Brooks and Capehart on the pressure to end the government shutdown

William Brangham:

The government shutdown is barreling towards November 1, when funding begins to lapse on some key government benefit programs. And both parties are watching key off-year races happening next week.

Here to help us break it all down, we are joined by Brooks and Capehart. That's New York Times columnist David Brooks and Jonathan Capehart of MSNBC.

Happy Halloween to you both.

Jonathan Capehart:

Thank you.

William Brangham:

No representation, no costumes, no orange, no nothing, no pumpkins.

(Laughter)

Jonathan Capehart:

We do not believe.

David Brooks:

We are dressed as pundits.

William Brangham:

Yes, exactly.

Two judges today, Jonathan, said that the administration has to use this reserve fund to pay for SNAP benefits, which, to back up a little bit, SNAP benefits and the expiration of those benefits was one of the ways the GOP was trying to pressure Democrats to end the shutdown.

Do you think this ruling, these rulings, takes any pressure off of them to — and then maybe the shutdown does come to an end?

Jonathan Capehart:

I don't think these rulings take any pressure off Democrats, for two reasons. One, I have always believed that tomorrow, November 1, was one of the dates that that the Democrats were looking at. That's the date when people start getting the — open enrollment starts and they start to find out how much their premiums are going to cost.

This is what Democrats have been talking about for a few months now and why they won't provide the votes.

William Brangham:

These are the subsidies for Obamacare that will now go through the roof.

Jonathan Capehart:

Right. Right. And so that's why they're not providing the votes for — to reopen the government.

The other thing, the other date that we should pay attention to is the elections on Tuesday. These will be, whether we like it or not, bellwether. And I suspect that, depending on the outcome on Tuesday, we could see some shifting, people getting together, talking and coming to some resolution over the shutdown.

But the other that's hanging out there that people forget, it's not just the subsidies that Democrats have a problem with. It is also that the whole thing of rescissions and that they could come to some — any kind of agreement.

William Brangham:

This is the Trump administration saying — basically taking Congress' spending authority away…

Jonathan Capehart:

Right.

William Brangham:

… say, I know you appropriated this money. It's coming back.

Jonathan Capehart:

Right, exactly. We don't care what you decided, what you authorize. We will do — we will spend the money the way we want to spend it, or we won't spend it at all.

And so if you're a Democrat and you are a part of some gang, I don't know if they still do gangs like they used to in the past, but even if they provide the votes and they come to some agreement, the president and Russell Vought, the OMB director, could just step out there and say, we don't care what you think.

So I don't think — all the way back to your original part of the question, I do not think the two judges, their ruling takes any pressure off Democrats. If anything, as we get beyond tomorrow and certainly beyond the elections on Tuesday, I think pressure could grow on Republicans, the Republican leaders, particularly Senator Thune, Majority Leader Thune, to come up — let's come up with something so we can get the government reopened.

William Brangham:

David, do you think that the Democrats are making a coherent, resonant argument as to why they are holding the line here?

David Brooks:

I think it's OK. I mean, they're emphasizing the subsidies. Frankly, if it was up to me. I might have mentioned a once-in-a-nation's-history threat to democracy as the core problem here.

But they're making coherent case on the health subsidies. I think it's not the legitimate case that should be made at this moment in American history.

William Brangham:

Do you think if they had pivoted, though, to that argument to say, we will not fund what they argue is an unlawful administration, that that would be more resonant?

David Brooks:

I don't know. Clearly, their pollsters said nobody cares about democracy, because they would be making that case. The pollsters said, we're good on health care.

And if you look at the issue list, which party do you trust on which issue, Republicans tend to have advantage to almost every issue except for health care. So they picked the one issue. I think we're at the glide path down toward a government reopening.

And I say that because last time this happened at this length in 2018, it's when the air traffic controllers began to not show up at work.

William Brangham:

Right.

David Brooks:

It's — when the benefits began to really get cut and people began to feel it, then they reopened the government. And I don't know which way they will go, like, who — how they will cut some sort of deal. But you got SNAP. You got the — as we saw earlier, the Head Start.

There's just a lot of things where people are really beginning to feel it. And so I think they will begin. I just — before, if — hopefully the next time we meet, though, the government will be open. But we should not be running government by shutdown. You should go to the voters. If you want a policy change, go to the voters. Don't shut down the government.

And, frankly, somebody should ask the Democrats, why did you schedule the subsidies to expire a year before an election? Why didn't you just make the subsidies forever?

William Brangham:

Right.

David Brooks:

And the reason they didn't want to do that is because they wanted to hide the cost, because what the Democrats are proposing would increase the national debt by $1.5 trillion over the next 10 years.

But we should — I'm upset that not everybody's upset. Like, so — our democracy is deteriorating to such a degree, there should be howling outrage that, why are you shutting down the government? Why are we hurting SNAP moms, food stamps, the poorest people among us?

William Brangham:

Yes. Yes. Yes.

David Brooks:

And there should be more outrage about that.

William Brangham:

I mean, the — one of the things that the Democrats have argued, to your point, David, that does outrage them is the ongoing masked agents that are all over the cities. The president was just in Asia, successfully had this meeting with President Xi and seemed to lessen some of the trade tensions a bit, but also refloated this idea that he's going to send more troops into the cities, in different cities.

What do you make of all of that?

Jonathan Capehart:

Look, this is the president's fantasy, a fantasy that he is exercising on cities like Los Angeles, Chicago, trying to in Portland, here in Washington, making noises about doing the same thing in New York City.

Last week — two weeks ago, I did an event at Aspen Ideas: Economy in Newark, New Jersey and did a Q&A with the mayor of Newark, Mayor Ras Baraka. And I asked him, now, you don't have National Guard troops in Newark. But what would you do? What would you say if the president put — turned his attention on you?

And he gave a terrific answer that ended with, you can't scare people into safety. This idea that you are going to stop all crime, all crime, I mean, people — human beings have been killing each other since at least Cain and Abel.

And so the idea that the president of the United States, Donald Trump, thinks that he's going to stop crime by putting — all crime by putting troops on the streets of American cities, it is lunacy. It's not that mayors, local officials and governors don't want federal government help in solving whatever crime issues they have.

But the way the administration is going about it, it's either you take troops or we're going to send them anyway. And what local officials have always wanted was a willing partner, a smart partner in the federal government to help them.

And that's not what they're getting from this particular administration.

William Brangham:

I mean, how do you…

David Brooks:

I distinguish between a bunch of these different things. The ICE thing, I think what ICE is doing is terrible. What we're doing to those ships coming out of Venezuela is an atrocity.

The National Guard doesn't really bother me. I mean, I live in Washington, D.C. I have got National Guardsmen walking around everywhere. They're nice, pleasant people and they're bored out of their minds. And are they doing any good? I don't know. Empirically, I would love to see studies.

It is absolutely true, the more cops you have on the street, the less crime you get. And so it's absolutely true that law enforcement — is it true that, if you have National Guardsmen on the street, it cuts down on crime? I saw a study only after two weeks in D.C. and there was a drop in crime that was noticeable.

But the point I would make — and so I think it's just an empirical matter, but we can figure out, does it work?

William Brangham:

Right.

David Brooks:

But the — I think some of the problem the Democrats have been making is saying, well, crime is coming down. Crime is coming down. That is bad messaging because there are a lot of people, including in D.C. and in Chicago and the cities I know, where people know crime is coming down, but it's still pretty bad.

William Brangham:

And it feels that way.

David Brooks:

It feels — I mean, I ran into some time over the last two weeks who said, I had to shut my business because the crime was so bad. And so she lost her business. And she said to me, I know crime is coming down, but it doesn't feel that way to me. And when I can't go into the CVS and I can't buy a razor because they're locked up, then it doesn't feel that way to me.

And so I think the Democrats are making a mistake by saying, oh, crime is coming down. They should say crime is a real issue, which it is. It's a real issue for people. Whether the National Guard will help, we can just experiment and figure that one out.

William Brangham:

Right.

Jonathan Capehart:

Can I just say something William, though?

William Brangham:

Please.

Jonathan Capehart:

Because in listening to David's answer, I mean, on the one hand a moment ago, David, you said where's the howling outrage about threats to democracy?

And, to my mind and to a lot of people's minds, putting National Guard troops and even Marines on the streets of Los Angeles, that is, to a lot of people, and to me especially, a harbinger of what could come. And so troops on the streets of…

William Brangham:

This is a threat to democracy that you — in your mind.

Jonathan Capehart:

Yes. Yes.

So they might be here under the guise of fighting crime, but then that doesn't stop the president from changing their orders and having them do something that the American people definitely do not want. And so I think when people say we don't want National Guard troops, it's not that they're saying that there's no crime and that we don't have problems.

It's that they're looking five, 10 steps ahead of what could possibly happen. And I think National Guard troops in L.A., Portland, Chicago, and threatening to use them in New York City if Zohran Mamdani wins the election on Tuesday, that sends a different kind of message. That is a threat to democracy message that a lot of people take.

David Brooks:

I don't really agree with that. I mean, I have just total faith in the culture of the U.S. military. For 200-odd years, they have wanted to stay out of politics.

If you saw when Trump gave a speech to the senior brass in Quantico, you could see those and women wanted to stay out of politics.

William Brangham:

Silence.

David Brooks:

And occasionally you get a younger serviceman who will be cheering in a political rally.

But I think the desire not to do anything that's authoritarian runs so strongly through the U.S. military that I put faith in that.

William Brangham:

I wanted to turn to the elections. We have about 30 seconds left. So — no, no, no, this is an important conversation to be having,three big races, the New Jersey governor, the Virginia governor and New York City, as you mentioned.

Democrats seem to be doing well in Virginia. A socialist Democrat is going to most likely win in New York City. Virginia is not sure. What do you think the Democrats ought to take from this?

Jonathan Capehart:

Well, I think you mean New Jersey is not sure.

William Brangham:

New Jersey not sure, yes. Thank you.

Jonathan Capehart:

New Jersey is not sure.

Look, these off-year elections, especially the Virginia governor's race, are viewed as canary in the coal mine, harbinger. Look, the mood of the country. I think if Democrats win the governorships in New Jersey, Virginia and the mayor's race, I think that's what I think will be — sort of like change the tenor and tone of what's happening here in Washington.

William Brangham:

Gentlemen, sorry to cut you off.

Jonathan, David, so good to see you. Thanks.

Jonathan Capehart:

You too.

David Brooks:

Thank you.

Jonathan Capehart:

Thanks.