Photo: Kent Nishimura/Getty Images

For Democrats, there are real incentives to let the government shut down at the end of the month.

A prolonged shutdown would be blamed on Donald Trump and the GOP since they control the government. Trump can spin it as a Democrat-driven crisis, but most Americans wouldn’t believe him. This was why Republicans were so eager to trigger government shutdowns under Barack Obama. No matter how much he railed against tea-party nihilists, he was the president, and he had to suffer the consequences of a shutdown.

Congressional Democrats do have leverage, and they should drive it home to protect Obamacare health-insurance subsidies. Premiums will skyrocket if the GOP majority has its way, and some Republicans at least understand that they will pay the political cost. Americans in 2026 would be hit with far higher health-care bills and naturally look at the Trump government as the source of their financial pain.

But a shutdown, as cathartic as it may feel for Chuck Schumer, Hakeem Jeffries, and the Democratic base, is not a long-term strategy. On a practical level, it can backfire, as Russell Vought, Trump’s OMB director, prepares for the mass firing of federal employees. Vought is a revanchist who wants to shrink the government as much as possible, and he will not hesitate to cripple federal agencies further. As devastating as DOGE was, Vought will be willing to cut the government to the bone. Democrats must be prepared for that possibility.

Beyond those immediate and tangible concerns, there is the greater question of strategy. Tariffs have been, on the whole, a political loser for Trump. In an era of persistent inflation, slapping high taxes on imports makes little sense, especially with no larger plan for boosting domestic industry. As Democrats struggle for cohesive messaging, the economy could very well be a winner. Historically, Americans always rated Trump well on his handling of the economy because his first term coincided with low inflation and extremely low interest rates. Now, Trump’s numbers on the economy are tanking, and it’s hard to see how they can greatly improve any time soon. Voters, squeezed by high housing and food costs, are feeling pessimistic, and the rise of AI has quietly wreaked havoc on the white-collar job market.

Democrats could enjoy a short-term boost if the government shuts down, but it’s the equivalent of a sugar high. It won’t last and doesn’t solve the underlying messaging problems for the party. It’s not, in any sense, a real strategy. Schumer, the Senate minority leader, and Jeffries, the House minority leader, have been rightly criticized for not offering a detailed vision for the future of the country, an alternative to Trump that voters can rally around. Locked out of power, they should be speaking directly to the people about what they might do if their party is in charge again. What should Americans actually look forward to? A government shutdown is unsettling, not exciting. Candidates don’t campaign on shutdowns. The base may gain momentary satisfaction out of stymieing the Trump government, but then what? What’s next?

This is the question few Democrats anywhere have answered. Some, at least, are trying. Ro Khanna, the Silicon Valley congressman who will likely run for president, has sketched out a vision for a progressive economic populism that could appeal to a broad swath of voters. Gavin Newsom, the California governor and a very early 2028 front-runner, has found purpose leading efforts to gerrymander House seats in his state as a counter to Republican Texas. Other governors, like Josh Shapiro of Pennsylvania and J.B. Pritzker of Illinois, are relatively popular in their home states and are expected to mount serious bids for the presidency. There are the green shoots, at least, of an alternative to MAGA.

Missing still, though, is the compelling, easy-to-digest counter-vision: Ask most Americans what the Democrats stand for, and they aren’t sure. The Democratic National Committee hasn’t offered answers. Ken Martin is earnest and hopes to build up party infrastructure in the states Trump now dominates and where Democrats used to compete, such as Iowa and Nebraska. There are hints of Howard Dean in him; as DNC chair, Dean helped oversee the revival of the Democratic Party in the George W. Bush era. Martin, however, isn’t a policy visionary.

Neither is Schumer or Jeffries. None of these men thrills Democrats the way Nancy Pelosi once did. She was a liberal hero and GOP bogeyman and was very comfortable serving as a mouthpiece for the party. If she were driving a tough bargain now as House leader, Pelosi would also have a greater sense of what’s coming around the corner: what the Democratic Party should be about in 2026 and beyond. Democrats have been quietly winning in the second Trump era thanks to the advantages they now enjoy in lower-turnout environments. They are not hopeless. What they need now are big ideas.

From Intelligencer - Daily News, Politics, Business, and Tech via this RSS feed