Rick Morain is the former publisher and owner of the Jefferson Herald, for which he writes a regular column.
It takes courage to stand for the right course of action. It takes more courage to do something about it.
John F. Kennedy’s 1956 book Profiles in Courage details the actions of eight U.S. Senators throughout history who did the right thing in specific instances, knowing nevertheless the bitter criticism and retaliation they would undergo. Among the eight was U.S. Senator James W. Grimes of Iowa, who was among seven Republican senators who voted against convicting President Andrew Johnson in 1868 on his questionable impeachment charge approved by the Republican-controlled U.S. House.
Johnson avoided ejection from the presidency by just one vote. Had any one of the seven brave senators voted the other way, he would have been gone.
Sometimes such courage takes place hidden from the public. Other times, as in the episodes Kennedy describes, it’s very public, even sensational.
If ever a time cried out for such courage, it’s now.
Wealthy individuals and organizations contribute vast amounts of campaign money to candidates and incumbents, and thereby wield enormous influence over how those recipients speak, act, and vote. The 24-hour media megaphone allows party leaders to brutalize any member who dares oppose the official party line. And the millions of base supporters of each party, in these coarser times, can make life uncomfortable, even dangerous, for a brave recalcitrant.
It’s not easy these days to do the right thing. But a few, in both parties, have recently answered the call.
Two weeks ago, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York faced a choice between two difficult options for the Democratic Party. The Republican-controlled House had already voted for a continuing resolution that would keep the government open through the end of the federal fiscal year on September 30, maintaining most government spending at current levels.
However, that course would allow President Donald Trump and his administration to continue their efforts to shrink government agencies that help millions of ordinary Americans. All but one House Democrat had voted against the resolution, in effect opting for a government shutdown.
The March 14 deadline was fast approaching for a shutdown if Congress rejected the continuing resolution. Essential government services must remain open in a shutdown situation. A shutdown would empower the president to declare which governmental employees would be “essential.” It could result in very substantial federal layoffs, with a strong possibility that they would never return even when the government reopened. The result could mean even more damage to the U.S. than from the continuing resolution.
Most Democrats in both chambers of Congress, including former Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, urged Schumer to stand firm against the Republicans’ continuing resolution, and let the onus of a shutdown fall on Republicans, the party in power. That was the political thing to do. He didn’t do it.
After careful consideration, Schumer supported the resolution to keep government open, and brought enough Senate Democrats with him. Speaking on the Senate floor a few hours before the key vote, Schumer said (referencing Elon Musk’s DOGE operation), “A shutdown would allow DOGE to shift into overdrive. . . . Donald Trump and Elon Musk would be free to destroy vital government services at a much faster rate than they can right now and over a much broader field of destruction that they would render.”
Then about the Republican Party: Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky has often stated his opposition to American tariffs, one of Trump’s hallmark policies. But he went further. Last fall he introduced a bill, “The No Taxation Without Representation Act of 2024,” which would require Congressional approval for any tariff the president proposes. That was the status for tariffs before 1974. In that year Congress abdicated its tariff power and left the president as the sole decision maker on tariffs.
“Tariff wars hurt homebuilders, real estate brokers, bourbon sellers, farmers, carmakers, shippers, purchasers of steel, etc.,” Paul wrote on social media. “Growth in international trade is proportional to growth in GDP. A fact. If you cripple trade, you will ultimately cripple GDP. Not a good thing.”
But Paul is a lonely voice among Congressional Republicans on tariff action. He has been unable to find any other GOP members of Congress willing publicly to co-sponsor his bill and thereby challenge their party’s White House occupant.
Other Republicans are more timid. Several have gently stated the U.S. should move carefully on tariffs, and have pointed to their reputations as free traders. Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa is one of those.
But it’s one thing to say you “push for lower tariffs” and “continue to monitor developments,” as Grassley has written. It’s another to sign on to a bill that would restore Congressional approval for tariffs, as Paul has done. There’s no good reason why, as with cabinet and court appointments, power over tariffs should not be shared between the president and the Senate, and the House as well. That’s the way it was up until 50 years ago.
The only thing holding back a number of Republicans is political fear. It’s not pretty to watch, and it’s dangerous for our 236-year-old constitutional separation of federal powers.
On the local scene, there is less opportunity for officeholders in Greene County to show courage, because generally it’s not an issue. Most actions by the county supervisors, school boards, and city councils here generate little controversy, as their right courses of action are usually obvious to all, and rarely opposed on those bodies.
That is not to say there’s no courage among local public service personnel. Law enforcement officers, firefighters, emergency medical staffs, and other government employees here have often demonstrated bravery when the need arises.
But political courage is of a different sort. It’s called for when doing the right thing demands action counter to the wishes of the officeholder’s party leaders, funders, supporters, and other powerful entities. Elected officials willing to buck their party’s position in specific situations, like Chuck Schumer and Rand Paul, step forward much too rarely.