Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4A — Monday, January 22, 2018

DAYTON HARE

Managing Editor

420 Maynard St. 

Ann Arbor, MI 48109

 tothedaily@michigandaily.com

Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan since 1890.

ALEXA ST. JOHN

Editor in Chief
 ANU ROY-CHAUDHURY AND 

ASHLEY ZHANG
Editorial Page Editors

Unsigned editorials reflect the official position of the Daily’s Editorial Board. 

All other signed articles and illustrations represent solely the views of their authors.

EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS

Carolyn Ayaub
Megan Burns

Samantha Goldstein

Emily Huhman
Jeremy Kaplan

Sarah Khan

Max Lubell

Lucas Maiman

Madeline Nowicki
Anna Polumbo-Levy 

Jason Rowland

Anu Roy-Chaudhury

Ali Safawi

Sarah Salman
Kevin Sweitzer

Rebecca Tarnopol

Stephanie Trierweiler

Ashley Zhang

O

ver the past few years, 
I have seen my older 
brother, a mentor of 

mine, become increasingly 
involved in social justice and 
civil rights issues. Two weeks 
ago, he began his professional 
career 
as 
a 
paralegal, 

working on death penalty 
defense cases on behalf of 
the state. This line of work 
is notoriously both difficult 
and emotionally draining. In 
his words, it is a fight against 
a system where the defense 
is 
routinely 
given 
fewer 

resources and tools than the 
prosecution and asked to do 
the same work.

Being the arrogant business 

student I am, I recently asked 
him why he wants to devote 
his life to a field where he will 
continue to fight a frustrating 
uphill battle, all the while 
being compensated less than 
he might be in another field. 
According to him, he could 
not, in good conscience, live 
in a state that was routinely 
and 
unjustly 
mistreating 

its 
own 
citizens 
without 

doing something about it. In 
his opinion, those that are 
bystanders just contribute to 
the issue itself.

His response took me by 

surprise, and in all honesty, 
I 
felt 
almost 
personally 

attacked by his answer. I 
try to subscribe to a life 
philosophy best characterized 
by the Elbert Hubbard quote, 
“Don’t take life too seriously. 
You’ll never get out of it alive.” 
By my brother’s standards 
though, acknowledging that 
problems exist in the world, 
and 
willfully 
choosing 
to 

ignore them on behalf of my 
own happiness does, in fact, 
add to the problem itself. 
While I initially tried to 
ignore 
that 
disconcerting 

thought, returning back to my 
world here at the University 
of Michigan, I couldn’t help 
but check my own reality, 
and think about all of the 
small, willfully complacent 
behaviors that exist in my 
daily routine.

Not a week goes by that 

I don’t find myself walking 
through the Diag on the way to 
class or downtown Ann Arbor, 
passing individuals protesting 
for causes I wholeheartedly 
agree with, yet rarely stopping 
to participate. I take Ubers 
and Lyfts around Ann Arbor 
when the weather drops below 
freezing in the winter, and 
though I have been told that 
one of these entities treats its 
employees better and provides 
them with a larger portion of 
the fare than its counterpart, I 
choose the service that is least 
expensive every time.

As 
my 
mental 
register 

of 
complacent 
activities 

continued to grow, I began 
to 
consider 
the 
larger 

implications of this lifestyle. 
Was 
this 
philosophy 
of 

choosing 
to 
engage 
in 

behaviors that were most 
comfortable and convenient 
for me selfish, or was I 
entitled to be unconcerned 
with issues that did not 
directly involve me?

I’ve spent the past few 

days 
working 
on 
this 

column, contemplating these 
questions and attempting to 
rationalize the belief that I 
was not responsible for the 
world’s 
problems. 
Those 

efforts have proven futile. If I 
walk past graffiti filled with 
racial slurs here on campus 
and choose to stay silent, I 
am in effect validating the 
behavior of the assailants. If I 
see a friend, or even stranger, 
being harassed at a party, and 
walk by when they are in need 
of help, I am part of whatever 

may happen next.

At the same time, there are 

an infinite number of wrongs 
in the world that could very 
well justify our attention and 
action, and perhaps it is just as 
unreasonable to have a stake 
in every fight. Should I refuse 
to buy a Chick-fil-A sandwich 
because 
the 
company 
has 

donated 
to 
anti-LGBTQ 

causes? If I take a stand against 
this food retailer, then do I also 
have to take a stand against 
McDonald’s, who sources some 
meat from firms known for 
inhumane animal practices? 
Should 
I 
refuse 
to 
buy 

diamonds because I am unsure 
they originate from ethical 
sourcing? Interestingly, I still 
see 
student 
organizations 

selling Chick-fil-A sandwiches 
on campus to raise money for 
their 
philanthropic 
causes 

(pretty ironic, huh?), long lines 
at the airport as people wait to 
satiate their hunger with some 
McNuggets and young nervous 
men buying engagement rings 
in preparation to pop the big 
question.

In every one of these cases, 

we are in fact contributing 
to harmful institutions, and 
our action (or inaction) could 
be making the world a better 
(or worse off) place. But it is 
unrealistic, and harmful to 
our personal wellbeing, to try 
to take a stake in every fight. 
It is important to acknowledge 
that every decision we make 
has 
consequences 
and 
to 

prioritize where we can and 
should take action. I am 
still figuring out where this 
balance exists for myself, and 
depending on your personal 
moral compass, everyone has 
their own unique balance. But 
if you can just try to be a little 
better every day, constantly 
improving yourself and the 
world around you, then you 
should not feel guilty for being 
selfish from time to time. Just 
make it up tomorrow.

What duty do I owe to the world?

MATTHEW FRIEND | COLUMN

Matt Friend can be reached at 

mjfri@umich.edu

A

t its basic level, the 
role of our American 
government is to serve 

as the voice of the people. 
They fundraise from 
the American people 
through taxation, and 
use those funds in the 
best interest of the 
country. Despite the 
last year’s whirlwind 
of political news, the 
essential 
functions 

of government have 
remained working to 
serve the American 
people 
throughout 

all 
of 
the 
turmoil 

in 
Washington, 
D.C.. 

Last 
Friday’s 
government 

shutdown was a failure of 
that critical responsibility, 
and Congressional Democrats 
are largely to blame.

Congressional 
Democrats 

bemoaned the 2013 suspension 
of federal services, and their 
cries now ring hypocritically 
hollow against their actions in 
leading the U.S. Government 
to a crisis point. In 2013, 
Republicans, 
led 
by 
Sen. 

Ted 
Cruz, 
R-Texas, 
halted 

government 
operations 
for 

16 days in an attempt to pull 
funding for the unpopular — at 
the time — Affordable Care Act. 
In sacrificing the moral high 
ground, Republicans cemented 
the ACA’s place in public policy 
— and public opinion.

Now, 
Congressional 

Democrats have taken the 
same shameful stance, and 
have driven the fight over 
the 
budget 
off 
the 
edge 

of a dangerous cliff. In a 
Thursday 
morning 
tweet, 

President 
Donald 
Trump 

seemed to confuse his stance 
on the issue of the Children’s 
Health Insurance Program 
— which finds its funding 
up for renewal during this 
budget fight — and demanded 
that Congress find a lasting 
solution. Republicans, who 
proposed 
a 
short-term 

extension 
of 
CHIP, 
can’t 

agree with Democrats, who 
want a permanent funding 
solution for CHIP. By shutting 
down 
the 
government, 

Democrats run the risk of 
having CHIP funding follow 
in the footsteps of the ACA 
opposition. 
In 
that 
case, 

1.7 million children in 20 
states and D.C., will lose 
their health insurance. The 
elevation of CHIP funding to 
a political level now risks the 
permanent defunding of the 
program, while failing the 
most underserved children 

in our country in hopes of 
scoring political points.

The 
consequences 
of 

this 
shutdown 
can’t 
yet 

be 
quantified. 

Thousands 
of 
federal 

workers 
will 

be 
furloughed 

starting 
today, 

and some of the 
nation’s 
critical 

infrastructure 
and services are 
now 
shut 
off. 

Standard & Poor’s 
estimate that the 
2013 government 

shutdown 
cost 
the 
U.S. 

economy $24 billion. This is 
a cost that nobody — even the 
most outspoken Democrat on 
Capitol Hill — wants for the 
American economy. Shutting 
down 
the 
government 
is 

almost 
certain 
to 
usher 

in a period of unfiltered 
chaos 
for 
public 
sector 

workers and the millions of 
Americans who rely on the 
federal government for their 
economic well-being.

Aside from the financial 

ramifications, the political 
ramifications 
of 
partially 

closing 
the 
nation’s 

government are even higher. 
The shutdown in 1995 led 
to massive public disdain 
for Republicans, and 2013’s 
shutdown 
ushered 
in 
the 

lowest approval rating of 
the 
Republican 
party 
in 

20 
years. 
Democrats 
are 

currently riding a massive 
wave 
of 
positive 
public 

opinion — brought on by 
the 
unpopularity 
of 
the 

Trump administration and 
Congressional 
Republicans’ 

inability to make actionable 
progress 
on 
electorally-

mandated policy proposals. 
Flushing 
that 
positive 

public 
opinion 
down 
the 

drain to prove a point to 
Republican leadership isn’t 
just a bad political move — 
it’s a failure of their most 

basic responsibilities as our 
elected officials.

Even more shameful than 

the Democrats’ inaction on 
the budget is their insistence 
on using the Deferred Action 
for 
Childhood 
Arrivals 

program as a hostage in 
their negotiations to keep 
the government open. This 
program, 
which 
prevents 

the deportation of certain 
undocumented 
immigrants 

who 
were 
brought 
by 

parents to the United States 
as minors, is a policy that 
affects 
800,000 
young 

people. A judge in California 
already temporarily blocked 
implementation of the DACA 
repeal, and young immigrants 
deserve better than to have 
their lives used as a bargaining 
chip by people claiming to 
protect 
them. 
A 
solution 

to 
DACA 
exists 
without 

funding the border wall — as 
President Trump insists — 
and without shutting down 
the government. Gambling 
the fate of young immigrants, 
including many of our fellow 
University 
of 
Michigan 

classmates, on Republicans’ 
willingness to do the right 
thing is never a safe bet, and 
is a bet that will likely harm 
everyone involved.

The way forward for the 

progressive 
policies 
that 

America desperately needs 
is 
through 
the 
retention 

of 
public 
opinion 
behind 

the 
Democrats. 
These 

policies also have no chance 
of 
implementation 
if 
the 

government 
isn’t 
running. 

Democrats’ best plan isn’t 
to stoop to the level of 
Ted Cruz in 2013 or Newt 
Gingrich in 1995, but rather 
to do their constitutionally-
mandated duty to fund the 
federal 
government, 
while 

working with Congressional 
Republicans to ensure that 
people 
protected 
under 

DACA will be able to remain 
in the United States and that 
the CHIP program can be 
funded in the long-run. The 
American 
people 
deserve 

better than a government 
shutdown, 
and 
Children’s 

Health Care coverage and 
the fate of DACA recipients 
should never be used as a 
bargaining chip in a political 
fight.

Dems wrong in government shutdown 

KEVIN SWEITZER | COLUMN

“A solution to 
DACA exists 

without funding 
the borderwall 

and without 

shutting down the 

government.”

“Was I entitled to 
be unconcerned 
with issues that 
did not directly 

involve me?”

KEVIN 

SWEITZER

JOIN OUR EDITORIAL BOARD

Our Editorial Board meets Mondays and Wednesdays 7:15-8:45 PM at 
our newsroom at 420 Maynard Street. All are welcome to come discuss 

national, state and campus affairs.

NIA LEE | CONTACT NIA AT LEENIA@UMICH.EDU

— House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi’s comment on 

President Donald Trump’s influence on the government shutdown
“

NOTABLE QUOTABLE

Happy anniversary, Mr. President. 

You wanted a shutdown. The 

shutdown is all yours.

”

Kevin Sweitzer can be reached at 

ksweitz@umich.edu.

