Appeasement
Conservatives have long struggled to balance our general attitudes opposing foreign entanglement with our knowledge of what evil is capable of. A good historical example comes from our friends across the pond. Few Americans know this (at least the ones I spend time talking to), but Neville Chamberlain and Winston Churchill were both conservatives. Churchill had this to say about Chamberlain after his death in 1940:
It fell to Neville Chamberlain in one of the supreme crises of the world to be contradicted by events, to be disappointed in his hopes, and to be deceived and cheated by a wicked man. But what were these hopes in which he was disappointed? What were these wishes in which he was frustrated? What was that faith that was abused? They were surely among the most noble and benevolent instincts of the human heart-the love of peace, the toil for peace, the strife for peace, the pursuit of peace, even at great peril, and certainly to the utter disdain of popularity or clamour. Whatever else history may or may not say about these terrible, tremendous years, we can be sure that Neville Chamberlain acted with perfect sincerity according to his lights and strove to the utmost of his capacity and authority, which were powerful, to save the world from the awful, devastating struggle in which we are now engaged. This alone will stand him in good stead as far as what is called the verdict of history is concerned.
Conservatism is at its heart pragmatic. If war can be avoided by words, great. Historically, it rarely is. Another bit of historical pragmatism conservatives carry is the fact a toothless diplomacy is just a dog and pony show. To make a difference there needs to be a real threat of force, else you might as well save your breath. Diplomacy is not as simple as erudition.
Naivete is dangerous when it comes to dealing with the world. A lack of seriousness regarding Islamic fundamentalism ended in disaster (of all our stupid failings, 9-11 ranks high. The WTC was attacked previously and our inability to notice the growing threat ranks high on the list of "bleep we should have taken more seriously"). Americans are relatively secure even considering terrorism, but abroad millions of people are at risk, everyday.
So, when I watched
President Bush speak to the Knesset (only after hearing Hillary, Pelosi and Obama complain about the remarks) I was dumbstruck by how utterly absurd the
criticisms regarding the speech were.
I have a hard time believing Obama (or Hillary) (or Democrats as a whole) take the threats in the world at-large seriously. I can only hope beneath the pretty words and trusting tones is the heart and soul of a skeptic.
