Maybe nostalgia is clouding my mind a bit, but in my youth I think the loyal opposition were actually trying to live principled lives. They were often good role models, even if we on the left disagreed about this & that. Back when we had to walk miles thru the snow to school and home again, uphill both ways, conservatives stood foresquare against moral relativism. These days, even when they get it right, they pull their punches.
Consider this piece by Maggie Gallagher at National Review Online (via Andrew Sullivan):
I personally believe torture is wrong. We shouldn't do it. Even if it means me, my husband, and my two sons get blown up. Seriously, if I had to choose I'd say: Death is common to us all; torture is a choice.
Right, because torture is like stealing and bearing false witness. It's wrong even if you get away with it, even if your loved ones benefit from it. Stealing and torturing and lying are all signs of bad character, of moral weakness and we should try to live lives consistent with our principles. We should try to live by the standards we believe the Almighty has set.
Is torture used to find the truth? Far more often, torture is used as an instrument to create forged proof for what the authorities want to have people believe. It's no surprise that the Bush Administration turned to torture because they wanted to fabricate a link between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda.
If the subject of the conversation is national policy, it doesn't matter whether torture works. Nor does it matter if our enemies are covered by the Geneva Convention, just like it's wrong to steal from & lie to people different from us. It's not about them; it's about us. It's about what changes in us when we lie and steal and torture.
The torture apologists indulge in one moral relativism argument after another. "It works." "It's ok against these enemies." And now Maggie Gallagher takes cover with the equivalent of "it depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is":
What is the meaning of the word, torture? Is it consent that makes the difference between inflicting pain for science and torture? Is it the motivation of the person inflicting suffering? Or is inflicting pain on humans to extract information always wrong? Or is it only wrong when the person can't get up and walk away if he or she wants? Is it a question of how much pain or deprivation?
Sadly, we need to know. I don't.
Listen, lying and stealing have gray areas, too. Are conservatives going to claim that they don't know what those words mean, either? The Bush Administration ok'd as policy "enhanced interrogation techniques", like waterboarding, that we've considered to be torture for decades.
In my heart of hearts, I worry that the moral relativism of today's American political right will end up dragging the rest of us down with it-- that their example will soon be used as an excuse for the left to perpetrate untold evils, too. The loyal opposition has a duty to critique those currently in power. Principles have to inform those critiques. Never in my lifetime have I witnessed such widespread dereliction of duty.
Recent Comments