Schumer Was Right
A former Republican Congressman responds to Garry’s piece “Schumer Was Wrong”
Last week, I published an article titled “Schumer Was Wrong,” in which I argued that Chuck Schumer’s decision last month to back the Republican funding bill and avoid a government shutdown was weakness masquerading as pragmatism.
Shortly after its publication, Mickey Edwards—a Republican who served eight terms in the House of Representatives—texted me to say that even though he opposes Trump’s agenda, he believes Schumer made the right call in averting a shutdown. Mickey said that if he were still in Congress, he would have voted with Schumer.
I disagree with him, but it’s important that we facilitate good-faith debate on strategy. In that spirit, I am publishing his response to my column. At The Next Move, we believe in disagreeing without being disagreeable!
Let us know what you think in the comments.
— GK
It's not hard to understand the disappointment—and even anger—many Democrats felt last month when the party's Senate leader, Chuck Schumer, agreed to support a Republican-led plan to avert a shutdown of the federal government. While the legislation would have avoided an immediate crisis, it also would have dealt a serious blow to policies fundamental to Democrats' vision of the government's public responsibilities. Schumer’s critics believed that even in the minority, it was better to fight for your principles than to enable policies you abhor.
Unfortunately, members of Congress, like chess masters, must weigh not just short-term outcomes but also long-term consequences. That does not mean Schumer's critics were wrong, but it does mean that in the long-term, his decision was probably the right one, both as a member of Congress and as a partisan Democrat.
The impulse to fight back against bad policy is powerful, but so is the need to choose the right time, place, and strategy. I strongly disagree with much of what was in the legislation that kept the federal government running. But, if I were still serving in Congress, as I did for 16 years, I would have voted for the bill. Here's why.
As a candidate, I had strong views on many issues. But once elected, I took on obligations that superseded my personal predispositions and partisan loyalties. I wore the congressional lapel pin, carried the congressional voting card, and swore the congressional oath of office. One of my core obligations was to keep the federal government operating and to ensure that millions of Americans continued to receive essential services.
I had my share of similar battles. Throughout my time in Congress, I served in the minority. On important issues, Democrats, then in the majority, often pushed through partisan legislation and ignored or squashed the minority's attempts to make amendments. This was not a departure from the norm; it was the norm, differing only when there was a Republican in the White House who could use the threat of a veto to force compromise. In the end, whether or not one had succeeded in making the legislation more palatable, the choice was to pass what one had or pass nothing at all, with whatever consequences might follow. This is not the dynamic of a party rally; it is the reality of governing.
These are the stakes of following the advice of House Minority Leader Hakeem Jefferies rather than Schumer.
First, there is the oath of office. A government shutdown would have two immediate negative consequences. It would have cut off important services to the people I represented (with real negative consequences for real people) and it also would have shaken international confidence in our government’s stability. When a country can’t keep its government open, eyebrows are raised. Allies reassess trustworthiness and reliability. They ask themselves if they can depend on a government that can't keep its own doors open.
Second, there’s the matter of political survival. Activist Democrats, eager for a fight, argued that refusing to compromise would project strength. But to the broader public, the message would have been clear: Democrats shut down the government. If Republicans voted to keep it open and Democrats blocked it, the public would have blamed Democrats—and with that, any effort to regain public trust would be severely undermined.
Kamala Harris kept repeating in her campaign, "When we fight, we win." But if you fight to let the federal government shut down and leave countless citizens unable to interact with federal agencies they depend on, no, you don't win. That’s not victory—it is handing the opposition a victory on a platter.
Schumer's decision drew criticism, but he acted as a member of Congress should. More importantly, he acted in the public's interest—and may well have saved the Democratic Party from political suicide.
Mickey Edwards is a professor at Princeton University’s school of Public and International Affairs, where he is also Director of Congressional and Constitutional Initiatives. He served as a member of Congress for sixteen years and is a former board member of the Renew Democracy Initiative.
A more positive note: I recently won a rematch against my fellow World Chess Champion Vishy Anand, and my friend and RDI Hero of Democracy Maria Corina Machado was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. Call them small wins, but we don’t have enough good news these days. To celebrate, I’m giving away three chess sets, autographed by yours truly. Anyone signed up as a premium subscriber as of October 31, 2025 will be automatically entered to win.1
Remember, I don’t take one kopek from your paid subscriptions. All proceeds support the work of the Renew Democracy Initiative, including direct aid to Ukraine, amplifying the work for political dissidents, and getting more content up on The Next Move.
— Garry Kasparov, October 2025
Related Content
Schumer Was Wrong
Of Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, a recent Politico piece noted that “Pragmatism, fundraising and a gimlet-eyed view of the election landscape was the hallmark of his success.”
It’s phenomenal that you published a response that disagreed with your original article— 100% respect this.
It seems to me very powerful that you facilitated an open, nuanced discussion and, by doing so, set an example of how NOT to “go black and white“ and start condemning one another for having different points of view