What Democrats Owe Civil Resisters

Liz: I’m sure you’ve heard the term BATNA before: Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement. It’s what you’ll do if you don’t reach an agreement with another party — the option you fall back on if the deal on the table doesn’t happen. Knowing your BATNA tells you when to accept a deal, when to walk away, and how much leverage you actually have in a negotiation.

After Pretti’s killing, what is the Democrats BATNA if/when they play hardball? If they’re going to say no to DHS funding — which I think is correct and support — what do they demand?

Because 48 hours ago, I was at the point where I could live with reforming ICE, which would essentially revert it back to original law enforcement best practices if more aggressive in discretion.

Today though, I just don’t think that’s possible. I don’t think you can remotely justify or defend the culture that has obviously taken root in the group and the criteria has clearly indexed maximally for authoritarianism and loyalty.

So, slogan’s aside, what is the walk away point for Democrats?

Become a member

So I answered this question in a roundabout way with Wednesday’s piece. But let me try again, more succinctly, using the BATNA frame.

The nature of congressional budget negotiations, where there’s collateral pain without an agreement, kinda mucks with the frame, as does the fact that nobody can really strike a deal with Donald Trump—even under color of law—and expect him to honor it.

But I’ll take the question as: what’s the minimum concession Dems should accept before providing their votes to fund DHS, and what should they do if Republicans won’t concede that much?

I would personally consider voting for a DHS appropriations bill if it: prohibited masking of federal agents; eliminated quotas, roving patrols, and Kavanaugh stops, and required federal-state cooperation in criminal investigations of federal abuses. I’d also want Stephen Miller removed from his job.

My BATNA is: Don’t pass the remaining appropriations bills. Ever. Period. Air travel wrecked? Sorry, travelers. Federal emergency response crippled? There’s only one America, and we can’t subject some to federal gang occupation in order to help others recover from floods and earthquakes.

But in either case, I think Democrats need to understand that the main constraint on Trump is political. That means they need to stop pivoting to kitchen-table issues and join the effort to draw attention to his violent abuses. It means governors and mayors need to be willing to order police to protect voters and elections from subversive DHS operations. And they need to be willing to say that now, so that everyone’s on notice.

For negotiating purposes, though, I think Dems’ best tactic is to say what their (unobjectionable, non-negotiable goals are, and then let Republicans come to them with solutions. As I articulated them Wednesday, they should be:

1. Federal withdrawal from Minneapolis.

2. No more Minneapolises.

3. Actionable prohibition on federal personnel subverting elections on the pretext of enforcing immigration law.

Perfectly fine to have specific policies in mind that might accomplish these goals, even to put them on the table for Republicans to pick up. But the right approach, again not taken, is to say: no votes until these conditions are met.

Share Off Message

Syz: I am helping neighbors, connected to organizing at daycare, same at my elementary school, buying local, marched downtown in -10, went to vigils, cried with my children who don’t feel safe,

If we got Chuck Schumer standing outside having Greg Bovino and border patrol pepper spraying him, will that make a difference? Why are no high-profile democrats standing outside with us? Will Stancil is a saint and bringing real coverage to the situation, but why can’t Amy Klobuchar attend a single event? The republican representing Good’s murderer is stepping