Five insights into the history of government shutdowns

Penn Today spoke with Brent Cebul, a specialist in 20th-century U.S. history, to learn more about the evolution of federal shutdowns and what they reveal about today’s political climate.

“The meta-story here,” Cebul says, “is the ways that partisan polarization and the rules of Congress have knitted together to create this totally paralyzed legislative process and the different incentives for the out-of-power and in-power parties to use these processes as a sort of weapon.”

Cebul shares five takeaways about the history and politics of federal shutdowns:

Long shutdowns are relatively recent political trends

In earlier periods with largely divided government, such as the 1950s, American political dynamics were both more collegial and more focused on balancing the budget. “It really wasn’t until the 1960s and 1970s especially that Republicans start to see cutting the budget as an important political tool,” he says. “The politics of the federal budget have followed this sort of polarization of American politics more broadly.”

Budget bills have become a way around the Senate filibuster

The filibuster is a Senate tool allowing one member to block legislation, a block that can only be overcome with 60 votes. Budget bills, which are deemed essential to the workings of government, are the lone exception. “Much of our most important legislation over the last 15-20 years has been passed in these omnibus budget packages,” Cebul says. The parties “are inclined to stick everything they can into the budget bills when they’re in power because that’s the only way you’re going to get around the filibuster.” That ratchets up the stakes for the budget process, and thus the potential impacts.

Shutdowns generally occur over what are called continuing resolutions, which ensure sufficient money to fund the approved budget and require a 60-vote majority, Cebul says. While they are “ostensibly meant to be humdrum bills,” the need to pass short-term continuing resolutions frequently “creates choke points when the budget again becomes contestable,” he says.

During the first Trump administration, Cebul says, Democrats were trying to take a political stand against funding the border wall and sparked a shutdown. “Often it’s the case where ideological showdowns have gotten folded into the budget debates because of the reconciliation process,” he says.

Periods of national unity—especially during wartime—can prevent shutdowns

The Cold War pitted the Soviets against the U.S. abroad but contributed to a more conciliatory approach at home, despite frequently divided government during those decades, Cebul says.

Similarly, during the George W. Bush presidency, after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks “we were in a period of war,” Cebul says. “There was a broad bipartisan consensus around funding in the context of the post 9/11 military incursions in Iraq and Afghanistan.”

‘Grand political points’ can be a driving force for the opposition party

In 1995-96, with Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich riding high off his Contract with America victory in the 1994 elections, Republicans faced off against President Bill Clinton to make a “grand political point,” Cebul says. “He was grandstanding about cutting government spending and simultaneously calling for tax cuts, and he wanted to flex Congress’ muscles. There was a sort of political logic to imagining yourself on the right side of history to shutting down the government.”

Shutdowns don’t always offer the political result sought

“That ended up blowing up in Gingrich’s face, famously,” Cebul says. In the aftermath, Republicans lost seats in Congress in the 1998 midterm elections, and Gingrich was forced to resign. “The budget was certainly part of the politics of that moment,” Cebul says. That convinced part of the Republican Party that “shutting down the government makes for bad optics. It wasn’t until you had the Tea Party faction come into Congress intent on undoing Obamacare” that the outlook changed.