http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2008/05/15/the-appeasement-card/ n. the principle of good order<br /><br /> "Observe the strange inversion of all order and sense! Dignity debased; how vilely is the function of a consul prostituted!" ~The Craftsman Sun, 22 Nov 2009 09:39:05 -0800 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.3 hourly 1 http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2008/05/15/the-appeasement-card/comment-page-1/#comment-10996 Eunomia » A Strange Way To Show Support Fri, 23 May 2008 20:14:20 +0000 http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2008/05/15/the-appeasement-card/#comment-10996 [...] As someone who has been mildly critical of Obama’s original proposal about negotiations with “rogue” states in the past, but who finds the charge of appeasement that has been flung at Obama in recent weeks absolutely crazy, I am baffled that Obama supporters would want to frame Obama’s VP selection in terms that are maximally beneficial to his general election opponent.  To listen to them talk about selecting Clinton as his running mate in terms of “diplomacy, not appeasement,” it’s as if there’s some remote danger that if he chooses her in the “wrong” way (the appeasing way) that her hordes of well-armed Appalachian folk will storm the convention hall in Denver and annex it to West Virginia.  Should Obama choose Clinton, perhaps in deference to the legions of delegates she will have at the convention, these arguments will be turned back around on their candidate and cited as proof that the choice proves that he is weak, naive and an appeaser–even his own supporters have said as much!  (Indeed, one gets the feeling that his supporters are trying to make the choice of Clinton so radioactive with these arguments that Obama could not choose her even if that made the most sense.)  There is, of course, another view of Obama selecting Clinton that holds that it would make him appear to be a “wuss” (Kaus), which is just about as profound as thinking of international disputes in terms of “toughness” and “appeasement.”  In this view, choosing Clinton, even if it was a politically smart move, is by definition an act of weakness.    [...] [...] As someone who has been mildly critical of Obama’s original proposal about negotiations with “rogue” states in the past, but who finds the charge of appeasement that has been flung at Obama in recent weeks absolutely crazy, I am baffled that Obama supporters would want to frame Obama’s VP selection in terms that are maximally beneficial to his general election opponent.  To listen to them talk about selecting Clinton as his running mate in terms of “diplomacy, not appeasement,” it’s as if there’s some remote danger that if he chooses her in the “wrong” way (the appeasing way) that her hordes of well-armed Appalachian folk will storm the convention hall in Denver and annex it to West Virginia.  Should Obama choose Clinton, perhaps in deference to the legions of delegates she will have at the convention, these arguments will be turned back around on their candidate and cited as proof that the choice proves that he is weak, naive and an appeaser–even his own supporters have said as much!  (Indeed, one gets the feeling that his supporters are trying to make the choice of Clinton so radioactive with these arguments that Obama could not choose her even if that made the most sense.)  There is, of course, another view of Obama selecting Clinton that holds that it would make him appear to be a “wuss” (Kaus), which is just about as profound as thinking of international disputes in terms of “toughness” and “appeasement.”  In this view, choosing Clinton, even if it was a politically smart move, is by definition an act of weakness.    [...]

]]>