Jake formerly of the LP: I see Chuck Schumer was still making noises about “we pray that President Trump will listen to Dems” on a possible shutdown, and refuses to hammer the President for his lawlessness and failed policies. I want to know how haven’t we had 24 Senate Dems send this loser to the backbench?
Seriously, what is the real reason that Schumer ever got chosen for this job in the first place, and why is this drag on Dems still in charge of Senate Dems today? They have to know that this ineffectual communicator and out-of-touch old man hurts Dems with voters.
Before I answer the actual questions, I want to note that, in isolation, Schumer (and Jeffries) putting on an elaborate show to convey to the media and public that they are constructive governing partners (so that Trump shoulders the blame for the shutdown) isn’t crazy or inherently weak. In a different context, it might be part of a shrewd overall plan. In this context, it seems uncanny, because Democrats shouldn’t seem desperate to cut a deal with Trump at all—at least not so long as he’s insisting on the right to violate the terms of the budget.
As to the actual questions, the answers are seniority and (relatedly) fundraising prowess. The Democratic Party is a machine, and when Schumer entered it, he had future leadership written all over him. He was a wily and tireless operative, he was well wired with donors, and under different circumstances (if he were a little younger, if he weren’t up against Trump and modern right-wing propaganda) he probably would have been an effective leader.
It wasn’t meant to be. Eight years later, I think many Democratic senators (and almost all Democratic House members) realize he’s a strategic liability and a liability as an avatar for the party. But the nature of the machine is that it’s very difficult to supersede him without his blessing. It would have to be a coup. Any successful coup would have to be led by someone with lots of intra-party credibility and their own fundraising base, and it’s very hard to develop those things if you aren’t an ally to leadership to begin with, climbing the ladder the old fashioned way.
Luke Christofferson: I’m wondering if you think it’s a good idea for Dems to start talking now about ICE intimidation at the polls and Rs refusing to seat a Democratic majority in the midterms now, knowing that they will will very likely try these things.
More generally do you think it is effective for Dems to preemptively talk about bad things the administration is going to do to try to anchor the conversation?
First, to the general question: Yes, absolutely. I like to draw an analogy to the Biden administration’s public airing of Russian military maneuvers ahead of the 2022 invasion of Ukraine. Using that approach in domestic opposition politics—anticipating and pre-empting Republican tactics and lies through immersive familiarity with right-wing bad faith—would pay a lot of dividends. It would poise Democrats to move first, and (thus) deny Republicans the element of surprise, both of which are crucial for establishing narrative control.
As to the specific question, the answer is “yes, but…”