This is Democracy – Episode 309: Government Shutdowns

This Is Democracy, a podcast about the people of the United States, a podcast about citizenship, about engaging with politics and the world around you. A podcast about educating yourself on today’s important issues and how to have a voice in what happens next.

Welcome to our new episode of This Is Democracy.

This week we are going to talk about government shut. Downs. We record this episode as we are two weeks, uh, into a government shutdown in the United States. One of many we’ve had in recent history, and we are fortunate today to be joined by our friend John Lawrence. John is one of the most knowledgeable people in the world about, uh, the US Congress, and its many pathologies of which we’re experiencing right now.

Uh, John Ser. 38 years as a senior staff person in the United States House of Representatives, including as chief of Staff to set to, uh, speaker Nancy Pelosi from 2005. To 2013, John is currently a visiting professor at the University of California’s Washington Center. He’s the author of a number of very important books, uh, many of which I have suggested to my students over the years.

Uh, one is the class of 1974. Congress after Watergate and the roots of partisanship. I think that book covers, uh, John’s early years, uh, in Congress, among other issues. Uh, a book that’s absolutely vital for those of us who are interested in the history of Congress, arc of power inside Nancy Pelosi’s Speakership, 2005 to 2010.

Uh, John’s also dabbled in, um, fiction. He’s written Sherlock Holmes, the Affair at Me Lodge. And, um. John and I will actually both participate together on Thursday, October 16th, in an American Historical Association webinar available to the public on the history of US government shutdown. So in many ways, this is a discussion that John and I are continuing in many, many forms.

Uh, John Lawrence, thank you so much for joining us today.

Jeremy, it’s great to be with you and Zachary today.

And of course we have, uh, Mr. Zachary Siri with us. Uh, Zachary, how are you today? I’m doing well. Good morning. Good morning. Nice to have you on as always. Uh, okay, so before we get into our discussion of government shut.

Downs, why they occur and what they mean. Uh, we have a poem to start with, and I’m gonna read today’s poem. It’s by Constantine cfi. Uh, he published as CP cfi and um, many people today don’t know his work. He was very well known a generation ago. He was one of the leading Greek poets of the early 20th century.

Lived most of his life in Egypt, though he lived part of his life in London as well. And he wrote through poetry about the challenges of democracy in ancient Greece and Rome in ways that resonate with us, uh, in the 20th and 21st centuries. I’m going to read the beginning of his, uh, quite well-known poem, waiting for the Barbarians.

So this is Waiting for the Barbarians by CP cfe. What are we waiting for? Assembled in the forum. The barbarians are due here today. Why isn’t anything going on in the Senate? Why are the senators sitting there without legislating? Because the barbarians are coming today. What’s the point of senators making laws now?

Once the barbarians are here, they’ll do the legislating. Why did our emperor. Get up so early and why is he sitting enthroned in the city’s main gate in state wearing the crown because the barbarians are coming today and the emperor is waiting to receive their leader. He’s even got a scroll to give him.

Loaded with titles, with imposing names. John, I think this, uh, poem captures, uh, sometimes the, the sense of inaction in legislatures, uh, and one of the challenges that poses for democracy. Uh, how, how did you experience this when, when you spent so much time dealing with these issues over four decades?

Well, you know, uh, the nature of the legislative process is a very strategic one, and there are many times when inaction is action because you are allowing the clock to run.

You’re allowing the pressure to build, um, you’re forcing issues to come, uh, under the consideration of the congress. Uh, that, uh, in the absence of that kind of pressure might not not happen. So, uh, I think it’s important to look at the legislative process in, in that way it’s measured not simply by, um, the legislation that you do pass, but it’s also measured by the strategy by which you, uh, encourage or force legislation.

Uh, to the fore and, and to be considered. And I think that’s part of what happens during these shutdowns.

Right, right. That makes a lot of sense. That timing, uh, is very much an important part of politics. So why do we, John, have these, uh, shutdowns? Recurringly, they’ve been more and more frequent. Uh, since the late 1970s, they of course, exist earlier in our history.

We even had government shutdowns at times in the late 19th century, but, but they do seem more frequent. Uh, we had a 35 day, 34 35 day shutdown, um, uh, a number of years ago, uh, including a part of Nancy Pelosi speakership. So, so why do, why do we have these shutdowns?

Well, I think it’s important to note that the, the rate of shutdowns has accelerated.

Um, and that’s partly because of the rise in partisanship and because of the close margins between the parties, which in some ways discourages together with frequent elections. Uh, the efforts by the parties to find resolution, the reason it happens is pretty, pretty simple. There are 12 separate appropriation bills.

They’re supposed to be signed into law by September 30th, and if they aren’t, uh, each year, then whatever has not been signed into law, whatever branches of government are not covered by enacted appropriation, bills must either be extended automatically by something called a continuing resolution that can last for a day.

It can last for a month, it can last for six months. Or that portion of the government will shut down. Uh, and, uh, just as all other issues are difficult to reach resolutions on, both because of spending levels, but also because of policy considerations. These continuing resolutions are difficult to to reach, uh, uh, accommodation during this period of hyper-partisanship.

And we’ve had a greater. Frequency of, of the shutdowns. I think that’s one reason. The other is that as the legislative output of the Congress has diminished over time because of the narrow margins and the hyper-partisanship, the opportunities for elevating issues, uh, that are important, particularly to the minority, which can easily be excluded from, uh, the legislative process.

Uh, there are very limited number of options, and one of the options is a continuing resolution where they, it it’s a must pass bill or there are dire consequences in terms of shutdowns. And because it’s covered by the filibuster, uh, that means that the minority, particularly in the Senate, has the ability to use this as leverage to get to force consideration of issues that otherwise the minor, the majority might not, uh, be willing to consider.

Zachary. So then, has this not been a sort of long, longstanding issue? Uh, is this not how the process has always been? Are these shut down something, uh, new in our political moment then?

Well, I think they’ve, they’ve definitely accelerated, uh, as, as Jeremy pointed out, they, they go back to the 19th century, but the, the problem has be, has been exacerbated by hyper-partisanship and by the fact that it is simply difficult to pass these appropriation bills, all of which are subject to the filibuster in the Senate.

And of course, if you have a, a split between the president and the Congress or a split between the houses of Congress, and that’s happened with increased frequency since the 1990s. Uh, then, uh, reaching resolution on all these appropriation bills, it becomes much more difficult. We’ve only had, uh, uh, we only had a handful of these shutdowns, but they have been, uh, they have been, uh, growing in frequency and in some cases with, in duration, and the impacts can be very significant.

So, so what actually happens during a shutdown? Uh, John, I, I’ve noticed, uh, during this shutdown that, um, people are talking about it a bit, but, but most people say their lives haven’t been directly affected yet. Of course, those who work for the federal government in many cases, uh, thousands have been furloughed.

Others, uh, have been working technically without being paid yet, though in many cases, they still haven’t missed a paycheck. So it’s not that people aren’t being affected, but, but the, the vast majority. So far, I don’t think, feel this directly. What, what’s actually happening during a shutdown.

So some agencies, uh, have been laying people off.

Uh, in this particular case, the administration has been not simply furloughing people, uh, that is telling them not to work, uh, until the shutdown is resolved, but then they will be rehired or. Come back to work with pay, uh, made up. In this case, they’re actually furloughing people. Um, the reason I think most people are not.

Feeling the impact is because, uh, certain essential employees are able to continue working. So, for example, people who get social security benefits or people who get veterans benefits or people who are getting Medicare, those are programs that are, uh, entitlement programs. They don’t require appropriation.

So the most immediate impact for most Americans is that their benefits continue even if the administrative people in those agencies are diminished. And over time, that may. Have an impact in terms of being able to contact them or being able to get answers to questions you have. The big impact, of course, is in the discretionary spending, which is the only part of the government that is covered by these, uh, continuing resolutions.

And that’s only about a third of the government, but it’s part of the government that everybody knows about in terms of education or health programs or, uh, uh, infrastructure development or health or, or health research or all of these sorts of things. And there. Those people are laid off, uh, temporarily.

The question is, are they going to be laid off permanently or not? Mike Lee is the Senator from Utah said that Russ Vo, that OMB Chairman, who’s the author of Project 2025, uh, and, and uh, has been playing a key role. Uh, Lee says that vote has been dreaming about this moment, uh, since puberty, that is having the chance to use this kind of a shutdown to really lay off thousands upon thousands of people and, uh, lay them off permanently.

And if that happens, then people are gonna start feeling, uh, the, the pain, not only in terms of of the programs that benefit them, but through the, the economic chain, because those are thousands of people strewn throughout the entire country who are going to lose income and face real economic. Uh, privation.

Uh, and, and that’s gonna affect everybody in blue states, red states, uh, across the entire country.

Zachary, uh. How do these shutdowns usually come to an end? How in the past have they been resolved and are those avenues open in this moment too?

That’s a, that’s a really important question because, and, and I’m glad you asked it.

I think the general feeling is that shutdowns generally are ineffectual, uh, that the pain is such that after a few weeks, uh, it’s inevitable that. Whoever it is who’s been holding out, just caves in and goes back to, to approving some type of a continuing resolution and whatever they disagreed on, those negotiations continue, but the leverage is then gone.

Um, I think that misunderstands some of what actually happens. So for example, I think there have been consequential shutdowns most importantly. Um, in 1995 when the new Republican Congress shut down the government, uh, over a number of different issues, possibly because the speaker had been insulted by the president, possibly because the speaker wanted the president to agree to rescind.

The, uh, the tax cuts that he had passed, but that was the new Republican Congress, the first Congress. In 40 years, he didn’t get any of the Gingrich. The speaker did not get any of the concessions he wanted, but what he did do was send a clear symbolic message that there was a new team in control in the Congress, and that he would have to be dealt with and the Republicans would have to be dealt with.

And in fact, going forward, president Clinton did enter into extended negotiations with the Republicans, ended up with three balanced budgets. Um, in, in a row, uh, and welfare reform legislation and a number of other things. That I think that the speaker would, uh, argue and I think is a credible argument came about partly because very early in the new Republican Congress, they used the shutdown to demonstrate, uh, that they would, uh, exert power as a co-equal branch of government.

Uh, similarly there have been, uh, situations where, uh, efforts were made to shut down the government by Republicans, and it is viewed more by Republicans, by than by Democrats to force repeal of the Affordable Care Act. Repeal of the, uh, the DACA Act that allows, uh, uh. Students to remain, young people to remain in the country despite their, uh, undocumented status.

And those failed under President Obama. And in failing, I think they proved, um, that the president had that ability. The la the laws had those ability to sustain themselves and so had the reverse impact of strengthening the presidency. So I don’t think they go without, they don’t go without, uh, any, any impact.

This current one, we don’t know. The Democrats have chosen, I think, wisely to focus on. The need to, uh, protect, uh, the support for health premiums under the Affordable Care Act. And, uh, the, they know that that’s a, that’s a value that, that, that’s a, an effective, uh, issue because it is impacting, uh, not only is it impacting many, uh, people in Republican states.

Uh, it’s impacting people in Republican states disproportionately, uh, to, uh, democratic states. So that’s where they have drawn the line, and we will see whether or not they force those concessions or not.

So John, one thing I’ve noticed during this shutdown is so far, uh, there doesn’t appear to be a lot of negotiation, uh, occurring.

Uh, the two sides don’t seem to be talking to one another. As far as I can tell, since the shutdown began, the Democratic leadership of the Senate and the House have not met with the President and not met with the, uh. Republican Speaker of the House, uh, nor the Senate Majority Leader, um, the Senate has been voting, uh, and voting down the continuing resolution time and again, but the house has not even been in session.

Is this unusual or is this how shutdowns usually go?

Typically, there are negotiations that are going on behind closed doors. There are at least discussions going on. I think that’s more likely to be going on. Within the Senate than there is within the house for a variety of reasons. One is that that’s where the deal has to be made.

The, the, the House Republican majority can pass any bill that they can pass. And if the Senate passes a bill, it’s gonna, the pressure on the house is gonna be very, very strong. But the, in the Senate, that’s where you need seven. Maybe more democratic votes because of the filibuster to pass a a, a cr, uh, or to pass any piece of legislation at this point.

And so that I think is probably where the negotiations are. You do have people, uh, uh, like Senator Hawley and others, Senator Murkowski, uh, Republican senators who are clearly publicly stating. They think that there’s a serious problem over the, uh, the risk of these premiums going sky high in their states.

Um, and my guess is that there are conversations going on about how they can, can address that issue in a way that’s portrayed as a, a win for both sides. And I think there is, for myself, I think there’s a pretty obvious. Way that can happen. And that is that rather than a, uh, permanent extension of the, uh, of the premium support that the Democrats have been demanding, they agree to something shorter, cheaper, probably get them through the next election.

Um, and, uh, and I think they will agree to that. Now the question is will they agree to that, uh, before, uh, having to open the government? Right now they’re probably saying, vote to open the government. Then we can talk about that The Democrats. Not surprisingly are saying, wait a second, you guys have broken so many promises.

The president has cut so much money that’s already been appropriated. We need these things to happen simultaneously, open the government and extend the subsidies. I think we just have to wait and see, uh, how that negotiation, uh, works out. But I’m pretty confident those conversations are taking place behind closed doors.

And in your experience and study of these issues, John, what is the role the president plays? Because technically the legislation has to go through Congress first. So, um, is the president, uh, the active negotiator trying to bring the two sides together? And, and what responsibility does the president have in this process?

Well,

of course the president ultimately is going to have the final say. Because the president would have to sign the continuing resolution into law. And if the president, if the Congress negotiates something, and that can’t happen, uh, as was the case where you had a Republican Congress and the Democratic President, and President Clinton, uh, or President Obama, uh, then you could have, you could have a disagreement.

But the, the I, my sense is that a lot of this negotiation has to go on. Between the members of Congress, they are the ones with the longstanding relationships, the chairman of committees, members of committees, the leadership. They’re the ones who have to work out the deals that are going to take place in terms of the sequencing of legislation, the actual provisions of a particular cr.

The president has to be involved and, and obviously will be involved at, at a staff level. And even when we’ve heard in the past of complete breakdowns, there have been conversations going on. I know I used to have conversations with, uh, president Bush’s, uh, chief legislative, uh, representatives, uh, even when supposedly there was absolutely no conversation going on whatsoever.

So I’m sure that that. That will have to happen. The president has to provide leadership. However, I’m, I, I, I do think President Trump to this point has not been providing a lot of that. Um, he canceled meetings with the, with the Democratic leaders. He’s been using very, uh, hostile comments about, uh, as, as vice president, uh, Vance.

Uh, threats about, uh, about cutting off. Uh, he has been cutting off money, uh, at least short term for, uh, infrastructure projects in Democratic states. That is, that may be the kind of bluster that works well in the Trump business world, but it’s not a very effective way of building the kind of relationships that you.

On a congressional level. So I, I think my guess is that the Congressional people are gonna take this in hand and try to negotiate something that the Republicans will then go to the White House and say, Mr. President, this is the best we can do. This is reasonably fair. We can claim a partial victory out of this.

Let’s do this and get it over with and move on to something else. Uh, whether or not the, the peace, uh, agreement in the Middle East, uh, heightens Trump’s uh, uh, sense of his own. Prominence in this, in this process and diminishes his willingness to listen to, uh, any kind of, uh, negotiations. Coming outta Congress, I think remains to be seen, but certainly one can see the President coming back from, uh, Jerusalem, uh, feeling that he is, uh, he’s riding pretty high and has no interest in, in making further concession.

So I think the we’re, we’re gonna have to wait and see how that plays out.

Sure. It’s, it’s also possible the opposite is the case, right? That, uh, the president returns from Jerusalem and, uh, believes that, uh, his, his great accomplishments in Jerusalem are not getting the attention they deserve because the shutdown is dominating the news and, and ending the shutdown would bring more attention to his diplomatic successes perhaps in that, in that view.

I’m skeptical of that, of that happening. I think this particular president tends to maximize his good press and, and, uh, I don’t, I don’t think he’ll stop talking about the Middle East. And, and in order to become, uh, a more conciliatory president, uh, for those, he’s been disparaging and cutting money from and punishing and firing here, I think he used those all in a piece of the strength of the presidency and he’ll try to maximize that.

Right. I, I think that’s probably

true. Zachary. Um, uh, what role do you think public opinion plays in these conversations? I know you said that most of the negotiations happen behind closed doors, but obviously who gets blamed for the shutdown is also a, a big component of this. How does that play out? Uh, typically.

I think that if you look at the electoral implications of shutdowns, which incidentally tend to happen in non-election years, not surprisingly, because they would happen much too close to election day, um, then, uh, you would conclude that they probably don’t have a great deal of impact long term. Uh, they happen a year before the election, a little bit more than a year before the election.

Other events supersede them in terms of electoral significance. Uh, I don’t think that, that, for the most part, public opinion is what’s going to drive, uh, the conclusion, uh, here one way, uh, one way or the other. In the, in the one case where we saw shutdowns occurring in election year, in 2018, the Republicans lost control of the Congress, um, as a, partly as a result of the notion that they couldn’t manage the government well.

And so my guess is that, that, uh, the, the obvious. Concern that people have is not likely to have that much of an impact. What is gonna have an impact is that over 70% of the public is concerned about the cost of healthcare. And if it’s perceived that Republicans have shut down the government and caused a lot of disruption in people’s lives and done that specifically in order to, uh, oppose the extension of healthcare affordability, that could be problematic.

When you see the kinds of numbers in the polls that. Support what basically the Democrats have set out here as the, the quid pro quo for proceeding with the continuing resolution.

Uh, John, how long can this go on? I mean, at some point, um, air traffic controllers, TSA agents, ICE employees, uh, soldiers, um, many government employees who are working as essential employees, uh, but working without pay, at some point they will stop showing up, right?

If they’re not getting paid.

Yeah, and we’ve seen that in the past where air traffic control or the blue flu sort of, uh, a approach, uh, starts, starts having an impact. Uh, the president has ordered that, uh, military, current active duty military be paid, but, uh, there’s a limited amount of money that’s available to that.

Um, you know, I, I, you know, we’re, we’re coming on to three weeks, uh, pretty soon. And, and my guess is that it’s, it’s probably not gonna go on a lot longer than that. Um, there hasn’t been a lot. Uh, what’s interesting here is that there has not been a lot of, of new issues coming up. The major issue, it seems to be a, a disagreement is not even around this healthcare support, but over the sequencing of healthcare care support and reopening the government, that just doesn’t seem to me.

Uh, to be that insuperable a barrier, I am concerned that the president comes back from a very successful, uh, uh, mission to the Middle East with no inclination whatsoever to make, uh, concessions. And, and the, the, the problem there is that, as I alluded to earlier, some in his administration, specifically the chairman of the, the, the, the head of the office management and budget.

Is interested in using this shutdown for broader purposes. That is the diminution of the size of government. And so, uh, it could go on for a while because the longer it goes on, the more people can be fired and without having to, to rehire them. And that serves, uh, the overall interest I think of. Project 20 20 25 and the Trump administration, um, I would put probably an outside limit of a month or so, uh, on it.

But you know, we’re as with so many things, we’re in uncharted waters here.

So the final question I wanted to ask you, John, uh, because, uh, you are also a, a, a, uh, distinguished historian, a PhD, uh, and, um, you think about these issues as, as few others in the legislature. Legislature, do you think about them in a broad historical perspective?

Um. I is this sensible that we go through this every few years? Uh, sometimes more often in the United States. Most other government systems don’t go through this. The German government doesn’t shut down, uh, every few years. The Chinese government doesn’t shut down every few years. The Japanese government doesn’t.

Um, I I, is this sensible? Um, and is this something we should change or reform?

Well, it isn’t sensible, of course. Uh, it’s partly a factor of the, the founder’s dubious wisdom at this point of creating two year terms for the House of Representatives, uh, which means that there’s constant campaigning and, and constant, uh, partisan strategizing.

But it’s partly a, a problem of the Congress’s own making and, uh, because we do have. Uh, the specific budget process that, um, forces annual budgets and, uh, annual appropriation bills. There have been reports of, there have been proposals over time to shift to multi-year budgeting or to, to separate the, uh, portions of the budget out so that not everything happens on a one year basis.

Uh, which is the, I I assume we’re one of the few countries where you have to pass spending bills every single year. Um, you know, you’ve basically no sooner ended the, the prior year’s, uh, disagreement than you’re into the New Year’s, uh, disagreement, which is why you end up with a continuing resolution. So, uh, every once in a while after these shutdowns, you’ll hear some discussion in the congress.

That we should change to multi-year budgeting. Uh, we should have, uh, more than, than a simply a one year, uh, budget resolution or one year appropriation bill. But those tend to go away and they go away in part, uh, for something you talked about earlier in this, this program, and that is people like having the opportunity to use leverage, uh, in order to force what they want, and that has that leverage can happen generally only during.

Um, the passage of must pass legislation like an appropriation bill. And interestingly, vice President Vance early in this accused the democrats of, of making preposterous demands and said, you don’t use your policy disagreements as leverage. Well, from a historical standpoint, nothing could be more wrong.

You always use your policy disagreements for leverage, particularly when you’re handed an opportunity like an annual appropriation bill. So yeah, you could, you could make changes. It doesn’t require any constitutional changes. Will Congress do that? Uh, you know, there’s, there’s no evidence. They never have, uh, I think, I think they like the dysfunction to some extent.

Um, and, uh, I don’t see that being one of the outcomes of this or any other budgetary or, or government shutdown in the near future.

Uh, John, I think you’ve captured one of the true paradoxes of American democracy. It’s more evident maybe now than it was a few decades ago, but in many ways our system is built around dysfunction, around, um, not just checks and balances, but around many different points, uh, where, uh, groups and individuals, uh, can.

Hold up legislation and can stop the functioning of government as a kind of protection, perhaps. Maybe that’s how the founders thought about it, but also as a limitation upon the concentration of power. And it, it does seem to me we’re in a moment now where we have a president who’s trying to concentrate power and we have, uh, an opposition party, the Democratic party that’s doing everything it can to prevent him, uh, with mixed success to prevent him from concentrating power.

And, and maybe that makes this, this kind of, uh, conflict that we’re in with the shutdown. Uh. Um, part of democracy, not dysfunction from democracy, would, would you agree with that proposition?

I couldn’t agree with you more. I, I, when people say to me the government is not working as it was intended, and I very often say that unfortunately it is working as it was intended.

It was set up by people who had deep suspicions of central government and of government power and, uh, autocracy and wanted to create as many. Uh, checks and balances and as, as possible to guard against that kind of tyranny of the majority. So, uh, you know, to, to a large extent, the functioning of American government with all these built in architecture of, of disorder based is based upon everybody’s willingness to play the, play the game according to the basic rules.

And when you have these kind of basic, fundamental disagreements, the structure of American government becomes a very useful tool. For obfuscation and delay and, and the kind of perpetual crisis we see around spending legislation. It,

it, it’s such an important point. It’s central to our podcast each week.

Democracy is not just about the clash of different views. It’s also about procedures and institutions and the ways in which procedures and institutions and laws when they work should, uh, limit. Concentration of power and should, uh, empower different groups to have their voices heard. And, and John, you’ve not only said that, well, you’ve written about it better than almost anyone else, and you’ve lived it over a very long career.

It’s really, uh, a, a great treat to have you on and share your insights with our listeners. Thank you so much, John Lawrence for joining.

Thanks Jeremy and Zachary, I appreciate it and enjoyed having the conversation with you

and Zachary, of course. Thank you for your comments and, and questions throughout today.

And, uh, thank you most of all to our loyal listeners for joining us, uh, for this episode and for our. Uh, daily podcast as well, democracy of Hope. Thank you so much for joining us for this episode of This Is Democracy.

This podcast is produced by the Liberal Arts ITS Development Studio

and the College of Liberal Arts at the University of Texas at Austin.

The music in this episode was written and recorded by Scott Holmes. Stay tuned for a new episode every week You can find This is Democracy on Apple Podcast, Spotify and YouTube.

See you next time.