A famous story about the Cuban Missile Crisis is that at the height of the crisis the Kennedy Administration received two messages from the Kremlin. The first message suggested an interest in resolving the crisis peacefully, but the second message was strictly belligerent. The Kennedy people deliberately chose to ignore the second message and instead reply to the first. This tactic produced a peaceful resolution of the crisis.
In general, when X and Y are in conflict, if each side believes that the other is not interested in a fair resolution, the conflict can only escalate. A necessary condition for the conflict to be resolved is that X must believe that Y is interested in resolution, and conversely. It is each side’s beliefs about the other side’s strategy that matters. If X thinks that Y’s strategy is to prolong or escalate the conflict, then X will tend to adopt a stance that appears intransigent to Y.
A challenge is to send clear signals that you are interested in resolving the conflict. When you send mixed signals, the other side can easily focus on the negative signals and take the view that you are not interested in peaceful resolution.
For example, an often-suggested formula for resolving the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians is “land for peace.” The problem is that many Israelis are convinced that the Palestinians do not really want peace, and many Palestinians believe that the Israelis do not really want to give up land.
Each side sends mixed signals to each other. For example, Israeli leaders might talk about a two-state solution but at the same time expand Israeli settlements. Palestinian leaders might talk about peace but at the same time try to de-legitimize Israel internationally. In this context, each side tends to dismiss any positive signals from the other side. Believing that the other side does not want a settlement reduces your incentive to send only positive signals. So the process of sending negative signals becomes self-reinforcing.
Now, apply this to the left and to Donald Trump. A reasonable “settlement” would be for the Left to stop fighting the election results and for Mr. Trump not to infringe on the rights of gays, Muslims, and other minorities. Right now, I don’t think that either side is concentrating on sending positive signals.
Many of my friends on the left insist that we cannot wait until something bad happens–we have to denounce Mr. Trump and Mr. Bannon right now. The alternative that I have suggested is that people on the left (and others) should send a positive message of support and solidarity with Muslims and gays anxious to preserve their legal rights. This message would not include any denunciation of the Trump Administration.
Such a message would send a signal that we will not sit idly by while rights are infringed. It would implicitly offer a reasonable settlement of the conflict, and put the onus on Mr. Trump for refusing to settle.
The more aggressive and pre-emptive confrontational approach that many are taking gives Mr. Trump little or no incentive to change his behavior. In effect, people are saying, “We are going to assume that you have no desire to peacefully resolve our conflict, and you can assume the same thing about us.” If your goal is to try to escalate the conflict, then that is exactly the right approach. But if you have more constructive goals in mind, then I suggest thinking carefully about the signals that you choose to send.
No idea how it would play our, but if I were Trump, I’d meet with Merrick Garland and give him a fair shake.
And hmm, however far-fetched this seems, I wonder why I think it is entirely plausible. It must be a dog whistle.
Given the stakes, no way. Maybe if Ginsburg retires, you can make a conciliatory gesture like that, but Scalia’s replacement needs to be someone in the mold of, you know…Scalia (albeit hopefully a little more libertarian).
I know it sounds crazy. Thats why I say it. But this appointment doesn’t have to be a fire-breather. The only reason not to consider it is his fire-breathing base supporters. Merrick Garland is respected, middle of the road, and OLD! And he has already been vetted. Imagine how paradigm shattering Trump making a huge deal out that would be. Heads would explode.
Everybody wants the other side to make the first, second, and (more quietly stated) all further concessions. Which is exactly a confirmation of the blog post’s most problematic hypothesis. In short, nobody is giving Trump and the people who voted for him any reason to pursue moderation; instead, they are continuing to convince people that any trick, no matter how dirty, will be used to undermine democracy and the republic. The only real solution to this problem is to pre-emptively secure the fair outcome of the election by preventing further changes in direction… there lie dragons.
As an aside, the people who would offend the Left are not planning to infringe on anyone’s rights. The existence of certain rights … different question.
If you are on the left, you are still telling yourself that flyover-country hicks elected Trump. If Trump has a successful presidency, that makes those people look better and the left look worse. They can’t afford that and it conflicts with their self-image. So I doubt they are even interested in a constructive outcome.
Goal of left is not to change Trump’s behavior. Its moral preening.
Sanders has already said he will support Trump when their goals align and oppose him when they don’t. Trump won and has majorities, if he can persuade them to follow him, so the left is irrelevant at this point. Demanding they be lapdogs, or that being lapdogs will endear and empower them is ridiculous.
Almost majorities given the Senate rules. They should and I expect will seek common ground and suspect they will find more in Trump than the majority but that will depend more on Trump’s control of the majority.
The majority always sets the agenda. The minority’s role is to receive offers and determine what they can accept and what they must reject. The last eight years and election have demonstrated just how little in common they have. They do have some and it will be up to the majority to find them or to focus on areas where there is none and accomplish little. Those outside of power have little other than encouraging compromise while providing negotiating space but that doesn’t mean anyone in power will listen.
Sanders is some guy. Arnold is trying to help you. Trump can be bargained with. But not if people keep telling themselves he is Hitler.
Or, if there is no common ground to be had, let’s break up now.
This, btw, is a unique situation. You have a non-ideological president who wants to get things done fast. For your sake, you should have along list of offers ready yesterday. Start with Merrick Garland.
Oh, and he cares not about party credit, etc.
The short of this is Democrats should not repeat the mistakes of the Republicans which they probably won’t, they will make ones of their own. Yes, Obama was too sagacious to respond to Hitler calls and Trump may not be, but none of those are in power or making policy. If Trump actually wanted to accomplish anything he would know what and would have made that clear. It will be the majority that will be offering and that can be passed on until Trump enters the negotiation. Only idiots offer what they have no capability of delivering and minorities can’t deliver.
I am not assuming Trump will act as a partisan. I am assuming he does have a preference for what he gets done. Watch for jawboning towards the right but movement towards the center. He may want the center, or he may want all of the votes.
One cannot emphasize too much that Trump’s deliberate riling up the rage and hate of his followers is only one of his serious problems. At least as serious are his massive and unapologetic corruption, and his habit of threatening anyone who criticizes him in any way, and attacking them using any means at his disposal, with zero concern for ethics, and little more for law.
This is what he is. It will not change.
And again, talking about his Nazi followers is NOT to suggest he’s Hitler. He is merely an American Berlusconi with a bunch of Nazi followers.
“Now, apply this to the left and to Donald Trump. A reasonable “settlement” would be for the Left to stop fighting the election results and for Mr. Trump not to infringe on the rights of gays, Muslims, and other minorities.”
Trump is not infringing on the “rights” of gays, Muslims and other minorities. The left has lost the election and Trump will use the intractable left as a foil to draw others who did not support him to his side. He has a real shot with AA voters and Latinos. He has tremendous potential to redirect the country in a more positive direction.
For two years now too many people have been spending too much time to denounce and stop Trump. So far they have failed miserably. Since November 8, Trump has had to choose which groups of those that have been opposing him, he needs to govern, and which ones to ignore or even to continue fighting. I think he has been quite clever in his choices of the three groups.
First, he has been approaching and embracing Republicans that opposed him and that he badly needs to govern. In addition, he has been sending messages to some foreign leaders that he means what he has been saying and that it is in their best interest for them to approach him to negotiate new deals.
Second, he has been ignoring other Republicans and most of the rest of the world because they will never do anything against him, even if they continue repeating the fabrications circulated by his enemies (yes, NYT and most of the media are Trump’s enemies). I live abroad and for the past year and a half I have been reading in local media everything that the NYT has been repeating daily against him.
Third, he has been making clear to his enemies that he will fight them to the end, in particular those lefties that will never stop attacking him. The big difference between Trump and so many other Republican leaders is that he is willing to fight his enemies. Yes, his enemies. And so far he has made no mistake identifying them. Also he has opened lines to Democrats that may be willing to quit the Party’s line.
Since Trump is President and Rs controlled Congress don’t they have to provide the signals here? And considering Trump change policy every week who knows what happens. That is who is setting policy. Personally I think the left should react to these signals not the other way around. That is what the Republicans did in 2009 and look what happened to Congress: Here are the issues:
1) How much will Trump move protectism? Right now it is really public relations focus not real policy.
2) What happens to Obamacare and Medicare? Does Trump let Rs Congress get what they want at risk of losing the Trump base.
3) How aggressive is Trump on foreign policy? He is looking moving against China and filling his cabinet of Iran Hawks but campaigned as more Dovish.
4) I think the trickiest issue for Trump and Republicans is Trump’s consistent involvement of his private sector interest through Ivanka. Right now it sort of twitter joke but it could become similar to the daily drip problems of HRC e-mails. You may not care today but every move by Trump seems to some effect on this businesses. (Remember Ds did not think e-mails. would matter.)
5) I wonder what happens with rate increases do finally happen. Judging by my latest grocery trip inflation actually could happen.
The problem is that many Israelis are convinced that the Palestinians do not really want peace, and many Palestinians believe that the Israelis do not really want to give up land.
Considering this has been going on for almost 50 years, That is why we should all accept that there is only a one state solution and the Palestinians are Israeli citizens.