Moral clarity

{{politics}}
'''Moral clarity''' is a [[right-wing]], specifically [[neoconservative]] buzzword typically encountered in [[United States|American]] political discourse. It usually appears as part of an argument against [[Islam]] and for greater American involvement in the [[Middle East]] and its conflicts.  It encodes a fairly complex argument that asserts:

*A [[war on terror]] is something that can and should be fought;
*This war pits good versus [[evil]];
*American values include [[freedom]] and [[democracy]], which are universal goods that should be exported everywhere; 

Therefore:
*In this war of good versus evil, extraordinary measures up to and including [[torture]] and [[NSA|mass surveillance]] are justified;
*Attempts to contextualize or explain the activities of [[Islamic fundamentalism|radical Islamists]] are a sign of [[moral relativism]];
*Such relativism is an unacceptable weakness that hinders the forces of good and gives aid and comfort to the forces of evil.

The phrase has existed since the [[Reagan]] administration at least, but was popularized by [[Conservative talk radio#William Bennett|William Bennett]]'s ''Why We Fight: Moral Clarity and the War on Terrorism''.<ref>Regnery, ISBN 0895261340 (2003).</ref>  It has also been invoked by [[Alan Dershowitz]], whose ''The Case For Moral Clarity: [[Israel]], [[Hamas]] and Gaza'' <ref>CAMERA Monograph Series, ISBN 0966154851 (2009)</ref> makes the similar claim that since it's [[axiom]]atic that [[Israel]] is the good guy, we ought to automatically favor them against any moral claims of the [[Palestine|Palestinians]], and withhold judgment on Israeli responses to Palestinian provocations.
 
==Problems==
The concept has a number of problems. Moral clarity of a sort is in fact one of the defining characteristics of the Middle Eastern [[terrorist]]s themselves. They assert [[moral absolutism|supreme confidence]] that [[Allah]] unalterably desires the stoning of [[Adultery|adulterers]] and the destruction of non-Islamic antiquities. Theirs also is a war driven by [[Fundamentalism|rigid concepts of good versus evil]] and the justification that [[God]]'s on their side.  

Claiming that America's Middle Eastern wars are wars of good versus evil poses other problems and glosses over life's complexities, which of course is the point. [[North Korea]] is probably [[not as bad as|just as evil]] as [[Saddam Hussein]]'s [[Iraq]] was; why have we not attacked it? (Maybe because they do have [[nuclear war|nukes]] and don't have [[oil|anything we need that badly]]?) For that matter, [[Saudi Arabia]] is oppressive in ways easily comparable to North Korea. They've also been implicated in the financing of terrorism.<ref>Declan Walsh, [http://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/dec/05/wikileaks-cables-saudi-terrorist-funding WikiLeaks cables portray Saudi Arabia as a cash machine for terrorists], ''[[The Guardian]]'', Dec. 5, 2010.</ref> But they have oil and [[money]] enough to hire lobbyists in Washington,<ref>{{wpa|Saudi Arabia lobby in the United States}}</ref> so we're happy to call them our friends.  

Moral clarity, in short, has always been mostly irrelevant to the world of international diplomacy and military alliances. In the contexts where the argument usually appears, the argument for "moral clarity" seems a [[hypocrisy|hypocritical]] form of [[special pleading]].

==See also==
*[[American exceptionalism]]

==References==
{{reflist}}

[[Category:United States politics]]
[[Category:Imperialism]]

Categories: United States politics, Imperialism