Why Progressives Automatically Look Like Appeasers to Conservatives

by Micah Tillman

Progressives are often confused with pacifists, and pacifists with passivists. But keeping those three ideologies distinct is essential for untangling the recent spat between Bush, Obama, and McCain over "negotiation" and "appeasement."

"Passivism" I'll define as the theory which says being passive is the only legitimate response to aggression. I've encountered it primarily among my fellow Christians, who read Matthew 5:39 and St. Paul as demanding it; but I suspect others may believe it too.

"Pacifism" I'll define as the theory that "peacemaking" is the only legitimate response to anything. I've primarily encountered this attitude among my fellow Christians who happen to also be progressives — they take the Beatitudes as their creed, focusing especially on Matthew 5:9 — but I think the attitude is shared by non-Christian pacifists as well.

"Progressivism" I'll define as the theory which seeks to institutionalize love. Progressives want government to be an aide, and bureaucracies to be humane. They see government as an economic (rather than a physical) power.

Progressives' tendency to dissociate government from physical force — and to associate it with caring — makes them perfect companions for pacifists. But unlike pacifists, progressives are willing to resort to force. If they can't get a donkey to move through dialogue, they turn to carrots. If carrots don't work, they try to scare the donkey into budging by lighting strategic brushfires.

And if that doesn't work, they reluctantly turn to physically beating the donkey with a stick. (Then they set up rehabilitation programs to erase the damage.)

Pacifists would only go so far as carrots. Passivists wouldn't even go that far.

And that means President Bush confuses progressives with passivists:

"Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. . . ."

Contrast this approach with the following (more-pacifist) "carrot" method:

[T]he United States offered Iran:
. . .
- Improvement of Iran's access to the international economy, markets, and capital, . . . .
- Establishment of a long-term energy partnership between Iran and the European Union . . . .
- Support for the modernization of Iran's telecommunication infrastructure and advanced Internet service . . . .
- High-tech cooperation.

That was, ironically, President Bush's (i.e., Condoleezza Rice's) approach, according to Andrew McCarthy.

But what does Obama want to do? His favorite words for his approach to diplomacy are: "tough," "aggressive," and "direct." And the tools he claims his diplomacy will use are: (peer/gang) "pressure," "isolation," and "sanctions."

And maybe the "military."

These go far beyond the pacifist's upper limit. Obama's is the "brushfire" method.

Where, then, is the "negotiation" and "appeasement" which we've been hearing about? And what would those two approaches even mean?

Building on the donkey example above, it seems there are six options for dealing with conflict:

(1) Capitulation
(2) Conversation
(3) Convincing
(4) Enticement ("Carrots")
(5) Intimidation ("Brushfires")
(6) Attack ("Sticks")

Passivists go for options 1 and 2. They might even allow themselves to try 3, but that's stretching it.

Pacifists would go for 1 and 2 as well, except they prefer to actually do something. Thus they will spend most of their time on 3 and 4.

Progressives will follow pacifists in preferring 3 and 4, but are willing to go as far as 6 when pushed.

There is no "negotiation" on the list, because it is a combination of 3 with everything else but 6 (and, sometimes, but 1). And there is no "appeasement" on the list either, because it would be a monstrous combination of 1 and 4.

Obama has declared he will never "negotiate" with Hamas. So long as he kept President Bush's words in mind . . .

"Above all, we must have faith in our values and ourselves . . . ."

. . . he would avoid capitulation. And what would be the problem with negotiation-without-capitulation (other than the fact that it might be a waste of time)?

In fact, negotiation need not even involve enticement. It could be all conversation, convincing, and intimidation.

Perhaps what really worries conservatives about Obama's willingness to converse with unsavory types is that they (conservatives) doubt he's willing to use option 6: attack. Without it, option 5 (intimidation) is meaningless, and the whole process collapses into enticement and capitulation, i.e., appeasement.

The progressive preference for approaches even pacifists would find agreeable, therefore, throws a progressive president's ability to successfully use negotiation into doubt. And that legitimately leads people to fear that a progressive president might resort to appeasement (even though it can't legitimately lead anyone to conclude this).

If that bothers Obama, there are things he can do to fix it. But hopefully in the meantime the controversy will remind us to keep clear both on what we mean when we say what we say and why we mean it.

Micah Tillman (micahtillman.com) is a lecturer in the School of Philosophy at The Catholic University of America, and the curator of the WEeding Awards.