#capitulation

Viggo wavin' the French flag

Capitulation by casual_distance | @casualstories Rating: Mature Word Count: 4k

Dean is five when he finally gets curious enough to ask about the tattoo on his father’s arm and learns how his dad and mom are each other’s soulmate. Dean is ten when he starts looking up stories about soulmates, but it’s not until he’s fourteen that he decides he doesn’t care if he gets a soulmate or not. He’s sixteen when he learns he doesn’t have a say in the matter.

I need to add more soulmate fics into my fic rotation because this story was an absolute treat. In it, everyone learns if they have a soulmate or not when a psychic appears to give them an incomplete tattoo, one that will fill out once the person meets their soulmate. Dean gets his tattoo at sixteen, which begins his journey of coming to terms with what it means to believe in having a soulmate. He gives up on the concept after his tattoo fills in during a busy shopping trip and it's only until he meets Cas does Dean really decide he doesn’t care one way or another when he’s already found someone perfect in Cas. 

The Longest Shutdown Ends Where It Began

Eight Democrats cross the aisle, Trump redeems his disciples, and America mistakes exhaustion for governance.

Mary Geddry

Nov 10, 2025

Good morning! The longest government shutdown in American history may end not with principle, but with paperwork. Late Sunday night, eight Democrats joined hands with the Republican caucus and voted to advance the continuing resolution that leaves twenty million Americans staring at higher insurance premiums and fifteen million more at risk of losing Medicaid coverage. The roll call reads like a cautionary tale: Jeanne Shaheen, Maggie Hassan, Dick Durbin, Tim Kaine, John Fetterman, Catherine Cortez Masto, Jacky Rosen, and Angus King. Each of them crossed the aisle in the name of “responsible governance,” which, translated from Senate-speak, means capitulation before cocktails.

Bernie Sanders, who still believes the word “Democrat” should mean something, called it “a very, very bad vote.” He was being polite. It was a moral pratfall disguised as bipartisanship. Instead of extending the Affordable Care Act subsidies that were the whole reason for the standoff, the Senate produced a deal that could double or triple premiums for working families while handing a trillion dollars in tax relief to the donor class. It’s legislative hostage-taking with better table manners.

To understand why Democrats keep doing this, you have to trace the long arc of compromise that turned a party of organizers into a club of fund-managers. Once upon a New Deal, Democrats were the party of labor and social justice. Then came the deregulating seventies, the Clintonian “Third Way,” and a parade of consultants promising that free markets would make us free people. The theory was that a rising tide lifts all boats; the practice was that it lifted yachts and drowned the dinghies. By the time Obama and Biden inherited the machinery, “governing responsibly” had become code for don’t spook Wall Street. Every populist impulse was trimmed to fit a spreadsheet.

And heaven help the progressives who try to fight it. Each new wave, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar, Pramila Jayapal, arrives in Washington with a mandate from actual humans and is swiftly assimilated into what might as well be called the Democratic Borg Collective. They start out breathing fire, and within a year they’re issuing carefully massaged press releases about “continuing dialogues.” The party doesn’t crush dissent; it sedates it. Committee assignments, donor calls, and the constant threat of redistricting do the rest. The revolution will be televised, on C-SPAN, in a subcommittee, during someone else’s five minutes.

This latest “compromise” hands Trump two political gifts neatly wrapped in Senate stationery. First, he ends the shutdown without conceding on healthcare, allowing him to pose as the adult in the room, bipartisan leadership!, even as he holds the match that lit the fire. Second, he hijacks the healthcare debate itself: the GOP’s new talking point, “send money to patients, not insurers,” muddles the moral clarity Democrats had finally reclaimed. Inside the party, the vote deepens the familiar rift between progressives, who see capitulation, and centrists, who see governing pragmatism. And by punting the next fight to December, right before Christmas, when no one wants another crisis, the Senate ensured that whatever leverage Democrats once had will melt away with the tinsel.

The Wall Street Journal’s own reporting unintentionally gave the game away. Corporate America, insurers, banks, defense contractors, needed the government reopened, but only temporarily. Temporary deals keep the chaos contained without threatening the balance sheet. And the Democratic Party, still dependent on those same interests for campaign funding, obliged. The result: short-term stability, long-term erosion of public faith.

This wasn’t mere ideological fatigue; it was muscle memory. A party wired to keep capital calm did exactly what it was built to do. The handful of moderates who crossed the aisle will congratulate themselves for being “responsible stewards.” But to everyone else, workers, progressives, and voters who just watched Trump get booed out of a stadium while still dictating the national agenda, it looks like proof that the Senate’s real constituency isn’t the public; it’s the markets.

The Senate’s cave-in also ricocheted across the Capitol. Speaker Mike Johnson, who has spent the past six weeks hiding the House in recess like a kid afraid of his report card, will now have to haul his conference back to work. Reopening the government means he’s out of excuses to keep Adelita Grijalva waiting in the wings, Arizona’s duly elected representative who won her special election in September but has been left un-sworn for more than a month. Johnson’s delay was never about paperwork; it was about politics. The moment Grijalva raises her right hand, she becomes the decisive 218th signature on the discharge petition that would compel a vote to release the long-suppressed Epstein files. So while the Senate congratulates itself for “restoring normal order,” Johnson now faces a different kind of reckoning: either seat the congresswoman and let transparency run its course, or keep obstructing and prove that the House GOP’s moral compass points permanently toward cover-up.

While Democrats congratulated themselves on “reopening the government,” Donald Trump was busy reopening the gates of hell. At 10:54 p.m., his self-styled “clemency czar” tweeted a list of 77 pardons. Rudy Giuliani, Sidney Powell, Kenneth Chesebro, Mark Meadows, the whole gang of 2020 election saboteurs got their get-out-of-jail-free cards. Each one absolved for attempting to overthrow democracy, and each one likely to show up on Fox within the week grinning about redemption. The only name missing was Donald J. Trump, whose ego evidently requires him to play both messiah and martyr.

Just hours earlier, the same man had been booed off the field while trying to administer the Veterans Day oath at a football game. He couldn’t be heard over the crowd’s disapproval, a fitting soundtrack for a presidency that now exists entirely in the key of delusion. When a stadium full of veterans drowns you out, the only power left is the stroke of your pen. Rudy wept, Powell tweeted something about the Deep State, and the rest of us were left to wonder how many crimes can fit under one blanket pardon.

And that’s how America ended the weekend: the Senate sold its soul for a CR, the president sold the rule of law for applause that never came, and the markets rose on Monday morning to salute them both.

Pundits will call it stability. Bernie Sanders called it what it is: not a good night. He’s right. It was the night when cowardice dressed up as compromise and corruption called itself closure.

Forty days of shutdown, and Democrats emerged with nothing but paper cuts and talking points. Not a single policy win, not a single concession on healthcare, not even a symbolic nod to the voters who just told them to fight harder. They spent six weeks pretending principle and pragmatism were the same thing, and in the end, the only thing reopened was their revolving door to corporate donors. Trump gets to claim victory, the markets get to exhale, and ordinary Americans get the bill, again. It’s the legislative equivalent of a hostage exchange where the hostage negotiates with himself.

Parker Molloy at The Present Age:

Rep. Sarah McBride's recent interview with Ezra Klein for The New York Times should be required listening for anyone who wants to understand how Democrats managed to lose the public on trans rights so spectacularly. Not because McBride offers any brilliant insights into what went wrong, but because she perfectly embodies the spineless approach to politics that got us here in the first place. In the 90-minute conversation, McBride — the first openly transgender member of Congress — spent most of her time lecturing trans “activists” and advocating for a politics of pure reactivity that would make any competent political strategist want to bang their head against a wall. But it was one particular exchange that really got under my skin, where McBride essentially argued that politicians should just do whatever's popular.

"Public opinion is everything," McBride told Klein. "And if you want us to change, you need to help foster the change in public opinion before you're asking these elected officials to betray the fact that they are, at the end of the day, representatives who have to represent in some form or fashion the views of the people that they represent." This is political malpractice dressed up as pragmatism, and it represents everything wrong with how Democrats have approached trans rights over the past few years. Here's the thing: politicians aren't supposed to be weathervanes, spinning whichever way the wind blows. They're supposed to be leaders who shape public opinion, not prisoners to it. McBride's argument isn't just strategically bankrupt — it's morally cowardly.

[...] Instead of making the moral case for treating trans people with basic dignity and fighting to shift public opinion, Democrats went into full retreat mode the moment they faced political headwinds. Kamala Harris went deer-in-the-headlights when confronted with Trump's anti-trans attacks during the 2024 campaign, infamously demurring whenever asked about her prior pro-trans positions and simply responding that she would “follow the law” if she became president. She couldn't even bring herself to say that trans people should be allowed access to healthcare — the most basic position imaginable. Other Democratic candidates started throwing trans people under the bus to score political points. The party's relative silence created a vacuum that Republicans were all too happy to fill with their own messaging. This isn't some abstract political science debate. There are real consequences when politicians abdicate their responsibility to lead. Trump's anti-trans policies are "stunningly wide-ranging" and "popular," as Klein noted in his interview with McBride. Republicans are plowing ahead with restrictions on trans people in sports, schools, the military, healthcare, and basic participation in public life because Democrats created space for them to do so through their cowardice.

[...]

McBride seems to understand this on some level. She acknowledged that Democrats became "absolutist" and moved too far ahead of public opinion, going to "Trans 201, Trans 301, when people were still at a very much Trans 101 stage." But her proposed solution — making politicians even more subservient to polling — would only make things worse. The real problem isn't that advocates pushed too hard or that politicians took too many progressive positions. The problem is that when the going got tough, Democrats folded like a cheap suit instead of doing the hard work of persuasion and leadership that Johnson and others demonstrated during the civil rights era.

During an interview with Ezra Klein Tuesday, Rep. Sarah McBride (D-DE) suggested that the best approach to fighting for trans rights is to focus on “popularity” instead of what is morally right.

From the 06.17.2025 edition of The New York Times' The Ezra Klein Show:

See Also: