tl;dr The standoff between Trump and FOX over the debate started out as a trap laid for Trump. Trump saw this and made an audacious, unpredictable move that put FOX on the horns of a dilemma and made them look weak.

Body

First, the laws go upfront this time. Just refer to them as you go.

Law 6: Court attention at all costs

Law 31: Control the Options: Get others to play with the cards you deal -… Give people options that come out in your favor whichever one they choose. Force them to make choices between the lesser of two evils, both of which serve your purpose.

Law 34: Be royal in your own fashion: Act like a King to be treated like one

Law 17: Keep others in suspended terror: Cultivate an air of unpredictability

The apparent facts:

Fox News and Trump have had a simmering feud since the first debate, where Megyn Kelly went after him because “grrl power,” basically asking him loaded questions (classical example: Have you stopped beating your wife?). Trump first deflected with humor, and then dismissed, but afterwards went after Megyn, basically calling her out as biased and unprofessional, which she is. Consistent Trump pattern – build up those who work with you, punish those who work against you, crush those who attack you. Trump also said he didn’t want to participate in a debate where Megyn was the moderator.

Leading up to this debate, Fox did a few interesting things: First, it kept Megyn as a moderator. The second was that they had three guest youtube moderators, which included a Mexican immigrant and a Nabela Noor, a Muslim activist (and Bernie supporter!) who had made videos comparing Trump to Hitler. The third was a taunting press release:

We learned from a secret back channel that the Ayatollah and Putin both intend to treat Donald Trump unfairly when they meet with him if he becomes president,” Fox News said in the statement, adding this gem: “A nefarious source tells us that Trump has his own secret plan to replace the Cabinet with his Twitter followers to see if he should even go to those meetings.”

Aftermath and Strategic Maneuvers

Trump responded by promptly cancelling on Fox, invoking Law 34 by refusing to go to an event where he was sure to be treated unfairly. This sent several messages to the frustrated base: Trump wasn’t about to stand and just take the abuse like Republicans generally do, he’s a strong negotiator (Reagan walked out on the Soviets in Reykjavik, forcing them to make a deal), and he’s too smart to walk into a trap. These are all messages he’s been putting out all campaign – I’m tougher and smarter than these politicians, and I won’t make bad deals. It also utilized Law 6, keeping the eyes on Trump even though he wasn’t taking the risk of going to the debate.

Now, Fox said in that press release that Putin might treat Trump unfairly, and Trump would just run away, but this is a pure distortion. In negotiations, if one side is willing to walk away and the other isn’t, the former has a giant advantage. Look at how lopsided the Iran deal seems, and consider the leverage the US had. But Kerry couldn’t walk on the deal because Obama needs this win for his legacy.

In any event, this was an unpredictable move, especially considering that even Reagan regretted skipping the last Iowa debate. Now, what had started as a trap and an attempt to humiliate Trump turned into a Law 31: Control the Options play. Trump essentially gave Fox News two unattractive options: Capitulate or Stand Their Ground.

Capitulation would make Fox look weak and like it had been wrong to back Megyn Kelly. It would also force them to stop opposing Trump’s candidacy, which would enrage the establishment who have enormous business interests staked on globalism and open borders. This option is unacceptable, and I think that Trump knew they’d never take it. Which leaves the second, much more risky option, a Mexican standoff (excuse my pun).

Standing their ground exposes the supposedly conservative friendly news network as going after the most popular conservative presidential candidate and having biased moderators at their event. This will provoke the anger of the base and a much more dangerous long term side effect – people are asking questions like, “WHY would Fox do that? It makes no sense.” The answer, of course, is that Rupert Murdoch is a huge open boarders/Amnesty supporter, a wildly unpopular position with the conservatives AND a hefty portion of the Democratic base, to boot. Also, it has come to light that the man who wrote the questions has a daughter that is highly placed in Rubio’s campaign! These are the kind of second order effects that can come from poor planning and improper attacks.

I wrote an improperly formatted post on this before where I predicted they’d stand their ground even though capitulation was the better path – more embarrassing short term, less damaging long term. I turned out to be half right. First they stood their ground, then publicly nearly begged Trump to come back, and then acted bitterly when he didn’t, accusing him of requesting a bribe. The media will spin this, but Fox played it about as poorly as possible. Trump played it about as well as he could, considering he was dealt a pretty bad hand by Fox. I frankly didn’t give them their due when it comes to incompetence. Meanwhile, Trump took the opportunity to stage his own impromptu event to benefit wounded Veterans, invoking Law 37: Create Compelling Spectacles. I’ll cover that tomorrow due to post length.

Lessons Learned:

-Conflict is risky. Fox News didn't calculate possible outcomes nearly well enough.

-Make unpredictable, audacious moves if you can work the odds at all in your favor.