I teach courses in negotiation. Here are two useful definitions of the process from scholarly literature:
- an interpersonal, intra-group, or inter-group process where there is a conflict of interest and the parties negotiate because they think they can use some form of influence to get a better deal and negotiation is largely a voluntary process
- a process of potentially opportunistic interaction by which two or more parties with some apparent conflict seek to do better, through jointly decided action, than they could do otherwise
In other words, the principal purpose of negotiation is to reach an agreement.
Moreover, as any undergraduate student learns, negotiation involves a process of bargaining in which the parties trade things of value. In the process of integrative bargaining, the parties approach the negotiation as an exercise in problem-solving, in which they jointly try to find a solution which satisfies everybody’s interests.
Like I said, this is what an undergraduate learns. However, the principles are way too complicated for the comprehension of the moron who is the president of the USA. Here’s his idea of negotiation:
“Some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along,” Bush said at Israel’s 60th anniversary celebration in Jerusalem.
Yes according to the child king, negotiation is an argument about who is right and who is wrong. In his infantile world view there’s no point ‘negotiating’ with terrorists (read sovereign governments that he happens to dislike) because he doesn’t believe he could come up with any arguments that would make them admit they were wrong … and if he can’t do that, there’s no point ‘negotiating’, correct?
Has a stupider, more ignorant fuckwit ever been head of state of a major power?
