Using Moral Relativism to Guide Presidential Policy
Moral relativism and “strong condemnations” from the White House does not comprise effective foreign policy. We are witnessing the latest installment of death, destruction and displacement of the Egyptian and Syrian people as consequence of regime relativism – a rejection of moral absolutes; an ideology that perpetuates the myth that governments that trample wholesale on basic rights that people who live in free societies take for granted are held on the same moral plane as democracies.
This region, which has known turmoil since Father Abraham had many sons, is now suffering the consequences of cultural ambiguity and equivalency. A rejection of absolute values anchored in Western guilt; the idea that Western civilization is historically responsible for all that ails the world. To intervene now would be tantamount to projecting our values upon the region. Who are we to take sides among Muslim factions deeming one side to be superior to the other? Thus the White House neutered response to Islamic fanaticism.
If the Egyptian and Syrian people aren’t being slaughtered, they are being displaced by the hundreds of thousands. Refugees are saturating neighboring countries in an attempt to escape the bloody grip of violence further destabilizing the region. Namely the nations of Italy, Jordan, Turkey, Lebanon, Iraq are feeling the tremendous strain from the influx of refugees from North Africa.
As the president tries to detach himself from the culpability of supporting the Arab Spring with his subsidizing of regional civil unrest, he much prefers to dissect the meaning of the word coup and the meaning of what is, is…as its meaning is paramount in the determination of the congressional stoppage of foreign aid to unstable countries.
While the president crafts his aloof image, appearing to be above the fray of governing, the aftermath of his aloofness has his fingerprints all over it. It’s hard to detach yourself from culpability when the money trail leads to the doorstep of the 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue–a money trail that supports those who want to rule the region under caliphate.
Who could blame anyone’s lack of clarity when deciphering the complexities of the Middle East when ambiguity is perpetuated with reports of blurred lines between “freedom fighter” and “resistance insurgent”, reactionary and militant?
Realistic reporting can only be found from the foreign press as they are not subjected to the same passive-aggressive tactics and adhesion to euphemistic language criteria as decreed by the White House. One is hard pressed to find a news source that provides an accurate description of the events unfolding throughout the Middle East. With headlines of ‘Islamic militants’ kill dozens at Nigeria mosque’ and ‘British aid to Somalia stolen by Islamist militants’, the Agence France-Presse (AFP) accurately depicts the unrest. AFP doesn’t pussyfoot around the fact that Egyptian Islamists are responsible for inciting the violence and that it’s their radical 7th Century ideology that is in conflict with the 21st Century world.
While President Obama would rather play games of Spades than cast his eyes upon the raid of Osama bin Laden, one questions what he has been doing while his subsidized Muslim Brotherhood defiles the Nile.
Meanwhile our long-suffering Middle Eastern allies are left hanging, having to manage the fallout of the Arab Spring on their own. US Army Chief General Martin Dempsey is in the region doing the job that the ruling class refuses to do – devise strategies and plans to secure the neighboring borders of Syria and Egypt, keeping the population safe from terrorists and rouge chemical weapons. (Let’s not discuss the strained relations between this administration and the US historically strongest Middle Eastern ally, Israel. Despite deliberate diplomatic disses, this White House does not hesitate to inject its doublespeak of moral superiority when it comes to Israel’s right of national sovereignty).
However facts are stubborn things. Obama doesn’t want to inject judgment yet moral relativism has its consequences, as witnessed.
Leadership requires moral clarity. Leadership necessitates calling evil by its name. Islamic extremism cannot be defeated when world leaders deny that it exists.
“[The] struggle against totalitarian forces first requires moral clarity. Unless you recognize evil, you cannot begin to fight it…[and] moral confusion rules the day.”~Defending Identity – Natan Sharansky