Don’t Call It a Compromise; It Was a Surrender to a Broken System
The shutdown is over. The relief is so profound that it’s tempting to call the “deal” that ended it a “compromise.”
Do not.
To call this a compromise is to call an extortion payment a “negotiation.” It is to call a surrender a “truce.”
This “solution” is a political and procedural sickness. It is not just a “bad idea”; it is an actively dangerous one that poisons our future. Why? Because it teaches all the wrong lessons to all the wrong people.
1. It Rewards the Tactic, Guaranteeing Its Return
This is the most dangerous failure. We have just run a 41-day national experiment, and the results are in: Inflicting mass, direct pain on the public and on federal workers is an effective political tactic.
The “compromise” was not born from a brilliant, third-way policy idea. It was born from exhaustion. It was born because the pain of holding out became greater than the pain of caving.
The hard-line factions who initiated this crisis did not learn “don’t do this again.” They learned, “We have to do this even harder next time to get what we want.” And the side that caved learned, “Our opponents are willing to go to a place of mutually assured destruction that we are not.”
You do not “negotiate” with a hostage-taker, not because you are stubborn, but because the moment you do, you guarantee a second hostage will be taken. This deal is the down payment on the next shutdown.
2. It Punishes the “Builders” and Cements the “Breakers”
This speaks to the very heart of our broken system. Who “won” this round? The arsonists.
Think of the “pragmatic” members of Congress, from both parties, who want to govern. They are the “builders”—the ones who, as the founder of this blog witnessed, believe in the hard, unglamorous work of pragmatic governance.
What did this “deal” teach them?
It taught them that their “pragmatism” is a liability. It taught them that their desire to make the government function is the very “weakness” the “breakers” will exploit.
The “breakers”—those who see governance as a zero-sum war—are willing to let the building burn to prove their point. The “builders,” by their very nature, are the ones who will always blink first to save the building.
This deal is the political equivalent of the arsonist demanding, and receiving, the keys to the fire truck as a “compromise.” It punishes the very people trying to do the work and hands control of the process to those who want to destroy it.
3. It Substitutes “Relief” for a “Solution”
The most insidious part of this “bad idea” is how it tricks the public. We are so grateful for the relief from the pain that we are mistaking it for a solution to the problem.
We have not solved a single, underlying budget disagreement. We have not fixed the structural issues. We have not had a single, good-faith debate on the merits of the policy that started this.
All we have done is “paid the price” to make the immediate crisis go away. By accepting this, we are conditioning ourselves to accept this cycle as normal. We are like a patient who celebrates the temporary pause in a chronic, debilitating disease, forgetting that the disease itself is still present and growing stronger.
The Only Way Out: Change the Rules of Extortion
The “solution” can never, ever be found in the “deal” itself.
The solution is to disarm the weapon.
The only “good idea” is a structural one. We must permanently remove the shutdown as a political tool. The answer is a non-partisan, procedural fix: an automatic continuing resolution.
If Congress fails to pass a budget, the government does not shut down. Funding automatically continues at current levels.
This simple change ends the entire game.
- It takes the hostage away from the “breakers.”
- It removes the “ticking clock” that manufactures the crisis.
- It empowers the “builders” by forcing the debate back to policy and persuasion, not procedural extortion.
This “deal” was a bad idea because it validated the extortion. The only good idea is to make that extortion impossible.
Greg Wright is the founder of Tribune’s Roar, a non-partisan opinion blog dedicated to finding solutions beyond the “broken binary.” His perspective is shaped by 25+ years of hands-on political experience, from working in the Michigan legislature to leading political organizations and working on high-level mayoral campaigns in New York City.
