Opinion - Democrats should stop saving the Republicans from themselves

With yet another government shutdown looming, an important question must be addressed: Should Democrats keep bailing out Republicans?

This isn’t hyperbole — it has become a recurring pattern. Republicans’ razor-thin majority in the House, coupled with an unruly coalition unwilling to support raising the debt ceiling or preventing government shutdowns (particularly via stopgap measures like continuing resolutions), has forced Democrats to repeatedly step in and avert impending disaster.

Headlines like “Dems prepare to save another GOP speaker from a shutdown” and “Democrats poised to bail out GOP on spending deal but silent on level of support” illustrate the growing trend.

The latest development comes courtesy of the conservative House Freedom Caucus, which is refusing to back President Joe Biden’s request for supplemental disaster aid following this fall’s hurricanes.

In their words: “Congress should not pass a whopping $100 billion unpaid disaster supplemental funding bill — that Democrats will use to cement their own unrelated priorities — in the waning days of Democrat control in Washington…”

As The Hill’s Aris Folley points out, Democratic votes will be needed to push through a stopgap measure and avoid a funding lapse. As usual, Democrats are likely to cooperate and save the holidays. But what happens next year, when Republicans control the presidency, Senate and House, and Democrats are relegated to minority status?

Should Democrats continue to be the “responsible” party, committed to governing and protecting institutions — even though this strategy earned them no rewards in 2024? Or is it time to take a harder line and force Republicans to own their dysfunction, suffer the consequences, or make major structural concessions in return for Democratic support?

Until now, I’ve generally argued that Democrats should do the right thing. Someone has to be the adult in the room. Governing responsibly is a duty — especially when the consequences of failure are dire.

But this strategy came with an unspoken assumption: That by positioning themselves as the party of stability and reason, Democrats would win over moderate suburban voters disillusioned by Republican chaos — and be rewarded for acting as the de facto “governing” party.

The 2024 election results challenge this theory.

Instead, by acting like pearl-clutching, conventional “adults,” Democrats inadvertently allowed Republicans to embrace the far more enticing role of the rebellious teenager — one that Americans, it turns out, find much more appealing.

By repeatedly bailing out Republicans, Democrats have enabled their reckless behavior, sparing them from consequences and allowing the GOP to remain in a state of perpetual adolescence.

In a way, Democrats are playing the role of enabler by rescuing the dysfunctional partner who never learns from his or her mistakes. It’s understandable.

For those who worry about the consequences (a government shutdown, roiled markets, unpaid workers, delayed disaster aid, etc.), the impulse to intervene is tempting. But constantly bailing out Republicans ensures that they never take responsibility; and worse, they’ll keep pushing boundaries.

This dynamic mirrors what adults within the Trump administration did during Donald Trump’s first term. By slow-walking Trump’s most dangerous policies, they shielded the public from the full consequences of his unfiltered MAGA agenda.

Morally, this may have felt like the right thing to do, but did it work? Based on the 2024 election results, the answer isn’t obvious.

So what might a different, insurgent, strategy look like? Instead of saving Republicans from themselves, Democrats could adopt a “let them sink or swim” approach. If Republicans want to drive the government into a shutdown or default — or refuse to fund disaster aid — let them.

This approach might seem radical, but it has precedent. Former Republican Speaker Newt Gingrich, as chronicled in Julian E. Zelizer’s “Burning Down the House,” successfully ended Democrats’ 40-year control of Congress by prioritizing politics over governance.

Rather than worry about preserving the institution of Congress, Gingrich argued that Congress had become “morally, intellectually and spiritually corrupt.” He used once unthinkable tactics — shutting down the government, for example — to make his case.

In this case, Democrats wouldn’t need to shut things down themselves; Republicans would. Democrats would merely permit them to do so. Or, if Republicans are amenable, Democrats could condition their help on major structural changes.

As Jonathan V. Last of The Bulwark suggested, “What they should demand in return should be something that would give them structural power … for example, making [Washington] D.C. a state.”

I’m not a fan of nihilism or irresponsibility. But playing nice has gotten Democrats nowhere, and it has ironically led us all to a very dangerous place and time. If Democrats want to win in this era of brinkmanship, they need to start playing hardball.

Appeasing dysfunction hasn’t worked. Forcing accountability just might.

Matt K. Lewis is a columnist, podcaster and author of the books “Too Dumb to Fail” and “Filthy Rich Politicians.”

Copyright 2024 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

For the latest news, weather, sports, and streaming video, head to The Hill.