What I think about when I think about continuing resolutions.
A case for holding the line and why Democrats must fight now to keep future battles winnable.
The strategic case for bravery.
First and foremost, if this is persuasive to you, call your Senators: https://5calls.org/
Second, I’m going to try and make the case for Democrats adopting the high risk/high reward strategy of filibustering the Continuing Resolution (CR).
Democrats face a critical strategic choice in the fight over the CR. The GOP, with control of both the House and Senate, has structured the negotiation as an ultimatum: accept their terms or trigger a government shutdown. Democrats, in turn, have limited governing power. They cannot unilaterally pass their own bill. They cannot force Republicans to negotiate in good faith. What they can do is influence incentives by raising the cost of Republican procedural abuse, deterring future power grabs, and making sure the public understands what is at stake.
The temptation is to take a middle path: vote for cloture to show procedural responsibility but vote against final passage to signal opposition. This might appear to be the “conservative” approach, but in reality, it is the passive one. If the long-term objective is to preserve the ability to resist GOP encroachment on democratic norms, then passivity is a strategic mistake. Instead, Democrats should pursue high-risk, high-reward resistance: filibustering the bill, forcing Republicans to own the crisis, and making clear to both the public and the GOP that procedural coercion will carry a cost.
This is not a question of winning this particular fight. It is a question of resetting the incentive structure to ensure that future fights are winnable at all.
What Democrats Don’t Control:
The majority. Republicans hold the House and Senate. Democrats do not have the votes to pass their preferred bill.
The legislative agenda. The GOP is driving the process, structuring it as a take-it-or-leave-it deal.
Media narratives (to an extent). Right-wing media will frame a shutdown as Democratic obstruction, regardless of the facts. Traditional media is … unhelpful, i.e., “Why didn’t Democrats” instead of “Why are Republicans?”
What Democrats Do Control:
The cost of GOP procedural manipulation. They can block cloture and force Republicans to either negotiate or bear the blame for a shutdown.
Their own credibility in future fights. If they fail to resist now, any future threats to resist will lack credibility.
Public understanding of what is happening. They can aggressively frame this as a test of whether Republicans can govern or only coerce.
Democrats cannot win the vote outright, but they can still shape incentives. That is where their power lies, and it is why taking the aggressive approach is the rational move.
Why High-Risk Resistance Is the Rational Play
Democrats are playing multiple overlapping strategic games at once. A proper understanding of these game dynamics makes clear that the short-term risk of a shutdown is lower than the long-term risk of normalizing procedural coercion.
1. The GOP Is Experimenting (“Clever Girl”).
The GOP is not just passing a budget. They are testing what forms of institutional coercion work with the least resistance. This is an adaptive authoritarian strategy; they are trying different methods to see what the easiest, lowest-cost path to control is.
If Democrats do not impose costs now, Republicans will optimize their strategy and refine more effective ways to coerce Democrats later.
If Democrats show that they will fight back early, Republicans will have to expend greater resources next time, making it harder for them to escalate.
Takeway:
Passivity teaches Republicans what they can get away with.
Resistance disrupts the experiment before it yields a repeatable strategy.
2. Failing to Resist Today Weakens Future Leverage.
This is not a one-shot interaction. Democrats and Republicans will face this again and again in future budget fights and procedural battles.
Every time Democrats fail to resist, they weaken their future ability to push back.
If Republicans believe Democrats will always cave, they have no incentive to negotiate in good faith next time.
Takeaway:
Passivity makes future fights harder because Republicans learn that escalation works.
Resistance raises the cost of future coercion, increasing the likelihood of real negotiations later.
3. Accepting a Bad Deal Encourages Worse Deals in the Future.
Republicans are offering a take-it-or-leave-it deal. Democrats might hope that accepting a bad deal now gives them leverage later. But conceding to ultimatums encourages worse ultimatums in the future.
The rational response to an unfair ultimatum is to reject it, even at a cost, to deter worse offers later.
If Democrats accept the framing of “this or nothing,” they give Republicans a playbook for future budget fights.
Takeaway:
Passivity legitimizes Republican use of ultimatums as a governing tool.
Resistance makes it clear that ultimatums will not work.
4. If Democrats Always Blink First, Republicans Will Keep Pushing.
This is a brinkmanship scenario: both sides escalate toward a government shutdown to see who blinks first.
If Democrats always blink first, Republicans will keep using shutdown threats to extract more concessions.
If Democrats hold firm, Republicans must either back down or accept responsibility for the shutdown.
Takeaway:
Passivity allows Republicans to use shutdowns as leverage in every negotiation.
Resistance forces them to consider whether they are willing to bear the consequences.
5. The Commitment Problem: Democrats Must Prove They Will Fight.
If Democrats fail to fight now, their future threats to resist will not be credible.
If Republicans believe that Democrats always fold under pressure, they will act accordingly.
If Democrats make clear that they will fight even at a cost, Republicans will have to think twice before using the same tactics next time.
Takeaway:
Passivity means Democrats will not be taken seriously in future negotiations.
Resistance establishes credibility, making future threats more effective.
6. The Longer Democrats Wait, the Harder It Becomes to Resist.
Institutional norms do not collapse overnight. They erode gradually, and each time Democrats fail to resist, it becomes harder to push back in the future.
If they do not fight now, they may wake up one day and find that they have no power left to fight at all.
The cost of resistance is lowest at the first encroachment.
Takeaway:
Passivity accelerates institutional deterioration, making future resistance exponentially harder.
Resistance now makes future resistance possible.
7. The Key Risk Democrats Must Address: Public Communication
Democrats’ biggest vulnerability is not procedural—it is narrative control. Resistance only works if the public understands why they are fighting.
If they fail to control the shutdown narrative, Republicans can frame them as obstructionists.
If they explain that Republicans are using procedural coercion, they can shift blame to where it belongs.
Democrats cannot just resist. They must explain why resistance is necessary.
Why Are Only Democrats Expected to Care About a Shutdown?
One of the strongest arguments against an aggressive Democratic strategy is the real cost of a government shutdown on everyday people: federal workers who miss paychecks, disruptions in public services, economic uncertainty, and so on. That cost is real, and it shouldn’t be dismissed. But there’s a deeper question that isn’t being asked enough:
Why is it only Democrats who are expected to care about those costs?
The Asymmetry of Governing Responsibility.
Republicans control both the House and the Senate. They hold power. But instead of governing responsibly, they are using a procedural ultimatum: “Pass our bill or we shut it all down.”
This is not how governing works, or at least, it’s not how good-faith governing works. If you win control, you are responsible for the outcome. Yet, the expectation in Washington is that Democrats must be the adults in the room while Republicans get to burn it all down with impunity.
That’s not governance. It’s hostage-taking.
If the concern is harm to ordinary people, then the real question should be:
Why aren’t Republicans worried about that?
Why are they willing to wager workers' paychecks on procedural coercion?
Why are they structuring the fight as an ultimatum instead of a negotiation?
Why is their strategy based on forcing Democrats to absorb the blame rather than leading responsibly?
When only one party is held to the standard of minimizing harm, it incentivizes the other party to create more harm as a tactic.
When Only One Side Feels the Cost, the Other Side Keeps Raising It.
This asymmetry is not just a political narrative issue. It’s, as I try to lay out above, a strategic one. If Democrats continue absorbing the burden of protecting Americans from GOP procedural recklessness, then Republicans have no reason to stop using it as a tactic. At the risk of being redundant:
If Democrats always blink first, Republicans learn that they can keep escalating without consequence.
If Democrats take responsibility for mitigating harm while Republicans don’t, it creates an incentive structure where Republicans increase harm to extract more concessions.
If Democrats accept that it’s their job to be the responsible party, Republicans will never have to act responsibly.
Republicans won the election. They control the legislative process. The burden of governing is on them.
Democrats should not accept the premise that they are the only ones who care about stability. Republicans must be forced to own the shutdown and explain to voters why their procedural games are worth the cost.
The Cost of Avoiding Conflict Is Higher Than the Cost of Imposing It.
Yes, Democrats should care about the impact of a shutdown on ordinary people. But they should also care about the long-term cost of allowing shutdown threats to become a routine governing tool.
Every time Republicans play this game and win, it becomes easier for them to do it again. If Democrats always cave out of fear of short-term harm, they ensure that future fights will be fought on even worse terrain.
The real calculation isn’t just the pain of a shutdown today; it’s the pain of making shutdowns an accepted, repeatable strategy for GOP power grabs.
The only way to stop Republicans from using procedural crises to govern is to make sure it costs them something every time they try.
That means holding the line. Even when it’s hard! Even when it’s painful. Because if Democrats don’t reset the incentive structure now, they will face even worse ultimatums later, and the stake are already remarkably high. If ever there was a time to push back — to raise the cost of hostage-holding — it’s now, when people need ot believe in good governance, or at least see the reality of its malicious twin.
Final Takeaway:
The rational move for Democrats is high-risk resistance. It’s also the right move. The immediate risk of resistance (a shutdown) is lower than the long-term risk of passivity (institutional deterioration). This is not about winning today. Rather, it is about preventing the next fight from being unwinnable. If Democrats fail to impose a cost now, Republicans will learn that they can govern through coercion.
Passivity is the most reckless move they could make. The rational choice — the one that preserves their ability to fight at all — is to filibuster the bill, force Republicans to own the crisis, and make clear that procedural manipulation will not go unchallenged. The cost of fighting back today is lower than the cost of fighting back later, so fight now.