What's the Point of a Senate Minority Leader?

Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) had an interesting thread trying to explain the logic of why Chuck Schumer and several other Senate Democrats voted in favor of cloture on the GOP spending bill and averted a government shutdown. Whitehouse voted against cloture, but his object is to explain why some of his colleagues went the other way in good faith (i.e., not just because they're spineless capitulators). The short version is that a shutdown gives Trump greater power to accelerate the program closures and evisceration of disfavored government entities, and would even give him a veneer of legality that isn't present now. For Whitehouse, that risk is outweighed by the need to plant one's feet and take a stand now -- crystallizing the crisis the Trump administration has created and clearly fighting back against it -- but Whitehouse doesn't think it's impossible for someone in good faith to think the other way.

The Whitehouse thread is obviously meant to be a counterbalance to the growing anger being directed at Schumer from the Democratic base, who see him as an ineffectual leader incapable of mounting the resistance necessary against the Trump administration. How fair is the latter charge? To some extent, I think it depends on whether you think the role of the Senate Minority Leader is outward or inward facing.

If the role is outward facing, then Chuck Schumer's job is to be an exponent of the Democratic Party's message to the public, galvanizing the base and convincing others to rally against the Trump regime. Arguably, with Democrats out of the White House, he and Hakeem Jefferies are the two most powerful Democrats in the country and de facto co-leaders. People look to them to see what the alternative to Trump would be.

It is hard, I think, to dispute that if that is the job of the Senate Minority Leader, then Chuck Schumer has been bad at it. He has not been an effective messenger for the Democratic Party. He does not inspire the base. Nobody in the public looks to him for leadership.

However, there's a solid case to be made that the job of the Senate Minority Leader is not supposed to be outward facing. We are not a parliamentary system; the legislative head of the opposition party is not the prime minister waiting in the wings. When you think of the next generation of Democratic Party leaders -- the potential presidential candidates -- Chuck Schumer is not on that list, nor has he indicated any interest in being on that list. The folks who we should be looking at in terms of outward, public-facing Democratic messaging are folks like Tim Walz, Josh Shapiro, AOC -- people we can imagine running a presidential campaign. The role of Senate Minority Leader is inward-facing -- it is about governing a legislative caucus and figuring out how to orient that caucus towards a cohesive and effective legislative strategy.

Under this telling of the Schumer's role, I think the report card has to be considered more mixed. I am astounded by how many people had unreasonably high expectations of what Schumer could accomplish with a zero-seat majority anchored by at least two extremely mercurial actors; I think objectively speaking he did an incredible job. In his last stint in the minority, there likewise were simply absurd expectations over what he could plausibly accomplish (people thinking he just "let" the Senate confirm Brett Kavanaugh, for instance). And particularly in an inward-facing role, there's a solid case that part of Schumer's job is to take bullets for the rest of his caucus -- doing tactically necessary but unpopular things so that the public-facing leaders can keep a clean record. Even if Schumer is right about the relative demerits of letting the government shutdown, it was clear that any ambitious Democrat who acceded to the cloture vote has probably kneecapped their future prospects. In that case, Schumer's job is to take the righteous fire from the base so that other Democrats -- ones who are viable presidential contenders or who are outward-facing messengers -- remain pure. The willingness to do that, more than anything, is as far as I can tell the reason why Schumer has retained the support of his caucus even in the face of widespread external discontent.

All that said, it is entirely plausible to believe that right now Schumer hasn't figured out a good legislative strategy for his caucus either -- that he's failing in the inward-facing role. Some of that debate also returns us to Whitehouse's description of the split in the caucus  -- is now the time to plant one's feet and do pitched battle; or is it still better to try to maneuver for position? This, I think, is a more reasonable way of framing the current divide amongst Democrats that is sometimes presented as "fighters" versus "appeasers"; but I say that with a lot of sympathy towards team "fight". After all, saying one "has a plan", delaying action yet again to "maneuver" into a better position -- these can rapidly simply become excuses for inaction and quiescence. Once you cut away the paranoid underbrush where Schumer is deliberately selling out his party because he's closet-MAGA, this is far and away the strongest argument against Schumer as Senate Minority Leader from the inward-facing perspective -- that he's making serious tactical misjudgments by an unwillingness to commit to a pitched battle when Democrats need to show they're standing firm.

Where do I land on this? As alluded to above, Schumer has caught to my mind unreasonable fire for a long time; I've been far more forgiving of him in his leadership role than many of my peers. But one of my lodestone political beliefs (this was my take on the vice presidential nomination too) is that nobody "deserves" a role like Senate Minority Leader. There's no fairness here, no deserts. Maybe it's silly for people to look at the Senate Minority Leader as an outward facing role, but it seems like they are, and in that capacity Schumer has completely lost the trust of the base and doesn't have any particular cachet with "moderates" or "independents" to make up for it. And on the inward-facing side, again, even painting Schumer's strategy in the best light and giving him the benefit of the doubt, I'm inclined to credit Whitehouse's belief that Democrats needed to pick this fight and do it clearly. Perhaps that's me having blinders on and just desperately wanting someone to punch back at Trump; Schumer almost certainly would say I'm not looking at the long game. But my strong instinct is that Democrats need to  be punchier, and Schumer is not fitting the bill.

Who would fit that bill -- and do so, importantly, while filling the less visible inward-facing needs of caucus wrangling and legislative strategizing -- isn't totally clear to me. Nominations welcome.

Can One Man Really Stop the Senate?

As Donald Trump's disastrous march through America's legal institutions continues unabated, progressives are desperately looking for something -- anything -- that can stem the tide. One possibility folks have seized upon is Senate obstructionism. The line goes that even a single Senator can do a ton of things to throw sand in the gears -- objecting to unanimous consent, slowing down hearings, delaying votes -- that can extract real costs on the MAGA agenda and provide Democrats with some negotiating leverage. So far, no Senator has taken this approach, and that in turn is a source of considerable frustration to progressive partisans who feel that Democrats have been rolling over without a fight.

But for me, the fact that no Senator has done this raises a different question: If this strategy was so effective, wouldn't someone have done it by now?

There are 47 Democratic (or Democratic-aligned) Senators in Congress right now. And as a collective, I absolutely believe there are plenty of plausible explanations for why they're hesitant to adopt the defiant, resistant pose so many of us are thirsting for. If you told me that (too) many still harbor a gut desire for "bipartisanship" and "working across party lines", I'd believe you. If you told me that (too) many remain attached to Senate norms of civility and comity, I'd believe you. If you told me that Chuck Schumer has attempted to unify the caucus around a strategy that, for whatever reason, doesn't include maximal obstructionism, I'd believe you.

But if it's really true that just one Senator has in his or her power the ability to grind Congress' gears to a halt, is it really possible that not one of the forty-seven would try it? There wouldn't be a single defector?

Do you really think Bernie Sanders is afraid to rattle cages? Do you really believe that Adam Schiff has in the past few weeks become enamored by venerable Senate traditions? Do you really imagine that Tammy Baldwin is inclined to cower before any and all Chuck Schumer diktats (do you really believe Chuck Schumer is that good at keeping his entire caucus in absolute ramrod lockstep)?

It just doesn't seem plausible to me. Someone would have defected by now. In fact, even if this strategy was considerably less effective than it's cracked up to be, or even if you think Senate Democrats are all fat cat posers who don't actually care about resisting Trump at all, you'd still think someone would have tried it simply to be a clout-chaser. The fact that nobody has done it suggests that either it is a lot less effective than people think, or there are a lot more (and more serious) hidden costs to it than people recognize.

I won't claim to be an expert on Senate procedure, and reading about the various machinations around blue slips and unanimous consent and holds makes my head spin. So it's entirely possible I'm missing something here. But whatever I'm missing has to explain not why "Senate Democrats", collectively, aren't adopting an obstructionist strategy; it has to explain why every single individual Senate Democrat has so far refrained from using their power as a one-Senator army to bring things to a halt. And I just don't see what that explanation is, aside from this alleged silver bullet not actually being one.

Things People Blame the Jews For, Volume XLVII: Schumer Not Stopping the Kavanaugh Nomination

A few times now -- not anywhere official, just on Facebook posts or blog comments -- I've seen some variation on the following argument: Chuck Schumer is going to "let" Brett Kavanaugh be confirmed because Israel and/or Netanyahu. Right after Justice Kennedy announced his retirement, John Cole made an intimation in this direction:

Dear @SenSchumer Now is not the time for your middling centrism and civility bullshit. You better fight like McConnell did or we will replace you. You're not the only New Yorker owned by Wall Street and AIPAC. You are very replaceable, so you better grow some balls.

— Dirty Computer (@Johngcole) June 27, 2018

At first blush, it's not just a false connection to make, it's a profoundly weird one. What exactly does AIPAC or Israel have to do with the Supreme Court? It's the branch of government that -- by far -- is least relevant to their policy agenda. Whatever Schumer does or doesn't regarding the confirmation fight -- and right now, all signs are he's gearing up to make it a real fight -- will almost assuredly have nothing to do with Israel or pro-Israel lobbying one way or the other.

There's actually a few different conspiracy theories intersecting to make this one, not all of which are specifically antisemitic or even about Jews. There is:

• The belief that congressional Democrats have some super-secret trick they could use to stop Kavanaugh, and the only reason they don't use it is because they don't really want to block the nomination;
• The belief that Schumer doesn't actually possess substantive (hawkish) policy views about Israel, but rather votes the way he does simply in blind deference to whatever Netanyahu wants;
• The belief that Israel is so concerned about who will fill Justice Kennedy's seat that they will make sure Kavanaugh gets confirmed.

You need to believe all three subparts for the machine to run. If you don't believe the first, then you're left with the straightforward and boring truth that if Kavanaugh gets confirmed it's almost certainly because he's a Republican nominee needing to get the approval of a Republican Senate, and Democrats don't have some magic bullet to turn 49 into 51.

You need to believe the second because otherwise there's no reason to think that Schumer would care what Bibi thinks about the U.S. Supreme Court. If Schumer votes hawkishly on Israel because that's what he believes (and it so happens to mesh with Bibi's own views), then there's no reason to think that harmony would translate over to the American judicial context. What they really want to argue is that Schumer is bought and paid for by Israel and just ceases to exercise independent judgment once Bibi opens his mouth on any topic.

And you need to believe the third because otherwise there's no account for why Israel would intercede in this issue. I understand why Israel would try to lobby people on the Iran Deal -- that's a big issue for them. But the Supreme Court? That's not their bailiwick. And you'd have to think they care so much that they'd be willing to risk serious blowback for marginal gain, since Kavanaugh is very likely to be confirmed even if they do nothing.

The first of these is actually the largest driver here. There is a non-trivial portion of the progressive base that has more or less full-throatedly endorsed Green Lantern-ism -- the idea that whenever progressive political outcomes don't manifest, it's because liberal politicians didn't will it hard enough. This is itself a weird position when you think about it -- its leftists basically saying that American political structures are so lopsidedly slanted in favor of progressive priorities that we should naturally see progressive results even in circumstances where the liberal party is in the minority. But it's an outcropping of the same "the primary was rigged" sentiment whereby everything is being sabotaged from within, we'd be winning already were it not for the powers-that-be standing in our way, and the greatest enemies are always inside the house.

On it's own, this sort of sentiment doesn't require any particular connection to Jews or Israel. And one does see other terms or entities fill the role of the interfering "power" that stands and obstructs the natural progressive march of political history ("neoliberals", "the establishment", "big money donors" ... there are a few actually).

Nonetheless, understanding this sentiment does illustrate how the "Zionist conspiracy" iteration is not accidental and is a form of antisemitism. It is antisemitism -- specifically, the antisemitism that naturally associates Jews and Jewish entities with extraordinary power and world-spanning conspiracies that stand outside the normal fabric of political space and time -- that makes Israel "work" as a vector for this sort of conspiracy theorizing.

The conspiracy theory is trapped between the rock of feeling like it's going to lose (the Kavanaugh nomination) and the hard place of fervently believing that -- were things proceeding as they "should" (and they mean that descriptively, not normatively) -- they'd be destined to win. What they need, then, is some body that can break their own political equivalents of the laws of physics -- and, precisely because it can latch onto a network of deeply-ingrained antisemitic tropes, the Zionist cabal feels "plausible" as the sort of entity that could pull that off. And, as a bonus, it offers hope -- if the Zionists are what is standing between the conspiracy theorist and total victory, then all one needs to do is smash Zionism and voila! Utopia. It's so much easier than the messy, complicated, sometimes-friend-sometimes-foe reality that characterizes actual political progress -- which is why antisemitism is called the "socialism of fools".

So let's state what should be obvious: If Kavanaugh is confirmed, as remains much more likely than not, it will be for the straightforward reason that he is a Republican nominee and there are 51 Republican Senators in a 100 person chamber. That's it. If a few Democrats defect, that will be because sometimes red-state Democrats facing tough reelection fights cast votes like this. That's it. I'm not saying any of that is good or wise or justified, just that it's the most obvious explanation, and not one that seems so superficially implausible that it cries out for an alternative "it's a Zionist conspiracy" explanation.

Why Must All the Candidates Be So Fucking Neoliberal?

[To the tune of “Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious”]

Oh….

Clinton voted for the war

And Timothy Kaine is such a bore.

Cory Booker loves Wall Street

And VP Warren spells defeat.

None of them’s acceptable

For my precious vote electoral

Why must all the candidates be so fucking neoliberal?

I think we’ve had enough of the White House

being a Whitehouse

And Tom Perez as Labor’s top

Didn’t restore the union shop

Tom Vilsack is in the sack for

Big Agricultural

Why must all the candidates be so fucking neoliberal?

O’Malley’s a coastal technocrat

Another pawn of the fat cats

Schumer opposed the Iran Deal.

Castro’s young—is he for real?

Of Biden I’ve had my fill

Since he wrote the ’94 Crime Bill

Why must all the candidates be so fucking neoliberal?

           

Cummings seemed to think

Black Lives Mattered more than TPP

And Becarra didn’t swear

I’d go to Yale tuition-free.

As Congressmen I think they’re swell

But if they’re picked it’s “betrayal!”

Why must all the candidates be so fucking neoliberal?

I was for Bernie until I learned he’d

Endorsed the dreaded Hillary

Now I see that he’s sold out

Of that there is no doubt.

Could the problem be with me?

My vain demands of purity?

Nah.

Why must all the candidates be so fucking neoliberal!

It's Outrageous To Suggest Feeding Tablet Editors To Fire Ants

Tablet Magazine has a sternly-worded editorial which concludes as follows:

We do not accept the idea that Senator Schumer or anyone else is a fair target for racist incitement, anymore than we accept the idea that the basic norms of political discourse in this country do not apply to Jews. Whatever one feels about the merits of the Iran deal, sales techniques that call into question the patriotism of American Jews are examples of bigotry—no matter who does it. On this question, we should all stand in defense of Senator Schumer.

Alas, as has become the norm of Tablet columns in this ilk -- and it is depressing to see the flaw migrate from Lee Smith articles to the editorial board itself -- what's missing in the editorial is any evidence that anybody in the Obama administration (or that matter, anybody at all) has subjected Senator Schumer to "racist incitement". Certainly, the Obama administration has opposed Schumer's opposition -- surely that's not objectionable -- but there is nothing in their comments that is remotely outside the bounds of normal political discourse. Nothing about "dual loyalty" or lack of patriotism, or even the more benign bugaboo complaints about "lobbyists" (and, to reiterate, if complaining that one's opinions are being influenced by big money and lobbyists is an anti-Semitic dog whistle, then every political debate our country has seen in the past half-century has apparently been dominated by neo-Nazis). The absolute worst thing you can find is a tweet by a former Obama staffer "the base won’t support a leader who thought Obamacare was a mistake and wants War with Iran," The "War with Iran" bit might be a cheap shot, but just the normal kind. And aside from that, everything one hears is entirely unremarkable political jostling.

All together, it is remarkably thin gruel. Yet paucity of evidence did not stop Tablet from deploying an orgy of histrionic rhetoric to back up its non-case: "It's the kind of dark, nasty stuff we might expect to hear at a white power rally, not from the President of the United States", "the kind of naked appeal to bigotry and prejudice that would be familiar in the politics of the pre-Civil Rights Era South," "This use of anti-Jewish incitement as a political tool is a sickening new development in American political discourse, and we have heard too much of it lately—some coming, ominously, from our own White House and its representatives." It would be exceptionally lovely if any of these allegations were connected to anything the President actually had said, but it's hard to collect quotes whilst hyperventilating I suppose. "It’s gotten so blatant that even many of us who are generally sympathetic to the administration, and even this deal, have been shaken by it," but not so blatant that one can find a direct quote by the President to back up the case.

All that being said, I certainly do not disagree with the statement that Chuck Schumer should not be subjected to racist incitement of any sort stemming from his opposition to the Iran deal. Since the fact that this hasn't, you know, happened apparently is no bar, allow me to go on the record with a few other non-occurrences which all people of goodwill should sternly oppose:

• Mitch McConnell should not be beaten and left in a ditch.
• It would be grotesque for anyone to call for Nancy Pelosi to be buried neck deep in sand at the low-tide mark.
• Regardless of whether or not you like the Dallas Cowboys, it is uncalled for to demand cleansing the entire state of Texas with a holy fire.
• Jewish representatives who vote for the Iran deal should under no circumstances be forced to parade naked through King's Landing as a condition for entering their synagogues.
• Even if the United States men's boxing program fails yet again to medal at the 2016 Olympics, we absolutely should not reinstate the Roman policy of "decimation" as a punishment.
• No matter how he performs at the next debate, Donald Trump should not be hanged from a noose constructed from his own hair.

No matter what one's views are on the Iran deal, surely we can agree that none of these outrageous actions is tolerable in American society. I look forward to a Tablet editorial devoted to each of them over the coming weeks.

That One

Arkansas GOP Senate candidate Kim Hedren refers to Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) as "that Jew".

Apology #1: He didn't have his teleprompter, and screwed up in trying to explain how he, unlike Schumer, believes in "traditional values". Which generally have been defined to the complete exclusion of Jewish perspectives anyway (that's my addition).

Apology #2: When I referred to him as Jewish, it wasn't because I don't like Jewish people [of course not! --DS] ... I shouldn't have gotten into this Jewish business because it distracts from the issue."

UPDATE: Going off of what PG said in the comments, this isn't the first time Jewishness seemed to be juxtaposed with Schumer.