Are Democrats Doomed to Lose the Shutdown?

Congressional leaders aren’t built to win public opinion.

Democrats are on the cusp of a shutdown. Their base demands a fight. Congressional leaders appear ready to appease them. However, as Lee Drutman points out, Democrats face a problem. They must win public opinion to win a shutdown and they do not look well poised to do that. Looking beyond personal rhetorical abilities, congressional Democrats face another problem. They lack the kind of leadership that would enable the bold, public-opinion-defining standoff their base clamors for.

A fight for public opinion revolves around argumentation and persuasion. Politicians expand the scope of conflict, divide the opposition, manipulate issues the public gives attention to, and otherwise shape the public debate. The art is as old as the republic itself and the masters of it highlight the pages of American history books. Lincoln, FDR, Reagan, and Obama had a gift for capturing the public’s attention and often moving it in their direction (but sometimes not).

However, this not congressional leaders’ natural home. Leaders in Congress are internal politics savants. They excel at coalitional tasks that manage, balance, or otherwise maintain party interests and relationships. This involves gladhanding the network of party actors, ironing out disputes within the party, fundraising, member management, legislative strategy, and balancing factional interests in the party. They win their jobs by making the most people in the party happy; or, at a bare minimum, alienating the fewest.

Shaping public opinion has not historically been congressional leaders’ forte, at least not since the antebellum congresses. The eloquence of Henry Clay was no longer necessary after the formalization of political alliances into political parties. We have to look back nearly a century to find speaker you could label “eloquent.”¹ Instead, modern speakers are better known for their public relations limitations. Denny Hastert excelled at remaining almost anonymous while occupying the third-most powerful position in American politics. Nancy Pelosi press conferences took a kitchen-sink approach to regurgitating platitudes. Paul Ryan press conferences often pretended he knew almost nothing, had made no decisions, and read no presidential tweets. John Boehner had a way of grabbing headlines but never successfully won the public relations crises his conference thrust him into. Likewise, nobody turned to Harry Reid, Mitch McConnell, Tom Daschle, or Bill Frist as the torchbearers to shape public arguments in their days. This is not to say public politics is unimportant for congressional leaders. But it is not the main reason congressional leaders win their jobs or keep them.

The reason is waging public opinion battles carries more risk than reward. The most effective communicator in modern congressional leadership was Speaker Newt Gingrich. He spent the 1980s developing a novel political style for Republicans. He helped lead the party back to the majority for first time in 40 years with intentionally public tactics, which included authoring the Contract with America. He was unquestionably the most media savvy Speaker in generations. But it is instructive he was ousted after a short tenure in office. Gingrich boldly led his party into multiple public opinion standoffs – most prominently a government shutdown and impeachment of President Clinton. Both turned out to be debacles for his party and his colleagues forced him out in quick fashion after finding a fairly convenient “scandal” as cover.

Bold public leadership undermined Gingrich’s coalition. Congressional leaders’ coalitional goals often exist in tension with public relations. Taking a bold stance on a shutdown, for example, can anger members who wish to avoid one. Willfully imperiling the reelection of members will turn them you. These risks are the reasons leaders so frequently speak in platitudes, feign ignorance, and dodge questions.

This is where Democrats face a fundamental problem as they close the government. The goal of the shutdown exists in tension with the goals of their congressional leaders. The base wants to win public opinion while congressional leaders want to avoid defections in their ranks. This disjuncture has resulted in a haphazard – at best – plan. Leaders have attempted to reframe the shutdown as a fight over healthcare tax credits while the base clamors for a showdown over impoundments, national guard mobilizations, freedom of speech, ICE activities, and more. This is not shaping up to be the ultimate public opinion battle many shutdown proponents seek but instead a chaotic scramble to find the words for their opposition. Congressional leaders cannot singlehandedly unify divided parties.

No party ever won a shutdown. The only hope of doing so would be a resounding shift in public opinion away from the party in power. But for Democrats, as a minority party with only congressional leaders to steer the ship, that may not be in the cards.

1. Speaker Reed was known for his biting wit and sarcasm, which frequently leveled his opponents, but he was not known as the kind of public leader that shifted public opinion. Indeed, he had to graciously retire after his positions on tariffs and state expansion fell out of favor in his party.