Originally posted by me on May 14, 2016.
This title was altered, & beyond that I also altered the article itself primarily for spelling, punctuation, and SEO.
There Are Parallels Twixt Now, & the 1930's
Simply put, I am beyond furious at how Obama has handled the Syria Crisis, and unafraid to scream it. Wrap me in strait jacket, place me in a cell next to Winston’s.
The parallels to the 1930’s and are beyond staggering, if you ask me. More than one individual I’ve come across has dismissed the parallels outta hand, so I’ll go instead where liberals love going with the 1930’s—authoritarianism. When they compare what’s going on with right-wing parties in Europe and America to then, they’ve gotta point—a real good one.
Back then, there weren’t just fascists in mainland Europe—Britain had a Fascist Party, too—under the leadership of one Oswald Mosley; George Orwell watched one of his speeches to miners, and was horrified to find they all cheered—not unlike they do for Trump, today—same general mood.
Trump, a Fascist?
When they argue Trump’s a neo-fascist, certain research seems to support the charge. These movements are anti-foreigner, just like then, and not particular as to whether one group is a threat, like Muslims vs. another, like Hispanics.
Such sloppiness of thought disgusts me, like when Trump says Hispanics won’t vote Republican, if they were able to vote, in greater numbers. On the contrary, that happens to be one of Dubya’s genuine—if squandered—successes–for the GOP. Latinos nearly voted even for Bush in 2004, and that is largely forgotten today.
Also, the thirties were superseded by economic upheaval. Then, they did quake in the wake of the Great Depression; today, it be the Great Recession. Today, the economy may have picked up, but still the jobs have not—or in high quality; as a result, it evokes a moribund stretch, not unlike the thirties were.
Isolationism like then is back in force in American politics. Folks may contradict and blaspheme when I claim we’re living through neoappeasement, but I doubt anyone will dispute that we’ve had a surge in isolationism.
Isolationism Was Prevalent in The Thirties, Just Like Now
Not just that, but thoughout the West, we were still traumatized into apathy by the horrors of the Great War. It founded the Pacifist movements of today, largely, and it’s easy to see why. That said, pacifism, like any -ism, such as militarism, can lead to disaster, if followed to excess. It did then under the banner of appeasement, and can do so again, under the banner of neo-appeasement.
Today, looking at a lot of article comments, I am struck at how well the arguments of pacifism and isolationism have merged together—augmented by a healthy dose of cynicism over what politicians in the name of other ideas had done guided by certain philosophies.
Isolationism As a Reaction to Both World War I & Iraq
Look—in World War I, there were huge errors, and poor assumptions, but poor execution of a philosophy does not make the philosophy itself bad. For instance, the military idea that the offensive is generally the best was borne out in World War II, but World War I did not do much to advance the idea, did it?
Neoconservatism is suffering from much the same boomerang reviling that occurred after World War I, and how can that not be categorized as a crisis of confidence in the Greater Western Project, doubt in what we’re selling? Authoritarianism, on the other hand, is absolute certainty, and in our self-doubt, progressives have opened the door to something anathema to what they value. Sans any strong opposition, such as Reagan’s anti-Communism, the unthinkable can too quickly be granted a political hearing.
Yeah, such doubt is costly, has cost us, and will cost us more, if not staunched.
Dictators Were on the March in the Thirties, Much Like Putin Is, Now
When folks on the radio defend Putin’s conquest in the Crimea, I am shocked at the lack of regard for law that these speakers espouse, the apathy. The West beat Germany once, and they got lax; we’ve beaten Russia in a Cold War once, and gotten lax again—history sadly repeats.
Hitler’s Western apologists—and yes, he had more than a few—could make the exact same arguments Putin’s apologists now make—namely, that Hitler’s conquests were just to protect his people, and that borders were poorly drawn. For those who were against the Iraq invasion because it ignored international law, this is especially hypocritical. So spare me talk of values–by coddling Putin, we’re effectively saying we don’t have any.
It would seem a lot of people today would like to see Putin as an ally—or at least a future ally. Once again, Neoappeasers are following in their forefathers’ foolish footsteps. Look, those mooks said—Hitler hates commies—let’s form an alliance to combat it! Now, as you’ve probably heard, some have said that we ought to do the same against militant Islam. Sorry, folks, but Putin is by far the bigger threat, here, and after Ukraine and above all, Syria—how more obvious need it it be? State threats supersede non-state ones, and not the other way around. This was clear to the military brass pre-Syria, and it should be even more obvious now. As is, Russia says we’re already in a new Cold War—does Obama truly believe we can avoid what has already happened?
Two mugs, one shared legacy.
Appeasing Domestic Politicians Simply Kicking Cans Down the Road...
One thing Obama has in common with Neville Chamberlain, and also Stanley Baldwin, Chamberlain’s less-ballyhooed appeasing predecessor, is that they were domestic-issue politicians with little interest in foreign affairs. Beyond that, Chamberlain and Obama both had little interest in leading military coalitions. Oh, and they also weren’t interested in listening to their foreign policy advisors, even though they had little experience.
Tsk, tsk.
And by the way, one thing lesser-known about Appeasement is that Britain kept moving towards a war footing even as their leaders kept trying to become allies; actions speak louder than words, and for all this talk, or evasion–of the fact that Russia’s an enemy, NATO has been quietly forced to take a more confrontational stance East—wonder why? Because, of course, it is a threat, for all the wishful thinking to the contrary.
Oh, and there was also a lot of dictatorial military interventionism going around Europe, and its environs, back in the thirties. Yeah, there was the Rhineland, Austria, and Sudetenland for Germany, which is similar to the Ukraine and Crimea, today, but did you know there was even more than that, going around? Hitler intervened with the Luftwaffe in Spain, leading to the creation of another Fascist state, in Franco—not unlike Putin’s intervening on behalf of Assad in the Syrian Civil War. Ever heard of Mussolini’s invasion of Abyssinia? Dictators were on the offensive, in general, whereas democracies were in retreat.
Not unlike today, is it?
As Always, Appeasement Is About Sacrificing Allies for Enemies
It’s admirable to avoid to avoid war, but what are the consequences? Does it work? Does it contribute to bigger problems down the road? I think we’ve seen enough to conclude that it will, and it has already, but that’s still an out-of favor conclusion. It shouldn’t be, if your remember the 1930's, but few do, and there's less and less all the time. Historian William Manchester likened appeasement to religion; today, Obama’s belief system has been likened the same way. Should be disturbing—especially how Bush was mocked for being “too dogmatic.”
Appeasement, basically, is about sacrificing small players for the sake of big players, and that is essentially what happened in Syria. If the US was a global bully, as Bush critics claim, then Obama simply farmed it out to Putin, in effect. I don’t know about you, but I’d rather see democracy as global bully than second-world dictatorship, but some folks disagree.
George Friedman once argued that all the US needed to do in foreign policy was to just stir the pot enough to keep our enemies divided, and at each other’s throats, and that was it—prevent alliances from getting strong enough to hurt us, but other than that, stand pat; pretty amoral, really, but then again, that has been the overall track record of ours, over the last fifteen years. Me, I dislike this vision of the United State’s role, and it stems from a desire to do more than the minimum—to build up, rather than just maintain a hierarchical status quo, like Russia seems intent on doing.
Instead of bringing us forward, Obama has inadvertently brought us back eighty years, where Western leadership was weak, uncertain, and ambivalent—woe to us all.
No comments:
Post a Comment