Trump and Musk’s administrative coup are creating bad options across the country. Friends ask: Do I resign my government job or sabotage from the inside until I get fired? Do I remove the “DEI-marked” books quietly or do I publicly make a stink and get fired?
And now in public we had the question before Chuck Schumer: Do I shut down the government by not voting for the GOP spending bill or do I hand Donald Trump a win and accept the continuing resolution?
Now that he’s decided on the latter, something clear is emerging: We, the people, are now insistent that leaders have to be willing to fight. Whether you read Schumer as surrendering or taking a principled (if perhaps unwise) stance, it’s clear to most everyone he isn’t fighting, he’s capitulating.
This is the message to anyone who wants to be a leader in the years ahead: You have to take some risks, you have to show people you’re fighting, or you’re going to get tossed aside.
On the question of whether Schumer was right or not, I’ll climb out on a limb and admit I had a level of uncertainty because I don’t know much about the details of a shutdown. Days ago I didn’t know who would decide which parts of the government would stay open. (Turns out it would be Office of Management and Budget Director Russell Vought—a Trump loyalist who wants federal workers to be “in trauma.”)
So I generally listened to people I find smarter than me about these things, like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Bernie Sanders. That hunch was affirmed by centrist but brilliant tactician Nancy Pelosi. She wrote, “America has experienced a Trump shutdown before—but this damaging legislation only makes matters worse. Democrats must not buy into this false choice. We must fight back for a better way.”
Critics of Schumer’s decision point to the $13 billion cuts in services, $20 billion cuts to the IRS, and the disgusting takeover of D.C.’s budget (screwing DC for no real reason). In a surreal Orwellian experience, Congress found a way to neuter its power to halt Trump’s tariffs by redefining “a day” for the purposes of the National Emergencies Act.
Of course both options are bad. And Schumer has a point that shutting down the government carried risks. Schumer said he thinks Trump and Musk both wanted the shutdown—and I think he’s half-right.
For Trump the calculation is simple. Trump’s a zero-sum hour-by-hour analyst who sees headlines and tweets. Trump wanted the victory of a bill. Trump seemingly confirmed this with a quote built to destroy Schumer’s career: “Again, really good and smart move by Senator Schumer.”
Donald Trump isn’t thinking ahead about how he’d govern with no functioning government. He trusts his improvisation skills.
But the coup co-leader, Elon Musk, has a different calculation. He’s driven by a more nihilist view of government. As Wired explained—in one of the best analyses of Musk—he wants to replace government “bloat” (i.e. workers and regulations) with AI-driven efficiency. (Yes, the same AI efficiency that’s wrong around 60 percent of the time.)
Wired has also argued that Musk could realize his vision much faster under a government shutdown. With a shutdown, Musk can fire people faster and all those furloughed workers couldn’t slow his progress. Most wouldn’t even be able to protest, because they would need to find other work amidst phenomenal uncertainty. Through his puppet Vought, Trump could arbitrarily adjust what agencies are open and closed—depending on where the most resistance is. And the country would require Republican votes to reopen the government at all.
But this is all behind us now. We don’t have to worry about whether Schumer is wrong tactically. What remains is his biggest mistake: He never took a fighting stance.
Schumer took a defeatist approach. He didn’t offer a course to stop Musk—just a course to lose the least. He backstabbed House Democrats, many of whom took political risks. He hasn’t boldly stood up to Trump for abducting Mahmoud Khalil, a permanent resident because of his free speech. No, instead he apologized when he called Republicans bastards.
It’s the lack of fight that’s going down in the history books.
I don’t have the energy to protest this man. (But by all means, if you feel it in your heart, go ahead. He’s going to have a helluva book tour).
Notably, Schumer is not alone in his ineffectual approach to handling Trump. Here I’m pointing fingers at the cowardice of many elite law firms who haven’t come out swinging as Donald Trump undermines the rule of law and attacks their fellow colleagues. I’m looking at Columbia University—and all the elite universities experimenting with “going along to get along” as a strategy to appease a fascist. I’m looking at schools and corporations like Target that are over eager to comply and appease the anti-DEI police.
Just as Schumer is going to pay a political price, mark my words, so are these institutions. Because of national boycotts, Target has already lost about $12.4 billion in market value. All of these companies risk losing core values and still being targeted by Donald Trump and being targeted by those of us wishing they took fighting stances.
Compliance won’t save you. Compliance won’t make the best of a bad situation. Compliance will speed up the process of authoritarianism.
Ultimately there’s only one option: Resist and fight. Join the movement.
COMMENTS