Having much training in public law and very little in practical politics, I tend to think I must be missing something when people in power do not do what would seem to be obviously in their interest. But Democratic behavior in Congress is so counterproductive that I cannot resist pointing out two lessons they would surely pick up in an introductory course on negotiations.
First, if you want someone to negotiate, negotiation has to promise a better result than what professionals call the "best alternative to a negotiated agreement," or BATNA. Right now, for Congressional Republicans, the alternative to virtually any health care bill that could possibly pass is the status quo. Republicans are happy with the status quo (or at least they realize that alternatives they might like better, such as draconian malpractice caps and the privatization of Medicare, won't happen.) So, why negotiate?
That's why Democrats should do two things. They should say to Republicans, "You want to start over? Fine." But first, the House must adopt the Senate health care reform bill. That would put in play an actual health care reform plan as the actual, real-live, not just imaginary alternative to negotiation. Then, Democratic and Republican negotiators should give themselves a three-month deadline to strike a bipartisan deal that starts over from scratch. If they do, great. If not, at least the Democrats will have accomplished something. Most immediately, they will have changed the momentum for negotiations.
Second, as others have observed, Democrats and Republicans in Senate face what game theorists call a "prisoner's dilemma." Imagine police have two suspects they believe committed a crime. They cannot prove it unless one testifies against the other. The police say to each, "If you testify, you'll only serve a year in jail and the other guy will serve ten. But the deal goes only to the one who caves first." Neither prisoner should want to cave; they should cooperate with each other and maximize their joint welfare. But each knows that, if he alone cooperates with his fellow prisoner, but the other caves in, the non-testifier will be much, much worse off than if he had simply abandoned the other.
I believe the major source of public contempt for Congress -- and contempt may not be too strong a word -- is that Congress seems incapable of doing ANYTHING. If Congress appeared to be tackling actual problems with imperfect, but incrementally helpful solutions, incumbents from both parties would find their approval ratings going up. But maximizing the parties' joint welfare requires cooperation -- the equivalent, in the prisoner's dilemma, of not ratting out. But, unless there's going to be some real promise of give on both sides -- some actual bipartisanship -- each side may think itself better off by posturing for its base. (Here, however, one has to note that the Democrats do not seem good even at posturing.)
Game theorists have shown that there is one superior strategy for overcoming the prisoner's dilemma if you have repeat players. The strategy is called "tit for tat." One side offers cooperation; if the other side cooperates, repeat. If not, retaliate -- and hard. Then, keep doing this strategy over and over. The idea, through a series of repeat encounters, is to show that playing nice always produces good outcomes, and not playing nice always produces harm to the non-cooperating party.
What this means for the Democrats is that, as a consistent strategy, (1) they have to offer something that Republicans want as a means to induce cooperation, and (2) they have to have plausible retaliation strategies if cooperation does not happen.
Of these two lessons, the first is a no-brainer. Unless the Democrats change the GOP's BATNA, they will not negotiate.
The second lesson should work, too -- unless the Republicans actually do not want anything from the Democrats. If the Republicans believe that doing nothing is always the superior strategy, then the Democrats have to think relentlessly about what they can accomplish by themselves. Doing nothing and just blaming the Republicans spells weakness. With a majority in the House and a 59-member caucus in the Senate, if the Democrats cannot enact legislation, voters are unlikely to give them more seats to work with.
A final note to Congressional Democrats: The Republicans in Congress seem to have taken the introductory negotiations course -- probably also the intermediate course -- and gotten A's. You need to enroll and aim for a grade better than "Incomplete."
Follow Peter M. Shane on Twitter: www.twitter.com/petermshane
So, within the last day or two Harry Reid proclaims that his (ours) hands are tied because of the inflexibility of the "RULES OF THE SENATE". Was there never any real nuclear option, or are "our guys" looking for excuses?
Let's face it! The river of buyoff money all comes from the same big business sources for politicians on both the left and the right. Does that mean that Dems are buckeling to Repugs? No! It means that both of them are dipping into the same river of money. Big business pays to play and we all too often lose sight of the fact that Congress really is (at least as long as we allow it to continue to be) really nothing but one big playground.
But for you and I the result is not any different.
THE SECOND AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION.
1.) It is the duty of the House to write the best bill they can. The members of the Progressive Caucus have legitimate reasons for not wanting to adopt the Senate's inferior bill, and I personally don't see giving the Repugs a BATNA they don't like as being a legitimate reason for altering their principled stance. What if the Republicans still elect to obstruct everything? Then the bill passed because it was an undesirable BATNA, not because it was a good bill, and goes into effect, with the net effect being that the ConservaDems and the Repugs have won. I'm saying that providing the Repugs with an undesirable BATNA is not enough reason to pass the Senate bill.
2.) The prisoner's dilemma is not a good analogy for this situation. The Republicans have agreed that it is in their best interest not to co-operate with the Democrats, regardless of what the Democrats do. The progressives have already repeatedly compromised, but the Repugs have yet to take any co-operative action, showing that the "benefits" of co-operation are not attractive to them. The tit-for-tat strategy has already failed.
The Republicans have no intention of negotiating a compromise. That fact has been made unmistakably manifest since this Congress convened, and I see no prospects of it altering.
http://bit.ly/constitnmandate
I changed my mind
I agree with the above statement and don't understand why the democrats don't do this. President Obama has tried bipartisan and republicans are not interested. They continue to block anything president Obama does. Republicans have no intent of changing things and will continue to do this because it seems to be working in their favor and with elections coming up, they will continue the same path. Democrats need to continue forward without republicans and shows republicans if they do not want to participate, they will go on without them. If republicans see they are succeeding without them and are getting things done, they may then decide to join in. Republicans need to see that progress can get done without them and so do the american people that voted democrats in.