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.
They also want to repeal Obamacare.
The entire GOP, Freedom Caucus included, are energizing the Democrats by basically working to make sure each and every one of Trump's policies fail simply because they want Trump to fail. They're already threatening border wall funding and Gorsuch. Do you think the Freedom Caucus is going to actually fight for the border wall, or are they going to make some noises about it and then support Paul Ryan, McCain, et al., insuring the wall never gets funded? They will keep at it for every one of his policies, and it really doesn't matter what you say or think about it. It's just a fact that these people are NeverTrumpers.
The only thing to do now is to fight them hard, or embarrass them into submission, rule by executive authority, and prepare to primary as many of them as possible.
Why do you read so much into it???
Isn’t there room for anyone, who is a conservative, who campaigned in their own districts on repeal, who believed it would happen, who believes in free market principles, to simply say: “NO, The Ryan Bill is bad and doesn’t meet that my standard.”
What you and everyone else is giving me is hype about “game theory,” or Koch Brothers, or Club for Growth secret money, or future political ambitions, or #NeverTrumpers, blah, blah, blah
It was a well presented article on game theory, but most are too emotionally driven to consider beyond the immediate move and most react with raw emotion. It’s easier than thinking to go into “monkey brain mode”.
Then there is another whole facet where people take what the press writes as truth, especially if it is cast as “bad”. People will inherintly believe a “bad” story. The press being what the press is, are only too willing to push an endless supply of flat-out lies as long as they show Trump in a bad light.
One of the classic psychological moves by a passive aggressive type, and the press is totally passive aggressive if not downright hostile, is to play a game called “Lets you and him fight”. The MSM is using a tactic of attempting to split up the conservative base by continuously pitching stories about infighting among Republicans. Are the stories true? Does it matter? What matters to the press is narrative, not truth.
you get to build the straw man and get to pick the choices then chose what fits your scenario ? beautiful !
and I am talking about your response to me, not your crap analysis.
you are wrong and you still lose.
Nothing to engage.
FreeRegards
- 30 -
I hope this is just a big fight so we can all have make up sex later.
Then engage me, sweetheart. Show me where I’m wrong. Show me the flaws in my hypothesis that Trump is working on systematically implementing his original agenda via Tough but Fair game theory.
Or are you just going to gainsay me with no evidence whatsoever and then proclaim victory while throwing a tantrum?
The answer is of course the second.
Allow me to laugh in your face, nasty little child.
A lot of this talk is about misled Freepers, as well as phony Freepers, picking a hill to die on and convincing others to die on it with them.
I don’t consider Dave Brat a good hill for such purposes.
One of the more interesting and totally irrational parts of US politics is the president making promises about what Congress is going to do.
“They also want to repeal Obamacare.”
Why do you read so much into it???
Isn’t there room for anyone, who is a conservative, who campaigned in their own districts on repeal, who believed it would happen, who believes in free market principles, to simply say: “NO, The Ryan Bill is bad and doesn’t meet that my standard.”
***
I really enjoy game theory and some of Trump’s most common descriptors have been ‘tough but fair.’ To me, it was obvious from the beginning that this was how it was playing out, and the recent HFC conflict just made it more clear... to me at least. But that’s partially because it falls into my passion.
I don’t think that you quite grasped the point I was trying to make.
I never said that the HFC was wrong in opposing Ryancare. I was simply talking about their tactics and the results from them. They got a large victory, but they did so in a way that, according to game theory, would be defined as Nasty. Not ‘bad’ or ‘evil,’ but uncooperative.
A ‘no’ vote that nevertheless bargained in a manner that would be considered Nice according to game theory wouldn’t have set Ryancare up for as large a defeat, but it also wouldn’t have provoked this response.
And according to game theory and Tough but Fair, this is the natural reaction to a faction that acts in that manner.
You may not like it, but it IS consistent.
There IS room for no votes, but I’m not talking ideology; I’m talking tactics. I’m talking about how they played the game.
One of the more interesting and totally irrational parts of US politics is the president making promises about what Congress is going to do.
***
Thus why I brought game theory into it.
If Trump could dictate to Congress then it wouldn’t be game theory; it’d just be King Donald the First.
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.
Yeah, you can tell he has no experience with the Texan mind until he had to run against one and hire others for his cabinet.
Someone needs to tell him to choose his play/fake fightin’ words and taunts a little more carefully, ‘cuz we’re kinda literal down here when it comes to threats.
from what I can see, there are at least 2 Trumps:
1. The EO Trump-who can say that his actions are not conservative in regard to EPA, pipeline, immigrations, etc, etc
2.The legislative Trump-I think he’s having trouble playing/learning this game. He is developing his own strategy, who knows if it will succeed, but the only faith I can have is based upon his EO actions which tell me that he wants to MAGA and that he is no idealogical democrat.
When push comes to shove, and given the piss poor state were in, I can only be thankful every day that Cunton was not elected.
Yes, that’s a very nice view of Trump’s tweet.
In point of fact, what I’m trying to do is show how that tweet is a natural part of Tough but Fair game theory.
Do you have a counter-argument?
When push comes to shove, and given the piss poor state were in, I can only be thankful every day that Cunton was not elected.
_________________________________________
Yep. Even if we are stuck with ObamaCare.
At least we don’t have Hillary as prez.
2.The legislative Trump-I think he’s having trouble playing/learning this game. He is developing his own strategy, who knows if it will succeed, but the only faith I can have is based upon his EO actions which tell me that he wants to MAGA and that he is no idealogical democrat.
***
I imagine it’ll take about six months before Trump feels comfortable enough to be firing on all cylinders legislation-wise. I think that anyone would have a tough time trying to deal with what makes Congress tick, not to mention all the different factions. Especially when it’s getting to the point where many members of Congress are just sock puppets for lobbyist money.
As it is, I do believe that my analysis is consistent with Tough but Fair.
But at the end of the day, it was Trump or Hillary; there were no other choices. Thank you Lord that it turned out to be Trump!
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.