In 1981, Ronald Reagan was a newly elected president with tremendous popular support and a vision for tax reform. But whether he could get the support he needed in Congress to implement his vision depended on the game being played between Democrats and Republicans in Congress. In a pair of articles that year,13New York Times columnist (and economist) Leonard Silk laid out the essence of this game, with ordinal payoffs as shown below. The Democrats get their best outcome when they attack Reagan's vision and the Republicans compromise, because the Democrats can then claim credit for fiscal responsibility while implementing their favored budget. The Republicans prefer to support Reagan completely no matter what Democrats do, and they get their best outcome when Reagan's budget gets bipartisan support. When the Democrats attack while the Republicans hold firm, the result is a stalemate, and both parties lose. The Democrats would be willing to moderate their attack if the Republicans would compromise, in which case both parties would get their second-best outcomes.

Transcribed Image Text:

Mainly support Reagan Attack Reagan You may need to scroll left and right to see the full figure. DEMOCRATS REPUBLICANS Support Reagan completely 2,4 1,2 Compromise 3,3 4,1 Mainly support Reagan Attack Reagan You may need to scroll left and right to see the full figure. DEMOCRATS REPUBLICANS Support Reagan completely 2,4 1,2 Compromise 3,3 4,1

Answer rating: 100% (QA)

The description you provided outlines a game between Democrats and Republicans in Congress during Ro... View the full answer