Defensible Choices: Why Some Democrats Voted to End the 40+ Day Shutdown — What Now?

Defensible Choices: What Would You Have Done — and What Will You Do Now?

Two Michigan senators, Democrats Gary Peters and Elissa Slotkin, declined to break with their caucus when they did not support a temporary plan to end what became the longest U.S. government shutdown in modern history — now more than 40 days. Most Senate Democrats opposed the agreement because it did not include an extension of the enhanced tax credits that help people buy insurance through the Affordable Care Act (ACA).

Eight senators nonetheless voted to reopen the government temporarily, arguing that citizens nationwide had already suffered too long and that the deal requires a separate, binding vote in December on ACA subsidies. Those who voted to end the shutdown included:

• Catherine Cortez Masto (D-NV)
• Dick Durbin (D-IL)
• Maggie Hassan (D-NH)
• John Fetterman (D-PA)
• Tim Kaine (D-VA)
• Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH)
• Angus King (I-ME)
• Jacky Rosen (D-NV)

Unlike the stark moral clarity of historical crises such as Munich in 1938, the choice facing Senate Democrats was not obvious-cut: both voting to support the temporary deal and opposing it can be defended on policy and political grounds. If you had a seat in the Senate, which would you have chosen? And now that the votes are cast, what will you do?

Shutdowns as a Political Weapon

Government shutdowns are an increasingly frequent hazard of American governance. Debates over funding priorities are long-standing, but using a shutdown as a deliberate political weapon has been common only since the 1990s. Calling it a "shutdown" can be misleading: courts remain open, the military and police continue to operate, and air traffic controllers work to keep flights safe — often without pay. What typically stops are so-called "nonessential" services, including vital parts of the social safety net.

In this conflict, both parties blamed the other. Republicans said Democrats insisted on extending ACA tax credits; Democrats said Republicans were accommodating President Donald Trump’s demands. But the moral center of this standoff was not an arcane budget argument: it was the human cost. Cruelty — and, some would argue, cowardice — became part of the policy calculus when cutting or withholding benefits was treated as an acceptable tactic.

Why the Compromise Matters — and Why It’s Limited

The stopgap agreement to reopen government is modest but important: it restores services and requires a separate vote in December on ACA subsidies. That step can be viewed as a small victory for decency and an opportunity to press for a durable solution. Yet it is not a complete win. Real progress requires sustained public pressure to ensure lawmakers follow through on the December vote and then negotiate a workable national health-insurance plan.

Don’t mistake this episode for a principled debate about sound fiscal management. Budget politics have been messy throughout U.S. history. While the federal deficit and national debt — currently well into the tens of trillions of dollars — are serious concerns, the shutdown’s purpose here was not fiscal repair but political leverage.

Policy Direction and the Human Stakes

The administration's broader agenda, outlined in initiatives such as Project 2025, aims to reshape or shrink many federal programs and shift services toward private or corporate models. Concrete consequences matter: proposed cuts to programs like Head Start, the risk of higher ACA premiums for low- and middle-income families, and the interruption of SNAP benefits during the shutdown all carry immediate human costs. If premiums rise beyond affordability for people who don’t qualify for Medicaid, some will forgo care — and some will die as a result.

These outcomes are not abstract. Reports indicate aggressive immigration enforcement actions, and the suspension of nutrition assistance for the first time in SNAP’s 60-year history illustrates how policy choices translate into hunger and hardship.

Next Steps: Civic Action and Policy Priorities

The immediate obligation is practical and political: insist that congressional Republicans keep their promise to hold a December vote on ACA subsidies and that lawmakers negotiate in good faith toward a workable health-care plan. Historically, national Republicans have rarely produced a concrete alternative to the ACA; the solution should be pragmatic, not purely ideological. At minimum, a one-year extension of ACA premium tax credits should remain on the table while comprehensive talks proceed.

To influence outcomes, citizens must act: call and write your representatives, demand accountability on the December vote, and press elected officials to prioritize negotiations that protect vulnerable families. Repeated, organized constituent pressure will be decisive.

What will you do?

John Lindstrom has covered Michigan politics for 50 years and is a contributing columnist at the Detroit Free Press, where this column originally appeared.