One of the most conflicting lessons I’ve learned in my adult life has been spread across headlines this week, in so many words; Making no decision, is making a decision.
Last week eight Senators decided to cross the aisle and shake hands with Senate Republicans, under the banner of ending the longest government shutdown in US history. Their decision, however, left Democrats looking as indecisive as ever as their attempt to respond to complaints of passivity from their base ended with little to show.
The shutdown itself was hinged on Democrats withholding funding until Republicans agreed to extend health care subsidies. Seemingly in response, Republicans set out to make major cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly Food Stamps). The Republicans leveraged the suffering caused by this decision well enough that Democrats sacrificed extended health care subsidies. This sacrifice, of course, leads to plenty of suffering in its own right, making the entire fourty-three day ordeal feel like a lose-lose.
So why start it? As mentioned, Democrats have faced a lot of criticism from their own base, accusing them of inaction. Fresh off an election sweep, the shutdown was a decisive action for them to take. Now, Democrats are likely to face even more flack from their base, after cracking under the weight of a battle they chose.
While I sympathize wholeheartedly with wanting to mitigate harm caused by the shutdown, the country is already readily in harm’s way. Republicans still hold the brunt of the responsibility for the cuts to SNAP, and despite SNAP’s return, it’s only returning with massive delays and reductions. Add to that the harm found in the loss of the health care subsidies, and it’s easy to feel that we’ve gained nothing in exchange for weeks of time, stress, and loss.
As Democrat voters continue to push for decisive action, Democrats must reflect on their motives. We don’t push for action simply for action’s sake— we push because inaction is inherently harmful under these conditions. If we are to believe those eight senators crossed the aisle to mitigate harm, did they not enter into the shutdown to mitigate harm? Did conditions truly change enough to justify a stand down— or did they enter the shutdown unfocused, with ulterior motives and pressures in mind?
Maggie Raker
Opinion Editor
