On the Shutdown

If you've been under a rock for the last three days, let me let you in on a little secret: the government shut down.

Have you tried turning your government off and back on again?

It's all been very exciting and such, what with people worrying about what it means for the progression of our country.  But I'm getting kind of tired of hearing people (namely, Fox News people) say that no one has really been affected.

First and foremost, we look like a laughing stock.  One of Congress's big jobs is to approve a budget.  In fact, it's pretty much their biggest job.  People forget the power that money has -- setting a budget essentially sets the priorities for the next year.  The fact that political tensions have gotten so high that Congress can't perform its fundamental function speaks volumes about the general illegitimacy of the U.S. system right now.

Contingent Consent.  Maybe you've heard of it.  Chances are you probably haven't.  Contingent consent is a necessary piece in a functional and competitive democratic state.  It's the idea that you will win some elections and lose others, and that whichever side (or sides) loses will agree to live under the laws and rules of the side that won -- with the understanding that in the next election, you have the ability to unseat the other party if you don't like what they've done.

The only way to preserve rule of law under a democratic system is the acceptance of this idea of contingent consent -- the system can't function if you play by the "I lost, so I'm taking my toys and going home" mentality.  Which is exactly what we've got going right now.

Aside from the general "the reputation of the United States as a whole is at stake (compounded with the PRISM fiasco, the invasion of sovereign borders, several unnecessary wars, growing distrust of the U.S. and the West, etc)" issue, there are people being affected.  A friend of mine can't work on his thesis because he can't access the Library of Congress or the National Archives.  Many women and children who receive federal WIC funding will not receive their stipend in time if this isn't sorted out.  National Parks, federal funding for public education, GDP, "nonessential" federal employees, and more all stand to lose out if this shutdown and budget crisis aren't dealt with immediately.

The fact that you got your mail like always today doesn't mean that people aren't hurting.

Frustratedly yours,

Rachel Leigh

On Why I Hate the Filibuster

The first thing many of you are probably wondering is why I'm writing this post now, instead of back in June when Wendy Davis was filibustering on the Texas State Senate floor about the anti-abortion bill before the state legislature.

I wish I had a good answer for that.  Partially, because as much as I don't like the filibuster as a tactic, it's because I think Wendy Davis is kind of a badass.  Partially, it's because this is not a non-partisan blog.  And, mostly, it's because I was making the same argument on Facebook and it never crossed my mind to make this post.

First of all, I will note that there are some minor differences between the current Ted Cruz filibuster on the U.S. Senate floor and Davis's filibuster in Texas.  One, Wendy was in Texas, so her actions impacted only the residents of Texas, while Senator Cruz's filibuster aims to impact the entire country and the federal government.  So, yknow, keep the scope of things in mind as we progress here.  Two, the Texas State Senate filibuster rules state that you can only continue to speak as long as you continue to speak on matters directly related to the bill at hand.  This stipulation does not exist for the Senate filibuster, which may proceed (even by reading the phone book) until the speaker 1) voluntarily sits down, leaves, or stops speaking or 2) the Senate reaches a 2/3 vote needed for cloture and ends the debate in spite of the filibuster.  Until then, anything and everything is fair game.

Which brings us to today.  Ted Cruz is filibustering on the Senate floor [last I heard, reading Dr. Seuss books] to delay or prevent a vote on a critical budget measure in an attempt to "defund Obamacare" and the stipulations of the Affordable Care Act which will go into effect tomorrow.

I hate the filibuster as a tactic or procedural rule -- regardless of party affiliation or the issue.

First, it prevents any real, constructive debate on the topic at hand.  Debate is, inherently, a conversation.  And a filibuster is precisely the opposite -- especially when you don't even need to be talking about the bill that's up for a vote.  It is one-sided preaching, sometimes on topic, sometimes not, which does nothing to require either side to provide evidence or support for their side of the argument.

Second, the filibuster is a direct threat to the democratic process.  Senate voting rules were designed for a simple majority.  And, pending Presidential veto, a simple majority is supposed to be all that's needed to pass something.  The filibuster, by requiring a 2/3 vote, effectively raises the threshold for substantive Senate progress to a level even harder to achieve than half-plus-one.  People complain about Congressional inefficiency, but it's even harder to make any moves in any direction when you need not only a majority, but overwhelming support for any measure.

The filibuster is a holdover from very old Parliamentary procedure.  In the early 1800s, the House of Representatives decided it was enough of a bar to productive and timely debate that they removed it in an update of the House debate rules.  It sticks around in the Senate as a fossil from an era where immediate action was both typically unnecessary and more or less impossible -- in a world which is quite the opposite.

Politically yours,
Rachel Leigh

On Election Day and the Political Climate

"When we start to imagine those who disagree with us as 'crazy' or 'evil' or 'traitorous,' it becomes difficult to compromise with them and difficult to listen to them; at times it can be even difficult to stay friends with them.  And hurling insults instead of having conversations about policy leads to a social order where no one can talk without screaming, and that, more than either candidate's tax plan, is dangerous."  --John Green

I'm just going to leave that there.  And also remind you that Tuesday is Election Day stateside.  Now, being across the freaking ocean means that I actually voted like a month ago, but that doesn't change the fact that all of my American darlings should take the half hour of inconvenience and go vote.  (Unless, of course, you are perfectly willing to not complain about ANYTHING your government does or does not do for the next four years: if that's really the way you feel, then your apathy makes me sad, but at least you won't not-vote and then be unhappy with the results.)

You have this one chance every four years (well, two years if you count Congressional elections, but still) - the chance to have a profound impact on the way the government is run for the next four years.  And I personally feel like you have a responsibility to act on that chance.  If you don't, and the country goes in a direction you dislike, it's kind of your own fault and you have no right to complain.

That being said, in any election, tensions run high, especially the closer to Election Day that you get.  It's just that the rhetoric and attitudes behind this election have gotten so divisive that it's honestly worrisome.  Right now both major-party candidates remain neck-and-neck in the polls, which means that with the zero-sum political system and the isolating attitudes that surround it, come Wednesday morning, there is a good chance that nearly half the population will feel completely disenfranchised by the results.  And that's not good.

Our political system derives its legitimacy from the idea that no matter who you vote for, your interests will still be taken into consideration and, if they're not, you have the chance to change things four years down the road.  And I think the attitudes that people have developed towards the opposing parties have undermined this basic faith.  Illegitimate governments lead to revolution, so if this happens, I sincerely hope that people's apathy and laziness outweighs their sense of outrage, because otherwise we're looking at four years of serious political turmoil.

Please keep in mind that regardless of who you vote for on Tuesday, you should vote, and remember that the people who don't vote the same way aren't any less human than you are.

Nervously yours,
Rachel Leigh