The Fruits of Appeasement

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:


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:


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 States

In 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 life

In 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 care

But 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:


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 crimes

The 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 appeasement

So, 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:


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.

There's the nub of it, right there.

Describes to a T the political vision of Rove and his masters who wished to destroy the two-party model.

Now the big question is, what will Democrats do about it? Will they continue to let themselves be doormats, or will they remember why they were elected -- and do something about it?

Sadly, I don't think enough of these exist.

The parallels between Obama and the present day allegory of Neville Chamberlain in Munich are legitimate and appropriate.

We need less Chamberlain and more Teddy (Roosevelt & Kennedy) and FDR and William Tecumseh Sherman. This is the time for strength and unity and purpose. Obama is perceived to be unfaithful and dismissive of liberals and there is real truth to this. So this weakness is being exploited by corporate men who are both clever and ill-intentioned toward the public at large.

In total honesty - we are in deep, deep trouble. The democratic party is something unrecognizable except for its duplicity. Palin and McCain almost pulled it off. It will happen again. Why? Because democrats are not proving their legitamcy through salesmanship of their values and principals to Americans. We complain about republicans, but every time you turn over a slimy rock, democrats and republicans go scurrying out of the light.

This is a great time for a single man's achievement. This is a god awful era for democrats who are supposed to be the fighting opposition against corporate greed and corruption.

We will carry the burden of our collective cowardice for generations. It has made us just like republicans. I won't vote democratic for the first time in thirty-one years next election. The leadership doesn't deserve a single vote from anyone who considers themselves a liberal (oh, dear I said the 'L' word, thank our leadership for making it equivalent to communist). Republicans can't use the 'N' word so they use the 'L' word.

I used to laugh at the Nader protest vote and 3rd party votes. Now after 30 years, I finally get it.

2008 was the first time I didn't vote for a Democrat for president in 36 years -- though I would have if I didn't live in a safe state.

The inequality of income in our country has been accompanied by a great disparity in political power -- and the American people are suffering from it. We need to break this vicious cycle.

... so that John Q. Citizen *and* his congressional representatives can digest it.

In addition to the clear matter of determination to oppose *any* reasonable legislation the Dems put forth, as a matter of proving party loyalty, I truly think a great many Republicans and some Democrats lack the intellectual capacity to truly understand what a lot of bills intend -- if they even attempt to read it.

Dumb and dutiful! That's what they are.

act dumb. They certainly have enough intelligence to please their corporate masters when they want to.

:applause:

brilliant, as always.

of what appeasing the right wing will get you. Remember the Sudetenland and what followed.
A predator by any other name is still a predator. The big differences between the right wing of today and the one in 1938 Germany is the Germans had snappy uniforms and goose stepped.
The tactics and agenda are the same: World dominance through military threat, corporate rule, and cheap labor using propaganda and scapegoats to achieve these ends.
The Nazis didn't have Fox News either.

The modern uniform is camouflage with bulletproof vest...just ask any of the militia people.

... before the main course. And they have uniforms and tasers and other draconian weapons.

The biggest question I have is:

If President Obama is intelligent enough to understand what is obvious -- that Rethugs only want to block universal health care and destroy his presidency -- then why has he tried to appease them?

I still cling to the hope that this is all part of a master strategy to deal with the anticipated tactics of the rabid right and to give them enough rope to hang themselves, but for the life of me I can't see his strategy to date as doing what is necessary to provide universal coverage for the American people.

I've thought a lot about it, but I just can't figure it out. Here are some possibilities:

1) He thinks that by giving the impression of "bipartisanship" that will help him get re-elected.

2) He's afraid that if he pushes too hard for the public option he will be castigated by the corporate media (That's probably true, but we can't let the corporate media drive our nation's agenda).

3) His life and/or the life of his family has been threatened (And he's well aware of JFK's fate).

4) Some grand "master strategy" -- I cling to the same hope that you do, but my grasp on that hope loosens every day.

5) He really doesn't want a public health option.

6) More likely, some combination of all the above.

Passing universal health insurance is an extremely difficult legislative task, for which his 2 years in the US Senate have not adequately prepared him. He may not have understood what was necessary to get the solid Democratic majority solidly behind this goal. Also he lacks the stature of a Ted Kennedy, and therefore his leadership over the party is not nearly as strong as it needs to be.

As you can see, I still prefer to believe Obama is genuine in what he wants to accomplish for the people who elected him. But it's still difficult to reconcile his words & actions with the high intelligence I think he possesses.

A lot rides on his Sept 9 address to the joint session of Congress -- both in terms of passing meaningful health care reform and reassuring his electorate.

Unfortunately they can interpret their own success in their chosen field to success in any field, including those they haven't applied themselves to.

The wise ones chose brilliant advisors, which I do not think we've seen from Obama yet.

We tend to not believe conspiracy theory and dismiss the possibility that things are not as they seem.
I remember Jimmy Carter in an interview where the reporter asked what he was most surprised by being president and Carter said that he was surprised by how little power he did have.
And with Carter growing up in the south he well knew just what a warning was....the bigots in the south knew how to intimidate, and Carter did not need much schooling on the limits of his power.

Our hope lies in number 4.

-- that the repeated lame-looking attempts at bipartisanship are some clever way our president is using to show Republicans up for the corrupt idiots they are-- and that he'll then come bravely out to condemn their failed economic and national security policies and go progressive.

One sad element of waiting for that is that Democrats could market progressive ideas as bipartisan already by emphasizing the economic and national security logic in them.

Showing how we have national priorities that are much bigger than any party. Millions of younger voters rushed to the polls for those reasons. We don't want any administration to practice torture. Privatization of the military has been an economic and national security disaster. Privatization of health insurance has also been a public health disaster with immoral results-- it is cruel and inefficient. Ignoring ecological emergencies doesn't make them go away.

I keep wondering when things will be glaring enough for President Obama to dare to burst forth in the style of Teddy or Franklin Roosevelt.

You'd think that private insurers' willingness to hire amoral right wing PR firms to stir up dangerous fear and hatred in vulnerable people to get them to storm town halls against their own interests would be enough of a red flag. Professional bullying to protect private profits. Isn't that clear enough for the Democratic party to band together behind the most progressive options?

It's clear to many millions of Americans -- but not quite enough. If enough Americans understood what's going on, our elected leaders wouldn't have a choice -- they would have to do what we elected them to do.

We need more of those voices on the air.

But the irresponsible bullying for hire, radioactive astro-turfing as it were, has gone way too far and is not as widely recognized and discussed as I would like. Were there always thugs for hire like this?

I know these "genuine grass roots" groups were "around for a long time"-- they just were coincidentally dormant during the rampant war profiteering of the Bush Gang, until infused with new right wing cash. And I do remember millions expended on hounding Bill.

And the right wing pros did get it to seem as though Max Cleland lost because they did that grotesque TV smear of him -- but I also think it could have been one of those distractions from vote manipulation. Lookie here-- disgusting ad made the vote flip. Terrible terrible.

But when does that stuff cross the line? Are we there yet?

I hope you're right that if the crass professional bullying is exposed to a broader audience people will demand that their Democrats resist the right wing bullies and do what they were elected to do.

Repubs are abusers who don't interact in good faith.

Any expression of mutual goodwill or or willingness to work together is seen as a sign of weakness and to be exploited for personal gain.

Very well written OP.

**

I've been musing over the word "appeasement" (in the modern propaganda sense) for some time now and the only example the right-wing ever locks it into - Chamberlain's appeasement of Hitler. Don't think invading and occupying a country for your personal power is moral or a good idea? You're an "appeaser" just like Chamberlain!

I've started to think the real current example of "appeasement" is the Democrats endless caving to Repub's. If I give the school bully my lunch money today, maybe he'll let me keep it tomorrow! Or the day after that! Everyone will see what a bully he is! I'm playing chess! I'm keeping my powder dry! It's not politically possible right now for me to not give him my lunch money, but maybe in the future it will be! Besides, most of my classmates think it's the right thing to do - that's what he told me! If I stood up to him, I'd lose their support!

I have a visceral nausea to the word "bipartisan" at this point. I've mentally tried out new slogans, like "The Audacity Of Appeasement", and "Appeasement You Can Believe In".