The Constitution aimed to encourage collaboration and negotiation among the various branches, such as Congress and the President, as well as the Senate and the House. By mandating mutual agreement, such as the approval of all laws by both congressional chambers, the objective was to foster cooperation. Additionally, it was envisioned that the Senate would temper the fervor and populism of the House, serving as a calming influence on legislation originating from the House, as purportedly mentioned by Washington in a conversation with Thomas Jefferson. However, in reality, there has been frequent contention and impasse among the branches. For instance, the president proposes the budget and seeks approval from Congress, often resulting in a stalemate. In recent years, this has led to prolonged standoffs and gridlock, including a 35-day government shutdown in late 2018 to early 2019 due to heightened tensions over funding for a border wall. Instances of presidential veto threats and Congress's refusal to pass requested legislation have hindered progress in areas like immigration reform. Instead of fostering unity, the Constitution has at times inadvertently fueled division and deadlock among Americans.
Over the last thirty years, the dynamics between the two political parties have shifted dramatically, with a decrease in the number of conservative Democrats and liberal Republicans holding office. As political moderates—those whose beliefs fall in the middle of the ideological spectrum—depart from political parties at all levels, the ideological divide between the parties has widened, leading to a phenomenon known as party polarization. Essentially, both organizationally and within government, Republicans and Democrats have become increasingly different from one another. In Congress, this shift means that fewer members have mixed voting patterns; instead, they tend to vote more consistently along party lines and are more likely to align with their party leadership. This polarization also results in a growing number of moderate voters disengaging from party politics. Many are becoming independents or are only voting in general elections, thus not participating in the selection of party candidates during primaries.
Many federal government agencies rely on annual funding approved by Congress. Every year, these agencies submit their requests, which Congress must pass, and the president must sign budget legislation for the next fiscal year. If an agreement is not reached, then all non-essential, discretionary functions of the US government stop.
In 1980, the attorney general under President Jimmy Carter issued a narrow interpretation of the 1884 Anti-Deficiency Act. The 19th Century spending law banned the government from entering into contracts without congressional approval; for almost a century, if there was a gap in budgets, the government had allowed necessary spending to continue. But after 1980, the government took a much stricter view: no budget, no spending.
That interpretation has set the US apart from other non-parliamentary democracies, such as Brazil, where a strong executive branch has the ability to keep the lights on during a budget impasse.
The first US shutdown occurred shortly after in 1981, when President Ronald Reagan vetoed a funding bill, and lasted for a few days. Since then, there have been at least ten others that led to a stop in services, lasting anywhere from half a day to over a month. The last one, from 21 December 2018 to 25 January 2019, was the longest on record.
Elsewhere in the world, such shutdowns are practically impossible. The parliamentary system used by most European democracies ensures that the executive and legislature are controlled by the same party or coalition. Conceivably, a parliament could refuse to pass a budget proposed by the prime minister, but such an action would likely trigger a new election - not a stoppage in services like national parks, tax refunds and food assistance programmes.