What Price Appeasement?

Like it or not, our nation is a deeply divided country with people on the Far Left and Far Right constantly at war over ideology, policy and even history. Read any book by a Right Wing author and you will be certain to discover that people with a mind-set to the political Right see things much differently than those on the Left. That, perhaps, is simply the nature of things.

So, when President Bush hints that people on the Left, namely those who agree with Barack Obama's statements that he would engage in personal diplomacy with people such as Iran's president Ahmajinedad, and when he compares it to Neville Chamberlain's futile attempts to "appease" Hitler, does that strike you as a fair comparison?

I would think that we should first define what the Miriam-Webster Dictionary says about the word appease:

1): to cause to subside: allay

2): pacify, conciliate; esp.: to buy off by concessions

I am assuming that President Bush meant the latter definition, to buyoff by concessions. Is that really what Obama is saying? In listening to him, I don't think so. Check out the video link that follows for your own take on what Obama says.

So, is Obama right to be incensed about these comments? Without mentioning him by name, President Bush as more or less condemned those who disagree with him on his position in Iran. This reminds me of his utterance that the nations of the world are either with us or against us, which unfortunately now firmly places most of them in the "against us" category, since most are not outwardly "for us." Utterances that give an either/or demand usually do not end up being either intelligent or effective.

But did President Bush directly attack Obama? Some say he did, others say no, and shrug their shoulders over the entire affair. Unfortunately, in my observation and opinion, this shoulder shrugging has become a popular way of saying "We did it, but we'll never tell you we did it!" So has the "Mona Lisa" smile or grin that some people use to say the same thing. It is as if they are saying, "Wow! Aren't you clever! Now go away!"

Unfortunately, politicians lie, and they lie often enough that we should never trust them. I can understand Bush wanting to reassure the Israelis, to bolster his image with them. I, too, sympathize greatly with the nation of Israel, and I want to see the U.S. support them and build them up so they can defend themselves. I also want to see a just future for the Palestinian People, and I am not wise enough to know how to accomplish this. I do know, however, that Iran is one key that we must turn in order to relieve the pressure on the Israeli-Palestinian pressure cooker.

But calling the Iran-Dialogue that Obama has called for "Appeasement", and then, by inference, calling him as foolish as Neville Chamberlain, while also likening the whole picture to that of Nazi Germany and the situation in 1936-38, seems like a stretch to me. Does it to you as well?

Maybe it's only fair, since the Far Left often calls Bush/Cheney the warmongers, the Fascists, and other unappealing names. But if it is fair, who made it so? Who gave our future leaders the right to explain their opponent's position as Fascist or Communist? Who was the first one to start Swift-Boating others, if that term is truly appropriate. Did it begin earlier than the 2004 campaign between President Bush and Senator Kerry?

Yes, the sad truth is that both political parties have used ambush, dirty tricks and low-down attacks throughout their sordid histories. It is not the realm of one party alone, although there are some, especially on the Left, who claim that the worst examples have come from the likes of Karl Rove and others, who support Republican candidates.

It is incumbent upon all Americans that we realize that this is not a new phenomenon: Richard Nixon used dirty tactics back in the Congressional campaigns he waged before becoming the vice president under Eisenhower. Operatives used them against Kennedy as well, but even those were not the first attacks. They go back, way back, to the founding of our nation. Even before independence, George Washington endured the ceaseless back-biting of political foes.

It is hard to believe now-a-days that Washington had so many enemies, or that his political ambitions were as high as they were. Even Lincoln, who many consider one of the greatest political leaders of all times, was called "the original baboon" by opponents, and much worse by friends.

We have sanitized the images we hold of the leaders who came before us, just as we often vilify those we are about to decide upon. This reminds me of those who believe that life was better "in the old days" and yet forget that racism was condoned by government, disease took millions of lives, and living conditions were not all that great even just 70 years ago. (In fact, I would challenge anyone who believes that life was better in the old days return to The Dust Bowl and hold on to that belief!)

I often believe that by gross generalizations about candidates, for example, linking them with people they have met, or the people who support them, is an ignorant attempt to accuse them by association with someone who the public will hate. It is simply saying, "He knows this crook, therefore he must also be a crook."

By associating Barack Obama with Neville Chamberlain, I believe that President Bush has overstepped the bounds of Presidential decency and has given in to the dark side of political expediency. I equate his statement with "I did not have sex with that woman," as the most ridiculous attempt at diversion I have yet to hear in this century.

Barack Obama is no appeaser, any more than McCain really wants our troops to remain in combat over the next 100 years. The reasons people make political hay of these statements is simply because we, the People of the United States, have forgotten that things today are pretty much as they have been in former times. We neither live in the best of times, nor the worst. We simply live in the times we were born into, and as such, become the caretakers of our fragile Democracy.

Each generation has the potential of becoming The Greatest Generation, but only if we see past the garbage we are being fed in order to warp our minds to one point of view or another. It is true that Freedom Isn't Free, but neither is it easy, and the hardest part is the ability to see past our own prejudices and biases, to see things as they are, not as we expect them to be.

If we can get past that point, I truly believe we will become The Greatest Generation in The Greatest Nation on Earth. In the meantime, we are stuck where we are, with the power to escape the mire, but perhaps, tragically, without the will to even try.