[This post was originally published on The Living Room Tumblr.]

I’ve been trying really hard not to argue with People Who Are Wrong On The Internet about this shutdown nonsense – that’s part of the reason for my indefinite Twitter hiatus* – but I just need to get this out of my system.

(And since I rarely get into arguments on Tumblr, this seems a relatively safer venue – as opposed to, say, Facebook – to express my frustration, hopefully without inviting a #DERPNADO.)

I object on principle to the use of phrases like “fiscal impasse” (NYT front page) to describe this indefensible idiocy. If the GOP was demanding budget cuts, and Obama was refusing, that would be a “fiscal impasse.” In that scenario, the two parties would have different fiscal agendas, and would be unable to reconcile them; hence, “fiscal impasse.” But that’s not what’s happening here, because the GOP isn’t demanding budget cuts. This “impasse” isn’t “fiscal” at all. Rather, the GOP is demanding non-budgetary, non-fiscal policy concessions as its ransom – yes, that word is completely accurate and appropriate (let’s say away from “terrorism,” though, liberals) – for allowing the government to keep running. This, despite having lost the last presidential election and failing to win a Senate majority, and consequently lacking the political power to enact its policy agenda via the normal constitutional process for doing so.

(By the way, you’re right, conservatives, that’s it’s not verboten to criticize “the law of the land,” nor to try and repeal it. That’s perfectly fine. What’s unprecedented and absurd, though, is to say we won’t fund the government unless this duly enacted, non-fiscal law is changed.)

Admittedly, I struggle to think of what this should be called, instead of “fiscal impasse.” I was going to say “ideological impasse,” but that’s not really right either, because it’s perfectly possible to agree ideologically with conservatives that Obamacare is awful, and yet still recognize (as everyone necessarily should, because there is no other remotely defensible stance) that pursuing that legitimate ideological belief via this illegitimate legislative tactic cannot be defended. For instance, imagine if the Democrats in Congress in 2007 had refused to fund the government unless President Bush had agreed to a one-year holiday from certain Patriot Act provisions, or a one-year liberalization of his policy on stem-cell research, or a one-year break from Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, or whatever. I might have agreed with those ideological goals, but I certainly would not have agreed with the absurd, undemocratic, indefensible method of perusing them.

(Speaking of which, otherwise-intelligent conservatives who have been hoodwinked by your tribe’s propaganda into supporting this farce: please re-read what I just wrote about hypothetical equivalent Democratic actions, and ponder the precedent that’s being set in your name, with your support. I realize you think Obamacare is really bad. Really, really bad. The death of freedom and the end of America as we know it, etc. I respect the earnestness of your opinion on that, even if I happen to think it’s a wee bit nonsensical to describe a recycled Bob Dole policy in such terms. But regardless, are you so blind as to think you’re the only ones who earnestly believe certain issues are so fundamentally important that extreme measures are justified? LOL. Fools. What happens if the Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade and says the constitution is silent on abortion, so it’s ripe for legislative action, and there’s a Republican president but a Democratic House? “Hey, President Cruz, remember that thing you did with the continuing resolution and Obamacare? Well, guess what, we won’t fund the government unless the Republican Senate and Republican President agree to this CR amendment that legislatively legalizes abortion nationwide.” That’s the future you’re creating. Congratulations. #DOOM)

One does not simply walk into a government shutdown in a quixotic bid to enact one’s policy agenda despite only controlling one-half of one-third of the three branches of government. Not with ten thousand House seats could you do this. It is folly.

I’ve long said that the budget/continuing resolution deadline is the relatively more defensible moment (as opposed to the debt ceiling deadline) to draw “lines in the sand” on the budget, and I stand by that. But that isn’t what’s happening here, folks. What’s happening here is, pardon my French, fucking bullshit. This is a budget fight that has nothing to do with the budget, because again, the GOP isn’t even making “budgetary” or “fiscal” demands! It’s a legislative hostage-staking – there truly is no other way to describe it – driven by blind ideology, partisan propaganda, and a frightening ends-justify-the-means mentality, logic and reason and precedent be damned. And everyone who supports it, including (especially) the many otherwise-intelligent conservatives and libertarians whose opinions I usually respect, should be ashamed of themselves. Also, relatedly, I take back everything nice I ever said about Senator Mike Lee.

There, now I feel better. *exhale*

P.S. You see why I’m on #hiatus? If I were on Twitter right now, every other thing I’d be tweeting about the shutdown would have this same insufferably condescending tone, and I’d be repeatedly pissing off tons of libertarian and conservative followers. I understand that it’s annoying to read things like “there is no other remotely defensible stance.” What else am I supposed to say, though? You guys are just wrong about this. It’s not a debatable issue. You’re 100% wrong. All of the “arguments” being trotted out in defense of the House’s stance are self-evidently risible nonsense. Your position cannot rationally be defended. It’s objectively incorrect. The end.

P.P.S. No, Obamacare didn’t become law via budget reconciliation, thereby making it “budgetary” or “fiscal.” Check your damn history. Obamacare became law by the House passing the Senate bill unamended after Scott Brown was elected. Then, certain budget-related “fixes” were passed via reconciliation. But the law itself, as a whole, isn’t “budgetary.” It has budgetary implications, certainly. So does virtually everything. But in no way, shape or form is “defund Obamacare for a year” or “delay the individual mandate for a year and force Congress into the exchanges” a budgetary or fiscal demand, like demanding X or Y budget cut. It’s a policy demand. There’s a difference.

(If you can’t get past this issue, well, you’re wrong, but fine, change my analogy to the 2007 congressional Democrats demanding that President Bush agree to the repeal of the Bush tax cuts as a condition of funding the government. Marginally less absurd than this, in my view…but still absurd, still something you would have objected to vociferously, still not a precedent we should want to set.)

P.P.P.S. *Yes, the #hiatus is still ongoing. Neither this post nor the Instagram picture violates it. Read the rules! 🙂

P.P.P.P.S. One more thing: James Fallows is right:

[A]ny story that presents the disagreements as a “standoff,” a “showdown,” a “failure of leadership,” a sign of “partisan gridlock,” or any of the other usual terms for political disagreement, represents a failure of journalism and an inability to see or describe what is going on. …

This isn’t “gridlock.” It is a ferocious struggle within one party, between its traditionalists and its radical factions, with results that unfortunately can harm all the rest of us.

Also:

The debt-ceiling vote, of course, is not about future spending decisions. It is about whether to cover expenditures the Congress has already authorized. There is no sane reason for subjecting this to a repeated vote. And there is no precedent for serious threats not to honor federal debt – as opposed to symbolic anti-Administration protest votes, which both parties have cast over the years. Nor for demanding the reversal of major legislation as a condition for routine government operations. 

In case the point is not clear yet: there is no post-Civil War precedent for what the House GOP is doing now. It is radical, and dangerous for the economy and our process of government, and its departure from past political disagreements can’t be buffed away or ignored.