Schumer Was Wrong

The high cost of playing it safe.

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.”

The use of the past tense suggests the article was more a political eulogy than a forward-looking profile. And its characterization of Schumer’s “pragmatism” mistakes being practical for being weak in the knees.

In the wake of Schumer’s decision last month to back the Republican funding bill and avoid a government shutdown, his supposed “pragmatism” has been praised in some quarters—a tactical retreat in the face of difficult odds. Pick the battles you can actually win!

But some battles are worth fighting even when the odds are long. Pre-emptively retreating isn’t prudence—it’s capitulation.

President Trump’s return to office has already produced chaos: market upheaval, purges of independent civil servants, politicized targeting of perceived critics, and demands for personal loyalty over respect for the Constitution. This is not speculation. And yet, when presented with a rare opportunity to resist the steady march of authoritarianism, the Democratic leadership chose to stand down without demanding anything in return.

Schumer’s defenders argue that he had no choice—that a shutdown would have played into Trump’s hands, giving him more power to destabilize the government by allowing him to determine whom to furlough. But this argument mistakes tactics for strategy. Strategy is about long-term goals. And the goal here must be clear: defending the republic from a president who doesn’t even pretend to respect its norms or limits.

Viewed through that lens, Schumer’s decision was a strategic blunder. The funding bill was not the product of negotiation; it was an ultimatum. Trump, emboldened by a weak opposition, a compliant majority, and sycophantic cabinet, offered his terms with no room for debate. The proper response was not submission—it was to offer a reasonable counterproposal. A counterproposal would have put the pressure on the other side to accept or (more likely) reject it.

Yes, the resulting shutdown would be painful. Shutdowns have real consequences for millions of Americans. All the more so when Trump could, as Schumer’s defenders point out, exploit a shutdown to accelerate the evisceration of the civil service. But therein lies the crux of my argument. Trump is already tearing apart the federal government. Americans are already living through a period of pain—political, legal, and moral. The question is whether to prolong this slow national decline or to confront it head-on. Let Trump overplay his hand. Let the American people see the cost of his chaos, unvarnished and inescapable. That is how you galvanize public opinion—not by shielding voters from discomfort, but by exposing the MAGA agenda for just how quixotic it really is.

Leadership in times of crisis demands courage. It sometimes means taking a risky move when it is the necessary one. The Republican majority in Congress is razor-thin—so thin that President Trump had to withdraw his nomination of Representative Elise Stefanik for US ambassador to the UN in order to safely hold onto the House. Though they hold fewer seats in Congress, in terms of population the Democrats represent a larger, more diverse swath of the country. The 47 Senators who caucus with the Democrats represent roughly 24 million more people than the 53 Republican Senators. Of course, this fact has no Constitutional bearing, but it has political significance given how loudly Trump and his MAGA acolytes seek to derive their legitimacy from the illusion of majority support. But you wouldn’t know it by the Democrats’ meek disposition.

The psychological battlefield matters. The Trumpist movement understands this. It projects dominance through sheer force of will. Every concession made to it—every inch surrendered without a fight—reinforces the illusion that Trump is inevitable, unstoppable, and above consequence. He is not. But he thrives when no one dares to challenge him.

Schumer’s choice was not just a missed opportunity to wound Trump politically. It was a failure to inspire those who are desperate for signs of life among the opposition. The American people are watching this descent into demagogic lawlessness and wondering if anyone in power has the will to stop it. Moments like this are rare. You either take them—or you lose them.

I speak from experience. In Russia, the opposition was locked out of the system, left to protest from the margins while Putin consolidated power. American democracy still presents the opposition with the tools to fight back—control of funding, investigative authority, public support. But if those tools are left unused, they become symbolic at best, irrelevant at worst.

Here’s the most important message I can offer: now is not the time for managing decline. It is the time for bold, even risky moves. Schumer had a chance to force a confrontation—to deny Trump his façade of an undisputed mandate, to put his dangerous methods on full display. He chose the illusion of normalcy instead. But there is nothing normal about this moment.

Democracy does not die from a single blow. It erodes through a thousand missed chances to stand up. This was one of them. Let’s not miss the next.

---