…For Now

It’s all well and good to say you won’t negotiate with a man holding a gun. But at the end of the day, he’s still the one with the gun.

National Journal
Michael Hirsh
Add to Briefcase
See more stories about...
Michael Hirsh
Oct. 3, 2013, 4:15 p.m.

As the gov­ern­ment shut down this week, Pres­id­ent Obama ap­peared eager to take the ad­vice of al­lies who were ur­ging him to stand firm and re­fuse ab­so­lutely to ne­go­ti­ate over his sig­na­ture pro­gram, health care. In re­marks in the Rose Garden on Tues­day, he echoed the Demo­crats’ fa­vor­ite meme: The House Re­pub­lic­ans who forced the shut­down by try­ing to delay or de­fund Obama­care were noth­ing more than polit­ic­al ter­ror­ists, and he shouldn’t bar­gain with them as a mat­ter of prin­ciple. The Re­pub­lic­ans, the pres­id­ent said, “don’t get to hold the en­tire gov­ern­ment host­age.” Or as White House ad­viser Dan Pfeif­fer put it on CNN, Obama is not go­ing to ne­go­ti­ate “with people with a bomb strapped to their chest.”

In fact, those are just the sort of people you do ne­go­ti­ate with. You don’t really have any choice, be­cause they’re not re­spond­ing to reas­on and be­cause pre­cious lives are at stake — or, in this case, the vi­ab­il­ity of the en­tire U.S. eco­nomy. The real danger of the stan­doff, after all, has not been the shut­down alone, pain­ful though it’s been for the more than 800,000 gov­ern­ment work­ers already fur­loughed. The big­ger risk was al­ways that there would be so little res­ol­u­tion of the un­der­ly­ing is­sues that, by the time the debt-ceil­ing dead­line ar­rives in a couple of weeks, the coun­try risks an eco­nom­ic dis­aster by de­fault­ing on its debts.

Obama, in a meet­ing with Re­pub­lic­an lead­ers Wed­nes­day, in­dic­ated he wanted both the shut­down and debt-lim­it is­sues re­solved at once and that he wouldn’t ne­go­ti­ate on either. That won’t work. Just as au­thor­it­ies have learned to do in real host­age situ­ations, a lot of hu­mor­ing of the cra­zies is in or­der. True, Obama must be in­spired to hold fast on Obama­care more than on any past spend­ing is­sue; he can­not sur­render on any part of his biggest do­mest­ic achieve­ment. And as the pres­id­ent has poin­ted out many times, Con­gress and, im­pli­citly, the 2012 elect­or­ate have already ap­proved Obama­care, which the Su­preme Court de­clared con­sti­tu­tion­al.

But if the ad­min­is­tra­tion’s ap­proach is to cast the House GOP mem­bers as ideo­lo­gic­al ji­hadists, then per­haps it should ad­opt the same policy it ap­plies to real host­age-takers: Be nice, and make a good show of listen­ing to them. Even when it comes to ter­ror­ists, des­pite a sup­posed policy of nev­er ne­go­ti­at­ing, the gov­ern­ment usu­ally finds a way to bar­gain through back chan­nels.

That is what has been done secretly in host­age ne­go­ti­ations go­ing back to the Ir­a­ni­an seizure of the U.S. Em­bassy in Tehran in 1979 — which ended, re­call, with the dra­mat­ic re­lease of Amer­ic­ans on the day of Ron­ald Re­agan’s in­aug­ur­a­tion, fol­low­ing many months of secret out­reach. In the 2000s, the United States and Great Bri­tain opened ne­go­ti­ations with Libya over the cul­prits be­hind the Pan Am 103 bomb­ings and Muam­mar el-Qad­dafi’s nuc­le­ar-weapons pro­gram. Back then, too, there was a big dif­fer­ence between the “of­fi­cial” story of what the gov­ern­ment was do­ing and what it was ac­tu­ally do­ing. As the Bush ad­min­is­tra­tion liked to tell it, Qad­dafi was scared straight by the U.S. in­va­sion of Ir­aq and promptly gave up his life’s work as an in­ter­na­tion­al ter­ror­ist, re­noun­cing both his weapons of mass de­struc­tion and his ter­ror­ist tac­tics. What really happened, as cor­rob­or­ated by mul­tiple sources, is that Qad­dafi cut a deal in 2003 only after the Brit­ish and Amer­ic­ans quietly as­sured him that Pres­id­ent Bush would settle for “policy change” — that is, giv­ing up his nukes — rather than re­gime change. The Liby­an dic­tat­or may have been scared, but he needed a con­ces­sion too. One of the first agenda items for the U.S. as it tries to con­vene talks with the Taliban is a swap of some kind for Army Sgt. Bowe Ber­g­dahl, who was taken host­age in 2009.

The key for the Obama ad­min­is­tra­tion will be to sep­ar­ate the waver­ing and more ra­tion­al ideo­logues in the House from the true wing nuts — the ones from Bach­mann-land. The pres­id­ent needs to fol­low the ad­vice his badly missed former chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, would no doubt give him: Reach out one by one, find the reas­on­able doubters who are less than cer­tain of the sanc­tity of the ji­had, and help them find a way out of the box they’re in.

Even among the Re­pub­lic­an ji­hadists, there are some for whom cer­tain in­duce­ments to com­prom­ise — such as a re­peal of the med­ic­al-device tax — can be found. One idea that sur­faced this week was to try to get the Re­pub­lic­ans to com­bine the sep­ar­ate votes on the con­tinu­ing res­ol­u­tion on fund­ing and the debt lim­it in­to one, and in re­sponse give them something back. Only that will en­cour­age Speak­er John Boehner to break, at long last, with the tea-party gang that has held him per­son­ally host­age since the elec­tion of 2010. Some House Re­pub­lic­ans are already be­tray­ing cracks in the caucus by seek­ing to hold piece­meal votes on spend­ing, es­pe­cially on vet­er­ans’ af­fairs.

There is still room for talk. It will avail Obama little to simply lament the un­reas­on­able­ness of the far-right “fac­tion” of House Re­pub­lic­ans, or to ap­peal to their sense of polit­ic­al sur­viv­al in the face of na­tion­al polls show­ing they will be dis­pro­por­tion­ately blamed. Many of them just don’t care about gov­ern­ing. Their dis­tricts are of­ten far more safely Re­pub­lic­an than in the past, so they don’t have to worry about re­tri­bu­tion from voters. As they see it, they are on a mis­sion from God.

And so a deal will have to be struck with the oth­ers — the ones who aren’t yet speak­ing in Parseltongue. And to ac­com­plish that, something will have to change hands.

What We're Following See More »
WITH LIVE BLOGGING
Trump Deposition Video Is Online
20 hours ago
STAFF PICKS

The video of Donald Trump's deposition in his case against restaurateur Jeffrey Zakarian is now live. Slate's Jim Newell and Josh Voorhees are live-blogging it while they watch.

Source:
SOUND LEVEL AFFECTED
Debate Commission Admits Issues with Trump’s Mic
21 hours ago
THE LATEST

The Commission on Presidential Debates put out a statement today that gives credence to Donald Trump's claims that he had a bad microphone on Monday night. "Regarding the first debate, there were issues regarding Donald Trump's audio that affected the sound level in the debate hall," read the statement in its entirety.

Source:
TRUMP VS. CHEFS
Trump Deposition Video to Be Released
21 hours ago
THE LATEST

"A video of Donald Trump testifying under oath about his provocative rhetoric about Mexicans and other Latinos is set to go public" as soon as today. "Trump gave the testimony in June at a law office in Washington in connection with one of two lawsuits he filed last year after prominent chefs reacted to the controversy over his remarks by pulling out of plans to open restaurants at his new D.C. hotel. D.C. Superior Court Judge Brian Holeman said in an order issued Thursday evening that fears the testimony might show up in campaign commercials were no basis to keep the public from seeing the video."

Source:
A CANDIDATE TO BE ‘PROUD’ OF
Chicago Tribune Endorses Gary Johnson
1 days ago
THE LATEST

No matter that his recall of foreign leaders leaves something to be desired, Gary Johnson is the choice of the Chicago Tribune's editorial board. The editors argue that Donald Trump couldn't do the job of president, while hitting Hillary Clinton for "her intent to greatly increase federal spending and taxation, and serious questions about honesty and trust." Which leaves them with Johnson. "Every American who casts a vote for him is standing for principles," they write, "and can be proud of that vote. Yes, proud of a candidate in 2016."

NEVER TRUMP
USA Today Weighs in on Presidential Race for First Time Ever
1 days ago
THE DETAILS

"By all means vote, just not for Donald Trump." That's the message from USA Today editors, who are making the first recommendation on a presidential race in the paper's 34-year history. It's not exactly an endorsement; they make clear that the editorial board "does not have a consensus for a Clinton endorsement." But they state flatly that Donald Trump is, by "unanimous consensus of the editorial board, unfit for the presidency."

Source:
×