Six weeks later, after archfully creating a huge media hullabaloo, Trump announced yesterday that there were no tapes (or at least not that he'd made - and he can claim that he never said there were; he didn't). The Wapo wrote that this only damaged his credibility and could see no rationale for the ruse. But viewed through a lense of negotiation it actually does make sense.
If the truth is seen not as absolute but as something to be negotiated, then Trump wanted Comey's opening offer to be "reasonable" and the possible existence of tapes helps ensure that. To paraphrase Henry Kissinger in Trump's vocabulary: "A reasonable opening offer is for losers." In Trump's mind raising the spectre of tapes constrained Comey's account, forcing his opening offer to be fairly close to what was actually said.
Imagine a linear negotiation space where the "ends" are degree of distortion in one or other party's favor. The ZOPA is bounded at either side by each party's credibility. Once the one says something too unbelievable the other can walk away claiming victory.
Trump may have worried that absent the the existence of something that would reveal the truth, Comey's account would have been to the left (in the diagram) of the possible true range, (since we don't know what was actually said I represent the truth as a range, show in in red, rather than a point). In other words Comey's statement might have been be more 'extreme' were he to think that it was his word against Trump's.
However, Trump now (almost) admits that are actually no tapes, and is thus free to give whatever account he likes - up to his credibility limit - and since Comey's position is in the middle of the ZOPA, rather than at one end (or off the end) the negotiated agreement will be nearer to Trump's end of the spectrum than Comey's.
Whether or not he avails himself of the negotiating space he has created, a reasonable explanation of the fictional tapes is that they were simply a negotiating strategy.
This framing appears to provide a reasonable account of something that otherwise seemed to have no rationale. It suggests too that Trump might view all his statements not a true or false, or sincere beliefs but simply as one means of winning.
Many people expect high office holders to feel constrained not to make statements that might later be falsified. That's why Trump's string of falsehoods have been so shocking to so many. However, viewing his statements as a negotiating ploy rather than a reflection of a coherent understanding of the facts, then Trump's seemingly inconsistent statements are no longer inexplicable.
No comments:
Post a Comment