What's become of the fine liberal tradition once embodied by FDR, Truman, Kennedy, Fulbright, Benson and Mitchell? These fine men were liberal in their sensibilities but did not abandon their ability to reason; they did not prefer fiction over fact simply in the interest of partisan gain, and they did not see partisanship as a reasonable alternative to citizenship. These were statesmen. They had standards and understood that the American pluralist system required compromise, reason and rationality to function effectively, and they pursued liberal goals without resorting to illiberal tactics.

Sadly, that tradition has given way to an angry progressive screed that is principally based on good hard...emotion. I've long understood that the Left runs more on emotion than logic. The problem is, of course, that emotion often makes people do stupid things. And, it makes it virtually impossible to have a rational discussion. It operates on a level that limits the utility of new information (or fact) -- because it is often based on core beliefs that are exceedingly difficult to change. Consequently, liberals have no room for those who disagree or have the gall to think differently. They are branded liars, fascists, idiots or worse. It's a form of fascism, really -- squelching diversity of belief, opposing views and open debate.

To wit, yesterday the "progressive" group MoveOn.org placed a full page ad in in the NY Times accusing General David Patraeus of lying on behalf of the Bush administration in his testimony to Congress. Keep in mind that this ad appeared before General Patraeus had even given his testimony, and was based not on what the General actually said, but on the tacit belief that anything he would say would be propaganda and lies on behalf of the President. This is the kind of open-minded discourse the left is having now -- and not for nothing on the single most important issue that we face today as a nation: Iraq and our national security.

General Patraeus is not a liar, and you can't diminish his testimony (or his character) by simply saying so. He's an officer for whom honor, duty and fidelity actually mean something. His life of service is a testament to that. I wonder if his accusers can say the same.

It is a sad commentary on the debased dialogue of the Left that they must resort to name calling and personal attacks to try and win their arguments. They can't imagine that General Patraeus might be telling the truth and that America might actually be making progress in Iraq. As I've noted in earlier posts, Patraeus is echoing what others (even those on Left) have been saying over the past few months: that the "surge" is having a positive effect, that conditions are improving and that security is markedly better than it was a year ago. Yes, there is much, much more work to be done. But that we have a glimmer of hope to salvage this situation without it becoming a total and permanent disaster.

Why is the Left so afraid that events on the ground might actually turn around? That we might actually succeed? Why are they so wedded to their belief that Iraq is doomed and that we must leave immediately? What's their stake in our failure?

You tell me.