Posted on 03/30/2017 1:13:04 PM PDT by Luircin
I’ve been listening to the angst and fury on FR for the last week or two of how conservatives feel betrayed or angry at the fight between Trump and the HFC.
So I’m hoping to maybe explain what I see happening, especially in terms of game theory and the business world, and perhaps this insight into the tactics of Donald Trump regarding health care will bring about a modicum of peace between the factions on FR.
Part 1: Game Theory
I’d like to start this discussion with a short explanation of game theory. This is pretty simplified, but it’s a good model to start from.
Game theory takes place in an adversarial system. Not adversarial in the sense of enemy, but in the sense that each faction in this ‘game’ has its own goals and pursues those goals. In the business world, the goals are often ‘money’ or ‘profit,’ but we can substitute ‘political capital’ or ‘legislation’ if we care to. But for the sake of this explanation, we’ll call it ‘points.’
Each faction seeks to gain the greatest amount of points for itself via interactions with the other factions. When two factions meet with each other, they have the chance to either act in a cooperative manner or an uncooperative manner. A cooperative manner typically means that faction offers to work together for their goals with honesty and good faith. An uncooperative manner means that the faction pursues its own goals with a single-minded drive, not caring to compromise even a little bit on their goals and being willing to fight and undercut the other factions in order to get to them.
For sake of simplicity, we’ll call cooperative ‘Nice’ and uncooperative ‘Nasty.’ This does not indicate virtue, mind you, but rather a willingness to cooperate with other adversarial factions.
When two factions in this game deal with each other, the choice is to deal in a Nice way or a Nasty way. When one faction deals in a Nasty way and the other faction deals in a Nice way, the Nasty faction basically takes advantage of the Nice faction and gets everything they want. For the sake of this game, we’ll say that they get 5 points, and the Nice faction gets nothing.
When both factions deal in a Nice way, neither faction gets everything that it wants, but both get some of what they want. Both factions, for the sake of this simplified game, get 3 points.
Conversely, when both factions are Nasty, the fighting between each other hurts them both, and both sides only get a little of what they want. Both factions get one point.
How do you get the maximum amount of points when dealing with adversarial factions who are also looking to get the maximum amount of points?
This is a massively simplified game—as I said before—but it’s the basis from which most of modern-day game theory grows. Over time, using this model, one dominant strategy has emerged, known as Tough but Fair, or alternately tit-for-tat or blow-for-blow.
In this strategy, the faction in question starts out as Nice, but then shifts to always following the strategy of the faction it is dealing with. So if a faction is Nasty to them, they then turn Nasty back, but they will continue to cooperate with other factions who are also Nice.
I’ll spare you a play-by-play of how these games tend to go, but the short version is that the factions who play by this strategy, after multiple iterations of the game, have consistently ended up with larger point totals by cooperating with other Nice factions, while factions who are generally Nasty get left behind.
To keep this vanity from being too long, I’ll leave you to research anything more on your own if you feel like it.
Part 2: Politics and the Healthcare Showdown.
This is the point at which we get into a certain amount of speculation about the motives of the various factions in DC. But this is what I think is going on, and the evidence seems to bear out my hypothesis.
The campaign is over and it’s a new game in DC right now. We’ll pretend that this is a fresh board, or a fresh game, with many different factions. The important factions right now are the Trump administration, the Democrats, the Freedom Caucus, and the various other Republicans.
Please note here: Trump and the Freedom Caucus are NOT the same faction. They do NOT have the same goals, and they do NOT have a unified strategy with each other. Many of their goals ARE the same, but they are not the same thing.
Also note: ‘Nice’ does NOT mean a yes-vote. ‘Nasty’ does NOT mean a no-vote. ‘Nice’ means a willingness to engage and cooperate, and to be honest in your dealings.
I repeat: Nice does NOT equal voting for Ryancare. Nasty does NOT mean voting against Ryancare.
The Democrats have already cemented themselves as Nasty; they hate Trump SO much that they refuse to deal with him at all, and they proved it many times over. Trump already tried being Nice and is now being Nasty to them right back. And as we can see, the Democrats are making very little progress towards their goals.
The various factions of moderates, conservatives, and RINOs are also dealing with Trump. They and Trump have VERY different ideas of what should pass; however, they have been mostly dealing with him in a Nice manner, with certain exceptions. (I’m looking at you, McCain.) Now, bear in mind, that is NOT to say that many of them aren’t utterly corrupt and wrong, but rather that they are acting cooperatively… for the time being. They are getting some of what they want, and Trump is getting some of what he wants. In the future, Trump will continue to get some of what he wants out of them as long as they continue to be Nice.
But now we come to the House Freedom Caucus. And in the case of Ryancare, they chose to bargain in a Nasty manner. I repeat, standing on ideology does NOT mean ‘Nasty.’ And ultimately voting no to Ryancare also does NOT mean Nasty. But in this case they were single-minded and in order to achieve their goals, they negotiated in bad faith, moved their own goalposts, changed their demands in mid-negotiation.
The HFC could have still scuttled the bill while acting in a Nice manner, but they decided not to. I will refrain from saying whether it was a good or bad thing that they acted as they did—I personally do not shed a single tear at the failure of Ryancare--but the HFC did act in a manner that was bluntly uncooperative.
And they got what they wanted. Ryancare failed. In this case, they got their 5 points and it was a big victory for them.
But now Tough but Fair kicks in. Remember, Trump’s goal isn’t to get along with the Freedom Caucus; he is his own faction. His goal is to implement as much of his MAGA agenda as possible. And according to Tough but Fair game theory, now he is being Nasty back to the HFC. Twisting arms, calling them out, and so forth.
We may not like it, but it IS consistent with Tough but Fair. Even if the goals of both Trump and the HFC are similar, it doesn't change that they are different and have ultimately different goals. And as long as the HFC is antagonistic, I suspect that Trump will be as well.
Part 3: Now what?
All of us may be aggravated at how Trump seems to be continually cooperating with the moderates and RINOs, but according to Tough but Fair, this is the best way to get the most possible of the MAGA agenda passed. Should they stab Trump in the back, he in turn will turn on them. But for now they are cooperating and getting some of what they want, and in turn Trump is getting some of what he wants.
We know that the RINOs are untrustworthy. We don’t want Trump to trust them; we know that they’ll eventually turn on him. I’m willing to bet that Trump knows that too. But once again, Tough but Fair. Even if you know that they’re untrustworthy, you continue to treat them in a Nice manner until they, by their actions, turn Nasty towards you.
We may be aggravated, but in models AND in the business world, implementing Tough but Fair, even with unsavory factions or even factions that you loathe, has nevertheless turned the greatest profits. Or in this case, the greatest advancement of Trump’s agenda.
In the long term--at least I will bet that this is the case in Trump’s view--it is the best way to Make America Great Again.
Then engage and offer me a counterpoint.
Because from the reports I saw, the HFC never had any intention of making a deal; they kept changing their demands and then when Trump thought he had a deal, it turns out that they changed their minds again.
I’m not making moral judgments on their tactics here, but those WERE their tactics and they never denied it when accused, least as far as I can see!
And they got what they wanted, but they also got the consequences for their decision to use those specific tactics, and if Trump is using TBF strategy, they should have expected it.
I’m trying to be neutral and analyze both Trump and the HFC; I’m not going to knee-jerk against either party or make claims of morality. Maybe blowing their wad in order to scuttle Ryancare in the manner they did was worth it, but it DID bring them into conflict with Trump and his tweets have been perfectly consistent with the TBF strategy.
You want to argue, feel free, but if you don’t have any arguments other than to just gainsay me, why post at all?
Lol... imagine an auto-correct that would switch ‘phallic’ victory for ‘pyhrric’ and nobody noticed.
baloney
The baloney is yours.
There are at least 3 sources who have indicated that the HFC did not negotiate in good faith, and one of those sources was a member of the caucus himself who has subsequently left the group.
Another source was the President of the United States, who said he learned something about "loyalty" as a result of his experience.
Yet another source is an FR member who has close connections in the White House, appears to be very well informed, and is no liar.
The term "moving the goal posts" thus seems apropos, and if that's what occurred, then it was a failure to act in good faith.
I remain optimistic that this impasse will be resolved before too long, and I certainly believe that patriots of good conscience can disagree over whether this legislation should have been passed or not...
Didn’t hear about the FR source. Which one and where?
“Trump is not a conservative.
Neither is Ryan, who was installed by the Freedom Caucus as Speaker.
Best thread I’ve read in ages.
The FR source is LS:
‘I got the impression that the House Freedom Caucus did NOT negotiate in good faith, that they kept moving the goal posts. They were given concessions, then came back for more.’
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3538421/posts?page=19#19
There is no counterpoint to a false and baseless accusation. It’s like trying to prove a negative. In my opinion the caucus examined a bill, falsly purported to be a repeal, to which they had no part in design, and found they could not support it. No negotiation ever took place because the bill never even approached being a repeal. It was a pig in poke. It was a no sale.
The RINOs and Trump campaigned in bad faith because they never intended to repeal Obamacare they just wanted to take it over.
So? That just shows how the HFC is committed to party unity. And look at how that good deed came back to kick them in the butt. They got sabotaged by Ryan.
Yes, he just needs some more legislative experience (or maybe this bill was enough- he’s a fast learner).
Once Ryan wrote the bill in secret without including conservatives in the process failure was pre-ordained.
The OP figures from his tweets that Trump hasn’t realized that yet.
We’ll see.
So in other words, you’ve got nothing to offer but to try to change the subject.
Sorry, but no matter your opinions on the Ryancare bill, it is STILL negotiating in bad faith to pretend to support a bill one day, only to suddenly call back with more demands out of the blue.
Do you have an answer to that?
I doubt it; if you did, you would have posted it already.
Sorry buddy, but the HFC is not as pure as the driven snow like you seem to want to believe. They got what they wanted, but they used underhanded tactics to do it. It’s up to you to decide whether it was worth it.
So your excuse is a baseless accusation of ‘They did it too! TRUMP BAD! TRUMP BAD!’
Doesn’t change negotiations in bad faith that the HFC did.
Knee-jerk defensiveness of your heroes does not a good argument make. You can argue that their tactics were worth it if you want, but you CANNOT change the truth.
And the funny thing is that I wasn’t even attacking the HFC for what they did; I simply pointed out the truth and then pointed out the response that the TBF strategy would have called for.
I’ll give you this, if they negotiated at all, they should not have because this baby (our free market) cannot be divided with the socialist’s Obamacare haircut. Maybe they should have started out with a load-and-clear counter proposal like Mo Brooks’ one sentence repeal or bust!
Perhaps they should have!
I don’t know; I’m not a mind-reader and I don’t know the stories of every person on the Hill. All I can do is look at the behaviors and analyze as best I can.
That was the impression he had after dealing with the Freedom Caucus who sat there in meetings telling him they "agree in principle with repeal and replace," and then brown nosing during subsequent meetings before returning with an ever expanding list of demands.
“They got sabotaged by Ryan.”
Yes. They believed a leopard can change his spots.
NeverTrumper Paul Ryan is sabotaging Trump.
Trump campaigned with a promise to repeal ACA. Ryan trots out a bill that amends ACA with a promise to repeal ACA with another bill in a year or two.
Ryan is a vicious snake.
You’re probably correct.
I’ll bet that Trump knows it too, and is playing along because he believes that it’s a step forward in his ultimate aim—at least his ultimate aim in regards to health care. But I’m willing to bet that he’s well aware that they’re preparing knives to try to stick in his back.
Playing Nice (in regards to game theory) does not necessarily mean being good, it just means cooperation and negotiation. It also doesn’t preclude future treachery. I believe that Trump is willing to use them for as long as they’re useful, but will drop upon them like a sledgehammer if they start playing silly buggers.
Helpful.
For me the question is whether the Leadership started the ‘nasty’ by excluding Freedom Caucus from writing the bill.
Or whether the Freedom Caucus started the ‘nasty’ by refusing to participate in it’s writing.
Whichever it is should change.
***
Could be both. The HFC and the establishment were dealing with each other as much as they were dealing with Trump. Three different factions. Four if you count the petulant Demobrats.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.