DEAL OR OBSTRUCT?

There is a big question among Democrats these days.  Should they in Congress cooperate with the new president if he, in turn, is championing something they want –  federal spending on a large infrastructure program – or should they mimic the Republicans and oppose anything the president attempts to initiate as they did with President Obama?  Deal or obstruct?

          Of course, even if they choose to cooperate, the details of any negotiations are very important.  But before such a strategy would be put in place, more generic questions need to be asked.  With whom should one seek a deal?  What assets would one be willing to give up?  What is a sought-after gain worth to him, her, or them?  What are the time elements of any negotiations and their subsequent consequences?  What third parties are involved and what are their claims, liabilities, assets, and other pertinent interests in any pending deal?

          Most of these questions – and those who deal in this sort of thing could probably think of other queries – while being generic, are concerned with situation specific conditions, but the first one is not.  Negotiations call on participants having trust among them – at least to some level. 

One remembers President Reagan’s famous quip:  “trust, but verify.”  But in most of these cases, verifying happens only after the fact, once the agreement is struck.  For example, the negotiations in North Carolina the other day are a case in point.

          In a one-day special session of the North Carolina Legislature, the Democrats of the state offered to have Charlotte, the state’s biggest city, overturn a city ordinance allowing everyone to use bathrooms in accordance to their gender – how an individual defines him/herself sexually – in return for the Republicans to drop House Bill 2.

House Bill 2 mandates everyone to use the bathroom that anyone’s birth certificate states the person’s sex designation is – a person’s biological designation.  Charlotte dropped its ordinance, but the Republicans, who control both houses of the legislature, did not meet their end of the deal.

So, one can question those lawmakers’ trustworthiness.  Of course, Charlotte can reestablish its ordinance, but one can imagine how the episode damaged the levels of trust among the different political actors in the political arena of North Carolina.  Having to take the time and expense to meet for the one day session will not be soon forgotten.

          Is there a lesson in the North Carolina case?  One can see that it is not only important to know what the other party holds important, but also to know the source of that concern and how, in the priority of concerns, those particular ones are held.  Often, and usually due to representative language that is used to initiate negotiations – made by representatives of one side or the other – the importance of a concern is downplayed.

One needs to be sensitive to this possibility.  It seems to be the case that in North Carolina there is a general sense of betrayal.  In addition to this backtracking on the deal, the legislature just stripped the new incoming, Democratic governor of important appointment decision powers.  The deal breaking is just more salt on the wound.

          Of course, the consequences of this failed deal are that North Carolina is apt to be further punished by national organizations that have been boycotting the state for different functions such as sporting events, business considerations, and entertainment concerts due to its “bathroom” policy.

The fallout from the law, which the General Assembly passed in March, has been impossible to miss. The National Collegiate Athletic Association stripped North Carolina of its right to host seven championship events this academic year. The Atlantic Coast Conference pulled its football championship from Charlotte, and major companies, including PayPal, abandoned or paused plans to expand in the state. Cultural figures like Bruce Springsteen and Ringo Starr canceled concerts, and the United States Department of Justice brought a civil rights lawsuit, which is still pending.[1]

This account indicates why Republicans were motivated to deal; the existing law was costing businesses significant revenues and promises to keep doing so.

          But back to the national scene and the pending question Democrats are asking – should they deal or obstruct? – it is easy to judge that “dealing” is the more patriotic thing to do.  To obstruct is merely a partisan move; it caters to the party’s base and energizes it to support and, when the time arrives, vote.  Given the last voter turnout numbers, this would be a good thing for Democrats. 

          On the other hand, dealing and finding common ground would more likely further the national interest.  But in judging whether the strategy followed is one or the other – deal or obstruct – a person is well-served to remember all that goes into such decisions.

These politicians, the ones who will decide the strategy – are pros at the political game.  They are the ones whom the president-elect promised are fools.  He has stocked his team with pros from the business world, so one will see what will happen.  A prudent sentiment by which to leave this topic would be to point out that trust should be earned, not foolishly bestowed.  This is true even among federated citizens.  

---

[1] Richard Fausset and Alan Blinder, “North Carolina Fails to Repeal Bathroom Law That Prompted Boycotts” The New York Times (December 21, 2016).  Accessed December 23, 2016, http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/21/us/north-carolina-fails-to-repeal-bathroom-law-that-prompted-boycotts.html?_r=0 .