Schumer Takes a Dive

He should take a tip from old boxing movies.

In old boxing movies, even the most broken-down stumblebum knows how to throw a fight. It’s called “taking a dive.” Before you lose, make it look like you’re trying to win. Throw a punch or two before you sprawl across the canvas and feign unconsciousness.

Maybe Chuck Schumer needs to watch more old boxing movies. By working to pass the Trump/GOP “continuing resolution,” he threw the bout of a lifetime. Why, he didn’t even pretend to fight.

Despite his tortured explanations, the most logical explanation for Schumer’s vote is simple: it was what Wall Street wanted. Trump’s recent actions destabilized the stock market, after all, and a government shutdown might have crushed its current “correction.” Democrats across the political spectrum may have condemned Schumer’s vote, but the Wall Street Journal Editorial Board was delighted.

Would voters have blamed Democrats for a shutdown, as Schumer has claimed? Nancy Pelosi, Hakeem Jeffries, and other mainstream Democrats don’t think so. Democrats offered their own stopgap bill and voters are aware that Trump has disrupted government operations.

Then there’s the delicate subject of Schumer as messenger. There are many reasons for the party’s recent losses, not the least of which is the party’s aging leadership. That’s why Nancy Pelosi yielded the House leadership to a younger (if less talented) member of Congress. When Joe Biden was forced to step down, only Schumer remained from the old guard.

I’m in no position to complain about someone’s age—and I wouldn’t. Schumer’s problem isn’t age per se. The problem is that he seems old, because he’s out of touch with today’s realities. His demeanor screams “old-school, deal-making politico.”

On this critical vote, Schumer was a leader who didn’t lead. On Wednesday, March 12, he boasted that “Republicans do not have the votes in the Senate to pass the House CR,” adding, “Our caucus is unified on a clean 30-day CR.”

His Democratic colleagues were, therefore, understandably “stunned” when he reversed himself the next day and announced he would ensure that the continuing resolution is passed.

Schumer has contradicted himself in more ways than one. He once claimed that litigation would be “the first line of defense” against Trump. Now, he’s hamstrung even that passive approach. After all, how can Democrats litigate against actions that in some cases they voted to legalize?

Schumer claimed that his goal was to protect federal employees from future mass firings. He argued that, during a shutdown, “the Trump administration would have full authority to deem whole agencies, programs and personnel nonessential, furloughing staff with no promise that they would ever be rehired.”

But it’s doing that already. A “Dear Senator” letter from the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) opposed Schumer’s position in the strongest possible terms. Here are some excerpts from that message, sent by AFGE National President Everett B. Kelley:

“I strongly urge you to oppose H.R. 1968, the spending measure that the Senate will consider this week. Please vote NO.”

“A vote for H.R. 1968 would, in AFGE’s view, be an expression of support for, or at best indifference toward, the administration’s campaign to openly bust labor unions.”

“... AFGE members have concluded that a widespread government shutdown has been underway since January 20 and will continue to spread ... (if this bill becomes law) ... there will be nothing left to stop the Administration for the balance of Fiscal Year 2025, if ever.” (Emphases mine.)

As for leadership skills … this week, Schumer told the New York Times:

“[Democrats] always cared about the working people. But in the last few years, while we did a lot for working people, here’s what we didn’t do: We didn’t tell people about it. We thought, just by legislating, people would know about it. They don’t!”

The only appropriate place for a comment like that is in a resignation letter.

I’ve argued that the left should concentrate more of its organizing work outside the Democratic Party because its “business model” makes actions like Schumer’s all but inevitable. Still, each such surrender carries real-world consequences—for the public and the party. Activists must demand more than naked surrender from an “opposition party” that fails to oppose.

Several other senators would do a better job leading the Senate Dems. Yes, Schumer’s a powerful rainmaker. That’s what keeps him in power. But his money comes with too many strings attached—and the real-world consequences of his vote can’t be ignored.

Chuck Schumer must resign. If he does not, he must be removed.

---

PS: On another note, it’s St. Patrick’s Day. That’s a good time to use an Irish expression and say, “Fair play to you, Ireland” for its support of Palestine. (That includes the six counties.)