Democrats Approach Their Enabling Moment
If Democrats provide the decisive votes to fund this government, it will reverberate through history for all time.
The shortest summary of the now-unfolding plot against America is that the right lost decades-long ideological battles over the proper size of government, and who gets to wield power in the United States—then, instead of moving on to other areas of political disagreement, decided to impose its will criminally, and in exceptionally corrupt fashion.
With Donald Trump’s blessing, or perhaps through his neglect, Elon Musk has dragged the country into its worst legitimation crisis in decades—maybe ever—and impels Democrats to shift into a different gear of opposition.
That starts at the top. At a recent, private meeting, Hakeem Jeffries reportedly told Silicon Valley donors that Democrats plan “to retake the House in 2026 [by] reaching toward the center, while Trump will swing harder right.”
I take essentially no position on what policies Democrats should run on at this moment. My point isn’t to discourage Democrats from seizing the center, to whatever extent they can, or to encourage Jeffries to pull the party in a particular ideological direction. It is only to say that this is not a plan that matches the circumstances. It can be an addendum to such a plan. But if Democrats respond to the subversion of the Constitution with normal “median voter theory”-style politics they may well wake up in the autumn of 2026 to find that the federal government no longer tolerates fair elections.
Whatever policy gestures they make, Jeffries and his Senate counterpart Chuck Schumer need—as a top priority—to be procedurally aggressive. Not even that aggressive! But enough to insist that their role in the constitutional system be upheld.
A CONFIRM HAND
Let’s start small, then build to the main event, looming in the middle distance.
For most of the past month, I’ve taken little interest in whether individual Senate Democrats have voted to confirm Donald Trump’s nominees (save, of course, for the four or five most dangerous).
Early on I argued that Democrats should hold firm against any nominees who support the Big Lie, or otherwise submit to Trump’s loyalty tests. When Democrats disregarded that idea, the imperative changed—if Democrats weren’t going to take principled but symbolic stands against nominees who were going to be confirmed anyhow, perhaps they’d save energy for fights with real meaning, where their input might be decisive.
Then Trump freed Musk to torch the Constitution, and my view changed again. I still think those of us who care about the future of democracy shouldn’t get too bogged down scolding Senate Democrats for lending their imprimatur to Doug Burgum. But now I think it’s more important that Democrats take each opportunity that arises to convey crisis to the country until the rule of law is restored.
Consensus-oriented and swing-state Democrats—the ones who have been treating this as a normal confirmation process—could make clear that they’ll resume voting for most of Trump’s nominees once legal governance is restored, but only then.
These Democrats have already seen their confidences violated. They voted overwhelmingly for Marco Rubio to helm the State Department, only for him to abet the lawless Trump-Musk demolition of USAID. John Fetterman voted to confirm Attorney General Pam Bondi, who will forbid prosecutors from enforcing the law against Musk and the people following his orders.
That’s why it came as a relief when Brian Schatz announced he’d filibuster every Trump State Department nominee, and when Senate Dems leaked word that they’d withhold consent to fast-track confirmation votes across the board.
But this is all mostly a sideshow. The real and perhaps final test for Democrats in the Trump era will probably come in just a few days, when Republican leaders approach them for help funding the government and servicing the national debt.
If Democrats provide those votes before the rule of law has been restored, and without locking in any mechanism to maintain the rule of law going forward, they will have in essence assented to the wrecking of democracy. They will have voted for an Enabling Act to raze the American republic. They will etch the words disgrace and surrender into their own party’s epitaph.
NO-CONFIDENCE, MAN
We don’t have a parliamentary system, where the person elected to lead the legislature is also head of government, and can be removed rapidly on votes of no confidence.
We don’t have no confidence votes at all, officially.
What we have instead is the impeachment power and, short of that, various incarnations of the spending power.