on quid pro quo

TL; DR: "quid pro quo", meaning "this for that", or basically the concept of negotiating a trade, is a valuable concept in business and in government.  whether the trade is good or bad, right or wrong, legal or illegal, moral or immoral, or ethical or unethical, depends completely on what is being traded and why.  "quid pro quo" by an elected official that serves constituents is proper, but when the prime motivation is in serving the elected official himself, it is improper.  trump's conversation with ukrainian leader zelensky was improper.

 

we elected a businessman, remember?

we elected a businessman to run the country with the efficiency and competitiveness of a business, and business runs on quid pro quo. that’s the only way business works.

if both sides negotiate and get what they each want, then that’s a fair trade and it probably baffles trump that something like this would be wrong, when his whole business life it’s been how things work.

when i read the transcript of trump's call with zelensky, my first impression was, i absolutely believe, that trump absolutely believes, that there was absolutely nothing wrong with that conversation.  trump later described the call as "absolutely perfect", and in the world of business, he's absolutely correct.

here's what happened:

trump has something that zelensky wants: aid, arms, javelin missiles, etc.

zelensky has something that trump wants: information that will damage his political opponent.

that's how business works.

not only is quid pro quo perfectly legal and acceptable in the business world, it also happens to be the ONLY way that business works.

i want a gallon of milk more than the $5 bill in my pocket.
the clerk wants a $5 bill more than the gallon of milk back in the dairy case.

the clerk and i BOTH get what we want, and life moves on.

that is The Art of the Deal!

the right will tell you that trump, being a law-and-order president, was simply inquiring about an investigation about some possible criminal behavior on the part of hunter biden, and possible misuse of power by the former vice president.

and if that's as far as you want to look into it, on paper, it seems logical, seems fair, seems proper.  if someone broke the law, they should be held accountable.

i would suggest two things, though:

1. trump seems to be very selective, maybe a lot too selective, about this particular criminal investigation that he's so concerned about.  i have to believe that criminal investigations that involve both the US and ukraine probably number in the dozens, if not hundreds per month.  why. that. one?

2. it hardly took the president of the united states, calling the president of the ukraine, to get an update on the biden investigation.  in business, sometimes you need to pull the boss card.  and almost always, it's because getting the boss involved means you're after something a little more than what you're asking about.  you want to influence the speed and outcome of the issue.  always. it's called "management escalation", because otherwise you're wasting everyone's time.

he has something ukraine wants, and they have something he wants.

they agreed on principle to trade fairly, so what’s the problem? this is how business works, right?

when two high school basketball players got arrested in china for defacing a sign, and trump himself chose to get involved, he was successful negotiating the release of the students.  one might figure that trump had to give something up in order to win back the students and gain some PR points.  if so, so what?  presidents use quid pro quo in these kinds of situations all the time.

trump did a great job with that. he did his duty. everyone was proud of him.  but then the father of one of the players, not only failed to thank the president, he stated publicly that he refuses to thank the president.  which is of course, his right to do.

what a president should do is, perhaps be a little dismayed or disappointed in that response, but at the end of the day, know that he did his duty to our country and our citizens, regardless of whether or not it is appreciated.  protecting these young americans was the right thing to do.

but not trump... no.  trump replied that maybe he shouldn't have worked to release the students, and he should have left them in china, in jail.  and all because one of the fathers wouldn't praise him.

yikes...  but hey...

that's how quid pro quo works.

we elected a businessman.  we should NOT be surprised when he acts like one.