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.

Deficit Spending

Republicans are suddenly alarmed by deficit spending. That was not the case when George W. Bush was President and Republicans controlled Congress, and they know it. According to an Associated Press report, Republican senators say their change of mind is due to the fact that the economy is in worse shape now and the American public is anxious. I suppose Republican senators previously believed it was okay to engage in deficit spending because the economy was in good shape and people were not worried about it.

That provokes two thoughts:

1. Government leaders should concern themselves about deficit spending also in good times; and
2. Their concern about deficit spending should not depend on the public mood.

A government should live within its means. But its management should be pragmatic: questions of economic policy should be determined with reference to experience, current insights of scientific inquiry, and current realities. It seemed to me, back in 2006, that the policies of our Republican-dominated government would lead us to ruin, because they were pretty much unconcerned with past experience, economic realities, and the opinions of economists.

According to the AP report, the Obama administration is engaging in deficit spending only to "pull the economy from the severe recession of 2008-09." As far as I know, the majority of economists support the Obama administration's economic policy. The AP report also mentions that Obama and other Democrats have vowed to return to the Clinton "pay as you go" restrictions for government spending, whereby "most tax cuts or program expansions [have] to be offset elsewhere with tax increases and spending cuts." But we can only return to that standard when it is pragmatically feasible.

Alex Budarin