July 27, 2003
Moral Equivalence
The most controversial song on Bruce Springsteen’s “The Rising” comes right between the title track and “My City of Ruins,” which he sang at the 9/11 concert shortly after that horrible event.
“Paradise”tries to get inside the head of a Muslim suicide bomber. (It tries, and in the end rejects the bomber. “I see you on the other side, I search for the peace in your eyes, But they’re as empty as paradise…I break above the waves.”)
“Paradise” was instantly condemned by the Right as claiming a kind of “moral equivalence” between those who destroyed the World Trade Center and its victims.
But Springsteen put his finger on the central issue of our times. Should we seek to find the humanity in our enemies, or must we all condemn them as “evil-doers,” in Bush’s words.
Let me say something hard here. Saddam Hussein is a man. His sons were men. Osama Bin Laden is a man. They are not “inhuman,” they are not “animals.” They are, and were, men, human beings touched by vanity, self-righteousness, and fear. In Bin Laden’s case add a messianic religious faith, one in which only the pure could hope to attain heaven, with the rest condemned to an eternity of torment. (If that sounds like someone you know, look inside your own heart.)
In saying this I put myself “beyond the pale” of conservative political discussion. The Right rejects, absolutely, any suggestion of humanity for our enemies. They are our enemies, after all. They have murdered thousands in cold blood. They are killing our people still. They are monsters, inhuman. Anyone who questions this is, themselves, inhuman.
When you take this attitude, however, a lot can be excused. We can autopsy their bodies and put them on public display (but their display of our dead was a war crime). We can kill thousands of Iraqi innocents in the name of the greater good, as we have. We can ignore the rebuilding of Afghanistan, as we have. We can occupy nations and call appointed occupying authorities “democracy.” We can do all this only because we are good, absolutely, and they are evil, absolutely. Anyone who questions is a traitor.
We can even do this in our own country. We can have police search through your library records or Internet cache, without a warrant. The President can label American citizens as “enemy combatants” and instantly have all their rights erased, without judicial overview.
We faced these questions in the late Stanley Kramer’s 1961 movie “Judgement at Nuremberg.” Burt Lancaster played one of four former German judges tried for twisting the law on behalf of the Nazis. American chief judge Spencer Tracy spends most of the movie being shown a moral equivalence between himself and Lancaster. Finally, in Lancaster’s prison cell, Tracy explains how he sentenced Lancaster’s character to life. You crossed the line, he says, “the first time you condemned a man to death whom you knew to be innocent.” To some conservatives, this is still a very fine line. They condemn the movie because it wasn’t absolute enough.
But the line is a fine one. You may not see it when you cross it. Have we crossed it? Our failure to restore public service to Iraq, our passive attitude in Afghanistan, and the self-righteous bleating coming from the Right itself tells me that, if we haven’t crossed the line, we’ve come far too close for my comfort.
The question of even questioning the Right’s absolutist formulation of “good vs. evil” is the issue that now splits the Democratic Party. The Democratic Leadership Council insists that, if the issue is war or peace, America will choose war overwhelmingly, and condemn Democrats to a generation in the political wilderness. This is the entire brief against Howard Dean. Take away his initial opposition to this war, his questioning of how it is being pursued, and he is a state’s rights, balanced budget conservative. Yet the DLC calls him an ultra-leftist, McGovern, beyond the pale.
This issue has its domestic echo in the question of “moral relativism.” This is spat out like a curse among conservatives, a curse on the head of anyone who sees shades of gray in human behavior. Good is good, evil is evil, and evil must be condemned absolutely, they thunder. Anyone who questions this is, himself (or herself), evil.
What I say is that absolutism is a slippery slope. When you condemn those who do evil as inhuman, you do more than condemn “the other.” You put yourself in the role of God. You may condemn their acts, as Tracy condemned Lancaster, but not the man. The man deserves pity, even in his prison, maybe even respect.
It is God who decides absolutes. God condemns the devil, and his acolytes. God sits on his throne and cannot, himself, do evil. Earthquakes, tornadoes, plagues, these things that seem evil are just tests given us by God, tests of our faith. God doesn’t make mistakes.
This is the worldview of George W. Bush. His own Christian faith, combined with patriotism, and the horrors of 9/11, have caused him to wrap himself in ultimate authority, to claim the power of God. He is good, they are evil.
I submit this absolutism is a poison. It is political crack cocaine. It is what Osama Bin Laden overdosed upon, what Saddam Hussein overdosed upon.
Bush says he can handle it. I say, no one can.
But what is my alternative? It is, unfortunately, the complexity of reality. It is the world of the grown-up. It is the realization that justice requires compromise, that we are not perfect, that our task must be to win hearts-and-minds, to convince the Muslim world not that we’re right, but that violence is wrong.
Here is how a real Republican approached the question of war and death. The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battlefield, and patriot grave, to every living heart and hearthstone, all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, “by the better angels of our nature.”
Compare Lincoln to Bush. “Bring it on.”
The fact is there are better angels in our nature. We must find them, and harness them, not just to win this war but to win the peace. If we fail to do that, if we continue to act as those we condemn, while claiming that “they” are absolutely evil while “we” are absolutely good, all we do is recruit more to violence.
This will be a hard argument for Democrats to win. It is complex, and it is nuanced. It is also adult. America still considers itself a young country. But it is time for America to grow up.
Amazing piece of writing, Dana. I agree wholeheartedly.
Uday and Qusay were, by the accounts I have read, horrible people. But when I read how they met their end, I was sad that it had been the US that did that. Very sad.
Which is *not* to say, I repeat, *not* to say, that I in any way felt the didn’t deserve punishment. It’s just that the punishment that we meted out is not the place for men to judge. We are so fallible. I would much rather we tried them as criminals. Or at the very least, hand them off to the Iraqis and let the blood be on their hands.
As it is, the we all as Americans murdered those two. While it is easy to justify, it also damages us. The blood won’t wash off. And we have to live with it forever.
The fashion of moral abolutism that has taken over popular sentiment in the US is extremely dangerous. If we are not more judicious, it could very well prove to be our undoing.
Posted by: Timothy Klein at July 27, 2003 06:03 PMIn the eyes of the world, outside the U.S., we are already undone. Who are our real friends? Tony Blair is in big trouble. OK, John Howard. We’re dependent on Australia for someont to talk to. Bush doesn’t talk to Vicente Fox anymore (he was clobbered in recent state elections as a result) and you know what the Right thinks of Canada.
We can’t rule the world. We’re already stretched trying to rule Iraq.
Posted by: Dana Blankenhorn at July 27, 2003 07:17 PMAs it is, the we all as Americans murdered those two. While it is easy to justify, it also damages us. The blood won’t wash off. And we have to live with it forever.
I’m OK with that - the blood of these two is a badge of honor.
Posted by: Richard Bennett at July 27, 2003 08:05 PMI do not lose sleep at night because Saddam (soon I hope) and his evil sons were put under the knife and erased. I believe there comes a point when the evil you do to others no longer makes you human. Sure you still have a human form, but what kind of mind and soul do you harbor if you so thoughtlessly take the life of thousands and in so doing ruin the life of thousands more? Did these, do these, men deserve our mercy, compassion, and understanding? I say thee nay, evil deserves not but to be eradicated in its entire.
That being said, I do agree with you that the Accidental President and his administration are blowing it at home, in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in North Korea, in Cuba, in the Middle East, and in Nigeria. Crisis management is no way to run domestic or foreign policy, and there is no substitute for a President (and a Congress) with vision and wisdom, qualities so woefully lacking in the current occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
More relativity. Murdered? Those two were combatants, murderers and pigs. By your rationale we murdered Hitler and the nazis. Under the Geneva convention they were killed according to international accords. This was a very good thing. Wash the blood off your hands. You are innocent. Dont be so arrogant as to think that everyday Americans are responsible by default for these deaths. It is not only absurd. It is disgusting and abhorrent. It makes me ill to see that you have sank to this level of absurdity.
“The fashion of moral abolutism that has taken over popular sentiment in the US is extremely dangerous. If we are not more judicious, it could very well prove to be our undoing.”
Tell that to your grandfathers. Tell that to the murderers at Normandy that fought for others and tell it to the people of Iraq. There is an absolutism to morality that is fundamental to its survival. This is why they call them “morals”.
Morals without a sense of absolutism are essentially worthless. That is not to say there is no flexibility at all. It is to say that without foundation, morals become totally irrelevent. By the way, the very morality of which you speak and apparently follow is based upon in very specific ways Western Christianity. Specifically the ten commandments. These are the foundation of all western thought and law. If you cant see that you dont understand law and morality. Without such a morality our society would quickly slip into the chaos and the mayhem that envelops the third world. How am i wrong?
By the way. Bruce Springsteen is a total fraud and has never been a “working man”. He does not live in New Jersey. He is not an out of work factory guy and he has been playing in bars since age 19 or so. Bruce is quite possibly the biggest fraud since…well Noam Chomsky. He lives in Beverly Hills in a lush mansion with a giant gate and armed security force. He owns 30 cars and a massive yacht. He consumes MASSIVE amounts of our precious natural resources by being an elite consumer. He flies around the country in a private jet. He is the antithesis to what he sings and makes his living on. The common man. yeah right. He is a Liberal elitist icon and a phony. Sorry for bursting the bubble.
Posted by: pete at July 28, 2003 04:17 AMIt was e.e. cummings who wrote that we are “half angels, half demons” in his later years. It’s quite interesting that man has yet to overcome the hipocracy of war, and each cycle of prosperity shows us how big our demon side can become when we laud it at virtuous. Now someone may attack me and say that our demon side is a neccessity, in order to protect ourselves, and I agree, however history has shown us the consequences of embracing our demons and discarding our angels (be it in the name of liberty, prosperity, equality, or self-defense).
Posted by: Stephen VanDyke at July 28, 2003 09:40 AMThe dimwits who decry “Paradise” are the smae one’s who used “Born in the USA” as a theme song.
Pete, my goal in life is not to defend Bruce, but you have a few facts wrong: he does live in NJ. He is an active member of the town where his main house is, along with Bon Jovi. He also has a nice farm down the road a few towns. He never claimed to be a factory worker, just a voice for those who were. It is easy to poke fun at celebs, but I can tell you that Bruce has, and still does, give back to his hometown area - where he still lives.
Robbie D.
Posted by: Robbie D at July 28, 2003 10:54 AMRight-wing notes on this, so far, are nitpicking.
I didn’t claim killing the Hussein twins was bad, so don’t misrepresent that. But embalming them violated Muslim religious precepts, and displaying them just months after claiming that Muslim displays of our dead was “barbaric” was rank hypocrisy.
Killing the Husseins doesn’t end the war. Winning the peace is a necessity. And we are not doing that.
As to Springsteen, don’t confuse the artist and his art. Picasso was a philandering schmuck, but Guernica is a masterpiece.
Now, anyone want to take on the thesis?
Posted by: Dana Blankenhorn at July 28, 2003 12:07 PMNice thoughtful essay. (Probably a little out there for an election blog, but who am I? the relevance nazi?)
Two random thoughts. First, amidst the triumphal and relieved reports of the sons’ deaths, I learn that one of Saddam’s grandsons was also killed. He probably wasn’t older than 10. We never seem to hear about these other casualties. Is anyone claiming that the grandson was implicated in the guilt of his relatives? How easily we exonerate ourselves for collateral deaths when we have condemned the same thing in our enemies. The bad thing about war is that it effaces the humanity not only from the bad guys but the good guys as well.
Other remark. Reading Stephen Ambrose’s Wild Blue, about the men who flew the B-24’s in WWII. This included McGovern. After reading about McGovern’s war background, it’s really hard making the word “McGovern” synonymous with pie-in-the-sky peacenikism.
Posted by: Robert Nagle at July 28, 2003 02:46 PMWrong again. Bruce lives in Beverly hills but has a home in NJ. He rarely visits. I lived in Edison NJ for awhile and you cant ever say anything bad about Bruce. He is a god there. Bon Jovi lives in the Hollywood hills as well but has a home in New Jersey as well as michigan and the Hamptons. So what. Do you think Bruce spends most of his time in NJ or Beverly Hills? Hmmmm. Bruce is very talented but he is a fraud because he sells an image that is part and parcel a misrepresentation of himself and his lifestyle. That is all i am saying. Just like Michael Moore with the baseball cap. It is a prop. This guy isnt a common man. He actually sued someone for taking his photograph in a ferrari. Too damaging to the image. It is like a brand name.
Posted by: pete at July 28, 2003 03:04 PMPete - you are an ass. When Bruce isn’t out touring, I see him dropping his kids off for school in the AM. We have mutual friends who ride with him at his farm. Alas, I am not in the Bruce circle. As for Jon, his kids trick or treat on my street. Both make their year-round residences in good old Monmouth County. Edison is light years from the shore.
Sorry, you are wrong on this one.
Posted by: Robbie D at July 28, 2003 03:29 PMDana,
I like your concept, but if you really want feedback — cut about 300 words. I think it would be much stronger without mentioning Bruce or “Judgement at Nuremberg.” They don’t add anything to your original thoughts, and to some readers may actually lower the acceptance of your thoughts. Drop those references and trim the rest and I think you have a pretty tight piece.
Just the editor in me… and you asked…
R
Posted by: Robbie D at July 28, 2003 03:35 PM…just chiming in to confirm that Mr. Springsteen does indeed live full time in NJ and is a huge supporter of local causes (especially in Freehold, his hometown).
Posted by: Ryan at July 28, 2003 05:03 PMPete,
I am sorry I called you an “ass.” It is not appropriate. You are wrong about Bruce, and I am more than a little ticked that you are so self-abosrbed not to think that someone who lives near the guy would know where he lives…
Doesn’t change that you are wrong, but I don’t want to contribute to the degredation of this forum, so I apologize for my language.
Robbie
Posted by: Robbie D at July 28, 2003 05:17 PMAre you trying to say that we have to treat sadistic genocidal maniacs better than we treated the pig-latin boys, elst we become what we hate?
I understand at least one killed himself rather than be taken captive, and I frankly doubt that our treatment of the dead bodies causes their souls - if they were to have any - much discomfort.
I seem to recall the Bolsheviks killing off the entire Romanov family. Is killing the pig-latin boys one of those things that’s bad only because it wasn’t done by Marxists?
Posted by: Richard Bennett at July 28, 2003 06:18 PMOK OK! Jeez! if you say he spends more time in NJ i believe you. I was wrong ok? Anyway I still think he is a phony when he sells his image that way. Perhaps you could get him to post a comment? One of your mutual friends might just mention it to him. It would go like this…
Robbie D :Bruce, hey buddy whats happening?
The “Boss” : Hey whats the goins on Robbo?
Robbie D :There is this guy who says you are a big fake and that you are just raping the working man with your outlandish ticket prices.
The “Boss” : …………..
Robbie D :He also says you were never really a workin man either.
The “Boss” : …………….**cough**
Robbie D :Bruce, I called him an ass though so its cool.
The “Boss” : Uh yeah man, listen, schedule is really busy man….can i talk to ya later about this?
Robbie D :Uh, sure. You know i am your number one fan! I love your new album.
Posted by: pete at July 28, 2003 07:04 PMI’ll go with those who are of the opinion that Pete is wrong about Bruce. Look, he lives in Rumson, his kids go to school there, and when he’s not touring he and his family are often seen around town. (A good friend of mine that I’ve known for over two decades has occasion to deal with Bruce on a variety of matters within the music industry. She confirms that he does indeed live in NJ full time when he’s not touring or recording.)
Is he presenting this image that he’s some lower class working stiff? No, of course not. Just because he has written in past about the issues of the working class (and much of his earlier work is based upon his relationship with his father, who was a factory worker), does not mean he’s claiming to be a guy making $6 an hour. Just because Billy Joel writes a song about the Long Island fisherman (“Downeaster Alexa,” for example) doesn’t mean he thinks he is one.
On the other hand, whether you agree with his positions or not, unlike some celebrities, he does put his money where his mouth is, contributing hundreds of thousands of dollars to local food banks, community development funds, and other organizations that he promotes at his shows.
One thing that *is* true is that he has a long history of politicians and others misrepresenting his work. Both Reagan and Mondale claimed “Born in the USA” as some patriotic jingle in 1984, which is ludicrous just by listening to the damned words.
Springsteen’s works often exist in an atmosphere of moral relativism. A couple listens through the “Nebraska” album is proof of that.
“Well, I had debts that no honest man could pay.
The bank was holding my mortgage they were gonna take my house away.
I ain’t saying that makes me an innocent man.
But it was more than all that judge that put this gun in my hand.”
There’s no doubt that Springsteen is supportive of causes and issues that have been claimed more by the left in the US, but that doesn’t mean he hasn’t written about characters who tried to find their path on either side of the issues.
Whoah! I like what you are saying. This is interesting.
Posted by: pete at July 29, 2003 02:13 AMOur enemies are human, but they are also deeply evil. Whenever we dehumanize them we renounce a bit of our own humanity; but we should not let this blind us to the viciousness of who they have chosen to become.
They know that their fiscal irresponsibility causes vast harm to the people they supposedly represent, yet they persist in it. They know their politics of hate and fear blights the souls of all it touches, yet they revel in it. They know the horror of terrorism just as much as we all do, but they willfully divert our national resources away from efforts to prevent it, and sacrifice international cooperation, in favor of the Oily War To Avenge Daddy. They knew that making no real preparations for the occupation would cause great human suffering, yet they made none.
They have renounced all but the tiniest sliver of their humanity.
Yet that humanity is there as a potential for them to reclaim. We must defeat them, but we must not dehumanize them; defining the state of their souls is their prerogative, not ours. They are truly and deeply evil, but we must recognize that this is not a mark that they are deeply alien to us, but rather the realization of a potential we all share.
Posted by: Dan Wylie-Sears at July 31, 2003 01:08 AM
