note that i wrote “much more”, not that the causality is strictly one way. i agree that causal arrows in social affairs are best understood as bidirectional. 1/

(social affairs, not social science, because nothing is more abused or misleads people more egregiously than imagining understanding human and social phenomena is epistemologically analogous to, or as amenable to even tentative consensus, as understanding natural phenomena. it’s a bait & switch)/fin

there is always the danger hardball inspires escalations of hardball from the other side. i think in many respects we are well along that less than primrose path. i think it’s also a good reason to reserve threats like this for bigger quarry than cabinet nominations. 1/

but i do think it’s a bit more than Senate brain that gives it teeth. the public is usually oblivious to legislative procedure and the courts usually stay out of it, internal matters of coequal branches and all. 2/

but if a party “streamlined” procedure to the point that a minority party had no role — even in response to the minority party’s obstruction — that might provoke public outrage, especially if the event that provoked the obstruction was broadly unpopular. 3/

perhaps less likely (especially, for now, on behalf of Democrats), but rules that so minimized the role of the minority party that they do not meaningfully participate might be deemed offensive to representation and the constitutional order. 4/

escalations always have costs, including to the escalators. McConnell’s threat risked this kind of rule streamlining from the Democrats, sure. but that kind of streamlining also risks political blowback, judicial interference, and finding yourselves streamlined out at the next election. 5/

both would (and should) be hard choices, not inevitable consequences. /fin

look, i can’t say for sure you are wrong that “no possible conceivable threat or concession could derail Hegseth, whatever the price to other Democratic priorities.” i’ll just say i think it unlikely. 1/

i think of course there would be possible inducements or deals, but they will not get done because Democrats decide — very likely correctly! — that they would not be worth the price. /fin

Suppose Schumer promised if the Hegseth nomination were tabled, he’d deliver 8 Democrats on n otherwise filibusterable proposals, for some value of n. (To be credible, he’d need commitments up front from the 8, sure.) To be clear, this would be a horrible thing! 1/

But do you think there is no value of n for which Thune would accept the deal? 2/

The issue here, the issue almost always, is not what’s impossible. It’s what’s wise. That deal would be very unwise for Schumer + 7 colleagues to make, so they won’t. But if the iminent action by the Senate were sufficiently dire, that kind of dealmaking might happen. 3/

It’s not about what’s possible or impossible. It’s like Disneyworld, everything is always possible. The question, the issue, is the price. 4/

Schumer judges the price of derailing these nominations would be too high. I think he’s probably right! especially since Democrats may perceive actual benefit in giving the cabinet the rope to hang itself! 5/

But these are always, always choices it is Schumer’s job creatively to consider. /fin

“scorched earth” tactics are an example, an existence proof. you, my friend are presuming there’s nothing, absolutely nothing, Senate Democrats could do — no horrible escalation, nor promise of cooperation on some other matter — that could sway four Senators or Thune. that’s possible! 1/

but it’s not especially likely. there are a lot of horses to trade and barns to threaten burning. again, i think it quite likely the reason the horses go untraded and the barns unburned is because the price of those choices is too high, the decision not to make them ultimately wise. 2/

i don’t actually think Schumer should threaten to paralyze the senate over this! but the Senate and Senators are not fixed points, and the reason why Schumer exists is to think creatively about possibilities and costs and to make wise choices. there are more choices than upthrown hands. /fin

maybe so. but if you assume you will always lose, you sure will! the game is rigged, yes. you have to play it anyway. you don’t know, not do i, what levers exist among and between Senators and Senate leadership. what horses might be traded or hopes threatened. 1/

again, whatever levers there are, this might not be the priority to spend them on. i’m glad to defer to Schumer’s judgment on that. but the job of the Senate Minority Leader is not to “look at the math” and throw up his hands. /fin