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.