How Democrats Bargain

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Fri Dec 18, 2009 at 10:49:47 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

"One shouldn't agree to deals which don't even exist." -- Atrios

Roger Hickey at TPM's "Pass The Bill" Rally:

Here's my position. In these final days of the health care fight, progressives should work hard to improve the health reform bill in the Senate and in the conference with the (better) House bill. But we should support the passage of the best bill we can get - and then keep fighting for more and better reform.

Great thinking. Let's go to the bargaining table, announce that while we want certain things, we will still do the deal even if we do not get them. So what are the chances you think that Democrats will "improve the health reform bill" when they have said they will pass anything? Yes, the chances are precisely zero. Indeed, the chances of the bill getting worse are 100% because of such a stance.

Speaking for me only

< Health Insurance Premium Assistance Is Not Reform | Mandates As Bargaining Chip >

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.

How Democrats Bargain | 28 comments (28 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

I mean (5.00 / 2) (#3)
by lilburro on Fri Dec 18, 2009 at 11:06:40 AM EST

even the "Obama throws a Hail Mary during conference and we all get a public option" people like Booman had a rosier situation in mind that what we have in reality. In part because Obama has only legitimized the efforts of the Senate in fixing health care. He's given no support to the House - so now that we are going to merge the two bills, the House basically has no leg to stand on. If Obama wanted stuff from the House bill in the main bill, you'd think he would've promoted their version a wee bit more.

: How telling that Obama gave his HCR speech ... (none / 0) (#27)
by Ellie on Fri Dec 18, 2009 at 01:50:55 PM EST

... to Senators behind closed doors, and it was less about health insurance and health care than about being part of history (casting himself as the new FDR, of course) and meeting an arbitrary deadline.

Democratic bargaining (5.00 / 2) (#6)
by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Dec 18, 2009 at 11:14:07 AM EST

This Democratic method of bargaining is absolutely effective, if the goal is to lose the fight.

Brilliant strategy, actually.

I'll post it again because it's so on point: (5.00 / 1) (#9)
by andgarden on Fri Dec 18, 2009 at 11:31:37 AM EST

How to negotiate like a Democrat.

: It's a feature, (5.00 / 1) (#12)
by Anne on Fri Dec 18, 2009 at 11:42:03 AM EST

not a bug.
How sad and pathetic is that?

What I find just mind-boggling (5.00 / 2) (#10)
by Anne on Fri Dec 18, 2009 at 11:39:29 AM EST

is that if you had just awakened from a coma, and didn't know the Democrats had majorities in the Congress and there was a Democrat in the WH, you would think it was the usual Dems-in-the-minority, GOP-in-the-WH scenario, and Dems were struggling to improve a Republican bill, wouldn't you? That what the Dems were dealing with was a Republican bill that had thrown them a few well-gnawed bones, and Dems were trying to decide if they had any leverage to make it better, or were going to have to settle for these rancid leavings, and then have to explain to their constituency that "this was the best they could do."

If I had any doubts about just how bad the Dems were at negotiating, this almost-yearlong exercise has removed all of it; they are officially, in my book, the Worst. Negotiators. Ever.

How sad is it that they are struggling to improve their own bill? Doesn't it just shine a 50,000 watt freakin' klieg light on the obvious: if they're in charge, why didn't it start out as the Best Bill Ever? If they're in charge, why did they start with a marginal bill, allow the GOP and their own conservative bloc to have their way with it, and just now wake up and realize they have to do something to make it better?

They are really this bad, aren't they? And it's going to get worse, isn't it?

Seems like a good time to get snowed in and pretend all's right with the world.

: I also remember when even the mention of (none / 0) (#30)
by suzieg on Fri Dec 18, 2009 at 08:22:35 PM EST

cutting any money out of medicare and social security was sacrilege to democrats!

Trying to pass a gutted bill just to meet an ... (5.00 / 3) (#23)
by Ellie on Fri Dec 18, 2009 at 01:17:06 PM EST

... arbirarily set deadline is one of those clap-harder until the pony shows deals. That's lovely, but look at who else (apart from those seeking improved access and to better and more affordable health care) is at the table:

the insurance industry lobbyists
big pharma
the GOP
religious extremists

I see no one there inclined to refine upwards from a gutted bill.

This doesn't have to be under the Xmas tree.

Just baffling (none / 0) (#1)
by gyrfalcon on Fri Dec 18, 2009 at 11:00:13 AM EST

Even Anthony Weiner was saying essentially the same thing last night. The better labor union leaders must just be banging their heads on their desks when they read/hear this stuff.

Incredibly frustrating (none / 0) (#2)
by dnew on Fri Dec 18, 2009 at 11:04:46 AM EST

Aaaaarrrrgggghhhh. Why do they keep doing this? It's either a complex form of theater or sheer stupidity. And it hurts them not just on this negotiation but on all the others they want(ed) to do. Climate change, financial system reform, jobs -- the left always wants legislation more than the right

i think (none / 0) (#5)
by pitachips on Fri Dec 18, 2009 at 11:13:44 AM EST

we need to come to terms with the fact that even the pundits/bloggers/senators that we THINK support us (public option/medicare buy in etc etc) have been captured ideologically (and financially) by the insurance/drug industry. i really don't see any other explanation for why reasonably intelligent people - people experienced in politics and business - would think that telling your counter party that you will take shyt on a stick will lead to him/her offering you a steak dinner.

: Psssssst (5.00 / 2) (#8)
by cawaltz on Fri Dec 18, 2009 at 11:25:20 AM EST

They think we're STUPID. That's why we keep hearing about how we should all just shut our eyes and think about God and country while getting proverbally screwed by our own representation. After all, they know so much more about what constitutes good and what will advance health care in the long run. We shouldn't bother our puny little non connected heads with details.

I'll never in a million years (none / 0) (#7)
by cawaltz on Fri Dec 18, 2009 at 11:14:34 AM EST

understand why they didn't start out with what they wouldn't except. You'd think they were still the minority party begging for crumbs the way they act.

You've basically hit the crux (none / 0) (#11)
by ai002h on Fri Dec 18, 2009 at 11:40:18 AM EST

of the reason why progressives always lose these battles. This method of negotiating even permeates with progressive stalwarts like Bernie Saunders. They show their cards early by their unwillingness to threaten opposition to the bill. By saying that you're for the bill right away, you immediately weaken your hand against the Ben Nelsons and Joe Liebermans of the world, who claim unequivocal opposition until all their demands are met, and even then, will still refuse to endorse the bill in case they see something else they don't like.

Here's the problem (none / 0) (#13)
by s5 on Fri Dec 18, 2009 at 12:37:27 PM EST

The left wants a healthcare bill. The right does not. And everyone knows this. "If we don't get what we want, we'll KILL THE BILL" is an empty threat because the right will take that deal. We're in a compromised bargaining position before we even get started, and I haven't seen anything that can truly turn this dynamic around.

We're not negotiating with the right now (5.00 / 3) (#16)
by gyrfalcon on Fri Dec 18, 2009 at 12:42:31 PM EST

We're negotiating, or not negotiating, with members of our own party. The GOP is irrelevant to this now.


: Agree and disagree (none / 0) (#19)
by FreakyBeaky on Fri Dec 18, 2009 at 12:55:06 PM EST

Agree the GOP is not relevant, and that we're not negotiating with "the right." However, we are negotiating with "members of our own party," including the President, who are conservatives. Center-right rather than hard right, if you will.

: Well, we are negotiating with the right (none / 0) (#22)
by s5 on Fri Dec 18, 2009 at 01:12:45 PM EST

Ben Nelson is firmly on "the right", and has never shown any desire to pass a bill of any kind. That's why I didn't use party labels.

It isn't just "the left" that wants a (5.00 / 1) (#25)
by Anne on Fri Dec 18, 2009 at 01:30:28 PM EST

healthcare bill - it's the millions of people whom the Democrats claim to want to help via reform, and it doesn't - and shouldn't - matter whether those who need help are left, right, center or any combination of same.

Much of this could have been avoided had the Democrats crafted a good bill from the get-go, instead of starting from mediocre and going downhill from there. They could have started from something other than a submissive position, and not been so eager to have their ears and tummy rubbed by the president and the industry. They could have pushed back against the president, who never wanted a real reform bill.

The dynamic that exists is the one they set up for themselves, and I am hard-pressed to know why we should be expected to (1) go along with it, (2) allow ourselves to be demonized for objecting to it, or (3) give them cover and bail them out.

When all is said and done, we are the ones who will bear the burden of the rank incompetence and naked pandering - and I don't think we should go down without a fight.


beat me to it n/t (none / 0) (#15)
by CST on Fri Dec 18, 2009 at 12:38:15 PM EST

It's still a hollow threat (none / 0) (#28)
by s5 on Fri Dec 18, 2009 at 02:10:41 PM EST

No matter how much liberal Democrats would have postured, everyone would know that they prefer to pass something rather than nothing. That's the reality of it. Liberal Democrats want to help people, even incrementally and poorly, and will take that over helping zero people. So, a threat from the left is not credible and everyone knows it.

The only credible threat would be to threaten to pull a bill that is worse than the status quo. The Lieberman compromise is still better than the status quo, it just completely sucks compared to what we should be able to get with a Democratic president and 60 votes in our caucus. And since it's slightly better than now, any threat to kill the bill is hollow.


: RECONCILIATION (5.00 / 1) (#29)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Dec 18, 2009 at 03:20:07 PM EST

I wish folks would remember that word.

The problem with this is (none / 0) (#14)
by CST on Fri Dec 18, 2009 at 12:37:54 PM EST

the fact that I think conserva dems would be more than happy to see this bill die, and liberal dems really want to pass something.

Knowing that, it's hard to come to the bargaining table with anything.

Not that they've tried very hard.

Reconciliation (5.00 / 2) (#20)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Dec 18, 2009 at 12:57:33 PM EST

That's why you widen the bargaining (none / 0) (#18)
by ruffian on Fri Dec 18, 2009 at 12:54:09 PM EST

to include more than this bill. There is something the conservadems want. A smart Majority Leader and POTUS know what that is, and they promise (not threaten) to withhold it. for example, I would be the liberal Dems don't care much about defense spending in Nebraska. I would hold that hostage to HCR if I were Harry Reid.


: oops 'I would be' should be 'I would bet' (none / 0) (#21)
by ruffian on Fri Dec 18, 2009 at 12:57:46 PM EST

but the point is clear. There is more to bargain with than the provisions of this bill.

'Liberal' Dems or fauxgressives? (none / 0) (#26)
by Ellie on Fri Dec 18, 2009 at 01:38:36 PM EST

Liberals became pretty vocal about the flaws in both the bill itself and the negotiating process (ie, the pallid support from Obama and the WH, and bowing to Lieberman, Snowe, Nelson et al).

Once it became evident that not only was every genuinely progressive measure being stripped out, big industries were being needlessly rewarded on the front end for nothing in return.


I don't think it's about bargaining (none / 0) (#17)
by FreakyBeaky on Fri Dec 18, 2009 at 12:51:30 PM EST

Against a conservative White House, a few conservative Senators, and Senate procedure (i.e., the filibuster), Senate Democrats are in a weak position. They'd have passed a decent bill weeks ago if a mere majority were all they needed, or if they had White House support. They don't. They can sacrifice public-anything and pass abortion restrictions into the bargain, which I am 100% certain is what Obama wants, or they can get nothing. Not much room to negotiate that I can see - and if I were them I'm not sure this is bill the I'd chose to kill to give the President a much-needed slap in the face. In a way I'd like them to do it, but I can see whey they might not.