They Came, They Saw, They Blinked: Some Lessons From The Shutdown Letdown

<https://www.instagram.com/p/DQWryKFDcLL/
Cartoon: Jesse Duqette
Nothing like priorities, eh?>

“We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed.” (Martin Luther King, "Letter From A Birmingham Jail," 1963)

<i.>

Now that the dust has settled on history's longest government shutdown, it's fair to ask, what did anybody learn? Not much, apparently, judging by the eight Democratic Senate renegades' eagerness to pull the plug on the whole venture -- or what appeared, at least initially, a concerted effort to slam some sort of brakes on what clearly has revealed itself as an increasingly lawless authoritarian regime. 

Certainly, that was the base's expectation, judging by a cursory glance around the old Internet, where the brush fires of "incandescent rage" -- to coin a phrase or two from Indviisible co-founder and leader, Ezra Levin -- are burning bright, as this economy tour from Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer's Facebook timeline suggests: 

"Don't cave in those premium tax credits are very important. It allows me to receive good health care as a self-employed individual. One year would give us the opportunity to plan."

"Explain how caving on the only leverage you have is fighting?"

"Guess they didn't understand the assignment, after those big wins on Tuesday."

"I see a primary challenger in your future. They will win."

"If caving is fighting, you're Muhammad Ali."

"If we had fought like (this) in 1941, we'd all be speaking Japanese right now."

"If you can't hold your coalition together, then you need to step down, and let someone who knows how to lead take the reins."

"Is this another example of your strongly worded letter(s)?"

"It's time for new leadership. We need younger leadership with bigger ideas that are willing to take it to Hell to fight for us."

"This was the fight. You gave in."

As the cliche goes -- tough room, right?

<A snapshot of the incandescent rage,

lighting up that Merrie Olde Internet...>

<ii.>

Good thing Uncle Chuck wasn't a standup comedian, or he'd have to find some other occupation, fast. Well, actually, he did -- this is who we're stuck with right now, as a face of the Democratic Party. Given the current dynamics, somewhere out in Standup Comedy Heaven, Desi Arnaz's distinctive accent is ringing out, loud and clear:

"Chuck-k-k-y-y-y! 

You got some 'splainin to do!" 

Progressives, meanwhile, who watched the horror of the Democratic Party's latest epic climbdown are left to shout this all too familiar refrain:

"Ai-yi-yi-yi-yyyiii!" 

All jokes apart, however, I'd support AOC's observation that the party's problems go way beyond one person. Uncle Chuck's passive aggressive combat stance, his lifelong risk aversiveness, and lack of timing are all too visible sins that we've seen  over his decades on the national stage. It's the same old soggy shit sandwich that Democratic base voters are expected to swallow, over and over and over again, stamped with their party's signature shrugs of learned helplessness: "Hey, what did you expect? We did the best we could."

That said, in the spirit of course correction, we offer some pertinent observations, for whoever wants to take them -- maybe some higher-up, maybe some staffer connected to them, or God knows, even Uncle Chuck himself, and his higher-profile cohorts -- so they may have their Jacob Marley moment, and get all those unforced errors out of their system, once and for all. Because, the way our democracy continues to backslide, we can't afford too many more.

<Resistance Works Best 

When Everyone Does It>

If it hasn't been said before, whoever's sitting in the room should say it out loud right now: a resistance can't function if everyone does their own thing. One of the striking features of the second Trump era is how many players have yet to learn that lesson. If reports are correct, the Rogue Eight Democratic Senators who joined Republicans in reopening the government seemed bent on that outcome from the start; progressives apparently banked on public furor keeping them onboard.

They guessed wrong, but the lesson is clear enough, as any number of historic examples tell us. One of the classic examples is the British miners' strike of 1984, which wasn't universally observed -- especially in the Nottinghamshire region, whose coal pits ranked among the most profitable, with the best-paid miners. Workers there refused to join their counterparts, convinced that Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher would never dare to close them. Of course, once the miners gave in, the Iron Lady rewarded their backwards devotion by ensuring they were the first pits to shut down.

<Set Clear Goals 

& Expectations>

Government shutdowns, when they do happen, are bare-knuckled, ball-breaking, brutal affairs. Some commentators have suggested that caving to Republican demands -- voting for the so-called continuing resolution that locks in the Medicare cuts, and other ghastly aspects of their so-called "Big Beautiful Bill," rammed through earlier this year -- was the only option. They weren't going to negotiate on extending the Affordable Care Act subsidies at the centerpiece of the shutdown fight, so why bother with it?

Friends and relatives who work for the feds have suggested likewise to me, saying that an extended standoff wasn't worth continuing to miss paychecks, racking up debt, or risking foreclosure. Then why drag them through those ordeals, without some well-defined red lines, and an appropriate endgame? Giving up the "good fight" after such a lengthy tussle (43 days) only makes the morning after taste all the sourer.

<Timing Is Everything>

If the shutdown's end is a Schumer move, it would mark the second time he's struggled with that issue. Knowing when to keep the powder dry (or not) is among the trickiest skills for any politician to master, as we saw in March, when Uncle Chuck tripped over himself to announce -- a full day, no less, before the proverbial five minutes to midnight deadline -- that Democrats wouldn't trigger a shutdown.

The fallout is even stickier this time, coming after a nationwide electoral rout of Republicans serving a certain orange cult leader, whose numbers continue to drop. Surely, didn't those volunteers who worked to ensure the marquee candidates' victories -- Mamdani, Sherrill, and Spanberger, plus their state and local counterparts -- deserve better? Apparently, Uncle Chuck fretted about this issue, too, telling his defectors to wait at least until after Election Day passed -- or risk depressing turnout. Otherwise, the donkey party's latest climbdown would have looked even ghastlier than it eventually did.

<Treat Hardship

As A Feature, Not A Bug>

We've already addressed this issue, but the point bears repeating. No major anti-authoritarian movement can succeed when it fractures, whether through circumstances, or some "other shoe" dropping on them from above. When we talk about outright autocracies, the unpleasant reality is that a fearsome toll often accompanies their overthrow. 

Examples abound, like the Romanian Revolution of 1989, which claimed 1,104 lives in the struggle to end Nicole Ceaucescu's long-standing tyranny. That's simply the acknowledged total; some estimates place it closer to 4,000 or 5,000 people, though we'll never know for sure. Such numbers stand as a reminder that the demise of autocracy carries a significant cost. Or, to put it another way, if all Trump has to do is squeeze his opponents' belies, to ensure the appropriate degree of submission ("Please don't hurt me, I give up, I give up") from them, then all this so-called resistance ends being only so much performative kayfabe.

<Underline Yer Redlines,

Then Stick To Them>

One aspect that bears repeating, and didn't get well reported, is that Democratic messaging remains as inconsistent as ever. Just look how their so-called "redlines" progressively shrank, as the shutdown unfolded. The ACA extensions merely ended up as the last redline standing, once Democratic leaders ditched their other big demands, including an end to Trump's so-called "pocket recissions" ("F#ck the power of the purse, I'll spend whatever funds you approved, only on programs that I approve"), and a reversal of the Medicaid cuts and food aid work requirements (courtesy of the "Big Ugly Bill").

The unpopularity of all these items offered a real opportunity to talk about the pathology behind them, and who's responsible for it, which leading Democrats did, to some degree, only to jettison those redlines, one by one, when the Republicans refused to engage. But that's a given with them; they don't like people pressing them to the wall, as AOC, Ro Khanna, and Tim Walz did so creatively, by holding town halls in red states whose representatives went into hiding. 

No such efforts happened this time, leaving Democrats to settle for the promise of a mid-December vote on potentially extending the subsidies, with no such commitments offered on the House side.  Which begs the question, how much negotiation did anybody actually do here? Because it sure doesn't look that way to the rank and file.

<Visions Mean Something>

One other notable takeaway is how much the Democratic Party still defines itself in reactive opposition to Trump. If someone's working up a Project 2029 for them, I haven't seen it. Aside from progressive circles, we have yet to hear Democrats offer a positive alternate, as to what kind of future they want to see -- because Trump won't be around forever, as much as he's hoping to prove otherwise, and his personality cult will likely die with him. 

This hard fact leaves a major opening to move beyond mere triage and sweep up the mess, as Democrats found themselves doing after the Reagan and Bush eras. If nothing else, the Trump era exposed the rotten underpinnings of the half-hearted neoliberalism that the donkey party embraced as the magic elixir to solving all tis problems -- and until Democrats finally part company with it, major social progress will remain "but a fleeting illusion, to be pursued, but never attained" (Bob Marley, "War").

<Workarounds Are Worth
The Price Of Admission>

Last, but not least, until Democrats move beyond the tired "percentage football" game they seem content to play -- three tries, then punt -- it's hard to imagine them capitalizing on a midterm 2026 wipeout, assuming that the Republicans will accept the results of one. Mobilizing public opinion is one of the keystones of any post-Trump strategy, which makes the eight rogue Senators' refusal to embrace it all the more head-scratching and infuriating -- none more so than Angus King, who moaned, "Standing up to Trump didn't work."

It's the sort of clueless response that begs the question, "Well, then what exactly is your job, if you don't feel like fighting back?" Hopefully, Mainers will finally retire King when his next election comes up, because if this fight demonstrated anything, it's that the younger generation needs to occupy those types of leadership roles, more than ever -- and sooner, not later.

Because people are tired of hearing that same old broken record ("We can't. We can't. We can't."), from the same old people continuing to play it. They deserve better refrains than that singularly monotonous signature refrain of failure after failure, excuse after excuse, without nothing to show for it, except the latest litany of promises, which will be broken as soon as the ink dries.

<Ain't that the truth?
Cue the cliche: yup, yup, and yup, again...>

<Coda>

The Trauma Man, Russ Vought, will come back swinging his scythe, with yet another agency or department in his sights, as millions of Americans stand to lose their food stamps or their health insurance coverage, knowing full well that no cavalry is coming to relieve their misery -- at least right away. Trump can once again gloat that he forced his enemies, real or imagined, to give in without giving up anything in return.

And as for the Rogue Eight, I leave them with these words from Martin Luther King to ring forever in their ears, loudly and long, as their last-minute act of treachery looms forever large, words that seem more relevant than ever today: 

“Courage is an inner resolution to go forward despite obstacles. Cowardice is submissive surrender to circumstances. Courage breeds creativity; Cowardice represses fear, and is mastered by it. Cowardice asks the question, 'Is it safe?' Expediency asks the question, 'Is it politic?' Vanity asks the question, 'Is it popular?' But conscience asks the question, 'Is it right?'" 

We'll see who actually learns these lessons Time will tell, soon enough.--The Reckoner