BoldlyRide

Over the past few days I have heard it asserted and repeated, without explanation or argument, that a particular individual whose son in the armed forces was killed in Iraq has unquestionable "moral authority" to speak out about the war in Iraq and to demand to meet (again) with President Bush. On a popular radio program yesterday, a male and female argued about the the particular individual and her advocacy. The male participant asked the female participant if she had lost a son in Iraq and made the statement that Cindy Sheehan had lost a son and therefore had unquestionable moral authority to speak on the issue. The male participant inferred that the female participant's position was therefore less worthy or illegitimate because she had not lost a son in Iraq. This is the common tactic of the left, to poison the well of debate with labels and assertions that are unfounded yet put forward as self-evident truths.

There is no "moral authority" on the part of Cindy Sheehan or anyone else when it comes to speaking out on the war in Iraq. The word "moral" has reference to being good, virtuous, or ethical and is based on personal conduct; one does not become moral based simply upon the death of a family member. Likewise, a soldier who had been wounded or who had lost a limb in the war would not magically be endowed with the moral label. The word "authority" means having a power to execute or direct within a particular realm or possessing expertise in a field. Ms. Sheehan has yet to produce any certificate of authority or degree proclaiming expertise on the war in Iraq or the myriad other foreign policy matters upon which she gratuitously pontificates; the death certificate of a family member certifies only death and confers no special authority to the bearer. There is no basis for the claim that anyone who has lost a family member in the war has a more legitimate right or voice on the subject than someone who has not.

Do we even care about the opinions of veterans, or those who have lost loved-ones in Iraq? We certainly do. These people have been touched more personally by the war than many of us so we do have an interest in what they have to say. Although our interest in their opinions may be heightened, the weight to be given to their opinions is no greater than the opinions of others not so touched. Personal tragedy does not confer expertise. Should the opinion a father who has lost two or more sons in Iraq have twice the weight of a mother who has lost one son? Should the opinion of a soldier who has lost both legs to an IED be considered ten times more valuable than the opinion of an unwounded soldier? The questions themselves demonstrate the absurdity of authority through misfortune reasoning.

So why does the left keep shouting about Sheehan's moral authority? Because such an assertion is tantamount to the bestowal of that sainthood of the liberals -- victim status. Canonize the speaker and then all of her assertions must be taken as truth; victims are never wrong and all of their utterances stand as irrefutable holy writ not subject to the critical examination of mere mortals. The label is a substitute for reasoning.

Although President Bush did meet with Cindy Sheehan and she stated how good and caring he was, her opinion has changed. Deathsploitation is the reason. She demands another interview. Apparently she thinks that she can change foreign policy by stake out and repeated assertions to the press of phrases harvested from anti-bush T-shirts. Elevated to liberal sainthood, she has been empowered in her own mind to speak upon all subjects with infallibility. She has exploited the death of her son. She has taken the revered flag from his coffin, painted the liberal littanies upon it and waved it over her head to draw attention to herself and those who have canonized her. Such conduct is neither moral nor possessed of legitimate authority.