Biden and the Republicans: Building a Golden Bridge?
Lessons from the infrastructure negotiations in the White House
A quick word first
Thanks for visiting The Jazz of Negotiation! When you have a chance, check out the About page to see the aim of this publication and how it can help you become a more effective negotiator. Thanks! Mike
Working across the aisle
This spring President Biden has been meeting in the White House with a small group of Republican senators, seeking their support for his ambitious infrastructure plan. (Ambitious, as in an initial price tag of 2.3 trillion dollars.)
The unfolding story has been covered in the press, both print and tv. For details, see Seung Min Kim’s recent piece in the Washington Post: As a negotiator, Biden leaves GOP senators unsure how far he will go.” Beyond these formal meetings, of course, much more is going on behind the scenes.
From this distance, I can’t say who is hungry to do a deal, who is just going through the motions of bipartisanship, or who else may be someplace in between. Even with limited knowledge, though, I think this case illuminates important issues about consensus-building in more commonplace negotiations. Here’s a short sample of questions I’ve been mulling.
1. Why is White House negotiating when it seems to have enough votes?
Lots of reasons:
First, the margin in the Senate is whisker thin. A single defection could kill the infrastructure bill.
Second, the White House knows that what goes around, comes around. It will surely need Republican support for other initiatives. It has to show some give-and-take here if it wants to see reciprocity down the road.
Third, the president needs to demonstrate he can deliver on his promise to work in a bipartisan manner.
There’s long precedent for working across the aisle. Back in the 1960s President Lyndon Johnson, a Democrat, went to great lengths to win Republican support for the Civil Rights Act, coaxing some Republicans, twisting the arms of others. Getting the bill passed was not enough. Johnson had to muster sufficient support to get the policies implemented. These are different times, of course, but the Biden administration similarly needs more than a bare majority to advance its agenda.
Whether a negotiation is in the halls of government, a corporate boardroom, or in a small office, merely winning a vote may not be enough to secure commitment.
2. Who is at the table?
It’s an odd collection. There are six Republican Senators, only one of whom (Shelly Moore Capito) is on the Environment and Public Works Committee through which any infrastructure bill would pass. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell is conspicuously absent, as are Republican moderates like Mitt Romney and Susan Collins who have sometimes bucked their party’s line. There’s Biden, of course, and Vice-President Harris, but no Democrats from the Senate to give a thumbs up or thumbs down to possible packages.
Unless the negotiators at the table are getting back channel instructions from their leaders, these meetings may be exploratory, at best.
3. What issues are on the table?
Much more than money, it turns out, and that’s a good thing. If it were only money, the parties would be locked into a win-lose haggle game, with $1.7 trillion the latest White House proposal about half that from the Republicans, and a huge gap in between. Fortunately, though there are other issues that could allow the parties to do some horse-trading and face-saving.
There’s the matter of timing, for example. In the negotiation session several weeks ago, Missouri Senator Roy Blount floated the possibility of making this an eight-year plan, instead of a five-year deal. It’s not clear at this point if the White House accepted that proposal, but if it does, that might create a win-win of sorts, giving Democrats a number they can trumpet, while reducing annual expenditures significantly for the Republicans.
Another item that might prompt creative trades is working out what should be counted in the package. There seems to be general understanding that the gross number should include not simply be new initiatives, but also include existing packages plus other pending legislation. The devil is in the details, though, about what’s in and what’s out.
On a parallel track, there’s also debate over what constitutes “infrastructure.” Roads and bridges, for sure, public transport, too. But what of broad-band access and public health facilities? There are legitimate differences over the scope of the legislation, but that likewise creates potential wiggle room.
As with any spending bill, there must be many side-bar discussions outside the formal meeting room about where and how the money will be spent. Those conversations will involve other elected and administrative officials, as well as special interest groups. Some of those may be explicit negotiations. Other might be of the wink and a nod variety.
Optics matter. Democrats want an investment of historic proportions. Republicans want something that looks financially prudent.
4. President Biden’s role in the talks
Negotiation between the executive and legislative branches over policy issues is how government works. Sometimes a president may be actively involved. Other times he may stay out of sight, at least publicly.
In this instance, the White House apparently believes having Biden play a central role underscores the importance of this legislation. The reputation he earned as an open-minded dealmaker from his years in the Senate also may be an asset.
The Washington Post article, noted earlier, quotes Republican Senator Capito, as describing Biden as being both courteous and positive in the White House meetings. According to her, he continually nudges both sides toward agreement, saying things like the White House can “consider that” or “look at that” or “I don’t object to that.” In the same spirit, Republican Senator Mike Crapo called Biden “a straight shooter,” adding, “If he gives you his commitment you can count on it.”
Civility is most welcome in these polarized times. If it can facilitate productive conversations, all the better. But being firm on key issues and using one’s clout matters, too. If this current working group does come up with a proposal, Senate Democrats may insist on getting more, leaving the president squeezed in the middle.
Bringing a leader into a negotiation at the outset can be a short term benefit if that jumpstarts the process. But it also forfeits the opportunity for him or her to come in later and close a deal.
5. Can the players get past No?
I’m all for constructive engagement, but I’d be surprised if any agreement that comes out of the current White House talks, then would sail through Congress. I’d be surprised, in fact, if the talks generate anything specific. It may be enough, though, if this process sets the table for success in negotiations that may follow.
To win support from some Republicans in Congress, the White House will have to build a what my friend and colleague Bill Ury calls a “golden bridge” that they can cross over.1 It’s about face-saving. Don’t insist on capitulation, he says. “Help them write their victory speech.”
Agreed. Seems to me that Bill’s advice applies in any negotiation.
HOUSEKEEPING
Just by signing up for Jazz of Negotiation, you’ll get free access to a full article, plus a shorter post, delivered by email 50 weeks a year. Paid subscribers get additional content: Q and A threads, videos, and from time to time, short exercises, with more to come. Please pass the word to friends and colleagues.
Thanks! Mike
I strongly recommend Bill’s classic text, Getting Past No.