The Wages of Appeasement


Pages: 1 2

BT: Citizens who are responsible for managing and defending their government have to believe in that government and think that it is better than any other. They have to love it and want to serve it, because its goodness and success are theirs as well, an extension of their identities. This means they must have certain virtues: courage, self-sacrifice, loyalty, duty, to name a few. Most important, they have to be willing to suffer, kill, and die on its behalf.

However, when the state is seen as something alien to the people, as a dispenser of entitlements or an umpire of competing private interests, then the people lose that affection and willingness to sacrifice for the state, which is to say for themselves, since in a free state the citizens are the state, and the state belongs to them and their children and future generations. It is an inheritance they want to protect and hand down. When that affection, or patriotism, is lost, then people do not want to pay the price for defending their freedom, and find appeasing an enemy, or deferring hard choices to the next generation, an acceptable option.

MT: What are some of the factors in our time that have led to such a disdain for patriotism and have paved the way for us to adopt a posture of appeasement toward the jihadists?

BT: The most important is the shift in citizens’ attitudes toward the state, which as I said, loses the unifying power that comes when citizens view the state as their possession, as an expression of what they are and what they believe, and as an object of love and affection they are willing to kill and die for.

In addition, some very bad ideas of modernity have become widespread, most importantly the false, and ultimately Marxist-inspired, narrative of our crimes and sins against humanity such as racism, colonialism, imperialism, and exploitative capitalism for which we deserve to be punished.

Finally, fantasies about the “global community” and an international “harmony of interests” have made disdain for one’s own country and culture the mark of sophisticated cosmopolitanism. All these attitudes erode the patriotism from which come the morale and endurance that have always been the keys to victory, and make it easier to adopt appeasing policies that merely postpone the ultimate reckoning.

MT: Could you talk a bit about one of the recurring themes among the three historical examples you write about in the book: a crippling failure of imagination “to see beyond the pretexts and professed aims of the adversary and recognize his true goals, no matter how bizarre or alien to our own way of thinking”?

BT: We in the West assume our ideals and goods are universal. They are, but only potentially: there are many alternatives to our way of living and governing ourselves, most obviously Islam and its totalizing social-political-economic order, sharia law. Suffering from this myopia, we fail to see those alternatives or take them seriously, usually dismissing them as compensations for material or political goods such as prosperity or democracy.

Worse yet, our enemies are aware of this weakness, and are adept at telling us what we want to hear, and using our own ideals as masks for their own agendas. Just look at the misinterpretations of the protestors in Egypt and the Muslim Brothers, not just from liberals but from many conservatives, who have been duped by the use of vague terms like “freedom” or “democracy.”

An important factor in this bad habit is our own inability to take religion seriously. Since religion is mainly a private affair, a lifestyle choice and source of private therapeutic solace, we can’t imagine that there are people so passionate about spiritual aims that they will murder and die in the pursuit of those aims.

MT: Are you optimistic that as a country and culture we can rouse ourselves from having become, in George P. Schultz’s phrase, the indecisive “Hamlet of Nations,” and can reverse our slide toward a fatal appeasement?

BT: No, I’m not optimistic. Democracies are notorious for waiting until the last minute before they rouse themselves. But the American democracy that responded, say, to Pearl Harbor by declaring war on the world’s two mightiest military machines is very different from the democracy we have today. Remember, Pearl Harbor was a military strike against a military target, and it came after deteriorating relations between Japan and the U.S. 9/11 was an attack on civilians on the part of peoples whom, from our perspective, we had not harmed.

Yet within six months, all that righteous anger and determination were starting to dissipate, and we were back to our old bad habits, donning the hair-shirt of foreign policy crimes, wondering what we had done to provoke the attack, undermining and criticizing the Bush administration’s attempts to make sure such an attack never happened again.

So if 3000 dead, two skyscrapers knocked down, and a trillion-dollar hit to our economy weren’t enough, what will be? And even then, will we unsheathe the “terrible swift sword,” or will we use appeasement to buy a few more years of quiet and leisure, pretending not to notice as more and more of our freedom disappears? I suppose we all will have to wait and see.

Pages: 1 2

  • Zorba

    Another example: The Vikings used to sail up the Seine and for many years extracted tribute from the Franks annually. Each year their demands increased until it finally became insufferable. Appeasement has never worked, a line in the sand does.

  • Chezwick_mac

    How about Carthage…on its death-bed, giving up its first-born as slaves, its treasure and its weaponry to buy off Rome,…only to find the Romans attacking anyway. The Carthaginians turned on their appeasing leaders, killed them all, and then engaged in a heroic but ultimately futile defense of the homeland. Both in the annuls of history and in the reality of their time, they were never heard from again.

  • tanstaafl

    Get up, stand up: don't give up the fight!

    – Bob Marley

  • steven l

    Reasonable appeasement should be the carrot. If the power of reason fails to convince the opponent, the stick must always be available and become more sophisticated.
    Perhaps we need to develop a dialogue with our society (not limited to the US) on the definition and need for a code of moral duty applicable to the whole humanity.

  • HenryCrux

    Atomic war is the end of the planet – peace at almost any price please! Kick your problems and disagreements down the road until the last minute – to survive, you all need to act like the Catholic Church has acted for 2000 years – they lost every battle but won the war anyway, or, they all believe they will win the war against the world because Christ will return – in the meantime, turn the other cheek, love your enemy as yourself, don't worry, be happy – but a little fighting is fun (until maniacs start blowing up Atomic Plants and poisoning the whole planet forever) – then, we do what the Catholics are doing right now – nothing else can do any good – radiation poison is forever.

    • SpiritOf1683

      If you lose every battle, you lose the war – simple as that. It is you who is the insane one. Lose the war and slavery is for ever. And trying to love your enemy is the most direct route to your grave. Of course you haven't heard of the phrase Give me liberty or give me death. And no, I don't believe in childish superstitions of Christ returning. He's been here once, he won't come here again.

  • rockman

    Mark Antony in Shakespeare's Julius Caesar: Cry Havoc! And let slip the dogs of war.
    Obama: Cry Uncle! And let slip the poodles of appeasement.

  • otispdriftwood

    I believe it was Winston Churchill who said, "Appeasement reflects the hope that the crocodile will eat you last."

  • Ronald W. Carnine

    America has already tried appeasement with Islam and it didn't work. The Barbary States hijacked American ships and enslaved American sailors. Ours gov't paid "protection" money which didn't always work and it took force to finally get it to stop. Appeasement is the same as surrender. If we only knew our history we wouldn't fall into this trap. But I fear its to late, first our allies then us. We need another Thomas Jefferson and loaded cannons.

  • Liz

    Ron Paul recently said we could have talked to Osama? Really? Ron Paul sounded too
    much like the appeasement apologist. No vote for you Ron Paul.