His political spin-meisters will doubtless try to do their best. They'll get on the various political talk shows, and write various opinion pieces, all trying to say that Donald Trump didn't suffer a defeat at the hands of Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats over the 35 day governmental shutdown.
They're wasting everybody's time. Unquestionably, it was a disastrous outcome for the President. He almost invariably describes things he does using superlatives. This one was a superlative failure.
But like so many times in life, an initial failure could turn into a triumph. Not only that, it could be an even bigger triumph than the one he was hoping to get – building a $ 5.7 billion dollar concrete or steel wall along the US-Mexico border. At the same time, it could actually be something that not only would his "base" like, it might even be something that Democrats, and independents like me, could really like.
Let me explain how such a dramatic turn of events is possible.
It comes down to something really, really simple. It has to do with one of the "basics" of dealmaking: good negotiating skills.
Whether you like him or not, Donald Trump is a very good negotiator and dealmaker. However, as experts sometimes do, he's forgotten some of the basics.
How could a skilled person forget the basics? It could be because he/she overfocuses on part of an issue and overlooks something else important. Some people have joked that Donald Trump has an "Edifice Complex", as opposed to an "Oedipus Complex". Trump seems to like edifices of all sorts, especially if they are big, shiny, and have his name on them, or at least associated with them. In fact, he seems so pre-occupied with that objective, it might lead him to overlook something important.
What he seems to have overlooked/forgotten is a basic principle of good negotiation: negotiate your "interest", not your "position".
What do I mean when I say, negotiate your "interest", not your "position"? Your "interest" is what you ultimately are trying to accomplish. In contrast, your "position" is what you tell your negotiation partners, and third parties, you want. They are oftentimes not exactly the same thing. In the current case, Trump's "position" is crystal clear: we need to build an edifice, meaning a bigger physical wall on the southern border of the USA, and also fill in the gaps on the existing border wall. Build something that looks like the border wall between Israel proper and the West Bank.
The Democrats – Trump's negotiation partners – have rejected that out of hand. Polls indicate the majority of Americans also reject this physical wall. Most likely, so long as Trump insists on his "position" – getting his physical wall - he will continue to be rebuffed. So what should he do?
He could continue with his current strategy and try to push through his physical wall. The chances of that succeeding, however, are the proverbial "slim" and "none".
Instead, he could go back and see if he can modify his "position" in a way that will achieve his real "interest".
What is Trump's real "interest"? It's to have a secure southern border and a better immigration system. The problem is that he has created a world with only two possibilities: a giant physical wall or an insecure border. Unfortunately, that is what I call a false choice. There are other ways to achieve a secure border without a bigger physical wall. Thus, if he would be willing to abandon his "false choice" of a "physical wall or open border", he could begin to explore alternative ways to achieve his real interest – a secure southern border and better immigration system.
Now even after his latest defeat, he may still think he can get his "edifice" built. Not likely.
So what are possible ways to achieve his "real interest" without getting his "edifice"? One is to create an "electronic wall" using state of the art technology. Another is to spend more money on the Border Patrol to help them do a better job. Another is to change the immigration rules to reduce incentives for desperate Central Americans to apply for asylum. Still another is to expand the E-Verify system, and enforce it more diligently, so that it is more difficult for undocumented people to work in the USA. There are others, but these are some of the obvious ones.
Once a good negotiator understands his "real interests", he/she needs to think about the real interests of the other side. Negotiation is often a process of trying to discern what those real interests are. In the case of immigration, it could very well be that the Democrats and independents have the very same "real interest" of having a better immigration system. For example, Democrats want to solve the Dreamer problem. You'll recall, the Dreamers are the young people brought to the USA as children by their parents, but who are undocumented. Besides the Dreamers, the Democrats want to do something about the eleven million undocumented people already in the country.
But even if Republicans and Democrats don't have the exact same interest, there are some potential ones that might form the basis of a deal. Two come to mind. First, Democrats want a permanent solution to the Dreamer problem. That permanent solution would be some pathway to citizenship, or at least permanent residency. Second, a "real interest" is likely just to come up with some kind of solution to the immigration issue, if for no other reason than to permit everyone to move on to other issues. How about health care, or infrastructure, or any number of other things?
Getting away from the current "position" on a wall, which is built upon the false choice described above, the President could try to create a deal that would achieve his "real interest" and get the other side to buy in because it could help them achieve some of their "real interests". Let's try out some possibilities:
Possibility #1: get funding to build an electronic wall plus more money for the Border Patrol in exchange for a permanent solution to the Dreamer problem. An electronic wall could achieve the same things as a physical one, without creating a physical monstrosity.
That could achieve Trump's real interest of securing the border, and also achieve the opposition's goal of a permanent solution to the Dreamer problem.
Possibility #2: go even further than Possibility #1. Besides the electronic wall, and more funding, but no physical wall, there could be reform of the asylum rules so it is harder to try to get asylum in the USA. That would appeal to Trump's "base", and certainly would be in his interest. But if he wants to do that, he'll have to make a bigger concession to the other side to fulfill some of their interests. That might be changes that will permit lots more undocumented people in the USA to become normalized – maybe even a pathway to citizenship.
Possibility #3: go even further than Possibility #2 by expanding the E-Verify system. That system permits an employer to know whether his/her employees are legally able to work. Put real teeth in the law with fines against employers who fail to follow the rules. Seriously enforcing this could make it very difficult for undocumented people to work in the USA. If they cannot work, they're likely to exit the country without even being asked.
E-Verify is a pretty drastic solution. But even that might be okay with Democrats if they're given something big enough in return. How about a path to citizenship or legal residence for all, or nearly all, of the undocumented people in the USA who have not committed serious crimes? Pretty drastic, but one possible deal would be to give the Republicans one pretty drastic thing they want in exchange for one pretty drastic thing that the Democrats want. Just so long as one of the things isn't a physical wall.
Just as badly as Donald Trump wants a physical wall, the Democrats want to avoid the wall. As such, that actually creates a great negotiating opportunity for Trump. He could tell Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer, we won't build a physical wall, but in return for this concession, I want a gigantic increase in funding for the Border Patrol, and/or a change to merit based immigration system.
These are but a few of the myriad possibilities. Again, the only possibility he should take off the table is the physical wall because that has proven to be a non-starter. Unfortunately, he won't likely take the physical wall off the table until he stops thinking in terms of the false choice of physical wall or unfettered immigration.
So you may ask, if this is such a good idea, why hasn't Trump, the master negotiator, already done it? I admit, it's a head-scratcher to me. The funny thing is, as suggested earlier, good negotiators sometimes forget the "basics", forget to do the obvious. I think this may be one of those cases.
Trump is actually in a great position to "reframe" the debate. After all, he has demonstrated quite a knack for changing the subject when things aren't going his way. Well, they're not going his way on the wall debate, but he could make a "change the subject" move by re-framing the issue from physical wall to something more generic, such as "fundamentally fix immigration".
The crazy thing of all this is, Trump could actually achieve what he really wants: securing the southern border. He just won't be able to do it quite the way he had in mind with the physical wall. The even crazier thing is that Democrats and others might be happy, because as part of the bargain, they'll get things they want. They've already hinted at possibilities.
But nothing will happen until the President does two things. First, stop thinking in terms of the "false choice" of "physical wall or open borders". Realize there are alternative ways to achieve his real interest of a secure southern border. Second, remember to negotiate your "interests", not your "position".
I'm very confident that Nancy Pelosi hasn't forgotten this basic principle.
Now some people are likely to say, taking the physical wall off the table would be caving in. Not at all! It's only a "cave in" if you embrace the false dichotomy of physical wall or unfettered immigration. Trump can overcome this if he reframes the issue as "effective border security". If he does that, it will be much more difficult for his opposition to dismiss the issue.
Many in Trump's "base" will claim that the Democrats have no interest in securing the southern border. I disagree, because the Democrats have clearly indicated they want to come up with a permanent solution for the Dreamers, as well as a better way to handle asylum seekers. There are other things. These "interests" become the basis for forging an agreement with Trump, so long as Trump takes the "non-negotiable" physical wall off the table.
Yes, Trump still has a great opportunity to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat. He still could end up being a hero to his base. He even has the possibility of doing something in a bi-partisan manner, something that seems impossible. All he has to do is eliminate the "false choice" of physical wall or unfettered immigration and negotiate his interests not his position.
For the master dealmaker, it really shouldn't be that hard. After all, sometimes truth is stranger than fiction.
