See Disclaimer.
The most recent threat of a government shutdown played out till the wee hours of Saturday, March 23. That Congress eventually voted to avoid the shutdown is the good news. Most everything else is disturbing and a serious warning.
First, the basics. Since fiscal year 1977, Congress has rarely passed all regular appropriations bills on time; that last happened in 1997. Continuing resolutions have been the norm and multiple government shutdowns have occurred. The most recent shutdown lasted over a month (December 22, 2018-January 25, 2019), impacted many families, and led to the devaluation of US credit ratings.
The present spending bill should have been approved by Congress and signed by the President before October of 2023. Several continuing resolutions kept the government open since then, ultimately separating agencies in two big blocks, with different deadlines for passage of the respective spending bills. The bill for the first block of agencies was passed and signed earlier this month. March 22 (almost six months into the budget cycle) was the deadline for the second block’s bill.
With drama, the House bill passed just hours ahead of the deadline. In a House with Republican majority, Democrats had to supply most of the votes for passage. As a freak side show, a Republican representative immediately introduced a bill to oust the Republican Speaker of the House for ‘betraying the party’ when he (with a commendable sense of state, I say) allowed, expedited, and supported the vote.
In the Senate, the bill was expected to have bipartisan support. Once received, it could have been brought to a vote quickly. For a fast vote, though, it was necessary the procedural agreement of all 100 Senators. An agreement that took hours to be reached, because some Republican Senators, playing political games, demanded that several amendments be voted. These amendments were a futile exercise.
Indeed, if any amendment was passed, the bill would have to be sent back to the House, now in recess—thus, at a minimum, unavoidably triggering a temporary shutdown. Republicans had no desire to pass any of the amendments, just wanted Democrats to vote explicitly against them. The idea was for Republicans to be able to use, coming election time, those ‘no’ votes to paint Democrats as extremists on issues such as immigration and public safety.
Minutes ahead of the 12:01am EDT deadline, the procedural agreement was finally reached. The amendments were brought to a vote. Democrats (and on occasion some Republicans) supplied the necessary ‘no’ votes for the good of the nation. The spending bill then passed past 2am EDT and was signed later in the day by the President. Despite the deadline having strictly not been met, the shutdown was averted thanks to the clever interpretation of procedural rules by the White House’s Office of Management and Budget.
Politics is part of governing. But the chaos in the House and the malice in the Senate showed once again that many (most?) in the Republican party are interested in posturing and disrupting, rather than governing. Imperfections and all, Democrats showed once again a sense of national responsibility, in this case saving us from another government shutdown.
Shutdowns are not theoretical exercises: They have real costs, to country and people.
The fact that procrastination, continuing resolutions, and last-minute high drama have become the norm in our budgeting process does not make them right, less serious, or less detrimental. Aside from the dangers of potential shutdowns, members of Congress voting on legislation that they had no realistic opportunity to carefully analyze is antithetic to responsible government.
As a reminder that Congress should be focused on governing, media outlets offered comprehensive coverage of a terrorist attack in Russia, presumable by ISIS-K. The images of a concert hall in flames, and the news of over a hundred concert goers dead and many more injured, were tragic and sobering on themselves. Several hours later, the same networks reported on the Russian president using the attack, without proof or obvious credibility, to advance the case for his on-going invasion of Ukraine—an unsurprising move by one of the world’s leading autocrats.
The parallel images of many in Congress playing irresponsible political games—while the world ‘burns’ around us, in Russia and beyond—were deeply disturbing.
Of course, to be disturbed one needs to be paying attention. And of the same news outlet doing their jobs by reporting the terrorist attack in Russia, few were reporting on the Senate session with a sense of urgency. I struggled to find a combination (C-SPAN, for images and sound; the Washington Post for running commentary) that allowed me to follow the proceedings in real time. In most other mainstream media, real-time coverage was limited to none. And that, in itself, is disturbing.
In an age of massive misinformation, the informing role of mainstream news media is daunting. But it is more essential than ever. As the Washington Post proclaims, ‘Democracy Dies in Darkness.’ And yet, the WP and other news media often make choices that offer relative darkness on much that matters fundamentally for a functional and sustainable nation and world—while shining light on ‘noise’ news and opinions that ultimately advance both shallow or partisan thinking and autocratic causes. This is frightening and dangerous.
As the 2024 elections approach, it is becoming clear that America could elect a Republican president and Republican majorities for the House and Senate. Just a decade ago, that would signify normal alternance of power, the true essence of democracy. But once upon a time Republicans and Democrats differed primarily in policies, not character. As an independent and a moderate, living in a free and democratic country, I would see no harm in any particular electoral choice. After all, we the voters could always correct course in two (and again four) years. And democracy would endure, messy and imperfect, but still the best possible form of government.
Alas, times have changed. We face in 2024, as we did in 2016 and 2020, a choice between democracy (which the current President represents and defends) and autocracy (which the former president promotes and longs for). A choice between character and dishonesty, between Democrats’ commitment to governing and Republicans’ focus on creating chaos. A choice that (dreamers and disruptors aside) is strictly binary, with (unfortunately) no viable alternative to blue or red. A choice that will reverberate far and wide, here, across the world, and for generations.
From here to November, we will all have to make our choice. As citizens, as elected officials, as media, as parties, or as other organizations, we all matter. None of us is—or should be—playing a game.
Will we be up to the task?
— Antonio Baptista
Outside the box 
1 Comment