Posted on 03/30/2017 1:13:04 PM PDT by Luircin
Ive 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 Im 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
Id like to start this discussion with a short explanation of game theory. This is pretty simplified, but its 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, well 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, well 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, well 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 gameas I said beforebut its 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.
Ill 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, Ill 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 its a new game in DC right now. Well 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. (Im looking at you, McCain.) Now, bear in mind, that is NOT to say that many of them arent 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 didI 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, Trumps goal isnt 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 dont want Trump to trust them; we know that theyll eventually turn on him. Im willing to bet that Trump knows that too. But once again, Tough but Fair. Even if you know that theyre 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 Trumps agenda.
In the long term--at least I will bet that this is the case in Trumps view--it is the best way to Make America Great Again.
I was trying to make a humorous reference to your unfortunate malapropic term: “phallic-victory” but it went right by you. You surely must have meant “pyrric victory”.
But it’s key.
Starting the ‘gaming’ after the bill was written is pointless.
That seems to be how Trump is looking at it, but his shots at the HFC may be of a more general nature.
(Frankly, I just don’t believe he’s that foolish.)
Or, the HFC refused an offer to participate in the original drafting- in which case they were foolish (and ‘nasty’).
It might be fun to imagine what a phallic victory might look like. Dare we ask Laz? I’m sure Trump will have many more phallic victories.
Focusing on HFC is a sideshow. If Ryan produced a bill to repeal ACA the situation would not have occurred. Ryan, and I suspect a significant number of Republicans, do not want to repeal ACA. And they want to remain concealed, so the vote was canceled. Additionally, Ryan’s roll out of the bill was inept. He never wanted to succeed.
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.