President Trump vs. House Freedom Caucus: Politics and Game Theory (vanity)

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.

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.

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.

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.

-- Instead, we have factions with different goals and different tactics, and I believe that this is the way that Trump is pursuing his stated goals. --

Pretty much everybody uses game theory, with varying skill of course, and "luck" and timing are a big part too.

It's unwise to think that Trump always plays the game with that "tough but fair" pattern. "Tough but fair" is not always the best strategy, and risk taking (deviating from the usual pattern) can have great benefit.

And what makes you so sure his stated goals are his actual goals? Voters are part of this game too.

It's too early to tell whre Trump is headed with all this, but obviously, his utterances are flippant, and he is not afraid of trash talking his allies.

For what it's worth, from the GOP platform, section entitled "Great American Families, Education, Healthcare, and Criminal Justice", subsection "•Restoring Patient Control and Preserving Quality in Healthcare":

Any honest agenda for improving healthcare must start with repeal of the dishonestly named Affordable Care Act of 2010: Obamacare.

But what matter? The platform is not like a statement of principles or something.

I’ll respond to this in segments.

________________________________

It’s unwise to think that Trump always plays the game with that “tough but fair” pattern. “Tough but fair” is not always the best strategy, and risk taking (deviating from the usual pattern) can have great benefit.

***

*Shrug* In this case, I’m going way back to the basics. TBF tends to be a dominant strategy, and Trump’s actions have fallen largely into that mold. I could be wrong, but I can only report on what I’ve seen and how it looks.

***

And what makes you so sure his stated goals are his actual goals? Voters are part of this game too.

It’s too early to tell whre Trump is headed with all this, but obviously, his utterances are flippant, and he is not afraid of trash talking his allies.

***

I don’t know if Trump is telling the truth; no one is a mind reader. But his purely executive actions have been, in my opinion, sheer awesome. In executive actions in which Trump has been able to act completely on his own initiative, he has been the most conservative President in the last 30 or so years.

Also, the HFC is not Trump’s ally. They are a faction on their own. They may have convergent goals with Trump and may want to work with him, but they are their own group working towards their own goals, some of which may not be Trump’s goals. And even if they do share the same goals, they still come into conflict on the best way to achieve those goals.

Throw voters into the mix and it suddenly becomes a lot more complicated than I could try to analyze in a 1500-word vanity.

My argument is that Trump and his administration is a separate faction from the HFC, and Trump’s tactics when dealing with them are consistent with the TBF strategy in game theory, at least on a very basic level. We may not LIKE it, but I would argue that it IS consistent.

I’ve always questioned why Trump was keeping Prince Reibus and Lyin Paul Ryan, but I remember people saying it was Trump doing Ju Jitsu or 5D chess saying he was setting themselves up to fail or cross him and then they’d be FIRED bigly! Well so far that hasn’t happened and at least at this point Ryan has played his cards and needs to go, but for Trump to stand with him loyaly either he is a chess master or he is being played like a fiddle by the RINOs like Ryan.

But what matter? The platform is not like a statement of principles or something.

***

I don’t think we quite understand each other.

My argument is that Trump’s goal—repealing Obamacare—was being played out in the process. Also, the reason that he acted as he did could be explained by game theory, specifically by tough but fair.

We only saw a single iteration of the ‘game’ that was being played, and we are in the middle of round 2 right now. It will take dozens if not hundreds of iterations before we reach the final product.

We may not like it, but it IS consistent with TBF.

Trump has been very, very good on nearly every other point, especially when he doesn’t have to deal with Congress. I find it hard to believe that he would so easily break a promise. But when you add Congress to the mix, Trump himself cannot move alone, and neither can the HFC. They HAVE to play the game, and it is a game that cannot be won in a single round.

I'll read your post more carefully in a moment, but Trump is taking a new (and better) tack in recent tweets. He is personalizing it rather than lumping every person in a small faction in the same boat.

Great op-ed from @RepKenBuck. Looks like some in the Freedom Caucus are helping me end #Obamacare.
@realDonaldTrump - 5:17 PM - 30 Mar 2017
If @RepMarkMeadows, @Jim_Jordan and @Raul_Labrador would get on board we would have both great healthcare and massive tax cuts & reform.
@realDonaldTrump - 5:20 PM - 30 Mar 2017
Where are @RepMarkMeadows, @Jim_Jordan and @Raul_Labrador? #RepealANDReplace #Obamacare
@realDonaldTrump - 5:21 PM - 30 Mar 2017

I say "better" because by naming allies, Trump is more clearly aligning himself, staking a position, etc. Like it or not, at least he is clear in position.

There is another angle, and that is that Trump learned early on in his venture to politics, he will lose and gain support. Some people will "drop him." His standing only matters on election day. He can afford to lose old supporters. Most voters are fickle, and most can be bought.

Trump is not a conservative.

This is all anyone needs to know in understanding why Trump continually targets conservatives as the enemy.

Good. They should be targeted.

They've proven themselves to be the enemies of America and Western Civilization itself. But so are the "moderates" but that's another discussion.

Conservatives cave and placate the Left at every opportunity.

They betray America every single time.

They stab you in the back every single time.

They haven't won a major fight with the Left in over 50 years.

Conservatives have been unmasked for the traitors and scoundrels that they are.

Just look to the recent legislation in North Carolina to make nice with the transvestites for the sake of a basketball game.

My argument in response to that is that Ryan and his ilk, despite the fact that we despise them, are still playing Nice in the current game. They may be foot-dragging or arguing, but they are still compromising, and in that compromise, Trump still gets some of his agenda passed. More than if he was blatantly confrontational with them.

We know—and I’m pretty sure Trump knows—that they’re lying weasels, but cooperating with them for now IS consistent with Tough but Fair.

Same with the Freedom Caucus. They were playing Nasty (and again, I’m not making MORAL judgments on them, but rather I’m saying that their tactics fell right into what is typically defined as Nasty according to game theory), and Trump’s response according to TBF is to be Nasty and uncooperative back until they change.

Remember, it’s not a matter of making Ryan and the RINOs get what they deserve; it’s a matter of MAGA. And according to game theory, you usually get the best score and the largest profits if you play some variant on TBF.

My argument is that this is exactly what Trump is doing right now.

-- My argument is that Trump and his administration is a separate faction from the HFC, and Trump's tactics when dealing with them are consistent with the TBF strategy in game theory, at least on a very basic level. We may not LIKE it, but I would argue that it IS consistent. --

I don't disagree with any of that in principle. My point was that your assumptions (e.g, that HFC was dealing in bad faith) aren't necessarily true, and that Trump can and probably does deviate from the pattern that consistently wins most games (e.g., treat an ally in bad faith once in awhile, or as an opening gambit).

I'm way past thinking any politician, Trump included, deserves a presumption of good faith. He is as much of a snake as any of them. Less of a snake than Hillary for sure, but he's still presumed to be a snake. Good guys do not get to that level, ever.

You speak for a lot of people. Not me, of course but lots of Freepers also see conservatives as the enemy.

What a strange place this is.

6 months ago if you told people that conservatives are bad; the GOP-e is good. And that we should be happy with ObamaCare lite - You’d have been zotted in a heartbeat.

Now? Now thinking like yours is prevalent.

I say again - What a strange place this is.

I would argue that Trump is very conservative; all you need to do is look at his executive actions without Congress to see that.

My argument is that in order to achieve his goals, this is the tactic that he is using.

My argument is also that the HFC may or may not have the same goals as Trump, but that their tactics to achieve those goals are fundamentally different than Trump’s tactics.

And by looking at game theory and the strategy known as Tough but Fair, we can understand why Trump is going after the HFC in this manner while still being conservative.

Do you care to engage, or are you going to stick to your I-hate-Trump meme?

6 months ago if you told people that conservatives are bad; the GOP-e is good. And that we should be happy with ObamaCare lite - You’d have been zotted in a heartbeat.

I never said the GOPe is good. I never said we should settle for Obamacare Lite.

I'm saying that Conservatives will never win against the Left. They'll retreat ever time.

A Conservative position today is a Liberal position from 20 years ago.

There is more to right wing politics than Conservatives.

All it will take is a couple instances of landing in hot water and conservatives suddenly, mysteriously not picking up the phone to jolt him back to who’s really paying the rent and spilling the blood for him.

That’s why we non-rich non-NYers have to erupt early and often when alarmed, because our world is really quite alien to him, and he may assume we natives are happy if we’re not chunking any spears.

Do you care to engage, or are you going to stick to your I-hate-Trump meme?

__________________________________________

It looks like you’ve made up your mind about me being engaged. But if you care to see the replies and the input I’ve put into your thread here - you’ll I have considered your POV. As well as others. And have put in more than my two cents worth as well.

Thank you.

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.