Democrats and the Shutdown. Why Did the Democrat Senators Capitulate? A Theory.
The Neoliberal dislike of Socialism compels law makers to capitulate
The longest shutdown in US history has concluded with the capitulation of eight Democrat senators, to the surprise and dismay of other Democrat politicians and activists. The defectors claim that they had no choice but to end the hardship of the shutdown but, in exchange, received only insubstantial promises. Now, many Americans will be unable to afford healthcare, and the shutdown’s hardships have been rendered meaningless.
In this article, I want to explore the reasons for this unexpected stand down. As paradoxical as it might sound, I suspect that their capitulation was motivated not by concern, given their effective abandonment of those dependent on healthcare subsidies, but by a sudden fear of success. They did not expect, I’d hazard, for the shutdown to achieve anything, and were alarmed that it might. This comes at a time, moreover, when the Democrats are seemingly debating their future.
Ordinarily, I try to avoid speculating about individual decision-making; it feels conspiratorial. I prefer dealing with trends and unconscious actions. Nevertheless, this event appears indicative of a trend that I’ve previously theorised about, which I subsequently want to revisit.
Timing
The strangest thing is that their capitulation came just days after an impressive string of election results that saw Democratic candidates win across the country. The most notable win was in New York, where Democratic Socialist Zohran Mamdani won more than 50% of the vote, despite the sustained efforts of the entire capitalist establishment, Democrats included, to prevent said win.
These results, in general, suggest that the public (or at least the core Democrat base) approved of the shutdown and the anti-Trump stance. Indeed, Trump reputation had begun to suffer.
It is in the context, a public vindication of their strategy, that the eight senators, none of whom are faced by imminent elections, caved. Meanwhile, many Democratic incumbents and candidates, including leftists like Sanders and some centrists as well, wanted to continue with the shutdown, even though many of them are facing elections. Why then, it must be asked, are those with seemingly nothing to lose the most cautious?
The defectors and apologists have claimed that the shutdown was never going to work; they never have in the past, after all. But that isn’t a substantial argument. Success may well be historic, but these are historic times. The shutdown had already been made historic by its duration, and once again, the elections indicate that it could have continued. It comes with pain, and I am a little uneasy about that, but the loss of healthcare will be devastating to many, as will conceding ground to Trump.
Neoliberals and Socialists
To be honest, I am not overly surprised by the capitulation. I don’t expect substantial opposition from the mainstream Democrats and, sure enough, their opposition to Trump has been predominantly ineffective and clownish (colour-coordinated blazers). The shutdown has been a mere interruption to their ineptitude. Moreover, as indicated, the capitulation is in line with a prior theory.
There are socioeconomic forces, I argue, acting upon the Democrats that tend to undermine their opposition. This is largely a case of self-interest and fear, and is applicable to centrists the world over. The theory is perhaps worth reiterating.
The majority of mainstream/centrist Democrats have a neoliberal outlook. They are also wealthy and/or friends with wealthy actors and donors, explaining said neoliberal preferences. They often combine this with a socially progressive outlook and democratic veneer, though their prioritisation of neoliberal policies regularly undermines that.
Trump, importantly, is also a neoliberal; he just doesn’t combine it with socialising measures. So, whilst mainstream/neoliberal Democrats may dislike Trump’s brand of neoliberalism, they can content themselves that neoliberalism at least will, broadly, remain intact.
By contrast, socialist economics, even the moderate socialism of left-wing Democrats, is a threat to neoliberal orthodoxy and the personal fortunes of wealthy democratic donors. And when wealthy people are made to choose between their wallets and their principles, they usually choose their wallets. After all, they’re not the ones who’ll suffer from an abandonment of principle. That’s why so many Democrats and self-proclaimed progressives sided with Republicans and overtly racist conservatives to oppose Mamdani in New York. They fear socialism more than they fear Trump.
Democrats and Socialists
The point that rich people want to stay rich is self-evident, and it wouldn’t surprise any observer of US politics to accuse wealthy Democrats of disliking socialists. But this alone does not explain why their opposition to Trump has been so weak. Nor does it explain their capitulation on the shutdown. Mainstream Democrats are, or once were, a powerful bloc. Surely, they would leverage that power to preserve their preferred model of third way neoliberalism (neoliberalism with socialising measures). Why should they capitulate to anyone, left or right?
A key problem faced by neoliberal centrists, in all countries, is the erosion of their electoral base by economic inequality. This has made their electoral success dependent on their ability to play the right and left against each other, and upon their unusually expansive political machinery. But they can’t play that game forever. Moderate neoliberal views will never cater to the anger and desperation that neoliberalism has created. Only the political poles can do that: the right caters to anger; the left caters to desperation. And thus, only the left can beat the right.
The one saving grace of centrist politics, which the Democrats are increasingly dependent on, is the relative lack of socialist organisation. The socialists do have organisations, such as the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), but the expense of funding a large-scale organisation is an obvious hurdle to any socialistic, distinctly non-wealth-based, movement. American socialists have subsequently lined up behind the Democrats, artificially boosting the centre’s power in a temporary marriage of convenience.
Nevertheless, the socialist movement is growing in power; a direct result of the same inequality and polarisation that is undermining the neoliberal centre. In the US, for example, Mamdani’s impressive win is really the latest chapter in a longer story of socialism’s electoral assent. Moreover, this assent has been facilitated, at least in part, by a gradual electoral takeover of the Democrats’ machinery. Mamdani, for instance, won the Democratic primary. The left has been able to do this, I’d hazard, in part because of the Democrats’ growing electoral dependence upon them.
The neoliberal mainstream Democrats are, in turn, likely to be horrified by the realisation that their need for voters, in a time of polarisation, is enabling the rise of socialism. In other words, they don’t want a genuinely left-wing Democratic Party and this, crucially, will compel them to back down from any position that risks empowering the left to overtake them.
There is a substantial well of anti-Trump feeling in the US. But the opposition is currently latent since, at least for now, only the Democratic Party possesses the political machinery needed for its mobilisation. Yet the policies required for that mobilisation (rent freezes, free healthcare, affordability, etc.) would, as hinted above, give the opposition a socialist character. Mainstream Democrats know this and, subsequently, avoid any meaningful opposition for fear that it would excite a socialist current beyond their control. Indeed, it already is.
I hypothesise, as such, that mainstream Democrats will tend to resign themselves to trivial displays of opposition that excite no one, and for which they will be mocked, whilst avoiding the meaningful opposition that could empower the socialist left. And why wouldn’t they choose Trump over socialism? Trump isn’t going to tax them. Thus, the mainstream opposition will tend to collapse. The shutdown’s conclusion, despite electoral successes and the views of their party, is arguably demonstrative of this mechanism.
Elections and Capitulation
To reiterate, I suspect the Senators capitulated not because they thought the shutdown wouldn’t work, as some have suggested, or even because of the hardship it was causing, which was now for nothing. Rather, they were suddenly afraid that it would work. The mainstream Democrats no doubt expected that the shutdown, like prior shutdowns, would be ineffective and that it would, for that reason, be another performative show of trivial opposition. It would give Trump a headache, but it wouldn’t excite any widespread and potentially socialist opposition.
They were wrong. The shutdown dragged on longer than anyone could have expected. It affected Trump’s reputation as well. In that context, some mainstream Democrats would likely begin to wonder if, by highlighting economic issues and effectively creating a forced nationwide strike, they risked empowering the socialists who would invariably respond to and pick up on those economic questions. Not least because the shutdown was highlighting the importance of governmental healthcare provisioning, even in the US’s minimal form.
How long, some mainstream Democrats may have conceivably asked themselves, could the shutdown continue before the populace demanded more substantial concessions? How long could it continue before forcing a reckoning? I’m being a tad hyperbolic here. I don’t think that it would have forced a reckoning, not after only 40 days.
Still, I’d be surprised if its unusual duration did not create some anxiety amongst the neoliberal Democrats. Thought this would have likely been a nagging doubt or background suspicion rather than a conscious thought. It would not necessarily apply to every mainstream Democrat, either. I suggest it as a trend rather than a rule.
It would have been against this backdrop of anti-leftist neoliberal suspicions, however, that a socialist won New York, despite their every effort to stop him. If there wasn’t a suspicion that they were inadvertently empowering the socialist left before Mamdani’s win, there almost certainly was afterwards. A few mainstream Democrats, unburdened by approaching elections and thus not dependent on left-wing votes, freaked out and promptly backed down.
Conclusion
Some mainstream Democrats, such as the new Governor-Elect of Virginia, Spanberger, may refute that the election results were a vindication of the shutdown. Others may have genuinely been concerned over the shutdown’s effects. But the health effects of the capitulation will be substantial and, again, the timing is peculiar.
Again, I don’t usually like to speculate about individual and conscious political decisions. I prefer to deal with trends, observations and large numbers of people, on the assumption that some will act on the trend and some won’t. I’m stretching that with this article. I do so only because this event would seem to support the previous hypothesis, outlined above, that its fear of the left will cause the centrist opposition to regularly break down.
I think it is likely, given their general dislike of socialism, that if there were even a suspicion that the shutdown and Mamdani’s election were related, or that one vindicated the other, it would motivate some Democrats to abandon the shutdown. It would certainly explain why the events occurred in such close proximity. Put differently, they have acted in the exact manner that theory implies.