Ezra Levin, co-founder of Indivisible, summarizes Sunday’s shocking vote to re-open the government, without the Democrats winning anything tangible with perfect clarity: “there is something deeply broken within the Democrat system.”
After a stellar performance at the polling booths on November 4th, eight Senate Democrats made the decision to abandon their party’s core shutdown demands and squander their winning momentum. In response, Indivisible is launching its largest primary program ever in 2026, with more details to follow. Keep up with Indivisible via their website.
Ezra Levin is the co-founder and co-executive director of Indivisible, a grassroots organization made up of thousands of group leaders and more than a million members taking regular, iterative, and increasingly complex actions to resist the GOPs agenda, elect local champions, and fight for progressive policies.
The following transcript has been edited for formatting purposes.
Jen Rubin
Hi, this is Jen Rubin, editor-in-Chief of The Contrarian. When I heard of the ridiculous collapse, the capitulation on Sunday night, I thought of one person who I knew was going to be as angry as I was, and that’s Ezra Levin, the co-founder of Indivisible. Ezra, what was your reaction when you heard the news?
Ezra Levin
Incandescent rage, incredible disappointment. I’m not enough of a poet, Jen, to describe my emotional state. The best thing I can do in moments when I feel that level of emotional response to a political reality is to figure out, okay, how do we make sense of this and move forward? What can we do to channel this outrage? Because I knew it was not just me. I knew this was all over the country. People who started to feel like, maybe we have an opposition party, maybe we have Democrats who understand where we are and are able to unify and fight back. I know what they’re feeling right now, and the worst case scenario coming out of this is people throw their hands up and say, well, I guess politics doesn’t matter, there’s no sense of engaging. And that’s a real danger right now. The level of surrender, the level of capitulation. So I’m very focused on both understanding what just went down, and then moving beyond it and saying, what does this require of us now?
Jen Rubin
Correct. Why was this such a bad deal? What is in this, that… I mean, it’s a hard question to ask, because I’m asking, what nutritional value does cotton candy have?
Ezra Levin
That’s right. So, let’s give some context for this. What was the original Democratic demand? It was quite popular. The original Democratic demand was threefold. One, permanent extension of the ACA tax subsidies. Two, restoring Medicaid funding, which is closing rural hospitals and cutting people off from important healthcare. And three, no more blank checks to the regime. So that means no rescissions, no impoundments, Trump treating the federal budget like his personal piggy bank into that. Those are the three demands, all wildly popular, all had massive support among Democrats, among independents, a sizable chunk of Republicans as well.
That was the demand as of 40 days ago, 45 days ago, when we headed into shutdown. Democrats very quickly dropped Medicaid funding demands entirely, stopped, dropped out of it, nobody’s been talking about it for quite some time. They then stopped talking about rescission impoundment. There was talk it was happening behind the scenes, we didn’t really know, but it wasn’t a major feature. They zeroed just on the ACA tax subsidies, and these are also popular. The frontliner Republican position, the Marjorie Taylor Greene position, too, is that the ACA tax credits ought to be extended. This is not some lefty demand, this is an out-of-left field. It is wildly popular. That started as permanent, then it went to multi-year as Democrats moderated their position further, and just last week.
Their deal was a one-year extension, which is literally the proposal from frontline Republicans. That’s not a Democrat proposal, it’s a Republican proposal, which John Thune then rejected out of hand. So, to say we got nothing is to say we got nothing. We did not get anything on the ACA tax credits, we got nothing on Medicaid, we got nothing on rescission. What we got is a pinky swear, pinky-finger promise that there will be a vote 40 days from now that the Democrats do not have the votes to pass on the ACA tax credits without substantial concessions. So, I want to be clear, the Democrats caused a great deal of pain, which was worth it to extract meaningful policy concessions, and then 40 days into causing that pain, got nothing. That’s where we ended up.
I don’t say this because I’m out for any individual Democrat, we should just really understand how much of a capitulation this was, and that would be bad under any circumstances, but I think we should get into what the circumstances were for this capitulation, which was, Democrats were winning. We were winning, and the other side was fracturing. So it’s not just like, we were on the ropes, and oh no, we’re taking some heat. No, the regime is fracturing. The Republicans are scattering. We just had the largest protest in American history, we just had the best election night in a decade. Plus, the Democrats’ approvals themselves were rising up, the public polling said that people supported the demands, and in response to all that, what do we get? 100% capitulation. We need to understand that happened, because that should fuel our fire for what comes next.
Jen Rubin
I couldn’t agree more, and my colleague Tim Dickinson made a point that was really smart. It’s even worse than a capitulation, because if there is a vote, some moderate Republicans will join the Democrats knowing they don’t have the 60 votes. So good old Susan Collins will get to go back to her voters and say, I tried to see that I couldn’t. So it’s even dumber than doing nothing, because it blurs the line.
Ezra Levin
This move reminds me of what Andrew Cuomo did in New York State for years and years, which was to empower systematically the Republicans to deprive Democrats of majorities so that he could kind of play both sides, so he wouldn’t be pushed. Like, it’s very difficult to make an assessment of why would this be a rational move for Democrats who want to fight back against the regime or want to deliver for their constituents. Because obviously it’s bad. The only way to really understand it is there’s something deeply broken within the Democratic Party that treats the Republican Party as a partner, rather than a real opposition.
Jen Rubin
Absolutely. Now, there are plenty of Democrats who are angry about this, and I give credit to Hakeem Jeffries and all of the House Democrats, and there are a number of fighters in the Senate who are very angry about this. What I’m concerned about is that there never seem to be consequences for the people who capitulate. And very cleverly, the people who publicly, supported this capitulation, are many people who are retiring, and no one, strangely enough, who is on the ballot in 2026. So, how do you stop this from happening again? What consequences can there be for this behavior?
Ezra Levin
Jen, I am so happy that you’re zeroing in on this feature of the vote, because I think we need to engage in a little education about, Congressional Politics 201. Not just the 101, not just who voted the wrong way, because I think that leads you in the wrong strategic direction. As you pointed out, there were 8 Senate Democrats who voted with Republicans, and you might say, well, damn those 8 Democrats. The problem, and if only they hadn’t voted the wrong way, we would have been fine. But, as you point out, they’re all retiring or not out for re-election. Well, that’s odd. Well, why are they all retiring? Was nobody else interested in capitulating as well? And the answer is this. The way this actually plays out for these hard votes is the Senate Democratic leadership is talking with everybody, they agree on a plan, which is, we’re going to capitulate, we’re going to surrender, but they also know the blowback is going to be bad. And so, there are a group of sinners, it’s certainly more than 8, it might be 16, it might be 24, it might be more, who all say, yes, the plan is to surrender. Who is going to do the surrendering? And then they pick the 8 members who are retiring or not up for re-election.
So Mark Warner is a good example of this. He is big mad today, and he’s voting against the capitulation. We all know Mark Warner in Virginia was moving towards surrender. But he’s up for re-election next year. He doesn’t want a primary challenger, so he is somebody who voted against it and can claim that he’s not capitulating. John Hickenlooper, same deal in Colorado. We know he’s in the capitulation caucus, but he’s up for re-election, so he can’t afford to vote against it. So, I do think it’s important for all of us to drive home the point. This isn’t the problem with 8 Senate Democrats. This is a problem with the Senate Democratic caucus and its leadership.
And so, what that drives us towards is you can’t just hold these 8 Democrats who aren’t up for re-election for another 3 years accountable. You’ve got to hold Democratic leadership and the caucus accountable, which means this is no longer about oh, those failed leaders are the problem. This is a question of, what do we do to demand a better party, a party that actually fights back? It’s not ideological. I’m not saying they’ve got to adopt this lefty position, or they’ve got to moderate war on this way. This is, do they fight back, or do they roll over and play dead? And I think one clear signal for whether they’re serious about moving into the future is, are they calling for new leadership? So far, zero Senate Democrats have called for new Senate leadership. Chuck Schumer is the least popular political figure in the country.
The Democratic Party is less popular than the Fascist Party that currently controls the House, the Senate, and the Presidency, and we’re headed into an election season that we cannot afford to lose. So, how do we do this? How do we move forward? It’s primaries, Jen. That’s the only place we can go from this. And there were many Senate Democrats who were running in places like Michigan, and Maine, and Texas.
They should be asked, do you support Chuck Schumer for Democratic Majority Leader? And let me tell ya, there’s not a Democratic voter in Texas, or an independent voter, or a Republican voter, who’s gonna say, well, I was for the candidate, but they said they’re not gonna support Chuck Schumer, who I love. Nobody wants a candidate who supports Chuck Schumer. It is good primary politics, and it’s good general election politics to get that guy out.
But so far, we don’t have anybody saying that. So I would tell you, if you have a Democratic senator out there who is right now saying how proudly they voted against this capitulation, your follow-up is not, thank you so much, your follow-up is, but have you come out for new leadership yet? Because if you haven’t, I think you’re part of the problem. And I would say that for the most progressive member and the most moderate member. This is not ideological, this is about us demanding a party that actually fights.
Jen Rubin
Absolutely, and I cannot stress enough, folks, that point. These people call themselves moderates. That is… I don’t know what that phrase even means anymore. They are weak, they are losers, it has nothing, as Ezra says, to do with ideological. There are people to the right of them who oppose this deal. And there will be people to the left of them. So, this is about a understanding the moment we are in. We are in an existential crisis. This is not a matter of Dick Durban saying, you don’t know how the Senate works.
Well, the Senate is not working, that’s the problem. You and Indivisible are making a full-throated call for Chuck Schumer to step down, and asking for a pledge going forward, which I certainly would support, and perhaps we have to broaden that out. Would you be willing to vote in favor of filibuster reform to restore the Civil Rights Act? In other words, pin these people down, do not let them count on your vote.
Ezra Levin
So, what we are getting ready to launch in mere hours, as I talk to you, is the largest primary program Indivisible has ever run. And it is purely focused on building a Democratic Party that does fight back and win, that does not roll over and play dead.
These specific asks are going to be different for the Senate than for the House candidates, and they may change based on the district or state geography and the political realities. But I do think it is incumbent on us to be able to draw a very clear line and say, if you cross this line, if you are a fight-back Democrat, we’re with you. And if you are not willing to take these very clear, popular stances, you’re not willing to call for new leadership, you’re not willing to commit to the kind of accountability and reform we need, that everybody actually supports in the Democratic primary process, or the vast majority of people, then you’re out. You’re not part of this.
So I would encourage folks watching, if you’ve got a Democratic candidate, great, you’ve got a big opportunity. If you don’t have a Democratic candidate who’s running in a primary, you should be looking around the country and finding your one or two Democratic candidates who you were adopting, because you recognize they’re the kind of candidate who’s going to bring the change you want. Indivisible’s launching a primary program today, we want people to be part of it, but also we want people exercising leadership on their own. If this is going to succeed, it’s going to succeed because we all do the work to demand the party we need.
Jen Rubin
Absolutely, and ideally, the result of this is no one will run on re-electing Chuck Schumer. In other words, I mean, it’s not the aim to get rid of all the incumbents, it’s to make sure we form a democratic party that is fighting, that is worth fighting for.
Ezra Levin
And let me say one more thing, we’re gonna win some of these fights, we’re gonna lose some of these primary fights, and you know what we’re gonna do after all of them win or lose? We’re gonna rally around whichever Democrat wins, and we’re gonna say, that’s our candidate, and we’re gonna beat the fascists with that candidate, because the way a successful Democratic Party will work is you will have a healthy debate in the primaries, people will then dust themselves off, put on their big boy pants, and say, okay, that’s our candidate.
Unlike Chuck Schumer, who his candidate lost in the Democratic primary for New York mayor, and he’s not only sat on the sidelines, but has still, to this day, refused to endorse the Democratic win of their primary. That is…You cannot excuse that behavior from Democratic leadership. You cannot make these ideological tests, and if your favorite ideological representative doesn’t win the primary, you’re out. Rally around and endorse them. And I say that on our side, and I would encourage all Democratic leaders to engage in the same way.
Jen Rubin
And it works both ways. If Roy Cooper isn’t your cup of tea, but he’s the only Democratic candidate, and he’s got a heck of a chance of winning, you back him, like our political lives depend upon him.
Ezra Levin
That’s right, that’s exactly right. It’s not that complicated, Jen. It’s really not. We can have a primary fight where we debate the future of the party, and then we can wallop them in the general election. I think we can vote, and conveniently, those happen on different time scales. So the next 6 or 9 months, we are in primary mode to build a Democratic Party that fights and wins, and after that, we’re there to defeat the fascists and embarrass them electorally all across the country. Just like we did 6 days ago.
Jen Rubin
Absolutely. Now, short-term and long-term. Obviously, the long-term you’ve just sketched out, which is, we gotta win in 2026, and we’re gonna do everything we can. In the short term, what can people be doing? Is it to rally the House? Is it to make it life miserable for the eight and the others who capitulated? What’s kind of the short and medium term advice you would give people?
Ezra Levin
Two immediate term things. This is not a totally done deal. The Freedom Caucus and the House is crazy. They might blow this all up. Like, that is possible, and I think it is good that Hakeem Jeffries is out there criticizing the deal and saying he’s gonna whip his caucus against it, force the Republicans to come up for the vote. If you’ve got a Democratic House member, they have… almost all of them outside of Jared Golden, has done the right thing so far. You should encourage them, continue, hold the line.
I have relatively low hopes that’s gonna pan out, but it’s not 0%. There is a sizable percent chance that we might still be able to win it, and we should be cheering on the Democrats in the House who are pushing this. On the Senate side, look, I hope people start getting serious about primaries, and in the immediate aftermath of this, don’t just congratulate the majority Dems who voted against this. You should be pushing them to out against Senate leadership. If we don’t demand that, they will move on. And we do that with our own voices, and we do that through a primary program that I hope people will get into.
Jen Rubin
Absolutely, and I cannot stress enough, the solution to this is not to say, oh, that was too bad, let bygones be bygones, let’s go back to fighting with Trump. You have to have a Democratic Party that is capable of fighting, and there have to be a set of consequences and a set of rewards for being a fighter or not being a fighter.
Ezra Levin
That’s right, you know, we talk to a lot of anti-authoritarian experts, people like Maria J. Stephan or Erica Chenoweth, or Heather Cox-Richardson, others who study this around the globe, and what I will tell you is no successful anti-authoritarian movement in the history of the world, as far as we can tell, has succeeded with a divided opposition. That does not work. You need an opposition that is united and fighting back against the regime that is trying to cement control.
We can’t have leadership that allows this kind of fracture. We just cannot. We will fail. We will either fail to win the midterms, or Trump and his allies will steal the election regardless of what the results are. So, if you want a unified opposition party. The good news is we have a pathway to build it, but we’ve all got to do the work to demand it.
Jen Rubin
Absolutely, and the question for every candidate, folks, is. Who do you support for leadership? What are you willing to fight for? And how do we know you’re the toughest fighter of the group running for office? Because we want a competition for toughness, not for ideology, for toughness. Convince me that you’re a fighter. Show me what about you. What have you said? What are you willing to say? And what in your background tells me you will fight to the mat for this?
And I think if we do that, then we’ll come out with a Democratic Party that can win. So, Ezra, I cannot thank you enough, and I feel lifted up by your spirit and determination, and you heard it, folks. We got a game plan going forward. So, hang in there and, join the, crew of people who are going to demand leaders that fight. So thank you so much, Ezra, for everything that you and Indivisible does every single day, and we will, of course, have you back soon.
Ezra Levin
Can’t wait, Jen. Thank you.
