The Grand Illusion
The last time there was a possibility of a government shutdown, the Democrats gave in and attempted to work out something. The result?
The Republicans pushed through Trump’s “Big, Beautiful Bill,” with the result that less affluent families will get stuck with less (and in some cases no) healthcare, or much higher health insurance premiums, while the wealthiest of Americans got massive tax cuts, and the poorest essentially got none.
Now the Republicans are saying, “Stop the shutdown, and only then will we negotiate.”
The last time the Democrats agreed to that, they got rolled – badly. The Republicans have no real desire to negotiate, and the odds are that, even if they do, they’ll screw the Democrats.
In a special election in late September, Arizona elected Adelita Grijalva, a Democrat, as a replacement representative from Arizona. That was almost a month ago. Mike Johnson, the Speaker of the House, refuses to swear her in until he reconvenes the full House, but he’s already sworn in three Republican replacement representatives this year, immediately after their election without bringing the House into session. Yet Johnson has vowed not to seat Grijalva until the shutdown is over.
So why on earth would the Democrats want to give up the only power they have right now and trust Johnson and the Republicans?
They shouldn’t, though I’m often surprised at the self-destructive moves by the democrats. They are so bad at messaging that I have a terrible fear they’ll end up painted into a corner by the far louder right and have to give in eventually. But maybe they’ll stay the course, which would at least show their voters that they are capable of using what little power they have.
The Dems are deplorable at messaging, possibly because governing does not present simple problems or solutions. For the greater good, the Dems should stick it out despite short term pain.
“ The Dems … should stick it out despite short term pain.”
Even the AI states: “Attributing the national debt (or any other state of the union) over the last two decades primarily to a single party is inaccurate, as both Republican and Democratic actions, along with major economic crises, have contributed significantly. Spending on tax cuts and wars, typically led by Republicans, and spending on stimulus packages and entitlements, typically led by Democrats, are the main drivers of the increase.”
So, given that “… governing does not present simple problems or solutions.” Why should we think that our standard of living will not decrease and that such would not last for generations?
Yes the Dems/Repubs might get what they want by ‘sticking it out’ but they should also do an equivalent of a long term Project 2025 to ensure our survival without Total War in the short term. As the LEGALIST demonstrated only Acts achieve ends: not messaging (important as messaging to the opponent may be)
I agree that both Republicans and Democrats have contributed to the national debt. That’s not the issue here. Our system should work on compromise, but the Republicans are currently trying to govern without Democrat input. The shutdown is the only real tool the Democrats have to force Republicans to compromise. I don’t particularly care which issue the Democrats use to justify the shutdown publicly, except that it needs to resonate with the public.
We do not have three political parties in the US Congress: if we did government shutdown would be less likely because of the Rule of Three Theory? (I could not find the answer in Legalist)
But wait! We have The US Constitution of Three Powers and the associated Checks and Balances … so how did we get into this mess in the first place?
We have people and groups and States who cannot or will not trust each other because of past behavior. We, as individual sovereignties know that we cannot trust each other to abide by rules, laws, and certainly not any signed document or voiced oath.
Quite a Gordian Knot which our President, Congress and Superior Court cannot cut with violence and have no desire to cut with cooperation in such a way as to maintain quality of living for the citizens of the US.
Even a written Constitution like the USA relies on what’s been called “the good chap theory of government ” – ie that those with power will do the right thing and follow the law (USA) or precedent (UK). But there isn’t any place in either system for someone who has to (eg) enforce the rulings of the Supreme Court if the President/PM refuses to carry them out
I’m just sorry that, in any shutdown, they don’t furlough the White House staff, the janitors in Congressional buildings, etc.
I’m convinced shutdowns would be shorter if those with the power to end them suffered too.
The Vatican reduced rations to the cardinals in order to expedite selection of a new Pope. Maybe a good model.