The current political situation calls for a quick rundown of simple principles of conflict management. The reason is we have turned politics into a battle, a conflict if you will, about who is right or wrong rather than getting things done.
Right now, it seems almost impossible for both parties to reach a consensus on anything. Not only is there a huge division between Republicans and Democrats or even liberals and conservatives if you want to define things that way instead, but there are also deep divisions within the parties.
This is why Trump simply can’t get a “win” on any bill. The Healthcare reform and even the repeal is dead because enough Republicans could not agree to its terms, let alone reach across the aisle to Democrats.
The three things President Trump has left on his agenda with the health care bill or repeal dead, at least for now and this travel ban frozen. They are infrastructure, trade, and tax reform, and not necessarily in that order.
To accomplish any one of those things, he is going to have to reach across the aisle to conservative Democrats and moderate Republicans as well. He has said he will: in a December meeting with West Virginia’s Joe Manchin, Steve Bannon took him aside and said simply:
“The thing you need to know about Trump is he doesn’t care about the Republican Party and he doesn’t care about the Democratic Party. He just wants to put some wins on the board for the country.”
There are two primary problems the current administration's strategies though, and they go back to conflict management and some basic negotiation skills.
Looking for Consensus
The error here is a simple one to understand: essentially consensus will be a challenge on any but the most basic issues, and the issues the administration wants to win are not simple ones. The other issue is the executive orders the administration has, and will, issue and sign. Many of them have been divisive, and leave the question open of who, exactly Trump is politically.
For consensus to be achieved, there must be a large enough group that agrees on, well, nearly any issue to get it passed without modification. To alter trade treaties, Trump needs a two-thirds majority in the Senate, something he should not bet on.
As to consensus on any other issue, including infrastructure, Trump must come up with a way to pay for it before any Democrat or Republican can side with the deal. Given the tax cuts Trump wants to make, it seems unlikely that a source is forthcoming.
It also appears from many of his recent Twitter rants and other factors that Trump lacks the political savvy to bring about consensus through geniality and stating terms that might be agreeable at all. Instead, he makes proposals and declares that anyone who does not side with him is a politician who lacks willpower or is a liberal sissy or conservative fraidy-cat. The lack of understanding on his part that taunts and ultimatums push more politicians away than it wins over is astounding given his business background.
Compromise
Ronald Regan and Tip O’Neil fought madly over many issues. O’Neil did all he could to block everything Regan wanted to do, but in the end, both realized that to get anything done, they would have to meet in the middle somehow.
In the end, they did get things done together, but not without battles. The victory was only won when both sides realized that they could not have everything their way. Regan’s chief of staff, James Baker, often arranged the negotiations and he also deferred to aides who knew better than he did on many subjects. They knew what they could give up, and what they had to hold onto.
Trump could learn from this example if he could simply calm his impulse to lash out and take the time to listen. This is something he seems incapable of, and the one saving grace for liberals with his administration is this inability to compromise hasn’t enabled him to get anything significant done.
Compromise is often difficult. This is because in many cases one party must simply capitulate, or give up more than they want to before a reasonable solution is reached, especially when one party is stubbornly hanging on to certain aspects of an issue.
In this case, both sides stand stubbornly opposed on several issues, and the opinion seems to be that anyone who disagrees with their side is simply the devil. Anyone who dares walk the narrow path in the middle and advocate for compromise to a reasonable solution is the victim of attacks from both sides.
Despite this stance, it is commonly known that most of the time anything, political or otherwise, is agreed upon by a group, compromise is involved. This is often the case in friendship, marriage, and corporate negotiations. There is almost never a case where one side gets their ideal solution.
The current political situation is a deadlock. The seeking of consensus without compromise is so unreasonable yet ingrained in the mentality of those involved it doesn’t seem like it will break anytime soon. If you are a conservative or even a moderate looking for change, this is frustrating. If you are a liberal, it is a frustration coupled with relief: the sweeping reforms Trump wants to pass simply can’t happen without compromises that don’t seem to be anywhere near making it to the table.
The good news is that the next President, whoever that may be, will have lowered expectations to overcome, and with some simple conflict management skills will be able to achieve much more than Trump ever will.