After the recent Democrat folding of the government shutdown, Democrats and liberals across the country are rightfully looking for someone to blame. That blame has quickly fallen on Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer of New York, and deservedly so. Repeatedly this year, he has caved to Republicans, allowing them to walk all over him. Despite this, he continues to posture himself as a bastion of integrity and refusal to back down. This time, he held out a little longer as he continued his posturing, including a post to TikTok in which he said, “Democrats have three words for this: No f*cking way”. But I guess Schumer decided that it was too hard to posture as a bastion of moral integrity when your party is gaining momentum.

A lot of people have been saying that this folding was a “Chuckspiracy”, as none of the eight senators whose spines mysteriously disappeared into the night are up for reelection in 2026, insinuating that they were chosen to take the fall, and the Democrats planned, to some extent, to cave on the shutdown. While this idea seems a little far-fetched, I would not be surprised to find out that it was true. The reason I think this is fairly simple: winning is bad for the bottom line. Since the election of Ronald Reagan, both Republicans and Democrats have come to the realization that they can make billions of dollars by simply capitulating to the rich, and selling their services to the highest bidder. The Republicans have been able to do this simply by making their beliefs more extreme, and finding scapegoats, such as games like Dungeons and Dragons or as it is currently, trans people, for when their policies inevitably hurt their voter base. Democrats, on the other hand, cannot do this without losing their voter base. Thus, they have adopted a much more nuanced strategy of campaigning on liberal policies, but dropping the ball before they can actually enact them, just like they did here. The Democrats just got a massive boost in momentum from the election, which they could have used to end the shutdown on their own terms, but they instead decided to just give up and get nothing for it.

Others argue that Schumer had nothing to do with this, and the senators that folded did so on their own accord. And while that is equally possible, and it seems to be what the Democrats are saying is what happened, the implications of that being true could be even worse. If this scenario is true, that means that Schumer has absolutely no ability to keep his party in line. Even though he does not have a majority in the Senate, not being able to keep your party in line is a massive issue, as that means that the Democrats cannot form a coherent agenda in the Senate, and cannot coordinate themselves to get the legislation they want passed.

Schumer has shown that not only does he deserve speculation for his leadership, but also that he cannot lead the Democratic party through this presidential term or while they don’t have any political power. He has consistently floundered when Republicans have put pressure on Democrats or made threats to democracy. For example, when the president withheld funding to universities under the guise of fighting antisemitism, this was Schumer’s counterpunch, as he said in a CNN interview: “We sent him a very strong letter just the other day, asking eight very strong questions.” Not only is this an incredibly weak response in its own right, it is made worse considering the reports of White House staffers claiming in a Rolling Stone article that the president does not read. There are several examples of this, including the last time there was almost a shutdown, which was avoided by Schumer caving and voting to not shut down the government.

Now, you may be thinking that while all of the things that Schumer has done merit a change of position as the leader of the Democrats in the Senate, that doesn’t mean he has to lose his seat in the Senate entirely. While that is a reasonable argument, it doesn’t take into account the fact that Schumer will still do damage to the party and its ideals even if he isn’t the minority leader. Despite what seems to be a growing populist progressive movement (with actually exciting candidates for once), Schumer continues to insist that Democrats need to focus on winning over the centrists. He often discusses the Baileys (on whom there is an excellent Last Week Tonight segment on Youtube), who are a family on Long Island, who Schumer claims have shaped his political career. While there is nothing wrong with the idea of shaping your political career after the beliefs of your constituents, as it is what politicians are supposed to do, but the problem with the Baileys is that they don’t actually exist. What makes the Baileys even more worrisome, is that they have some fairly right-of-center views. If Schumer continues to focus on voters with views like the Baileys, he threatens to pull the Democrats to the right, which abandons their current voter base and leaves younger, more liberal voters without a party that speaks for their views, which is already beginning to happen.

So, if Schumer is to leave, who should replace him? Well, that question is a bit complicated, as you have to answer who will replace him as minority leader and who will fill his Senate seat. For the minority leader position, there are a few good options. I think Bernie Sanders of Vermont could do a good job of opposing the Republicans, and would work to help the progressive movement grow, but he is an Independent, so I doubt that will happen. My personal favorite option is one of my senators, Chris Murphy, of the great state of Connecticut. Murphy is a great senator for Connecticut and is a vocal opponent of the president. He is very convicted in his beliefs and is very well-spoken, which was very clearly shown when he held a 14 hour filibuster to support gun control laws, making me think he would be a great minority leader, though I’d rather he just run for president. As for who should fill his Senate seat, quite frankly, I think anyone could do a better job than him. Hell, I’d even take Curtis Sliwa over him (to paraphrase Lin-Manuel Miranda, “Sliwa has beliefs. Schumer has none”). A lot of people have been calling for Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez to run against him, and I think she is a great option, for similar reasons that I think Bernie would be a good minority leader. While I do not think or hope it will happen during this term, I think New York City mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani would be an interesting candidate for the Senate.

As a whole, New York is due for a change. For too long, this old guard of Democrats has controlled the party and its place in the Senate, turning their votes for profit and protecting their personal interests rather than those of their constituents. The time has come for a new, younger generation of politicians to unite the constituency and elect people who actually work for them, rather than senators and representatives who only work for their own personal gain.