It’s a question of trust, when trust has been in short supply.

It is a question of courage, when courage has yet to be tested.

Recently, Senate Democrats, frustrated with playing the role of Charlie Brown to the president’s Lucy (having deals to provide a fix to the plight of 800,000 DACA recipients set up and then snatched away at the last second), took the politically risky step of filibustering a stopgap spending bill.

With the failure of the bill in the Senate, the U.S. government ground to a halt.

As far as government shutdowns go, it wasn’t much. It marked the 18th time the federal government has been shut down since the modern budgetary process began back in 1974. In terms of length, it was significantly shorter (three days) than the average seven days of most prior shutdowns, and significantly shorter than the 16 days of a GOP-instigated shutdown in 2013. It fell far short of the Newt Gingrich/GOP-led record shutdown of 21 days in 1995-1996.

While shutdowns are a lousy way to do business, both parties have resorted to them from time to time. They do, however, serve to signal that a point has been reached when, in the words of Twisted Sister, “we ain’t gonna take it anymore!”

In this case, on two occasions, Democrats felt they had reached a deal on DACA with a president who prides himself on his ability to make deals. Both times, whoever got to him last was apparently able to encourage him to renege on commitments, sometimes made only hours before.

So much for trust. Please pass the Jell-O.

Trust is also a rare commodity in the Senate, where Democrats are dealing with a Senate majority leader who had been moving the goal posts on DACA for months.

It doesn’t seem to be such an insoluble problem. According to many polls of all stripes, 80 percent of Americans believe that DACA recipients – brought into the country as children, through no fault of their own, and who voluntarily, at the government’s request, self-reported their undocumented status – should be given permanent residence in the United States, and a path to eventual citizenship.

A “clean” DACA bill, one focused on that sole issue, would take care of the problem, assuming the majority leader would allow a DACA bill to come to a vote.

But that’s not what the majority leader wants. Rather, he sees DACA as being part of a comprehensive immigration bill.

Sounds reasonable, but it doesn’t take a rocket scientist (or even rocket man) to see the cynicism in the strategy. Comprehensive immigration reform is certainly a subject for discussion and action, but a full discussion cannot be had between now and a drop-dead date on DACA in early March. As that date approaches, DACA will be used as a carrot, or more likely a club, to pressure Democrats to accede to the nativist demands of the radical right of the Republican caucus.

Meanwhile 800,000 Americans, in all but legal status, remain as pawns, wondering what the next knock on the door portends.

In the end, the Democrats shut down the shutdown after extracting a quasi-promise from the majority leader to at least allow a DACA bill to come to the Senate floor for debate and a vote.

This is where the trust comes in. The “quasi-promise” has a big loophole. The majority leader’s precise words were that it was his “intention” to allow a bill on the floor if certain conditions were met. There is a lot of wiggle room between “intent to allow” and “allowing.”

If the majority leader snatches away the football, there will be a price to be paid.

Hopefully, the Democrats’ trust in the majority leader’s word will not be misplaced.

Of course, whatever happens in the Senate must pass muster in the House, which is where the issue of courage becomes germane.

There is little doubt that, between Democrats and center to center-right Republicans, there are more than enough votes to pass a bill and send it on to the White House.

The problem is that the House Republicans have a convention called the “Hastert Rule.” This convention holds that the speaker of the House will not allow any bill to come to a vote unless it has the prior approval of “a majority of the majority.” Following this rule, despite overwhelming Democrat support for a DACA bill, they would never get a chance to vote on such a bill because the bill would never come to the floor unless a majority of House Republicans approved it first.

Given some of the more radical anti-immigrant factions within the Republican caucus, obtaining such a majority is questionable.

Thing is, the “Hastert Rule” isn’t really a rule at all. It is a convention, a tradition, a non-binding custom.

The speaker of the House has the power to ignore the so-called Hastert Rule, and speakers have done so in the past.

The question is this, does Speaker of the House Paul Ryan have the courage to defy the radical right of his own caucus and allow a DACA bill to come to the floor for debate and a vote?

Should he do so, he puts his speakership at risk. Which is more important to Paul Ryan? His speakership, or close to 800,000 young men and women whose fate would be in his hands?

Trust, courage. Traits and virtues in short supply.

Even if the Senate and House agree upon DACA legislation, it all comes down to the gentleman in the White House. Given his prior positive comments about the “Dreamers,” perhaps if he is caught on a day of the “Good Donald,” while all immigration issues would not be resolved, but at least this one would be.

And something is better than nothing.