What This Government Shutdown Exposes About The State of American Politics

We are hours away from another government shutdown. Since 1976, the year the modern congressional budget process took effect, the government has shut down a total of 20 times. However, the number I find more revealing is 134. In the past 28 years, “policymakers have passed 134 interim and 4 full-year CRs ranging from 21 to 216 days.” Rather than agreeing to a budget, Congress typically chooses to temporarily delay a shutdown with a continuing resolution. On average, Congress passes five continuing resolutions each year.

Each government shutdown chips away at any semblance of political unity. Brinksmanship and strong arming tactics cannot remain the order of the day. Moreover, the frequency and predictability of government shutdowns is costly. The 2018 to 2019 government shutdown cost the US economy $3 billion across 34 days.

Voters elect representatives to serve their best interests. What is concerning is it never seems to be an ideological issue holding up the passage of a budget bill. The disagreement stems from a desire to “punish” the other side for past decisions.

Other democracies struggle with brinksmanship, gridlock, and hardball tactics, but purposelly sabotaging the government has emerged as a unique American phenomenon.

The consistent gridlock when it comes to budget appropriations indicates that affective polarization has deeply infected our political process. Affective polarization goes beyond ideological disagreement, describing anger, distrust, contempt, hostility, and even hatred across party lines. The central idea being that persons on opposing sides harbor “very negative… nasty feelings” for those on the other side.

Polarization is not inherently bad. Polarization itself describes political disagreements that take place across the ideological spectrum in a polity. We need polarization in an efficient party system in order to help voters distinguish between parties. However, affective polarization is very different and does not contribute to productive exchange of ideas.

Repairing the broken trust in American democracy means confronting this hostility.

The heightening of affective polarization leaves voters at a disadvantage. These sweeping omnibus bills and congressional gridlocks makes the opportunities for more meaningful standalone legislation increasingly rare. In 2013 the government shutdown because the Republican party wanted to defund the Afforable Care Act (ppularly known as Obamacare). This legislation accomplished much in expanding healthcare for the average American, including raising the caps for low income individuals to qualify for medicaid, required most insurance plans to cover FDA-approved contraceptive methods and counseling without any out-of-pocket cost, such as copayments or deductibles and prohibiting “health plans from denying people coverage, charging them higher premiums, as well as rescinding or imposing exclusions to coverage due to preexisting health conditions.”

If Republicans had successfully strong-armed Democrats into cutting ACA funding, the real losers would not have been Democrats. Though they claimed to act in good faith, hindsight shows that using a government shutdown to force the ACA’s removal from the funding bill would have inflicted disastrous consequences on the most vulnerable populations.

Similarly, the government shut down for the longest it ever has in 2018 over disagreements arising from the proposed border wall. Citizens should not be caught in the middle of ideological standoffs.

Our representatives reflect us. And these petty squabbles show what we as constituents allow to represent us in the highest offices in this nation. Affective polarization breeds hate. A hate that feels hollow when you realize that the average voter is not so different from one and another.

Common perceptions make many people think that the average Republicans “are wealthier, older, and more evangelical” and the average Democrat may be more likely to be “members of unions, … atheists, sexual minorities, or people of color.” In reality, for both parties, “the modal member of both parties is a middle-aged, White, nonevangelical Christian.” Moreover, only 2% of Republicans earned over $250,000 and only 6% of Democrats are a part of the LGBT community.”

This Congress has been labeled the “least effective” in history, though whether that title is deserved remains to be seen. Unless legislation is enacted to ensure that, in the event of a shutdown, the prior year’s provisions automatically take effect, government shutdowns will remain a dramatic and unnecessary bargaining tool in Congress’s back pocket.

Resources for further education:

Legislative Effectiveness Scores for 118th Congress Highlight The Keys to Successful Lawmaking

Brennan Center for Justice: An Effective Congress

Polarization, Democracy, and Political Violence in the United States: What the Research Says

American Exceptionalism and Government Shutdowns: A Comparative Constitutional Reflection on the 2013 Lapse in Appropriations

A Look at Previous Government Shutdowns and How They Ended