Like Chamberlain, we’re attempting to appease a monster

The practical realities and weaknesses of our federation aside, these rogue premiers were allowed to carry on like school bullies with not so much as a mild threat of ­detention from the teacher. Picture: NCA NewsWire / Andrew Henshaw

Neville Chamberlain gets a bum deal. Reputationally, that is.

Of all the many things the former Conservative British prime minister may have achieved in his lifetime, his legacy and memory are defined by his reticence to confront, head on, the march of fascism across Europe in the late 1930s. And now, nearly a century on, Chamberlain’s name remains synonymous with political appeasement.

I don’t blame him for taking the path he did, not completely and especially if you look at the situation in full context. When Chamberlain was PM, the memory of the Great War – you know, the one to end all wars – was still fresh. A generation slaughtered. Entire continents, countries, devastated. What sane person would eagerly and swiftly tread that path again if they believed there was another way?

It’s easy to understand why a person might try to avoid sliding into conflict. This is, of course, an explanation, not an excuse.

I’m not meandering back through history for self-amusement. There’s much to learn from this moment in time. Hindsight helps us understand why Chamberlain and his peers may have sought to placate rather than challenge the troubling things they saw happening around them.

Which leads me to ask, what is our excuse? In recent times, let alone the past two years (and I’ll come to that in a second), much has unfolded around us that, were we made of sterner stuff, we might have pushed back on a little ­harder. Everything from how we live, how we educate our kids to what we tolerate from our elected officials. What’s okay in the name of “tolerance”? Let me give you an example or three.

When modern tertiary educators are more concerned about making every space “safe” than ­allowing the contest of ideas to flourish; when demanding something more be done about the outrageous level of domestic abuse among Indigenous women and children in remote parts of Australia is called racist; when a government makes it more affordable for people to take their own lives than increase funding for palliative care services; when all of this happens and we turn a blind eye, are we any better? What excuse do we have for our collective appeasement?

You know that old saying, the standard you walk past is the one you accept? It’s that. Multiplied many times over.

Appeasement is the best friend and chief enabler of cancel culture, which is, of course, the preferred weapon of intellectual cowards the world over, and the fruit of their union is toxic groupthink.

Few things mark the spirit of this age more heavily. Be it in the partyroom, boardroom, the parliament, the classroom – or on the sports field.

It creeps in, and that’s the problem. Incrementally. It’s never obvious and it’s a very charming and very patient foe. Before you know it, you’ve ceded Czechoslovakia and it’s all too late.

While I fully understand Covid exhaustion, there’s a heck of a price to pay for apathy. Let’s turn our eye once again to Victoria, where the regime is attempting to say goodbye to rule of law, and vest all power in the Premier, Daniel Andrews. If you’re still on the fence there, read the fierce response from the Victorian Bar ­Association. This is dangerous legislation. Yet still from so many, a tacit … don’t rock the boat. All shall be well. Just as they did when this regime imposed medically indefensible, nonsensical curfews; conveniently forgot who made major policy decisions which resulted in nearly a thousand Covid deaths, shut down playgrounds and told people that watching a sunset was a deadly occupation.

Worse still is that this appeasement, this treading softly around the muddy edges, has been straight from the top, too. Where was the federal government when Victoria police were firing rubber bullets on their fellow citizens? Where was the Prime Minister’s voice when South Australia shut the state down over a pizza box and forcibly threw people into confinement in so-called “medical hotels” just in case they might have, maybe, potentially, could have been, but weren’t actually, exposed to Covid?

The practical realities and weaknesses of our federation aside, these rogue premiers were allowed to carry on like school bullies with not so much as a mild threat of ­detention from the teacher.

Chamberlain genuinely belie­ved he had secured a peace for their time, with honour. How terribly wrong he was. Churchill later famously countered: “You were given the choice between war and dishonour. You chose dishonour and you will have war.” Just because you believe something’s right, doesn’t mean it is.

Perhaps for us, we’ve gotten soft. Maybe we’ve had it too good for too long and prefer the path of least resistance? I’m not sure but what I do know is this: If you don’t draw a line somewhere, then you will end up with the life, the community, the choices that other people are willing to fight for.