Parties can reach win-win deals by creatively expanding the issues

Evidence

A conflict of interest enters our problem if the parachutists dislike walking. With communication, which is not allowed in our problem, they would have argued or bargained over where to meet, each favoring a spot close to himself or a resting place particularly to his liking. In the absence of communication, their overriding interest is to concert ideas; and if a particular spot commands attention as the “obvious” place to meet, the winner of the bargain is simply the one who happens to be closer to it. Even if the one who is farthest from the focal point knows that he is, he cannot withhold his acquiescence and argue for a fairer division of the walking; the “proposal” for the bargain that is provided by the map itself—if, in fact, it provides one—is the only extant offer; and without communication, there is no counterproposal that can be made. The conflict gets reconciled—or perhaps we should say ignored—as a by-product of the dominant need for coordination. — Thomas C. Schelling, The Strategy of Conflict, 150 (#complicates, via linked claim)

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Strategic equivocation on divisive issues can hold an electoral coalition together. — Arthur Borriello and Anton Jäger, The Populist Moment: The Left After the…, 212; Event coalitions can achieve political goals while modulating internal difference and inequality — Michelle I. Gawerc, Coalition-building and the forging of…, 323; Tacit bargaining forces one party to accept an unfair focal point — Thomas C. Schelling, The Strategy of Conflict, 150 (+1 more)

Broader Connections

• Tacit bargaining forces one party to accept an unfair focal point #complicates (0.74) — Thomas C. Schelling, The Strategy of Conflict, 150