“We all do better when we all do better” is attributed to Senator Paul Wellstone of Minnesota; (he possibly first said it within a speech in 1999).
Proponents of a viewpoint too often perceive discussions as debates to be won or lost rather than as a means for discovering the better solutions. This leads to perceiving negotiations only as determining the proportional distribution of the “pie” and the gains of others are at your net expense; that's the win-lose concept of negotiating. Win-lose negotiators often fail to fully consider that the size of prize pie itself is often a variable and the method of portion distribution affects the pie's size.
There are other alternatives to win-lose negotiating strategy; among them are “win-win”, “good for you - great for me”, or finding some point of compromise.
Negotiators' intuitive perceptions as a point closer to their own advantage are not actually be a point most advantageous to themselves and the mid-point between negotiators may not be of aggregate net benefit for all or of any of the negotiators.
Because factions of negotiating parties are intolerant of anything that may be perceived as some extent of achievement of the other party, the possibility of “good for you - great for me” is off of the negotiating table.
Additionally, the primary task of any member of the U.S. Congress is the acquiring of funds for their parties' and their own next primary and general elections. That requires inordinate portions of their time, efforts, resources, demeaning pleading with or effectively blackmailing money donors. Political donors goals often greatly differ from their constituents best interests. It's not the fiddler, but he that pays the fiddler also chooses the tune.
U.S. Senators and representatives must necessarily continue shuttling between their constituencies and the capital. They have less opportunity for building mutual understandings, trust and respect among themselves, other government offices and their staffs; that would better achieve superior governing policies and practices. Our deplorably ineffective Congress is not historically unique and possibly not historically the most deplorable.
We demand immediate responses from their electronic devices and they seem to now be expecting the same from our government. USA's 2017 voters chose a president that more promised change. I believe we voted for change without regard for what that change would be, but only that it change NOW!!
President Trump is a hubris man of no particular allegiances or convictions. I don't believe any prior president has ever so been establishing the White House as an enterprise for his families commercial benefit.
It's regrettable we're not seeking policies for us all to be doing better because "we all do better when we all do better”.
Respectfully, Supposn
Proponents of a viewpoint too often perceive discussions as debates to be won or lost rather than as a means for discovering the better solutions. This leads to perceiving negotiations only as determining the proportional distribution of the “pie” and the gains of others are at your net expense; that's the win-lose concept of negotiating. Win-lose negotiators often fail to fully consider that the size of prize pie itself is often a variable and the method of portion distribution affects the pie's size.
There are other alternatives to win-lose negotiating strategy; among them are “win-win”, “good for you - great for me”, or finding some point of compromise.
Negotiators' intuitive perceptions as a point closer to their own advantage are not actually be a point most advantageous to themselves and the mid-point between negotiators may not be of aggregate net benefit for all or of any of the negotiators.
Because factions of negotiating parties are intolerant of anything that may be perceived as some extent of achievement of the other party, the possibility of “good for you - great for me” is off of the negotiating table.
Additionally, the primary task of any member of the U.S. Congress is the acquiring of funds for their parties' and their own next primary and general elections. That requires inordinate portions of their time, efforts, resources, demeaning pleading with or effectively blackmailing money donors. Political donors goals often greatly differ from their constituents best interests. It's not the fiddler, but he that pays the fiddler also chooses the tune.
U.S. Senators and representatives must necessarily continue shuttling between their constituencies and the capital. They have less opportunity for building mutual understandings, trust and respect among themselves, other government offices and their staffs; that would better achieve superior governing policies and practices. Our deplorably ineffective Congress is not historically unique and possibly not historically the most deplorable.
We demand immediate responses from their electronic devices and they seem to now be expecting the same from our government. USA's 2017 voters chose a president that more promised change. I believe we voted for change without regard for what that change would be, but only that it change NOW!!
President Trump is a hubris man of no particular allegiances or convictions. I don't believe any prior president has ever so been establishing the White House as an enterprise for his families commercial benefit.
It's regrettable we're not seeking policies for us all to be doing better because "we all do better when we all do better”.
Respectfully, Supposn
Last edited:
