Homage to the Once and Future Government Shutdown

David Super

     At the insistence of vocal elements of their base, Democrats shut down the federal government October I, demanding action on health care subsidies and President Trump’s copious impoundments of appropriated funds.  After 41 days, during which nearly 42 million recipients of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) had their benefits delayed or threatened and numerous federal civil servants faced financial emergencies, the Democrats lost, completely. 

     Now much of the Democratic base is demanding another government shutdown at the end of January.  Nobody seems to have drawn any meaningful lessons from the first failed government shutdown or have any plausible explanation of why a repeat would fare any better.  This post seeks to address those issues. 

     The first government shutdown was a sickly rebellion to begin with.  On the final roll-call vote before the shutdown, three Democrats sided with the Republicans.  Thus, assuming the Republicans could secure the support of all their own senators, they needed to flip only four more Democrats.  By contrast, Democrats were effectively thirteen votes away from being able to pass a continuing resolution of their choosing – and that is even before one considers the House of Representatives and the President’s veto pen.  If I am running a marathon and you are running a 100-year dash, I wonder which of us will finish first?

     For all their bold rhetoric and steely public personas, successful politicians are quite a timid lot.  They are not prone to rapid changes of position.  And when they do move, they seek cover with zeal matching that of a vole in an owl convention.  With three Democrats already voting with the Republicans against launching a government shutdown, any further Democratic defectors already had partisan cover to vote to end the shutdown. 

     By contrast, the only Republican to oppose the continuing resolution – idiosyncratic libertarian Sen. Rand Paul – provided little cover for other Republicans, particularly given that he did not share any of the Democrats’ demands.  Throughout the shutdown, Democrats never succeeded in getting any other Republicans – not even Sens. Lisa Murkowski or Susan Collins – to make public statements suggesting a weakening commitment to their party’s position.  At most, a few weakly suggested negotiations but then quickly backed down when Senate Majority Leader John Thune insisted on the Democrats’ unconditional surrender.

     Polling throughout the government shutdown slightly favored the Democrats, but not by remotely enough to panic Republicans Members of Congress into abandoning their party leadership. 

     And the Trump Administration broke the fundamental dynamic that has driven past government shutdowns:  the balance of pain.  Traditionally, much of the question was whether Republican constituencies would become unwilling to endure their deprivations faster than Democratic constituencies lost patience with theirs.  But President Trump repeatedly spent money without legal authority to placate groups that might otherwise have pressed Republicans to negotiate.  His payment of military salaries with funds whose transfer Congress had expressly prohibited was only the highest-profile of these actions. 

     Prior administrations of both parties – including the first Trump Administration – had refrained from spending funds without an appropriation because doing so is a felony (as well as a violation of the Appropriations Clause).  But with Pam Bondi’s Justice Department thoroughly partisan and the President happy to pardon crimes advancing his agenda, the Administration had little difficulty getting civil servants to comply with orders to spend lawlessly on alleviating hardship that could have led to calls for compromise. 

     Conversely, the Trump Administration increased pressure on Democrats by withholding funds that it was lawfully obligated to pay.  Its lawless shutdown of SNAP again was only the most prominent of these actions.  With Justice Barrett insisting that preliminary relief against unlawful withholding of federal funds is inappropriate, the Administration has effectively unlimited ability to inflict severe harm on middle- and lower-income people, as well as vulnerable non-profits and local governments, that cannot survive for the months or years litigation would require. 

     Finally, the outlines of a plausible compromise were elusive.  As such, neither Democrats nor wavering Republicans had much incentive to seek one.  To be sure, the side issue – maintaining current levels of premium subsidies under the Affordable Care Act – could readily have been addressed by statute.  But the disputes over the Administration’s refusal to spend appropriated funds would have been difficult to resolve because of the Trump Administration’s demonstrated willingness to blatantly violate appropriations laws. 

     Fundamentally, government shutdowns are tests of the respective parties’ cohesiveness.  Democrats lost the October-November government shutdown because they went into it far less unified than Republicans.  The base demanded a shutdown, but it had failed to unite Democrats much less weaken the resolve of Republicans.  The result was that tens of millions of people suffered hardship and the Trump Administration emerged stronger than before.

     So would a new shutdown fare better?  I doubt it.  The base might succeed in bludgeoning the congressional Democratic leadership into triggering one, but the fissures within the Democratic Caucus that led to defeat last time still remain.  It is fashionable to condemn the perceived weakness of Senate Minority Leader Schumer and House Minority Leader Jeffries.  But Members do not rise to leadership positions without being adept at staying in step with the sentiments of their caucuses.  They would not be temporizing if they were not hearing a lot of private doubts from their Members.  And any Democrat should be easier to secure than any Republican, particularly given the President’s ruthlessness in punishing dissenters in his own party.  If Democrats cannot go into a shutdown with all 47 senators enthusiastically engaged, they are unlikely even to reach 51 votes, much less enough to pass legislation through the Senate. 

     To be sure, SNAP should not be vulnerable this time as the Agriculture Appropriations Act, which funds SNAP, passed at the end of the shutdown.  But the Administration has plenty of other means of imposing disproportionate pain on vulnerable people within the six appropriations bills that have yet to pass.  (Some hoped that the Labor-Health and Human Services Appropriations bill could pass this month pared with the Defense Appropriations bill.  That would have shielded more programs from a possible government shutdown.  The President’s invasion of Venezuela, and his threats against Greenland, likely have made the Defense Appropriations bill too controversial to pass, and without it Republicans will not move Labor-HHS.)  And the Administration surely will continue to shield its favorites from interruptions in funding.

     Moreover, the proposed goals of a new government shutdown, defunding or curtailing ICE, will be extremely difficult to achieve in this setting.  In addition to extending and expanding numerous egregious upper-income tax cuts, blowing up the deficit, and slashing Medicaid and SNAP, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act that passed this summer through reconciliation procedures contained several large pots of money for immigration enforcement outside the appropriations process.  During a government shutdown, ICE and other agencies terrorizing U.S. neighborhoods can draw on those funds to continue operations.  And if those funds ever were at risk of running out, Republicans could pass another reconciliation act – which is immune from a filibuster – to replenish its funds.  And this Administration surely is far more invested in ICE’s reign of terror than it was in impoundments or the expiration of health care subsidies.

     The murders of Renee Good and others, the growing propensity of ICE and other agencies to attack peaceful protesters, and the grotesque racism of their assaults on communities of color without even plausible immigration enforcement goals all demand urgent action.  But the very reasons that change is so urgently needed make doomed symbolism unconscionable.  Reflexively rushing into another failed government shutdown would only embolden the Administration by handing it another political victory. 

     Instead, those concerned about restoring civil liberties must build sufficient support to win.  The process is not flashy:  pressuring Republicans to introduce a bill (alone or with Democrats), then pressuring other Republicans (and tepid Democrats) to co-sponsor that bill, then moving to add that bill to pending legislative vehicles, and only then, when enough senators have expressed public support, holding some must-pass legislation hostage until that bill is passed.  This process seems unlikely to be achievable by the end of the month.  If Democrats forego a new government shutdown and agree to another short-term continuing resolution to fund the Department of Homeland Security, it might result in a sufficient blocking coalition by the time that funding expires. 

     Although surely not intended that way, demands for more government shutdowns actually amount to passing the buck from grassroots activists to Members of Congress.  Republicans have a hammerlock on the federal government today, and they will only vote to rein in ICE and other Administration abuses when they constituents demand it in numbers they cannot ignore.  No parliamentary maneuvers will achieve that.  The only path forward is grassroots organizing. 

     @DavidASuper.bsky.social @DavidASuper1