Obscuring Evil

After 9-11, I was appalled by those who were eager to blame the act on us, on U. S. literally, as if we had done something to deserve it.  (Actually, we helped Osama Bin Laden against the Soviets in Afghanistan.  Some thanks we got.)  Instead of denouncing the utter evil of the terrorists, some, particularly callow youth, were eager to make excuses for them and to blame America.  And I saw this attitude even from people who were not particularly radical.

The episode was an eye-opener for me how wedded some are to moral equivalence to the point that that they would makes excuses for the perpetrators and blame the victims even in the case of 9-11.

Fast forward to now, and this crowd is in charge of the White House. And in even in the face of the pure evil of ISIS, they are reluctant to call evil by its name.  Their language instead obscures evil when it distracts from today’s evil from Islamonazis by pointing to alleged past evil by Christians.  (BTW, does it concern that the Obama Administration is a bit eager to blame Christians, far more eager than they are to blame extremist Muslims?)  Not to mention blaming a lack of jobs.  Yes, a jobs fair is the answer to ISIS.

Some may think I am nitpicking diplomatic language.  But one does not have to read 1984 to know that a regime that uses language more to obscure than to explain is not healthy for a society. As Jonah Goldberg just said (during a really good rant, by the way), “Societies get themselves into trouble when language becomes a tool not for describing reality but concealing it.”

Yes, being diplomatic is usually the way to go in foreign affairs.  But one can be diplomatic without being delusional or deceptive.

May I suggest that calling out evil is better way to go?  Whatever happened to saying evil people do evil things because they are evil?

Yes, I am a cranky old man.  Now get off my lawn.