Today’s edition will be delivered to your inbox on Veterans Day, 2025. To all veterans who have served and sacrificed, thank you for bringing us safely to this moment in our nation’s history. My Daily Dose of Perspective is a reflection on the thousands of US soldiers who gave their lives in two pivotal battles in France in WWI.
Before turning to the vote in the Senate to approve a continuing resolution, the good news of the day is worth celebrating: The US Supreme Court denied review of a case that could have overturned Obergefell v. Hodges, which recognized federal protection for same-sex marriages.
The case under consideration for review was poorly positioned as a vehicle to overrule Obergefell, so a grant of review by the Supreme Court would have been an ominous sign. See Mark Joseph Stern, Slate, The real reason Kim Davis never stood a chance at the Supreme Court. Instead, Obergefell seems safe for now, unless Trump manages to replace another liberal justice on the Supreme Court.
However, the Supreme Court did grant review of a case that seeks to prohibit counting mail ballots that arrive after Election Day. See Reuters, US Supreme Court to hear Republican bid to limit counting of mail-in ballots. The case involves a challenge to a Mississippi state law that allows a five-day grace period for mail ballots arriving after Election Day to be counted, so long as they are postmarked on or before Election Day. More on this development tomorrow.
Lessons learned?
Few issues have generated as much comment from readers as the decision by “centrist” Senate Democrats to support the re-opening of the government with a “clean” continuing resolution. Late Monday evening, the second vote necessary to reopen the government passed with support from eight Democratic Senators. See NYTimes, Senate Passes Bill to End Government Shutdown:
The Senate, with the help of Democratic defectors, passed a bill to end the longest government shutdown without the health insurance subsidies Democrats long demanded. The earliest the House will vote is Wednesday.
About 80% of the comments I received were outraged by the decision by Democrats, and 20% suggested that grassroots activists shouldn’t be upset or were overreacting to the development. Several readers criticized me for not urging calm and perspective in the face of the decision by centrist Democratic Senators to reopen the government without obtaining concessions from Republicans.
In today’s newsletter, I refer readers to several other sources that analyze the decision by Democratic Senators—to ensure that all viewpoints are covered. However, I would also like to consider what lessons should be learned from this misadventure.
But first, I urge caution for those who are telling others to “calm down.” The rage and despair run deep. Trying to calm someone by (re-)explaining the details of the deal (they know) or predicting the political consequences in future elections (speculation) is not a winning argument to someone who is considering quitting the fight after a lifetime of activism. If you don’t understand why people are deeply upset, you may be missing an important moment in American political history.
As I wrote yesterday, we will survive this moment; indeed, we must choose to rise above it. But that does not mean that the outrage people feel is irrelevant. Instead, it must be respected as an important signal about where the Democratic electorate is heading, what it wants from its leaders, and how it expects its leaders will deal with the party faithful who are fueling the redemption of American democracy.
Articles and posts urging Democrats to “get over it” miss the moment. Yes, we will prevail in the end, converting our anger into ballots. But something important happened on Sunday, and it wasn’t the decision of eight Democratic Senators to vote to reopen the government. It was the feeling of betrayal among millions of people who have been defending democracy with every ounce of effort they can muster. We ignore that important development at our peril.
Jay Kuo wrote a longer, more reflective piece about the reaction to the surrender by eight Democrats in his Substack essay, The Surrender Caucus, The Status Kuo. While Jay’s sentiments align with mine, he arrives at the same place with greater exposition and nuance. I think he captures more of the context of the deal and its impact on Democratic faithful. So, if you are one of the readers who believed my reaction was “too fiery,” give the arguments a second chance with Jay Kuo. (Fair warning, Jay does use a powerful metaphor that some may find distasteful.)
A couple of dozen readers said that they found Josh Marshall’s analysis in Talking Points Memo to be “calming.” See Josh Marshall, Talking Points Memo, A Quick Take on Team Cave’s Big Win. I think Josh Marshall is the most astute political observer in America (I am a paying subscriber to his TPM Prime). So it is not surprising to me that people find his take to be reassuring. This is one of the few times I disagree with Josh, but many readers find his words comforting, so I recommend his article. Check out his analysis, above, which includes:
There was a legitimate party rebellion after the March debacle. Democratic voters demanded fight. When the time came, Democrats fought. They held out for 40 days, the longest shutdown standoff in history. They put health care at the center of the national political conversation and inflicted a lot of damage on Trump. At 40 days they could no longer hold their caucus together. And we got this.
That’s a sea change in how the party functions in Congress. And that’s a big deal. Many people see it as some kind of epic disaster and are making all the standard threats about not voting or not contributing or whatever. That’s just not what I see. It’s a big change in the direction of the fight we need in the years to come that just didn’t go far enough. Yet.
And then there is Senator Tim Kaine’s letter to his constituents that explains his decision to end the shutdown. It is a vigorous defense of his vote and should be the best explanation of why at least one Senator agreed to the compromise. I can’t find a “link” to Kaine’s letter to his constituents, so I quote it at length below (as provided to me by one of Kaine’s constituents.)
From Senator Tim Kaine to his constituents:
Friends,
Last night I voted for a deal to reopen the government, and I want you to hear directly from me about why.
I said from the start that to earn my vote, we needed to be on a path toward fixing Republicans’ health care mess, and we needed to protect the federal workforce.
I voted “no” with my Democratic colleagues for 40 days because the GOP didn’t put anything on the table I could in good conscience vote “yes” on.
But over those 40 days, 2 million federal employees — and more than 300,000 in Virginia — were suffering. They missed two paychecks, with another around the corner. These workers, along with the millions of federal contractors who have been going without pay, have families that depend on them.
Beyond the pain of missing paychecks, hundreds of thousands of furloughed workers were wondering if they were next in line to be fired by Trump.
Tens of millions of SNAP recipients were going without benefits they rely on to put food on the table.
Air traffic was suffering nationwide — with real safety dangers.
And after 40 days, there was still no path to an Affordable Care Act vote. Republicans would not even debate an ACA fix until the government reopened — period.
So, we negotiated for what we could get.
Senator Kaine then goes on to explain what he means by “what we could get.” Those details are public, so I won’t repeat them at length here, but generally, they included a promise to vote on healthcare subsidies in the Senate, a promise to rehire federal workers and pay back pay for furloughed employees, and a promise to advance three (of twelve) appropriations bills to the Senate floor for a vote (Veterans, FDA, and congressional operations).
In addition to the above, many readers wrote to explain that the shutdown was a success because Trump suffered in the polls (true) and that Democrats would be able to keep the healthcare issue alive even if they can’t reinstate ACA subsidies (true). The most frequent comment from those who supported ending the shutdown was that federal workers and SNAP recipients were suffering, and we needed to put an end to that situation as soon as possible.
The reactions to the shutdown seem to split along this divide:
First, those who view the shutdown mainly as a political fight focused on healthcare premiums, missed paychecks, and SNAP subsidies. It is true that the shutdown ultimately revolved around those issues. Analyzing the results of the shutdown in relation to those issues supports the conclusion that ending the shutdown was a reasonable outcome.
Second, those who see the shutdown as a fight to constrain the lawless regime of Donald Trump. They do not see the issue merely as a battle over healthcare subsidies, missed paychecks, and SNAP benefits. They see those issues as surrogates for a much larger fight: Exercising some control in Congress over Trump by wielding the power of the filibuster. Healthcare was the vehicle. Congress’s authority under Article I was the point.
I have gone on too long without getting to my thesis, which is “Lessons Learned? But before addressing that point, a few paragraphs of perspective are necessary.
Republicans were asking Democrats to fund the ongoing operation of a government in which Trump ignores congressional spending mandates and raises his own funds through illegal taxes (tariffs). He is using the military to kill non-combatant civilians in international waters. He is using the National Guard to illegally occupy our cities. He is using a private army of masked ICE agents to gang-tackle law-abiding citizens and residents alike while firing pepper spray pellets at peaceful protesters. He has converted the DOJ into his private law firm to persecute his political enemies and faithful servants of the law who were doing their duty.
That is the government that Republicans were asking Democrats to fund on an ongoing basis through a clean continuing resolution. Democrats would have been within their rights to say, “Trump is violating the Constitution every day; we won’t vote for continuing funding that merely perpetuates that unlawful regime.”
Democrats picked healthcare subsidies as a line in the sand, as one example of restraining Trump. They vowed to fight to the bitter end over that issue.
Trump responded by taking hostages. He illegally fired federal workers during the shutdown in violation of federal law. He threatened not to pay back pay to furloughed workers in violation of federal law. He ordered the Senate and the House not to pass the FDA appropriations bill (which could have been done any time during the shutdown), so that SNAP beneficiaries would be denied food aid.
Trump took those hostages in flagrant violation of federal law—and was losing every court battle over his illegal policies. But in taking the hostages, he calculated that, sooner or later, Democrats would be overwhelmed by the suffering he was unlawfully inflicting on innocent hostages and capitulate to prevent further suffering.
Trump was correct in his calculation. Read Tim Kaine’s explanation to his constituents about why he supported the end of the shutdown. In essence, Tim Kaine claims he was rescuing hostages being illegally held by Trump.
So, with that background, the question is, “What lessons were learned as a result of the shutdown?”
I offer my take on that question below and invite readers to add theirs in the Comment section.
Trump learned that taking hostages works, even when doing so violates federal law.
Trump learned that centrist Democrats are the weak link in the Senate and can be forced to fold simply by refusing to negotiate.
Trump learned that he can continue to illegally withhold funds and raise illegal taxes without fear of restraint from Congress.
Congressional Republicans learned that refusing to negotiate with Democrats is a wildly successful strategy.
Grassroots activists and party faithful learned that their hard work in defending democracy is taken for granted by most of their elected representatives.
To be clear, those are lessons that the respective parties will carry with them for future battles. Those lessons do not attempt to capture the partisan political consequences. I agree that Trump suffered significant political damage. I agree that Democrats raised the issue of healthcare to new levels of visibility. I agree that Republicans are more likely to be seen as ruthless and uncaring.
But in terms of the threat to our democracy, the clear result of the capitulation is that Trump will be emboldened. His unlawful intransigence was—once again—rewarded with victory.
The agreement to re-open the government was not “cost-free.” Yes, federal workers and SNAP beneficiaries will receive what they were due under the law.
But other victims will continue to suffer as a result of an unrestrained, lawless Trump, who has learned that he cannot be constrained by reluctant Democrats: The citizens and residents being harassed by ICE; the researchers whose projects have been illegally defunded by unlawful impoundment of funds; the loyal federal agents and attorneys who are being fired every day because they worked on cases involving Trump; the federal employees and military members who are being forced out of their jobs because of the racist assumption that they were “DEI” hires not qualified for their positions.
Yes, the federal employees and SNAP benefit hostages deserve our concern and support. But so do the rule of law and the Constitution. So do the ongoing victims of Trump’s lawless regime, who are now more likely to be persecuted by an emboldened Trump, who just learned (once again) that Senate Democrats are paper tigers.
The deal to reopen the government was not merely upside for federal employees and SNAP recipients. It inflicted grievous damage on our republic by teaching Trump that he can beat the Democratic establishment in Congress by taking. hostages and refusing to negotiate.
We, the people, are the last bulwark. We always have been, and we always will be. It is time for us to take our democracy into our own hands and declare, “Enough! No further.” And then, we must not back down.
CODA: Indivisible’s response.
The leaders of Indivisible have responded to the deal to reopen the government with this statement: See Ezra Levin on Substack: Democratic leaders failed us again.” Time to get some new leaders.
Levin writes,
By surrendering so utterly and completely at a moment of their maximum leverage and momentum, Senate Democrats teach Trump an important lesson: do enough damage, and your opponents will buckle.
This is an extremely dangerous lesson for Trump to learn as he ramps up his attacks on blue states and cities and prepares to steal the midterm elections. Because of this surrender, our democracy is more imperiled now than it was before.
Levin also addresses the effect of the surrender on Democratic faithful:
Senate Democrats surrendered when they had maximum leverage and were winning the fight. This surrender came weeks after the largest protest in American history, and days after the best election night in a decade or more. The public opinion polling showed Democrats were winning the fight, and the party’s own approval ratings were rising in response to them keeping up the fight. [¶]
If the Senate leadership’s goal was to demobilize and depress rank-and-file Democrats, they could not have played their cards better.
Indivisible’s leadership proposes the following program to mount primary challenges to Democratic leadership in the Senate and Democratic Senators who refuse to fight alongside the grassroots activists sustaining democracy in this perilous moment.
The only path to a real opposition party is through a cleansing primary season.
We will not back any Senate primary candidate unless they call for Schumer to step down as Minority Leader.
And after the primary, whatever happens, we will rally behind the winner, and crush the regime electorally in the midterms just like we did this last week.
There is much more to Indivisible’s letter, and I urge you to read it all. More than any other grassroots group, Indivisible has been instrumental in rallying the American people to defend democracy. While not the only voice in the resistance, Indivisible’s voice should be regarded as representing a large swath of American citizens who are the last line of defense for democracy
Opportunity for Reader Engagement
Join Sister District in Fight for our Future: States Win, Sister District’s post election debrief
From Virginia to Mississippi to Minnesota, Sister District volunteers powered incredible victories across the map—flipping seats, defending majorities and breaking supermajorities, and proving once again that when we organize in the states, we win. Now it’s time to come together, reflect on everything we accomplished, and channel that energy toward what’s next. We’ll share stories from the field, hear from Sister District leaders and special guests to celebrate the grassroots power that made these wins possible.
Our work for 2026 is already underway, and this is the moment to deepen it, sharpen it, and charge into the next cycle with even more focus and fire. Hear from Sister District leaders, elected officials, and alumni about what’s next in the states and how you can help turn today’s momentum into lasting power.
When: November 13 at 8:00 pm Eastern/ 5:00 pm Pacific on Zoom
Where: Registration link: Fight for Our Futures: States Win
Daily Dose of Perspective and Concluding Thoughts
Jill and I visited the Aisne-Marne American Cemetery in Belleau, France, in May 2023. The cemetery, pictured below, is the final resting place of 2,289 American soldiers who lost their lives in the Battle of Belleau Wood and Battle of Château-Thierry, both in 1918.
The cemetery occupies the site of the battlefield where US soldiers fought and died in the Battle of Belleau Wood. It includes a memorial to 1,060 American soldiers missing in action from the battles of Belleau Wood and Chateau-Thierry.
The cemetery, memorial, and chapel are among the most moving places Jill and I have visited. You can feel the sacrifice in every view. The photo below is straight from my camera. No editing necessary. The power of the place speaks for itself.
The crosses face Belleau Wood, the small patch of forest on a hill that US soldiers took by crawling across an open field under enemy fire. The crosses stand on the very ground on which thousands of US soldiers died in a war to protect our freedom and security.
Their bravery and sacrifice should inspire us, always.
Pro-Democracy Protest Photos
East Harwich, MA
Minnesota Bridge Brigade
San Jose, CA (Indivisible San Jose):
Bretton Woods, Mt. Washington Valley, NH
From Today’s Edition Newsletter via this RSS feed