How NOT to Fight Trump? Part Two
Schumer agrees to Republican CR
Despite all our phone calls, it appears that at least eight Democratic senators will vote today in favor of the Republican continuing resolution (CR) that will keep the government functioning until September 31.
In one way, this is an awful choice. It looks weak and submissive, when boldness and courage form a big part of strategy.
It is important at the beginning of a war for defenders to show a mad dog level of courage. Here are some examples from history:
“Give me liberty or give me death.” Assertion from Patrick Henry in a speech at a Virginia convention in 1775. Henry is credited with having swung the balance in convincing the convention to pass a resolution delivering Virginian troops for the Revolutionary War. Among the delegates to the convention were future United States presidents Thomas Jefferson and George Washington.
“I have not yet begun to fight.” In 1779 a Scotsman named John Paul Jones was engaged in close combat with the British frigate Serapis. His own ship was sinking, and he was invited to surrender. Some say his response was "I may sink, but I'll be damned if I strike."
“I need ammunition, not a ride.” In February 2022, the Biden administration urged President Volodymyr Zelensky to leave Kiev to ensure his personal safety. He refused.
"Russian warship, go fuck yourself." On the first day of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, two Russian naval warships Vasily Bykov and Moskva, attacked Snake Island. Upon receiving a demand to surrender or else threatening bombardment, a Ukrainian border guard told the Russian attackers where to go. His defiance gained worldwide attention and became a symbol of Ukrainian resistance. Later the same day, Russian forces landed and captured all 13 of the Ukrainians on the island.
This kind of defiance is not just showmanship. It serves a strategic role. It sets a mark that challenges others to rise to the occasion.
Despite this, it looks like our Democratic senators will not rise to this occasion. They were given a stage, but they aren’t going to make a noise.
Senator Schumer’s Reasons
Senator Schumer gave his rationale in a speech yesterday evening. You won’t see this elsewhere— I had to dig pretty deep to find it— he states his fears that a temporary government shutdown will lead to something much more permanent. What hit me hardest was the idea that a furlough of court employees will drastically slow down the court cases in which I see so much hope.
Schumer fears that a shutdown will lead to a quicker dismantling of the federal civil service. But this may actually be the overreach that sinks Donald Trump. Deeper cuts to the Social Security Administration may bring on the failure of payments that will convince the MAGA faithful that Donald Trump is not working for them. My strongest hope for the demise of the Trump Administration is the collapse of the Social Security system. If he brings that about, he will lose 50 million supporters almost overnight. We can take care of our oldsters for a few months until Trump’s successor gets the system running again.
Portion of Schumer’s speech
First, a shutdown would give Donald Trump and Elon Musk carte blanche to destroy vital government services at a significantly faster rate than they can right now.
Under a shutdown, the Trump administration would have full authority to deem whole agencies, programs, and personnel “non-essential,” furloughing staff with no promise they would ever be rehired.
The decision on what is essential would be solely left to the executive branch, with nobody left at agencies to check them.
In short, a shutdown would give Donald Trump, Elon Musk, and DOGE, and Russell Vought the keys to the city, state and country.
And don’t take my word for it: Musk has said aloud he wants a shutdown, and public reporting has shown he is already making plans to use the shutdown to expedite his destruction of key government programs and services.
Musk told reporters, “If the job is not essential, or they are not doing it well, they obviously shouldn’t be on the public payroll.”
Many federal employees and government experts are rightly worried that a temporary shutdown could lead to permanent cuts.
Second, if we enter a shutdown, Congressional Republicans would weaponize their majorities to cherry-pick which parts of the government to reopen.
In a protracted shutdown, House and Senate Republicans would pursue a strategy of bringing bills to the floor to reopen only their favorite departments and agencies, while leaving other vital services that they don’t like to languish.
Third, a shutdown is not a political game – shutdowns mean real pain for American families.
For example, veterans’ services. I believe a shutdown could cause regional VA offices to reduce staff, delay benefits processing, and curtail mental health services – abandoning veterans who earned and depended on those resources.
Social Security and senior services: I believe a shutdown could greenlight Trump to slash even more administrative staff at Social Security offices – delaying new applications, benefit adjustments, and forcing seniors to wait even longer for the benefits they’ve earned.
Extremely troubling, I believe, is that a shutdown could stall federal court cases – one of the best redoubts against Trump’s lawlessness. It could furlough critical staff, denying victims and defendants alike their day in court, dragging out appeals, and clogging the justice system for months or even years.
This administration has shown an unfathomable willingness to sacrifice American families and their wellbeing to advance their own political agenda.
A shutdown positions them to do this on overdrive.
Finally, there is one more reason I oppose a shutdown: President Trump and Republicans leaders would like nothing more than to pull us into the mud of a protracted government shutdown.
For Donald Trump, a shutdown would be a gift.
It would be the best distraction he could ask for from his awful agenda.
Reluctantly, I find myself agreeing with Schumer on one point mostly - that the possible shutdown could affect federal court staff. The US needs the court system more than anything now, to hold the line. And, if Trump & Musk say they want a shutdown - more reason not to let them have it.
The strategy might have to do with the budget bill that carries with it an increase in the debt limit. And time is running short on that.
The thinking might have been that killing the CR/shutting the government would have the effect of binding the House Republican caucus more closely together. The best hope for a defeat for Trump's budget continues to be in the House where there are many deficit hawks.
So I don't feel I can opine as to whether it was the right move. It was likely a very tough decision.