We’ve kind of got a lot to lose

Kinder Words – The Mighty Mighty Bosstones

I think I’ve made a variant on this before but I’m too lazy to scour the archives to figure it out. So I’ll just say it again:

It strikes me as strange that liberal folks tend to be in favor of negotiating with enemy regimes. They push grand bargains where both sides give up something in exchange for concessions from the other side. It’s a very liberal form of internationalism, with actors driven by rational interest rather than by implacable, pathological hatred. On the domestic front, however, the same general class of people are deeply skeptical of the value in negotiating with Republicans.

I’m not saying it’s hypocritical or necessarily incoherent. I get that there are differences. But it still seems a little weird. If you’re willing to believe that Saddam Hussein or Khamenei or Kim Jung Il can be dealt with, is it really so difficult to think the same of Boehner?

You saw it in the debates over the budget and forward-looking discussions about the debt ceiling. Commenters argued that the Republicans were taking the American society hostage. Claims of ‘we shouldn’t negotiate with hostage-takers’ rang out. But wouldn’t some of these same people support negotiating with ACTUAL hostage-takers?

And if the appeasement argument is true, where giving in only emboldens Republicans to keep demanding more, then why isn’t the same true of rogue states? Won’t they just pocket concessions and leave America weaker?

Again, I’m not saying this is an impossible problem. There are clear differences, and it’s also surely the case that all-or-nothing approaches in either case would be bad. I personally find myself very much on the side of grand bargains in IR and much more skeptical of them with Republicans. So I include myself as someone who should make more effort to think through these issues.