Forgoing Pyrrhic Victories
Schumer's Capitulation Feels Weak; It Was Also The Correct Thing To Do
Pull up your chairs little ones for a nice historical bedtime tale.
Once, there was a prince of Epirus. At the age of 13, he ascended to become King, but he failed to maintain the respect of the wealthy elites and was dethroned. Betrayed and exilied, he sought out to win his birthright back. He became a military general. He was so good at it, that he earned the throne back for himself but he didn’t stop there. He took over Sicily from Carthage, one of the greatest powers of the day, he took over the Macedonian Kindgom (the seat of Alexander the Great), and he was seen as somone who could even contest the growing Roman City-State, which he set out to do. This was a great man, and one of the greatest generals in antiquity.
But what he is most known for, what he is truly defined by to this day, are his victories against Rome. I say victories, because he was indeed considered the winner of the battles of Heraclea and Aculum. However, they came at such a great cost, that he once claimed “Another such victory and we shall be undone,” which eventually happened. The battle wins were so costly, that they were rendered hollow and he lost his war against Rome, going back home with his tail between his legs. And Pyrrhus, that King of Epirus, one of the greatest generals of ancient times, coined the term “Pyrrhic Victory” with that sentiment.
So why am I bringing up obscure kings from 300 BC and what relevance does it have to today to our current political situation?
Because I see a lot of anger and resentment on the left to Chuck Schumer signing off on the Continuing Resolution to fund the government through September averting another government shutdown. Now, I’m no fan of Schumer, think he should be replaced, and believe he is one of the problems the Democrats currently have in their party, but he wasn’t wrong to do that. I get that there are a lot of progressives out there that want to fight and put up obstacles to Trump at every possible point they can, and by signing off on that Schumer and the Democrats capitulated in their eyes. Sure, but to those people I say you haven’t considered the big picture yet. You need to take a step back and look at it not of the eyes of a partisan, but in the eyes of the typical American voter.
It’s a very simple question— had Schumer shut down the government, what next? What value do you think you would have gotten out of it?
Had Schumer and the Democrats held out and caused a shutdown:
Trump gets what he wants. He’s been having Elon gut government programs in broad daylight, with Congress’s passive assent (since Republicans control Congress) and the court cases are just starting to be heard. You start a shutdown, and Trump CAN PICK AND CHOOSE WHAT PROGRAMS HE WANTS TO FUND “AS ESSENTIAL” and let the rest wither away. He wouldn’t even need Elon to shut down Treasury or Commerce agencies. He could just close them due to a shutdown.
Social Security, Medicare, Veterans Benefits, et.al. could be scaled back or held back for funding. Trump could put the blame on DEMOCRATS for that, because they didn’t sign off on the CR.
The longer the shutdown went, the more pressure would be put on Democrats to sign off, since they would be viewed as the ones holding it up. Their numbers are already in the toilet, but they could still go lower. Trust me on that.
Progressives end up being the ones looking crazy, stubborn, and unprincipled. All the arguments people have against MAGA then get leveled at the far left.
So why did Schumer give in? There was no victory ever at the end of holding out, really. It would clearly just be a pyrrhic victory. Sure, he’d give progressive activist something to crow about and voters would think he’s doing something to stop Trump. However, sooner or later, he’d have to give in to Trump as pressure mounted, and a shutdown at best would have been a hollow victory. It would come at such a cost that Democratic appeal would be less so, and they would end up with nothing to show for it. Nothing.
It also has not escaped my attention either that the people most critical of Schumer and most up in arms over everything were Never Trumpers. Steve Schmidt, Adam Kinzinger, Bill Kristol, Joe Walsh and The Bulwark Brigade, and others. They were the ones MOST activist and LOUDEST in saying Schumer needed to cause a shutdown. It’s like they are going through their old GOP playbooks without realizing they are on the other side of the equation now, with completely different positions and a completely different base of people. I’m becoming more skeptical about their political acumen, and wondering whether all their hornblowing and sabre-rattling is just hot air and elitist chummery instead of reasoned strategy. Sure, they know how to get clicks and MSNBC appearances, but to date I don’t think they’ve demonstrated they know how to get actual Democratic votes. Democrats wouldn’t gain anything from a shutdown. The idea of fighting for the sake of fighting is how our politics devolved consistently since 1994 when these jokers got into power in the GOP in the first place.
If we’re going to build a growing, lasting majority, we have to be better than just arguing for no reason. Liam Kerr at The Welcome Party had this to say about the current Democratic Party dynamic:
For Republicans, shutting down the government is fine, because they don’t like government. If they had a choice, they’d KEEP it shut down, but inevitably public pressure mounts on them to open it up again, and all the political approval goes to the other side. All these shutdown advocates always forget that last part. Every time the right has shut down the government, they never came out of it politically better. They may have snagged a concession or two but it really wasn’t worth the price they paid—THAT is a pyrrhic victory for Republicans every time. Schumer wasn’t going to get ANY concession here. Trump and Elon would just grin and say, “You go ahead Chuck, we’re fine over here with you closing up shop.”
So Chuck did something I don’t think they wholly expected—he signed off on the CR. That means everything—the tarriffs, the economy, the government cuts, Elon and his flamethrower, ALL OF IT, is still at Trump’s and Republican’s feet. It’s entirely a product of how they govern. Period. Going forward, every bad thing regarding funding, tarriffs, whatever, it all points right back at the White House and his lackeys on the hill.
And with that the pressure continues to mount for Trump and Co. on every other thing they continue to wreck.
Because despite all of his flaws, Schumer is no Pyrrhus. He’s willing to take the L here if it means he ends up in a better position to win the war later.
PurpleAmerica’s Obscure Fact of the Day
Pyrrhic Victories are usually seen as successes for those who lost them. Our country was practically founded on them. From History.com:
The American Revolution had turned bloody by the summer of 1775, but aside from minor skirmishes at Lexington and Concord, the colonials had yet to test their mettle against the British Army. That changed on June 17, when a ragtag group of 1,000 militiamen tried to check a British advance on the heights overlooking Boston. After fortifying Breed’s Hill—the battle takes its name from Bunker Hill, the peak they were originally told to occupy—they faced down a superior force of some 2,200 British soldiers. The Americans’ accurate musket fire drove back two separate British attacks, but by the third advance, they had expended their meager stores of ammunition. Following a few frantic minutes of hand-to-hand combat, the militiamen abandoned the hill and retreated. The British victory at Bunker Hill came at a punishing cost. Compared to 400 killed or wounded for the colonials, the Redcoats sustained more than 1,000 casualties, and their heavy losses forced them to scrap plans to seize another piece of high ground on the outskirts of Boston. The Americans, meanwhile, hailed the defeat as a moral victory. They had gone head-to-head with a larger and better-equipped enemy, and had shown they would not be beaten without a fight. While British General William Howe lamented that his success had been “too dearly bought,” patriot leader Nathanael Greene wrote that he wished the colonials could “sell them another hill at the same price.”
Another famous one, which everyone in Texas reveres as part of their heritage—The Alamo.
Following a 13-day siege, Mexican troops under President General Antonio López de Santa Anna reclaimed the Alamo Mission near San Antonio de Béxar (modern-day San Antonio, Texas, United States). About one hundred Texans were then garrisoned at the mission, with around a hundred subsequent reinforcements led by eventual Alamo co-commanders James Bowie and William B. Travis. On February 23, approximately 1,500 Mexicans marched into San Antonio de Béxar as the first step in a campaign to retake Texas. In the early morning hours of March 6, the Mexican Army advanced on the Alamo. After repelling two attacks, the Texans were unable to fend off a third attack. As Mexican soldiers scaled the walls, most of the Texan fighters withdrew into interior buildings. Those who were unable to reach these points were slain by the Mexican cavalry as they attempted to escape. Between five and seven Texans may have surrendered; if so, they were quickly executed. Subsequently almost all of the Texan inhabitants were killed.
Santa Anna won the battle but lost the war.
PurpleAmerica’s Final Word on the Subject
“The greatest victory is the one that requires no battle.”
-Sun Tzu, The Art of War
“Sometimes all the strength one needs is letting your enemy do as he intends, and just nudging him in that direction.”
-Machiavelli, The Prince
Seems to me that the political mood of the moment amongst the electorate is frustration and lashing out. See, for example, union members voting for Trump despite his anti-union stance and the Biden administration's very pro-union actions. People want someone to look like they are doing something, even if it is harmful to them. In this type of climate, a shut down that would normally be political suicide, may actually have broad appeal. I personally was frustrated by the murky discussions on what was actually 2 separate votes - one to advance the CR, and the other to pass it. Fortunately, and I think appropriately, most Senate Dems voted no on the CR itself, including those who voted to advance it.
It WAS a well played move on Schumer's part. He's a smart politician, but of the old order of neo-liberals that built the huge bureaucracy that we are all stuck with today. He can well afford to take the "L" and retire (or lose in the next election cycle) due to the bureaucracy and loopholes that he helped create and used to his own financial advantage $$$. The younger Dem politicians have NO clue how to untangle the mess that's been created other than to scream "fight fight fight!" and look like total idiots. Closing down the government would have meant that the Muskrat and the DOUCHE bros would have easier access to departments while employees (except essential personnel) were on furlough.