Over the past 15 years, the association of “moral clarity” with a bellicose approach to overseas affairs has faded only slightly. (“Moral clarity” has been a euphemism in constant use through this conflict, as in Alan Dershowitz’s book “The Case for Moral Clarity: Israel, Hamas and Gaza.”) After the death of John McCain, a fierce advocate for any and all wars, the senator was praised for his “voice of moral clarity” by Jennifer Rubin, another conservative columnist at The Post. “Anyone who cannot name our enemy is not fit to lead this country,” he said during a 2016 campaign speech, adding that “anyone who cannot condemn the hatred, oppression and violence of radical Islam lacks the moral clarity to serve as our president.”There seemed to be an opening, after Barack Obama’s election, for “moral clarity” to become a liberal watchword. Perhaps the philosopher Susan Neiman, whose 2008 book “Moral Clarity: A Guide for Grown-Up Idealists” argued for a liberal re—embrace of such language, could have served as its Bennett. It’s only natural that, having been chosen to replace one such established Democrat, Ocasio—Cortez would argue that “moral clarity” was not the province of radicals or dreamy idealists, but exactly the kind of principled action her constituents had voted for.

Source: New York Times January 02, 2019 09:56 UTC