November, 2025
Washington — The bill passed by Congress last week to reopen the government, after a record-long shutdown, deserves more celebration that it has been accorded.
Hardly noticed but worthy of absolute rejoicing is the inclusion in the bill of $1.2 billion for Food for Peace and $240 million for the McGovern-Dole international nutrition program. By some estimates, this may save 13.7 million people around the world from starvation. It also provides American farmers improved markets for their products at a time when Trump administration tariffs threaten their livelihood. The funding reverses an attempt by Trump to kill the international aid programs.
Likewise of immense importance is the defeat of the President's attempt to open the government on his terms by doing away with minority filibuster rights under Senate rules. He was steadily increasing the pressure on Senate Republicans to do so — likely readying the same kinds of extortion tactics successfully deployed elsewhere — when bipartisan Senate negotiators came to agreement on the bill to reopen. Time was of the essence; democracy itself may have hung in the balance. Republican and Democratic senators alike blanched at the prospect of having to vote on the President's legislative wish list had he succeeded: voter suppression, increased tariff and war powers, conversion of Congress into a Duma.
It was a narrow escape.
But you'd hardly have known it from the reaction of many Democrats who used Trumpian viewpoint language to trash members of their own party, calling the bill a pathetic capitulation and cave-in. But what was the critics' plan? There was none, save looking tough at the expense of those who would bear the brunt of food stamp cutoffs and transportation chaos. Historians will not be kind to the "look tough" Democrats (including the DNC chairman) who failed the actual "be tough" Democrats in a moment of national and international crisis. Shame especially on Senate Democrats who knew the stakes and were preparing to vote yes on the bill if needed, but then joined in the capitulation-condemning chorus.
All of this could have been foreseen weeks ago, to prepare a strategy to end the shutdown. (See the previous blog post, which provided one.)
It is not too late for Democrats to discern what voters hope for in the upcoming (and hard-won) December negotiations over medical care affordability, and then to plan a strategy accordingly. People do not want to see a January shutdown redux. They would like both a medical affordability package and an end to all shutdowns.
Democrats should offer more than just an extension of the ACA tax credit. They should look to other countries to learn from their experiences and they should consider Republican proposals to get buy-in. To broaden enrollment, incentives should be provided especially to younger adults for coverage of health and fitness activities. Subsidies should also be targeted toward rural areas where medical care availability and affordability are both in crisis. This is inherent in current policy but could be enhanced.
Democrats should again look to other countries to review measures they use to avoid shutdowns and propose to amend the Antideficiency Act accordingly, to get out of situations where bargaining chips involve unthinkable human suffering. Voters will applaud it and reward the party that delivers an end to shutdowns.
Prediction: how the December negotiations go will have a big effect on election outcomes in 2026 and 2028. But another factor will be even more important: how the parties see the rural vote. Republicans continue to take it for granted, believing that no amount of budget program abuse, tariff and trade injury, or medical care deprivation will shake it away from its MAGA-loving tendencies. Democrats seem to believe that as well, evidencing little appreciation for the fact that if they could lose rural races by 45-55 rather than 25-75, many more of them would be in office. Have Democrats touted the achievements they won for rural America in ending the shutdown, like restoration of Food for Peace? No. Instead they have disparaged their own good work, and that augurs poorly for Democrats at the polls. Too bad so much is at stake, or I'd say they deserve it.
