition party in the face of Trump's authoritarianism, they need a leader who is prepared to fight and who knows how to fight. One of the first agenda items for Democrats should be organizing a consortium of banks and other potential lenders who can, in the case of a future government shutdown, immediately provide zero-interest loans to furloughed government employees. Remove them as hostages for the next fight. Ironically, that is a task that Schumer might be particularly situated to undertake. But, regardless, his time as leader needs to end.