"Appeasement": Guilt-By-Analogy... When Guilt-By-Association Isn't Enough

I was the split-screen bystander on Hardball last night when Chris Matthews exposed Kevin James as the quintessential right wing slandering bloviator.

James was of course pathetic but his -- and Bush's and McCain's -- strategies aren't so funny. Basically, when you've lost an argument because facts and history aren't on your side, resort to unprovable guilt-by-association or, as in appeasement, guilt-by-analogy.

It was bad enough when McCain tried to link Hamas and Obama because Hamas said it preferred Obama. And if the Klan endorsed McCain because he wasn't the black guy, would McCain have a problem if someone said that McCain and the Klan are one and the same?

Then Bush makes his instantly famous appeasement attack at the Knesset on Obama. We've seen this movie before. Whenever conservatives can't win an argument on the merits, they attack some real or perceived enemy as Hitler. So Ho Chi Mihn was Hitler. bin Ladin was Hitler. Ahmadinejad was Hitler. Of course Hussein was Hitler. And anyone who does something to try to resolve conflict short of more war is Neville Chamberlain.

Beyond the fact that Mr. President 28% has next-to-credibility on much of anything, least of all in the Middle East, the attack on Obama is ridiculous.

As the late PM Yitzhak Rabin famously said, you negotiate not with your friends but your enemies. Was Israel -- with far more experience and its survival at stake in dealing with war and terrorism -- wrong to neogtiate with former enemy Egypt, with successful result...wrong to negotiate with former enemy Jordan, with successful result... now wrong to talk to Syria about peace in exchange for the Golan? Churchill rightly understood that at times of potential or actual conflict, it was better to "jaw jaw than war war."

Given where Bush's ready-fire-aim approach has gotten us in Iraq, it's good for the next president to pursue a strategy of common security when it comes to such inter-border problems as terrorism, pollution, AIDS and nuclear proliferation. Bush and McCain's military-first impulse has proven a calamity for America and the world because, to quote even a momentarily cogent Don Rumsfeld, "we can't kill them all."

Take Iran and Ahmadinejad, the newest "Hitler." Iran can't stop laughing at Bush's foreign policy. He attacks its long-time enemy Iraq, allowing Iran's Shia majority to have far more influence in a Shia-majority Iraqi government. And Bush at the same time provides an unpopular Iranian government with a convenient outside enemy to rally nationalistic support to its side. Which is why Secretary Robert Gates himself has advocated talking more to Iran. What an appeaser!

Related: Chris Matthews Eviscerates Right-Wing Host Kevin James Over Obama "Appeasement" Claims

Comments

[jeanrenoir]

There's a great, and potentially highly salutary, war going on this year in the American Jewish Community, which has been increasingly divided between neo-cons and liberals for almost thirty years, of course, anyway. The Israel Lobby, stymied by Obama's independence of their money because of the Net, can only control him now by attempting to destroy him by relentlessly smearing him as an enemy of Israel. Thank God for the honest, gutsy, liberal Jews, like Rubin and Green today, who bravely stand up to the AIPAC Republican smear machine and tell it like it is. They are the real friends of Israel, which would be much better served by an honest Middle Eastern broker in the White House than by a neo-con ventriloquist's dummy like McBush, their front men for their proxy war in Iraq, which has hurt Israel, and devastatingly strengthened its regional enemies, more than any dumb Idea in the 60-year history of Jerusalem's foreign policy.

[MourningDude]

The fact that Hamas, which views the US as the Great Satan would endorse ANY Presidential candidate of ours is remarkable.

It shows just how out of step Obama's positions are on our national security issues.

[DMSmith]

um...it shows...WH­AT?!?? ROFLMAO

[ATLiberal]

What it shows is that everyone across the world, including a large majority of our staunchest allies in Europe want the Republican War Machine to be put to pasture. It is counterproductive to any peace in the middle east. Have you checked out what's happening in Lebanon lately?

[punch]

I didn't know whether I should have laughed or cried, what I cant believe is this guy(Kevin James) has a radio show in L.A.
Bring back the fairness doctrine

[Hopefor08]

Obama is so right to attack this stupid remark that Bush made in Isreal. Bush has made every mistake you can make and caused harm in evey way possible and he tries to blame everyone but himself. Politics by the republican party and Bush is always dirty and low down. It is great the way Obama is right back at them with the truth. McCain looks more and more just like Bush, and will be as harmful with his war mongering attack Iran plans.

[raphaelbonee]

I don't think McCain or Bush knew what the word appease meant either ... sad really.

[adled]

Churchill is rolling in his grave.

[americansheep]

Let's get this straight once and for all. TALKING is talking. Not the same thing as dropping your pants and bending over. TWO different things. Chances are that Chamberlain didn't spend enough time TALKING to Hitler. Had he done so things might have turned out differently. Obama is absolutely right. So many mistakes are made simply by poor communication. Even if you totally disagree you first have to learn to communicate and that begins with TALKING, and lots of it.

[NicoleAnonymous]

I agree with you - he should have just called Hitler and asked him to talk about it.

Chamberlain: I know that you're upset over something that France did..

Hitler: Let's just kill all the Jews.

Chamberlain: So I was thinking maybe you could meet with the President of France and..

Hitler: Let's just kill all the Jews.

Chamberlain: Maybe we could talk about solving your problems without violence..­.

Hitler: Let's just kill all the Jews.

Chamberlain: It's been a pleasure talking with you - we should do this again sometime!

[MikeW213]

You go girl!

[SpoxLogic]

Hey NicoleAnonymous, at least that would have been better than what Chamberlain did. And I paraphrase:

Chamberlain: I know that you're upset over something that France did..

Hitler: Let's just kill all the Jews.

Chamberlain: Well, be that it may. We don't want war. So, how about we give you part of Czechoslovakia

Hitler: Sure, I'll take it...then, let's just kill all the Jews.

Chamberlain: What ever. Anyways, remember, we gave you part of a country, so don't attack us, OK?

Hitler: Sure, I won't (heh heh). But I can still kill all the Jews, right?

Chamberlain: Knock yerself out, Fuhrer. It's been a pleasure talking with you - we should do this again sometime

[KQuarksSuperKollider]

Chamberlain's biggest mistake was that he misread or ignored Hitler's intentions when he negotiated with him. Chamberlain's folly with Hitler is much closer to Bush's folly when he thought he could look into Putin's eyes and see he was a good man. We all now know that Putin is a authoritarian thug who runs rings around Bush. Maybe Bush does not want to talk to world leaders because he knows they will fool him.

[Skepticat]

The western countries were poorly prepared to deal with a rising Nazi Germany - they were reeling with economic depression - and Britain & France had lost a whole generation of young men in WW1 - another world war was a non starter. To add to the problem the west feared Communists and there were many Fascist - Nazi sympathizers who supported Hitler.
By 1938 Germany had reclaimed the Saar, annexed Austria - and was leaning on Czechoslovakia. Their military got an excellent workout in the Spanish Civil War and would have easily beaten the largely demilitarized west.
I doubt if Chamberlain really believed that appeasement would by peace in our time - it was more lets stall Hitler off and re-arm cuz we can't beat him now, which they did. In retrospect it probably worked for Britain because by the time France fell in June 1940 the Brits had built enough Spitfires & Hurricanes to win the battle of Britain.
Back in the USA the Republicans who then as now dominated in the interior states pushed a policy of isolationism - many were also fascist sympathizers themselves.

[JTyroler]

Perhaps there should be a test of minimal knowledge to earn a living as a radio talk show host covering politics.

[Canukistani]

After all this time, I don't expect that Bush will know what he's talking about. He never really has to defend any of the many half-witted, jingoistic slogans he mouths, so he never has to know what he's talking about or to justify them in any meaningful way. That moron that Mathews interviewed, though, should have had enough sense of self-preservation to at least understand the term he was trying to use. Maybe he never expected to be questioned about it, but he should have been ready to say something that sounded like it might make sense. The guy is a complete buffoon. On the other hand, I guess that's all that's left of Bush's base.

[MajorKong]

It's worth nothing that Newt Gingrich called Ronald Reagan an appeaser for meeting with Gorbachev. He even used the Neville Chamberlain comparison. Saint Reagan no less!

[MourningDude]

Conservatives were very worried that Reagan would give away the farm in Rejkavich (sp?). At first they agreed to a portion of our demands. Reagan refused. Then they agreed to all of our demands. Reagan still refused.

The Cold War ended because Reagan followed the will of Conservatives and REFUSED to strike a deal with the Russians.

Meeting with them only provided an opportunity for striking a deal that would have plunged us into decades more of the Cold War. Without the meetings, they still would have collapsed in the same way. Why chance it?

[mattashell]

They agreed to all of our demands and Reagan still refused?! Are you aware how stupid that statement is?

[marinemomof3]

Watched the big question by Matthews yesterday! WOW!!

He is a right wing radio host?? Not too bright.

I find it amusing (sic) that Bush talks about Nazi appeasemen­t.....
Does he know what the word means?? How would we expect him to
know the definition? Do you think it is in his blood??

another good article on huffpo

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/larisa-alexandrovna/all-the-presidents-nazis_b_102022.html

[LawrenceL]

Why did Chris Matthews have Kevin James on the show at all?

Sure, he made James look like an idiot, but Matthews' motives are not benign.

And why did Matthews give James *at least* 15-20 "tries" to answer his question, "What did Neville Chamberlain do?" This goes beyond politeness or thoroughness, and enables James to spread his lies.

[indypete]

On the other hand, he gave James all those opportunities to look like an idiot and James obliged handsomely. My favorite bit was when the other guy said, "Kevin, when you're in a hole, stop digging."

[RichLiberal]

The reason the "appeasement" label will appropriately stick to Obama has nothing to do with the false politics of "terrorism", which none of the candidates has addressed at all.

But in domestic politics "appeasement" is the correct word to use for Obama's posture on working class interests. Obama will appease the right wing by compromising away working class benefits. This has been the substantive part of the domestic campaign.

HIllary might well say that while there is no evidence that Obama will appease the (non-existent as a negotiating partner and far over-rated militarily) terrorists, there is strong evidence that Obama will use financial flubbery to appease the right wing by compromising away social security benefits earned by the baby boomers.

[jhink465]

What I heard Obama say is that he will reduce taxes for working families by $1000, eliminate income taxes on seniors making less than $50K per year, work to provide affordable health insurance, raise the income cap on social security so to strengthen the system and plans to expand job opportunities. Your accusation that Obama will screw baby boomers out of their benefits flies in the face of what Obama has proposed.

[NicoleAnonymous]

I don't think Americans should be paying any taxes - I think we should all decide to form our own companies that are based in the Cayman Islands although we have never been there. Of course the government might threaten us that we're doing something illegal but so what? Let them go after us - at the trial our lawyers will point out the hedge fund billionaires are allowed to base their companies there so why can't we? How does the government decide which Americans are allowed to steal and which can't?

They wouldn't be able to explain that so they wouldn't go after anyone. That is the only way things will change and politicians talking about families saving $1000 in taxes is insulting when rich Americans are allowed to cheat and get away with it. But Obama won't go after them because many of them have donated to his campaign.

[cheforacle]

I have read your deliberately misleading comments before. Obama supports raising the payroll tax cap which is not appeasing the right wing but pissing them off. Instead of compromsing their benefits he is trying to shore up its solvency. You are 180 degrees off on that point. He supports a liberal position on Social Security but has been lambasted by the likes of Paul Krugman merely because he believes the system will be in jeopardy if we don't make modest changes. He has repeatedly and consistently opposed privatization.

[RichLiberal]

That's just a middle class tax hike. If you are between 100-200k thats 6.5% added to your tax burden. Obama's "middle class" is 75K and under.

Also, he's afraid to touch the rich, that's why he raises the "cap" rather than simply raising the rate for everyone.

Many of the "elite" fall in this 100-200k bracket, which is another example of their self-delusional notion that Obama represents their economic interests.

[larmarch5]

Appeasement? Google "Prescott Bush Nazis".

[lafrance]

How beautiful that was on Hardball last night.
To watch the blowhard squirm while Chris kept asking him a simply question was great.
And the talking over everyone in a loud voice and spewing the same old talking points without knowing what any of it means, exposes exactly what is wrong with the right. They are all blowhards who know nothing. Only bullying and name calling.