A Critique of Matt Yglesias’s Defense of Chuck Schumer

Look, I just read Matt Yglesias's Substack post defending Chuck Schumer's decision to pass that GOP bill to avoid a government shutdown, and it was… just very weak.

Here's the article

The Shutdown vs. DOGE False Choice

Yglesias makes this point:

If the problem with DOGE is they are laying off workers and curtailing programs that are vital and important, a shutdown also does those things!

But this misses the entire point! If both outcomes lead to the same result, why cave to Republican demands? It's like saying, "Well, we're going to get punched in the face either way, so we might as well just lie down on the ground first." Where's the strategy in that?

Under the circumstances of an appropriations lapse, Trump and Musk can just furlough 100 percent of the federal workers they would like to lay off and declare whoever they don't want to lay off "essential," and they've already achieved their endgame.

Let's be real here, Trump already has massive power to reshape the federal bureaucracy. The Supreme Court has shown itself to be practically toothless when it comes to restraining him, even when he wasn't President. And they're certainly not going to start now. Any meaningful constraints would need to come from Congress, which, frankly, seems terrified of its own shadow right now.

Because the federal workers at the epicenter of the pushback against DOGE would all be either furloughed or else working without pay, pressure to cave to Trump would soon be coming from the very people Democrats are trying to help.

Again, this is a lose-lose framing that ignores the bigger picture. Yes, federal workers would feel pain during a shutdown, that's undeniable. But sometimes leadership means taking a difficult stand even when it hurts in the short term. When House Democrats strongly oppose the bill while Senate Democrats rush to pass it, what message does that send? It screams, "We don't actually believe in anything we're saying!" Voters see right through that kind of inconsistency.

Senior Trump officials have signaled, repeatedly, that they want to challenge the constitutionality of the Impoundment Control Act of 1974. If the Supreme Court sides with them about that, then no additional legislation would change anything. If the Supreme Court rejects Trump's argument, then much of this is taken care of right there.

Are we seriously supposed to sit on our hands and wait for the Supreme Court to save us? That's a bridge we'll cross when (and if) we ever get there. DOGE is unlawful(and unpopular) that should be our north star and our unwavering position. Pick a principle and stick with it.

The fact is, Democrats lost the election in November. They lost the White House. The lost the House. They lost the Senate

This attitude absolutely infuriates me. It. Does. Not. Matter. You can't worry about parliamentary niceties and political decorum while the other side is gleefully setting fire to democratic norms. Democrats have the filibuster, a powerful tool that Republicans have wielded without hesitation whenever it suited them. Why the reluctance to use it now when the stakes are so high? All this keeps demonstrating to the voters is that Trump is not actually a fascist to the Democrats, or else they'd use every tool available to them to stop him.

The Strategic Case for Standing Firm

Think about nuclear deterrence for a moment (bear with me here). If the United States repeatedly showed it was unwilling to retaliate while Russia detonated nuclear weapons in American cities, what would stop Russia from eventually wiping us off the map?

That's essentially what's happening in Congress. Republicans have repeatedly shut down the government when it serves their purposes. If Democrats consistently refuse to do the same, they're just incentivizing more Republican brinkmanship. It's Politics 101: don't take your most powerful tools off the table before negotiations even begin.

This whole mess reinforces the frustrating perception that Democrats are in disarray. Voters are left wondering, "Why did Democrats fight this in the House but roll over in the Senate?" It's painfully obvious to any observer that this shows a party without conviction.

What we needed was a wake-up call – something to jolt the American public into seeing the realities of the Trump administration's approach to governance. The connection between DOGE and a government shutdown would have been clear and compelling.

Let's also be honest about political memory: any electoral blowback would come 20 months from now – an eternity for American voters. By then, this will be ancient history. Meanwhile, standing firm would show Republicans that Democrats actually have a spine, potentially forcing them back to the negotiating table to hammer out a legitimate compromise.

DOGE itself isn't even the central issue anymore. It's already unpopular and Trump is quietly scaling it back because the public hates it. The real problem is Congress failing to act as an effective check on presidential power. A shutdown would force this constitutional issue to the forefront.

And let's not forget, an extended shutdown would be just as uncomfortable for Republicans. Both sides would feel the pressure to reach a genuine solution rather than this one-sided capitulation.

Sometimes you have to be willing to weather a storm to demonstrate your principles. This was one of those moments, and I'm fucking disappointed we blinked first.