In the wake of the
Democratic capitulation to end the government shutdown, activists and
commentators called for retribution against those responsible. On a macro level, this is a mistake: those seeking to preserve our democracy
desperately need less, not more, internecine warfare. But it also invites mistakes on a micro level
because, without a deeper understanding of how Congress works, observers will
routinely misunderstand what votes and other public actions mean. Nothing could please our opponents more than
our taking “divine retribution” against our own – except our taking misdirected
divine retribution against our own. This
post examines a few prominent cases in which appearances are deceiving.
In early 2022, at
the insistence of activists, Senate Majority Leader Schumer put a proposal on
the floor to end the filibuster. In
doing so, he blatantly violated Senate rules, which require a two-thirds
majority to consider such changes. Sen.
Schumer was prepared to treat the filibuster as extinct if he won a simple majority. He did not, with all Republicans and
Democratic Senators Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema voting “no”.
Activists
immediately demanded those two Democratic senators’ heads and hounded them out
of office. Purple Arizona elected a
different Democratic senator who is much more reliably progressive. Deep red West Virginia, however, easily
elected a Republican who did nothing to protect low-income West Virginians as Congress
marched to enacting the One Big Beautiful Bill Act this summer.
In truth, at least
ten other Democratic senators opposed eliminating the filibuster. They (correctly) anticipated that Republicans
could regain trifecta control of the national government and would gut civil
rights, environmental, fair elections, and other legislation if the end of the
filibuster left Democrats powerless.
They would have voted to preserve the filibuster had their votes
mattered, but they went along with Sen. Schumer’s initiative to save them the
wrath of short-sighted activists fixated on ending the filibuster.
As Congress was
considering the hideous One Big Beautiful Bill Act this summer, only one
Republican, Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), made serious efforts to moderate its
effects on low-income people. By
striking contrast, Maine Senator Susan Collins was publicly mum about the bill. If she did anything significant behind the
scenes, I certainly did not hear about it.
Evidently, she had signaled to Republican leadership that she would vote
for the legislation if needed and was trying to avoid statements that could be
used against her when she did.
Yet in the end,
Sen. Murkowski cast the superficially decisive vote for the bill while Sen.
Collins voted “no”. Why? Pretty obviously, they traded votes. Sen. Collins is up for re-election in purple
Maine; Sen. Murkowski is not up next election and represents a far more
Republican state. She voted for the bill
so that Sen. Collins did not have to – and collected a basket of carve-outs for
Alaska from some of the bill’s worst provisions. Activists railed against Sen. Murkowski, yet
it likely was Sen. Collins’s decision to provide the crucial vote for the
legislation if needed that pushed it over the top. Sen. Murkowski decided how the bill
would pass, not whether it would do so.
During the recent
government shutdown, Senator Josh Hawley (R-MO) introduced legislation to
reopen the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), which President
Trump had shut down in November to pressure Senate Democrats. Fourteen other Republicans quickly signed on
as co-sponsors. Naïve commentators
praised Sen. Hawley and his Republican co-sponsors for caring about the 42
million low-income people going without food because of the Administration’s gratuitous
cruelty. They were deceived.
Those fifteen
Republicans, together with all forty-seven Democrats, would be more than enough
to pass the bill, even over a filibuster.
But neither Sen. Hawley nor any of his co-sponsors took any meaningful
steps to force Senate Majority Leader John Thune to bring the bill to the
floor. They could, for example, have moved
to pass it by unanimous consent and see if any senators had the nerve to object. They could have offered it as an amendment to
other pending measures. But they did
nothing. Why?
Enacting the
Hawley Bill would have required reconvening the House of Representatives, which
had not held any votes since September 19.
House Speaker Mike Johnson was widely understood to be keeping the House
out of session because convening it would allow Representative-elect Adelita
Grijalva (D-AZ) to take her seat and provide the decisive 218th
signature on a petition to force a vote on releasing the Epstein files. Having to vote on such legislation would be
deeply uncomfortable for many House Republicans who do not want to anger the
Trump Administration but have encouraged supporters believing that the federal
government is protecting pedophiles. A
House vote on releasing the Epstein files – which surely would pass – would then
become awkward for Senate Republicans, who would come under stronger pressure
to bring the measure to the floor for a vote.
So burying the Hawley bill that they had co-sponsored was crucial to
saving themselves from an uncomfortable vote on the Epstein files. Signing onto it was merely a smokescreen to
deflect public anger over the Administration’s SNAP freeze.
This week, activists
have been demanding harsh retribution against the seven Democrats and one
Democratic-caucusing Independent that voted for the continuing resolution that
ended the government shutdown essentially on the Trump Administration’s
terms. I share their disagreement and disappointment
with this action. But that list of eight
bears some scrutiny. Sen. Angus King
(I-ME) was never convinced about the merits of the shutdown and had been voting
to end it throughout. So had Sen. Catherine
Cortez Masto (D-NV) and Sen. John Fetterman (D-PA). (Progressives campaigned hard for Sen.
Fetterman to defeat another progressive in the primary and might consider how reliable
their assessment of candidates is.) With
air traffic control breaking down, and her fellow Nevada Democrat already
voting to end the shutdown, Sen. Jacky Rosen (D-NV) would have had trouble explaining
a continued “no” vote to constituents losing jobs in the tourism industry.
The vote that
stands out to me is that of Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL). He is quite progressive (although not
allergic to working with industry on some debatable initiatives). He is also the Democratic Whip, responsible
for maintaining cohesion in the caucus.
He has no history of casting major votes for President Trump. Why would he supply the crucial eighth
vote? Pretty obviously as part of
another swap. Sen. Durbin is not running
for re-election, and he almost certainly decided to take the heat for casting
this vote to allow a more vulnerable colleague who had decided to end the
shutdown to continue voting with their Party.
One or two of the other Democratic senators’ votes might have been swaps
as well.
Finally, activists
have been enraged by the six House Democrats that voted for the continuing
resolution. This, too, is naïve. Speaker Mike Johnson had the votes to pass
the continuing resolution without them, even after losing two of his own
Members. (One of those two likely was
posturing, too.) These six represent some
of the most marginal districts in the House:
none got even 52% of the vote in 2024 except Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-TX),
whose district was savaged in the Republican redistricting. If these Members think their chances of keeping
their seats Democratic improve by casting irrelevant votes, activists with much
less information should stand back.
Speaker Johnson obviously did not believe any of them were solid
supporters of the continuing resolution or he would have allowed more of his
Members to vote “no”.
Progressives’
problem is one of persuasion, not coercion.
We failed to persuade enough of the anti-Trump community of the wisdom
of the government shutdown, went ahead with it anyway, and experienced the
predictable collapse. Past efforts to
enforce purity have only swollen MAGA majorities. Forty solid votes plus fifteen gettable ones
is far better than forty-seven solid votes and two possibly gettable ones. (Who is the third-best Senate
Republican? I have an answer, but you
will not like it.)
But even if
campaigns of retribution made sense, they would be doomed if angry activists with
a superficial understanding of Congress do not know where the crucial pressure
points are.
@DavidASuper1
@DavidASuper.bsky.social