"Appeasement" in our time
Andrew Sullivan is back from vacation and blogging away, reminding me both of how regularly I disagree with him, and of how much I still find reading him valuable. He is an able rhetorical tactician, and sometimes you have to stop reading and step back to decode those tactics. For some time now, Sullivan has referred to those who do not share his exact hard-line, pro-Bush stances as "the forces ofappeasement" or "the appeasement brigade." In applying this label he is, of course, associating his opponents with Neville Chamberlain and the other European leaders who, in the dark days of the 1930s, chose either not to oppose Hitler's aggressive moves against Germany's neighbors, or to oppose them with insufficient spine. This invocation of the Nazi analogy skirts perilously close to Godwin's Law, but it's worth examining. An "appeasement" policy depends on the notion of propitiation: There's a threat, but you believe, somehow, that you can give your enemy what he wants and avert the threat -- you can stop Hitler from going after you by giving him Czechoslovakia. But there is no Czechoslovakia today. If there were any true advocates of appeasement right now, you could identify them by their willingness to give in to some demand of our enemies. (The "war brigade" does not like to be pressed too hard to define exactly who our enemies are, which makes this a little problematic, but for the sake of argument let's name al-Qaida and Osama bin Laden, whom we can widely agree on.) Well, what are those demands? There are none. Which makes the whole "appeasement" argument a big red herring. Now, if you really wanted to get interesting here, you could say that, while al-Qaida has no explicit demands, it does have some goals: It would like to see the West's freedoms curtailed, our open society hobbled, American democracy undermined and replaced by theocracy. But, no, you won't find me calling John Ashcroft an "appeaser"! [Scott Rosenberg's Links & Comment]
Intelligent discussion by two of the web's best writers. I like that line:
reminding me both of how regularly I disagree with him, and of how much I still find reading him valuable.
I enjoy reading both, but don't necessarily agree with either all the time. Sometimes I agree with both. That's the great thing about the web - so many opinions and nuances (sometimes a little extremism also, but that's easy to ignore).
Am I pro- or anti-war with Iraq? I don't know! But I guess one way or another, it's going to happen. If Tony Blair is going so out on a limb, the ultimate spin-master separating himself from so many of his colleagues and his party, he must know something the rest of us don't.
12:36:41 PM 
|
|
