As the federal government shut down hit the one-week mark before the New Year, there were 400,000 federal workers on furlough and another 400,000 in essential jobs being required to work without pay.
The shutdown is the result of dysfunction between the executive and legislative branches over creation of a border wall between the United States and Mexico.
Such shutdowns are not new or uncommon. It’s difficult to blame any one person, group or entity for a disagreement that leads to a government shutdown. In our polarized America, there are too many people unwilling to recognize that the solution to such shut downs is compromise on the part of all involved.
The current, ongoing shutdown is the third federal government shutdown in 2018, and appears it will last into mid-January, 2019. The shutdown is due in part to President Trump’s wish to have the United States build a border wall between the United States and Mexico. House and Senate leaders said they wouldn’t approve the $5 billion needed to build the wall. The House and Senate agreed to spending bills that would keep the government operational, but Trump would not sign the spending bills unless they included money for the border wall.
When the government shuts down, national parks close and access to many federal buildings and services end. The shut down for specific locations depends on the funding that exists in budgets when a funding bill goes unapproved.
Understanding a government shutdown is difficult, yet the causes are always political.
Prior to being president in 2013, Trump said, “A shutdown falls on the President’s lack of leadership. He can’t even control his own party and get people together in a room. A shutdown means the president is weak.”
Trump may now have a more rounded view of what it takes to balance operation of the government and meet his campaign promises. When running for office he promised his supporters a border wall. He’s made little progress on meeting this promise. His rigid position on funding the government is an attempt to make headway on getting the border wall built. Some people feel strongly that such a wall should be built. For that reason, they support Trump’s reasoning not to fund the government until he receives compromise from legislators.
It was no secret when Trump entered the presidency that he was going to seek and expect support to build the wall.
Since the beginning of his presidency, Trump has had difficulties working with the fragmented Republican leadership in Congress. Trump was unable to get support necessary to dismantle the Affordable Care Act largely because some conservatives believed his policies did not go far enough toward satisfying their base of support.
Republican Senator Chuck Schumer said last week that there were not enough votes in the Senate to support the President’s border wall. Schumer said the border wall wouldn’t be built under a lame-duck Congress and it will not receive support in the House of Representatives when Democrats take control of that institution in January.
There is a significant base of conservative Hispanic voters. While these conservative Hispanic voters embrace many core Republican beliefs, they don’t necessarily support building the border wall. Politicians are keen to understand their votes to support a border wall will impact ballots cast by conservative Hispanic voters.
While we talk about our nation being polarized, there is still pragmatism that exists among people. It’s difficult to find conservatives or liberals who support the entire platform of either the Republican or Democratic parties.
Government has traditionally progressed through the acts of compromise and statesmanship. When legislators cross the aisle and support legislation that is offered by another party, it’s because they believe the legislation is best for the people they represent, not their party affiliation.
Legislators who have taken on landmark changes in government have had to form coalitions from other ideologies to be successful. These compromises date back to before the drafting of the Constitution, including “The Great Compromise,” which was the plan that outlined Congressional representation. Worked out in 1787 by Connecticut Constitutional delegates Roger Sherman and Oliver Ellsworth, The Great Compromise paved the path to the writing of the Constitution.
Other, more recent, examples of compromise between Republicans and Democrats include the Civil Rights Bill of 1964, Food Stamp Act of 1977, reforms in 1983 to the Social Security Act and the Tax Reform Act of 1986. Compromise is at the heart of progress.
We will see significant changes in leadership in both the federal government and in state government in 2019. Progress will require more compromise. Our leaders will have to use more tact and build stronger relationships with their opponents to successfully tend the needs of the people.
— Matt Johnson is publisher of the Monroe Times. His column is published Wednesdays.
