Messaging the Shut Down

We don’t have to fight with each other. We’re ALL right.

Antonia Scatton

Sep 25, 2025

All of the following are true: We must take a stand. Withholding our votes is the only concrete leverage we have. Real people will suffer real pain. Trump would use a shutdown to do horrible things. We have to appeal to voters who don’t follow the news. We have to face the traumatic reality of what is happening to our country. We win this battle by acknowledging each other’s good motives and focusing our anger on the people who put us in this untenable position.

Principles and Competing Goods

Instead of acting like the right choice is obvious and anyone who chooses otherwise is a coward or a heretic, we’re better off acknowledging that this is a terribly difficult and risky decision and none of us knows for sure what is going to happen. We should show respect for those who choose differently and use the conflict to call attention to our shared values and the fact that Republicans’ cowardice and Trump’s venality are forcing us to make choices that no-one should ever be forced to make.

Voters judge us, not on our positions, but on our principles. Voters get that circumstances change. They know that they don’t always know the right answer. They want to know what principles we will use to make decisions behind closed doors: how we judge what is right and wrong, what we’re willing to fight for, and whose side we will be on. They will be okay with us having principles that sometimes compete with each other in real world situations, so long as they understand those principles to be good principles in the first place.

Withholding Our Votes

Right now, we are squabbling over whether to withhold our votes for reasons that fall within the range of “normal business” like health care funding, or for reasons that emphasize Trump’s unprecedented lawlessness. Attacking each other only divides our supporters into warring camps, flooding social media with content about how this or that subset of Democrats is wrong: weak, cowardly, alarmist, etc. We don’t have to do it that way. We can message this in a way that makes every choice and every compromise a win for Democrats as a whole, by publicly acknowledging the merit in each other’s positions.

I have spent the last two weeks agonizing over the difficulty of these choices. This is a nearly impossible situation. Every choice has major downsides, but this is where we are at. Let’s start by going over each position. Then I’ll give you some examples of the kinds of statements we could make.

Three Paths

1. The Principled Case for NOT Shutting Down the Government

It’s not just about the risk that the public will blame us. Shutting down the government comes at a high cost that will be paid by those who depend on government programs and services and by federal government employees. The fact that government programs have a real and critical impact on people’s lives is both a legitimate reason to keep the government open and the reason why government shutdowns can be politically effective. They remind the American people why their government matters to them. If there is a shutdown, we must push out a relentless stream of content that makes the case for government, not just individual programs, but government as a whole.

I wish that was the only reason. Here is the whopper.

DOGE on Steroids

If the government “shuts down,” the President is given extraordinary powers to decide what parts of the government are considered “essential” and what can be closed down. There are programs that can’t be shut down, like social security, but other than those, OMB Director Russ Vought has plans to permanently eliminate all jobs that are not “consistent with the President’s priorities.”

If some Democrats decide that they cannot in good conscience trigger this likely worst-case-scenario, their choice would be more than justifiable out of genuine concern for people and our country. We should treat them like conscientious objectors, not like cowards. It is easy to criticize from the sidelines, but for those who actually have to make the decisions, “first do no harm” is a principled position.

2. The Principled Case for a Negotiated Budget

IF we could get Republicans in Congress to vote for a negotiated budget which restores funding for Medicare, Medicaid and ACA subsidies, we would be making an enormous difference in people’s lives while improving our position in the 2026 midterm elections. Many millions of Americans, enough to decide elections, do not follow political news and therefore still think we are living in “normal” times. They may not know squat about the daily march toward authoritarianism. They know what is happening in their lives. Saving their healthcare may be enough to get their vote.

Choosing this path could avoid Russ Vought’s worst-case-scenario while helping us win next year, which we need to do to have the votes, if not to impeach Trump, at least to put up some serious roadblocks. I know it may feel like we’re being gaslit, but this approach is not denying that other things are happening. It is just using what little leverage we have to try to obtain some tangible good while we continue to fight in the courts.

The legislation proposed by Democrats in the Senate goes further than just restoring health care funding. It also requires that the President spend funding as allocated by Congress. No impoundment. No recissions. After all, what’s the point of voting for a budget if the President can just disregard it and spend the money in a totally different way or not at all? Some assurance that the budget would be actually binding should be included in any deal.

3. The Principled Case for Refusing to be Complicit

President Trump is using the funding allocated by Congress to carry out actions that we cannot tolerate. It is reasonable to feel that continuing to fund these programs would make us complicit in these illegal and unconstitutional actions. We are fighting on every possible front, but choosing to withhold our votes for a budget is one of the only concrete actions we can take. We may as well use it to fight for all the marbles.

The problem is that Trump will continue to run the parts of the government that he is using to do all the bad things while closing all the programs that do the things we want. What is the endgame? Are we prepared for a long-term face-off? Are we willing to have things get a lot worse for a lot of people before they get better?

Where I Stand

I have never, ever, advocated for a bad thing to happen because I think it will trigger a good thing to happen in response. When bad things happen, real people suffer. But I can’t stand it anymore. Every day adds a fresh injury to our collective trauma. I suspect that a lot of us advocating for taking stronger measures are reacting to our own unbearable grief over what is happening to our country and our fellow people. We keep hoping for some relief, and yes, there are some wins, but people like Trump and Stephen Miller and Russ Vought keep coming up with new ways to abuse their power and crush our hope.

Enough Rope?

I write about metaphors, and about how they are literally the way that we think. In this case, every metaphor that comes to mind makes the case that it is better to have things get much worse all at once, rather than continue to be those frogs who sit there, slowly being boiled to death. Is it time to rip off the band-aid? Would triggering the Russ Vought slash and burn be giving Trump enough rope to hang himself? Can we finally get the frogs to jump out of the water?

Is there strategic merit to letting the American people see what Trump will do? We would have to fight like hell, both making the case for the government he is destroying and using the attention to wake people up to Trump’s dictatorial actions. At this point, even if it unleashes the absolute worst of Trump, I think this is the best path. Either he pays the price for every single program that gets shut down or he is forced to admit how much of the federal government is essential. If he is going to abuse his power in every way possible, at least we can make sure everybody knows what is happening.

Am I sure this is the best path? Not 100%. I just think that we are suffering already, and the punishing daily drip of horrible news is causing psychic distress that we may not be able to stand much longer. Our base is demanding a fight, and I think we may need it. Still, I can respect those who would rather continue the long slog of court battles and not take huge risks on other people’s behalf.

What to Say

The “All of the Above” Approach

Whether we do this as a very long press conference or series of written statements, our Members of Congress should make statements along these lines:

“I take a principled stand (describe principled stand of your choice), but I respect my Democratic colleagues who made a different principled stand (describe your favorite counter argument), and remind everyone that Trump and the Republicans in Congress are responsible for this crisis.”

It would be great to do this standing side by side to physically demonstrate our support for each other and recognition that we can make different decisions for good reasons, especially when the decision is this close and nobody knows for sure how it’s going to turn out.

Here are some other samples:

“I vote NO. My conscience requires that I take a stand against Trump’s violation of Congress’ authority to set tariffs and his reckless choice to start an illegal trade war in which the first casualties are the American people’s ability to afford the necessities of everyday life. I also support my colleagues’ decisions to vote NO (or YES) to reverse the egregious cuts in health care. I appreciate those who voted YES out of concern for our federal employees and their families and all those who depend on our critical government programs, and remind you all that we have been forced to take this very difficult position by our Republican colleagues’ failure to stand up to President Trump.”

“I vote NO, because I cannot in good conscience vote for a budget that will deprive 14 million American people of their ability to afford or access health care and accelerate the already devastating loss of hospitals and health care services in rural areas. I also appreciate and respect my colleagues who vote NO for different reasons, such as their objections to Trump’s repeated violations of Constitutional Law and abuse of the power of his office for personal and political gain. We stand with all Americans in this fight.”

“I vote YES, because President Trump will take advantage of the closing of the government to destroy even more of the critical programs and services on which the American people depend, but I appreciate and respect my colleagues who voted NO in an attempt to force President Trump to stop breaking the law.”

“I vote NO, because I cannot in good conscious vote YES for any budget that continues to fund the bombing of innocent children and civilians in Gaza. I also appreciate and respect my colleagues who voted to keep the government open to make sure that federal government employees are able to put food on the table, and remind everyone that we would not be in this position if President Trump had the guts to stand up to President Netanyahu who has been convicted of both domestic corruption and war crimes.”

There are so many legitimate offenses that we could have 261 different principled stands. Consider it a firehose of offenses. If we can’t get them to stick one at a time, let’s hit him with all of them at once.

Allowing the government to shut down causes real harm to real people and risks unleashing an even worse Trump. Voting to keep it open is a principled decision. Withholding our votes anyway to fight for the restoration of health care funding is politically smart and could achieve something tangible for people. Withholding our votes is also the right thing to do because we cannot in good conscience fund this administration’s illegal and unconstitutional behavior.

No matter which way the votes end up going or what ends up happening, we can present all Democratic positions as being, if not “the” right decision, at least “a” right decision: one based on the right principles and values. Let’s make this debate about the importance of good government, Trump’s litany of offenses, and the cowardice of Republicans in Congress.