Rationalizing the irrational: In which a game theorist attempts to make sense of the Speaker vote (and vote, and vote, and...)

 There is a fair criticism of my particular corner of political science-- game theory.  We make empirical observations.  These empirical observations would seem to indicate irrational behavior.  However, in the grand tradition of those with hammers deciding that everything is a nail, we attempt to reverse engineer mathematical models in which the clearly irrational behavior we observe is actually fully rational in what pundits would call ten-dimensional chess, or some such nonsense.

Yesterday was both predictable and hilarious, which is an interesting trick, because humor usually requires the unexpected.  A punchline that you can predict is rarely a funny punchline.  The humor of yesterday's chaos was, if I am honest, the joy of watching my own predictions and the obvious play out, while watching idiots gather in a circular firing squad.  I've been saying for a long time that we should remember what happened to McCarthy when Boehner was forced out.  I've been telling the story of how a Monkey Cage editor forced me to remove a line in an article in which I said you shouldn't assume he'd win, back then.  I've been going on about this because... this has all been obvious.  I've been talking about Scalise and Stefanik as Speaker.  Nothing here has been difficult to predict.

Yet at the core of every methodology class we teach is the following point: there is a difference between prediction and explanation.  Hence one remains at a loss here to explain the all-important WTFOIA, which is an abbreviation I am trying to create for "what-the-fuck of it all."

So while it was obvious that the House Republicans would do this, the question remains, huh?!

Let's try.  We must distinguish between three groups:  the Never-Kev-ers, the McCarthyites, and Kev' himself.

Kev'.  Here is the puzzle of Kev'.  Why does he want the job?  You have, perhaps, heard his childish demand that he has earned the job, as though it is about him.  Behold, the glory of Trumpian narcissism.  It isn't a reward, it is a job.  (Shades of my first book.)  There is only one question:  who is most qualified for it?  Does he think he is most qualified for it?  Well, he's an idiot, so he might think that, but it isn't about earning a reward.  But the related question is, why would he want the job?  Particularly after he has already bargained away all of the power of the job?

Behold my hammer.  Let's turn Kev' into a nail.  The rule in rational choice theory is that we do not declare a preference to be intrinsically irrational.  Rationality is defined by maximizing one's utility given structured choices, but we do not declare any particular utility function to be irrational.  Therefore, according to the rules of my bullshit subdiscipline, Kev' receives some benefit, B, if he is elected Speaker, just for being Speaker.  Why?  'Cuz.  The rules of rational choice don't require me to specify why.  Do you see, now, why everything I, and every other game theorist does is bullshit?

Good.  Now remember that at least the math forces us to have some semblance of rigor.  The "social scientists" who skip that don't even pretend that they have rigor.

Where was I?  Oh, right.  Kev'.  It isn't about power, which he has negotiated away.  It isn't about policy goals, of which he never had any.  Richard Fenno's description of congressional goals described three:  reelection, policy and power/status.  This isn't really power, and it is hardly status at this point.  McCarthy, if he finds a way to get the gavel, will be the weakest and most derided Speaker in history.  He'll have no power, and his status will be as whipping boy for anyone threatening a motion to vacate.

But he'll be a legend in his own mind, and according to the rules of rational choice theory, there's your B, right there.

OK, done.

What about the Never-Kev-ers?  Their only goal is to naysay.  That has always been the defining feature of that wing of the party.  This is the purity spiral.  A few years ago, I tried to write a paper about the signaling difference between voting yes, and voting no, and it never went anywhere because game theorists don't care about any paper that doesn't solve for an equilibrium.  My whole point was that looking for an equilibrium misses the point.  A purity spiral occurs when you have a set of actors within a sect whose primary goal it to signal that they are purer than those within, and so they create internal wars.  This has been happening within the Republican Party, and the conservative movement for years, and it has been happening within the left, albeit less within Congress than among movement leftists and academia.  However, the only goal of the Never-Kev-ers is to defeat Kev'.  That's it.  It is a demonstration of power and purity.  There is no policy outcome, because this is going to be divided government anyway.  They are just signaling purity.  Now realize, they could wind up with a Speaker less willing to pander to them.

Behold, my hammer.  Are they being irrational?  Not if their only preference is to defeat whoever has been declared the institutional choice.

They're simple.  As in, they are simpletons.

The challenge is explaining the McCarthyites.  Why are they supporting that shitweasel?  He offers them nothing.  He has pandered to the caucus of their nemeses, he is too stupid to function in the job, he is untrustworthy, and he would be an utter disaster.  If you are anything like a pragmatist, why would you support McCarthy?  Why not Stefanik or Scalise, who are every bit as ideologically extreme, every bit as willing to stick a tongue up Trump's sphincter on command, but just not... fucking morons?!

Watch me tap dance.

Let's say that you know the Never-Kev-ers aren't specifically Never-Kev-ers, but just naysayers.  They will say nay to whomever gets nominated first.  You have to give them a win.  Kev' is just a sacrificial lamb.  Throw him to the wolves, or shit-flinging monkeys, or whatever they are, let him go down in flames, and then go for Scalise or Stefanik on the next choice.  If they had told Kev', no, we want Stefanik, this same caucus of knuckle-draggers would have done to her what they're doing to Kev', not because they give a shit about Elise, but because they have to do this thing.  They fling shit.  It's what they do.  But if you tell them that Elise is a concession to them, they call it a victory because the point is to say nay, not to achieve an outcome.  So, you wind up with Stefanik or Scalise, pretending like it is a concession, when they would have faced the same treatment as Kev' if they had been on the first ballot.

This borders on conspiracy theory.  I know that.  But it'd be hilarious if I were right, wouldn't it?  Hand Kev' over to the baboons, because they'll eat the first nominee anyway, and that way you get your real choice by pretending it's a loss.  No, don't throw me in that briar patch!

Is this really what's happening?  Probably not, but the probability isn't zero.  And I would love it if I'm right.  Any way you cut it, this is what happens when you go down the purity spiral.

Are you watching, you goddamned fucking lefties?  Are you watching?!  Don't just munch on popcorn for the entertainment value, which is admittedly pretty awesome.  Take some notes too.