On the first of October, 92 veterans ignored barricades to visit a World War II memorial that should have remained shuttered as a result of the government shutdown. Since then, there have been a trickle of stories about various people demanding certain national parks and services be reopened, politicians offering to pay out of pocket to open gates, and, my personal favorite, public jabs that while the government is shut down, it is cruel and unusual punishment that the government enforce the shutdown over certain key landmarks.
The latest drop in the bucket in this side story to the greater ongoing crisis comes from Montana, where Democratic governor Steve Bullock is refusing to use state funds to reopen National Parks.
Here’s the bottom line. Whether you believe Democrats are at fault, or Republicans are at fault, the truth of the matter is that someone felt so strongly about their position it was worth a government shutdown. If you are a Republican congressman, a World War II vet, a small businessman, or anyone else in this country for that matter, that felt your own personal agenda was significant enough to put a big closed sign on the federal government, there is a cliché hand written just for you. Be careful what you wish for.
Frankly, I think it is possible the government is shut down enough. Whenever there is a shutdown of this magnitude, cabinet members down their respective chains of command identify what they deem essential personnel and services. These parts of the government continue working (though pay to these people may be uncertain), while everything else is put in a furloughed or shutdown status.
The problem with this is that it prevents people from feeling the full impact of what it would be like if the federal government truly stopped working completely. As a result, people making irresponsible decisions in Washington D.C. insulate themselves from their own reckless actions.
Over the course of this shutdown, D.C. has opted to continue paying survivor benefits as well as providing back pay to furloughed employees when the shut down ends. At a time when our divided government has never seemed more gridlocked, these motions met little resistance, and the reasoning behind it is that these represent some of the hard parts of the shut down.
But isn’t that the point? If you believe the government is too big, and that it’s the problem, and you’re willing to shut it down to get your way, isn’t your opinion only valid if you are willing to suffer the full, unmitigated consequences of your actions?
There’s political savvy behind this too. No one wants to be on the hook for denying survivor benefits when election day comes around, but again, I have to ask, isn’t that the point?
What about the military? That, too, is part of the federal government. It therefore stands to reason that if you are willing to shutdown the government, you better also be willing to stand down the military. You can talk about the most sacred duty of keeping our people safe and defending our nation, but that sacred duty falls well within the jurisdiction of the federal government.
On a human level, I have to be a little grateful that the shut down does not in fact go all the way. It means that there are people who still get to feed their kids and keep a roof over their head. But from a more pragmatic standpoint, I can only think that the pick and choose nature of the current shutdown is enabling recklessness, and thus further damaging our form of government.
Imagine, if you will, a true federal government shut down. Everything goes down. No social security or medicare checks get cut because there is no one to cut them. The treasury is down. The US military is stood down, orders are immediately issued for every single troop to fall back to safety and standby. The federal courts bar their doors and every employee at federal prisons including wardens, guards, custodial personnel and food preparation staff stay home. Parks are shuttered without being open, subsidies end, passports are no longer issued, and on and on. The only people in the federal government allowed to go to work every day are those elected officials in D.C. That’s it.
How long, under these conditions, do you think a federal government shutdown would last? It is hard to imagine the insanity in Washington being such that the crisis would last longer than a day or two because the country thrown into conditions isn’t merely an inconvenience or an annoyance, but this would be dangerous. Lives, lots of lives, would be threatened.
In fact, the repercussions of a complete shutdown would be so severe that I have a hard time imagining this shutdown would have ever happened. If, as the prevailing narrative suggests, the shutdown really is the result of an extremist contingent in congress leveraging the majority party in the House to do their bidding, we have to understand that part of why they have this leverage is because House leadership sees the appeasing the extremists as more significant than keeping the government open. A true government shutdown, however, would very likely eradicate this very same leverage.
One last point. If you are not among those that feel strongly enough one way or another to shut the government down (read: the majority), then you should take down names. Pay attention. This crisis is manufactured, and the brunt of the responsibility rests firmly on the backs of a handful of highly irresponsible elected officials. Republican or Democratic, it is on you to see they are never allowed to work in the halls of congress again.
K.E. Moore is a single father currently living in Southeast Virginia. After ten years serving in the military, he continues to work in a support capacity for the Department of the Navy as a civilian. A one time avid progressive blogger, Moore now focuses much of his free time writing novels, playing guitar, video games, and enjoying quality time with his two daughters.