About 25 years ago, when I was a young in-house lawyer, I attended a seminar by Herb Cohen, author of the classic bestseller, "You Can Negotiate Anything". Like the book, much of Cohen's presentation was devoted to how to constructively use the variables of power, time and information to negotiate successfully, but one segment of his materials was reserved to discuss the aggressive, bad faith negotiating style that he described, somewhat datedly to the current-day reader, as "Soviet style" negotiation.
After listening to last night's medley of through-the-looking-glass Republican Senate speeches, I found myself wondering whether a look back at this concept--and at the "how", instead of the "what" of the Republican approach--might yield insights into the debate over bipartisanship that has been conducted on this blog over the past couple of days as the stimulus package has been shaped by the new political realities in Washington.
Cohen described "Soviet style" negotiation in his original book (cleaned up to the more PC "adversarial approach" in the current audio book) like this:
[The "Soviet style" negotiator] sees almost everything as a constant struggle of winning and losing. . . . [He] seeks to meet his own goals at all costs, without worrying about the needs and the acceptance of others . . .. These attempts to triumph over an opponent may run the gamut from blatant efforts at manipulation to subtle forms of intimidation. . ..
What distinguishes "Soviet style" negotiation, according to Cohen, is not the intent of the adversary, but rather their specific behavior: initially taking the most extreme positions; making exploitive openings characterized by excessive demands, then flinging the door open for competitive bidding; playing various bidders against each other, and egging them on to outdo each other; making the counterparty believe there is no available option other than dealing with them. Concessions are viewed not as a good faith effort to reach common ground, but as a sign of weakness, which the adversary will respond to by holding its ground.
Sound familiar?
Dealing with an adversary that engages in "Soviet style" negotiation, according to Cohen, is all about recognizing (and revealing) when someone is pulling this on you. What he told us in the seminar was that, whenever we observed all of these behaviors in our adversary, we should pause, slap our foreheads with the palm of one hand, and mutter to ourselves "Son of a gun, Soviet!" Or, as Cohen put it in his audiobook
A tactic perceived is no tactic.
Put differently, if your adversary is engaging in bad faith negotiation, don't carry on as if they're not. Call them on it.
I haven't watched the resumed debate today, but it doesn't take a lot of imagination to see that this is exactly what the Republican senators pulled last night, without losing a step in the same dance they have been dancing for the past eight years. Open-ended prattle about what we are saddling our future generations with absent an acknowledgment of what the past eight years of deficit spending have done in this area, the lack of acknowledgement that Keynesian economics supports deficit spending in times of deepening recession even if they disagree with its premise, the lies about how local and state governments don't really even want the money the same day California is holding a now-regular furlough of its employees and every government in the country is short of tax revenues, the suggestion that what bipartisanship requires is implementation of he policies of the vanquished instead of acceptance of the vanquished's input in implementing the policies of the victors--all Coburn needed to have been Khruschev last night was to have shaved his head, put on a few pounds, and started banging on the lectern with his shoe.
This is why, as much as I supported President Obama's initial attempts at bipartisanship, I was disappointed that his radio address today described the compromise achieved last night as a success of bipartisanship, because it really wasn't. What I have come to believe is that the tax cuts the administration initially inserted in the bill was compromise enough, and that the spending cuts proposed in the current amendment are concessions to opponents whose position was so purposely off-the-wall unreasonable that it does not deserve to be met with good faith.
I have underestimated the savvy of President Obama and his advisors several times over the past year, and I have no doubt that in his own mind, and in his own words, he has said the equivalent of "Son of a gun, Soviet!" to himself many times over the past week. The thing is, after last night, I think the time has come for him to say it out loud. He acted in a bipartisan way. They acted in bad faith. Even if, as I assume will be the case, he signals the House that he will accept the Senate version of the bill as is, he needs to let the Republicans know that he is accepting what he accepts now because he chooses to, that he takes exception at the tactics they put on display, that there will be separate legislation to address the things that were left out of the bill, and that continued bad faith is going to be met not by compromise but by what behavior analysts refer to as "extinction": not reinforcing the Republicans by paying attention to their bad behavior, but simply ignoring it until it goes away. If that means letting a filibuster to block legislation to help children, the poor, the environment, our energy independence, stem cell research, Solis's appointment to Labor Secretary, or anyone of a hundred other issues play out for 40 days on national television, or even ending the filibuster rule altogether, so be it. Our national policy of not negotiating with terrorists should apply with equal force within the chambers of our own Senate.