By Matt Underwood Schiff says Republicans may ‘cheat’ on any shutdown compromise. This sentiment, or a variation of it, seems to be a widespread belief among many, reflecting a deep-seated distrust in the Republican Party’s willingness to uphold their end of any negotiated agreement during a government shutdown. The phrase “They will cheat. No question about that” captures the essence of this skepticism, a sentiment that permeates the entire discussion.
The implication is clear: any compromise reached, any promise made, is potentially a setup, a strategic maneuver designed to extract concessions without any intention of following through. The repeated references to “cheating,” “lying,” and “negotiating in bad faith” reinforce this perception, painting a picture of a political environment where integrity is secondary to ideological gains and political maneuvering. The comparison to Lucy and the football, a classic symbol of broken promises and repeated disappointment, is particularly telling.
Indeed, the core concern isn’t about the specific details of a potential agreement but rather about the inherent trustworthiness of the actors involved. The sentiment suggests that it’s not just a possibility, but a certainty, that Republicans will attempt to undermine any deal once it’s in place, perhaps through legislative maneuvering, veto threats, or simple inaction. The very notion of a “gentleman’s agreement” is dismissed as naive, a relic of a bygone era when political decorum held more sway.
This mistrust appears to be fueled by a history of perceived betrayals and broken promises. Examples are cited from past negotiations regarding the Affordable Care Act and other legislative battles, suggesting a pattern of behavior that has eroded any sense of good faith. The comments strongly advise Democrats against relying on anything beyond the explicit text of a signed agreement. “Don’t take IOUs,” one person warned. The suggestion is to lock in the desired outcome upfront.
The discussion highlights the perceived asymmetry in the political landscape. One commenter suggests the Republicans could get everything they want, while the Democrats get nothing. This imbalance is perceived as a significant disadvantage to Democrats. The implication is that any compromise would ultimately benefit the Republicans, regardless of the initial terms, as they would find ways to circumvent or nullify any concessions made.
The comments also reflect a frustration with what is perceived as a relentless, even ideological, opposition. This viewpoint frames any negotiation not simply as a matter of policy disagreements but as a clash of fundamental values, with the Republicans acting as an unyielding force of “illiberality, injustice, and hate.”
The fear is not just that a compromise will be broken, but that it will be used as a means to further their own agenda, regardless of any agreements that were made. Therefore, the advice to Democrats is clear: be wary, be vigilant, and don’t trust any promise that isn’t written in stone.