Dan Crenshaw Just Gave Jamie Raskin a Civics Lesson He Won’t Forget

You know what’s fascinating about watching politicians argue on television? It’s not what they say. It’s what they refuse to acknowledge while they’re saying it.

Dan Crenshaw and Jamie Raskin went at it Wednesday in one of those cable news segments that makes you wonder if anyone in Washington actually listens anymore. The Texas Republican and Maryland Democrat screamed past each other for several minutes about the midterm results, and honestly, it was the kind of exchange that tells you everything about why regular Americans are exhausted with politics.

Democrats just swept the midterms. They took back the House and Senate, even flipped gubernatorial races in places like Texas where Gina Hinojosa somehow beat Greg Abbott. That’s not a minor upset. That’s a political earthquake. And Raskin wanted everyone to know it meant something, that voters had spoken, that change was coming.

But here’s where it gets interesting. Crenshaw wasn’t interested in relitigating what happened. He wanted to talk about what happens next. He pointed to the Stop Insider Trading Act, legislation that apparently has broad support but somehow never made it to Trump’s desk before the election. Senate Democrats, he argued, deliberately stalled popular bills to make Republicans look ineffective heading into the midterms.

"You think he would?" Raskin shot back when Crenshaw suggested Trump would sign the insider trading bill. "Let’s mark that down. Because their whole administration is about insider trading."

There it is. The talking point. The pivot. The refusal to engage with the actual question.

Crenshaw tried to drag the conversation back to legislative reality. Most bills need 60 votes in the Senate to overcome a filibuster. Republicans didn’t have 60 seats before the election. Democrats don’t have 60 seats after it. So when Raskin started celebrating about how Democrats would tackle affordability and help working families, Crenshaw asked the only question that mattered: how exactly are you planning to do that?

"Well, we’re going to start by getting rid of your illegal tariffs," Raskin said. "That’s the first thing which have driven up prices. Then we’re going to try to end your illegal war."

Again with the talking points. Again with the pivot away from the procedural reality. You can’t just "get rid" of tariffs through sheer force of will when you don’t have the votes to pass legislation. But Raskin kept shouting about corruption and Trump and election results, as if winning gave Democrats some magical ability to bypass the Constitution.

"Are you capable of doing anything but talking just in talking points?" Crenshaw asked. "Do you actually have facts? I’m reading bills. I’m doing actual policy discussions. You’re just yelling. Are you confused?"

It’s a legitimate question. Raskin accused Crenshaw and Senate Republicans of covering for Trump, of refusing to pass anything meaningful, of caring more about loyalty than governance. Fine. But Bash and Raskin both acknowledged during the segment that Republicans controlled everything before the midterms. Both chambers of Congress. The White House. So if Republicans were so corrupt and ineffective, why didn’t Democrats use the filibuster to force better legislation?

The answer, of course, is that governance is harder than campaigning. It’s easier to yell about the other side’s failures than to explain your own plan. Raskin kept falling back on "Look at the election results!" as if electoral victory settled every policy debate. But elections don’t write bills. They don’t negotiate compromises. They don’t magically create the 60 votes you need in the Senate.

This matters more than you might think. We’re heading into a period of divided government where Democrats control Congress and Trump sits in the White House. If Democratic leaders think their midterm wins give them a mandate to simply demand what they want, we’re in for two years of gridlock and finger pointing. If they can’t articulate how they’ll actually pass legislation within the system we have, not the system they wish we had, then what was the point of winning?

The White House responded with its own talking points, naturally. Matthew Middleton, a spokesman, rattled off Trump’s accomplishments: largest working class tax cuts in history, lower prescription drug costs, over a million private sector jobs, nearly 20 trade deals. He said Trump would work with anyone willing to strengthen the economy and put money back in workers’ pockets.

Republican commentator Matt Gorman was less diplomatic. "Raskin loves seeing himself on camera," he told reporters. "He’s a hypocrite of the first order and this exchange exposed it."

That might be too harsh, but there’s a kernel of truth buried in there. Politicians who won’t engage with the mechanics of governing, who think passion and righteousness substitute for strategy, don’t actually help the people they claim to represent. You can hate Trump. You can think his trade policies hurt American families. You can believe Republicans wasted their majority on tax cuts for the rich. All of that might be true. But if you can’t explain how you’re going to fix it within the constraints of the system, you’re just performing for the cameras.

Dana Bash tried to put a positive spin on it at the end. "As heated as this has gotten, I have to say it is actually nice to hear the debate of issues and ideas, because we don’t hear that enough," she said.

Except that’s not what we heard. We heard one guy asking procedural questions and another guy yelling about corruption. We heard talking points colliding with each other while both men refused to find common ground. We heard the sound of American politics in 2024: loud, angry, and ultimately going nowhere.

The real test comes next. Democrats won their mandate. Now they have to govern with it. And if all they’ve got is outrage and accusations, we’re all in for a very long two years.

Related: Gavin Newsom Just Handed Life Sentences to 548 Killers and Called It Justice