Will Democrats get the blame for a government shutdown?
In my last post I discussed how the Democrats might use whatever leverage they have in the upcoming congressional budget negotiations.
Here I want to circle back to the problem I flagged at the beginning of that post: Trump and congressional Republicans might well renege on any deal, either by refusing to expend appropriated funds, or through recission.
In an earlier post I suggested one possible response, viz., authorizing government spending for a limited time, say two months, and making it clear up front that any extension will be conditional on Trump and Republicans honoring the deal. If Trump impounds funds, delays grants, or proposes a recission, Democrats can refuse to extend funding until the administration lives up to its part of the bargain.
Of course, this threat to withhold funding is only credible if Democrats would be willing to shut down the government if Trump and his congressional minions refuse to honor a spending deal. And Democrats will not be able to get their priorities included in a deal if they are unwilling to trigger a shut down. Would Democrats really be willing to do this? Or would fear of blame for a shutdown deter them? Many observers worry that Democrats will not be willing to risk getting blamed for a shutdown. If this is right, Democrats will have little leverage in budget negotiations, and they will not be able to enforce any deals they strike with Trump and congressional Repulicans.
I believe it is unlikely that Democrats would be held responsible for a shutdown. The most important reason is that the reputations of the two parties will help the Democrats in the war for public opinion. Democrats are widely perceived as the party that wants to keep government open, and Republicans are quite rightly seen as the party of shutdowns. Democrats are also perceived as weak and amenable to compromise, while Republicans are seen as strong and committed to standing by their often unpopular principles. The perceived weakness of Democrats is a big part of their overall branding problem, but their reputation as compromisers will work in their favor in the event of a shutdown.
Beyond this key point about reputations, two other factors will work in favor of the Democrats. One is the unpopularity of the Trump agenda. Democrats will be on the right side of public opinion if they insist on safeguarding elections, reining in ICE, limiting the use of troops or National Guard units for domestic purposes, and funding scientific research. And if Trump reneges on a budget deal and Democrats refuse to extend funding until he complies, Democrats can emphasize that they are only asking Trump and the Republicans to honor their commitments.
The upshot is that Democrats would likely win a funding standoff in the court of public opinion. They should not hesitate to use their leverage in the ways I suggested in my previous post.
I admire your optimism about Democrats’ behavior…
Second that …
I am not optimistic about the Democrats’ behavior, but I am trying in my small way to persuade them that they can stand up to Trump and congressional Republicans.
Unlike in March, Democrats have warned Republicans they will not assist in passage of a one-sided Republican funding bill. They said, “The government funding issue must be resolved in a bipartisan way. That is the only viable path forward,” Schumer and Jeffries on August 28th… The Sept. 30th funding deadline will be upon us shortly. It is therefore imperative that we immediately meet upon our return to Congress next week to discuss the need to avert a painful, unnecessary lapse in government funding and to address the healthcare crisis Republicans have triggered in America. . . It is past time you reveal your plans to meet the needs of the American people. Otherwise, it is clear that you have abandoned bipartisanship altogether and are preparing to shut down the government.”
It’s not looking good for any bipartisan negotiations on a budget bill as Trump is now making new budget demands including using a rare “pocket rescission” to claw back roughly $5 billion from the U.S. State Department and U.S. Agency for International Development, according to the New York Post. These demands will most certainly be rejected by Democrats.
It’s looking like a government shutdown is inevitable. So the blame game will begin soon, and the uncertainty of Trump’s expanded authorities during a shutdown loom large.
During a government shutdown, the executive branch gains expanded authority to decide which government functions are “essential” and which programs are halted due to a lack of appropriations. While this is a standing power, reports indicate that a second Trump administration would use a shutdown as a tool to advance specific policy goals by defunding parts of the federal government. This differs from previous shutdowns by leveraging the pause in government funding to implement long-term policy and organizational changes, based on concepts laid out by the Heritage Foundation’s “Project 2025”
@McJ,
Thanks for this thoughtful comment.
There were never any serious bipartisan negotiations. There were only two choices: complete capitulation by Senate Democrats or appeals to Trump’s SCOTUS, which will certainly overturn separation of powers.
Let the Trump GOP run on this next November. Not clear that gerrymandering will save them.
Actually, there’s a third path. The GOP Senate could abolish the filibuster.
The headline doesn’t pose a very serious question in my opinion. The answer is always going to be yes for some people and no for others. You can dismiss my opinion if you like, but pretty confident that filibusters work when those filibustering are highly indifferent to anything happening. The filibuster kills things far better than it shapes them. The margin in the House is so thin, that if the House passes something the idea that Republican Senators can take the initiative to make possibly significant changes seems dubious. Dems should concentrate on the House side of this. In fact, there is a good argument that Senate Dems should already say they won’t filibuster.
@Eric,
Sounds like you don’t understand why the Democrats are threatening to filibuster the budget. The threat of a filibuster isn’t to “shape” things or to make “significant changes.” The threat of a filibuster is to stop the budget process until Republicans, who are in the majority in both houses, come up with a mechanism that satisfies Senate Democrats that money appropriated by Congress will get spent for the purpose it was appropriated instead of being stolen by Trump for his own purposes.
Filibusters work when when those filibustering are highly concerned to prevent harm from happening.
Hope that helps.
Replying just seems to get a Cloudflare error too often for me to use it. Anyway, however you describe what Democrats want out of this, I presume not ever having a 25/26 Budget passed isn’t the intent. But that’s what filibusters are well-designed to achieve. The threat of a Democratic filibuster in the Senate if the House has passed something that 50 Republicans publicly say they’ll vote for is very weak. My main point is try to get whatever is possible in the House. Way easier for a Republican Senate to wait out a Democratic filibuster than rewrite a House bill that had some Democratic input. Eric’s idea of “blame” is almost out of date, because the parties only worry about their internal cohesion plus Republicans are not likely to believe major polling on the question anyway.
Eric:
When you try to comment. Wait till it approves. Be patient,
I am a very strong advocate for bipartisanship. I have spent my entire adult life attempting to work toward cooperation and compromise in politics and my professional endeavors. There are so many problems and issues that need resolution if this country is to move forward and respect the Constitution and the rule of law.
These problems and issues all have solutions that could be acceptable to a significant majority of the public if they could be approached in a legitimate, fact-based manner with principled parties and a desire to find workable solutions.
Political divisiveness was a problem before Trump, and bipartisanship was not easy then. It has now moved far beyond its difficult and historic past. Trump and spineless Congressional Republicans have destroyed the concept of bipartisanship. Trust, facts, and principled behavior are no longer the foundation of cooperation and compromise needed to find real solutions to complex problems.
Bipartisanship is dead in America. Now, there is only one side to every issue and problem. That is the side of facts, the Constitution, and the Rule of Law. One side believes in it, and the other does not. The American public and American businesses must pick their side.
@JP
Would you say that bipartisanship was alive and well back in 1860?
Definitely not! While my comment was generally referring to modern times, maybe you’re saying I should still have hope. I will hold on to that hope for some time in the future, but bipartisanship is definitely dead in today’s political environment. Without it there are no good solutions to the complex issues the country faces.
@JP,
Considering that the reconciliation in the decades that followed 1860 involved a Civil War, I’m not sure “hope” is the word I would choose.
I don’t see anything in the political differences today that compares to slavery. Slavery was more of an economic system; the only way to end it was to expropriate what would be billions in today’s dollars. Mostly what divides America today is the Trump Cult of personality.