A political party might intentionally trigger a government shutdown not to win policy concessions, but to create a public narrative of a dysfunctional opposition. The true victory isn't legislative but reputational, aiming to sway voters in upcoming elections by making the ruling party look incompetent.
Republicans and Democrats contribute equally to the nation's fiscal crisis via different tactics. Republicans gut the IRS and cut taxes while Democrats expand spending. Both actions are popular with their respective bases and donors but push the country closer to bankruptcy.
According to James Burnham's "Iron Law of Oligarchy," systems eventually serve their rulers. In government, deficit spending and subsidies are used to secure votes and donor funding, meaning leaders are incentivized to maintain the flow of money, even if it's wasteful or fraudulent, to ensure their own political survival.
With a September 30th budget deadline looming, the government needs Democratic votes to avoid a shutdown. Democrats are leveraging this necessity by demanding a rollback of Republican healthcare cuts as the price for their cooperation, showcasing a hardball negotiation tactic in a divided government.
Viewing politicians as athletes in a game reveals their true motivation: gaining and retaining power. This framework explains seemingly inconsistent actions, like flip-flopping, as strategic plays for short-term public sentiment rather than reflections of moral conviction or long-term vision.
Unlike most countries that fund legislation upon passing it, the U.S. Congress passes laws first and separately debates funding later. This fundamental disconnect between approving work and approving payment is a structural flaw that repeatedly manufactures fiscal crises and government shutdowns.
In politics, the perception of strength and decisiveness can be more electorally powerful than being correct but appearing weak or compromising. This principle explains why a political party might maintain a hardline stance that is unpopular, as the image of strength itself resonates more with voters than the nuance of being “right.”
Ford's refusal to bail out New York wasn't purely a fiscal decision. It was a strategic political move to outflank Ronald Reagan on the right ahead of the 1976 Republican primary. This shows how national political calculations can directly and severely impact municipal-level crises.
An administration has no incentive to fully resolve a major public scandal because its unresolved nature makes it a perfect "red herring." It can be used repeatedly to distract the public and media from current policy failures or other damaging news, making perpetual ambiguity more politically useful than transparency.
Effective political propaganda isn't about outright lies; it's about controlling the frame of reference. By providing a simple, powerful lens through which to view a complex situation, leaders can dictate the terms of the debate and trap audiences within their desired narrative, limiting alternative interpretations.
For some voters, a single, clear display of economic incompetence from an administration—such as an advisor failing to explain basic monetary theory—can be a 'radicalizing' event. This can override all other policy considerations and become the primary reason to vote for the opposition.