Select Page

Biden follows Democrats’ longstanding appeasement policy

Biden follows Democrats’ longstanding appeasement policy

We like to think of America as a nation that stands up against the evil autocrats … against wars of aggression … against the horrors of genocide and ethnic cleansing … against war crimes.  After all, we are that bright shining house on the hill that defends and spreads democracy — and responds with great charity against all human suffering.  We are the nation that led the free world against the brutal tyranny of the Axis powers in World War II – making the world safe for democracy.

But arguably, World War II was the exception, not the rule.  While the noble role of the United States in world affairs makes for great Independence Day speeches and grade school civics classes, it is more the exception than the rule – especially when Democrats are in charge.

President Biden’s weak responses to global wars and terrorism is not a departure from past American foreign policy.  It is the standard.  I cite the political left because they have always been more accommodating to authoritarians – even the most vicious of them.  They have stood down when democracy and humanity are threatened.

President Roosevelt was loathing to enter World War II.  He was willing to send money and arms to England but not actually take on Hitler militarily. (Sound familiar?)  Roosevelt had no choice but to declare war on Japan after their surprise attack at Pearl Harbor.  It was only after Germany declared war on the United States that FDR responded with a war declaration against Nazi Germany – more than two years after Hitler invaded Poland and other east European nations.

Following the War, Roosevelt ceded the eastern European nations to the Soviet Union at Yalta rather than push Stalin out of eastern Europe.  In short, Roosevelt appeased Stalin after the war and left half the nations of Europe to Communist oppression.

The American left has historically accepted the legitimacy of the Soviet Union and criticized all attempts to challenge Russian aggression around the world.  That was until President Reagan came to office and the policy was dramatically changed.  When he called Soviet Russia an “evil empire,” the east coast leftwing establishment went bonkers – calling Reagan a relic of the past.  Calling his rhetoric provocative and dangerous.

But Reagan ended what was known as the Democrat “containment policy” – essentially drawing the communist containment line wherever Russia expanded.  The Reagan Doctrine was to push back Russia and crush the Soviet Union – rather than accept each new acquisition by Russia as the new reality.  (Sound familiar?) 

Reagan bombed the palace of Muammar Kaddafi – ending the Libyan dictator’s funding of international terrorism.  Reagan shot down Libyan jets to end Kaddafi’s claim over vast portions of the Mediterranean.  Reagan ended – at least temporarily – America’s appeasement policy.  

President George H.W. Bush embraced the new policy by stopping Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait.   President George W. Bush led an international military effort that took Hussein out of power.  President Trump brought down the horrific ISIS Califate that President Obama allowed to grow.

Democrat presidents have not been determined to stop the aggression of despots.  On President Obama’s watch, Vladimir Putin invaded both Chechnya and Georgia – with scorched earth war crime bombardments like what we are seeing in Ukraine.  Obama appeased both Russia and Syria when he withdrew from the fight after encouraging the Syrian people to rise up – and after saying that despot Bashar al Asaad had to be removed from power.  (Sound familiar?)  Al Asaad is firmly ensconced in power almost six years after Obama cycled out of the American presidency.

While all recent Democrat presidents believed that negotiating with Hamas, Hezbollah and the Palestinian Authority was essential to Middle East peace, Trump broke off the negotiations with the recalcitrant terrorist organizations and – through Jared Kushner – negotiated the Abraham Accords that brought previously belligerent nations into peace with Israel. 

There is no better example of appeasing the enemy than President Biden’s surrender in the Afghanistan War.  He handed an ally and budding democracy over to the terrorists – throwing Afghanistan back to the dark days of oppression.

And now we have Ukraine.  There have been numerous reports that Biden is pressuring Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to reach a negotiated agreement to end the fighting.  That means appeasing Putin – giving him the victory for his war crimes.

Any agreement to keep Ukraine out of NATO — or any guarantee that Ukraine will never be militarized — or ceding any portion of Ukraine to Russia — is a victory for Putin.  Appeasement.

And we have seen so many times in the past that appeasement does not end aggression.  It merely postpones it for another time.  And there will most certainly be another time if appeasement is the foundation of American foreign policy.  Ukraine is the most current opportunity to change that – but it ain’t looking good.

So, there ‘tis.

About The Author

Larry Horist

So,there‘tis… The opinions, perspectives and analyses of Larry Horist Larry Horist is a businessman, conservative writer and political strategist with an extensive background in economics and public policy. Clients of his consulting firm have included such conservative icons as Steve Forbes and Milton Friedman. He has served as a consultant to the Nixon White House and travelled the country as a spokesman for President Reagan’s economic reforms. He has testified as an expert witness before numerous legislative bodies, including the U. S. Congress. Horist has lectured and taught courses at numerous colleges and universities, including Harvard, Northwestern, DePaul universities, Hope College and his alma mater, Knox College. He has been a guest on hundreds of public affairs talk shows, and hosted his own program, “Chicago In Sight,” on WIND radio. Horist was a one-time candidate for mayor of Chicago and served as Executive Director of the City Club of Chicago, where he led a successful two-year campaign to save the historic Chicago Theatre from the wrecking ball. An award-winning debater, his insightful and sometimes controversial commentaries appear frequently on the editorial pages of newspapers across the nation. He is praised by readers for his style, substance and sense of humor. According to one reader, Horist is the “new Charles Krauthammer.” He is actively semi-retired in Boca Raton, Florida where he devotes his time to writing. So, there ‘tis is Horist’s signature sign off.


  1. Kenneth Testa


  2. Clifford mckinney

    The democrats are a party of cowards. It’s amazing that we have survived as a nation

    • Frank stetson

      Probably because Democratic controlled States is where the money is to support the Red states with the welfare they need to survive because they can’t make it by themselves. Maybe, if you just got off your ass, and learned how to work, you can make enough money to support yourselves and won’t have to quit taking our money via the federal government. .

      • Perry

        Now you’re sounding like a Republican. Even the Bible said that if you don’t work you don’t eat

  3. frank stetson

    Economics-wise, I’m right of most Republicans. So, who doesn’t work?

    “Eight of the 10 states most dependent on the federal government were Republican-voting, with the average red state receiving $1.35 per dollar spent.

    Nine states sent more to the federal government than they received — seven of these were Democrat-voting and had higher per capita GDPs than many of the red states that received the most.

    New Mexico had the highest return on federal spending of any state ($4.33), and Delaware had the lowest ($0.63).

    The eight states receiving the highest child tax credit per capita were all Republican-voting.”

    From MoneyGeek this year. Some detail:

    “Red States Lead With Federal Dependence

    Democratic-voting blue states tend to be wealthier and pay more to the federal government than they get. In contrast, Republican-voting red states tend to have less wealth and receive more federal government funds than they pay. In the MoneyGeek rankings, 8 of the 10 most dependent states are considered red states.

    Policy choices may partially explain this relationship.

    “A really conservative state might choose to tax itself at a lower rate, which means by default, they can give fewer state-funded services,” explains Kathy Fallon, human services practice area director at Public Consulting Group. “That can exacerbate the situation.”

    But a correlation between states’ economic health and political affiliation may reflect economic factors beyond those explained by political philosophy.

    “If red states pay less in taxes than they receive in benefits, that’s because they are generally poorer and program rules are progressive — not because they are ‘takers’ while blue states are ‘donors’ in any value-laden sense,” says Mark Shepard, assistant professor at the Harvard Kennedy School of Government and faculty research fellow at the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER).”

    Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus, and for Republicans it’s Democrats. Apparently, Democrats make more money by working harder, smarter, and cheating in every election while not getting caught. They are more educated, oh heck, they just produce more by having a higher per capita GDP. And we leap tall taxes with a single bound.

    Good thing we’re generous too. Helps to quell social disturbance when you feed the sheep :>) That’s the real story of the fishes and loaves.

    • larry Horist

      Frank Stetson … You are sounding like a kid that got a new toy. You have been going on and on about your new-found red state/blue state economic theories. Did you happen to notice the subject of this commentary? You seem to be simply use your access to this space to carry on your own person opinions on what ever pops randomly into your mind — or whatever you come across on some online search. Perhaps in the future, I will comment on your red state/blue state topic — and we can share opinions — but not here and now. You need to keep your tuner from drifting off on its own.

      • Frank stetson

        Hey, shit for brains, I was responding to the previous comments. You got to keep up, old man.

        And all people, you, telling me to stay on Target. What a hoot. Can you save that little gem just for me, even funnier given all the other comments on here.

        Well, you’re just another Trumpists now and haters gotta hate.

    • Mike

      Larry, Haven’t had time to waste on your posts lately, but this was too juicy to pass up. Yes, some Republican president’s have been more aggressive than most democrats when it comes to getting the US involved in wars. Can we talk for a moment about W and his invasion of Iraq? A completely worthless excursion, except for the billions in wasted tax dollars and the hundreds of thousands of lives lost (both US and Iraqi). And I think that a reasonable argument can be made that by shifting his focus from Afghanistan to Iraq, W undoubtedly prolonged that war. And then let’s talk for just a moment about Afghanistan, and the treaty that was signed by the trump administration with the taliban without the benefit of the ruling afghan government. That clearly was a Republican led disaster waiting to happen which was inherited by Biden. Could theultimate exit have been done better? I think so. Would it have been done better by trump? Unlikely. No plans for removing our people were in place when Biden came into office, the former administration was completely concerned with overturning the election instead of the important matters at hand. Which brings us to Ukraine. I personally would probably be a bit more aggressive in my dealings with Putin-however I think it is pretty obvious that we are dealing with a very unstable individual with nuclear weapons who clearly doesn’t care how many people he kills. I do believe there has been a lot done-far more than if trump were somehow in office and this invasion occurred. It is unlikely that a trump administration could have brought NATO together to impose the very significant sanctions that the west has agreed on, nor would he have been nearly as aggressive against Putin compared to Biden (do the words “I don’t know why I shouldn’t believe him” mean anything to you). Bottom line-as usual you are not a credible source of information due to the fact that you ignore the shitty things done by Republican administrations and choose to point fingers at the democrats instead of trying to figure out ‘why’ people do what they do-a historian you are not…. So there tis…

      • larry Horist

        Hey Mike … welcome back to wasting your time. While you have proffered a case based on YOUR point of view, I did not see any refutation of the facts that I presented. You rail against the Iraq war while never admitting that it was not Bush’s war. It was a coalition of 65 UN nations with UN authorization for regime change. The war to topple Saddam Hussein was swift and very successful. However, I would not disagree with any assessment that said the post war policies were bad. We failed to insure that a strong and inclusive government would operate under some supervision from the west. That is the model for America’s history of successful regime changes. You self-proclaimed “reasonable” arguments are more or less your opinion — not always reasonable. I generally avoid the debate as to what would have happened it Trump were still in office. That is being debated by the partisan cheerleaders without and way of knowing. You are taking Trump’s words from a different specific context and applying to an different situation. That is just not fair. I do occasionally call out “shitty things Republicans do” but I comment as a conservative Republican. Just as you comment from your perspective. If you had been wasting any time reading my commentaries, you would know that I blasted Tucker Carlson for his pro-Putin “shit.” The good news for the public is they can hear both sides. Focusing on the “shitty things Republicans do” is more your job than mine. But at least we seem to be part of the bipartisan belief that Putin is a dangerous nutcase. Not sure how you feel about it, but I would have instituted the no-fly zone and shot down any Russian plane that violated it. I doubt Putin would have since most of his missile attacks are initiated inside Russia.

        • Mike

          Larry, As I mentioned above you are no historian. The afghan war was broadly supported, Iraq had two sponsors-US and UK. The point to my comments was democrats have decided to tread carefully when it comes to killing our troops I did not refute your comments because they are factual, however you ignore that there might be good rationale for many of them due to the blunders we have seen republicans make. So there tis…

  4. Frank stetson

    I wanna be like Mike! ❤️


    • Walter

      So Frank has came out of the closet. Mike might be spoken for. So keep watching your animal porn. Perhaps mike might enjoy it too

      • frank stetson

        Walter (that’s a gay name, right?), You gotta fix your gaydar and learn how to read.

        Hey Larry if you can’t take the heat, get out of the kitchen. I tried to be nice. I tried to be fair. But the rules allow different and the conservatives here not only bash it free will Emma but have the rules bent in their favor. You tell me yourself, or one of the snarkiest backhanded compliment givers around. I asked that a modest sense of decorum and debate should be established, documenting, and transparent to all. But you and Joe don’t wanna play that way. Be careful of what you sow for you will gather what you reap. And quit crying in your post, you sound like a big baby.

        • larry Horist

          Given you verbal attacks, you asking for a little decorum is like Will Smith saying we should be more polite. One leads by example. And again your comments are off-subject personal attacks — childish ones, at that. Man up … and deal with the topics.

          • FRank stetson

            Pot kettle.

    • larry Horist

      Franks Stetson. I wish you were more like Mike, too. The discourse would definitely improve.

      • Jason

        Mike is Frank’s wet dream

        • frank stetson

          jason is a turd.

          this is so fun….