My knowledge of game theory is cursory at best; however, I believe game theory provides an effective and informative lens through which we might view the current state of politics and the president’s attempts at bi-partisanship. Please forgive my lapses of understanding.
In its most basic, simplistic sense, game theory defines a game as a contest between participants or groups of participants governed by a clearly defined set of rules and acceptable strategies, the end result of which can be defined by a measurable outcome.
The end result may range from a positive sum, in which each participant or group of participants may gain and lose at the same time, or a zero sum, in which one participant or group of participants can win only at the expense of the other.
Of course, children play games all the time. Sports contests are games. And as technology grows and expands, so does the number of available computer and video games. Sometimes human relationships seem to be games. And of course, politics is a game.
These are the rules of politics as I understand them: governmental leaders representing various political ideologies are elected by constituencies most likely informed by similar ideologies and coalesce into coalitions. These coalitions then come to the table with other coalitions holding antithetical views to engage in public conversation and debate around various issues with the majority shaping and controlling the scope of that discourse.
The end result should be positive sum meaning that in the give and take of the game of politics, each side will gain and each side will lose; however, ultimately everybody wins because solid, well-crafted public policy should emerge from honest, rationale debate.
Since about the mid- to late-1960’s, the right has become very adroit at playing the game of politics. Oh, they have played hard and fast with the rules; their actions and assertions have always existed within that ethical gray area and on the very outermost margins of truth, but their strategy has been brilliant nonetheless.
Nixon’s Southern Strategy was brilliantly simplistic, and caught the left by complete surprise. And while President Regan’s ascension was assisted in part by Carter’s ineptitude, the right did a superb job in framing this ineptitude in ways the public could understand.
The first President Bush’s use of Willie Horton bordered on utter deceit, but in the end, it provided the margin of victory that he needed and proved brilliant. And Karl Rove’s mobilization of the right through hot button cultural issues and outright fear tactics was a bit tacky, but it was enough to win the second President Bush successive terms.
But while the right figured out the game and perfected its strategy, that strategy was not based on sound reason and substance, but relied too heavily on legerdemain and subterfuge, and under the weight of crisis, this lack of sound reason and substance and the input of outside interests inimical to the common good became plain, and their house of cards crashed down around them.
For years the right had grown fat and arrogant from winning, but suddenly the parameters of the game changed, and they found themselves on the outside looking in, but instead of regrouping within those parameters, they chose to disregard the rules altogether. And once one side chooses to disregard the rules altogether, the game ceases to be a game as such and descends into bloodsport, an absolute chaotic free for all.
So, to continue the pursuit of bi-partisanship is foolhardy. In order for bi-partisanship to work, both sides must be playing within the parameters of the game. But the right has opted out of the game. The right has gone renegade. And the outcome is no longer a positive sum proposal, but has become zero sum, an all or nothing, win at all cost proposition. Thus, the game has been compromised.
All that remains now is for the president to go ahead and declare the other team as disqualified, and move forward with what he and his team deem as in the best interest of the people.
