Constitutional Hardball as a game
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/10/skeptic-case-court-packing/616607/
The article discusses Constitutional Hardball in the role of appointing Supreme Court Justices. Constitutional Hardball is the phenoma of political parties breaking with tradition and using (constitutional and legal) power available to them that used to be left untouched. The author is discussing the rationale behind supporting for Democrats expanding the Supreme Court. The discussion around the Supreme Court can be thought of as a prisoners dilemma game, and this article an example of someone working through the logic as to why they must defect. (If playing ‘constitutional hardball’ is defecting). In the eyes of the author, the Republican Party has already ‘defected’, given them an advantage in the Supreme Court. Therefore, the best response for the Democratic Party is also to defect.
In this version of the Prisoners Dilemma, the Constitutional Hardball game, cooperating involves not playing Constitutional Hardball (not using the full extent of political power available to you to maintain political norms), while defecting involves playing Constitutional Hardball. Playing hardball is the mutual best response. However, one difference with the Prisoners Dilemma game is that each actor can see what the other is doing, and it is a repeating game. Meaning that the author still holds out hope for convincing both sides to both cooperate instead of both defecting.
| R(cooperate) | R(defect) | |
| D(cooperate) | Both parties follow political norm (1,1) | R gains major advantage in passing policies (0,5) |
| D(defect) | D gains major advantage in passing policies (5,0) | Both parties play hardball – bad for democracy (0,0) |