The Left and Moral Equivalence

I like getting the perspective of Tammy Bruce and her friends. Tammy has been a voice for audio content for a long time. She also writes books and columns, blogs, and appeared on cable news as a talking head. Shifra blogged on Tammy's site something called "Liberals and Moral Equivalence".

First, some definitions of terms, as “moral relativism” and “moral equivalence,” are, it seems, sometimes used interchangeably. But, while related, they are, in fact, different.

“Moral relativism” refers to the notion that, in our diverse, multicultural world, no one culture is better than another culture, so that no judgments can be made about a specific culture.

For example:

In the U.S.A., a day off may be spent having a picnic with family and friends, enjoying a barbecue, tossing a Frisbee, or maybe catching a ball game, while, in some Islamic countries, a day off might entail having the village gather to watch a woman being shoved waist-deep into a hole in the ground, while everyone throws boulders until she is stoned to death, all because she is suspected of having committed adultery.

See? Different strokes for different folks.

In The New Thought Police, Tammy wrote about the danger of such a world-view:

Multiculturalism is not about exotic restaurants and charming street fairs. It is a code word for moral relativism. Accepting the notion that all ideas and systems are equal precludes a willingness to think critically about what surrounds us. It is the cornerstone of our inability to come to judgments about events…. (p. 150)

Moral equivalence, on the other hand, is a deceptive device used by Liberals to “prove” their points by taking the focus away from the obvious evil, and focusing on what they  perceive to be the more “immediate problem.”

Go read her examples of moral equivalence.

Leftists do not have to be consistent or coherent, have priorities or perspective, because their whole way of looking at things is based on feeling and emotion.

Also, a question I like to ask partisans is, "If the other party's guy/gal did what you party's guy/gal just did, would you think that is OK?" I'm not necessarily talking about taking a position, but about the principles or actions. For example, is filibustering OK or not? That sort of thing.