What Happens When an Unmovable Object Meets an Unstoppable Force?
I think the answer is something we'll see in Wisconsin, or perhaps, at least what we are seeing now. For various reasons, I don't think there is any give for either side.
On the Governor's side, there are issues of face and precedent. Should he backtrack on his proposals for public-sector unions, his credibility would be shot. No one would take him seriously on any issue. There might be a few voices from the political center praising him for listening to his better angels, for being willing to compromise with the minority party. But these voices would quickly fade. Conservatives would abandon him as a serious champion of fiscal discipline and as someone who will take on the unions. It'd be Scott Walker, meet Arnold Schwarzenegger. Liberals would realize that they never need take his ultimatums seriously, and that they had a pliable cipher in the Governor's office from whom they can always extract concessions, and at the same time, blame for whenever things go badly - the best of both worlds, in effect. And even worse, a horrible precedent would be set: whenever the minority doesn't agree with the majority's agenda, they'd only need re-enact their stunt of bolting the state. Or even just threaten to do so. The minority, in effect, would always have a veto on the majority. And Walker and the GOP, after all, believe that they won the election fair and square - why should they have to give up their own majority power, when it was exercised against them for so many years by previous Democratic-controlled state governments?
The 14 Senators, for their part, are stuck as well. They never really had an endgame in mind when they fled - they just knew that it was the only avenue open to them that would allow them to halt the budget fix bill. So now, on what basis could they return? I heard one interviewed on the radio who insisted that Republicans would need to "consider" amendments they want to offer. When the host pressed him on that, and asked what if the Republicans agreed only to debate the amendments without committing to actually pass them, the Democrat kept to the talking point of "considering" the amendments, more or less confirming that he would only return if the amendments were agreed to in advance by the Republicans. At this point, with the debate so polarized, any Senator who returned would, in essence, be giving up, making their little stunt useless, which is not something any probably can psychologically accept. Even worse, however, would be the fallout from the union and the Democratic Party. Any returning Democrat would immediately be labeled a turncoat, even if he or she voted against the bill. And he or she would probably have to face a well-funded primary challenge in the next election, as well as an end to any financial support from virtually all unions, public and private, as well as the Democratic Party faithful. Returning, in essence, would be political suicide. As with the other scenario, there would probably be Republicans and centrists who'd praise the Senator for coming to his or her senses, for putting the good of the state first, and all that. But it would probably mean that the Democrat in question would have to accept the very, very strong possibility that he or she would not ever be reelected or appointed to any significant office. It would mean at the end of their term, their life in elected politics would be over, and they'd probably even had a hard time getting work as a lobbyist.
So... given those constraints, how is the situation to be resolved? Scott Walker tried to point out that the original justification for fleeing the state that the Senate Democrats provided, among others, was that the debate was happening to too quickly, and that there needed to be more time for a public discussion about the merits of the budget fix and the modification of collective bargaining rules for state employees. Well, Walker offered, isn't that what we've had these last few weeks, as Wisconsin has become top-of-the-fold news across the country? Since none of the Democrats have returned yet, I'm guessing it's fair to assume that none of the 14 found that persuasive. There is a kind of Prisoner's Dilemma in effect here too. If all 14 Democrats returned at the same time, it would blunt any negative reaction from unions and the Democratic Party. But if any single one returned, they'd be doomed.
On the Governor's side, there are issues of face and precedent. Should he backtrack on his proposals for public-sector unions, his credibility would be shot. No one would take him seriously on any issue. There might be a few voices from the political center praising him for listening to his better angels, for being willing to compromise with the minority party. But these voices would quickly fade. Conservatives would abandon him as a serious champion of fiscal discipline and as someone who will take on the unions. It'd be Scott Walker, meet Arnold Schwarzenegger. Liberals would realize that they never need take his ultimatums seriously, and that they had a pliable cipher in the Governor's office from whom they can always extract concessions, and at the same time, blame for whenever things go badly - the best of both worlds, in effect. And even worse, a horrible precedent would be set: whenever the minority doesn't agree with the majority's agenda, they'd only need re-enact their stunt of bolting the state. Or even just threaten to do so. The minority, in effect, would always have a veto on the majority. And Walker and the GOP, after all, believe that they won the election fair and square - why should they have to give up their own majority power, when it was exercised against them for so many years by previous Democratic-controlled state governments?
The 14 Senators, for their part, are stuck as well. They never really had an endgame in mind when they fled - they just knew that it was the only avenue open to them that would allow them to halt the budget fix bill. So now, on what basis could they return? I heard one interviewed on the radio who insisted that Republicans would need to "consider" amendments they want to offer. When the host pressed him on that, and asked what if the Republicans agreed only to debate the amendments without committing to actually pass them, the Democrat kept to the talking point of "considering" the amendments, more or less confirming that he would only return if the amendments were agreed to in advance by the Republicans. At this point, with the debate so polarized, any Senator who returned would, in essence, be giving up, making their little stunt useless, which is not something any probably can psychologically accept. Even worse, however, would be the fallout from the union and the Democratic Party. Any returning Democrat would immediately be labeled a turncoat, even if he or she voted against the bill. And he or she would probably have to face a well-funded primary challenge in the next election, as well as an end to any financial support from virtually all unions, public and private, as well as the Democratic Party faithful. Returning, in essence, would be political suicide. As with the other scenario, there would probably be Republicans and centrists who'd praise the Senator for coming to his or her senses, for putting the good of the state first, and all that. But it would probably mean that the Democrat in question would have to accept the very, very strong possibility that he or she would not ever be reelected or appointed to any significant office. It would mean at the end of their term, their life in elected politics would be over, and they'd probably even had a hard time getting work as a lobbyist.
So... given those constraints, how is the situation to be resolved? Scott Walker tried to point out that the original justification for fleeing the state that the Senate Democrats provided, among others, was that the debate was happening to too quickly, and that there needed to be more time for a public discussion about the merits of the budget fix and the modification of collective bargaining rules for state employees. Well, Walker offered, isn't that what we've had these last few weeks, as Wisconsin has become top-of-the-fold news across the country? Since none of the Democrats have returned yet, I'm guessing it's fair to assume that none of the 14 found that persuasive. There is a kind of Prisoner's Dilemma in effect here too. If all 14 Democrats returned at the same time, it would blunt any negative reaction from unions and the Democratic Party. But if any single one returned, they'd be doomed.