Months, even weeks, ago it might have been seen as inconceivable. But now, politicians on both sides of the aisle are bracing themselves for the perfect political storm: a showdown over government shutdown. That's right: in a mere matter of weeks, we may be looking at another government shutdown along the lines of 1995, when President Clinton and the Republican-controlled Congress feuded over funding for critical government programmes.

The government's current spending authorisation ends on the 4 March and reauthorisation must be granted to avoid a complete shutdown of government, government services and the employment of civil servants. Congress can pass a temporary funding resolution to keep the government operating – something that happened habitually under President Bush, whose demands to fund the Iraq war were frequent. But this time, Republicans will likely refuse to pass that funding resolution, thus triggering a shutdown.

The result of the same situation in 1995 was a massive public repudiation of an unreasonable Republican party, seen as willing to risk the very operation of government to appease their base. And that was one of the main drivers that propelled Clinton back to the Oval Office in 1996. Yet, this time, Republicans are convinced it might make sense to pick this fight – conscious of the agitation of their base and the Tea Party's appetite for indiscriminate budget cuts, regardless of consequences.

The makings of the showdown were painfully obvious last week, as members of the Republican party demanded – under massive pressure from Tea Party-backed representatives – further spending cuts in the congressional resolution being debated in the House of Representatives. House speaker John Boehner and Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell opened a massive game of chicken by declaring that they would reject a short-term extension of any spending whatsoever – the spending necessary to keep all functions of government open and running – without further draconian cuts to those spending levels. In turn, President Obama, with public support firmly behind him, could very well veto the funding cuts, forcing the Republicans to back down.

Democrats are already in political ecstasy about the possibility. As Nadeam Elshami, a spokesperson for Nancy Pelosi said: "The last thing the American people need is for congressional Republicans … to draw a line in the sand that hinders keeping the government open." And a high-ranking aide to Pelosi told chiefs of staff on the hill that a government shutdown is more likely than not.

Republican leaders, despite their bravado, are painfully conscious of the potential political fallout. In fact, majority leader Eric Cantor summoned the Tea Party members and their freshmen colleagues on Friday to "educate them about the politics of a government shutdown". Aides insisted this meeting was not to warn off the lawmakers from spending cuts, but the very fact that the meeting was called and focused on this issue already smacks of political discomfort.

Government departments are already bracing for the storm. The social security administration last week warned their workers that temporary work stoppages might be needed. And the proposed cuts by Republicans of $1.7bn to that department might not only shut down those government offices temporarily, but seriously hurt the benefits offered to senior citizens and those with disabilities. That means social security claims would go unprocessed and pile up, causing bureaucratic congestion and personal hardship across the country.

All severe consequences. And easily avoidable. The reality is that a little negotiation could avoid even the partisan posturing. Democrats are ready to negotiate, understanding the Republican leaders' need to placate their base. New York Senator Chuck Schumer has emphasised that cuts could be achieved as the result of "fair negotiations". In other words, the Republicans are proposing their road or the road to shutdown, while Democrats remain ready to work on compromise. Being made to look the bad guys is exactly the scenario Republican leaders don't want.

Once again, this is a reflection of a number of factors at play. First, simple partisan politics: Republicans believe they have a winning message with the meat cleaver cuts they are proposing. After all, that was the message they believe propelled so many of their freshmen members to victory last November. But they forget that what works in swing districts might not appeal to the whole country, especially when seniors stop receiving their social security cheques. Second, the continuing power of the Tea Party io hold more moderate Republicans "accountable" (read: hostage) to deliver on massive spending cuts. For them, it's the first – the only – priority, and they have an almost admirable disregard for the political consequences and their chances of re-election.

For the Republican party as a whole, the consequences could be nothing less than disastrous in 2012. But for now, we can but watch the clock tick towards 4 March and the possibility of a government shutdown on a scale never seen before in the western world.