This diary is adapted from a discussion I had at a message board, in the comments at TPM Cafe and a philosophy that was articulated by author Melanie Rawn that I finally understood how to apply to the current situation.
Thanks to joshalot and SusanG for last night's Diary Rescue. My ideas in Part I were based around interactions between states. While you can apply them to congressional control I think a discussion of the consequences of acting multilaterally or unilaterally can be readily made by looking at the effects of the Republican Majority on themselves. In this case substitute "group" for "Hyper Power."
THE PROBLEM: Recap - the Used Upon
The problem with power is that it creates a lack of control for the power the user and the used upon. In the used upon this lack of control creates a feeling of helplessness that can cause hardship for both the used upon and the user.
I was intending to finish this diary in two parts, however after working on the answer to the question I pose at the bottom of this diary, I have come to the conclusion that there has to be a Part III and this one has become more an information and transitional diary, a set up.
CONSEQUENCES
First a word on what happens after power is used regardless of approach. It might be stating the obvious but it's a good jumping off point for discussion.
- Consequences of Success
If the Hyper Power succeeds, their power is enhanced. Part of that is achieving the strategic objectives in the use of power: winning elections, conquering the enemy, securing resources etc. The other is in the perception of the Hyper Power. If other states were already doing what the Hyper Power wanted it wouldn't have to actually do anything. Succeed and all other states or groups look at the Hyper Power with renewed respect or fear.
- Consequences of Failure
If the Hyper Power does not achieve success it has used up political capital and resources and thrown them away reducing their capacity to act. in the future. In addition they are perceived as less of a threat and because of that other states or groups are more likely to buck the Hyper
Power, forcing it to use actual resources and power to bring them back into line.
- Stalemate
There is of course a third option, stalemate. However a stalemate will eventually resolve itself into victory or failure. It happened in Vietnam and it will happen in Iraq. There are nuances in these situations but that's not in the scope of this diary.
As I pointed it out in directly and indirectly in Part I, the benefits of success involve more stable power-relationships between the various powers and less of a helpless resentment because the Hyper Power has shown that it can listen and take advice becoming more non-threatening. It also benefits by minimizing the use of resources. Thus the saying that Victory has 1000 fathers. These also hold true for failure: even if the multilateral coalition fails to achieve the objective, the costs are distributed among all the stakeholders meaning there is less reduction in power all around. In addition, when there are many stakeholders who can feel the sting of defeat, they are more likely to focus on making the venture succeed than in showing up the Hyper Power they all resent. When acting unilaterally, defeat is not an orphan--you can pin the loss squarely on the Hyper Power who ignored others or dominated others to try for the goal.
To illustrate the problems of perception, look at the last two years for the Republican Party. The defeat of the SS Privatization Program, their ineffectual attempts to prolong Schiavo's suffering, their indictments, their constant screw ups whenever they attempted to use power, all that made them easier and easier targets in 2006. Most of us understood that if they had the shield of bi-partisan cover, if the perception was of them acting Multilaterally, then it would be much more difficult for voters to believe that Dems could truly offer an alternative.
There was no bi-partisan cover so the GOP had to take its licks alone on so many issues, they were vulnerable and forced to use huge amounts of resources to defend their turf. Expanding that turf was far easier for us as result of the vulnerability as well and they could not do it. They had acted alone for so long that the consequences of losing finally caught up to them. That is a major danger of acting alone: if you do something that pisses a lot of people off you need to be very very sure you win or everyone will want revenge on you.
When discussing the immediate consequences of using power, it is important to keep in mind one thing: a User of Power constantly using their power is one that is not being obeyed.
This leads into the most difficult part of the discussion and perhaps the most controversial. The loss of control the user of power experiences by using their power. For many years I did not quite understand how this works and to some extent it is still a work in progress. It is also rather philosophical.
In addition to the practical benefits to not having to use power (you are already being obeyed, you don't waste resources or risk failure) there is a far more personal aspect. Power corrupts, this is inevitable. Some it corrupts faster than others and some can resist it far better but it will always taint everyone--even if the only result is complacency. It's the theory behind elections. But no one thinks about the nuts and bolts of it, so let me pose a question to you, one I will answer in Part III: How Does Power Corrupt?
Finally I said there was one exception in regards to my statement that oppressing people is a waste of resources. That exception is when you have already started oppressing others, once you've made the initial decision there are circumstances where the consequences of ending the oppression would be so bad you have to continue in the hopes that maybe you can pull off a miracle.