Trust but Verify

Use the 60-vote rule to enforce negotiated compromise and reopen the government.

I hope this cuts through the partisanship and provides some clarity to the shutdown. Our political system since the beginning, and, clearly, I think in the Founders’ mind, was based upon compromise. We all know the basic structure, divided government. Local, State and Federal. Senate, House, Executive and Judicial. Their fear was too much power in the hands of one group or one interest or one person.

Over the course of time, by mutual consent of both political parties, we added an additional “safeguard,” 40 members of the Senate can under all but a few circumstances stop critical bills from passing the Senate. This is not in the Constitution. The Party that has a majority in the Senate can change this at the beginning of a session. Parties keep it because they want it to be in place when they are a minority and then need to block what they consider extremely important legislation. It is one more way, and something of a last resort, to enforce compromise, to force the majority Party to work with the Party that represents an almost equal part of the overall population.

Although people have debated this ever since it was established, it remains part of our American system of government.

At this moment one Party has used this power to block legislation to fund the government, in order to force negotiation over the potential loss of healthcare insurance for a significant part of the population. The other Party has refused to compromise, but says that once the government is funded, they will begin negotiation over healthcare.

Ronald Reagan once famously said “trust but verify.” This advice has become part of American political folklore. Or as President Trump expresses the basic idea, you have to have “card(s)” to stay in the deal-making game.

Once the government is funded the Democrats lose their “card.” They have no way to ensure (verify) the “deal.” They will argue that, if the Republicans are serious about “fixing” this healthcare problem, they either would have done it already, or would agree to do it now. They want to “verify” that a fair compromise is in place before giving up their remaining bargaining chip.

We know the temptation in conflict games to try to make the other blink. Pride, arrogance, avoiding the appearance of weakness—all of the above—keep people from both sides from coming together. Most of these games of “chicken” don’t end well.

Presently, as the Democrats seem dug in, the Republicans are trying another strategy—extortion. Give in, they say or we will harm the interests of your voters. The President claims that some government agencies and programs do more for Democrats than for Republicans, and he threatens to treat them differently from other departments and agencies of the government, cutting back on their personnel. He is also refusing to continue infrastructure expenditures in States that usually vote for Democratic candidates. Still, the Democrats have not backed down.

Keep the government “running on empty” long enough, and many people will suffer, many more people one should say. Eventually, one side or the other will have to “give.” It need not be a public humiliation and a total capitulation. It will be as it should be part of a negotiation. That is what the 60-vote-rule-for-passage requires. That is the American system of government.

Afterwards, the voters will judge which Party in this case acted responsibly and will have an opportunity to vote in coming elections.