There is a famous assertion, often attributed to Winston Churchill, that Americans will always "do the right thing, after they’ve exhausted all the alternatives." Whether or not it was Britain’s iconic wartime prime minister who actually said this is up for debate, but it’s a pointed quote in any case, and one that fits the current political mess.

The standoff on Capitol Hill culminating in the current federal government shutdown represents the worst possible alternative lawmakers could have selected. It was a cynical political choice made all the more shameful by the fact that real people could suffer from it, especially if it drags on for any length of time.

And now that this option has been exhausted, it’s time for the U.S. House of Representatives to do what’s right: Send the Senate’s bill, a "clean" continuing resolution that keeps government running, to the floor of the House for a vote.

Sharp political partisanship has become part of the Capitol Hill furniture, and the brinksmanship can go both ways. But let’s be blunt about the current manufactured crisis: It’s the Republicans who deserve the lion’s share of the blame for this one. Reports swirled that House Speaker John Boehner had initially opposed the idea of making the Affordable Care Act ("Obamacare") the point of contention in what should have been a routine, short-term extension of government spending.

But clearly he caved to those in his caucus who favor this kind of scorched-earth tactic, ultimately an unproductive exercise other than for the purpose of scoring political points in conservative Republican House districts. It’s unproductive because the ACA, enacted more than three years ago, is established law, upheld through lengthy legal challenges all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The law’s principal implementation element, the Oct. 1 launch of the health insurance exchanges for enrollment, was going live regardless of any congressional action. And given the reality that neither the Senate majority nor President Barack Obama is willing to consider demands to dismantle the law or weaken it through delay or defunding, making such demands part of a vote on a basic extension of government funding is the equivalent of pitching a temper tantrum.

Obama is taking the right position by refusing to entertain any deals in exchange for extending spending authority for mere weeks. If he tolerates such threats at every juncture of the lawmaking process, then total frustration of government functioning will result. That serves neither his agenda nor, more important, the national interest.

Further, it would set a bad precedent, especially with an even more consequential vote in the offing: the raising of the federal debt limit. Trying to gum up the works around the debt-limit question also would be intolerable. Signaling that the U.S. is shaky about paying debts that are already incurred would send tremors through the global economy as well.

There should be space for deal-making in the context of larger budget talks. The legislative and executive branches are both responsible for putting the country on firmer economic footing, settling the budgetary imbalance that produced the meat-cleaver cuts of sequestration. They need to craft a budget compromise both sides can live with.

Obama has said he is willing to consider proposals for fixes to the health reform law — legislation of this magnitude inevitably needs further amendment, as the glitches become evident. Even that could be part of a larger budget deal, or in separate legislation that goes through the regular order of congressional debate.

But the operative word there is "regular." There is a routine for giving bills full consideration before they become law, or for repealing them if they fail.

A group within a single house of government that tries to short-circuit the process must be shown that it’s not a winning long-term strategy for them, and even less so for the country.