An Entirely too-early Assessment of the Senate Shutdown Deal/Vote
Democrats may have over-performed on policy and underperformed on politics.
Eight Democrats broke ranks to invoke cloture on a bipartisan deal that includes a continuing resolution (CR), three appropriations bills, provision blocking federal layoffs, reversing previous shutdown RIFs, and a vote on ACA subsidies in December.
While this is a positive development for the country, (disclaimer: shutdowns are, actually, bad for a lot of reasons.) the Democratic base is furious with Schumer for failing to prevent defections. The reality is leaders only have so much leverage. Members are free agents. They are not required or obligated to back their party or listen to their leaders. Just look at Senator Rand Paul (R-KY). Leaders can pressure, convince, or persuade their members, but they cannot force them to go along.
This is particularly true when the party line impacts members’ political and electoral fortunes. With a government shutdown, it was only a matter of time before members’ constituent concerns came in tension with the party line. There has been a serious under appreciation of the pressure members have felt for the last 40 days. Despite attempts to ameliorate the effects of the shutdown – like (probably illegally) moving defense funds to pay troops, filing lawsuits to maintain SNAP distributions despite shutdown, requiring unpaid federal workers to work – the pain is real. Members situated between constituents and the federal government are perhaps the most acutely aware of the shutdown’s impact. It was only a matter of time before constituent pressure became substantial. In this light, it is unsurprising eight Democrats broke ranks after 40-plus days, particularly since the real number of senators privately hoping to reopen to government is probably closer to 20.
This puts Schumer’s “power” in perspective. Legislative leaders are not magicians. They cannot block members from breaking ranks or force them to vote in ways they do not want. Congressional leaders are in the business of finding strategic paths forward within the political constraints of their caucus. Their power exists within the realm of what their members will allow or tolerate. When half of the caucus privately wants the government to reopen, it makes sense that Schumer not stand in the way of negotiations or block political insulated members (aka, not up for reelection) from voting for the deal. For someone who was reluctant to shut down the government, Schumer handled the shutdown about as well as he could but he was playing with a losing hand all along.
Democrats’ frustration likely stems from high expectations and a sense they were winning. Many Democrats clearly believe they could win $35b in healthcare subsidies from Republican majorities in Congress. This is a very tall order given (1) the history of shutdowns, and (2) this Congress. Shutdowns are losers. In the 1996 shutdown, Republicans won nothing. In the 2013 shutdown, Republicans won basically nothing.1 In the 2018-19 shutdown, Republicans won nothing. Shutdowns have never been an effective way to win policy. Additionally, this Congress offers several reasons to temper expectations further. In the Senate, it’s possible fewer than a majority of Republicans would support to extend the subsidies. In the House, Johnson might not even be able to bring that deal to the floor without igniting a speakership coup, particularly with President Trump on the sidelines. Yet, there is a sense the Democratic base bought their own messaging. Now, the disappointment of failing a (unwinnable) standoff is roiling the same base that originally clamored for historically failed legislative tactic.
This has kind of blurred the fact that the deal is better than expected! Democrats won more policy than usual in these circumstances. They negotiated bipartisan appropriations bills that prevented deep cuts to many agencies in the crosshairs, like GAO. The deal would reverse and backdate RIFs done by the administration during the shutdown. It guarantees vote on healthcare in a month’s time. This is fairly impressive. It’s not often that the minority party successfully implements some spending wins, takes back some personnel power, and forces a costly political vote for their opponents in a single swoop. It’s likely Republicans unexpectedly poor polling during the shutdown and Democrats sizable win in last Tuesday’s elections affected these concessions. And while it may feel like a drop in the bucket compared to the ocean of complaints Democrats have with this administration, it is a better return than one might expect given the history of shutdowns.
However, if there is one place where this shutdown may have been a complete failure, it’s the politics of coalition management. This is essentially the reason we are here in the first place. After failing to force a shutdown in March, public support for Schumer and Democrats cratered. Caving again could have been politically disastrous. In many ways, Schumer and Senate Democrats needed to demonstrate their opposition even if the odds of success were low. But this shutdown will possibly leave the base angrier than before. Democrats unexpectedly strong performance in the polls and on election day might have supercharged the belief the minority party could beat the Republican majority and administration despite lacking the votes to do so in Congress. If the shutdown ends with a fervent base holding expectations their leaders can never deliver, then Schumer’s attempt at coalition management may have dramatically backfired. Shutdowns are almost always evidence of unrest in a political base. But it appears, for now, that Democrats’ path out of the shutdown may have fed the fire rather than quell it.
Republicans got a very minor provision that tightened income verification language.