On Television, the Rhetoric Wars Are Starting To Go Nuclear

A debate about the President’s Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) on Fox and Friends this week turned into a smackdown when Big Journalism contributor Richard Grenell, formerly the spokesman for the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, and Joseph Cirincione, the President of the Ploughshares Fund, staked out their positions on the right and the left.

We’ve seen examples of name-calling on too many fronts in recent days, but the war of rhetoric went nuclear after Cirincione resorted to cursing at Grenell.

[youtube FM9PjWX4XAw&feature nolink]

The interview quickly veered off course when Cirincione threw out arguments like, “Who the hell do you think you are?” in response to Grenell’s accusations that it’s a “left wing fantasy” to think that the Obama administration’s strategy will successfully deter nuclear threats from non-state actors. By the end of the interview, Cirincione concluded the discussion by calling it simply, “insulting.”

Maybe it’s acceptable to have verbal arguments that play out like schoolyard fights if the debates are over something – anything — less consequential than our country’s nuclear strategy. The NPR, the Defense Department’s roadmap to reduce nuclear risks, is too important to let valid arguments get lost in the scuffle. Grenell’s point – that the Obama administration has not taken the necessary steps with our international allies to crack down on states that illegally pursue nuclear weapons before restricting our own nuclear arsenal — is a matter worth debating on substance. Unfortunately, that didn’t happen.

The President’s new directive rests on the underlying assumption that other countries will follow the lead of the United States in disarmament. The goal of a nuclear-free world is noble, but ultimately every state will act in its own self-interest and it’s possible that this repositioning of U.S. policy will be exploited. We should openly debate the NPR, and the ideology behind it.

Instead, Cirincione threw out this argument: “Baloney!” There aren’t too many pundits who bring up cold cuts in a disagreement, but today’s debate fits with the growing political trend on both sides of the aisle: turning policy disputes into verbal attacks. And the rhetoric seems to be getting worse before it gets better. Take this tweet from a staunch “healt-care reform” supporter, the author Ayelet Waldman, about a conversation with her son on the day that the health-care bill passed the House last month:

Abe: “Mommy, are Republicans evil?”

Me: “Yes, honey. Many are evil, the others are either stupid or selfish or both. And some are all three.”

What worries me the most about Waldman’s remark is it makes me wonder if we’re raising a generation of kids to think hateful speech is an acceptable way to curtail discussion.

So why do we resort to throwing stones? Is it easier to dismiss an argument with an attack like, “Who the hell do you think you are?” Maybe. I’ll leave it to the sociologists to debate the effects of reality show programming like Jersey Shore on our political discourse.

Regardless of why it’s happening, verbal fisticuffs just won’t cut it when nuclear policy is at stake. We simply cannot walk away from a discussion because we don’t like our opponents’ position or choice of words. We all seem to live in glass houses these days, which makes it even more important for conservatives to rise above the name-calling.