Talk is not Appeasement

George Bush’s Knesset speech included this widely criticized gem:

Jews and Americans have seen the consequences of disregarding the words of leaders who espouse hatred. And that is a mistake the world must not repeat in the 21st century.

Some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: “Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided.” We have an obligation to call this what it is – the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history.

George Bush has said a lot of asinine things over the years, but this one surely belongs at or near the top of the list.

The dictionary defines appeasement as “The policy of granting concessions to potential enemies to maintain peace.” Granting concessions. Not just talking.

At a time the Soviet Union had thousands of nuclear warheads targeted on the United States and thousands of tanks ready to pour through the Fulda Gap at any moment, Ronald Reagan famously said:

General Secretary Gorbachev, if you seek peace, if you seek prosperity for the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, if you seek liberalization: Come here to this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall.

Yet, as Ed Meese Meese wrote, Ronald Reagan was a big believer in talk:

RONALD REAGAN WAS A STRONG BELIEVER IN PERSONAL DIPLOMACY-THE IDEA of having a face-to-face discussion with those he was seeking to persuade. That’s why, after becoming President, he often talked privately about the desire to engage the leader of the Soviet Union in a one-on-one conversation, to diminish any fear of the United States’ intentions and to seek common ground for reducing tensions and promoting peace.

This was not a new idea for the President. Years before, when he was governor of California, he spoke frequently of his desire to host Soviet leaders on a trip across America, so that he could explain to them the truth about how workers prospered under a free economy. ...

While Ronald Reagan stood firm in his opposition to Communist expansion and imperialism, his personal diplomacy and his relationship with Gorbachev were major factors in shaping the forces that ultimately led to the end of the Cold War, with victory for the cause of freedom.

Once again, George Bush proves he is no Ronald Reagan.

Posted on Thursday, May 15 2008 | Permalink

One of the reasons that Bushism/Rovism/PermanentMajoritism is so intellectually and morally bankrupt is that it doesn’t see any distinction between “communicating with” and “conceding to.” The repeated failure to engage in dialog with damned near anyone on damned near any subject makes this abundantly clear.

And many Reaganites were just as bad… I had to work with them. Fortunately, their boss loved to talk so much that they couldn’t control things the same way.

Posted by C.E. Petit  on  05/16  at  12:05 AM

I’m too late here, but a major reason that the Cold War ended peacefully rather then in a shooting war between the USSR and the US is that Reagan talked to the Soviet leaders and at time gave them significant support in their internal struggles.

Bush and McClain is accusing Reagan of appeasement.

Nancy Reagan should demand an apology.

Posted by  on  05/16  at  09:34 AM

Talking is fine, but meetings between the President and various thug countries without conditions is stupid and poor negotiating.  There is also an obvious distinction between Reagan speaking to Soviet leaders and a future president meeting with tin horn dictators, thugs and terrorists without conditions.  Even Jimmy Carter required some concessions from Egypt and Israel before hosting Camp David.  We have a State Department who can talk to the North Koreas, Zimbabwes, Hamasas, Hezbollahs and Irans of the world before the President gets on the phone or meets with them.

Posted by  on  05/16  at  12:04 PM

Are you descending into Obama support ala fellow law prof Kmiec?

Sorry, you will not like this:  IMHO, much of the academy exists in the kingdom of the blind (morally bankrupt, narcissistic, venal, believing ‘stuff’ so asinine only another intellectual could).  They spend their lives dealing with children and with others that deal only with children.  Actually, the real world is full of children, too.  But, they’re making decisions and taking responsibility and living and dying by their acts.  Obama has never done any of that either.  I know about you profs.  This is my third kid I’m putting through college. 

Kmiec is either insane or in the thrall of the demon. 

Maybe if they that haunt the academy rubbed elbows with real people (not just other ivy-tower savants and overaged freshmen) they’d have a better handle on reality. 

PS:  While Reagan was talking with Gorby, he was spending $ billions on SDI and naval vessels, and deploying medium range missiles in Western Europe.  Obama will talk from a position of weakness and unless VP Hillary or his wife is present.  It’s easy to see who wears the pants in that house. 

Ob’s Hallmark greeting card bromides sound really nice!  Vote for Obama!  He can do better than Carter!  Adults and real men and women (Condi Rice, e.g.) have been in charge way too long!

Posted by  on  05/16  at  01:18 PM

"Kmiec is either insane or in the thrall of the demon.”

Dude, take your meds.

Posted by  on  05/16  at  05:57 PM
Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.

Next entry: Who's the Elitist: McCain versus Obama?

Previous entry: California Same-Sex Marriage Decision

Introduction


Recent Punditry Entries


Hot Topics on Food & Wine

Hot Topics on Law & Business


Punditry RSS Feed

Flickr

Archives

My Books



Blogroll