Tactics, Strategy, and Actions

Anger at Senate Democrats can be used effectively and productively

Photo by Tamara Gak on Unsplash

On Saturday, Chris spelled out the case for why Chuck Schumer did the right thing by allowing the Republican’s horrendous continuing resolution to become law rather than lead a filibuster against it that would have resulted in a government shutdown. The feedback we received, both on the post’s comment thread and through email, was understandably intense.

While reactions ranged from appreciation for the analysis to disagreement with Chris’ conclusion, many of the comments we received displayed a high level of emotional intensity. And rightly so. This was a painfully hard turn of events to accept. There is a lot of anger about Schumer’s move, extending in some cases to feelings of betrayal.

Underlying much of this anger is a sense of helplessness. It’s painful to watch Donald Trump turn the United States into a rogue nation, dismantle the economic and international arrangements that provide us with stability and security, defy the Constitution, and hurt so so many people. We all want to make it stop.

We arrived at a moment when many of us thought Democrats could finally fight back, and Schumer decided not to engage. It’s hard to take.

So what do we do now with our anger? How do we channel it into something constructive that can advance our shared goal of defying, diminishing and degrading Donald Trump in order to survive this reactionary period in our history and shape the future?

I’d like to offer a little perspective on our limitations and strengths. I want to distinguish tactics from strategy and focus our response on the latter, because what we do now needs to be smart, measured and oriented toward advancing our long-term interests.

Schumer led a tactical retreat

Let’s start by appreciating what it means to be out of power. What it means to be out of power in the White House, the House and the Senate. What it means for the balance of power on the Supreme Court to be held by John Roberts and Amy Coney Barrett. We knew it was going to be hard and it is.

I don’t believe we will be out of power for long, but any realistic planning on our part should acknowledge that the situation as it stands today, barring something unforeseen, will likely continue until the midterms.

You have limited legislative options when you’re out of power. Those who saw the continuing resolution as our first chance to confront Trump may have been indulging expectations that were unrealistically elevated.

Chris noted something important in his Saturday post when he said “the jig was up once the continuing resolution passed the House without needing Democratic votes”:

Democrats rightly dared [Republicans] to pass a funding bill with only Republican votes. This is something that Republicans have consistently been unable to to do since they retook the House in 2023. It was a good bet they would once again fail and thus be forced to negotiate with Democrats as they have time and again these last two years. Unfortunately, the calculus changed when Donald Trump was able to convince the hard-right Freedom Caucus to go along with a six month continuing resolution to fund the government. Continuing resolutions are typically opposed by a large enough number of House Freedom Caucus members that Republican leaders have to turn to Democrats, and make concessions to them, in order to pass government funding bills. When the HFC fell in line behind Trump, Republicans were able to pass a six month continuing resolution funding the government through September 30 without needing any Democratic votes.

This describes a situation in which the Democratic response is predicated on how Republicans act. That’s how it works when you’re in the minority. I fully expect Republican dysfunction to reassert itself over the upcoming reconciliation bill, because hardline members will assess their costs and benefits differently. If and when this happens, Democrats will have tactical options that they did not have last week. But once House Republicans united behind the CR, the only tactical move left to Democrats was to filibuster, which for the reasons Chris explained was costly.

That’s why I believe it’s wrong to see Schumer as a sell-out. He calculated that a filibuster of this bill at this moment under these conditions would set us back. Reasonable people can assess the risks differently, but it was a tactical choice, and he made it knowing how badly it would be received.

Senate Democrats need a communications strategy

If you want to be critical of Schumer’s leadership, you could point to the absence of a strategic approach to the administration that channels the urgency of the moment with any degree of clarity. On this score, Senate Democrats have been repeatedly letting us down.

In the early weeks of the administration, Senate Democrats were acting as though they were listening to consultants who were telling them that they should look for common ground with Republicans because Trump won the popular vote and every swing state. Let’s just say this misreads the moment to a degree that surpasses malpractice. But it’s the baseline from which we were starting.

I’m hopeful that as Democratic leaders hear from angry constituents about what just happened, it will move them closer to recognizing the existential imperatives we’re facing and devise a strategy to confront the administration accordingly.

Precisely because they are out of power and hold few legislative advantages, they should be thinking about using their positions to hone and deliver a message that calls out what Trump and Musk are doing and draws clear contrasts between the parties. If this is not a time for legislating, it most certainly is a time for clarifying the stakes and consequences of the second Trump administration, detailing the real costs of Trump’s actions, and telling people what Democrats will do differently. And unlike tactics that are contingent on how Republicans act, Senate Democrats can do this on their own.

Schumer is a poor communicator, but there are other senators who can be the public face of the message. As leader, Schumer’s job should be to make sure his caucus is dedicated to an aggressive communications strategy that calls out MAGA all day every day, then get everyone on board.

He need look no further than the south wing of his workplace for guidance on how it can be done. Here’s House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries announcing a national Day of Action tomorrow:

The ongoing Republican assault on the economy, healthcare, the social safety net and veterans benefits requires all of us working together in the weeks and months to come. Donald Trump’s disingenuous and nakedly superficial effort to divide us will not succeed.

On Tuesday, March 18, House Democrats will hold a Day of Action throughout America to aggressively push back against the diabolical Republican scheme to enact the largest Medicaid cut in our nation’s history. We will partner with our colleagues at every level of government to protect the American people.

Democratic Members of the House, the Senate, governors, local elected officials, unions, civil rights organizations, democracy reform groups and concerned citizens all have an important role to play. Our party is not a cult, we are a coalition. On occasion, we may strongly disagree about a particular course of action. At all times, Democrats throughout the nation remain determined to make life better for everyday Americans and stop the damage being done by Donald Trump, Elon Musk and House Republicans.

This moment is an opportunity if we choose to see it that way

Note how Jeffries frames the Democrats’ retreat as a call to action. Note how he contrasts his party with MAGA, saying Democrats are a coalition, not a cult. Note how he acknowledges there will be tactical disagreements and they can be intense, but we remain united by our goals, and we advance our goals by taking actions that are within our ability to control.

We can push Chuck Schumer to recalibrate his approach to the moment. Senators listen when we speak loudly and in large numbers. In fact, it’s questionable that the House would be taking an aggressive posture to the administration if not for weeks of hearing from ordinary Democrats telling them to wake up.

As Jeffries wrote, “Our struggle continues.” And so it does. We can use this setback to reset our expectations and take meaningful and constructive action if we choose.