Monday, March 26, 2012

Loyalty - What's It Good For? Part 2

Last week, a faithful reader and friend of Cog Dis, Reader Jane Doe, did a thought-provoking piece regarding Walkergate.

She is back with a follow up piece, which I reproduce here, unedited except for the diagram:
It appears that the Milwaukee County prosecutor has a treasure trove of secret e-mails that lays out its case very well, so it may have no need to make deals with the main players involved. But if there is room for deal-making, Walker’s aides and associates (and here I’m assuming there will be more than the three already discussed) will likely be advised to explore various legal stratagems. One can look to the prisoner’s dilemma for some guidance as to what they might do.

The prisoner’s dilemma goes something like this: Two conspirators are arrested and then separated. Each one is offered the following deal: 1) If you turn state’s evidence and the other guy doesn’t, he gets 10 years and you walk away free; 2) If you incriminate the other guy and he does the same, you each get 7 years; 3) If you don’t incriminate the other guy but he incriminates you, you get 10 years in prison; 4) if neither of you talk, you will both be held for questioning for 6 months.
(Eric Felton, Loyalty: The Vexing Virtue) Felton explains that it is strictly rational for each of the prisoners to talk and betray the other in order to reduce his sentence time, even though it is in both of the prisoners’ interest to keep their mouths shut (and then only get 6 months).

Of course, the prisoner’s dilemma as described doesn’t quite fit, since Walker couldn’t fink on Rindfleish in hopes of getting a better deal. Here the imbalance of the relationship is now on its head – no one would care what Walker has to offer about his underlings; if he has engaged in wrongdoing, he is the trophy. Given that there will be more players entering the drama, I wish someone would derive a new variant of the prisoner’s dilemma in this political context.

I’m just beginning to explore the dynamics and structure of organized crime, wondering if that would yield any insights into today’s power structures. It occurs to me that, under an organized crime structure, Walker has to be a pretty low level guy.

A common structure is:


Who would you put in each slot? I would assume that Walker is playing the role of a good lieutenant, overseeing the soldiers at the legislature. [In this light, can you imagine how peeved the bosses must be at Walker for apparently running such a smarmy, two-bit operation before he signed on to the big time?]

I know this is a bit much. But there’s a certain plausibility to it when you think of how often the players behave as obedient employees, rather than independent, politically astute individuals (think Lieutenant Prosser and The Good Soldier Gableman: recall that the chokehold episode was because Prosser was apoplectic that the collective bargaining decision wasn’t going to be released the day Fitzgerald demanded.)

There is fluidity in the structure that allows different deep pockets to enter the scene and set the apparatus into gear (think Gogebic); that fluidity is common in modern organized crime structures such as drug gangs where different interests come together to employ an existing apparatus for shared profit opportunity.

I’m not delusional enough to think that the John Doe investigation is going into anything more than Walker’s crimes, but thought of in this way, the dynamic may be less driven by Walker than one first thought. I’ve been thinking it’s frat-boy hero worship that explains the legislature’s slavishness, but maybe it’s not; maybe it’s just good soldiering.

Here’s the truth of any of it: while the left was thrilled by the rants of Keith Olbermann on cable and the premier of Air America radio, the right was methodically setting in place a well-oiled, hierarchical machine. And the machinery has been staggeringly effective. Just think of how much more effective it would be if any member of the hierarchy had an ounce of subtlety, humility or common sense?

4 comments:

  1. Jane, a searing piece, thank you.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Ah, subtlety. I've been saying in amazement for the past year, "he could have gotten away with so much, if he were just subtle." - SuzyMetta4

    ReplyDelete
  3. And who would know more about organized crime than the unions? jane Doe might know where Jimmy Hoffa is buried!

    ReplyDelete