|
Ed. note: This is part two of a three part series I've worked on over the break about understanding the Speaker's race. Part one focused on the problem -- why isn't someone else Speaker yet? Part two focuses on the solution -- how to emerge as a legitimate Speaker candidate. Part three will focus on the goals -- what Democrats should want in a new Speaker candidate. Part Two: How to Emerge as a Legitimate Speaker Candidate In Part One, I explored ideas about what the barriers the Craddick challengers must overcome in order to elect a new Speaker. Quickly, let's revisit those key points to make sure this post makes sense: - Purpose -- Members want to be treated fairly
- Barriers -- Craddick's incumbency gives him strong organizational capacity, which builds his legitimacy
- Individuals -- Craddick is a gatekeeper for power, which prevents Members from moving up
- Group dynamics -- When you can't trust a person, you trust a group
- Rising in the ranks -- Craddick challengers need a megaphone to build organizational capacity
Originally, I wanted to write about how to overcome these barriers, but as Straus lived it out over the last few weeks, current events took much deserved center stage. So instead of looking forward, we'll use this post to look back a little -- then close out the series either Wednesday or Thursday (again, based on how busy current events are) with Part 3. How does one overcome the barriers I've argued exist in order to get elected Speaker of the Texas House? Given that there's a purpose -- legitimate or otherwise -- to replace a Speaker, the biggest obstacle to overcome is building the organizational capacity necessary to develop group dynamics and to exhibit the values of your purpose -- trust, cohesion, shared power -- within your own circle of friends. No (wo)man is an island, and "Anybody But" is still not a valid name for a ballot; the solution, therefore, is to be a uniter (not a divider) with a strong positive narrative that (1) gives others a vision while simultaneously (2) reinforcing the negative narrative of your opponent(s). The coalition building, in regards to the Speaker's race, requires intraparty and cross-party relationships to be built. One thing that can help make that happen is an understanding of 3D negotiation skills. I want to look at how those 3D tactics are put in play in both the intraparty and cross-party relationships we saw develop over the past month(s). 3D Negotiations: Building a Bargain Away from the Table A quick intro on the framework I'm using -- stolen from 3D Negotiations: Most negotiators focus on a single dimension of the bargaining process. They are “one-dimensional,” in our terminology, and the single dimension that they embrace is tactics. One-dimensional bargainers believe that negotiation is mainly what happens at the table. To them, preparation and execution is mainly about process and tactics. But all too often, this one-dimensional approach leaves money on the table. It is inadequate to the tough negotiations in which the other side seems to hold all the cards. It isn’t well-suited to common dealmaking challenges such as many parties—not just two—tricky internal as well as external negotiations, and shifting agendas. It leads to suboptimal deals, creates needless impasses, and fosters conflicts that could have been avoided.
The argument put forth, then, is that a 3D negotiation looks at all levels of the negotiation: the tactics (1D), the deal design (2D -- creative ways of creating value), and the setup (3D). The setup requires the following (emphasis in the original): This means ensuring that the right parties have been approached, in the right sequence, to deal with the right issues, that engage the right set of interests, at the right table or tables, at the right time, under the right expectations, and facing the right consequences of walking away if there is no deal. If the setup at the table isn’t promising, this calls for moves to re-set it more favorably.
So what are the right parties, sequences, issues, etc., to create a cohesive intraparty and cross-party group for a Speaker's race? Rep. Straus, the ABCs, and the Democrats showed us how to make it all happen: Intraparty -- Why "Anybody But Craddick" Worked Ben Barnes, in his book Barn Burning, Barn Building, wrote about the problems that led to the downfall of the Democratic Party back in the 1970's. From his book: In the absence of a strong opposition party, the Democrats themselves split into two factions, the conservative / moderates and the progressives.
His account of the reasons the Democratic Party fell apart are telling. If power, policy, and political fights are relegated to intraparty squabbles, then it's easy for the opposition party to rise to the ranks. Republicans have lived this tale over the past five years, and Democrats have been the better for it -- both nationally and in Texas. Unfortunately, while there was intraparty opposition to Craddick, there was nowhere for his Republican opponents to go. Governor Perry, Lieutenant Governor Dewhurst, the lobby, the SREC, the Texas GOP, Eagle Forum...every Republican group imaginable was in his pocket. Even the press was on his side -- falsely claiming Craddick gained "momentum" when it was clear he didn't have the votes. The "ABCs" were a specific group that was a safe landing for those who were no longer comfortable with Craddick. Even if a Republican was not an "official member" of the ABC club, there was at least a public group of individuals who could create a holding environment for anti-Craddick sympathies. The players were all important, too: - Rep. Jim Keffer, a respected conservative Republican from rural Texas
- Rep. Charlie Geren, a vocal buddy-buddy from Fort Worth
- Rep. Tommy Merritt, an excentric but personable East Texas conservative
For the first time, the ABCs became an actual opposition party within their own party. In 2007, they were newly formed, and it was hard to work together. By 2008 and 2009, they had a better sense of themselves as a group and an organization. What's more, instead of waiting for last-minute tactic deals (like they did in 2007), they set the table and sequenced the Speaker's race brilliantly -- waiting until right after the holiday break to meet, choose a challenger, and giving them the weekend (when Members didn't need to be busy with their real jobs) to make phone calls. And by waiting until January 2 to make their announcement, Craddick didn't know who to run against. Meanwhile, as he struggled to set up a counter to a new challenger, they had a positive for Rep. Straus, a negative for Craddick, and were making calls while Craddick was still trying to hold a meeting. You want to know how disorganized Craddick was? Look at the 2-second "Speaker race" of Rep. Vicki Truitt. The Republican challengers set the table up right this time. But, they had some help. Cross-party: Bringing the Democrats on Board On the other side, House Democrats have been building their coalition since 2003. However, their coalition has not been built -- as Vince and others would argue -- as "anti-Craddick." Texas Democrats have grown in numbers by uniting behind issues that are important to Texas families. At the end of the day, those Democrats who had supported Craddick and those who didn't still agreed on the issues. The question was simply -- who delivers the best opportunity for me, personally, and my district? Well, a caucus that grows from 62 to 74 in three election cycles becomes, just as the ABC Republicans became, a legitimate opposition group. There were some in the Democratic caucus who did not feel comfortable with the Democratic Caucus leadership; thus, they voted for Craddick in 2007. But then throughout last session, and in the eighteen months since, Reps. Dunnam, Coleman, and Gallego have shown a remarkable amount of patience and passion to elect more Democrats. And remember -- the House caucus was the first group to release a list of names. Speaker Craddick tried to argue that some of those names would support him, but what credibility did he have by the time those names were released? Republicans had left Craddick in the seven weeks between Rep. Dunnam announcing the list and then revealing the names. Why would any Democrat move towards Craddick when Republicans were only moving away? Thus, the "holding environment" that the Caucus created was the list itself; a group that worked cohesively and trusted one another. During those seven weeks, the group spoke together, worked with each other, got to know freshmen Members, and then agreed to all come together and discuss whether they would vote for Rep. Straus (once he was announced). The result? 70 Democrats came out to support Straus, not just 64. The Solution - Building Cohesion Through Empowerment
The barriers Craddick erected were that he controlled all leverages of power, thus making him the gatekeeper for all information. The "insurgency" had to then crash the gates to take power from him, but they had to be smart about it. As we witnessed over the past few months, it's anything but easy. The right people must be contacted in the right sequence, asked to do the right things, etc. But once Members began feeling their own sense of empowerment -- granted to them through the creation of their own intraparty and corss-party coalitions -- it became easier to step outside the box and consider other options. And with strong leaders among both the Republicans and Democrats opposed to Craddick, devising a strategy that played across the entire 3D negotiation spectum became a more realistic possiblity. Now that there is a "solution" and that we will see a new Speaker take the gavel in a few hours, only one question remains: where do we go from here? Stay tuned to Part 3 (coming tomorrow or Wednesday) for my thoughts.
|
