Posted 12:40 PM by steve

You say compromise, I say appeasement...

BusinessWeek criticizes Boeing for not compromising with one of its unions... Bush gets all kinds of grief for not 'compromising' with Democrats on matters such as judicial nominations, tax policy and so on...

Boeing management and Bush are criticized for not finding common ground with their respective 'adversaries'. They are accused of being greedy because they don't leave something on the table for the other side. Editorial after editorial and pundit after pundit claim that everything would be a whole lot better if only Bush/Boeing would 'go along to get along'. The side with power is faulted for their 'my way or the highway' approach to conflict resolution.

Obviously compromise is good and we should strive for more of it. Bush and the Democrats ought to jointly name justices to the Supreme Court. They ought to work together to craft a truly bipartisan hurricane relief effort. Management and labor need to stop viewing each other as the enemy and work together for the greater good. Bickering husbands and wives are told to compromise, to find common ground with which to rebuild the relationship. And on and on and on it goes.... compromise is good, insisting on a Burger King (having it your way) is bad.... except that even Burger King doesn't stand firm anymore as evidenced by caving in to pressure regarding the design of their ice cream lids...

So, here's my question: if compromise is something so wonderful, why shouldn't we 'compromise' with our militant Islamist enemies?

Consider this:

... each side (Bush, Boeing and Bush, again) considers the other side (Democrats, Labor and those citing Allah's will as an excuse to kill us) to be their 'enemy' (or, in polite circles, merely an 'adversary'). Sure, the Democrats only figuratively think of the GOP as their enemy (or do they?) while the militant Islamists really do hate us... but isn't that just semantics?

... despite the definition of compromise, doing so doesn't end the dispute. Bush 'compromised' with the Democrats over education funding, only to find himself on the receiving end of lawsuits arguing that more money needed to be allocated. Everytime one side 'compromises' with the other, it only whets the other side's appetite for seeking more and more, it never settles things for all time to come and it never puts an end to the antagonism between the two sides...

... we're told appeasement never works, that those appeased never go away, they take what they are given as a sign of weakness and keep coming back for more and more. But how is that so different from compromise, at least in the situations I've described above?

... appeasing is viewed as a one way street, where one side gives and gives while the other side is always on the receiving end. Yet, we rarely see the side on the receiving end of a concession ever return the favor...

... in each of the above conflicts, neither side could care less about the well-being of those on the other side. Even in the clash between management and organized labor, there have been examples where labor has taken action that has in effect killed the company. The Democrats sure don't stay up at night wondering if I am sleeping soundly. And it goes without saying that terrorists stay up at night wondering how to best go about killing me...

Maybe I'm being a bit simplistic, but I don't see a lot of difference between compromising and appeasing, at least not in the majority of situations. People and countries are either on the same side of an issue or they are opponents. And one doesn't compromise with opponents. A football team doesn't seek to compromise with its opponent, it seeks to beat them, to thrash them, to make their opponent regret they ever put on a football helmet that day. And I don't want to compromise with those who, like the Democrats, wish to make my life miserable or those, like militant Islamists, who want to end it altogether.

And I don't see how someone can be intellectually consistent in decrying the partisanship and lack of compromise on Capitol Hill (or in the boardroom or in the bedroom) while at the same time insisting on total victory against our militant Islamist enemies...

Maybe someone can explain how they can be.... but I doubt they will.