- Share via
Like that one friend who repeatedly promises to quit drinking after just one last round, the American government is staggering toward another shutdown. It’s starting to seem inevitable — because it looks as though neither side is going to swerve in this game of chicken.
Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), the Senate minority leader who somehow manages to perpetually look both tired and smug, can’t afford another political retreat. He’s refusing to give Republicans another blank check, aiming instead to wring out some key concessions in exchange for a few Democratic votes to get a funding bill through the upper chamber.
The problem? President Trump, who runs the show for Republicans, views a shutdown the same way Hans Gruber viewed the FBI in “Die Hard”: as a feature, not a bug. Shuttered agencies and mass firings of federal workers aren’t obstacles; they’re leverage (and sometimes the goal itself).
Schumer can’t back down, and Trump doesn’t want to back down. That’s why the shutdown feels more imminent than the last time we flirted with one, back in March, when Schumer and Democrats folded.
In fairness, their reasoning wasn’t crazy. Trump and Elon Musk were running roughshod with their Department of Government Efficiency, and a shutdown would have only given Republicans more discretion to decide which services (Space Force, a new White House ballroom and, I don’t know, a National Strategic Spray Tan Reserve) were “essential.”
Democrats also had a plausible reason to believe that Trump’s steep “reciprocal” tariffs would wreck the economy. They reasoned that if they just kept their heads down, the president would take all the blame for the crash — a reasonable idea that fell apart when Trump pumped the brakes before careening the economy off a cliff.
Since then, Trump has engaged in a campaign of authoritarian-tinged vengeance at such an impressive pace that the Democrats’ strategy of “playing possum” seems laughably passive and utterly naive — like assuming a hurricane will just get tired and stop.
So now Democrats are thinking, “Well, things can’t get any worse if we fight back.”
(Spoiler alert: Things can always get worse.)
Still, you can’t blame Dems for drawing a line in the sand, consequences be damned. Blocking government funding is one of the only mechanisms at the disposal of a minority party to demonstrate their opposition. Moral outrage and pride practically demand it.
Why help bankroll a government led by a man who doesn’t negotiate in good faith and seems intent on bulldozing democracy itself?
Why be complicit in normalizing — and funding! — Trump’s abnormal behavior?
Unfortunately, most voters don’t care about democracy in the abstract, and even fewer care about the inner workings of Congress. They care about kitchen-table issues.
So Democrats are trying to marry their righteous fury with something more practical and concrete — casting the shutdown as a battle to extend Obamacare subsidies and undo GOP Medicaid cuts.
If you’re keeping score, the opposition party is now trying to portray this looming shutdown as being about multiple things. And anyone who’s ever cracked a marketing textbook knows, that’s a fraught strategy. Dare I say “doomed”? If you can’t stay on one message, your opponent will control the narrative — meaning Republicans will blame the fallout on obstructionist Democrats.
Republicans have a simpler pitch that could almost fit on a bumper sticker: “We just want to keep things funded at the current level, plus toss in a little extra security for lawmakers.”
Which message will prevail? Who will take the blame if the government shuts down and Americans are suffering in myriad ways? Democrats say that Republicans control everything, so the buck stops with them. Republicans will say the Senate requires 60 votes and Democrats are withholding support to score political points. It’s not a slam dunk for either party. The American people just want the government to function, and neither side is making that easy.
You really have to squint to imagine a scenario where Dems could honestly declare “mission accomplished” when this is all over. Still, there is a growing sense that it’s better to go down fighting, even if you’re destined to lose (which they might be).
But make no mistake, a shutdown is very likely happening. The Republican-controlled House of Representatives isn’t even set to return to Washington until Wednesday (the day the government could be shuttered).
Meanwhile, Trump abruptly canceled negotiations with Democratic leaders, citing “the unserious and ridiculous demands being made by the Minority Radical Left Democrats.”
The good news: We’re not talking about the debt ceiling or a possible government default; it’s just a government shutdown (something that has happened many times already). Social Security checks will still arrive. Federal workers will eventually get paid. Parks will close. Life will stagger on.
And so, barring some deus ex machina, we slouch toward another shutdown: a bureaucratic farce that everyone can see coming a mile away. It accomplishes nothing productive, yet feels destined to happen — like the “Austin Powers” slow-motion steamroller gag, except stretched out over weeks, costing billions of dollars and hurting millions of lives.
We’ve seen this movie before. We’re the ones being flattened.
Matt K. Lewis is the author of “Filthy Rich Politicians” and “Too Dumb to Fail.”
Insights
L.A. Times Insights delivers AI-generated analysis on Voices content to offer all points of view. Insights does not appear on any news articles.
Viewpoint
Perspectives
The following AI-generated content is powered by Perplexity. The Los Angeles Times editorial staff does not create or edit the content.
Ideas expressed in the piece
The author characterizes the looming shutdown as an inevitable collision between two sides unwilling to compromise, comparing it to “that one friend who repeatedly promises to quit drinking after just one last round.” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer cannot afford another political retreat and is demanding key concessions in exchange for Democratic votes, while President Trump views shutdowns as leverage rather than obstacles.
The piece argues that Democrats’ previous strategy of “playing possum” during Trump’s first term proved laughably passive and naive, particularly given Trump’s “campaign of authoritarian-tinged vengeance.” This has led Democrats to conclude that “things can’t get any worse if we fight back,” making opposition through funding blockades a matter of moral outrage and pride.
Lewis contends that Democrats are making a strategic error by trying to portray the shutdown battle as being about multiple issues simultaneously, including extending Obamacare subsidies and undoing GOP Medicaid cuts. This approach violates basic marketing principles since “if you can’t stay on one message, your opponent will control the narrative.”
The author suggests that Republicans have the messaging advantage with their simpler pitch about maintaining current funding levels, while Democrats face the challenge of explaining complex policy positions to voters who care more about “kitchen-table issues” than democratic principles or congressional procedures.
Lewis concludes that the shutdown “accomplishes nothing productive, yet feels destined to happen,” comparing it to a bureaucratic farce that costs billions and hurts millions while being entirely predictable and avoidable.
Different views on the topic
Republican leaders argue that Democrats are being hypocritical and obstructionist, pointing out that Democrats supported similar clean continuing resolutions thirteen times during the Biden administration[1]. Senate Majority Leader John Thune stated that Democrats would be “shutting down the government over a clean nonpartisan CR” that they previously endorsed.
The White House and Republican sources characterize Democratic opposition as political theater, with Trump administration officials arguing that “Democrats are threatening to hold government funding hostage to score political points” rather than engaging in legitimate governance[2]. Multiple media outlets quoted in White House materials suggest Democrats are using the shutdown as “political leverage” without a clear exit strategy.
Democratic lawmakers from affected states like Oregon frame Republican control of all branches of government as making them solely responsible for any shutdown outcome[3]. Representative Janelle Bynum argued that “Republicans have control of the House, the Senate, and the presidency, so whatever happens, they own it.”
Some Democratic representatives defend their position as reasonable negotiation rather than obstruction, with Oregon Representative Val Hoyle stating that “it is a negotiation” and “you can’t get something for nothing” when Republicans need Democratic votes to reach the 60-vote Senate threshold[3]. Democrats emphasize that their demands center on extending critical health care provisions like Affordable Care Act subsidies that would otherwise expire.
Congressional Democrats justify their hardline stance by arguing that extending Obamacare tax credits and reversing Medicaid cuts are essential policy priorities that cannot be separated from funding discussions[1][4]. They contend that these health care provisions represent urgent needs that require immediate legislative action rather than being deferred to future appropriations processes.
More From the Los Angeles Times
Podcasts
Survivors of Southern California wildfires are battling their insurance companies over rebuilding and cleanup costs. We talk to Laurence Darmiento, who covers the industry for the L.A. Times.
James Sexton, ostracized after reporting misconduct, fed FBI information on the Sheriff’s Department’s scheme to hide Anthony Brown. Indicted, Sexton fought, but was found guilty. His testimony fueled a widening obstruction scandal.
Sammy Roth talks with L.A. Times environment reporter Hayley Smith about the Trump administration’s regulatory rollbacks, the misinformation driving them, and what they mean for the future of climate action.
