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.
Maybe this will calm some tensions? I hope so at least; I don't like the mood of FR lately.
They shouldn’t feel betrayed.
you campaign on repealing O-Care on the first day in 2016. real world: you should put Mo Brooks one sentence bill up for a vote TO REPEAL OBOZO CARE
blah, blah, blah...
bullcrap !
Pres. Trump’s tweet connected the Freedom Caucus with the RATS.
Houdini out of that.
Keep going down that path and put the House and\or Senate in jeopardy in 2018.
I don’t know what game President Trump is playing, but it is a dangerous one.
I worked hard to be rid of the weasel Eric Cantor and to stop the plan to pass Rubio’s amnesty in June of 2014.
They had planned to pass it the day after the primary when we Cantorized our weasel to get the issue off the table to clear the way for Yeb!
If we had not done that, there would be no President Trump.
Anyone threatening to primary Dave Brat becomes my political opponent by their own choosing.
You’ve over analyzed this. Too much blah, blah, blahhhh. I can explain this in 5 simple words.
Trump is not a conservative.
This is all anyone needs to know in understanding why Trump continually targets conservatives as the enemy.
In fact, it was Trump who was betrayed. Freedom Caucus got what they wanted and an open invitation to pretty much come back and discuss and negotiate for whatever they wanted. Instead, they double crossed the President at the last minute on "purity grounds" that they themselves didn't even advance in direct negotiations with the President, thus basically saying that their votes were secured.
The "Freedom Caucus" basically operated as bad faith negotiators, and it is clear from their conduct that their real intention all along was to make sure the bill fails just to hurt the President. Most of these TruCon types are pathological, run by big donors, and have fantasies about running for President in 2020.
Says who? Changed goalposts? Ryan's bill was kept secret for weeks. Moreover, what is negotiation except changing demands?
Perfectly accurate. These are NeverTrumpers. If they weren't NeverTrumpers, then they wouldn't have done everything they could to convince the President they had what they wanted and that the vote was secure, only to turn around and screw him over at the last minute, without even any attempt to go back to the negotiating table.
My take is that Trump is simply trying to position himself in the middle as a PR move.
Schumer keeps publicly lambasting him that he campaigned as a populist but his agenda is far right.
Apparently Trump and the Freedom Caucus are getting along fine behind the scenes.
Also, I take it the Trump team has concluded that Ryan is there to stay. So they have to work with him, even if it means Ryan and the Chamber of Commerce are going to fight him every inch of the way on the wall, restricting immigration, amnesty, H1bs, tariffs, etc. and trying to get tax reduction from Trump quickly without having to give in on other issues.
Ryan winning reelection easily in the last election will prove a costly hit to the interests of the American people.
Did you even read the article?
Or are you just knee-jerking?
I’m putting my money on knee-jerking.
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.
Everytime I try to second guess what Trump is thinking or saying or doing, he ends up being right.
How many times have we listened to that Jack@ss Johan Goldberg rant about Trump Tweeting, only to see that Trump was ahead of everyone.
I’m supporting Trump 100%. I think he’s the only adult in the room. He can’t stand delay, and BS. He wants things done.
Ryan screwed up, IMO, but Trump is not sitting around with the blame game. The senate could make their own changes to the House bill in sync with the FC, then send it back.
IOWs, the final bill could be vastly different fromt he first.
In short, I’m backing Trump. I don’t anyone here knows what they’re talking about.
Everytime I try to second guess what Trump is thinking or saying or doing, he ends up being right.
How many times have we listened to that Jack@ss Johan Goldberg rant about Trump Tweeting, only to see that Trump was ahead of everyone.
I’m supporting Trump 100%. I think he’s the only adult in the room. He can’t stand delay, and BS. He wants things done.
Ryan screwed up, IMO, but Trump is not sitting around with the blame game. The senate could make their own changes to the House bill in sync with the FC, then send it back.
IOWs, the final bill could be vastly different fromt he first.
In short, I’m backing Trump. I don’t anyone here knows what they’re talking about.
u lose.
IMHO the so-called conservatives are something else. They haven't accomplished much in the last 28 years, except to fool us into voting for them. And, when they get to D.C., they become the establishment personified.
I fully expect the game, but DJT presuming to tell we voters who we will or won’t turn out of their seats on his demand over OUR healthcare system is a bit, well, presumptuous.
Not a good demonstration of empathy for those of us crying for representation.
But most "conservatives" ARE the enemy. They want Trump to fail for purely phallic-victory reasons, plus many of them, especially the professional ones, want amnesty, "free trade," and even Obamacare, because they make more money and function better as an opposition party. I realized this when I learned that the Freedom Caucus had basically gotten everything they demanded from Trump, but then at the last minute they sabotaged the vote in a way that could only have one intention: embarrassing the President and making the vote fail. Otherwise, why didn't they go back and demand more stuff during the negotiations? Why did they lead the President to believe their votes were secure? They didn't know what was in the bill until the day before the vote? I don't think so. And even then, why not go directly to the President, which they had an open invitation for, and sort it out?
Ideological Conservatism IS the enemy because, at the end of the day, it is not what any of us were told it is. Most of us are natural "conservatives" in a purely patriotic sense. We have a lot of this ideology integrated into us for purely tribalistic reasons. But the people moving and shaking the conservative movement are not nationalists of any sort. They believe in an utopian economic religion that can only work and function as an opposition party, or a party that has, at best, one or two issues, and none of those issues involve anything America is actually suffering from. Just look at Ted Cruz defending Chinese manufacturing on the debate stage. These people are tone death.
If "conservatism" is to survive, it is going to need a significant overhaul, and it must be substantially nationalistic and guided by common sense. The neurotic people posing as our thought-leaders and politicians are out there right now adopting babies from the third world and learning to speak Chinese.
If you’re to believe Poe and the other reports that came out about the HFC’s tactics, and the lack of contradiction and correction, then yes.
And ‘changing their demands’ means ‘agreeing to vote in one way if these demands are met and then changing your mind AFTER the deal has been struck.’
That is genuine Nasty in terms of game theory. I’m not saying that it’s good or bad, please note. It’s a tactic, nothing more. But it IS the kind of tactic that has a very specific meaning in the business world. And using it marks you.
I don’t like the mood of FR lately.
Me too.
The left never gets critical on itself.
So they beat up Trump and many on our side now too.
I am not saying accept everything that Trump does but for now show support. This is critical time.
Oh worse than when Reagan was in office.
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.