American liberalism is a Romantic ideology, just like American conservatism. People who say they want "rationalism in government" should really just say they want cold, unfeeling utilitarianism, because that's the only true rational government there is. And before libertarians of the small and big-l variety say, "Yippie, that's for me!" they should read through the best representative of this line of thought, Peter Singer.

(Admittedly, even Singer falls prey to the Romanticism of modern politics in his crusade on behalf of animals, but his "kill the nonproductive" schtick would be perfect rationality in government.)

You forget the planet Vulcan!

But even they have Pon Farr to deal with!

And plus, on Enterprise they seem a whole lot less logical than I remember them from the old days.

They're also a lot sexier, reow . . . er . . . if Jonah Goldberg is to be believed.

Pointing out the European lens through which Alexandre sees the situation was important. With some notable exceptions, Western Europeans tend to insist on a vehemently secular political arena. So Bush is far more publically, overtly religious than most Europeans are comfortable with. He's even more overtly, publically religious than nearly any US president in decades, with the possible exception of Carter. The messianic fervor with which the Iraq war was waged and, especially justified, only re-inforced this opinion on the other side of the pond.

While the president might be a fairly mainline conservative on domestic issues, the administration is absolutely radical in the foreign policy arena. Since it's foreign policy which has dominated public discussion since 9/11, that's why the admin is perceived as radical by many.

I do not believe the administration acts irrationally. It is staffed by extremely intelligent people who act in a very planned, calculated manner. My objection is simple: I thoroughly disagree on the foundations upon which those calculations are made. I do not agree with the assumptions it uses to justify much of its foreign policy.

You ask, "Since when has any government anywhere been founded wholly on rationality? When has public policy been made solely based on logic and logic alone?"

You are absolutely right. Logic and rationality are always the true bases of every government policy. However, they are almost always the purported bases. The case for the war against Iraq was egged on by emotion: we're not going to let some tinpot dictator thumb his nose at the United States. But the official case was based on rationality: Saddam was, according to the administration, a threat to American national security. This case was based on an astounding leap of logic, IMHO, but it was not irrational. Additionally, the case against war was also egged on by emotion: the US was a unilateral hegemon or that it was a war for oil. But even that was couched in official rationality: the invasion was not inherently bad, only the US going outside the UN system was bad. This was also dubious. France's REAL worry was losing international influence, especially in the Middle East. France was, rationally one could argue, trying to protect its interests.

Good comments. And you are correct, this:

I do not believe the administration acts irrationally. It is staffed by extremely intelligent people who act in a very planned, calculated manner. My objection is simple: I thoroughly disagree on the foundations upon which those calculations are made. I do not agree with the assumptions it uses to justify much of its foreign policy.

is the more appropriate way to make the argument.

Rather than accusing the administration of lacking rationality, the more pertinent means of attack is to actually deal with the substance of the policies themselves.

Steven, thanks for the comment. Whenever my fellow progressives do their juvenile Bush-bashing, it sort of pisses me off. Criticize his policies, not his IQ or whatever. Whenever they snivel like that, it allows the other side to dismiss them as infantile whiners and prevents the admin's defenders from actually addressing legitimate criticisms. The name-calling against Bush and co. only gives them the easy way out.