Who’s taking hostages?

A typical hostage-taker says “I will kill some innocent people unless you give me a bunch of money.” According to Paul Krugman, Republicans are hostage-takers. The only things setting them apart from typical hostage-takers are that they demanded money for rich Americans rather than themselves, and instead of threatening murder, they threatened to withhold tax cuts for middle-class Americans:

Six months ago President Obama faced a hostage situation. Republicans threatened to block an extension of middle-class tax cuts unless Mr. Obama gave in and extended tax cuts for the rich too.

But suppose Obama had given a speech in which he said “I will not sign a tax extension bill that includes tax cuts for the rich. We simply cannot afford to them.” Would Krugman have written:

Six months ago the Republicans faced a hostage situation. Mr. Obama threatened to block an extension of middle-class tax cuts unless the Republicans gave in and agreed not to extend tax cuts for the rich.

Probably not. But it would have been just as correct. Surely, though it can’t be that the best way of describing a political standoff is to accuse both parties of being “hostage-takers.” So, in the hypothetical world where Obama made the statement I made up above (which he did not; in the real world he “gave in,” as Krugman says), the use of “hostage” analogies is really just nonsense, and in fact, the better analogy for a symmetric situation like this is the game of chicken.

But maybe there are some times when the hostage analogy is the right one:

For example we now face another situation where Republicans are accused of taking hostages: the debt ceiling vote. The Republicans say they won’t raise the debt ceiling  unless there is also agreement to curb spending. Krugman (in addition to reminding us that Republicans are “hostage-takers”) has in turn urged Democrats not to raise the debt ceiling if the Republicans insist on coupling such a vote with “a large change in policy” (by which he means spending cuts).

Both sides agree that they need to write a bill to raise the debt ceiling. But both sides threaten to vote that bill down if peripherally related parts of the bill bother them. Question: Is there an asymmetry that should make us call one side the “hostage-takers,” or, alternatively, is this just another game of chicken? In general, what distinguishes disputes where one party should be condemned for “taking hostages” from disputes best characterized as games of chicken? (Note that in this situation, unlike the tax-cut case, we need not create a hypothetical world in order to make the situation symmetric, since Krugman has in fact urged the Democrats not to sign a debt ceiling bill they don’t like.)

I’ll write a follow-up post with my analysis within a week or so.