Seventy-Six Days: The Great Government Shutdown

Las encuestas eran muy malas para todos.

The polling was very bad for everyone.

There's also the particular agencies involved.

The Coast Guard, the Secret Service, these are not agencies with enemies on either side of the aisle.

Nobody runs for office saying they want to defund the people who protect the president.

There's a reason this bill started there, not with, say, the Department of Education.

Exactamente.

Exactly.

También hay algo simbólico.

There's also something symbolic.

Trump firmó la ley.

Trump signed the law.

Eso es importante porque el origen de este cierre fue una disputa entre Trump y el Congreso sobre el presupuesto.

That's important because the origin of this shutdown was a dispute between Trump and Congress over the budget.

Cuando Trump firmó, los dos lados dijeron: 'Vale, terminamos con esto.'

When Trump signed it, both sides said: 'Okay, we're done with this.'

Though I'd be careful about reading too much harmony into a unanimous vote.

The history here is that shutdowns end when the political cost of continuing outweighs whatever the original fight was about.

It's not reconciliation, it's exhaustion.

Sí, tienes razón.

Yes, you're right.

Y los problemas reales, el presupuesto completo, la deuda del país, los grandes temas políticos, todavía están ahí.

And the real problems, the full budget, the national debt, the big political issues, are still there.

Este proyecto de ley fue solo para una parte del gobierno.

This bill was only for one part of the government.

El conflicto político no terminó ayer.

The political conflict didn't end yesterday.

And that's the part I want to dig into, because I think there's a version of this story that's just a Washington soap opera, and there's a deeper version that's actually about something structural.

This shutdown started over the Department of Homeland Security, which is one of the youngest cabinet departments in American history.

It was created after September 11th.

It didn't even exist before 2002.

Es interesante porque DHS, como dicen en inglés, es también el departamento que controla la inmigración, las fronteras, la seguridad de los aeropuertos.

It's interesting because DHS, as they say in English, is also the department that controls immigration, borders, airport security.

Es un departamento muy político.

It's a very political department.

Siempre es el centro de los debates más difíciles.

It's always at the center of the most difficult debates.

Which is exactly why it became the battleground.

The fight over DHS funding is almost never really about the Coast Guard's budget.

It's about immigration.

It's about how many detention centers get funded, which enforcement priorities get resources, who decides what happens at the border.

That's the real argument.

Y esto es algo que muchos europeos no entienden bien.

And this is something many Europeans don't understand well.

La inmigración en Estados Unidos no es solo un tema político más.

Immigration in the United States isn't just another political topic.

Es casi una guerra cultural.

It's almost a culture war.

Las dos partes tienen ideas muy diferentes sobre qué significa ser americano.

The two sides have very different ideas about what it means to be American.

You know, I spent time in Arizona in the early 2000s reporting on border issues, before any of this became the daily temperature it is now.

And even then, talking to people on both sides, you could feel that this wasn't a policy debate.

It was a debate about national identity.

About memory.

About who the country was built for and who it belongs to.

Y ese debate nunca termina con una ley.

And that debate never ends with a law.

Una ley puede pagar los sueldos de los guardacostas, pero no puede resolver una pregunta tan profunda sobre la identidad de un país.

A law can pay the salaries of the coast guard, but it can't resolve such a deep question about the identity of a country.

Fair point.

Let me ask you something from the outside-looking-in perspective, because you've spent time watching American politics from Europe and from your years in London.

What does a 76-day shutdown look like from over there?

How does this read in Madrid?

Honestamente, Fletcher, muchos europeos lo ven con una mezcla de sorpresa y preocupación.

Honestly, Fletcher, many Europeans see it with a mix of surprise and concern.

Sorpresa porque es difícil imaginar que un gobierno moderno pueda simplemente parar.

Surprise because it's hard to imagine a modern government just stopping.

Y preocupación porque Estados Unidos es todavía muy importante para la economía y la seguridad del mundo.

And concern because the United States is still very important for the world's economy and security.

That combination of surprise and concern, I think that's exactly right.

And what's interesting is that allies and adversaries read the same event very differently.

An ally sees dysfunction.

An adversary sees opportunity.

A 76-day window where FEMA couldn't fully function, where Coast Guard operations were stretched, where TSA staffing got thin, that's not a trivial vulnerability.

Sí, y hay algo más.

Yes, and there's something more.

Durante esos setenta y seis días, el mundo vio que el sistema político americano tuvo un problema muy serio.

During those seventy-six days, the world saw that the American political system had a very serious problem.

Eso afecta la credibilidad de Estados Unidos cuando habla de democracia en otros países.

That affects the credibility of the United States when it talks about democracy in other countries.

That's the part that genuinely bothers me, and I want to sit with it for a second, because I've been in countries where I was reporting on democratic backsliding, and one of the first things authoritarian governments say is: look at Washington.

They can't even keep their lights on.

It's a propaganda gift.

Completamente de acuerdo.

Completely agree.

Y creo que hay algo importante aquí: el cierre no fue una crisis económica, no fue una guerra.

And I think there's something important here: the shutdown wasn't an economic crisis, it wasn't a war.

Fue una decisión política.

It was a political decision.

Esa es la parte más difícil de explicar.

That's the hardest part to explain.

Los políticos eligieron este resultado.

The politicians chose this outcome.

Although I'd push back slightly on the word 'chose.' These things have a momentum to them.

Nobody walks in on day one thinking we'll be here for eleven weeks.

The incentive structures, the base politics, the cable news dynamics, they create a kind of gravity that's hard to escape once you're inside it.

Es verdad.

That's true.

Pero al final, alguien tiene que decir 'basta'.

But in the end, someone has to say 'enough.' And in this case, it took seventy-six days.

Y en este caso, tardaron setenta y seis días.

In Spain we have political problems too, many of them, but our system has mechanisms to prevent this.

En España tenemos problemas políticos también, muchos, pero nuestro sistema tiene mecanismos para evitar esto.

And historically, the U.S.

system worked reasonably well, precisely because both parties understood there were limits to how far you pushed.

That unwritten norm started eroding in the 1990s, and I don't think we've found a new equilibrium yet.

The question isn't whether shutdowns will happen again.

They will.

The question is whether 76 days becomes the new baseline.

Eso es lo que me preocupa más.

That's what worries me most.

Antes, treinta y cinco días era un récord.

Before, thirty-five days was a record.

Ahora setenta y seis días es el nuevo récord.

Now seventy-six days is the new record.

Si el próximo cierre dura cien días, ¿qué pasa con los servicios básicos del gobierno?

If the next shutdown lasts a hundred days, what happens to basic government services?

¿Qué pasa con la gente que necesita esos servicios?

What happens to the people who need those services?

There's a real human cost that gets lost in the political coverage.

Federal workers living paycheck to paycheck.

National parks closed.

Permit applications piling up for small businesses.

Food safety inspections delayed.

Some of these things you can't really catch up on.

A missed inspection is just missed.

Y también hay un problema de confianza.

And there's also a problem of trust.

Cuando el gobierno cierra por setenta y seis días, los ciudadanos empiezan a pensar: ¿puedo confiar en este gobierno?

When the government closes for seventy-six days, citizens start to think: can I trust this government?

¿Está aquí para ayudarme, o está aquí para pelear con el otro partido?

Is it here to help me, or is it here to fight with the other party?

And once you lose that trust, it doesn't come back just because the lights turned on again.

People remember.

I keep thinking about what one of my students said to me last week, a junior, twenty-one years old, she said: 'Why would I want to work for the federal government if it might not pay me?' That's not a rhetorical question.

That's a pipeline problem.

Es un punto muy serio.

That's a very serious point.

Los mejores profesionales pueden trabajar en el sector privado.

The best professionals can work in the private sector.

Si el gobierno federal es un lugar inestable, muchas personas inteligentes no quieren trabajar allí.

If the federal government is an unstable place, many intelligent people don't want to work there.

Y eso hace el gobierno menos eficaz en el futuro.

And that makes government less effective in the future.

Which is the slowest-moving and most underreported consequence of all of this.

The talent drain.

It doesn't make the front page, but it compounds over years.

Alright, let me ask you the forward-looking question, because I think our listeners deserve an honest answer: does yesterday's signing actually change anything structurally, or is this a pause?

Es una pausa.

It's a pause.

El presupuesto completo todavía no está aprobado.

The full budget still isn't approved.

Este proyecto de ley fue para una parte del gobierno.

This bill was for one part of the government.

En los próximos meses, los políticos en Washington van a tener las mismas peleas sobre el dinero, la inmigración, los gastos militares.

In the coming months, politicians in Washington will have the same fights about money, immigration, military spending.

El problema estructural sigue ahí.

The structural problem is still there.

My honest read is the same.

The unanimous vote is real, but it's narrow.

They agreed on the least controversial slice.

The bigger arguments are still coming.

What I'll be watching is whether there's any appetite to reform the underlying mechanism, to change the law so that a lapse in appropriations doesn't automatically shutter agencies.

That conversation has been happening in Washington for forty years and has gone nowhere.

Y eso me lleva a una pregunta más filosófica.

And that leads me to a more philosophical question.

¿Es posible reformar un sistema político que tiene tanto poder para bloquear los cambios?

Is it possible to reform a political system that has so much power to block change?

Los políticos que se benefician del sistema actual no quieren cambiarlo.

The politicians who benefit from the current system don't want to change it.

That's the old Madison problem.

He designed a system with so many veto points specifically to prevent tyranny, and the cost of that design is that it also prevents certain kinds of necessary change.

You can't have it both ways.

Though I'll say this: the fact that it ended unanimously, however narrow the fix, is at least evidence that the system can function when the pressure is high enough.

That's worth something.

Sí, vale algo.

Yes, it's worth something.

Pero prefiero un sistema que no necesita setenta y seis días de crisis para funcionar.

But I prefer a system that doesn't need seventy-six days of crisis to function.

En fin, es el sistema que existe.

In any case, it's the system that exists.

Actually, wait.

You just said 'en fin' in a way I want to ask about.

I've heard you use that a lot, and I've also heard 'al final' in similar spots.

Are those the same thing?

Because I feel like there's a difference I keep missing.

Buena pregunta.

Good question.

'Al final' significa 'at the end' o 'in the end', como cuando describes el resultado de algo.

'Al final' means 'at the end' or 'in the end', like when you describe the outcome of something.

Por ejemplo: 'Al final, firmaron la ley.' Pero 'en fin' es más una expresión de resignación o conclusión.

For example: 'In the end, they signed the law.' But 'en fin' is more an expression of resignation or conclusion.

Es como decir 'anyway' o 'well, what can you do.'

It's like saying 'anyway' or 'well, what can you do.'

So 'al final' is about sequence or outcome, and 'en fin' is more emotional.

It carries a kind of...

tired acceptance.

Like when you've explained everything there is to explain and you're ready to move on.

Exactamente.

Exactly.

Puedes usar 'al final' en una noticia: 'Al final, el Congreso aprobó la ley.' Pero 'en fin' es más personal, más conversacional.

You can use 'al final' in a news story: 'In the end, Congress passed the law.' But 'en fin' is more personal, more conversational.

Es la expresión de alguien que acepta la situación, no siempre con mucho entusiasmo.

It's the expression of someone who accepts the situation, not always with much enthusiasm.

In fin, the shutdown is over.

Though I feel like if I actually tried to use that in a sentence, you'd tell me the intonation was completely wrong.

La intonación y el momento.

The intonation and the timing.

'En fin' necesita el momento exacto.

'En fin' needs the exact right moment.

Si lo usas demasiado pronto en una conversación, suenas raro.

If you use it too early in a conversation, you sound strange.

Es como decir 'anyway' después de solo una frase.

It's like saying 'anyway' after just one sentence.

La gente piensa: '¿Anyway?

People think: 'Anyway?

¿Ya terminaste?'

Are you already done?'

Noted.

I'll try to use it at the end of a very long political explanation and see if it lands.

En fin, that's seventy-six days of American dysfunction, a unanimous vote, and a reminder that the real fight is still coming.

Thanks for sticking with us.