Title: The Democrats' Generational Divide [MUSIC]

Brian Lehrer: It's the Brian Lehrer Show on WNYC. Good morning, everyone. Coming up on today's show, we have historian and now popular newsletter writer Heather Cox Richardson on you might call it 250 years of democracy versus the temptation toward authoritarianism in this country, including yesterday's comment by Chief Justice John Roberts. Did you hear this? That indicates he's watching. Richardson wrote a whole book a few years ago about what she calls Trump's authoritarian experiment and what might be different today from previous eras in the US. Heather Cox Richardson, coming up.

Also, very interesting mayoral campaign news about who's raising money from a lot of people and who might now run as an independent. You can probably guess who that one is. A call in for Canadians. How have Trump's demands and insults and claims that Canada is not rightly a country, but the 51st state affected your sense of national pride or anything else? That's all coming up. First, Chuck Schumer, the Senate minority leader, continues to be a lightning rod in his own party for not forcing a government shutdown last week by refusing to vote for the Republican six-month budget bill.

He argued the effects of the shutdown and the fight would be worse for the country and worse for ultimately stopping what the Democrats see as the Trump and Musk wrecking ball, worse than the accusations of being limp. The divisions over that decision highlight longer-term ones in the party along lines of age and ideology and strategy. Age is getting a lot of press, but it's not just age, as exemplified by Nancy Pelosi Yesterday, who at 84 is a full decade older than Schumer.

Nancy Pelosi: It is about what comes next. I myself don't give away anything for nothing.

Brian Lehrer: "I myself don't give away anything for nothing." Pelosi also said this about what a shutdown or at least a harder line in the sand could have produced.

Nancy Pelosi: They may not have agreed to it, but at least the public would have seen they're not agreeing to it and that then they would have been shutting government down because we don't want government to shut down.

Brian Lehrer: Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Washington Post columnist Philip Bump has an article about how young Americans are angry at both Trump and the Democratic Party. Bump is the author of The Aftermath: The Last Days of the Baby Boom and the Future of Power in America, which came out in 2023. POLITICO's senior editor, Charlie Mahtesian, wrote an article yesterday for the POLITICO Nightly newsletter describing the arc of Schumer's career as bending toward victory, no matter the era. That includes doing unpopular things for a reason. Charlie Mahtesian and Philip Bump both join me now. Charlie, welcome. Philip, welcome back to WNYC.

Philip Bump: Thank you very much.

Charlie Mahtesian: Thanks. Great to be here.

Brian Lehrer: Charlie, what's the Schumer's arc bends toward victory story? Why did you put it that way?

Charlie Mahtesian: I thought it was important to put Schumer's decision into some context in light of all of the anger and rage that had been swelling up in the Democratic base. The piece was less about Schumer's decision. I think it's, you can argue about the merits of that decision or whether it was the wrong move or the right move, but I thought it was important to contextualize it because I think, in some ways, and Philip spoke to this, there's a generational component here to this anger about Schumer's positioning here.

I think that, in many ways, it's justified. It's based on the idea that this party has become a gerontocracy. When you look at Schumer and some of the things he's done, you look at him on social media, the bad dancing memes, and the cringeworthy videos and social media hits, he looks like one of these feckless elderly leaders that just isn't up to the game of taking on Donald Trump. I thought it's important to show that this is a man with a history that's very different than I think people understand. He has been a very effective leader, especially in telling the party things that they don't want to hear. I thought it was important to note that at this time when his leadership is being questioned and there's talk of primary challenges and everything else.

Brian Lehrer: On telling the party what they don't want to hear, sometimes you use the term Schumer delivering bitter medicine when the party most needs it. What's an example of that?

Charlie Mahtesian: The most perfect example would be when he ascended to become the chairman of the Democratic campaign arm for the Senate. It's called the DSCC, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. When he first became the chairman in 2006, remember, this was for the 2006 election cycle. This was at a low point for the Democratic Party, not altogether different than the low point that the party is at right now. He takes over the campaign arm at a time when the party is trying to figure out its way, its path back to majority, how to deal with a strong and, at the time, still high-flying president.

Brian Lehrer: Right. Just to remind people of that, or for people who weren't even old enough to be paying attention to the news at that time, 20 years ago, George W. Bush had just been re-elected despite the Iraq war, but largely because of how the public was still feeling after 9/11, the Republicans had control of Congress, too. It was in that environment that you're describing Schumer's attempt at leadership. Right?

Charlie Mahtesian: Exactly. What Schumer did at the time was he stepped on a lot of toes in a lot of states and got involved and broke with tradition by supporting candidates, really placing his finger on the scale in a lot of these primaries across the country and picking candidates that based on his political instincts, which have been very sharp over the course of his career. Here we're talking about people like Bob Casey in Pennsylvania who would go on to serve multiple terms. You're talking about James Webb in Virginia. These were controversial decisions at the time to back these candidates. Many wings in the Democratic Party were very frustrated and angry at Schumer for doing this, but in the end, [crosstalk]

Brian Lehrer: Those were relatively moderate Democrats. Is that why?

Charlie Mahtesian: Yes, they were. Webb was probably more conservative Democrat back when there were conservative Democrats. In Casey's situation, what was really interesting there is here you have Schumer, who is a long-standing abortion rights supporter, pushing Casey on the party because, at the time, Casey was an abortion opponent. He evolved over time, but back then he was an abortion opponent, and that enraged a lot of elements of the Democratic Party, and they were very frustrated with Schumer's involvement there. He was proved right there.

Brian Lehrer: Because Casey got elected in Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania was a swing state even then. Look at John Fetterman today and the way that he's a lightning rod for some of his positions. He won, Harris lost.

Charlie Mahtesian: That's exactly it. It's a similar kind of thinking, where he backed the party and was proved right and helped build the majority. He did something very similar. Keep in mind, back when he took over at the DSCC, the Democrats were at a low point in terms of the Senate seat they held. These two cycles, I think, in many ways burnished Schumer's reputation because when he had come to Washington, when he came out of the House, he was respected. He was an energetic and serious legislator. At the same time, there were some questions about his temperament, his ambition, the thirst for media attention. I think that was a notice that this was a very serious and effective political player. I think over the years, he showed that over and over.

Brian Lehrer: Philip Bump, Washington Post columnist, you're the data guy, not to mention the author of a book on generational change in the country and the Democratic Party.

Philip Bump: True.

Brian Lehrer: Is this divide over what Schumer did last week, according to the data you've been able to see or interviews that you've done, for that matter, about age, about ideology, about strategy? What mix?

Philip Bump: Yes, I think that there is a generational divide on the left that overlaps a lot of this. All of the points that were just articulated, they're well taken, but it is very emblematic of the idea that what Charles Schumer did in 2006, which we'll note was a Democratic wave year that was powered in part by the fact that the Republicans were mired in scandal. Casey won by 17 points, for God's sake, right?

Brian Lehrer: By the way, they were trying to privatize Social Security, and that went over like a lead balloon around the country. Right?

Philip Bump: Right, exactly. Yes. '06 and '08 were extremely strong Democratic years, in part because the Republicans have made such gains. I'm not trying to diminish Schumer's accomplishments, but I think a lot of people could have been equally successful. The point is that today that doesn't matter. It really doesn't matter for the moment. I don't mean any disrespect to Charlie, and he knows that obviously, that he's adding context, that this isn't necessarily a sign that Schumer is perfect for the moment. The challenge is that the Democratic Party, unlike the Republican Party, is heavily dependent on younger Americans and the support from younger Americans, a group which is not tightly bound to the party that generally sees itself as independents who lean toward Democrats and support Democratic policies.

The challenge that Schumer faces in the moment is that he is fighting a different fight than the party was fighting in 2006 and even was different than the one it was fighting in 2016. It is in a moment where Donald Trump is seizing power very aggressively, and there is a huge demand, particularly from younger people, according to CNN polling, which I cite in the reference piece, particularly for younger people, to push back on that. Schumer, no matter the merits of his approach, no matter the reality of his argument that having a shutdown would do potentially more damage to the government over the long term, it was played poorly from a political standpoint.

He is now seen as having capitulated at this moment, when Democrats are more likely to demand that Democrats fight than they have been in other recent polls. This is, you go back to 2017, they're more likely to say, "Hey, let's work with the Republicans and pass our agenda." Now Democrats are saying, "No, we've got to stand in the way," particularly young Democrats, a group that's already only loosely attached to the party. To have Senator Schumer out there and say, "This is what's best, you got to trust me," that is almost guaranteed to make people mutter than to mollify them.

Brian Lehrer: Listeners weigh in on Chuck Schumer and the reaction to his decision last week and how he handled it, which Philip was just referring to and just we'll get a little bit more into, but also on the larger implications of the question, how, if you're a Democrat, if you're opposed to what Trump and Musk are doing is most effective to fight them. 212-433-WNYC, 212-433-9692, or your questions for Charlie Mahtesian from POLITICO and Philip Bump from The Washington Post. Call or text 212-433-WNYC, 433-9692. Charlie, to what Philip was just referring to, part of the criticism of Schumer is about how he waited till the last minute to announce his position, making House Democrats look irrelevant because they had all voted against the stopgap spending bill and maybe squandering an opportunity, maybe that's what Pelosi was referring to in the clip we played at the top, to stand up there and at least verbally demand some concessions while threatening a shutdown. Did he just blow it in that regard, at least? Would you say there's consensus on that?

Charlie Mahtesian: Yes, it's hard to argue that that was deftly handled. Even despite my arguments, I think he handled it pretty awkwardly there. If you're talking about the process and how he rolled it out, sure. Here the best example of that is exactly what you're pointing out, Nancy Pelosi, because Pelosi's comments I thought were really, really revealing. She really plunged the blade in with those comments yesterday and how she said them. "I myself don't give away anything for nothing." That raised eyebrows with the manner in which she said it. I think it's hard to argue that he handled it well. I think there's a more reasonable point that you can have about the merits of his argument, or at least of his strategic thinking on the matter.

Brian Lehrer: Philip, you want to weigh in on that too?

Philip Bump: Yes. I think that there are a lot of facets here. Even something to the extent of how Schumer made his announcement. He had this piece that ran in The New York Times, spoke with The New York Times, and it was just, this is not how you're going to reach the base of people that the Democratic Party desperately needs to hold on to. Look, I work for The Washington Post. I don't mean to disparage New York Times, but there is an audience for The New York Times that does not overlap with younger Americans. Same with The Washington Post, and the same with POLITICO.

We understand how this goes. Schumer is taking this very old-school approach to this and treating this situation as though it is comparable to the situations he's dealt with in the past. Last night, for example, he was on Chris Hayes' show on MSNBC and pooh-poohed the idea that there was any crisis. If and when it comes to the point where Donald Trump is defying the Supreme Court, he said, then it's a problem, which is very much not where Democrats are at the moment. Democrats are very attuned to the idea that there is a very real threat being posed by Donald Trump in the moment, and they expect their leaders to actually act on that in a way that Nancy Pelosi, who is a much better political strategist in the moment than is Chuck Schumer, I think, handled with her comments.

What we see then is that we have Chuck Schumer who is in this position and treating it as if it is again, 2006, 2016, when it's not. His party doesn't see it that way. CNN, in their poll, said that the Democratic Party's favorability is near its low. In part, that's because people expect the party to actually be fighting in a way that they're not and in a way that Schumer hasn't been.

Brian Lehrer: By the way, listener points out in a text that John Fetterman won in Pennsylvania in 2022, Harris lost in Pennsylvania in 2024, slightly different political climate, so not exactly an apples-to-apples comparison. I think the trend line still makes the point, but that correction was worth articulating. Here's the clip of Schumer from the Senate floor last week when he announced his reasoning for not forcing a shutdown. 25 seconds.

Chuck Schumer: For sure, the Republican bill is a terrible option. It is not a clean CR, it is deeply partisan. It doesn't address far too many of this country's needs. I believe allowing Donald Trump to take even much more power via a government shutdown is a far worse option.

Brian Lehrer: Charlie, what I haven't seen, and maybe you've done it on POLITICO, maybe others have done it, but it's not jumping out, is an actual debate over whether it would have been far worse to force the shutdown in terms of what Schumer is arguing there, that Trump and Musk would have been able to do much more damage. They would have had more political levers that Congress or the courts couldn't stop if the government was shut down because the Democrats wouldn't go along for the moment in this six-month stopgap budget than what Schumer did, which was to just allow it to go through. Have you published or have you seen a good, substantive debate on what conversation would we be having now if there was a shutdown?

Charlie Mahtesian: I think the problem, Brian, is we really don't have those kinds of substantive debates anymore in this era. They don't happen within a party, and they certainly don't happen between the parties. We haven't had that because one of the problems is it's an unknown unknown. Who knows what might have happened? I think you could make a pretty persuasive argument for why Schumer is right, but I think at the same time, all of the angry voices of the left, they also have a very reasonable point here. One thing, though, is we don't know if it could have been worse.

Maybe it could have, maybe it couldn't have. One point that I think also isn't being looked at here is a lot of the voices on the left that are so angry with Schumer and wanted more of a fight and wanted to see more of a fight, I think are focused on the wrong thing. They're focused on more the performative aspects of this debate and not focused on the hard politics of it, which I think Schumer is in many ways because many of the people that want to see a fight on the left, there's just not a huge body of evidence that those voices have won on a national map over time.

I think Philip made a really smart point before, that 2006 was a very different cycle. The politics were different then, but at the same time over the years, and this held true also in the Democratic wavish year of 2018, the left that wants this fight, that wants this kind of confrontation across the map, I think doesn't always account for the differences between districts. Many of the voices on the left are coming from places where the debate is very different. What Schumer's perspective, I think, includes is a national perspective that takes the entire party into account that what is going to play in the red states, what is going to elect senators outside the coasts of the US, what is going to play in the broadest sense? I think that has been missing from this debate.

Brian Lehrer: Here an example of one of those politicians you're talking about who is, of course, a leader in that camp. The Queens and Bronx Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez last week on CNN with Jake Tapper criticizing Schumer's move.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: I think that what we need right now is a united Senate Democratic caucus that can stand up for this country and not vote for cloture and not vote for this bill. I think that the strength that we have is in this moment, reconciliation and all of these Republicans do not need Democratic votes for that. They need it for this. The strength of our leadership in this moment is going to demonstrate the strength of our caucus. I cannot urge enough how bad of an idea it is to empower and enable Donald Trump and Elon Musk in this moment. It is dangerous, and it is reckless.

Brian Lehrer: Philip, that goes to the point that Charlie was just making that what AOC was calling for there or what she was arguing there, she's not disagreeing with Schumer, that the strategy wouldn't have empowered Trump and Musk in the short term. She's making that performative case that what they need to do to fight longer term is look really angry, really shake the trees, look really united, and it's more empowering of Trump to look like they're just going to lie down when they don't have the leverage and wait for some particular strategic moment when they do.

Philip Bump: Yes. I think that that captures a lot of the sentiment that you hear from the Democratic base. It is not the case that I think smart thinkers about the political moment think that they should engage in fruitless fights that end up in loss. I think it is instead that you frame what it is that you're doing through the context of a fight, which Schumer didn't do. He didn't frame it as a fight. He framed it as, I put this in a different interview this way, which is that Democrats tend to think like 10 moves further on the chessboard, and here's what we're going to do. Then they have to articulate, "Then we're going to position this and that."

In the moment, what the base is calling for is think zero moves ahead, just fight. Get out there and say you're fighting Donald Trump every single day. The point is well taken. Chuck Schumer is in a very different position than the House, than Pelosi, than AOC, than any of them, because he does have to maintain a very difficult balance of holding red states in order to be able to get a majority because of the way that the Senate allocates power. His position is more difficult. I think it is hard to argue at this moment that trying to appease moderate voters in red states to try and potentially win a seat there is going to be a better strategy in this moment than activating Democrats and ensuring that you are saying to Democrats, "We're fighting for you, and we are leading in this fight, and we are taking steps that need to be taken to have this fight."

I think that's very obviously something that the party should be worried about, even in red states. The extent to which Democrats are saying, "This party is so useless and absolutely doing nothing," that needs to be combated before you start worrying about if you're going to peel off some purplish voters in Montana.

Brian Lehrer: In the second Pelosi clip from yesterday that we played, she said they may not have agreed to it, meaning the Republicans to whatever Schumer would demand, but at least the public would have seen they're not agreeing to it. There's Nancy Pelosi at age 84 agreeing with AOC, it seems to me, who's in her mid-30s, that letting the public see what the Republicans were doing by shining an angry, rejectionist light on it may have had value.

Philip Bump: Yes. I think it's important to note that when I talk about the generational divide in the party, I'm not saying that all older Democrats support Chuck Schumer and all the younger ones support AOC or anything along those lines. I'm saying instead that there is a constituency in the party which is different than the constituency in the Republican Party, which is younger, expects different modes of communication, and expects the party to do things that the party is not doing, and at the same time, problematically for the party, are only loosely attached to the party. That's the tension that the party needs to resolve. I think Schumer's actions and comments since have been more damaging to that than even the initial decision that he made.

Brian Lehrer: Paul in Sunset Park wants to mention another traditional mainstream Senate Democrat who it didn't take until a week after the fact to dissent from. Schumer on this.

Paul: Hello?

Brian Lehrer: Yes, Hi, Paul. You're on. You're on the air. Hello?

Paul: Yes, this is Paul Brown, Sunset Park, longtime listener, first-time caller. It seems to me that Pelosi is right. I'm younger than Pelosi and older than Schumer, and I pay a lot of attention to young people because we are losing them. Let me go to the immediate. Chris Coons said it well before he decided which way he was going to go. He said Donald Trump and Elon Musk are already closing down the government. Had Schumer gotten up there and said, "I can't go along with this, we are ready to negotiate, we are not going to be left out of the negotiation," and sent his people out across the country with simple, easy sound bite messages the way Chris Coons did it beforehand. I was in North Carolina, in Asheville, that day and heard it and the way Nancy Pelosi did. I don't want to go on, but this is not 2016 or even 2020. We have a coup going on, and we must stand up, and we must stand up now. The courts will pay attention to how much the public is there, and so eventually will the Congress.

Brian Lehrer: Paul, thank you. I'm going to leave it there for time, but thank you very much. Paul makes a really important point, Charlie, I think. Another way you could put it is maybe there was a failure of imagination, at very least on the part of Chuck Schumer, because, to the caller's point, where was any theater about specific demands? You know how the Republicans are so good at framing talking points, save women's sports, or whatever you want to cite, from the way that the Republicans communicate? Where was something like that at that moment from Chuck Schumer, or I guess, for that matter, anybody else in Democratic Party leadership, saying, "This is what's going to happen under this budget bill, this is going to affect your--"

I don't think it was going to affect Medicaid necessarily right away. I think that's the next bill. Whatever they could have highlighted, "Look at this, look at this, look at this." Have these theatrical moments in Washington and around the country that would have put pressure before they got to the Thursday, Friday deadline and really made more of a show of painting what was in that bill as bad for America. You know what I mean?

Charlie Mahtesian: Yes, I think that's a terrific point. Even as someone who wrote something of a defense of Schumer, it was clear there's a failure of imagination there for all the reasons that you just laid out. There were so many other theatrical options that we've seen Republicans use, whether you're talking about in the early parts of the Tea Party era or even now, that Democrats didn't employ and maybe should have. A perfect example of this was in one of Schumer's defenses. I think maybe this was the clip you ran, where Schumer says, "For sure, the Republican bill is a terrible option. It's not a clean CR."

Most people have no idea what is he talking about. What is a clean CR? What is a CR? That's just not the language of contemporary politics. It's not language that resonates with people. It's not language that resonates with young people. It's not the kind of language that Trump has used to great success. It underscores all the things that frustrate Democrats about their own party and about the age of the leadership and all of that. It does show that they're not really on the same playing field as their Republican colleagues right now in terms of how they speak to America and how they connect to America. I think that it's right on the money to say that there is a failure of imagination here.

Brian Lehrer: We have some callers defending Schumer as well, other callers saying Schumer has got to go, at least as minority leader. We're going to take a few more calls and texts with our guests, Philip Bump from The Washington Post and Charlie Mahtesian from POLITICO. I'm also going to want to get with you, two, to what the next act is, because in Schumer's telling at least, the next act is going to be the bigger budget bill fight that's coming in the next few months, where they are trying to take $880 billion out of the committee.

That would mostly mean it would have to come from Medicaid and other much bigger things. The way Schumer tells it, he's saving his bullets for that, as well as not having empowered Trump and Musk to do even more damage without constitutional protections if there was a shutdown. I want you to preview when we continue what this next act that Schumer allegedly that he would say he is really gearing up for, what that might look like when we get there. Stay with us. Brian Lehrer on WNYC.

[MUSIC]

Brian Lehrer: Brian Lehrer on WNYC as we continue to talk about the ramifications for the Democratic Party and for the country of Chuck Schumer not being willing to let the government shut down by refusing to vote for the CR, the continuing resolution. What does that mean in plain English? A six-month stopgap budget bill that came before Congress that Trump and Musk wanted. Last week we heard a caller on one side. Marvin in Brooklyn has a different point of view, I think. Hi, Marvin, you're on WNYC. Marvin once.

Marvin: Hello?

Brian Lehrer: Hi, Marvin, you're on.

Marvin: Am I on?

Brian Lehrer: Yes, sir.

Marvin: Okay. I think one of the things that's missing in this conversation is an understanding of the difference between the Republicans and the Democrats. The Republicans don't-- Are you hearing me?

Brian Lehrer: I'm hearing you, Marvin, but maybe we don't have a good line. I'm going to go to somebody else for right now. Let's see if we have a better connection with John in Monmouth County. John, you're on WNYC, who I think wants to make a similar point to Marvin. John, you're on. Hi. I think we're having a few telephone problems here. I think the callers can't hear me. Sorry, folks. We will try to get that fixed. Here's a text that also conveys that side of the argument. Charlie, listener, writes, "We should have paid more attention when John Fetterman said he would support the Republican spending bill. It took me too long to understand the greater danger of blocking the bill." Is there a constituency out there for that point of view? I have a couple of texts like that.

Charlie Mahtesian: Yes. I think that there is a constituency for something different than what we saw here with this episode. I think Schumer understands that now. This is, I think, an episode that's really left a bruise on him, and he recognizes that he misplayed it. The reason, I conclude that is based on how he's approached the fire suppression efforts here. If you notice, he's been on something of a media tour. He wrote the op-ed for The New York Times. He did a long interview on the interview with The New York Times podcast.

He's been out there. He's been speaking to people. I think he realizes that this is something different. He understands that something needs to change in the next fight, and I think we will see something a lot different. He has been chastened here, and you can bet that someone as politically astute as him is reading this very closely. He knows where his members are. I think it's important to note that, as angry as many wings of the party are with him, his members in the Senate have been fairly muted in their criticism of him publicly.

I think that's a reflection of the fact that they understood he took a bullet here, and they understood also that he wasn't wildly off base. At the same time, they can't say that publicly. They can't alienate wide swaths of the Democratic Party that are enraged with him right now. Either way, I think the scope and the magnitude of the blowback on this is something that he understands at this point, and what we'll see going forward the next time is going to be a very, very different response.

Brian Lehrer: Philip, the other part of the premise in your article that had the headline that young Americans are angry at Trump and the Democratic Party, wasn't the story of the election partly that older Americans didn't change much from 2020, but younger ones moved toward Trump enough to help give him the win?

Philip Bump: To some extent, yes. I think that's overstated. I wrote a piece last month, which actually looked at the shift among younger voters. A lot of the narratives that we're hearing about younger voters, I think, are incorrect. Broadly, there was a big shift to Trump nationally. We saw this in basically every state. We saw this across the board, that Donald Trump did better in 2024 than he had in 2020 and often did about as well as he'd done in 2016 in a lot of states. I think that the way that this is often understood overstates the shift among younger voters, but it is true the younger voters shifted to the right.

According to VoteCast, which is one assessment of exit polls, young men and young women shifted to about the same extent. All of that said, I think the issue that the Democrats have faced since before the election is the same issue of younger voters not being partisan, not being actual members of the Democratic Party, and not feeling a loyalty or alliance with that institution. It meant that, for example, as Joe Biden's favorability and approval rating started to tank, we saw the biggest movement there among younger Americans in part because they didn't feel as though they had loyalty to Joe Biden as the Democratic president.

They just saw what he was doing and didn't like it, and so we saw that carry over into his low numbers when he was still the presidential candidate. This is absolutely a problem, and it is absolutely the case that particularly non-white young Americans had shifted. They shifted much more than did white younger Americans between 2020 and 2024 and just broadly in their political identity. That's a challenge. That's a challenge for the party. I do think it's worth noting we are, what, five days post this big fight. To Charlie's initial point, in the grand sweep of things, this may end up being a non-issue.

It may end up being the case that the party self-corrects, that this is forgotten, that this didn't end up being that big of a fight after all. I do think that it is reflective of the party's inability to speak to those younger Americans, people who are ideologically aligned with them, if not on their vote of registration cards. That is a problem that the party really needs to work on.

Brian Lehrer: Listener writes, "This is no time for politics as usual. We're in a coup. We're in an autocracy." Another listener writes regarding Senator Schumer, "Easy for Schumer after the deed is done. Democrats remember the last 50 years and the continuing descent to Trump." Leslie in South Orange, you're on WNYC. Let's see if you can hear me, Leslie. Hi, you there?

Leslie: Hi there. There's an echo on the phone, but I'll try to speak. I can't believe that the Democrats are just getting in the worst huff over something that I believe they are trying to hold on to whatever leverage they have by not voting for the spending bill. By doing that, they would have given up so much more leverage in the long run and in the short run too, I believe, because Trump would take advantage of the shutdown and the Democrats would be blamed anyway. They would be blamed because there would be, some people would believe it. It makes sense. People aren't going to know all the machinations of this. I do believe that Schumer was right. He probably could have done a much better theatrical job of gaining support and talking, appearing in smaller venues, and in general. I'm amazed that the Democrats seem so self-destructive as that they would have shut down the government for this. I'm [unintelligible 00:37:17]

Brian Lehrer: Leslie, thank you very much. Laura in the Bronx, you're on WNYC. Hi, Laura.

Laura: Hi. Hello. I'm 75 years old. I have protested in front of Chuck Schumer's office on more than one occasion, once about the environment and nuclear power. My idea of the Democratic Party is it's trying to keep the country on the right side of history, on the humane side of history. We don't always win. I am so distressed about the casualness with which Schumer took this decision, in disregard of the fact that we are now going to be destroyed by a thousand cuts. What I really want to see is shut down the government, bring out all of us old people along with the young people, the old holsters, the ones in the wheelchairs, the ones with canes, the ones with the white hair, the ones who still remember what it's like to actually fight for something because Schumer doesn't know.

That's the problem. The problem is the Democratic Party has no ethical basis, no moral stance. I agree with the previous caller who said we are in a coup. This is not business as usual. You fight on every front. This is like Ukraine, for God's sake. You're fighting against a ruthless aggressor. You're fighting against a chainsaw president. It's horrendous. I hate what he did. I'm really disturbed. I'm old, and I've fought this fight for years. It's about people. It's not about how much bucks you can make.

Brian Lehrer: Laura, thank you very much. You hear the passion there. Laura speaks for a lot of people of many ages who are calling in and writing in. We have some who agree with Leslie in South Orange, who was on last and had that different point of view. The Democratic Party is going to keep having this internal conversation. Philip, I teased earlier that before we end the segment, I would ask how is Schumer, and how is Hakeem Jeffries in the House. How are any of them who actually have the power to do something in Congress on the Democratic side going to fight the bigger budget fight with the big tax cuts and the big spending cuts and what is presumed to be hundreds of billions of dollars out of Medicaid and many other things that is just around the corner.

Philip Bump: Right, yes. Just for context, as you know, but for listeners, the federal fiscal year ends at the end of September, and they need to have a budget that will fund the next fiscal year, fiscal year 2026. That's what Schumer said he was looking forward to, not looking forward to in terms of positively anticipating, but preparing, holding his powder for. One thing is that I think it is safe to say that that is a cop out, that this argument that we really need to worry about what's happening in the future is a way of saying that this thing that you are mad at me about didn't really matter.

I don't think that's fair. I think that this was, it's a little bit like saying we're going to cede X amount of territory to the Germans, and then we're going to have our fight. Okay, but what you need to do is you need to fight in the moment. What your base is calling for you to do is fight in the moment. I don't know what the party thinks their additional leverage will be. Schumer said Trump will be less popular by then. I don't think that's the case. I wrote last week about the ways in which Donald Trump has a floor of support that he's not going to go under.

We're already seeing him, he's less popular than any prior president except for Donald Trump in 2017 already. That's just not going to happen. There may be more public outcry that they can leverage. It's possible. In order to do that, you need to organize, and you need to give people a reason to be engaged and to fight, which the Democratic Party hasn't done. I don't know how the train might be different. I think it is extremely optimistic for Schumer and his allies to say that it will be. I think it is also, to some extent, a cop out that allows them to explain away what happened last week is unimportant.

Brian Lehrer: Also, they actually don't need 60 votes in the Senate. I think they only need the 51 Republican votes that they could get with no Democrats.

Philip Bump: If there's a reconciliation, that's right.

Brian Lehrer: Yes, for that big budget bill. Democrats, if they want to fight that before it goes through, are going to have to figure out how without a shutdown, apparently. Washington Post columnist Philip Bump, who's also the author of The Aftermath: The Last Days of the Baby Boom and the Future of Power in America, which came out in 2023, and POLITICO senior political editor Charlie Mahtesian, thank you both very much.

Charlie Mahtesian: Thank you, Brian.

 

Copyright © 2025 New York Public Radio. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use at www.wnyc.org for further information.

New York Public Radio transcripts are created on a rush deadline, often by contractors. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of New York Public Radio’s programming is the audio record.