It’s possible to regard the just-completed congressional appropriations cycle as representing a compromise of sorts. President Bush insisted on his bottom line for discretionary spending — that ever-shrinking pot of money that lawmakers can actually control — and the Democrats played around at the margins with the totals for programs they truly cared about, ditching a few White House favorites in the process.

Each side got something it wanted, although the current view, particularly among some disaffected Democrats, is that Bush fared better in the end. The question is whether the appropriations process will play out in a similar fashion again this year — or whether it might be even more discouraging than usual.

Consider the prevalent pattern on Capitol Hill: Following a few embarrassing years during which lawmakers cannot reach a timely accord on spending and resort to enacting huge catch-all appropriations bills and late-session brinkmanship, they resolve to complete their business in an orderly fashion.

That’s approximately what happened in 1996 after the disaster of the government shutdown the previous year, and it was also the last time all spending bills were enacted by Oct. 1, when they are due.

Three other times — in 1997, 2001 and 2005 — Congress showed a more cooperative and businesslike approach to appropriations following periods of disarray and confusion not unlike the past two years.

Since every now and then Congress tries to follow “regular order” to complete its job of spending the taxpayers’ money, an opportunity exists for the White House and congressional leaders of both parties to decide that 2008 will not be a good year for fighting.

After all, the process took longer in 2006 than it had in a decade, and it ended with an omnibus bill that covered everything but defense and homeland security. This past year, Congress again took its time, finishing up an even larger omnibus just before leaving town for the year on Dec. 19. The local school districts, medical researchers and others who are dependent on federal government grants, loans and contracts had been waiting for months and probably didn’t appreciate that they had to wait until Christmas to find out how much they would have to work with this year.

So we might expect lawmakers to want to avoid another such episode in this election year — when the jobs of all House members and a third of the Senate will be on the line. Or maybe we shouldn’t be so expectant.

The appropriations “compromise” of 2007 was really anything but, and the incentives to cut a deal now are almost non-existent.

First, the president starts this year with a strong hand. Last year, the administration relied upon its muscle, and a cooperative bloc of congressional Republicans, to insist on its position and enforce it with veto threats that could not be overridden. Bush, who has a legacy to protect and no dog in the presidential sweepstakes, has little to gain by giving any ground.

For the Democrats, the stakes in November are quite high, and they also have no reason to bend — especially if they believe they will expand their numbers on Capitol Hill and win the White House.

That leaves the possibility of a most unsatisfying — but relatively quick — appropriations process prior to the election.

Imagine that Democratic leaders expect to clean up at the polls. Why waste time and energy writing spending bills for fiscal 2009 that don’t reflect their priorities, or those of the next president? Why not instead just pass a continuing resolution that keeps the government functioning at fiscal 2008 levels until, say, Feb. 1, 2009?

That could hardly be worse for Democratic priorities than what happened this past year. They could come back to town after the election and work with the new — possibly Democratic — president to rework appropriations bills to their liking.

It is, of course, possible that other more conciliatory viewpoints will prevail. Bush might want to negotiate with the Democrats on spending to win votes for his remaining legislative priorities, such as extending expiring tax cuts. But if the Democrats are confident of winning in November, that sort of dealmaking is highly unlikely.

The truth is that partisan gridlock on Capitol Hill is seemingly a permanent part of the landscape. The lack of comity is evident in the appropriations process, which used to be one of the few places where you could find occasional cooperation across the aisle. And it’s unclear what, if anything, might bring lawmakers back to the negotiating table.

The election of a Democratic president and bigger Democratic majorities in Congress might satisfy the party’s base, and change the pattern of spending decisions from where they were under unified Republican rule. But a unified Democratic government may serve only to perpetuate the pendulum swing, and do little to bring peace to the appropriations process.

Voters this year are talking about change, and most of the presidential candidates are talking about change, but the odds of things really changing on Capitol Hill appear very long.