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.