As of 12:01 am ET, the United States federal government has officially shut down. Many workers classified as “nonessential” are staying home, resulting in the closure of numerous government functions, including national parks, due to a lack of staff. Meanwhile, “essential” workers, such as soldiers and air traffic controllers, will continue to work even as their paychecks run out.
This shutdown is primarily the result of a strategic miscalculation by the Democratic Party, which seems eager for a confrontation. The shutdown could have been averted if Democrats had allowed a vote on a “continuing resolution” to fund the government, similar to what they agreed to in March. However, this time around, Senate Democrats opted to filibuster the resolution, effectively blocking government funding that Republicans are prepared to approve.
Democratic leaders are framing this conflict around health care, as Obamacare subsidies for millions of Americans are set to expire at the end of the year, while Republicans show no interest in renewing them. In an early morning statement, Democratic congressional leaders—Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries—have made it clear that they will not pass a budget without addressing these subsidies.
The strategy appears to be grounded in polling data that shows Democrats performing better than Republicans on health care issues. By redirecting the public’s focus toward health care, they hope to further diminish President Donald Trump’s already unfavorable ratings and potentially secure concessions on health policy.
However, this approach lacks a crucial understanding of the current political landscape: the Trump administration is engaged in a troubling attempt to undermine the constitutional order. This fundamental reality alters the dynamics of political conflict. By shutting down the government over health care, Democratic leadership risks sidelining the more pressing issue of authoritarianism, demonstrating a failure to fully grasp the implications of the current crisis.
Now, Democrats find themselves ensnared in a predicament of their own making, requiring a significant shift in how they communicate about the shutdown.
In previous discussions, I highlighted two strategic frameworks regarding how Democrats should address Trump’s authoritarianism: Team Normal and Team Abnormal.
Team Normal advocates for treating Trump as a conventional president, arguing that focusing on “cost of living” issues—where he polls poorly—will set the stage for electoral success and allow Democrats to effectively counter his agenda when in power. In contrast, Team Abnormal contends that acting as if Trump is a typical opposition will grant him too much leeway; they argue for a more aggressive approach to prevent him from amassing additional power.
The current shutdown strategy seems to represent a misguided attempt to merge these two approaches. The intention is to employ the extraordinary measure of a government shutdown—a tactic favored by Team Abnormal—to achieve a Team Normal objective: redirecting public attention to an issue where Trump’s approval ratings are particularly low.
Unfortunately, this compromise ultimately fails to satisfy either perspective.
For Team Normal, any shutdown is generally deemed a poor tactic, as historical shutdowns have consistently resulted in negative outcomes for the party attempting to extract policy concessions. A recent analysis by Matt Glassman, a Georgetown professor specializing in Congress, reveals that all recent shutdowns have failed to achieve their intended goals.
“The party trying to leverage the shutdown doesn’t get the other side to the bargaining table; instead, the other side simply demands an unconditional reopening of the government while highlighting the shutdown’s adverse effects on defense, federal workers, and citizens hoping to visit national parks,” Glassman explains. “Public opinion tends to turn against the party attempting to leverage the shutdown, ultimately leading to a face-saving deal.”
This logic is compelling from the Team Normal perspective. However, Team Abnormal sees the unique nature of Trump’s presidency as a game-changer.
For Team Abnormal, the dangers posed by Trump’s abuses of power necessitate a refusal to simply hand over a clean funding bill and hope for the best. Instead, they advocate using the shutdown crisis to obstruct Trump’s authoritarian tendencies while mobilizing public opposition to his regime change efforts. The argument here is that this government is different, and it warrants a different approach.
Yet, Democrats are not behaving as though this government is different. Their demands are rooted in conventional political discourse, and there is little reason to believe that a shutdown tethered to such a mundane issue will avoid the pitfalls that have plagued past attempts.
So what does a more effective strategy look like?
For these reasons, Democrats must abandon their current strategy. They need to choose a clear path, aligning with either Team Normal or Team Abnormal, and adjust their tactics accordingly.
The Team Normal approach would be to concede quickly: devise a minor concession that allows them to end the shutdown while hoping voters will forget about it by next November. However, such an embarrassing retreat could incite a backlash from Democratic grassroots supporters, who are already expressing significant discontent with their leadership’s perceived ineffectiveness in countering Trump.
Alternatively, the party could pivot to a Team Abnormal strategy, insisting that any funding bill must address the underlying issue of governmental lawlessness. Given Trump’s demonstrated willingness to disregard lawful appropriations, Democrats should demand specific provisions—like those in the proposed Congressional Power of the Purse Act—that would limit his ability to circumvent Congress’s constitutional authority.
This latter approach seems more promising. Notably, even voices traditionally aligned with Team Normal, like Matt Yglesias, have suggested that Democrats should adopt a more assertive stance. Yglesias argues that the position of “I cannot agree to a deal that the other side won’t honor” is defensible and could effectively resonate with the public until Republicans agree to resolve the shutdown by eliminating the filibuster.
The underlying rationale extends beyond mere short-term politics or policy; it’s about fostering a broader resistance to Trump’s authoritarianism.
In their recent book on social change, philosophers Michael Brownstein, Alex Madva, and Daniel Kelly note that individuals often join causes not because they believe victory is imminent, but because of a shared sense of obligation toward a righteous cause. This collective spirit can ultimately lay the groundwork for future triumphs.
One way to galvanize support, even in the face of seemingly insurmountable odds, is through a tactic known as “losing loudly.” This involves making a compelling spectacle out of a battle that may be unwinnable but motivates others to join the cause. For instance, Texas Democrats’ recent decision to flee the state in order to obstruct an attempted gerrymander inspired similar movements in other states.
In conversations with Brownstein and Madva, they referenced research on anti-authoritarian protesters in various countries, which found that many did not expect their actions to topple the government. Instead, they felt a social obligation to support others who were fighting for a just cause.
Engaging in battles—even those that seem futile—helps build a shared identity among those resisting authoritarianism. The willingness to fight fosters a collective understanding that resistance is a communal endeavor, an essential component in the broader political struggle.
This insight is crucial for Democrats to consider as they navigate the current shutdown, and as they strategize more broadly about how to confront Trump while in a minority position.
Often, Democrats focus on polling that indicates voters prioritize cost-of-living concerns over authoritarianism, concluding they must concentrate on the former. They overlook the fact that political actors have the power to shape public priorities. In a time when Trump is taking extraordinary steps to reshape the government, there are unprecedented opportunities to bring attention to these abuses and foster a communal sense of duty to resist.
The ongoing shutdown represents a pivotal chance for Democrats. By refusing to fund the government due to its failure to operate within the rule of law, they can demonstrate to the public the seriousness of the crisis and illustrate that their rhetoric about a fragile democracy is not merely partisan rhetoric but a genuine concern.
Thus, the Democratic objective should shift from merely extracting policy concessions or winning media cycles—strategies that have historically proven ineffective—to building a larger social ethos of resistance against authoritarianism. Until Democratic leadership recognizes this broader context and adjusts their approach, their shutdown strategy will likely continue to falter.
