Progressive Bargaining Failure: Once More With Feeling

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Sat Mar 20, 2010 at 12:30:51 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

MaryB in the comments to this post:

[Nate Silver] believes (and therefore the "counterparty" could reasonably believe) that the Union negotiators could walk away (or threaten to walk away) from the table without their stakeholders making them pay any price later. They could easily explain to their stakeholders why they were doing this and they would be believed and supported.

He doesn't believe (and therefore he thinks the "counterparty" wouldn't believe) that the progressive caucus could do that. He believes that progressives would be forced by their stakeholders to pay a price (or believed that they would pay a price)if they threatened to walk away. A few points about this:

First,why does he believe this? The progressives are all from safe districts. They can very safely play hardball for progressive values. They aren't going to lose their seats.

Second, the progressives (as you so clearly point out) couldn't lose. Because they were ALWAYS going to get the baseline Medicaid expansion. They would have fought for getting that through reconciliation and they would have won and their stakeholders would have applauded that victory.

Third, (and somewhat less clearly) I think it still comes back to defining who the "counterparty" is. Personally, I can't think of a counterparty in this negotiation (Republicans, Blue Dogs or Obama) who shouldn't have understood points one and two. But Silver seems to think the "counterparty" (undefined) would not understand these points.

I think the problem with the progressives is the same problem that Silver has - they do not have in their minds a clear definition of who the "counterparty" is and they have, therefore, created some imaginary counterparty who they have imbued with superpowers. Or possibly who they have imbued with such stupidity that they think they are unable to read the tealeaves.

If the Progressives had kept their eye on the ball from day one they would have (i)realized that the only counterparties who mattered to THEM in this negotiation were Obama and a few non-progressive Democrats, (ii)Obama and the non-progressive Democrats weren't stupid and would realize the progressives were from safe districts, and (iii) the progressives were always going to be able to claim victory on the baseline progressive goal of expanding Medicaid.

Once you realize that, the only question is how long you string along the non-progressive democrats in the process to get them to the point where THEY can't afford not to pass a bill that they never wanted in the first place. There is always that point. At some point a party who is otherwise lukewarm to the whole idea has so much time and money and effort and emotion invested in the process that THEY can't afford to go back to THEIR stakeholders and explain why they put so much time and money and effort and emotion into a deal that they then killed claiming they never wanted it in the first place. Explaining becomes harder than just getting it done. It always reaches that point. You just have to be patient.

As the unions were.

Great analysis.

Speaking for me only

< Obama's Short List for Justice Stevens' Replacement | Who Obama Bargained With >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Progressive Bargaining Failure: Once More With Feeling | 42 comments (42 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

To put a touch of reality (5.00 / 3) (#29)
by Maryb2004 on Sat Mar 20, 2010 at 03:50:58 PM EST

into the discussion: The stringing along part is hard and recognizing and timing the moment of greatest leverage is even harder. Most people aren't good at it.

It is easy for people like you and me, who get paid to counsel people, to explain the best way to negotiate. But I long ago learned that most clients who are negotiating a deal don't have the stomach for hardball tactics. (They get much more aggressive when a dispute arises and litigation looms.) In 18 years I've only had 3 clients willing to back up their statements that something was a deal-breaker by cutting off negotiation. Two ended up getting the deal done on their terms. One didn't. All were satisfied with the result.

Most people leave things on the table. It's just a fact.

I really don't think the progressive caucus is any worse at negotiating than most average people who haven't spent their lives in hard negotiation.

When it gets right down to it, the real reason the unions are better at it is because they have had a lot of practice.

Both my ex (none / 0) (#30)
by Inspector Gadget on Sat Mar 20, 2010 at 04:29:28 PM EST

and I are able to do the hard negotiating. He does it for a living, and I learned it from him. Our divorce negotiations were interesting to say the least. Civil, but tough.

I'm an easy compromise if the outcome doesn't change for the worse by giving in. It's much like editing compositions to me: you can reword a sentence to make it read smoother and not make the slightest change to the message. People who can keep their eye on the desired outcome don't get derailed by fancy talk during design or negotiations.


And the Blue Dogs? (none / 0) (#31)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 20, 2010 at 04:42:01 PM EST

See why not just take the "woo me" approach if you have no other method?


Not sure what your question is. But I seem (5.00 / 2) (#40)
by Maryb2004 on Sat Mar 20, 2010 at 11:38:09 PM EST

to not have been clear.

Yes there are alternatives to walking away. I'm not defending the progressive caucus. Bad negotiation is bad negotiation. The fact that the world is full of bad negotiators doesn't change that.

But it is always easier to be on the outside, criticizing, than it is to be in the middle of a negotiation. Especially a long negotiation with multiple parties and many moving parts. I think it is always important to keep that in mind.

Personally, I find it helpful to review negotiations and figure out what went right and what went wrong. And when I'm working with a client with whom I'll do future transactions, I find it helpful to review the negotiations with that client. Hopefully we will all learn from experience and do better the next time.

Likewise, I find blog posts evaluating the legislative negotiating process interesting and I am willing to read them if I think that the criticism is constructive. But I find that even the most constructive criticism in blog posts draws out the "yeah they all suck" comment crowd, which I have no interest in.

You didn't ask me if you could turn my comment into a blog post (I would have said no). But since you did and since I happened to catch it in real time I thought I'd point out something I might have included if I'd intended to write a blog post instead of a comment: Negotiating is hard and most people aren't good at it. But anyone who wants to do better the next time better take a good hard look at what mistakes they made this time. And that is the spirit in which I'm offering this criticism.


: Why would you have said "no"? (none / 0) (#41)
by oculus on Sat Mar 20, 2010 at 11:41:05 PM EST

Had to read comment twice to comprehend. (none / 0) (#1)
by oculus on Sat Mar 20, 2010 at 12:50:34 PM EST

Worth the effort. As to last paragraph, are Obama and the Blue Dogs overwhelmed by the GOP/tea party mvt. noise machine?

Yes, required reading. (none / 0) (#2)
by KeysDan on Sat Mar 20, 2010 at 01:02:03 PM EST

It captures the situation and makes sense.


Some of you probably know (none / 0) (#4)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 20, 2010 at 01:07:29 PM EST

MaryB is an attorney who negotiates deals for a living.


Heh (none / 0) (#5)
by gyrfalcon on Sat Mar 20, 2010 at 01:26:42 PM EST

And I bet she rolls her counterparties on behalf of her clients pretty good, too.


Not the kind of person who gets (none / 0) (#22)
by observed on Sat Mar 20, 2010 at 03:05:17 PM EST

elected to Congress as a Democrat, obviously.


: But lawyers are on staff (none / 0) (#36)
by klassicheart on Sat Mar 20, 2010 at 09:20:22 PM EST

through out Congress. I hardly think this is the reason Democrats don't negotiate effectively. It's too easy an explanation.

MaryB for Congress! (none / 0) (#3)
by jbindc on Sat Mar 20, 2010 at 01:04:37 PM EST

Seriously.

McCaskill says she doesn't care if (none / 0) (#7)
by oculus on Sat Mar 20, 2010 at 01:31:12 PM EST

she isn't reelected.


: Funny (5.00 / 2) (#15)
by jbindc on Sat Mar 20, 2010 at 02:16:19 PM EST

Many of us don't care either!

Medicare/Medicaid (none / 0) (#6)
by gyrfalcon on Sat Mar 20, 2010 at 01:28:32 PM EST

BTD, Mary B refers twice to the expansion of Medicare when she obviously means Medicaid. Could you maybe fix that in the post above?

You're right.. (5.00 / 1) (#25)
by Maryb2004 on Sat Mar 20, 2010 at 03:30:53 PM EST

Friday afternoon brain fart.


: I fixed it (none / 0) (#28)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 20, 2010 at 03:50:26 PM EST

based on your comment.

I do not think so (none / 0) (#24)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 20, 2010 at 03:06:50 PM EST

Medicare as the word for public insurance is MaryB's point I think.


the seemingly obvious implication of this point (none / 0) (#8)
by dr anonymous on Sat Mar 20, 2010 at 01:35:19 PM EST

what is called the 'progressive' blogging community, with very very few exceptions, has limited understanding of power in most of their analyses. to put it most charitably.

the baseline assumptions on strategy are from liberal political theory and tradition, and there is a minimum of remotely accurate analysis on who the relevant blocs are in the U.S. social/political economy. but more to the point, the practice isn't engaged in.

this leads to the other point - that a power analysis is Organizing 101, which means that the basic ethos of the progressive blogging community indicates that they haven't been politicised in a way that helps them to understand what power and organising represent - something that's a problem, regardless of what your stance towards various forms of organizing is.

Not really sure what to do about all that...

Yes, perhaps. But the progressive (none / 0) (#9)
by oldpro on Sat Mar 20, 2010 at 01:55:22 PM EST

blogging community is not really the issue, is it? The so-called progressives in congress who have the votes and don't know how to organize themselves for maximum/leverage and achievement are the problem.


No... (5.00 / 1) (#10)
by masslib on Sat Mar 20, 2010 at 02:00:52 PM EST

Those progressives in Congress have a hard time facing the pressure from Obama/Pelosi if there is no one pushing them forward. Here the progressive activists/bloggers are pushing them toward whatever Obama wants.


And why would they (5.00 / 1) (#13)
by oldpro on Sat Mar 20, 2010 at 02:15:00 PM EST

"have a hard time...?" Their seats are safe! Are you saying the progressive activists are wimps unless some unnamed bloggers who don't live in their districts give them a countershove?

Good grief.

Yes...Pelosi can punish them for recalitrance and so can the president but only as individuals (see Kucinich). Do you think Stupak and Kaptur etc. are 'having a hard time' holding to their positions?

Please. And their seats aren't safe.


No, of course not. (5.00 / 1) (#16)
by masslib on Sat Mar 20, 2010 at 02:20:27 PM EST

I don't mean just the unnamed bloggers. I mean the popular blog sites like Daily Kos, and activists, who whip for votes, and their most prevalent whipping has been for this Senate bill to pass. My point is if Obama is not out there leading on public insurance, and is pressuring these guys to support his proposal anyway, and the activists and blogging community is also whipping votes, and making calls and posting blogs telling people to support Obama's proposal, why in the hell are they going to say, nope, we are holding out for the PO? Where in the hell is the counter pressure to the President?


P.S. The 'popular blog sites' (5.00 / 3) (#20)
by oldpro on Sat Mar 20, 2010 at 02:41:34 PM EST

are vastly overrated...mostly by themselves. Numbers of visitors don't equal power except economically.

FYI, most progressives abandoned DK over time as a thorough waste of time and energy. I drop in every few months to see if anything's changed but never comment. And occasionally BTD forces traffic there with a link in his posts.

The 'popular' sites remind me of the 'popular cliques' in high school -- popular with themselves and each other but with no one else!


: I'm not talking about blog hits... (none / 0) (#21)
by masslib on Sat Mar 20, 2010 at 02:51:51 PM EST

They get people to make calls. Think back ten years ago. A bill would come up. The only person that legislature would here from would be his own voters. Now these sites push all sorts of people from all across the country in conjunction with the MoveOns and the OFAs to make calls, write letters, stop in and see these people all over the country. It's noise.
"The 'popular' sites remind me of the 'popular cliques' in high school -- popular with themselves and each other but with no one else!"
If only, but these are the people (kos) getting invited to talk on TV. These people are certainly aligned with whatever the OFA, the DNC and MoveON is advocating, and that message is largely coming from the WH.

The counterpressure was there (none / 0) (#18)
by oldpro on Sat Mar 20, 2010 at 02:34:04 PM EST

early on in the debate but even Krugman has finally capitulated...long after the elected progressives did.


Not enough counter pressure. (none / 0) (#23)
by masslib on Sat Mar 20, 2010 at 03:06:23 PM EST

They lost the debate when they accepted the PO as a substitute for expanding Medicare. As they liked to say, "but the PO was the substitute for single payer". They pre-negotiated with themselves making the PO their only bargaining chip.


Is your timeline accurate? I thought (none / 0) (#26)
by observed on Sat Mar 20, 2010 at 03:32:59 PM EST

expanding Medicare was discussed when the PO started going down the tubes.
I do agree that expanding Medicare looked like the simplest way to go. I bet the polling on that is/was extremely favorable.


: Of course you did... (none / 0) (#38)
by masslib on Sat Mar 20, 2010 at 09:53:51 PM EST

Because expanding Medicare was never allowed on the table. It was "off the table". Put yeah the whole movement behind public insurance is the Medicare for All movement, which the entire progressive caucus endorses and has endorsed for years, but they agreed to not even discuss a Medicare expansion if they could get some sort of public option, so it was never included in the debate. And, any efforts to revive discussion of universal Medicare, Medicare buy-in, Medicare for more, whatever, were discouraged until weeks after the death of the PO.

Some "progressive bloggers." See (none / 0) (#11)
by oculus on Sat Mar 20, 2010 at 02:05:27 PM EST

BTD and Greenwald.


Yes, but.... (none / 0) (#14)
by masslib on Sat Mar 20, 2010 at 02:16:00 PM EST

Greenwald and BTD are more commentators and analysts than progressive activists, while lot's of bloggers work with activists, whip votes, post WH talking points, etc..


Do you really think "progressive (none / 0) (#34)
by oculus on Sat Mar 20, 2010 at 07:36:17 PM EST

bloggers" work with activists and also whip votes? Yes, some do seem to have extraordinary access to White House insiders.


: Uh, yeah... (none / 0) (#39)
by masslib on Sat Mar 20, 2010 at 09:55:25 PM EST

some sites openly do. Some sites are portals for MoveOn, OFA ect., and certainly some sites(Daily Obama) literally post WH talking points to their FPs. Yes, I do.

The irony is that BTD is anything (none / 0) (#27)
by observed on Sat Mar 20, 2010 at 03:33:34 PM EST

but a progressive blogger.


this is a good illustration of my point (5.00 / 1) (#12)
by dr anonymous on Sat Mar 20, 2010 at 02:11:42 PM EST

i'm not being snarky - the fundamental reality is that congresspeople don't have 100% agency - they are constricted by a variety of factors. Most of them are pushing them to be very regressive - progressive social power - whether from labor unions or progressive churches or progressive bloggers - is a minimal check on that.

And it really is minimal right now, in my opinion. But we don't even get into the question of 'degree of power of progressive elements in society in a broader context that has other elements in society like the pharmaceutical industry, factions in the democratic party and their bases, trade unions and their members, factions int he republican party and their bases, etc.' or 'are progressives accountable enough to disempowered people' or any number of other questions that starts with looking at all of society and assessing how much power each grouping has.

It can get complicated from there but my basic point is simple- y0ou HAVE to understand power in terms of freedom to choose your actions not just as something that resides in Congress and the White House and Fox news, but as something that is everywhere, but in very different amounts. And look at the connections.


I agree that the power to choose, (none / 0) (#17)
by oldpro on Sat Mar 20, 2010 at 02:28:03 PM EST

the freedom to choose one's actions resides everywhere and that the connections are important.

For example, I live in a small rural town. Many folks will not take public positions on anything controversial...in fact, most won't and few of us will. We are punished for it...attacked in the newspapers, online comments, etc. which drives many into silence if not shunning! The local radical Rs attack Democratic officeholders relentlessly at public forums, at official meetings, in letters to editors and through local-access television.

There is little or no counteraction although this is a very progressive community and nearly all officeholders (city/county) are Democrats. Getting people to run is now the problem. Most do not have the stomach to take the heat as public targets of such unending venom.

The problem for progressives now is the Democratic Party.


: interesting! (none / 0) (#42)
by dr anonymous on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 08:54:00 AM EST

thanks for all the detail. it's funny that you bring up this scenario because i was just reading this on power analysis in a community. What you're presenting is to me a classic community organizing situation - in which alleged 'leaders' are unresponsive and the culture of the area as a whole needs to be changed through collective action because individual action isn't even possible, let alone whether it works or not.
In short, What i'd suggest as a first step if this isn't happening already is to have a dinner or in some other way start collecting the people who are progressive and interested in seeing change but aren't allowed to speak individually or collectively. not as a one-off thing, but as a first step - and have an idea of what you want to talk about, what issues are important, etc - and make sure that everyone else has an equal say in this. it could be a church meeting or a meeting of union members or going to a bar or even a formal meeting!- they all have different advantages and implications but that's something only someone like you would know.
If you use the article above as a framework for what you're doing, it will give you a sense of where I'm going with this. For example, based on what you've said, it seems like there are at least a few different political forces you've mentioned that influence the dynamics in your community:
'many folks' - little power, individually or collectively, fairly progressive ?
radical republicans -more power, completely reactionary?
local office holders -more power than 'many folks', less power than radical republicans, moderate, inactive?
newspapers (editors?) - some power, politics unknown
websites (comment moderators?)- some power, politics unknown
If you change this so it's correct, it will be a good first step to guide you and your friends in how to change things. YOU know way more than anyone outside your community about what it's like plus add things through research and thinking that aren't there already - for example, how do people become office holders? does the national republican party or any other group fund people? what industries / businesses are most prominent locally and where does their money go? are there any labor unions locally? are there other community institutions like churches or other things or even things that don't have name like 'a culture of helping each other'? etc.
Hope this helps!

Alan Grayson is a fantastic (none / 0) (#37)
by klassicheart on Sat Mar 20, 2010 at 09:27:28 PM EST

lawyer and experienced negotiator. Perhaps the so called progressives are intentionally incompetent negotiators. Or perhaps being competent at negotiating isn't the skill needed to be successful in Congress..as a Democrat.


And the way to counter, (none / 0) (#19)
by MKS on Sat Mar 20, 2010 at 02:40:43 PM EST

or in some situations to accelerate, the emotional investment and momentum that Mary B refers to, is to convince the other side you are irrational and will not budge no matter what--that you are crazy and will in fact cut off your nose to spite your face.....

If I look at the Blue Dogs as the counterparty (none / 0) (#32)
by ruffian on Sat Mar 20, 2010 at 05:26:04 PM EST

is it correct to conclude that they convinced the Progressives that there was never going to be

the point where THEY can't afford not to pass a bill that they never wanted in the first place.

so the Progressives thought it was useless to try to wait them out? If so, when do you all think the point would have been? I can't see it - I think the Blue Dogs just plain do not care if this bill passes. If they are voting for it now, it is in the spirit of going along to get along.

Obama of course is another story, since he wanted some bill passed. But the Progressives weren't willing to take the chance on it failing altogether - Kucinich was pretty eloquent last night on Bill Maher's show. But Obama would not have been able to roll them if he did not have the Blue Dogs and, in an odd way, the Republicans, all aligned against the Progressives. I know the Republicans weren't really in the negotiations, but the talks were not happening in a vacuum.

In my view there are just too view people in the country visibly aligned with the progressives. I said a long time ago that the best way to increase that number is to pass progressive policies and prove that they work. For that reason, maybe passing this bill that half the country thinks is a lot more progressive than it actually is, will be a good thing. If it works for people.

I'd like an honest estimate of what (5.00 / 1) (#33)
by observed on Sat Mar 20, 2010 at 05:52:42 PM EST

insurance rate will be because of this bill.
There's an assumption that when the mandate brings in a new pool of people who are mostly healthy and have lower medical costs, insurance costs will go down on average.
Oh. Really?
That's where regulation matters, because without regulation with teeth, insurance companies will be happy to charge the absolute maximum allowable to people who must buy insurance.
The fact regulation is done at the state level does not seem smart to me.


: See Massachusetts (5.00 / 2) (#35)
by waldenpond on Sat Mar 20, 2010 at 08:00:16 PM EST

See Masschusetts. When they instituted their mandate.. there was a significant cost savings to those in non-group policies, no change in group policies, no change in their cost growth (which was and continues to be higher than the national average.)