In October 2013, my family was visiting the beaches of Normandy, France when the US government shut down. You wouldn't think a government shutdown would have any direct impact on our plans, but, unfortunately, the beaches stormed by US troops (i.e. the ones that we as American citizens most wanted to see) are considered national parks, though they are located abroad, and were subsequently closed as a result of the shutdown.

This was quite disappointing for my family. Living outside the United States though, we really didn't feel much of an impact. It was just something that happened. People made fun of my brother and I at school because our country was too dumb to have a working government, but that was basically commonplace. We moved on, slightly embarrassed.

This government shutdown is one of very few instances where a parallel can be drawn between the Obama administration and the Trump administration. In fact, the situation is almost the same. I'm guessing that when you opened this, this statement was not what you were expecting, so I'm going to say it again. There are a lot of similarities between the 2013and 2018 government shutdowns.

I know that no matter what your party affiliation, you're upset by what I've just said. You're blaming the other side, no matter what. If you're a Democrat, the Republicans caused the shutdown. If you're a Republican, the Democrats caused the shutdown.

This is not a war between Democrats and Republicans–or at least it shouldn't be. We're actually all on the same side: we are all Americans who want the best for our country. If we assume the best in people, then we must assume that even in Congress this inherently good intention is at the core of all actions.

But when a shutdown occurs, at least for me, it becomes much more difficult to assume the best in Congress.

Essentially all federal positions with salaries not paid using appropriations–including many postal workers, members of the armed forces, federal agency employees (e.g. Departments of Education, Defense, Commerce, Agriculture, etc.) and employees working for Social Security–will continue working and will not be paid during the shutdown, operating instead on furlough, with the expectation that they will be back paid after the government resumes normal operations.

However, it is written into law that Congress will continue to be paid during a shutdown. No matter what.

Now, what exactly is your motivation to come to a speedy solution when you don't have to wait on your pay? There's no reward for speed in this case, which means Congress can move slowly. In 2013, the shutdown lasted over two weeks. So while Congress may not have suffered, other Americans definitely did.

In 2014, the year after the shutdown, the incumbency re-election rate was over 80 percent in both the House and the Senate. 55 House Representatives have served for more than 30 consecutive years. Twenty senators have served more than 30 consecutive years.

Part of this has to do with the "blame game" we mentioned. If both sides assume that the shutdown, and anything else bad that has come from government since the last Congressional election, was caused by the other party, then just about everybody will consistently vote for the same person.

Another part is the natural incumbency advantage. Incumbent senators and representatives are simply more likely to win elections, because they have a lot of free advertising, through television and other media, as well as through word of mouth.

Lastly, the average American is unlikely to conduct significant research on the candidates on the ballot. In recent years, there has been a significant rise in straight ticket voting, which is when a person votes exclusively for one party all the way down the ballot. If you're planning on voting for a specific party's candidate no matter what, you don't need to conduct much research, and subsequently, you probably don't know for sure whether or not a specific candidate was involved in the most recent government shutdown.

It would be naïve to say that we should all just accept that both parties are equally good (if you're optimistic) or bad (if you're not). However, if we want change, real change, we can't just change the president. We have changed the president, and I'd say things are pretty dramatically different in the policies pursued, in the general rhetoric and even in the way in which the president goes public. And yet here we are, the government is shut down again, and the story is not much different from 2013. If we want to change things, we need to vote. We need to vote for new, qualified and experienced candidates–and we need to do our research.

2018 brings midterm elections and a chance to change things. Let's make sure that, unlike in 2014, we actually take that opportunity, so that in five years, we aren't looking back at the 2018 midterms wondering why action wasn't taken then.