I actually love the unilateral disarmament option here. It lets the rhetorical focus stay where it should—the administration’s approach to impoundment makes defending congressional power over appropriations. Dems could say “this is all a farce if our Republican colleagues won’t stand up for themselves, and we refuse to participate.” And they would do this without a (protracted) shutdown.
(As much as I’m on the “fight motherfucker!” wing of the party, I refuse to let that stop me from doing backward induction.)
The fact that so many Democrats both want to end the filibuster and want to keep the party at a disadvantage in the senate by writing off so many red states seems insane to me. Moderate canididates and positions that would help the party compete in states like Ohio or Iowa still get a ton of hate from the left wing of the party, and that wing is also the loudest I see railing against the filibuster.
A strategy of weaking the minority party *and* being more likely to stay the minority party is the sort of strategy that will lead a party to, well, pretty much what the Dems look like now.
Are we so sure that public opinion would be against the minority party causing a shutdown (emphasis) *in a way that actually matters, politically speaking*?
Most people don’t pay attention to the procedural details of this stuff. To the extent that they do, blame for dysfunction (no matter the cause) tends to get spread around, with a not-insubstantial part falling at the president’s feet (whether the president rightfully deserves the blame or not—Americans erroneously view him as the “leader of the federal government”). And past shutdowns never seem to be a salient issue come actual heading-to-the-polls, general election time.
Perhaps I’m too cynical. But I just don’t see as much of a political downside to obstructionary politics as Matt does.
I actually love the unilateral disarmament option here. It lets the rhetorical focus stay where it should—the administration’s approach to impoundment makes defending congressional power over appropriations. Dems could say “this is all a farce if our Republican colleagues won’t stand up for themselves, and we refuse to participate.” And they would do this without a (protracted) shutdown.
(As much as I’m on the “fight motherfucker!” wing of the party, I refuse to let that stop me from doing backward induction.)
The fact that so many Democrats both want to end the filibuster and want to keep the party at a disadvantage in the senate by writing off so many red states seems insane to me. Moderate canididates and positions that would help the party compete in states like Ohio or Iowa still get a ton of hate from the left wing of the party, and that wing is also the loudest I see railing against the filibuster.
A strategy of weaking the minority party *and* being more likely to stay the minority party is the sort of strategy that will lead a party to, well, pretty much what the Dems look like now.
Just to clarify: is the filibuster something that can be ended with a simple majority?
Yes.
Are we so sure that public opinion would be against the minority party causing a shutdown (emphasis) *in a way that actually matters, politically speaking*?
Most people don’t pay attention to the procedural details of this stuff. To the extent that they do, blame for dysfunction (no matter the cause) tends to get spread around, with a not-insubstantial part falling at the president’s feet (whether the president rightfully deserves the blame or not—Americans erroneously view him as the “leader of the federal government”). And past shutdowns never seem to be a salient issue come actual heading-to-the-polls, general election time.
Perhaps I’m too cynical. But I just don’t see as much of a political downside to obstructionary politics as Matt does.
What ideas do you have of what the Dems could do to push back against unconstitutional impoundments?
Might it include something popular - like requiring RFK jr being fired from HHS and research funding spent?
What about the idea of 3 month spending bills until the administration goes back to normal appropriations processes?