For many Americans, it still seems somewhat strange that the longest government shutdown in the nation’s history occurred mere weeks ago. For well over a month, almost a million employees of the federal government found themselves furloughed, parks and museums were shut down, and government services such as SNAP benefits were increasingly pushed to their limit as funding began to dry up. Now, we find ourselves in a strange situation where — although the shutdown is over — the political gridlock that preceded it only seems to have let up momentarily. Naturally, many are asking themselves what the implications of the shutdown are and what might come next.
UVA’s Miller Center for Public Affairs held a discussion panel on the implications of the government shutdown, particularly in the context of the recent off-year elections, on November 18th. The panel was hosted by Bill Antholis, Director of the Miller Center. The panelists were Dan Meyer, who served as chief of staff to former House Speakers Newt Gingrich and Kevin McCarthy; Rachel Potter, an associate professor of politics and public policy at UVA; Doug Sosnik, White House Director of Political Affairs and Senior Advisor to the President under Bill Clinton; and Louisa Terrell, White House Director of Legislative Affairs under Joe Biden.
Antholis’s first question to the panelists dealt with whether or not the “conventional wisdom” held during the recent elections — where the party out of power is expected to do well — and the shutdown, where the party that instigated the shutdown is generally blamed. Meyer stated that, as Democrats did well, conventional wisdom around the shutdown was correct. As for the shutdown, Republicans technically gained because Democrats caved in in the end, but no one truly won because the shutdown simply made the government look more dysfunctional. Sosnik argued, on the election question, that Democrats proved they could come back after 2024, but that reading into lower-turnout off-year elections is generally not a good move; on the shutdown, he stated that Democrats won out by getting healthcare to be a central issue, but that Republicans also gained by getting the government reopened without making any major concessions.
A common theme that many of the panelists pointed to in discussing the shutdown was how much of a lack of urgency and immediate effect on the American public there seemed to be, especially compared with the dramatic response to many previous shutdowns. Terrell, for instance, noted that parties seemed to care more about using the shutdown for messaging rather than actually ending it on terms favorable to themselves as quickly as possible, and that even the general public seemed to be fairly apathetic at times. Potter similarly noted claims by economists that once over, the shutdown would not have much of an economic effect, and that most negative effects would probably resolve themselves within a few months.
Another common theme present throughout the panel was the discussion of government dysfunction and a lack of bipartisanship. Sosnik called attention to this dysfunction and proposed many explanations for it, among the most prominent of them being that, because of increasing gerrymandering and self-selection among voters, politicians are often encouraged to appeal to primary voters of their own party rather than voters as a whole, and most face little risk of losing reelection regardless of their actions. Terrell was skeptical about the presence of any issue that would unite Republicans and Democrats, besides possibly some form of regulation of artificial intelligence.
A solution proposed by many of the panelists to solve this dysfunction was the passing of the torch from older leaders to younger leaders. Terrell noted that after the shutdown, many Democrats were angry about the decision to reopen the government without extracting any significant concessions from Republicans, and suggested younger leadership as a means of resolving this problem. Sosnik also noted a desire for generational change among Americans, noting in particular Zohran Mamdani’s victory in New York City as an example of an election driven in part by that desire. Potter advocated for a systemic change of the budget and government funding system as a means of resolving some of the gridlock, and Sosnik concurred, advocating in particular for a new generation of young leaders to bring about some sort of change to the system of incentives for bipartisan cooperation.
On the implications of the shutdown for the midterms, there was a consensus that while there may be some sort of small impact, it is generally too early to tell what the results will be like. Many of the panelists, however, emphasized in particular that for the Republican Party to have any chance of holding the House of Representatives, it would have to pass at least some major legislation that would appeal to voters, and that another shutdown in January would present both parties with the need to change their methods as the midterms approach.
Leave a Reply