Oh great, daylight saving time is back. Did we spring forward or fall back? Why does everything feel gloomier? And will this ever not be such a collective time of confusion? Well, our country can’t agree on much, but abolishing daylight saving is an idea that crosses partisan lines. Nate Lerner and Ajay Bruno have stark differences in political views, but on this Millennial Minute segment, they can shake hands on leaving our country’s time alone. So if people actually agree, why is it so difficult to change the system? Here are the highlights of this debate, mediated by our host David Grasso.
Don’t blame it on the farmers
If people across the aisle can agree to eradicate daylight saving time, why is it still a thing? Well, one of the most common arguments is that our farmers need the time to change. But that’s an urban myth. Lerner says that this is a great example of how progressivism should step in to improve a flaw established years ago. He says this is one of our country’s inefficient problems that could be eliminated with progressive change.
Why is change so difficult?
Daylight saving time has been in place for a century, so is tradition the biggest hurdle? If so, Bruno says that daylight saving is an odd thing to be conservative about. Lerner recognizes a big issue in this instance: Canceling daylight saving time might be more trouble than it’s worth. But he says one of the unfortunate things about the U.S. is that Congress struggles to create monumental change. Change has to start somewhere, but someone has to lead the way. Who could it be? Or will daylight saving time keep its grasp on our sleep schedules for years to come?
For more on the daylight saving debate, check out this article by Grasso.