Why the Smart Money is Always Wrong

[Leopolds Ghost]

The "Smart Money" school of thought that Democratic Party leaders specialize in can be summed up easily: don't take unnecessary risks, look to the long-term reward. Always take the rational course of action that is in the party's (not necessarily the people's mind you) long-term interests.

What they fail to account for is an ancient paradox of game theory and what-not.

A completely rational actor can always be countered. Always. His or her moves are always predictable by an opposition capable of the same or greater level of strategy. Provided the opposition has the power to counter a rational offense, they will set it up to take advantage of the most likely course of action, and the second most, etc., counting on the Democratic leaders' selfishness.

They can also count on the "Smart Money" not to take rash and seemingly irrational actions such as sacrificing players on the board who do not cooperate, e.g. with a filibuster. It is one thing to say that senators may vote their conscience... it is quite another to say that "no-voting" senators may oppose the leadership if the leadership has chosen to filibuster. That is not a vote of conscience, that is double-dealing that must be dealt with by any social group that wishes to retain cohesion. "Rational, smart, long-term" thinking does not permit the sort of hard-ball required to deal with maintaining group cohesion. The reality is America is lucky the DLC can't control its party leadership, because if they BELIEVED in the notion of taking extraordinary measures (which are by definition not rational or prudent) they would have every right to use them to keep the party in line just as the Republicans have done. They don't really want the Democratic party to survive, though, except as a loyal opposition or perhaps as a secretive vanguard leadership of enlightened business interests presiding over a percieved, perpetual silent majority of working class Republicans, so they have no reason to risk the party's short-term prospects in an effort to enforce a doctrinal disagreement.

Bottom line is, if your enemy is incapable of "irrational" and potentially self-destructive behavior, such as risking everything for the sake of a principle... then your enemy can be easily beaten by a "rational" person who knows that winning is more important than principle.

That's why the "Dem Strategists" of this world keep getting beaten.

More to the point, that is why it's interesting to see folks on DU counseling the abandonment of the filibuster effort when groups like the NAACP are just beginning to chime in on the latest, specific filibuster effort initiated by Kerry et al.

Clearly, the always-rational, always-strategic Vulcans and Autists of the Democratic grassroots will no doubt inform us, the NAACP and other pro-filibuster groups are doing this as a calculated position, knowing the filibuster will fail, to flex their muscles or in hopes of some scraps of reward on future unrelated issues. IOW their messages are completely predictable and should be ignored, or worse yet dismissed as lies, dissimulation, acceptable realpolitik -- which is exactly how we should respond to people who advocate always doing the "rational, strategic" course of action instead of stand or fall on principle.

Honesty always gets short shrift by the "strategists" of the world because their worldview requires them to believe that competent groups and activists like NAACP or people like Kerry do not mean what they say when they urge someone to stand or fall on principle, indeed, should be chastized for their sincerity if it turns out it was not merely a front for some "secret plan" capable of assuring Democratic victory without any risk.