“I’m going to get a little wonky and write about Donald Trump and negotiations. For those who don't know, I'm an adjunct professor at Indiana University - Robert H. McKinney School of Law and I teach negotiations. Okay, here goes.

Trump, as most of us know, is the credited author of "The Art of the Deal," a book that was actually ghost written by a man named Tony Schwartz, who was given access to Trump and wrote based upon his observations. If you've read The Art of the Deal, or if you've followed Trump lately, you'll know, even if you didn't know the label, that he sees all dealmaking as what we call "distributive bargaining."

Distributive bargaining always has a winner and a loser. It happens when there is a fixed quantity of something and two sides are fighting over how it gets distributed. Think of it as a pie and you're fighting over who gets how many pieces. In Trump's world, the bargaining was for a building, or for construction work, or subcontractors. He perceives a successful bargain as one in which there is a winner and a loser, so if he pays less than the seller wants, he wins. The more he saves the more he wins.

The other type of bargaining is called integrative bargaining. In integrative bargaining the two sides don't have a complete conflict of interest, and it is possible to reach mutually beneficial agreements. Think of it, not a single pie to be divided by two hungry people, but as a baker and a caterer negotiating over how many pies will be baked at what prices, and the nature of their ongoing relationship after this one gig is over.

The problem with Trump is that he sees only distributive bargaining in an international world that requires integrative bargaining. He can raise tariffs, but so can other countries. He can't demand they not respond. There is no defined end to the negotiation and there is no simple winner and loser. There are always more pies to be baked. Further, negotiations aren't binary. China's choices aren't (a) buy soybeans from US farmers, or (b) don't buy soybeans. They can also (c) buy soybeans from Russia, or Argentina, or Brazil, or Canada, etc. That completely strips the distributive bargainer of his power to win or lose, to control the negotiation.

One of the risks of distributive bargaining is bad will. In a one-time distributive bargain, e.g. negotiating with the cabinet maker in your casino about whether you're going to pay his whole bill or demand a discount, you don't have to worry about your ongoing credibility or the next deal. If you do that to the cabinet maker, you can bet he won't agree to do the cabinets in your next casino, and you're going to have to find another cabinet maker.

There isn't another Canada.

So when you approach international negotiation, in a world as complex as ours, with integrated economies and multiple buyers and sellers, you simply must approach them through integrative bargaining. If you attempt distributive bargaining, success is impossible. And we see that already.

Trump has raised tariffs on China. China responded, in addition to raising tariffs on US goods, by dropping all its soybean orders from the US and buying them from Russia. The effect is not only to cause tremendous harm to US farmers, but also to increase Russian revenue, making Russia less susceptible to sanctions and boycotts, increasing its economic and political power in the world, and reducing ours. Trump saw steel and aluminum and thought it would be an easy win, BECAUSE HE SAW ONLY STEEL AND ALUMINUM - HE SEES EVERY NEGOTIATION AS DISTRIBUTIVE. China saw it as integrative, and integrated Russia and its soybean purchase orders into a far more complex negotiation ecosystem.

Trump has the same weakness politically. For every winner there must be a loser. And that's just not how politics works, not over the long run.

For people who study negotiations, this is incredibly basic stuff, negotiations 101, definitions you learn before you even start talking about styles and tactics. And here's another huge problem for us.

Trump is utterly convinced that his experience in a closely held real estate company has prepared him to run a nation, and therefore he rejects the advice of people who spent entire careers studying the nuances of international negotiations and diplomacy. But the leaders on the other side of the table have not eschewed expertise, they have embraced it. And that means they look at Trump and, given his very limited tool chest and his blindly distributive understanding of negotiation, they know exactly what he is going to do and exactly how to respond to it.

From a professional negotiation point of view, Trump isn't even bringing checkers to a chess match. He's bringing a quarter that he insists of flipping for heads or tails, while everybody else is studying the chess board to decide whether its better to open with Najdorf or Grünfeld.”

— David Honig

Let me just preface my remarks with this. First, I'm an independent, I don't like the two party system in the U.S., it's too tribal. Second, people tend to be blinded by their political world view, it's akin to religion. Third, Trump does say stupid things, there's no doubt about. He's childlike in many of his responses. Fourth, the left lost much of their power in the last election, including the control of many states. That said, it doesn't mean they won't get it back, but much of what you're hearing from the left are the irrational screams of that loss, not all of it, but much of it. Their narrative is created to drive a particular storyline, and much of that storyline isn't based on fact at all, but is driven by the story. This is true of both sides, but is particularly true of the left, which has gone bonkers. I'm not saying that the right doesn't have problems, obviously they do, and many on the right will defend Trump no matter what he does or says, but that's also true of the left.

Trying to look at this objectively I see more irrationality coming from the left then I do the right; and that irrationality is driven by hate. Whenever you hate someone you're going to see everything they do through those eyes, everything will be filtered through that prism. It's dangerous.

Good analogy. I think it especially applies to the 10% of Bernie voters who apparently ended up voting for Trump.

This strikes me as a reasonable reason for voting for Trump. When the system is so fucked that you can't get any advantage, but won't fix itself, bring it to a stop.

I now suspect that this is what ArguingWAristotleTiff was trying to tell me. Perhaps I now understand. — Banno

Did it bring it to a stop though? Or did it just change out the bloke in front for a crazy idiot and end up making the ride even worse?

Reminds me a bit of the infamous saying of an American officer concerning a particularly hostile village during the war in Vietnam : "It became necessary to destroy the town in order to save it." Insanity.

I do think there's a way for discredited politicians to spin this Trump fiasco in their favor while possibly even moving the country in the direction of eventual reconciliation. It would go something like this: "We take full responsibility for our many past mistakes - for lining our pockets while you suffered, for allowing corporate money to infiltrate the political system which in turn made us less responsive to your needs as average Americans, for appealing to your patriotic sentiments while gladly outsourcing your jobs, for enabling (and profiting from!) such massive and dangerous discrepancies in wealth and opportunity to arise among us..."

Unfortunately, it's much easier to blame Trump's racist, sexist, redneck supporters for our current predicament than to take that sort of accountability. By doing so, they conflate - and thereby invalidate - legitimate and illegitimate grievances (of the racist and sexist sort) alike. This demonization of those who'd challenge their performance creates a corresponding emotional longing among many "good" Americans for the alleged glory days of Reagan, Clinton, Bush, Obama. Extremely dishonest and psychologically manipulative imo.

Trying to look at this objectively I see more irrationality coming from the left then I do the right... It's dangerous. — Sam26

And yet you give no evidence at all of this. And dangerous? Donald Trump could literally start a nuclear war at any moment. I would think his irrationality is the more important worry here.

but much of what you're hearing from the left are the irrational screams of that loss, not all of it, but much of it. Their narrative is created to drive a particular storyline, and much of that storyline isn't based on fact at all, but is driven by the story. This is true of both sides, but is particularly true of the left, which has gone bonkers. — Sam26

e.g.?

Yes, there is that. It's a pity Trump and his cronies are even more swampy than those they replaced imo. But there is a definite "a pox on all your (political) houses" element to his rise.

Yeah, looks like we're up the proverbial creek without a paddle, unfortunately.

Ideally, the previous (or maybe even new) powers replace Trump in 2020, with the proviso that they become much more attuned to the needs of average, hardworking citizens. This is a definite wake up call and there's probably no going back to business as usual. Could end up even much worse than before, though, so we'll see...

The problem is people react to outlier events by clinging even harder to what they know. So my vote is for more same old same old.

I now suspect that this is what ArguingWAristotleTiff was trying to tell me. Perhaps I now understand. — Banno

I wish we could talk to one another about what is going on but this thread is not hospitable enough to even begin to "talk".

War?

Just read this in a short article in the National Review of the Cohen taped conversation:

"Do the tapes suggest that Trump knew about efforts to buy the rights to women alleging extramarital affairs with him, and prevent those allegations from being revealed to the public? Sure. But how many of us were buying Trump’s denials on that?

How many of us were buying Trump’s denials of the affairs?"

Where was I, and when did it happen that we so easily accept and even expect such blatant lies from the President of the United Sates. To be clear, it is not the lie that has me as concerned as the apparent indifference to it from so many.

In the service there is an expression that goes " you get what you inspect" - If we have lost our outrage at getting so blatantly lied to, and it has morphed into some tacit acceptance, that is a sad state of affairs.

I met a political sciencist who suggested no one is an Independent; instead they are just poorly informed people. He said when informed everyone leans more to one side than the other.

Do you support National Socialism or Communism?

If you don't pick one of these sides, you're just uninformed?

Just because one of two piles of excrement stinks less than the other doesn't mean people cannot choose to support alternative piles altogether. The whole point of a third political party in America is to have more choice, and to force improvement via competition.

Of course everyone leans more in one direction than another, but this coming from a political scientist as means to define "independents" is incredibly vapid. I reckon he is trying to point out that since it's one of two parties to begin with that we must inevitably choose one of them? (the self-fulfilling prophecy)...

Socialism.

Let me rephrase the question:

Do you support persecution based on ethnicity or persecution based on political belief?

Political belief.

We seem to value personality more than character.

Why not take the unstated third option and say you don't support systematic persecution?

Leap frog.

It was a false dichotomy; the notion that we're stuck with only one of two possible options.

And your example is a false equivalence.

Since American's are able to vote for third and fourth parties (albeit indirectly in many states), they actually can cast their ballots in support of something else (or not at all). Just because you are presented with two options does not mean to need to support either of them.

Sure, people can definitely choose to throw their votes in the trash.

Which is why they should start voting third party instead!

Even if a "3rd party" became popular it would be at the cost of one of the current parties and we'd still be in a two party system. People would simply shift to the current dominate two parties. The only thing that would really happen is musical chairs with party labels.

This is a false dilemma/dichotomy incarnate. You're saying it can only ever be a choice between two relevant options but it's entirely possible that a third option is or can become relevant.

The rise of a third party could come at the cost of both the republicans and democrats, and it could result in the trisection of the various representative houses rather than the traditional bisection.

The mistaken belief that a deciding vote is more important than all other votes is one of the mistaken beliefs that has kept America so dogmatically locked in its two party system for so long.

Let me know when it happens. In the meantime, feel free to continue and throw your votes in the trash.