Irrational Discourse.

I used the converse – rational discourse – of that phrase September 5 in Strategists.

Rational – governed by, or showing evidence of, clear and sensible thinking and judgment, based on reason rather than emotion or prejudice.

Discourse – serious discussion about something between people or groups.

That entry focused on the yelling matches that have taken over the so-called news channels. I’m reminded today that it’s unfair to point the finger at CNN, MSNBC, Fox News and the rest. They only reflect the civility of the larger body politic

I can’t say I’ve had much good to say about the frenzied freaks at Moveon.org. The self-styled “Democracy in Action” web site and organization is funded by George Soros, whose wealth not only sustains it, but provides a level of legitimacy to its views that a close look hardly warrants. But this full-page ad in today’s New York Times still came as a surprise.

Having written in Dereliction of Duty (September 6) that hasty and casual acceptance of the views of generals, just because they are generals, is imprudent, I now find myself having to point out that the contrary assumption is just as foolish, and in the context of today’s Capitol Hill hearing (actually even before those hearing got underway) is either stupidity or sophistry. Unfortunately, statements similar to those of the ad have been made by the Democrat leadership in recent days, demonstrating that Moveon.org is not alone in its disinterest in that elusive rational discourse.

Sophistry: a method of argumentation that seems clever but is actually flawed or dishonest.

I’d like to argue that this war was probably the right thing to do; that the policy, having been launched, may not have been effectively executed. It may share that with the Vietnam War. That we have now a set of circumstances that are independent of those of five, four or even one year ago, and that courses of action have to be considered in the moment of time in which we find ourselves. That since there are none who have the political courage to build an armed force adequate to the tasks to which it has been set, we should have a real concern about the impact of repeated deployment on our military readiness and the well-being of those in uniform.

Unfortunately, I despair of rational discourse. We have been here before – thirty-five years ago – a climate within which that was simply impossible. That has in part caused us to be where we are today.