Recently, a Texan politician conducted a filibuster in order to prevent a piece of legislation they considered morally reprehensible from being passed. Lots of attention was paid to it, with supporters lauding their noble efforts even though, ultimately, the legislation or something very similar was destined to pass anyway. Detractors were quick to point out that it was pointless, a waste of time, (because the legislation, or something very like it, was destined to pass). At the end, supporters talked about how at least there’d been discussion, delay, time for people to talk about the issues. There’s talk of the politician being poised to run for, say, a position in the Executive branch.
You think I’m talking about Ted Cruz? No, I meant Wendy Davis.
Look, I think Ted Cruz is a grandstanding jackass and have mad respect for Wendy Davis, but really now, this? This is an article that basically makes a fantastic case for why Ted Cruz deserves respect for what he did even while it’s trying to do the opposite. The fact that he didn’t have widespread support, that the consequences of his success are huge and dramatic, and that he’s taking all the heat for that when he’s got very little chance of actually meeting his goals? Dress that up in packaging that isn’t made of bad policy and narrow thinking, you’ve got a plot I can get behind in a major way. And that’s probably true for you, too.
Doing what he did is also stupid. But, frankly, most heroism is.
Anaea Lay 