Playing chicken with budget

Opinion: April 19, 2011 at 12:00a.m.

By Barry Goldman

Los Angeles Times

Many commentators have pointed out that the recent standoff in Washington resembled a game of chicken. Now that we’ve pulled back from the brink and the government is not in immediate danger of shutting down, perhaps this would be a good time to review what we know about the game.

Chicken, as it is played by teenage boys, is a useful way to cull the herd and reduce the number of people who are too stupid to live. Perhaps tellingly, it has also been an area of scholarly interest since the days of nuclear brinkmanship during the Cold War because of its value in modeling the behavior of our political leadership.

In its purest form, chicken is played by driving two automobiles directly toward each other at sufficient speed so that if neither driver swerves, the cars will collide head on and both drivers will be killed. Once this condition has been established, the first driver to swerve is a chicken, and the other is the winner.

Though no rational person would voluntarily play such a game, sometimes — such as when a budget is overdue and a government shutdown is imminent — the situation is unavoidable. So it is useful to inquire how a rational actor might play.

Chicken?

One way, the literature suggests, is to make sure the other driver is watching and rip the steering wheel off and throw it out the window. This action conveys the following message: “As you can see, I no longer have the ability to steer. In order to avoid certain death in the next few seconds, you are going to have to swerve.

In other, less dramatic contexts, this is known as the “limited authority” technique. It’s what’s being used when you make an offer on a car and the salesman disappears to go talk to his manager. When the salesman returns, he says: “I would like to help you out. I want to see you in this car. But my boss won’t let me do it at this price.” In other words, the salesman would have you believe he does not have the authority to give you what you want. He just can’t do it.

In most contexts, power is the ability to do as you like, but that’s not necessarily true in negotiation. If you want to buy a car and the salesman wants to sell the car, but he can’t move beyond his limited authority, then you are going to have to move toward his price to get the deal done.

The sales manager may or may not have nixed your car deal. He may or may not actually exist. The point is, if you believe that the salesman has limited authority, and you want the deal, you will do it on the salesman’s terms.

One way limited authority can be presented is to say my constituency won’t let me compromise. From the reporting, it appears that Rep. John A. Boehner, R-Ohio, and company used this method to get a record $38 billion cut from the national budget.

Half a loaf

With respect to most negotiators and most issues, half a loaf is better than none. Principles, however, don’t work that way. There is no such thing as half a principle. So another way to signal that you will not move on an issue is to declare that it is a matter of principle. Negotiation theorists refer to nonnegotiable issues as “sacred.” If an issue is truly sacred, even the idea of negotiating about it is offensive.

Abortion is the mother of all sacred issues for both sides of the question. Introducing sacred issues into political negotiations adds intensity, but it correspondingly reduces the likelihood of settlement. This appears to have been the subtext when President Obama refused to budge on funding for Planned Parenthood. “Nope. Zero,” he said. Subtext: Don’t even ask.

Finally, the limited-authority technique can be played with judicious use of craziness. If I can convince you that I am so crazy I would rather be dead than chicken, you will swerve and I will win. We saw some of that in this last go-round. But there are problems with craziness. Like toothpaste, once it’s out of the tube, it’s hard to get it back in. On the other hand, when a sane person plays chicken with a crazy person, the crazy person wins.

People don’t like to be told what to do. They don’t like take-it-or-leave-it deals, and they don’t like to be threatened. Disputes settled with threats and ultimatums do not tend to stay settled. That, and the many issues ducked in this round, means we’ll see this game again, sooner rather than later, and with no loss of ill will.

Barry Goldman is an arbitrator and mediator and the author of “The Science of Settlement: Ideas for Negotiators.” He wrote this for the Los Angeles Times. Distributed by McClatchy-Tribune Information Services.