The game of political negotiation is a labyrinth, a spectacle by which reputations are lost and won...and in some cases gridlocked.
Usually, I'm a fan of gridlock, because I'm a fan of winding down the state. I romanticize about the idea of a permanent government shutdown and the elevation of a free humanity based on natural law and virtue.
Murray Rothbard once wrote:
The libertarian, then, should be an abolitionist who would, if he could, abolish instantaneously all invasions of liberty. Following the classical liberal Leonard Read, who advocated immediate and total abolition of price-and-wage controls after World War II, we might refer to this as the "button-pushing” criterion. Thus, Read declared that “If there were a button on this rostrum, the pressing of which would release all wage-and-price controls instantaneously I would put my finger on it and push!
The libertarian, then, should be a person who would push a button, if it existed, for the instantaneous abolition of all invasions of liberty.
Yet, I am a pragmatist, too.
Rothbard later in the chapter also went on to delineate the differences in political brinksmanship — what he and others have termed "right opportunism" and "left sectarianism." The former is the strategy of forgoing the radical hope of gaining immediate access to "push the button" for the sake of short term gains.
For example, in the world of partisan politics, the GOP had scored a key tactical victory during the debt ceiling debate of