Over the weekend, Republican US House Speaker Kevin McCarthy struck an eleventh-hour deal with Democrats on a new budgetary deal. The 45-day continuing resolution (CR), agreed to by the Senate and signed by President Biden, narrowly avoids a federal shutdown. In this Q&A, Thomas Gift discusses how the two sides came together, what the compromise means for policy, and how it will impact partisan relations going forward. 

What do you make of Kevin McCarthy working with Democrats to avert a shutdown?

This isn’t an ideal bill for either side of the aisle, by any measure. But for Republican House Speaker, Kevin McCarthy to compromise with Democrats, then dare the far right to rebel proves that he can stand up to extremists in his party. Critics will say that a CR isn’t any way to govern, and that’s right. But you have to ask yourself: compared to what? McCarthy is navigating an opposition Senate, and a hardline GOP caucus determined to undermine him. Considering the hand he’s been dealt, it’s hard to say McCarthy didn’t do all that he could. Substantively, the temporary budget doesn’t give up too much of what Republicans wanted. Politically, McCarthy also protected the interests of moderates in his party. Still, McCarthy’s bipartisanship comes at risk to his own speakership. We’ll know soon enough if Rep. Matt Gaetz’s threat to oust him is real or just a bluff.

Were you surprised that Democrats went along with McCarthy’s proposal?

McCarthy’s deal squared with the main contours of the legislation that the Senate had already taken up. The main exception: it excluded $6 billion in emergency financing for Ukraine. I think what McCarthy did was quite shrewd. He cornered Democrats into supporting the bill by implicitly asking: Are you ready to shut down your own government to preserve funding to Ukraine? If Democrats signaled that they were, that could have backfired. It might have even turned the table on who was viewed primarily culpable for a shutdown. So, while Democrats weren’t eager to let McCarthy off the hook, they also faced their own constraints. Meanwhile, Democrats who support funding for Ukraine will look to push for financing through a separate budgetary process.

Do you think that McCarthy will keep his speakership?

Maybe I’m naïve, but I really think McCarthy will survive—at least as long as Trump continues to back him. McCarthy is a savvier operator than he’s often given credit for. Obviously, his willingness to work across the aisle doesn’t sit well with hard-right Republicans. Still, it’s hard to objectively look at McCarthy’s record, and say he’s been wholly ineffective. Just go up and down the list. Securing the speaker’s gavel in the first place. Helping to raise the debt ceiling. And now avoiding a federal shutdown, even if temporarily. At the same time, no one can say McCarthy hasn’t tried to placate the right-wing members of his conference. Plus, the big obstacle to ousting McCarthy: there’s no obvious replacement. It’s not as though his opponents in the House Freedom Caucus are all rallying around one clear successor. That’s no small issue.

How does this funding battle compare to those of the past?

It’s important to keep in mind that there have been 14 federal shutdowns since the 1980s. Ronald Reagan, for example, presided over eight shutdowns alone. This isn’t at all to discount the current dysfunction on Capitol Hill. But it’s also crucial not to overstate the uniqueness of the moment. History suggests that when there’s even the threat of a shutdown, it’s not only because negotiations break down. It’s because some nontrivial faction thinks there’s value to the impasse. In 2018 and 2019, Donald Trump hoped for leverage over building the US-Mexico border wall. In 2013, the goal was to delay enactment of the Affordable Care Act. This year, aid to Ukraine is the fight that many Republicans seem to want. GOP hardliners may not even expect to win the funding battle. For them, taking a wrecking ball to “the system” seems to be an end in itself.

Photo by Darren Halstead on Unsplash

Is the “shutdown showdown” just the latest manifestation of extreme partisanship?

At the very least, it’s exhibit A for why, according to recent polling, only 7 percent of Americans trust Congress. Hyper-polarization is the chief cause of why lawmakers so rarely pass federal spending bills on schedule. That partially speaks to the fact that we’re in an era of unstable, shifting majorities, which eludes one-party dominance. The perpetual threat of power swings disincentivizes compromise. But it’s not just a matter of Democrat-Republican divisions. It’s within-party splintering that’s to blame. One of the benefits of big tent, modern parties is that they bring together diverse interests. But right now, the gap between the far-right wing of the Republican Party and GOP moderates is at least as wide as the gap between the GOP moderates and the median Democrat. That makes it hard to maintain discipline.

Will the US incur costs by bringing the budget debate to the eleventh hour?

Political brinkmanship has costs, whether or not Washington goes into into full shutdown mode. On the world stage, America’s reputation suffers. That’s particularly troubling at a time when the US is desperately trying to persuade other countries to ally with it over China and to secure support for Ukraine’s war effort. Domestically, the list of costs is also long. It injects uncertainty into financial markets. It risks further credit downgrades. It wastes energies in federal agencies spent on dialing down their operations in anticipation of curtailed funding. It also creates delays in government work products, and repetition of tasks that cost taxpayers money. All of this isn’t even to mention the amplification of partisan animosities that makes it harder to achieve compromise in other areas of policy.

How will all this impact funding to Ukraine?

Many House Republicans aren’t just saying “no more blank checks” to Kiev. They’re accusing their opponents of pushing an agenda that prioritizes Ukrainian interests over American ones. The more the war drags on, the more that feeling seems to be catching on inside the GOP. Supporters of funding for Ukraine will continue to lobby for more aid, especially in the Senate. But for critics of assistance, this week saw two major victories. The first is that the CR excluded $6 billion in funding to the Ukrainian military. The second is that nearly half of House Republicans initially voted to take away $300 million from a defense spending bill to train Ukrainian soldiers and help to buy weaponry. Both happened on the heels of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky meeting with legislators in Washington to try to shore up US support.

• These remarks are based in part on an interview by Thomas Gift for CNN “Newsroom” on October 1, 2023. 
• Please read our comments policy before commenting.      
• Note: This article gives the views of the author, and not the position of USAPP – American Politics and Policy, nor the London School of Economics. 
• Shortened URL for this post: https://bit.ly/3RDQZyb