Column | This is our moral moment

Am I a dreamer, if I hope I put out of the twenty -five hour argument of the Democratic Senator Cory Booker? This African-American politician, who once made a shot at the presidency, entered the Senate floor last week at 7 o’clock in the evening, and only stopped talking the next day. It was then 20:05. In the intervening hours he was not allowed to sit, not to the toilet, not leave the room. It was the longest argument that was ever held in the Senate, a record that enforces respect.

But it is not these extraordinary facts that impress. Other politicians also took quite a long time. For example, in 2013, Ted Cruz claimed the floor of the Senate for more than twenty -one hours with an argument that was aimed at accepting Obama’s Affordable care act. But while Cruz wanders and time -covered, for example by aloud a children’s book by Dr. To read Seuss, Booker did not allow himself a moment of relaxation.

Admittedly, I didn’t look for the full twenty -five hours, but in different clips, recorded at different times, Booker did not lose the common thread anywhere. He was well prepared: his team had made Batomappen for him, containing the points he wanted to explain, so that he could always go back to the core of his indictment. Because it was a charge, and one of the most fiery, most sincere feeling I ever heard. He sued the plans to cut back social security in the country, and to combat affordable health care. He complained to the steps that Trump is taking to cancel the Ministry of Education, and he complained to the government that makes the country more dangerous for anyone who is not rich, white, man and straight. He did it with fire in his eyes, and a body full of anger that sometimes seemed to be over, but that held himself up because, as he stated, something was really at stake; “What we have to repent are not the words and violent actions of bad people, But the appalling silence and the lack of action of good people. This is our moral moment. »

The record that Booker broke with his argument was that of Strom Thurmond, who in 1957 held an argument of 24 hours and 18 minutes. Thurmond was a convinced proponent of segregation and turned into his speech against a bill that had to protect the rights of black Americans. It makes you think that the racist Thurmond must have been just as passionate as booker. After all, without a fiery conviction it is impossible to speak for so long. Perhaps, just like Booker, Thurmond sensed that the world was about to have a major change. Thurmonds Speech has had no influence; The bill would be adopted by President Eisenhower soon after. Thurmond lost it from progress, you could think. But what does it mean that the progress, for which has been fighting for years, now seems to be reversed? What does the new speaking record of Cory Book still out against the great violent people in politics?

Don’t know. And I also don’t want to be against an optimist, but I feel something when I hear Booker speak. It reminds me of the Rhetoric in high school lessons, when we were taught that every debate is good, provided you adhere to the rules of the speech. More importantly, it reminds that injustice is always worthwhile to speak out. Even if it seems as if the battle is lost: hold on to reason, and then be the crazy person who calls things, even if everyone has already closed his eyes tired and went to bed.

Karin Amatmoekrim Is a writer and literary. She writes a column every other week at this place.

To share

Mail the editors