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.
I don’t dislike Trump. I thank God for Trump. If it were not for Trump - we’d be looking at a boozy falling down hag as president.
Nice summary.
To me there’s too much being stated without a clear idea of what the end game positions are...
Trump is a negotiator and in his way moving the ball towards that while keeping all of his options open.
The MSM , Fox include likes to comment as if they know the end.....
I’m very pleased he could be bothered today to specifize his AM attack with this recent tweets. Perhaps our flat-lining on him was immediately apparent. Or perhaps Bannon had to sieze him and shake him.
Good to know his bubble can be pierced. At least for now.
Country’s not lost. Consider the millions of bright minds who would be leading the nation right now if Jarrett/Holder hadn’t specifically excluded them from public service for 8 whole years, or, 50% of the most productive time of their lives.
My mistake; apologies.
Not yet, but it's founding principles are long gone (a substantial part of our jurisprudence was made up out of thin air by SCOTUS - and that is not the only substantial deviation), and with universal suffrage, there is no way to reverse course.
Don't get me wrong. I'm pleased that Trump won. But the fact that Hillary was even a candidate, and the fact that Obama won, twice, is evidence of the ultimate destiny that universal suffrage has in store.
Trump is a patriotic American and no hes not what we would call social conservative. His goals include getting reelected in 2020 where he can be much more aggressive on his goals.
That said the position of the HFC is hard line repeal only. I agree with that but we all know that will fail in DC if not right away then when the DIMS steal their next presidency. That or a court will strike it down.
Trump needs DIM voters for 20 and is actively courting them, see the Flint MI money for example... he has to handle the set ups to impeach him and sabotage him in the meantime. Hence why hes not telling the Judges to go to hell. Also why the push to “Replace” not just repeal.
So do I expect him to be social conservative? Nope not during the first term at least. Hes trying to goad the HFC to the table and hopefully put pressure on the Rino crowd to make the HFC happy enough to sign on.
I would not be surprised if this dance goes on at least 4 times.
Well, by ‘Nasty’ I don’t mean ‘bad’ or ‘evil.’
I probably should have come up with a better term for it, but that’s how I learned it.
What I mean is that the HFC negotiated in a way that was uncooperative. They were unwilling to give or compromise, and when Trump thought that he HAD their votes, they suddenly called up and changed their minds and/or increased their demands.
In game theory—at least how I learned it—those kind of tactics fall into the ‘Nasty’ category. That is, you try ONLY for what YOU want, and you close the door on any chance to cooperate or give and take, and sometimes even lie or negotiate in bad faith.
Sometimes that may be desirable, sometimes not; it’s just a name for how to run a business negotiation—or in this case a caucus negotiation. However, Trump’s reaction to what happened was exactly according to the Tough but Fair strategy; he started using the same tactics back on them.
I believe that Trump and the HFC have the same or at least similar goals. But the way the two groups pursued them led them into conflict, and in game theory and the business world, Trump gave, very broadly, the textbook reaction.
Well said. And Paul Ryan, Lyndsey Graham and John McCain thank you for your support.
They're on your team, not mine.
Thank you!
I’ll try not to let it go to my head, ha ha.
Sounds accurate. Trump is working out a way to negotiate the deal.
Just a little addition to my last reply.
If it were the case of, say, Obozo, ‘Nasty’ would probably be the tactic that we would try all the time, mostly because he would never be anything except towards us. To be ‘Nasty’ would be the correct move there because he’d never be anything different, and to be Nice would just be to get taken advantage of.
So when I say ‘Nasty,’ I don’t mean ‘bad,’ just non-cooperative.
When dealing with lawyers sometimes you need to step on their toes to get their respect.
True that!
lol.. ‘the mating dance of the puffed NY prairie-chicken and the RINO hens.’
Good post, I agree he needs to get busy working the center again, but have a little better aim with that ‘friendly fire.’
Thanks!
I’ll try not to let it go to my head.
Conservatives have been the ones most delighted by Trump's conservative administration. It has been more conservative than Reagan so far. Trump should not be creating division with us and siding with the "moderates" who will stab him in the back if they ever get a chance.
baloney.
I thought Trump assured us there was no problem.
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.