“. . . I’m definitely worried that the lack of serious political pain for the Dems this month may lead us right back into another shutdown in the coming years.”
I would go farther. If you take the opinion polls seriously, not only did Democrats not lose the shutdown, but they seemed to “win” it, in the sense that public opinion was on their side from beginning to end (and Trump’s approval has slid in recent weeks).
I worry about this, as well. I think substantial factions within both parties have now discovered that the “Politics of Disorder” play well for the nonincumbent party.
Senator Tim Kaine is from Virginia, where the federal government is the top employer. Combine the direct federal employees (Defense Dept. and civilian agencies) with employees who work for federal contractors, and you get a huge number of Virginians. Federal and federal-adjacent employees live along the I-95 corridor south from the Potomac River to halfway to Richmond, west along I-66 to the Shenandoah Valley, and in the eastern Tidewater region along I-64 from east of Williamsburg to Newport News. Abigail Spanberger won the governor's race last week, in large part because of these voters. The R candidate, Winsome Earle-Sears, was locked into Trump's negative stance regarding federal employees. Remember the horror show from earlier this year involving Elon Musk & DOGE? Where did it hit hardest? Virginia. That's why Kaine had to act to end the shutdown - to rescue his constituents.
Ok, now explain why Warner---also from Virginia---did not vote to end it. As I wrote, my hypothesis is that Warner has a potential primary in the spring, Kaine does not.
I wonder what it says about the state of modern political reporting and analysis that every article you linked to that you found interesting and informative on the shutdown was written by a man. Something to ponder I suppose.
Lmao it’s not “the groups or activists”; polls showed that the base overwhelmingly disapproved of the shutdown end and Schumer is underwater in Dem approvals. Centrists will make up anything to fool themselves.
Generally agree with most of this. I think the big question you don't raise is, should the Democrats be attacking each other over this? I think that is and would be a tragic mistake. It may be unavoidable for some unhappiness to be expressed about not acting as a group, but it's not going to help any of them to fight over who was right. Honestly, I don't think anyone could know. But there is a group that is clearly wrong, and it's not either set of Democrats.
I have learned a lot from you, and so I mean this comment in respect. The one thing I have never seen in your either pre- or post-shutdown analysis is an acknowledgment that the President and the GOP are operating outside of the constitutional order, and why, under those conditions, it makes any sense for Democrats in the legislative branch to vote for anything? You repeatedly discuss the folly of shutdowns, and I tend to agree, but the point is rather that what Ds vote for or do not vote for is irrelevant when the executive will simply decide not to spend it, do something else with it... etc. Am I missing something? I'm just not sure why we're going through the merits (or demerits) of a shutdown with a fine tooth comb as if we are operating under the constitutional order. We're not.
I have addressed this repeatedly in past writings. I agree the constitutional order might be changing (as it did under Jackson, Lincoln, FDR, etc.) but I do not see us as currently sliding into an authoritarian abyss, and my view is that Democrats and Republicans will control both the presidency and Congress many times over the next several decades. You are free to disagree, but my analysis flows from that fundamental outlook.
After reading more: when I say we're operating outside of the constitutional order I’m not arguing that we won’t have elections, or that Democrats won’t win again; I agree that alternation is likely.
Seems we mean different things by "authoritarianism", which I don't view as a yes/no condition predicated on the “continued alternation” of partisan control of branches of government as the threshold for avoiding authoritarianism. This sets the definition far too narrowly. We’ve had full alternation between Ds and Rs for 25 years, and yet the long-term trend has been growing executive unilateralism, expanded domestic surveillance, militarized policing, and a more aggressive national-security state — almost all of which has been built and reinforced by both parties.
So “authoritarian drift” is happening even with alternation. It’s not primarily about whether Democrats win sometimes; it’s about the institutional ratchet that keeps increasing state coercive capacity regardless of who occupies the White House.
You’ve written that the president can now effectively ignore appropriations by exploiting time, gridlock, and the ICA. You’ve also emphasized that our system is uniquely “monarch-like” among republics. Those are classic signs of creeping executive dominance. Given that, why treat ‘Democrats will rotate back in’ as evidence that authoritarian tendencies aren’t growing? Alternation doesn’t seem to be reversing any of these structural shifts.
If we’re in a competitive-but-increasingly-authoritarian system, shouldn’t that change the strategic analysis of things like shutdowns, appropriations leverage, and Congress’s enforcement tools?
“. . . I’m definitely worried that the lack of serious political pain for the Dems this month may lead us right back into another shutdown in the coming years.”
I would go farther. If you take the opinion polls seriously, not only did Democrats not lose the shutdown, but they seemed to “win” it, in the sense that public opinion was on their side from beginning to end (and Trump’s approval has slid in recent weeks).
I worry about this, as well. I think substantial factions within both parties have now discovered that the “Politics of Disorder” play well for the nonincumbent party.
Hopefully they take a more nuanced view and see Trump as a particularly poor vessel for "govt should be open on a bipartisan basis".
Eight dems voted for the CR, not ten, right?
Yup, typo.
Seven Dems and one independent.
Eight people who caucus with the dems*
Senator Tim Kaine is from Virginia, where the federal government is the top employer. Combine the direct federal employees (Defense Dept. and civilian agencies) with employees who work for federal contractors, and you get a huge number of Virginians. Federal and federal-adjacent employees live along the I-95 corridor south from the Potomac River to halfway to Richmond, west along I-66 to the Shenandoah Valley, and in the eastern Tidewater region along I-64 from east of Williamsburg to Newport News. Abigail Spanberger won the governor's race last week, in large part because of these voters. The R candidate, Winsome Earle-Sears, was locked into Trump's negative stance regarding federal employees. Remember the horror show from earlier this year involving Elon Musk & DOGE? Where did it hit hardest? Virginia. That's why Kaine had to act to end the shutdown - to rescue his constituents.
Ok, now explain why Warner---also from Virginia---did not vote to end it. As I wrote, my hypothesis is that Warner has a potential primary in the spring, Kaine does not.
Yes, he was trying to avoid a primary on the Left. Very risk adverse.
Good analysis. As I see it, the biggest failure of the Dems in this matter was starting a fight with no plan for what and how to win.
I wonder what it says about the state of modern political reporting and analysis that every article you linked to that you found interesting and informative on the shutdown was written by a man. Something to ponder I suppose.
Lmao it’s not “the groups or activists”; polls showed that the base overwhelmingly disapproved of the shutdown end and Schumer is underwater in Dem approvals. Centrists will make up anything to fool themselves.
Huh? What did I write that made you say that?
https://cliffwilliams.substack.com/p/the-vote-that-proves-congress-allegiance?r=237mn9
Kind of think Chuck was bound to go anyways (all things must pass), I guess we can argue about timing and causal actors/actions.
Generally agree with most of this. I think the big question you don't raise is, should the Democrats be attacking each other over this? I think that is and would be a tragic mistake. It may be unavoidable for some unhappiness to be expressed about not acting as a group, but it's not going to help any of them to fight over who was right. Honestly, I don't think anyone could know. But there is a group that is clearly wrong, and it's not either set of Democrats.
https://substack.norabble.com/p/shutdown-views
I have learned a lot from you, and so I mean this comment in respect. The one thing I have never seen in your either pre- or post-shutdown analysis is an acknowledgment that the President and the GOP are operating outside of the constitutional order, and why, under those conditions, it makes any sense for Democrats in the legislative branch to vote for anything? You repeatedly discuss the folly of shutdowns, and I tend to agree, but the point is rather that what Ds vote for or do not vote for is irrelevant when the executive will simply decide not to spend it, do something else with it... etc. Am I missing something? I'm just not sure why we're going through the merits (or demerits) of a shutdown with a fine tooth comb as if we are operating under the constitutional order. We're not.
I have addressed this repeatedly in past writings. I agree the constitutional order might be changing (as it did under Jackson, Lincoln, FDR, etc.) but I do not see us as currently sliding into an authoritarian abyss, and my view is that Democrats and Republicans will control both the presidency and Congress many times over the next several decades. You are free to disagree, but my analysis flows from that fundamental outlook.
Well I certainly do not share that outlook but I'll look for that writing to try to understand it.
After reading more: when I say we're operating outside of the constitutional order I’m not arguing that we won’t have elections, or that Democrats won’t win again; I agree that alternation is likely.
Seems we mean different things by "authoritarianism", which I don't view as a yes/no condition predicated on the “continued alternation” of partisan control of branches of government as the threshold for avoiding authoritarianism. This sets the definition far too narrowly. We’ve had full alternation between Ds and Rs for 25 years, and yet the long-term trend has been growing executive unilateralism, expanded domestic surveillance, militarized policing, and a more aggressive national-security state — almost all of which has been built and reinforced by both parties.
So “authoritarian drift” is happening even with alternation. It’s not primarily about whether Democrats win sometimes; it’s about the institutional ratchet that keeps increasing state coercive capacity regardless of who occupies the White House.
You’ve written that the president can now effectively ignore appropriations by exploiting time, gridlock, and the ICA. You’ve also emphasized that our system is uniquely “monarch-like” among republics. Those are classic signs of creeping executive dominance. Given that, why treat ‘Democrats will rotate back in’ as evidence that authoritarian tendencies aren’t growing? Alternation doesn’t seem to be reversing any of these structural shifts.
If we’re in a competitive-but-increasingly-authoritarian system, shouldn’t that change the strategic analysis of things like shutdowns, appropriations leverage, and Congress’s enforcement tools?