A government shutdown is not reasonable from a policy or good governance standpoint. But it is reasonable if we consider what we know of human behavior during toxic conflict.
In the context of war, it is “reasonable” for one human to
kill another, and for that to happen on a mass scale. It becomes reasonable when the stakes are
high enough, when the good of the group outweighs the good of any given
individual that may die. (Let’s not dissect
that premise. Just stick with me.) While Congress is not engaged in armed
conflict—I don’t want to disrespect those who have paid the ultimate price for
our freedom—we need to understand the conflict in Washington as being on that
spectrum. Congress should no longer be
understood as a group of people who are sent there to govern. They are sent there to engage in rhetorical and
legislative violence for their constituents.
Think otherwise? Members of the
House play to a small base. “I am going
there to fight for you” is a common refrain on the campaign trail, consequently
we should not be surprised then when they do just that.
From the singular view of one side or the other, when a
person is engaged in conflict, all manner of things that would not otherwise be
reasonable, are. On the hockey rink, if
the game turns dirty, we expect that otherwise well-mannered boys
will engage in cheap shots and brawling.
“I may not have started it, but I sure as hell will finish it” is a
common thought process. When two people
who have shared their most intimate secrets divorce, it gets ugly, and in the
context of that divorce, one can expect certain types of vindictive and
counter-productive behavior. Things will
be stolen or broken, and the ugliest things said. Considered from the standpoint of the individual consumed by conflict, these things are reasonable.
If we escalate any given conflict beyond Congress’ current
level of toxicity, to armed conflict, undesirable behavior is not just acceptable, it becomes
admirable. Soldiers and generals are
respected for what they do. When you
fight for God and country, anything goes.
And so it is in Congress. The sides are sent there not to represent or seek the collective good, but to fight for their constituents. Red State vs Blue State, or more accurately, Red County vs Blue County. If we
are to believe the rhetoric of those that are very conservative or very
liberal, all that is good and true is at stake.
In the context of access to affordable healthcare, it is nothing less
than life and death according to both sides.
Understood this way, a government shutdown is a reasonable
thing to do. That is not to say it will
be good for the country in the short term, not economically or in several other respects. But that is always the case during
conflict. Parties choose to cease
cooperating, or are forced to from their perspective, and give up present gains
to obtain a better future. A nation that
had devolved into armed civil war gives up a great deal, while at the same
time, a neighboring country not involved in civil war prospers. Does that make sense? It does to the parties at the center of the conflict. However bad
armed civil war, or a government shutdown may be, so long as it is better than the status quo, it is reasonable.
**************
**************
Notes
Conflict resolution, solving problems like this and helping parties recover from their seemingly reasonable actions is one direction I could see my career going in. Part of the reason for this is that I am prone to escalate things. I am part of the problem. I was a basketball player. I preferred to play clean. I never fowled out. But I did use my allotment of fowls strategically, particularly if I felt the other team had crossed a line. An eye for an eye? You bet! Because I have engaged in retorical and limited physical violence, it is clear to me just how destructive it is. I know the depth of my pride and my inability to turn the other cheek. I don't like the version of myself that comes out when I am engaged in conflict. Because I identify with people in conflict, I think I might be able to help them solve it, maybe.
Another thought. The reason I write a piece like this is that I believe we have to understand any given conflict before we can solve it. Comments like, "why are they doing that, it is not reasonable," suggest that people misunderstand the nature of Congresses relationship with each other, the White House, and the American people. It is not a disagreement. It is a conflict that he degenerated to the point of rhetorical violence. The only reason it has not descended into physical violence is that we all find it better to go to work each day with people we disagree with than to fight. That, and the American people are not as radical as their representatives. But to hear Congress speak, armed conflict would be reasonable.
Another thought. The reason I write a piece like this is that I believe we have to understand any given conflict before we can solve it. Comments like, "why are they doing that, it is not reasonable," suggest that people misunderstand the nature of Congresses relationship with each other, the White House, and the American people. It is not a disagreement. It is a conflict that he degenerated to the point of rhetorical violence. The only reason it has not descended into physical violence is that we all find it better to go to work each day with people we disagree with than to fight. That, and the American people are not as radical as their representatives. But to hear Congress speak, armed conflict would be reasonable.
A thousand miles south,
To Wisconsin.
A temperate land
where four seasons come and go.
Bluffs on a river.
But such good memories
of that first home state. Way up
north. The last frontier.
(1000 miles straight south, 3200 miles on the odometer.)