Late Monday night, eight Senate Democrats voted for a GOP package of bills meant to end the longest shutdown in American history. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., who joined the rest of his caucus in rejecting the bills, was not among them. Nonetheless, Schumer has come under intense fire from progressives, and even some moderates within the Democratic base, who are calling for him to step down as leader of the caucus.
The shutdown is ending with those eight Senate Democrats getting a promised vote on an extension of Affordable Care Act subsidies. That is, it’s ending with them getting nothing more than a promise of further disappointment down the line. That’s understandably hard for members of the Democratic Party to accept. As much as it begrudges me to say it, though, Schumer doesn’t deserve the ire he’s getting. While I think he should be doing more to forestall Trump’s agenda, in the case of the ongoing shutdown, the minority leader was in no position to hold back his members who were dead set on finding an off-ramp.
That is, it’s ending with them getting nothing more than a promise of further disappointment down the line.
Schumer seems to have learned his lesson from March when his strategy, such as it was, had Democrats step aside in hope that the Trump administration would simply trip over itself. President Donald Trump was overseeing mass layoffs, Elon Musk was slashing and burning the federal bureaucracy as the head of DOGE and despite Democratic voters looking to lawmakers to push back against the chaos, Schumer chose to help Republicans pass a short-term funding bill instead of forcing a government shutdown.
I criticized Schumer then, writing that he had once been “one of the party’s more effective messengers” but that his caucus was looking “too disjointed and out of sync to have a coherent message.”
This time around, Schumer was at the forefront of those demanding that the GOP extend a set of expiring Obamacare subsidies needed to offset a spike in the cost of health insurance premiums for roughly 22 million Americans. As Punchbowl News noted Tuesday, “the senior senator from New York is known to religiously track polling data and let that guide his decision-making. Polls consistently showed Republicans getting the blame for the shutdown. That approach won Schumer some goodwill from inside his caucus.”
Democrats’ continued support in the polls, the Trump administration’s disastrous back-and-forth over this month’s SNAP benefits, combined with Democrats running the table in last week’s elections, seemed to have Democrats in a position of strength. But Schumer wasn’t willing to stop his caucus’ members from negotiating on their own. The senators who negotiated with Republicans included Appropriations Committee members Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois, who as caucus whip is also the no. 2 member of leadership, and Sen. Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire. Both are retiring after next year’s elections; none of the other six moderates who voted in favor of the package are facing election next year.
Given those eight members’ political insulation, what was Schumer supposed to have done to stymie them? It’s hard to see what any other minority leader in Schumer’s place would have been able to do differently. Senators are much more loath to be treated as subordinates by their leadership than their House counterparts. In the Senate, every member is seen as a co-equal under a set of rules that greatly empowers the rank-and-file to go rogue. This setup continually allows for ad-hoc “gangs” of bipartisan senators to negotiate among themselves rather than waiting for marching orders from committee chairs or caucus leadership.
Former GOP leader Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky’s reputation for having an iron-fisted rule of his caucus might seem to undercut this notion. But even as McConnell consistently voted against shutdowns and for deals to fund the government, his caucus’ more radical members often split from him. For example, Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas inspired a revolt in the GOP-led House against Obamacare that included a shutdown more than a decade ago over McConnell’s objections.
A shaky return to the status quo isn’t the sort of thing that inspires voters
As the Trump administration continued to go to extraordinary lengths to keep food assistance from reaching hungry Americans, there was an increasing appetite among some Democrats to figure out a solution — even if they couldn’t get the Obamacare subsidies extended. For better or worse, as The New York Times’ Ezra Klein wrote Monday, “this what led some Senate Democrats to cut a deal: Trump’s willingness to hurt people exceeds their willingness to see people get hurt.”
But Democrats securing food aid for the American public and winning provisions meant to undo the mass layoffs that the White House launched at the shutdown’s start is a pyrrhic victory at best. Durbin says Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., has promised a vote on an extension for the subsidies next month.
If — and that’s a big if — the Senate does pass something that gets past the 60-vote threshold, then Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., has made clear that the House has no impetus to take up the resulting bill. That still means no help for people who depend on the Affordable Care Act — and everything right back where we started.
I don’t blame Schumer for this outcome, nor do most of his colleagues, according to MSNBC’s reporting. But if this is the hand that’s been dealt, then his messaging needs to get better — fast. A shaky return to the status quo isn’t the sort of thing that inspires voters. Neither are lectures from the likes of Durbin about how the Senate works. A sustained campaign of reminders from Democrats about which party was willing to keep food from children’s mouths to ratchet up health care prices will go a long way. But it’s even more important that Democrats unveil a set of proposals to convince Americans that this time, Democrats don’t just want to reset what Trump knocks over, but that they want to build something better.