Matt on appeasement

Link here

In foreign policy, liberals often believe that disputes with foreign actors can and should be settled through negotiation and compromise. That’s because international relations isn’t a zero-sum affair. Conflict is costly to both parties, good relations bring benefits to both parties, so disagreement is generally amenable to compromise. Ideological disagreement isn’t zero-sum either. Neither conservatives nor progressives are wedded to principles that require defense of wasteful Medicare spending. But partisan politics is zero-sum. A “win” for the Democrats is a “loss” for Republicans. And I the predominant thinking in the Republican Party at the moment is that inflicting legislative defeats on Democrats will lead to electoral defeats for Democrats. That makes the GOP hard to bargain with.


Francois' response: First, let me thank Matt for tackling something that's been bothering me. Why do so many liberals preach diplomacy and gentle speech when it comes to Kim Jong Il, but preach scorched earth practices and throwing the word "Nazis" around when it comes to Republicans? The conclusion I drew was that Democrats and liberals especially are more concerned about dealing with their domestic opponents than foreign enemies. Perhaps that was uncharitable, but it was the impression I got. So kudos to Matt for coming up with a more charitable explanation.

Still, it's more complicated than that. Politics is a zero-sum game when it comes to elections. Someone wins, someone loses. But how a particular legislative battle will affect elections isn't really predictable. Democrats think that one of the big reasons for their loss in 1994 was the inability to pass health care reform. Okay, fine. Would Democrats have done better if they had passed a bill the public didn't support? I think they would have done a heck of a lot worse, actually.

I can see quite a few scenarios where Republicans work with Democrats to pass health care reform that would be beneficial to Republicans. I'm sure the more simple-minded among the GOP just want to beat the Democrats and call it a day. But even some hard core right-wingers like Tom Coburn and Jim DeMint have health care plans, and they are not just for show.

Let's say that after Democrats' bills go down to defeat, Republicans say, "Hey, let's do this again, but from a new starting point: the Coburn/Ryan bill". Baucus, Waxman, and all the other relevant committees get back to work and come up with a bill that progressives hate(and vote against), but Republicans generally like, and the public generally supports. The bill, now called Coburn-Kennedy or something, passes. Depending on how the press covers it and how well Republicans do at taking credit for it, it could help Republicans in 2010 to have a bill that was mostly written by Tom Coburn pass.

It's not like Republicans don't want to pass anything. Republicans just recently got two immigration enforcement bills passed, with most Democrats opposed. Republicans passed NAFTA despite Democratic majorities in 1993. Minorities can get things done in Congress, and they can benefit from those successes.

So assuming that the Republicans just don't want to pass anything is very likely mistaken. And this is EXACTLY how diplomacy fails in foreign affairs. Both sides assume the other isn't negotiating in good faith, so no negotiations take place. Democrats, even when the know a foreign dictator won't negotiate in good faith, still call for negotiation. Likewise, even though Democrats think Republicans won't negotiate in good faith, they should negotiate anyway. That's what their core values tell them to do, anyway.