by Kaelynd Brouillette ’29 on November 13, 2025
Opinion - News & Politics
If you keep up with the news, I’m sure you’ve seen plenty of headlines calling our current administration and government “dysfunctional.” According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, the term “dysfunctional” means to be marked by impaired or abnormal functioning. But what does that mean in the current context of U.S. politics? Simply put, our political system is not operating the way that it should be, due to the government shutdown and unusual way our current presidential administration is handling issues, which is causing harm to many citizens across the country. Although this is not the first time our government has shut down, and probably will not be the last, it is important to recognize the severity of the current situation, resulting from the failure of our two-party system to come to a compromise on important budgeting issues.. As of Nov. 8, the government has been shut down for 38 days, which is the longest duration in U.S. history.
Political polarization and the leadership crisis also reflect that this dysfunction is a deeper issue rather than temporary chaos, as the state of our politics has not always been as it is today. According to the Pew Research Center, Republicans and Democrats are more divided among ideological lines than at any point in the last two decades, and that divisions are greatest among those who follow politics more closely. Partisan animosity has also seen quite the increase in the same time period, as in each party, the amount of people with a highly negative view of the opposing party has nearly doubled since 1994, showing how dysfunction is both a structural and cultural crisis. The polarization in America has become extreme, which has led to negative effects such as increased political violence and disagreements within Congress and our current presidential administration causing the shutdown. This ongoing breakdown in cooperation within our leadership ultimately reveals what dysfunction in our government truly means—the steady erosion of our ability to function as a unified democracy.
The U.S. government was originally designed to function as a cooperative democracy, using systems such as checks and balances to ensure that no particular entity in our government gained too much power and influence. The founders divided the federal government into three branches to prevent tyranny and ensure no single branch would dominate, but it is becoming increasingly obvious that this system is failing. The system was designed to enforce deliberate and slow decision making to ensure compromise and prevent rash action, but in today’s society, partisanship has turned those checks into weapons.
In today’s politics, members of Congress and the president are often motivated by party loyalty, rather than dependence on our institutions, which is causing gridlock due to the inability for agreement to pass major legislation, even with a majority of public support. Instead of cooperation, the system now functions on constant brinkmanship, with each branch undermining the other’s legitimacy. Now, this is causing a reliance on executive orders to surpass Congress, which bypasses the system of checks and balances and creates policy instability, as executive orders can be easily reversed by the next president. This also undermines democratic representation, because in the case of executive orders, the public has no say, which easily allows for abuse of power with little to no repercussions.
Money in politics reinforces gridlock by making elected officials more accountable to donors than to voters. The 2010 Citizens United v. FEC decision unleashed unlimited corporate and union spending, giving rise to super PACs and “dark money” groups that can flood campaigns with cash. Lawmakers dependent on these funds often prioritize special interests, like the fossil fuel, pharmaceutical, or tech industries, over bipartisan problem-solving. Corporate lobbying expenditures, which exceed four billion dollars annually, ensure that policy debates are shaped by those who can afford to influence them. This system discourages reform and locks Congress into a cycle of inaction, as genuine compromise risks alienating wealthy backers.
With that being said, voters are not blameless in the system’s decline. Low turnout, especially in primaries, gives disproportionate influence to highly ideological voters, who elect more extreme candidates. Gerrymandered districts intensify this effect, as representatives fear primary challengers from their own party more than general election opponents. Meanwhile, political apathy and misinformation leave many citizens disengaged or cynically detached, reducing accountability for poor governance. In essence, a polarized electorate rewards polarization, meaning that as long as voters prize identity over compromise, Congress will continue to reflect those divisions. Therefore, the government’s ability to function effectively depends on compromise, but a highly polarized voter base ensures that officials are rewarded for obstruction and outrage rather than governance. The system that was meant to safeguard democracy is now cracking under the weight of polarization and self-interest. Our government isn’t just struggling to function, it’s showing us that the framework meant to hold it together no longer works as it should, due to both voters and the people in power.
At this point, it feels naive to believe that the dysfunction in our government will simply fix itself. The system that was built to balance power and protect democracy is now weighed down by partisanship, corruption, and public apathy. The framework still exists, but the willingness to uphold it no longer does. Reform seems necessary, yet nearly impossible, because those benefiting from the dysfunction are the ones with the power to change it. What was once a system built on compromise has turned into one defined by conflict, and unless something fundamentally shifts, we risk watching the very idea of functional democracy fade further away.