One of the recurring themes in this federal government shutdown are complaints about what is shut down. The executive branch has shut down some of the more visible, relatively popular and, I presume, relatively inexpensive government services. Monuments are one example. Another one I’ve come across was the census.gov website being shut down. The explanation, in effect, is, “Hey, a shut down is a shut down. Non-essential services are suspended.”
There is probably is a political component to shutting these things down, and the President probably could keep those things open if he had a strong desire. But, it puts many of his opponents in an awkward situation. Those given to un-nuanced “small government” rhetoric suddenly find themselves protesting that particular government services are necessary and inexpensive. It’s difficult to shift from “government is wasteful, sucks, and can’t do anything right” to “How dare you shut down this piece of government; people need it, and, besides, it doesn’t cost very much.”
After this is over, it would be nice if it resulted in more nuanced rhetoric about government from politicians. A unicorn would also be nice.
Probably a political component? You think?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Monument_Syndrome
When someone makes the gross generalization that “all government services are worthless”, you show that person, one-on-one, that it’s simply not true, but when a lot of people make the statement that “all government is worthless”, it’s pretty hard to have a rational discussion. If you are the guy in charge, you say, “Well, how about this and this and that?” and they say, “Oh, no, I didn’t mean that!” The guy in charge can then say, “So it’s really not true that all government services are worthless. Do you want a shutdown or not?”
Let’s see – the Wikipedia article calls this an allegation, the basis being an article by the conservative National Review –
As a former federal employee (i.e. civil servant) who lived through a shutdown in the ’70s, I can tell you that “essential” is determined through a typically bureaucratic process. It is easy to accuse “those guys” of being political, but the truth is that the govenrment provides a lot of services that we like and want, but aren’t “essential”. If it doesn’t involve life, national security or legal obligations, it is “non-essential”. As a scientist, I was sent home. Fortunately, the guy who fed the lab animals was considered essential.
The point is that services people like are being shutdown, in the passive aggressive manner suggested by the title of the blog post. If the items being shut down were being done so in a non-political manner, I might expect that we would simply see buildings locked up, signs posted, employees sent home. We see that, but we also see federal law enforcement employees sent in to enforce the shut down! No ability to staff the function, but ability aplenty to accost anyone who might attempt to trod upon, ahem, public land?
Come on- a common sense reaction to this is to find the motivation entirely political, and for exactly the reasons explained in the wikipedia item: To tweak the sensibilities of the public such that they raise hue and cry for reinstatement.
I think the sensibility tweaking is useful as a counter to the knee-jerk, anti-government rhetoric.
And these are non-essential services. Is there a Constitutional basis for memorials?
Hmm. Is it the job of government to tweak sensibilities? To counter knee-jerk anti-government rhetoric? I don’t see that one in the enumerated powers. Maybe that’s one of those general welfare items.
You’re being obtuse. Of course monuments are non-essential. You honestly don’t see some irony in a closed-shop no-staff Parks Dept staffing adequately to keep people out? Really?
And you’re employing double standards. Not performing unenumerated functions is good unless those functions are popular?
I’m the one who labeled it passive aggressive; so I don’t think I’m being obtuse. But I also recognize this is an example of “be careful what you ask for, you might get it.” And if small government enthusiasts shrugged it off as the collateral damage that goes along with limiting government; I’d be more receptive when they point out that the President (or the bureaucracy under him) is not making cost effective choices. The people who engage in faux outrage about memorials closing down make me less receptive because that seems to conflict with other statements about the sanctity of enumerated powers.
It’s as if limited government really just means “limit government to stuff I like and not stuff I don’t like.” (That’s certainly what “activist” judges has come to mean.)
And, for the record Mike, I’m not accusing you of this inconsistency. You’re pretty consistent.
Don’t misunderstand. I’m not a fan of the shutdown. I am a proponent for limited government. I believe that doing this kind of ‘shutdown’ is counterproductive to the cause of limited government. Sure, some might look at it and conclude, “hey, I didn’t need as much government as I thought, didn’t affect me, rah-rah limited government”. But more will be visiting the National Parks and have their vacation impacted and conclude, “those small government bastards wrecked my trip! I saved for that all year! Screw those guys!” That’s a strategic take- both by me, and apparently by the President, for the same reasons.
My position is: make the case for limiting government, do the vote, get going. It’s a vote the Republicans are going to lose. But the way they are handling this, they are hurting the cause of limited government- not that I really take them to be exemplars of the cause. Far from it. But I see where the real collateral damage is going to happen. How it is managed matters. The President has been quietly passive aggressive. The Republicans loudly so. It will hurt them more.
Beyond that, I like people to not be douchebags, to employ a technical poly sci term. I find the reaction of the Parks police to be corollary to a Massonism I’ve grown fond of over the years, and it goes like this: “We’re not getting ours, so fuck you”.
I heard on NPR that much like the government does everything, bureacratic processes spent much time delineating “essential services” from “non-essential services.” There were likely political choices underlying the delineation, but I would give the Federal Government more credit for making reasoned choices.
As the Dog has employed his Massonism corollary, I will employ a Briganteism, “No one is in favor of government waste unless the government is wasting it on them. ” Or I have a vital need for services. You want some handout that ties you to government dependancy
I’m having a bit of trouble understanding the term “government dependency”.
Ever since I first heard the phrase by Hobbes that without government our lives would be “…solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short” I’ve just kind of accepted that we all are dependent on it for our basic survival.
Has that changed, and if so, when?
The polling that has come out suggests that the Republicans are taking a bigger hit on this shut down than the Democrats, and “The Fix” suggests that it’s because the former looks like it’s acting out of political calculation more than the latter.
A Gallup Poll puts GOP favoribiity at 28%, a record low for either party.
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/42615_Gallup_Poll-_GOP_Favorability_Sinks_to_Historic_Low#meLCIH7EMX2gxec0.01
Seems like there are strong parallels between this debt ceiling / government shutdown standoff and the “Blazing Saddles” scene where Cleavon Little holds the gun to his head. But I’m not entirely who is who in the analogy.
I read an interesting analogy for the essential/non-essential split – someone compared the ‘essential’ folks to the anchor watch on a ship in port.
That is, enough crew to keep an eye on the boat, do essential maintenance, and maybe move it across the harbor if needed – but not enough to take it on a sea voyage of any length.
They were seeking to explain the difference between ‘non-essential’ and ‘unneeded’, and it did make me reconsider the distinction.
Todd Rokita: default would help cut government spending.
http://www.news-sentinel.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20131015/NEWS/131019789/1005/HOMEGARDEN
Sure, in the same way cutting off my limbs would help me lose weight.