A Failing Strategy

There's a remarkable similarity between the Obama administration's handling of health care reform and Israeli-West Bank negotiations. In both cases, the Administration laid all its cards on the table, clearly stating ahead of time its minimum requirements for a deal. Then, in the face of a counterpart that 1. considers Obama's minimum desires as the starting point for debate and 2. repeatedly indicates complete disinterest in any actual compromise, the administration weakly issues statements (Israel, Republicans) expressing disappointment with actions that sabotage the negotiations accompanied by unfounded statements of hope that the process can be resurrected.

This is a strategy doomed to failure and one that the PA has also historically embraced. By stating ahead of time that a Palestinian state must at a minimum include a contiguous West Bank and sovereignty over East Jerusalem, both the PA and the Obama administration have given away any leverage they might have over the negotiating process. The Israelis now consider Obama/Abbas' most minimum position as the starting point for negotiations instead of a potential ending point. It would have been much better if Palestinian negotiators started at a position even they knew was unrealistic, because that would set a much higher starting point for negotiations and therefore significantly increase the chance of achieving core principles in the end. Given that the PA and now Obama are doing the opposite, it is no wonder that the Israeli government is attempting to negotiate over a settlement freeze, even though that's the most minimum requirement for the formation of a Palestinian state. It is also no surprise that each consecutive peace proposal has been significantly worse than its predecessor. In this context, the fact that the pro-Palestinian community has already written off the Obama administration is also completely unsurprising.

When it comes to health care, the current picture is similarly bleak. I don't think we're going to end up with anything better than either a weak or trigger induced public option or a bill without the public option passed only as a face-saving measure. Rather than starting from a maximalist position such as Medicare for all, he laid out the very minimum he was willing to accept: basic reforms, a mandate, and a public plan to keep insurance companies honest. But that instantly became the starting point for Republicans, who can't come back to their base with a victory without achieving a compromise at less than Obama's minimum. In other words, Obama's only realistic way to get Republican votes is by taking less than he can minimally accept. When faced with these options, its not surprise that meaningful reform is on the ropes and the democratic base is incrementally souring on the Obama administration and the prospects for saving a country slowly circling the drainpipe.

Let me sum up my point with this question, what would you be more surprised by, Obama getting more or less than his minimal demands on health care reform? The answer is that Obama getting more than he laid out as his bottom line would be a complete and utter shock. The same sadly goes for peace between Israel and the West Bank. So clearly this has been a strategy doomed from the very beginning. Its much smarter to ask for more than you reasonably expect to get, that way when your counterpart starts to negotiate, you actually have something to give away as a compromise. I really hope that the administration learns that lesson, and soon.