President Donald Trump demonstrated the ability to navigate complex negotiations when he pushed Israel and Hamas to accept a ceasefire. Getting to that point required a willingness to apply pressure, but also a willingness to listen and understand the impediments to peace. Most importantly, the president was willing to change his initial position, agreeing that the Palestinians had a future in Gaza after initially suggesting they would need to leave.
Success in Gaza doesn’t mean that Trump succeeds at every negotiation, but even in failure, the president has shown a willingness to engage with adversaries. He met Russian President Vladimir Putin in Alaska and expressed his willingness to meet Chinese President Xi Jinping later this month in South Korea. Engaging this way is in keeping with the president’s style and follows meetings during his first term with North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un. His willingness to meet with America’s foreign adversaries stands in contrast to his unwillingness to engage with political rivals at home.
Practically speaking, it doesn’t matter if Democrats are right or wrong to demand concessions before they vote to reopen the government. What matters is their ability to exercise power. In the same way that Israel was forced to acknowledge that its military couldn’t obliterate Hamas, the president should acknowledge that he needs to cut a deal with Democrats. The only other options are to let the shutdown continue indefinitely or change Senate procedures to allow Republicans to reopen government with 51 votes rather than the 60 now required. This option would solve a problem in the short term but sow the seeds of future instability since parties would then be able to undertake significant swings in policy with a simple majority. Just as President Trump could have encouraged Israel to continue its war against Hamas, he could encourage Republicans to change the threshold needed to pass the budget in the Senate. Let’s hope he shows the same wisdom regarding the Senate’s traditions as he showed when pushing Israel to restrain itself in Gaza.
At his one meeting with Democrats about the shutdown in September, the president made fewer concessions to Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries than he was willing to make to secure a ceasefire with Hamas. He also offered less praise to the Democratic leaders than he routinely offers to foreign autocrats. His attitude toward President Putin may be hardening, but Trump has made a habit of praising Russia’s leader and complimenting China’s President Xi. A few kind words about the Democrats might soften their negotiating position and would certainly be good for our country. The president often uses praise to set the stage for negotiations with foreign leaders, and the same technique might pay dividends at home.
President Trump need not be worried about losing face if he agrees to support the health insurance subsidies demanded by Democrats, at least not if he still believes he could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue without losing his supporters. President Trump controls his party and commands loyalty from Republicans in a way Democrats can only dream of. Schumer and Jeffries are worried about losing support from the left wing of the Democratic Party if they don’t continue the shutdown until getting what they demand. That means President Trump is the only person involved with enough political capital to act freely.
Even if the president decides to approach the shutdown negotiations the way he approaches negotiations abroad, Democrats shouldn’t expect to get something for nothing. To make it easier for the president to act they should offer support for one of his priorities as part of a grand bargain to end the shutdown. The policy differences between the president and Democrats make any compromise difficult, but voter identification is a relatively painless way for Democrats to give something meaningful to the president.
Democrats are concerned that requiring identification at polling places will disenfranchise voters, but there’s little data to suggest that voter turnout suffers after adding a requirement to show a government-issued ID.
The belief that requiring ID presents insurmountable obstacles underestimates the capabilities of Americans. If obstacles exist to obtaining identification, whether financial or otherwise, Democrats can address these concerns through legislation Republicans would probably support if it were included in a larger bill about voter ID. Democrats don’t love the idea of requiring voters to show identification at the polls, and Republicans aren’t enamored with the idea of extending health care subsidies. Compromise means neither side gets everything it wants, and both abandon something important for the sake of getting something else of value. By agreeing to voter ID requirements, Democrats might convince the president to support an extension of health care subsidies. This would be a win for Democrats since most voters can obtain ID but might lose their health care without access to subsidies. Republicans would end up extending subsidies that many of them don’t support but also achieve one of their long-standing goals.
President Trump owes Democratic leaders at least the same consideration he shows to foreign autocrats, and he owes the American people a way out of the government shutdown. He’s the only person who can make concessions without hemorrhaging political support because his base is strong and remarkably secure. Offering to support one of the president’s signature policy proposals would be an acknowledgment by Democrats of this political reality. Paying a few compliments and agreeing to extend health care subsidies would be an acknowledgment by the president of the power Democrats retain. If it’s hard to imagine President Trump or congressional Democrats negotiating this way, it’s never too soon for Americans to start looking for leaders who will.
Colin Pascal (colinjpascal@outlook.com) is a retired Army lieutenant colonel and a graduate student in the School of Public Affairs at American University in Washington, D.C. He lives in Annapolis.
