Rational Security

Rat Sec provides an eloquent narrative of both critical and realistic accounts of the state of the world. Scott is insanely intelligent, and his voice could narrate bedtime stories, Ben always provides a comical take to situations that seemingly can result in our imminent doom, Quinta is not afraid to push back and provide new perspectives to discussions. And all frequenting guest are spectacular. I always look forward to next week’s episode. Well done

Mixed bag. The hosts have good chemistry and are usually well-informed and insightful. The show is best when it’s focused on foreign policy through the lens of national security/international law. But it’s increasingly turning into a discussion of domestic policy and politics. Now, you still could approach those topics from a national security law perspective, but we end getting a lot of political commentary instead. I feel bad for singling any one person out, but I’ve really struggled with Quinta. She seems to self-conceptualize as a serious, analysis-first thinker who adds value by delving deep into the issues. (There’s frequent genuflection to her superior grasp of new opinions, statutes, etc…) Yet that doesn’t match up with the reality of her analysis, which is always the bog standard, slightly left of center-left take. Quinta purports to be surprised by her own reactions—“I can’t believe how much I suddenly think the Court is full of right wing hacks”—but it’s always the same tone, the same direction, the same conclusions.

I love this show and have been a long time listener, so I share this criticism as a fan. Lately they have been drifting into discussions of US domestic politics without connects to national security and foreign policy. I come to this show to get analysis I can’t get anywhere else. I can get discussion about U.S. politics anywhere. Please stick to the areas the show specializes in and don’t drift off into run of the mill punditry!

The national/international security angle of this show naturally helps contextualize the So What of many current events. The hosts don't always agree, making for a more lively discussion. Good selection of guests. And I live for the occasional, deliciously heartfelt "I dunno, man" from Quinta. Keep it up!

Being flipping about a war where people try to sleep while air raid sirens go off because they’re being attacked by missiles and drones Every single night for 18 months seems to be poor form to me. This is not a laughing matter.

I love Lawfare for its ultra-granular take on complex political issues. Maybe it’s unsurprising then I rather dislike the rambling, generalist approach of Rational Security, which feels like a more centrist, much less hip version of Pod Save America. Like many of these newsroom hangout shows, many words are spoken, but little is said. On Lawfare, the dry, legalistic approach to examining weighty political topics works as a perfect foil for the breathlessly emotional partisan news outlets. On this show, the Lawfare hosts try their hand at the very same approach to which they are usually an antidote, and in the process lose everything that makes their programming special. It turns out that 2 lawyers going deep on a single topic for 1 hour (Lawfare) makes for spectacular coherence and clarity which allows the listener to draw their own informed conclusions, whereas 4 lawyers offering their opinions on 3-4 news topics in under 90 minutes (Rat Sec) makes for a legalistic mess in which coherence and understanding of a given issue only recedes. The lawyer’s famous fear of being backed into a corner on a given issue prevents the hosts from offering clear, principled, unequivocal opinions on anything discussed, giving the show a kind of mushy, shapeless, go-nowhere quality which leaves me feeling exhausted and not an ounce better-informed in the end. It is worth noting that there is also a serious lack of social diversity on this program — it’s exceedingly white, male, upper-middle class New England collegiate — and that said homogeneity really does not suit an opinions show. It is desperate for some texture, some differing perspectives and angles, to lift the dowdy social atmosphere. The female voices on this show provide the only diversity here, and they also frequently provide this monochrome, somewhat droning show with its only daubs of color and levity. They also fly miles above the male hosts in terms of argument for the clarity of their positions. Editor Ben Wittes, while not from a different social set as the mainstay RS hosts, is a dramatically more dynamic, thoughtful, and colorful speaker than any of his contemporaries on the show, and brings a refreshing blast of life to the proceedings in his guest appearances, his own kind of diversity which also feels valuable. In conclusion, I love Lawfare, but this format does not suit.