8/13/2008
Dear Uncle Alex
I write to apologize if you were angered or felt embarrassed by my debating style. I am careful to never use personal insults against my debate opponents, or even political figures that are discussed. I did not disrespect you; I gave plenty of time to reply. If you were embarrassed, I really do not understand why, unless it was my style –forgive me.
I have resolved to no longer accept, ad hominem attacks on President Bush without response. If you are going to attack the Commander in Chief with a personal attack I will demand specifics. I want evidence. One cannot argue with a non specific defamation. It is no secret that I am in the fight for democracy; I am a democrat I take my duty seriously and I work hard with the pen and free speech to win. One does not need to call me a patriot; we are all patriots.
If however it was the context, you are embarrassed because you realize, that despite your passion and conviction in the bashing of this George Bush, that I speak the truth. I am convinced at this point that the only thing wrong with this President is that the public believes the personal attacks and repeats them. But it is baseless defamation of character. It has been very costly and divisive.
Perhaps you noticed; I never bring politics up. Because I am in training for political debate continuously; I avoid debate like a boxer avoids a fight in a pub. I carry heavy artillery. But if someone in a discussion brings it up I will not allow falsehoods to go unchallenged. I have studied rhetoric and civil affairs for half a century. I argue aggressively. I am a trained public speaker, teacher and an instructor’s instructor for many years.
I do not think I have a corner on the truth, but I will not allow rhetorical technique or dialectic without attribution of fair value and weighting of each consideration. If one engages me in politic, I give fair warning to be prepared for passion to match the moment . . . but never anger.
I agree that I am a tough opponent; it seems hard to win an argument and convince me without exacting facts. My wife says that is so because I capitulate immediately and without fanfare when I am shown that I am wrong. Conversely, I prosecute when the matter is important, as it is today with war. I will not allow a debate opponent to change the subject. It is essential to colloquy.
Now, I would be truly honored if you would engage me in colloquy. . . . please return my letter. As Patrick said at dinner – it takes a lengthy discussion to vet with precision. But let us answer each other’s questions without anger or embarrassment. There should be little room for such things given humility, something I consider as the cornerstone of integrity; go ahead and show me where I am an idiot; its no problem..
I can see passion with one’s views but you will never see anger in me. I love you too much. We can agree to disagree if it comes to that point. But it can be refreshing to open one’s mind; it can extinguish anguish and fears with unity and the coming together. Perhaps we can come up with a plan to win the war for democracy that I can articulate on the web or the media.
Propaganda, in its most pejorative form, is a tool that is used to gain an advantage over an enemy. It matters not if a patriot utters it, the result is the same. It can be defined as opinion without substance designed to disrepute. Many are convinced, in ignorance of the truth, and they purvey this disinformation innocently. One must admit that it is divisive at best. However it does not work with me. I will blitzkrieg propaganda assertively.
It is fair to persist asking the same question where there is no reply; it is fair to point out continuing refusal to answer a query. It is fair to point out when the participant persists in changing the subject, making rambling opinion based arguments or displaying anger. Non-sequitur is a form of manipulation and is unacceptable in these “times that try men’s souls.”
Believe me, I want to be convinced that plausible nuclear coercion by a stateless cabal is unlikely but I have yet to be given the answer to my questions. China will be just as helpless as we are. Even China has no answer for the Jihad for they will not know where the shooter is. Nuclear suicide warfare removes the need for delivery vehicle and stateless warriors are effectively invulnerable without coordinates. It is the only thing that I blame the President for - not convincing the public of this massive threat.
But are we to not to believe a dictator’s threats when he is about to go nuclear? What is the price of this alternative reality and denial? Is not Islamic revolution and religious coercion what the Islamists say is their aim? And how do we respond to a stateless cabal nuclear attack on any beach or even miles out to sea? What is our responsibility and what is our duty?
Because it is so important, I will never be satisfied by digression. If I am to be convinced that I am wrong, I need facts. The side that wants to win the war is instead bombarded with attacks on George Bush from folks who will not answer a direct question – What are the charges and what is the evidence? Did he lie? Did he break the law? Did he perpetrate the attacks himself on 9/11? Is he the enemy? Are not the attacks on George Bush a digression from the real threat?
We have every pejorative invention and personal attack, even obscenities, to describe the Commander in Chief. It is common – and it is a shame that the public has been fooled. It reminds me of Lincoln: “You can fool some of the people, some of the time and all of the people some of the time . . .” But that tension is the beauty of democracy where no man rises by the gun. Give the women the vote and there is peace
To get to a point of understanding, it requires that we get past the sliming of the President: If I ask, “What is the reason for the “bastard” ad hominem, the reply is another ad hominem “he is arrogant.” It is maddening; the President does what he must do under the law to preserve freedom for posterity. We who fight for liberty will not allow this chicanery any longer.
It is the Commander in Chief’s responsibility to act decisively as the elected leader under Article Two of the United States Constitution. And it is his duty to act in response to his perception and direct the armed forces to defer threats. This requires decisive action during war. It is not arrogance when a leader takes charge. Unlike other presidents he does not wither under pressure from the opposition who lost the last election. And they call themselves democrat?
An ad hominem argument, argumentum ad hominem, (Latin: "argument against the man") is a rhetorical device used to sidestep an issue by attacking a person rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim. “The process of proving or disproving an issue is thereby subverted.” President Bush is not a “bastard” nor is he any of the other slanderous words used to describe him by people without evidence against this honorable man. He will remain in my mind as a great hero and a rare example of courageous leader. He will be greatly honored.
In my view the only way the opposition could have possibly destroyed the credibility of this Commander in Chief is to slime him and disparage his reputation by repeating the lie that he is a liar over and over. This swindle is nothing new; the opposition has used it since the Great Depression to Katrina to seize power during American catastrophe. When implemented during war it is despicable.
The President is not a liar and evidence cannot be delivered that he is a liar. These and other slurs are ad hominem propaganda, a devious instrument of rhetoric. I submit it is an attempt to capitalize on events with distortion and divide the people for the gain of power. I am chagrined. But I am not angered; please do not be angry with me because I debate with passion.
I appreciate good colloquy and the vigorous vetting of ideas. If revelation can be accomplished then all can benefit from the reciprocal enhancement of knowledge. But there must never be anger. If a man is offended, and if it makes a man angry to be wrong, then I advise that man to not discuss politics. I take my own advice. But if, on the other hand you would like a sparring partner to sharpen both our skills then please return my letter.
With respect and affection,
Neil
No comments:
Post a Comment