In political debate, you always need a conversation stopper or two. A good way to close discussion of Iraq, Palestine or refugees is to accuse your opponents of holding the doctrine of moral equivalence. While they are working out what it means and why it is so terrible, you can open up another front.
In 1985, Jeane Kirkpatrick, the then US representative to the UN, brought the doctrine of moral equivalence into political use in a speech given in London. She discussed its use in the Cold War. In her view, the Soviet bloc tried to project the image of two morally and politically symmetrical powers. Their program was to compare Western ideals with their practices, so showing systematic failure. The Soviet leaders also commended a falsely rosy view of their own practices, and claimed that they were inspired by values dear to the West. By redefining political discourse and making inappropriate comparisons, they encouraged the conclusion that there was no moral difference between the two power blocs. Moral equivalence, then, was the doctrine that there is no moral difference between the moral status and conduct of the United States and its adversary. It was used to subvert public support for the Western alliance.
After the end of the Cold War, critics of Israel’s policy toward Palestine and the United States war against Iraq have also been accused of subscribing to the doctrine of moral equivalence. The accusation implies that the critics are not only wrong in their criticism, but also subvert the principles of moral judgment and are nihilistic and confused.
After 20 years it is hard not to read Kirkpatrick’s argument as self-serving and ideological. But moral equivalence, the denial of moral difference, is alive and well on all sides of political debate. In the tabloid version, outrage at the torture of prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison is countered by the argument that the regime of Saddam Hussein was far worse. Implicit in this argument is the claim that where two groups do terrible things to one another, the sins of the more obnoxious group disqualify criticism of the other. Critics should focus on the relative goodness and evil of the regimes, and not on the morality of the actions of the better party.
The broadsheet use of the principle of moral equivalence is more sophisticated. If you compare what was once done at Abu Ghraib under Saddam Hussein