On the government shutdown

This column may sound a bit partisan, but I think it presents a reasonable analysis of the present government shutdown. I welcome comments. As in all situations involving partisan "warfare," attempts to clarify leave out some of the complicating issues and fail to satisfy one or both sides. I believe there is a the central point, the key to understanding this moment. Our political system since the beginning, and, clearly, I think in the Founders' mind, was based upon compromise. We all know the basic structure, divided government. Local, State and Federal. Senate, House, Executive and Judicial. Their fear was too much power in the hands of one group or one interest or one person. Over the course of time, by mutual consent of both political parties, we added an additional "safeguard," 40 members of the Senate can under all but a few circumstances stop critical bills from passing the Senate. This is not in the Constitution. The Party that has a majority in the Senate could likely change this at the beginning of a session. Traditionally, both Parties have kept it, because they want, when they are in the minority, to be able to block the enactment of legislation favored by the majority. It is one more way, and something of a last resort, to enforce compromise, to force the majority Party to work with the minority Party, a Party that will generally represent an almost equal part of the overall population. Although people have debated this ever since it was established, it remains part of our American system of government. It seems to many consistent with the general nature of the American system of government, a political compact that favors compromise and fears the potential power of a unitary government. At this moment one Party has used this power to block legislation to fund the government, in order to force negotiation over the potential loss of healthcare insurance for a significant part of the population. The other Party has refused to compromise, but says that once the government is funded, they will begin negotiation over healthcare. Thus, we have a government "shutdown," which only allows limited government services to continue to operate. Ronald Reagan once famously said "trust but verify." This advice has become part of American political folklore. Or as President Trump expresses the basic idea, you have to have "card(s)" to stay in the deal-making game. Democratic Party leaders believe that, once the government is funded, they lose their "card." They would then have no way to ensure (verify) the "deal." They will argue that, if the Republicans are serious about "fixing" this healthcare problem, they either would have done it already, or would agree to do it now. They want to "verify" that a fair compromise is in place before giving up their remaining bargaining chip. We know the temptation in conflict games to try to make the other side blink. Pride, arrogance, avoiding the appearance of weakness—all of the above — keep people from both sides from coming together. Most of these games of "chicken" don't end well. Presently, as the Democrats seem dug in, the Republicans are trying another strategy — extortion. Give in, they say or we will harm the interests of your voters. The President claims that some government agencies and programs do more for Democrats than for Republicans, and he threatens to treat them differently from other departments and agencies of the government, cutting back on their personnel. This appears to be apart from his well-known attempt to make government more efficient. He is also refusing to continue infrastructure expenditures in States that usually vote for Democratic candidates. Still, the Democrats have not backed down. Eventually, one side or the other will have to "give." It need not be a public humiliation or a total capitulation. It will likely be as part of a negotiation. And that, as I have said, is one well established understanding of how the American government does and should work. (And it is, of course, why some members of the President's Party are working actively to fix what they see as this crucial defect in our system of government, i.e. to make the government more unitary and the power of a President less restricted.) Perhaps, by the time this is published, the "shutdown" will be over. Or it may still be in effect. In any case, eventually the voters will have their say. They will evaluate which Party acted responsibly and will have an opportunity to express their judgement in coming elections. John Bing is Emeritus Professor of Political Science at Heidelberg University and writes a by-weekly newsletter at johnb0c.substack.com