It’s risky, but allowing Trump to remain unchecked is worse
Dan Rather at Steady:
Here’s hoping you are ready to pay attention, my Steady friends. You are about to read some ideas that may seem far-fetched, even radical, especially for Democrats. But the dissolution of our great democracy is happening faster than most rational Americans thought possible. Time to be calm and steady, yes, but also time to think tough and be smart.
For many who oppose Donald Trump and his race toward authoritarianism, the lack of a coordinated national effort to counter him has been frustrating to say the least. We face some tough truths. Democrats have virtually no power — not none, but not much. Trump holds the White House and both houses of Congress and rules his party with intimidation and actionable threats. The dearth of Republicans willing to stand up to his illegal measures is testament to that fact. He’s also got the Supreme Court eating out of his hand.
But Trump is not the all-powerful behemoth he believes himself to be. He is a very unpopular president with an even less popular agenda. Eight months into his second term, no modern president has been as unpopular as Trump, except for Trump the first time around. A majority of the American people don’t just dislike his policies — he is underwater on everything from immigration to the economy — but they deeply dislike how he is governing. All this means Trump is vulnerable if congressional Democrats can find an effective way to fight back. They will have that opportunity in the next couple of weeks. Back in March, Congress passed, with the help of Senate Democrats, a continuing resolution that funded the government for six months. Minority Leader Chuck Schumer was vilified by many in his party for capitulating to Trump and getting him the votes he needed. Schumer had his reasons, but six months later, those reasons no longer hold water as the September 30 deadline looms.
The Republican-controlled Congress has three options: pass a full-year appropriations bill, which is extremely unlikely; pass another continuing resolution, for which they again would need votes from Senate Democrats; or shut down the government. Democrats are once again between a rock and a hard choice: fund Trump’s illegal authoritarian regime, or stand against it by shutting it down.
If they support funding, they will have the leverage to get measures into the continuing resolution that are popular with the American people, such as restoring Medicaid and food assistance funding, curtailing overreach by the Department of Homeland Security, and reinstating due process, for starters. But even if those provisions are in the CR, this Congress and this administration have proven they are not to be trusted to follow the law.
[...] If Democrats decide to vote against a new CR, the government will run out of money, causing a shutdown. This is where it gets interesting.
Ezra Klein in The New York Times brings a new argument and a new reasoning to this debate: “[J]oining Republicans to fund this government is worse than failing at opposition. It’s complicity. If there’s a better plan than a shutdown, great. But if the plan is still nothing, then Democrats need new leaders.” Klein is someone to whom Democrats in Washington listen. He’s finally saying enough is enough. Democrats should not be party to Trump’s lawlessness. He says (and the record bears him out) that Trump is corrupting the government the way the Mafia corrupts industries. To be effective, Democrats need a plan — one that would have the support of a majority of Americans. Shutting down the government is not something that should ever be taken lightly. Many government workers will be furloughed. National parks will close. Government payments will be delayed. Federal court proceedings will be disrupted. And Trump will blame Democrats for a debacle of his own making.
For national Democrats, who have virtually nothing to lose, it is an ace up their sleeve when it seems like Trump holds all the cards, according to Klein. For state Democrats, it’s a different and arguably rosier picture. Their multiple efforts are focused on navigating and circumventing the administration’s harmful policies, rather than trying to stop Trump.
[...] Some are calling these efforts “soft secession,” though that term makes more than a few Democrats uneasy. Secession is unconstitutional. And so far no one is suggesting any state unilaterally secede — except Republican Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, who has said she wants a “national divorce.” Part of the quiet discussion of “soft secession”— or as Yale Law Professor Heather Gerken calls it, “uncooperative federalism”— is economic leverage. Most blue states are considered “giver” or “donor” states, meaning they provide more to the federal government in taxes than they receive in services. And conversely, many red states are “recipients” that are subsidized by the blue state tax base.
Democrats in both Houses of Congress should play hardball on the federal budget by shutting down the government to stop the Trump Regime’s lawless actions.
See Also:
Public Notice (Paul Waldman): It's time for Democrats to show some spine
Robert Reich: Should Democrats Shut the Government?
The Signorile Report (Michelangelo Signorile): Democrats should not vote to fund Trump's fascism
Stancil Culture (Wil Stancil): "You can't detain someone for being Latino" is a law worth shutting down the government for
The Big Picture (Jay Kuo): Shut It Down If You Have To