The Logic of Yea and Nay

The Senate has just shot itself in the foot;  with shrapnel ricocheting onto masses of bystanders.  The move might enter the annals as “Shumer’s Self-mate”.

In the face of such legislative absurdity, the Administration floated the idea of reducing the minimum to pass a Continuing Resolution  from 60%  to a bare majority.    Worth discussing;  but there is a more general logical point behind the whole debate, which seems to have garnered little or no notice in print.

The point is, across the board, the status quo is the default.   As the cock crows, the Senate (to take that as an example, but the point applies to any established body) begins its busy day with various activities.   Everyone shows up for work with teeth brushed and appropriately dressed (men as men, women as women);  there is some sort of opening ceremony (in my primary school, these were Flag Salute and Lord’s Prayer);  a roll-call is taken;  citizens are admitted to the visitors’ balcony; interviews are given to the press;  and so forth.   It would be legitimate to question any one of those activities:  require unisex attire; ban the prayer or the flag salute (some of this has already happened in this venue or that); skip the time-wasting roll-call; exclude spectators (for security, or whatever).  To do that, you introduce a bill, which for passage requires a majority of some weaker or stronger preponderance (say, 60%), depending on the nature of the proposed bill.   What is not required is that,  in order to continue to wear normal clothes, or salute the flag, or what have you, the body must, every morning as the cock crows, pass a brand-new bill (with the required 60%) to continue the status quo.   The burden is on those who would change or disrupt the status quo.

Now, allowing the government to continue putt-putting along, for better or worse, is simply the default, and should be so considered.  It’s the government’s job.   So it is truly not logical that Congress should be obliged to seek a super-majority, simply to keep the government open for business, fulfilling the promises made.    Anyone who would disrupt that scenario, at so fundamental a level, should be obliged to propose doing so, in a measure  -- say, the Government Shutdown Circular Firing-Squad bill -- that itself would require the supermajority.   Instead, the quite radical maneuvre of wrecking the government   is relieved of what should logically be its burden, as though that were the default.

[Update 22 Jan 2018]  The Washington Post today has a good article on the logical/structural parameters of such situations.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2018/01/22/why-other-countries-dont-have-government-shutdowns-2/?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_wv-shutdown-1105am%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.a67ef5b32d8a