Ixnay on the “Appeasement” Canard


The claim of Democratic “appeasement” is being heard in the land, frequently combined with references to purported lack of manliness. See, for example, Andrew Sullivan, The Appeasement of Donald Trump.

William Butler Yeats wrote, “For the womb the seed sighs.” With that self-same burning desire, Donald Trump craves House passage of articles of impeachment. (Donald Doofus is certain such a development would have the same positive effect on his ratings that it had for Bill Clinton.)

Children, it is not “appeasement” when you don’t take the bait and fight on the ground on which your enemy wants to fight. When the Americans fought the Redcoats, marching up and down in plain sight attired in scarlet apparel, it was not “appeasement” for the patriots to wear old leather clothing, hide behind rocks, and shoot at the enemy. It was just common sense.

All that being said, just because Donald Doofus thinks a thing is in his own interest does not make it true. That’s because he’s a doofus.

To be more specific: think about this potential scenario. The Democrats call witnesses against Trump, and otherwise build on the Mueller report to make the most damning case possible. Maybe, about the same time, the state of New York brings an indictment for a variety of business crimes. The House then passes fact-filled, inculpating articles of impeachment. To which Mitch McConnell responds,, “Fuck you. We’re not going to hold a Senate trial.” (Sullivan raises the possibility of such a McConnell tactic, and I have seen it mentioned elsewhere. McConnell’s overriding goal is to avoid Republican senatorial embarrassment or disunity. It sounds to me very much like the sort of asinine maneuver that would appeal to McConnell’s lizard brain.)

And let’s assume that’s the ground on which the 2020 election is fought: an utterly damning set of articles of impeachment, and an utter failure to refute the charges, because the Senate’s constitutional duty is being disregarded.

In that scenario, I like our odds.