J. Brian Atwood argues cogently that Carter's decision to transfer control of the Panama Canal to Panama was a strategic move that ensured its continued operation and neutral access. However, when arguing that Trump's aggressive stance could jeopardize international relations and stability, Atwood cherry-picks information and makes a selective appeal to one authoritative author while ignoring others.

1. appeal to authority • Atwood references Roger Fisher and his well-regarded book "Getting to Yes" to support the claim that positional bargaining is ineffective.

Roger Fisher, in his seminal book "Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In," demonstrates that this type of "positional bargaining" is not just inefficient and unproductive, it also leads to unwise outcomes, strained relationships and fragile agreements.

While Roger Fisher is a respected expert in negotiation, Atwood simply cites his book as evidence without providing any specific examples or analysis from the book itself. This reliance on Fisher's authority without further explanation or evidence constitutes an appeal to authority fallacy.

Furthermore, Atwood fails to mention that other negotiation experts differ with Fisher:

• Richard Shell, in his book "Bargaining for Advantage," suggests that different negotiation strategies, including positional bargaining, can be suitable depending on the context and the goals of the negotiation. ​
• Robert Mnookin in his book, "Bargaining with the Devil: When to Negotiate, When to Fight," discusses the limitations of the purely principled negotiation approach and the potential necessity of incorporating elements of positional or competitive bargaining in complex or adversarial negotiations. ​
• Herb Cohen, in his book "You Can Negotiate Anything," emphasizes the flexibility and situational awareness in negotiation, suggesting that there are times when a more adversarial or positional approach may be advantageous.

Atwood has therefore selected just the expert he wants, failing to cite others who hold that while principled negotiation has its merits, it is not universally applicable, and in some cases, positional bargaining may be strategically beneficial.

2. cherry picking • Atwood selectively highlights Carter's diplomatic successes while omitting comparable diplomatic achievements from Trump's administration, creating a misleading comparison of negotiation capabilities.

President Carter understood these principles when he negotiated the Camp David peace between Israel and Egypt and the Panama Canal Treaties. He knew well that a powerful America could only enhance its international standing by acting magnanimously...

By only mentioning Camp David and not the Abraham Accords, Atwood creates a biased narrative that favors Carter and undermines Trump's achievements in foreign policy. The Abraham Accords achieved comparable outcomes to Camp David (peace between Israel and Muslim nations) under a Trump Administration. This selective presentation of information is a form of bias that weakens the author's argument and undermines its credibility.

_{This website may earn affiliate revenue from product links on this page.}