When Compromise Becomes Appeasement

source

In 1938, Adolf Hitler created a crisis in Europe by demanding that the Czechs give part of Czechoslovakia to Germany. Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain of Great Britain sought to end this crisis by negotiation. When Chamberlain came back from negotiating with Germany, he declared that it had been agreed between Great Britain and Germany that the Czechs had to give up part of their country, to save their country and save Europe from Armageddon. But, due to Hitler’s goals - which had been stated in his book, “Mein Kampf” - Czechoslovakia was not saved, and Europe was not saved from Armageddon.

As I write this, the Republican Party is creating another financial crisis for the United States. They demand that Americans give up government-managed programs and benefits, or they will make the country a debt scofflaw. And President Obama is attempting to negotiate with them to end the crisis.

When negotiating, the goals of your opponent must be taken into account. This is easy, when they state their goals publicly. How many times must Republicans say that Social Security should not exist, or should be privatized, for Democrats to conclude that the Republican goal is the end of Social Security? How many times must Republicans say that health care is a privilege, and Medicare should be replaced with vouchers, before Democrats conclude that the Republican goal is to eviscerate Medicare and Medicaid? How many times will Republicans be given concessions for the sake of their promises? Isn't it clear that they will not stop creating crises until their goals are achieved? At this point, continuing to compromise with them becomes mere appeasement.

Mr. President, I hope not to see you wave a bill and declare, in the manner of Neville Chamberlain, that “Democrats and Republicans have agreed that Americans must give up something from their government-managed programs in order to save their government-managed programs, and to save America from default.” Clearly, Republicans are attaining their goals, piece by piece, with each crisis they create. It is in their favor to continue to create crises, and to make many more crises, if with each crisis they get closer to attaining their goals. If you do not share their goals, you must define and defend your own, or lose them piecemeal.

President Obama: Declare a War on Unemployment

We have seen U.S. Presidents declare a "War on Poverty," a "War on Drugs" and a "War on Terror." President Obama needs to declare a War on Unemployment. Except in times of plenty or actual war, the economy is the issue uppermost in the minds of the people. It shows up in every poll taken, and rightly so. The American people are concerned about the lack of jobs to support themselves and their families.

Compared to this, the Republican "War on the Deficit" is a laughable abstraction. Having a deficit doesn't mean people can't eat. Being unemployed does mean people can't eat. Which of these has more immediate impact on you?
a. The government is spending more money than it takes in; or
b. You don't have a job and there are none out there.
I would pick "b." I think every American who needs a job to survive -- the vast majority -- would agree.

So, Mr. President, you can stop with this "Win the Future" slogan. No one knows what it means, anyway. Declare war on unemployment with the same vigor and determination you showed in the pursuit of Usama bin Laden. That we can understand.

America Held Hostage: Day 10 Update

The news from Washington, D.C., includes a report that former President Bill Clinton joined President Obama in the White House today, to support the plan to pay the Tax Cut Ransom to the rich Republican pirates in exchange for their release of humanitarian aid to America's long-term unemployed.

This reminds me: if I had wanted another Clinton in the White House, I would have voted for Hillary in the primary. I voted for Obama, instead. I thought Obama would be "change I could believe in," not a reprise of the Clinton years.

Alex Budarin