To a neo-con, whether something is moral, immoral, or amoral doesn’t matter as long as it keeps the U.S. on top. It’s a philosophy based on ends and the means are irrelevant.
This isn’t about moral equivalency; it’s about finding something to criticize Obama.

OK, read the whole article. So I don’t get it…
1. When did Pres. Obama, in this speech or ever, say that problems in the middle east (or 9-11, or…) are soley America’s fault?
I didn’t get that from his speech at all! In fact, he seemed very clear… there are issues in the Arab world that must be accounted for and dealt with (in fact his quote re: 9-11 was stronger than I heard even from our supposedly ‘tough’ former pres.). And strong moderates in the region must step up and take leadership.
2. So the neo-con view of foreign policy has been a great success? It seems that the opposite is true… the policy has failed… and now some are just, as Jjoe (#1) said, looking for reasons to criticize Obama even though he’s only a few months in office!
3. Why is striving to lead people towards reconciliation ‘soft,’ or ‘compromising?’ It seems to me reconciliation, the truthful yet peaceful kind Obama is striving for, is the HARDEST way to go. Making black and white statements and creating unnecessary enemies is much simpler for people to understand, and always rallies the fringes.
I thought Obama’s speech, though only a beginning, was amazing… it’s refreshing to hear such visionary leadership… I’ve missed it for the last several years.

Sorry… one more thought…
“Moral equivalence?!”
President Obama never used this phrase. And I don’t think that’s what he was trying to say at all!
Admitting that there is good in the ‘other’ even while there is some darkness in ‘us,’ and being truthful about spelling out some of those specifics, is not the same as saying two actions are morally equal.
That is Hanson’s false premise.

“But the problem with such moral equivalence is that it equates things that are, well, not equal — and therefore ends up not being moral at all.”
The great tragedy with that kind of thinking is it fosters a desire to “get even” rather than to forgive and seek peace for the common good. Obama in his Cairo speech alluded to the better way forward when he mentioned how neither the blacks in America nor the blacks in South Africa sanctioned violence in the face of oppression.

I am not sure which of Mr. Hanson’s comments are more preposterous; linking Obama’s comments to those of the appeasers of Hitler in the 1930′s, or the comparison of Muslims to Nazis.

Scot, obviously none of the previous commenters, including me, got anything like Hanson did from the President’s speech. The President seemed to offer a way forward, rather than a “moral equilavency” argument. Hanson and his neocon ideologues created the darkest moments in American history in the past 100 years. Their triumphalist view of American exceptionalism is a failed political philosophy that I thought had been roundly discredited. I would take great exception to your comment that “his (Hanson’s) voice is one to be heard.” Why?

Anyone who thinks that what they did to us is worse than what we have done to them is NOT a voice to be heard. It is a voice to be ignored. Because it is the voice of willful ignorance.

Scot, can you articulate for our edification the difference between moral equivalence as articulated by neo cons and American exceptionalism?

Charles,
I’m not an expert on this “moral equivalency” charge, but it seems to me — and someone can correct me if I’m wrong — that moral equivalency is an accusation against Obama by someone who believes, at some level, in American exceptionalism or, at least, by someone who thinks Obama doesn’t (and should).
At the least, moral equivalency would be used by someone who thinks one side is right and the other side wrong, and the injustices are not equal.
Does that help?

I read Hansen’s piece, and as far as I can determine, it really has little to do with the President’s speech. Slice off the first and the last 2 paragraphs and what you have left, the bulk of the column, is simply about the difference between wrongs perceived by muslims against the US/the west, and wrongs perceived by the west / US / Christians against the muslim nations and ideologies. I guess I just don’t fit the typical Jesus Creed reader profile, which I guess is obligated to be highly critical of anyone who dares to find the President less than fabulous. Even (dare I say?) labeling Hanson “Neo-Con” in the header, whether accurate or not, seems out of place – whether the label fits or not, it feels as though labelling the author way up front is like an invitation to readers to dismiss and be critical of the author and his ideas: “We all know he’s a flake, but this is what he said”

Yes, the arguement of moral equivalence typically is born out of a view of America which finds our actions “exceptional” and “moral.” I found President Obama’s speech to be one of the most measured, careful, nuanced, and articulate I have personally heard in my young lifetime.
My hunch is that the reason many neo-cons and conservative talking heads get so hot and bothered when Obama shows a true posture of humility and even asks for forgiveness (dare I say some Christain virtues???) they can’t fathom this “treasoness” talk because in their minds, America (in this abstract sort of way) is good and the most good and therefore divine in some sort of exceptional-god-and-bible-and american flag sort of way.
These are the same sorts of people who don’t have the nuanced fecundity to imagine why a “Patriot’s Bible” or America as a “Christain Nation” are both mythical, if not, abominable ideas.

Certainly the terrorist acts of Middle Eastern radicals are atrocious. And yet on the question of moral equivalency, the US is not without sin. What of the treatment of Native Americans in lieu of Western expansionism and of the African slaves before a terrible civil war to change this. I would simply say that self-justification is a very hard case to make. All nations have behaved shamefully.
As I understand the president’s point, it’s time for a change from blame-casting to solution-finding. I understand the NRO can quibble on the comparison the president used, but what about the main point. Does the NRO care at all if a solution is reached or do they just want to make previous US policy and action appear above reproach?

Two legal cases. #1 Sam slaps Fred. #2 Jack beats George into a comma with brass knuckles.
Sam and Jack are sentenced to 20 years in prison for battery. Most would say that this is unjust is Sam’s case. On the other hand, if they both get a $100 fine for disorderly conduct, we would cry foul about Jack’s sentence.
Both parties are guilty but in the first case someone has been treated more severely than they should. In the second, someone who is clearly culpable has not been held accountable.
There is no need for American exceptionalism to figure into the equation to evaluate whether a false moral equivalence has entered the picture.
Hanson is right. There is a long history of societies failing to address great evils for what they are, sometimes under the delusion of false moral equivalence. On the other hand, it is likely that some avoidable conflicts have matured because some party was more concerned about being reckoned as the moral superior (even with legitimacy) than finding reconciliation. I suspect Obama sees the second scenario as the problem and that is what drives his strategy. Is he right? Time well tell but Hanson’s point is certainly legitimate if we are ever going to learn anything from history.

IMHO, the concern of the wicked neocons is not merely exceptionalism for America but survival; NRO articles seem to express concern that the current administrations efforts are to make us like France. Most NRO columns seem to think that this would be a bad thing.

Michael W. Kruse, Jack beats George into a comma???

Bob #15
Could have been an apostrophe.
I saw that as soon as I posted. Typing too fast again.

#15/16:
Maybe Jack beat George so badly he had to have part of his colon removed, resulting in a semi-colon.
I semi-stole that from some long-ago comedy routine I saw on TV …

I like Hanson’s comment about arriving with a Bible into Muslim countries vs. arriving in San Fran with a Koran (rhymes, ha!). Our culture tolerates art and free speech, even when used to deeply offend religious people. Theo van Gogh can tell you that making a film that criticizes Islam will not meet with such tolerance (well, he could if he had not been murdered in Amsterdam). And he was not being pointlessly offensive – he was speaking against abuse of women, something we would all find repugnant.

Peter @ #14 – “Wicked” neocons? Again I have to ask why it is important to demonize those with whom you have disagreements.

Peter @#14 – “NRO articles seem to express concern that the current administrations efforts are to make us like France. Most NRO columns seem to think that this would be a bad thing.”
So…why don’t you just move to France?