The Perils of Superficial Political Analysis

David Super

     In the wake of the Democratic capitulation to end the government shutdown, activists and commentators called for retribution against those responsible.  On a macro level, this is a mistake:  those seeking to preserve our democracy desperately need less, not more, internecine warfare.  But it also invites mistakes on a micro level because, without a deeper understanding of how Congress works, observers will routinely misunderstand what votes and other public actions mean.  Nothing could please our opponents more than our taking “divine retribution” against our own – except our taking misdirected divine retribution against our own.  This post examines a few prominent cases in which appearances are deceiving. 

     In early 2022, at the insistence of activists, Senate Majority Leader Schumer put a proposal on the floor to end the filibuster.  In doing so, he blatantly violated Senate rules, which require a two-thirds majority to consider such changes.  Sen. Schumer was prepared to treat the filibuster as extinct if he won a simple majority.  He did not, with all Republicans and Democratic Senators Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema voting “no”. 

     Activists immediately demanded those two Democratic senators’ heads and hounded them out of office.  Purple Arizona elected a different Democratic senator who is much more reliably progressive.  Deep red West Virginia, however, easily elected a Republican who did nothing to protect low-income West Virginians as Congress marched to enacting the One Big Beautiful Bill Act this summer. 

     In truth, at least ten other Democratic senators opposed eliminating the filibuster.  They (correctly) anticipated that Republicans could regain trifecta control of the national government and would gut civil rights, environmental, fair elections, and other legislation if the end of the filibuster left Democrats powerless.  They would have voted to preserve the filibuster had their votes mattered, but they went along with Sen. Schumer’s initiative to save them the wrath of short-sighted activists fixated on ending the filibuster. 

     As Congress was considering the hideous One Big Beautiful Bill Act this summer, only one Republican, Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), made serious efforts to moderate its effects on low-income people.  By striking contrast, Maine Senator Susan Collins was publicly mum about the bill.  If she did anything significant behind the scenes, I certainly did not hear about it.  Evidently, she had signaled to Republican leadership that she would vote for the legislation if needed and was trying to avoid statements that could be used against her when she did. 

     Yet in the end, Sen. Murkowski cast the superficially decisive vote for the bill while Sen. Collins voted “no”.  Why?  Pretty obviously, they traded votes.  Sen. Collins is up for re-election in purple Maine; Sen. Murkowski is not up next election and represents a far more Republican state.  She voted for the bill so that Sen. Collins did not have to – and collected a basket of carve-outs for Alaska from some of the bill’s worst provisions.  Activists railed against Sen. Murkowski, yet it likely was Sen. Collins’s decision to provide the crucial vote for the legislation if needed that pushed it over the top.  Sen. Murkowski decided how the bill would pass, not whether it would do so. 

     During the recent government shutdown, Senator Josh Hawley (R-MO) introduced legislation to reopen the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), which President Trump had shut down in November to pressure Senate Democrats.  Fourteen other Republicans quickly signed on as co-sponsors.  Naïve commentators praised Sen. Hawley and his Republican co-sponsors for caring about the 42 million low-income people going without food because of the Administration’s gratuitous cruelty.  They were deceived. 

     Those fifteen Republicans, together with all forty-seven Democrats, would be more than enough to pass the bill, even over a filibuster.  But neither Sen. Hawley nor any of his co-sponsors took any meaningful steps to force Senate Majority Leader John Thune to bring the bill to the floor.  They could, for example, have moved to pass it by unanimous consent and see if any senators had the nerve to object.  They could have offered it as an amendment to other pending measures.  But they did nothing.  Why?

     Enacting the Hawley Bill would have required reconvening the House of Representatives, which had not held any votes since September 19.  House Speaker Mike Johnson was widely understood to be keeping the House out of session because convening it would allow Representative-elect Adelita Grijalva (D-AZ) to take her seat and provide the decisive 218^th signature on a petition to force a vote on releasing the Epstein files.  Having to vote on such legislation would be deeply uncomfortable for many House Republicans who do not want to anger the Trump Administration but have encouraged supporters believing that the federal government is protecting pedophiles.  A House vote on releasing the Epstein files – which surely would pass – would then become awkward for Senate Republicans, who would come under stronger pressure to bring the measure to the floor for a vote.  So burying the Hawley bill that they had co-sponsored was crucial to saving themselves from an uncomfortable vote on the Epstein files.  Signing onto it was merely a smokescreen to deflect public anger over the Administration’s SNAP freeze. 

     This week, activists have been demanding harsh retribution against the seven Democrats and one Democratic-caucusing Independent that voted for the continuing resolution that ended the government shutdown essentially on the Trump Administration’s terms.  I share their disagreement and disappointment with this action.  But that list of eight bears some scrutiny.  Sen. Angus King (I-ME) was never convinced about the merits of the shutdown and had been voting to end it throughout.  So had Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto (D-NV) and Sen. John Fetterman (D-PA).  (Progressives campaigned hard for Sen. Fetterman to defeat another progressive in the primary and might consider how reliable their assessment of candidates is.)  With air traffic control breaking down, and her fellow Nevada Democrat already voting to end the shutdown, Sen. Jacky Rosen (D-NV) would have had trouble explaining a continued “no” vote to constituents losing jobs in the tourism industry. 

     The vote that stands out to me is that of Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL).  He is quite progressive (although not allergic to working with industry on some debatable initiatives).  He is also the Democratic Whip, responsible for maintaining cohesion in the caucus.  He has no history of casting major votes for President Trump.  Why would he supply the crucial eighth vote?  Pretty obviously as part of another swap.  Sen. Durbin is not running for re-election, and he almost certainly decided to take the heat for casting this vote to allow a more vulnerable colleague who had decided to end the shutdown to continue voting with their Party.  One or two of the other Democratic senators’ votes might have been swaps as well. 

     Finally, activists have been enraged by the six House Democrats that voted for the continuing resolution.  This, too, is naïve.  Speaker Mike Johnson had the votes to pass the continuing resolution without them, even after losing two of his own Members.  (One of those two likely was posturing, too.)  These six represent some of the most marginal districts in the House:  none got even 52% of the vote in 2024 except Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-TX), whose district was savaged in the Republican redistricting.  If these Members think their chances of keeping their seats Democratic improve by casting irrelevant votes, activists with much less information should stand back.  Speaker Johnson obviously did not believe any of them were solid supporters of the continuing resolution or he would have allowed more of his Members to vote “no”.

     Progressives’ problem is one of persuasion, not coercion.  We failed to persuade enough of the anti-Trump community of the wisdom of the government shutdown, went ahead with it anyway, and experienced the predictable collapse.  Past efforts to enforce purity have only swollen MAGA majorities.  Forty solid votes plus fifteen gettable ones is far better than forty-seven solid votes and two possibly gettable ones.  (Who is the third-best Senate Republican?  I have an answer, but you will not like it.) 

     But even if campaigns of retribution made sense, they would be doomed if angry activists with a superficial understanding of Congress do not know where the crucial pressure points are. 

     @DavidASuper1 @DavidASuper.bsky.social