So the government shutdown has me troubled.  I think it’s reasonable for the House not
like Obamacare and to do everything they can to repeal the law.  However, it strikes me as different to force a
government shutdown because that’s the only way they can get leverage to make a
change the voters, at least at the last election, did not agree with.  

As Sen. John McCain explained last week:

Many of those who are in opposition right now were not here
at the time and did not take part in that debate. The record is very clear of
one of the most hard fought, fair, in my view, debates that has taken place on
the floor of the Senate. That doesn't mean that we give up our efforts to try to
replace and repair Obamacare, but it does mean that elections have
consequences. Those elections were clear in a significant majority that a
majority of the American people supported the president of the United States
and renewed his stewardship of this country.

The actions of the House right now remind me a lot of the
arguments put forth against shareholder activism.  That is, the complaints about rent-seeking actions put forth by an
influential minority to pursue an agenda that is not consistent with the
majority’s  wishes. I’m reminded of Steve
Bainbridge’s Preserving Director Primacy
by Managing Shareholder Interventions. 
Below (with alterations mine), you can see the parallels (and to be
clear, I am not suggesting the good professor agrees with my assessment – I’m
the one making this assertion):

[N]ot all shareholder interventions [congressional
deadlocks] are created equally. Some are legitimately designed to improve corporate
[governmental] efficiency and performance, especially by holding poorly
performing boards of directors and top management teams [government
actors] to account. But others are motivated by an activist’s belief that he or
she has better ideas about how to run the company [government] than the
incumbents [those who passed the current laws of the land], which may be
true sometimes but often seems dubious. Worse yet, some interventions [deadlocks]
are intended to advance an activist’s agenda that is not shared by other investors
[voters].

I concede there are many rather obvious differences, and maybe it’s a stretch, but I don’t think too much of
one.  Ultimately, we have rules set up to
hold our directors, and our elected leaders, accountable for their
decisions.  Attempting to wield power
using procedural methods or other tactical efforts that undermine the will of
the majority and shift power to the minority are rarely productive or
positive.  In my view, the same rules
should apply in both instances: either convince a majority you are right and
make the changes or move on.