Why does the whole thing fail as theater? Two reasons:

First, it lacks the true conflict essential to a good yarn. Protagonists and antagonists. Winners and losers. One side wants one thing, the other wants something not just different, but substantially incompatible. “Cromnibus” fails on that level because all sides transparently want the same thing — to keep things going exactly as they’ve always gone.

Secondly, the stakes are too low. “Government shutdown” just isn’t the bogeyman it used to be. Multiple iterations of invoking it and occasionally bringing it on stage for real expose it as, well, not very scary. “Non-essential” government services will temporarily shut down if we don’t settle this, quick! Woooooh, scary. Pass the popcorn, please. And change the channel.

When even “progressive” Democrats like Elizabeth Warren threaten “shutdown” to get their way, it’s just too obvious that there’s no real shutdown in play. Per Chekhov, “[i]f you say in the first chapter that there is a rifle hanging on the wall, in the second or third chapter it absolutely must go off. If it’s not going to be fired, it shouldn’t be hanging there.” If Warren is willing to pull the trigger, we know that the gun isn’t really loaded.

Inside the Beltway, the big question — passed back and forth between cast, directors, producers, etc. — is never “should we stop doing what we’re doing?” That’s just not on the playbill, folks. The only question of importance to politicians is “how do we keep doing what we’re doing without losing the audience?”

Here are my big questions for the audience:

1)  A government “shutdown” applies only to “non-essential services.” If the services aren’t essential, why are they provided by the state in the first place? Or to elaborate a bit, if we’re going to tolerate a coercive monopoly like the state at all, shouldn’t that monopoly at least be limited to things that are absolutely, positively, beyond a shadow of a doubt, essential?

2) If something is absolutely, positively, beyond a shadow of a doubt, essential, why would we trust that thing to a coercive monopoly either? Lacking incentives to deliver the goods — since it forces us to pay for them whether they’re delivered or not and forbids us to seek them elsewhere — such monopolies invariably degenerate into the kinds of amateur theatrical productions we’re talking about here.

Barack Obama, Harry Reid, Elizabeth Warren, John Boehner et. al concern themselves constantly with how to keep the show going. Time for the rest of us to start thinking about lowering the curtain on it.

It would appear that, in fact, the government has done nothing close to shutting down.

Despite the majority of Americans polled opposing the shut down and the bad press that comes with that, the people who should be affected, the political class, have not even been touched. Who, then, is being impacted by this political theater? The productive class.

Now, some will argue that public workers are not part of the productive class, and are parasites just like congress. But is that really fair? Sure, some or all of them may be foolish for believing that their job is funded through anything but theft. Some may also know that they are parasites, and don’t care. At the same time, we anarchists should be careful about judging other people from our lofty position as non-public workers and realize that for many people, no matter how duped they have been, regard their job at a public museum or a park as just that – their job. For them this “shutdown” is an example of how much the State does not care about them, and here lies our opportunity for discourse on the political class’s war on the productive class.

Our main job now is to keep those workers from going back to the State sector.

It is not unreasonable to say that in a free society we would see wilderness parks with caretakers, workers at centers for disease control and space exploration organizations. In other words, government technically provides services that the public might demand anyway in a free society; it is just that they do it via authoritarianism and coercive monopoly.

Anarchists do not support the State, its existence, or its theft, and we certainly do not support its violent co-opting of services that could otherwise be provided peacefully (and arguably much better) in a free society. Furthermore, even if only a few members of the “non-essential” government workforce are actually productive members of society, it is a shame to see their work stifled from full expression because of State monopoly. In some ways, it would be better to just pay them to stay home, or work peacefully on whatever they choose. More importantly, anarchists seek a smooth and peaceful transition into a stateless society, not through the further suffering of working people and families.

In all of this, though, is the opportunity for anarchists to show how such services would be better safeguarded in a free society. Building the new within the shell of the old becomes much easier when the crumbling system is shedding good, hardworking people that want to make a difference. While tyrants are often raised in the ashes of the old State, so too can a free society emerge readied with mutual aid services, security organizations, large, digitally linked networks of decentralized communities and so on. This illusionary “shutdown” has created a pathway for people to look for something different. Something sustainable. Something new. It is our job to show them the possibilities.

And, as American media breathlessly relate, that’s what we’re going to get come March 4th unless Congress and the Obama administration manage a meeting of the minds on spending.

Well, no, not really. But kind of. Sort of. In a way.

When the organs of of American government come to loggerheads on the federal budget, a temporary shutdown of “non-essential services” ensues until one side caves.

Oh, no, Br’er Bear! Please don’t throw me in the briar patch!

Unfortunately, the compromises usually come fairly quickly. Government shutdowns generally go a few days. The record is three weeks. We’ve seen 15 of these shutdowns since the Carter administration, which should tell us something about how non-traumatic they really are.

If they lasted a bit longer, perhaps more people would think to ask why “non-essential” services are operated by government and financed through coercive taxation in the first place.

If “essential” services were shut down, perhaps more people would re-evaluate just how essential those services are — or at least whether or not political government is the best institution to trust with their operation and maintenance.

So what, pray tell, is the distinction between “essential” and “non-essential?” Here’s an easy way to tell:

If the shutdown of a service irritates and inconveniences ordinary people, but doesn’t really reduce the power of politicians, that service is “non-essential.”

If shutting down a service would actually reduce government’s control over your life, it’s “essential.”

During a shutdown you can’t get a passport from the government. Your ability to travel is “non-essential.” If you show up at the border, though, there will still be a customs official waiting there, demanding to see said passport. The government’s ability to control your travel is “essential.”

The dividing line between “essential” and “non-essential” is fuzzy and only begins to resolve as the length of the shutdown increases.

Early in a shutdown, Social Security and tax refund checks continue to be issued. If the shutdown drags on a bit, the politicians begin to make noises to the effect that these two activities may grind to a halt unless they get their way — and that it will be the other side’s fault, of course. At no point in a shutdown, however, will Social Security or federal income taxes cease to be collected.

Your needs are at least potentially “non-essential.” Their revenues are not just “essential,” but sacrosanct.

It’s all just bad dinner theater … but I’m not sure we’ll get to see the whole play this time, more’s the pity.

The very real “government shutdowns” taking place in the Middle East are making even American politicians nervous. They seem to suspect that you may not be that interested in reprising the role of damsel in distress, awaiting rescue by congressmen in shining armor, yet another time.

What if they held a government shutdown and the public response was a collective yawn? “Yeah, whatever. Take a long lunch. And, you know, really, don’t bother coming back.”

Or perhaps a Bangles combeback: “Walk Like An Egyptian,” anyone?

The whole point of the play is to convince you that you need them. You don’t. Keep that in mind as this “shutdown” kabuki plays out.