By: Dr Avi Verma

Washington has done it again. The federal government has shut down, leaving the American public to bear the brunt of political gridlock. Paychecks for federal workers are frozen in limbo, small businesses face delays in accessing loans, national parks and museums shut their doors, and countless services that ordinary Americans rely on are suspended. Families, already grappling with inflation and uncertainty, now wonder: was this shutdown unavoidable, or simply an exercise in arrogance?

The cost of dysfunction

Shutdowns are not abstract political maneuvers. Each day costs the economy billions in lost productivity, damages America’s credit rating, and erodes public trust in government. The longest shutdown in U.S. history—2018–19 under President Donald Trump—lasted 35 days and left lasting scars, from unpaid federal employees lining up at food banks to disruptions in air travel safety. Similar stories are now resurfacing. Once again, political gamesmanship has translated into real hardship for ordinary people.

History of compromise

Yet history shows us that such crises can often be avoided when leaders choose pragmatism over pride. Ronald Reagan and House Speaker Tip O’Neill sparred over budgets in the 1980s, but neither allowed prolonged shutdowns; they compromised to keep the country moving. Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich, after testing the limits in the bitter 1995–96 standoff, ultimately forged agreements that reassured both Wall Street and Main Street.

When the government came close to shutdowns under Barack Obama in 2011 and 2013, last-minute deals were struck to restore services, even as Republicans pushed for spending cuts tied to the debt ceiling. The country paid a price in uncertainty, but the damage was contained by a willingness to negotiate.

Even Donald Trump, despite presiding over the longest shutdown, eventually bowed to public pressure and reopened the government without securing his border wall funding. His miscalculation underscored a key lesson: shutdowns rarely strengthen a leader’s hand—they expose their political vulnerability.

In more recent memory, President Joe Biden’s administration managed to avert shutdowns in both 2021 and 2023 by negotiating stopgap funding bills with congressional leaders. Critics derided these as “kicking the can down the road,” but they demonstrated a willingness to govern through compromise rather than plunge the nation into chaos. Biden’s strategy may not have been bold, but it was responsible: he prioritized stability over brinkmanship.

Today’s crisis, by contrast, reeks of ego-driven arrogance. The White House insists it cannot give in to what it calls “hostage politics,” while congressional leaders accuse the administration of stonewalling. Instead of sitting down at the table, both sides are doubling down. The result? A nation held hostage by pride.

Smart politics or sheer recklessness?

Supporters of the shutdown frame it as a necessary stance—a bold refusal to compromise on “principles.” But in truth, shutdowns rarely achieve long-term policy victories. What they do achieve is erosion of public faith in government. To the average citizen, this is not about ideology; it’s about survival—whether their paycheck arrives, their benefits continue, or their services remain available.

The arrogance of brinkmanship is bipartisan. Republicans have historically used shutdown threats to force spending concessions, while Democrats have occasionally dug in their heels to defend social programs. Both parties claim to be standing on principle. But history is clear: principle without pragmatism leads only to paralysis.

At what cost?

The question is not just whether this shutdown is necessary—it is at what cost. How long will federal employees be asked to work without pay? How long will national security operations be weakened by budget freezes? How much will America’s global credibility suffer as allies watch the world’s largest democracy stumble over its own divisions?

Shutdowns may win headlines, but they do not win the hearts of a weary public. They are not demonstrations of strength—they are admissions of dysfunction.

A call for leadership

From Reagan to Clinton, from Obama to Biden, leaders in both parties have recognized that governing requires compromise. The current refusal to even negotiate is not strategy—it is arrogance masquerading as politics. The American people deserve better than being collateral damage in a contest of egos.

The essence of democracy is not in proving who can shout louder but in proving who can lead smarter. If today’s leaders fail to remember this, history will not remember their “principles”—it will remember their failures.

— Dr. Avi Verma
Publisher, IndoUS Tribune