In 1938, Neville Chamberlain returned from Munich with an agreement in hand declaring “peace in our time.” Chamberlain struck a deal with Hitler with the hope of securing peace throughout Europe and the world. He was hailed as a hero by many and his intentions were good. However, his policy of appeasement turned out to give Hitler more confidence that European nations would not stand in his way. Winston Churchill was one of the most vocal opponents of Chamberlain’s actions and believed war would come.
History has shown Chamberlain’s approach to be dead wrong and Churchill to be right. Appeasement does not work.
In search of a Reagan “tear down this wall” moment, President Obama went to Prague to deliver an important foreign policy speech. Said he, “So today, I state clearly and with conviction America's commitment to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons. I'm not naive. This goal will not be reached quickly -- perhaps not in my lifetime. It will take patience and persistence. But now we, too, must ignore the voices who tell us that the world cannot change. We have to insist, "Yes, we can."”
The statement “I’m not naïve,” was a last minute addition by President Obama. Not exactly a “tear down this wall” moment. The rhetoric is nice but truly reckless. Yes, you are naïve Mr. President. We have survived as a superpower because we do have nuclear weapons. Having them has been the greatest deterrent in not allowing ourselves to be a puppet of another nuclear power. There have been plenty of articles discrediting such a naïve idea.
This is not a good sign from our President, is it a pattern?
The President outsourced the writing of the stimulus bill to Nancy Pelosi, both to appease her and avoid real responsibility.
He appeased Congress by signing a spending bill with over 8,000 earmarks. Then minutes later told the American people how irresponsible earmarks are.
During his European tour, the President allowed the European nations to set the agenda. He then apologized for America, saying it was arrogant and derisive (this is a broader topic for a later post). He did so to appease Europe, believing he would get its leaders to spend more stimulus funds and provide additional support in Afghanistan. We can only hope that the President learned that trading respect for popularity gets you nothing.
His bow to the Saudi King was a mistake, but his lying about it to the American people was disgraceful.
When he attended the Summit of the Americas, he allowed Daniel Ortega to bash the United States without coming to our defense. He seemed pretty chummy with Hugo Chavez and accepted an anti-American book with a thank you. Worse yet, there was no formal purpose or agenda in giving creditability to one of our harshest critics. This is reckless and diminishes the office of the Presidency. When a President meets with oppressive leaders, there should be an agenda, think Reagan-Gorbachev or FDR-Stalin.
To appease the left, the President clearly dismissed principle and released torture memos, reversing his earlier conviction. Even if you disagree with the contents of the memos, this was an error in judgment.
Thus far, President Obama has shown to have virtually no backbone. Even worse he is unwilling to stand up for who we are as a nation and chooses to appease whoever is holding his attention. His Chamberlain approach of appeasement will ironically make his lofty goals of peace and prosperity less likely. Where is Churchill in all of this? Certainly, no where near the Oval Office.
