Appeasement is a tricky word. In common usage it has come to have a dual meaning – two distinct meanings that are not only vastly different from each other, but in some important respect the
opposite of each other. One meaning reflects favorably on the word; the other reflects very unfavorably upon it. So common are both meanings of the word that the first two definitions to appear on a
Google search each reflect them
both.
Wikipedia currently
defines appeasement as:
the policy of settling international quarrels by admitting and satisfying grievances through rational negotiation and compromise, thereby avoiding the resort to an armed conflict which would be expensive, bloody, and possibly dangerous.
What sane person could criticize a policy like that?
But shortly later, referencing Neville Chamberlain’s infamous appeasement of Hitler between 1937 and 1939, the article notes:
The word "appeasement" has been used as a synonym for cowardice since the 1930s and it is still used in that sense today as a justification for firm, often armed action in international relations.
It’s meaningless to argue which definition
really defines the word “appeasement”. Through common usage of the English language it has come to mean either one, depending upon the motives of the person using it. This just goes to show how emotionally laden words – and sound bites – are used for purposes of propaganda, in place of logical argument.
The truth of the matter is that conciliatory actions can be life-saving or life-destroying, depending on their context and on whom they are used.
In marriages – or international relations – one party is often rigidly reluctant to “appease” the other for fear that the appeasement won’t be reciprocated, and that the appeaser will appear weak and therefore be taken advantage of. Yet, a unilateral act of conciliation is often the first step in establishing (or re-establishing) bonds of trust, which can prepare the ground for a very productive relationship.
During the
Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962, President Kennedy refrained from invading Cuba – as his military and CIA so aggressively urged him to do – and promised never to invade it. Soviet Premier Khrushchev reciprocated by removing Soviet nuclear warheads from Cuba. And a few months later, Kennedy removed from Turkey U.S. nuclear warheads that threatened the Soviet Union. Militarists on both sides insulted their respective leaders with the epithet “appeaser”. But in this case appeasement probably prevented a nuclear war that could have killed millions and destroyed the lives of billions of people.
Political use of the term in present day United StatesIn our country, since the infamous appeasement of Hitler, “appeasement” in the political arena has taken on mostly negative connotations. Militant nationalists and war profiteers routinely use the term as an insult against their fellow citizens who prefer diplomacy to war. So negative a connotation has the word “appeasement” taken on in this country that, when confronted with it our politicians do whatever they can to distance themselves from it, and they explain that they are motivated by diplomacy rather than appeasement.
The reason for this is clear. World War II was the most destructive event in the history of humanity – and a major defining event in the history of the United States. Had a concerted effort been made to confront Hitler earlier during his rise to power, especially at
Munich in 1938, World War II could have been avoided, or at least Hitler could have been defeated with far less destruction and loss of life.
So how should we interpret this? Why was the appeasement of Hitler bad, while we consider the mutual appeasement between Kennedy and Khrushchev good? Similarly, how do we counter war profiteers and militant nationalists when they clamor for war and label anyone who prefers diplomacy to war as “appeasers”?
We know in retrospect that the appeasement of Hitler was bad because it led to a catastrophic world war. We also know in retrospect (at least
most of us do) that the mutual appeasement between Kennedy and Khrushchev was good because it defused a potentially catastrophic situation and yet caused no adverse consequences. But how can we judge the decision to appease
prospectively – that is, before we know how it will turn out?
Appeasement as a normal approach to lifeIn normal circumstances mutual conciliation towards others is a necessary part of life. Neither marriages nor any other kind of inter-personal relationship could thrive without it. Nor could different peoples and different nations coexist together without it, without recourse to war. And sometimes, when dealing with fearful yet basically decent people (including national leaders), one party must undertake some degree of unilateral appeasement in order to get the process started.
This is the concept behind domestic and international legal frameworks. They may not satisfy everyone, but these frameworks were established in order to facilitate the settling of our differences without resort to violence. We still have a long way to go in both U.S. domestic law and international law in order to establish a state of justice that is likely to lead to long term stability. But few people would argue that domestic and international legal frameworks are not needed.
There are few things that I find as disgusting as right wing militant nationalists who advocate the abolition of international law in general and the United Nations in particular, just because they want their own country to wield power over everyone. Those people claim that that attitude is a manifestation of “patriotism”. But it is not patriotism at all. It is simply a combination of authoritarianism, greed, and unrestrained ego.
Most people – at least most
decent people – reciprocate conciliation with conciliation. Therefore, some form of conciliation should almost always be considered as the
first method for resolution of conflicts. The combination of a respected legal framework, along with the judicious use of conciliation and appeasement to resolve conflicts that fall outside the legal framework is the only hope the human species has for long-term survival.
Appeasement of right wing politicians on health careBut as we all know, appeasement has its limitations. There are certain people – a minority, but a
powerful minority – who do not respond to conciliation with reciprocated conciliation. Instead, they interpret conciliation as a sign of weakness and they respond with further aggression. Such was the case with Adolph Hitler – and we all know where
that led. Unfortunately, such is also the case with right wing politicians in the United States today – which includes almost all Republican U.S. Congresspersons.
These Republicans always demand to be appeased, and they always respond to appeasement with further aggression. But when they try to convince us to appease them, they don’t call it appeasement. Appeasement has a negative connotation in our country. So they call it something else. They call it “bipartisanship”. It’s one of the oldest tricks in the book. Just substitute a word with a good connotation for a more accurate word with a bad connotation, and presto, you surround your disgusting plans with a halo. It’s the same idea behind invading a sovereign nation,
killing over a million of their civilians, and then calling it “God’s will”, “Manifest Destiny”, “bringing democracy to the savages”, or “self-defense”.
A perfect example of covering up appeasement with “bipartisanship” is the Republican response to Democratic proposals for universal health care. It should be perfectly obvious by now that the vast majority of Republican Congresspersons have no interest whatsoever in passing legislation that will bring universal health care to the American people. Indeed, they do everything in their power to prevent it – all the while hiding behind a mask of “bipartisanship”. And that includes spouting out the most outrageous lies and misinformation. They even have the gall to try to scare us by shrieking that a government sponsored public option
will lead to “rationing of health care”, when any idiot with the slightest knowledge of the subject knows that health care today in the United States is rationed thousands of times every day by private medical insurance companies.
In response to the latest
attempt of President Obama to appease Republicans by suggesting that it might be ok for co-ops to substitute for a government public option,
Senator Jon Kyl made it quite clear that no amount of appeasement on the subject will mollify them:
“On the co-op... as Democrats have said, it doesn't matter what you call it, they want it to accomplish something that Republicans are opposed to," Kyl told reporters. "That is the step towards government-run health care in the country. The president himself said you can imagine a cooperative meeting that definition of a public option."
In other words, Republicans believe that any step towards universal health care is a “step towards government-run health care” and therefore is completely unacceptable.
Appeasement of right wingers on holding Republican officials accountable for their crimesThe same principle applies to the utter failure of our Democratic Congress to hold Republican officials accountable for their many crimes. The prime example of that was the failure to even
attempt to impeach George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. There were so many criminal or egregiously negligent actions for which impeachment of those two was necessary:
The silencing of the administration’s own scientists on the threat to our planet of global warming; the
billions of dollars of fraud committed by Bush administration cronies whom the administration hired with no-bid contracts to reconstruct Iraq; hundreds of
presidential signing statements that Bush used to circumvent laws duly enacted by Congress;
the cover-up of atrocious health care provided to our veterans; the
firing of 8 federal attorneys for blatantly corrupt political purposes;
widespread torture of our prisoners;
warrantless wiretapping; and lying our country into an immoral and
illegal war;
It was bad enough that Congress didn’t attempt impeachment for these many crimes and abuses of the public trust. But to add insult to injury, the Obama administration has been terribly reluctant to pursue justice for any of them. He uses the excuse that he wants to look towards the future, not the past. But what does that mean?
All crimes are committed in the past. We have laws to dissuade people from committing crimes. It is especially important that those laws be applied to the powerful – those who hold authority over us. The failure to hold them accountable delivers a very bad message.
The Obama administration and many Democrats in Congress justify this failure to hold powerful criminals accountable for their crimes by calling it “bipartisanship”. But in reality it is
appeasement – in the very worst sense of the word.
Conclusion – The fruits of appeasementSo, to get back to my question: How do you tell the difference between appeasement as diplomacy – which is necessary – and appeasement as weakness – which is a formula for disaster?
The answer is not that complex. You judge people by their previous actions. Or, “By their fruits ye shall know them”. Hitler provided a multitude of evidence that he couldn’t be appeased, and yet he continued to be appeased by those who should have known better until it was too late to prevent a catastrophic war. Republicans in the U.S. Congress have repeatedly shown that they can’t be appeased. We try to appease them on universal health care, and they respond by making every effort they can to kill it. We appease them by failing to hold top officials accountable for their crimes, and they
respond with further arrogance. We fail to prosecute torture, and our country
continues to torture its prisoners despite President Obama’s executive order to the contrary. All these efforts at appeasement are given the gloss of “bipartisanship”. But it is
not bipartisanship – in any good sense of the word. It is appeasement – in the worst sense of the word.
Paul Krugman summed up the perils of trying to appease today’s Republicans, in his book, “
The Conscience of a Liberal”, as well as anyone I’ve ever read, well before Barack Obama was elected President:
The central fact of modern American political life is the control of the Republican Party by movement conservatives, whose vision of what America should be is completely antithetical to that of the progressive movement. Because of that control, the notion, beloved by political pundits, that we can make progress through bipartisan consensus is simply foolish. On health care reform, which is the first domestic priority for progressives, there’s no way to achieve a bipartisan compromise between Republicans who want to strangle Medicare and Democrats who want guaranteed health insurance for all. When a health care reform plan is actually presented to Congress, the leaders of movement conservatism will do what they did in 1993 – urge Republicans to oppose the plan in any form, lest successful health reform undermine the movement conservative agenda…
It is well past time to cease trying to appease Republicans. It won’t be easy to treat them like they deserve to be treated. Republicans and their lackeys in the corporate news media will attack progressive actions
whether or not Democrats aggressively fight back against them. The important thing is for our elected representatives to get on with the business of serving the people whom they were elected to serve.
At this stage of our nation’s life, appeasement of right wingers serves no good purpose. It just makes it easy for them to continue their abuses. We need to acknowledge the situation: Democrats who continue to appease Republicans might as well
BE Republicans. Americans need to recognize that and treat them accordingly.