On Thursday, Senate Democrats once again extended the federal government shutdown, marking the tenth time this has occurred. They also voted against military funding, prompting the Pentagon to adopt creative accounting methods to ensure service members receive timely pay.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., defended this latest decision, asserting, “It’s always unacceptable for Democrats to do a defense bill without other bills that have so many things that are so important to the American people in health care, housing, and safety.” However, many Americans might find such statements exaggerated. Common-sense individuals likely realize that compensating American service members shouldn’t be entangled in complex debates over housing policies.
As Senator John Fetterman (D-Pa.) noted earlier this week, “If you’re thinking about winning elections, it’s all down to seven or eight states now… And a lot of the things, the extremism that people turned away from in ’24, and that’s why we’ve kind of run out.” This seems like good advice. Still, Fetterman’s position may put him at a disadvantage in the upcoming Senate primary; he stands out as one of the rare rational voices in a sea of extreme opinions.
It’s puzzling why Democrats, lacking control of Congress or the presidency, continue to prolong a shutdown battle. At the core, it likely revolves around disagreements regarding expiring Obamacare subsidies and Medicaid coverage, especially linked to the topic of illegal immigration.
This situation leads to real-world consequences: air traffic control is facing dangerous staffing shortages, national parks are understaffed, and military personnel might be expected to work without pay—all because some Democrats argue for increased funding aimed at medical aid for illegal immigrants.
The negotiating position seems surprisingly weak. Minority parties typically don’t get what they’re after in impactful budget negotiations or shutdowns, especially when they are out of power. There’s little expectation for Republicans to yield to these pressures. As the shutdown progresses, public opinion on who is responsible is ostensibly swinging toward Democrats as the more accountable party.
With the shutdown entering its third week, the intentions of Schumer and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries seem unclear. They won’t prevail, and the longer they continue, the more precarious their political standing becomes.
Democrats appear to be struggling to find their footing.
When it comes to illegal immigration, public sentiment leans heavily against it. A recent Harvard-Harris poll revealed that 56% of registered voters favor deporting all illegal immigrants, while 78% support deporting those who commit crimes. On the contentious issue of taxpayer subsidies for what some term “gender-affirming care,” another poll showed that 66% of Americans oppose it. The outlook on biological males competing in women’s sports is even more unfavorable.
Illegal immigration and gender issues probably rank as two of the least favorable topics for Democrats at the moment. Yet these issues are at the forefront of the ongoing budget debates.
Sun Tzu, the famous ancient military strategist, taught that victory can often be secured before a fight by choosing the right battleground. President Donald Trump, a savvy figure in branding and marketing, often excels in framing issues effectively, something this commentary refers to as “the art of the 80/20 problem.” Democrats seem to be inadvertently aiding his cause by aligning with a clearly losing side.
So, what’s going on?
A rational political entity focused on self-preservation would probably take a different route. Such a group would move away from its post-2008 fixation on identity politics and return to more core messages about economic growth and cultural relevance.
Despite Trump’s significant wins in critical battleground states last November, the Democratic leadership’s apparent failure to adopt such a strategy shows a disconnect with reality. At present, the Democratic Party seems driven more by ideological beliefs than by tangible evidence or public sentiment.
One reason Trump attracted considerable support during the contentious 2016 Republican primaries is that he often avoided relying on abstract ideologies. He engaged with the American public as they are and aimed to meet their needs.
It might be beneficial for the Democratic Party to consider a similar approach.
