What Trump Can Learn From the Master of the Greatest Deal in American History

From Daily Signal.com (Apr. 29):

Our current president prides himself on being the master of the deal. The upcoming summit with North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un will certainly put his bargaining skills to the test.

The stakes couldn’t be higher, since they involve the security of one of the most populous and economically vital regions in the world, and North Korea has shown little regard for agreements in the past.

If President Donald Trump successfully forges a deal that denuclearizes the Korean Peninsula, it will go down as one of the greatest deals in American history. With that said, it’s fair to ask whether history provides any lessons in the art of presidential negotiation.

Of course, historical situations differ vastly, but it’s still fair to ask whether historical examples can provide any guidance for the general principles of high-stakes negotiation.

Perhaps there is no better place to look than what has been described as the greatest bargain in American history—the Louisiana Purchase. The deal was struck exactly 215 years ago this Monday.

………………….

The Louisiana Purchase doubled the size of the United States, and that doubling was a precursor to its eventual domination of the North American continent and its rise to world power. It reduced the hold that European powers had on the continent, thereby mitigating the threat they posed to the young republic.

It was the greatest deal in American history, but how did Jefferson pull it off?

Part of the answer lies in Thomas Jefferson’s own complexities.

Our third president, whose 275th birthday was on April 13, is known for the eloquence of his pen and his renaissance-man lifestyle, but this image belied his cutthroat political instincts. Jefferson was a shrewd politician, through and through. As secretary of state under George Washington, he had secretly funded an opposition party right under the first president’s nose.

Just weeks into Jefferson’s presidency, he learned that France was reacquiring the Louisiana Territory from Spain. The prospect of an aggressive Napoleon ruling territory right next to the United States alarmed the new president, so he made a number of moves that any shrewd head of state would.

First, Jefferson drew a red line with France. Jefferson was a renowned Francophile—he loved France, and some even accused him of having “a womanish attachment” to the country. At the same time, he was a staunch critic of Great Britain. But he knew the threat that Napoleonic France would pose to the young nation.

………………….

Second, Jefferson played the age-old diplomatic game of back-channel diplomacy. Despite establishing a red line, he knew that his infant country could ill-afford a war with a European superpower. So he engaged in multiple lines of communication with France. This included making use of his minister to France, Robert Livingston, but it also involved sending a more personal envoy, James Monroe, to join Livingston in his negotiations with the French.

But Jefferson didn’t stop there. He also communicated through Pierre Samuel du Pont, a wealthy Frenchman in America with connections to the French regime. Indeed, it was du Pont who is often credited with suggesting a purchase of territory as a solution.

Further, Jefferson made use of a French diplomat in the United States, Louis-Andre Pichon. Through Pichon, the Jefferson administration fed information to the French, raising the specter of American cooperation with the British against the French.

Third, Jefferson had the wisdom to listen to advice contrary to his own inclinations—and that advice often came from his brilliant secretary of state, James Madison. Madison’s genius and political skills rivaled and arguably exceeded that of Jefferson’s.

This brings up the fourth lesson: Know how far you are willing to go, even if it means going past your ideological limits.

As I said earlier, Jefferson was known as a pro-French, anti-British strict constructionist. And yet, during this episode, he threatened to side with the British against the French and then disposed with his strict constructionist tendencies, forgoing an amendment for the sake of his country’s interest. [read more]