Democrats Should Immediately Co-Opt the Nash Equlibrium

[Jr_Samples]

Recently I watched on C-Span a spokesman from the CATO Institute explain that, Libertarianism is the best political viewpoint, because it is the most scientifically sound viewpoint. He spent about forty minutes saying this.

But to me it was all a bit surreal, because the man was touting outdated scientific ideas. Competition, self-sufficiency, strength in singularity, and so on. And though I smiled at the thought of the man launching into a discussion of the luminiferous aether, it occurred to me that liberalism is backed by modern scientific ideals; specifically, by the Nash Equilibrium (a.k.a. "Risk Management").

(We all know this thing - if you can't recall it, go back and watch A Beautiful Mind again. If you're pressed for time, forward to the bar scene, where the theory hits {Russell Crowe} like a bolt of lightning.)

If Democrats don't find this quickly, they will soon cease to exist.

• I've seen Al Sharpton speak, and I've thought, "here's the man I want debating George Bush."
• I've heard Howard Dean speak, and I've thought, "despite the way I felt thirty minutes ago, this country really isn't going to hell in a hand-basket, after all."
• I've seen Kerry's and Clark's records, and thought, "Man, wouldn't it be great to trump all those FOX News chickenhawks who call the Democrats anti-military?"

And I've seen each of these men decried - by liberals and Democrats - for the very same reasons they've appealed to me.

At first my heart sinks when I see that someone has completely written off a possible (D) candidate simply because he's not the ideal man. "He's great - but he's too liberal for my taste..." "Yeah, but he was a general who killed Serbian civilians," etc. Indeed, to completely disavow a candidate because he's not your candidate is a destructive attitude, because it is based in the erroneous, black & white paradigm of "competition."

Elections are competitions, and although we liberals claim to be above the natural tendency of the human mind to push things into black and white categories, we shot ourselves in the foot in November 2000, because 2.87 million of us placed the election on a canvas built from a 19th century, black-and-white, impermeable definition of "competition."

"My vote is pure, and by gum, Nader is the guy!"

Nash's Equilibrium - in my view - is going to save liberalism from whatever throes it may currently suffer, because - among other things - it proves the world is not black and white. But whereas ideals are permanent, political parties are not.

No matter who becomes the candidate, a Democrat should vote (D), and not succumb to any misconstrued notion that they're "settling" for Lieberman, Clark, or whomever the candidate may be. "Settling" may be a literal casting of your own vote, but if the overall mindset is one of "settling," the motivation for many will be gone, and fewer votes means four more years for King George III.

Democrats should seize the concept of risk management. Co-opt it.

Apply the Nash Equilibrium the life's "big questions," and it is what the agnostics have been saying for years.

Apply the Nash Equilibrium to Talk Radio, and it is the antithesis to "the way things ought to be," and "truth detectors."

"The best result comes from everyone in the group doing what is best for himself AND the group."

[jfxgillis]

1. Intriguing analysis, but--and don't take this personally--

--it's incoherent without even the barest thumbnail.

Nash's theory, I think, is that in a multiple-player non-zero-sum game, the game can reach a true statsis or equilibrium where none of the players can make a move that would improve their position.

The reason why I think you need to explain it is that in Game Theory, elections are by definition zero-sum games. Out of nine candidates, eight will lose the Democratic nomination, one will win. So, in terms of the jockeying for the Democratic nomination, the Nash equilibrium CANNOT apply.

I think what you're trying to say is that, in terms of jockeying for the Democratic nomination as ONE set of moves in a LARGER game involving the general election, the Dem nomination is non-zero-sum.

That is, the Dems will have a nominee, one of seven or eight potential candidates, and they will ALL be better off--winner and loser alike--(therefore, non-zero sum) if Bush loses, therefore, they should not act in certain ways that might increase Bush's chances of winning.

Is that what you're trying to say?

You make a brilliant point, but you need to step-by-step your readers through it, or you lose rhetorical effectiveness.

[Eloriel]

3. Amen. I don't have a clue what he's talking about, and after

all that, don't much care.

I for darned sure am not gonna go rent a movie to try to figure it out.

Brilliant point? Uh, not anyone telling me to just pick any ole D.

Eloriel

[Jr_Samples]

5. Then get ready for another party

Because "not anyone telling me to just pick any ole D" is precisely what threatens the Democratic Party's existence.

Eloriel,

I am truly concerned for the (D) party these days. If you share this concern, I'd hope you'd ditch that conservative-esque sense of foolish pride. If just a relatively small group of liberals share this attitude of yours, then apathy alone will be enough to keep Chimp boy in office until 2008.

Whoever ends up running on the (D) ticket - including (imagine your least favorite) - would stop the idiot fundamentalist clowns like John Ashcroft from turning our country into Big Brother on Steroids.

That should be enough to motivate anyone with half a brain to vote for "any old (D)."

[Jr_Samples]

4. "Competition is a result" = doomed. "Competition is a journey" = NASH's EQ

jfxgillis,

Apathy and stubborn idealism will result in 2000 all over again unless we stop looking at the result of competition as the competition itself.

You've already done this -

"the Nash equilibrium CANNOT apply"

Nash's EQ applies to the Democrats' role in this competitive sport we call "election" - NOT to the results of the competition itself.

The only genuinely ZERO-SUM face of competition is the final score. The gameplan is most certainly NON-ZERO-SUM.

But, at least you understood the thrust of my (sloppy) argument.

[jfxgillis]

6. Funny. That one guy

Trashed me for suggesting the idea was brilliant, then trashed you for the idea.

I'd like to see you develop this idea. The movie angle is great because it gives a pop-cultural general-audience entree into the notion.

Here's a point I'd add one way or the other:

Look. Each of the Dems wants to be President and sincerely believes they are the right candidate for the job. So competition in that sense is inevitable. But as they compete, the Democrats need to acknowledge that anything that diminishes the competition for the nomination (advancing one's own chances) is ultimately self-defeating. It's one thing to say "I'm the best for this reason and that," and quite another thing to say "You are not the best for this reason and that."

[iam]

2. To put it differently

"The rights of an individual amongst individuals".

- John Burgess