Why We Can't Be Friends
From Zanecorpwiki
WIP
2010-02-05
If you listen to Obama's recent talk at the Republican House retreat (audio and video available here), there's a very clear theme from both sides. The President clearly went with an agenda, and though he did a decent job of teeing off the questions that were asked, he consistently used every question to comment on the state of the political culture in America. For their part, the House Republicans did a good job of demonstrating the very thing the President was talking about by using every question as a platform to make an election-style speech.
- this is a speech worth spending time on
- Obama made some big mistakes -- IMO, he needs to become the president and get completely away from being the "first democrat". My dream result would be that he can stop saying, "your side and ours" and start saying, "the Republicans and Democrats". This is both what the country needs right now and it's most credible if he does it while he has the majority. (From a realpolitik standpoint, it's a no brainer as this is a classic prisoner's delima because no matter what the other side does, it improves his own position.) -- More than anything, though, this is what the country needs right now. He was absolutely correct to highlight the political culture as the real problem facing America, and it looks like it's going to fall to him to do something about it. -- It probably would have been better to have this same event with the Democrats first. Even though it might look like Kabuki theater because of the ordering, it would still be best if he followed up with a similar highly visible chastisement of the Democrats for their part now.
The situation reminds me of settlement talks I was once involved in. The talks started with a huge gap between the parties, one side wanting the world, the other acknowledging zero responsibility. I asked the question, "If we don't resolve this here and end up going to court, these talks are sealed, yes?"[notes 1] The answer was yes, so I suggested we make a big move, like 50%. Signal that if the opposition willing to come to any kind of compromise at all, we'd be willing to entertain it.
In other words, really let them know that we didn't have to be in opposition, we were willing to work it out.
Now, if we'd been in a forum where the communication had not been confidential, we would have never made such a big jump as the first move. Without the confidentiality of the negotiations, the other side would have used our initial move against us.
It's this general idea that compromise "makes you look weak" which creates a strong disincentive for compromise.
The fact of the matter is that in most cases--really anything that's not about 100% documented historical facts--there are only 2 stable results: all or nothing, and 50/50. The reason is that no matter the "objective culpability" each side has the ability to force the issue if there's any substantial merit at all.
In other words, the three outcomes depend on the nature of the two positions. If one position is clearly the more substantially correct position, then it wins the day and the other loses. Perhaps with some compromise on minor points or concessions of face to the other side, but I'm talking about observers being able to call a clear winner and loser, even if it was a good game.
That's "all or nothing". One side wins, one side loses. The other case is when both the sides have good points. The point here is that if it's 90/10 or more, then then we're in a win-lose situation. If it's 80/20 or less, then we're going to either get a near 50/50 compromise or deadlock.[notes 2]
If it's compromise, it's got to be 50/50 because regardless of the relative merits, each side can block the other. In a perfectly rational world, you could theoretically create a bespoke solution, but in this world the best you can do is maybe 60/40, and that would be pretty hard.
Deadlock occurs when either side is unwilling to make a significant compromise.
Now, I've listed 3 possible outcomes: all or nothing, 50/50 compromise, and deadlock. Yet earlier I said there were only two stable solutions. The reason is that deadlock is not stable in the long term.
Conclusion: just cut the chase and either ram shit through, rollover, or make a compromise that allows everyone to say they won.
Notes
- ↑ Not a literal quote, just the substance.
- ↑ Marginal cases will migrate to one of the stable scenarios.
